.. r rr;R f -
4. _- .",
.* : ; :
HAZEN'AND SAWYER d .
Environmental Engineers & Scientists I5
H2HL
SCH2MHILL .
1 ., .' I.
C 2 MHI 4? *..
,, ,..
:,,,' -, .I. ;.
.. : -
A.AL
uA ER]
HAZEMNISMW
CH2MHILL
Tampa Bay Water
Drought Mitigation Plan
December 2001
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the drought mitigation plan (DMP) is to identify and simplify specific
actions that will be taken during periods of hydrologic drought and corresponding water
supply shortfalls. The plan outlines when various levels of water supply shortage occur and
identifies the actions to be taken.
This plan differs from historical water shortage approaches used by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD) by including hydrologic triggers associated with
specific demand management and supply augmentation actions. This approach aids in
communication and credibility with the public through consistent and defined triggers and
actions.
As new water supply sources are brought online and operational experience with the
enhanced surface water system (ESWS) increases, the DMP will need to be recalibrated.
The plan is designed to allow triggers and actions to be modified as needed.
Triggers and Actions
Table ES-1 summarizes the recommended triggers and actions. The plan is designed for
water supply conditions beginning in January 2003, when production from the
Consolidated Permit wellfields is reduced to the regulatory limit of 121 million gallons per
day (mgd) and all System Configuration I supplies except the regional reservoir are online.
However, the rainfall-deficit-based triggers and demand management and supply
augmentation actions can be implemented at any time following Board approval of the plan.
Rainfall-deficit based triggers were established by a detailed analysis of historical rainfall
and corresponding river flows in the tri-county region. A 12-month rolling cumulative
rainfall (RCRF) deficit was selected to lessen the effects of seasonal rainfall variations. The
analysis showed a significant reduction in surface water flows of the Hillsborough River
and Alafia River when the regional RCRF deficit exceeded 10 inches. The 10-inch deficit
level was selected as the initial trigger of the DMP and defined as Level I (drought alert).
As shown in Table ES-1, two other levels of drought were defined: Level II (water shortage),
and Level III (water supply crisis). These levels are directly linked to supply availability
during hydrologically-stressed periods. Actions corresponding to each drought level are
also shown in Table ES-1.
Reservoir-based triggers were established by a detailed analysis of the proposed ESWS.
Historical RCRF deficits were compared to ESWS flows and allowable withdrawals to
simulate reservoir conditions under varying hydrologic conditions. Reservoir-based triggers
were then selected corresponding to reservoir stages for 90 and 30 days of remaining
supply. At 90 days of remaining supply (Level II water shortage) the DMP recommends
activating the Morris Bridge Sink as the supply augmentation action. With 30 days of supply
remaining (Level III water crisis) the DMP recommends temporary use of the groundwater
resource and existing infrastructure to avoid construction of costly new supplies, which
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC i
DECEMBER 6,2001
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
would only be needed during very infrequent conditions. Based on the hydrologic period
(1977-2001) used in this analysis, a Level III water crisis has occurred once.
The recommended DMP includes rainfall-based and reservoir-based triggers, demand
management actions, and supply augmentation. A proactive plan such as this will provide
Tampa Bay Water with an operational tool to meet its water supply obligations in times of
water supply shortages due to hydrologic drought conditions.
TABLE ES-1
Drought Mitigation Plan Triggers and Actions
I.
Drought Alert
RCRF Deficit 10"
RCRF Deficit 5"
Demand
Management
Initiate public
messaging and
Increase effective-
ness of 2 day per
week lawn watering
restrictions
(e g enforcement)
Supply
Augmentation
II. 6 month average RCRF Deficit 10" 1 day per week Morris Bridge Sink On
Water Shortage RCRF Deficit 10" lawn watering Approximately 15 mgd
restrictions
or or
Reservoir Elev < 102' Reservoir Elev > 109'
(90 days of supply) (120 days of supply)
III. At Water shortage for 6 month average Members Optimize all supplies to
Water Supply 12 months RCRF Deficit 10" implement options meet demand,
Crisis for measurable including temporary
or or demand reduction exceedance of
Consolidated
Reservoir Elev < 87' Reservoir Elev >102' Wellfields Permit
(30 days of supply) (90 days of supply)
Note RCRF =12 month rolling cumulative rainfall deficit
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
Contents
Section Page
E xecu tiv e Su m m ary ................................................................................................ ............................ iii
Purpose of a Drought M litigation Plan................................................................................................. 1
1. B background and Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
2 P project O bjecti v es................................ ......... .......................................................................... 2
3. Drought Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee (DMP TAC)....................... 2
4 P project A p p ro ach ........................................................................................................................... 3
5. Phase I Drought Mitigation Plan Development................................... ....................... 4
5.1 P hase I T riggers ................................................. ............. .. .................................. 4
5.2 Conceptual Phase I Drought Mitigation Process and Plan........................................ 6
5.3 P hase I C conclusions ...................................................... ........................ ................ 8
6. Phase II Drought Mitigation Plan Development............................................... 9
6.1 D ata A naly sis ............................................................................... ........................ 9
6.2 Conclusion ..................................................... 10
6.3 Im p acts on Su pp ly ..................................................................... ......... ............... 10
6.4 Development of Recommended Triggers .................................. .............. 12
7. Supply A ugm entation O ptions.............................................................. ........................ 14
8. D em and M anagem ent A actions .............................................................. ........................ 15
9. C om m unications Strategy .................................................. ............................................ 15
10. D brought M litigation Process and Plan................................................... .............................. 17
Appendix A
List of Figures
Number Page
1 Phase I Relationship Between Level of Drought and Possible Mitigation Actions.............. 7
2 Tampa Bay Water Supply Capacities Beginning January 2003.......................................... 11
3 D brought M litigation D decision Process..................................................... .............................. 18
List of Tables
Number Page
ES-1 Drought Mitigation Plan: Triggers and Actions...................................................................iv
1 Conceptual D brought M litigation Plan ....................................................... ........................ 8
2 Drought Mitigation Plan: Recommended Triggers ................................................ 13
3 Summary of Historical Rainfall-Based Drought Triggers.................... .......... .............. 13
4 Key Drought Messages and Delivery Methods ................................... ........................ 17
5 Drought Mitigation Plan: Triggers and Actions...................... ........................ 19
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
Purpose of a Drought Mitigation Plan
The purpose of this drought mitigation plan (DMP) is to identify and simplify specific
actions that will be taken during periods of hydrologic drought and corresponding water
supply shortfalls. The plan outlines when various levels of water supply shortage occur and
identifies the actions to be taken. This document describes the analyses conducted to
develop the Tampa Bay Water Drought Mitigation Plan.
