CN-370000-WQ019-T14.pdf

FINAL

03/14/2017

Scope of Work For the Caloosahatchee River Basin Watershed Model Review and Calibration Refinement in support of Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrient TMDL Development and Basin Management Action Plan Activities

March 14, 2017

Project Description:

The objective of this Task Assignment is for the contractor (AMEC) to continue and complete the modeling support work from Task Assignment #2, which ended on February 28, 2017. AMEC will assist the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (department) Watershed Evaluation and TMDL Section (WET) to address department and stakeholder issues regarding the setup and calibration of the current most versions of the Caloosahatchee River and estuary set of models, including the Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF), and the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) being used both to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired freshwater bodies within the Caloosahatchee River Basin and to drive the boundaries for a three-dimensional EFDC model of the Caloosahatchee River estuary being used to refine the Caloosahatchee tidal estuary TMDLs that the department adopted in 2010.

The department, with the assistance of a previous contract, developed a HSPF model that covers the entire Caloosahatchee River Basin, including the watershed areas downstream of Lake Okeechobee, and upstream and downstream of the control structure S-79. In addition, the EFDC model used for developing the seagrass TMDLs for tidal estuary segments of the Caloosahatchee River was also updated spatially and temporally to improve the open ocean boundary setting and bring the model time domain to cover more recent years.

Several issues were raised by local stakeholders on this set of models during the model review. One major issue was that the HSPF model overestimated the measured low flow and underestimated the high flow condition. Part of the discrepancy between the simulated and measured flow could have been caused by the pumping and irrigation in the part of the watershed dominated by agricultural land uses.

The Caloosahatchee River watershed includes significant agricultural areas that use both surface and ground water for irrigation. Ground water use includes wells in both the surficial and deeper aquifers.

Surface water use for irrigation includes water from Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee River (C-43 Canal) above the S79 structure, as well as from tributaries to the Caloosahatchee River. Measured flow data indicates that at times the flow in several tributaries to the Caloosahatchee River as well as flow in the Caloosahatchee River above the S79 structure can reverse direction due to water use activities.

Currently, while the HSPF model includes some ground water pumping to account for ground water irrigation, the pumped water was directly added into receiving waters without being applied to the agriculture lands. This may cause uncertainties to the hydrology simulation for the watershed. In addition, the use of surface water for irrigation is not included in the model. Based on available measured flow data it appears that the current approach may not be sufficient to calibrate flows. The contractor will review the ground water pumping data in the model against known agricultural and other ground water use data to determine the suitability of this approach to simulate ground water use in the basin versus the use of the HSPF agricultural irrigation subroutines, make recommendations to the department of any suggested changes, and incorporate the department selected options into the modeling framework. Should the department select including agricultural irrigation in the revised

03/14/2017 model, the contractor will re-evaluate the hydrology calibration of the HSPF model, and refine the hydrology and water quality calibration for both C-43 Canal and tributaries as needed.

The contractor will evaluate the suitability of using HSPF for developing dissolved oxygen (DO) and nutrient TMDLs in the freshwater streams/canals in the basin and make recommendations to the department for either using the current model to accomplish the TMDL development or other approaches that would be practical and scientifically defensible. If the contractor recommends an alternative approach to develop these TMDLs the department will review the recommendations and select the appropriate approach. Once the department has selected an alternative approach, the contractor shall work with the department to implement the selected alternative approach as needed by the department.

It is expected that, once the hydrology and water quality of the HSPF model is refined, the hydrodynamics and nutrient dynamics of the tidal estuary EFDC model should also be refined through this Task Assignment. The contractor will also convert the existing proprietary EFDC model into a public domain model, which includes the new light attenuation algorithm included in the existing proprietary EFDC model. Based on stakeholder comments, updates to the HSPF model should significantly improve the calibration of the EFDC model, particularly in the uppermost areas of the modeling domain.

Therefore, the revisions to the EFDC model, both hydrodynamics and water quality, are expected to be relatively few.

This Task Assignment also requires that the contractor provide technical support to activities related to the development, refinement, and update of the basin management action plan (BMAP) for the Caloosahatchee River Basin.

Contractor will be available to teleconference with the department and other stakeholders and attend several (2-4) public meetings at locations in the Caloosahatchee Basin for the purpose of interacting with stakeholders to address the modeling issues identified under the Tasks below. Additionally, the contractor will provide training to no more than six (6) department staff on the final calibrated HSPF and EFDC models.

The completion of the work efforts to refine the watershed and receiving water models identified under the Task section below is expected to take no longer than 58 weeks and result in a direct benefit to the department of calibrated watershed and estuary models that can be used to facilitate the development and or refinement of multiple TMDLs. Table 1 lists all the waterbody segments and impaired parameters for which TMDLs need to be developed or refined. The technical support required by the BMAP activities is expected to be provided on an as needed basis and on schedules defined in the BMAP related tasks.

