Alafia River Minimum Flows and Levels - Southwest Florida Water ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2-11. Results of Kendall's tau analysis on residuals (from various parameters regressed against flow) versus time. Yellow shading indicates a statistically significant decreasing trend; blue shading indicates a statistically significant increasing trend. MYAKKA RIVER NEAR SARASOTA Parameter Residual Residual Median n p Value intercept slope Conductance -10.0000 248 0.00000 -424.30800 0.01456 Dissolved Oxygen 0.0350 120 0.50922 1.46821 -0.00005 pH -0.0083 215 0.00416 0.63905 -0.00002 NOx -0.0069 129 0.06248 0.04895 0.00000 Phosphorus -0.0171 127 0.00000 -0.73127 0.00003 Calcium -1.0090 193 0.00000 -36.99860 0.00127 Chloride -0.3290 198 0.00001 -9.87780 0.00034 Fluoride 0.0045 197 0.00027 0.17920 -0.00001 Hardness -2.9100 146 0.00000 -187.61700 0.00734 Magnesium -0.4650 193 0.00000 -19.95630 0.00069 Potassium -0.2810 193 0.00000 -8.17683 0.00028 Silica 0.0850 192 0.77540 -0.23801 0.00001 Sodium 0.0070 192 0.00000 -7.44218 0.00026 Sulfate -3.7800 191 0.00000 -135.29300 0.00463 2-81
Chapter 3 Ecological Resources of Concern and Key Habitat Indicators "There is no universally accepted method or combination of methods that is appropriate for establishing instream flow regimes on all rivers or streams. Rather, the combination or adaptation of methods should be determined on a case-by-case basis; . . . In a sense, there are few bad methods – only improper applications of methods. In fact, most . . . assessment tools . . . can afford adequate instream flow protection for all of a river's needs when they are used in conjunction with other techniques in ways that provide reasonable answers to specific questions asked for individual rivers and river segments. Therefore, whether a particular method 'works' is not based on its acceptance by all parties but whether it is based on sound science, basic ecological principles, and documented logic that address a specific need" (Instream Flow Council 2002). 3.1 Goal – Preventing Significant Harm The goal of an MFL determination is to protect the resource from significant harm due to withdrawals and was broadly defined in the enacting legislation as "the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area." The District has identified loss of flows associated with fish passage and maximization of stream bottom habitat with the least amount of flow as significantly harmful to river ecosystems. Also, based upon consideration of a recommendation of the peer review panel for the upper Peace River MFLs (Gore et al. 2002), we propose that significant harm in many cases can be defined as quantifiable reductions in habitat. In their peer review report on the upper Peace River, Gore et al. (2002) stated, "[i]n general, instream flow analysts consider a loss of more than 15% habitat, as compared to undisturbed or current conditions, to be a significant impact on that population or assemblage." This recommendation was made in consideration of employing the Physical Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIM) for analyzing flow, water depth and substrate preferences that define aquatic species habitats. With some exceptions (e.g., loss of fish passage or wetted perimeter inflection point), there are few "bright lines" which can be relied upon to judge when "significant harm" occurs. Rather loss of habitat in many cases occurs incrementally as flows decline, often without a clear inflection point or threshold. Based on Gore et al. (2002) comments regarding significant impacts of habitat loss, we recommend use of a 15% change in habitat availability as a measure of significant harm for the purpose of MFLs development. Although we recommend 3-1
Page 1 and 2:
Alafia River Minimum Flows and Leve
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Page 5 and 6:
4.3.1 HEC-RAS Modeling ............
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Figures Figure 1-1. Buildi
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 2-33. Phosphorus concentrati
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 5-12. Habitat Gain/Loss for
Page 13 and 14:
Table 5-2. Mean elevation, local (c
Page 15 and 16:
flow, with the exception that withd
Page 17 and 18:
Acknowledgement The authors would l
Page 19 and 20:
9) Water quality; and 10) Navigatio
Page 21 and 22:
Water Management District typically
Page 23 and 24:
Peace River at Zolfo Springs, FL. s
Page 25 and 26:
Period of Record Median Daily Flows
Page 27 and 28:
to enhance understanding of histori
Page 29 and 30:
River watershed, to the east by the
Page 31 and 32:
an adjacent area locally known as t
Page 33 and 34:
Water in the surficial aquifer is r
Page 35 and 36:
The Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) sy
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 2-4. May and September 2001
Page 39 and 40:
head differences indicating breache
Page 41 and 42:
data (multiple regression) analyses