1. Background and Introduction
The Tampa Bay region has experienced numerous occurrences of reduced rainfall and water
shortages over the years. In the past, utilities and regulatory agencies have responded to
such conditions when they occur, rather than having a policy in place to proactively manage
these acute water shortages. Because of the difficulties encountered in predicting drought
conditions, it is advisable to have a drought mitigation plan which defines management
policies, strategies, and actions ready for implementation when drought occurs.
In May 2000, the National Drought Policy Commission determined that the focus regarding
drought responses must shift from relief to readiness by proactive participation of all
involved entities to reduce vulnerability to drought by initiating drought planning, plan
implementation, and proactive mitigation of drought impacts.
The National Drought Mitigation Center provides four operational drought definitions:
1. Meteorological drought: Departure from normal rainfall over some period of time
2. Agricultural drought: Insufficient soil moisture to meet crop needs
3. Hydrological drought: Deficiencies in surface and groundwater supplies
4. Socioeconomic drought: When physical water shortages affect people, individually and
collectively
For drought planning to be proactive, quantitative hydrologic indices must be developed to
reflect the severity of the drought and "trigger" pre-determined mitigation actions.
Additionally, triggers must indicate not only rainfall shortages, but must also be linked to
local water supplies so that they can be managed effectively to meet demand during
rainfall-driven water shortages.
The National Drought Policy Commission further states that drought mitigation plans
should be comprehensive in the mitigation options that are specified. Such comprehensive
mitigation plans include demand reduction, operations, and supply augmentation as part of
a drought response.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Water Shortage Plan
developed under Subsection 373.246 (1), Florida Statutes, defines specific actions to be taken
at various phases of declared water shortage emergencies. These phases have been defined
as moderate, severe, and extreme water shortage conditions. The process of declaring a
water shortage, however, is relatively subjective, and lacks any predetermined "triggers" to
automatically initiate any of the three drought phases. Further, the SWFWMD plan lacks
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
specific quantifiable reduction goals for the three named phases. Lastly, the plan does not
include augmentation of supply as a component of drought management, and limits the
ability to effectively inform and motivate public action.
2. Project Objectives
At the November 18, 2000, Tampa Bay Water Board of Directors' meeting, the Board
directed staff to initiate a drought mitigation planning process in coordination with the
SWFWMD and Tampa Bay Water's member governments. The Board also directed staff to
work with the SWFWMD to develop a drought mitigation rule that includes specific targets
and actions for implementation during future droughts.
To fulfill the Board directive, the objectives of this project are twofold:
1. To identify quantifiable drought indices that define levels of drought and related water
supply shortfalls, which "trigger" mitigation actions (e.g., triggers)
2. To pre-determine the demand reduction and supply augmentation actions that will be
implemented at specified levels of drought
With triggers and specified actions in place, the resulting DMP is intended to provide a
water supply strategy that can be implemented during times of such hydrologic drought
that limit Tampa Bay Water's water supplies. This plan will differ from historical water
shortage approaches used by the SWFWMD by including hydrologic triggers associated
with specific demand management and supply augmentation actions, and not just demand
management measures.
3. Drought Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee
(DMP TAC)
The initial step in achieving this Board directive was creation of a Drought Mitigation
Planning Technical Advisory Committee (DMP TAC) comprised of representatives of
Tampa Bay Water's member governments and the SWFWMD. The first of a series of regular
monthly meetings was held January 4, 2001. Twenty-one attendees were present,
representing all member governments and the SWFWMD.
The following personnel represented their respective member governments, agencies, or
SWFWMD.
* Bill Johnson, City of St. Petersburg Public Utilities
* Patti Anderson, City of St. Petersburg Public Utilities
* Joan Bradshaw, City of St. Petersburg Public Utilities
* Rich McLean, Pinellas County Public Utilities
* Pick Talley, Pinellas County Public Utilities
* Mike McWeeny, Hillsborough County Water Department
* Pamela Marlowe-Green, Hillsborough County Water Department
* Jim Jeffers, Hillsborough County Water Department
* Norm Davis, Hillsborough County Water Department
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
* Dave Tippin, City of Tampa Water Department
* Mike Bennett, City of Tampa Water Department
* Glenn Greer, Pasco County utilities
* Annemarie Gueli, Pasco County Utilities
* John McKeon, City of New Port Richey
* Dave Moore, SWFWMD
* Bobby Lue, SWFWMD
* B.J. Jarvis, SWFWMD
* Jay Yingling, SWFWMD
* Sydney Park Brown, Hillsborough County Coop. Extension Service
* Alison Adams, Tampa Bay Water
* Dave Bracciano, Tampa Bay Water
* Warren Hogg, Tampa Bay Water
* Nisai Wanakule, Tampa Bay Water
* Jeff Geurink, Tampa Bay Water
Topics discussed at the inaugural DMP TAC meeting included:
* Drought condition indicators such as rainfall deficit, reduced river flows, decreased
groundwater elevations, and long-term forecasts
* Drought management planning approaches, including a comprehensive early warning
system, a risk and impact assessment procedure, mitigation and response strategies, and
community awareness and education
* Possible elements of a DMP for Tampa Bay Water, including quantifiable triggers for
action, specific short-term and long-term actions in response to triggers, assessment of
the implemented actions, coordination with SWFWMD and member governments, and
communication and education strategies
4. Project Approach
Participants at the January 4mf meeting agreed that development of a DMP containing
hydrologic triggers was necessary. The approach for this project divided the activities into
two phases. Phase I of this project involved the following:
* Preliminary assessment of rainfall, surface water, and groundwater data for
development of triggers
* Conceptual integration of the rainfall, surface water, and groundwater triggers
* Identification of possible demand reduction, operational, and supply augmentation
actions
* Conceptual DMP decision process and plan
* Development and approval of a technical scope of work and schedule to complete the
DMP
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
Phase II activities involved the following:
* Final development of the triggers
* Final drought mitigation plan
* Communications plan
* Rule-making strategy that would be applied in working with the SWFWMD during the
Water Shortage rule-making process
5. Phase I Drought Mitigation Plan Development
Phase I focused on development of a conceptual drought mitigation process through a series
of meetings/workshops with the DMP TAC. The objective of these meetings was to identify
drought management approaches and to build consensus among members that a region-
wide, long-term drought management process was needed. This included developing
strategies to deal with the ongoing (2000-2001) drought.