03/14/2017

Table 1. Waterbody Segments and Impaired Parameters for Which TMDLs Need to Be Developed or Refined.

WBID Waterbody Segments Waterbody Type

Impaired Parameters Based on the IWR TMDL Activities

3246 C-21 Canal Stream DO, Nutrients/Chla

Development

3235D Jacks Branch Stream Nutrients/Chla Development 3235G Cypress Branch Stream DO Development

3235L Townsend Canal Stream DO, Nutrients/Chla Development

3235B Caloosahatchee River between S-

79 and S-78 Stream

Nutrients/Chla Development

3237B Long Hammock Creek Stream Nutrients/Chla Development

3237C Lake Hicpochee Lake DO Development 3237D Ninemile Canal Stream DO Development

3240A Caloosahatchee (Tidal Segment

1)(TMDL Revision) Estuary

Nutrients/Chla- 2009 TMDL Refinement

3240A2 Cape Coral Stream Historic Chla Development

3240A4 Deep Lagoon Canal Estuary DO, Nutrients/Chla Development

3240B Caloosahatchee (Tidal Segment

2)(TMDL Revision) Estuary

Nutrients/Chla- 2009 TMDL Refinement

3240C Caloosahatchee (Tidal Segment

3)(TMDL Revision) Estuary

Nutrients/Chla- 2009 TMDL Refinement

3240J Billy Creek Estuary DO Development

3240Q Popash Creek Stream DO, Nutrients/Chla Development

In the event that services received are deemed unsatisfactory the department shall provide the contractor with a written list of deficiencies and the contractor shall re-perform the work as needed to ensure satisfactory service, at no additional cost to the department. Failure to provide all services, or failure to provide deliverables/services which are satisfactory, shall result in a reduction in payment, non-payment, or termination of this agreement.

The department’s ultimate acceptance of any deliverable in this Task Assignment is at the department’s sole discretion. To the extent this provision conflicts with any other provision in the contract, this provision supersedes those other provisions.

03/14/2017

Project Schedule:

The project schedule is provided as Attachment 2.

Tasks:

Task 1. Evaluate HSPF and EFDC model integrity and development of project templates

Task 1 Description

The contractor shall evaluate the overall model integrity by completing the following Task 1 elements.

1a. The contractor shall evaluate both HSPF and EFDC models and examine the appropriateness of the general conceptual structures of these models and the completeness of the model components in addressing the hydrology, pollutant loads, hydraulics, hydrodynamics, and dynamics of nutrients, chemical, biochemical, and biological responders in the receiving waters. The evaluation of the conceptual structure of the models shall be based on available data for the Caloosahatchee River watershed and tidal estuary system.

1b. The contractor shall evaluate the accuracy and suitability of watershed and sub-watershed delineations and model reach placement and segmentation. This task is necessary to ensure that the basin delineations and reaches (location and segmentation) are appropriate given the location of water control structures (includes both salinity control structures and agricultural water supply structures in both the C-43 Canal and its tributaries), flow gauges, water quality stations, and impaired water segments.

1c. The contractor shall evaluate the accuracy and suitability of the HSPF and EFDC model boundary inputs and other input time series (i.e., measured flow and loads, tidal boundary, atmospheric deposition, meteorological, etc.) and make recommendations to the department necessary to correct any issues found. The boundary condition and input time series evaluation should consider both the watershed HSPF model and the receiving water EFDC model.

1d. The contractor shall evaluate the model mathematical stability of HSPF and EFDC models at a time step appropriate for the modeling purpose, and if not stable make recommendations to the department that will resolve any issues.

1e. The contractor shall evaluate model parameter range settings for suitability in the Caloosahatchee River basin and tidal estuary environments and make recommendations for any changes as appropriate. Suggestions for changes in parameter settings must be accompanied by a scientifically defensible explanation.

1f. The contractor shall work with the department to identify priority reaches that have bidirectional flow, but are being simulated as a 1-dimensional reach. These priority reaches will then be evaluated to determine if they need to be modeled differently.

1g. The contractor shall develop templates for the evaluation comparisons (i.e., figures, graphs, plots, tables, etc.) and memos and reports that will be used throughout the project. The contractor shall get DEP concurrence.

1h. The contractor shall evaluate model performance criteria examples from several sources including recommended values by Donigian (2000).

1i. Together with the department, the contractor will attend a site visit to view existing conditions in Caloosahatchee Basin, with particular attention to the impaired waters in Table 1. The site visit will also include a public meeting with local government and

03/14/2017 stakeholders at which the contractor shall make a presentation covering the overall scope of work, any findings already reviewed by the department, any questions the contractor may have of stakeholders, or other such information as the department and contractor deem appropriate.

