<%BANNER%>

Sediment Management in Low-Energy Estuaries: Loxahatchee, Florida

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110112_AAAAAS INGEST_TIME 2011-01-12T23:07:08Z PACKAGE UFE0002800_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 437672 DFID F20110112_AAAEQT ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH patra_r_Page_056.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
355b85327fdad64dcd003c0958b4f9c9
SHA-1
ff5f499c7a85a539020125a758c5f2cd17b7a482
469262 F20110112_AAAERI patra_r_Page_052.tif
bac28f72a9354b9023783f7bea0c75d8
a7dcec48f9159dc3ac35804c70fe156dadacf287
56559 F20110112_AAAEQU patra_r_Page_079.jp2
19af96b4c3c820f0e3625ce2e1e84fe8
7fdc8d1ce8121b481ccf0c5587b1df9d4fa0b72f
934 F20110112_AAAERJ patra_r_Page_092.txt
2a72a538e83455bd091a05f10e2c80f2
b9f9489527dd545a4cc7ea8125dee8478cb43a22
11237804 F20110112_AAAEQV patra_r_Page_066.tif
8870ae9f0eeabfd28c4eb52f4b7401bb
ce360d55f5b6516ba86b6f4c7ed06c703bb6b639
F20110112_AAAERK patra_r_Page_079.tif
b822465b67ac207845f3eb19e0333ee7
ee8be80c937d0817c006e8f74ce9daf3764d3b48
79446 F20110112_AAAEQW patra_r_Page_052.jpg
612a4ecdad7da498cfbd76baffc90bbc
4c186d85dc374d5d4b73c6ba5109bc2ebe1203ba
44130 F20110112_AAAERL patra_r_Page_076.jpg
c9d9292f7bbe01318215766c07311892
4a8f44b7501be43d4fc712c14ab465584d0ad040
F20110112_AAAEQX patra_r_Page_031.tif
841523719099c3603f3af9db11c17c55
2b3b838e956e029ce626f16b024f53e59ff9137c
68835 F20110112_AAAESA patra_r_Page_033.jp2
c15394d321ee1ec5b6ac5172e21b2f9b
20ee83173cbc2382aec94fb67b43acfe07d4962d
60531 F20110112_AAAERM patra_r_Page_086.jp2
28afd97e3385f774ab79dc835a8bc33d
67e6a1d534873caffeaadbb330fcd50449e16de3
21073 F20110112_AAAEQY patra_r_Page_116.QC.jpg
f17098d1b8150642f8edce4a21d1650b
871b8fef6444cf7fe51a37c0ea9da1335f9d8865
263031 F20110112_AAAESB patra_r_Page_058.jp2
51bfda1f7c705a67c72682b2f8fa442f
6b726489c1ca3027d67456fef1ddb5a9a5caaeef
2425 F20110112_AAAERN patra_r_Page_126.txt
771d52ac0545d313fda8c5f705e94ca0
f5462ae9baabc4567aac97cf7a3df4fb08794c98
263018 F20110112_AAAEQZ patra_r_Page_070.jp2
ce3747276239dc5599896ff0351f5a73
23677ba9cc4ef0773674f0950c7b906779f301a2
80912 F20110112_AAAESC patra_r_Page_024.jpg
eb684eebf976bb13115448f57b0e4d6e
b646788e4d7ea61af5002b38eb396d5470613bb2
30797 F20110112_AAAERO patra_r_Page_062.pro
f66391a1e9ce77ebaa09b1779cb797b0
ee6e7ca0fcf0528bc5d5260b6403a61f1ff88797
263046 F20110112_AAAESD patra_r_Page_059.jp2
ffdfb66508ffe1f4331addd6ee65694c
b71abb2e02287cf93aa08ea730fd1180ae4a6a9f
18613 F20110112_AAAERP patra_r_Page_103.QC.jpg
989760433bf89b017f7121b44935d88c
4210a8357c52a729476f0580830f5e93713450a1
F20110112_AAAESE patra_r_Page_037.tif
3aa6ffae2e9d2d192767df37f9f09eab
334f4c7767381fbace5030fca493281b1f243275
F20110112_AAAERQ patra_r_Page_125.tif
85fc5b314a2bca60153f6d26a000863c
63a50875501bd3911d5aefba7089dbb9d05a61a9
1683 F20110112_AAAESF patra_r_Page_032.txt
ba31e3b128737e72ef66e6bcab92c1fa
541553f48f2c3f7a355f72bfda3c624415e2a328
6444416 F20110112_AAAERR patra_r_Page_092.tif
2ab42ae809226fee43460af0fe95dce8
79d271bf84ce2dfeebcbdeceb0b5b0cf6dccd020
F20110112_AAAESG patra_r_Page_109.tif
8d9570beebc0fa46a35971365cf9c9ff
9136c792ad6fcd215159c9e1b960a08e349f060d
38807 F20110112_AAAERS patra_r_Page_039.pro
32c08fc39a91d61f17f5611296505114
9a3f7d97da743f99b028672867febef6e19e41da
1920 F20110112_AAAESH patra_r_Page_018.txt
d0469991613aa2e5df986c543e12f4cc
4e980eceea82db60cc6d18318a4bc3f9b8a14365
F20110112_AAAERT patra_r_Page_118.tif
4b131f142b9a515e9a8fc1a4a396975c
506390b47ac8775e0d9c14f9b66ab1c6244c326f
66408 F20110112_AAAESI patra_r_Page_037.pro
1bbcc0a5535a6f4c1a9b0dc4fc5c797a
25e2e7bb814d7fd0d585fd298123b59319432489
545 F20110112_AAAESJ patra_r_Page_077.txt
34e0f23297a0b393338072b573da8697
47a043717a03498dc2256d062c085f5ddc85fc6c
4617 F20110112_AAAERU patra_r_Page_056thm.jpg
73b925b9dbd3efe7776688d28c8e6225
02f8b51dff5f8cdeae19f554a1cfe788635ac5e8
49251 F20110112_AAAESK patra_r_Page_096.jp2
c94584695ce1229728a7a619fbaaebf5
09388e397206763f9df5ff51e832440624c0bc6c
34233 F20110112_AAAERV patra_r_Page_103.pro
d0ac33a79c02e6804b844718f0028283
e769f34d4dbd3e94e5b565303e1969a84127779d
F20110112_AAAESL patra_r_Page_093.tif
f5b2900b6697e864a2b82f6f6a30e6e8
18cdba53d63e35be4d95ff8e9f5140ea4e556892
286 F20110112_AAAERW patra_r_Page_131.txt
71abef969797211b21bcb85c7d0f8806
92f67248234e13eb37bf08a72118d9464bce040d
62231 F20110112_AAAETA patra_r_Page_074.jpg
6c630f2f9d6a83998c8eb5861ab05357
2c7ab4e9b2f9e32c373aa98fb5366e90d10c2feb
923 F20110112_AAAESM patra_r_Page_061.txt
12cd78833a31e3e5c731234a4d80450d
e5bff25f9bc6b18cf94a8796403c33b06a9f88fc
40296 F20110112_AAAERX patra_r_Page_017.pro
b985d534f1b3844894f18a23a2da4752
54ad1a459db9266e4c32710f0cc0c46a39642b89
6016 F20110112_AAAETB patra_r_Page_131.pro
382353bf7972525f83d588145e136910
7fde5d46266c50838ac265a8141a8e198016eb32
6998 F20110112_AAAESN patra_r_Page_031thm.jpg
59679277cc8be77fc7a1d39b8f4803fa
49d9582475581d1922944482bb79915bbe19bbc8
52686 F20110112_AAAERY patra_r_Page_028.jp2
eab15b330fe8a66595396c498bb46838
15a654e0850be86a2a7a2e148fbf3098dc46031e
22743 F20110112_AAAETC patra_r_Page_001.jpg
391361ccee665252e5a2b38e4c2fe173
f2faac06ae5409cdabdd9b52f64f5387ef9ad486
73150 F20110112_AAAESO patra_r_Page_008.jpg
c958f2052e5dd426f8c1691e702606a8
01f8a45bd4e0b23a9b2fca1eb7ffe4b38e4897bb
982 F20110112_AAAERZ patra_r_Page_132.txt
33990e024e0328ff76d05f309d4230b5
b9971806392a538ec9128bdc1dae8b39969a0060
1480 F20110112_AAAETD patra_r_Page_022.txt
1e7318d2eb0d5a2324c613a101c41a18
bfdaa59a00ac7a8231badbf5c3bf0806422a756a
12932024 F20110112_AAAESP patra_r_Page_056.tif
b710dea03c0814491c4576a9cbc0b051
bae400fde0c69b48acf3fac161f77fcbccdfd6fd
F20110112_AAAETE patra_r_Page_027.tif
70abb65b5b94ae7babdc929211bcfe11
966333d9cae4b89bd83f132960a966f32e736df9
361961 F20110112_AAAESQ patra_r_Page_075.jp2
06cb385a3bae86c8162b0b9e9a340b45
3c9f78a26610575031826ab24e0fc32116c4e5be
12513 F20110112_AAAETF patra_r_Page_029.QC.jpg
aa282999d1bf74b04842e1faee94c4d4
c41af68879a1907713d99883886295f2cff7136e
15560 F20110112_AAAESR patra_r_Page_056.QC.jpg
53f0c2dd59249e2d66fa99828a9d8c21
ebc44f9e894196a1402f5a8aa5e09974b33875bb
5602 F20110112_AAAETG patra_r_Page_067thm.jpg
1c341e9f55be9e099adda19f5486b282
205671df974f56f22ad45456201d84c9c3e32a50
5085 F20110112_AAAESS patra_r_Page_093thm.jpg
8aba6bc676dfe6f46b806ad4c4dc9b12
944f3267e1e3b624d554c279c513fe9b46d90bb4
343 F20110112_AAAETH patra_r_Page_100.txt
470e5794bb8554cfa510b1684f128897
fd1c0ff6ddf4f7d3231b9cb7b1febe03959ecc7e
15142 F20110112_AAAEST patra_r_Page_101.QC.jpg
e04b2c2d6f4afa370129d13dcd791614
86a5c3c545f8f88a0e5b2aa0385fb738c66cad65
1410 F20110112_AAAETI patra_r_Page_060.txt
c295653c91e659728c5abf6ddc134dcd
a3ba239efccf367d4e145ab5ea8d6a7e89d9cfbf
73188 F20110112_AAAESU patra_r_Page_080.jpg
be098f643683a4f7d6230fb66ee1cfb3
b9da3f9a005c0c2f8bdb555c222ec4a10dbade35
6318054 F20110112_AAAETJ patra_r_Page_061.tif
16e881b5f144df9830921016be99c872
36e91c8c9097e07324960b94d0a94d67d12445f8
24555 F20110112_AAAETK patra_r_Page_080.QC.jpg
7fe2287b1ec288b141466f22c20e41ef
834e42d4e2c8e282e9e45a68586507f5908eb3fe
1916 F20110112_AAAESV patra_r_Page_005.txt
f1ebc658001cfd2164a05c14d8de06af
d33c2f33425fbad86fb866f1c9142d0952ac7e56
63268 F20110112_AAAETL patra_r_Page_053.jp2
1794f1c94d19536ff09748346571332b
a83e59c7892e8f518edb015bf319cdcc19a5e027
F20110112_AAAESW patra_r_Page_058.tif
c73e66a7d51077c6e528725a5b7db343
164985968bc09ebac465c2645598fd08a551e60c
1461 F20110112_AAAETM patra_r_Page_062.txt
e69370dad331ef5c7398b405da429302
3a660d26c5ef5b7c36dfb23a4c7ca7879a891ffa
7424 F20110112_AAAESX patra_r_Page_039thm.jpg
1ca849ee9e2aa8a3623f940554915d6a
b44ed0ebcdee48fecc84c8bd4713e50bae233b4d
39496 F20110112_AAAEUA patra_r_Page_028.pro
e43129b2a22b369d70bacf7e987153fa
e5b3e0491364d7e6e35b658ad0991aeca1957465
67208 F20110112_AAAETN patra_r_Page_081.jpg
05ee71f646552a91034bdd42c6bba58c
a189905cc85588bdd671de66d4d9ee4a46ffe3fc
42623 F20110112_AAAESY patra_r_Page_091.pro
4bf01d0104fc7daedfab29ceb66204c3
83730eaa61d7213500d2f5469e07cd75ee23551e
2338 F20110112_AAAEUB patra_r_Page_052.txt
7ab78ac3a93a5ff76d351e8f09cc7093
ae95fc8537a7452f3fe9c9040a6f8701bc946e44
67113 F20110112_AAAETO patra_r_Page_055.jpg
608f2a2538e9c5f343b87b9c87248a24
1f1de16b4e98733c62431d46b8ca5a34e71d5fec
38519 F20110112_AAAESZ patra_r_Page_077.jpg
1eed945b6befc16071a2fa993e87ec56
af43b2766a8605dc6e5c4895f306ca847ada954c
11783 F20110112_AAAEUC patra_r_Page_075.QC.jpg
3b27b5a250333025a5adf07ecfe226a8
a8989a311c0467725821874e643d8a54759251ad
F20110112_AAAETP patra_r_Page_120.tif
d9a4edcac3b5495436bfd700cde43cd2
68b100c775c76aec972c1c1be5dcbeefe61bd25a
1337 F20110112_AAAEUD patra_r_Page_072.txt
ded3370aefe8f4794c20b79af96f1cf1
97af7abd70bd83c1f1aeee0956c4143df5df8576
F20110112_AAAETQ patra_r_Page_053.tif
3a37468c7aa78bfe207321c37bf64e39
d95366604deb680e44cf73cce410664236ede374
12824 F20110112_AAAEUE patra_r_Page_016.QC.jpg
b75ebcf0b57858d8bba28d447ec5371c
4e64d9f4a0c989728ee45f993fe9f76975f3578e
21089 F20110112_AAAETR patra_r_Page_114.QC.jpg
d0782e8d98976d0e564625e85c95388c
fcf5c9e5cca6a9cf92bcd9a43f323988ba06ee08
F20110112_AAAFAA patra_r_Page_064.tif
2a08139dcc9d6d6b6d7c627393705149
20867444befe76baa69d3a3e66701f45dbfe1ad3
24467 F20110112_AAAEUF patra_r_Page_085.QC.jpg
55ff0a0807aefa569feab197eff01334
8754d21a0fd7814c0f13f2547b79abd655d750b1
39560 F20110112_AAAETS patra_r_Page_084.pro
477485b34eb274c310ae78cb003df981
168a5eb41aea58fba9f39a60d7c8891395c675ea
48605 F20110112_AAAFAB patra_r_Page_101.jpg
f6bb6c644dc1f747e6d4a61d019da094
b54f471f9d1614bbc9f2e9f9c4f81ad9dcd609d5
25662 F20110112_AAAEUG patra_r_Page_126.QC.jpg
f7dd5eb18f0d131dc729c8726cdc313f
6182cec5369f8c985fb01de75b03cea33cf3938c
7000 F20110112_AAAETT patra_r_Page_038thm.jpg
059140172d40ef178c5d7fadb6883753
7e67b51624d2ebf9d001b5f5443149d9d2201cbe
17726 F20110112_AAAEUH patra_r_Page_015.QC.jpg
c9908d965ba637b3cf887bfa9da98047
b818ea1be002878b15d3e8f8563f57eecf7b2258
6753 F20110112_AAAETU patra_r_Page_080thm.jpg
b868a3a5a5dfad4002edee5f9465c02a
2c15cd9e9fc381b63660907ccbce064a2f5f89ef
49387 F20110112_AAAFAC patra_r_Page_041.pro
a95355130bcec5fa70f0b8d734a0f002
ea081023cd7d842ce8cb38d82b1c5efb9b582d3b
F20110112_AAAEUI patra_r_Page_063.tif
ca9f8cc0c73fccd46125e47001b61484
e93f4d81c96e6578531e98132b4c8f7d4532260b
5111 F20110112_AAAETV patra_r_Page_103thm.jpg
e81e9f625199fbea312a9a2f996785a7
a430e056882033222209244793d2b021d84f6bc3
18459 F20110112_AAAFAD patra_r_Page_105.QC.jpg
a550695bc727463ebee408a1494b8160
95fd94318ea5137780af714419c0a4064ba8ac80
5356 F20110112_AAAEUJ patra_r_Page_015thm.jpg
7e88e495230ff9b907ae01f06c4ab143
16a5de591854aab690329353256df7f563272693
1770 F20110112_AAAFAE patra_r_Page_114.txt
f3fe647c658008e894d9e1a4552b2b77
e86d4e1f68b7cb45a4140efcc1c541fb80dab151
F20110112_AAAEUK patra_r_Page_129.tif
6e0acc5094c862016a6c4d048b6add65
83db16105210acae8e5739c071667e0f75b70889
13065 F20110112_AAAETW patra_r_Page_073.QC.jpg
9924e0fa8b443a47254dbcd894908997
19be937cdb62252cbe6601da6bb087e4114eb709
44366 F20110112_AAAFAF patra_r_Page_128.pro
04208457751ccb2a56d454dacae6035f
291acbcff4974f908eb14d161633d52907c25a52
21769 F20110112_AAAEUL patra_r_Page_066.QC.jpg
63210ae33edb31eb97a37cede6b518bd
ccf7ea5432e824dd5565cc34fda5797918b53aae
5517 F20110112_AAAETX patra_r_Page_051thm.jpg
9fe6e62886b5f2a19cbcf25c973a6a8c
657e988ecbcce4e5fbcb3f9d3084d2ec815bd6e9
15641 F20110112_AAAFAG patra_r_Page_087.QC.jpg
0202c4e26c2a13a9c621a10cb13bb7db
aac8df97803bececc81e51604cf1c4ef7ca7c9c7
55107 F20110112_AAAEVA patra_r_Page_048.jpg
1d5f21ba8024bf6465e1472c0373f78d
f0d4757eeaac4e2d119949a1da22350d5365d752
1957 F20110112_AAAEUM patra_r_Page_041.txt
d1598ec32510b38d1a8360282f94a03c
609ca388c3ed163f357e441f0f1400ac43b5e20d
F20110112_AAAETY patra_r_Page_022.tif
fce44855db04ae3730de4a550fed452b
3f9b6f2c9ab08158e56c11b4df86947ed7370943
45874 F20110112_AAAFAH patra_r_Page_055.pro
9617e7b7ee5eb2cca1427c7fd34816b5
be4dfc7f92f131c302f4ed39fd3b77d1cd735a0c
54773 F20110112_AAAEVB patra_r_Page_019.jp2
28fe9248138d3779206cedf20089eba1
fc86085eba272ddaab6ab164e33fbafe13658232
53038 F20110112_AAAEUN patra_r_Page_085.pro
6d6e05e0d76a10cee2871e604498d58e
f7a79aa6b6e8fccea1d638ff8274a8e123e7816f
4229 F20110112_AAAFAI patra_r_Page_023thm.jpg
03e1ecc82ea63b01cd3a796e085294f2
273c4a5804af903932c1fc25e086067a41e5529c
1236 F20110112_AAAEVC patra_r_Page_056.txt
bf1ad6edbcef51336dee51de995c7504
ad4a7b81b621d6ecbb1f0be0298bf8466f3390de
5167 F20110112_AAAEUO patra_r_Page_021thm.jpg
517c2ee101d1cc67b510359f6bf1e152
e533c15b237592c6d7438a96a09e77448e610958
6534 F20110112_AAAETZ patra_r_Page_129thm.jpg
30682307862b0d79b39963f5adcddd43
30814ce87b9539c91f8509aeb2241557fe7e13fb
F20110112_AAAFAJ patra_r_Page_035.tif
58faba9bde9582522e33626cf2631e35
92368133385f18f807480dd82d8437f763cd9fe1
61460 F20110112_AAAEVD patra_r_Page_017.jpg
fb1a36c753c8d2398e4487e45893004a
9719c8ee403761ae49f2c61c8e988958c5f1ef4f
F20110112_AAAEUP patra_r_Page_060.tif
beaad872642dcf84e56725c1f225ea8b
e0ff7ad42475df98c00cc0f1fbb0b8bc47b3ff85
F20110112_AAAFAK patra_r_Page_044.tif
063c29983de76f3956097830293e8df7
d74bfb7695163c789b4d7bf98c532c56f70b9872
23811 F20110112_AAAEVE patra_r_Page_018.QC.jpg
d0f897910ea355ce0016b9a0ef5bcbfd
5227b616cf3d995f673d27155c98d5736c02a641
F20110112_AAAEUQ patra_r_Page_081.tif
115e3b66545440d86cd14a9a0854cec7
27f19690bfd82a748a9332acd2ff42e00af3f36a
50811 F20110112_AAAFAL patra_r_Page_123.jpg
f8ce5ed04a9e74bf6888a1d73be3ac2c
0bc03918cd558ee35e1edcdc82f5b905d1278445
F20110112_AAAEVF patra_r_Page_015.tif
444c9e95700c06fe5622a8cc31ba373e
a555210159e757711e01fcac78a4a6efde5c2242
6199 F20110112_AAAEUR patra_r_Page_109thm.jpg
ca948699a576973fd25b4ede5ce6bcbb
6b26d76b3f045bced3b1d33f2331a5ae9faab864
63216 F20110112_AAAFBA patra_r_Page_025.jp2
fc235ba5aaf2ca66280ed0c405e8c602
b6af9597da10d2192abe926afb75da35d3fccb88
2174 F20110112_AAAFAM patra_r_Page_085.txt
dde6c9ee0750f99d818f9745217b80c7
74fbe3287efd5704ad60660ea42c9edd2be8cc82
406947 F20110112_AAAEVG patra_r_Page_113.jp2
ae7497533a0f643ecac827f17eac18e0
35cb739aa25c62fc4ebd76c430ab7bc361b91bf1
939 F20110112_AAAEUS patra_r_Page_073.txt
ae4a20e43ccb0e809aae5f22c46e5730
a5e4e6045be5aa3eaa81ca4590eea79d86a67d7d
53755 F20110112_AAAFBB patra_r_Page_089.jpg
7642a0d83642170799e26d094e672b71
25ac5a86e93689f986e2148de46f51b5ebe0922a
6918520 F20110112_AAAFAN patra_r.pdf
394740d0cdc09086d969a5e19f9287a1
5a85c3115d94b5e6e027775512ba119d7f94846c
6631 F20110112_AAAEVH patra_r_Page_047thm.jpg
09f20a3fc0a913c86a24ba61fea1d8ab
f63e51a5d2e200961cfac6f4822665c4def41681
F20110112_AAAEUT patra_r_Page_114.tif
d313b5ad219e40a5458f7d548cdc4070
5ee74202b2a778c39a35eba2ae573833b1f64ff2
102698 F20110112_AAAFBC patra_r_Page_127.jpg
c90f8eb9cc2adb1bf065c64aa28c7a43
1979497997d60b9ef5c5397cc245e2ed9574b392
2080 F20110112_AAAFAO patra_r_Page_038.txt
3fba9282846a8379d3cb66b8e47f4a22
f98fade7a2556e6df2d240a7be99919633940d01
F20110112_AAAEVI patra_r_Page_106.tif
6196a5d5b43706432d492e73ad84962c
0e705eccbba9fc912be93be36545146eb48e3e41
322 F20110112_AAAEUU patra_r_Page_101.txt
9e5e904880cd710df8a57219f1218c8e
2837b970d7f19d47b7729688af560d51d860b05a
383 F20110112_AAAFAP patra_r_Page_001.txt
8decedb8a72b3482835ec7954a0b8c3b
24c1b4bff959acae13c841f3a275715dabecfe7e
F20110112_AAAEVJ patra_r_Page_084.tif
6e84e0dce3f7857b9a8f0022c6adbc9b
f4e99ec44177afb34071390925c825f43e928ff3
F20110112_AAAEUV patra_r_Page_001.tif
692b0c14bf8d6e4f093b333e4fee05e4
c7f39780d4f32858f9fe498db0eea37b872da10f
6610 F20110112_AAAFBD patra_r_Page_122thm.jpg
1ef27003d1b43845010d982491f15540
7625e81e509fcd36077f00c900c7db1a4c0cc27e
7062 F20110112_AAAFAQ patra_r_Page_126thm.jpg
80e14363744d43f8238ef5c562c47c1f
e15a596fc8e64b6ec7e47198230330545838e8b2
50324 F20110112_AAAEVK patra_r_Page_036.pro
ff1ca124fac51b0b27bc8119e82db234
e366dc1b1dacab5d0bbcfb255040128657778d29
467611 F20110112_AAAEUW patra_r_Page_109.jp2
0eba3408d355d5ba688b5e3bf52fef4f
89eea9d6403dbb34962459b18368aa4c18bb8e69
23673 F20110112_AAAFBE patra_r_Page_014.jp2
d6da27b9b8d55a392dffb2b377596826
a0651ab40287c424193f1259edd088f851bff60a
17977 F20110112_AAAFAR patra_r_Page_023.pro
41b4c9269a368563f19cdfa8268f1afd
1546f80a3490c3c6ed6bdddd1a9051535eca16a3
60797 F20110112_AAAEVL patra_r_Page_093.jpg
a7c32758f47a6006d9ef36cbd0c725c4
386f99df38fae837a926e295e1ae7f79398d3363
47250 F20110112_AAAFBF patra_r_Page_067.jp2
428612bbba30bde14706f0cb13f58a17
f62e8935a517f6b9bc2d5452cb16d295316ce87a
F20110112_AAAFAS patra_r_Page_020.tif
e970232abeb9d46da43dfd9ec1f1479c
259afe6f50c81d41f42f725d619f92d234bfe6fa
F20110112_AAAEVM patra_r_Page_005.tif
e22174562af5e28722244d21f35288a8
8198d8d140d70f4c225ecb0d4e688f9d823f7d23
6624 F20110112_AAAEUX patra_r_Page_104thm.jpg
742de9a166ce48a0a8b128cdb7d4d490
563c79e5619b64d2f8560d47418696efd95a6eda
1202 F20110112_AAAFBG patra_r_Page_093.txt
5cae97535b551a3a8c537810397f8fc7
0c872acefacd6226678a3ebf65bccc0de0d3cefb
3020 F20110112_AAAEWA patra_r_Page_124.txt
0aad42cddf96ebb498937e60dc7ea2d8
d37aeaf3dc0bee4f0f1c7e0158d9050bc7ace6eb
48168 F20110112_AAAFAT patra_r_Page_064.jpg
a03d9df1fc863207d8a5e84aaa07f8b8
95b60b85f54bb938eb491141724a7f2cc0edcf24
F20110112_AAAEVN patra_r_Page_089.tif
7997e7c6c78d45982a424c056875c28f
3e71901dc58624a8da84994b085065567dbfc845
467495 F20110112_AAAEUY patra_r_Page_005.jp2
a8b961ce1602fd6cbfe4e0d514cc6e2a
f57565a0e86badaeb6c12e6c33a647bde15d48a5
27531 F20110112_AAAFBH patra_r_Page_010.QC.jpg
1435f870a10581820dfda7ac0ca24dc7
5e6503b4c839231d625526f61ed5962e5adfb945
2115 F20110112_AAAEWB patra_r_Page_033.txt
c86d12b399a075aa689c1678184863f6
9f526b85a235d83e3da5102be3683c3581c8e63b
21223 F20110112_AAAFAU patra_r_Page_121.QC.jpg
0ca6cf4c4e9ae57252cd9ed150dafae2
6d139a6d46698a110bdab4f003e8ac7d842af03a
48509 F20110112_AAAEVO patra_r_Page_065.jpg
2a561428d4614697ef4a9185308bf113
3f9bce12bb14c8f50a61d92495fa2b5b5919cd52
3362 F20110112_AAAEUZ patra_r_Page_098thm.jpg
74bf4d6c16ebd261f8b6ec5ef85022f2
4cdbc1c617fb1f6e8ba8bf19cbc984445fb0ed76
22680 F20110112_AAAFBI patra_r_Page_124.pro
dcb244d1a8e03cdfba116e3754fed1c7
36d0d8fceb9f0cd611b2b1ad3f938f14b9f3dd4a
22391 F20110112_AAAEWC patra_r_Page_102.pro
91f795c66ace606f29ee0b5443a1f5fc
d35be4c8a895eaf598a7955d03dbabf00cf4d446
2038 F20110112_AAAFAV patra_r_Page_118.txt
07257c1c2e837d0b15a09eb40a89c29a
f3a34f849d9030a271dcbbbb9587c34ef1e23ba9
6323 F20110112_AAAEVP patra_r_Page_055thm.jpg
58e6a9e4319a35443891daf029ff3332
e87f630bac784d3264207bb6ddf677bc913b1076
20990 F20110112_AAAFBJ patra_r_Page_091.QC.jpg
9c5692d1049e29246b221081f08e448a
01fec5ea0f1f2188a1344538f2b0a455ac1e92eb
467394 F20110112_AAAEWD patra_r_Page_027.jp2
3f18f7e6f7c759245c541590ec41c059
822a9e6244224b0d18b5f32053a93b55331ad21f
80130 F20110112_AAAFAW patra_r_Page_130.jp2
48a9d0c584b6c996c4b4fce130c6b157
ec7e775575cb05dafbf9d9d394b286ebc04d3ad0
3323 F20110112_AAAEVQ patra_r_Page_014thm.jpg
6eb224cbbe641b4fb408eb01ba151f11
f7324697ace356e2e4fa081c89568540e65527b3
1069 F20110112_AAAFBK patra_r_Page_046.txt
e93a3da640923f3645359e33dac23e61
24a1d259feb8e76e01e52f03f967798dd65eaaaf
16874 F20110112_AAAEWE patra_r_Page_120.QC.jpg
13c61412496637890fae81cf040e82ed
7783d6ed2c151b337cd5df1e9e3a0bec0fa0c9d4
31649 F20110112_AAAEVR patra_r_Page_042.pro
804158f2f3d922eb2a6dc4446939dd54
21c46ce094060a12324a36bc0007990c02159388
103552 F20110112_AAAFCA patra_r_Page_004.jpg
f8b2e0bf618209b201c8fe4bbc551b26
1241f5b02d70f65a89373469915d9dcb749c8ad2
61608 F20110112_AAAFBL patra_r_Page_094.jp2
6257055e07fd376a7eb08bcd8e6cbc59
de456e243fee2d75be6add671df1abf99e896031
414 F20110112_AAAEWF patra_r_Page_108.txt
ef1b3332be74ebc0af03a8762c5696a4
e8211af5b5244048191a2953580429dffb8a0754
F20110112_AAAFAX patra_r_Page_094.tif
5d451a75aac1b67f1823d4c96784565d
a368bfd2a5a0f7657ad1007979e289bd58bda86f
14286 F20110112_AAAEVS patra_r_Page_014.pro
94be8577b7f3c4a20a5ff1a9dc30b451
61e46eb9df35c21db54983fc04e18cbee0ae604c
47058 F20110112_AAAFCB patra_r_Page_005.jpg
035257837f7ae9c1543730f1dd4f265b
2b5e380ec6de213aea95d3bd135de19069a54150
258156 F20110112_AAAFBM patra_r_Page_077.jp2
cbbaaf56bea8ba38129db90ff41c204b
e42e4ff4d055dbe44041fb2c57416daacf368272
5292 F20110112_AAAEWG patra_r_Page_112thm.jpg
4b38081b417f44c15008950fff93f6fb
d2374657b9e1d079f1261a43a6da22eabd774f43
6849 F20110112_AAAFAY patra_r_Page_001.QC.jpg
d05f8d3efd28bcac6140ea04957d4d5c
3ff210c95b421ced37dcc381ab11f9f7f5ff9caa
92508 F20110112_AAAEVT patra_r_Page_037.jpg
c9c50cf681f7456ce2247943448c9724
66825f15ae57bdfa3b90532b4b4c1f1802708878
70038 F20110112_AAAFCC patra_r_Page_006.jpg
9f728e80f41a8fe106728b7c892b657a
71b85d8f9ea4b08af3ef86c1492bc61d8c070fed
25211 F20110112_AAAFBN patra_r_Page_130.QC.jpg
f9334aaa09434f0bb567f68e8b341483
fd72893969b7d141592e0118ffb43e3899bfba3f
10606 F20110112_AAAEWH patra_r_Page_077.pro
0454b14117d5bedc28a1290843060797
a6b38ecebd74c62158fb1499aa284ca538904c54
65403 F20110112_AAAFAZ patra_r_Page_045.jp2
dbe6cf75ace95d6e2757f7f53db4375d
34fc7dbdb267cf138b6c609f17d4f16779495c80
25339 F20110112_AAAEVU patra_r_Page_095.QC.jpg
1d601924523c590fa3729ddd296d2f92
c116dff016654de64332a9ab99660002c1cd0531
33336 F20110112_AAAFCD patra_r_Page_011.jpg
962ba1c569afddeb928fc0cc06836450
4cf17dfddbe6463ec8868950c06d838c331a954e
F20110112_AAAFBO patra_r_Page_088.tif
1d4b1b0c6ddb1635b26a4464099edbba
bc130dfabc57a57072213cadf75f1465dd6b7bd6
55858 F20110112_AAAEWI patra_r_Page_088.jpg
20c32248974014072d199e3752da089a
da1363529441e40409d3aef600830d1abed6800f
9953 F20110112_AAAEVV patra_r_Page_011.QC.jpg
1c59444fa5871a1a3eb7d2e9620c5a01
143831904b726b3639e013571d76fbb90a53a07b
6638 F20110112_AAAFBP patra_r_Page_040thm.jpg
898a9f4520570f38002beab1d40c36b4
3d7fe521635785198bacd19678a4d5747f30d673
28953 F20110112_AAAEWJ patra_r_Page_012.jp2
f82ec0caa478a278dc6b84e65547adef
59e1a04a240f4d5ae1ccaaf357bd0e746393cabb
6567 F20110112_AAAEVW patra_r_Page_054thm.jpg
c31bb17d09cbc3349183aec7d3d5f346
af362f3b3cdcf1e9f2649a86c11c137d3a9509b2
56444 F20110112_AAAFCE patra_r_Page_015.jpg
b1d145cd5e4c7bcc3c83dd86f4c99bf8
8ce14f1d91bf0b4d084a3bc204a19f9a8a208a0e
467566 F20110112_AAAFBQ patra_r_Page_026.jp2
202ca5ea94c23e6a7562611da3a40d8a
2f283d9f7f4e54a2f8a478812c0017f4d1603c7e
918 F20110112_AAAEWK patra_r_Page_011.txt
4526466e8fc63ad8db5af5dd412bc3a6
f72f81915d28885c263c20c5266734ef5c2d234d
18160 F20110112_AAAEVX patra_r_Page_089.QC.jpg
1ebb02b531fc5464b5aca98da63b1ea3
5a0eb3f767242b91c5b5da22440e360af34df845
38444 F20110112_AAAFCF patra_r_Page_016.jpg
1eb52ef9eb2d430f99fd56484e7b4a65
847e889feb07374542545aebb668797ee0950283
80886 F20110112_AAAFBR patra_r_Page_037.jp2
45c8b6e2ea6264b1e2e3972563025db3
eadd79cd79a474a4e1f589b0d00cb7df3bd11477
F20110112_AAAEWL patra_r_Page_021.tif
00cb5c6d4f7babb5d074acc472b99fd4
5cc799ca2c651fd218eb7b9f9eced4bd014a566b
70813 F20110112_AAAFCG patra_r_Page_018.jpg
564efc8c39fbda7064850d2612ad7678
123becb8341d6a638655a45d80afc54cc31d6740
15923 F20110112_AAAEXA patra_r_Page_106.QC.jpg
3efbed855ab4cbfe3c6bf296030366c5
adc5c0aba7c24075bfde2dce3716d6f6254c008d
16674 F20110112_AAAFBS patra_r_Page_131.jpg
6d1c6824ce6649e69a30bff6f806bd79
eaff68f33840afa956910fd3d892b87d6d34a0f1
3841 F20110112_AAAEWM patra_r_Page_012thm.jpg
1bc2eade87b7712fe2568ae5f6bcb83b
be55988865d2b16460eebf360c60f04d92cbba56
6970 F20110112_AAAEVY patra_r_Page_130thm.jpg
0f206b4fd54ab3c5d33d4d02e3375f1f
e6ca1e9d4d203e04acc73778b538ff7115e22e59
59863 F20110112_AAAFCH patra_r_Page_021.jpg
de864aa63809ec0c22cf3216d67f8c1e
da5508662598792210ca7f55d39de7a968e05f20
18609 F20110112_AAAEXB patra_r_Page_096.QC.jpg
94088eb1f0044bdbdaa708246913b7ad
cc8a42df886b1793ce01bc9b39164df4ba17d63b
18419 F20110112_AAAFBT patra_r_Page_069.QC.jpg
d41901615fe32e3b7a6c71cdd35c9a55
7061a353feefcc0281b7f62e58864f511eccf0a4
12014 F20110112_AAAEWN patra_r_Page_061.QC.jpg
a67284ba8dfc7b9488897f4ee6829236
9cb7e9b72ea4968ad9888ae6e1f05cfd84d619bf
45991 F20110112_AAAEVZ patra_r_Page_086.pro
af9b9dd5b24b64ad5cdec0445c6209cf
4c82b9f75f59a382299ac542d9eb542decfb0d33
57432 F20110112_AAAFCI patra_r_Page_022.jpg
b0f51f4e2cc85bbf0e1484ffbf298180
1408bab2700d96efea511df88f261d610284937a
F20110112_AAAEXC patra_r_Page_057.tif
f941d4c6da3b54345830a80b13003142
59f7aaa6e89aec4c9d6cae0523154a7e1b4e830f
F20110112_AAAFBU patra_r_Page_099.tif
9c1956fa3d14f5d91d075a2a755b53da
35e9c7962786b3e14c62646567ffc3c89d24e58c
10573 F20110112_AAAEWO patra_r_Page_098.pro
a81169fa92d10199c5ea7fa70f53ea64
f733ac71c8ab5b8585331bb9a97883392b0197b3
70808 F20110112_AAAFCJ patra_r_Page_025.jpg
95af6123b373cff2ad2dfcd05a93fe4f
eac319d964c113ce237db9886ea226d347786107
263003 F20110112_AAAEXD patra_r_Page_023.jp2
6a184a3086ec63251dfb6364f618296a
a1d84d9994e96c86e9ae1c1a73ed57f019fb0c1a
40882 F20110112_AAAFBV patra_r_Page_132.jpg
57c08e675881ed7bf7648b5d8ced55c9
2e612c0e8188359a3ac03be77be8e01feea768aa
467588 F20110112_AAAEWP patra_r_Page_107.jp2
49896850161d494e735b97661bb9f37b
33f86c5164f43cc79192e0b85f3e3de7bbe0a1df
43773 F20110112_AAAFCK patra_r_Page_029.jpg
e854e523793a015fdb0b6ed5f9ebcd82
c81a2fbc584b45cec078883fe290debedebbdc4d
41107 F20110112_AAAEXE patra_r_Page_020.pro
e70563f69360254fb93bae922a9617f1
c8001adc8222c4d6188fa236ced4c6d4dda25a0b
151722 F20110112_AAAFBW UFE0002800_00001.mets FULL
26ef51dcdbc488cffb1a6fb18c9ef8b5
246a26c6063b24cd44df68e9746139e92011e71a
1235 F20110112_AAAEWQ patra_r_Page_123.txt
abe74f6e7c7583e9d70fb12ef3d6fb7f
61fc2b594431e1c997457e8f0786a17109285f51
60924 F20110112_AAAFCL patra_r_Page_030.jpg
464f28edd4a46e300311d7fbb849a15e
e2737c5c218dbc8a1fa3283b44021029ae6603a7
881 F20110112_AAAEXF patra_r_Page_021.txt
97e5fca2424884f03701c07ab44bcb82
9ed7f8f3ce4e2b2fedcac18d8d708c91b10528b6
5507 F20110112_AAAEWR patra_r_Page_105thm.jpg
bc4632f5743624fe125669b8df7daeb3
d401779a00f4f83a1c5521368d6f027b7f12c865
39888 F20110112_AAAFDA patra_r_Page_061.jpg
6c58ce938c6843da579dd15fec73deb1
75e899dfa4a34735ad7ede3c045d16bc0a572b07
76271 F20110112_AAAFCM patra_r_Page_031.jpg
2d640c73bc7e78d4460042f8cc2ffa66
69c65020205e6733967d5e1fa952f212cd910ebb
4572 F20110112_AAAEXG patra_r_Page_099thm.jpg
c911766460eee2234302e1f8e330759f
b04185eda3fb1c0507a135cda96d5dc6b409c0ef
5129 F20110112_AAAEWS patra_r_Page_120thm.jpg
9d574f1e30741ceb8205e96ab0c73d13
5914c943c0ffdae0cf4ba44aba9e8be4ab649026
71449 F20110112_AAAFDB patra_r_Page_062.jpg
c132d4cfbb0963ad9f68e335767bb614
7be5d82c1fe3e71b6014402a56e8d6f37cd9e336
68140 F20110112_AAAFCN patra_r_Page_032.jpg
b41bbcb0b129fd29d356c835fb338d25
f27231ad88a9d8f19ce81c7a67b1cf449869bef2
72526 F20110112_AAAEXH patra_r_Page_010.pro
73345bebc74b776cc877c4f02e2b58e9
1e8442d455a8226114b0a5b7b7eb6357c68a8d63
71364 F20110112_AAAFBZ patra_r_Page_003.jpg
946a0e3410e3bca90fffe907759ecf9c
9fb1d7d6d34f9442cc210d4dbf99c35777be180b
61965 F20110112_AAAEWT patra_r_Page_044.jp2
1975e57ffba60aee5c90af4da023de67
fd647e2d77bd806adae18501a5eaf6aeba618d75
71025 F20110112_AAAFDC patra_r_Page_066.jpg
c4312ff59ffff3cc30976ce550781237
cad103d68115700ffdac548be71939e9f813da97
73364 F20110112_AAAFCO patra_r_Page_036.jpg
3dddba08753f7401e76bae232ee8e303
4439c5fa487f9efb568261cddeec94e8feaf2223
46561 F20110112_AAAEXI patra_r_Page_103.jp2
68ad4631bbc40bd9c0fd0bd5c62ab2d7
b4200b52bfdf158d309fe527d76c82ff466825c1
24409 F20110112_AAAEWU patra_r_Page_045.QC.jpg
9b623809191d3b21887369d719f6cbd5
be4716433a4d2cdc0fa7d24a17b1713021779b2c
57974 F20110112_AAAFDD patra_r_Page_069.jpg
6809543f521d02d03071400a29357dd1
c1ab44a2ba53d2055453aa7c44b3a585451d866a
88570 F20110112_AAAFCP patra_r_Page_039.jpg
340f17e6da1f255b2793eae9c876c356
35223a4572ff58222ccdd7b3337dc928a8551225
841 F20110112_AAAEXJ patra_r_Page_065.txt
a4dd8d8ad7d168ed09240c99e984a2aa
30d8e8fc2da46b5088b485dfa2eb86e20b1868b5
F20110112_AAAEWV patra_r_Page_123.tif
6fa1afd0d81b035c4eaed5b15e5254ec
e2506b8a121069a0119d7cf226797d9c48526e22
66451 F20110112_AAAFDE patra_r_Page_071.jpg
1655079d90e17466f90b9e4e2c603e64
2f8bc281b260a84382e30a0cfff5b2f4dcfff7a3
67586 F20110112_AAAFCQ patra_r_Page_040.jpg
7e9fca9ab20cc21382ac0b6a257f4b13
165649fa8e5af1b861a1aa4946fba4577e74725f
7672 F20110112_AAAEXK patra_r_Page_068.pro
9764a8c1eb0d6fd872acc1421b01d80e
e7239b87067fd850c64532489a3517d3c055da93
18397 F20110112_AAAEWW patra_r_Page_057.QC.jpg
dce8a6b3a05139386da24980479157d9
b10dfb0189d83ccfb63cd1bf8eb5421cc67cf856
71355 F20110112_AAAFCR patra_r_Page_041.jpg
5044dc3bf1a0bc28f857322f3cb54815
2a4302a9c50a9c46c21bb386abb1be70f678d300
22701 F20110112_AAAEXL patra_r_Page_081.QC.jpg
808ac48f660e8f6137dfb26376974702
74eaf3fbea0a05290c73a6eedc58dad188ca9957
49301 F20110112_AAAEWX patra_r_Page_084.jp2
594e73128c0ccaf0e6b5772808f2d783
162f0487f14bb8a182ba6c1cbc04a9390fd7a390
47449 F20110112_AAAFDF patra_r_Page_072.jpg
c4a54cdb6379d6c48c4c04605521c771
ed6175327846b2e463c7603e84a5dd492363e42e
37070 F20110112_AAAEYA patra_r_Page_096.pro
dde46d18c68315d2ac11e95140d513f2
b64d31707e98ce927054b0649b5760ac905c1bd3
73001 F20110112_AAAFCS patra_r_Page_045.jpg
04f7c8083c77457978900fbdb6e5938f
1870f6581349f5c482afa31ad6b3c121e26faedd
1946 F20110112_AAAEXM patra_r_Page_045.txt
4a9fd67295b79f795b402ecce4409de7
57e307621c8e1fe044d04c9af20c63ee40b839d4
F20110112_AAAEWY patra_r_Page_029.tif
158eafd7b504a5c70b53ae3c4e171b3e
e0aac4edbe2dc9e29906c9e98b69e09e06c215e4
45347 F20110112_AAAFDG patra_r_Page_073.jpg
6ba28620b0349b4048bfa89ca0425bfb
33e3a9605fe57066e74d671521b8c0a01923c87e
F20110112_AAAEYB patra_r_Page_100.tif
e748d916eba74886cdf2c9126c9be554
39035a6b289c7b4003192e3c75ac10dc42bc7c3d
71934 F20110112_AAAFCT patra_r_Page_047.jpg
82b52c8dd8e5bcba53a61c643a194df7
5b8b02f7e148f12e5bc2dc671e154dc01b5313ac
100252 F20110112_AAAEXN patra_r_Page_009.jpg
cb397e3b40b68036e5df9794cb05c7dd
9161784457372706bdb295b8c77043e547af096e
57773 F20110112_AAAFDH patra_r_Page_078.jpg
a2555a7355febb65f548e5cbb40c8362
a47f3ffb7057338788ae96aa4fb2968605ce2321
15467 F20110112_AAAEYC patra_r_Page_007.QC.jpg
6973eb59584f00655b3945dc9211cb12
a0dd8b2849cee88b36a98d4df5258aef134a5020
88643 F20110112_AAAFCU patra_r_Page_049.jpg
4c52caca44e7707bead81c8ed707895e
da9f448b9fe080b7b66efe7a7b89823af48164fa
61582 F20110112_AAAEXO patra_r_Page_019.jpg
2744b95d98a68f0b898a58f415fc9c8f
27fea1199d3ad33acbdb4f0123010bf08af5b3a0
16636 F20110112_AAAEWZ patra_r_Page_113.QC.jpg
f09542b36d7b0078e11845ac1bcbf8be
b234071db3a3440b3698869fe51a023a877ddb3a
64334 F20110112_AAAFDI patra_r_Page_079.jpg
25a031ae34e0d8f16c11966f3eaf8714
4607113acf1583bf22de7838c47b387289d15820
209969 F20110112_AAAEYD patra_r_Page_042.jp2
cdbd3f1d0e51d7b7ab05ae3bd8ba3f0a
4af466ddb01b322c45f44c56bacb71c22e14d428
72412 F20110112_AAAFCV patra_r_Page_053.jpg
c51f465f2892f070150309eb6b9c2dca
ea83c3a0accc0a0dcfcead3524568b502b217dd8
52142 F20110112_AAAEXP patra_r_Page_007.jpg
454cb0309befaec6b059658a6210ea8c
c5168a1b4cfa2625b0f30c21bd2a014dded545f9
65243 F20110112_AAAFDJ patra_r_Page_082.jpg
d048486177146fd48fdf966713313075
02c0233594bf64a194f05a4cb9f6ef1ee241c32e
4836 F20110112_AAAEYE patra_r_Page_123thm.jpg
cc5ea74698d365a51512b8842b23d4f1
0e627ab1f76bd0ef675a5f2dadea55b3334c8b81
57284 F20110112_AAAFCW patra_r_Page_057.jpg
52ddcdbad1c5795d7cfcca7023bdad3d
e74c42519b6112fe27a48aca5f19bcf0db97c4db
20783 F20110112_AAAEXQ patra_r_Page_079.QC.jpg
26776e89dfc0060de2c4c2423e7977de
c36a16a61b10a5baa84dd854b877266ca3860121
77773 F20110112_AAAFDK patra_r_Page_085.jpg
120558fb49f2466e8ab688b532372776
9bf21af8bad0a9555e38d49e0e7dd6519cfb867c
5283 F20110112_AAAEYF patra_r_Page_048thm.jpg
96a1df15b372f1255304b933c4b0c113
f4e40bb1d525eb53a548616350a56119a9a9980f
39557 F20110112_AAAFCX patra_r_Page_058.jpg
2947507512fc8b6005f879ab3a8b4cb5
88c987acd59a740d0686f40f1b662a7440199189
44755 F20110112_AAAEXR patra_r_Page_070.jpg
5339e8108d44326e5d6b07be225d7bcf
d443d8329a901ed4de0e48f074ed99e2c9f3888a
67393 F20110112_AAAFEA patra_r_Page_118.jpg
cdf28b47e9e506d1d6b467a161c65e97
4beeb07ed848ed46aaa9431acc5bb0e5703556cb
47743 F20110112_AAAFDL patra_r_Page_087.jpg
5d29faad54f158ae252cd81c33d991a7
dbdedfbdf449397f5a64d6f33cfee78f15867899
51325 F20110112_AAAEYG patra_r_Page_063.jpg
4070c8c6bef9199441d5415bf4192771
2bd9621c450973f5e7bba6c4c0b40366953139c9
52414 F20110112_AAAFCY patra_r_Page_059.jpg
7fd040e9da590d3f3a84cab095441e76
10cf4b053994ec98c267c28149b21dbc972a0593
6402292 F20110112_AAAEXS patra_r_Page_090.tif
dbde8e17473f600781c7c23ee52512e2
3fe600ee7e6cd17e8ee53415463811e6c3649d09
56979 F20110112_AAAFEB patra_r_Page_119.jpg
6ed959f29d3cc284f667a0920ceb981c
ea0bddde1a56ae88ec7b471b9cbe8896d6627d26
44565 F20110112_AAAFDM patra_r_Page_092.jpg
e1479c2846db6de0a145ef6a5ec7f5c8
d553e70ec8cb5da57154bf4ed62085f1731983cb
57434 F20110112_AAAEYH patra_r_Page_102.jpg
693b2b719718d161bdca25cf867a207d
08885cdf304c80a0fc3a6ec0b1870264c795e0d3
47591 F20110112_AAAFCZ patra_r_Page_060.jpg
34268405cb44d80ba996b5486805b25f
fa376e0c2c6f0e1aff13c9bcc709b641361cdf50
10343 F20110112_AAAEXT patra_r_Page_098.QC.jpg
4bf38ea15e92e4bb234941e648b98723
164fc121bdf5144b476e2fadefc54d1222dc4e0f
49903 F20110112_AAAFEC patra_r_Page_120.jpg
0a5b174f1cc470368268d6fe58433b39
cb347b69ea856e346f1bc98dc95a86a7554c2c40
69408 F20110112_AAAFDN patra_r_Page_094.jpg
2111e29b0c87e43bb5355c9667cc4a61
4f26510aaa7693f568f363b712e37995c0334532
17974 F20110112_AAAEYI patra_r_Page_076.pro
d1c259194a95bf1e29aab90dbdbe31d5
29374ee3b2b78e2977476f185f82073426c321de
69171 F20110112_AAAEXU patra_r_Page_086.jpg
4089d7d747172b4267e21a79f8756c0e
1e4bee2b1b79dcf6d2a3e01599639ac4c3c43b0a
62409 F20110112_AAAFED patra_r_Page_125.jpg
e089cbe6d37f386d49adf86453e27887
165cd605df3313651494cebbed1fbb975fe88fdf
57414 F20110112_AAAFDO patra_r_Page_096.jpg
9ccb8648e4ec70ff0a6b1dcfaefaac73
40371f7325bd8eaa11785c9f6b5747a08c0ea771
3774 F20110112_AAAEYJ patra_r_Page_090thm.jpg
1a5c8ccad8fa755ea471de11c3fe111a
24bca70f4ae6a29655cb1b891331658e2292877a
1600 F20110112_AAAEXV patra_r_Page_119.txt
47ffe2a6e049a15a54fd910c54f31b0d
3ef05226c390847111989e88e8ba6ca90bb0646e
65135 F20110112_AAAFEE patra_r_Page_128.jpg
2bcd58b1f982f760af51913f9678b835
dc9ac1aa213e622b4aa75296cf4fc2b2e15dc374
53886 F20110112_AAAFDP patra_r_Page_097.jpg
271ebd97b3d8c5ee81299a0f2f150bf1
447a35e7b4b049cc069853ba850fe48522f6b59b
7119 F20110112_AAAEYK patra_r_Page_101.pro
1daa8047f8ca4014382d25aed80d4ebd
0d43056d5bbd3496dccb9b7ae630a26b2c42b93d
440582 F20110112_AAAEXW patra_r_Page_110.jp2
59e29e31b3dd370c6d301129fe8767da
9a71a7277fe244323c6baed61da3c6b87674e44e
79397 F20110112_AAAFEF patra_r_Page_129.jpg
7efc84e112862959695984e32a53e7c9
d0f37e85616877460232b43c2e0daa80ff27c02d
33035 F20110112_AAAFDQ patra_r_Page_098.jpg
bdbdcfd95001db27b47ed41c5b59638f
d26e91f2d676db697cd761fc01c45e0cfadeaae5
6546 F20110112_AAAEYL patra_r_Page_025thm.jpg
4c619a7589e8398961bd25d44c34711a
59685f6d88bf9285403a9e3ef445c9ded2eae18a
7539 F20110112_AAAEXX patra_r_Page_090.pro
bd6c85b862ab689838d9ea5c059d435b
3f865e9343f8647eb5184e899adf817ce5f9ec85
60561 F20110112_AAAFDR patra_r_Page_104.jpg
ca77095b6f15c1249cded370ba0229d8
a7b89be986dfddc4a8cdbef8c7d97c3b1638cb4a
40996 F20110112_AAAEYM patra_r_Page_035.jpg
eb2ba1f0aa1e936330d45502001eb48c
d096d20b58e5cbc13df3e24eeed7200f1d09ed6d
12551 F20110112_AAAEXY patra_r_Page_104.pro
7fe689c2c788ff98a0ec43316bb47c2f
8ff61af5ddf21c932a23b2767c7d4599b637f592
87225 F20110112_AAAFEG patra_r_Page_130.jpg
d9756d55bb57074ada83116d7fa6813e
e5e8d4272e323658a45cdd387eb3c999ae90e911
387841 F20110112_AAAEZA patra_r_Page_123.jp2
bb88928e5d11c24c0367ebd7ac4c1950
fab4bb68b56ab337236fda40e38502fca6f07dd4
57262 F20110112_AAAFDS patra_r_Page_105.jpg
93534c76624ce8260dc88f339783960d
ae80ba5ab2778f49ff93d50b1b9b0cf81af6b069
4717 F20110112_AAAEYN patra_r_Page_059thm.jpg
630457b8e30533d8f8a332e2fbfc02b6
6ccd9f7163341d6aeaba3484a87aac19199c2022
79908 F20110112_AAAEXZ patra_r_Page_003.pro
b63837afb83d032cdf71f38e7e421d17
a02f32291fde8c3c55d5b1c5114196d05800c4f3
467604 F20110112_AAAFEH patra_r_Page_004.jp2
9a6cdf97d36b241432c5bfaf87119eab
65cd74a22a1be6f97fbddcf8d88c2ec47db2f1c6
71994 F20110112_AAAEZB patra_r_Page_046.jpg
b2c5066ceca3f8f625ca3060ef8add34
52605a38729f28aecd35d3ad3246e31a3c454b45
51090 F20110112_AAAFDT patra_r_Page_106.jpg
a2dabbef7ad8101b182d1dc6f59b4deb
8da7106b9d772aef1ebd5e1e3eefdce4953f518e
4136 F20110112_AAAEYO patra_r_Page_073thm.jpg
39b6507617861e9fb6f526dbf7405124
159dd7468b570450b9e7c82778bc40850874f958
467493 F20110112_AAAFEI patra_r_Page_006.jp2
bfb4e20574fa667952c13b21bc42c44e
a2eff99256f7ab435497edf98f6bab56c2b0256e
F20110112_AAAEZC patra_r_Page_076.tif
82a743e6816abca3cd3860085ab735a1
3681524d799a74173d940b01859ea37e46709a10
62780 F20110112_AAAFDU patra_r_Page_109.jpg
c73f69444262b8341c465c3e2895d223
69e275003d4e07a75d2fdafbba8846662581279b
50378 F20110112_AAAEYP patra_r_Page_071.jp2
898fd9035b5cfc60240c44823eed3ade
21f119b7a8e816e209a35c4f72b185e7b164e8fb
467582 F20110112_AAAFEJ patra_r_Page_008.jp2
a687bf634ebdbda36e696ae20186c8c8