At the onset of the project, it was hypothesized that surface water and groundwater levels
could be related to rainfall, and that such a relationship could be used to establish action
triggers at various levels in the plan. Intuitively, surface water would seem to respond
quickly to an increase or decrease in rainfall. However, variations in groundwater elevations
would be expected to lag in response to corresponding increases or decreases in rainfall.
This hypothesis was tested by analyzing sample data for the Tampa Bay region. The goal of
this analysis was to examine the data set for possible relationships between rainfall, surface
water flow, and groundwater elevations, and develop triggers to initiate drought mitigation
actions. Each variable was examined individually and then compared to each other to
establish possible trends.
5.1 Phase I Triggers
Drought mitigation action levels (triggers) were determined by visual examination for the
period of analysis data (1995-2000) used in the preliminary analysis. This period of record
was selected for use in the Phase I analyses because this provided a sufficient period to
analyze the then-current (2000) drought situation and complete a preliminary assessment of
rainfall, surface water and groundwater relationships. Historical (period of record) daily
rainfall data was obtained from selected rainfall stations within Tampa Bay Water's service
area. Daily average rainfall for the region was determined as an average of rainfall recorded
at individual stations. The regional average monthly rainfall was then calculated as a sum of
average daily rainfalls for a given month.
A rainfall-deficit approach was developed in the Phase I analysis because surface water
flows and groundwater levels respond to deviations from normal rainfall. The deficit was
defined as the difference between the historical monthly average rainfall and the actual
monthly rainfall for a given month. Also to simplify the drought trigger mechanism,
developing a single index (i.e., regional rainfall deficit) was desirable. Rainfall deficits were
calculated from historical monthly average rainfall and the actual monthly rainfall data.
Cumulative rolling rainfall deficits for 3-month, 6-month, 9-month, and 12-month periods
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
were then calculated and evaluated as potential trigger mechanisms. These deficits would
be used later to compare changes in surface water and groundwater levels with rainfall. The
12-month rolling cumulative rainfall deficit scenario was selected to develop the rainfall-
based decision process for the Phase I analysis. This decision was based on the strong
influence of seasonal variations on the shorter-term rolling deficits (3-month or 6-month).
The 12-month rolling cumulative rainfall deficit reduces the influence of normal dry season
rainfall variability and provides a better index for long-term rainfall shortages which affect
surface water supplies.
Flow in the Hillsborough River was analyzed for the surface water example in the Phase I
analysis. Flow deficits were calculated in a manner similar to the rainfall example, based on
the difference between historical monthly flow averages and actual monthly flow for a
given month. The period of record for this analysis was October 1995 to December 2000.
These flow deficits were then compared to the 12-month rolling cumulative rainfall deficits
calculated above. A plot of the actual monthly flow to the historical average monthly flow,
12-month rolling cumulative flow deficit, and the 12-month rolling cumulative rainfall
deficit was made and evaluated. Inspection of the graphical results showed that
Hillsborough River flow responds rapidly to changes in rainfall. This is expected due to the
sensitivity of river flow to increases or decreases in rainfall.
Groundwater elevation data from Floridan aquifer monitoring wells (Lutz Lake Fern, Pasco
Well 13, SR-577) and surficial aquifer wells (Lutz Lake Fern shallow, SR-577) were
analyzed and compared to the 12-month rolling cumulative rainfall deficits.
Surficial aquifer wells were determined not to be good triggers for drought mitigation for
several reasons:
* The surficial wells are not a part of the regional supply source
* Their hydrology is not regional in nature
* Their elevation data is volatile and flashy, reacting to changes in the local environment
Groundwater elevation data from the deep wells was analyzed and deficits were calculated
in a manner similar to the rainfall and surface water deficits. These deficits were then
compared to the 12-month rolling cumulative rainfall deficits calculated above. A
comparison of the historical groundwater elevation, actual groundwater elevation, 12-
month rolling elevation deficit, and the 12-month rolling rainfall deficit for the SR-577 deep
well was evaluated for the period of analysis (1995-2000). As expected, a considerable lag
was evident in groundwater elevation changes as a function of rainfall. For example, a
continuous decrease in rainfall deficit (i.e., increased rainfall) was observed from March
1997 to March 1998. Yet groundwater elevations did not start to rise until November 1997.
In fact, groundwater deficits continued to increase from March 1997 to November 1997,
even though the rainfall deficit continued to decrease over the same period. Similarly, an
increase in rainfall deficit from March 1998 to November 2000 was followed by a
corresponding increase in groundwater elevation deficits, with a considerable lag.
The Phase I technical memorandum (June 2001) describes the results of the Phase I analysis.
The results of the Phase I study suggested consistent relationships between rainfall, surface
water flows, and groundwater elevations. However, the change in groundwater elevations
lagged considerably after the increase or decrease in rainfall. A comparison of 12-month
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
rolling deficits for all three parameters indicated that surface water flows responded rapidly
to an increase or decrease in rainfall. Over an extended period of time, however,
groundwater elevations do indeed follow the rainfall deficit trend.
