The Determination of Minimum Flows for Sulphur Springs, Tampa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DRAFT ∆T represents the difference between the baseline temperature and the rerouting/removal scenario temperature, so that a negative value for ∆T denotes lower temperature for the rerouting/removal scenario than for the baseline scenario. Table 5-6. Predicted mean temperature (°C), and changes from baseline, for all scenarios in the river cell at the mouth of Sulphur Springs. Scenario “Thermal Refuge” ∆T “Coldest” ∆T Historic Baseline 20.1 13.0 A 20.1 0.0 12.6 - 0.4 B 19.9 - 0.2 12.4 - 0.6 C 19.7 - 0.4 12.3 - 0.7 All of the scenarios meet the threshold of a maximum –2.0 o C difference in mean water column temperatures for the simulation periods. The temperature difference for scenario A, or the 18 cfs minimum flow for routine operation, is zero for the recent "thermal refuge" period while the difference for the coldest period is only 0.4 o C. Reducing the flow to the spring run to 13 or 10 cfs increases the temperature differences from the baseline, but they do not exceed 0.7 o C in all cases. 5.5.7 Cumulative distributions of water temperatures Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for predicted hourly temperatures show the frequency of occurrence of temperatures in the cell at the mouth of Sulphur Springs over all vertical layers (Figures 5-24 and 5-25). Figure 5-24 includes CDFs for the coldest period simulations while Figure 5-25 shows CDFs for the thermal refuge period. In both Figures, curves for the minimum flow scenarios are overlain over the curve for the historic baseline for comparison. CDFs for the coldest period simulation show that even the historic baseline would not have kept mean water column temperatures above 15 o C, and manatees would have probably left the area to find warmer water. For the coldest half of these simulations (percentiles below the median) there was very little difference in the frequency of temperature values for the baseline and any of the minimum flow scenarios. During the warmer half of the observations (percentiles above 50), the maximum difference between any of the percentile values is about 1.3 o C for scenario A (18 cfs); 1.8 o C for scenario B (13 cfs); and 2.5 o C for scenario C (10 cfs). It is reiterated that scenario C is not a recommended minimum flow, and that 10 cfs would only be in effect during very low tide stages that occur about a quarter of the time. CDF plots for the thermal refuge period (Figure 5-25) show warmer water temperatures in general, as water temperatures do not go below 17.4 o C in any case. In contrast to the coldest period scenarios, differences in percentile values are greatest for the lower temperatures in these simulations. The greatest difference in percentile values is about 1.4 o C between the historic simulation and scenario C. 5 - 44
DRAFT Figure Temp 24 (C) Sulphur Springs Minimum Flow - Coldest Period Cell at Mouth of Spring Historic Scenario and Scenario A Temp (C) Sulphur Springs Minimum Flow - Coldest Period Cell at Mouth of Spring Historic Scenario and Scenario B 24 Historic Scenario A 24 Historic Scenario B 22 22 20 20 18 18 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentile Temp (C) 24 22 Historic Scenario C Sulphur Springs Minimum Flow - Coldest Period Cell at Mouth of Spring Historic Scenario and Scenario C 20 18 16 14 12 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentile Figure 5-24. Cumulative distribution plots of water temperatures in the river cell near the mouth of the spring for the baseline and flow scenarios A, B, and C in the coldest period simulations. 5 - 45
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 176 and 177: DRAFT 01/90 01/93 01/96 01/99 01/02
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 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:
BARE SAND FILAMENTOUS ALGAE COMBINE
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?