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 ...
“It is believed that even without the intervention of man, that flows in many stream and river systems would show a decline of 20 to 40% when the two multidecadal periods are compared” is supported by the available data. A plot of the long-term annual rainfall and annual flow data is shown in Figure 2. 2) Upper Alafia River Water Budgets Sect. 2.3 of the draft report also proposes that causal relationships exist between long-term trends in the gaged flow of the Alafia River (measured at the Lithia gage) and changes in the water management practices used by the phosphate industry. The proposed relationship is described as followed in the draft report: “Although there has been considerable phosphate mining in the Alafia watershed (especially in the watersheds of the North and South Prongs) and substantial groundwater withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer, comparison of river flow declines with neighboring watersheds suggests a similar causative factor for flow declines. Our analyses indicate that flow declines attributed by Stoker et al (1996) to groundwater withdrawals, and by SDI (2003) to increasing area of mined land are due to another factor, namely the removal or reduction of discharges from the phosphate mining industry.” (p. 2-28) “. . . the flows of the Alafia River were actually augmented during the 70's (and for at least part of the 60's)” (p. 2-36) “. . . flow data indicate that mine related discharges were essentially eliminated from both the North and South Prongs by the late 1970s or early 1980s.” (p. 2-52) “Decreases in discharge were accomplished through increased water use efficiency and a decrease in ground water usage.” (p. 2-49) Consideration of these statements and a quick review of the Stoker et al. (1996) report leads to the following questions: Question 2A. The changes in mining practices that are alluded to in the draft report apparently occurred during the 1960s and 1970s and had significant influence on the hydrology of the Alafia River. However, the report provides no information on or estimates of the quantities of water that were discharged to the river during the “augmentation” phase, the quantities of groundwater that were used during this phase, or the effects of these groundwater withdrawals on surface water hydrology. Should a detailed analysis of these factors – including quantitative water budgets for the Alafia River during the period prior to, during, and following the period of apparent Appendix C ii
“augmentation” – be performed as part of the Alafia River MFL process, in order to better understand the changes in surface water flows that may have occurred during this period? Question 2B. A statement made on p. 2-28 of the draft report – that long-term flow trends in the Alafia River are primarily due to changes in water management practices by the phosphate industry – appears to conflict with statements made on p. 2-33 (and elsewhere) of the report, which imply that the long-term trends were caused primarily by multi-decadal changes in rainfall associated with the AMO. Should a more comprehensive comparison of these factors, including the development of quantitative water budgets, be performed as part of the Alafia River MFL process in order to better understand the relative contributions of each of these factors to the long-term flow changes that have occurred in the river? 3) I mplications of No MFL Established for the Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal It is unclear to us how the existing Water Use Permits held by Tampa Bay Water and the City of Tampa will be affected by the establishment of no minimum flow over S-160 into the Palm River. Under the conditions of each WUP, once a MFL is established for a waterbody (or effectively no MFL established, in this case), a re-evaluation of permitted quantities and withdrawal schedules may be necessary. Question 3. Given the conditions set forth in the Tampa Bay Water WUP (see Table 2-5 of the report) where flow over S-160 is a determining factor in withdrawal quantity, will the establishment of no MFL for the Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal effectively negate this permit requirement for future application of renewal? Appendix C iii
- 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: As shown in Table 1, a nonparametri
- 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
“augmentation” – be performed as part of the <strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong> MFL<br />
process, in order to better underst<strong>and</strong> the changes in surface<br />
water flows that may have occurred during this period?<br />
Question 2B. A statement made on p. 2-28 of the draft report – that<br />
long-term flow trends in the <strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong> are primarily due to<br />
changes in water management practices by the phosphate<br />
industry – appears to conflict with statements made on p. 2-33<br />
(<strong>and</strong> elsewhere) of the report, which imply that the long-term<br />
trends were caused primarily by multi-decadal changes in<br />
rainfall associated with the AMO. Should a more<br />
comprehensive comparison of these factors, including the<br />
development of quantitative water budgets, be performed as<br />
part of the <strong>Alafia</strong> <strong>River</strong> MFL process in order to better<br />
underst<strong>and</strong> the relative contributions of each of these factors<br />
to the long-term flow changes that have occurred in the river?<br />
3) I mplications of No MFL Established for the Palm <strong>River</strong>/Tampa Bypass<br />
Canal<br />
It is unclear to us how the existing <strong>Water</strong> Use Permits held by Tampa Bay <strong>Water</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> the City of Tampa will be affected by the establishment of no minimum flow<br />
over S-160 into the Palm <strong>River</strong>. Under the conditions of each WUP, once a MFL<br />
is established for a waterbody (or effectively no MFL established, in this case), a<br />
re-evaluation of permitted quantities <strong>and</strong> withdrawal schedules may be<br />
necessary.<br />
Question 3. Given the conditions set forth in the Tampa Bay <strong>Water</strong> WUP<br />
(see Table 2-5 of the report) where flow over S-160 is a<br />
determining factor in withdrawal quantity, will the<br />
establishment of no MFL for the Palm <strong>River</strong>/Tampa Bypass<br />
Canal effectively negate this permit requirement for future<br />
application of renewal?<br />
Appendix C iii
Change language