5.2 Conceptual Phase I Drought Mitigation Process and Plan
A conceptual drought mitigation process was developed based upon 12-month rolling
deficits for rainfall, surface water flow, and groundwater elevations. Based on the
preliminary analysis, a combination of triggers could be used to indicate severity of drought
and impacts to water supply. For example a moderate (or Level 1) drought would trigger
certain actions. As the rainfall deficit continued and impacts to surface supplies became
evident, additional actions would be taken. In the most severe cases, groundwater would be
impacted and would trigger yet another set of actions.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between levels of drought, types of triggers, and
possible actions.
Considering the relationship between the various triggers, a conceptual DMP was
developed, which included demand reduction, operational, and supply augmentation
actions. The following assumptions were applied in developing the conceptual DMP:
* A normal state (non-drought condition) of two-day per week watering restrictions will
remain in place indefinitely
* Demand management actions and enforcement or restrictions will be applied uniformly
across the region
* Distribution system operations will vary by member government
* Public awareness will be uniform and will occur throughout the process
Demand management actions for Level I could include drought announcements and
increased enforcement of the two day per week watering schedule. Level II actions could
include continuing public awareness and education, one day per week watering restrictions,
a designated percent reduction in demand, and implementation of a drought surcharge on
water rates. Level III actions could include further public awareness and education, zero
days per week watering restrictions (although not selected as an option), and further
percent reduction in demand.
Operational changes include activating additional constraints inside the Optimized
Regional Operations Plan (OROP) to shift production to the least-impacted sources at each
level of drought. For example, groundwater production might need to be increased in
response to reduced surface water availability.
Additionally, supply augmentation for Level II could include augmentation from pre-
selected sources (i.e., Morris Bridge Sink and Tampa Bay Desalination project [Desal I]) and
activation of member/system interconnects. Level III actions could include temporary
exceedance of groundwater permits as controlled by the OROP to meet demand. Table 1
summarizes the conceptual DMP developed during Phase I.
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
Action
Rainfall
Rainfall
Surface Water
Rainfall
Surface Water
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
Operation
Supply
Augmentation
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
Drought
Trigger
Level I
Level II
Level III
FIGURE 1
Phase I Relationship Between Level of Drought and Possible Mitigation Actions
Tampa Bay Water DMP
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PLAN
TABLE 1
Conceptual Drought Mitigation Plan
Level Demand Management Operations Supply Augmentation
Level I Drought announcement Activate OROP Level I
drought constraints
Uniform, increased
enforcement of 2 day per
week lawn watering
restrictions
Level II 1 day per week lawn Member government Begin augmentation from
watering restrictions, with operational efficiency pre-selected sources
uniform enforcement
Activate OROP Level II Activate member/system
X% reduction in regional drought constraints interconnects
and member monthly per
capital demand
Implement drought
surcharge on water rates
Level III Zero days per week lawn Activate OROP Level III Planned temporary
watering restrictions drought constraints exceedance of
groundwater permits
X+ % reduction in
regional and member Planned temporary
monthly per capital exceedance of secondary
demand drinking water standards
5.3 Phase I Conclusions
The DMP TAC recommended, at the end of the Phase I analysis, the triggers that were
developed must be linked to Tampa Bay Water's supply capacity. Triggers must be set that
actually impact the ability to supply water at any given point in time. For example, drought
mitigation triggers over the short term would be developed based on Tampa Bay Water's
existing supply capacity. As new sources and capacity were developed and brought online,
however, these triggers would be revised to account for the increased capacity. Therefore,
any DMP developed for Tampa Bay Water must allow for modification of these triggers on
a continual basis. The conclusions supported by the DMP TAC are summarized as follows:
* DMP participants agreed that the drought mitigation process was needed and beneficial
* The final DMP should include regional hydrologic triggers
* The DMP would aid in communication and credibility with the public though consistent
and defined triggers and actions
* Preliminary analysis of rainfall, surface water, and groundwater data showed consistent
trends in relation to drought
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
* Preliminary analysis showed that rainfall, surface water, and groundwater triggers
could be associated with levels of drought
* The Phase II analysis must address potential impacts to supply
* Tampa Bay Water member governments did not support the demand management
action of zero watering days
6. Phase II Drought Mitigation Plan Development
6.1 Data Analysis
The Phase II analysis extended the period of record used to evaluate historical rainfall,
surface water flows, and groundwater level data, and expanded the number of rainfall and
surface water flow sites evaluated. Rainfall data from regional rainfall stations, historical
surface water flows from the Hillsborough and Alafia rivers, and historical groundwater
levels from regional Floridan aquifer monitoring wells were used to conduct the Phase II
analyses. The deficit analysis described in Section 5.1 was used to relate rainfall, surface
water, and groundwater responses. A 12-month rolling cumulative rainfall (RCRF) deficit
was selected because it reduces the influence of normal dry season rainfall variability and
provides a better index for long-term rainfall shortages which affect surface water supplies.
The data used and results of the analysis are summarized below. Figures Al through A6 are
included as Appendix A.
Rainfall Analysis
Six regional rainfall stations using complete period of record data through September 30,
2001:
* St. Leo (SWFWMD)
* Tampa International Airport (SWFWMD)
* Tarpon Springs (SWFWMD)
* Plant City (SWFWMD)
* Cypress Creek Plant (Tampa Bay Water)
* South-central Hillsborough (Tampa Bay Water)
Rainfall Analysis Results
* Regional deficit generally representative of individual stations
* Recent trends (1995-2001) consistent with historical record
* Drought and rainfall surplus events are recurring in the historical record and can be
expected to reoccur in the future
* Exceptional surplus events include 1960 and 1998
Surface Water Analysis
* Hillsborough River flow at the Morris Bridge gage period of record (1972 2001)
* Alafia River flow at the Lithia gage period of record (1932 2001)
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
Surface Water Analysis Results
* Historical pattern fluctuates between surplus and deficit
* Exceptional surplus events correspond with exceptional rainfall events
* Flow deficits strongly correlate with rainfall deficits as shown in Figures Al and A2 for
the Hillsborough River and Alafia River, respectively.
