Chapter 1 Minimum Flows and Levels - Southwest Florida Water ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

30 25 Mean Habitat Elevation (ft NGVD) 20 15 10 5 0 Wetland Trees Wetland Plants Exposed Roots Snags Bottom Substrates -5 15.00 14.00 USGS @ Lorraine 13.00 12.00 11.00 USGS near Lorraine Distance from Mouth of River (miles) 10.00 9.00 Linger Lodge Figure 5-12. Mean elevations of instream habitats at fourteen cross-section sites on the Braden River. 5.5.3 Flow Relationships with Woody Instream Habitats Based on the ecological importance of woody habitat, and its potential for use in development of a medium-flow standard, inundation patterns were examined for exposed root and snag habitats at fourteen Braden River instream habitat crosssections (Table 5-9). Based on HEC-RAS output, flows at the USGS Braden River near Lorraine gage that are sufficient for inundation of the mean elevation of exposed root habitat at the fourteen sites ranged from 26 to 315 cfs with a mean of 113 cfs. Snag habitat was observed at twelve of the cross-section sites, but flows required for inundation of mean snag elevation were estimated for only ten of the sites because the habitats occurred at two sites at elevations associated with flows that were lower than those modeled with HEC-RAS. Based on data for ten cross-section sites, flows at the Braden River near Lorraine gage ranging from 7 to 102 cfs, with a mean of 29 cfs, were sufficient for inundation of snag habitats. 5-22
Table 5-9. Mean elevation of instream woody habitats (exposed roots and snags) at fourteen instream habitat cross-section sites, corresponding flows at the USGS Braden River near Lorraine gage site required for inundation of the mean elevations, and maximum percent-of-flow reductions associated with less than a 15% reduction in the number of days flow sufficient to inundate the mean habitat elevations for two benchmark periods.. Habitat Site Mean Elevation (ft NAVD88) Flow at Gage (cfs) Required for Inundation Percent -of- Flow Reduction 1988-1994 Percent -of- Flow Reduction 1995-2005 Exposed Root 1 22.8 88 16 15 Exposed Root 2 21.8 90 15 15 Exposed Root 3 20.1 62 18 13 Exposed Root 4 18.7 80 13 14 Exposed Root 5 18.6 164 10 14 Exposed Root 6 15.7 65 15 16 Exposed Root 7 15.7 76 11 11 Exposed Root 8 10.6 84 14 14 Exposed Root 9 8 44 13 17 Exposed Root 10 5.6 26 10 13 Exposed Root 12 6.4 315 7 11 Exposed Root 13 4.1 203 19 21 Exposed Root 14 3.1 58 17 14 Exposed Root 15 3.5 233 10 27 Mean 113 16 20 a Snag 1 19.4 11 8 15 Snag 2 19 14 12 17 Snag 3 19.2 35 16 16 Snag 4 15.6 7 50 50 Snag 5 14.7 14 12 17 Snag 6 16.6 102 17 16 Snag 7 11.9 19 13 17 Snag 8 8.6 38 13 5 Snag 9 7.1 25 13 13 Snag 10 5.1 22 18 15 Snag 13 2.3 NA a Snag 14 2.2 NA a Mean 29 12 17 NA = not available; flows required to inundate the habitat were below modeled flows. 5-23
Page 1 and 2:
Proposed Minimum Flows and Levels f
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 5 and 6:
5.5 PRESCRIBED FLOW REDUCTION FOR B
Page 7 and 8:
Figure 2-19. Potassium concentratio
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 5-13. Median daily flow at t
Page 11 and 12:
mean feature elevations are listed
Page 13 and 14:
For the high flow season of the yea
Page 15 and 16:
Acknowledgements The authors would
Page 17 and 18:
fluctuations in water flows or leve
Page 19 and 20:
Common to this list and the flow re
Page 21 and 22:
Fundamental to the approach used fo
Page 23 and 24:
300 250 Block 1 Block 3 Block 2 Flo
Page 25 and 26:
are outlined in Chapter 4. In Chapt
Page 27 and 28:
as the freshwater segment upstream
Page 29 and 30:
attributed to analytic precision di
Page 31 and 32:
Figure 2-4. 1999 land use/cover map
Page 33 and 34:
Table 2-2. Land use/cover and land
