The Determination of Minimum Flows for Sulphur Springs, Tampa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DRAFT 01/90 01/93 01/96 01/99 01/02 24 24 23 23 Water Level, ft (NGVD1929) 22 21 20 19 18 22 21 20 19 18 17 17 16 16 01/90 01/93 01/96 01/99 01/02 Date Figure 5-22. Average daily water levels in the Hillsborough River reservoir for 1988-2003. Table 5-4. The number of days each year that water levels in the Hillsborough River reservoir were below 19 feet NGVD and the minimum stage for each year for 1988-2003 Year Number of days below 19 ft. 1988 38 17.7 1989 39 18.0 1990 5 18.9 1991 9 18.5 1992 9 18.2 1993 0 19.1 1994 0 19.9 1995 0 20.7 1996 0 21.2 1997 0 20.8 1998 0 20.1 1999 37 18.3 2000 59 17.2 2001 48 17.3 2002 53 16.4 2003 0 22.1 Minimum stage 5 - 36
DRAFT Water levels dropped below 19 feet during half of the sixteen years from 1988-2003. However, these occurrences did not happen at regular intervals. Water levels did not fall below 19 feet for a six-year period from 1993-1998. However, water levels fell below 19 feet for five years in a row from 1988-1992 and four years in a row from 1999-2002. Water levels were below 19 feet for only 5 to 9 days during each of the last three years of the 1988-2002 period and slightly over five weeks during the first two years. Although low water occurrences happened during successive years, the relatively short period that a 13 cfs minimum flow would be in effect would probably allow sufficient period for recolonization by any species that were extirpated from the spring run by salinity incursions. Lower water levels were more prolonged during the 1999-2002 period, ranging from 37 to 59 days for those years. These occurrences happened during one of the most severe and prolonged drought the region has experienced, and should not be considered typical events. These results show that simply linking a minimum flow of 13 cfs to water levels in the reservoir does not provide a perfect mechanism for providing a regular recurrence interval for implementing a reduced minimum flow. However, the duration of the reduced minimum flow each year is relatively short, and should allow for periods of recolonization during the dry seasons of most years. Also, the salinity incursions that will happen with a 13 cfs minimum flow should not exceed several hours each day, and the impacts to the invertebrate fauna of the spring should be must less dramatic than the changes observed during this study. Future biological monitoring of the spring run could be conducted during dry years to determine the effect of a 13 cfs minimum flow on the invertebrate fauna of spring run. The continuation of that 13 cfs minimum flow during low water levels, or possible use of a 13 cfs on a more frequent basis, could be linked to the results of such monitoring. 5.4.1 Application of minimum flows based on criteria 1 and 2 In summary, the minimum flow for Sulphur Springs based on criteria 1 and 2 (maintaining low salinity habitats in the spring run and river) is 18 cfs. This minimum flow may be reduced to 10 cfs during low tide stages in the lower Hillsborough River if it does not result in the movement of brackish waters from the river into the upper spring run. A minimum flow of 13 cfs can be implemented when water levels in the Hillsborough River reservoir fall below 19 feet NGVD. This minimum flow can also switch to 10 cfs at low tide stages in the lower river if it does not result in salinity incursions into the upper spring run. Evidence of a salinity incursion could be a salinity value at the upper spring run recorder that is more than 1 ppt greater than the concurrent salinity value in the spring pool. Water use from the spring by the City of Tampa is regulated under a special condition in their water use permit for withdrawals from the reservoir. Because of the important functions that springflow has with regard to the ecology of the spring run and lower river, 5 - 37
Page 1 and 2:
The Determination of Minimum Flows
Page 4 and 5:
DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tab
Page 6:
4.5 Goal 1 - Minimize the incursion
Page 10 and 11:
DRAFT LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 2 - P
Page 12 and 13:
Fig. 3-13 Fig. 3-14 Fig. 3-15 Fig.
Page 14 and 15:
Fig. 5-7 Fig. 5-8 Fig. 5-9 Fig. 5-1
Page 16 and 17:
Acronyms and Definitions DRAFT AMO
Page 18 and 19:
DRAFT Executive Summary The Southwe
Page 20:
DRAFT below 19 feet NGVD of 1929. T
Page 24 and 25:
CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND OF
Page 26 and 27:
DRAFT water, or aquifer, provided t
Page 28:
DRAFT one the indicators were the f
Page 31 and 32:
DRAFT The spring and its run lie in
Page 33 and 34:
DRAFT Figure 2-3. Recent photograph
Page 35 and 36:
2 - 6 DRAFT
Page 37 and 38:
DRAFT -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 0.4 4
Page 39 and 40:
DRAFT 10.0 Yrly_Pumpage.grf 15 Annu
Page 41 and 42:
DRAFT 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 35 D
Page 43 and 44:
DRAFT Figure 2-14. Return flow stru
Page 45 and 46:
DRAFT 40 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Ju
Page 47 and 48:
DRAFT due to withdrawals for public
Page 49 and 50:
