DOCSLIB.ORG

Minimum Flows and Minimum Water Levels Re-Evaluation for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and Priority Springs Peer Review Resolution Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minimum Flows and Minimum Water Levels Re-Evaluation for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and Priority Springs Peer Review Resolution Document MINIMUM FLOWS AND MINIMUM WATER LEVELS RE-EVALUATION FOR THE LOWER SANTA FE AND ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS AND PRIORITY SPRINGS PEER REVIEW RESOLUTION DOCUMENT FINAL DECEMBER 2020 Prepared for: Suwannee River Water Management District 9225 County Road 49 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Prepared by: 15711 Mapledale Blvd, Suite B Tampa, Florida 33624 ADA Statement Americans with Disabilities Act: The District does not discriminate upon the basis of any individual’s disability status. This nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District’s functions including one’s access to, participation, employment, or treatment in its programs or activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District at 386.362.1001 or 800.226.1066 (Florida only). The District’s fax number is 386.362.1056. Peer Review and Public Resolution Document CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Response Summary ................................................................................................................................... 5 Section 1. Responses to Recommended Actions .......................................................................................... 8 Section 2. Specific Comments and Responses Table .................................................................................. 22 Attachment A. Infilling and Record Extension for USGS gage at US411. Attachment B. Environmental Flow Assessment Methods Attachment C. Event Approach Demonstration/Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) i Peer Review and Public Resolution Document Executive Summary Chapter 373 F.S. and 62-40 F.A.C. provide the policy framework and authority for the Suwannee River Water Management District (District) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to set Minimum Flows and Minimum Water Levels (MFLs). Rule 62-42.300, F.A.C. (Minimum Flows and Levels and Recovery and Prevention Strategies) initially established MFLs for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers (LSFI) and associated priority springs in accordance with Section 373.042, F.S. Pursuant to Rule 62-42.300(1)(e), a re-evaluation of the MFLs was completed in December of 2019. The District initiated Peer Review of the Draft MFL Report titled “Minimum Flows and Minimum Water Levels Re-Evaluation for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and Priority Springs” in December of 2019 (SRWMD, 2019). During the peer review process, the District also received comments from stakeholders. Both the Peer Review Panel (PRP) Report (Dunn, 2020) and the various stakeholder submissions are on file at the District. The primary purpose of this Resolution Document is to provide the District’s response to the PRP Report. The District will respond to stakeholder comments separately. A secondary purpose of this Resolution Document is to compare the fundamental differences between the technical evaluations reported in 2013 (SRWMD, 2013b) and 2019 (SRWMD, 2019) and to discuss these differences in the context of water management. The District has evaluated comments and used the best information available as directed by Florida Statute 373.042(1)(b). The District received many constructive comments, recommendations, and suggestions from the reviewers which, to the extent feasible and warranted, were incorporated into the final MFL Report. As required by Florida Statute 373.042(6)(b), significant consideration was given to the recommendations of the Final Peer Review Panel report in finalization of the MFL Report. The PRP Chair called for a complete MFL re-evaluation based on the magnitude-duration-return inter (MDR) Event Approach. Furthermore, assertions that the literature review should be updated to include a “state of science and practices” imply that the District team is somehow deficient in its knowledge of the various approaches that can be used to evaluated MFLs. The District respectfully disagrees on both items. The Chair’s Summary of the Panels’ Findings and Recommendations identifies other topics that are inferred in the re-evaluation MFL report but not explicitly discussed (e.g., Managing Uncertainty and Adaptive Management) or are not related to withdrawals (e.g., climate change). The District team agrees that these topics are important and exemplify challenges that stakeholders, and the District, will continue to consider when conducting water resource planning and water supply evaluations. Substantial responses to the PRP comments regarding those topics are provided herein. The MFL re-evaluation is a substantive demonstration of adaptive management in which the original MFL’s analysis was completed (SRWMD, 2013b) pursuant to the Florida Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (DOAH, 2014) and then further expanded to: a) create a Reference Timeframe Flow (RTF) baseline record through Water Year (WY) 2015 using the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater (NFSWG) Flow Model to adjust 1 Peer Review and Public Resolution Document upward the