* Flow deficits are affected by rainfall-deficit duration as well as magnitude of the rainfall
deficit
Groundwater Analysis
* Based on eight SWFWMD central region index wells with varying periods of records
(Figure A3)
Groundwater Analysis Results
* Water level data highly variable since 1981
* Water level trends not consistent between wells
* Regional deficit highly affected by several wells
* Definite trend with time, water-level deficit and recovery apparent but lags rainfall
* Not conducive for DMP triggers because of response lags and lack of correlation with
rainfall deficit
Figure A3 depicts the changing and variable nature of groundwater levels in the index wells.
6.2 Conclusion
Rainfall-deficit based triggers were established by a detailed analysis of historical rainfall
and corresponding river flows in the tri-county region. The analysis showed a significant
reduction in surface water flows of the Hillsborough River and Alafia River when the
regional 12-month RCRF deficit exceeded 10 inches (Figures Al and A2). The analysis also
showed that the duration of rainfall deficit and the magnitude of rainfall deficit are
important factors in evaluating surface water flow responses.
6.3 Impacts on Supply
The next step of the Phase II analysis evaluated the relationship between hydrologic
drought triggers and available supply. For planning purposes, the plan was designed for
implementation after January 2003 when System Configuration 1 supplies are online, with
and without the regional reservoir operational. At that time, the following conditions
and/or supplies will be in place:
1. Wellfield pumpage from the Consolidated Wellfields will be reduced to 121 mgd,
12-month running annual average
2. The regional surface water treatment plant will be online and capable of treating 66 mgd
3. Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells (BUDW) will be operating at 6 mgd annual average
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
4. Desalination I will be online, base-loading the system with 25 mgd
5. The analysis was conducted with and without the regional reservoir operational
In addition to these conditions, other sources that are traditionally available were
considered in the analysis, including the South-Central Hillsborough (SCH) Wellfield and
the City of Tampa supplies. Figure 2 shows all of the supplies that will be available in 2003
and which were specifically included in this analysis.
S Surface Ground Other Specific Source
Water Water
FIGURE 2
Tampa Bay Water Supply Capacities Beginning January 2003
Tampa Bay Water DMP
The available capacity from the system shown in Figure 2 was modeled using permitted
Enhanced Surface Water System (ESWS) withdrawals, a reservoir stage model (HDR, 2000),
City of Tampa Water supply system (including aquifer storage recovery [ASR]), Desal I,
BUDW, and the SCH Regional Wellfield. For this analysis the hydrologic data period of
record used was 1977 through September 2001. This period of record was selected for the
supply/demand analysis because historical flow data in the Alafia River prior to 1977 are
unreliable for a supply analysis and flow from Lithia Springs (which is needed for the
supply analysis) is not available prior to 1977.
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
For this analysis, a typical regional annual demand of 244 mgd was used (Water Year 2001
demand was 237 mgd). This annual demand was varied monthly. A repeating pattern of the
monthly regional demands were then used to determine the production required from the
Consolidated Permit wellfields to provide supply that equaled demand. This analysis did
not include an increase in water demand due to growth or a reduction in demand due to
conservation. Both factors may cause the actual demand to differ from the amount used in
this analysis. The analysis was performed with and without the regional reservoir since it
will not be fully operational when production from the Consolidated Permit wellfields is
reduced in 2003. This allowed determination of drought conditions which would possibly
cause production from the Consolidated Permit wellfields to exceed their regulatory limits.
DMP triggers were selected based on the hydrologic conditions leading to the supply
deficits. Rainfall-based deficit triggers were established as described previously, using the
12-month RCRF deficit. The analysis showed a significant reduction in surface water flows
in the Hillsborough River and Alafia River when the regional 12-month RCRF deficit
exceeded 10 inches. The decline in available surface water flows forecasts a potential
reduction in ESWS supply. The results of these analyses without the regional reservoir and
with the regional reservoir are shown Figures A4 and A5, respectively. Figures A4 and A5
are included in Appendix A.
6.4 Development of Recommended Triggers
The rainfall deficit analysis was combined with the supply/demand analysis described
above to select appropriate RCRF deficit trigger levels that could lead to supply shortages
(Table 2). The 12-month RCRF deficit level of 10 inches was selected as the initial DMP
trigger and defined as a Level I drought alert, since this rainfall deficit corresponds to a
decline in surface water flows and forecasts a potential reduction in supplies from the ESWS
if hydrological conditions persist. The alert level allows sufficient time to notify the public of
conditions which may lead to a reduction in supplies.
As shown in Table 2, two other levels of drought were defined: Level II (water shortage)
and Level III (water supply crisis). The Level II water shortage trigger was established at an
RCRF deficit-duration, which resulted in significantly reduced ESWS production and
rapidly declining reservoir levels. Based upon the hydrologic period of record (1977-2001),
this occurred routinely when the RCRF deficit averaged greater than 10 inches over
six months. The Level III water supply crisis trigger was established when ESWS production
is expected to reduce to near zero production levels and significantly impacted Tampa Bay
Water's ability to meet regional demands. Based upon the hydrologic period of record
(1977-2001), this appears to occur after 12 or more months of Level II drought conditions. In
fact, it has only occurred once since 1977 (2000-2001 drought) within the Tampa Bay region.
The historical RCRF deficits were also compared to ESWS flows and allowable withdrawals
to simulate reservoir conditions under varying hydrologic conditions. Reservoir-based
triggers were then selected for Level II and Level III conditions corresponding to reservoir
stages for 90 days and 30 days of remaining supply at a withdrawal rate of 66 mgd,
respectively. Therefore, the DMP levels are initiated using either the rainfall-based or
reservoir-based triggers depending upon hydrologic conditions and supply availability.
Triggers to move out of the drought and cease actions were also developed. The triggers are
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
designed to correspond to available supplies, and to allow sufficient time for the public to be
notified and respond to both entering and exiting drought-induced water supply shortages.