Page 43 and 44:
2.2 Land Use Changes in the Alafia
Page 45 and 46:
Before discussing individual sub-ba
Page 47 and 48:
Table 2-2. Land use and land cover
Page 49 and 50:
Table 2-3. Land use and land cover
Page 51 and 52:
Figure 2-13. 1972 and 1999 Land use
Page 53 and 54:
2.2.4 Lithia Springs Sub-Basin The
Page 55 and 56:
2.3 Hydrology The assessment of min
Page 57 and 58: Period of Record Median Daily Flows
Page 59 and 60: occurred during the spring were sim
Page 61 and 62: Conversely, since most of the Unite
Page 63 and 64: extending from 1940 to 1969 can be
Page 67 and 68: third highest flow occurred early i
Page 69 and 70: Flow (cfs) Alafia River at Lithia,
Page 71 and 72: 100 North Prong Alafia River at Key
Page 73 and 74: Flow (cfs) South Prong Alafia River
Page 75 and 76: Alafia River at Lithia - Water Qual
Page 77 and 78: South Prong Watershed Above USGS Ga
Page 79 and 80: Comparisons of land use changes and
Page 81 and 82: Comparison of Median Daily Flows fo
Page 83 and 84: Comparisons of Annual 25% Exceedanc
Page 85 and 86: Figure 2-25. Lithia Springs Major b
Page 87 and 88: 2.3.4.3.2 Discharge from Lithia Spr
Page 89 and 90: Relationship Between Lithia Springs
Page 91 and 92: Buckhorn Spring Main Discharge (Wit
Page 93 and 94: versus flow. The third plot typical
Page 95 and 96: Alafia River at Lithia, FL Phosphor
Page 97 and 98: While elevated phosphorus concentra
Page 99 and 100: Peace River at Arcadia, FL 20 Phosp
Page 101 and 102: Alafia River at Lithia, FL Nitrate/
Page 103 and 104: 2.4.2 Potassium and Trend Analysis
Page 105 and 106: Alafia River at Lithia, FL 14 Potas
Page 107: Table 2-10. Results of Kendall's ta
Page 111 and 112: 1) maintenance of minimum water dep
Page 113 and 114: flow regimes and these life history
Page 115 and 116: subsidy of water and nutrients that
Page 117 and 118: Chapter 4 Technical Approach for Es
Page 119 and 120: 4.2.1 HEC-RAS Cross-Sections Cross
Page 121 and 122: PHABSIM analysis required acquisiti
Page 123 and 124: Figure 4-5. Upstream vegetation cro
Page 125 and 126: level, whenever possible. Immature
Page 127 and 128: major parameter altered during the
Page 129 and 130: Alafia River - Cross Section 64 - W
Page 131 and 132: Delphi method lacks the rapid feedb
Page 133 and 134: TOTAL DAYS OF INUNDATION DURING THE
Page 137 and 138: Wetted Perimeter - USGS 84.5 - SWFW
Page 139 and 140: Alafia River Station 91.5 Stage in
Page 141 and 142: section sites and corresponding flo
Page 143 and 144: 4.9.1.2 Recreational Use Assessment
Page 145 and 146: Chapter 5 Results and Recommended M
Page 147 and 148: greater than 25 cfs would inundate
Page 149 and 150: For the USGS Lithia gage site, the
Page 151 and 152: 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 T20 T21 T27 T3
Page 153 and 154: Wetted Perimeter (linear feet) 2000
Page 155 and 156: dominant vegetation zones, mucky so
Page 157 and 158: 5.5.1 Application of PHABSIM for Bl
Page 159 and 160:
5.5.3 Flow Relationships with Woody
Page 161 and 162:
River begins on October 28 and ends
Page 163 and 164:
Table 5-4. Maximum monthly percent-
Page 165 and 166:
5.6.3 Short-Term Compliance Standar
Page 167 and 168:
Table 5-5. Maximum monthly percent-
Page 169 and 170:
5.8 Short-Term Compliance Standard
Page 171 and 172:
Table 5-7. Proposed Minimum Flows f
Page 173 and 174:
Biological Services Program Report
Page 175 and 176:
Jones, G.W., and Upchurch, S.B., 19
Page 177 and 178:
SDI Environmental Services, Inc. 20
Page 179 and 180:
Upchurch, S.B. and J.R. Littlefield
Page 181 and 182:
A Review of “Alafia River Minimum
Page 183 and 184:
The draft report for setting MFLs f
Page 185 and 186:
methodologies, analyses, and conclu
Page 187 and 188:
The SWFWMD has employed a building
Page 189 and 190:
MFLs for the Alafia and Myakka rive
Page 191 and 192:
RALPH PLOTS AND ANALYSES Recent and
Page 193 and 194:
then used to estimate percent of fl
Page 195 and 196:
necessary. Such a framework should
Page 197 and 198:
to use to meet the criteria of no s
Page 199 and 200:
Shaw, D.T., C.N. Dahm, and S.W. Gol
Page 201 and 202:
The District has added to Chapter 4
Page 207 and 208:
Attachment A June 15 th , 2005 Mrs.
Page 209 and 210:
The Kelly (2004) report includes a
Page 211 and 212:
Figure 1. Box-and-whisker plots of
Page 213 and 214:
As shown in Table 1, a nonparametri
Page 215 and 216:
“augmentation” - be performed a
Page 217 and 218:
Estuary Program 'Restoring the Bala
Page 219 and 220:
APPENDIX D - District's response to
Page 221 and 222:
educed by no more than 8 percent on
Page 223 and 224:
sites with comparable temporal reco
Page 225 and 226:
gradually removed (this appears as
Page 227 and 228:
1) The DISTRICT acknowledges the ma
Page 229 and 230:
Mark Hammond, Director, Resource Ma
Page 231 and 232:
Table 1. Mann-Whitney Statistical A
Page 233:
Comparison of July Rainfall Totals
show all

Alafia River Minimum Flows and Levels - Southwest Florida Water ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?