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 2-8. 1999 Land use/cover map
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 2-10. 1972 Land use/cover ma
Page 39 and 40:
Smith and Stopp (1978) note that "i
Page 41 and 42:
2.4.2.1 Multidecadal Periods of Hig
Page 43 and 44:
2.4.3.2 Step Trend in River Flows K
Page 45 and 46:
Table 2-4. Results of Kendall's tau
Page 47 and 48:
2.4.4 Benchmark Periods Climate-bas
Page 49 and 50:
Oscillation were examined. On a sea
Page 51 and 52:
Water Chemistry 2.4.6 Water Quality
Page 53 and 54:
Braden River near Lorraine, FL 0.6
Page 55 and 56:
Peace River at Arcadia, FL 10 Potas
Page 57 and 58: Table 2-8. Summary statistics for B
Page 59 and 60: 3.2 Resources and Area of Concern T
Page 61 and 62: habitat, the greater area of stream
Page 63 and 64: levels such as fish have been shown
Page 65 and 66: Figure 3-1. Example of low flow in
Page 67 and 68: USGS Braden River near Lorraine gag
Page 69 and 70: instream cross-sections were sample
Page 71 and 72: Figure 4-2. Upstream vegetation cro
Page 73 and 74: supports water surface profile calc
Page 75 and 76: The HEC-RAS model was run using 21
Page 77 and 78: Adult Spotted Sunfish Adults - Brad
Page 79 and 80: species of interest. For example cu
Page 81 and 82: 4.4 Seasonal Flow and Development o
Page 83 and 84: Wetted Perimeter - Sta. 44.9 25 20
Page 85 and 86: factors, the most conservative of w
Page 87 and 88: Chapter 5 Results and Recommended M
Page 89 and 90: Wetted Perimeter Requirements Flow
Page 91 and 92: 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 May June M
Page 93 and 94: Floodplain profiles and vegetation
Page 95 and 96: mean elevation of the Oak/popash ve
Page 97 and 98: Table 5-3. Mean (±SD) flows at the
Page 99 and 100: Elevaton (NGVD) 27.0 22.0 17.0 12.0
Page 101 and 102: Table 5-7. Median elevations, in fe
Page 103 and 104: 80 70 60 Flow reduction (%) 50 40 3
Page 105 and 106: Table 5-8. Recommended percent flow
Page 107: 100 90 80 % DOMINANCE 70 60 50 40 3
Page 111 and 112: The second standard was developed t
Page 113 and 114: Table 5-10. Proposed Minimum Flows
Page 115 and 116: Division Information and Technology
Page 117 and 118: Hupalo, R., C. Neubauer, L. Keenan,
Page 119 and 120: communities in the corridors of the
Page 121 and 122: Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C.
Page 123 and 124: Confined Aquifer - A term used to d
Page 125 and 126: Instream Habitats - A specific type
Page 127 and 128: Riffle - A relatively shallow reach
Page 129 and 130: Chapter 8 Appendix A A Review of
Page 131 and 132: steps to reduce the uncertainty and
Page 133 and 134: 2007). In addition, the approach us
Page 135 and 136: with limited biological knowledge o
Page 137 and 138: the other factors listed above or w
Page 139 and 140: have now been developed and adopted
Page 141 and 142: An example of the primary output fr
Page 143 and 144: prevent negative effects associated
Page 145 and 146: methods, such as LiDAR, to improve
Page 147 and 148: habitat reduction criterion and the
Page 149 and 150: Summary, Special Publication SJ2002
Page 151 and 152: Errata / comments by page number in
Page 153 and 154: 4-20 Section 4.7.1, 1 st paragraph,
Page 155 and 156: Chapter 9 Appendix B - Staff Respon
Page 157 and 158: 2) The panel notes that the period
Page 159 and 160:
4) One aspect of Chapter 2 should b
Page 161 and 162:
Preventing Significant Harm - 15% C
Page 163 and 164:
they aren't getting enough particul
Page 165 and 166:
Habitat Criteria and Characterizati
Page 167 and 168:
Compliance Standards and Proposed M
Page 169 and 170:
Glossary of Terms 13) When an inter
show all

Chapter 1 Minimum Flows and Levels - Southwest Florida Water ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?