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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 1 Minimum Flows and Levels 1.1 Overview The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), by virtue of its responsibility to permit the consumptive use of water and a legislative mandate to protect water resources from “significant harm”, has been directed to establish minimum flows and levels (MFLs) for streams and rivers within its boundaries (Section 373.042, Florida Statutes). As currently defined by statute, “the minimum flow for a given watercourse shall be the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” Mere development or adoption of a minimum flow, of course, does not protect a water body from significant harm; however, protection, recovery or regulatory compliance can be gauged once a standard has been established. The District's purpose in establishing MFLs is to create a yardstick against which permitting and/or planning decisions regarding water withdrawals, either surface or groundwater, can be made. Should an amount of withdrawal requested cause “significant harm” then a permit cannot be issued. If, when developing MFLs, it is determined that a system is already significantly harmed as a result of existing withdrawals, then a recovery plan is developed and implemented. According to state law, minimum flows and levels are to be established based upon the best available information (Section 373.042, F.S), and shall be developed with consideration of “...changes and structural alterations to watersheds, surface waters and aquifers and the effects such changes or alterations have had, and the constraints such changes or alterations have placed, on the hydrology of the affected watershed, surface water, or aquifer...” (Section 373.0421, F.S.). Changes, alterations and constraints associated with water withdrawals are not to be considered when developing minimum flows and levels. However, according to the State Water Resources Implementation Rule (Chapter 62-40.473, Florida Administrative Code), “consideration shall be given to the protection of water resources, natural seasonal fluctuations in water flows or levels, and environmental values associated with coastal, estuarine, aquatic and wetlands ecology, including: 1) Recreation in and on the water; 2) Fish and wildlife habitats and the passage of fish; 3) Estuarine resources; 4) Transfer of detrital material; 5) Maintenance of freshwater storage and supply; 6) Aesthetic and scenic attributes; 7) Filtration and absorption of nutrients and other pollutants; 8) Sediment loads; 1-1
9) Water quality; and 10) Navigation". Because minimum flows are used for long-range planning and since the setting of minimum flows can potentially impact (restrict) the use and allocation of water, establishment of minimum flows will not go unnoticed or unchallenged. The science upon which a minimum flow is based, the assumptions made, and the policy used must therefore be clearly defined as each minimum flow is developed. 1.2 Historical Perspective For freshwater streams and rivers, the development of instream flow legislation can be traced to fisheries biologists. Advances in methodologies have been rather recent, dating back not much more than 35 to 40 years. A survey completed in 1986 (Reiser et al. 1989) indicated that at that time only 15 states had legislation explicitly recognizing that fish and other aquatic resources required a certain level of instream flow for their protection. Nine of the 15 states were western states “where the concept for and impetus behind the preservation of instream flows for fish and wildlife had its origins” (Reiser et al. 1989). Stalnaker et al. (1995) have summarized the minimum flows approach as one of standards development, stating that, “[f]ollowing the large reservoir and water development era of the mid-twentieth century in North America, resource agencies became concerned over the loss of many miles of riverine fish and wildlife resources in the arid western United States. Consequently, several western states began issuing rules for protecting existing stream resources from future depletions caused by accelerated water development. Many assessment methods appeared during the 1960's and early 1970's. These techniques were based on hydrologic analysis of the water supply and hydraulic considerations of critical stream channel segments, coupled with empirical observations of habitat quality and an understanding of riverine fish ecology. Application of these methods usually resulted in a single threshold or ‘minimum’ flow value for a specified stream reach.” 1.3 The Flow Regime The idea that a single minimum flow is not satisfactory for maintaining a river ecosystem was most emphatically stated by Stalnaker (1990) who declared that “minimum flow is a myth”. The purpose of his paper was to argue that “multiple flow regimes are needed to maintain biotic and abiotic resources within a river ecosystem” (Hill et al. 1991). The logic is that “maintenance of stream ecosystems rests on streamflow management practices that protect physical processes which, in turn, influence biological systems.” Hill et al. (1991) identified four types of flows that should be considered when examining river flow requirements, including: 1-2
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: Acknowledgement The authors would l
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 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 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 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?