TABLE 2
Drought Mitigation Plan Recommended Triggers
Trigger s
Drougni Le -I On On
I Drought Alert RCRF Deficit 10" RCRF Deficit 5"
II Water Shortage 6 month average RCRF Deficit 10" RCRF Deficit 10"
or or
Reservoir Elev < 102' Reservoir Elev >109'
(90 days of supply @ 66 mgd) (120 days of supply @ 66 mgd)
III Water Supply Crisis At Water shortage for 12 months 6 month average RCRF Deficit 10"
or or
Reservoir Elev < 87' Reservoir Elev > 102'
(30 days of supply @ 66mgd) (90 days of supply @ 66mgd)
Note RCRF = 12-month rolling cumulative rainfall deficit
Table 3 summarizes how the rainfall-based triggers would be applied if historical
hydrologic conditions (1977 2001) return in the future. The summary shows that a Level I
drought alert could occur nine times in 25 years, a Level II water supply crisis could occur
five times (once since 1986), and a water supply crisis could occur once (2000-2001). It is
important to note that based on 70 years of rainfall data (1932 2001), the Tampa Bay area
has experienced only once the level of the 2000-2001 drought, both in terms of rainfall-
deficit-duration and effects on surface water flows.
TABLE 3
Summary of Historical Rainfall-Based Drought Tnggers
Drought Alert Water Shortage Water Supply Crisis Water Shortage Drought Alert Out of DMP
RCRFD1 >= 6 mo. RCRFD At Water Shortage 6 mo. RCRFD
10" Average >= 10" for 12 months Ave. <10" RCRFD < 10" RCRFD < 5"
5/1/1977 i i ,* i
i:, i i i- i i:' 3/1/1978
4/1/1981 "i i :. i i i, : i 1/1/1982
2/1/1985 i i :: I i i 10/1/1985
11/1/1989 8/1/1990
12/1/1990 5/1/1991
5/1/1992 10/1/1992
3/1/1994 7/1/1994
3/1/1997 9/1/1997
9/1/1999 i *:: i i *:,: i,
Number of Occurrences
9 5 1
1RCRFD
- 12-month Rolling Cumulative Rainfall Deficit
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
7. Supply Augmentation Options
The demand and supply analysis described in the previous section indicated water
shortages under extreme drought conditions. To meet regional demands during these
periods, Tampa Bay Water must identify supply augmentation options. Morris Bridge Sink
has been identified and approved as one such option. The Morris Bridge Sink was used as
an emergency supply source during the 2000-2001 drought. The Sink was used from May
30, 2000 to August 14, 2000 and from December 6, 2000 through July 17, 2001, during those
two periods pumpage averaged 6.7 mgd and 8.3 mgd, respectively. In addition, increasing
desalination production from 25 to 35 mgd was also identified as an emergency source of
supply. This additional 10 mgd is not permitted. Due to the lack of operational experience
with the Tampa Bay Desalination water supply, increasing this source by 10 mgd was
removed from consideration as an emergency source for the DMP.
Other than these two possible additional sources, no alternative sources were identified for
Tampa Bay Water to use in an emergency drought situation. Morris Bridge Sink is specified
as a supply augmentation source in the DMP, and its use will be triggered in a Level II
water supply shortage.
Existing groundwater supplies represent the only remaining source. The DMP recommends
temporary exceedance of the Consolidated Permit regulatory limits to meet demand during a
Level III water supply crisis. When the ESWS production is extremely low, Morris Bridge
Sink is operating, and less than 30 days of supply (at a rate of 66 mgd) remains in the
reservoir, the ability to exceed the Consolidated Permit regulatory limits would allow Tampa
Bay Water to meet member demands. Based on the hydrologic period of record (1977-2001),
this temporary exceedance may have been required only once in the last 25 years; during the
2000-2001 drought. No other sources are available to meet emergency conditions. The ability
to rely on temporary use of groundwater resources and infrastructure avoids the need to
construct costly new supplies, which would only be needed during these very infrequent
conditions. In conjunction with long-term reductions in groundwater withdrawals, the
hydrology of the areas affected by the Consolidated Wellfields is expected to rebound
significantly, if with temporary periods of high groundwater use.
An analysis was conducted to illustrate how the use of the Morris Bridge Sink during
Level II water shortage situations may reduce the potential for exceeding the regulatory
limit at the Consolidated Wellfields. The rainfall deficit-based triggers (see Table 3) were
used to activate the Sink; it was assumed that 15 mgd from the Sink would be available to
meet demand. Results of this analysis are shown on Figure A6. Based on this analysis, the
Morris Bridge Sink could have been used for up to 18 months during the 2000-2001 drought.
The use of the Sink at a rate of 15 mgd would avoid exceedance of the Consolidated
Wellfield regulatory limit of 121 mgd; given similar regional water demands as used in the
analysis. In addition, the use of Morris Bridge Sink would allow Tampa Bay Water to
continue operating the regional surface water treatment plant and reduce potential source
water quality problems as the reservoir stage is reduced.
Morris Bridge Sink was actually used for approximately nine months during the 2000-2001
drought. There are several reasons for the difference between the actual use and its potential
for use during future droughts. Reasons include regulatory constraints, infrastructure
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
constraints, and the significant use of the Tampa Bypass Canal by Tampa Bay Water to
augment the City of Tampa's reservoir. It is assumed that Tampa Bay Water will pump all
available surface water from the Tampa Bypass Canal to the regional surface water
treatment plant after January 2003. Regulatory and infrastructure constraints are currently
being addressed by Tampa Bay Water.
8. Demand Management Actions
The conceptual DMP developed in Phase I included a wide range of demand reduction
measures. During Phase II, these options were presented to and discussed with each
member government. The options considered included:
* Uniform enforcement of two day per week watering restrictions
* Prescribed percentage reductions
* Drought surcharges
* No watering days per week
* Operational measures to be implemented by members
While each of these alternatives has been effective in reducing demands in the Tampa Bay
area and other regions of the United States, some were not acceptable to Tampa Bay Water
members for a number of reasons. Therefore, the proposed DMP includes only irrigation
restrictions for Levels I and II.
