1 / 19

DEVELOPMENT OF MINIMUM LEVELS AND FLOWS FOR BLUE SPRING, MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA

DEVELOPMENT OF MINIMUM LEVELS AND FLOWS FOR BLUE SPRING, MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA. Suwannee River Basin and Estuary Workshop. Sam Upchurch - SDII Global Corp. Mark Farrell - Water Resources Assoc. Tony Janicki - Janicki Environmental John Good, Rob Mattson, David Hornsby - SRWMD

ronald
Download Presentation

DEVELOPMENT OF MINIMUM LEVELS AND FLOWS FOR BLUE SPRING, MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DEVELOPMENT OF MINIMUM LEVELS AND FLOWS FOR BLUE SPRING, MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA Suwannee River Basin and Estuary Workshop Sam Upchurch - SDII Global Corp. Mark Farrell - Water Resources Assoc. Tony Janicki - Janicki Environmental John Good, Rob Mattson, David Hornsby - SRWMD Jim Schneider – SDII Global Corp. David Wade, Kate Malloy – Janicki Env.

  2. Project Objectives • Define “significant harm” for spring • Establish Minimum Flow for spring • Assist District with specific permitting tools • Groundwater Assessment Tool • Water Shortage Plan

  3. # J e n n i n g s J a s p e r # M a d i s o n ( X # # G r e e n v i l l e L e e # W h i t e S p r i n g s # L i v e O a k # Madison Blue Study Area

  4. Data Issues • New withdrawal • Limited biologic and hydrologic data • Impact of spring on Withlacoochee River • Spring is an estevelle • Improved water-use modeling tools needed

  5. Views of the Spring Mixing of spring and river water Estevelle action – river flowing into spring

  6. MFL Establishment Process Select Target Criteria Data Assessment Data Analysis Board Adoption Select MFL Implementation

  7. MFL Issues • Limited data • Limited ecological activity in spring run • Interaction with Withlacoochee River • First magnitude spring classification

  8. Approach • Use best available data • Evaluate applicable 62-40.473 criteria • Identify limiting target criteria • Identify minimum flow to prevent significant harm to water resource and related ecology

  9. 62-40.473 F.A.C.Ecological and Water Resource Values • Recreation in and on the water; • Fish and wildlife habitats and the passage of fish; • Estuarine resources; • Transfer of detrital material; • Maintenance of freshwater storage and supply; • Aesthetic and scenic attributes; • Filtration and adsorption of nutrients and other pollutants; • Sediment loads; • Water quality; and • Navigation.

  10. Methods • Integrate surface- and ground-water data • Synthesize historic spring discharge • Process • Statistical models • Flow duration models • HEC-RAS models • Identify ecologic impacts • Correlate flow and ecological constraints

  11. Water Quality • No significant relationship between MBS water quality and Withlacoochee River • Will be an issue in the Withlacoochee River MFL

  12. Relationship of Spring to River • At low flow MBS appears to contribute about 25% of base flow • To avoid low MBS discharge issues during flood, set MFL for river stages < 52 feet NGVD • Maintenance of stage over downstream shoals by MBS base flow is limiting factor

  13. Downstream Shoals Shoal 6 – 9.02 miles from MBS - Withlacoochee River Mile Marker 2.74

  14. Shoal Passage and Inundation

  15. Comparison of Shoal Habitat Areas Minimum Flow Madison Blue (cfs) Shoal Area Passable by Fish (acres) Shoal Area Wetted (acres) Difference from Historical Shoal Area Passable by Fish (acres)(%) Difference from Historical Shoal Area Wetted (acres)(%) 70 cfs 4.8 5.1 -0.4 (-7.7%) -0.3 ( -5.6%) 85 cfs 5.1 5.3 -0.1 (-1.9%) -0.1 ( -1.9%) 100 cfs 5.2 5.5 0.0 +0.1 (+1.8%)

  16. Consequences of 70 cfs MFL

  17. Applicability to Ecological and Water Resource Values Applicable Ecological & water Resource Values Proposed Minimum Flow Benefits Provided by Flow Requirements Does 70 cfs MFL Meet or Exceed Value Flow Requirements? Fish and Wildlife Habitats and the Passage of Fish >70 cfs Provides protection from significant harm to shoal habitat and fish passage in the Withlacoochee River YES Maintenance of Freshwater Storage and Supply >70 cfs Provides maintenance of existing permitted water use YES Recreation in and on the Water >70 cfs minimum Provides a full spring pool and flow in the spring run YES Aesthetic and Scenic Attributes >70 cfs >100 cfs median Provides a full spring pool and flow in the spring run and classification as a first magnitude spring YES Water Quality NA NA NA

  18. Recommendations • Adopt a minimum flow of 70 cfs for MBS applicable when the stage of the Withlacoochee River measured at the Pinetta gauge is 52 feet (NGVD) or less and which maintains a 100 cfs median flow for the MBS spring discharge. 2. Re-evaluate the MBS minimum flow five years after MFL adoption by incorporating additional data collected for related surface water, groundwater, ecological systems and water use within the springshed.

  19. Next Steps • Initiate the MBS MFL rule adoption process • Initiate water shortage rule adoption process

More Related