586bb965b5834ccfde7bdaa4a733179a8ac061b9
5400 F20110112_AAAEZD patra_r_Page_088thm.jpg
f43578b6dab7ea65180faeb67c4df3a7
73a81583fe3d4a1b830c94bdb596da7985f0c922
50509 F20110112_AAAFDV patra_r_Page_110.jpg
f2d90ad093d4595ab12a291bfb74a694
002dece818c7ff0cf11c790beef628832fcd7421
5113 F20110112_AAAEYQ patra_r_Page_131.QC.jpg
70161d250ae6ab1685fb3b23c9ae6fa0
23da8878a5d741f6513761c50b7242fd17908c6a
F20110112_AAAFEK patra_r_Page_011.jp2
3fdd1889023dce80004982bfa33990ae
c996438ebc84cd12e00afbaadc7451af357e2d4e
25285 F20110112_AAAEZE patra_r_Page_110.pro
e9f6e00e230770ee9ce057bcf44f7b93
4b19dbbcd94713aa73b79a70aaea8419dd5db1a2
44498 F20110112_AAAFDW patra_r_Page_111.jpg
96f6f068bd02e3a63a98b45042be562e
b8dc0d7a2d104de76136b44a0ad1ad03d9f74457
12308 F20110112_AAAEYR patra_r_Page_058.QC.jpg
f809ba269b2bdcd32a3230ba6f95fd01
bc47e7332bff34b6e216fe950d07322ddf08d657
467587 F20110112_AAAFFA patra_r_Page_062.jp2
84cc0830f877beb940518136ed6acbbc
4dc5c76d0cacf339d459a1810315bfe27fc0542c
23559 F20110112_AAAFEL patra_r_Page_013.jp2
a1d8995ab1e3ba54cc3344c4b1200ba3
ff8b5d79f633687749eaffe55624fff3e06e2341
1873 F20110112_AAAEZF patra_r_Page_121.txt
f80119fd740f7823a2e69c4876ea2003
f40969b2f93478220e0634e88fd379b0d6f07518
54004 F20110112_AAAFDX patra_r_Page_112.jpg
7e7a829ca84e79541aef2c4cea95b2d8
2b1d57890c46399f9d9a36ec4dd136a127e5bb6f
2950 F20110112_AAAEYS patra_r_Page_127.txt
1a3bca2fabe99b0307197b51fd37390b
40bea3efe6284e214b36057d7040ce54eb44ae10
263032 F20110112_AAAFFB patra_r_Page_064.jp2
ca26bff6ee53ea3f6710d70c0d97f35c
00b39c26acf0e15bb19935d70d4dd152bc0de9fc
48498 F20110112_AAAFEM patra_r_Page_015.jp2
9b46db64006779821b21808507c6d978
e180c162cb48f35f6fd9df36c922060053838737
23642 F20110112_AAAEZG patra_r_Page_025.QC.jpg
4b82439ba4eba2588b2d4a38d5262706
fa1409b9ca8b01d2ce5dd210c3e666f7a43d3865
67422 F20110112_AAAFDY patra_r_Page_114.jpg
1f0074c82aa764b14e702fefe8688439
44b80295dd9f48f94b832a2506d3602850a9eda7
F20110112_AAAEYT patra_r_Page_119.tif
7aa363056ea2f55a3033b5ee55340521
d7352a3466e03061ef859017ece196c758613b02
263078 F20110112_AAAFFC patra_r_Page_065.jp2
879cc7c47fe3fbc2f9d764ed42a6e45f
5320687a4b60217e83e41185234797c389b06b39
31005 F20110112_AAAFEN patra_r_Page_016.jp2
741449ee8f1bce95101b82133fa0b6ec
f990d7e0a4462bec7c55cb2d37874d4ac7bd381d
34811 F20110112_AAAEZH patra_r_Page_057.pro
6d7229455eaf0152cc12c0fb826c2d4d
2ec8dc42a900bc0e953e0c175e2fb46b6f653aef
69946 F20110112_AAAFDZ patra_r_Page_116.jpg
b96ecf3bb82d508de30fa5f6411da91f
27e9af3460abceb460bf8c9dd9b9bd7931767b92
29241 F20110112_AAAEYU patra_r_Page_049.pro
35d22b63d97a6b6b7b02305641bc98d5
159942a05d3db3eb41bd72a1e8ae23bcc442ad3a
467608 F20110112_AAAFFD patra_r_Page_066.jp2
20d9464f737c5b73f33ca372b308a060
a4f8bae9ed4771a6a5f1c5729bbb100c92fc1d5b
63177 F20110112_AAAFEO patra_r_Page_018.jp2
24d3c8d74fc42559daff6f078100e3b4
67056a4820b3e5db91657ae75b275ebe00ff0b4a
18529 F20110112_AAAEZI patra_r_Page_051.QC.jpg
b69661142669959bf5f385e0d9bf87da
ba736794da8124ba6278bb0a5eedc6ba2e0dbc90
F20110112_AAAEYV patra_r_Page_116.tif
12cbd99ac646b38592596cbc08c11d52
26f46b91bcd1c923284ef377b26b1c51f0001bfb
256948 F20110112_AAAFFE patra_r_Page_068.jp2
c20a5d495b5df91eb509f5e9f8c41c8f
09dcdccbc139bd52f14da95c9174e11fe4760c97
263042 F20110112_AAAFEP patra_r_Page_021.jp2
e5b2f08d1bdb51789e61014c68f9f4d4
07e94c89fa0c35aad3884968424fccacabf86687
18363 F20110112_AAAEZJ patra_r_Page_093.QC.jpg
5bfa3b5b51c3a66cf0bbdf56acafa101
8809cf04a8ab138b11f4665b5cbc531ccb9bd855
73336 F20110112_AAAEYW patra_r_Page_009.pro
e1c083b735e697c7c16cc98cbb2c4bc4
af50d84a00d64e36034333a242a49373f9a47a20
37218 F20110112_AAAFFF patra_r_Page_072.jp2
21a4fc202b305556ca81edd814ae1de8
b24b4b5e38b198405d4ed62d3766cadc252a0020
48748 F20110112_AAAFEQ patra_r_Page_022.jp2
f3fd999a7bc1cae0f85dc1ed7169ca68
17144c06d05f28bee99b7c1fc25c441ebb7273ea
89391 F20110112_AAAEZK patra_r_Page_127.jp2
7cb1e716a04ce51849d3e048ee0d42b4
218afd885e3a7760a995083ba7136a0c278776ce
263001 F20110112_AAAFFG patra_r_Page_074.jp2
dc9bb93b81c8f2ca9fb09ecc6a7a31ee
4d6e6a53f1efa12987cd3ee1a20c8952b37b5c83
344846 F20110112_AAAFER patra_r_Page_029.jp2
c6893656016c15c0cfa9872418790ee3
3e0babdb97d490bb75fa3d628e5b02eb53191cd8
F20110112_AAAEZL patra_r_Page_006.tif
437cf1808c3480f8cb6a76f24567a390
ab41538e1d7c1e77bf236d374405c6b4f1a83ed5
71337 F20110112_AAAEYX patra_r_Page_044.jpg
9203bc9db673490463d9de779bd61dd7
fdcb090f3e8d634d24dcbd1cb9b430ac8a635d84
467581 F20110112_AAAFES patra_r_Page_030.jp2
efbd04e535f87e35e5dd90772880c223
47211d6af4c1c150df05babe4d5db7d473ed623d
268338 F20110112_AAAEZM patra_r_Page_092.jp2
bafea8600c9a7ac8f9c20bac6c5b47ac
a1da6c06f473aa326cbb968e221d313c94ee911b
6093 F20110112_AAAEYY patra_r_Page_004thm.jpg
bd1b90557409473711619237dec33bee
009da52649bf128109b4a4be77cd35d92f48d0e7
263067 F20110112_AAAFFH patra_r_Page_078.jp2
41c6fe9e8a88b347de6efed70b16b44f
fc06d400fa496aa25a658a7041e4586324edfe75
67051 F20110112_AAAFET patra_r_Page_038.jp2
301d93b014632f374702a11fe9e2452f
1012119399d3d595e5604b146490712437b99374
58787 F20110112_AAAEZN patra_r_Page_067.jpg
4f5250f57dc9b0d6a0d8f440c65e2118
e5c93bb3a4e8f995c391f3b259316ad9c4600189
20868 F20110112_AAAEYZ patra_r_Page_125.QC.jpg
8cb849867d5a381a7adf6ab9efb54d40
d294a816cbd297fa734fef5d79347fad85bd00de
65298 F20110112_AAAFFI patra_r_Page_080.jp2
67fcc33e4b2d7a87e2234dbc4ed4ffd8
834b7b5a21893b785bfa6bb70b221f72f6c7c020
59453 F20110112_AAAFEU patra_r_Page_040.jp2
03448cd8c118073e5029b1ec8ab968a4
bfe2676d5e5c19ed46c668dc0262924925ed3084
8704460 F20110112_AAAEZO patra_r_Page_024.tif
7ac25fe5ffbd5ba095078a58b92bffea
411f91cebdf9ef0114e982ad66a04a567ed43887
58561 F20110112_AAAFFJ patra_r_Page_081.jp2
29a0309f75982a6e1e87e53547f3176d
920d8ac0e5bf50a6ebff750d0600acddac71c7b3
63083 F20110112_AAAFEV patra_r_Page_041.jp2
29cb0e3dfa739c37c290e7fddc7e3528
da831f020e9c54e3940d532fa86f4a63d39d979a
F20110112_AAAEZP patra_r_Page_122.txt
4e9af8dcc02dac11eff76ea903a4b3d0
fcd014e63f25644cca2c2645a36f9d7df87f5711
263070 F20110112_AAAFFK patra_r_Page_087.jp2
36ee9ad4e00c63189aaec1a176131033
f897ec4732b13d37414c8c47762403e5122d0871
263056 F20110112_AAAFEW patra_r_Page_046.jp2
930f132c3f9d985e05b956fafac99a67
05aebb4030b1e02223c40e03a3d5dca775e308be
1203 F20110112_AAAEZQ patra_r_Page_042.txt
1dfc21459b75deba48586be505416017
7f969a5efc0586b7fe7fe5236ab8e7f120e3c990
45924 F20110112_AAAFFL patra_r_Page_089.jp2
c0d5dcf0f2f277dacb27de4266ed97cf
3feee7f5dac9914a2cacae5b1f329566d6371b1d
48324 F20110112_AAAFEX patra_r_Page_048.jp2
af39f5b828d1343eeb5ecc396f4f1d9b
58e0dbf48e7958be809a402fd21332803781dc7a
15355 F20110112_AAAEZR patra_r_Page_065.QC.jpg
23b4bbc0dbe043f25d78f167156b1096
644209904d85549334f875825a57ca8d1a317946
54009 F20110112_AAAFGA patra_r_Page_125.jp2
a7d1792f3bccf883071e9299c01df484
948aa0879d85aecc0a184c18dd8c26627a3218ce
F20110112_AAAFFM patra_r_Page_093.jp2
6528bbacfb0876e4003ab26694e33f0e
1549d818a792a28964defccea1d4953b2975bff5
149368 F20110112_AAAFEY patra_r_Page_049.jp2
127f01624a465afab8a5314c3656bc3e
d85c1172dc4e9889e9a2c266b913f393e3fe35fb
263065 F20110112_AAAEZS patra_r_Page_035.jp2
ee784939d10ef37c41d20b180c63e31d
794096f4b093539bed2006a204fde17abc25a338
56889 F20110112_AAAFGB patra_r_Page_128.jp2
4e1c07031d0f9e180e48b8ab47ce9d47
d2d1d7a03d848cc4d7fb424e5c838236bd2dc950
467599 F20110112_AAAFFN patra_r_Page_095.jp2
024a152c00716aa4055fc8bb9cf7ba8f
de375b80eb70929a39ba046f23b9670a20b14628
65909 F20110112_AAAFEZ patra_r_Page_052.jp2
00b1398293cffebc9ea3600ed0c8257b
404a41a5fd2633a4d0fa4d845a849e65d0340cef
28172 F20110112_AAAEZT patra_r_Page_002.pro
1c1ea605f1b3829c8a5a85d76cbd53f8
1483d3001a0b2c8749195abfde024c85b7ae61df
71748 F20110112_AAAFGC patra_r_Page_129.jp2
656052ce65c66a3952a2532cd0d5442a
7b273e08e63d7740b028379bcec45a7682cc72e9
420086 F20110112_AAAFFO patra_r_Page_097.jp2
5b0896a89b9cced70c5f9bc676db96f4
fea2c107c4d26916b000a668b891d5b0522b4b04
889 F20110112_AAAEZU patra_r_Page_102.txt
93f54d5b674f387cf722c8af6774eece
f6f6388dec2449576e513634ea35545dab213e7f
10050 F20110112_AAAFGD patra_r_Page_131.jp2
f0b2c55dee0f4699d72370ea0cf10f40
da742ac49ace3c95ba15536a9fd664b2d36714be
419868 F20110112_AAAFFP patra_r_Page_099.jp2
49880bc73f375b75488df28e407a0390
977f3712639452bd9b043e24bbcdf9f857642cfd
19526 F20110112_AAAEZV patra_r_Page_050.jp2
6b03033bcd1f069e31c484db057e3fa4
55cf41ed7ab956d1f9a9029dbe3a7ec929b6fe45
F20110112_AAAFGE patra_r_Page_002.tif
02c7a4fa6f005a21a9812f07b8ff17b4
8fa952624b0c00df9529699c06895f93ddc4a58e
402873 F20110112_AAAFFQ patra_r_Page_101.jp2
23d7c0401ae8ddfeb0d8ab46d6fc067e
12ba17add5cf7505a85ee81bab0353100438f709
F20110112_AAAEZW patra_r_Page_030.tif
2aa84c4120995ebf1bce37c87aee1a20
293ff189fc4535f1ab93508449366b4350220c0e
F20110112_AAAFGF patra_r_Page_003.tif
db1bda2994a5d2af411a677c44664da5
ca0aa09115f8f0121f4fe7b9eb651ec6112f6998
42931 F20110112_AAAFFR patra_r_Page_105.jp2
bbd5afabe7857014ffa8b9a85b56aec5
b5d42e82537c6b2ad10045d177eb234663a50e2f
2005 F20110112_AAAEZX patra_r_Page_094.txt
ab550317644235a64e812645abb227ba
65ff479ffc0d0b6aaf32e4b5a09d9c2971a6eb16
F20110112_AAAFGG patra_r_Page_004.tif
27e419bb276151a69872f37d1f2c6336
7c1fdf9f8e7c279cafb99dcdb657ead7c416ac75
43244 F20110112_AAAFFS patra_r_Page_112.jp2
314c375c19f78768df0a79efdd8fb5ba
ea1a91cfb7c53b68677483078be36d5d336322bc
25616 F20110112_AAAEZY patra_r_Page_004.QC.jpg
ecb28430c90cd9864c17586648be1b1a
2463b22d4162593aa620fd29f63d5491b0b0e213
F20110112_AAAFGH patra_r_Page_007.tif
aa2945128dfb9ab10b5be55fa575ea8f
9ebe3d185d98c51590ada4d4929b76cdeffa6395
F20110112_AAAFFT patra_r_Page_114.jp2
14a8483f6bb48a3ed1fc33d06b3907b3
a4ed71033ca578c30c41bf8918294df2ecb0f2de
6719 F20110112_AAAEZZ patra_r_Page_094thm.jpg
cb0dfcfaaef86ce7ec19564f02f1cac6
926a937d5f345659e8fcbab7bf34238122c676f6
F20110112_AAAFGI patra_r_Page_009.tif
b6aac5250b52631dc10fae2f19eabb0e
50558301f6796ba2fd228e88c9cd88caa284f8b9
467596 F20110112_AAAFFU patra_r_Page_115.jp2
e74136a57342e40259b11800649fd4f3
2f1e6eff711d842a38db001d9e42380600b15063
F20110112_AAAFGJ patra_r_Page_011.tif
70e3a4cbe4d851f578c4221a6a3bcf50
157e501191c227b49e457c0a354689bca46f647d
49837 F20110112_AAAFFV patra_r_Page_116.jp2
50d77fa7b86ebef1e743881e4258116c
853a9d477e48bf25063f352a47d718836f7e81e8
F20110112_AAAFGK patra_r_Page_013.tif
078e848d060eae47eb63097017d860c7
dd38172c40000ee0c9017fcf1c335080d08ab3b5
56497 F20110112_AAAFFW patra_r_Page_118.jp2
ba195908686fd5d0f527330a1c767fbd
8803f444fba9b2ca70250605bf45b92f6aeeaea6
F20110112_AAAFHA patra_r_Page_046.tif
3afa1c5fe153114ba902ce80975a5db7
0f41e54f316310dc85a6fcba38d1b761b2d1283d
F20110112_AAAFGL patra_r_Page_014.tif
81e768ad90d08d97127a5e54bc60e2d8
10a8da270f8eac4efeb113e44d63aef81a555b32
39455 F20110112_AAAFFX patra_r_Page_120.jp2
acaa7f1a1caaaeae3306b27368762147
cd4334e09e8d396387d08d904d8938a1b01433dc
F20110112_AAAFHB patra_r_Page_050.tif
77c6cbda901dba3533aa3e2f8642ec2e
82d09f5f4cba3befa07076936907dc201f1278af
F20110112_AAAFGM patra_r_Page_016.tif
86c24f3d9f4d0c40122b1ca3e7cb488a
171f4388e3ae11010030cf2e48e528c0f8f77451
58122 F20110112_AAAFFY patra_r_Page_122.jp2
3a91aaac72113d49281e065722a0f594
cf04065713f04919825b879925de9487860be003
5622584 F20110112_AAAFHC patra_r_Page_051.tif
182ce39b94f14cc42f08393082cb319c
73fb89669050d20f76273585373a99787cd4640a
F20110112_AAAFGN patra_r_Page_017.tif
ad5f6a654e5786f690143869dcd759b9
56f27cbe1dfa8167c5e255f4b449919551b2439c
28958 F20110112_AAAFFZ patra_r_Page_124.jp2
06223d080c90f76e466ce31ff39ce7e3
8c4e48649332325af99e5379163afc19b71d19d4
F20110112_AAAFHD patra_r_Page_054.tif
ae25cda2832d7c52706a998e4598e809
69c18477ca907255d2f8ba4da9cd4d80a577c00b
F20110112_AAAFGO patra_r_Page_018.tif
7c690d311b489c3eaa183701ed514ae9
8507f64e5a5acfb78482b714e3e844b66651f184
F20110112_AAAFHE patra_r_Page_055.tif
978b21cd44b814ab8f41556ba55b01c2
4200054b006d6179a4690340a79f3c6bec4a8511
F20110112_AAAFGP patra_r_Page_019.tif
ae9ef04d30d7860e0d655247000cb0bc
10025099768dad952eb5181950fc33f8abc02591
F20110112_AAAFHF patra_r_Page_062.tif
c9e8a438128a7b92e8adf63fbaa74983
6d04d6224c020573514f93b2bee8d0a3e2f15a43
F20110112_AAAFGQ patra_r_Page_026.tif
c1c7c8056366d4fcdfc4cc2c5c1cdc6c
6acc593b7d5385ff22047d57732c9aedac89ad63
F20110112_AAAFHG patra_r_Page_065.tif
af4005dda9a9dd6ab5e9a8ba89133831
43ac7bd2d4942f50f8f36593b09bf6e6145e0576
F20110112_AAAFGR patra_r_Page_028.tif
f0a667277bbb7fb00c0d63c578c29fe6
be7334393dd0b20c957b40909ea9c999ab6a9237
F20110112_AAAFHH patra_r_Page_067.tif
12f7a33c06cffa334c0c35425303cceb
92e6562958952ba44e77c87393d7d2a6f8c1c91b
8027894 F20110112_AAAFGS patra_r_Page_032.tif
18c730610db2051df3b22f73aedabfe5
49bf568c1136637c24f0171f67e5b3bb8531fc53
F20110112_AAAFHI patra_r_Page_070.tif
22e0326e9baa18201d3be14c74b3b720
2cbd56fc3796ff1737faeb0e496d462771909b89
F20110112_AAAFGT patra_r_Page_036.tif
5f8f9d31d4f7e81a09f7a822591fff09
7d0365dea676780e7ec77ef80d8dd6a2d32c5494
F20110112_AAAFGU patra_r_Page_038.tif
95f7b0731d27a1c54220715c0c920614
2e9f2d7736f09e3bd214ea2a7e8214c16a58dcd3
F20110112_AAAFHJ patra_r_Page_072.tif
921f2214c407ce30654bdd50f1d5c3b0
e577243df1560718e2a6a0319f70941cb6633ec2
F20110112_AAAFGV patra_r_Page_040.tif
da88c68c1799fc284f15c4b6dd6a2eaa
f1240deef315bd983429ecd3990473bacdc04f22
F20110112_AAAFHK patra_r_Page_074.tif
cf8323e3bf9fc5597f947a3ee7eedb98
2824922e0b30aeda44d468b3445e1fccb56b5e8e
F20110112_AAAFGW patra_r_Page_041.tif
ded9b016a6ab9ca53da8369c7cc5597c
cb858bc7c4b2dc5f458252dbbfe7fb5db361bb97
11691444 F20110112_AAAFHL patra_r_Page_075.tif
69010e1228290f08ac512f8eaec5aed0
9a9564736e9b295653da85a7212bf88f0db556ca
5044632 F20110112_AAAFGX patra_r_Page_042.tif
b1cb798fcf55b9d7e20db8ddc20ed066
3b8655b452ad605982677dec3e5c4077b6c57453
F20110112_AAAFIA patra_r_Page_121.tif
384445205d0bc620c6fa820e40e25fbb
c99b8532f4485ce49ab261c4ffcebf28bec3a71f
F20110112_AAAFHM patra_r_Page_080.tif
6d8c679831ada58eab04e3c02dc52c1d
15c1e34e91b2b1245cc5ab4fdb11d8ceda0ee14d
F20110112_AAAFGY patra_r_Page_043.tif
5871336e6a02d0864769c98d823bb021
339c41920072cd007dff9485011e9763945a6690
F20110112_AAAFIB patra_r_Page_124.tif
d5e185ced47980e40f83bcdc87714230
f8d15f5fe015d03cbf10341db5cd801563fb2cc6
F20110112_AAAFHN patra_r_Page_083.tif
1da1bb12dc2dd880b7f268e44fcc583f
f21783ca2002a3c50b0f778aa153005944d7cad0
F20110112_AAAFGZ patra_r_Page_045.tif
cbd034d394fedae26bbc304477152b63
93d44340791927bf4b41ad1407c8305830fe3931
F20110112_AAAFIC patra_r_Page_128.tif
9cad3113862ed4b06be2bfbe0ca5231a
bb7a0b18b8eceef93e2b35189f7dadfeab22b935
F20110112_AAAFHO patra_r_Page_085.tif
5a76355d886de7d2e991461e7a666024
b500547c745a05c413fbc0a3aef1741145f69e41
F20110112_AAAFID patra_r_Page_130.tif
33a34b70da750f3bf43ac099e9dc2e49
d25a986e78f31a15f3611e79e11617c658894df0
F20110112_AAAFHP patra_r_Page_086.tif
414bad4fb1a8f7577071870ab80c1d0a
23d04d7f4a777a176681c2f2c36b661fab63d169
F20110112_AAAFIE patra_r_Page_131.tif
c8d7c945f87da861c0790da89c7d1c9c
f921e753bee3c1cecf069ef0f3ca9e237b8118a1
F20110112_AAAFHQ patra_r_Page_091.tif
07a312916c7b62f73b76d14d4872ded3
99c9f715243c8541917b99812d659008247ee6ed
7962 F20110112_AAAFIF patra_r_Page_001.pro
0097dc3bf3396dd8a6f6e3b10900ecf1
8564e53ca136472dbd305812f5666a5a792b994b
F20110112_AAAFHR patra_r_Page_095.tif
7f26e593ef6c30e7da7ebc47acde6da3
b567729806384bcca4990ce9c00475de8a2514ef
113277 F20110112_AAAFIG patra_r_Page_004.pro
15865563d62374dbf541b5e4e5a619f0
b6b2e1d8c13ca01594e2b1520c896477756b5888
F20110112_AAAFHS patra_r_Page_102.tif
a7f1f6278cb609b07e80e394661d6034
ecf8a023435acce74ad8076dcd2599a19c27c6d2
47203 F20110112_AAAFIH patra_r_Page_005.pro
415fcf7c2db855fd8c9c4e3085ae4524
47a6f401a900432f2d2305a1b00f158069c8781a
1580910 F20110112_AAAFHT patra_r_Page_104.tif
8c8b69a90d8770a1aa2f5c9462ffd43c
e2446492305b5d30821a92ffb10cd14407055a6d
55471 F20110112_AAAFII patra_r_Page_006.pro
77178c265eb05e2b0dd99cc5f54bd622
bc45e342ed42f1a5de9d3efde9a5d292eca1a174
F20110112_AAAFHU patra_r_Page_105.tif
47709bd308868831f9f389378cf20167
401ac383756a2cd4b54203aff9c1c10f239fdf5c
43972 F20110112_AAAFIJ patra_r_Page_007.pro
bc868bd541c6fc5f27e5e15caa90edb3
3538e9b31a14d9f9825431c5f92a3bab05900a65
F20110112_AAAFHV patra_r_Page_110.tif
6a714aaf9bbb3ff4c1d1b84586c8a2e0
d4c1ba63d724e293a54c3f81d03beaa6aa0e3495
F20110112_AAAFHW patra_r_Page_111.tif
f00b48d1606936e17d8a549bc0355f31
5ebd87315dda247fa0fd3b02e50ce6172d51162f
35623 F20110112_AAAFIK patra_r_Page_015.pro
d2d51adea6fa46ef00782c8c955b3c48
4b084300ddb320cf7f3731ba8353de18443bb0f9
F20110112_AAAFHX patra_r_Page_112.tif
ab90462a6d81dfa14c5d8d9c7b5bd75e
28acc4e2d95f26038f2084d6791a24d9a320e883
48903 F20110112_AAAFJA patra_r_Page_047.pro
52eb32d2b23ad052629dce1b824fadd3
420edc17fb86590b3c2f80a0f9b712e22d079cb7
22771 F20110112_AAAFIL patra_r_Page_016.pro
20e128f356bb1a65a8bb314aab972654
a9574607f3746a29e31187426c9d5446f25787bb
F20110112_AAAFHY patra_r_Page_113.tif
22b69d78cae99efb98149ba766582d1b
47037cd3b0464cf6b8faa391dd2288be8310a88c
35553 F20110112_AAAFJB patra_r_Page_048.pro
310e4c366311cc9e2bc0ba83f1ace3a5
81e4a1c865b757d785552e2fb847777f80ec1ecc
48566 F20110112_AAAFIM patra_r_Page_018.pro
5b49eff20b4b32c528ffe0afacec7acb
42a3b8d4158acb09400adeffad867ee67455df84
F20110112_AAAFHZ patra_r_Page_117.tif
9fc326c4ac194e0123584a8ab9a2ce41
670d155d1ab266ea32b81640f3b13b03c5eef663
13503 F20110112_AAAFJC patra_r_Page_050.pro
5ac017bbc6c5529260a862dcad615a81
bf2e2f3a005d3292f2b8471035cf815a88530c2f
42405 F20110112_AAAFIN patra_r_Page_019.pro
e3e7bc9763e56af1015cf6ee77dc1a0b
9bffd8387f53901b32dcfebf2e076aa09d4710ce
22748 F20110112_AAAFJD patra_r_Page_051.pro
4f48bfd5572f615deb350b8be4b921ba
e624a6d93e70960de07949105c67e22aa857a1fc
37109 F20110112_AAAFIO patra_r_Page_022.pro
9d135fc148cd14ec73621a6943754ab4
96ceb92267e9f06493285c139d9d0fdc2360464a
25460 F20110112_AAAFJE patra_r_Page_056.pro
09983dd04d57173f34ce760af459f825
5577d25bc3c783615a7aaf2e837b084928c1595f
51830 F20110112_AAAFIP patra_r_Page_026.pro
37e6aba367fde1ef11bfa70f8528d110
afd9728febbf932680d385d091139f92bc7011eb
8180 F20110112_AAAFJF patra_r_Page_058.pro
fb7e68fef55284ac40d00ce3236255d1
07b7015d4594b737d8353c5ac295adbc1a4f7e5b
23691 F20110112_AAAFIQ patra_r_Page_027.pro
65aa0a0b6bbe5c2e02964c4d0c797eff
ad7c7cb5ad15dbf7be6c42fe50be417cc50292aa
12958 F20110112_AAAFJG patra_r_Page_059.pro
f0280264ab556e906f7a31b08991b0b5
279f8fd8322b01f302d6c33a551a7bb23bef59a7
17938 F20110112_AAAFIR patra_r_Page_029.pro
46d21aacb6fa6671b839eb4d32d68669
c091f7d7487c0aab0d55a80efd96ef86e9673a1b
24686 F20110112_AAAFJH patra_r_Page_060.pro
efb95b881d22a9c1da008c927bd2fa99
a4c67199b6c5a3d486fe9562d6d91978a88c7fba
31059 F20110112_AAAFIS patra_r_Page_030.pro
24df1766857584f43ac2f1b26103614f
e38b755fb9f6988ca64aa63221b707ee2b7d31f9
18249 F20110112_AAAFJI patra_r_Page_061.pro
80991779176201156c081484e5782499
0bcb84ca1447f608c3135be0adc52b6ee918c3e6
39548 F20110112_AAAFIT patra_r_Page_032.pro
07ccba57d3f6d43d942c6866eb42237c
48ea3407b8cad5f13abc6b79255d205a1ce78366
31316 F20110112_AAAFJJ patra_r_Page_063.pro
04c2e22d6bb2d5483cbe2c61f299de16
d25d2e79a01923d2ee4aa606133203e5cc2455c4
54099 F20110112_AAAFIU patra_r_Page_033.pro
91fa838790d768f7e06c2b38ebb86ead
ef41f1d1a57a32454e72058a2c824e2abc502363
13830 F20110112_AAAFJK patra_r_Page_064.pro
be624f13fde15a4dd240350156474db5
c6dce789a1db5c011059bb27a0c9e9c3fb894ae3
65753 F20110112_AAAFIV patra_r_Page_034.pro
d53b6716eeac3a71933c7ea5da53389b
fb838be76d76d3f19651341d2ebb2c56ba228e6a
18927 F20110112_AAAFIW patra_r_Page_035.pro
24e083a274a5893eafd1c0f5f0f2f891
5e2f9bb1ef4c86e6b8676329d13f635e2db1f533
30528 F20110112_AAAFKA patra_r_Page_109.pro
eef9d5cc481672087ea93c98695515dd
01ee03a228887684209033838a76aec9f9fcf938
35780 F20110112_AAAFJL patra_r_Page_066.pro
4118403e1c11557c8dbe792de708d8d0
cfb6f559cdf67ce2653f7b49fa0146adb0355670
46051 F20110112_AAAFIX patra_r_Page_040.pro
e109efb512adbb62be6c83e65f1ec3cf
ed61852daf575b36df69a93b63d08401bc0904f6
30096 F20110112_AAAFKB patra_r_Page_111.pro
d54fdc56c72b889f01fab450687c7d48
58caf0b04aa834c15dc6eb4140a5bd19c6afd1bf
37122 F20110112_AAAFJM patra_r_Page_067.pro
69ee625befd74b136cca82702046ef37
b77a9373a1742920a486ba200dba99cffd5d8d55
47683 F20110112_AAAFIY patra_r_Page_044.pro
5cd7e56c864955919dff9d8bcaeb966d
3a1bd2b96da99a1475b54562b88342898e0c8785
23353 F20110112_AAAEHA patra_r_Page_047.QC.jpg
5c267b57068a1a428a2c126b8b91c447
20485d3e8d7895692ca337617ab6eed345bdd37f
35635 F20110112_AAAFKC patra_r_Page_112.pro
0871e9080ebc2b6b68c642954835e644
53c9afb07f7dd8a148cf2b318129bf1a6ff7b3ec
28505 F20110112_AAAFJN patra_r_Page_072.pro
628230646b6d6d705af826fa8ee0bbb6
a20e9b1acbdf364b89d62acf257865268a8a33b5
26871 F20110112_AAAFIZ patra_r_Page_046.pro
d515018c7c7bbdd4acb75ab06111ad15
2383c71134e443a8a1bbad8bf6bc11a05e320049
41193 F20110112_AAAEHB patra_r_Page_063.jp2
11b71dc063053fd1b54cb2d20bd9ba21
95f4bc4b84b0243466b64c1af76c290109a1a878
31250 F20110112_AAAFKD patra_r_Page_113.pro
303004ae95c1b759659bd4dc81fd923c
28f869fdc9ae925845152cc45daf37815d1058b8
10786 F20110112_AAAFJO patra_r_Page_075.pro
74f65b6bb960555e4e29fd162a43f0e4
edc5f742956ab5485420aafd098b3adca01fcf2e
3412 F20110112_AAAEHC patra_r_Page_013thm.jpg
4888c67872af3491adab72681596e063
3386a86da68c44d1e9abd8b8309bca1145a8df0f
41737 F20110112_AAAFKE patra_r_Page_114.pro
beb755675f8d0f839dbc5a31d6fca424
a61b0493341a3eaf0e4bc0def121c4b5966c1dad
4875 F20110112_AAAEGN patra_r_Page_100thm.jpg
bd68b3d9b6a6c576a204cb425d25c6d3
29fa966ec6e9dfc6534ddf8769155c236d7850c4
41786 F20110112_AAAFJP patra_r_Page_079.pro
b3f950e9fd35b93b11edb4cdf7027b9b
619c0460c353ae7a270a8c722bd620c2bd280c28
F20110112_AAAEHD patra_r_Page_077.tif
eb5b0114fae93d50d6ab535b1ea3329a
2161f97baeb5e27a7f56145821464cbc0a0e3f65
37012 F20110112_AAAFKF patra_r_Page_116.pro
4a6280eca0e7ae114db985f53627300f
3f6167a3b566f73453f106d32d346c11ef7671b5
18857 F20110112_AAAEGO patra_r_Page_073.pro
c3a49e143c1ce673844095bd899cb7df
8b9c68a553646f00c92d0590ea32bf2a1398df5e
46342 F20110112_AAAFJQ patra_r_Page_082.pro
e1e60b75ea771852fe1d20ba2850f63b
8bd31acbc79c83c2f937ee8b373e6a17a235d9ee
20447 F20110112_AAAEHE patra_r_Page_078.pro
47016dae143b16a76a3aaadc664c2e05
11403e8a369c39e6e43c49989d8629a14780cf87
45060 F20110112_AAAFKG patra_r_Page_118.pro
b4535f2a74059e9ce453b0309012ebcf
27d8288a1acb2cc7a26519fcd41e461d7eef2cdd
4483 F20110112_AAAEGP patra_r_Page_070thm.jpg
da01974e2e21d8a89ad5d07553eb03fd
5f3a819cca49a65778536538edd47d1dce1e2fc6
27752 F20110112_AAAFJR patra_r_Page_083.pro
34939d2dabd5eeeaa81f8c71af314fc1
bc80ac429cd0f7c294612f5d79f2c935330b4875
4642 F20110112_AAAEHF patra_r_Page_007thm.jpg
fbfe11ca1f4ab0c6e7ec14f3b83984fd
1dcfa2a8e77353bd4ee560078685930809b35369
29748 F20110112_AAAFKH patra_r_Page_120.pro
165c662d185c4998f4b42bc3c0d589ba
2e2e46fa6bd6225eb8f8c8469520fab467afa111
48290 F20110112_AAAEGQ patra_r_Page_122.pro
0f118616544bc73bb59004e5cea37fe6
f26c90e097868fde3492a98c2d5d6b68c980ba9c
23887 F20110112_AAAFJS patra_r_Page_087.pro
6be48eb721112d600096081e6cefd2c4
3d08e2d4210452a1a269d6c3c19dcd525ae2d791
59369 F20110112_AAAEHG patra_r_Page_008.pro
fdccb8ff1e9f4dc83ca46830a6d89979
4c8e8696410e5ced5ece61cdb187eb05d8f6c835
36994 F20110112_AAAFKI patra_r_Page_121.pro
4ec4a1714b76599342920fc312f2c27f
606fd0a2699c4e07cca501dcabc2a4bf83791c07
15100 F20110112_AAAEGR patra_r_Page_001.jp2
5187dbb7e62e951a82ade609bac7fc36
40fe45a7712f8882bf1467a793112ec545cd4807
34990 F20110112_AAAFJT patra_r_Page_089.pro
b41b5b9281194682d0e6d8163735dcaa
5d436ba5ddc536d70174d00e104efe391f04e072
41553 F20110112_AAAFKJ patra_r_Page_125.pro
8fb13cbb137aadd4982842938e2231f0
74854ec45f3c363b9df55146368df1a10c9b9cd8
6493 F20110112_AAAEGS patra_r_Page_100.pro
b44646f4801bc5e4f511d689b601f729
2dd669c3095820a8c1ede2ecb9f9f2fc1fb1953e
19007 F20110112_AAAFJU patra_r_Page_092.pro
45db8d1e46f1ed9a10ef75ca5a24f5a0
183226baeaa45e938dce9e17111b0dae69d36590
1528 F20110112_AAAEHH patra_r_Page_069.txt
eb9ccd3274a90d3c1ce7f3b244b9ac55
303716ab461570c9c44ce0de6a0ae6731f600f7c
59508 F20110112_AAAFKK patra_r_Page_126.pro
bbc7dd7f903ce24c213d48fbc2ffc54f
d56a22982be76a5d4c33a35a9da9279cd38d59b9
59020 F20110112_AAAEGT patra_r_Page_051.jpg
7c0b09684f2f7e43801c01fe7bc725c0
6e65ef6e62416255f8521485f5557d3307bd35b0
25336 F20110112_AAAFJV patra_r_Page_093.pro
ef643008408286af4228d99f5c00d9ad
b423339313c57613fdd5b3cd0496dd590049d6a3
26841 F20110112_AAAEHI patra_r_Page_014.jpg
3c080a5e862dfacd413414afe9924a98
56eccb2ae88471c810b0b53b8fc0693074ba5243
74227 F20110112_AAAFKL patra_r_Page_127.pro
c8134b4fe901f1d234916f0b54667a98
1614a889d26d12c48d6c1ef78f7c0490568e3bec
F20110112_AAAEGU patra_r_Page_097.tif
3fdbec18ae81e0fa2dd52dbdd5c41798
0766dbca4136c2d708695356f9bdc86342bae130
47067 F20110112_AAAFJW patra_r_Page_094.pro
11f91b0a9ae3750b65e03aad5765e9be
aada99e3c0f851cb055cf464ace7069a7d3b5ae4
66218 F20110112_AAAEHJ patra_r_Page_085.jp2
73cff206b66d2d456340b5afb5ba6cec
1ff7129ec9fed49d168ec876d80b3f82641e24b7
1616 F20110112_AAAFLA patra_r_Page_028.txt
c204f48a224fa561934ad89b45dde02a
cb5e48d3c4dd21314c909cf9714081d3e87055ab
7050 F20110112_AAAEGV patra_r_Page_034thm.jpg
375da2e2c6acde80520cc80ffa8820b8
f58bc777855d78d98dd50730a057c6fa1d3a825e
6013 F20110112_AAAFJX patra_r_Page_097.pro
7dbc1c6b9a7159751d1a7544e26ce55e
b5b6ae7845ff590f4dde45c37ca250505c427bcd
1524 F20110112_AAAFLB patra_r_Page_030.txt
b40a4bf1541344e7d569f395d36a3576
8aeb15bad34c168b2cb5c9f995e06501f6aaf1d3
60527 F20110112_AAAFKM patra_r_Page_130.pro
cbe0bca45081658be126f572ae521e77
492fa44b5c94af4a6a87b8e79e754d8e4c69371f
F20110112_AAAEGW patra_r_Page_101.tif
690dc37631f78e21870b26b4dded04df
89d940e915532ba5afadecaeecd50c428a06c060
23433 F20110112_AAAFJY patra_r_Page_106.pro
8e4590e9d93a4157ed129072194c1b59
6bf16e676e7fea49152f6061565c373a5ca5ab78
58200 F20110112_AAAEHK patra_r_Page_082.jp2
4e4759ff8723c3afc91cfe21ea15492c
997c1fb2c881412cbd1aa62c93d214c76bfbf8ff
2083 F20110112_AAAFLC patra_r_Page_031.txt
3a82a35e9800caeb2fb0352645453a28
da9de326f672b3b4fa01b0f61f50e62d4f849859
3388 F20110112_AAAFKN patra_r_Page_003.txt
dc54337077aa01a8515c2d1416a27a73
e6cbf06db54c2bb133930cbcd6f993aee2cd7e0e
7065 F20110112_AAAEGX patra_r_Page_033thm.jpg
bd2e64500f91dc43aaccb77d42d6d10c
fed885482d7c01d3618211ee50967355cf7cfc98
35908 F20110112_AAAFJZ patra_r_Page_107.pro
3a4985c2821f061c6944ea1be9c038e7
99a0d90632544aa4327b37455a78298805e470b4
19991 F20110112_AAAEIA patra_r_Page_070.pro
56bfd41606f0b934eabb7ac97019f93b
bbd2fbf75484a115caa9df18d839f8e3c611815e
1288 F20110112_AAAEHL patra_r_Page_070.txt
23aec2502adf3c4880e532a096526c6b
51251c74473a8afea63de27b7cc5d68e292529e1
1167 F20110112_AAAFLD patra_r_Page_035.txt
61b580e9e07f94acc3884fc531602ccc
dab5c6768219609869073d66ef348d88a2e88aa5
4675 F20110112_AAAFKO patra_r_Page_004.txt
6a6582e07d93dcd80ea2fb1ebf050e90
fcdf3da1a4c04fe9c9eb28a97cd7637ac587834a
51130 F20110112_AAAEGY patra_r_Page_080.pro
90381c91b1d199040dea9cec9daa82ec
de609fe09518835d90b65e8dd9f44a90a4ebef42
2841 F20110112_AAAEIB patra_r_Page_050thm.jpg
621f2ad47a31004db9c7790e968e4390
de24f2bd4e5a739e055975bffd741c96290edfce
15118 F20110112_AAAEHM patra_r_Page_060.QC.jpg
0303e8f9daad89c7d01ed5b08c52980e
8a074a6be200c04c9e14e5ac9bf5676cd9d8d9eb
1987 F20110112_AAAFLE patra_r_Page_036.txt
70b688d74f60461993127f1a276e48b5
3bcb944973061318b564c30aced3fa3a95ae64eb
2165 F20110112_AAAFKP patra_r_Page_006.txt
dae7d4f1bc78fb34387db50f34f5bb6a
4d46f3f7420e7c94cac0f472b0ae23f5f0c416f4
F20110112_AAAEGZ patra_r_Page_010.tif
eddb4a55492de2389b04f709fbc2eec6
87737bef81e0be837b21f1c3b6c69aa8646d8750
2242 F20110112_AAAEIC patra_r_Page_129.txt
6aac3be7ffbe9224a4baa150e46ac524
327e0b103d812070b0b5ebf2f66f4f1d96efd891
6090 F20110112_AAAEHN patra_r_Page_024thm.jpg
d571a283a7ec245eb176922668b08c63
d9c93aff515427c108e7aa4edf5fe74be2356f2d
2732 F20110112_AAAFLF patra_r_Page_037.txt
2d03fd4b6776195c381c7aee57a4d8f6
320ac646f15155f587c653b19289724a1b9a73c6
1743 F20110112_AAAFKQ patra_r_Page_007.txt
618a8a814b5f80aefc88c9cc4775c735
b40dc64ede98af620cfc344064212c64894fa605
F20110112_AAAEID patra_r_Page_059.tif
0d7829d0896e010e9fd0e4a921a06b11
a724978422cab170098fff3351605965938e1a5e
6275 F20110112_AAAEHO patra_r_Page_042thm.jpg
1fbc34e1c40043bab4548d747933bd4c
038e55a3c1116bd757ff1a2d30ce99ec2f612347
1830 F20110112_AAAFLG patra_r_Page_040.txt
c94665ee1bf3fa8f6bcbf7159db0beab
1d790394680ab8c9213685a4ddfef2328f07395f
75872 F20110112_AAAEIE patra_r_Page_043.jpg
c43c3ed9b0b3ebb6593f63db543742a8
ef91aa5e0b4e6fa1a910058a26723cc46b722822
467562 F20110112_AAAEHP patra_r_Page_088.jp2
170c17d044fbf1495b90ec32e0282d90
62c59f0294d4283d66777eb06d460ec7ccf2384c
2886 F20110112_AAAFKR patra_r_Page_009.txt
20d57b9fb2e04d7b7174e8435ca84ffb
449b71a94aed614a6022a1c606b46aeb15799191
1669 F20110112_AAAFLH patra_r_Page_049.txt
90deeeb9a03fa7d7eed3ab08613d024d
c456ba8bd7f266e307f3703871bda0aff9fe2d69
2652 F20110112_AAAEIF patra_r_Page_034.txt
eef2e807ead6aa7dc43bd3b94e8180b2
71021b42804619a2d2681900f509459295e2ae34
54118 F20110112_AAAEHQ patra_r_Page_103.jpg
03d586e435638df1d69c982fa5700f86
49b2a4297fadc5b5790f04ef8d5957699b0436ea
583 F20110112_AAAFKS patra_r_Page_013.txt
90097c7bd86d9f6b0feb96528a00465b
1510035829f2e9970093e22cd2cff86d9f03d129
1955 F20110112_AAAFLI patra_r_Page_053.txt
028523b740ae81681dce7635838e6eca
0e8bd333fd9cc596be8d95f85dabf223f8fb9196
596 F20110112_AAAFKT patra_r_Page_014.txt
4fa3c1d0251f102e7450d191b567df99
348f09e975dc231aaff64820ac0d5a06cb988cc3
36895 F20110112_AAAEIG patra_r_Page_075.jpg
97a50e5e1b334c8367a4ac4e6ffbbbf6
dc18e0429453ed27f06c6f3553640bf1a9428ade
F20110112_AAAEHR patra_r_Page_103.tif
c3c41546c5973c714a4e4b52d6662bcf
6c23d9a60d6b5d5582d6c6e5d371e2bd1caf9bec
577 F20110112_AAAFLJ patra_r_Page_058.txt
56e83a86f1d381f4a0b35d9662fd9033
d9cf17db6e8548a49725b028dbdf2e6d1169b565
1613 F20110112_AAAFKU patra_r_Page_015.txt
5c2ee837d6233a6e53199892394537bc
7ddaf67dce906182be28d51afd1aee2b8242a911
467580 F20110112_AAAEIH patra_r_Page_102.jp2
039015f97d9e45a1227bd9df985dd7eb
0d1a061dd7080ce93572e2a14bc1fc1ed593fc96
3551 F20110112_AAAEHS patra_r_Page_068thm.jpg
d4059ad803e4f991d7012979cda4431e
74145b0de95034305e133c3919ad1a4f77e8baf3
641 F20110112_AAAFLK patra_r_Page_059.txt
de5ec2c5b6d7283ce8f1372a61121db9
79f11a020146a4359743beff0b99b511be3ee523
1809 F20110112_AAAFKV patra_r_Page_019.txt
b2106e8447db1b6328216cb10936a238
21a74f52336dd4c2ee96fc5ea297aa347fb3ae2f
912 F20110112_AAAEII patra_r_Page_016.txt
65f3b69eb3fb668826245363ace8402f
d40b8a323d938ba05ebc1074ef3ac181842723e2
F20110112_AAAEHT patra_r_Page_033.tif
21c74a19d88a5bd70bbb1b7e43d23e67
907bf0da8730c6263a43ef7242f1279a159d969c
1746 F20110112_AAAFLL patra_r_Page_067.txt
ab2e179ac37fe91834f45ca699e2cec1
618650d44cd07333cbdcbc762391e4cc62ad1869
1132 F20110112_AAAFKW patra_r_Page_023.txt
f51ceed7d6d651408a79b26a958b84c9
7c6c0049d4a37340026a9e3d00a7f9ef0e66a93b
1376 F20110112_AAAEIJ patra_r_Page_063.txt
fdfeb5efe18261c62fb41314cd0c7dfe
136f14c439b8e7cbc81f9c12e26dbf23ad25d94e
F20110112_AAAEHU patra_r_Page_107.tif
5abd3acd46374de090994a0aa1537ecb
04759ac86513a985de2cbe397a03ec785330c3b4
607 F20110112_AAAFMA patra_r_Page_098.txt
b6b2186622d89b4107354600f13a93bf
e68292f027ed79c1025fd20d99c298ba6b93573c
1489 F20110112_AAAFLM patra_r_Page_074.txt
fef85c5184f7de50ef57f918a168034c
686ece00734febabc8f4bd3405f051bc2096f771
1041 F20110112_AAAFKX patra_r_Page_024.txt
6227c412f51b4dd495433df26e379ab7
274f611f9403a2eafa85b0404afdf5f258707ede
6060 F20110112_AAAEIK patra_r_Page_118thm.jpg
7b7f647193aca2b0c81708622c66e591
cfde0ae2f7b871418a479e36dcc4b8c94b42b906
1177 F20110112_AAAEHV patra_r_Page_002.txt
7f454489b884e7bc472b1ed05a29ecc7
a5b4f1442c7d74fdaab46ad03f5d45eda0ee9d27
F20110112_AAAFMB patra_r_Page_099.txt
446549c55bd0e64845a5fb767a9c7186
79c027f140415bf433ed21b62f4c6a594010e48a
2033 F20110112_AAAFKY patra_r_Page_026.txt
68ee3de76db6dddd42b0cd2a5a8e69df
120bdea7ccda111abf638f273017d02dabb2f0a1
65471 F20110112_AAAEHW patra_r_Page_108.jpg
c0846a87070b4ee8b71ff57196f5f247
3979faa9878ab727adca7b5fee8fd5cc5e8dfd65
684 F20110112_AAAFMC patra_r_Page_104.txt
46d706f850db81d80f187a01544c13c9
73d1555786b6d21729c7a87a09d366c646c83e4c
882 F20110112_AAAFLN patra_r_Page_076.txt
8534c2f616a2c2cbf200c086af92be18
c5b4d7652501eb63d3bb38b6b260bf4fb9b18cf4
935 F20110112_AAAFKZ patra_r_Page_027.txt
4c72612b0b4ff82401840b8f0e0ad174
267a311dd2ac33f22077d2c258c56aab5deeb019
6937 F20110112_AAAEJA patra_r_Page_099.pro
943f1c1fb8c746d8cdfd236da5a4a130
898de55e40fe3eddbf67e945cf880014e9d851fe
40324 F20110112_AAAEIL patra_r_Page_111.jp2
906404f0b0fa50134905248262563e95
b2682d22b91b5dc5ee051cdaac42fbe945fa9db0
43857 F20110112_AAAEHX patra_r_Page_081.pro
956fe4eebc178b13d8f875d2fbf38cea
a4a8a05672d799b34d3eac44e57bb953adf06160
1051 F20110112_AAAFMD patra_r_Page_105.txt
c05a922635ccfd2e9a5e4b9c50c910c8
cd043051d80f198c25e6788eaf67726197933927
1118 F20110112_AAAFLO patra_r_Page_078.txt
a145972b310f537913c90488d9076382
847f63409756b98284b5926faa1d6a3a5f2b6c45
F20110112_AAAEJB patra_r_Page_108.tif
7e5e2cc66e87d4e99f28e0bd250990df
9eb325b75d455afadf7fdd1df3a6afbc21a1dea8
41484 F20110112_AAAEIM patra_r_Page_124.jpg
d8444b2f84f72ae9ca5f1d40447edecd
f8c618ca83c8f38c9c3efe8f59d16bc19ca45c0e
16883 F20110112_AAAEHY patra_r_Page_063.QC.jpg
a2a1a870ab9cf186a460458f642947c7
769606f6193482c7e205a1d80fbe9c832fc05e49
1197 F20110112_AAAFME patra_r_Page_106.txt
ad8570b74fa0d9f9e583d9561714fc0e
9acad557d196ba7453438706d8299f2abde1932d
1758 F20110112_AAAFLP patra_r_Page_079.txt
2928b0e98f2b32b38ddb3bc81ec2e139
f4a892e5dbd7c0e295eb1a97d5fba32e353d3c6f
1840 F20110112_AAAEJC patra_r_Page_112.txt
080fa812fe7e47bf8b9f1455c1f037b3
65a167747371fef5b3a9219b64ad58cb36a0f1b6
31766 F20110112_AAAEIN patra_r_Page_069.pro
bf16e140696da5406d25b55d66cde19d
33b56569be1743477c53172af93b06fbc7f6d50f
5932 F20110112_AAAEHZ patra_r_Page_062thm.jpg
1b32e5f611f86fd0d6dd9b98b2b70670
923562879871458bb605e821a4b083b289fa2155
1515 F20110112_AAAFMF patra_r_Page_107.txt
348466ed309f81c027c74bebac13ce01
5f833e1b5cebcf76660560cc61e31a93b041db2f
1864 F20110112_AAAFLQ patra_r_Page_081.txt
7ded725bbe044a1a4b775084ec628476
f0ba162691eaf6941f8769f063cffe9ac52dba5d
48083 F20110112_AAAEJD patra_r_Page_056.jpg
1f199e01f5ea45ad7b1855e374148dbe
5ba9f9bb2184e808e1dd2828b789918d3d5c91a9
263033 F20110112_AAAEIO patra_r_Page_106.jp2
2d5d77f0f003c9e351ca993cb8c21827
f8a2e5779c3de60607e4716e0824bd6c8741f161
1292 F20110112_AAAFMG patra_r_Page_110.txt
baf8397cb903416bd39169dd2098d17e
b139f8c520cbd203a71207295c2a61937f855bbd
1956 F20110112_AAAFLR patra_r_Page_082.txt
f54083852284b6afc3b334bf832f27ef
8400438f2a26b83d1cbc8995709a5b81e6b516dd
788 F20110112_AAAEJE patra_r_Page_012.txt
cdfbadc3a7fb7d022718b395e1ccd168
bc053132a928c344d5e9cb1a06fac88f5f88d3ec
462 F20110112_AAAEIP patra_r_Page_075.txt
ab0ad341f2a48769f71c7fca32399541
4b813da140000014e755ed8dba9e70f2b1dae32f
1256 F20110112_AAAFMH patra_r_Page_113.txt
8c72cea5ec9c52970982dbfbb2032979
fb5647dcc1f8b74344dcab41e4940412ae5b58d1
1610 F20110112_AAAFLS patra_r_Page_083.txt
597c70f17bcbec4d9797378174341141
b5b1584434aa5a904ee0987fb2584ec4b1bb6f7d
14841 F20110112_AAAEJF patra_r_Page_099.QC.jpg
34fc4667ebe9912b8eadca43f40b0629
8d3cdac5aa6f0d89aad7dd52aaffcabff058e261
21533 F20110112_AAAEIQ patra_r_Page_118.QC.jpg
883a2df50f927c5fdf6a6f90feaa9b49
fd67793be7eecae2b3adb88470c3fcdb591ddf37
1100 F20110112_AAAFMI patra_r_Page_115.txt
818cbe4bb36decd6da3f92d73c04ba47
6fb5ac7c2d7c116171af99514627cf97fdee3cb5
1838 F20110112_AAAFLT patra_r_Page_086.txt
954da736c1dd7bb550c86694892ebb30
0cb002ad4050948162b1fe6e2605d8809e29d630
7297 F20110112_AAAEJG patra_r_Page_037thm.jpg
7f00f3257cc29bd471ae6742af495a02
95f9d3bde6855b399c3c6e1b3fa275354d0ce2af
75883 F20110112_AAAEIR patra_r_Page_038.jpg
eda75262c06f0db6d144df7e9721d7c2
3c593d11b796d0e2ae8543cbb08f4a9f0505f882
2020 F20110112_AAAFMJ patra_r_Page_116.txt
4d1e991fd402d626857f7c7905b06437
7a11dd5aac3fae5b00b7f148e394ecee226bfa67
1047 F20110112_AAAFLU patra_r_Page_087.txt
a5d4da69320a8ef1c2719be7e3abbf46
a852ce0bda4498a81ef74acb458bf92fd5aad83a
6340 F20110112_AAAEJH patra_r_Page_081thm.jpg
862908ced65a648b5d77dfb6fc5eb2aa
73bd1b623d7b82c8d08fa6a12dd06912dde4c71b
65387 F20110112_AAAEIS patra_r_Page_107.jpg
5ab05ec08c966804f73434223d97d19b
4744fb89ae7743667b739ed78e968b5522e01663
F20110112_AAAFMK patra_r_Page_125.txt
309ef16c27f275d7e3c61b3d3aa7bbbd
f9ea734a4b54d4bfad6e025d5fefc3da6d0b53bb
1144 F20110112_AAAFLV patra_r_Page_088.txt
c023cf5d878c3ccf266ddfab916fbc1c
2aa141b7a9f1b64144f014d020b2d1f4f329cb8e
48796 F20110112_AAAEJI patra_r_Page_053.pro
5ed66a43d4ded54d70694a0cd1f13573
10168cbed4a427d5bec2faefe00e088dae781799
41583 F20110112_AAAEIT patra_r_Page_090.jpg
92c1c051992c51ee1467c515630a741d
075bf145c5ea2c7995268b7352b8693b3b2d8fc2
1868 F20110112_AAAFML patra_r_Page_128.txt
050d3e9e406cd1331b84fb6d19a92f0a
460607da7d615ed1eda7726174033a97b6a1c1e5
706 F20110112_AAAFLW patra_r_Page_090.txt
