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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.1.4.6 Springflow and Groundwater Relationship Previous studies investigating the relationship between groundwater levels and flow from Lithia or Buckhorn Springs include Geraghty & Miller (1984), Jones and Upchurch (1983), Basso (1998), and SDI (1988, 1992, 2002). Results from regression analyses by Geraghty & Miller (1984) included a moderate correlation between springflow at Lithia Springs and water levels from a UFA well located approximately 1.5 miles west of the spring. A strong correlation was also observed between springflow and water levels in a surficial aquifer well located approximately 1.25 miles south of the spring. Regression analysis performed by Basso (1998) using spring flow at Buckhorn and Lithia Springs and water level data from wells (4 SAS, 5 IAS and 12 UFA) located adjacent to and up to five miles from the springs were generally inconclusive. Poor to moderate correlations between springflow and water levels were observed. Coefficient of determination (r 2 ) values ranged from 0.1 to 0.7 with the furthest monitor well (located approximately 5 miles from Lithia Springs) showing the highest correlation with springflow). Higher r 2 values were obtained using Lithia Springs than Buckhorn Springs. Using hydrochemical and isotope analyses, Jones and Upchurch (1993) determined that springflow from the Lithia and Buckhorn complexes were derived primarily from UFA groundwater recharged from the BKT. Fracture trace analyses indicated the presence of karst conduits that could provide significant pathways for groundwater to move from the BKT to the springs. For the smaller Boyette and Green Springs, the major source of water is derived primarily from the local surficial aquifer. To further examine relationships between groundwater levels in the BKT area and springflow, we evaluated available data, including water level data from wells constructed and monitored since 2000 for the Brandon Urban Dispersed Wellfield permit. Coefficients of determination (r 2 ), indicating the strength of linear relationship between springflow and water levels are presented on Figures 2-7 and 2-8 for Lithia and Buckhorn Springs, respectively. For almost all of the UFA wells located within the BKT, a strong correlation (r 2 > 0.8) was noted between water level and springflow. Coefficient of determination values were generally higher for well water levels and flow at Lithia springs (greater than 0.9) than at Buckhorn Springs (mostly between 0.7 and 0.9). Strong correlations were observed from wells located just south and southwest of the BKT. Well water levels elsewhere showed only poor to moderate correlation with springflow. Our results corroborate previous findings by Jones and Upchurch (1993) who noted that springflow at Lithia and Buckhorn Springs is derived from recharge in the BKT. Regressions using SAS water level data showed only weak to moderate correlation with springflow. These results are also consistent with observations made by Basso (1998). Correlation analyses were also performed to determine the relationship between water level data and river stage data. Simultaneous (simple regression) and lagged 2-13
data (multiple regression) analyses showed weak (r 2 < 0.2) to moderate (r 2 < 0.8) correlations between the two variables. Simple linear regressions were also performed to assess the relationship between spring flows, spring water levels and river stage in the area. Correlation analyses between discharge quantities at Lithia and Buckhorn Springs indicate there is very little relationship between springflow at the two sites along the river. Neither simultaneous nor lagged water level data showed any significant correlation with spring flow (r 2 < 0.2). Figure 2-7. Coefficent of determination (r 2 ) values between nearby well water levels (in feet above NGVD) and discharge at Lithia Springs. 2-14
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: head differences indicating breache
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?