Modelling hazards impacting the flow regime in the  Hranice Karst due to the proposed Skalička Dam

Spano, Miroslav; Riha, Jaromir

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3683-2024

Articles | Volume 24, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3683-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3683-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 24, issue 11

Research article

|

30 Oct 2024

Research article |

| 30 Oct 2024

Modelling hazards impacting the flow regime in the Hranice Karst due to the proposed Skalička Dam

Miroslav Spano and Jaromir Riha

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Oct 2024)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Feb 2024)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on nhess-2024-21', Dana Baroková, 26 Mar 2024

I would like to comment on this intriguing study, which thoroughly investigates the hydrogeological risks associated with the proposed Skalička Dam in the Hranice Karst region, prompted by the 1997 catastrophic floods. Employing a nonlinear reservoir-pipe groundwater flow model, the research evaluates the potential impacts of dam construction on the delicate karst water system. Results suggest that while the lateral variant of the dam may have minimal effects, the through-flow variant could significantly impact water levels and mineral water outflow in the spa downstream. Recommendations are provided to address geological uncertainties and minimize adverse effects on the karstic hydrogeology.
However, this remarkable work raises the question of whether the described model is applicable to other karst areas and whether the karstification process can also be taken into account in the model. I believe this study can offer valuable insights and inspiration for further research in this field.
Best regards, Dana Baroková

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-CC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on CC1', Miroslav Spano, 02 Apr 2024
  
  Firstly it should be stated that each karst formation is unique. In general, it can be stated that the described model is applicable to other karst areas. This model takes into account interconnections between karst phenomena such as sources, outlets, lakes, caves, etc. The decision on the application of this model will depend primarily on the level of exploration of the modelled karst area. We have also chosen this model in view of the fact that the area of interest consists of buried karst with only limited knowledge of interconnections and linkages. If the model will be applied in another karst area, it would be necessary to develop appropriate topological scheme and calibrate the coefficients expressing the hydraulic characteristics along individual karst channels. For this, extensive data from monitoring are necessary, preferably time series at individual Karst phenomena (lakes, caves, etc.).
  It is suggested that karstification process will change hydraulic characteristics of the karst channels. Thus that karstification process will result in gradual changes of kappa coefficients which should be re-calibrated for new conditions. To do this new monitoring data should be provided for the period "after" karstification (this may take a long time). We see certain limitations especially if new channels and connections have been created due to karstification process that are not reflected in the topological scheme of the karst system.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-AC1
  - CC4: 'Reply on AC1', Dana Baroková, 05 Apr 2024
    
    Thank you very much for your detailed response and explanation. It is very encouraging for me to hear that the model you focused on in your research has the potential to be applicable in other areas of karst topography.
    Your emphasis on the unique nature of each karst formation fills me with confidence that when further utilizing the model, we will need to be aware of the specific characteristics of the given area. I am also pleased to hear that the model takes into account interactions between various phenomena in the karst environment, which is crucial for accurately predicting the impacts of dam construction.
    Your reminder of the necessity for continual calibration of the model in relation to karstification leads me to consider the importance of long-term monitoring and data collection. I understand that this process can be time-consuming and requires systematic gathering of data from monitoring karst phenomena.
    Your highlighting of limitations in the event of new channels and connections forming due to karstification also underscores the importance of continuously updating the model and adapting it to new conditions.
    Once again, thank you for your expert response and valuable insights, which provide us with direction for further research efforts in this field.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-CC4
RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2024-21', Pierre-Yves Jeannin, 05 Apr 2024

The authors attempt to apply pipe-flow hydraulics to assess the relationship between a sinking river and a series of karst springs and flooded caves. This model is used to assess the potential effect of building a dam in the neighborhood of the sinking river. The approach is meaningful but many formal aspects in the present version of the paper are quite weak, which makes the paper difficult to read. The formal weakness makes it difficult to be sure that all facts and modelling are really based on sufficient data. It is difficult to understand what is measured, what is assessed and what is assumed. Suggestions for improvements are given in the commented document (pdf).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-RC1
- CC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Dana Baroková, 05 Apr 2024
  
  Thank you very much for your detailed response and explanation. It is very encouraging for me to hear that the model you focused on in your research has the potential to be applicable in other areas of karst topography.
  Your emphasis on the unique nature of each karst formation fills me with confidence that when further utilizing the model, we will need to be aware of the specific characteristics of the given area. I am also pleased to hear that the model takes into account interactions between various phenomena in the karst environment, which is crucial for accurately predicting the impacts of dam construction.
  Your reminder of the necessity for continual calibration of the model in relation to karstification leads me to consider the importance of long-term monitoring and data collection. I understand that this process can be time-consuming and requires systematic gathering of data from monitoring karst phenomena.
  Your highlighting of limitations in the event of new channels and connections forming due to karstification also underscores the importance of continuously updating the model and adapting it to new conditions.
  Once again, thank you for your expert response and valuable insights, which provide us with direction for further research efforts in this field.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-CC2
  - CC3: 'Reply on RC1', Dana Baroková, 05 Apr 2024
    