DRAFT Figure 2-19 . Temporal trend
Page 51 and 52:
DRAFT Figure 2-20. Temporal trends
Page 53:
DRAFT In comparison to specific con
Page 57 and 58:
DRAFT average daily withdrawals for
Page 59 and 60:
DRAFT Figure 2-25. Average specific
Page 61 and 62:
DRAFT withdrawal rate of 31 cfs dur
Page 63 and 64:
DRAFT Table 2-2. Sulphur Springs su
Page 65 and 66:
DRAFT These plots indicate that his
Page 67 and 68:
DRAFT CHAPTER 3 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Page 69 and 70:
DRAFT 3 Run_Riv_Stg.grf Water Surfa
Page 71 and 72:
DRAFT 3.4 Salinity in the spring ru
Page 73 and 74:
DRAFT 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Page 75 and 76:
DRAFT pumping events resulted in sa
Page 77 and 78:
DRAFT As discussed in Section 2.5.3
Page 79 and 80:
DRAFT tolerate and are frequently f
Page 81 and 82:
DRAFT Appendix B are color coded to
Page 83 and 84:
DRAFT habitat in the lower river pr
Page 85 and 86:
DRAFT The FWC using a modified stra
Page 87 and 88:
DRAFT increased with a return to no
Page 89 and 90:
DRAFT 2000. The results from three
Page 91 and 92:
DRAFT species (10 to 13) were colle
Page 93 and 94:
DRAFT 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Page 95 and 96:
DRAFT . 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0
Page 97 and 98:
DRAFT 3.9.2 The effects of flows fr
Page 99 and 100:
DRAFT Data from the Tampa Bay Water
Page 101 and 102:
DRAFT EPCHC Period of Record Data L
Page 103 and 104:
DRAFT 35 30 1996 1997 1998 1999 200
Page 105 and 106:
7 DRAFT Elevation (m) 1 0 -1 -2 -3
Page 107 and 108:
8 24 25 29 DRAFT Figure 3-20, 3-21
Page 109 and 110:
DRAFT Figure 3-22 HBMP & EPCHC 2000
Page 111 and 112:
DRAFT of the river between the dam
Page 113 and 114:
DRAFT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11
Page 115 and 116:
DRAFT The HBMP project (PBSJ 2003)
Page 117 and 118:
DRAFT xanthurus) red drum (Sciaenop
Page 119 and 120:
DRAFT as manatees seek fresh water
Page 121 and 122:
1999 2000 2001 2002 DRAFT 35 TmpSS_
Page 123 and 124:
DRAFT Platt Street 1974-2002 Columb
Page 125 and 126: DRAFT Median and minimum water temp
Page 127 and 128: DRAFT Figure 3-31 1999 2000 2001 20
Page 129 and 130: DRAFT Figure 3-33 2001 2002 2003 20
Page 131 and 132: DRAFT CHAPTER 4 TECHNICAL APPROACH
Page 133 and 134: DRAFT The sum of these consideratio
Page 135 and 136: DRAFT It is the conclusion of this
Page 137 and 138: DRAFT criteria. The
Page 139: DRAFT reach of the river 50 meters
Page 142 and 143: DRAFT of the dam. The experiments w
Page 144 and 145: DRAFT Salinity incursions above the
Page 146 and 147: DRAFT Figure 5-3. A - D. Box and wh
Page 148 and 149: DRAFT The results of the vertical p
Page 150 and 151: DRAFT Sulphur Springs < 33 cfs, Hil
Page 152 and 153: DRAFT Other breakpoints in the data
Page 154 and 155: DRAFT 40 Percent of Observations -
Page 156 and 157: DRAFT It is possible that infrequen
Page 158 and 159: DRAFT The effects of tide stage on
Page 160 and 161: DRAFT medians rise to near -0.2 fee
Page 162 and 163: DRAFT Sulphur Springs < 33 cfs, Hil
Page 164 and 165: DRAFT Sulphur Springs on salinity d
Page 166 and 167: 7 29 DRAFT Elevation (m) 0/0cfs 1 0
Page 168 and 169: 23 24 24 25 25 29 DRAFT Figures 14,
Page 170 and 171: DRAFT Viewed strictly from the infl
Page 172 and 173: DRAFT water removed would fluctuate
Page 174 and 175: DRAFT euryhaline, there were also m
Page 178 and 179: DRAFT the intent of that condition
Page 180 and 181: DRAFT included inflows to the model
Page 182 and 183: DRAFT Flows for Sulphur Springs wer
Page 184 and 185: DRAFT ∆T represents the differenc
Page 186 and 187: DRAFT Figure 25 Temp (C) 22 Histori
Page 188 and 189: DRAFT Figure 26 Temp (C) 24 22 Hist
Page 190 and 191: DRAFT Similar to the coldest period
Page 192 and 193: DRAFT 5.7. Consideration of future
Page 194 and 195: DRAFT Culter, J. 1986. Benthic Inve
Page 196 and 197: DRAFT Shafland, P. L. and K. J. Foo
Page 199 and 200: APPENDIX A (from Chapter 2) Time se
Page 201 and 202: Sulphur Springs Water Quality 1991-
Page 209: Sulphur Springs Water Quality 1991-
Page 213 and 214: Appendix B. Presence of macroinvert
Page 215 and 216: Appendix B. Presence of macroinvert
Page 217: Appendix B. Presence of macroinvert
Page 220 and 221: Appendix C. Percent composition of
Page 222 and 223: Appendix C. Percent composition of
Page 225 and 226: APPENDIX D (from Chapter 3) Percent
Page 227 and 228:
APPENDIX D. Percent composition of
Page 229 and 230:
APPENDIX D. Percent composition of
Page 231 and 232:
APPENDIX E (from Chapter 3) Abundan
Page 233 and 234:
BARE SAND FILAMENTOUS ALGAE COMBINE
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239:
Page 242 and 243:
APPENDIX F - HILLSBOROUGH RIVER TEM
Page 244 and 245:
Appendix G Daily values for mean, m
Page 247:
APPENDIX H (from Chapter 5) Time se
Page 253:
Experiment Number 6
Page 257 and 258:
Appendix I Daily values for minimum
Page 259 and 260:
28FEB2000 9.8 0.0 1.9 9.7 7.8 . 18.
Page 261 and 262:
12FEB2001 14.0 3.5 1.7 4.6 2.9 1.1
Page 263:
----------------------------------
show all

The Determination of Minimum Flows for Sulphur Springs, Tampa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?