ddf600d9d6d1206475f54ce9af67a498
7138716b44a8b6088edb174d32a99702f150d547
25143 F20110112_AAAEJJ patra_r_Page_024.pro
a96f9250806d417af8ff9154e1fc9a78
1c66288d479769fddedd66d41496c4f5a53447e8
35191 F20110112_AAAEIU patra_r_Page_043.pro
a362fee570ec96bebf9bcf8b9c26cbbd
c1f17fb39ac1f38e4d5bb448a2dc04ae6b8be965
21031 F20110112_AAAFNA patra_r_Page_008.QC.jpg
043bd7c5e3708cea9db20494673b7afe
52cb7140866dc99378b39b54b41e01041d12b723
20858 F20110112_AAAFMM patra_r_Page_109.QC.jpg
1e60a7f3a9d3a802199175b869794426
f47ccc82a31b93ab898926eadf2dc18718f6bd5d
1843 F20110112_AAAFLX patra_r_Page_091.txt
a49f2e60bd9042b20628f2743de4be67
1ad6849db5c46d507f10fd07cbabe7a8d5c7ffe0
63850 F20110112_AAAEJK patra_r_Page_020.jpg
4121a052dc74f910f57a4daaed479fe7
23a18e7ce1bdfaceccc44087a350e52fb66ffa5d
467512 F20110112_AAAEIV patra_r_Page_010.jp2
fe4e98640b1bd1f7ecfa507aee09cff0
a170a57eb9caf3843a6a3bd309ee63dab352cf2b
23304 F20110112_AAAFNB patra_r_Page_054.QC.jpg
1141e56b6d9dd7a99f47de76fd9a2ba9
f13ee8940af5bd69dfe875fd47606a0140918c86
6034 F20110112_AAAFMN patra_r_Page_079thm.jpg
f078252c9788fbd354c5540dc8f049e0
4514695bd23ca16b491f201c332a91b1e70f4348
1479 F20110112_AAAFLY patra_r_Page_096.txt
c2c17759157d6b4bb4e4b1f6d7f133eb
9c6c7056ca829e7190f8c73197f72f3eecdb2ad7
588 F20110112_AAAEJL patra_r_Page_050.txt
94a86baab894dceeb85492574a009393
ce63a4a105819d7748b8b5a398ef9b21eac5b2f1
4695 F20110112_AAAEIW patra_r_Page_003thm.jpg
623b112614f74a192722f07a876eb427
98fd494410efff58d963facbcacc68bc87114818
19171 F20110112_AAAFNC patra_r_Page_022.QC.jpg
dab54c4b5c807875179720164f365cbf
eb8ec7c4b07ff4a8d35f63514f44b4864731c33a
268 F20110112_AAAFLZ patra_r_Page_097.txt
0a995b6834261bae236868f12b4815bd
375d6b8a181d943d0fb82fabac8fb20a7bf89ccb
234104 F20110112_AAAEIX patra_r_Page_051.jp2
eefb2e99b4ff522f96759697af81a775
acf4f6efe73516dde7bebee7e836145ca834f023
80243 F20110112_AAAEKA patra_r_Page_095.jpg
795eb8a745b225236da7076c885fe370
01365343fee08bdda0b748c967c1ef2b92a09fd4
20390 F20110112_AAAFND patra_r_Page_028.QC.jpg
35895f37bc3a9f507ee0f0df747db923
58f35de1a6bb0b85fc694fb87133f377a56b877e
23810 F20110112_AAAFMO patra_r_Page_122.QC.jpg
cf400a5e86be92b2c2a2079d428e1af6
4bcb5a1afd3884a6e6ffb2d20f86fe5bf1df7bea
22871 F20110112_AAAEJM patra_r_Page_021.pro
87db7ca58b952a527df469e0508f1bd3
bc55cf8d69ba9b13c221410d7e1949517a79eb90
21763 F20110112_AAAEIY patra_r_Page_055.QC.jpg
5767f91f35947ea3e4a40a6e5fada568
d55896c038ed05a731901df67c7d7e1e8f7ac7b8
5098 F20110112_AAAEKB patra_r_Page_106thm.jpg
6a25a7d7559cc07bfdde0a8b72a8e184
17e712cbaf4e8189f2888a81b4d34b8bae6073c6
7347 F20110112_AAAFNE patra_r_Page_049thm.jpg
a21b21e1a9c6f233e952f514053eecb1
a09af90de89a974948942d0552dc82e4768be1e6
12485 F20110112_AAAFMP patra_r_Page_005.QC.jpg
e0c30229fcda10fc5e85b09a1221455b
a2a69b216efca8d805d7608b3e2ab46c60774805
1736 F20110112_AAAEJN patra_r_Page_131thm.jpg
0fa633b1332f6a07ac7f4b0458e63d97
4d469d7d3366df2f0c0876a2d37fe8cbe7ecaaed
49396 F20110112_AAAEIZ patra_r_Page_045.pro
e793f33b8908ae898d544739481431d9
f34bb49608fca518887a1404675739af209a844c
46832 F20110112_AAAEKC patra_r_Page_002.jpg
e3bba2143a73621812dec9f12426be39
18aa5acea8172c44bca59385c72013d7796c188a
6293 F20110112_AAAFNF patra_r_Page_107thm.jpg
552a8046cdcf72958d952500f51cad7f
f112bcfd9ddded6546efc9906bb38e042d60d58a
5378 F20110112_AAAFMQ patra_r_Page_117thm.jpg
92cef6d9b15222ca07f2c34505fdb58b
4c887668064d04a2887ebe4fb468a4e2599d3ed2
24106 F20110112_AAAEJO patra_r_Page_041.QC.jpg
2f8821d69e9d1bd12207aa9ac321cfc2
a239141e1d602f3a5c48c3ed5813f939e83e2fb1
F20110112_AAAEKD patra_r_Page_127.tif
9ac545e1a3b3ab3ed3cb46516673a0d4
9b7c03ed0e541dde4d1f65ae1735f6df8614cb7f
21235 F20110112_AAAFNG patra_r_Page_107.QC.jpg
45bc6f394188c0067458fc69252fd1cc
60912365458d7c5567121b677f78b8dd033cc306
26038 F20110112_AAAFMR patra_r_Page_033.QC.jpg
9f93cd58dc599e1964e6311490d1c693
da29ec82380a06106b0d05685020210800f9a0c0
467531 F20110112_AAAEJP patra_r_Page_003.jp2
8edd9f7889518e2d54273869342f41ac
d380a1fa6fa46bc5f97ea4b9e7d7f23ad97d827b
64390 F20110112_AAAEKE patra_r_Page_031.jp2
c12d535a6e36dd0b3df881d1b677ede4
1551d04e6738b23c7d499fb2f40ead4f6cca6320
13648 F20110112_AAAFNH patra_r_Page_132.QC.jpg
c13e3cd3b5d0ffdeb9edffe7525dcdcc
07d2c4355156760f05e533ef0c438d2feab5293e
23626 F20110112_AAAFMS patra_r_Page_043.QC.jpg
1d27266cd27d1c6ab496ef12b0882d54
38faf7642092f7665b4813633921cdba1f3c3304
F20110112_AAAEJQ patra_r_Page_061.jp2
e6fcb8616d4b665017cf8fbd149431d2
7562683e89d68c367a52545ac8a057ae92759eb0
53394 F20110112_AAAEKF patra_r_Page_052.pro
1cdc40fed8023d6595484ca9828a1bfe
6aa468c93e4570693169b92416c8d8d52887e1df
25740 F20110112_AAAFNI patra_r_Page_031.QC.jpg
a6b5c1f866af245bea7ad3a2b9f7b0a5
1d1c238f4289f447b48d57ef1a06a1ad99f0ec6c
15281 F20110112_AAAFMT patra_r_Page_002.QC.jpg
cbecb8120d314d44e993224c3900a5ae
21d5a0206b8e57063efa1233d9a52ed135b08bd8
1869 F20110112_AAAEJR patra_r_Page_084.txt
6434951956d920060d7d599d55221f8e
c2f268474c984606df1f657b29ddb6899e314f1f
29684 F20110112_AAAEKG patra_r_Page_123.pro
1eccf380598fc80865e3e5f41db3b29e
9e7ea32d3de377ace7706fd8e1bb668dea8dad5a
18258 F20110112_AAAFNJ patra_r_Page_021.QC.jpg
d8f67f74dadec838a9cf8ff874e1deff
93610f6a374eb63b400bce6e4e1b2a483dc3da66
5312 F20110112_AAAFMU patra_r_Page_069thm.jpg
7d585de627e1c53e872189864dcb8620
10f8c0ae7c5cb13c063068063581905f92d9cd28
48744 F20110112_AAAEJS patra_r_Page_025.pro
5f89da62d8d7c39cd0fa7532dd81bec2
2f95b20e644a7655741e90656ffdfc023ffdf94b
1022 F20110112_AAAEKH patra_r_Page_029.txt
0502559f671030d0f224825539c45656
a6bced664b5d2cd85457a4c2b21e2eed9db91b07
7495 F20110112_AAAFNK patra_r_Page_127thm.jpg
d8d0ec86bd68cdcfd51cc9fcbe3d7e15
37ca807a964f72bf3dec1457e560046bc197e341
5376 F20110112_AAAFMV patra_r_Page_078thm.jpg
bb9d3f8c184f50179942d0a42af05f06
976168bb57e0441cb0c441e5cceda74de646abf6
11795 F20110112_AAAEJT patra_r_Page_077.QC.jpg
2f7b66622a845bcf60435f61f66f0fe2
f9849dd917b1f190a8d0c79645563fd677dbd9d2
F20110112_AAAEKI patra_r_Page_008.tif
8086ba944fc5a2a62b826d1988e2c4bf
dd2d10aee7ca7705ba9b1989bc4fe091b6e04153
18483 F20110112_AAAFNL patra_r_Page_030.QC.jpg
49197bcc7ee0936183cb69200eddc221
b731b21078a75b76e00f9e8ec9501d65fb8e47a5
4024 F20110112_AAAFMW patra_r_Page_092thm.jpg
56bffcc8d506d82ecc8587c13ac682ae
beab8a8f9b4c7f63d11f7a305c344c3500093e68
F20110112_AAAEJU patra_r_Page_009.jp2
1f164434879e251efeb70a905af935ae
91bded2b75d5b6e5bc714aaa346d1c764e70c607
1332 F20110112_AAAEKJ patra_r_Page_109.txt
c0edae3f2ae0c71240fea1c860e78d83
14889cdc286cfc1765add5280b0261acd82b8357
18878 F20110112_AAAFOA patra_r_Page_084.QC.jpg
cf216ddb3317133bde934412922fecbd
2f6ae81d2e79f5f1417f59aa016e63d758dbb61c
9541 F20110112_AAAFNM patra_r_Page_014.QC.jpg
f774b6a18358c1b0e95c19f6749bde90
3d8d3e0811cbe5fb576a687363d14ce6f83c1a44
5809 F20110112_AAAFMX patra_r_Page_028thm.jpg
098973e6a9238d61e46e80d7c2f86bbf
5efae646099bfcebea26ff51624a08f2ddab4843
6501 F20110112_AAAEJV patra_r_Page_044thm.jpg
93cee810f1ac6ca3fe68a478c33ed18d
c8f7df97727c46a06f7091b2c038bc56a1852ced
5927 F20110112_AAAEKK patra_r_Page_091thm.jpg
740ab8563e9269e7b734722d85afbb0e
c0033aa666168ece7f018f10eec251117aad589f
6036 F20110112_AAAFOB patra_r_Page_114thm.jpg
104441d1eb1e2d320c44e87c59cf3806
14fbbe77ce7cffa459fc472e66b6d800faec7628
4107 F20110112_AAAFNN patra_r_Page_076thm.jpg
4e19db062366fa954e41dd7658e9a1bb
0f657844a4c30ad78b1276b57586f0ea1c2befee
16025 F20110112_AAAFMY patra_r_Page_110.QC.jpg
34d29bdfce9f21576daf165c5fc5be86
c6eb9c9e28338a62159790a617a6d4dc49d660d1
18675 F20110112_AAAEJW patra_r_Page_078.QC.jpg
21927cf89de805caecb19253a9dee003
4df8cfaa0eeef619aef3ae667690b0d281d80e6f
F20110112_AAAEKL patra_r_Page_034.tif
52ee290172fa4e60e48591a22c62937c
de0609b7ff8b8b8e88b243f8310ef9688a3e347c
15668 F20110112_AAAFOC patra_r_Page_059.QC.jpg
298a203c1d3141776fc09035d6492781
75704b70b4c2e9667bbd66bbe2ca46b8c8d78614
5173 F20110112_AAAFNO patra_r_Page_110thm.jpg
70d61a4a26e1d7c9cfb3badbfe131969
8a7c9920fc0fa2a22ce143667cfe15d24df75bb4
4152 F20110112_AAAFMZ patra_r_Page_077thm.jpg
24b97e9529bcb49642122a8d4dc594a4
1a481a2c6d9781b7314fc66f18ac80205b70b8c9
14586 F20110112_AAAEJX patra_r_Page_111.QC.jpg
ad00fa6f85e0d4938a48732ab0347ad9
c0a9649c918778f5369359f70cf4b9b37c4ea7c4
31807 F20110112_AAAELA patra_r_Page_119.pro
a02c6349c08d1cac427a76f23a8ff8f2
5d84a846cb328d94077b4e68a79d5798c838ac20
50732 F20110112_AAAEKM patra_r_Page_113.jpg
eaa8b82fd9b3a8aec0186d5cb10c7cc6
597abf3a05d1cee9cef933261f05a87e9a3dc7d1
24618 F20110112_AAAFOD patra_r_Page_036.QC.jpg
f59642239c480642e096d4c9cd4e4e41
a9914a0d390ab8289c54f9bc8f5798e6ad241ebc
6905 F20110112_AAAEJY patra_r_Page_085thm.jpg
8886faa1ecacdf0dc31c0120930abfa5
246059a3126b4d022b5f953ec45d25e2ea63a343
95643 F20110112_AAAELB patra_r_Page_010.jpg
0b858451ef6cfd812b6bcd176e085e4e
e03f7e8037c329d4aeb1c6229f6b9652b5b6a240
7038 F20110112_AAAFOE patra_r_Page_010thm.jpg
a60ff92cd96350532f37660843d045a0
e97fb3418a43c00edda383bf67e3d14f48fc2948
13376 F20110112_AAAFNP patra_r_Page_124.QC.jpg
bb801db60526d9fddec2b072a29bc94c
a776ab8e54cc7a5018573535edc86fb127a8727c
27033 F20110112_AAAEJZ patra_r_Page_037.QC.jpg
e96d161ab85fe6e60f479dc6e7b7bb3a
f9973f95256319621ff7164f4316cef22d97414e
1704 F20110112_AAAELC patra_r_Page_017.txt
95a4a62765c6500df45d3262227f622d
cd6108a7d7828a329cec0ff1229a29c249650818
21085 F20110112_AAAEKN patra_r_Page_006.QC.jpg
9387c73aeac9cc8f02b03b12b7ad0ef6
c173e7748496c2106c3207d72ea723bbbecad2e1
27656 F20110112_AAAFOF patra_r_Page_009.QC.jpg
8ede00a9e7b0097c43a2b3a7d462cc1e
25ed89d858d39a0ae33947554cd43cee30491480
7342 F20110112_AAAFNQ patra_r_Page_026thm.jpg
0c566a056faaa7f8226923c1e2608741
4caca93b5fcf36dc4465fb3be3f9febb42310ad7
25780 F20110112_AAAELD patra_r_Page_105.pro
900266b1c392b02d1231ff8b68b69c9f
5ba58946b70b7c0c7a4354ce995d7729e179f9b5
4795 F20110112_AAAEKO patra_r_Page_087thm.jpg
8dfdcd875c130bfa1f1036b8bb3838c5
6b259e1dc009071a8c34a60cf244f10724a7e812
6687 F20110112_AAAFOG patra_r_Page_041thm.jpg
52e80d577ab309d999801d808935a9a6
e1701127c338d2a2be1f528b8138826cf0424e05
6539 F20110112_AAAFNR patra_r_Page_066thm.jpg
d7fdafa820e726f01b5786c5abab1334
abeb1be204fc29d9e7eb32fdcc994e3b8e15ebaa
18726 F20110112_AAAELE patra_r_Page_012.pro
256142302931613f841c21667538708f
6d24dc67f4b63e280c483dae507cab5910d3758d
F20110112_AAAEKP patra_r_Page_126.tif
d77238ec53d4c7a195f037b7cd6a9d5f
3418b109b3f3706ce932101718f8da3d9dbb2885
3936 F20110112_AAAFOH patra_r_Page_075thm.jpg
6b1fc023e6b1a7692516bf8956340e48
1d7669dde970cb9e62f1b75ec23706f819499d63
5095 F20110112_AAAFNS patra_r_Page_113thm.jpg
d78563fd17da58abebd00f6ba4a2b204
fda61afdc4acc4e73727fe21dca11dee8ca43d40
333980 F20110112_AAAELF patra_r_Page_032.jp2
80e4445bc56f9c648fde0c1fdf5b39bb
cd1945b62f4934e861a8a291b4e54dafcb3e709a
27112 F20110112_AAAEKQ patra_r_Page_115.pro
4a3f03b8092842d9b201a97f13507eca
b6eefc672f110ea6ba9a335fcc3ae4674cd7f7b2
4096 F20110112_AAAFOI patra_r_Page_132thm.jpg
198308420f0807e0e71ad3b9e45e12cd
7b016bea182e81a093d70f5d0b919bf4d30aafe9
6728 F20110112_AAAFNT patra_r_Page_018thm.jpg
6f21c2408d7cde9cc209410c264f1248
c75867ea4aa1b1aa96a2d01e0e169e03e2bf4d9c
4531 F20110112_AAAELG patra_r_Page_101thm.jpg
7ac13bb537f0bc0aaed5ae467970185a
0a5e243b46e2a7ea48eaa56e62560f211a363110
262990 F20110112_AAAEKR patra_r_Page_073.jp2
16d9dec2f4be78aff09161ee59667c4e
2748d606b7188eda78165945414c44d36504dcc9
6213 F20110112_AAAFOJ patra_r_Page_082thm.jpg
f1b411cd8fea9d1c7d0be15a8fd32ebd
c0ecf650bae453d4a0632fe433dd935b7fa5efe7
8679 F20110112_AAAFNU patra_r_Page_050.QC.jpg
977a87c496243cb30cc7f3813640c9f4
c1cb559e8c19480abff546cee5788f073ccc504b
34620 F20110112_AAAELH patra_r_Page_068.jpg
c6d4679fd2f4e1c0ce64ab131d91c0c9
d1bad16e86bb41cdd12c1179ebaab39b8de64d23
F20110112_AAAEKS patra_r_Page_039.tif
efe3a6d9913e225cce263680dd8cad84
845a561112632fc9d7fa38f1bd64842b9dfaf401
5182 F20110112_AAAFOK patra_r_Page_057thm.jpg
e769ee58f8ea578351c073126d9cdb8f
dfb5bb70afd6ab47e51b6285484ef0df699b63ec
9158 F20110112_AAAFNV patra_r_Page_013.QC.jpg
8c9a047701ce66290ff15ac41dd2ce2c
3f65fc5e5267a222983f3c1cc42959291a0a1de0
3588750 F20110112_AAAELI patra_r_Page_049.tif
7e30fcdb3f82790a410e8b68f06b3049
c6c9a1c938adc0df98e44f40dc636297e63535b8
55140 F20110112_AAAEKT patra_r_Page_129.pro
172203d062bcb9d08ddc0364b5dfccc0
44b4574506f88663c7fbdee6ee33c6bcb4a81fa5
3989 F20110112_AAAFOL patra_r_Page_124thm.jpg
ba2d5c8d70586eba55666cd57ade7946
6a48cb044ddfbf26bee8789076273d3dd03344d7
6156 F20110112_AAAFNW patra_r_Page_121thm.jpg
32418523096c551e75c16cec9d5b2e33
ec8d551b6e38844376b697d75c59c6953cf8281a
16779 F20110112_AAAELJ patra_r_Page_117.pro
4e7d6fd05a4168f63af9b45045fdaa5b
525f04efaac8e62c2fd85b79b1688173fdad4929
262885 F20110112_AAAEKU patra_r_Page_060.jp2
89489506531fee978a305f3af06117a6
68c0ef6678b7993052bbb5f06dbfe9a922e5dc4a
5904 F20110112_AAAFPA patra_r_Page_032thm.jpg
0b74d3f8e51fb20c5dedeef43a6c8960
798756ca2110fe97ab63576c374e83b6e5e45a36
F20110112_AAAFOM patra_r_Page_005thm.jpg
2565aa540b88048b61f64a12d4eb13a9
ec708b9c1930cfe7b4cafc17e4474d1f279c421e
4513 F20110112_AAAFNX patra_r_Page_072thm.jpg
2b14945db294034633d04661396f62c3
6c61b99d72d1ebe696c4885fe873a4cc0b5f7823
5564 F20110112_AAAELK patra_r_Page_119thm.jpg
cdef4671c0719355849ca07d5a96a807
dba28c4743cc81ab8734ad1748016dc3a98b508a
1464 F20110112_AAAEKV patra_r_Page_103.txt
5d7eb610626ca86fc6cb4f120962bbf8
056b85ef0d43573a32d96862c75191e571a69a16
12922 F20110112_AAAFPB patra_r_Page_035.QC.jpg
0daf69ccd1cac4bc5ee3f1f6e321aac2
4384c6978f220721b22edb02490de3f49ff3ae59
6441 F20110112_AAAFON patra_r_Page_108thm.jpg
997af20fadd56d920e5ab546094cfb0a
795d2c7886989f1cf6ae4ca3462bbb256b75ee0a
5536 F20110112_AAAFNY patra_r_Page_116thm.jpg
cd663b850cf82544b2f0bf180e87b612
41e5c9bb1d8f04c39e3441960d8e40b4317de14d
439295 F20110112_AAAELL patra_r_Page_100.jp2
bfc13dded401b07c09ea11524ecc4023
0259a984e0728a31636c10c88530cf8f141cebb7
263079 F20110112_AAAEKW patra_r_Page_108.jp2
98e6dda7b425d3afa35b3fcbf9a4baae
d9365723a44aaf43b4dbc79f9baa63b315829377
F20110112_AAAFPC patra_r_Page_035thm.jpg
7666fe50ae43653a62d67d41d880b3ab
cdb1dfe97815d30ef9a464f59ca9c3380befabc8
6835 F20110112_AAAFOO patra_r_Page_045thm.jpg
e8dc89839a6512a3fd4744bf96f490fc
d73fed3297e194ca587337dd82aed275bc0a5724
5516 F20110112_AAAFNZ patra_r_Page_074thm.jpg
8612d1c17671508dbf8f8e8c005dd2fc
6497f09555db223f54554db2c5241e601725874d
47839 F20110112_AAAEMA patra_r_Page_099.jpg
12056033e312ec23b2fa141b49c86954
3eb7636346e3f4028a421954ed572bb4bd8ee02a
36251 F20110112_AAAELM patra_r_Page_012.jpg
2f6d9998d0c39af797f952245238f7ff
688f334274fb861862550f660d6243f02c40278e
5278 F20110112_AAAEKX patra_r_Page_097thm.jpg
ef89582e2bed52e6794aa2a730a0456f
ff01b1174893069bd549f235a57c6749e3790e99
6876 F20110112_AAAFPD patra_r_Page_036thm.jpg
a5b9079a99170f409dcd1eeaf88d3d79
4e9b31ff2c40ecbf2283b45e2e77aa7f4f5abf5a
5484 F20110112_AAAFOP patra_r_Page_022thm.jpg
64103666f3de70e07eea6ad92520f0f3
d10403cec0ff267277c9f253a89a878c473a92be
10643 F20110112_AAAEMB patra_r_Page_068.QC.jpg
05dd7156357b4d81da5f570511ca7b21
f03c349ac9f1d22214fbff2b19b9697b4d68cfd9
1928 F20110112_AAAELN patra_r_Page_025.txt
68486e66731901138faaa91e24b8378e
dd0ca0c1fae6bb718602c4bfbf125d4e60996ff1
7277 F20110112_AAAEKY patra_r_Page_009thm.jpg
e0649be5c3d75905bb4a041a75f9bac0
e0ac764912f970c8935fdc232a77b665e78ed4b1
22092 F20110112_AAAFPE patra_r_Page_042.QC.jpg
4a8da861adf1ebe0af72a000054e9ce6
6150a1029766027f96eb9a453f04487278852e67
F20110112_AAAEMC patra_r_Page_043.txt
b47378b256cee21effb2e0830e43ef22
465bbfe75a6a10d7cd0e80bd963d9f00a5068d90
23056 F20110112_AAAEKZ patra_r_Page_024.QC.jpg
a06d60b65294c825bd51755a1b841f4a
51d7ae952c058462db77ddcfc552cd6eff784f17
5915 F20110112_AAAFPF patra_r_Page_046thm.jpg
6a984e386756c8d62d50d8cf14b21d21
652f81a02a917bc8dde80de6b3189f0b699302e8
196629 F20110112_AAAFOQ UFE0002800_00001.xml
eea536546e36b95cdbb7c3b54ec66e96
a310e7289ab01e06e045e3ee3c52568f4582cea1
26103 F20110112_AAAEMD patra_r_Page_034.QC.jpg
75f2aa28c0be1b0b103f24136fce7c75
4020505f1fc01843b217c6c3c1c65de795b8658d
43650 F20110112_AAAELO patra_r_Page_057.jp2
53e10aea49e8b64bfdba087e6b86cc25
65cda4c4fa94423cb5a261cab0bcd3e525133c85
4707 F20110112_AAAFPG patra_r_Page_065thm.jpg
d884b5309c1c2abe06708dd82ed4ef22
71daa5c8343a7d4ddbbfcec87858ecce4061ae40
20366 F20110112_AAAFOR patra_r_Page_017.QC.jpg
b3822b59dcb4585dc00325d208eb7f5e
2244649fb67d6bbab3dc3c54ce4d5d760c9bc521
5776 F20110112_AAAELP patra_r_Page_008thm.jpg
4361866166c980372826700fc2f30708
cadb7c01efe319087d38a9fb128d9d0f9f023b1c
25450 F20110112_AAAEME patra_r_Page_038.QC.jpg
cf7d9976b54c4775f4ca41a82d18943c
ae45fb691295481d69a31bb4011ecbc032d059e5
24941 F20110112_AAAFPH patra_r_Page_052.QC.jpg
3e87fd386fa76c215ef6bc094516fadd
4eaa575037727e2e2c99c7ed77a493be8ad4f142
3569 F20110112_AAAFOS patra_r_Page_029thm.jpg
79fac2eb95257a79159d34225075b6ed
32e3ac4386db705ff2c9218e0289a7f00865116b
5705 F20110112_AAAELQ patra_r_Page_019thm.jpg
62862ddabb3d3847a36a6dccc272f879
ad41883f456e8ea84addabdc45d7b3a7964a5431
F20110112_AAAEMF patra_r_Page_012.tif
38c6345c4a272cf2aea9229e57e1d9f0
5e334ec58792cc62acc076f2489d369419c525f7
6782 F20110112_AAAFPI patra_r_Page_052thm.jpg
0c8fe411312a8826cb6624dea546052d
c0b71baf105480fe7965202aba166ccd876e90cc
2976 F20110112_AAAFOT patra_r_Page_011thm.jpg
de87818f6892be8344a63e5f9aecf578
87ef191dc390fa8f8bfddbd6a58ccef35e7c0010
5491 F20110112_AAAELR patra_r_Page_084thm.jpg
305230ee8d695918f26e92639b409d15
733b9ee3d2fa35169d96f16dafaa2503ef3f3d77
50142 F20110112_AAAEMG patra_r_Page_031.pro
c8b9885a6d35eb25f27b61fc966101b5
d8bc0680ccbff41f334e49301fd9aa374eeb138a
14976 F20110112_AAAFPJ patra_r_Page_064.QC.jpg
da16670cd32c35d9e90bb457ad4bbe5b
c47a15e1fbddd810eb45b096b79fb6373c733364
3919 F20110112_AAAFOU patra_r_Page_016thm.jpg
81b9922aa424c88cc88fcd830755e9e9
47e4c0d5dee16d19c488cf799384445176689782
F20110112_AAAELS patra_r_Page_025.tif
b55c12775955ecfca5a72b2bdb8f7a4e
be86248c7218157b7946b997d2700ac4e9ef5834
5247 F20110112_AAAEMH patra_r_Page_030thm.jpg
6e0b93a7adf6ab808277c5dc483c90ae
9c8c020d246b568f6bc77950df33a0afb806b8f6
4690 F20110112_AAAFPK patra_r_Page_064thm.jpg
676baed6ee9033e4a2fb2ba5f66d27a5
ffa9752f842e57561f862c7150872d8a4df26282
20095 F20110112_AAAFOV patra_r_Page_019.QC.jpg
97155898d8d9591bb7aca92f4b5c70e0
b0e2f682c7e4bdae27b88f2115b835d034535255
2041 F20110112_AAAELT patra_r_Page_071.txt
4d9fa174dc80cfaf78c284e298470ecb
39e50685ed922c7972623151f2f0e488c14d9274
F20110112_AAAEMI patra_r_Page_122.tif
1d419d69d9e492bb862ff89ccb52345d
71621792c046460871c7c6d1c345d4c2c11c6373
19776 F20110112_AAAFPL patra_r_Page_067.QC.jpg
bbd5204cb03a45cf2bb8b1d2f6a74d42
55d247e8433582c0c573dfbc15d432c27395800d
5907 F20110112_AAAFOW patra_r_Page_020thm.jpg
3cf920993a915969acaaaa5cc8faa68d
da26bbeaee75583e804a68022150144650d80a8b
20752 F20110112_AAAELU patra_r_Page_108.QC.jpg
88d22930c542dee81314b38e0e07e3b1
b707ffd6173bc16b8333f4c10b0a23f0c760dc63
31430 F20110112_AAAEMJ patra_r_Page_074.pro
7e55bc9fe6566b3e2911bb884234e5bd
b21b785fc8421adeec69812d55d876b4d0ab8bc8
18096 F20110112_AAAFQA patra_r_Page_088.QC.jpg
f29daf6826b816cad1efd828c97b0a4a
b3a394c256977df2e852c894b7b916ffee055cf4
14034 F20110112_AAAFPM patra_r_Page_070.QC.jpg
35475dbb5248a25afaa4c4fe756e44fa
c649235943afd2a87e0a98da3194d501fd23ba1b
13335 F20110112_AAAFOX patra_r_Page_023.QC.jpg
fd84c7ab3f818c7288c807e4f9e77263
67aff4702ab55fe6b74dd01cc7e0fae629dfe1b0
4987 F20110112_AAAELV patra_r_Page_063thm.jpg
935f5652f23ead4cd72704dfe799a50d
331cbbde89717b3a5743f4c48db99e855e38515e
77961 F20110112_AAAEMK patra_r_Page_033.jpg
8ae66bc0fe1c909e91d5df0847a44d70
b8564b7a0613ec6e9b4128c6496ac026868f3fdf
5269 F20110112_AAAFQB patra_r_Page_089thm.jpg
0513c0acb63b584c3ea1cf438966e69e
0f54d62f399e38cfaa822fef43f1d949b3736df1
6606 F20110112_AAAFPN patra_r_Page_086thm.jpg
b75c2c69fc2fae1b6eaf660fa690f9a8
ce658e5a2fb27b636534d396c842141aad6803a5
24171 F20110112_AAAFOY patra_r_Page_027.QC.jpg
8b57298248d62f2ca0153f907f8ec902
d146eddef74e8a0259208e34e8ad992bde4be80e
605 F20110112_AAAELW patra_r_Page_064.txt
82b81a3b47e4a3df3fc1da06ee819f81
b9da5bfb80c2c3184ed9fdc909fe8f848e729d22
1748 F20110112_AAAEML patra_r_Page_066.txt
b51d3cc8f5a30a891d5ae6ab8234fea3
e000b6a3d1285e68acebe6dd4490da1119cda323
11484 F20110112_AAAFQC patra_r_Page_090.QC.jpg
de1d5d6b4733eb023c7e36826c122495
cfdce3e6d118ed796ad0dce6604d96abfbb3a10e
F20110112_AAAFPO patra_r_Page_096thm.jpg
accb5011050fdbec28dad1a5a51b3828
924907ba8305fcf529755fc135ac18be4c5d5846
6750 F20110112_AAAFOZ patra_r_Page_027thm.jpg
b4a88af3fb62a9adfb2ee1910ff92e9c
2b1c04eb3215224fe135296c7b4fb94aafab792a
2446 F20110112_AAAELX patra_r_Page_130.txt
dc3b925b952c41b8d21b939638063856
b630970a88cd1768dc6ad820d88c3e23b2ece87c
53035 F20110112_AAAENA patra_r_Page_038.pro
f23058a28c3ffd52fccf4ca7e128880d
2ae289e3ffe6c58878f0f9655309bff6acdd4255
5784 F20110112_AAAEMM patra_r_Page_017thm.jpg
59d7f98199fb842ee0776bf8b6eb6e09
11048a1f9ff4c5145c1419af2e786ab24926c58f
12821 F20110112_AAAFQD patra_r_Page_092.QC.jpg
d6836eeb0bc2c4eb5bb87f5441171163
b9e46e1b401f8363cb280ac30f6d1c6ab4be9167
16804 F20110112_AAAFPP patra_r_Page_097.QC.jpg
c712d3c899aeed9ddb41801662b2e497
2d7ba99b9813901227d8810e9222edcdf9fd5175
F20110112_AAAELY patra_r_Page_071.tif
b690e40e602789a761d087f3dfe428f5
b0b7ff84f1edb0d85f91512cfe5bdf3837ae5d9a
1972 F20110112_AAAENB patra_r_Page_095.txt
dfd5273d3ca5dc7e09f291667f8dd940
4ebb795e96b66d61ff0aecef0907508bf4b7a6b7
79136 F20110112_AAAEMN patra_r_Page_034.jp2
8e7b3e19bbb94d547b28a6ce468ccd82
c10063eb25e1c42a50934f9094bce1424ba6d4d4
28039 F20110112_AAAFQE patra_r_Page_127.QC.jpg
f80383d77607223617eb59318b06b78c
c11e490efc1ff3e8b9849099b99b7eb72ec55c30
21619 F20110112_AAAFPQ patra_r_Page_104.QC.jpg
e7174495a798cd5bfa9b0e67108d5730
3099ab9e159a6a58e2c48bb93c766340b703e743
2006 F20110112_AAAELZ patra_r_Page_080.txt
3b8349ac28e1e93cd0c00cef1c8d3267
2dd705d8bb9a7f8c4bd90144db71f10dd4757afb
F20110112_AAAENC patra_r_Page_102thm.jpg
03273eaed8a60a8a46da662882d8baf2
57ceec7e9df5f287f208e9f10c62ec10604a403c
1411 F20110112_AAAEMO patra_r_Page_120.txt
963a91c725679603d614363043bb1e21
f33e317c0ed0d7c1a3839028ec22abf9ce4285f1
23742 F20110112_AAAFQF patra_r_Page_129.QC.jpg
fb10bbb7a89dd90dae11b2f1175fb43a
1862638702f5386b039b78ece4b0cf56b3efe14e
F20110112_AAAEND patra_r_Page_078.tif
3d594816384091565614efc98ba564bd
9c02e46bb7e51637859877a6429bb227fdbb45f4
5037 F20110112_AAAFPR patra_r_Page_111thm.jpg
d4ae1723701c53b5f08634b332d81ae2
be8ff3c562de35bd58b59417e5479ccfea00e1b3
83705 F20110112_AAAENE patra_r_Page_126.jpg
9c99d99fdb25ca2de757da6c9dd13546
b3bbb0eba1b0372e2dfaaafe01b7fa75a1718c5f
467573 F20110112_AAAEMP patra_r_Page_039.jp2
e7134c1c70c7887078eb3a325d02c7c0
141fa7e0eb5904c3b0927aaf2871bfebc14b41d0
18521 F20110112_AAAFPS patra_r_Page_112.QC.jpg
8f6c080d99c002232acbc83fedbd1b29
d5fee45e767d207b115cbc93f6946748ea9f99a5
26181 F20110112_AAAENF patra_r_Page_026.QC.jpg
7cd61a9aafba971074fe03ced6904826
6439e37d696337bd42ce5bc1475905cc77c4b824
4612 F20110112_AAAEMQ patra_r_Page_083thm.jpg
5acb959b02a461565da1f88cca6569aa
01a311e5d0571238d7dec7689dc2d85ffe96c38d
5423 F20110112_AAAFPT patra_r_Page_115thm.jpg
9905d5edbb240fa7df25190986806de3
b0309bb16a9a23196af7e2879969a8af00524428
F20110112_AAAENG patra_r_Page_069.tif
36b9a91aaf60e9f87f897267541ed500
6e142dfbc36bffdfc022d4337dfc0e4382a949e8
9430 F20110112_AAAEMR patra_r_Page_108.pro
dbe60b04b572c0da937f8cd7bd81e955
88e4e0ee3c2d1e7e0cbdc158089b8c975b1c8256
5945 F20110112_AAAFPU patra_r_Page_125thm.jpg
0c024d66267ef168d2ac5ce04aaa0238
83cf75fa08385d67b8d42adda13edc5943e367b9
1329 F20110112_AAAENH patra_r_Page_117.txt
e4701cd894adc8deebe882fffef3efc5
6a0064ec3ecff4aeeb53fc07ffd112315d133e28
5773 F20110112_AAAEMS patra_r_Page_071thm.jpg
f4bd68f414c9e869922aee872d9fdf9c
0da6a627bbfd89b469fd6f9c68d49a457a206c22
5461 F20110112_AAAFPV patra_r_Page_128thm.jpg
40eed8107f4f08185ebba5826d3bb84f
fc6382b18c76655297bcff6aee18d13c62b8e624
14207 F20110112_AAAENI patra_r_Page_076.QC.jpg
23ddaa2d6618e585f1746bec52f6eee3
0060a62004fbbd14a944ec16da0a18ab531baf37
16516 F20110112_AAAEMT patra_r_Page_100.QC.jpg
02304382f876679a3190eb221709da76
308cc2369937be870b2f660a01c9061d2b787b75
6619 F20110112_AAAFPW patra_r_Page_043thm.jpg
51f0a9585d5ed65911b4696fe8b0f3e2
b20d01df244a5b0f67661a75b43b7ed76e825141
3836 F20110112_AAAENJ patra_r_Page_058thm.jpg
9e73636567764eada1f7056fdc87c19f
2369242cdb6c8cf924ba2bbfea9ea387d6561b5a
16787 F20110112_AAAEMU patra_r_Page_065.pro
106f246ffc99e782d098fe89d207fb9f
b889a6c1fa992f30264529a6cc8da7b8e3e8ea64
17737 F20110112_AAAFPX patra_r_Page_048.QC.jpg
680b4be39f878cbeefc4ef42f351429a
c373e43e162baffd9bdd63141a6cab92de99ff02
48954 F20110112_AAAENK patra_r_Page_054.pro
7d593c9e7537cf01477188d0e3f7c7e4
32dbb738ab41beacba2941c4b1d3fe1ac2dc4928
21144 F20110112_AAAEMV patra_r_Page_020.QC.jpg
ee54d37e40e1504a03f3a721061c569f
8dee146cf80bb6bc1e5b890b312e18f559573193
26670 F20110112_AAAFPY patra_r_Page_049.QC.jpg
0aa37032a0efd12be48c9c054d053106
c1d09f1e4535a5977675a4df78ad2648f3cd0177
20855 F20110112_AAAENL patra_r_Page_071.QC.jpg
b39afcb7a4ec770162fa64e66ed2528b
e7dec3383d07dcf95777c3f4e0f56abdd1f9fa99
55219 F20110112_AAAEMW patra_r_Page_091.jp2
fe16e984b7fefed2f7339ef6b00d7dd3
243623634f1fc27e052a1f10da608113c36c175b
15029 F20110112_AAAFPZ patra_r_Page_083.QC.jpg
5b61c8680328815aad3e3d8b5697d6f8
6d1dd4dd02dc96765cbf91573a28e2a11baee15d
53702 F20110112_AAAEOA patra_r_Page_017.jp2
2735470819635e39464e8acfb8c21434
993dc0b892e683b377b21c14ed913b2130993b17
18415 F20110112_AAAENM patra_r_Page_102.QC.jpg
b3fcf6e88abb53e9fb7f6073c7e081c7
dd3d6dc7fdc5c6526dffcb7505a7cda0e319fd37
64817 F20110112_AAAEMX patra_r_Page_036.jp2
61c323ee62de0e7950c68f953bdbe5e4
a106fa627cd68ddb5ff0b28759d088d2439fbc39
F20110112_AAAEOB patra_r_Page_117.jp2
02a143a863fe6c683cf680b21ba1df25
ce7dddd3839183583516011bcb2ac989ee80542f
43485 F20110112_AAAENN patra_r_Page_023.jpg
bae5f7c136f3f36dc370bb35f0ddce21
9caf7819e75ac1c4c964aaad0db7f7389ec335f1
87774 F20110112_AAAEMY patra_r_Page_117.jpg
9237a994e44c7e7b040d8b0b8200b38e
33bb88eece4faa2c4f8f6f634ab0617678db472f
23436 F20110112_AAAEOC patra_r_Page_132.pro
37df2143982a49dd96b826b15688309c
998f2d28ddacecb5db49ea42bf384b907e052340
22679 F20110112_AAAENO patra_r_Page_040.QC.jpg
dae106a683d04196b879c3c5769eede3
f9de5f8f3d7b00900aae4e8b2fbeadfec2a24178
1828 F20110112_AAAEMZ patra_r_Page_055.txt
7dd8b1f75944d0d613e24c9f3665986d
ed5c912e4d701ea4261ddb80fef437e5ffcb909d
24599 F20110112_AAAEOD patra_r_Page_053.QC.jpg
78c02dc535835fbb144eba5d3440a037
7208d49b11bd77b5ad8a4b33ddfc7536774579e3
4469 F20110112_AAAENP patra_r_Page_002thm.jpg
5b30d8d80a9e19e57d9e0cd97ae8982b
065a85b7065f0f65e46cba81df5e38823f4ee70b
4575 F20110112_AAAEOE patra_r_Page_060thm.jpg
f3dda0c28ed29cb989ca26c6f7eec188
b2430aad48d26072b7b8e88a639be5170994dbdb
19169 F20110112_AAAEOF patra_r_Page_003.QC.jpg
77185210c24d94ebf456e6455276e851
76df29d3524e78113e759fa2c11e0c8e1b7fcff8
47436 F20110112_AAAENQ patra_r_Page_083.jpg
dc015d79d093890b14d463dfed23484a
f9a28da82c5749055b3f839c5f8657191b631b9f
20834 F20110112_AAAEOG patra_r_Page_117.QC.jpg
be8e5bdba147484f414061824105b639
08c66f6ae2596200445f927c070a5cda88248b0d
F20110112_AAAENR patra_r_Page_132.tif
e4c7b5912399dd24676585b6a17402bf
1aedf3185bd00364de85cd206e6109f6d2ebc7d7
21603 F20110112_AAAEOH patra_r_Page_082.QC.jpg
0b0c0601f8aef03c1c827ea9c57f3229
59b83c10756f0d26304c2f47f74658f8893d7e29
53732 F20110112_AAAENS patra_r_Page_100.jpg
406dc341a9be3d8781731a479db601c0
eabd6e7749f65a1dedea579fa77ebece8d59b9d2
19273 F20110112_AAAEOI patra_r_Page_128.QC.jpg
91967df8ddd62da142ae8405945db12f
7f6dd3b8492174eaa8fb910f9f2cc2c404b47c8f
262992 F20110112_AAAENT patra_r_Page_069.jp2
b06cbf19e277e74752d3f4debc0958bf
c212bb98744217be47b2a94972fa293b66cb3b08
18707 F20110112_AAAEOJ patra_r_Page_074.QC.jpg
5f16fa337fd8bf0401e63487ff1b9321
9514eb9c0483db5880270c0f44b150f882ac2f62
60393 F20110112_AAAENU patra_r_Page_028.jpg
ca9db4763f8007a5ab3c3ca21c24d4a6
27c0e310bbf0b17c705deb542248cea9a62c5667
362084 F20110112_AAAEOK patra_r_Page_024.jp2
0ebd3bce1d07d0c06e510e0537ce4e20
07d52860ca9de852588cd2ce6455b19af5176e60
25781 F20110112_AAAENV patra_r_Page_050.jpg
31f67fcf604e4ffca8a96d0b5d7b0350
1ad49eaf244495bf13f578319c92bf9cac5e1cb6
20916 F20110112_AAAEOL patra_r_Page_032.QC.jpg
4f73e07591d9c110b4444f64158eabfb
c279a93a461812bb240b53797ed8824597acd126
71030 F20110112_AAAENW patra_r_Page_054.jpg
bdbc5d45f883434726602205fb6cbd65
50ad12213672dda861b90aca56e1e519037d1c1c
416 F20110112_AAAEOM patra_r_Page_068.txt
39d5bee54debd34370665f7c4abec4f6
3785f1813d4683d7678c662e585c3c7d8c8cfb2e
F20110112_AAAENX patra_r_Page_047.tif
96e04a743be00f10af08f96adba2dc6b
064086ed202f7fa9aeaab6cb0a3262c6f1ddcd42
28163 F20110112_AAAEPA patra_r_Page_013.jpg
62507930f85b78f88763a588093b6234
ec00e2247bd2667b15a18a3b4a0ed3d939b4eed8
1481 F20110112_AAAEON patra_r_Page_089.txt
7ea5da3f0944c40361fc7e5de184d309
f7d63e8659810b63287fbe6cb1e2ae142ca9e1e6
23724 F20110112_AAAENY patra_r_Page_044.QC.jpg
a39a327d0753f02ff18377f4c2d2bf77
6cd53b2fcac19b21349acb0f13caf66468a9d6fb
3717 F20110112_AAAEPB patra_r_Page_061thm.jpg
4dd23a0e609ba0cf73e6cb737c5332cb
8a63918f282481c78c24b4ceae2181c0dedc8641
55483 F20110112_AAAEOO patra_r_Page_084.jpg
afbdde1304193506a515cb1b3b68183d
ca1caeabd06800ae128f4d25939513345bd138a3
F20110112_AAAENZ patra_r_Page_068.tif
933e3921b7ec54aff6da69b162b5cc41
d5dffb203bdd5e442fec70c0ab07c66d4629128b
63237 F20110112_AAAEPC patra_r_Page_047.jp2
3b78206708df90b10974a5035898a8f6
393d1bd9b7f4eb754fea236afefc2cafc148120b
1912 F20110112_AAAEOP patra_r_Page_044.txt
6ee1c353f633b8cb6b51aa709bf50849
c2abcd0799005a7b7523c457c16f57b9da8b1063
55016 F20110112_AAAEPD patra_r_Page_020.jp2
32bca9b6c2be682b57514dbfdc105778
b48f19ec5cdc6ab3dbdb3bce6a928aae198923aa
15288 F20110112_AAAEOQ patra_r_Page_072.QC.jpg
d6a0f1e77d59378561a20f1b5deeab6c
966c8c54469445aa41968501599a4ea8a1f5b6ce
F20110112_AAAEPE patra_r_Page_008.txt
4b972110776a646e02cb4c8c250c1c1c
c393e7bfaf78f7369265c82e00cf6e6a1f1055bd
21333 F20110112_AAAEPF patra_r_Page_046.QC.jpg
0cf4406098e128484da40120a343db44
cc6b66c1e78a93bda43de41ae30df3b9083bc076
22848 F20110112_AAAEOR patra_r_Page_011.pro
73cb7b0dda8e524eebe78dbeb0957675
7c042f141cf127b7abab3c06b0e572450b77848e
59565 F20110112_AAAEPG patra_r_Page_115.jpg
44171c12e8d6a4cc415c180923223774
1885d1e557367bee2367b297e579f9bf5d97f6f8
F20110112_AAAEOS patra_r_Page_048.tif
4ab394d79abef151ea0cf60cfe651da1
534927e0a5359d30d69ff78ce01b6bf8daf3916b
F20110112_AAAEPH patra_r_Page_087.tif
08f7d03b05f8fd35f7af9ed0001f5fc2
e917f7851fcb889cce9ccda1382ec20336f10482
22118 F20110112_AAAEOT patra_r_Page_086.QC.jpg
19df24efc42141a7edd5421bd3478ba7
43afbf3721c33435754227d8cf91372f937837c2
32988 F20110112_AAAEPI patra_r_Page_132.jp2
7e0d3e797dd85710db2236b02f4188ef
88b86f5960e738aff162c868d6e92d38be119609
41116 F20110112_AAAEOU patra_r_Page_119.jp2
7cf48197c6e798e9f865e02e6248ca81
9952604ac0816164c46c2add2255fca5ac55c298
1435 F20110112_AAAEPJ patra_r_Page_048.txt
5702f5f93201b51991c21aee8cf341b8
53b03210961c6e8a7ed7f1c962025f9f696f4617
90885 F20110112_AAAEOV patra_r_Page_034.jpg
2f0dfad963b2fd366a06c0d26ff739ca
a864700a3c3aaf4501454bd632468bc2a8346c8b
73298 F20110112_AAAEPK patra_r_Page_126.jp2
4a1f6b2b768596564293f2e69fab85ec
7eaba97ea437f1396901828a5e584f5f7894172f
5465 F20110112_AAAEOW patra_r_Page_006thm.jpg
1112d4241b8e683098383c965b1bb192
14d27ec40e0ebb20e90a2d5f4fe8c527c4d6d297
76283 F20110112_AAAEPL patra_r_Page_122.jpg
b8ab4ac75bcfe67699b0826d1d99f7cd
55dd88a59fadc9da5bee95a264623193a5a60f0c
1708 F20110112_AAAEOX patra_r_Page_020.txt
23b7badc111e84775a398e17e71cba6e
8466c510e6d611626e5c5c0a1864cfb5ae0fdf31
1554 F20110112_AAAEQA patra_r_Page_039.txt
ac5c4ee6dde54cd503b47ead1e489bba
db233bb769ccbfc0e0af173db2a497545db5f998
F20110112_AAAEPM patra_r_Page_007.jp2
38e501ce6b5e2a4bfeb55c8645a2dc33
4762ab000e1cd66ec6036bca074f12fdd6423f7f
263964 F20110112_AAAEOY patra_r_Page_098.jp2
0b6e2c74e0403be412b0e9d4e1af1fe9
24d057dd13683ba598af42ca2424b25498bedce6
7268 F20110112_AAAEQB patra_r_Page_095thm.jpg
cce162dffe2e4142d4dfdb55e157c458
2f308a0fb238eeffc4bcb3f20f5875bd8a54d7c7
F20110112_AAAEPN patra_r_Page_073.tif
34a4d1b0a6934ce292a240c7c2888104
3af4c7d46d78ee369c3f1c543e8ca564af89a1d4
F20110112_AAAEOZ patra_r_Page_096.tif
eccf7632cf9a770787cdce5f8015ff52
77331bbf43562602e4aeffc3b3dcbf706b8fc1ba
2904 F20110112_AAAEQC patra_r_Page_010.txt
f749e56a36f4d8efd7cdfab7ff1ec9d3
4588a741015afc338b0739ffab4c65347560009a
19250 F20110112_AAAEPO patra_r_Page_115.QC.jpg
9baad5030b5939ab13f94ddcc8a14d9a
fc35c89756725e70d5c8a3fe30b7cd8d03c26675
60097 F20110112_AAAEQD patra_r_Page_055.jp2
ed2e5eab22aeba204dd7b6bc4951f8a1
86933457b3395e5463255944bd76d9709c87111a
67619 F20110112_AAAEPP patra_r_Page_042.jpg
857ce074b26153b8c452e85530194e17
7540f834c3b37612d61e8035ec10153f0c1af847
49158 F20110112_AAAEQE patra_r_Page_121.jp2
66c8b2a4d7f99404240174eb8a81ec70
a69271b58e68fccc7a741aa31422a3bc46971fb5
27075 F20110112_AAAEPQ patra_r_Page_039.QC.jpg
4efce510b5a25e011604cf3f076e3d58
834ab46ec87f2f0fa73b36d256dfa1e6f12222e5
10269 F20110112_AAAEQF patra_r_Page_012.QC.jpg
040aab6c73c80dc03efbebe32267f498
15465fbcb5b50d317aab23672e1a743e751bf2cb
62257 F20110112_AAAEPR patra_r_Page_054.jp2
3ccc11519b0bce3b3b9514fe4a277b21
7f99a551b973a26f99daf6dc2783f16fe1915b39
13778 F20110112_AAAEQG patra_r_Page_013.pro
ed3c8d52aebcc81dea361335396c4dfa
cb32b3688fa37d3b6fab8cf5a43885ff83bdd330
266430 F20110112_AAAEQH patra_r_Page_090.jp2
2d60b84e19504d3863b2705e76e2c951
2b907810999c34f920a31d4e80536cedfb71cc4d
F20110112_AAAEPS patra_r_Page_082.tif
316d43fac58b19ab9d3629740db4d201
ac14fe00c1f6aed85a38d76ca1930a12d2416377
1014 F20110112_AAAEQI patra_r_Page_051.txt
649a314443571aad33f9065eae449bef
bd9db4a03a813d7b06562d889229651690c98f04
28164 F20110112_AAAEPT patra_r_Page_088.pro
1e49b5d7e2b43c1c05e20574e50b2b1a
450ca078b7da50d0df1bd716f5ed7bf1722e1db3
16634 F20110112_AAAEQJ patra_r_Page_123.QC.jpg
878517f509446c7171c35fdafa7202a5
5e5472ddc3a8ff4d95f737c18a15e5a0752cdccb
22390 F20110112_AAAEPU patra_r_Page_094.QC.jpg
8e71dd58691919268239845c6154d1a7
76d1c403bcdc9ca935f33827a0a9e53ad098f849
F20110112_AAAEQK patra_r_Page_115.tif
56571fa0fb1de642e20f0564a327bebc
1d3bc0bf058c1aa5dce2115c9821a55e85d63af3
50097 F20110112_AAAEPV patra_r_Page_095.pro
6e80b64eaf5e0ec78e30e80b4885d1e9
39e40c57677bd9745b56d5fd1d6e873e13dcb439
1724 F20110112_AAAEQL patra_r_Page_057.txt
203ef05dfb5050b0c0dfedbf1b59a1b9
1e70c12fb802bbffc50656ba5e0703f48c062c8d
62331 F20110112_AAAEPW patra_r_Page_091.jpg
9d601a381e29c6924f8df1073e28bc73
e4559ec1188e5f99b43f0e6b42292ed830d9198e
65821 F20110112_AAAERA patra_r_Page_104.jp2
3f7571af021e859550591e8392895b93
04ee4e64f7314cc0527eea09f15168ce44735911
39449 F20110112_AAAEQM patra_r_Page_002.jp2
5ba58e312a863d2b85b3022cefa3cd8f
d83df10a9868b10a67e969d4385cdae9452dfe7b
6973 F20110112_AAAEPX patra_r_Page_053thm.jpg
9a7257dd53cdd9a29af36eb8b7251819
86caf44a11bbd88a9b186c85899a40494ec6130b
38721 F20110112_AAAEQN patra_r_Page_083.jp2
47f640742d1e608308f19038ff73db75
29c6925d1bd207fed0d6416f2f1369f481a9fa06
81406 F20110112_AAAEPY patra_r_Page_026.jpg
9c7c5fa88d2c8c593c04b9ac89f67d67
040d0bac23454b861510ffbaba6c7043cd4e3171
21037 F20110112_AAAERB patra_r_Page_062.QC.jpg
f40ea55bd9f1c8e2f1ab892c303d3876
e06a950e4b314018e750a4503e4f7135fa635677
81215 F20110112_AAAEQO patra_r_Page_027.jpg
8b394971fe5a44e70cb02e9a4ad29542
3be28186c66b5a0a19ff4f5877cf27f7d2be6c83
42538 F20110112_AAAEPZ patra_r_Page_071.pro
37e6f366435e6ad83d8ab74039855ec6
a6b49f89f79af748f64b917c01efaa3a55577977
F20110112_AAAERC patra_r_Page_043.jp2
eeeae4bcd043e991d5aa3c3db06d4737
9742fff32b199cf1141e51acbf46e6fb0220e31e
2279 F20110112_AAAEQP patra_r_Page_001thm.jpg
3cfc80a992735b987321522c257cc70d
2f60e6f38f3878c3618ca1bcd39b1c3b8cd8f714
18548 F20110112_AAAERD patra_r_Page_119.QC.jpg
d5d068da25fe2fad0899af4daa6565b6
c178e55f0f8a6f4a795b8262ac44b41910205824
F20110112_AAAEQQ patra_r_Page_098.tif
2a27106b8ca8f828a9e348e344096571
d08792dc9cefb4961c658af84f6c693cb73bd7b5
1924 F20110112_AAAERE patra_r_Page_047.txt
0bedeb0150764404c390b723d3b563cb
9e300d534974ce5ea25256f289c6aa773f77689b
1930 F20110112_AAAEQR patra_r_Page_054.txt
531c856288627092b91890a0a76dfddd
34ce35edc91c9f425615912d68a8ceccd2b4fc6f
F20110112_AAAERF patra_r_Page_023.tif
620da7b045913750db6266622e7465de
3b31773fb1b1b6e4a4d26a81cf07f295143028d4
63630 F20110112_AAAEQS patra_r_Page_121.jpg
53caa60373d55a9d6d6c35079ca4f23a
3bdc91df4fce2382de7e99c6400b61461a2ac292
F20110112_AAAERG patra_r_Page_111.txt
723bcf1ce8fa62d7219bfa30564c82cd
18f37de46e9cebc84aaeacf8147452614b2b9662
263077 F20110112_AAAERH patra_r_Page_076.jp2
c1f610dd6ee3b30a05fb39bcfa58bb61
7931a3a995c78287e23f2b700549a61cf02434d3