    I apologize for the oversight. That response was intended for AC1, not RC1. Please accept my apologies for any confusion caused.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-CC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Miroslav Spano, 31 May 2024
  
  Authors thanks referee for valuable comments and suggestions. We prepared detailed reply in separate file which is attached as well as preliminary manuscript modification to make the answers clear. Green highlighted text is relevatnt to RC2, yellow highlighted text to RC1 and light blue highlighted text to ED.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-AC3
EC1:
'Comment on nhess-2024-21', Mario Parise, 07 Apr 2024

The manuscript is an interesting study about implementation of pipe-flow hydraulics to assess the relationship between a sinking river and a series of karst springs and flooded caves, in an area interested by catastrophic floods in the past. Notwithstanding the interest for the article, there are some issues that need to be worked and better explained, starting from the feasibility to apply such a methodology in karst areas, and the amount of data needed to properly implement it. This should be in some way clarified.
Further, given the main topics of the journal NHESS (natural hazards) I would have expected more information provided on the floods that hit the area. Were they flash floods linked to concentrate rainfall, or were they another type of flood phenomenon? This also may have implications on the overall hydraulic functioning of the area, and provide further indication for a better application of the model.
Together with the issues raised by the reviewer, I think that the above questions must be properly responded in a revised version of the manuscript. In addition to some other indications in the accompanying file, below I list a number of specific comments.
Figure 1: a graphic scale is needed in the figure. Further, what is CUZK? You should explain the acronym, or put a specific reference.
Lines 110 and following:
Authors give for granted that readers are familiar with hypogene karst. As for NHESS audience, I am not sure this is the case. Therefore, some explanation, and a few references about hypogene karst, starting from the pioneering work by Klimchouk (2007) should be provided.
Line 113:
Authors are probably referring here to the limits of the catchment area. I do not think "boundaries of the karst" is right, since it gives the idea you are just referring to the surface boundary of soluble rocks, not necessarily corresponding to the actual limits of the hydrogeological catchment. Please correct the sentence.
Breathing spots: please clarify what you mean by this, it is a term unfamiliar to me.
Figure 3: Is the vertical scale as the horizontal one?
Figure 4: the figure lacks a graphic scale.

Suggested references:
Golian W.K.M., Sharifi Teshnizi E., Parise M., Terzic J., Milanovic S., Ristic Vakanjac V., Mahdad M., Abbasi M., Taghikhani H. & Saadat H., 2021, A new analytical method for determination of discharge duration in tunnels subjected to groundwater inrush. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 80 (4), p. 3293-3313.
Gutierrez F., Parise M., De Waele J. & Jourde H., 2014, A review on natural and human-induced geohazards and impacts in karst. Earth Science Reviews, vol. 138, p. 61-88.
Hartmann A, Goldscheider N, Wagener T, Lange J, Weiler M (2014) Karst water resources in a changing world: Review of hydrological modeling approaches. Rev Geophys 52:218–242. https:// doi. org/10. 1002/ 2013R G0004 43.
Klimchouk A.B. 2007. Hypogene speleogenesis. Hydrogeological and morphogenetic perspective. National Cave and Karst Research Institute, Carlsbad, Special Paper Series 1, 77 p.
Klimchouk A.B. 2009. Morphogenesis of hypogenic caves. Geomorphology, 106, 100-117.
Kresic N (2013) Water in karst: management, vulnerability, and restoration. McGraw Hill, New York.
Leins T., Liso I.S., Parise M. & Hartmann A., 2023, Evaluation of the predictions skills and uncertainty of a karst model using short calibration data sets at an Apulian cave (Italy). Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 82, 351, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-10984-2.
Palma B., Ruocco A., Lollino P. & Parise M., 2012, Analysis of the behaviour of a carbonate rock mass due to tunneling in a karst setting. In: Han K.C., Park C., Kim J.D., Jeon S. & Song J.J. (Eds.), The present and future of rock engineering. Proceedings 7th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, October 15-19, Seoul, p. 772-781.
Palmer AN. 1991. Origin and morphometry of limestone caves. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 103 (1), 1–21.
Parise M., 2022, Sinkholes, Subsidence and Related Mass Movements. In: Shroder J.J.F. (Ed.), Treatise on Geomorphology, vol. 5. Elsevier, Academic Press, ISBN 9780128182345, pp. 200–220.
Parise M., Closson D., Gutierrez F. & Stevanovic Z., 2015, Anticipating and managing engineering problems in the complex karst environment. Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 74, p. 7823-7835, DOI :10.1007/s12665-015-4647-5.
Parise M., Gabrovsek F., Kaufmann G. & Ravbar N., 2018, Recent advances in karst research: from theory to ﬁeldwork and applications. In: Parise M., Gabrovsek F., Kaufmann G. & Ravbar N. (Eds.), Advances in Karst Research: Theory, Fieldwork and Applications. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 466, p. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP466.26.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-EC1
- AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Miroslav Spano, 31 May 2024
  
