at opposite ends of the snorkel area after construction of the proposed breakwaters. The figure indicates that no phase difference exists within the proposed snorkel area. 3.3
Velocity Distribution Comparison
Figure 3.1 shows sample lines for velocity distributions across the Loxahatchee River upstream and downstream of the proposed snorkel area. Figures 3.7 – 3.14 compare the velocity distribution at the indicated sample lines for the existing condition and with the proposed breakwater in place. Figures 3.7 – 3.10 show the velocity distributions during peak flood flows and Figures 3.11 – 3.14 during peak ebb flows. The figures demonstrate that construction of the breakwaters only have an appreciable effect on the hydraulic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the breakwaters (Figures 3.8, 3.9, 3.12, and 3.13). At these locations the flow distribution shifts slightly to the north at the south side and middle of the river. The breakwaters have a negligible effect on the velocities on the north side of the river. The plots indicate velocity increases of less than 0.5 ft/s and decreases less than 1 ft/s. As one might expect, the largest velocity decreases occur within 100 ft of the proposed breakwater. The velocity distributions further upstream and downstream of the breakwaters (Figures 3.7, 3.10, 3.11, and 3.14) show no appreciable change from the existing velocity distributions. 3.4
Particle Flow Trace
Figure 3.15 shows a particle flow trace of the snorkel area. A particle flow trace follows the path of theoretical particles released into model and carried by the simulated currents. The figure demonstrates that the breakwaters should not cause local circulation pockets which might trap floating debris in the snorkel area.
19