PAGE 1

SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN LOW ENERGY ESTUARIES: THE LOXAHATCHEE, FLORIDA By RASHMI RANJAN PATRA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere gratitude is reserved for Dr. Ashish J. Mehta for his guidance in my education and research, which made my studi es very precise and rewarding, as well as the entire Coastal and Oceanographic Engineer ing Program faculty. Also deserving my gratitude for their guidance and assistance are Dr. John Jaeger, Dr. William McDougal, and Kim Hunt. Most of the analysis in the study was made possible by the valuable assistance provided by Mr. Sidney Schofield, w ho taught me the basics of analysis. Special thanks are due to Dr. Earl Ha yter for setting up, supporting and guiding me through the numerical model in its entirety. Thanks are also due to Dr. Zal S. Tara pore, for his encouragement and guidance, which marked my initial years as a coastal e ngineer and my studies here possible. My wife Sumitra and my friend Anjana also de serve special kudos for their emotional and editorial support. Finally, my mother and fa ther merit unlimited praise for providing me with mind, body and soul, as do my other friends and families for developing it.

PAGE 3

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii LIST OF SYMBOLS........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 Problem Statement.............................................................................................1 1.2 Study Tasks........................................................................................................3 1.3 Outline of Chapters............................................................................................3 2 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES.....................................................4 2.1 Present Condition of the Loxahatchee Estuary..................................................4 2.2 C-18 Canal.......................................................................................................12 2.2.1 Present Condition.......................................................................................12 2.2.2 Management Options..................................................................................17 2.3 Central Embayment.........................................................................................21 2.3.2 Management Option:..............................................................................27 2.4 Northwest Fork:...............................................................................................28 2.4.1 Present Condition:...................................................................................28 2.4.2 Management Options..............................................................................32 2.5 North Fork........................................................................................................33 2.5.1 Present Condition....................................................................................33 2.5.2 Management Options..............................................................................34 3 DATA COLLECTION...............................................................................................35 3.1 Field Setup in the Southwest Fork...................................................................35 3.2 Instruments Deployed......................................................................................37 3.2.1 Current....................................................................................................37 3.2.2 Tide.........................................................................................................38

PAGE 4

iv 3.2.3 Salinity/Temperature...............................................................................38 3.2.4 Sediment Concentration..........................................................................39 3.3 Field Data Results in Southwest Fork..............................................................41 3.3.1 Current....................................................................................................41 3.3.2 Tidal Level..............................................................................................44 3.3.3 Total Suspended Solids...........................................................................47 3.3.5 Other Data Blocks...................................................................................55 3.4 Field Data Results in Northwest Fork..............................................................56 3.4.1 Field Setup..............................................................................................56 3.4.2 Tidal Level..............................................................................................56 3.4.3 Total Suspended Solids...........................................................................58 3.4.5 Additional Data Blocks...........................................................................59 3.4.5.1 Tidal Level....................................................................................59 3.4.5.2 Total Suspended Solids.................................................................60 4 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION......................................................63 4.1 Model Description...........................................................................................63 4.3 Grid Generation...............................................................................................69 4.4 Boundary Conditions.......................................................................................72 4.5 Model Calibration and Validation...................................................................78 4.5.1 Calibration...............................................................................................78 4.5.2 Model Validation....................................................................................80 4.5.3 Simulation of trap scheme of Ganju, 2001.............................................86 5 EVALUATION OF SEDIMENTAT ION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES................87 5.1 Design Basis.........................................................................................................87 5.1.1 General Principle....................................................................................87 5.1.1.1 Sediment Entrapment.......................................................................87 5.1.1.2 Self-cleaning Channel......................................................................88 5.1.2 Design Alternatives.................................................................................89 5.1.2.1 Alternative No. 2: C-18 Canal Trap.................................................90 5.1.2.2 Alternative No. 3: Bay Channel.......................................................91 5.1.2.3 Alternative No. 4: Bay Y-channel....................................................93 5.1.2.4 Alternative No. 5: Northwest Fork Channel....................................94 5.1.3 Efficiency Analysis....................................................................................94 5.1.3.1 Velocity Vector Calculation.............................................................94 5.1.3.2 Sediment Deposition Calculation.....................................................95 5.1.3.3 Trap Efficiency.................................................................................97 5.1.3.4 Channel Efficiency...........................................................................98 5.2 Design Simulations...............................................................................................98 5.2.1 Design Flows..........................................................................................98 5.2.2 Alternative 1............................................................................................98 5.2.3 Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5........................................................................99 5.3 Deposition Equation Calibration....................................................................102 5.3.1 Calibration for Sand.................................................................................102

PAGE 5

v 5.3.2 Fine Sediment...........................................................................................102 5.4 Sand Deposition due to Alternatives..............................................................103 5.4.1 Bay Channel..........................................................................................103 5.4.2 C-18 Canal............................................................................................103 5.4.3 Bay Y-channel......................................................................................104 5.5 Fine Sediment Deposition due to Alternatives.............................................104 5.6 Sediment Removal.........................................................................................105 5.6.1 Calculation of Deposition.....................................................................105 5.6.2 Calculation of Channel Efficiency........................................................106 5.6.3 Removal of Bay Sediment....................................................................107 5.7 Assessment of Alternatives.................................................................................107 6 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................109 6.1 Summary........................................................................................................109 6.2 Conclusions....................................................................................................110 6.3 Recommendations for Future Work...............................................................112 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................113 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................116

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF TABLES Table page 2.1 Basin area distributions in the L oxahatchee River estuary watershed.......................7 2.2 Statistical tributary flow (based on Figures 2.6 a-c)................................................14 2.3 Median and high flow concentration da ta and coefficients for equation 2.1...........15 2.4 Spring/neap tidal ranges and phase lags for three gauges........................................27 3.1 Instrumentation for data collection and data blocks.................................................36 3.2 Discharge data for the period 04/14/2002 to 04/21/200...........................................41 3.3 Typical mean current magnitude values for data blocks..........................................44 3.4 Characteristic values of the tidal data......................................................................47 3.5 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks.............................................51 3.6 Characteristic salinity values....................................................................................51 3.7 Characteristic temperature values............................................................................54 3.8 Summary of parametric va lue (Days 37-59 in year 2003).......................................55 3.9 Summary of parametric va lue (Days 90-101 in year 2003).....................................55 3.10 Summary of parametric va lue (Days 101-135 in year 2003)...................................56 3.11 Characteristic values of the tidal data......................................................................58 3.12 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks.............................................58 3.13 Characteristic values of the tidal data......................................................................60 3.14 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks.............................................62 4.1 Definition of cell type used in the model input........................................................69 4.2 Amplitude and phase correction factor for the tides................................................77

PAGE 7

vii 5.1 Alternative schemes for evaluation..........................................................................89 5.2 Critical velocities for sand........................................................................................96 5.3 Design flows in tributaries.......................................................................................98 5.4 Maximum currents at alternatives: calibration discharges.....................................100 5.5 Maximum currents at alternat ives: Different discharges.......................................100 5.6 Calibration for sediment fluxes..............................................................................102 5.7 Rate of sand deposition in bay channel..................................................................103 5.8 Rate of sand deposition in C-18 canal....................................................................103 5.9 Rate of sand deposition in Y-channel....................................................................104 5.10 Rate of fine sediment deposition in alternatives....................................................105 5.11 Annual sand budget: Calibration discharge...........................................................105 5.12 Annual sand budget: Peak discharge......................................................................105 5.13 Annual fine sediment budget: Calibration discharge.............................................106 5.14 Annual fine sediment budget: Peak discharge.......................................................106 5.15 Annual sediment loading........................................................................................106 5.16 Assessment of impacts of proposed alternatives....................................................108

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2.1 Location map of the study area .................................................................................5 2.2 Loxahatchee River estuary and tributaries.................................................................5 2.3 Hydrographic survey of the estuary (November 2001)..............................................7 2.4 Loxahatchee River estuary watershed basins, estuarine limits (dashed arcs) and central embayment.....................................................................................................8 2.5 Ariel photograph showing development of new shoal.............................................11 2.6 Cumulative discharge plot. a) Northwest Fork. b) North Fork. c) Southwest Fork.....................................................................................................14 2.7 Dredging Plans for C-18 canal, 1956 ......................................................................16 2.8 Current variation under the effect of released discharge from the S-46 structure....................................................................................................................19 2.9 Effect of S-46 discharge on the su spended sediment concentration........................19 2.10 Arial Photograph showing the Central Embayment, the Inlet and the Tributaries................................................................................................................23 2.11 Location of tide gauges ma rked UFG1, UFG2 and UFG3.......................................26 2.12 Sample records of tidal measurements at three locations (09/14/00-09/15/00)Datum NAVD 88.....................................................................................................27 2.13 Location of stream-gauging stations and sampling site for suspended sediments, ................................................................................................................30 2.14 Location indicating fresh mud depositi ons and the Shoals the estuary....................33 3.1 Location of instrument tower in the Southwest and Northwest Forks.....................35 3.2 Calibration plots used for calibration of OBS sensors.............................................40 3.3 Record of current magnitude: Days 94-114 (year 2002)..........................................42

PAGE 9

ix 3.5 Record of current magnitude: Days 332-356 (year 2002)........................................43 3.6 Record of current direction: Days 332356 (year 2002).........................................43 3.7 Water level time-series: All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 94-114 (2002)......44 3.8 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 94-114 (2002)...............................................................................45 3.9 Water level time-series: All levels relative to NAVD88. Days 332365 (2002) and Days 01-35 (2003).............................................................................................45 3.10 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without this trend. All level relative to NAVD 88. Days 332-365 (2002) and Days 01 – 35 (2003)................................................................46 3.11 TSS time-series at four elevations: Days 94-114 (year 2002).................................48 3.12 TSS time-series at three elevations: Days 352365 (year 2002) and 01–35 (year 2003)...............................................................................................................48 3.13 Depth-mean TSS concentration ti me series: Days 94-114 (year 2002)...................49 3.14 Depth mean TSS concentration time series: Days 352365 (year 2002) and Days 01 – 35 (year 2003).........................................................................................49 3.15 Depth mean TSS concentration time series and tidal trend indicating their dependence: Days 352365 (year 2002) and Days 01 – 35 (year 2003).................50 3.16 Salinity time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002).........................................................52 3.17 Salinity and Current magnitude tim e series: Days 94-114 (year 2002)...................52 3.18 Temperature time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002).................................................53 3.19 Salinity time series: Days 352365 (year 2002) and 01-35 (year 2003).................54 3.20 Temperature time series: 352365 (year 2002) and 01-35 (year 2003)...................54 3.21 Record of water level vari ation. Days 245 – 255 (year 2003).................................57 3.22 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 245 -255 (year 2003)....................................................................57 3.23 Depth-mean TSS concentration ti me-series: Days 245-255 (year 2003).................58 3.24 Record of water level varia tion. Days 310.5 – 313.5 (year 2003)...........................59

PAGE 10

x 3.25 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 310.5 – 313.5 (Year 2003)............................................................60 3.26 TSS time-series at two elevat ions: Days 310.5 – 313.5 (year 2003).......................61 3.27 Depth mean TSS concentration tim e series: Days 310.5 – 313.5 (year 2003).........61 3.28 TSS time-series at three elev ations: Days 315.5 – 318.5 (year 2003)......................62 3.29 Depth-mean TSS concentration time series: Days 315.5 – 318.5 (year 2003)........62 4.1 Model domain showing input bathymetry and shoreline.........................................71 4.2 Computational grid showing the flow boundaries...................................................72 4.3 Tidal time series from UFG1, 09/14/0010/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot after the mid-tide trend is removed..........................................................................74 4.4 Tidal time series from UFG3, 09/14/0010/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot after the mid-tide trend is removed..........................................................................76 4.5 Flow time series applied at S-46 boundary..............................................................77 4.6 Flow time series applied at Northwest Fork boundary.............................................77 4.7 Model calibration measured vs. predicted cu rrent, a) Cold Start, b) Hot Start........81 4.8 Model calibration measured vs. predicted current direction....................................82 4.9 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG2) Year 2000, a) Cold Start, b) Hot start...............................................................................83 4.10 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG3) Year 2000, a) Cold Start. b) Hot start...............................................................................84 4.11 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (Northwest Fork) Year 2003, a) Cold Start, b) Hot start..........................................85 4.12 Validation results using trap used by Ganju, 2001...................................................86 5.1 Design concepts for sediment management.............................................................88 5.2 Alternatives considered, with existing bathymetry..................................................90 5.3 Dredged bathymetry of the C-18 canal with plan form view of the proposed trap. Trap considered by Ganju (2001) is also shown..............................................91 5.4 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning channel in the bay............................92

PAGE 11

xi 5.5 Location of the sea grasses indicated in model with increased roughness...............92 5.6 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning Y-channel in bay..............................93 5.7 Planform view of the proposed self-cl eaning channel in the Northwest Fork.........94 5.8 Current comparisons for a model cell at the upstream end of the Northwest Fork channel: calibra tion discharges........................................................................99 5.9 Current velocity vectors over the modeled domain; maximum flood velocities at spring tides.........................................................................................................101 5.10 Current velocity vectors over the modeled domain; maximum ebb velocities at spring tide...............................................................................................................101

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF SYMBOLS A area vA vertical turbulent viscosity B width of the basin C wave celerity 0C uniformly distributed initial sediment concentration (kg/m3) s C sediment concentration (kg/m3) cueC constant multiplier for u-velocity conversion to true east cunC constant multiplier for u-velocity conversion to true north cveC constant multiplier for v-velocity conversion to true east cvnC constant multiplier for v-velocity conversion to true north D sediment deposition under reduced flow enD deposition at the entrance to the channel exD deposition at the exit of the channel pD dimensionless projected vegetation area H total water column depth L length of the channel/trap K coefficient of conductance H Q volume source or sink q R Richardson number

PAGE 13

xiiiT time U steady mean flow velocity U velocity vector W width of the channel in equation 5.8 s W settling velocity b buoyancy pc vegetation resistance f Darcy-Weishbach friction factor e f coriolis acceleration g acceleration due to gravity h water depth xm scale factor along x-axis ym scale factor along y-axis q turbulent intensity () s iq amount of sediment in influent () s eq amount of sediment in effluent r removal ratio u velocity along the channel (x-axis) *u friction velocity cu velocity amplitude under current cenu current at the entrance cexu current at the exit

PAGE 14

xivcru critical velocity for erosion cou curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal velocity teu velocity in true east direction v velocity across the length of the channel(y-axis) cov curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal velocity tnv velocity in true north direction z variable water depth water density 0 reference water density s bed erosion shear stress bx x-component shear stress by y-component shear stress b bed bottom shear stress c mid-tide elevation H T high-tide elevation LT low tide elevation vertical diffusivity Karman constant free surface potential velocity angles

PAGE 15

xv Abstract of Thesis to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN LOW ENERGY ESTUARIES: THE LOXAHATCHEE, FLORIDA By Rashmi Ranjan Patra December 2003 Chairman: Ashish J. Mehta Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering Implementation of schemes for sediment entrapment and self-cleaning channels was examined in the micro-tidal estuarin e environment containing both sand and fine sediment. The central embayment of the micro-tidal Loxahatchee River estuary on the Atlantic Coast of Florida was chosen as the candidate location due to its unique characteristics with respect to the influx of sand and fine sediment in its central embayment, and concerns regarding the potentia l for long term impacts of this flux on the embayment. An ideal sediment trap captures all of incoming sediment, i.e., the removal efficiency is 100%. A self-cleaning cha nnel allows no net deposition of incoming sediment, which passes through, so that its removal efficiency is nil. Hydrodynamic model simulations were ca rried out for selected trap/channel alternatives, and their efficiency was calcula ted by relating sediment deposition to change in the flow regime due to implementation of these alternatives. Calculations indicated

PAGE 16

xvi that the concepts of sediment entrapme nt and of self-cleaning can operate only imperfectly in the study area due to the lo w prevailing forcing by tide and the episodic nature of freshwater discharges in the tributaries. Fine sediment accumulation in the central embayment can be reduced by dredging the C-18 canal, as the trapped sediment would acc ount for more than half of the total fine sediment entering the bay. A channel close to the southern bank of the embayment could improve bay flushing by ebb flow, reduce ba y-wide sedimentation and serve as a navigation route. Careful design with regard to channel alignment would be required to avoid sea grass beds in the area. Long term simulations of flow and sediment transport are required to assess sediment circulation pa tterns and the formation of shoals in the central embayment and the Northwest Fork.

PAGE 17

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem Statement Sedimentation due to the influx of fine a nd coarse particles is an issue affecting numerous estuaries and coastal waterways. Often enough, these particles originate far inland, and are transported into the coastal zone by runoff and stream flow. In the estuarine regime, inorganic sediment almo st never occurs in isolation, as it is complemented by measurable organic frac tion produced by either indigenous sources (e.g., native phytoplankton, swamp vegetation, wi nd blown material), or allochthonous sources (e.g., river-borne phytoplanktons, swamp vegetation, windblown material) (Darnell, 1967). In turn, such organic-ri ch sediments can degrade water quality by oxygen uptake and a reduction in light pene tration. In this study, the question of preemptive dredging of sediment prior to its deposition in an area of concern or, as an alternative, preventing its deposition in the area of concern by channelizing flow, was studied. The candidate water body was the estu arine segment of the Loxahatchee River on the east coast of Florida. Loxahatchee River, which discharges ma inly through its Northwest Fork, supplies mainly quartz sand and organic detritus. Clay mineral makes up less than 5% of the mud in the estuary, but because this mud is ri ch in organic matter, its accumulation has become a matter of concern in the central embayment of the estuary. This flow, in addition to controlled discharges from the S-46 structure in the C-18 Canal at the head of

PAGE 18

2 the Southwest Fork, brings in much of the sediment (mean concentration 0.014 kg/m3; Sonnetag and Mcpherson, 1984) in the central embayment. A commonly employed solution to reduce sedi mentation is the implementation of a trap scheme by trenching the submerged bo ttom. Such a trench-trap is a means to increase the depth at the chosen location by dredging. Increased depth results in a decreased flow velocity (and associated bed shear stress), thereby allowing incoming sediment to settle in the trap, instead of be ing carried further downstream. The removal of sediments becomes much easier as it can be then be removed from the trap, rather than dredging the otherwise distributed deposits fr om a considerably broader area. As an alternative to sediment entrapment, creating a self-cleaning channel in the area of concern for sedimentation would mean that sedime nt would pass through the system, without deposition. The degree to which both appro aches can function depends on the flow conditions, type of sediment and the morphology of the estuary. Given the above background, the objectives of this study were: 1) to determine the efficiency of traps installed at selected loca tions in the estuary, and 2) to evaluate the efficiency of channels as a means to pur sue the goal of a self-cleaning sedimentary environment. Shoaling has occurred the Loxahatchee in many areas, especially near the confluences of the major tributaries (Northwe st Fork and Southwest Fork) in the central embayment where the velocities are typi cally low (Sonntag and McPherson, 1984). Recent studies (Jaeger et al., 2002) suggest in ternal recirculation of sediments as an important factor governing sediment transport within the estuarine portion of the river. Accordingly, in order to manage sedimenta tion in the central embayment, it may be

PAGE 19

3 desirable to test trap/channel deployments at multiple locations. The performance of these schemes was evaluated with regard to efficiency of sediment removal. 1.2 Study Tasks The tasks undertaken included: 1. Data collection from the site and scruti ny of data from the existing literature to characterize the nature of flow, sediment transport and sedimentation. This included measuring tidal elevations, current velocities, sediment concentrations and bed sediment distribution (Jaeger et al., 2002) in the estuary, and obtaining stream flow data for the tributaries from the literature. 2. Simulating the flow field using a hydrodyna mic model, in order to determine the velocities, water surface elevations and bed shear stress distributions. 3. Introduction of trap schemes in the ca librated flow model to determine flow velocities with and without the trap, and development of relationships for calculating trap efficiency. 4. Introduction of self-cleaning channels and an assessment of their viability. 5. A qualitative assessment of the usefulness of the approaches based on selected criteria. 1.3 Outline of Chapters Chapter 2 describes the sediment management alternatives including existing conditions and the proposals for implementati on. Chapter 3 deals with the field data collection for this study including data an alysis and interpretation. Flow model calibration and validation is included in Chapter 4 and evaluation of management alternatives is described in Chapter 5. Summa ry of the results and conclusions are made in Chapter 6, followed by a bibliography of studies cited.

PAGE 20

4 CHAPTER 2 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Present Condition of the Loxahatchee Estuary Loxahatchee River empties to the Atlantic Ocean through the Jupiter Inlet located in northern Palm Beach County on the south co ast of Florida, about 28 km south of St. Lucie Inlet and 20 km north of Lake Worth Inle t. The three main tributaries, which feed the estuary, are the Northwest Fork, the Nort h Fork, and the Southwest Fork. In addition, the Jones Creek and Sims Creek, which are far le sser tributaries than the others, also feed the estuary through the Southwest Fork. Figur es 2.1 shows the general location map of the study area. The major surface flow in to the estuar y historically was through the Northwest Fork draining the Loxahatchee Marsh and Hungry land slough (refer Fig 2.1). The upstream reach of the Southwest Fork, refe rred to as the C-18 canal, was created in 1957/58 in the natural drainage path in order to lengthen the area of influence of the Southwest Fork and facilitate drainage of the westward swampland (Refer Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2). The flow in the canal is regulated by the S-46 automated sluice gate structure. Whereas, the Southwest and th e Northwest fork converge on the estuary approximately 4 km west of the inlet, the North fork joins the central bay about 3 km west of the inlet. Down stream of the Fl orida East coast Railroad (FECRR) Bridge the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) intersects the estuary in a dogleg fashion. Five navigation/access channels exist on the south shore of the central embayment

PAGE 21

5 Figure 2.1 Location map of the study area (Source: U.S. Geological Survey report no.844157, 1984) Figure 2.2 Loxahatchee River estuary and tributaries A detailed hydrographic survey of the cen tral embayment (Figure 2.3) and the Northwest and Southwest Forks carried out in November’ 2001 (Lidberg Land Surveying, Inc) indicates the depths in th e estuary, which range between 0 m (reference to North Atlantic Vertical Datum 1988, (NAVD 88)) near the sandy shoals to almost 6 m

PAGE 22

6 in the entrance channel near the FECRR Bridge. The average depth over the embayment is just over 1 m. The navigation channel (maintained by the Jupiter Inlet District) runs westward from the Inlet, under the FECRR bridge, and through the central embayment approximately 14 km upstream from the In let. The navigation Channel has a bottom width of about 30.5m (100 feet) and is ma intained at 1.75m(5.74feet) (reference to National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929, (NGVD 29) and – 2.21m (7.24feet) with reference to NAVD 88) with a side slope of 1:3. Flood shoals, which approximately bisects the central embayment exists mainly due to the sand influx from the ocean, and smaller shoals exist at the termini of the th ree main tributaries. Small shoal islands are located west of the FECRR bridge, on both sides of the channel. The Northwest Fork and North Fork are natural tributaries draining in to the central embayment. However, as mentioned the Southwest Fork was lengthened westward by construction of C-18 canal with a control structur e (S-46), in order to divert flow from the Northwest Fork to the Southwest Fork. A channel was then constructed allowing the diversion of flow from the Northwest Fork to the Southwest Fork. For easy reference from this point on, the C-18 can al will be indicated as the narrow channel section and the broader section at the root will be called Southwest Fork (Figure 2.2).

PAGE 23

7 Figure 2.3 Hydrographic survey of the estuary (November 2001) The Loxahatchee River estuary drains over 1000 km2 of land through the three main tributaries, the ICWW, and several mi nor tributaries. The individual watershed basins are shown in Figure 2.4 and liste d in Table 2.1. The watershed constitutes residential areas, agricultural lands, and uninhabited marsh and slough areas. Table 2.1 Basin area distributions in the Loxahatchee River estuary watershed Basin Area (km2) Intracoastal Water way 545 C – 18 Canal 278 Jonathan Dickinson 155 South Indian River 65 Loxahatchee Rive 6

PAGE 24

8 Figure 2.4 Loxahatchee River estuary watershed basins, estuarine limits (dashed arcs) and central embayment Unlike more northerly estuaries, upland dr ainage in to the Loxahatchee provides only quartz sand and organic detritus. Clay mi neral makes up less than 5% of the mud in the estuary (McPherson, 1984). Earlier studies indicate that the estuary was periodically open and closed to the sea due to various r easons. Originally, flow from the Loxahatchee River along with that from Lake Worth Cr eek and Jupiter Sound kept the inlet clean. With the construction of the ICWW and the Lake Worth inlet and the modifications of the St.Lucie Inlet in 1970, some flow was dive rted. Subsequently, Jupiter Inlet generally remained closed until 1947, except when it is dredged periodically. After 1947, it was

PAGE 25

9 maintained open by dredging by the Jupiter Inlet District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dredge and fill operations have also been carried out in the estuary embayment and forks. In the early 1900’s, there was signi ficant amount of filling at the present FECRR Bridge, which narrowed the estuary from 370 m to 310 m. The areas east and west of the bridge (and also under the bridge) were dr edged in mid-1930’s, and also in 1942. The material was high is shell content and was used in construction of roads. In 1976-77, additional estimated 23,000 m3 materials were removed from the estuary at the bridge and from an area extending 180 m from the west Some dredging was also carried out in the Southwest Fork near the C-18 canal in the early 1970’s (Wanless, Rossinsky and McPherson, 1984). In 1980, three channels were dug in the embayment, and an estimated 23,000 m3 of sediment were removed. After 1900, the estuary was greatly influen ced by the dredging and alteration of the drainage to the basin. With gradual lowering of the water table and resultant effect on the water quantity, the direction and pattern of inflow (McPherson and Sabanskas, 1980) were considerably affected. Historically, the major surface flow to the estuary was in to the Northwest Fork from the Loxahatch ee Marsh and the Hungry-land Slough (Figure 2.1), both of which drained north. A small agricultural canal was dug before 1928 to divert a small amount of water from the L oxahatchee Marsh to the Southwest Fork. As noted, in 1957-58, C-18 canal was constructed al ong the natural drainage way to divert flow from the Northwest Fork to the Southwest Fork of the estuary. Jaeger et al., (2001) carried out extensive studies in the estuary to reevaluate the nature of environmental sedimentology in th e lower Loxahatchee River Estuary and as a

PAGE 26

10 companion study to Ganju et al. (2001). Speci fically, new samples were collected in order to 1) examine changes in surfic ial sediment types between 1990 and 2000, 2) attempt to determine the sources of fine-grained muddy sediments accumulating within the estuary; and 3) examine rates of sedimentation within the central embayment and three forks (North, Northwest, and Southwes t/C-18 canal) by collecting a suite of ~1-m long pushcores and ~3 m long vibracores within the estuary. Grab samples were collected in all regions of the estuary and were analy zed. One of the main findings of the study was the internal movement of the sediments in the estuary system. With the growth of the population on the shoreline and associated human activities the mangroves dotting the shoreline started vanishing. The removal of these Mangrove cover from the shoreline released a large quantity of sediments, which was otherwise trapped in their roots. Essentially fine grained, these sediments moved with the flow and started getting deposited in the estuarine bounds. According, to this study new shoals were developed/grown by this process, especially the submerged one in the Northwest Fork, down stream of the shoal identifiable from a satellite map and Figure 4 of the Report (Jaeger et al., 2001). The aerial photograph re produced in Figure 2.5 also indicates an additional shoal developing from the root of the existing shoal, suggesting that the general nature sediments being fed by the Northw est Fork is coarse grained with the fine grained ones carried downstream with the current before deposition. Tidal flow into and out of the estuary is much larger than freshwater inflow from all the major tributaries. Fresh water flow is reported to be about 2 percent of the total tidal inflow (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). Ti des are mixed semidiurnal (twice daily with varying amplitude) with a tidal range of about 0.6 to 0.9 m. Tidal waves advances

PAGE 27

11 up the estuary at a rate of 2.23 m/s to 4.46 m/s (McPherson and Sonnetag, 1984) and shows little change in the tidal amplitudes ove r to about 16 km river km. Winds have a significant effect on the tidal ranges especia lly the strong northeast winds which prevails during autumn and winter for example can push in additional water into the estuary affecting the tidal ranges. N ew Shoal Figure 2.5 Ariel photograph showing development of new shoal Estuarine conditions extends in the estuary from the inlet for about 8 river km into Southwest Fork, 9.6 river km in to the North fork and 16 river km into the Northwest Fork. Of late, the environmental condition of th e Loxahatchee River and the estuary has become a matter of great concern. The major f actor affecting the environmental health is the sediment transported in to the estuary. Large amount of the sediments settling in the

PAGE 28

12 basin might affect the bottom life, alter circulation patterns, and accumulate shoals, thereby impeding boat traffic (McPherson, Wanless and Rossinsky, 1984). 2.2 C-18 Canal 2.2.1 Present Condition The C-18 canal drains the Loxahatchee Slough, a shallow swamp-like feature containing diverse flora and fauna. However, estuarine conditions persist for 8 km up the Southwest Fork/C-18 canal measured from the inlet. Flow data obtained from USGS stream fl ow gage data, for all available years (1971-2002 N.W. Fork, 1980-1982 N. Fork, a nd 1959-2002 S.W. Fork) indicate that C18 canal/Southwest Fork carries a maximum discharge of 61.54 m3/sec. Cumulative frequency distribution curves were constructe d to designate (Figure 2.6 a-c) median and extreme flow events (Table 2.2) for all the tr ibutaries. The C-18 canal is regulated at S-46 structure, which is basically a gated sluice. The criterion for controlling the flow at the S46 structure is based on water level behind the structure. When the level exceeds a predetermined mark, the sluice gates are ope ned until the level recedes by 30 cm (Russell and McPherson, 1984), at which point the gates are closed. This regulation has resulted in a discontinuous flow record; w ith weeks of no flow passing the structure, and days when storm flows have been released. During normal wet season, the level behind the S-46 structure is not always sufficiently high for re leasing flow, while the other tributaries are freely discharging to the estuary.

PAGE 29

13 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.105101520253035404550556065707580 Flow rate (m3/s)Cummulative frequency distribution 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.822.2 Flow rate ( m3/s ) Cumulative frequency distribution a b

PAGE 30

14 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 05101520253035404550556065 Flow rate ( m3 / s ) Cumulative frequency distributionc Figure 2.6.Cumulative discharge plot. a) Nort hwest Fork. b) North Fork. c) Southwest Fork. Table 2.2 Statistical tributary flow (based on Figures 2.6 a-c) Tributary Median Flow (50%) (m3/s) High Flow (90%) (m3/s) Maximum Flow (98%) (m3/s) Northwest Fork 0.7 4.1 76 North Fork 0.1 0.21 1.9 Southwest Fork 1.3 7.8 61 Sonnetag and McPherson (1984) reported two values of suspended solid sediment concentration (0.059 kg/m3, 0.017 kg/m3) with corresponding flow data for the C-18 canal (31 m3/s, 28 m3/s, respectively) and a mean concentration value for duration (198082) of their study (0.014 kg/m3). The median flow for the C-18 canal (1.3 m3/s) from the Figure 2.6c was correlated to this mean value of concentration in the present study. A fit in the form of (Mller and Fstner, 1968) s b sCaQ (2.1)

PAGE 31

15 was used (Ganju et al., 2001), where s a and s b are site specific coefficients, with s ais indicative of the erodibility of the upstream banks/bed and exponent s bis indicative of the intensity of the erosional forces in the river. Table 2.3 Median and high flow concentrati on data and coefficients for equation 2.1 Tributary Median flow Concentration (kg/m3) High flow Concentration (kg/m3) s a Coefficient s b Coefficient Northwest Fork 0.011 0.023 0.012 0.27 North Fork 0.01 0.018 0.018 0.02 Southwest Fork 0.014 0.059 0.012 0.49 Fieldwork, consisting of bottom profiling and sampling was carried out during July 2001 (Jaeger et al.,) by collecting a suite of ~1-m long push cores and ~3 m long vibracores within the estuary. A total of 110 samples were collected from sampling locations covering the entire estuary and ri ver (Figure 1, Final Report on Sedimentary processes in the Loxahatchee River Estuary, 5000 Years ago to the Present, Jaeger et al., 2001) including from outcrops of regional su rficial geological unit (undifferentiated 1.8 million year-old Pleistocene sediments) in order to examine the potential sediment sources (Loxahatchee River, C-18 canal, In let, and Pleistocene-Age (last 1.8 million years) sediments exposed along the banks of the C-18 canal. 56 of the samples were reoccupations of sites sampled in 1990 and were reported (Mehta et al.,1992). These new samples were collected to examine the change s in sediment characteristics pattern over a 10-year period. Positions of all sampling sites were determined by differential GPS providing a position accuracy of ~1 m. Each grab sample recovered approximately 1 000-2 000 cm3 of sediment, removing approximate ly the uppermost 1-5 cm of the sediment surface. Sediment distribution maps produced from these grab samples indicate

PAGE 32

16 particle sizes reveal that the majority of the estuary is dominated (by weight) of fine, well-sorted sand in the ~150 micron (3 phi; 0.15 mm) size range (Jaeger et al., 2001) In the same study conducted by Jaeger et al., (2001), poling depths (obtained by pushing a graduated pole into bottom until a hard substrate is reached) in the C-18 canal were determined to estimate sedimentation rates along the length of the canal. Since the bottom was dredged at the time of construc tion of the canal in 1957/58, the bed thickness can be considered to represent the subs equent accumulation. This is because, the dredging of the canal in 1958 would have mo st likely left behind a hard, sand rich horizon that could not be easily penetrated with the solid rod. Figure 2.7 shows these thicknesses along the canal length. Sediment th ickness increases with the distance from the S-46 structure, possibly due to the large erosional forces near the structure (when flow is released), and reduction of these forces as the flow moves along the canal, allowing more deposition of sediment. Figure 2.7 Dredging Plans for C-18 canal, 1956 (Source: Ganju et al., 2001) This coarse sand layer was sampled at th e base of push cores (see Figures 21 and 22 from Jaeger et al., 2001). There appears to be a trend of increasing thickness away

PAGE 33

17 from the S-46 control structur e (Figure 19). Modeling of sediment transport in the canal (Ganju et al., 2001) also supports such a trend. The overall sedimentation rates (10-50 mm/yr) in the canal are very high for most coastal areas, where sedimentation has kept pace with the rise in sea level (3-5 mm/ yr) (Davis, 1994). However, this sampling technique of poling only provides mean se dimentation rates over this 42-year (19582001) time period. Analyses of push cores coll ected in the canal document alternating layers of clean sand and muddy sand/sandy m ud (see Figures 21-22, Jaeger et al., 2001). This inter-layering of sediment types is characteristic of time-varying deposition rates/erosion rates. When the sluice ga tes are opened, fast currents can erode the sediment surface followed by rapid deposition of sand and mud. The best way to evaluate time-varying sedimentation rates is with eith er accurate annual bathymetric profiles or by measuring naturally occurring radioisotopes in the sediment cores (Jaeger et al., 2001). 2.2.2 Management Options Dredging plans for the C-18 canal from 1956 is shown in Figure 2.7 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1956). The existing bottom wa s deepened to 3 m at some locations to facilitate drainage. The depths refer to the National Geodetic Vertical datum of 1929 (NGVD). The present mean depth of the canal as measured along the length is 1.2 m. Hence there has been substantial sedimentation in the canal, which in turn means that it no longer serves as a sediment trap and allows sediment to be transported to the central embayment. One way of maintaining the dept h in the canal is to devise a suitable dredging option coupled with a designed flow regi me in order to maintain the canal in the self-cleaning mode. However one of the main difficulties in this is the lack of continuous supply of water. As described earlier, the flow in the canal is erratic and controlled by the S-46 control structure. Accordingly, although the median flow in this canal is higher than

PAGE 34

18 the other tributaries, the flow is episodi c and therefore not enough to overcome the bed shear resistance of the deposited sediments. This situation can be illustrated by data collected during between April 4th and April 24th, 2002. Figure 2.8 indicates the dependence of th e current velocity on the released discharge. The sudden jump in the over all current magnitude recorded downstream of the structure therefore exhibit strong erosiona l trend as can be seen from the Figure 2.9. In addition, it indicates that, sediment concentrations in the bottom layers are much more pronounced due to the obvious reason of erosion of the bed. It can therefore be concluded that, a sustained and regular flow regime w ould help keeping the canal sediment free. An option is to increase the depth in the can al by dredging part or all of it, thereby recreating the sediment trap. As an alternativ e, a detailed study of the flow pattern can be undertaken and a suitable flow regime worked out. This would involve redesigning of the control structure and a better regulation of the flow. However, the following points should be noted: 1. The capacity of flow from the structure appears to be insufficient to flush out sediment beyond 1.2 km (Ganju et al., 2001) from the structure even under “high” discharges when the gates are open. 2. A potential option is to change the gate configuration but not the flow regulation schedule. If changing the gate configura tion from sluice to weir is successful, it would create a sediment trap upstream of the gate, which would “buy time” for the downstream reach of the canal, but this upstream trap would eventually have to be dredged to maintain it effectiveness. The volume of material trapped will be restricted the weir height. Over-depth dredging upstream is a viable option. 3. However, because sediment transported across the gate is believed to be quite heterogeneous (ranging from fine sand to clay and organic matter) and the organic material is presently not found in the bed there, predictive modeling the transport of sediment across the gate will be an un certain exercise without extensive data collection on both sides of the gate. An option would be to carry out gate conversion and work with the new system based on a rough estimation of the new flow/sediment regime. It is likely that some modification of gate opening schedule may also have to be carried out to improve the efficiency of the upstream trap.