historical flow records for groundwater withdrawal impacts on flow in contrast to the 2013 LSF MFL assessment for which a pre-1991 time period was used as the baseline flow record, b) utilize an expanded instream habitat evaluation using a more robust modeling software, the System for Environmental Flow Analysis (SEFA), and c) apply justifiable flow proportioning methods to evaluate MFLs for the Priority Springs and LSFR upstream of US441 that currently lack sufficient data for more quantitative assessment. The District asserts that the current Draft MFL Report should be appraised within these re-evaluation requirements and improvements. It was not the Districts’ objective to revisit methods that were deliberated in the previous review and hearing process, and resulted in the current MFLs Rule 62- 42.300, F.A.C. The District approach for its river system MFL evaluations has been two-pronged – 1) to use a cumulative frequency method for relatively high flows, developed by authors formerly with the SWFWMD (Munson & Delfino, 2007), and 2) to perform in-stream habitat modeling (e.g., SEFA), a method for low to moderately high flows that evaluates the change in in-stream suitable habitat area for various aquatic species and life stages. The District utilizes a top-down approach that requires identifying a baseline condition presumed to be unimpacted by withdrawals (i.e., RTF) from which some water is available for withdrawal. The District did not contemplate changing its approach for the re- evaluation of the LSFI MFL. Of key importance, is that the current District evaluation is consistent with and supported by the Event Approach and Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) demonstrations described in this response document. The District is committed to developing scientifically based MFLs to prevent significant harm to the LSFI natural resources caused by withdrawals, and to ensure current and future water availability. The District acknowledges that differences of opinion may arise regarding various methods of analysis, which are not defined by the MFL statute. However, the cumulative frequency method and 15%-change criterion are the basis for far more MFLs adopted in the State of Florida than any other method, including the Event Approach promoted by the PRP Chair. The 15%-change criterion when applied to the change in frequency of higher flows and the change in viable instream habitat is a conservative approach that yields an allowable withdrawal of less than 8% from the median Reference Timeframe Flow (RTF) and not the historical flow. Literature documenting case studies of environmental flow assessments performed worldwide (Richter, Davis, Apse, & Konrad, 2011), associate the following tiers of protection of natural ecosystem structure and function, based on percent-of-flow reductions and risk tolerance of adverse environmental change, as a presumptive standard “… intended for application only where detailed scientific assessments of environmental flow needs cannot be undertaken in the near term.” • < 10% – high level of protection, low risk • 10-20% – moderate level of protection, moderate risk • 20% – low protection, high risk Using this standard applied to RTF values, the percent reductions associated with the proposed MFLs at high to median LSFI flows would be low risk and afford a high level of protection. During low-flow 2 Peer Review and Public Resolution Document conditions, the percent RTF reduction could temporarily exceed the 10% presumptive threshold; however, low flow WRVs are evaluated using in-stream habitat metrics. The 15% presumptive criterion is continually being vetted. It is widely used as a significant harm criterion in setting MFLs in Florida, and therefore is built into studies re-evaluating habitat condition, permitting, and recovery strategies – in other words, adaptive management. The realities and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1955
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 382 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1955 PART 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 382 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PART 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS By P. R. Speer and A. B. Goodwin Washington, D. C., 1956 Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PAET 2. SOUTH ATLANTIC SLOPE AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO BASINS By P. R Speer and A. B. Goodwin EXPLANATION This index lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the South Atlantic slope and Eastern Gulf of Mexico basins for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods prior to September 30, 1955. Periods of record for the same station published by other agencies are listed only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in publications of the Geological Survey. The stations are listed in the downstream order first adopted for use in the 1951 series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply of the United States. Starting at the headwater of each stream all stations are listed in a downstream direction. Tributary streams are indicated by indention and are inserted between main-stem stations in the order in which they enter the main stream. To indicate the rank of any tributary on which a record is available and the stream to which it is immediately tributary, each indention in the listing of stations represents one rank.