If a water supply crisis occurs, however, Tampa Bay Water and its member governments
will need to implement quantifiable water-saving measures. These might include zero
watering days per week, prohibition of all non-essential uses of water, drought surcharges,
and other measures. During a water supply crisis, actual reductions in demand will
correspond to an extension in the remaining reservoir supplies.
9. Communications Strategy
Consistent communication of drought messages to the public is fundamental to the success
of the DMP. To develop this drought mitigation communications plan, communications
plans and specific outputs (advertisements, media coverage, etc.) were collected from
Tampa Bay Water, the member governments, and the SWFWMD. Additionally, a meeting
was held with representatives of the member governments to further discuss elements of
their plans. The information on key messages and methods of communication provided
invaluable insight into elements of the drought mitigation communications plan.
Tampa Bay Water, SWFWMD, and Member Government Communications Plans
Several key messages were common to all of materials collected from Tampa Bay Water, the
SWFWMD, and member governments. These common messages regarding the drought were:
* The Tampa Bay area is in a severe drought
* Increased rainfall is helping, but the drought is not over yet
* The public is a key player in conserving water
* Details on current water restrictions and penalties for violation
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
The drought message has been communicated to water customers by Tampa Bay Water,
SWFWMD, and the member governments through a wide variety of media outreach
activities and direct public communications methods. These methods, which have
successfully conveyed key messages, include the following:
* Media Outreach
Press releases
Press conferences
Newspaper articles
Newspaper ads
TV/Radio Public Service Announcements
Local Cable TV programs
* Public Communication
Brochures
Web sites
Bill inserts
Messages printed on bills
Direct mail
Newsletters
Communications Plan for Drought Mitigation
The drought mitigation communications plan begins with a media strategy for the Drought
Mitigation Planning effort to be used by Tampa Bay Water, the SWFWMD, and the member
governments. This media strategy consists of key messages that point out triggers and
current drought conditions, actions being taken, and what the public can expect next.
Tactics for communication are also included. These tactics were selected based on insights
gained from the review of communications plans gathered from the member governments.
The goal of the media strategy is that all parties convey the key messages at the onset of a
drought level declaration.
The communications plan includes an element for individual member governments to
communicate information specific for them, along with key messages prepared from the
media strategy. The communications outline for all drought levels is structured as follows:
* Media Strategy Tampa Bay Water, SWFWMD and member governments
Uniform outreach to media (e.g., meteorologist)
Key Messages
> Triggers/current conditions
> Actions taken
> What's next
Tactics
* Communications TBD by member governments
Key messages from media strategy
Information specific to member governments
> Supplies
> Additional restrictions
> Conservation
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
Specific Drought Media Strategies
Table 4 outlines examples of key messages and methods to transmit them to the public. Each
level of drought outlined in the DMP has a specific set of messages, along with methods to
convey those messages to the public. Tampa Bay Water, the SWFWMD and the member
governments should use these messages concurrently when a drought level is declared.
TABLE 4
Key Drought Messages and Delivery Methods
Triggers/current
conditions
10" rainfall shortage means
we are in a Level I drought
10" rainfall shortage has
lasted for six months and
means we are in a Level II
water shortage, reservoir
levels indicate
approximately 90 days of
supply
10" rainfall shortage has
lasted for 12 months and
means we are in a Level III
water supply crisis,
reservoir levels indicate
approximately 30 days
Actions Taken 2 day/week watering 1 day/week watering Implement options for
restrictions are in effect restrictions are mandatory measurable demand
reductions
What's next If rainfall shortage lasts for If rainfall shortage lasts for Restrictions will be eased
six months, a Level II water 12 months, a Level III when rainfall deficit
shortage will be declared water supply crisis will be decreases
declared
Tactics Press release Press conference Press conference
Local cable TV TV/Radio promo TV/Radio specials
Newsletters Spokesperson interviews Spokesperson interviews
Brochures Newspaper articles
Letters to editor Newspaper
Ads
10. Drought Mitigation Process and Plan
Based on the analyses described in this document, the recommended DMP includes rainfall-
based and reservoir-based triggers, demand management actions, and supply
augmentation. A proactive plan such as this will provide Tampa Bay Water with an
operational tool to meet its water supply obligations in times of water supply shortages
resulting from hydrologic drought conditions.
Figure 3 depicts the recommended drought mitigation decision process.
Table 5 summarizes the proposed DMP triggers with corresponding demand reduction and
supply augmentation actions.
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
Drought Mitigation Decision Process
FIGURE 3
Drought Mitigation Decision Process
Tampa Bay Water DMP
TPA/W /W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
TAMPA BAY WATER DROUGHT MITIGATION PI AN
TABLE 5
Drought Mitigation Plan Triggers and Actions
I.
Drought Alert
RCRF Deficit 10"
RCRF Deficit 5"
uemana
Management
Initiate public
messaging and
Increase effective-
ness of 2 day per
week lawn watering
restrictions
(e g enforcement)
supply
Auamentation
II. 6 month average RCRF Deficit 10" 1 day per week Morris Bridge Sink On
Water Shortage RCRF Deficit 10" lawn watering Approximately 15 mgd
restrictions
or or
Reservoir Elev < 102' Reservoir Elev > 109'
(90 days of supply) (120 days of supply)
III. At Water shortage for 6 month average Members Optimize all supplies to
Water Supply 12 months RCRF Deficit 10" implement options meet demand,
Crisis for measurable including temporary
or or demand reduction exceedance of
Consolidated
Reservoir Elev < 87' Reservoir Elev >102' Wellfields Permit
(30 days of supply) (90 days of supply)
Note RCRF =12 month rolling cumulative rainfall deficit
Days of remaining reservoir supply are approximate and based on a withdrawal rate of 66 mgd
Conclusion
With triggers and specified actions in place, the resulting DMP provides a water supply
strategy that can be implemented during times of such hydrologic drought that limit Tampa
Bay Water's water supplies. As new water supply sources are brought online and
operational experience with the ESWS increases, the DMP will be revised. The plan is
designed to allow triggers and actions to be modified as needed.
