MEETING XVII SUMMARY REPORT MONDAY JANUARY 27, … · (The letter in parentheses refers to the...

Partnership Purpose: “Protection of natural resources and cost-effective, sustainable water supplies in the St. Johns River and Suwannee River water management districts through collaborative planning, scientific-tool development and other partnership efforts.”

NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING XVII SUMMARY REPORT

MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2014—1:00-5:00 P.M.

Florida Gateway College—Wilson S. Rivers Library and Media Center

149 SE College Place; Building 200; Room 102—Lake City, Florida 32025

Unanimously Adopted by the Stakeholder Steering Committee February 24, 2014

http://www.northfloridawater.com/

“Facilitating Consensus Solutions, Supporting Collaborative Action.”

The Florida State University

http://consensus.fsu.edu Facilitation Team: Robert Jones & Jeff Blair

NFRWSP SAC XVII Meeting Summary, January 27, 2014 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 MEETING SUMMARY 6 I. WELCOME & OVERVIEW 6 A. Introduction and Agenda Review 6 B. SAC Workplan Review 6 II. LOWER SANTA FE AND ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS AND ASSOCIATED SPRINGS DRAFT RECOVERY STRATEGY 6 A. Process for Drafting and Reviewing SAC Recommendations for the Draft Recovery Strategy 6 B. Review, Rating and Comments on Draft SAC Statements for the Draft Recovery Strategy 7 III. PUBLIC COMMENT 7 VI. SAC ADOPTION OF CONSENSUS STATEMENTS AND NEXT STEPS 7 APPENDICES 1. Meeting Agenda 9 2. Committee Members 10 3. Committee Meeting Evaluation Summary 11 4. Meeting Sign In Sheets 13 5. Public Comments- Meeting Comments and Previous Email Comments 14 6. SAC Motion on Participation in the Lower Santa Fe & Ichetucknee Rivers and Associated Springs MFLs Rule Development 17 7. SAC Review, Ratings and Discussion Comments on SAC Recommendation Statements for the Draft Recovery Strategy for the Lower Santa Fe River Basin 18 8. SAC Charge, Mission & Principles 34 9. SAC Background Documents 35 10. Stakeholder Advisory Committee Work plan 36 11. SAC Consensus Recommendations (August 2012- January 2013 37


NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Florida Gateway College—Wilson S. Rivers Library and Media Center Lake City, Florida 32025

MEETING XVII—MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2014—1:00-5:00 P.M.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Carlos D. Herd, Suwannee River Water Management District along with John Fitzgerald, St. Johns River Water Management District, welcomed all of the SAC members and the public to the Committee’s 17th meeting and introduced Janet Llewellyn with the FDEP and the FCRC Consensus Center facilitation team of Jeff Blair and Bob Jones. The facilitators reviewed with the Committee the proposed meeting objectives and agenda. The Committee reviewed and unanimously adopted the proposed Committee agenda as well as the Committee’s November 18, 2013 and December 17, 2013 meeting summaries that were sent to members in advance of the meeting.

The facilitators noted that FDEP has decided to extend the deadline for comments on the draft MFL Rule until after the SAC January 27, 2014 meeting to accommodate the SAC’s review and development of possible consensus recommendations on the draft MFL Rule Development for the Lower Santa Fe & Ichetucknee Rivers and Associated Springs. Following the SAC meeting, the public comment period will close on February 5, 2014.

The facilitator reviewed with the SAC the changes to the Workplan consisting of changes in dates for presentation based on updated schedule information on products from the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership.

The SAC then reviewed, rated, and refined, as necessary, the 42 draft recommendation statements (A-OO) and tested the level of consensus for each among the members using a 4-point rating scale. 25 statements were withdrawn by the proponent after discussion, 8 statements failed to secure 75% support, and the 11 Recommendation Statements listed below received 75% or more support of the SAC members. (The letter in parentheses refers to the initial listing of the 42 SAC member statements).

2.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MFLS 1. (D) The criteria for the establishment of MFLs should be summarized briefly in this Section

rather than merely making reference to them. 2 (E.) There should be discussion in the 2.0 about why flow was used to assess the status of the

water body rather than level or some combination of the two. 2.2 PEER REVIEW 3. (H.) Summarize the issues raised and how each of the key issues raised by the Peer Review

Panel was addressed/closed out in the Recovery Strategy. 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC INFLUENCE- REGIONAL IMPACTS


4. (J.) The fact that withdrawals in Georgia are having some effect on the water bodies in the region should be acknowledged in the Recovery Strategy.

4.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY GOALS AND APPROACH- RECOVERY GOALS 5. (P.) Add as a Recovery Goal: Recovery strategies should not adversely impact water bodies in the

adjacent basins and counties of North Florida. Specifically, the Clay-Putnam Recovery-designated Lakes of the Etoniah Chain and elsewhere.

5.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY COMPONENTS 6. (Q.) The SAC will be given an opportunity to make comments on the final draft Recovery

Strategy. 5.2 WATER CONSERVATION COMPONENT 7. (S.) It should be stated that conservation is expected of all users, and that successful

conservation practices among some user categories will not allow other user categories to reduce their conservation efforts.

8. (T.) Add a section after intro paragraph entitled “Agriculture Water Use Approach” as follows: “Agriculture’s approach to water conservation is to minimize water use to what the producer needs to meet product requirements for their operation and to limit producer ground water withdrawals to what their operation provides in recharge such that the aquifer is not impacted. Key strategies being pursued to optimize agriculture water use processes are: • Continuous process improvement through the use of Best Management Practices

maintained by FDAC and DEP in conjunction with the industry to assist the producer in minimizing water use for their products.

