Alafia River Minimum Flows and Levels - Southwest Florida Water ...
Alafia River Minimum Flows and Levels - Southwest Florida Water ... Alafia River Minimum Flows and Levels - Southwest Florida Water ...
4.5.2 Fish Passage Standard For development of minimum flows, it is desirable to maintain longitudinal connectivity along a river corridor, to the extent that this connectivity has historically occurred. To secure the benefits associated with connectivity and sustained low flows, a 0.6 ft fish-passage criterion was used to develop a low flow standard for the Alafia River corridor. The fish passage criterion was used by the District for development of proposed minimum flows and levels for the Upper Peace River (SWFWMD 2002) and was found to be acceptable by the panel that reviewed the proposed flows (Gore et al. 2002). Flows necessary for fish passage at each HEC-RAS cross-section were identified using output from multiple runs of the HEC-RAS channel model. The flows were determined by adding the 0.6 ft depth fish passage criterion to the elevation of the lowest spot in the channel and determining the flow necessary to achieve the resultant elevations. At many cross-sections, the minimum channel elevation plus 0.6 ft resulted in a water surface elevation lower than the elevation associated with the lowest modeled flow. These cross-sections were located in pool or run areas, where fish passage could occur, even during periods of little or no flow. Ultimately, linear regressions between the stage at each cross-section and the flow at the USGS Lithia gage were used to determine flows at the Lithia gage that corresponded to the target fish-passage elevation at the cross sections (Figure 4-12 as an example). The flow at the Lithia gage that was sufficient to provide for fish passage at all HEC-RAS cross sections at all sampled crosssections was used to define the fish passage, low flow standard for the Alafia River corridor. 4-22
Alafia River Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) Alafia River Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 20 30 40 50 Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 y = 3.7403x 2 - 127.14x + 936.8 R 2 = 0.9996 23.5 24 24.5 25 Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD) Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD) Alafia River Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) Alafia River Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 y = 10.78x 2 - 491.15x + 5636.1 R 2 = 0.999 0 24 25 26 27 28 Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD) Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 y = 2.9493x 2 - 42.071x - 797.47 R 2 = 0.9994 0 27 28 29 30 31 Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD) Figure 4-12. Stage flow relationships between HEC-RAS cross-section 91.5 and flow at RS 60 cross-section (USGS Lithia gage) derived from the HEC-RAS model of the Alafia River corridor. The upper-right plot shows the relationship derived for the entire range of flows evaluated. The other three show relationships used to develop regression equations for selected portions of the flow range. 4.6 Prescribed Flow Reduction for Block 1 When flows exceed the low flow threshold during Block 1, it may be that some portion of the flows can be withdrawn for consumptive use without causing significant harm. To establish these quantities, the availability of aquatic habitat for selected fish species and macroinvertebrate populations for this low flow period can be estimated using the Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) analysis. 4-23
- 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 and 108: Table 2-10. Results of Kendall's ta
- Page 109 and 110: Chapter 3 Ecological Resources of C
- 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 135 and 136: Period of Record Median Daily Flows
- Page 137: Wetted Perimeter - USGS 84.5 - SWFW
- 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
<strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong> Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at<br />
RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
<strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong> Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at<br />
RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
20 30 40 50<br />
Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
y = 3.7403x 2 - 127.14x + 936.8<br />
R 2 = 0.9996<br />
23.5 24 24.5 25<br />
Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD)<br />
Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD)<br />
<strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong> Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at<br />
RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
<strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong> Station 91.5 Stage in Ft (NGVD) vs. Flow at<br />
RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
y = 10.78x 2 - 491.15x + 5636.1<br />
R 2 = 0.999<br />
0<br />
24 25 26 27 28<br />
Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD)<br />
Flow at RS 60 at Lithia (cfs)<br />
800<br />
700<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
y = 2.9493x 2 - 42.071x - 797.47<br />
R 2 = 0.9994<br />
0<br />
27 28 29 30 31<br />
Stage at RS 91.5 in ft (NGVD)<br />
Figure 4-12. Stage flow relationships between HEC-RAS cross-section 91.5 <strong>and</strong> flow at RS<br />
60 cross-section (USGS Lithia gage) derived from the HEC-RAS model of the <strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />
corridor. The upper-right plot shows the relationship derived for the entire range of flows<br />
evaluated. The other three show relationships used to develop regression equations for<br />
selected portions of the flow range.<br />
4.6 Prescribed Flow Reduction for Block 1<br />
When flows exceed the low flow threshold during Block 1, it may be that some<br />
portion of the flows can be withdrawn for consumptive use without causing<br />
significant harm. To establish these quantities, the availability of aquatic habitat<br />
for selected fish species <strong>and</strong> macroinvertebrate populations for this low flow<br />
period can be estimated using the Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM)<br />
analysis.<br />
4-23
Change language