PAGE 35

19 Figure 2.8 Current variation under the effect of released discharge from the S-46 structure. Figure 2.9 Effect of S-46 discharge on the suspended sediment concentration The present study envisages examining the option dredging the downstream canal. Ganju (2001) carried out such an exercise by testing the effectiveness of a comparatively

PAGE 36

20 short sediment trap. The trap design and re sults of the investigation are summarized below.In order to quantify the sedimentation rate as a function of discharge in the C-18 canal investigations were carried out usi ng calibrated sediment transport models. The boundary conditions were designed to simulate the episodic unsynchronized (with Northwest and North Fork discharges) discha rges from the S-46 structure. The results indicated that as discharge increases the ch ange in the rate of sedimentation rate decreases. However, they do not share a dir ect straight-line relationship. For instance, doubling of flow from 2.5 m3/s to 5 m3/s results an increase of 71% in the sedimentation rate and similar increase from 10 to 20 m3/s changes the rate only by 25% indicating that, the sedimentation rate is more sensitive to lower discharges. This is evidently due to increasing discharge is associated with increas ed concentration. The regulation of the C18 canal by the S-46 structure is manifested in the high frequency of zero-discharge periods (54% of the days) and the spikes The deposition rates were found to be 0.15 m for a period of 10 years, which compared well with the poling results. The study also compares the sedimentation in a regulated C-18 canal to that of hypothetically unregulated canal by applying flow record for the Northwest fork for the same period pro-rated so that the discha rges over the 10 year flow period remains identical. Resulting in a 10-year deposition thickness of 0.22m (0.022m/yr), implying that the episodic discharges in actuality reduced the rate of sedimentation. This is a direct consequence of near constant high disc harge attenuating the increasing trend of sedimentation. The study incorporates a trap near the ar ea of greatest post dredging thickness, with a poling depth of approximately 1.2 m. A dre dging depth of 3 m (from the original bed

PAGE 37

21 level) width of 60 m, and a length of 180 m were chosen for the trap, which was considered sufficient to reduce the velocity in the canal, and allow a measurable amount of sediments to settle. This trap configura tion reduced the current magnitude by 67% over the trap. As a consequence a number of factors were evaluated by the study namely, Simulations showed that the removal ratio, i.e., the ratio of sediment influx (into the trap) minus out flux divided by influx) was maximum at an S-46 discharge of approximately 1.7 m3/s. At higher discharges sediment was transported beyond the trap, while at lower discharges sediment settled before the trap. The second simulation involved testing the trap efficiency as a function of sediment concentration. It was observed that increase in sediment concentrations in the free settling range in general increases the settlement. The increase in trapped load followed a linear trend up to concentrations of 0.25 kg/m3 (free settling zone), which is explained by the increase of deposition flux with concentration (with constant settling velocity). Above th is concentration, and below 7 kg/m3 (flocculation range), the increase in settling velocity yields a similarly increasing trend for trapped load. In the hindered settling zone, however, (which lies above this concentration) trapped load decreases as the settling velocity deceases. It was therefore be inferred that trapped load is a function of concentration because settling velocity (and hence the deposition flux) is also a function of concentration at values greater than 0.25 kg/m3. The simulations on varying organic conten t indicated that, increase in organic content led to decease in settling velocity, which resulted in lower removal ratio. Sedimentation rate in the trap increased with increased organic content, due to corresponding decease in dry density. In additi on, the increase in influent load with increasing organic content as less sediment was deposited upstream of the trap at higher organic content. 2.3 Central Embayment 2.3.1 Present Condition Jupiter Inlet, which is about 112 m wide and 3.9 m deep at the jetties, allows the tidal flow in and out of the estuary. The channel starting at the jetties leading up to the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge is fairly uniform, with width varying from 206 m to 247 m and the mean depth varying between 3.92 m at the inlet and 2.6 m near the FECRR Bridge. The ICWW meets the channe l down stream of the FECRR bridge.

PAGE 38

22 Upstream of the FECRR Bridge the embayment widens and the channel is divided in to two parts by shoals often exposed under low water conditions. These shoals presumably created by the sands introduced in to the syst em through the inlet and the tributaries, and carried by the flood tide, occur where the sedi ment carrying capacity of the flow reduces with the reduction of current at wider sections. In addition, east of these sandy shoals there occurs a small mangrove island. Similar Islands occur near the north bank close to the FECCR Bridge. The deepest portion of the embayment lies to the north of the sandy shoal, easily identifiable even from a areal photograph (Figure 2.9) is currently used for navigation. The shoreline is basically sandy with little or no clay present. The percentage of clay and silt is barely 5%. The average depth in the central embayment is 1.2 m. The depth in the deeper portions along the flood channel however exceeds 3 m in patches. A similar deep channel can be found along the south bank, which has been presumably created by the ebb circulation. A clear ebb channel can also be seen from the satellite photographs to the south of the sandy shoal. Boats returning to their docks use this channel at high water. There are many private wooden docks along the entire coastline. At the turn of the century, the Loxa hatchee River estuaries along with its immediate environ was a pristine ecosystem consisting of mangroves, salt marshes, and scrubland. Prior to Word War II agricultural interests transformed the area in to a rural landscape with citrus groves and vegetable farm s. As a result, a significant increase in residential population occurred around this time. These developments ultimately prompted the declaration of the estuary an aquatic preserve in 1984. Nonetheless, the construction activities, especially of the residential homes still continue along the shoreline and the entire estuarial shoreline of the central embayment as well as a

PAGE 39

23 significant portion of the tributary shorelines is residentially occupied. Recreational boating is widely practiced in the estuary by the local residents. Access is necessary to the upstream areas for recreational activities, and also to the open sea and the ICWW. Many of the natural and artificial access routes have shoaled in recent years (Antonini et al., 1998), leading to hazardous boating practices such as high-speed entry/ exist to prevent grounding of vessels. The channels ad jacent to the south shore of the central embayment are more susceptible to shoa ling (Sonntag and McPherson, 1984), directly affecting the boaters who rely on these channels for access Figure 2.10 Arial Photograph showing the Central Embayment, the Inlet and the Tributaries Estimates with regard to grain size, co mposition and age of bottom sediments are given by McPherson et al. (1984) for the en tire estuary. The samples collected by vibrocore boring were analyzed in the labor atory for micro-faunal and macro-faunal assemblages, grain size distributions, constituent composition and radiocarbon age. With regard to the grain size it was seen that, th e characteristics of the bed material were identical to those of the underlying sediments in the core. Fine-grained sediments dominate the central bar at the lower reaches of the estuary; whereas medium to coarsegrained sand dominates upper reaches of the bar. Patches of fine to medium sand draping

PAGE 40

24 the muddy sediment surface can be seen in the main body of the estuary. The shell content in the bed material varies from 0 to 5% at the eastern end to 20 to 30% at the western end. Grain-size analysis reveals that there ar e two distinct different populations. The first, well-sorted sediment with a mode between 62.5 to 125 microns, and the second, poorly sorted sediment commonly showing bimodality. The bimodal distributions generally have one mode at about 300 microns and the other at 100 microns. Jaeger et al, (2001) measured the particle sizes in the estuary, which, reveal that the majority of the estuary is dominated (by we ight) of fine, well-sorted sand in the ~150 micron (3 phi; 0.15 mm) size range. This size sand is ubiquitous in the estuary and is observed in Pleistocene-age coastal deposits exposed in outcrops within the study area. The ultimate source of the sand accumulating with in the upper estuary is from erosion of these older deposits. The amount of mud-sized sediment (<63 microns) is minimal with the exception of the upper reach of the Nort hwest Fork, the North Fork, and near the junction of the C-18 canal and the Southwest Fork. Clay mineral analyses on the mud fraction accumulating throughout the estuary reveal s that the ultimate source of the claysized sediment is from erosion of the Pleistocene-age deposits. Comparison of the sediment characteristics (median particle-size, sorting) between 1990 and 2000 within the Central Embayment re veal that this region has not changed significantly over the past decade. Howeve r, the navigation channels have become coarser apparently due to the removal of fine sediment. Portions of the lower Northwest Fork and the Southwest Fork have gotten finer.

PAGE 41

25 Based on the analyses of 20 push cores, th ere does not appear to be a widespread organic-rich flocculent “muck” layer with in the three major forks of the estuary. Although mud is a common component of the se diments in these locations, by weight it usually represents less than 20% of the total core mass. In addition, study by Jaeger et al., (2001) indicate that in the main navigation channels, the sediments have become coarser and more poorly sorted over the last ten years. The study attributes this to the likel y inclusion of shelly material in the 2000 samples that was not sampled in 1990. It is possible that maintenance dredging during this time period resulted in the exposure of olde r shelly material or that changes in the shape of the navigation channel has led to st ronger currents that have removed the finer sands. Although the western portion of the Cent ral Embayment has seen no change in the median particle diameter, it has gotten marg inally better sorted, and could reflect a decrease in fine sediments accumulating. Freshwater runoff enters the Loxahatchee River estuary by river and canal discharges, by storm drains, and by overland s ubsurface inflow. Most of the freshwater from the tributaries is discharged from the No rthwest Fork of the estuary. These flows, as expected, vary seasonally, occurring chiefl y in the wet season. The median, high and maximum flow discharges are given in Table 2.2. Tidal flow into and out of the estuary is much larger than the freshwater inflow from all the major tributaries. The combined freshwater flow into the estuary is found to be about 2% or less of the average tidal in flow at the Jupiter inlet (McPherson, Sonnetag, 1984). However, during tropical storm Dennis, freshwater inflow per tidal cycle increased to 18% of average tidal inflow (McPherson, Sonnetag, 1983). Tides are mixed

PAGE 42

26 semi-diurnal with varying amp litudes, with a tidal range of approximately 0.6 to 1 m. The tidal wave advances to the estuary at a rate of about 2.3 m/s to 4.5 m/s. Higher than usual tides can be noted during the autumn and winter when strong northeast winds pushes additional water in to the estuary causing higher than average tides. Ultrasonic water level gauges (Model 220, Infinities USA, Daytona Beach, FL) with stilling walls were installed to meas ure tidal elevations between September 14th and October 18th, at three locations in the estuary one each in the Central embayment (tied to the FECRR bridge pier), Northwest Fork, a nd Southwest Fork. The gauge locations are shown in Figure 2.10. Tidal elevations were recorded with respect to North Atlantic Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and are reprodu ced in Table 2.3. Tidal ranges indicate the total change in water surface elevati on between low and high tides and phase lag refers to the difference in time between high/low tide at UFG1 gauge and the other gauges. In Figure 2.12 sample records from three tidal gauge locations are shown. Figure 2.11 Location of tide gauges marked UFG1, UFG2 and UFG3

PAGE 43

27 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 05101520253035404550 Time (hour)Elevation from MSL (m) UFG1 UFG2 UFG3 Figure 2.12 Sample records of tidal measurem ents at three locations (09/14/00-09/15/00)Datum NAVD 88. Table 2.4 Spring/neap tidal ranges and phase lags for three gauges Gauge ID Spring range (m) Neap range (m) Phase lag from UFG1 (min) UFG1 0.90 0.66 0 0 UFG2 0.85 0.65 21 60 UFG3 0.86 0.64 28 60 Ganju et al., (2001) compared the data obt ained from these gauges to a station on the Northeast Florida coast and inferred that trends in water surface elevation followed similar increases and decreases in mid-tide elev ations and the increased elevations in side the estuary is a direct result of onshore winds. The wind records from two offshore stations were averaged and correlated with the mid-tide elevation, resulting in a positive correlation. Accordingly, mid-tide elevation was subtracted from the measured elevations (filtering) in order to obtain tidal data without any variation. 2.3.2 Management Option: Presently, the dredged spoil from th e embayment is disposed on land. Land disposal of marine sediment is often times not optimal for the environment, especially for

PAGE 44

28 the ground water. According to earlier studi es by Sonnetag and McPherson (1984) the central embayment receives sediment from two main sources, the inlet and upland discharge. Regular maintenance of the naviga tion channel is a clear indication of this supply. Ideally, a large enough central shoal (i f developed to correct contours) could serve the process of self-cleansing of the bay. The shoal when developed would decrease the water flow area and thereby, increasing the velocity of flow. The increased current in the limiting case would develop erosional stresse s equal to the critical bed shear of the sediment and therefore would be able to pr event the further sedimentation of the bay. However, numerical modeling for such an exam ination is outside the scope of this study. The present study will however deal with the development of an additional navigation/flow channels for improvement of ebb flow. 2.4 Northwest Fork: 2.4.1 Present Condition: The Northwest Fork meanders through typi cal South Florida swampland within the Jonathan Dickinson State Park (JDSP). The extensive swampland and scrubland east of JDSP is drained by the North Fork. It is therefore evident that the watershed is biologically productive, and the sediment carried by the runoff is rich in organic content eventually finds its way in to the estuary (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). Most of the freshwater from is discha rged through this fork. From February 1st, 1980, to the September 30th, 1981, for example, 77.3 percent of the freshwater was discharged into the Northwest Fork, 20.5 percen t in to the Southwest Fork (C-18 Canal), and 2.2 percent into the North Fork (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). The Loxahatchee River (i.e., Northwest Fork) at SR-706, site 23 as shown in Figure 2.14 (Figure 2, U.S.

PAGE 45

29 Geological report no 83-4244, 1984), contributed the greatest percentage of flow to the estuary (37.4 percent) of all the tributaries. Vertical variation of the sediments in the Northwest fork is Found at site 5 and 5E (Figure 2, U.S. Geological report no 84-4157, 1984) during both incoming and outgoing tides. Presumably, greater water velocities, pa rticularly at 0.6 m above the bottom at the mid depth, associated with higher tide stages c ontributed to the greater vertical variation of suspended sediments (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). Concentration of the suspended sediments and the percentage of se diments of organic origin were variable with season and weather conditions as indicat ed by the data collected and listed in U.S Geological Survey report 84-4157 (Sonneta g and McPherson, 1984). The greatest increases were observed in Cypress Cree k, lying upstream of the Northwest Fork. Concentration of the suspended sediment in the tributaries also changed as a result of man’s upstream activities. During September 1981, suspended sediment concentration in the Cypress Creek and Hobe Grove Ditc h increased as much as 21 times over concentrations in early September (S onnetag and McPherson, 1984). Cleaning and dredging operations on the irrigation canal c onnected to the Cypress Creek and Hobe Grove Ditch were presumably responsible Suspended sediment load from the tribut aries are highly seasonal and storm related. The 5 major tributaries to the Loxahatchee estuary Loxahatchee River at SR-706, Cypress Creek, Kitching Creek, Hobe Grove Ditch, and C-18 at S-46 discharged 1,904 tons of suspended sediments to the estuary during the 20-month period (February 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981) (Table 2.3). During th e 61 days period of the above-average rainfall (August 1 to September 30, 1981) that included tropical storm Dennis, the major

PAGE 46

30 tributaries discharged 926 tons of suspended sediment to the estuary. This accounted for 49 percent of the suspended sediment disc harged to the estuary during the 20-month period and about 74 percent of the suspe nded sediment discharged during 1981 water year (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). Sediment loads from C-18, Loxahatchee River at SR-706, and Cypress Creek accounted for more than 94 percent of the total tributary input of the sediment load. Figure 2.13 Location of stream-gauging stations and sampling site for suspended sediments, (Source U.S. Geological report no 83-4244 and 84-4157) Unlike the central embayment concentrati on of mud was quite high (~50%) in the Northwest Fork (Jaeger et al., 2001). The st udy by Jaeger et al., (2001) also analyses vibracores takes which, reveal that there ha s been roughly 0.5-1 cm/yr of sedimentation within a part of the Northwest Fork when compared to data from a USGS-sponsored

PAGE 47

31 study completed, in 1984 (Sonnetag and McPher son). The study further concludes that, these accumulation rates are close to those aver aged over the past 50 years, assuming that an observed change in the cores from layere d sediment not mixed by organisms to those that are well mixed by organisms occurred in 1947 when the inlet was stabilized. Inlet stabilization would have led to increased tidal flushing that allowed for better oxygenation of bottom waters and sediment s permitting occupation of sediments by organisms. However, this datum has not been substantiated as pre 1947 and the accumulation rates are bulk averages. A compar ison of the collected data and studies by Ganju et al., (2001) showed that accumulation rates within the upper reaches of the three Forks are about 2-3 times higher than the modeled fine-sediment budget prepared by Ganju et al. (2001). Accordingly, the study conc ludes that, this discrepancy could be due to poor age constraints of the core layers or to the substantial presence of sand in the core sections, which was measured in this stratigra phic (i.e., core layering) approach but not in the fine-sediment budget. Upstream of the outfall point of the No rthwest Fork is marked by a horseshoeshaped shoal (Figure 2.14). Presumably this shoal is formed due to the reduction in current velocity of the sediment-laden flow by the ebb tide. In addition, the ebb flow velocity gets reduced upon meeting a large body of water (central embayment). Upstream of this shoal there occur a series of sand shoals also formed by the same processes. Downstream of the shoal however, the depths are uniform gradually increasing as moves in to the central embayment area. Formation of deposits presumably from the erosion of old deposits in side the estuary was also re ported by Jaeger et al., (2001). Figure no 4 of

PAGE 48

32 the report are reproduced here for reference with regard to the deposition and material composition. In Figure 2.15 the mass percent of the mud (particles smaller than 63 microns) in the upper ~5 cm of the sediment surface is shown. Location of the sampling sites are shown as dot symbols. 2.4.2 Management Options Discounting the sedimentation from the inte rnal sources of erosion, the Northwest Fork contributes the maximum discharge as well as the maximum sediment into the central embayment (Sonnetag and McPhers on, 1984). However, Jaeger et al, (2001) indicate that fresh deposits are found in the Fo rk (Figure 2.14), suggesting that the source of such deposits may be mostly internal to the estuary, and most likely due to the erosion of old deposits. Sediment from external s ources entering the estuary with fresh water discharge as reported by McPherson (1984) woul d have deposited in the proximity of the horseshoe shoal. In order to minimize the deposition of fine sediment in the area of high mud percentage in the Northwest Fork (Fi gure 2.14), a self-cleaning channel will be examined. According to Jaeger et al., (2001), th e origin of deposits (Figure 2.14) is due to the erosion of old deposits. Therefore the ch annel is proposed to be located downstream of these deposits. Design aspects of the channel are considered in Chapter 4.

PAGE 49

33 Figure 2.14 Location indicating fresh mud depositi ons and the Shoals the estuary. Source: Sedimentary Processes in the Loxahatchee River Estuary: 5000 Years Ago to the Present-FINAL REPORT, Jaeger et al., (2001) 2.5 North Fork 2.5.1 Present Condition The North Fork is a natural tributary dr aining the eastern part of the Jonathan Dickson State Park. Discharge as given in Table 2.2 is the least of the three main tributaries (2.2% of total), and water depth is fairly uniform at around 2 m, with virtually no shoals. McPherson and Sonnetag (1983) re ported that in the 1981 water year the tributaries of the North Fork were dry at the gauging stations (Figure 2.13) from March trough mid-August. During the rest of the year the average flow was 0.12 m3/s, a very small value. Discharge following Tropical Stor m Dennis was also small for the amount of rainfall associated with the storm. Daily di scharges for the last 10 days of August 1981 averaged 0.31 m3/s but increased to 0.71m3/s in September. Jaeger et al. (2001) found Clay deposits

PAGE 50

34 some mud deposits in the upper reaches. Depths in the fork appear to be adequate for the recreational boating. 2.5.2 Management Options The North Fork as indicated above has the least river inflow as well as the least sediment contribution to the estuary. In addition, the depths are fairly uniform and good for the types of boats presently using it. Hence no additional facility is believed to be required for this area. Therefore no dredging is planned for this tributary nor appears to be required.

PAGE 51

35 CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION 3.1 Field Setup in the Southwest Fork Field data were collected at two sites, one in the Southwest Fork and the other in the Northwest Fork. Section 3.3 collection effo rt and results in the Southwest Fork, and Section 3.4 in the Northwest Fork. The field data collection set up in th e Southwest Fork of the estuary had geographical coordinates of latitude 26o 56' 36.78" N and longitude 80o 07' 17.34" W. In the Northwest Fork the corresponding coordinates were 26o 59' 16.78" N and longitude 80o 07' 56.34" W. These two locations are show n in Figure 3.1. The locations of the tidal gages installed in the year 2000 were shown in Figure 2.11. The depth (below North Atlantic Vertical Datum, 1988, (NAVD88)) at the sites ware 2.1m and 2.18, respectively. Instrument Stations Figure 3.1 Location of instrument tower in the Southwest and Northwest Forks

PAGE 52

36 Data in the Southwest Fork were collected in two phases. The first phase of the data collection was carried out between 4th and 24th April 2002, and the second phase was between 6th of February and 2nd of June 2003. The instrumentation deployed is given in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Instrumentation for data collection and data blocks Instrument Data Date Data logger (*) Current (mag.) – u Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) Current (dir.) – u Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) Current (mag.) v No data Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) Current (dir.) v No data Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) Tide levels Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) OBS 1 Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 (Poor quality) Data logger (*)) OBS 2 Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) OBS 3 Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) OBS 4 Apr 04 to Apr 24 No data collected Data logger (*) Temperature Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 Data logger (*) Salinity Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2 *With ultrasonic current meter in April 2002 replaced with an electromagnetic current meter Instruments were attached to a tower erected for this purpose and was powered by rechargeable batteries. The instrument assembly consisted of a Marsh-McBirney electromagnetic current meter, a Transmetrics pressure transducer for the measurement of water surface elevation, a Vitel VEC-200 conductivity/temperature sensor for measurement of salinity and temperature, and three Sea point Optical Backscatter Sensor (OBS) turbidity meters for measuring the sedime nt concentration at 3 different levels. In the first phase instrument setup, however, turb idity sensors were deployed at 4 different levels. In addition Lidberg Land Surveys, Inc. carried out a hydrographic survey and collected data with regard to the bottom ba thymetry of the central embayment and the tributaries.

PAGE 53

37 In the Northwest Fork the data collection started on 14th of August 2003, with 3 level OBS sensors, one Conductivity Temperature sensor and one Pressure gauge 3.2 Instruments Deployed 3.2.1 Current Current data were collected using Marsh-McBirney electromagnetic current meter (Model 585 OEM). This meter consists of a 10 cm diameter spherical sensor, OEM motherboard, and signal processing electronics (Figure 3.5). The instrument senses water flow in a plane normal to the longitudinal axis of the electromagnetic sensor. Flow information is output as analog voltage corresponding to the water velocity components along the y-axis and x-axis of the electromagnetic sensor. The velocity sensor works on the Faraday principle of electromagnetic i nduction. The conductor (water) moving in the magnetic field (generated from within th e flow probe) produces a voltage that is proportional to the velocity of water. The Marsh-McBirney requires periodic cleaning of the probe with mild soap and water to keep the electrodes free of non-conductive material. Since the instrument has essentially a cosine response in the horizontal plane, the flow magnitude and the direction informati on are retained. In addition, the spherical electromagnetic sensor has an excellent vertical cosine response. This unique characteristic allows the sensor to successfu lly reject vertical current components that may be caused by mooring line motions. As th e flow changes direction, the polarities of the output signal also change. So the u (veloc ity along axis of the channel flow) and the v (velocity across the channel) velocities are stored and can be combined to give the resultant magnitude and direction. It must however be noted that, the v velocity component was largely insignificant due to the width of the channel at the tower location.

PAGE 54

38 3.2.2 Tide Water surface elevation was measured usi ng a Transmetrics pressure transducer installed at the instrument tower. The instrument incorporates three major design elements that allow it to measure pressure accurately and reliably; bonded foil strain gages configured in a Wheatstone bridge (for temperature stability), high precision integral electronics for signal amplification, and stainless steel construction for durability and corrosion resistance. The instrument was calibrated and temperature-compensated against standards applicable for the region. 3.2.3 Salinity/Temperature Conductivity is the measurement of the ab ility of a solution to carry an electric current. It is defined as the inverse of th e resistance (ohms) per unit square, and is measured in the units of Siemens/meter or micro-Siemens/centimeter. The measurement of conductivity is necessary for the determina tion of the salinity of a solution. Salinity is proportional to the conductivity and is expressed in terms of concentr ation of salt per unit volume (mg/l, or ppt). The field measurement of salinity was carried out following similar procedures using a Greenspan Electrical Conductivity (EC) sensor substantially eliminating a basic source of error arising out of the inaccuracies due to temperature and electrode effects. In this instrument the el ectrical conductivity is a function of the number of ions present and their mobility. The electri cal conductivity of a liquid changes at a rate of approximately 2% per degree Centigrade for neutral salt and is due to the ionic mobility being temperature dependent. The te mperature coefficient of the conductance (or K factor) varies for salts and can be in the range 0.5 to 3.0. As electrical conductivity is a function of both salt concentration and te mperature, it is preferable to normalize the

PAGE 55

39 conductivity measurement to a specific reference temperature (250C) so as to separate conductivity changes due to salt concentration from those due to temperature changes. The instrument deployed consisted of the following primary elements: Toroidal sensing head (conductivity sensor) Temperature sensor Microprocessor controlled signal conditioning and output device The conductivity sensor uses an electro magnetic field for measuring conductivity. The plastic head contains two ferrite core s configured as transformers within an encapsulated open-ended tube. One ferrite core is excited with a sinusoidal voltage and the corresponding secondary core senses an en ergized voltage when a conductive path is coupled with primary voltage. An increase in charged ion mobility or concentration causes a decrease in the resistivity and a corresponding increase in the output of the sensor. A separate PT100 temperature sensor inde pendently monitors the temperature of the sample solution. This sensor provides both a temperature output and a signal to normalize the conductivity output. 3.2.4 Sediment Concentration The instrument deployed was a Sea Point turb idity meter. This instrument measures turbidity by scattered light from suspended particles in water. The turbidity meter senses scattered light from a small volume within 5 centimeters of the sensor window. The light sources are side-by-side 880 nm Light Em itting Diodes (LED). Light from the LED shines through the clear epoxy emitter window into the sensing volume, where it gets scattered by particles. Scattered light between angles 15 and 150 degrees can pass through the detector window and reach the det ector. The amount of scattered light that

PAGE 56

40 reaches the detector is proportional to the turb idity or particle concentration in the water over a very large range. The sensors were calibrated using a sample from the measurement site. Periodic calibrations were conducted in order to eval uate the conditions of the windows and the sensitivity to scattering. In addition, only black containers were used in calibration so as to prevent any probable scattering events due to reflection off the container wall. The calibration was carried out using known volum e of sediments in known volume of water and the voltage output of the instrument r ecorded. A linear fit curve was generated in order to determine the accuracy of the calibration. The calibration plots are given below, Figure 3.2 Calibration plots used for calibration of OBS sensors

PAGE 57

41 3.3 Field Data Results in Southwest Fork 3.3.1 Current The electromagnetic current meter was lo cated at a height of 96.5 cm from the bed level. The velocity data in two direc tions, one parallel to the flow and the other perpendicular to it, were combined vectorially to find the resultant magnitude and direction. The ultrasonic current meter de ployed in April 2002 collected the current magnitude and direction directly. Based on these data the depth-mean magnitude time series for Julian days 94-114 is shown in Figure 3.3 and the corresponding direction plot is given as Figure 3.4. A sudden increase in the current magnitude in the plot is attributable to the opening of control struct ure S-46. The directional plot indicates a unidirectional flow driven by the discharge from the structure. The discharge record for the period is given in Table 3.2 for ready reference. Table 3.2 Discharge data for the period 04/14/2002 to 04/21/200 Date Julian Days of 2002 Discharge (m3/s) 04.14.2002 104 0.03171 04.15.2002 105 0.00821 04.16.2002 106 0.01416 04.17.2002 107 0.01501 04.18.2002 108 0.03483 04.19.2002 109 0.05777 04.20.2002 110 0.03568 04.21.2002 111 0.00934

PAGE 58

42 Figure 3.3 Record of current magnitude: Days 94-114 (year 2002). Figure 3.4 Record of current direction: Days 94-114 (year 2002).

PAGE 59

43 Figure 3.5 Record of current magnitude: Days 332-356 (year 2002). Figure 3.6 Record of current direction: Days 332356 (year 2002). Figure 3.5 is a representative plot of th e current magnitude for the second data block. This plot indicates a more uniform velo city pattern driven by the tidal flow in the

PAGE 60

44 estuary. The current magnitudes reach a maximum value of 0.17 m/s with the mean value at 0.06 m/s. In addition it is seen that the flow is predominantly along the estuary with very low values observed for transver se current (v). In Table 3.3 typical mean current values are summarized. Table 3.3 Typical mean current magnitude values for data blocks Current magnitude (m/s) Julian days in 2002 With S-46 discharge Only tidal flow Velocity u (m/s) Velocity v (m/s) 94 114 0.25 0.04 aa332 356 a0.06 0.057 0.018 a No data 3.3.2 Tidal Level Figure 3.7 Water level time-series: All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 94-114 (2002).

PAGE 61

45 Figure 3.8 Water level time series. Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 94-114 (2002). Figure 3.9 Water level time-series. All levels relative to NAVD88. Days 332365 (2002) and Days 01-35 (2003).

PAGE 62

46 Figure 3.10 Water level time series. Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without this trend. All level relative to NAVD 88. Days 332-365 (2002) and Days 01 – 35 (2003). In Figure 3.7 the raw tidal time-series is shown for the period April 4th to April 24th, 2002. In Figure 3.8 the upper plot shows the origin al time series with the tidal trend and the lower plot is with the tidal trend removed. The tidal plots indicated in the Figur e 3.7 to Figure 3.10 are representative plots from the phase II and I. The characteristic valu es of the tidal data are given in Table 3.4. In addition it can be noted that the tidal ra nges compares well in both the phases with the spring range equal to 1.0m and the neap ra nge around 0.5m. As will be explained later, the tidal fluctuations (as could be noted from Figure 3.9) between Julian days 360 to 365 in Year 2002, 01 to 5 and 17 to 25 in Year 2003, is likely to affect the sediment concentration in the estuary.

PAGE 63

47 Table 3.4 Characteristic values of the tidal data Water level/Tidal range Water level (m) Spring/neap range (m) Julian days in 2002/03 Mean water depth (m) MaximumMinimum Spring Neap 94-114 1.20 1.70 0.30 0.90 0.50 332-365 01 35 1.20 1.90 0.30 1.00 0.50 3.3.3 Total Suspended Solids Total Suspended Solid (TSS) was recorded at four elevations in the first phase and three elevations in the second phase. The elev ation of the OBSs relative to the bed level was OBS-4 = 1.17 m, OBS-3 = 0.80 m, OB S-2 = 0.48 m and OBS-1 = 0.22 m. The corresponding total suspended solid time series are reported in Figures 3.11 and 3.12 for days 94-114 (Phase I) and 352365 in 2002 and 01 to 35 in year 2003 (Phase II), respectively. Table 3.5 provides the maximum, mean and minimum values of sediment concentrations at different levels for each da ta block. Depth-mean concentration averaged every 12 hours is presented in Figures 3.13 and 3.14. The mean concentration figures (Figure 3.13 and 3.14) indicate the average variations in the concentration over time with out the instantaneous variations (spikes).

PAGE 64

48 Figure 3.11 TSS time-series at four elevations: Days 94-114 (year 2002). Figure 3.12 TSS time-series at three elevations: Days 352365 (year 2002) and 01–35 (year 2003).

PAGE 65

49 Figure 3.13 Depth-mean TSS concentration time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002) Figure 3.14 Depth mean TSS concentration time series: Days 352365 (year 2002) and Days 01 – 35 (year 2003).

PAGE 66

50 Figure 3.15 Depth mean TSS concentration time series and tidal trend indicating their dependence: Days 352365 (year 2002) and Days 01 – 35 (year 2003). It can be noted from Figures 3.11 and 3.13 that there is a sudden increase in sediment concentration with the di scharge from the S-46 structure on 14th of April 2002 (Refer Table 2.2 for discharge details). This cl early indicates that sediment concentration is discharge driven. Results of Figures 3.12 and 3.14 indicate that the lowest OBS1 sensor was too close to the bed and recorded almost saturated sediment content. There was no discharge from the structure between December 14th and February 20th, except for 0.01 m3/s discharge on the December 20th, 2002, which explains the increase in sediment concentration recorded around Julian day 355 (December 20th). However, the increase in TSS reported between days 17 and 27 (Year 2003) without any discharge from S-46, could be attributed to spring tidal effects (Ref er to Figure 3.15). In general, it appears that

PAGE 67

51 TSS concentration is dependent on the local tidal current and flow discharges down the S-46 structure. The TSS concentrations with regard to other data blocks are given in Table 3.7 to 3.9. Table 3.5 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks Julian Days in 2002/03 Maximum TSS concentration (mg/L) Mean TSS concentration (mg/L) Minimum TSS concentration (mg/L) 94-114 165 50 10 352-365 01-35 158 17 7 3.3.4 Salinity and Temperature The conductivity and temperature measurements carried out for the location is presented in Figures 3.16 (days 94 –114 of 2002). The salinity curve indicates the effect of the fresh water discharge. Due to this flow fresh water from the S-46 structure the salinity values dropped to 11 mg/L from a m ean value of about 28 mg/L. In order to examine this hypothecation the current magnitude and the salinity was plotted together in Figure 3.17, which, indicated a decrease in sa linity with an increase in the current magnitude. Accordingly, it can be concluded th at the fresh water discharge reduces the salinity in the estuary. Table 3.6 Characteristic salinity values Julian days in 2002/03 Maximum Salinity (mg/L) Mean Salinity (mg/L) Minimum Salinity (mg/L) 94-114 34.2 24.9 11.1 352-365 01-35 39.5 36.5 26.7

PAGE 68

52 Figure 3.16 Salinity time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002). Figure 3.17 Salinity and Current magnitude time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002).

PAGE 69

53 Figure 3.18 Temperature time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002). Similarly the temperature time-series shows a positive correlation with the discharge, with temperature increasing with the discharge from S-46 structure. However any definite conclusion could not be deduced from this the absence of adequate data on temperature of the freshwater discharged. For the second data block between days 352 and 365 (of year 2002) and days 01 and 35 (of year 2003) the Figure 3.19 indicates an apparent malfunctioning of the sensor that seems to have contaminated the conductiv ity time series that calculates the salinity by measuring its conductivity of the soluti on at a given temperature. Although the temperature time series for the same period appears to give correct reading consistent with the environment, the incorrect c onductivity data have made the salinity determination inaccurate. Therefore salinity valu es reported in this period appear to be rather high. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 summarize the characteristic values of salinity and

PAGE 70

54 temperature for both the data blocks. The results from the other data blocks are furnished in Table 3.7 to 3.9. Figure 3.19 Salinity time series: Days 352365 (year 2002) and 01-35 (year 2003). Figure 3.20 Temperature time series: 352365 (year 2002) and 01-35 (year 2003). Table 3.7 Characteristic temperature values Julian days in 2002 Maximum Temperature (‘0’ C) Mean Temp (‘0’ C) Minimum Temperature (‘0’ C) 94-114 31.4 26.3 21.6 352-400 26.7 10.9 7.8

PAGE 71

55 3.3.5 Other Data Blocks The foregoing discussions included the vari ous aspects of data collection their analysis and results for two representative data blocks (Julian Days 94 to 114, 330-365 in year 2002 and 01 to 35 in year 2003). However since the second phase data collection lasted from November 26th, 2002 to May 15th, 2003, it was considered necessary to include the characteristic values obtained from the other data blocks, which would offer a better insight in to the overall site conditions. Table 3.8 Summary of parametric value (Days 37-59 in year 2003) Parameter Maximum Mean Minimum Depth (m) 1.9 1.2 0.5 OBS 1 (mg/L) * OBS 2 (mg/L) 240 30 0.7 OBS 3 (mg/L) 110 20 1.0 Salinity (mg/L) 40 35 23 Temperature (0C) 27 16 11 Current Magnitude (m/s) * * Poor quality data In Table 3.7 a summary of parametric va lues of the data collected between February 6th and February 28th is presented. The data obtained for the other two blocks are presented in Tables 3.8 and 3.9. Table 3.9 Summary of parametric value (Days 90-101 in year 2003) Parameter Maximum Mean Minimum Depth (m) 1.6 1.1 0.6 OBS 1 (mg/L) 2670 1710 1470 OBS 2 (mg/L) 80 50 1.0 OBS 3 (mg/L) 96 51 20 Salinity (mg/L) * Temperature (0C) 20 11 3 Current Magnitude (m/s) * *-Bad Data

PAGE 72

56 Table 3.10 Summary of parametric value (Days 101-135 in year 2003) Parameter Maximum Mean Minimum Depth (m) 1.9 1.3 0.7 OBS 1 (mg/L) 2090 1670 1180 OBS 2 (mg/L) 170 46 2 OBS 3 (mg/L) 210 56 10 Salinity (mg/L) 26 19* 17* Temperature (0C) 22 12 4 Current Magnitude (m/s) 1.40 0.60 0.10 Bad Data 3.4 Field Data Results in Northwest Fork 3.4.1 Field Setup In the third phase of data collection, in the Northwest Fork, the instrument tower included three optical backscatter sensors (OBS), a pressure transducer (for water level) and a conductivity/temperature sensor. Data collection began on 08/14/2003. Data on water level and TSS are presented. The c onductivity/temperature sensor malfunctions during this phase and yielded values of ques tionable accuracy. Hence these data are not reported. 3.4.2 Tidal Level The pressure transducer was located 0.45 m from the bed. Figure 3.21 shows the original time series of the water level.

PAGE 73

57 Figure 3.21 Record of water level variation. Days 245 – 255 (year 2003). Figure 3.22 Water level time series. Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 245 -255 (year 2003). In Figure 3.22 the upper plot shows 12-hourly mean trend with the original time series, and in the lower plot this trend is removed. As can be seen from the latter plot, the

PAGE 74

58 rising mean trend indicates the effect of fr esh water discharge. The tidal range was 0.80 m. Characteristic values are given in Table 3.10. Table 3.11 Characteristic values of the tidal data Water Level/Tidal range Water level (m) Spring/neap range (m) Julian days in 2003 Mean Water depth (m) MaximumMinimum Spring Neap 245-255 1.20 1.75 0.70 0.80 0.50 3.4.3 Total Suspended Solids Total suspended solids (TSS) concentration was recorded at three elevations. The elevations of the OBS sensors relative to the bed were OBS-1 = 1.04 m, OBS-2 = 0.66 m and OBS-3 = 0.30 m. The corresponding depthmean concentration time series is reported in Figure 3.23. Characteristic values are given in Table 3.11. Figure 3.23 Depth-mean TSS concentration time-series: Days 245-255 (year 2003). Table 3.12 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks Julian Days in 2003 Maximum TSS concentration (mg/L) Mean TSS concentration (mg/L) Minimum TSS concentration (mg/L) 245-255 230 100 50

PAGE 75

59 3.4.5 Additional Data Blocks 3.4.5.1 Tidal Level Two additional data blocks were collected between November 6th, 2003 and November 24th, 2003. Tide data for Julian days 310 and 313 are presented here. The remainder was found to be of poor quality. Figure 3.24 Record of water level variation. Days 310.5 – 313.5 (year 2003).

PAGE 76

60 Figure 3.25 Water level time series. Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 310.5 – 313.5 (Year 2003). Table 3.13 Characteristic values of the tidal data Water Level/Tidal range Water level (m) Spring/neap range (m) Julian days in 2003 Mean Water depth (m) Maximum MinimumSpring Neap 310.5-313.5 1.40 1.90 1.00 0.90 0.50 3.4.5.2 Total Suspended Solids Two data blocks for the TSS concentration was collected and are presented below. Characteristic values are presented in Table 3.14.

PAGE 77

61 Figure 3.26 TSS time-series at two elevations: Days 310.5 – 313.5 (year 2003). Figure 3.27 Depth mean TSS concentration time series: Days 310.5 – 313.5 (year 2003).

PAGE 78

62 Figure 3.28 TSS time-series at three elevations: Days 315.5 – 318.5 (year 2003). Figure 3.29 Depth-mean TSS concentration time series: Days 315.5 – 318.5 (year 2003). Table 3.14 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks Julian Days in 2003 Maximum TSS concentration (mg/L) Mean TSS concentration (mg/L) Minimum TSS concentration (mg/L) 310.5 – 313.5 834 304 19 315.5 – 318.5 219 140 81

PAGE 79

63 CHAPTER 4 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION The analyzed data presented in Chapter 3 give a qualitative insight into the prevailing environmental conditions. However, in order to have a quantitative understanding of the flow regime in the estu ary, it is necessary to apply a numerical simulation technique. This chapter includes a brief description of the numerical model, generation of the computational grid, initial and boundary conditions and the model operational scheme. Model calibration and validation are then carried out. Certain aspects of the estuary have been idealized in the formulation of the model in order to reduce the computational time and avoidance of potential errors. These idealizations are as follows: 1. The central embayment domain is termin ated at the FECRR bridge excluding the ICWW (Intracoastal Waterway). This enable s use of tide data from UFG1 gage installed at the bridge. 2. The traps and the navigation channels have rectangular cross-sections. 4.1 Model Description Flow simulations were carried out usi ng Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency, and developed by Hamrick, 1992. This code works through a Microsoft Windows-based EDFC-Explorer preand post-processor. Developed on a Fo rtran platform, the physics of EFDC and many aspects of the computational scheme are equivalent to the widely used BlumbergMellor model (Blumberg and Mellor, 1987) a nd the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Chesapeake Bay model (Johnson, et al, 1993). EFDC solves the three-dimensional

PAGE 80

64 hydrostatic, free surface, turbulent averaged e quations of motion of a variable density fluid. The model uses a stretched or sigm a vertical coordinate and Cartesian or curvilinear, orthogonal horizontal coordinates. Dynamically coupled transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent length scale, salinity and temperature are also solved. Externally specified bottom friction can be incorporated in the turbulence closure model as a source term. For the simulation of flow in vegetated environments, EFDC incorporates both two and three-dimensi onal vegetation resistance formulations (Moustafa, and Hamrick 1995). The numerical scheme employed in EDFC to solve the equations of motion uses second-order-accurate spatial finite differen ce on a staggeredor a C-grid. The model’s time integration employs a second-order-accurate, three-time-level, finite-difference scheme with an internal-external mode splitti ng procedure to separate the internal shear or baroclinic mode from the external free surface gravity wave or barotropic mode. The external mode solution is semi-implicit, and simultaneously computes the twodimensional surface elevation field by the pr econditioned conjugate gradient procedure. The external solution is completed by the cal culation of the depth averaged barotropic velocities using the new surface elevation field. The models’ semi-implicit external solution allows large time steps that are cons trained by the stability criteria of the explicit central difference or upwind advection sc heme used for the nonlinear accelerations. Horizontal boundary conditions for the extern al mode solution include the option for simultaneously specifying the surface elevations the characteristic of an incoming wave, free radiation of an outgoing wave or the volumetric flux on arbitrary portions of the boundary. The model’s internal momentum equation solution, at the same time step as

PAGE 81

65 the external, is implicit with respect to ve rtical diffusion. The internal solution of the momentum equations in terms of the vertical profile of shear stress and velocity shear, which results in the simplest and most accurate form of baroclinic pressure gradients, and eliminates the over-determined character of alternate internal mode formulations. The model implements a second order accurate in space and time, mass conservation fractional step solution scheme for the Eulerian transport equation at the same time step or twice the time step of the momentum equation solution. The advective portion of the transport solution uses either the central difference scheme used in the Blumberg-Mellor model or hierarchy of positiv e definite upwind difference schemes. The highest accuracy up-wind scheme, second order accurate in space and time, is based on a flux corrected transport version of Smolarkiewicz’s multidimensional positive definite advection transport algorithm, which is m onotonic and minimizes numerical diffusion. The EFDC model's hydrodynamic component is based on the three-dimensional hydrostatic equations formulated in curv ilinear-orthogonal horizontal coordinates and a sigma or stretched vertical coordinate. The momentum equations are: tmxmyHu xmyHuu ymxHvu zmxmywu femxmyHv myHxp patm myxzb zxHzp zmxmyAvH zu xmymx HAHxu ymxmy HAHyu mxmycpDpu2 v21/2u (4.1) tmxmyHv xmyHuv ymxHvv zmxmywv femxmyHu mxHyp patm mxyzb zyHzp zmxmyAvH zv xmymx HAHxv ymxmy HAHyv mxmycpDpu2 v21/2v (4.2)

PAGE 82

66 mxmy f e mxmy f u ymx v xmy (4.3)1(,)(,)xzyzvzAHuv (4.4) where u and v are the horizontal velocity components in the dimensionless curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal coordinates x and y, respectively. The scale factors of the horizontal coordinates are mx and my. The vertical velocity in the stretched vertical coordinate z is w. The physical vertical coordinate s of the free surface and bottom bed are zs* and zb* respectively. The total water column depth is H, and is the free surface potential which is equal to gzs*. The effective Coriolis acceleration fe incorporates the curvature acceleration terms, with the Coriolis parameter, f, according to (4.3). The Q terms in (4.1) and (4.2) represent optional horizontal momentum diffusion terms. The vertical turbulent viscosity Av relates the shear stresses to the vertical shear of the horizontal velocity components by (4.4). The kinematic atmospheric pressure, referenced to water density, is patm, while the excess hydrostatic pressure in the water column is given by: zp gHb gH o o 1 (4.5) where and o are the actual and reference water densities and b is the buoyancy. The horizontal turbulent stress on the last lines of (4.1) and (4.2), with AH being the horizontal turbulent viscosity, are typically retained when the advective acceleration are represented by central differences. The last te rms in (4.1) and (4.2) represent vegetation resistance where cp is a resistance coefficient and Dp is the dimensionless projected vegetation area normal to the flow per unit horizontal area. The three-dimensional continuity e quation in the stretched vertical and curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal coordinate system is:

PAGE 83

67 tmxmyHxmyHuymxHv zmxmyw QH (4.6) with QH representing volume sources and sinks in cluding rainfall, evaporation, infiltration and lateral inflows and outflows having negligible momentum fluxes. The solution of the momentum equations, (4.1) and (4.2) requires the specification of the vertical turbulent viscosity, Av, and diffusivity, Kv. To provide the vertical turbulent viscosity and diffusivity, the second mome nt turbulence closure model developed by Mellor and Yamada (1982) (MY mode l) and modified by Galperin et al (1988) and Blumberg et al. (1988) is used. The MY model relates the vertical turbulent viscosity and diffusivity to the turbulent intensity, q, a turbulent length scale, l, and a turbulent intensity and length scaled based Richardson number, Rq, by: Av Aq l A Ao1 R1 1Rq1 R2 1Rq1 R3 1Rq Ao A11 3 C1 6 A1B1 1 B1 1/3 R1 1 3 A2B2 3 A21 6 A1B1 3 C1B2 6 A11 3 C1 6 A1B1 R2 1 9 A1A2R3 1 3 A26 A1 B2 (4.7) K v Kq l K Ko1 R3 1Rq Ko A216A1B1 (4.8)Rq gH zb q2 l2H2 (4.9)

PAGE 84

68 where the so-called stability functions, A and K, account for reduced and enhanced vertical mixing or transport in stable and unstable vertically density stratified environments, respectively. Mellor and Yamada (1982) specify the constants A1, B1, C1, A2, and B2 as 0.92, 16.6, 0.08, 0.74, and 10.1, respectively. For stable stratification, Galperin et al. (1988) suggest limiting the length scale such that the square root of Rq is less than 0.52. When horizontal turbulent viscosity and diffusivity are included in the momentum and transport equations, they are determined independently using Smagorinsky's (1963) sub-grid scale closure formulation. At the bed, the stress components are presum ed to be related to the near bed or bottom layer velocity components by the quadratic resistance formulation 22 1111(,)(,),xzyzbxbybcuvuv (4.10) where the 1 subscript denotes bottom layer values. Under the assumption that the near bottom velocity profile is logarithmic at any instant of time, the bottom stress coefficient is given by cbln( 1/2 zo) 2 (4.11) where is the von Karman constant, 1 is the dimensionless thickness of the bottom layer, and zo=zo*/H is the dimensionless roughness height. Vertical boundary conditions for the turbulent kinetic energy and length scale equations are: 23 2 1:1sqBz (4.12) 23 2 1:1bqBz (4.13) l 0:z 0,1 (4.14)

PAGE 85

69 where the absolute values indicate the magnitude of the enclosed vector quantity which are wind stress and bottom stress, respectively. 4.3 Grid Generation The first step in the setup of the modeling system is to define the horizontal plane domain of the region being modeled. The hor izontal plane domain is approximated by a set of discrete quadrilateral and triangular ce lls. Developed on a digitized shoreline, the grid defines the precise locations of the faces of the quadrilateral cells in the horizontal as well as in the vertical plane. However, all th e computations are carried out at the center of the cells. Since the model solves the hydrodyna mic equations in a horizontal coordinate system that is curvilinear and orthogonal, gr id lines also correspond to lines having a constant value of one of the horizontal coor dinates. The shoreline as well as the cell reference is provided by a local set of Coordi nates in MKS unit, as the code uses MKS system internally. Seven identification numbers were used to define the cell types. The cell identification details are given in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Definition of cell type used in the model input Cell ID Definition of cell type 0 Dry land cell not bordering a water cell on a side or corner of the model 1 Triangular cell with land to the northeast of the model 2 Triangular cell with land to the southeast of the model 3 Triangular cell with land to the southwest of the model 4 Triangular cell with land to the northwest of the model 5 Quadrilateral water cells of the model 9 Dry land cell bordering a water cell on a side or on a corner of the model The type 9 dry land or fictitious dry land cell type is used in the specification of no flow boundary conditions. The horizontal geometric and topographic (bottom bathymetry) and other related characteristics of the region, files dxdy.inp and lxly.inp are used. The program then directly reads these quantities expressed in meters. The lxly.inp

PAGE 86

70 provides cell center coordinates and components of a rotation matrix. Cell center coordinates are used only in graphics output and can be specified in the most convenient units for graphical display such as decimal de grees, feet, miles, meters or kilometers. The rotation matrix is used to convert pseudo east and north (curvilinear x and y ) horizontal velocities (uand v respectively) to true east and north for graphics vector plotting, according to; tecuecveco tncuncvncouCCu vCCv 4.15 where the subscripts teand tndenote true east and true north, while the subscripts codenotes the curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal velocity components. The coefficient C is the multiplier term for conversion to true east and true north. The width of the C-18 canal, which vari es between 75 m at the Southwest Fork junction to less than 40m at the S-46 structure, dictated the dimensions of the cells. It was decided that a 25 x 25m cell would be accurate enough for representing the width of the C-18 canal resulting in desired level of accuracy. The same cell size was then conveniently extended to the rest of the model domain. The bottom bathymetry was based on the Hydrographic survey carried out in November ‘2001 by Lidberg Land Surveying, Inc. However additional data for areas not covered under this survey were obtained from other available surveys. The roughness coefficient of the bottom bathymetry in the model is composed of two components. A fixed component viscosity (for the present model fixed at 0.020m) and a variable component, which is varied uniformly on the entire model domain during calibration process, both the component together constitutes the factor 0z, defined in equation 4.11. The dimensionless thickness

PAGE 87

71 of the bottom layer 1, defined in the same equation, e quals to 0.25, since four vertical layers are used. The fixed component of the roughness factor, how ever can be increased/decreased in the areas of vegetation or other special features. The details of sea grass locations in the central embayment can be referred from Drawing no LOX-001 (Cuthcher & Associates, Inc. Coastal E ngineer, 2002) provided by the Jupiter Inlet District. The sea grass was input in the model as an overlay file. In this way the cells having the sea grasses are enclosed by a poly line so that, the roughness coefficient can be easily edited. The sea grass was represented as cells having more roughness (fixed component = 0.040m) than that of the surr oundings. In Figure 4.1 the input bathymetry and the shoreline as generated by the model are shown. Figure 4.1 Model domain showing input bathymetry and shoreline

PAGE 88

72 -6.836-.305Bottom ElevTime: 275.00 Figure 4.2 Computational grid showing the flow boundaries In the computational grid (Figure 4.2), each land cell was assigned number zero or nine as the case may be and each water cell was assigned five. There were no triangular cells used for this grid. Figure 4.2, in additi on, indicates the locations of the tide gages and the Instrument tower in the Southwest fo rk. The S-46 structure in the C-18 canal is a flow boundary (black cells), as are the two ma in tributaries, and the FECRR bridge on the East. The eastern boundary was restricted to the FECRR bridge. The flow boundaries were kept straight; so as to allow flows pe rpendicular to the cell faces, as the model does not allow non-orthogonal flows. 4.4 Boundary Conditions In the beginning of the simulation, ve locities throughout the model domain are considered to be zero. It was observed that a full tidal cycle was required before the water surface elevation reached a quasi-steady stat e. This was verified by recording water InstrumentStation

PAGE 89

73 surface elevations at the location of the two tide gauges (UFG2 and UFG3) over multiple tidal periods. Tidal forcing at the FECRR bridge ( eastern boundary) is perhaps the most important boundary condition in this system, because it is this mechanism by which the majority of the water flows through the estu ary. The data obtained from the UFG1 gage (Figure 2.10) were used to simulate this fo rcing. The raw data were examined for the mean trends in the water surface elevation (F igure 4.3). The raw data contains a sub-tidal frequency trend, which was also noticed in th e water surface elevation data of the Miami Harbor. The trends were of a similar in nature and therefore it was hypothesized that onshore winds may have created increased elev ation in side the estuary. The wind records from two offshore sites (37 and 221 kilomete r east of Cape Carnival, Florida) were correlated with the mid-tide elevation, whic h indicated a positive correlation (Ganju et al., 2001). In order to overcome the effect s of these variations imposed on the astronomical tide, the mid-tide elevation was s ubtracted from each measured elevation in the same tidal cycle. The mid tide elevation c is given by Equation 4.1, where, H T and LT are the water surface elevation at high and low tides respectively. 2 H TLT c (4.16)

PAGE 90

74 a b Figure 4.3 Tidal time series from UFG1, 09/1 4/00-10/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot after the mid-tide trend is removed. Time origin 12:00 am.