This plan differs from historical water shortage approaches used by the SWFWMD because
it includes hydrologic triggers associated with specific demand management and supply
augmentation actions, and not just demand management measures. This approach will aid
in communication and credibility with the public through consistent and defined triggers
and actions.
TPA/W W155797/DMP FINAL REPORT 120601 DOC
4-
lh q 4
-t -
I- t 1 r : W'
Appendix A
Figure Al: Hillsborough River Flow Deficit Analysis
Figure A2: Alafia River Flow Deficit Analysis
Figure A3: Groundwater Level Deficit Analysis
Figure A4: Demand vs. Supply Without Regional Reservoir
Figure A5: Demand vs. Supply With Regional Reservoir
Figure A6: Demand vs. Supply Without Regional Reservoir with Morris Bridge Sink
Figure Al: 12-month Cumulative Rolling Flow Deficit Hillsborough RiveratMorris Bridge Gage
Period of Record: 7/1972 9/2001
5,000.0 1- 40
-12-Month Cumulative Rolling Flow Deficit
4,000.0 -- -12-Month Cumulative Rolling Rainfall Deficit
30
S3,000.0
0 20
" 2,000.0
U-
4 o o
10
o 1,000.0 .-
S 0.0 XO
E -10 =
-2,000.0 -4
0
-3,000.0
-4,000.0
-5,000.0 -40
N M 'IT LID (C r^ 00 o)o0 N M LD (o 1 0M 0) 0 N M L (D r^ 00 D) o
r^ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0oo) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0
Date
Figure A2: 12-month Cumulative Rolling Flow Deficit Alafia_Lithia_Gauge
Period of Record: 10/1932 9/2001
5,000.0 I I I 40
---12-Month Cumulative Rolling Flow Deficit
4,000.0 --12-Month Cumulative Rolling Rainfall Deficit
30
3,000.0
0 20
2,000.0 c
101=
o 1,000.0 0
u-
S 0.0 0
-1,000.0 -
-0
-,000.0
00
-5,000.0 -40
0 ( 0 O ( ( 00 O ( (O 00 O ( ( 00 O ( (O00 O ( ( 00 O ( (OO00 O
() 'T 'T 'T 'T 'T X X X ID ID (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 Date) 0) 0) 0) 0)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Date
Figure A3: Regional 12-month Cumulative Rolling Elevation Deficit
Period of Record: 6/1951 09/2001
--Hills River St Park Moon Lake Rd Pasco 13 Well
--Pinellas_665_Deep --ROMP_87_Avon_Park --SR_577_Deep
-SR52_West_Deep Tarpon_Rd_Deep -*-Regional 12-Month Rolling Elev Deficit
100.0 RegionalRFDeficit
100.0 | |40
75.0 I 30
S 50.0 20
25.0 01. ------ .-- 10
-25.0 -10
S -50.0 -20 ,
-75.0 -30
-100.0 40
250.0 I l40
S-25.0 /*{~ 4I It fU0
-50.0 ____ ____ ____ I20
-75.0 ----- -30
-1 0 0 .0 -------------------------------------------- _-- ----------------------- -4 0
^~~~~~~- ^ ?^^^^^ ^^^c ^^^
^:4 ^(P ,6^? ^4 ^c2 ^:2 ^B ^B, ,s ^cb ,9" ^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^^^
Date
Figure A4: Tampa Bay Water Demand vs. Supply Post-Config I without Reservoir
1 BUD (6 MGD) MSCH (24.1 MGD) M Desal. (25 MGD) Tampa WTP
ESWS Without Reservoir (66 MGD Max.) Consolidated Wellfield Production 12-month Rolling Rainfall Deficit -- TBW Demand
- 12-month Rolling Avge (Con. Wellfields) Con. Wellfields Capacity (121 MGD)
A ~ C Co Ab Cb .Cb QO O ) Q0 N N^ CV CV/ C\ Co/ 9p Cb^ ^ ^ < o< b' \ ^ Cb Cb Cb Q) Q0 Qv fsv C\ \ \ b Cb '
-V~~~~~ ~ CV -y- Y- \ ^ c < 3< ? "q j '01 '0 '0 9O O Q) Q) N' Nb N? CV toq ?q y< ) )0 )Q, to, & )Q^0)O i )0 y0)0 )0 0
A: N? N N N3 q5 C6 CO CO CO CO CO C^ Cb <3 ^ Cj C\ CO CO Cj q) q) ) 0' qj qj q)j q q cb^ cb cb cb cb cb cbC
ebo eb' ebo00 qj j q e b t Z 0 cj O0 5 qj e& ieI
0 4 -z: 4 Q ';V 0 ';; N 3'Z: %ae 'Q ;V;0 TNS : 0 N
DMP Figure A4.xls
Figure A5: Tampa Bay Water Demand vs. Supply Post-Config I with Reservoir
SBUD (6 MGD) SCH (24.1 MGD) Desal. (25 MGD) Tampa WTP
WTPOutFlow Consolidated Wellfield Production 12-month Rolling Rainfall Deficit TBW Demand
- 12-month Rolling Avge (Con. Wellfields) Con. Wellfields Capacity (121 MGD)
Date
DMP Figure A5.xls
S-10
Figure A6: Tampa Bay Water Demand vs. Supply Post-Config I without Reservoir with Morris Bridge Sink
BUD (6 MGD) M SCH (24.1 MGD) M Desal. (25 MGD) Tampa WTP
ESWS Without Reservoir (66 MGD Max.) Morris Bridge Sink (15 MGD) Consolidated Wellfields Production 12-month Rolling Rainfall Deficit
--TBW Demand --12-month Rolling Avge (Con. Wellfields) Con. Wellfields Capacity (121 MGD)
A A 0303 O CO Cb Cb Q) Q) N N CV CV Co Co '1 '1 O O Q) Q Ns Ns CO Ob P) cb Z Z N? N? CV CV C C !04 !04
Date
DMP Figure A6.xls
c
o
0 .
LI
O
DC
|