1j. The contractor shall with two (2) weeks of being notified by the department as per item

1.5 below, implement the department recommendations from Task 1a through 1i.

Task 1 Deliverables.

The contractor shall within 45 days of the execution of this agreement provide to the department a summary report of their findings from the Task 1a through 1i elements evaluation of the overall model integrity, templates of the evaluation comparisons, memos and reports, sample model performance criteria, and the site visit. The report shall contain recommendations to resolve any issues discovered. In addition, the contractor shall prepare a summary of the site visit and describe their findings, data gathered or located, and any comments/suggestions from the local government or other stakeholders.

Department’s Responsibilities for Task 1:

1.1 Providing the contractor with all the model executable files, model applications, model input files and related time series files and database, GIS shapefile, and model documentations related to the existing models. This information will be provided to the contractor prior to Task 1 getting started.

1.2 Providing to the contractor the readily available data identified by the contractor to understand the characteristics of the Caloosahatchee watershed and tidal estuary systems.

1.3 Providing to the contractor feedback on the templates for the evaluation comparisons (i.e., figures, graphs, plots, tables, etc.) and memos and reports that will be used throughout the project.

1.4 Providing to the contractor feedback on the model performance criteria.

1.5 Discussing with the contractor about their recommendations on how to refine the existing HSPF and EFDC models through teleconferences, providing feedback on the contractor’s recommendation, organizing a public meeting, technical group meeting, or other mechanism to solicit stakeholders input on contractor’s recommendations and finalizing a set of steps to be used by the contractor to refine the HSPF and EFDC models.

Task 1 Performance Measures.

The department Contract Manager shall within two (2) weeks of receiving the Task 1 summary report organize a stakeholder meeting or solicit by email a stakeholder review of recommendations, if any, and shall consider all stakeholder comments received within one (1) week of the meeting if held or the email soliciting comments. Within three (3) weeks of receiving the Task 1 summary report the department shall provide the contractor with a written evaluation as to the successful completion of the Task 1a through 1i elements as detailed under the Task 1 Descriptions. The

03/14/2017 department evaluation will identify which of any contractor recommendations are to be implemented by the contractor as well as any task elements the department believes have not been satisfactorily completed together with a list of the steps the contractor should take to satisfactorily complete all Task 1 elements. The contractor shall within two (2) weeks of being notified by the department, as per item 1.5 above, implement the department recommendations.

Additional performance measures include a department assessment of contractor responsiveness to issues raised by the department and/or stakeholders and the effectiveness of the contractor in assisting the department with addressing any stakeholder concerns. Such department assessment shall be limited to three levels (1) unacceptable, (2) acceptable, and (3) excellent. If the department determines that the contractor effectiveness and/or responsiveness is not acceptable, the department shall in writing notify the contractor of the specific reasons for this determination and a suggested remedy.

Task 1 Budget Information.

Contractor shall provide a table showing (1) the title of each and all personnel involved in completing this task, (2) the hourly rates for each and all such personnel, (3) the number of hours of each such personnel and total hours to complete task, (4) subtotal costs for each such personnel, and (5) subtotal of indirect costs and total overall cost of task (see Attachment 1).

03/14/2017

Task 2. Evaluate Current HSPF Hydrology Calibration and Recalibration of HSPF Model

Task 2 Description

The contractor shall evaluate the HSPF hydrology calibration by completing the following Task 2 elements.

2a. The department shall provide the contractor with all measured flow data that it has in-house. The contractor will review the data for completeness and obtain any additional continuous flow data that is available.

2b. The contractor shall review the ground water pumping data in the HSPF model against known agricultural and other ground water use data to determine the suitability of this approach to simulate ground water use in the basin versus the use of the HSPF agricultural irrigation subroutines to evaluate the impact of agricultural irrigation on the overall hydrology of the C-43 Canal and its tributaries, make recommendations to the department of any suggested changes on model parameters, modeling components, and input time series, and incorporate the department selected options into the modeling framework.

2c. The contractor shall evaluate the flow calibration at daily, monthly, and annual timeframes for both the C-43 Canal and modeled tributaries discharging into the Caloosahatchee River (C-43 Canal) and estuary. Paying special attention to the calibration for all impaired waters in Table 1.

2d. The contractor shall evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the model simulation through comparing the central tendency, the time series, and the data distribution of the model simulates and measured data. The comparison can be conducted using graphs such as Whisker and Box Plot, time series plot, and frequency distribution curve. Summary statistics such as relative error, root mean square error, Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test shall be provided, as appropriate. Model performance criteria can be set up based on recommended values by Donigian (2000).

