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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Discharge, on the other hand, refers to the volume of water moving past a point, and depending on the size of the stream (cross sectional area), similar volumes of water can be moved with quite large differences in the rate of flow (velocity). The volume of water moved through a stream can be particularly important to an estuary. It is the volume of freshwater that mixes with salt water that determines what the salinity in a fixed area of an estuary will be. This is especially important for organisms that require a certain range of salinity. The volumes of fresh and marine water determine salinity, not the flow rate per se; therefore, volume rather than flow is the important variable to these biota. For the purpose of developing and evaluating minimum flows, the District identifies discharge in cubic feet per second for field-sampling sites and specific streamflow gaging stations. In some cases, the water level or the elevation of the water above a certain point is the critical issue to dependent biota. For example, the wetland fringing a stream channel is dependent on a certain hydroperiod or seasonal pattern of inundation. On average, the associated wetland requires a certain level and frequency of inundation. Water level and the duration that it is maintained will determine to a large degree the types of vegetation that can occur in an area. Flow and volume are not the critical criteria that need to be met, but rather elevation or level. There is a distinction between volumes, levels and flows that should be appreciated. Although levels can be related to flows and volumes in a given stream (stream gaging, in fact, depends on the relationship between stream stage or level and discharge), the relationship varies between streams and as one progresses from upstream to downstream in the same system. Because relationships can be empirically determined between levels, flows and volumes, it is possible to speak in terms of, for example, minimum flows; however, one needs to appreciate that individual species and many physical features may be most dependent on a given flow, level or volume or some combination of the three for their continued survival or occurrence. The resultant ecosystem is dependent on all three. 1.7 Content of Remaining Chapters In this chapter, we have summarized the requirements and rationale for developing minimum flows and levels in general and introduced the need for protection of the flow regime rather than protection of a single minimum flow. The remainder of this document considers the development of minimum flows and levels specific to the freshwater segment of the Alafia River. In Chapter 2, we provide a description of the basin and its hydrogeologic setting, and consider historic and current river flows and the factors that have influenced the flow regimes. Identification of at least two benchmark periods of flow, resulting from naturally occurring climatic oscillations is noted, and seasonal blocks corresponding to low, medium and high flows are identified. Water quality changes related to flow are also summarized in Chapter 2 1-9
to enhance understanding of historical flow changes in the watershed. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of the resources of concern and key habitat indicators used for developing minimum flows. Specific methodologies and tools used to develop the minimum flows are outlined in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, we present results of our analyses and provide flow prescriptions that are used for developing proposed minimum flows for the Alafia River. The report concludes with recommendations for evaluating compliance with the proposed minimum flows, based on the proposed short and long-term compliance standards for the Alafia River. 1-10
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: Period of Record Median Daily Flows
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: Period of Record Median Daily Flows
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: Period of Record Median Daily Flows
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?