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 ...
APPENDIX B - Staff Response to Peer Review Introduction Overall the peer review committee endorsed the Districts approach to establishing minimum flows and levels on the freshwater segment of the Alafia River. Specifically the peer review committee noted that the assumptions of the approach are well documented and are reasonable, the tools and methods of analysis employed are appropriate and utilize best available information, and the conclusions in the report are based on an impressive field data collection effort and sound application of findings from the scientific literature. In short they found "no serious flaws or errors in the methodology or findings documented in the report" (Cichra et al. 2005, Appendix A). The Panel also found particular merit with and strongly endorses several novel concepts including; – Identifying two separate benchmark periods based on different phases of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) . . . – Applying multiple, independent approaches to identify the most protective minimum flow in each seasonal block. . . – Specifying minimum flows in terms of allowable percent flow reductions that vary by season and flow conditions. However, the panel did supply some direction for improving the report. 1. It should be acknowledged, however, that a 15% change in habitat availability based on a reduction in spatial extent of habitat (as was used in PHABSIM analyses) may not be equivalent to a 15% change in habitat availability based on number of days a particular habitat is inundated. The District acknowledges this and is currently performing a comparison of temporal and spatial loss of habitat. The results are under review but preliminarily indicate that on the Alafia River flow reduction required to effect a 15% spatial loss are greater then those required to effect a 15% temporal loss (Munson and Delfino in review). 2. A more explicit discussion of the precision and accuracy of HEC-RAS would be a helpful addition to the report. Specifically, what is the expected level of uncertainty? Also what steps are being taken to validate the model? Appendix B i
The District has added to Chapter 4 a discussion of the uncertainty in the data used for the model. This was also done prior to the peer review of the Alafiaa River MFL report. In the peer review report of the Alafia River the peer review panel note that "a more thorough discussion of precision and accuracy issues related to the use of HEC-RAS and the methods of determining cross section elevations is provided in the Alafia Report, perhaps, in response to peer review suggestions for the middle Peace River" (Appendix A). This is the case and a similar discussion has been added to this report. To validate the model and help with a study, in part generated by comment 5 below, the District is installing gages at sites in rivers and adjacent wetlands. Data collected from these sites will assist with validation of the HEC-RAS model results. 3. 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 change in the hydrologic regime. The District agrees and had, prior to this recommendation, arranged with Dr. James Gore of the University of South Florida to develop additional habitat suitability curves specific to southwest Florida species. 4. Although no definitive research has yet been conducted on this issue, it is the emerging consensus that minimum depth criteria used in Florida needs to be re-evaluated to ensure that they adequately prevent negative effects associated with low flows in warm water ecosystems. To address this issue the District is identifying locations on rivers where such research can occur, and staff is proposing the deployment of data logging equipment under low flow conditions to collect data necessary to further investigate this issue. 5. While the panel feels that 0.6 ft is most likely an adequate depth that will permit canoeing during low flow periods, this issue and discussion of appropriate minimum depth criteria should be further developed. The District will continue to review the literature regarding minimum depth requirements for canoeing and other recreational activities, and assimilate this information into future minimum flow analysis and reports. Appendix B ii
- 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: Shaw, D.T., C.N. Dahm, and S.W. Gol
- 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
The District has added to Chapter 4 a discussion of the uncertainty in the<br />
data used for the model. This was also done prior to the peer review of<br />
the <strong>Alafia</strong>a <strong>River</strong> MFL report. In the peer review report of the <strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />
the peer review panel note that "a more thorough discussion of precision<br />
<strong>and</strong> accuracy issues related to the use of HEC-RAS <strong>and</strong> the methods of<br />
determining cross section elevations is provided in the <strong>Alafia</strong> Report,<br />
perhaps, in response to peer review suggestions for the middle Peace<br />
<strong>River</strong>" (Appendix A). This is the case <strong>and</strong> a similar discussion has been<br />
added to this report.<br />
To validate the model <strong>and</strong> help with a study, in part generated by<br />
comment 5 below, the District is installing gages at sites in rivers <strong>and</strong><br />
adjacent wetl<strong>and</strong>s. Data collected from these sites will assist with<br />
validation of the HEC-RAS model results.<br />
3. Over the long term, we recommend that the District focus research on<br />
evaluating <strong>and</strong> potentially developing habitat suitability information on<br />
additional species or groups of species that may be more sensitive to<br />
change in the hydrologic regime.<br />
The District agrees <strong>and</strong> had, prior to this recommendation, arranged with<br />
Dr. James Gore of the University of South <strong>Florida</strong> to develop additional<br />
habitat suitability curves specific to southwest <strong>Florida</strong> species.<br />
4. Although no definitive research has yet been conducted on this issue, it is<br />
the emerging consensus that minimum depth criteria used in <strong>Florida</strong><br />
needs to be re-evaluated to ensure that they adequately prevent negative<br />
effects associated with low flows in warm water ecosystems.<br />
To address this issue the District is identifying locations on rivers where<br />
such research can occur, <strong>and</strong> staff is proposing the deployment of data<br />
logging equipment under low flow conditions to collect data necessary to<br />
further investigate this issue.<br />
5. While the panel feels that 0.6 ft is most likely an adequate depth that will<br />
permit canoeing during low flow periods, this issue <strong>and</strong> discussion of<br />
appropriate minimum depth criteria should be further developed.<br />
The District will continue to review the literature regarding minimum depth<br />
requirements for canoeing <strong>and</strong> other recreational activities, <strong>and</strong> assimilate this<br />
information into future minimum flow analysis <strong>and</strong> reports.<br />
Appendix B ii