2e. The contractor shall identify any calibration issues (e.g. overestimation of the low flow and/or underestimation of the high flow) and provide recommendations to address these calibration issues (e.g. double checking the rainfall data accuracy, addressing pumpage and irrigation in the basin, proposing reasonable mechanisms to include pumpage and irrigation into the model, re-evaluating key model parameters such as percent imperviousness, soil storage nominal, potential evapotranspiration, loss of infiltration to the inactive ground water, etc.).

2f. The contractor shall conduct sensitivity analyses on the flow simulation to identify the factors that most significantly impact the flow simulation, and make recommendations to the department how these factors are best addressed in the modeling processes.

2g. The contractor shall determine whether hydrodynamic modeling or other modeling approaches are needed for those HSPF model segments that have bi-directional flow due to water supply activities or are influenced by tidal fluctuations and make recommendations to the department to resolve any issues.

2h. The department shall provide the contractor with the selected recommendations from Tasks 2c through 2g within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report and the contractor shall within four (4) weeks implement the selected recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the flow as needed.

Task 2 Deliverables.

The contractor shall within 30 days of the satisfactory completion of Task 1 provide to the department a summary report of their findings from the Task 2a through 2g elements evaluation of the HSPF hydrology calibration. The summary report should describe the hydrology calibration in a detailed manner, regarding what hydrology processes were considered, what parameters are most sensitive for the hydrology calibration, the model calibration and validation results, goodness-of-fit evaluation, and recommendation for refining the calibration. Detailed parameters used in the model and the source of these parameters should also be properly documented in the summary report. Copies of all the reference materials cited in the summary report should be submitted to the department. In addition, the report shall contain recommendations to resolve any issues discovered. The department will provide to the contractor the selected recommendations from the summary report within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report. The department’s responsibilities are outlined below. The contractor shall within four (4) weeks of being notified by the department, as per Task 2h implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the model as needed.

Department’s Responsibilities:

2.1 Providing to the contractor the needed model input data identified by the contractor

2.2 Assisting the contractor to collect more data when needed

2.3 Reviewing the re-calibration recommendations provided by the contractor and make decisions regarding re-calibration options

2.4 Organizing a technical group meeting or public workshop to discuss with local stakeholders about the hydrology re-calibration and soliciting public comments on the hydrology re-calibration approach

2.5 Making the decision to finalize the hydrology calibration.

Task 2 Performance Measures.

The contractor shall provide to the department a hydrology model that is based on a reasonable conceptual structure, has the appropriate model components, and is reasonably calibrated based on scientifically sound model parameterization.

The department Contract Manager shall within three (3) weeks of receiving the Task 2 summary report provide the contractor with a written evaluation as to the successful completion of the Task 2a through 2g elements as detailed under the Task 2 Descriptions. The department evaluation will identify which of any contractor recommendations are to be implemented by the contractor as wells as any task elements the department believes have not been satisfactorily completed together with a list of the steps the contractor should take to successfully complete all Task 2 elements. For example, should the department determine that the recalibration is not satisfactory to the department the contractor shall re-evaluate the calibration until satisfactory results are achieved.

03/14/2017

The contractor shall within four (4) weeks of being notified by the department, as per Task 2h, implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the model as needed.

Additional performance measures include a department assessment of contractor responsiveness to issues raised by the department and/or stakeholders and the effectiveness of the contractor in assisting the department with addressing any stakeholder concerns. Such department assessment shall be limited to three levels (1) unacceptable, (2) acceptable, and (3) excellent. If the department determines that the contractor effectiveness and/or responsiveness is not acceptable, the department shall in writing notify the contractor of the specific reasons for this determination and a suggested remedy.

Task 2 Budget.

Contractor shall provide a table showing (1) the title of each and all personnel involved in completing this task, (2) the hourly rates for each and all such personnel, (3) the number of hours of

03/14/2017

Task 3. Evaluate both the existing water quality data needs for TMDL development and the HSPF water quality model calibration and recalibration of HSPF water quality model

Task 3 Description

The contractor shall evaluate the HSPF water quality calibration by completing the following Task 3 elements.

3a. The department will provide the contractor with all water quality data that it has in-house.

The contractor will review the data for completeness and obtain any additional water quality data that is available and suitable for use in calibration of the model, including but not limited to nutrient concentrations for different nutrient species, corrected chlorophyll-a, BOD, and DO.

3b. The contractor shall evaluate the water quality calibrations for both C-43 Canal segments and tributaries discharging into the Caloosahatchee River and estuary, identifying any calibration issues and providing the department with recommend solutions.

3c. The department shall provide the contractor with the selected recommendations from Task 3b and the contractor shall re-calibrate and re-validate the water quality as needed.