  Authors thanks the editor for valuable comments and suggestions. We prepared detailed reply in separate file which is attached as well as preliminary manuscript modification to make the answers clear. Green highlighted text is relevatnt to RC2, yellow highlighted text to RC1 and light blue highlighted text to ED.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-AC4
RC2:
'Comment on nhess-2024-21', Ulf Mohrlok, 25 Apr 2024

The authors present a very simple modeling approach to investigate the hydraulic behavior of a poorly known karst system. The lack of data justifies the application of the selected simple modeling approach.
However, there are several basic shortcomings in the manuscript, why I can evaluate it only as of poor quality. Therefore, I mention in the following only the major points in which the manuscript needs urgently improvement. I am interested to review the manuscript in more detail as far as these improvements are provided.
I have some principle difficulties to understand the definitions of the scenarios. Is it correct that scenario II.A is similar to the steady state calibration? Then, what is the meaning of this scenario? The boundary conditions of the scenarios III.A and IV.A, which seems steady state simulations are not clear. How can the relation to the discharge of 25 m^3/s be understood? What is the difference in boundary conditions between scenario III.A and III.B (and IV.A and IV.B)? How are they related to different discharges?
The calibrated values of the resistance coefficients are varying over several orders of magnitude. A discussion on the physical meaning and the sensitivity of the single values is missing, even if a very simple modeling approach is applied. No data from ZAC are presented in Fig. 10 without further explanation.
The results of the scenarios III and IV seems not to be correct. The simulated period is too short. The maximum level at ZAC was not reached. Fig. 14 seems to be identical to Fig 12. Due to the difference in time variant boundary conditions different result are expected. For IV.B the inflow boundaries are constantly on a high level. Therefore, no falling water tables should in the caves. A description of the scenario results with respect to the system behavior is largely missing.
Furthermore, a detailed discussion of the usability and shortcomings of the applied modeling approach could be expected in the 'conclusions'.
Finally, the descriptions have several depths of detail. For instance, the technical sketch of the dam is not of importance for this manuscript.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Miroslav Spano, 31 May 2024
  
  Authors thanks referee for valuable comments and suggestions. We prepared detailed reply in separate file which is attached as well as preliminary manuscript modification to make the answers clear. Green highlighted text is relevatnt to RC2, yellow highlighted text to RC1 and light blue highlighted text to ED.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-21-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (20 Jun 2024) by Mario Parise

AR by Miroslav Spano on behalf of the Authors (21 Jun 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Jul 2024) by Mario Parise

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Aug 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors improved their manuscript significantly. In my opinion, the basic approach of the simple model of groundwater flow in the considered karst system is worth to publish.

However, there are remaining several points that need some further improvement in the revised manuscript. I feel that the motivation to compare average discharge and a 20-year flood in the different scenarios does not really become clear. The reason is that the structure of the descriptions are mainly related to the dam scenarios (II, II, IV) but not to the discharge scenarios (A, B). On the other hand, the results are mainly presented as comparison of the discharge scenarios. I recommend to discuss the variation of heads and discharges between the different dam scenarios II, II, IV together at once and seperated by the different discharge situations A, B. I further recommend to present the temporal variation of the fluxes, in B scenarios l. 430-431, 456-457, 490-491. For instance, by this it could become more clear what is the importance of the difference of the discharges in the karst conduits in the different simulations (l. 524-527). In the conclusion, the assessment of the dam variants should be related much more to the hydraulic conditions and hydraulic behaviour of the karst system than simply to the simulation results.

Further, I recommend to relate the calibration results, resistance coefficients Table 3, to the statement in l. 146-147 about the hydraulic properties of the karst system.

Finally there are a few technical shortcomings and misspellings:
l. 64: 'Gilmore et al., 1991'
l. 361: reference to Fig. 5 (not 6)
l. 392: reference to Tab. 3 (not 2)
l. 397: Fig. 10 is missing
l. 574: 'Hartmann' (instead of 'Hartman')

Fig. 7-9 are not referenced and described

Fig. 12,14,16: The authors mentioned in their comments that they have simulated longer time periods of about 350 days. I would like to recommend to present the result of these simulations in order to have a more clear understanding of the time-variant system behaviour.

Hide

ED: Publish as is (25 Aug 2024) by Mario Parise

AR by Miroslav Spano on behalf of the Authors (06 Sep 2024) Manuscript

Short summary

The study examines the effects of hydrogeological hazard due to construction of the Skalička Dam near the Hranice Karst on groundwater discharges and water levels in the local karst formations downstream. A simplified pipe model was used to analyze the impact of two dam layouts: lateral and through-flow reservoirs. Results show that the through-flow scheme more significantly influences water levels and the discharge of mineral water, while the lateral layout has only negligible impact.