    [Show full text]
  • AEG-ANR House Offer #1
    Conference Committee on Senate Agriculture, Environment, and General Government Appropriations/ House Agriculture & Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee House Offer #1 Budget Spreadsheet Proviso and Back of the Bill Implementing Bill Saturday, April 17, 2021 7:00PM 412 Knott Building Conference Spreadsheet AGENCY House Offer #1 SB 2500 Row# ISSUE CODE ISSUE TITLE FTE RATE REC GR NR GR LATF NR LATF OTHER TFs ALL FUNDS FTE RATE REC GR NR GR LATF NR LATF OTHER TFs ALL FUNDS Row# 1 AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVICES 1 2 1100001 Startup (OPERATING) 3,740.25 162,967,107 103,601,926 102,876,093 1,471,917,888 1,678,395,907 3,740.25 162,967,107 103,601,926 102,876,093 1,471,917,888 1,678,395,907 2 1601280 4,340,000 4,340,000 4,340,000 4,340,000 Continuation of Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment Dacs- 3 - - - - 3 037/Eog-B0514 Increase In the Division of Licensing 1601700 Continuation of Budget Amendment Dacs-20/Eog #B0346 - 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 4 - - - - 4 Additional Federal Grants Trust Fund Authority 5 2401000 Replacement Equipment - - 6,583,594 6,583,594 - - 2,624,950 2,000,000 4,624,950 5 6 2401500 Replacement of Motor Vehicles - - 67,186 2,789,014 2,856,200 - - 1,505,960 1,505,960 6 6a 2402500 Replacement of Vessels - - 54,000 54,000 - - - 6a 7 2503080 Direct Billing for Administrative Hearings - - (489) (489) - - (489) (489) 7 33N0001 (4,624,909) (4,624,909) 8 Redirect Recurring Appropriations to Non-Recurring - Deduct (4,624,909) - (4,624,909) - 8 33N0002 4,624,909 4,624,909 9 Redirect Recurring Appropriations to Non-Recurring
    [Show full text]
  • Pasco County Bridge Inventory Number Bridge Name Road Jurisdiction District Year Built Reconstruction Date Sufficiency Rating He
    Pasco County Bridge Inventory Year Reconstruction Sufficiency Health Inspection Number Bridge Name Road Jurisdiction District Built Date Rating Index Date ADT Ave Age 140003 Gowers Corner Creek US 41 (SR 45) FDOT 2 1938 1989 89.3 99.47 2/26/2015 10,100 27 140004 Scotts Big D Creek US 41 (SR 45) FDOT 1 1939 64.3 99.42 2/19/2015 10,100 77 140005 Pithlachascotee River US 19 (SR 55) FDOT 5 1970 1984 89.9 99.53 2/26/2015 54,000 32 140006 Interstate 75 Blanton Rd (CR 41) FDOT 1 1966 77.6 99.49 1/21/2015 5,000 50 140009 Hillsborough River CR 54 County 1 1962 87.3 90.05 2/24/2016 2,200 54 140013 Cabbage Swamp Wesley Chapel Blvd (CR 54) County 2 1963 1995 90.0 73.35 2/16/2017 59,500 22 140014 New River SR 54 FDOT 2 1957 85.0 74.72 2/25/2015 26,500 59 140017 Buckhorn Creek Relief SR 52 FDOT 5 1968 1998 69.8 68.99 2/18/2015 24,000 18 140018 Pithlachascotee River SR 52 FDOT 5 1968 84.3 70.47 2/18/2015 20,500 48 140019 Gowers Corner Creek SR 52 FDOT 3 1962 93.4 70.11 2/18/2015 10,900 54 140020 South Branch Anclote River SR 54 FDOT 3 2004 76.1 69.04 2/17/2015 17,600 12 140021 Pithlachascotee River Main St (NPR) County 4 1967 69.8 74.40 2/23/2016 10,000 49 140022 Bayou Branch SR 52 FDOT 2 1951 1998 95.5 62.40 2/24/2015 14,000 18 140024 Hillsborough River US 98 (SR 700) FDOT 1 1951 1995 98.1 59.48 2/12/2015 4,100 21 140025 CSX US 98 (SR 700) FDOT 1 1951 1995 88.5 95.26 2/25/2015 4,100 21 140028 Canal C-534 US 41 (SR 45) FDOT 1 1969 85.5 97.41 2/19/2015 10,100 47 140029 Bayonet Point Drain US 19 (SR 55) FDOT 5 1970 72.9 85.98 2/18/2015 49,500 46 140030
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity Tolerances for the Major Biotic Components Within the Anclote River and Anchorage and Nearby Coastal Waters
    Salinity Tolerances for the Major Biotic Components within the Anclote River and Anchorage and Nearby Coastal Waters October 2003 Prepared for: Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Prepared by: Janicki Environmental, Inc. 1155 Eden Isle Dr. N.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 For Information Regarding this Document Please Contact Tampa Bay Water - 2535 Landmark Drive - Clearwater, Florida Anclote Salinity Tolerances October 2003 FOREWORD This report was completed under a subcontract to PB Water and funded by Tampa Bay Water. i Anclote Salinity Tolerances October 2003 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The comments and direction of Mike Coates, Tampa Bay Water, and Donna Hoke, PB Water, were vital to the completion of this effort. The authors would like to acknowledge the following persons who contributed to this work: Anthony J. Janicki, Raymond Pribble, and Heidi L. Crevison, Janicki Environmental, Inc. ii Anclote Salinity