3d. The contractor shall evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the model simulation through comparing the central tendency, the time series, and the data distribution of the model simulates and measured data. The comparison can be conducted using graphs such as Whisker and Box Plot, time series plot, and frequency distribution curve. Summary statistics such as relative error, root mean square error, etc. shall be provided by the contractor. Model performance criteria can be set up based on recommended values by Donigian (2000). When analyzing the goodness-of-fit of the model, the contractor should compare model simulates on those days that measured water quality data are available.

3e. The contractor shall conduct sensitivity analyses to evaluate the factors influencing the water quality simulation and make recommendations to the department on how these factors are best addressed in the modeling process.

3f. The contractor shall conduct sensitivity analyses specifically on the impact of flow velocity on the DO simulation to determine whether a different model (e.g. WASP) is needed to simulate the DO and the possible simulation of sediment oxygen demand for DO impaired segments making recommendations to the department for a scientifically defensible approach for completing the DO TMDLs.

3g. The department shall provide the contractor with the selected recommendations from Task 3d through 3f within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report and the contractor shall within four (4) weeks implement the selected recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the water quality as needed.

Task 3 Deliverables.

The contractor shall within 30 days of the satisfactory completion of Task 2 provide to the department a summary report of their findings from the Task 3a through 3f elements evaluation of the water quality calibration. In addition, the report shall contain recommendations to resolve any issues discovered. The department will provide to the contractor the selected recommendations from the summary report within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report. The

03/14/2017 contractor shall within four (4) weeks of being notified by the department, as per Task 3g, implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the model as needed.

An eight (8) week contingency period is included in this task to address issues that may arise. In no case will use of the contingency period be justification for the contractor to request an extension of time allocated for completion of the overall scope of work or an increase in overall cost.

The contractor shall provide the department with a reasonably calibrated model that will work properly on the department’s computers.

The contractor shall provide to the department all data used to re-calibrate the model, including numeric values and GIS coverages and shapefiles.

Department’s Responsibilities:

3.1 Providing to the contractor the needed model input data identified by the contractor

3.2 Assisting the contractor to collect more data when needed

3.3 Reviewing the re-calibration recommendations provided by the contractor and make decisions regarding re-calibration options

3.4 Organizing a technical group meeting or public workshop to discuss with local stakeholders about the hydrology re-calibration and soliciting public comments on the hydrology re-calibration approach

3.5 Making the decision to finalize the hydrology calibration.

Task 3 Performance Measures.

The contractor shall provide to the department a water quality model that is based on a reasonable conceptual structure, has the appropriate model components, and is reasonably calibrated based on scientifically sound model parameterization. The summary report should describe the water quality calibration in a detailed manner, regarding what water quality processes were considered, what parameters are most sensitive for the water quality calibration, the model calibration and validation results, goodness-of-fit evaluation, and recommendation for refining the calibration. Detailed parameters used in the model and the source of these parameters should also be properly documented in the summary report. Copies of all the reference materials cited in the summary report should be submitted to the department.

The department Contract Manager shall within three (3) weeks of receiving the Task 3 summary report provide the contractor with a written evaluation as to the successful completion of the Task 3a through 3f elements as detailed under the Task 3 Descriptions. The department evaluation will identify which of any contractor recommendations are to be implemented by the contractor as well as any Task elements the department believes have not been satisfactorily completed together with a list of the steps the contractor should take to satisfactorily complete Task 3. For example, should the department determine that the recalibration is not satisfactory to the department the contractor shall re-evaluate the calibration until satisfactory results are achieved. The contractor

03/14/2017 shall within four (4) weeks of being notified by the department, as per Task 3g, implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the model as needed.

Additional performance measures include a department assessment of contractor responsiveness to issues raised by the department and/or stakeholders and the effectiveness of the contractor in assisting the department with addressing any stakeholder concerns. Such department assessment shall be limited to three levels (1) unacceptable, (2) acceptable, and (3) excellent. If the department determines that the contractor effectiveness and/or responsiveness is not acceptable, the department shall in writing notify the contractor of the specific reasons for this determination and a suggested remedy.

Task 3 Budget.

Contractor shall provide a table showing (1) the title of each and all personnel involved in completing this task, (2) the hourly rates for each and all such personnel, (3) the number of hours of

03/14/2017

Task 4. Converting the Existing Proprietary EFDC Model into a Public Domain Application and Incorporate the Light Module in the Existing Proprietary EFDC Model into the Public Domain Application

Task 4 Description

The contractor shall convert the existing EFDC model (DS-EFDC), which is a proprietary application, into a public domain application (PD-EFDC), and include the light module of the existing proprietary EFDC model into the public domain application by completing the following Task 4 elements.