PAGE 91

75 In Figure 4.3a the raw tidal time series is shown along with the tidal trend and in Figure 4.3b the tidal time series is shown af ter subtracting the mean-tide trend. The eastern boundary accordingly used this water surface elevation boundary condition. For the boundary in the C-18 canal, tw o sets of boundary condition data were available. The daily average flow time series of the S-46 structure and the water surface elevation time series. The elevation time seri es was obtained from the tide gauge UFG 3 (same period as at UFG 1) installed in the S outhwest Fork (Figure 2.10). In order to make these data usable at the flow boundary (S -46 Structure) amplitude corrections were carried out by trial and error till both predic ted and measured time series matched. In order to calculate the phase correction (lag) following calculations were carried out assuming shallow water conditions. The tidal wave celerity C is given by, Cgh (4.23) where, gis the acceleration due to gravity and h is the water depth. Then the phase shift T is given by, ; L Cgh T L T C (4.24) where, L is the distance for which the water de pth is considered uniform, accordingly the phase lag for the distance between the UF G 3 gage station and the S-46 structure was calculated and verified (0.13 hour). Figure 4.4 gi ves the plot of the raw data collected at UFG 3, including the mean trend and the amplitude with trends removed. It was hypothesized that these data, corrected for th e phase and amplitude could be applied as boundary condition to simulate actual flow conditions.

PAGE 92

76 b a Figure 4.4 Tidal time series from UFG3, 09/ 14/00-10/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot after the mid-tide trend is removed. Time origin 12:00 am Note that the flow discharge time series (Figure 4.5) from the S-46 structure was selected, as the model is known to be givi ng better simulation results under discharge boundary condition.

PAGE 93

77 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 0.00500.001000.0 0 1500.0 0 2000.0 0 2500.0 0 3000.0 0 3500.0 0 4000.0 0 4500.0 0 DAYS DISCHARGE (m3/s) Figure 4.5 Flow time series applied at S-46 boundary 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 010002000300040005000DAY S DISCHARGE (m3/s) Figure 4.6 Flow time series applied at Northwest Fork boundary In the Northwest Fork boundary as well, two sets of boundary conditions, namely, the water surface elevation boundary condition ( obtained from transferring the collected data of the tidal station UFG 2) and flow discharge boundary condition were evaluated. The flow time series used is shown in Figure 4.6. Table 4.2 Amplitude and phase correction factor for the tides Boundary Amplitude factor Phase correction C-18 1.14 0.13 hour Northwest Fork 1.18 0.042 hour

PAGE 94

78 Per U.S. Geological Survey Report 84-4157 (Russell and McPherson, 1984) the majority (77.3 %) of the fresh water flow in to the estuary enters through the Northwest Fork. Therefore, the flow discharge boundary condition for this tributary was considered as most appropriate as opposed to the water surface elevation. The corrected water surface elevation data from UFG 2 tide gage was used for calibration. The North Fork carries the least discharge (2.2%) of the total freshwater flow in to the estuary in the mean, (Russell and Mc Pherson, 1984)) hence at this boundary also flow discharge boundary condition is applied. The flow discharge was worked out from the Northwest boundary data applying a constant multiplier ( 2.2 0.0285 77.3 ). 4.5 Model Calibration and Validation 4.5.1 Calibration In general calibration of the model aims at simulating conditions identical or close to that in the prototype so that prototype conditions can be accurately replicated and reproduced. Calibration involves matching multiple parameters, which is often times, is practically impossible. However, depending on the nature experiments and the results desired, the type of calibration differs. Since the present model simulation aims to relate the velocity and the associated stress field to the erosion/accretion of the sediments in the estuary, it would be highly desirable to calib rate the model with comparison of the flow velocities. But current data for the model simulation period, between September 14th 2000 and 18th October 2000 was not available and ther efore, it was decided to calibrate the model using the data collected at the inst rument station located in the Southwest Fork (Figure 3.1) between November 26th and May 15th 2003 for which current as well as

PAGE 95

79 water surface elevation data was available. The amplitude multiplier and phase lag factors are given in Table 4.2. Accordingly a simulation for this period was carried out using flow discharge boundary conditions for the Southwest, the No rthwest and North tributary boundaries and water surface elevation boundary condition for the East boundary. For the e astern boundary the tidal data from Miami Harbor were “transferred” to the FECRR bridge boundary by applying suitable correction factors fo r the amplitude and the phase lag. This procedure was carried out in two steps. In th e first step, the Miami harbor data for the period 14th September 2000 to 18th October 2000 were transfe rred to the boundary with application of recommended coefficients (for method of calculation refer to NOS Tide Tables for year 2000). The calculated tidal elevations were compared with the UFG 1 data and the final multiplication correction factor was obtained as 1.023. For the model simulation period in year 2002 the same correc tion factor was used to transfer tidal elevations of Miami harbor to the flow boundary. Model calibration began with an initial run for 48 hours (referred to as ‘cold start’) in order to make the tide and discharge mutu ally compatible throughout. In addition, the flow attains stability in this period. The resu lts of the cold start period were compared with the current velocities as well as the water surface elevations obtained from the i nstrument tower. The process was continued by changing the variable component of the bottom friction coefficient (one component of 0z) (applicable uniformly throughout the model domain), until an approximate match of the current magnitude and phase was obtained. In the second step RESTART.OUT and RSWT.OUT, the two output files of the c old start were used as input, and model r un was performed for a longer period (15days)

PAGE 96

80 in order to obtain simulation for final calibration. The predicted and measured currents were then compared and is given in Figure 4. 7a (Cold start) and 4.7b (Hot start) for a variable bottom friction factor of 0.027. It can be seen that the agreement is very good for the current, with a maximum error of 1.8% of the total current amplitude. The water surface elevation however differs by about 2. 8 cm, which is about 3% of the tidal amplitude. Since current is in better agreemen t with the measured data the calibration was considered accurate enough for simulation. In addition, comparison of the predicted and measured current direction exhibited good agreement as indicated in 4.8. 4.5.2 Model Validation Model validation was carried out using the same calibrated parameters and simulating the flow conditions of year 2000 (between September 14th and October 18th). The measured as well as the model results at bot h the tidal gage stations after cold start as well as hot start periods are compared and reproduced as Figures 4.9 and 4.10. As indicated in the figure 4.10, the agreement is fairly accurate with a maximum variation of 2.7 cm, which is about 3.4% of the maximu m tidal amplitude reported in the estuary. Similar validation was also carried out using the Northwest Fork data collected between September 3rd and September 12th which also showed equally good agreement as shown in Figure 4.11.

PAGE 97

81 Figure 4.7 Model calibration measured vs. predicted current, a) Cold Start, b) Hot Start. -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 331.00331.20331.40331.60331.80332.00332.20332.40332.60332.80333.00JULIAN DAYS IN 2002CURRENT (m/s) Model Run Measured -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 346.00346.20346.40346.60346.80347.00347.20347.40347.60347.80348.00JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002CURRENT (m/s) Model run Measured

PAGE 98

82 -250.00 -200.00 -150.00 -100.00 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 333.00333.20333.40333.60333.80334.00334.20334.40334.60334.80335.00 JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002CURRENT DIRECTION (degree Model Measured Figure 4.8 Model calibration measured vs. predicted current direction.

PAGE 99

83 -0.4000 -0.3000 -0.2000 -0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 257.5000258.0000258.5000259.0000259.5000260.0000260.5000 JULIAN DAYS IN 2000WATER LEVEL (m ) Model Measured -0.4000 -0.3000 -0.2000 -0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 273.400 0 273.600 0 273.800 0 274.000 0 274.200 0 274.400 0 274.600 0 274.800 0 275.000 0 275.200 0JULIAN DAYS IN 2000WATER LEVEL (m ) Model Measured a b Figure 4.9 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG2) Year 2000, a) Cold Start, b) Hot start.

PAGE 100

84 -0.4000 -0.3000 -0.2000 -0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 257.5000258.0000258.5000259.0000259.5000260.0000260.5000JULIAN DAYS IN 2000WATER LEVEL (m) Model Measured -0.4000 -0.3000 -0.2000 -0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 273.400 0 273.600 0 273.800 0 274.000 0 274.200 0 274.400 0 274.600 0 274.800 0 275.000 0 275.200 0 JULIAN DAYS IN 2000WATER LEVEL (m) Model Measured a b Figure 4.10 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG3) Year 2000, a) Cold Start. b) Hot start.

PAGE 101

85 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 245.6245.8246246.2246.4246.6246.8247247.2247.4247.6JULIAN DAYS IN 2003WATER LEVEL (m) Measured Model -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 253.00253.50254.00254.50255.00255.50JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003WATER DEPTH (m) Measured Model a b Figure 4.11 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (Northwest Fork) Year 2003, a) Cold Start, b) Hot start.

PAGE 102

86 4.5.3 Simulation of trap scheme of Ganju, 2001 As noted, Ganju et al., (2001) carried out the model simulations by installing a trap in the C-18 canal. The trap was located 480m down stream of the S-46 structure and was 180 m long, 60 m wide and dredged 3 m from the existing bed level. The same scenario was simulated in the present model in order to revalidate data and have a check on the model results. The simulations indicated a 60% reduction in the current magnitude against 67% reported by Ganju, 2001. The results of the simulation (current) are given as Figure 4.12. With this final validation, it was considered that the model is calibrated for the estuary and therefore ready for the actual simulations. -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 258.00258.50259.00259.50260.00260.50JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002CURRENT (m/s) Gtrap Existing Figure 4.12 Validation results using trap used by Ganju, 2001.

PAGE 103

87 CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION OF SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Design Basis 5.1.1 General Principle Two concepts for management of sediment are adopted with respect to the central embayment, as shown schematically in Figure 5.1. These include sediment entrapment (Figure 5.1a,c) and sediment self-cleaning by channelization (Figure 5.1b,d). 5.1.1.1 Sediment Entrapment For sediment entrapment an area of the submerged bottom is deepened to a depth greater than the surrounding bottom (Figure 5.1a ,c). This works on the simple concept of decreasing the velocity by increasing the flow area. The carrying capacity of the flow being proportional to its velocity, a reduction in the velocity would reduce the carrying capacity and thereby result in sedimentati on. This in turn would allow maintenance dredging to be performed at a specific loca tion (the trap), rather than over a broad submerged area. There is an existing sand trap of this nature at Jupiter Inlet, as shown in Figure 2.9. Trap efficiency is defined as the per cent by which the effluent suspended solid load is reduced with respect to the influent lo ad. In a tidal situation, the seaward edge of the trap will be the influent side during flood flow and the effluent side during ebb, and vice versa for the landward edge.

PAGE 104

88 5.1.1.2 Self-cleaning Channel The concept of a channel designed in such a way that the flow through it is in nonsilting non-scouring (or self-cleaning) equili brium can be employed where it is desired that the sediment flows through without net de position (Figure 5.1b,d). In an ideal setup the trap efficiency of such a channel would be zero. Figure 5.1 Design concepts for sediment management. Uniform channel Dredged trap Shoal Dredged channel Higher flow lesserdeposition Non-uniform channel Bay Bay Low flow deposition Low flow deposition Higher flow lesserdeposition (a) (b) (c) (d)

PAGE 105

89 Trap and the channel are incorporated in the model by changing the bottom profile file (dxdy.inp). Accordingly, the depths and elevati ons of the grid cells in the designated area are changed per design. 5.1.2 Design Alternatives Alternative schemes indicated in Table 5. 1 were formulated and studied for their efficiency and function. Note that Alternatives 6 and 7 were introduced to determine if there was an interactive effect of multiple alternatives implemented simultaneously. However, simulations showed that this was not the case, i.e., there was no measurable impact of an alternative on others. As a re sult, only the first five were investigated further. General locations of Alternatives 2 through 5 are shown in Figure 5.2. Detailed drawings are shown later in the chapter. The basis of selection and design for each alternative (considering the existing “no-action” condition as Alternative no. 1) is described next. Table 5.1 Alternative schemes for evaluation Alternative no. C-18 Canal Trap Bay Channel Bay Y-channel Channel Northwest Fork Channel 1 Existing (“no-action”) condition 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X X X 7 X X X

PAGE 106

90 Figure 5.2 Alternatives considered, with existing bathymetry. 5.1.2.1 Alternative No. 2: C-18 Canal Trap The design sediment trap includes the entire stretch of the C-18 canal downstream of the S-46 structure, in order to take care of the drawback of a much shorter trap of Ganju (2001), which was shown to trap only 60% of the sediment under all conditions of S-46 discharge. In addition, the sensitivity to sediment concentration, flow velocity and location were also found to be pronounced in th at analysis. Accordingly, it was decided to dredge the entire length of the canal to -3.5 m (with respect to NAVD 88). The trap was considered to have a width equal to that of the canal. The dredged section is shown in Figure 5.3. Bay Channel C-18 Canal tra p Bay Y-channel N W Fork Channel

PAGE 107

91 Figure 5.3 Dredged bathymetry of the C-18 canal with plan form view of the proposed trap. Trap considered by Ganju (2001) is also shown 5.1.2.2 Alternative No. 3: Bay Channel A self-cleaning channel close to the south bank of the bay (Figure 5.4) was adopted in order to improve the flow in that portion of the bay, which is weaker than in the existing channel. It was considered that such a channel along the ebb flow path would concentrate the flow and thereby flush out incoming fine sediment arriving from the Southwest Fork. In addition, this channel would improve small-craft navigation, provided it was designed appropriately. The design depth in the channel was based on the California Department of Boating and Safety (1980), which stipulates a minimum depth of 0.9 m below the deepest draft of the vessel or 1.5 m, which ever is greater. Considering 1.5 m as the minimum depth for navigation plus 0.63 m for sedimentation a nd allowance for over-depth dredging, the final dredged depth of the channel works out to 2.13 m. The California Department of Boating Safe ty stipulates a minimum width of 23 m at the design depth. The existing navigation cha nnel (Figure 5.5) is maintained at 33 m at the design depth of 2.2 m. However, with a side slope of 1:3m, the top width C-18 canal dredged to –3.5m Ganju (2000) trap

PAGE 108

92 works out to 23 m + 13.2 m = 36.2 m. Consider ing that cell dimensions are fixed at 25 m x 25 m, a self-cleaning channel width of 50 m was adopted in the model. Figure 5.4 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning channel in the bay. Figure 5.5 Location of the sea grasses indicated in model with increased roughness. Existing channel dredged to -2.2 m Bay channel dredged to -2.13 m

PAGE 109

93 The channel was designed with three bends Per design stipulations (Bruun, 1989), the bend angle should not be more than 30o and radius of curvature not less than 1,500 m. Also, at bends widening is generally carried out. For the model the width at the bends were widened by 25 m (one extra cell). As s een from Figure 5.4 and 5.5 the channel is largely outside the zones where sea grass beds occur. Figure 5.6 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning Y-channel in bay. 5.1.2.3 Alternative No. 4: Bay Y-channel The proposed Bay Y-channel originates fr om the existing navigation channel, and bifurcates into the Southwest and Northwest Forks (Figure 5.6). The width of the channel must be equal to that of the exiting channel, i.e., 30.5 m at the design depth of 2.2 m. The same depth is adopted for the extension. With a side slope of 1:3 and a depth of 2.2 m, the width at the top works out to 30.5 + 2x3x2. 2 = 43.2 m. Hence in the model a two-cell wide (50 m) channel was simulated. At th e bifurcation a total channel width of 100 m (four cell widths) was chosen for navigation purposes. Y-channel dredged to -2.2 m

PAGE 110

94 5.1.2.4 Alternative No. 5: Northwest Fork Channel This alternative is located in fairly shal low depths and is devised to channelize the flow into a deeper channel so that mud would be prevented from depositing under increased velocity. Accordingly, the channel would be self-cleaning and thereby reduce the cost of maintenance. The location of th e channel, shown in Figure 5.7, goes around a shoal. The width of the channel is maintained at 50 m with a (navig able) depth of 2.13 m and side slopes of 1:3. The widths at the bends are increased by one cell width for navigational purpose. -6.836-.305Bottom ElevTime: 0.00 Figure 5.7 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning channel in the Northwest Fork. 5.1.3 Efficiency Analysis 5.1.3.1 Velocity Vector Calculation The direction of the resultant flow velocity vector is calculated from 1180 tan u v (5.1) N W Fork Channel dredged t o -2 1 3 m

PAGE 111

95 where u and v are the two measured velocity components. The corresponding magnitude, u, is obtained from 22u uuv u (5.2) 5.1.3.2 Sediment Deposition Calculation The rate of mass deposition rate under flow is given by 1;b s bc cDWCLW (5.3) where b is the bed shear stress, c is the critical shear stress for erosion, s W is the settling velocity, C is the suspended sediment concentration, and L and Ware the length and width of the trap or channel, respectively and deposition D is given in kg/sec. The bed shear stress in the model is calculated from 22 1111(,),bxbybcuvuv (5.4) where 2 1ln(/2)b oc z (5.5) and where 1= 0.25, 00.047mz and the Karman constant 0.4 Substituting these values in Equation (5.5) gives bc = 0.167. The critical bed shear stress of erosion is determined based on the type of sediment, i.e., sand or fine-grained. These values are determined next. Fine sediment: For the fine sediment, a c value of 0.1 Pa is selected for calculation of the critical velocity for erosion, uc (Mehta and Parchure, 2000). From Equation (5.4) c is given as

PAGE 112

96 2cbccu (5.6) Therefore, with bc= 0.167, cu= 0.247 m/s is obtained. Sand: For sand, uc can be calculated from the Shields’ relationship, under fully rough turbulent flow, which is given by (Buckingham and Mehta, 1985) 0.5 500.0133[()]csud (5.7) where s is the unit weight of sand (= 2,650 kg/m3), is the unit weight of estuary water (= 1,020 kg/m3) and 50d is the median grain diameter, which ranges between 0.1 and 0.4 mm (Jaeger et al., 2001). For calculations th ree median diameters were considered, namely, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 mm. The correspondi ng critical velocities from Equation (5.7) are given in Table 5.2. In connection with these values, we note that the shear stress being proportional to the square of flow ve locity under turbulent flows, Equation (5.3) may be expressed as 2 21s cu DWCLW u (5.8) where u is the current velocity. Table 5.2 Critical velocities for sand Median Diameter, d50 (mm) Critical Velocity, uc (m/s) 0.1 0.17 0.2 0.24 0.3 0.29 Deposit thickness: The calculation for sand deposition is carried out using Equation (5.8). For that purpose, the mass of sand m was converted into the corresponding volume using relation (1)sm V n (5.9)

PAGE 113

97 where, Vis the sand volume, s is the sand granular density, and n is the porosity. For the present calculations, s =2,650 kg/m3, and n=0.4. Conversion of volume of sand deposited into sedimentation thickness Dr can be accomplished from (1)r sVm D AnA (5.10) where A is the area of deposit. With regard to fine sediment the same calculations were performed and the total sedimentation rate was calculated. The deposit volume was calculated from dm V (5.11) where d is the sediment dry density, which wa s calculated with 15% organic content (OC) from the relation 1900exp(0.156)80dOC (5.12) with 15% OC (Ganju, 2000) the density works out to 263 kg/m3. 5.1.3.3 Trap Efficiency Trap efficiency is defined in terms of the sediment removal ratio r given by ()() () s ise siqq r q (5.13) where () s iq is the influent sediment load, and () s eq is the effluent load. Efficiencies for different trap scenarios were examined by Ganju et al. (2001). Accordingly, sediment flux calibration was carried out using those results, so that the r values could be determined on a consistent basis. Separate calculations were carried out for sand and for fine sediment.

PAGE 114

98 5.1.3.4 Channel Efficiency The method of calculation of the efficiency of the self-cleaning channel is similar to the one given above. In the present analysis an ideal self-cleaning channel is defined as one in which the removal ration r = 1 (or 100%). Erosion of channel, as might occur under very high flows, was not explored separately because the environment in question is largely a depositional one. 5.2 Design Simulations 5.2.1 Design Flows Model simulations were carried out under three tributary flow scenarios – flows used for model calibration, median (50 per centile) flows and peak (98 percentile) flows, following Ganju (2000). The discharges are listed in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 Design flows in tributaries Tributary Southwest Fork Northwest Fork North Fork Calibration discharge (m3/s) 14.5 32 0.3 Median discharge (m3/s) 1.3 0.7 0.1 Peak discharge (m3/s) 32 61 1.9 5.2.2 Alternative 1 Water surface elevation time series at th e three tidal stations (UFG1, UFG2, and UFG3) were available for a period of 34 da ys (09/14/2000 to 10/18/ 2000). As noted, data from UFG1 were used at the eastern boundary and data from other two stations were used for verification of model accuracy. Accordi ngly, model runs were restricted to these 34 days. Simulation with the existing bathymet ry, i.e., Alternative 1, was intended to observe the present flow regime and comp are the same with results from changed bathymetry under other alternatives. This woul d enable the calculation of the change in

PAGE 115

99 velocity and bottom shear stress due to depth change at a trap or a channel (see, for example, Figure 5.8). 0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 0.0350 0.0400 0.0450 277.5000278.0000278.5000279.0000279.5000280.0000280.5000JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002CURRENT SPEED (m/s) Existing Dredged Figure 5.8 Current comparisons for a model cell at the upstream end of the Northwest Fork channel: calibration discharges. 5.2.3 Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 Under calibration discharges in the tri butaries, the maximum peak flood and ebb velocities are compared in Table 5.4 for the four alternatives. For each alternative, the three values (upstream, mid-point and downstr eam) have been averaged and given for all three tributary discharge scenarios (calibration, median and peak) in Table 5.5. Figure 5.9 shows the current velocity vectors for th e maximum flood flow condition at spring tide over the model domain. Figure 5.10 shows the corresponding ebb flow vectors.

PAGE 116

100 Table 5.4 Maximum currents at alternatives: calibration discharges Upstream Mid-point Downstream Alternative Condition Ebb (m/s) Flood (m/s) Ebb (m/s) Flood (m/s) Ebb (m/s) Flood (m/s) Non-dredged 0.03 0.025 0.05 0.028 0.05 0.03 C-18 canal Dredged 0.01 0.008 0.035 0.021 0.04 0.03 Non-dredged 0.30 0.23 0.26 0.12 0.12 0.08 Bay channel Dredged 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.07 Non-dredged 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.08 0.08 Y-channel Dredged 0.21 0.16 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.04 Non-dredged 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 NWF channel Dredged 0.03 0.027 0.02 0.02 0.025 0.02 Table 5.5 Maximum currents at alternatives: Different discharges Calibration discharge Median Discharge Peak discharge Alternative Condition Flood (m/s) Ebb (m/s) Flood (m/s) Ebb (m/s) Flood (m/s) Ebb (m/s) Non-dredged 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.16 0.11 C-18 trap Dredged 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.10 Non-dredged 0.30 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.29 0.26 Bay channel Dredged 0.21 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.35 0.30 Non-dredged 0.30 0.28 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.20 Y-channel Dredged 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.32 0.30 Non-dredged 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.06 NWF channel Dredged 0.03 0.027 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.06

PAGE 117

101 .25 (m/s)VelocitiesTime: 258.08 Figure 5.9 Current velocity vectors over the modeled domain; maximum flood velocities at spring tides. .25 (m/s)VelocitiesTime: 259.92 Figure 5.10 Current velocity vectors over the modeled domain; maximum ebb velocities at spring tide.

PAGE 118

102 5.3 Deposition Equation Calibration In order to apply Equation (5.3), it must be calibrated against existing deposition rates within the modeled domain. This is described next. 5.3.1 Calibration for Sand Taking the bay channel as an example, we note that Ganju et al. (2001) reported entry of 9.2 Mkg (5,786 m3) of sand into the central embayment from the inlet. Accordingly, the report calculates a uniform deposition of 3.25 mm/year. Since the bay area is 1,780,308 m2, using Equation (5.3) and a uni form (non-dredged condition; calibration discharge) current of 0.12 m/s (ave rage of all cells), the sand settling flux can be worked out as follows: 3. Rate of sedimentation per unit bed area = 9.2 Mkg/ 1,780,310 m2 = 5.16 kg. 4. For 0.1 mm diameter sand, critical velocity = 0.17 m/s (Eq.5.7). 5. Using Equation (5.8), sand settling flux = 2.81x10-7 kg/m2 s. Table 5.6 provides all results based on such calculations. 5.3.2 Fine Sediment Table 5.6 Calibration for sediment fluxes Alternative Total supply (Mkg) Area of deposit (m2) Unit deposition (kg/m2) Deposition flux (kg/m2 s) Sand = 0.0 577,560 0.00 0.0 C-18 canal Fines = 1.27 577,560 2.20 8.72x10-8 Sand = 9.20 1,780,310 5.16 2.81x10-7 Bay channel Fines = 0.46 1,780,310 0.26 9.36x10-9 Sand = 9.20 1,780,310 5.16 2.81x10-7 Bay Ychannel Fines = 0.46 1,780,310 0.26 9.36x10-9 Northwest Fork 2.00 1,949,890 0.87 3.42 x 10-8 Similar calculation for fine sediment was carried out. As an example, for the bay channel, the total inflow of fine sediments is 0.46 Mkg. So the total volume works out to

PAGE 119

103 1,749 m3. Accordingly, the sediment flux works out to 9.36 x 10-9 kg/m2 s. Table 5.6 provides all results. 5.4 Sand Deposition due to Alternatives 5.4.1 Bay Channel Table 5.7 gives the sand deposition flux in the bay channel averaged over the entire length for the three discharge scenarios – calibration, median and peak. In these calculations the channel length is taken as 1,430 m, and width 50 m. The respective mean sediment concentration values are 0.04, 0.02 and 0.10 kg/m3. Table 5.7 Rate of sand deposition in bay channel Deposition flux (kg/m2 s) Median diameter (mm) Calibration discharge Median discharge Peak discharge 0.1 8.80x10-6 9.67x10-6 5.64x10-6 0.2 1.32x10-5 2.76x10-5 1.14x10-5 0.3 3.52x10-5 4.06x10-5 2.74x10-5 5.4.2 C-18 Canal Table 5.8 Rate of sand deposition in C-18 cana Deposition flux (kg/m2 s) Median diameter (mm) Calibration discharge Median discharge Peak discharge 0.1 1.38x10-5 2.62x10-5 0.89x10-5 0.2 2.07x10-5 3.68x10-5 1.24x10-5 0.3 3.64x10-5 5.06x10-5 2.26x10-5

PAGE 120

104 In this case, for the calibration discharge case the mean sediment concentration in the C-18 canal was taken as 0.048 kg/m3, as recorded at the Southwest Fork tower. For the median and peak discharges the respective values are 0.020 and 0.10 kg/m3. The percent of fines is taken as 15. The 1,890 m long canal is considered having a uniform width of 50 m. Results are given in Table 5.8. 5.4.3 Bay Y-channel Deposition fluxes for the 850 m (stem plus one arm) long and 50 m wide channel are given in Table 5.9. Table 5.9 Rate of sand deposition in Y-channel Deposition flux (kg/m2 s) Median diameter (mm) Calibration discharge Median discharge Peak discharge 0.1 4.41x10-6 5.76x10-6 3.08x10-6 0.2 8.80x10-6 3.16x10-6 6.24x10-6 0.3 1.38x10-5 3.06x10-5 0.74x10-5 5.5 Fine Sediment Deposition due to Alternatives Table 5.10 gives the fine sediment budget based on the concentration reported in the data collection in Southwest and Northw est Forks. The results compare well with those of the values predicted in Ganju et al. (2001).

PAGE 121

105 Table 5.10 Rate of fine sediment deposition in alternatives Deposition flux Alternative Calibration discharge Median discharge Peak discharge C-18 canal 2.25x10-5 2.75x10-5 1.45x10-5 Bay channel 2.26x10-6 2.87x10-6 1.38x10-6 Bay Y-channel 2.26x10-6 2.87x10 -6 1.38x10 -6 NW Fork channel 4.06x10-6 5.16x10-6 2.76x10-6 5.6 Sediment Removal 5.6.1 Calculation of Deposition Deposition in the trap and the channels was calculated using the above results. The removal ratio from Equation (5.13) was calculated by adopting the sediment load in the tributaries reported by Ganju et al. (2001). Tables 5.11 and 5.12 give the annual sand budget and the Tables 5.13 and 5.14 the fi ne sediment budget in the channel for calibration and peak discharge cases (leaving out median discharges for illustration. Table 5.11 Annual sand budget: Calibration discharge Alternative Rate of deposition (mm/s) Total deposition (mm) Total deposition (kg) Bay channel 8.81x10-6 8.30 943,590 Bay Y-channel 4.40x10-6 8.83 989,780 Table 5.12 Annual sand budget: Peak discharge Alternative Rate of deposition (mm/s) Total deposition (mm) Total deposition (kg) Bay channel 5.64x10-6 5.32 604,800 Bay Y-channel 3.08x10-6 5.81 585,000

PAGE 122

106 Table 5.13 Annual fine sediment budget: Calibration discharge Alternative Rate of deposition (mm/s) Total deposition (mm) Total deposition (kg) C-18 canal 2.25x10-5 17.5 286,400 Bay channel 2.26x10-6 1.93 38,730 Bay Y-channel 2.26x10-6 1.93 20,400 NW Fork channel 4.06x10-6 7.50 62,220 Table 5.14 Annual fine sediment budget: Peak discharge Alternative Rate of deposition (mm/s) Total deposition (mm) Total deposition (kg) C-18 canal 1.45x10-5 11.30 184,570 Bay channel 1.38x10-6 1.17 23,630 Bay Y channel 1.38x10 -6 1.17 12,440 NW Fork channel 2.76x10-6 5.10 42,310 5.6.2 Calculation of Channel Efficiency For an assessment of the efficiencies of the trap/channels, we will assume that the two channels in the bay accumulate sand onl y, whereas C-18 canal and the Northwest Fork accumulate fine sediment only. On that basis, Table 5.15 summarizes the annual load and shoaling (rounded to nearest mm) in the canal and channels. From these results that while the C-18 canal trap acts as such, the three channels are unlikely to be selfcleaning. On the other hand we note that th e performance of the channels improves at peak discharges, which, in general, highli ghts the sediment-flushing role of high river discharges, as at all estuaries in their natural state. Table 5.15 Annual sediment loading Calibration discharge Peak discharge Alternative Load (metric tons) Shoaling (mm) Load (metric tons) Shoaling (mm) C-18 canal 286 18 185 11 Bay channel 944 8 605 5 Bay Y-channel 990 9 585 6 NW Fork channel 62 8 42 5

PAGE 123

107 5.6.3 Removal of Bay Sediment The role of proposed alternatives as sediment traps, especially under typical prevailing flow conditions in the estuary lends itself to an assessment of these alternatives as a means to reduce sedimentation in the bay. This is noted next. As mentioned, Ganju et al. (2001) reported entry of 9,200 (metric) tons of sand into the central embayment, corresponding to a uniform shoaling thickness of 3.3 mm/year (accurate to tenth of mm). Since the bay ch annel would remove 940 tons (at calibration discharge), the net shoaling would reduce to 2.9 mm/year. Similar calculation for fine sediment re moval by the C-18 canal trap plus the Northwest Fork channel can be shown to re duce the deposition of 0.78 mm/year of fine sediment in the bay to 0.57 mm/year. 5.7 Assessment of Alternatives It is instructive to make a qualitative asse ssment of the proposed alternatives based on their roles in improving water quality (by trapping fine sediment) and navigation (by trapping sand). Based on assignment of num bers: +1 (good), 0 (no effect) and -1 (negative impact), Table 5.16 provide the assessment.

PAGE 124

108 Table 5.16 Assessment of impacts of proposed alternatives Alternative Sedimentation control Navigation Overall Comment 1 No-action -1 -1 -2 -2, however does not mean that the present condition is severe 2 C-18 canal +1 0 +1 If fine organicrich sediment continues to accumulate in to the central bay, this option should be considered 3 Bay channel +1 +1 +2 Should be considered for implementation; careful design will be required so that sea grass beds are not disturbed 4 Y-channel -1 +1 0 Despite its effectiveness as a trap, shoaling may be rapid because it would cut existing and active shoal 5 NWF channel +1 0 +1 If fine sediment accumulation continues, this option should be considered

PAGE 125

109 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Summary The objective of this study was to asse ss the implementation of schemes for sediment entrapment and self-cleaning channels in the micro-tidal (< 2 m range) estuarine environment containing both sand and fine sediment. The central embayment of the Loxahatchee River estuary on the east (Atlan tic) coast of Florida was chosen as the candidate location due to its unique character istics with respect to the influx of fine sediment and sand in the central embayment, a nd the concerns that have arisen in recent years due to the potential for long term impact s on the system due to this influx. The spring tidal range in the central embayment is 0.8 m, and three main tributaries feed the bay; Southwest Fork/C-18 canal, Northwest Fork and North Fork. Bay sediment is a mixture of sand, silt and clay along with organic detritus. An ideal sediment trap captures all of incoming sediment, i.e., the removal efficiency is 100%. A self-cleaning channe l allows no net deposition or erosion of incoming sediment, which passes through, so that its removal efficiency is 0%. In addition to the “no-action” present condition in the study area, four alternatives were examined: a sediment trap in the C-18, a self-cleaning channel in the central bay itself, a (self-cleaning) Y configured extension of th e existing navigation channel in the bay and a self-cleaning channel in the Northwest Fork All the self-cleaning channels were designed to meet the minimum depth and wi dth required for the shallow draft vessels plying the area.

PAGE 126

110 The basis for the introduction of the sediment trap was to capture sediment arriving from the S-46 sluice-gate structure at the h ead of the C-18 canal, prevent the material from settling in the Southwest Fork and the cen tral embayment. The overall rationale for the introduction of the self-cleaning channe ls was to ease the passage of sediment, especially the fine-grained component from th e tributaries, so as to prevent its deposition in the central embayment, and thereby enable it to exit to the Atlantic from Jupiter Inlet. Hydrodynamic flow modeling was carried out using the Environmental and Fluid Dynamic Code (EFDC) to calculate water el evations, velocities, and bed bottom shear stresses in the estuarine domain. The model was calibrated using data on water levels, currents and suspended sediment concentrati on collected in years 2002/2003 at a site in the Southwest Fork. Validation was then carri ed out using data collected in 2000 in the central embayment and in the Northwest Fork in 2003. Following model validation, model runs were carried out for the selected alternatives, and their efficiencies were calculated by relating the sediment settling flux with change in flow momentum and hen ce bed shear stress. The results of these simulations and conclusions are discussed in the following section. 6.2 Conclusions 1. Calculations indicate that the concepts of sediment entrapment and of selfcleaning can operate only partially in th e study area due to the weak prevailing forcing by tide and the episodic nature of the freshwater discharges in the tributaries. 2. The simulations indicated that under c onditions of typical discharges from the tributaries, with the introduction of Bay channel and Bay Y-channel, annually 1,930 (metric) tons of sand out of the total 9,200 tons entering the bay could be captured. The Bay channel would reduce the sand load by 940 tons, thus lowering the present bay-mean 3.3 mm/year shoaling thickness by 0.4 mm/year. The addition of the Y-channel would reduce shoaling by 0.9 mm/year. Also, these two channels could entrap about 68 tons of fi ne sediments, thus reducing the present 0.78 mm/year fine sediment shoaling thickness by 0.11 mm/year. Simulations

PAGE 127

111 under peak discharges showed reduced en trapment by the two channels, because under high discharges their self-cleaning performance improved. For sand, the Bay channel reduced the shoaling thickne ss by 0.4 mm/year, and the two channels together by 0.8 mm/year. Similarly, the tw o channels would reduce fine sediment shoaling by 0.11 mm/year. Note however that such flows do not occur frequently in the study area. 3. On account of its length (same as that of the canal), the C-18 trap was found function better than the short (60 m l ong) trap of Ganju (2001), with annual entrapment increasing from 159 tons to 290 tons under typical discharge sequence from the S-46 structure, and reduced to 190 tons under peak discharge. 4. The Northwest fork channel did not function per expectation. Although the percent-wise flow velocity reduction wa s found to be the least (40%) in this channel of all the alternatives, as a resu lt of velocity reduction self-cleaning was not achieved. The annual entrapment of fine sediment was about 62 tons. Under peak discharge this value would reduce to 42 tons. 5. From the simulations it can be concluded that while the C-18 canal trap acts as such, the three channels are unlikely to be self-cleaning. On the other hand, the performance of these channels improves at peak discharges, which highlights the sediment flushing role of the high river di scharges, as at all estuaries in their natural state. 6. The implementation of C-18 trap, th e Bay channel and the Northwest Fork channel could collectively reduce bay-mean sedimentation from as much as 3.3 mm/year to 2.9 mm/year from sand and from 0.78 mm/year to 0.47 mm/year for fine sediment. 7. A qualitative assessment of the proposed alternatives based on their roles in improving water quality (by trapping fine sediment) and navigation (by trapping sand) was carried out based on the a ssignment numbers, +1 for good, 0 for no effect and –1 for negative impact. Th is assessment leads to the following observations. 8. Although the present condition in the study area with respect to sedimentation does not appear to be severe (in compar ison with numerous estuaries elsewhere), implementation of the one or more of the above alternatives may be considered at a future date, if necessary. 9. Fine sediment accumulation in the central bay due to ingress of sediment from upland discharge and erosion of existing and old deposits could be reduced with the installation of C-18 trap, as it accounts for more than half of the total fine sediment entering the bay. Periodic dredgi ng of the canal would then remove the trapped sediment. 10. Bay channel (close to the southern bank of the central embayment) appears to be a good option. Since it would act as an effici ent ebb flow channel, it could improve

PAGE 128

112 bay flushing as well as navigation and se rve to reduce bay-wide sedimentation. Under peak river discharges the channe l appears to possess a degree of selfcleaning capability for fine sediment and, accordingly, it may require low maintenance dredging. However, careful design considerations with regard to its alignment will be required to stay clear of sea grass beds in the area. 11. The Y-channel, despite having good sand trapping capability, is likely to shoal up with sand rapidly, as it cuts through active shoals. Also, this channel is not effective for trapping of fine sediment par tly due to its cross-flow orientation (70110) with respect to the direction of the prevailing flows. 12. It appears that while the Northwest Fork channel will not be able to draw additional flow into it, it would assist in trapping fine sediment, and may be considered for implementation if the presen t rate of accumulation of fine sediment in that area continues. 6.3 Recommendations for Future Work Trap efficiency modeling would be more accurate if based on a sediment model linked to EFDC. Simulations can then be ex tended to calculate sediment transport by accounting for the role of sediment compos ition in greater detail and with greater accuracy. Sources of sediment internal to the modeled domain may have to be simulated in order to identify the internal movement of sediment and formation of shoals in the Northwest Fork and the central embayment. Long-term simulation of flows and sediment transport on the order of years (at least one year) is required to evaluate the net sediment movement necessary for a more effective ex amination of the efficiency of traps and channels.

PAGE 129

113 LIST OF REFERENCES Antonini, G.A., Box, P.W., Fann, D.A., and Grella, M.J., 1998. Waterway evaluation and management scheme for the south shore a nd central embayment of the Loxahatchee River Florida. Technical Paper TP-92, Florida Sea Grant College Program, Gainesville, Florida,. Brunn, P., Port Engineering, Fourth Edition, 1989, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas Buckingham, W.T., Mehta A.J., 1985. Physi cal Modeling of Tidal entrances: a case study. Proceeding of the First National Conference on Dock and Harbor Engineering, Vol. 2, Indian Institute of technology, Mumbai, E.39-E.47 Department of Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984, Shore Protection Manual, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Ganju, N.K., 2001. Trapping of organic-rich fi ne sediment in an estuary. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Ganju, N.K., Mehta, A.J., Parshukov, L.N., and Krone, R.B., 2001. Loxahatchee River Florida Central Embayment: Sedime nt budget and trap evaluation. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Progr am, Report no UFL/COEL-2001/008 University of Florida Goodwin, C.R., and Russell, M.G., 1984. Simu lation of tidal flow and circulation patterns in the Loxahatchee River estuary, southeastern Florida. Water-Resource Investigation Report 87-4201, U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Hamrick, M.J., 1992. Three dimensional flui d dynamics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects, Special Report No 317 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia Ippen, A.T. and Harleman, D.R.F., 1966. Tidal dynamics in estuaries. In: Estuary and Coastline Hydrodynamics, A.T. Ippen, ed., Engineering Societies Monographs, McGraw Hill, New York, Jaeger, J. M., and Hart, M., 2001. Sediment ary processes in the Loxahatchee River Estuary: 5000 years ago to the present. Final Report, submitted to the Jupiter Inlet District Commission, Jupiter, Florida, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 130

114 Jupiter Inlet District, 1999. Environmental re storation program for the Loxahatchee River central embayment. JID Report, Jupiter Inlet District Commission, Jupiter, Florida. Lambe, T.W., and Whitman R.V., 1969., Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York. Marsh-McBirney, 2001 Electromagnetic Current meter (Model 585 OEM), Operation Manual., USA McPherson, F.B., and Sonnetag, H.W., 1984. Sediment concentrations and loads in the Loxahatchee River estuary, Florida, 1980-82. Water-Resource Investigation Report 84-4157, U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Mehta, A.J., and Parchure, T.M., 2000. Su rface erosion of fine-grained sediment revisited. In: Muddy Coast Dynamics and Resource Management, B.W. Flemming et al. eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam. Mehta, A.J. and Li., 2003., Coastal Cohe sive Sediment Transport Class notes, Principles and Process-modeling of C ohesive Sediment Transport, University of Florida, Florida Moustafa., J. and Hamrick M.J., 1995. A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects. Special Report 317. The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Virginia, USA. Nakamura, S., 2001. Applied Numerical Methods with Software. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Ochi, M.K., 1990. Applied Probability and Stochastic Processes. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Russell, M.G., and McPherson, F.B., 1982. Fres hwater runoff and salinity distribution in Loxahatchee River estuary, Southeastern Florida, 1980-82. Water-Resource Investigation Report 83-4244, U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Simpson, M.R., and Oltmann, R.N., 1993. Discharge-measurement system using an acoustic Doppler current profiler with appli cations to large rivers and estuaries. Water Supply Paper 2395, U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, California. Sonnetag, H.W., and McPherson, F.B., 1984. Nutrient input from the Loxahatchee River environmental control district sewage-tr eatment plant to the Loxahatchee River estuary, southeastern Florida. Water-Resource Investigation Report 84-4020, U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Vito, A.V., Editor, 1975. Sedimentation Engineering. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice – No 54, PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston, USA

PAGE 131

115 Wanless, H., Rossinsky, V., Jr, and McPhers on, F.B., 1984. Sediment ologic history of the Loxahatchee River estuary, Florida. Water-Resource Investigation Report 84-4120, U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida.

PAGE 132

116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rashmi Ranjan Patra was born in Bhubaneswar in the state of Orissa, India, to Mrs. Sabitri and Dr. Gouranga Ch. Patra. After schooling in M.K.C. High School and M.P.C. College in Baripada, Orissa, the author we nt to the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, for a bachelor’s degree in civ il engineering. During initial years after graduation, he worked as a design engineer for the development of the first dry-dock project in India for Keppel Shipyards, Singapore, and then for Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Limited before joining the coastal engineering program of the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineer ing at the University of Florida for the master’s degree. Upon obtaining the degree the author plans to practice as a professional and continue the work he has been doing, and thereby contribute to the field, which is so fascinating.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0002800/00001

Material Information

Title: Sediment Management in Low-Energy Estuaries: Loxahatchee, Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0002800:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0002800/00001

Material Information

Title: Sediment Management in Low-Energy Estuaries: Loxahatchee, Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0002800:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN LOW ENERGY ESTUARIES: THE


LOXAHATCHEE, FLORIDA















By

RASHMI RANJAN PATRA


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My sincere gratitude is reserved for Dr. Ashish J. Mehta for his guidance in my

education and research, which made my studies very precise and rewarding, as well as

the entire Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Program faculty. Also deserving my

gratitude for their guidance and assistance are Dr. John Jaeger, Dr. William McDougal,

and Kim Hunt. Most of the analysis in the study was made possible by the valuable

assistance provided by Mr. Sidney Schofield, who taught me the basics of analysis.

Special thanks are due to Dr. Earl Hayter for setting up, supporting and guiding me

through the numerical model in its entirety.