Tolerances October 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Seawater desalination plays a major role in Tampa Bay Water’s Master Water Plan. At this time, two seawater desalination plants are envisioned. One is currently in operation producing up to 25 MGD near Big Bend on Tampa Bay. A second plant is conceptualized near the mouth of the Anclote River in Pasco County, with a 9 to 25 MGD capacity, and is currently in the design phase. The Tampa Bay Water desalination plant at Big Bend on Tampa Bay utilizes a reverse osmosis process to remove salt from seawater, yielding drinking water. That same process is under consideration for the facilities Tampa Bay Water has under design near the Anclote River.
    [Show full text]
  • A Percent-Of-Flow Approach for Managing Reductions of Freshwater Inflows from Impounded Rivers to Southwest Florida Estuaries
    M.S. Flannery et al. Management approach for unimpounded rivers A PERCENT-OF-FLOW APPROACH FOR MANAGING REDUCTIONS OF FRESHWATER INFLOWS FROM UNIMPOUNDED RIVERS TO SOUTHWEST FLORIDA ESTUARIES Michael S. Flannery1 Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad St. Brooksville, Florida 34604 Tel: 352-796-7211 Fax: 352-797-5806 email:[email protected] Ernst B. Peebles, Ph.D. University of South Florida, College of Marine Science 140 Seventh Ave. S. St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Tel: 727-553-3983 Fax: 727-553-1189 email: [email protected] Ralph T. Montgomery, Ph.D. PBS&J, Inc. 5300 West Cypress St., Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33606 Tel: 813-282- 7275 Fax: 813-287-1745 email: [email protected] 1 Corresponding author Flannery, Peebles, and Montgomery; Page 1 ABSTRACT: Based on a series of studies of the freshwater inflow relationships of estuaries in the region, the Southwest Florida Water Management District has implemented a management approach for unimpounded rivers that limits withdrawals to a percentage of streamflow at the time of withdrawal. The natural flow regime of the contributing river is considered to be the baseline for assessing the effects of withdrawals. Development of the percent-of-flow approach has emphasized the interaction of freshwater inflow with the overlap of stationary and dynamic habitat components in tidal river zones of larger estuarine systems. Since the responses of key estuarine characteristics (e.g., isohaline locations, residence times) to freshwater inflow are frequently nonlinear, the approach is designed to prevent impacts to estuarine resources during sensitive low-inflow periods and to allow water supplies to become gradually more available as inflows increase.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods in Florida Magnitude and Frequency
    UNITED STATES EPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR- ., / GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLOODS IN FLORIDA MAGNITUDE AND FREQUENCY By R.W. Pride Prepared in cooperation with Florida State Road Department Open-file report 1958 MAR 2 CONTENTS Page Introduction. ........................................... 1 Acknowledgements ....................................... 1 Description of the area ..................................... 1 Topography ......................................... 2 Coastal Lowlands ..................................... 2 Central Highlands ..................................... 2 Tallahassee Hills ..................................... 2 Marianna Lowlands .................................... 2 Western Highlands. .................................... 3 Drainage basins ....................................... 3 St. Marys River. ......_.............................. 3 St. Johns River ...................................... 3 Lake Okeechobee and the everglades. ............................ 3 Peace River ....................................... 3 Withlacoochee River. ................................... 3 Suwannee River ...................................... 3 Ochlockonee River. .................................... 5 Apalachicola River .................................... 5 Choctawhatchee, Yellow, Blackwater, Escambia, and Perdido Rivers. ............. 5 Climate. .......................................... 5 Flood records ......................................... 6 Method of flood-frequency analysis ................................. 9 Flood frequency at a gaging
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Minimum Flows for the Pithlachascotee River - Revised Draft Report for Peer Review