4a. The department will provide the contractor with all EFDC input files associated with the existing EFDC model (DS-EFDC), which is a proprietary application, a copy of the Dynamic Solutions public domain EFDC model if needed, and the algorithm of the new light module included in the existing EFDC model. The contractor shall use the same set of EFDC parameters, model grids, boundary conditions, and input data series for the same model time domain used by the DS-EFDC model to set up a public domain version EFDC model (PD-EFDC). The PD-EFDC model should include all the model components activated in the existing EFDC model, including all the needed hydrodynamic components, water column water quality processes, and sediment diagenesis module. The new light module associated with the DS-EFDC model should also be incorporated into the new PD-EFDC model.

4b. The contractor shall test the PD-EFDC to ensure that all model components can be executed properly, the model is stable, and reproduces the output that is similar to the DS-EFDC model. Due to the proprietary code for the DS-EFDC model, it is not expected that the PD-EFDC output will exactly match the DS-EFDC output.

Task 4 Deliverables.

The contractor shall within eight (8) weeks of the execution of this agreement provide to the department a functioning public domain version of the EFDC model (PD-EFDC) that includes all the active modeling components included in the existing proprietary EFDC model (DS-EFDC) and produces results that are similar to the DS-EFDC model output. The PD-EFDC should execute properly on the department’s computers. A report describing the model conversion processes, including the model parameterization, all the modeling components included, the model grids, boundary condition, and all input time series, as well as any issues associated with the conversion, and recommendations to solve observed issues, should be provided to the department.

Department’s Responsibilities:

4.1 Providing to the contractor all EFDC input files associated with the existing EFDC model, a copy of the Dynamic Solutions public domain EFDC model if needed, and the algorithm of the light module included in the existing proprietary EFDC model.

4.2 Assisting the contractor to collect more data if needed.

4.3 Working with the contractor to ensure that the PD-EFDC application can be executed properly on the department’s computers. Providing feedback to the contractor on issues observed when executing the public domain application on the department’s computers.

03/14/2017

4.4 Reviewing the model conversion report from the contractor and provide comments and feedback to the contractor.

Task 4 Performance Measures.

The contractor shall provide to the department a public domain version of the Caloosahatchee EFDC model that is based on the same conceptual structure and reproduces the same results as the proprietary version.

The department Contract Manager shall within three (3) weeks of receiving the Task 4 summary report and the new public domain EFDC model, provide the contractor with a written evaluation as to the successful completion of the Task 4a and 4b elements as detailed under the Task 4 Descriptions. The department evaluation will identify which of any contractor recommendations are to be implemented by the contractor as well as any Task elements the department believes have not been satisfactorily completed together with a list of the steps the contractor should take to satisfactorily complete Task 4. The contractor shall within three (3) weeks of being notified by the department, as per item 4.4, implement the department recommendations.

Additional performance measures include a department assessment of contractor responsiveness to issues raised by the department and/or stakeholders and the effectiveness of the contractor in assisting the department with addressing any stakeholder concerns. Such department assessment shall be limited to three levels (1) unacceptable, (2) acceptable, and (3) excellent. If the department determines that the contractor effectiveness and/or responsiveness is not acceptable, the department shall in writing notify the contractor of the specific reasons for this determination and a suggested remedy.

Task 4 Budget.

Contractor shall provide a table showing (1) the title of each and all personnel involved in completing this task, (2) the hourly rates for each and all such personnel, (3) the number of hours of

03/14/2017

Task 5. Evaluate the public domain EFDC’s existing hydrodynamic model calibration and recalibration of EFDC hydrodynamic model.

Task 5 Description

The contractor shall evaluate the PD-EFDC hydrodynamic calibration by completing the following Task 5 elements. Based on stakeholder comments, updates to the HSPF model should significantly improve the calibration of the EFDC model, particularly in the uppermost areas of the modeling domain. Therefore, the revisions to the EFDC hydrodynamic model are expected to be relatively few.

5a. The department will provide the contractor with all needed data for the hydrodynamic model calibration, such as water quality data, tidal water elevation data, temperature data, and salinity data that it has in-house. The contractor will review the data for completeness and obtain any additional water quantity and water quality data that is available and suitable for use in evaluation of the PD-EFDC hydrodynamic model calibration.

5b. The contractor shall evaluate the hydrodynamic calibration at daily, monthly, and annual timeframes, as appropriate. The contractor shall determine if the existing calibration parameters and locations are sufficient for the recalibration and make recommendations to the department to modify either the parameters or locations used.

5c. The contractor evaluation shall include the goodness-of-fit of the model simulation through comparing the central tendency, the time series, and the data distribution of the model simulates and measured data. The comparison can be conducted using graphs such as Whisker and Box Plot, time series plot, and frequency distribution curve. Summary statistics such as relative error, root mean square error, or other metrics shall be provided by the contractor, as agreed upon by the department. Model performance criteria can be set up based on recommended values by Donigian (2000). When analyzing the goodness-of-fit of the model, the contractor should compare model simulates on those days that measured data are available.

