The Determination of Minimum Flows for Sulphur Springs, Tampa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DRAFT Figure 3-11. Time series of percent of daily gaged inflow to the lower river comprised by flow from Sulphur Springs. Table 3-4. Percent of days that proportions of total gaged flow to the lower river are exceeded by flows from Sulphur Springs. Example: for 60 percent of the time, flow from Sulphur Springs exceeds 39.2 percent of the total gaged flow to the Lower Hillsborough River. Percent of time exceeded % of total gaged flow 99 0 90 3.7 80 9.1 70 18.6 60 39.2 50 89.4 40 97.3 30 99.3 20 99.6 10 99.7 1 100 3 - 30
DRAFT 3.9.2 The effects of flows from Sulphur Springs on salinity distributions in the Lower Hillsborough River The relationships of freshwater inflows from the reservoir and Sulphur Springs to the water quality and ecology of the Lower Hillsborough River has been the subject of considerable study, including previously published reports and ongoing data collection efforts. A study of the relationships of freshwater flows to the Hillsborough River was published in 1995 as a condition of the renewal of the City of Tampa's Water User Permit for withdrawals from the reservoir and Sulphur Springs (WAR/SDI 1995). In the late 1990s, the District conducted data analyses to support the establishment of minimum flows for the Lower Hillsborough River at the base of the dam (SWFWMD1999). As part of this process, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) facilitated a minimum flows technical advisory group to recommended to the District water resource and ecological criteria necessary to establish minimum flows at that location. The advisory group concluded that salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations were key water quality parameters on which the determination of minimum flows should focus. The TBEP also managed a contract with Coastal Environmental to consolidate previously collected data for the river and develop statistical models to predict salinity distributions and dissolved oxygen concentrations as a function of inflow from the dam and Sulphur Springs (Coastal Environmental 1997). In January 2000, the District established a minimum flow of 10 cfs for the Lower Hillsborough River near the base of the dam. As described in Section 2.3.1, this rule stipulated that alternate sources, including water diverted from Sulphur Springs, could be used to provide this minimum flow. The minimum flow for the Lower Hillsborough River was reviewed by a scientific review panel, which recommended that additional studies be undertaken to improve the understanding of the response of the river to freshwater inflows (Montagna et al. 1999). Accordingly, the adopted rule also stipulated that the minimum flow would be re-evaluated by 2005, with new studies conducted to evaluate the effects freshwater flows up to and above 35 cfs have on the lower river. Those studies are now underway. Ongoing data collection on the river is also being conducted as part of monitoring programs conducted by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPCHC) and Tampa Bay Water, a Regional Water Supply Authority. The water quality data collection by the EPCHC is longstanding, with records at three fixed location sites in the river dating back to the 1970s. Vertical profiles of salinity, dissolved oxygen, and other in situ parameters are also taken by the County at a much large number of stations as part of their Hillsborough Independent Monitoring Program (HIMP). The effort by Tampa Bay Water is part of an extensive Hydrobiological Monitoring Program (HBMP) that is required by their Water Use Permit to withdraw water from the Hillsborough River when flows at the dam exceed 100 cfs. Using a stratified random design, the HBMP has involved extensive water quality and biological 3 - 31
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: DRAFT . 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0
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 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 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209:
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix B. Presence of macroinvert
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?