    Proposed Minimum Flows for the Pithlachascotee River - Revised Draft Report for Peer Review August 29, 2016 1 Proposed Minimum Flows for the Pithlachascotee River - Revised Draft Report for Peer Review August 29, 2016 Doug Leeper, Gabriel Herrick, Ron Basso, Mike Heyl, Yonas Ghile Southwest Florida Water Management District Brooksville Florida and Michael Flannery, Tammy Hinkle, Jason Hood and Gary Williams, Ph.D. Formerly with the Southwest Florida Water Management District With contributions by HDR Engineering, Inc. Tampa, Florida The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District’s functions, including access to and participation in the District’s programs and activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District’s Human Resources Bureau Chief, 2379 Broad St., Brooksville, FL 34604-6899; telephone (352) 796- 7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only), ext. 4703; or email [email protected]. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the agency using the Florida Relay Service, 1-800-955- 8771 (TDD) or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice). 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 5 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Minimum Flows for the Homosassa River System
    Recommended Minimum Flows for the Homosassa River System October 30, 2012 Douglas A. Leeper, Michael S. Flannery, Michael G. Heyl, Ron Basso Southwest Florida Water Management District Brooksville, Florida and Marty Kelly Formerly with the Southwest Florida Water Management District with contributions by HSW Engineering, Inc. Tampa, Florida Recommended Minimum Flows for the Homosassa River System October 30, 2012 Douglas A. Leeper, Michael S. Flannery, Michael G.Heyl, Ron Basso Southwest Florida Water Management District Brooksville, Florida and Marty Kelly Formerly with the Southwest Florida Water Management District with contributions by HSW Engineering, Inc. Tampa, Florida The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate upon the basis of any individual‟s disability status. This non-discriminatory policy involves every aspect of the District‟s functions, including one‟s access to, participation, employment, or treatment in its programs or activities. Anyone requiring accommodation as provided for in the American with Disabilities Act should contact (352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476, extension 4215; TDD ONLY 1-800-231-6103; FAX (352) 754-6749. On the Cover: Aerial photograph of the Homosassa Main Springs pool and upper portion of the Homosassa River in 2001 (Southwest Florida Water Management District files). Page 1 Table of Contents Page Title Page .................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Waters
    Florida A Water Resources Manual from Florida’s Water Management Districts Credits Author Elizabeth D. Purdum Institute of Science and Public Affairs Florida State University Cartographer Peter A. Krafft Institute of Science and Public Affairs Florida State University Graphic Layout and Design Jim Anderson, Florida State University Pati Twardosky, Southwest Florida Water Management District Project Manager Beth Bartos, Southwest Florida Water Management District Project Coordinators Sally McPherson, South Florida Water Management District Georgann Penson, Northwest Florida Water Management District Eileen Tramontana, St. Johns River Water Management District For more information or to request additional copies, contact the following water management districts: Northwest Florida Water Management District 850-539-5999 www.state.fl.us/nwfwmd St. Johns River Water Management District 800-451-7106 www.sjrwmd.com South Florida Water Management District 800-432-2045 www.sfwmd.gov Southwest Florida Water Management District 800-423-1476 www.WaterMatters.org Suwannee River Water Management District 800-226-1066 www.mysuwanneeriver.com April 2002 The water management districts do not discriminate upon the basis of any individual’s disability status. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation under the ADA should contact the Communications and Community Affairs Department of the Southwest Florida Water Management District at (352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (Florida only), extension 4757; TDD only 1-800-231-6103 (Florida only). Contents CHAPTER 1
    [Show full text]
  • The Assessments of Measures to Protect Wildlife Habitat in Pasco County Report
    Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Natural Resource Protection: Scientific Basis 1 1.1.1 Overview 1 1.1.2 Conservation Biology 1 1.1.3 Core Areas 2 1.1.4 Buffer Zones 2 1.1.5 Habitat Connectivity (Landscape Linkages) 3 1.1.6 Effects of Fragmentation 4 1.1.7 Methods of Implementing Regional Conservation Planning 4 1.1.8 Local Conservation Initiatives 4 1.2 Natural Resource Protection: Existing Regulations and Policies 5 1.2.1 State Wetland Regulations 5 1.2.2 Federal Wetland Regulations 5 1.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 7 1.2.4 Pasco County 7 2.0 Identifying Regional Wildlife Linkages 7 2.1 Data Compilation 8 2.1.1 Biodiversity Hotspots 8 2.1.2 Hydrography 8 2.1.3 Digital Ortho Quarter Quadrangle Aerial Photography 8 2.1.4 Public / Conservation Lands 8 2.1.5 Historic Land Use 15 2.2 Field Work 15 2.2.1 Groundtruthing 15 2.2.2 Helicopter Over Flight 15 2.3 Data Analysis 15 2.3.1 Critical Linkages 15 2.3.2 Ecological Planning Units 17 2.4 Results 19 2.4.1 Critical Linkages 19 2.4.1.1 North Pasco to Crossbar 20 2.4.1.2 Crossbar to Connerton 20 2.4.1.3 North Pasco to Connerton 20 2.4.1.4 Cypress Creek to Connerton 20 2.4.1.5 Starkey to South Pasco 21 2.4.1.6 Cypress Creek to Cypress Bridge 21 2.4.1.7 Hillsborough River to Green Swamp 21 2.4.2 Ecological Planning Units and the Agricultural Reserve 21 2.4.2.1 Coastal Marshes 24 2.4.2.2 Hernando Sandhills 24 2.4.2.3 Pithlachascotee / Anclote Watersheds 24 2.4.2.4 Starkey / Hillsborough Linkage 28 2.4.2.5 Crossbar Sandhills 28 2.4.2.6 Cypress Creek 28 2.4.2.7
    [Show full text]
  • And Anclote River
    Final Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dissolved Oxygen in Hollin Creek (WBID 1475) and Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in Anclote River Bayou Complex (Spring Bayou) (WBID 1440A) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved Oxygen, and Nutrients in Anclote River (WBIDs 1440 & 1440F) July 2013 Final TMDL: Anclote River July 2013 In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C §1251 et. seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 400-4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is hereby establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients in the Springs Coast Basin (WBIDs 1475, 1440A, 1440, 1440F). Subsequent actions must be consistent with this TMDL. _____________/s/_____________________________ __7/7/2013__ James D. Giattina, Director Date Water Protection Division 2 Final TMDL: Anclote River July 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION ............................................................................................................ 2 3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 3 3.1 CLIMATE .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Management a Comprehensive Approach to Managing Water Resources in the Southwest Florida Water Managment District
    Southwest Florida Water Management District Watershed Management A Comprehensive Approach to Managing Water Resources in the Southwest Florida Water Management District What Is a Watershed? The term “watershed” is central to any discussion of watershed management, but the word is often misunderstood. A watershed is an area of land that water flows across as it moves toward a common body of water, such as a stream, lake or coast. This definition is based on a concept with which everyone is familiar: “Water runs downhill.” Although Florida’s changes in elevation are often subtle, they do affect water flow and determine watershed boundaries. Water within a specific watershed will move from higher land to the lowest point within the area. Watersheds may be as small as a portion of a yard draining into a mud puddle or as large as the Mississippi River Basin, which drains 1.2 million square miles. We all live in a watershed. Watersheds are where we live, work and play. A watershed includes not only natural elements like ponds, soils, vegetation and animals, but also things associated with people like houses, businesses, roads and farms. What you and others do on the land impacts the quality of water and other natural resources. Find Your Watershed See the Environmental Protection Agency’s web site “Surf Your Watershed” at www.epa.gov/surf/. Southwest Florida Water Management District What Is a Watershed Comprehensive Watershed Management Initiative Management Approach? Major Watersheds In 1994, as part of its watershed A watershed management approach is one that Typical Watershed 1 Withlacoochee River management approach, the District considers the watershed as a whole, rather than 2 Springs Coast established the Comprehensive separate parts of the watershed in isolation.
    [Show full text]