5d. The contractor shall identify any calibration issues (e.g. boundary conditions and over or under estimation of the water elevation, temperature, or salinity measured data) and provide recommendations to address these calibration issues.

5e. The contractor shall conduct sensitivity analyses to evaluate the factors influencing the hydrodynamic simulation and make recommendations to the department on how these factors are best addressed in the modeling process.

5f. The department shall provide the contractor with the selected recommendations from Task 5a through 5e within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report and the contractor shall within four (4) weeks implement the selected recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the EFDC hydrodynamic model as needed.

Task 5 Deliverables.

The contractor shall within 30 days of the successful completion of Task 4 provide to the department a summary report of their findings from the Task 5a through 5e elements evaluation of the PD-EFDC hydrodynamic calibration. The summary report shall contain recommendations to resolve any issues discovered. In addition to the summary report, the contractor shall provide the

03/14/2017 department a functioning PD-EFDC model calibrated for hydrodynamics. This model should run smoothly on the department’s computers. All model input files, input time series, data used for model calibration, and related model grid files and GIS files should be provided to the department in a format that is readily usable by the department. All materials referenced in the summary report should be submitted to the department. The department will provide to the contractor the selected recommendations from the summary report within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report. The contractor shall within four (4) weeks of being notified by the department, as per Task 5f, implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the model as needed.

Department’s Responsibilities:

5.1 Providing to the contractor the needed model input data identified by the contractor

5.2 Assisting the contractor to collect more data when needed

5.3 Reviewing the re-calibration recommendations provided by the contractor and provide feedback

5.4 Organizing a technical group meeting or public workshop to discuss with local stakeholders about the hydrodynamic re-calibration and soliciting public comments on the hydrodynamic re-calibration.

5.5 Making the decision to finalize the hydrodynamic calibration.

Task 5 Performance Measures.

The contractor shall provide to the department a PD-EFDC hydrodynamic model that is based on a reasonable conceptual structure, is reasonably calibrated based on scientifically sound model parameterization, and functioning on at least two department computers. The summary report should describe the hydrodynamic calibration in a detailed manner, regarding what hydrodynamic processes were considered, what parameters are most sensitive for the hydrodynamic calibration, the model calibration and validation results, goodness-of-fit evaluation, and recommendation for refining the calibration. Detailed parameters used in the model and the source of these parameters should also be properly documented in the summary report. Copies of all the reference materials cited in the summary report should be submitted to the department.

The department Contract Manager shall within three (3) weeks of receiving the Task 5 summary report provide the contractor with a written evaluation as to the successful completion of the Task 5a through 5e elements as detailed under the Task 5 Descriptions. The department evaluation will identify which of any contractor recommendations are to be implemented by the contractor as well as any Task elements the department believes have not been satisfactorily completed together with a list of the steps the contractor should take to satisfactorily complete Task 5. For example, should the department determine that the recalibration is not satisfactory to the department the contractor shall re-evaluate the calibration until satisfactory results are achieved. The contractor shall within four (4) weeks of being notified by the department, as per Task 5f implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the model as needed.

03/14/2017

Additional performance measures include a department assessment of contractor responsiveness to issues raised by the department and/or stakeholders and the effectiveness of the contractor in assisting the department with addressing any stakeholder concerns. Such department assessment shall be limited to three levels (1) unacceptable, (2) acceptable, and (3) excellent. If the department determines that the contractor effectiveness and/or responsiveness is not acceptable, the department shall in writing notify the contractor of the specific reasons for this determination and a suggested remedy.

Task 5 Budget.

Contractor shall provide a table showing (1) the title of each and all personnel involved in completing this task, (2) the hourly rates for each and all such personnel, (3) the number of hours of

03/14/2017

Task 6. Evaluate the public domain EFDC’s existing water quality model calibration and recalibration of EFDC water quality model.

Task 6 Description

The contractor shall evaluate the PD-EFDC water quality calibration by completing the following Task 6 elements. Based on stakeholder comments, updates to the HSPF model should significantly improve the calibration of the EFDC model, particularly in the uppermost areas of the modeling domain. Therefore, the revisions to the EFDC water quality model are expected to be relatively few.

6a. The department will provide the contractor with all water quality data that it has in-house.

The contractor will review the data for completeness and obtain any additional water quality data that is available and suitable for use in evaluation of the PD-EFDC water quality model calibration.

