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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bryant (1990) have demonstrated that different macroinvertebrate life stages also require different hydraulic conditions to achieve completion of life cycles, just as fish species have very different spawning, incubation, and maintenance requirements. Recently, Gore et al. (2001) demonstrated that inclusion of macroinvertebrate criteria often dramatically altered decisions on flow allocations versus those based upon analysis of fish species alone. By the same token, we recommend that the District evaluate whether additional habitat suitability curves should be developed and PHABSIM analyses be conducted for other species that may be more sensitive to hydrological change than the three common centrarchid fishes identified in the Middle Peace report. These other species might include key invertebrates in the rivers of the District. Changes in velocity distribution and substrate/cover characteristics at regular intervals, combined with stage/discharge relationships, provide the calibration data for PHABSIM. Habitat suitability curves were developed for spotted sunfish (Lepomis punctatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and macroinvertebrate community diversity (Gore et al. 2001, Stuber et al. 1982). These are appropriate species for consideration in rivers of the southern Florida peninsula and their selection is validated by data presented on fish abundance in the appendices to the MFL reports. Helpful information on the methods used for aquatic invertebrate and fish community assessment was included in Chapter 4 of the Alafia report, but was absent from the Myakka report. It is not clear whether such assessments were only conducted for the Alafia or whether the same assessments were carried out for the Myakka but the information was left out of the Myakka report. The need for continued development and refinement of habitat suitability curves for these species and other species of concern remains a necessary long-term goal (as noted below), but the peer review panel affirms that the best available information was used in the PHABSIM modeling for the Alafia and Myakka rivers. This strengthens the specific recommendations for MFLs made in the report. Over the long term, we recommend that the District focus research on evaluating and potentially developing habitat suitability information on additional species or groups of species that may be more sensitive to changes in hydrological regimes. Of particular concern would be any listed, imperiled, or endemic species, species tracked by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (e.g., ironcolor shiner, present in both the Alafia and upper Myakka rivers), wading birds and fish species with preferences for stream edges or banks that might be the first places to feel the effects of reduced flows. Similarly, it may be useful to develop better habitat suitability information for certain exotic species present in these rivers (e.g., blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus)) to ensure that reduced flows do not improve habitat conditions for such species or facilitate their invasion of new habitat. Additional species of concern in the Alafia and Myakka rivers that may not be directly amenable to the PHABSIM approach include several species of rare plants inhabiting the floodplain (FNAI Element Occurrence Database, 2005). Appendix A XI
RALPH PLOTS AND ANALYSES Recent and Long-Term Positional Hydrographs (RALPH) plots and analyses were used in the reports to identify the number of days from a defined period of record when flows or levels associated with a specific aquatic habitat or floodplain feature were equaled or exceeded. These analyses were applied at various river cross-sections and enable a quantitative assessment of how flow reductions of a certain magnitude would affect the number of days that certain flow characteristics would be met or exceeded. Examples are given in the reports. As a means of analysis and graphical visualization, the panel feels that the RALPH plots are an important enhancement to the presentation of MFLs for riverine systems, and we recommend that the District continue to utilize and refine this tool for future MFL development. Habitat Criteria and Characterization Methods Used to Develop MFLs FISH PASSAGE Fish passage was used to estimate flows sufficient to permit fish movement throughout the Alafia and Myakka rivers. Flows of this magnitude would also likely permit recreation (i.e., canoeing). A fish passage criterion of 0.6 ft was used based in part on size data from large-bodied fishes in Florida streams and minimum fish passage depths used in other instream flow settings elsewhere in the U.S. This criterion has been used to develop previous minimum flow plans (SWFWMD 2002) and has been found acceptable by peer reviewers (Gore et al. 2002). This notwithstanding, fish passage depths in the range of 0.5-0.8 ft were originally derived from requirements of migratory salmonids in cool, well oxygenated waters of the western U.S. The adequacy of these standards for use in Florida’s warmwater streams has been questioned by resource managers (HSW Engineering, Inc. 2004). Although no definitive research has yet been conducted on this issue (Hill and Cichra 2002), it is the emerging consensus that minimum depth criteria used in Florida need to be re-evaluated to ensure that they adequately prevent negative effects associated with low flows in warmwater ecosystems, including high water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, algal blooms and increased predatory pressure, in addition to mere physical passage of fish. The peer review panel recommends that the District engage with researchers studying fish passage depths for warmwater streams and actively work to develop minimum fish passage criteria that are more suitable for warmwater aquatic ecosystems, and which go beyond the issue of simple physical passage to address other negative impacts of low flows. Appendix A XII
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:
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 65 and 66:
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:
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: MFLs for the Alafia and Myakka rive
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?