Thanks are also due to Dr. Zal S. Tarapore, for his encouragement and guidance,

which marked my initial years as a coastal engineer and my studies here possible. My

wife Sumitra and my friend Anjana also deserve special kudos for their emotional and

editorial support. Finally, my mother and father merit unlimited praise for providing me

with mind, body and soul, as do my other friends and families for developing it.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

A CKN O W LED G M EN TS ........................................... .................................................. ii

LIST O F TA BLES .................................................... ............................ .................... vi

LIST O F FIG U RES ............................................ ............................... .................... viii

LIST O F SY M BO LS ............................................ .............................. .................... xii

A BSTRA CT ....................................................................................... .. .................. xv

CHAPTER

1 IN TRO DU CTION ............................................ .............................. .........................

1.1 Problem Statem ent....................................................................... .................... 1
1.2 Study Tasks ................... ...... ... ....... ........... ....................3
1.3 Outline of Chapters .................................................................... ...................... 3

2 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 4

2.1 Present Condition of the Loxahatchee Estuary.......................... ...................... 4
2.2 C-18 Canal .................................................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Present Condition ............................................................... .................... 12
2.2.2 M anagem ent Options.......................................................... .................... 17
2.3 Central Em baym ent ................................................................. ..................... 21
2.3.2 M anagem ent Option: ...................................................... ..................... 27
2.4 N orthw est Fork: ..................................................................... 28
2.4.1 Present Condition:........................................................... ..................... 28
2.4.2 M anagem ent Options...................................................... ..................... 32
2.5 N north Fork...................................................... .......................... .................... 33
2.5.1 Present Condition............................................................ ..................... 33
2.5.2 M anagem ent Options...................................................... ..................... 34

3 D A TA CO LLECTION ....................................................................... ..................... 35

3.1 Field Setup in the Southw est Fork........................................... ..................... 35
3.2 Instrum ents D employed .............................................................. ..................... 37
3.2.1 Current ............................................... ......... ............... ...... ............... 37
3 .2 .2 T id e ...................................................................................................... ... 3 8










3.2.3 Salinity/Tem perature.................................... ......................................... 38
3.2.4 Sediment Concentration...............................................39
3.3 Field Data Results in Southwest Fork............................ ...................41
3 .3 .1 C u rren t .......................................................................... .... ... ... ..... 4 1
3.3.2 Tidal Level ............... ............................................. ..................... 44
3.3.3 Total Suspended Solids ................................................... .................... 47
3.3.5 O their D ata B locks............................................................................. 55
3.4 Field Data Results in Northwest Fork............................ ...................56
3 .4 .1 F ield S etu p .............. ....... ................................................... .................56
3.4.2 Tidal Level ............... ............................................. .................... 56
3.4.3 Total Suspended Solids ................................................... .................... 58
3.4.5 A additional D ata B locks ................................................... .................... 59
3.4.5.1 Tidal Level ...................................... .................59
3.4.5.2 Total Suspended Solids ........................................ ....... ........ 60

4 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION ....................... ...............63

4.1 M odel D description ........................................................................ 63
4.3 Grid G generation ........................................................................69
4.4 Boundary Conditions .................................... .................................... 72
4.5 Model Calibration and Validation ............................ .........................78
4.5.1 Calibration............................ ....................78
4.5.2 M odel V alidation .......................................................... .................... ... 80
4.5.3 Simulation of trap scheme of Ganju, 2001 ..........................................86

5 EVALUATION OF SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES .............87

5 .1 D design B asis ................ .... ...................................................... ..... ............ ... 87
5.1.1 G general Principle .................................... ....................................87
5.1.1.1 Sediment Entrapment ...........................................................87
5.1.1.2 Self-cleaning Channel ........................................ .................... 88
5.1.2 Design Alternatives.......................... ..........................89
5.1.2.1 Alternative No. 2: C-18 Canal Trap...............................................90
5.1.2.2 Alternative No. 3: Bay Channel .....................................................91
5.1.2.3 Alternative No. 4: Bay Y-channel............................................ 93
5.1.2.4 Alternative No. 5: Northwest Fork Channel ...................................94
5.1.3 Efficiency A analysis .................................... ....................................94
5.1.3.1 Velocity Vector Calculation............................................94
5.1.3.2 Sediment Deposition Calculation................... ..... ...............95
5.1.3.3 Trap Efficiency.......................... ...... ..... ....................97
5.1.3.4 Channel Efficiency ................................. ........................................ 98
5.2 D design Sim ulations ................................................................. .................... 98
5.2.1 Design Flows ........................................................... 98
5.2.2 Alternative 1.........................................................98
5.2.3 A alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 ........................................ .................... 99
5.3 Deposition Equation Calibration.............................................102
5.3.1 C alibration for Sand ................................................... .................... 102


iv










5.3.2 F ine Sedim ent .............................. ..... .. ..... .............. ...... ................ 102
5.4 Sand Deposition due to Alternatives.............................................103
5.4.1 Bay Channel...................................................103
5.4.2 C -18 C anal ................. .......................... ... ....... ........................ 103
5.4.3 B ay Y -channel ........................ ................... .................... ... 104
5.5 Fine Sediment Deposition due to Alternatives ...........................................104
5.6 Sedim ent R em oval ................................................................ .................... 105
5.6.1 Calculation of Deposition ................................................................... 105
5.6.2 Calculation of Channel Efficiency ...................................................... 106
5.6.3 Rem oval of Bay Sedim ent ................................................................ 107
5.7 A ssessm ent of A lternatives............................................................................ 107

6 C O N C LU SIO N S ............................................ ................................................ 109

6.1 Sum m ary ......................................................... ...... ................... ... 109
6.2 C conclusions ........................ ...................... .................... .................. 110
6.3 Recomm endations for Future W ork..............................................................112

LIST O F REFEREN CES ........................................................... .......... .................... 113

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................. ....................116
















LIST OF TABLES


Tableage

2.1 Basin area distributions in the Loxahatchee River estuary watershed ...................7

2.2 Statistical tributary flow (based on Figures 2.6 a-c) ..............................................14

2.3 Median and high flow concentration data and coefficients for equation 2.1 .........15

2.4 Spring/neap tidal ranges and phase lags for three gauges........................................27

3.1 Instrumentation for data collection and data blocks...............................................36

3.2 Discharge data for the period 04/14/2002 to 04/21/200........................................41

3.3 Typical mean current magnitude values for data blocks........................................44

3.4 Characteristic values of the tidal data ................................... .................... 47

3.5 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks...........................................51

3.6 Characteristic salinity values......................... .......... .............. ....... ............. 51

3.7 Characteristic temperature values ......................................................54

3.8 Summary of parametric value (Days 37-59 in year 2003).......................................55

3.9 Summary of parametric value (Days 90-101 in year 2003).................................... 55

3.10 Summary of parametric value (Days 101-135 in year 2003)...................................56

3.11 Characteristic values of the tidal data ................................... .................... 58

3.12 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks...........................................58

3.13 Characteristic values of the tidal data ................................... .................... 60

3.14 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks...........................................62

4.1 Definition of cell type used in the model input ..................................................69

4.2 Amplitude and phase correction factor for the tides ..................... ....................77









5.1 Alternative schemes for evaluation ..................... ...... ................................ 89

5.2 C critical velocities for sand .................................................................................. 96

5.3 Design flows in tributaries .................. ..................................... 98

5.4 Maximum currents at alternatives: calibration discharges...................................00

5.5 Maximum currents at alternatives: Different discharges .....................................100

5.6 Calibration for sedim ent fluxes .................................... .......... ............ ........... 102

5.7 Rate of sand deposition in bay channel ............................................................103

5.8 Rate of sand deposition in C-18 canal.................... ............................................. 103

5.9 Rate of sand deposition in Y-channel ....................................... 104

5.10 Rate of fine sedim ent deposition in alternatives ....................................................105

5.11 Annual sand budget: Calibration discharge .....................................105

5.12 Annual sand budget: Peak discharge.................... ............................................... 105

5.13 Annual fine sediment budget: Calibration discharge ............................................106

5.14 Annual fine sediment budget: Peak discharge ........................ ....................106

5.15 Annual sedim ent loading............................ ..... ....... .................... 106

5.16 Assessment of impacts of proposed alternatives....................................................108
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

2.1 Location m ap of the study area ........................................ ............................. 5

2.2 Loxahatchee River estuary and tributaries .......................... ...... ................. 5

2.3 Hydrographic survey of the estuary (November 2001)....................... ........... 7

2.4 Loxahatchee River estuary watershed basins, estuarine limits (dashed arcs) and
central em baym ent ................. .... .......................................................................... 8

2.5 Ariel photograph showing development of new shoal...........................................11

2.6 Cumulative discharge plot. a) Northwest Fork. b) North Fork.
c) Southw est Fork ................... .............. ... ................ .......... ........ ...14

2.7 Dredging Plans for C-18 canal, 1956 ..................................... ..... ............... 16

2.8 Current variation under the effect of released discharge from the S-46
stru ctu re ...................................... ............................ ............. ...... 19

2.9 Effect of S-46 discharge on the suspended sediment concentration........................19

2.10 Arial Photograph showing the Central Embayment, the Inlet and the
T rib u tries ..................................................... ..................... 2 3

2.11 Location of tide gauges marked UFG1, UFG2 and UFG3.....................................26

2.12 Sample records of tidal measurements at three locations (09/14/00-09/15/00)-
Datum NAVD 88. ....................................................... 27

2.13 Location of stream-gauging stations and sampling site for suspended
sedim ents, .................................................................................. .................... 30

2.14 Location indicating fresh mud depositions and the Shoals the estuary ..................33

3.1 Location of instrument tower in the Southwest and Northwest Forks ...................35

3.2 Calibration plots used for calibration of OBS sensors ..........................................40

3.3 Record of current magnitude: Days 94-114 (year 2002) ...................................... 42









3.5 Record of current magnitude: Days 332-356 (year 2002)........................................43

3.6 Record of current direction: Days 332- 356 (year 2002)...................................... 43

3.7 Water level time-series: All levels relative to NAVD 88. Days 94-114 (2002). .....44

3.8 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend
and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to
NAVD 88. Days 94-114 (2002). .......................... ....................................45

3.9 Water level time-series: All levels relative to NAVD88. Days 332- 365 (2002)
and D ays 01-35 (2003). ................................................ ................................. 45

3.10 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend
and the lower plot is without this trend. All level relative to NAVD 88. Days
332-365 (2002) and Days 01 -35 (2003). ........................................ ... ........46

3.11 TSS time-series at four elevations: Days 94-114 (year 2002). ................................48

3.12 TSS time-series at three elevations: Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and 01-35
(y ear 2003). ............................................................................... .................... 48

3.13 Depth-mean TSS concentration time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002)...................49

3.14 Depth mean TSS concentration time series: Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and
Days 01 -35 (year 2003). ................. ...................................... 49

3.15 Depth mean TSS concentration time series and tidal trend indicating their
dependence: Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and Days 01 35 (year 2003). ...............50

3.16 Salinity time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002). ............................. ......................52

3.17 Salinity and Current magnitude time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002). .................52

3.18 Temperature time series: Days 94-114 (year 2002)................................................53

3.19 Salinity time series: Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and 01-35 (year 2003). ..............54

3.20 Temperature time series: 352- 365 (year 2002) and 01-35 (year 2003)...................54

3.21 Record of water level variation. Days 245 -255 (year 2003). ..............................57

3.22 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend
and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to
NAVD 88. Days 245 -255 (year 2003). ........................................................57

3.23 Depth-mean TSS concentration time-series: Days 245-255 (year 2003) ...............58

3.24 Record of water level variation. Days 310.5 -313.5 (year 2003). ..........................59









3.25 Water level time series: Upper plot shows original time series with mean trend
and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations. All levels relative to
NAVD 88. Days 310.5 313.5 (Year 2003).................................. ..................... 60

3.26 TSS time-series at two elevations: Days 310.5 313.5 (year 2003). ....................61

3.27 Depth mean TSS concentration time series: Days 310.5 -313.5 (year 2003).........61

3.28 TSS time-series at three elevations: Days 315.5 318.5 (year 2003)...................62

3.29 Depth-mean TSS concentration time series: Days 315.5 -318.5 (year 2003). .......62

4.1 Model domain showing input bathymetry and shoreline.........................................71

4.2 Computational grid showing the flow boundaries ..............................................72

4.3 Tidal time series from UFG1, 09/14/00-10/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot
after the m id-tide trend is rem oved. ................................................ .................... 74

4.4 Tidal time series from UFG3, 09/14/00-10/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot
after the m id-tide trend is rem oved. ................................................ .................... 76

4.5 Flow tim e series applied at S-46 boundary .................................... ..................... 77

4.6 Flow time series applied at Northwest Fork boundary..........................................77

4.7 Model calibration measured vs. predicted current, a) Cold Start, b) Hot Start........81

4.8 Model calibration measured vs. predicted current direction.................................82

4.9 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG2) Year
2000, a) C old Start, b) H ot start. .................................................... ..................... 83

4.10 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG3) Year
2000, a) C old Start b) H ot start. .................................................... ..................... 84

4.11 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation
(Northwest Fork) Year 2003, a) Cold Start, b) Hot start..........................................85

4.12 Validation results using trap used by Ganju, 2001..............................................86

5.1 Design concepts for sedim ent manager ent .................................. ..................... 88

5.2 Alternatives considered, with existing bathymetry..................... .....................90

5.3 Dredged bathymetry of the C-18 canal with plan form view of the proposed
trap. Trap considered by Ganju (2001) is also shown............................................91

5.4 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning channel in the bay. .........................92









5.5 Location of the sea grasses indicated in model with increased roughness...............92

5.6 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning Y-channel in bay...........................93

5.7 Planform view of the proposed self-cleaning channel in the Northwest Fork ........94

5.8 Current comparisons for a model cell at the upstream end of the Northwest
Fork channel: calibration discharges .............................................. ..................... 99

5.9 Current velocity vectors over the modeled domain; maximum flood velocities
at spring tides. .............................. ....................... .................... 101

5.10 Current velocity vectors over the modeled domain; maximum ebb velocities at
sp rin g tid e .......................................................................................................... ..... 10 1















LIST OF SYMBOLS

area

vertical turbulent viscosity

width of the basin

wave celerity

uniformly distributed initial sediment concentration (kg/mi)

sediment concentration (kg/m 3)

constant multiplier for u-velocity conversion to true east

constant multiplier for u-velocity conversion to true north

constant multiplier for v-velocity conversion to true east

constant multiplier for v-velocity conversion to true north

sediment deposition under reduced flow

deposition at the entrance to the channel

deposition at the exit of the channel

dimensionless projected vegetation area

total water column depth

length of the channel/trap

coefficient of conductance

volume source or sink

Richardson number











steady mean flow velocity

velocity vector

width of the channel in equation 5.8

settling velocity

buoyancy

vegetation resistance

Darcy-Weishbach friction factor

coriolis acceleration

acceleration due to gravity

water depth

scale factor along x-axis

scale factor along y-axis

turbulent intensity

amount of sediment in influent

amount of sediment in effluent

removal ratio

velocity along the channel (x-axis)

friction velocity

velocity amplitude under current

current at the entrance


current at the exit








critical velocity for erosion


curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal velocity

velocity in true east direction

velocity across the length of the channel(y-axis)

curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal velocity

velocity in true north direction

variable water depth

water density

reference water density

bed erosion shear stress

x-component shear stress

y-component shear stress

bed bottom shear stress

mid-tide elevation

high-tide elevation

low tide elevation

vertical diffusivity

Karman constant

free surface potential

velocity angles
















Abstract of Thesis to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science


SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN LOW ENERGY ESTUARIES: THE
LOXAHATCHEE, FLORIDA

By

Rashmi Ranjan Patra

December 2003


Chairman: Ashish J. Mehta
Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering

Implementation of schemes for sediment entrapment and self-cleaning channels

was examined in the micro-tidal estuarine environment containing both sand and fine

sediment. The central embayment of the micro-tidal Loxahatchee River estuary on the

Atlantic Coast of Florida was chosen as the candidate location due to its unique

characteristics with respect to the influx of sand and fine sediment in its central

embayment, and concerns regarding the potential for long term impacts of this flux on the

embayment. An ideal sediment trap captures all of incoming sediment, i.e., the removal

efficiency is 100%. A self-cleaning channel allows no net deposition of incoming

sediment, which passes through, so that its removal efficiency is nil.

Hydrodynamic model simulations were carried out for selected trap/channel

alternatives, and their efficiency was calculated by relating sediment deposition to change

in the flow regime due to implementation of these alternatives. Calculations indicated









that the concepts of sediment entrapment and of self-cleaning can operate only

imperfectly in the study area due to the low prevailing forcing by tide and the episodic

nature of freshwater discharges in the tributaries.

Fine sediment accumulation in the central embayment can be reduced by dredging

the C-18 canal, as the trapped sediment would account for more than half of the total fine

sediment entering the bay. A channel close to the southern bank of the embayment could

improve bay flushing by ebb flow, reduce bay-wide sedimentation and serve as a

navigation route. Careful design with regard to channel alignment would be required to

avoid sea grass beds in the area. Long term simulations of flow and sediment transport

are required to assess sediment circulation patterns and the formation of shoals in the

central embayment and the Northwest Fork.















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

Sedimentation due to the influx of fine and coarse particles is an issue affecting

numerous estuaries and coastal waterways. Often enough, these particles originate far

inland, and are transported into the coastal zone by runoff and stream flow. In the

estuarine regime, inorganic sediment almost never occurs in isolation, as it is

complemented by measurable organic fraction produced by either indigenous sources

(e.g., native phytoplankton, swamp vegetation, wind blown material), or allochthonous

sources (e.g., river-bome phytoplanktons, swamp vegetation, windblown material)

(Damell, 1967). In turn, such organic-rich sediments can degrade water quality by

oxygen uptake and a reduction in light penetration. In this study, the question of

preemptive dredging of sediment prior to its deposition in an area of concern or, as an

alternative, preventing its deposition in the area of concern by channelizing flow, was

studied. The candidate water body was the estuarine segment of the Loxahatchee River

on the east coast of Florida.

Loxahatchee River, which discharges mainly through its Northwest Fork, supplies

mainly quartz sand and organic detritus. Clay mineral makes up less than 5% of the mud

in the estuary, but because this mud is rich in organic matter, its accumulation has

become a matter of concern in the central embayment of the estuary. This flow, in

addition to controlled discharges from the S-46 structure in the C-18 Canal at the head of









the Southwest Fork, brings in much of the sediment (mean concentration 0.014 kg/m3;

Sonnetag and Mcpherson, 1984) in the central embayment.

A commonly employed solution to reduce sedimentation is the implementation of a

trap scheme by trenching the submerged bottom. Such a trench-trap is a means to

increase the depth at the chosen location by dredging. Increased depth results in a

decreased flow velocity (and associated bed shear stress), thereby allowing incoming

sediment to settle in the trap, instead of being carried further downstream. The removal of

sediments becomes much easier as it can be then be removed from the trap, rather than

dredging the otherwise distributed deposits from a considerably broader area. As an

alternative to sediment entrapment, creating a self-cleaning channel in the area of concern

for sedimentation would mean that sediment would pass through the system, without

deposition. The degree to which both approaches can function depends on the flow

conditions, type of sediment and the morphology of the estuary.

Given the above background, the objectives of this study were: 1) to determine the

efficiency of traps installed at selected locations in the estuary, and 2) to evaluate the

efficiency of channels as a means to pursue the goal of a self-cleaning sedimentary

environment.

Shoaling has occurred the Loxahatchee in many areas, especially near the

confluences of the major tributaries (Northwest Fork and Southwest Fork) in the central

embayment where the velocities are typically low (Sonntag and McPherson, 1984).

Recent studies (Jaeger et al., 2002) suggest internal recirculation of sediments as an

important factor governing sediment transport within the estuarine portion of the river.

Accordingly, in order to manage sedimentation in the central embayment, it may be









desirable to test trap/channel deployments at multiple locations. The performance of these

schemes was evaluated with regard to efficiency of sediment removal.

1.2 Study Tasks

The tasks undertaken included:

1. Data collection from the site and scrutiny of data from the existing literature to
characterize the nature of flow, sediment transport and sedimentation. This
included measuring tidal elevations, current velocities, sediment concentrations and
bed sediment distribution (Jaeger et al., 2002) in the estuary, and obtaining stream
flow data for the tributaries from the literature.

2. Simulating the flow field using a hydrodynamic model, in order to determine the
velocities, water surface elevations and bed shear stress distributions.

3. Introduction of trap schemes in the calibrated flow model to determine flow
velocities with and without the trap, and development of relationships for
calculating trap efficiency.

4. Introduction of self-cleaning channels and an assessment of their viability.

5. A qualitative assessment of the usefulness of the approaches based on selected
criteria.

1.3 Outline of Chapters

Chapter 2 describes the sediment management alternatives including existing

conditions and the proposals for implementation. Chapter 3 deals with the field data

collection for this study including data analysis and interpretation. Flow model

calibration and validation is included in Chapter 4 and evaluation of management

alternatives is described in Chapter 5. Summary of the results and conclusions are made


in Chapter 6, followed by a bibliography of studies cited.















CHAPTER 2
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Present Condition of the Loxahatchee Estuary

Loxahatchee River empties to the Atlantic Ocean through the Jupiter Inlet located

in northern Palm Beach County on the south coast of Florida, about 28 km south of St.

Lucie Inlet and 20 km north of Lake Worth Inlet. The three main tributaries, which feed

the estuary, are the Northwest Fork, the North Fork, and the Southwest Fork. In addition,

the Jones Creek and Sims Creek, which are far lesser tributaries than the others, also feed

the estuary through the Southwest Fork. Figures 2.1 shows the general location map of

the study area.

The major surface flow in to the estuary historically was through the Northwest

Fork draining the Loxahatchee Marsh and Hungry land slough (refer Fig 2.1). The

upstream reach of the Southwest Fork, referred to as the C-18 canal, was created in

1957/58 in the natural drainage path in order to lengthen the area of influence of the

Southwest Fork and facilitate drainage of the westward swampland (Refer Figure 2.1 and

Figure 2.2). The flow in the canal is regulated by the S-46 automated sluice gate

structure. Whereas, the Southwest and the Northwest fork converge on the estuary

approximately 4 km west of the inlet, the North fork joins the central bay about 3 km

west of the inlet. Down stream of the Florida East coast Railroad (FECRR) Bridge the

Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) intersects the estuary in a dogleg fashion. Five

navigation/access channels exist on the south shore of the central embayment















8021 D i 1 r wr a

L N I jE G L\







JiV. itl MILESS QLflL







Figure 2 1 Location map of the study area (Source US Geological Survey report no 84-
4157, 1984)





















A detailed hydrographic survey of the central embayment (Figure 2 3) and the
Northwest and Southwest Forks carried out November' 2001 (Ldberg Land


Surveying, Inc) indicates the depths in the estuary, which range between 0 m (reference


to North Atlantic Vertical Datum 1988, (NAVD 88)) near the sandy shoals to almost 6 m
to North Atlantic Vertical Datum 1988, (NAVD 88)) near the sandy shoals to almost 6 m









in the entrance channel near the FECRR Bridge. The average depth over the embayment

is just over 1 m. The navigation channel (maintained by the Jupiter Inlet District) runs

westward from the Inlet, under the FECRR bridge, and through the central embayment

approximately 14 km upstream from the Inlet. The navigation Channel has a bottom

width of about 30.5m (100 feet) and is maintained at 1.75m(5.74feet) (reference to

National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929, (NGVD 29) and 2.21m (7.24feet) with

reference to NAVD 88) with a side slope of 1:3. Flood shoals, which approximately

bisects the central embayment exists mainly due to the sand influx from the ocean, and

smaller shoals exist at the termini of the three main tributaries. Small shoal islands are

located west of the FECRR bridge, on both sides of the channel.

The Northwest Fork and North Fork are natural tributaries draining in to the central

embayment. However, as mentioned the Southwest Fork was lengthened westward by

construction of C- 18 canal with a control structure (S-46), in order to divert flow from the

Northwest Fork to the Southwest Fork. A channel was then constructed allowing the

diversion of flow from the Northwest Fork to the Southwest Fork. For easy reference

from this point on, the C-18 canal will be indicated as the narrow channel section and the

broader section at the root will be called Southwest Fork (Figure 2.2).






























Figure 2 3 Hydrographic survey of the estuary (November 2001)

The Loxahatchee River estuary draus over 1000 km2 of land through the three

main tributaries, the ICWW, and several minor tributaries The individual watershed
basins are shown in Figure 2 4 and listed in Table 2 1 The watershed constitutes

residential areas, agricultural lands, and unimhabited maush and slough areas

Table 2 1 Basin area distributions in the Loxahatchee River estuary watershed
Basin Area (km )
Intracoastal Water way 545

Jonathan Dickinson 155
South Indian River 65
Loxahatchee Rive 6
main~~~~ ~ ~ trbtais th JCW dsvrlmio rbtre h idvda aese
basnsareshwn n igue 4 i lite ini- Tal 1Tewaesedcntiue

reienil ra, giclualluis ui nihbte mashaidsouhara
















Loxahatchee Rive_____ _____6____









-



- '.1... -.
I.


-I .i ..x''or -


i-_ -, '







i tLo {.







Unlike more northerly estuaries, upland drainage in to the Loxahatchee provides

only quartz sand and organic detritus Clay mineral makes up less than 5% of the mud in

the estuary (McPherson, 1984) Earlier studies indicate that the estuary was periodically

open and closed to the sea due to various reasons Originally, flow from the Loxahatchee

River along with that from Lake Worth Creek and Jupiter Sound kept the inlet clean

With the construction of the ICWW and the Lake Worth inlet and the modifications of

the St Lucie Inlet in 1970, some flow was diverted Subsequently, Jupiter Inlet generally

remained closed until 1947, except when it is dredged periodically After 1947, it was









maintained open by dredging by the Jupiter Inlet District and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

Dredge and fill operations have also been carried out in the estuary embayment and

forks. In the early 1900's, there was significant amount of filling at the present FECRR

Bridge, which narrowed the estuary from 370 m to 310 m. The areas east and west of the

bridge (and also under the bridge) were dredged in mid-1930's, and also in 1942. The

material was high is shell content and was used in construction of roads. In 1976-77,

additional estimated 23,000 m3 materials were removed from the estuary at the bridge

and from an area extending 180 m from the west. Some dredging was also carried out in

the Southwest Fork near the C-18 canal in the early 1970's (Wanless, Rossinsky and

McPherson, 1984). In 1980, three channels were dug in the embayment, and an estimated

23,000 m3 of sediment were removed.

After 1900, the estuary was greatly influenced by the dredging and alteration of the

drainage to the basin. With gradual lowering of the water table and resultant effect on the

water quantity, the direction and pattern of inflow (McPherson and Sabanskas, 1980)

were considerably affected. Historically, the major surface flow to the estuary was in to

the Northwest Fork from the Loxahatchee Marsh and the Hungry-land Slough (Figure

2.1), both of which drained north. A small agricultural canal was dug before 1928 to

divert a small amount of water from the Loxahatchee Marsh to the Southwest Fork. As

noted, in 1957-58, C-18 canal was constructed along the natural drainage way to divert

flow from the Northwest Fork to the Southwest Fork of the estuary.

Jaeger et al., (2001) carried out extensive studies in the estuary to reevaluate the

nature of environmental sedimentology in the lower Loxahatchee River Estuary and as a









companion study to Ganju et al. (2001). Specifically, new samples were collected in

order to 1) examine changes in surficial sediment types between 1990 and 2000, 2)

attempt to determine the sources of fine-grained muddy sediments accumulating within

the estuary; and 3) examine rates of sedimentation within the central embayment and

three forks (North, Northwest, and Southwest/C-18 canal) by collecting a suite of -l-m

long pushcores and -3 m long vibracores within the estuary. Grab samples were collected

in all regions of the estuary and were analyzed. One of the main findings of the study was

the internal movement of the sediments in the estuary system. With the growth of the

population on the shoreline and associated human activities the mangroves dotting the

shoreline started vanishing. The removal of these Mangrove cover from the shoreline

released a large quantity of sediments, which was otherwise trapped in their roots.

Essentially fine grained, these sediments moved with the flow and started getting

deposited in the estuarine bounds. According, to this study new shoals were

developed/grown by this process, especially the submerged one in the Northwest Fork,

down stream of the shoal identifiable from a satellite map and Figure 4 of the Report

(Jaeger et al., 2001). The aerial photograph reproduced in Figure 2.5 also indicates an

additional shoal developing from the root of the existing shoal, suggesting that the

general nature sediments being fed by the Northwest Fork is coarse grained with the fine

grained ones carried downstream with the current before deposition.

Tidal flow into and out of the estuary is much larger than freshwater inflow from

all the major tributaries. Fresh water flow is reported to be about 2 percent of the total

tidal inflow (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). Tides are mixed semidiurnal (twice daily

with varying amplitude) with a tidal range of about 0.6 to 0.9 m. Tidal waves advances









up the estuary at a rate of 2.23 m/s to 4.46 m/s (McPherson and Sonnetag, 1984) and

shows little change in the tidal amplitudes over to about 16 km river km. Winds have a

significant effect on the tidal ranges especially the strong northeast winds which prevails

during autumn and winter for example can push in additional water into the estuary

affecting the tidal ranges.


Figure 2.5 Ariel photograph showing development of new shoal

Estuarine conditions extends in the estuary from the inlet for about 8 river km into

Southwest Fork, 9.6 river km in to the North fork and 16 river km into the Northwest

Fork.

Of late, the environmental condition of the Loxahatchee River and the estuary has

become a matter of great concern. The major factor affecting the environmental health is

the sediment transported in to the estuary. Large amount of the sediments settling in the









basin might affect the bottom life, alter circulation patterns, and accumulate shoals,

thereby impeding boat traffic (McPherson, Wanless and Rossinsky, 1984).

2.2 C-18 Canal

2.2.1 Present Condition

The C-18 canal drains the Loxahatchee Slough, a shallow swamp-like feature

containing diverse flora and fauna. However, estuarine conditions persist for 8 km up the

Southwest Fork/C-18 canal measured from the inlet.

Flow data obtained from USGS stream flow gage data, for all available years

(1971-2002 N.W. Fork, 1980-1982 N. Fork, and 1959-2002 S.W. Fork) indicate that C-

18 canal/Southwest Fork carries a maximum discharge of 61.54 m3/sec. Cumulative

frequency distribution curves were constructed to designate (Figure 2.6 a-c) median and

extreme flow events (Table 2.2) for all the tributaries. The C-18 canal is regulated at S-46

structure, which is basically a gated sluice. The criterion for controlling the flow at the S-

46 structure is based on water level behind the structure. When the level exceeds a

predetermined mark, the sluice gates are opened until the level recedes by 30 cm (Russell

and McPherson, 1984), at which point the gates are closed. This regulation has resulted in

a discontinuous flow record; with weeks of no flow passing the structure, and days when

storm flows have been released. During normal wet season, the level behind the S-46

structure is not always sufficiently high for releasing flow, while the other tributaries are

freely discharging to the estuary.














































--------- -- -- -- -- -- ---
|_ _ | 4 I I_ 4 _ |


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Flow rate (m3/s)


_______


55 60 65 70 75 80


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18


Flow rate (m3/s)


02j


I 2 I I I 1 2
I- I I I I -

ftI +I I I I+- H











I 1 2 I I I 1 1 2
_ - - -- - 4- 1 1 -
I I_ _ _


_ _ _ _ _


II_ _ _ _






II_ _ L J _
I I

I I I II


2 22


-------- -- -- -- -- _:_ ::: ::


I I H1 H1 -



I 1 -


I_ I 2_ 2 -



I_ I H1 1 -






I_ I I2 I2 -



I- I I I1 A -






I_ I 2_ 2_ -











c

09
08 - --- ------ -- ----- -----+ -- -

07 I I I I

06 -- ------ --- -- ----------
0 5 _ _


0 3 II ----

02 -

01 -- --- --- -------- -- -


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Flow rate (m3/s)
Figure 2.6.Cumulative discharge plot. a) Northwest Fork. b) North Fork. c) Southwest
Fork.

Table 2.2 Statistical tributary flow (based on Figures 2.6 a-c)
Tributary Median Flow High Flow Maximum Flow
(50%) (90%) (98%)
(m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
Northwest Fork 0.7 4.1 76
North Fork 0.1 0.21 1.9
Southwest Fork 1.3 7.8 61

Sonnetag and McPherson (1984) reported two values of suspended solid sediment

concentration (0.059 kg/m3, 0.017 kg/m3) with corresponding flow data for the C-18

canal (31 m3/s, 28 m3/s, respectively) and a mean concentration value for duration (1980-

82) of their study (0.014 kg/m3). The median flow for the C-18 canal (1.3 m3/s) from the

Figure 2.6c was correlated to this mean value of concentration in the present study. A fit

in the form of (Mfiller and F6stner, 1968)


C = aQ









was used (Ganju et al., 2001), where a, and bk are site specific coefficients, with a is

indicative of the erodibility of the upstream banks/bed and exponent b, is indicative of the

intensity of the erosional forces in the river.

Table 2.3 Median and high flow concentration data and coefficients for equation 2.1
Median flow High flow a
Tributary Concentration Concentration
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) Coefficient Coefficient

Northwest Fork 0.011 0.023 0.012 0.27

North Fork 0.01 0.018 0.018 0.02

Southwest Fork 0.014 0.059 0.012 0.49

Fieldwork, consisting of bottom profiling and sampling, was carried out during July

2001 (Jaeger et al.,) by collecting a suite of -l-m long push cores and -3 m long

vibracores within the estuary. A total of 110 samples were collected from sampling

locations covering the entire estuary and river (Figure 1, Final Report on Sedimentary

processes in the Loxahatchee River Estuary, 5000 Years ago to the Present, Jaeger et al.,

2001) including from outcrops of regional surficial geological unit (undifferentiated 1.8

million year-old Pleistocene sediments) in order to examine the potential sediment

sources (Loxahatchee River, C-18 canal, Inlet, and Pleistocene-Age (last 1.8 million

years) sediments exposed along the banks of the C-18 canal. 56 of the samples were

reoccupations of sites sampled in 1990 and were reported (Mehta et al.,1992). These new

samples were collected to examine the changes in sediment characteristics pattern over a

10-year period. Positions of all sampling sites were determined by differential GPS

providing a position accuracy of ~1 m. Each grab sample recovered approximately

1,000-2,000 cm3 of sediment, removing approximately the uppermost 1-5 cm of the

sediment surface. Sediment distribution maps produced from these grab samples indicate









particle sizes reveal that the majority of the estuary is dominated (by weight) of fine,

well-sorted sand in the -150 micron (3 phi, 0 15 mm) size range (Jaeger et al, 2001)

In the same study conducted by Jaeger et al, (2001), poling depths (obtained by

pushing a graduated pole into bottom until a hard substrate is reached) in the C-18 canal

were determined to estimate sedimentation rates along the length of the canal Since the

bottom was dredged at the time of construction of the canal in 1957/58, the bed thickness

can be considered to represent the subsequent accumulation This is because, the

dredging of the canal in 1958 would have most likely left behind a hard, sand rich

horizon that could not be easily penetrated with the solid rod Figure 2 7 shows these

thicknesses along the canal length Sediment thickness increases with the distance from

the S-46 structure, possibly due to the large erosional forces near the structure (when

flow is released), and reduction of these forces as the flow moves along the canal,

allowing more deposition of sediment



E Natural bottom (pre-1957)


I-


.... I- D'D edged canal bottom
S(post-1957)


0 500 1000 1500 2000
Distance from S-46 structure (nm)
Figure 2 7 Dredging Plans for C-18 canal, 1956 (Source: Ganju et al., 2001)

This coarse sand layer was sampled at the base of push cores (see Figures 21 and

22 from Jaeger et al, 2001) There appears to be a trend of increasing thickness away









from the S-46 control structure (Figure 19). Modeling of sediment transport in the canal

(Ganju et al., 2001) also supports such a trend. The overall sedimentation rates (10-50

mm/yr) in the canal are very high for most coastal areas, where sedimentation has kept

pace with the rise in sea level (3-5 mm/yr) (Davis, 1994). However, this sampling

technique of poling only provides mean sedimentation rates over this 42-year (1958-

2001) time period. Analyses of push cores collected in the canal document alternating

layers of clean sand and muddy sand/sandy mud (see Figures 21-22, Jaeger et al., 2001).

This inter-layering of sediment types is characteristic of time-varying deposition

rates/erosion rates. When the sluice gates are opened, fast currents can erode the

sediment surface followed by rapid deposition of sand and mud. The best way to evaluate

time-varying sedimentation rates is with either accurate annual bathymetric profiles or by

measuring naturally occurring radioisotopes in the sediment cores (Jaeger et al., 2001).

2.2.2 Management Options

Dredging plans for the C-18 canal from 1956 is shown in Figure 2.7 (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, 1956). The existing bottom was deepened to 3 m at some locations to

facilitate drainage. The depths refer to the National Geodetic Vertical datum of 1929

(NGVD). The present mean depth of the canal as measured along the length is 1.2 m.

Hence there has been substantial sedimentation in the canal, which in turn means that it

no longer serves as a sediment trap and allows sediment to be transported to the central

embayment. One way of maintaining the depth in the canal is to devise a suitable

dredging option coupled with a designed flow regime in order to maintain the canal in the

self-cleaning mode. However, one of the main difficulties in this is the lack of continuous

supply of water. As described earlier, the flow in the canal is erratic and controlled by the

S-46 control structure. Accordingly, although the median flow in this canal is higher than









the other tributaries, the flow is episodic and therefore not enough to overcome the bed

shear resistance of the deposited sediments. This situation can be illustrated by data

collected during between April 4th and April 24t, 2002.

Figure 2.8 indicates the dependence of the current velocity on the released

discharge. The sudden jump in the over all current magnitude recorded downstream of

the structure therefore exhibit strong erosional trend as can be seen from the Figure 2.9.

In addition, it indicates that, sediment concentrations in the bottom layers are much more

pronounced due to the obvious reason of erosion of the bed. It can therefore be concluded

that, a sustained and regular flow regime would help keeping the canal sediment free.

An option is to increase the depth in the canal by dredging part or all of it, thereby

recreating the sediment trap. As an alternative, a detailed study of the flow pattern can be

undertaken and a suitable flow regime worked out. This would involve redesigning of the

control structure and a better regulation of the flow. However, the following points

should be noted:

1. The capacity of flow from the structure appears to be insufficient to flush out
sediment beyond 1.2 km (Ganju et al., 2001) from the structure even under "high"
discharges when the gates are open.

2. A potential option is to change the gate configuration but not the flow regulation
schedule. If changing the gate configuration from sluice to weir is successful, it
would create a sediment trap upstream of the gate, which would "buy time" for
the downstream reach of the canal, but this upstream trap would eventually have
to be dredged to maintain it effectiveness. The volume of material trapped will be
restricted the weir height. Over-depth dredging upstream is a viable option.

3. However, because sediment transported across the gate is believed to be quite
heterogeneous (ranging from fine sand to clay and organic matter) and the organic
material is presently not found in the bed there, predictive modeling the transport
of sediment across the gate will be an uncertain exercise without extensive data
collection on both sides of the gate. An option would be to carry out gate
conversion and work with the new system based on a rough estimation of the new
flow/sediment regime. It is likely that some modification of gate opening schedule
may also have to be carried out to improve the efficiency of the upstream trap.







19






1,4














0" 2
I

O 95 100 106 110 115
Days of the Year (2002)

Figure 2 8 Current variation under the effect of released discharge from the S-46
structure


OBS 4




40




=3 0OS 2 los 110 r15
90 95 100 OBS 3 105 110 115









90 95 100 105 110 115
90 95 100 OBS 1 105 110 415


300~~~~~~~~~~ ------ -- ---- ] ------ --- ------i-------------


Days of the Year (2002)

Figure 2 9 Effect of S-46 discharge on the suspended sediment concentration

The present study envisages examining the option dredging the downstream canal


Ganju (2001) warned out such an exercise by testing the effectiveness of a comparatively









short sediment trap. The trap design and results of the investigation are summarized

below.In order to quantify the sedimentation rate as a function of discharge in the C-18

canal investigations were carried out using calibrated sediment transport models. The

boundary conditions were designed to simulate the episodic unsynchronized (with

Northwest and North Fork discharges) discharges from the S-46 structure. The results

indicated that as discharge increases the change in the rate of sedimentation rate

decreases. However, they do not share a direct straight-line relationship. For instance,

doubling of flow from 2.5 m3/s to 5 m3/s results an increase of 71% in the sedimentation

rate and similar increase from 10 to 20 m3/s changes the rate only by 25% indicating that,

the sedimentation rate is more sensitive to lower discharges. This is evidently due to

increasing discharge is associated with increased concentration. The regulation of the C-

18 canal by the S-46 structure is manifested in the high frequency of zero-discharge

periods (54% of the days) and the spikes. The deposition rates were found to be 0.15 m

for a period of 10 years, which compared well with the poling results.

The study also compares the sedimentation in a regulated C-18 canal to that of

hypothetically unregulated canal by applying flow record for the Northwest fork for the

same period pro-rated so that the discharges over the 10 year flow period remains

identical. Resulting in a 10-year deposition thickness of 0.22m (0.022m/yr), implying that

the episodic discharges in actuality reduced the rate of sedimentation. This is a direct

consequence of near constant high discharge attenuating the increasing trend of

sedimentation.

The study incorporates a trap near the area of greatest post dredging thickness, with

a poling depth of approximately 1.2 m. A dredging depth of 3 m (from the original bed









level) width of 60 m, and a length of 180 m were chosen for the trap, which was

considered sufficient to reduce the velocity in the canal, and allow a measurable amount

of sediments to settle. This trap configuration reduced the current magnitude by 67% over

the trap. As a consequence a number of factors were evaluated by the study namely,

* Simulations showed that the removal ratio, i.e., the ratio of sediment influx (into
the trap) minus out flux divided by influx), was maximum at an S-46 discharge of
approximately 1.7 m3/s. At higher discharges sediment was transported beyond the
trap, while at lower discharges sediment settled before the trap.

* The second simulation involved testing the trap efficiency as a function of sediment
concentration. It was observed that increase in sediment concentrations in the free
settling range in general increases the settlement. The increase in trapped load
followed a linear trend up to concentrations of 0.25 kg/m3 (free settling zone),
which is explained by the increase of deposition flux with concentration (with
constant settling velocity). Above this concentration, and below 7 kg/m3
flocculationn range), the increase in settling velocity yields a similarly increasing
trend for trapped load. In the hindered settling zone, however, (which lies above
this concentration) trapped load decreases as the settling velocity deceases. It was
therefore be inferred that trapped load is a function of concentration because
settling velocity (and hence the deposition flux) is also a function of concentration
at values greater than 0.25 kg/m3.

* The simulations on varying organic content indicated that, increase in organic
content led to decease in settling velocity, which resulted in lower removal ratio.
Sedimentation rate in the trap increased with increased organic content, due to
corresponding decease in dry density. In addition, the increase in influent load with
increasing organic content as less sediment was deposited upstream of the trap at
higher organic content.

2.3 Central Embayment

2.3.1 Present Condition

Jupiter Inlet, which is about 112 m wide and 3.9 m deep at the jetties, allows the

tidal flow in and out of the estuary. The channel starting at the jetties leading up to the

Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge is fairly uniform, with width varying from 206 m to

247 m and the mean depth varying between 3.92 m at the inlet and 2.6 m near the

FECRR Bridge. The ICWW meets the channel down stream of the FECRR bridge.









Upstream of the FECRR Bridge the embayment widens and the channel is divided in to

two parts by shoals often exposed under low water conditions. These shoals, presumably

created by the sands introduced in to the system through the inlet and the tributaries, and

carried by the flood tide, occur where the sediment carrying capacity of the flow reduces

with the reduction of current at wider sections. In addition, east of these sandy shoals

there occurs a small mangrove island. Similar Islands occur near the north bank close to

the FECCR Bridge. The deepest portion of the embayment lies to the north of the sandy

shoal, easily identifiable even from a real photograph (Figure 2.9) is currently used for

navigation. The shoreline is basically sandy with little or no clay present. The percentage

of clay and silt is barely 5%. The average depth in the central embayment is 1.2 m. The

depth in the deeper portions along the flood channel however exceeds 3 m in patches. A

similar deep channel can be found along the south bank, which has been presumably

created by the ebb circulation. A clear ebb channel can also be seen from the satellite

photographs to the south of the sandy shoal. Boats returning to their docks use this

channel at high water. There are many private wooden docks along the entire coastline.

At the turn of the century, the Loxahatchee River estuaries along with its

immediate environ was a pristine ecosystem consisting of mangroves, salt marshes, and

scrubland. Prior to Word War II, agricultural interests transformed the area in to a rural

landscape with citrus groves and vegetable farms. As a result, a significant increase in

residential population occurred around this time. These developments ultimately

prompted the declaration of the estuary an aquatic preserve in 1984. Nonetheless, the

construction activities, especially of the residential homes, still continue along the

shoreline and the entire estuarial shoreline of the central embayment as well as a









significant portion of the tributary shorelines is residentially occupied. Recreational

boating is widely practiced in the estuary by the local residents. Access is necessary to

the upstream areas for recreational activities, and also to the open sea and the ICWW.

Many of the natural and artificial access routes have shoaled in recent years (Antonini et

al., 1998), leading to hazardous boating practices such as high-speed entry/ exist to

prevent grounding of vessels. The channels adjacent to the south shore of the central

embayment are more susceptible to shoaling (Sonntag and McPherson, 1984), directly

affecting the boaters who rely on these channels for access.














Figure 2.10 Arial Photograph showing the Central Embayment, the Inlet and the
Tributaries

Estimates with regard to grain size, composition and age of bottom sediments are

given by McPherson et al. (1984) for the entire estuary. The samples collected by vibro-

core boring were analyzed in the laboratory for micro-faunal and macro-faunal

assemblages, grain size distributions, constituent composition and radiocarbon age. With

regard to the grain size it was seen that, the characteristics of the bed material were

identical to those of the underlying sediments in the core. Fine-grained sediments

dominate the central bar at the lower reaches of the estuary; whereas medium to coarse-

grained sand dominates upper reaches of the bar. Patches of fine to medium sand draping









the muddy sediment surface can be seen in the main body of the estuary. The shell

content in the bed material varies from 0 to 5% at the eastern end to 20 to 30% at the

western end.

Grain-size analysis reveals that there are two distinct different populations. The

first, well-sorted sediment with a mode between 62.5 to 125 microns, and the second,

poorly sorted sediment commonly showing bimodality. The bimodal distributions

generally have one mode at about 300 microns and the other at 100 microns.

Jaeger et al, (2001) measured the particle sizes in the estuary, which, reveal that the

majority of the estuary is dominated (by weight) of fine, well-sorted sand in the -150

micron (3 phi; 0.15 mm) size range. This size sand is ubiquitous in the estuary and is

observed in Pleistocene-age coastal deposits exposed in outcrops within the study area.

The ultimate source of the sand accumulating within the upper estuary is from erosion of

these older deposits. The amount of mud-sized sediment (<63 microns) is minimal with

the exception of the upper reach of the Northwest Fork, the North Fork, and near the

junction of the C-18 canal and the Southwest Fork. Clay mineral analyses on the mud

fraction accumulating throughout the estuary reveals that the ultimate source of the clay-

sized sediment is from erosion of the Pleistocene-age deposits.

Comparison of the sediment characteristics (median particle-size, sorting) between

1990 and 2000 within the Central Embayment reveal that this region has not changed

significantly over the past decade. However, the navigation channels have become

coarser apparently due to the removal of fine sediment. Portions of the lower Northwest

Fork and the Southwest Fork have gotten finer.









Based on the analyses of 20 push cores, there does not appear to be a widespread

organic-rich flocculent "muck" layer within the three major forks of the estuary.

Although mud is a common component of the sediments in these locations, by weight it

usually represents less than 20% of the total core mass.

In addition, study by Jaeger et al., (2001) indicate that in the main navigation

channels, the sediments have become coarser and more poorly sorted over the last ten

years. The study attributes this to the likely inclusion of shelly material in the 2000

samples that was not sampled in 1990. It is possible that maintenance dredging during

this time period resulted in the exposure of older shelly material or that changes in the

shape of the navigation channel has led to stronger currents that have removed the finer

sands. Although the western portion of the Central Embayment has seen no change in the

median particle diameter, it has gotten marginally better sorted, and could reflect a

decrease in fine sediments accumulating.

Freshwater runoff enters the Loxahatchee River estuary by river and canal

discharges, by storm drains, and by overland subsurface inflow. Most of the freshwater

from the tributaries is discharged from the Northwest Fork of the estuary. These flows, as

expected, vary seasonally, occurring chiefly in the wet season. The median, high and

maximum flow discharges are given in Table 2.2.

Tidal flow into and out of the estuary is much larger than the freshwater inflow

from all the major tributaries. The combined freshwater flow into the estuary is found to

be about 2% or less of the average tidal inflow at the Jupiter inlet (McPherson, Sonnetag,

1984). However, during tropical storm Dennis, freshwater inflow per tidal cycle

increased to 18% of average tidal inflow (McPherson, Sonnetag, 1983). Tides are mixed









senm-diurnal with varying amplitudes, with a tidal range of approximately 0 6 to 1 m The

tidal wave advances to the estuary at a rate of about 2 3 m/s to 4 5 m/s Higher than usual

tides can be noted dunng the autumn and winter when strong northeast winds pushes

additional water m to the estuary causing higher than average tides

Ultrasonic water level gauges (Model 220, Infinties USA, Daytona Beach, FL)

with stillng walls were installed to measure tidal elevations between September 14t and

October 18ft, at three locations m the estuary one each m the Central embayment (tied to

the FECRR bridge pier), Northwest Fork, and Southwest Fork The gauge locations are

shown m Figure 2 10 Tidal elevations were recorded with respect to North Atlantic

Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and are reproduced m Table 2 3 Tidal ranges indicate

the total change m water surface elevation between low and high tides and phase lag

refers to the difference in time between high/low tide at UFG1 gauge and the other

gauges In Figure 2 12 sample records from three tidal gauge locations are shown


Figure 2 11 Location of tide gauges marked UFG1, UFG2 and UFG3










045



03

02


E 0 0
00 0






04

05
Time (hour)
Figure 2.12 Sample records of tidal measurements at three locations
Datum NAVD 88.

Table 2.4 Spring/neap tidal ranges and phase lags for three gauges


0


-- --UFG2
- al- *UFG3


(09/14/00-09/15/00)-


Gauge ID Spring range Neap range Phase lag from UFG1
(m) (m) (min)
UFG1 0.90 0.66 0 0
UFG2 0.85 0.65 21 60
UFG3 0.86 0.64 28 60


Ganju et al., (2001) compared the data obtained from these gauges to a station on

the Northeast Florida coast and inferred that trends in water surface elevation followed

similar increases and decreases in mid-tide elevations and the increased elevations in side

the estuary is a direct result of onshore winds. The wind records from two offshore

stations were averaged and correlated with the mid-tide elevation, resulting in a positive

correlation. Accordingly, mid-tide elevation was subtracted from the measured elevations

(filtering) in order to obtain tidal data without any variation.

2.3.2 Management Option:

Presently, the dredged spoil from the embayment is disposed on land. Land

disposal of marine sediment is often times not optimal for the environment, especially for









the ground water. According to earlier studies by Sonnetag and McPherson (1984) the

central embayment receives sediment from two main sources, the inlet and upland

discharge. Regular maintenance of the navigation channel is a clear indication of this

supply. Ideally, a large enough central shoal (if developed to correct contours) could

serve the process of self-cleansing of the bay. The shoal when developed would decrease

the water flow area and thereby, increasing the velocity of flow. The increased current in

the limiting case would develop erosional stresses equal to the critical bed shear of the

sediment and therefore would be able to prevent the further sedimentation of the bay.

However, numerical modeling for such an examination is outside the scope of this study.

The present study will however deal with the development of an additional

navigation/flow channels for improvement of ebb flow.

2.4 Northwest Fork:

2.4.1 Present Condition:

The Northwest Fork meanders through typical South Florida swampland within the

Jonathan Dickinson State Park (JDSP). The extensive swampland and scrubland east of

JDSP is drained by the North Fork. It is therefore evident that the watershed is

biologically productive, and the sediment carried by the runoff is rich in organic content

eventually finds its way in to the estuary (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984).

Most of the freshwater from is discharged through this fork. From February 1",

1980, to the September 30th, 1981, for example, 77.3 percent of the freshwater was

discharged into the Northwest Fork, 20.5 percent in to the Southwest Fork (C-18 Canal),

and 2.2 percent into the North Fork (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). The Loxahatchee

River (i.e., Northwest Fork) at SR-706, site 23 as shown in Figure 2.14 (Figure 2, U.S.









Geological report no 83-4244, 1984), contributed the greatest percentage of flow to the

estuary (37.4 percent) of all the tributaries.

Vertical variation of the sediments in the Northwest fork is Found at site 5 and 5E

(Figure 2, U.S. Geological report no 84-4157, 1984) during both incoming and outgoing

tides. Presumably, greater water velocities, particularly at 0.6 m above the bottom at the

mid depth, associated with higher tide stages contributed to the greater vertical variation

of suspended sediments (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). Concentration of the

suspended sediments and the percentage of sediments of organic origin were variable

with season and weather conditions as indicated by the data collected and listed in U.S

Geological Survey report 84-4157 (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). The greatest

increases were observed in Cypress Creek, lying upstream of the Northwest Fork.

Concentration of the suspended sediment in the tributaries also changed as a result of

man's upstream activities. During September 1981, suspended sediment concentration in

the Cypress Creek and Hobe Grove Ditch increased as much as 21 times over

concentrations in early September (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). Cleaning and

dredging operations on the irrigation canal connected to the Cypress Creek and Hobe

Grove Ditch were presumably responsible.