6b. The contractor shall evaluate the water quality calibration at daily, monthly, and annual timeframes, as appropriate. The contractor shall determine if the existing calibration parameters and locations are sufficient for the recalibration and make recommendations to the department to modify either the parameters or locations used. The recalibration shall include at a minimum those parameters identified by the department below and/or as proposed by the contractor, subject to department approval. As part of the light attenuation calibration, the results from the light attenuation simulation shall be compared to the results calculated from measured data for TSS, color, and chlorophyll a at key locations in the lower Caloosahatchee estuary and San Carlos Bay.

a. Nutrients including total nitrogen, total ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, organic nitrogen, total phosphorous, ortho-phosphate, and chlorophyll a

b. Dissolved oxygen

c. BOD and/or total organic carbon

d. Total suspended solids

e. Light attenuation

The overall purpose for modeling light attenuation (equation below) is to model the existing Caloosahatchee River Estuary using HSPF and EFDC, and then reduce the nutrient loads to be consistent with the chla levels that permit the target light attenuation (consistent with a healthy seagrass meadow in San Carlos Bay [at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee Estuary] and critical locations mid-estuary). This means ensuring that the maximum amount of area in San Carlos Bay 2.2 meters deep or less received a minimum 25 percent PAR, and that the mid- to lower estuary at 1 meter depths or less also received 25 percent PAR. The contractor shall provide for model output at those locations identified in the 2009 Caloosahatchee TMDL Report, or as recommended by the contractor and approved by the department, or recommended by the department for light attenuation including all variables required to calculate light attenuation.

6c. The contractor evaluation shall include the goodness-of-fit of the model simulation through comparing the central tendency, the time series, and the data distribution of the model simulates and measured data. The comparison can be conducted using graphs such as Whisker and Box Plot, time series plot, and frequency distribution curve.

Summary statistics such as relative error, root mean square error, or other metrics shall be provided by the contractor, as agreed upon by the department. Model performance criteria can be set up based on recommended values by Donigian (2000). When analyzing the goodness-of-fit of the model, the contractor should compare model simulates on those days that measured water quality data are available.

6d. The contractor shall identify any calibration issues (e.g. unacceptable calibration for any constituent) and provide recommendations to address these calibration issues.

6e. The contractor shall conduct sensitivity analyses to evaluate the factors influencing the water quality simulation and make recommendations to the department on how these factors are best addressed in the modeling process.

6f. The department shall provide the contractor with the selected recommendations from Task 6a through 6e within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report and any additional department recommendations and the contractor shall within six (6) weeks implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the EFDC water quality model as needed.

Task 6 Deliverables.

The contractor shall within 30 days of the successful completion of Task 5 provide to the department a summary report of their findings from the Task 6a through 6e elements evaluation of the PD-EFDC water quality calibration. The report shall contain recommendations to resolve any issues discovered.

In addition to the summary report, the contractor shall provide the department with a functioning EFDC model calibrated for all the water quality and light attenuation. This model should run smoothly on the department’s computers. All model input file, input time series, data used for model calibration, and related model grid files and GIS files should be provided to the department in a format that is readily usable by the department. All materials referenced in the summary report

03/14/2017 should be submitted to the department. The department will provide to the contractor the selected recommendations from the summary report within three (3) weeks from the delivery of the summary report. The contractor shall within six (6) weeks of being notified by the department, as per Task 6f, implement the department recommendations and re-calibrate and re-validate the model as needed.

An eight (8) week contingency period is included in this task to address issues that may arise. In no case will use of the contingency period be justification for the contractor to request an extension of time allocated for completion of the overall scope of work or an increase in overall cost.

Department’s Responsibilities:

6.1 Providing to the contractor the needed model input data identified by the contractor

6.2 Assisting the contractor to collect more data when needed

6.3 Reviewing the re-calibration recommendations provided by the contractor and provide feedback

6.4 Organizing a technical group meeting or public workshop to discuss with local stakeholders about the hydrodynamic re-calibration and soliciting public comments on the hydrodynamic re-calibration.

6.5 Making the decision to finalize the water quality calibration.

Task 6 Performance Measures.

The contractor shall provide to the department a PD-EFDC water quality model that is based on a reasonable conceptual structure, is reasonably calibrated based on scientifically sound model parameterization, and functioning on at least two department computers. The summary report should describe the water quality calibration in a detailed manner, regarding what water quality processes were considered, what parameters are most sensitive for the water quality calibration, the model calibration and validation results, goodness-of-fit evaluation, and recommendation for refining the calibration. Detailed parameters used in the model and the source of these parameters should also be properly documented in the summary report. Copies of all the reference materials cited in the summary report should be submitted to the department.

The department Contract Manager shall within three (3) weeks of receiving the Task 6 summary report provide the contractor with a written evaluation as to the successful completion of the Task 6a through 6e elements as detailed under the Task 6 Descriptions.