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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5) The panel suggests that the District has not fully addressed the subset of factors listed in the Florida Administrative Code (Rule 62- 40.473 F.A.C) that are to be considered when setting MFLs. Specifically, they note that there should be concern from the District for maintaining a minimum dissolved oxygen level and sustaining temperature below some undefined threshold. Not every one of the ten factors listed in Rule 62-40.473, F.A.C. is expressly addressed in the MFLs documents generated by the District. Staff does believe, however, that the percent-of-flow approach to surface water regulation provides protection for each of the listed factors. Staff have not interpreted the F.A.C. directive to consider the listed factors to mean that each must be expressly studied on each river, when it is reasonable to assume that other factors examined would be expected to afford protection to the factors not explicitly studied. With respect to this position, the panel notes that another state water management districts has developed reports in which it has been concluded that many of the factors listed in the F.A.C are not applicable to specific water bodies. The District has engaged external expertise during the Rainbow River MFL process to evaluate the efficacy of such studies. Staff agree with the panel's specific comment that dissolved oxygen and water temperature should be considered when developing minimum flows. To address this issue, staff has recently concluded a study examining the effects of flow variability across river shoals on temperature and dissolved oxygen. Details on the study were not included in the Braden River MFLs report because they were not used in the generation of the recommended Braden River MFLs. 9-6
Preventing Significant Harm – 15% Change n Habitat Availability 6) The authors of the peer review report state that the 15% habitat loss criterion remains one of the most subjective aspects of the District's approach. They do, however, note that staff correctly points out that there are few thresholds or "bright lines" which can be identified for establishing MFLs, and that previous peer review panels found the criterion to be "reasonable and prudent." The panel acknowledges that the use of the criterion is rational and pragmatic, but claims that the specific value of 15% is subjective. Staff agrees that the use of the15% habitat loss criterion for establishing MFLs may be considered subjective. The criterion was, however, developed based on review of threshold values used for other minimum flow determinations reported in the literature and a previous peer review recommendation. Staff acknowledges that additional documentation could be gathered and reviewed to support or potentially refine use of a percentage-based habitat-loss criterion for MFLs development, and plans to hire a consultant to complete this effort. Staff has also engaged the peer review panel in discussions concerning a potential study for validating and refining the assumptions associated with use of the 15% habitat-loss criterion. 9-7
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 and 108:
100 90 80 % DOMINANCE 70 60 50 40 3
Page 109 and 110: Table 5-9. Mean elevation of instre
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: 4) One aspect of Chapter 2 should b
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?