Suspended sediment load from the tributaries are highly seasonal and storm related.

The 5 major tributaries to the Loxahatchee estuary Loxahatchee River at SR-706,

Cypress Creek, Kitching Creek, Hobe Grove Ditch, and C-18 at S-46 discharged 1,904

tons of suspended sediments to the estuary during the 20-month period (February 1, 1980

to September 30, 1981) (Table 2.3). During the 61 days period of the above-average

rainfall (August 1 to September 30, 1981) that included tropical storm Dennis, the major









tributares discharged 926 tons of suspended sediment to the estuary This accounted for

49 percent of the suspended sediment discharged to the estuary dunng the 20-month

penod and about 74 percent of the suspended sediment discharged dunng 1981 water

year (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984) Sediment loads from C-18, Loxahatchee River at

SR-706, and Cypress Creek accounted for more than 94 percent of the total tributary

input of the sediment load


F.lure --L. t o ,1 4ltrear.'l dg1Yg Rfali cr a~, for *pd L....hatch.e

Figure 2 13 Location of stream-gaugmg stations and sampling site for suspended
sediments, (Source US Geological report no 83-4244 and 84-4157)

Unlike the central embayment concentration of mud was quite high (-50%) in the

Northwest Fork (Jaeger et al, 2001) The study by Jaeger et al, (2001) also analyses

vibracores takes which, reveal that there has been roughly 0 5-1 cm/yr of sedimentation

within a part of the Northwest Fork when compared to data from a USGS-sponsored









study completed, in 1984 (Sonnetag and McPherson). The study further concludes that,

these accumulation rates are close to those averaged over the past 50 years, assuming that

an observed change in the cores from layered sediment not mixed by organisms to those

that are well mixed by organisms occurred in 1947 when the inlet was stabilized. Inlet

stabilization would have led to increased tidal flushing that allowed for better

oxygenation of bottom waters and sediments permitting occupation of sediments by

organisms. However, this datum has not been substantiated as pre 1947 and the

accumulation rates are bulk averages. A comparison of the collected data and studies by

Ganju et al., (2001) showed that accumulation rates within the upper reaches of the three

Forks are about 2-3 times higher than the modeled fine-sediment budget prepared by

Ganju et al. (2001). Accordingly, the study concludes that, this discrepancy could be due

to poor age constraints of the core layers or to the substantial presence of sand in the core

sections, which was measured in this stratigraphic (i.e., core layering) approach but not in

the fine-sediment budget.

Upstream of the outfall point of the Northwest Fork is marked by a horseshoe-

shaped shoal (Figure 2.14). Presumably this shoal is formed due to the reduction in

current velocity of the sediment-laden flow by the ebb tide. In addition, the ebb flow

velocity gets reduced upon meeting a large body of water (central embayment). Upstream

of this shoal there occur a series of sand shoals also formed by the same processes.

Downstream of the shoal however, the depths are uniform gradually increasing as moves

in to the central embayment area. Formation of deposits presumably from the erosion of

old deposits in side the estuary was also reported by Jaeger et al., (2001). Figure no 4 of









the report are reproduced here for reference with regard to the deposition and material

composition.

In Figure 2.15 the mass percent of the mud (particles smaller than 63 microns) in

the upper -5 cm of the sediment surface is shown. Location of the sampling sites are

shown as dot symbols.

2.4.2 Management Options

Discounting the sedimentation from the internal sources of erosion, the Northwest

Fork contributes the maximum discharge as well as the maximum sediment into the

central embayment (Sonnetag and McPherson, 1984). However, Jaeger et al, (2001)

indicate that fresh deposits are found in the Fork (Figure 2.14), suggesting that the source

of such deposits may be mostly internal to the estuary, and most likely due to the erosion

of old deposits. Sediment from external sources entering the estuary with fresh water

discharge as reported by McPherson (1984) would have deposited in the proximity of the

horseshoe shoal.

In order to minimize the deposition of fine sediment in the area of high mud

percentage in the Northwest Fork (Figure 2.14), a self-cleaning channel will be

examined. According to Jaeger et al., (2001), the origin of deposits (Figure 2.14) is due to

the erosion of old deposits. Therefore the channel is proposed to be located downstream

of these deposits. Design aspects of the channel are considered in Chapter 4.






33




75










Clay deposits 3
70
65



50













Figure 2 14 Location ndcating fresh mud depositions and the Shoals the estuary Source
Sedimentaiy Processes in the Loxahatchee River Estuary 5000 Years Ago to
the Present-FINAL REPORT, Jaeger et al (2001)

2.5 North Fork

2.5.1 Present Condition

The North Fork is a natural tnbutary draining the eastern part of the Jonathan

Dickson State Park Discharge as given i Table 2 2 is the least of the three main

tnbutanes (2 2% of total), and water depth is fairly uniform at around m, with virtually

no shoals McPherson and Sonnetag (1983) reported that i the 1981 water year the

tnbutanes of the North Fork were dry at the gauging stations (Figure 2 13) from March
3

trough mid-August Dunng the rest of the year the average flow was 0 12 m /s, a very

small value Discharge following Topical Storm Dennis was also small for the amount of

rainfall associated with the storm Daily discharges for the last 10 days of August 1981

averaged 0 31 m /s but increased to 0 71m/s in September Jaeger et al (2001) found






34


some mud deposits in the upper reaches. Depths in the fork appear to be adequate for the

recreational boating.

2.5.2 Management Options

The North Fork as indicated above has the least river inflow as well as the least

sediment contribution to the estuary. In addition, the depths are fairly uniform and good

for the types of boats presently using it. Hence no additional facility is believed to be

required for this area. Therefore no dredging is planned for this tributary nor appears to

be required.















CHAPTER 3
DATA COLLECTION

3.1 Field Setup in the Southwest Fork

Field data were collected at two sites, one in the Southwest Fork and the other m

the Northwest Fork Section 3 3 collection effort and results in the Southwest Fork, and

Section 3 4 m the Northwest Fork

The field data collection set up in the Southwest Fork of the estuary had

geographical coordinates of latitude 260 56' 36 78" N and longitude 800 07' 17 34" W In

the Northwest Fork the corresponding coordinates were 260 59' 16 78" N and longitude

80 07' 56 34" W These two locations are shown in Figure 3 1 The locations of the tidal

gages installed in the year 2000 were shown in Figure 2 11 The depth (below North

Atlantic Vertical Datum, 1988, (NAVD88)) at the sites ware 2 1m and 2 18, respectively


Figure 3 1 Location of instrument tower in the Southwest and Northwest Forks









Data in the Southwest Fork were collected in two phases. The first phase of the

data collection was carried out between 4h and 24th April 2002, and the second phase was

between 6h of February and 2nd of June 2003. The instrumentation deployed is given in

Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Instrumentation for data collection and data blocks
Instrument Data Date
Data logger (*) Current (mag.) -u Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) Current (dir.) -u Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) Current (mag.) v No data Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) Current (dir.) v No data Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) Tide levels Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) OBS 1 Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
(Poor quality)
Data logger (*)) OBS 2 Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) OBS 3 Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) OBS 4 Apr 04 to Apr 24 No data collected
Data logger (*) Temperature Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
Data logger (*) Salinity Apr 04 to Apr 24 Nov 27 to Jun 2
*With ultrasonic current meter in April 2002 replaced with an electromagnetic current meter

Instruments were attached to a tower erected for this purpose and was powered by

rechargeable batteries. The instrument assembly consisted of a Marsh-McBirney

electromagnetic current meter, a Transmetrics pressure transducer for the measurement of

water surface elevation, a Vitel VEC-200 conductivity/temperature sensor for

measurement of salinity and temperature, and three Sea point Optical Backscatter Sensor

(OBS) turbidity meters for measuring the sediment concentration at 3 different levels. In

the first phase instrument setup, however, turbidity sensors were deployed at 4 different

levels. In addition Lidberg Land Surveys, Inc. carried out a hydrographic survey and

collected data with regard to the bottom bathymetry of the central embayment and the

tributaries.









In the Northwest Fork the data collection started on 14t of August 2003, with 3

level OBS sensors, one Conductivity Temperature sensor and one Pressure gauge

3.2 Instruments Deployed

3.2.1 Current

Current data were collected using Marsh-McBirey electromagnetic current meter

(Model 585 OEM). This meter consists of a 10 cm diameter spherical sensor, OEM

motherboard, and signal processing electronics (Figure 3.5). The instrument senses water

flow in a plane normal to the longitudinal axis of the electromagnetic sensor. Flow

information is output as analog voltage corresponding to the water velocity components

along the y-axis and x-axis of the electromagnetic sensor. The velocity sensor works on

the Faraday principle of electromagnetic induction. The conductor (water) moving in the

magnetic field (generated from within the flow probe) produces a voltage that is

proportional to the velocity of water. The Marsh-McBirey requires periodic cleaning of

the probe with mild soap and water to keep the electrodes free of non-conductive

material.

Since the instrument has essentially a cosine response in the horizontal plane, the

flow magnitude and the direction information are retained. In addition, the spherical

electromagnetic sensor has an excellent vertical cosine response. This unique

characteristic allows the sensor to successfully reject vertical current components that

may be caused by mooring line motions. As the flow changes direction, the polarities of

the output signal also change. So the u (velocity along axis of the channel flow) and the v

(velocity across the channel) velocities are stored and can be combined to give the

resultant magnitude and direction. It must however be noted that, the v velocity

component was largely insignificant due to the width of the channel at the tower location.









3.2.2 Tide

Water surface elevation was measured using a Transmetrics pressure transducer

installed at the instrument tower. The instrument incorporates three major design

elements that allow it to measure pressure accurately and reliably; bonded foil strain

gages configured in a Wheatstone bridge (for temperature stability), high precision

integral electronics for signal amplification, and stainless steel construction for durability

and corrosion resistance. The instrument was calibrated and temperature-compensated

against standards applicable for the region.

3.2.3 Salinity/Temperature

Conductivity is the measurement of the ability of a solution to carry an electric

current. It is defined as the inverse of the resistance (ohms) per unit square, and is

measured in the units of Siemens/meter or micro-Siemens/centimeter. The measurement

of conductivity is necessary for the determination of the salinity of a solution. Salinity is

proportional to the conductivity and is expressed in terms of concentration of salt per unit

volume (mg/1, or ppt). The field measurement of salinity was carried out following

similar procedures using a Greenspan Electrical Conductivity (EC) sensor substantially

eliminating a basic source of error arising out of the inaccuracies due to temperature and

electrode effects. In this instrument the electrical conductivity is a function of the number

of ions present and their mobility. The electrical conductivity of a liquid changes at a rate

of approximately 2% per degree Centigrade for neutral salt and is due to the ionic

mobility being temperature dependent. The temperature coefficient of the conductance

(or K factor) varies for salts and can be in the range 0.5 to 3.0. As electrical conductivity

is a function of both salt concentration and temperature, it is preferable to normalize the









conductivity measurement to a specific reference temperature (250C) so as to separate

conductivity changes due to salt concentration from those due to temperature changes.

* The instrument deployed consisted of the following primary elements:
* Toroidal sensing head (conductivity sensor)
* Temperature sensor
* Microprocessor controlled signal conditioning and output device

The conductivity sensor uses an electromagnetic field for measuring conductivity.

The plastic head contains two ferrite cores configured as transformers within an

encapsulated open-ended tube. One ferrite core is excited with a sinusoidal voltage and

the corresponding secondary core senses an energized voltage when a conductive path is

coupled with primary voltage. An increase in charged ion mobility or concentration

causes a decrease in the resistivity and a corresponding increase in the output of the

sensor.

A separate PT100 temperature sensor independently monitors the temperature of

the sample solution. This sensor provides both a temperature output and a signal to

normalize the conductivity output.

3.2.4 Sediment Concentration

The instrument deployed was a Sea Point turbidity meter. This instrument measures

turbidity by scattered light from suspended particles in water. The turbidity meter senses

scattered light from a small volume within 5 centimeters of the sensor window. The light

sources are side-by-side 880 nm Light Emitting Diodes (LED). Light from the LED

shines through the clear epoxy emitter window into the sensing volume, where it gets

scattered by particles. Scattered light between angles 15 and 150 degrees can pass

through the detector window and reach the detector. The amount of scattered light that







40


reaches the detector is proportional to the turbidity or particle concentration in the water

over a very large range.

The sensors were calibrated using a sample from the measurement site. Periodic

calibrations were conducted in order to evaluate the conditions of the windows and the

sensitivity to scattering. In addition, only black containers were used in calibration so as

to prevent any probable scattering events due to reflection off the container wall. The

calibration was carried out using known volume of sediments in known volume of water

and the voltage output of the instrument recorded. A linear fit curve was generated in

order to determine the accuracy of the calibration. The calibration plots are given below,


20 30 40
Concentration (mg/L)

25

2


0
"15
a
5
O
1 /


10 20 30 40
Concentration (mg/L)


10 20 30 40 50
Concentration (mg/L)


Figure 3.2 Calibration plots used for calibration of OBS sensors









3.3 Field Data Results in Southwest Fork

3.3.1 Current

The electromagnetic current meter was located at a height of 96.5 cm from the

bed level. The velocity data in two directions, one parallel to the flow and the other

perpendicular to it, were combined vectorially to find the resultant magnitude and

direction. The ultrasonic current meter deployed in April 2002 collected the current

magnitude and direction directly. Based on these data the depth-mean magnitude time

series for Julian days 94-114 is shown in Figure 3.3 and the corresponding direction plot

is given as Figure 3.4. A sudden increase in the current magnitude in the plot is

attributable to the opening of control structure S-46. The directional plot indicates a uni-

directional flow driven by the discharge from the structure. The discharge record for the

period is given in Table 3.2 for ready reference.

Table 3.2 Discharge data for the period 04/14/2002 to 04/21/200
Date Julian Days of 2002 Discharge
(m3/s)
04.14.2002 104 0.03171
04.15.2002 105 0.00821
04.16.2002 106 0.01416
04.17.2002 107 0.01501
04.18.2002 108 0.03483
04.19.2002 109 0.05777
04.20.2002 110 0.03568
04.21.2002 111 0.00934

























S-46 Gate Opned


JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 3 Record of current magnitude Days 94-114 (year 2002)


200 r

150





^ 0 FLOOD
z




-15(





SO 95 100 105 110 115
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 4 Record of current direction Days 94-114 (year 2002)















Maximum 0 17 ms
Mean 0 06 m/s


335 340 345 350
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 5 Record of current magnitude Days 332-356 (year 2002)


335 340 345 350 355
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 6 Record of current direction Days 332- 356 (year 2002)

Figure 3 5 is a representative plot of the current magnitude for the second data

block This plot indicates a more uniform velocity pattern dnven by the tidal flow in the







44


estuary The current magnitudes reach a maximum value of 0 17 m/s with the mean

value at 0 06 m/s In addition it is seen that the flow is predominantly along the estuary

with very low values observed for transverse current (v) In Table 3 3 typical mean

current values are summarized

Table 3 3 Typical mean current magnitude values for data blocks
Current magmtude (m/s)
Julian days in Curent ma ltude (m/s) Velocity u Velocity v
2002 With S-46 Only tidal flow (is) (i/s)
2002 (mls) (mls)
discharge
94-114 025 004 a- a
332-356 j_ 0 06 0057 0018
a No data

3.3.2 Tidal Level



Maximum Level 1 7 m
Mean Level 1,2 m
18 Minimum Level 07m











s / I i I I l



9 95 100 105 110 115
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 7 Water level time-senes All levels relative to NAVD 88 Days 94-114 (2002)






























0 95 100 105 110 115
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 8 Water level time senes Upper plot shows onginal time series with mean trend
and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations All levels relative to
NAVD 88 Days 94-114 (2002)


,1h1,11 I nl ,lIlll ll1' I
II



el 292m
1 49 m
221 rm


340 350 360 370 38
DAYS OF THE YEAR (2002)


Figure 3 9 Water level time-senes All levels relative to NAVD88 Days 332- 365 (2002)
and Days 01-35 (2003)


l i I ,


I I | 1 | I I I .'

Spnng tde Range 08 m
Neap tide Range 0 5 r



i'1 S i ( I 1 1 1 1'i'1 1 1


i i*' n | l n n' i 'i*>'i















15-








W 0




Spring range 1 00 m

Neap range 0 50 m

-1 5


-2 IIIII
340 350 360 370 380 390 400
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002/03

Figure 3.10 Water level time series. Upper plot shows original time series with mean
trend and the lower plot is without this trend. All level relative to NAVD 88.
Days 332-365 (2002) and Days 01 35 (2003).

In Figure 3.7 the raw tidal time-series is shown for the period April 4 to April 24th,

2002. In Figure 3.8 the upper plot shows the original time series with the tidal trend and

the lower plot is with the tidal trend removed.

The tidal plots indicated in the Figure 3.7 to Figure 3.10 are representative plots

from the phase II and I. The characteristic values of the tidal data are given in Table 3.4.

In addition it can be noted that the tidal ranges compares well in both the phases with the

spring range equal to 1.0m and the neap range around 0.5m. As will be explained later,

the tidal fluctuations (as could be noted from Figure 3.9) between Julian days 360 to 365

in Year 2002, 01 to 5 and 17 to 25 in Year 2003, is likely to affect the sediment

concentration in the estuary.









Table 3.4 Characteristic values of the tidal data
J n ds Mean Water level/Tidal range
Julian days
in 2002/03 water depth Water level (m) Spring/neap range (m)
in 2002/03
(m) Maximum Minimum Spring Neap
94-114 1.20 1.70 0.30 0.90 0.50
332-365
332-365 1.20 1.90 0.30 1.00 0.50
01 -35


3.3.3 Total Suspended Solids

Total Suspended Solid (TSS) was recorded at four elevations in the first phase and

three elevations in the second phase. The elevation of the OBSs relative to the bed level

was OBS-4 = 1.17 m, OBS-3 = 0.80 m, OBS-2 = 0.48 m and OBS-1 = 0.22 m. The

corresponding total suspended solid time series are reported in Figures 3.11 and 3.12 for

days 94-114 (Phase I) and 352- 365 in 2002 and 01 to 35 in year 2003 (Phase II),

respectively.

Table 3.5 provides the maximum, mean and minimum values of sediment

concentrations at different levels for each data block. Depth-mean concentration averaged

every 12 hours is presented in Figures 3.13 and 3.14. The mean concentration figures

(Figure 3.13 and 3.14) indicate the average variations in the concentration over time with

out the instantaneous variations (spikes).

















3 95 100 OBS2 105 110 11s


100 105 110
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002


Figure 3 11 TSS time-senes at four elevations Days 94-114 (year 2002)


OBS 3


Maximum O mIgL




350 355 360 365 370 O0 1 380 385 390 395


Maximum 2500 mgL
Mean 1600 g/L
Minimum 270 mrnL


355 360 385 370 375 380 385
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002/03


Figure 3 12 TSS time-senes at three elevations Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and 01-35
(year 2003)


90 395












OBS1





0 95 100 OBS 2 105 110 1





S95 100 OBS 3 105 110





S95 100 OBS 4 105 110 1





S95 100 105 110 1
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002


Figure 3 13 Depth-meanTSS concentration time senes Days 94-114 (year 2002)


OBS 3


100 Maximum 150 mgL
Mean 17 mg/L
E M'irMmm 7 mgL


350 355 360 365
3000

000- Maximum 2900 mg
SMean 1900 mg
E 1000 Minimun 400 ma


370 O 1 380 385 390 395 400


JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002/03


Figure 3 14 Depth mean TSS concentration time senes Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and
Days 01 35 (year 2003)







50




80


70 Tide Trend x 25


S60

-J
W 50
F-
4 OBS 3 Trend
40


E30
-- Driven by 46
Z Discharge a
L 20 December 2 th
O

S10 Drven by tidal
fluctuations

0
355 360 365 370 375 380 385 390 395 400
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002/03

Figure 3.15 Depth mean TSS concentration time series and tidal trend indicating their
dependence: Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and Days 01 -35 (year 2003).

It can be noted from Figures 3.11 and 3.13 that there is a sudden increase in

sediment concentration with the discharge from the S-46 structure on 14h of April 2002

(Refer Table 2.2 for discharge details). This clearly indicates that sediment concentration

is discharge driven. Results of Figures 3.12 and 3.14 indicate that the lowest OBS1

sensor was too close to the bed and recorded almost saturated sediment content. There

was no discharge from the structure between December 14th and February 20th, except for

0.01 m3/s discharge on the December 20h, 2002, which explains the increase in sediment

concentration recorded around Julian day 355 (December 201h). However, the increase in

TSS reported between days 17 and 27 (Year 2003) without any discharge from S-46,

could be attributed to spring tidal effects (Refer to Figure 3.15). In general, it appears that









TSS concentration is dependent on the local tidal current and flow discharges down the

S-46 structure. The TSS concentrations with regard to other data blocks are given in

Table 3.7 to 3.9.

Table 3.5 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks
Julian Days Maximum TSS Mean TSS Minimum TSS
in 2002/03 concentration concentration concentration
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
94-114 165 50 10
352-365 158 17 7
01-35

3.3.4 Salinity and Temperature

The conductivity and temperature measurements carried out for the location is

presented in Figures 3.16 (days 94 114 of 2002). The salinity curve indicates the effect

of the fresh water discharge. Due to this flow fresh water from the S-46 structure the

salinity values dropped to 11 mg/L from a mean value of about 28 mg/L. In order to

examine this hypothecation the current magnitude and the salinity was plotted together in

Figure 3.17, which, indicated a decrease in salinity with an increase in the current

magnitude. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the fresh water discharge reduces the

salinity in the estuary.

Table 3.6 Characteristic salinity values
Julian days Maximum Salinity Mean Salinity Minimum Salinity
in 2002/03 (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
94-114 34.2 24.9 11.1
352-365 39.5 36.5 26.7
01-35




















Maximum 34 mg/L
Minimum 11 mg/L
Mean 24 mg/L


SO 95 100 105
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 16 Salinity time series Days 94-114 (year 2002)


JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 17 Salinity and Current magnitude time series Days 94-114 (year 2002)







53


32 T


30 Maximum 310C
Minimum 210 C

o 28 Mean 26 C


12


W 24


22


204
90 95 100 105 110 115
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

Figure 3 18 Temperature time senes Days 94-114 (year 2002)

Similarly the temperature time-series shows a positive correlation with the

discharge, with temperature increasing with the discharge from S-46 structure However

any defimte conclusion could not be deduced fiom this the absence of adequate data on

temperature of the freshwater discharged

For the second data block between days 352 and 365 (of year 2002) and days 01

and 35 (of year 2003) the Figure 3 19 indicates an apparent malfunctioning of the sensor

that seems to have contaminated the conductivity time senes that calculates the salimty

by measunng its conductivity of the solution at a given temperature Although the

temperature time senes for the same penod appears to give correct readig consistent

with the environment, the incorrect conductivity data have made the salimty

determination inaccurate Therefore salinity values reported in this penod appear to be

rather high Tables 3 5 and 3 6 summarize the charactenstic values of salinity and







54


temperature for both the data blocks The results from the other data blocks are furnished


in Table 3 7 to 3 9




Maximum 39 50 mgL
Mean 35 60 mg/L
SMinimum 26 70 mg/L
4J







20

10



355 360 365 370 375 3 0 385 390 395 400
DAYS OF THE YEAR 2002/03
Figure 3 19 Salinity time series Days 352- 365 (year 2002) and 01-35 (year 2003)


Maamum 2 C
o Mean 11C
2' MItnmml 8 C



0T15







350 355 360 365 370 375 380 385
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 200203
Figure 3 20 Temperature time senes 352- 365 (year 2002)

Table 3 7 Characteristic temperature values
Julian days Maximum Temperature Mean Ten
in 2002 (co C) ('o C)
94-114 314 263
352-400 267 109


390 395


and 01-35 (year 2003)










3.3.5 Other Data Blocks

The foregoing discussions included the various aspects of data collection their

analysis and results for two representative data blocks (Julian Days 94 to 114, 330-365 in

year 2002 and 01 to 35 in year 2003). However since the second phase data collection

lasted from November 26th, 2002 to May 15th, 2003, it was considered necessary to

include the characteristic values obtained from the other data blocks, which would offer a

better insight in to the overall site conditions.

Table 3.8 Summary of parametric value (Days 37-59 in year 2003)
Parameter Maximum Mean Minimum
Depth (m) 1.9 1.2 0.5

OBS 1 (mg/L) *
OBS 2 (mg/L) 240 30 0.7
OBS 3 (mg/L) 110 20 1.0
Salinity (mg/L) 40 35 23
Temperature ("C) 27 16 11
Current Magnitude (m/s) *


* Poor quahty data

In Table 3.7 a summary of parametric

February 6h and February 28th is presented. The

are presented in Tables 3.8 and 3.9.

b1 T, r x* t,


values of the data collected between

Sdata obtained for the other two blocks


le j3.9 summary of paramedic value (Days 9u-101 in year 20u3)
Parameter Maximum Mean Minimum
Depth (m) 1.6 1.1 0.6

OBS 1 (mg/L) 2670 1710 1470
OBS 2 (mg/L) 80 50 1.0
OBS 3 (mg/L) 96 51 20
Salinity (mg/L) *
Temperature (TC) 20 11 3
Current Magnitude (m/s) *
*-Bad Data


Tla


'^' ^^^"`









Table 3.10 Summary of parametric value (Days 101-135 in year 2003)
Parameter Maximum Mean Minimum
Depth (m) 1.9 1.3 0.7

OBS 1 (mg/L) 2090 1670 1180
OBS 2 (mg/L) 170 46 2
OBS 3 (mg/L) 210 56 10
Salinity (mg/L) 26 19* 17*
Temperature ("C) 22 12 4
Current Magnitude (m/s) 1.40 0.60 0.10
Bad Data

3.4 Field Data Results in Northwest Fork

3.4.1 Field Setup

In the third phase of data collection, in the Northwest Fork, the instrument tower

included three optical backscatter sensors (OBS), a pressure transducer (for water level)

and a conductivity/temperature sensor. Data collection began on 08/14/2003. Data on

water level and TSS are presented. The conductivity/temperature sensor malfunctions

during this phase and yielded values of questionable accuracy. Hence these data are not

reported.

3.4.2 Tidal Level

The pressure transducer was located 0.45 m from the bed. Figure 3.21 shows the

original time series of the water level.














Maximum Level 1 75 m
Mean Level 12 m
Minimum Level 070 m


244 246 24 50 22 254 256
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003

Figure 3 21 Record of water level vacation Days 245 -255 (year 2003)


w Sprm. Range 0,0 rm
-0$ Neap Range 05 m







244 246 248 250 252 24 256
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003

Figure 3 22 Water level time series Upper plot shows original time senes with mean
trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations All levels relative to
NAVD 88 Days 245 -255 (year 2003)

In Figure 3 22 the upper plot shows 12-hourly mean trend with the original time


scenes, and in the lower plot this trend is removed As can be seen from the latter plot, the






58


nsmg mean trend indicates the effect of fresh water discharge The tidal range was 0 80

m Characteristic values are given in Table 3 10

Table 3 11 Charactenstic values of the tidal data
J n Mean Water Level/Tidal range
in 2003 Water depth Water level (m)Spng/nea range (m)
(m) Maximum Minmum Spnng Neap
245-255 120 175 0 70 0 80 0 50

3.4.3 Total Suspended Solids

Total suspended sohds (TSS) concentration was recorded at three elevations The

elevations of the OBS sensors relative to the bed were OBS-1 = 1 04 m, OBS-2 = 0 66 m

and OBS-3 = 0 30 m The corresponding depth-mean concentration time senes is

reported in Figure 3 23 Characteristic values are given in Table 3 11


Maximum 230
Mean 100
Minimum 50


244 246 248 250 252 254
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003
Figure 3 23 Depth-meanTSS concentration time-senes Days 245-255

Table 3 12 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks


256


(year 2003)


Julian Days Maximum TSS MeanTSS Mimnmum TSS
in 2003 concentration concentration concentration
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
245-255 230 100 50










3.4.5 Additional Data Blocks

3.4.5.1 Tidal Level

Two additional data blocks were collected between November 6h, 2003 and

November 24 2003. Tide data for Julian days 310 and 313 are presented here. The

remainder was found to be of poor quality.


311 311 5 312 3125 313
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003


3135


Figure 3.24 Record of water level variation. Days 310.5


313.5 (year 2003).




























311 3115 312 3125
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003


Figure 3 25 Water level time series Upper plot shows onginal time
trend and the lower plot is without the mean oscillations
NAVD 88 Days 310 5 313 5 (Year 2003)


scenes with mean
All levels relative to


Table 3 13 Characteristic values of the tidal data
Mean Water Level/Tidal range
Jul days in Water depth Water level (m) Spnng/neap range (m)
(m) Maximum Miimum Spring Neap
310 5-3135 140 1 90 1 00 090 050


3.4.5.2 Total Suspended Solids

Two data blocks for the TSS concentration was collected and are presented below


Charactenstic values are presented in Table 3 14














Maxmum 834 mg/L
Mean 578 mgL
Min 397 mg/


312 3125 313


OBS1


311 3115 312 3125
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003


Figure 3 26 TSS time-senes at two elevations Days 310 5


OBS 2
45

40
EJ


311 31 2 3125
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003


313 5 (year 2003)


Figure 3 27 Depth meanTSS concentration time senes Days 310 5


311 3115


313 5 (year 2003)










OBS 3


60-Mean 190 m
Mmi 156 mg/L
140
3155 31 36165 317 3175
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003
Figure 3 28 TSS time-senes at three elevations Days 315 5


OBS3


318 3185

318 5 (year 2003)








318 3185


EO
76


318 3185


Figure 3 29


220
10 --




3155 316 3165 317 3175 318 3185
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2003
Depth-mean TSS concentration time senes Days 315 5 318 5 (year 2003)


Table 3 14 TSS concentrations for the representative data blocks
Julian Days Maximum TSS MeanTSS MimmumTSS
in 2003 concentration concentration concentration
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
3105 3135 834 304 19
3155-3185 219 140 81


316 3165 0& 1















CHAPTER 4
MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION

The analyzed data presented in Chapter 3 give a qualitative insight into the

prevailing environmental conditions. However, in order to have a quantitative

understanding of the flow regime in the estuary, it is necessary to apply a numerical

simulation technique. This chapter includes a brief description of the numerical model,

generation of the computational grid, initial and boundary conditions and the model

operational scheme. Model calibration and validation are then carried out.

Certain aspects of the estuary have been idealized in the formulation of the model

in order to reduce the computational time and avoidance of potential errors. These

idealizations are as follows:

1. The central embayment domain is terminated at the FECRR bridge excluding the
ICWW (Intracoastal Waterway). This enables use of tide data from UFG1 gage
installed at the bridge.

2. The traps and the navigation channels have rectangular cross-sections.

4.1 Model Description

Flow simulations were carried out using Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code

(EFDC) maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency, and developed by

Hamrick, 1992. This code works through a Microsoft Windows-based EDFC-Explorer

pre- and post-processor. Developed on a Fortran platform, the physics of EFDC and

many aspects of the computational scheme are equivalent to the widely used Blumberg-

Mellor model (Blumberg and Mellor, 1987) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'

Chesapeake Bay model (Johnson, et al, 1993). EFDC solves the three-dimensional









hydrostatic, free surface, turbulent averaged equations of motion of a variable density

fluid. The model uses a stretched or sigma vertical coordinate and Cartesian or

curvilinear, orthogonal horizontal coordinates. Dynamically coupled transport equations

for turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent length scale, salinity and temperature are also

solved. Externally specified bottom friction can be incorporated in the turbulence closure

model as a source term. For the simulation of flow in vegetated environments, EFDC

incorporates both two and three-dimensional vegetation resistance formulations

(Moustafa, and Hamrick 1995).

The numerical scheme employed in EDFC to solve the equations of motion uses

second-order-accurate spatial finite difference on a staggered- or a C-grid. The model's

time integration employs a second-order-accurate, three-time-level, finite-difference

scheme with an internal-external mode splitting procedure to separate the internal shear

or baroclinic mode from the external free surface gravity wave or barotropic mode. The

external mode solution is semi-implicit, and simultaneously computes the two-

dimensional surface elevation field by the preconditioned conjugate gradient procedure.

The external solution is completed by the calculation of the depth averaged barotropic

velocities using the new surface elevation field. The models' semi-implicit external

solution allows large time steps that are constrained by the stability criteria of the explicit

central difference or upwind advection scheme used for the nonlinear accelerations.

Horizontal boundary conditions for the external mode solution include the option for

simultaneously specifying the surface elevations, the characteristic of an incoming wave,

free radiation of an outgoing wave or the volumetric flux on arbitrary portions of the

boundary. The model's internal momentum equation solution, at the same time step as








the external, is implicit with respect to vertical diffusion. The internal solution of the

momentum equations in terms of the vertical profile of shear stress and velocity shear,

which results in the simplest and most accurate form of baroclinic pressure gradients, and

eliminates the over-determined character of alternate internal mode formulations.

The model implements a second order accurate in space and time, mass

conservation fractional step solution scheme for the Eulerian transport equation at the

same time step or twice the time step of the momentum equation solution. The advective

portion of the transport solution uses either the central difference scheme used in the

Blumberg-Mellor model or hierarchy of positive definite upwind difference schemes. The

highest accuracy up-wind scheme, second order accurate in space and time, is based on a

flux corrected transport version of Smolarkiewicz's multidimensional positive definite

advection transport algorithm, which is monotonic and minimizes numerical diffusion.

The EFDC model's hydrodynamic component is based on the three-dimensional

hydrostatic equations formulated in curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal coordinates and a

sigma or stretched vertical coordinate. The momentum equations are:

4 (mnm,Hu)+ ed(mHuu ) ey (mnHvu)+ (n(mxmwu)- f ,mm Hv

=-myHdj+P + + )+ 0my (* + zrH p+9 mxm, A u

+4 HAu +d 4 HA,u m my cDp(U2 + v2 /2 U
m \m ) (4.1)

4 m(nm Hv)+ d, (m Huv)+ (mnHvv)+ mx (m mwv)+ fm, mHu

= -mH4,(P+Pom + 0)+ nk (r': + H p + mmym v (4.2)

+d HAX +4 HA v mD(2 +V2 2
\m+ ( LH I A V) MY y) i/









m m f = mXm f U mx + v my (4.3)


(rxz, yz)= AH- lz (, v) (4.4)

where u and v are the horizontal velocity components in the dimensionless

curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal coordinates x and y, respectively. The scale factors of

the horizontal coordinates are mx and my. The vertical velocity in the stretched vertical

coordinate z is w. The physical vertical coordinates of the free surface and bottom bed

are z, and z* respectively. The total water column depth is H, and 0 is the free surface

potential which is equal to gz, The effective Coriolis acceleration f incorporates the

curvature acceleration terms, with the Coriolis parameter, f according to (4.3). The Q

terms in (4.1) and (4.2) represent optional horizontal momentum diffusion terms. The

vertical turbulent viscosity A, relates the shear stresses to the vertical shear of the

horizontal velocity components by (4.4). The kinematic atmospheric pressure, referenced

to water density, is p,, while the excess hydrostatic pressure in the water column is given

by:

,p = -gHb = -gH(p- po )po' (4.5)

where p and po are the actual and reference water densities and b is the buoyancy.

The horizontal turbulent stress on the last lines of (4.1) and (4.2), with A, being the

horizontal turbulent viscosity, are typically retained when the advective acceleration are

represented by central differences. The last terms in (4. 1) and (4.2) represent vegetation

resistance where c, is a resistance coefficient and D, is the dimensionless projected

vegetation area normal to the flow per unit horizontal area.

The three-dimensional continuity equation in the stretched vertical and

curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal coordinate system is:









4 (m,yH)+ (mHu)+ d (mHv) + e(m, ( w)= Q, (4.6)

with QH representing volume sources and sinks including rainfall, evaporation, infiltration
and lateral inflows and outflows having negligible momentum fluxes.
The solution of the momentum equations, (4.1) and (4.2) requires the specification

of the vertical turbulent viscosity, A,, and diffusivity, K,. To provide the vertical turbulent

viscosity and diffusivity, the second moment turbulence closure model developed by

Mellor and Yamada (1982) (MY model) and modified by Galperin et al (1988) and

Blumberg et al. (1988) is used. The MY model relates the vertical turbulent viscosity

and diffusivity to the turbulent intensity, q, a turbulent length scale, 1, and a turbulent

intensity and length scaled based Richardson number, R,, by:

A, = ql

A Ao(I+R1R )


A= A(1 3C,1 = B--


(B2-3 3C (B2 +6A1)
S= 3A
6A
1- 3C -B

1 = 9A1A2
R31 =3A (6A, + B2) (4.7)

K, = ql
01 KK


K=4( (4.8)


R gHdb 12 (4.9)
S q2 H2









where the so-called stability functions, 0, and 0K, account for reduced and enhanced

vertical mixing or transport in stable and unstable vertically density stratified

environments, respectively. Mellor and Yamada (1982) specify the constants A,, B,, C,,

A2, and B as 0.92, 16.6, 0.08, 0.74, and 10.1, respectively.

For stable stratification, Galperin et al. (1988) suggest limiting the length scale

such that the square root of R, is less than 0.52. When horizontal turbulent viscosity and

diffusivity are included in the momentum and transport equations, they are determined

independently using Smagorinsky's (1963) sub-grid scale closure formulation.

At the bed, the stress components are presumed to be related to the near bed or

bottom layer velocity components by the quadratic resistance formulation

( "r ) '"ywr2 1 2 ( u1, (4.10)
(rxzT yz), = ( rb by) = c u+ l (l) (410)

where the 1 subscript denotes bottom layer values. Under the assumption that the near

bottom velocity profile is logarithmic at any instant of time, the bottom stress coefficient

is given by


Cb K)2
( In(A1/2z,)) (4.11)


where c is the von Karman constant, A, is the dimensionless thickness of the bottom

layer, and zz, /H is the dimensionless roughness height. Vertical boundary conditions

for the turbulent kinetic energy and length scale equations are:

q2 = B2/3 :z =1 (4.12)

q2 = B23 : z = 1 (4.13)

1=0 : z=0,1 (4.14)









where the absolute values indicate the magnitude of the enclosed vector quantity which

are wind stress and bottom stress, respectively.

4.3 Grid Generation

The first step in the setup of the modeling system is to define the horizontal plane

domain of the region being modeled. The horizontal plane domain is approximated by a

set of discrete quadrilateral and triangular cells. Developed on a digitized shoreline, the

grid defines the precise locations of the faces of the quadrilateral cells in the horizontal as

well as in the vertical plane. However, all the computations are carried out at the center of

the cells. Since the model solves the hydrodynamic equations in a horizontal coordinate

system that is curvilinear and orthogonal, grid lines also correspond to lines having a

constant value of one of the horizontal coordinates. The shoreline as well as the cell

reference is provided by a local set of Coordinates in MKS unit, as the code uses MKS

system internally. Seven identification numbers were used to define the cell types. The

cell identification details are given in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Definition of cell type used in the model input
Cell ID Definition of cell type
0 Dry land cell not bordering a water cell on a side or corer of the model
1 Triangular cell with land to the northeast of the model
2 Triangular cell with land to the southeast of the model
3 Triangular cell with land to the southwest of the model
4 Triangular cell with land to the northwest of the model
5 Quadrilateral water cells of the model
9 Dry land cell bordering a water cell on a side or on a corer of the model


The type 9 dry land or fictitious dry land cell type is used in the specification of

no flow boundary conditions. The horizontal geometric and topographic (bottom

bathymetry) and other related characteristics of the region, files dxdy.znp and lxly.znp are

used. The program then directly reads these quantities expressed in meters. The lxly.znp









provides cell center coordinates and components of a rotation matrix. Cell center

coordinates are used only in graphics output and can be specified in the most convenient

units for graphical display such as decimal degrees, feet, miles, meters or kilometers. The

rotation matrix is used to convert pseudo east and north (curvilinear x andy ) horizontal

velocities (u and v respectively) to true east and north for graphics vector plotting,

according to;



S tn) cue cvn e co J

where the subscripts te and tn denote true east and true north, while the subscripts

co denotes the curvilinear-orthogonal horizontal velocity components. The coefficient C

is the multiplier term for conversion to true east and true north.

The width of the C-18 canal, which varies between 75 m at the Southwest Fork

junction to less than 40m at the S-46 structure, dictated the dimensions of the cells. It was

decided that a 25 x 25m cell would be accurate enough for representing the width of the

C-18 canal resulting in desired level of accuracy. The same cell size was then

conveniently extended to the rest of the model domain. The bottom bathymetry was

based on the Hydrographic survey carried out in November '2001 by Lidberg Land

Surveying, Inc. However additional data for areas not covered under this survey were

obtained from other available surveys. The roughness coefficient of the bottom

bathymetry in the model is composed of two components. A fixed component viscosity

(for the present model fixed at 0.020m) and a variable component, which is varied

uniformly on the entire model domain during calibration process, both the component

together constitutes the factor z0, defined in equation 4.11. The dimensionless thickness






71

of the bottom layer AI, defined in the same equation, equals to 0 25, since four vertical

layers are used The fixed component of the roughness factor, how ever can be

increased/decreased in the areas of vegetation or other special features The details of sea

grass locations in the central embayment can be referred fiom Drawing no LOX-001

(Cuthcher & Associates, Inc Coastal Engineer, 2002) provided by the Jupiter Inlet

District The sea grass was input in the model as an overlay file In this way the cells

having the sea grasses are enclosed by a polyline so that, the roughness coefficient can be

easily edited The sea grass was represented as cells having more roughness (fixed

component = 0 040m) than that of the surroundings In Figure 4 1 the input bathymetry

and the shoreline as generated by the model are shown


5





*11


Figure 4 1 Model domain showing input bathymetry and shoreline










BottomElev
6S36 Time27500 306
_* _____ _


Figure 4.2 Computational grid showing the flow boundaries

In the computational grid (Figure 4.2), each land cell was assigned number zero or

nine as the case may be and each water cell was assigned five. There were no triangular

cells used for this grid. Figure 4.2, in addition, indicates the locations of the tide gages

and the Instrument tower in the Southwest fork. The S-46 structure in the C-18 canal is a

flow boundary (black cells), as are the two main tributaries, and the FECRR bridge on the

East. The eastern boundary was restricted to the FECRR bridge. The flow boundaries

were kept straight; so as to allow flows perpendicular to the cell faces, as the model does

not allow non-orthogonal flows.

4.4 Boundary Conditions

In the beginning of the simulation, velocities throughout the model domain are

considered to be zero. It was observed that a full tidal cycle was required before the water

surface elevation reached a quasi-steady state. This was verified by recording water









surface elevations at the location of the two tide gauges (UFG2 and UFG3) over multiple

tidal periods.

Tidal forcing at the FECRR bridge (eastern boundary) is perhaps the most

important boundary condition in this system, because it is this mechanism by which the

majority of the water flows through the estuary. The data obtained from the UFG1 gage

(Figure 2.10) were used to simulate this forcing. The raw data were examined for the

mean trends in the water surface elevation (Figure 4.3). The raw data contains a sub-tidal

frequency trend, which was also noticed in the water surface elevation data of the Miami

Harbor. The trends were of a similar in nature and therefore it was hypothesized that

onshore winds may have created increased elevation in side the estuary. The wind records

from two offshore sites (37 and 221 kilometer east of Cape Carnival, Florida) were

correlated with the mid-tide elevation, which indicated a positive correlation (Ganju et

al., 2001). In order to overcome the effects of these variations imposed on the

astronomical tide, the mid-tide elevation was subtracted from each measured elevation in

the same tidal cycle. The mid tide elevation 7,m is given by Equation 4. 1, where, 77H and

77r are the water surface elevation at high and low tides respectively.


c =HT + L (4.16)
2








74




08
a

06 -











-4










-08
06














S02
0














0.4


-06
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
TIME (h)

















Figure 4 3 Tidal time sees from UFGI, 09/14/00-10/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot
after the mid-tie trend is removed Time o 12 00 am
0204 i 1 j i M I n









In Figure 4.3a the raw tidal time series is shown along with the tidal trend and in

Figure 4.3b the tidal time series is shown after subtracting the mean-tide trend. The

eastern boundary accordingly used this water surface elevation boundary condition.

For the boundary in the C-18 canal, two sets of boundary condition data were

available. The daily average flow time series of the S-46 structure and the water surface

elevation time series. The elevation time series was obtained from the tide gauge UFG 3

(same period as at UFG 1) installed in the Southwest Fork (Figure 2.10). In order to make

these data usable at the flow boundary (S-46 Structure) amplitude corrections were

carried out by trial and error till both predicted and measured time series matched. In

order to calculate the phase correction (lag) following calculations were carried out

assuming shallow water conditions. The tidal wave celerity C is given by,

C = h (4.23)

where, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the water depth. Then the phase

shift AT is given by,


AT' AT = (4.24)
C


where, AL is the distance for which the water depth is considered uniform, accordingly

the phase lag for the distance between the UFG 3 gage station and the S-46 structure was

calculated and verified (0.13 hour). Figure 4.4 gives the plot of the raw data collected at

UFG 3, including the mean trend and the amplitude with trends removed. It was

hypothesized that these data, corrected for the phase and amplitude could be applied as

boundary condition to simulate actual flow conditions.
































TIME (h)


O
02















TIME (h)

Figure 4 4 Tidal time sees from UFG3, 09/14/00-10/13/00, a) Raw data, b) Tidal plot
after the mid-tide trend is removed Time ongm 12 00 am

Note that the flow discharge time series (Flgure 4 5) from the S-46 structure was

selected, as the model is known to be giving better simulation results under discharge
g:F- ~ ~i IH || II
I-
lii 6
-0 8 --.-- '-------------------
0 C(O 15 0 50 30 30 0 5
TIEjh
Fiue4 ia tm eesfo UG,0/1/01/1/0 a a atOb idlpo
afe2h i-ietedi rmvdTm rgn1 0a
Noeta0h lwdshretm ee (iue45 rmteS4 tutr a

selected, O as 4emdli nw ob igbttrsmlto eut ne icag


boundary condition










70 00


6000)


75o00
E
w 40i0
0
< 3000
M M
L)
U)m


1000


S -l rF -r v


I I I J I i
V

b Iit i


000 50000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DAYS
Figure 4.5 Flow time series applied at S-46 boundary


0 1000 2000 3000 4000


5000


Figure 4.6 Flow time series applied at


DAYS
Northwest Fork boundary


In the Northwest Fork boundary as well, two sets of boundary conditions, namely,

the water surface elevation boundary condition (obtained from transferring the collected

data of the tidal station UFG 2) and flow discharge boundary condition were evaluated.

The flow time series used is shown in Figure 4.6.

Table 4.2 Amplitude and phase correction factor for the tides
Boundary Amplitude factor Phase correction
C-18 1.14 0.13 hour
Northwest Fork 1.18 0.042 hour


I


I











Per U.S. Geological Survey Report 84-4157 (Russell and McPherson, 1984) the

majority (77.3 %) of the fresh water flow in to the estuary enters through the Northwest

Fork. Therefore, the flow discharge boundary condition for this tributary was considered

as most appropriate as opposed to the water surface elevation. The corrected water

surface elevation data from UFG 2 tide gage was used for calibration.

The North Fork carries the least discharge (2.2%) of the total freshwater flow in

to the estuary in the mean, (Russell and McPherson, 1984)) hence at this boundary also

flow discharge boundary condition is applied. The flow discharge was worked out from

2.2
the Northwest boundary data applying a constant multiplier ( = 0.0285).
77.3

4.5 Model Calibration and Validation

4.5.1 Calibration

In general calibration of the model aims at simulating conditions identical or close

to that in the prototype so that prototype conditions can be accurately replicated and

reproduced. Calibration involves matching multiple parameters, which is often times, is

practically impossible. However, depending on the nature experiments and the results

desired, the type of calibration differs. Since the present model simulation aims to relate

the velocity and the associated stress field to the erosion/accretion of the sediments in the

estuary, it would be highly desirable to calibrate the model with comparison of the flow

velocities. But current data for the model simulation period, between September 14t

2000 and 18t October 2000 was not available and therefore, it was decided to calibrate

the model using the data collected at the instrument station located in the Southwest Fork

(Figure 3.1) between November 26t and May 15t 2003 for which current as well as









water surface elevation data was available. The amplitude multiplier and phase lag

factors are given in Table 4.2.

Accordingly a simulation for this period was carried out using flow discharge

boundary conditions for the Southwest, the Northwest and North tributary boundaries and

water surface elevation boundary condition for the East boundary. For the eastern

boundary the tidal data from Miami Harbor were "transferred" to the FECRR bridge

boundary by applying suitable correction factors for the amplitude and the phase lag. This

procedure was carried out in two steps. In the first step, the Miami harbor data for the

period 14t September 2000 to 18th October 2000 were transferred to the boundary with

application of recommended coefficients (for method of calculation refer to NOS Tide

Tables for year 2000). The calculated tidal elevations were compared with the UFG 1

data and the final multiplication correction factor was obtained as 1.023. For the model

simulation period in year 2002 the same correction factor was used to transfer tidal

elevations of Miami harbor to the flow boundary.

Model calibration began with an initial run for 48 hours (referred to as 'cold start')

in order to make the tide and discharge mutually compatible throughout. In addition, the

flow attains stability in this period. The results of the cold start period were compared

with the current velocities as well as the water surface elevations obtained from the

instrument tower. The process was continued by changing the variable component of the

bottom friction coefficient (one component of z0) (applicable uniformly throughout the

model domain), until an approximate match of the current magnitude and phase was

obtained. In the second step RESTART.OUT and RSWT.OUT, the two output files of the

cold start were used as input, and model run was performed for a longer period (15days)









in order to obtain simulation for final calibration. The predicted and measured currents

were then compared and is given in Figure 4.7a (Cold start) and 4.7b (Hot start) for a

variable bottom friction factor of 0.027. It can be seen that the agreement is very good for

the current, with a maximum error of 1.8% of the total current amplitude. The water

surface elevation however differs by about 2.8 cm, which is about 3% of the tidal

amplitude. Since current is in better agreement with the measured data the calibration was

considered accurate enough for simulation. In addition, comparison of the predicted and

measured current direction exhibited good agreement as indicated in 4.8.

4.5.2 Model Validation

Model validation was carried out using the same calibrated parameters and

simulating the flow conditions of year 2000 (between September 14t and October 18t).

The measured as well as the model results at both the tidal gage stations after cold start as

well as hot start periods are compared and reproduced as Figures 4.9 and 4.10. As

indicated in the figure 4.10, the agreement is fairly accurate with a maximum variation of

2.7 cm, which is about 3.4% of the maximum tidal amplitude reported in the estuary.

Similar validation was also carried out using the Northwest Fork data collected between

September 3rd and September 12b which also showed equally good agreement as shown

in Figure 4.11.






























JULIAN DAYS IN 2002


----- Model Run Measured


JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

----- Model run Measured


Figure 4.7 Model calibration measured vs. predicted current, a) Cold Start, b) Hot Start.












200 00

150 00-

10000-------

5000 ----------- -- ------ -----------
z
S 0*0
w 33"00 3320 33340 33, 0 33380 3340 20 33410 33460 3480 3500
F -50 00
I-
z
0 -100 00 -

-15200 ---- --- ---------------

-200 00-

-250 00
JULIAN DAYS IN YEAR 2002

.... Model -- Measured



Figure 4.8 Model calibration measured vs. predicted current direction.
































JULIAN DAYS IN 2000


------ Model Measured


0 6000


JULIAN DAYS IN 2000


....... Model Measured


Figure 4.9 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG2)
Year 2000, a) Cold Start, b) Hot start.





























JULIAN DAYS IN 2000


----- Model Measured


0 6000


JULIAN DAYS IN 2000


----- Model Measured

Figure 4. 10 Model calibration measured vs. predicted water surface elevation (UFG3)
Year 2000, a) Cold Start b) Hot start.