• Equipment technology improvements to improve water use efficiency. • Continuous producer implementation support with MIL labs and Ag Teams from FDAC,

WMD and the agriculture industry. • Science based modeling of the water cycle to ensure that for each producer the water use is

minimized for the specific land use and withdrawals are aligned to recharge, employing such groups as IFAS and the UF Water Institute in conjunction with industry, and using weather/eco stations to provide rainfall, ET, and soil moisture data to verify closure.”

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION 9. (X.) This section should include a strategy for developing consistent long-term enforcement

of the Lawn and Landscape irrigation rule. Land use management strategies will be addressed as we go from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the Recovery Strategy.

OTHER SAC RECOMMENDATIONS 10. (OO.) The general permit by rule for less than 100,000 gallons/day should remain in place. 11. (PP.) Identify needs and next steps for gathering “additional information”. As many responses

to concerns are “based on best available information” we need to identify critical areas where data is insufficient and commit to expanding research in these areas. Examples should include manatee use of the springs, impacts to the oval pigtoe (as federally endangered species) and other species as identified by FWC and other stakeholders. Needs should be identified as a condition for supporting the proposed MFLs for the lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers.


Paul Still, Administrator, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District, and Jeanette Hindsdale, Lover of Alachua County, provided public comment. Following public comment, the Committee unanimously adopted the package of 11 consensus recommendations to forward to the Districts and FDEP for their consideration developing the final draft Recovery Strategy for the Lower Santa Fe Basin. The facilitators noted the February 24, 2014 SAC meeting would include a review of revisions to the Recovery Strategy based on SAC and public comments, briefings on population and water demand projection methodologies, and on the Clay-Putnam MFLs and P &R strategies. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.



Florida Gateway College—Wilson S. Rivers Library and Media Center Lake City, Florida 32025


MEETING SUMMARY

SAC Members in attendance: Ray Avery, James Cornett, Thomas Harper, Gene Higginbotham Mary Lou Hildreth Kerry Kates J. Michael O’Berry, Bud Para, Stan Posey, Steve Roberts, & Jacqui Sulek & Patrick Welsh Staff: Carlos Herd SRWMD, John Fitzgerald SJRWMD Janet Llewellyn FDEP, FDACS Facilitators: Jeff Blair & Bob Jones I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF WORKPLAN

A. Welcome and Agenda Review Carlos D. Herd, Suwannee River Water Management District along with John Fitzgerald, St. Johns River Water Management District, welcomed all of the SAC members as well as the public to the Committee’s 17th meeting and introduced Janet Llewellyn with the FDEP and the FCRC Consensus Center facilitation team of Jeff Blair and Bob Jones. The facilitators reviewed with the Committee the proposed meeting objectives and agenda (See Appendix 1). The Committee reviewed and unanimously adopted the proposed Committee agenda as well as the Committee’s November and December 2013 meeting summaries that were sent to members in advance of the meeting.

B. SAC Workplan Review The facilitator reviewed with the SAC the changes to the Workplan consisting of changes in dates for presentation based on updated schedule information on products from the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership. (See Appendix 10) II. LOWER SANTA FE AND ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS AND ASSOCIATED

SPRINGS MFLS PREVENTION AND RECOVERY STRATEGIES- SAC RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Process for the Drafting and Review of SAC Recommendation Statements

At the September, 2013 SAC Meeting the Committee unanimously adopted the following motion: “The SAC members will identify and rate a series of strategies/options and provide a rating on each Prevention and Recovery (P&R) Strategy. Strategies and/or options with 75% or greater level of support will be considered consensus recommendations to the Districts and DEP (This is a formal rating of individual strategies/options). The SAC may decide to make recommendations


regarding the setting of the MFLs in conformance with their adopted consensus-building procedures. Any SAC member may provide a minority report pursuant to the procedures adopted by the SAC.”

At the November 18, 2013 SAC Meeting, members discussed the Draft Recovery Strategy document (11-15-2013) following its presentation at the DEP November 18, 2013 Rule Development Workshop. They agreed to respond to a survey in order to generate a set of proposed draft member recommendations for consideration at the December 16 2013 SAC meeting. At the December 16, 2013 SAC Meeting, members agreed to review the relevant Lower Santa Fe River Basin Recovery Strategy and MFL documents and to offer any additional potential recommendations pertaining to the Draft Recovery Strategy for SAC review, evaluation and potential adoption at the January 27, 2014 SAC Meeting. The Members agreed to forward to the facilitators additional and/or revised potential draft recommendation statements for the SAC to consider at its January 27, 2014 meeting. The facilitators compiled all of the SAC member recommendation statements and distributed the updated worksheet prior to the January 27, 2013 meeting.

On January 27, 2014, the facilitators reviewed the 4-point consensus rating scale and the SAC consensus rules noting that statements(s) with a 75% or greater number of 4’s and 3’s in proportion to 2’s and 1’s will be considered SAC consensus recommendations to be submitted to the Districts and DEP for their consideration by the comment deadline of February 5, 2014. They also noted that SAC members are always free to provide additional individual comments separate from the SAC’s ratings/comments. Additionally they noted that after the SAC review and rating of each of the statements but before a motion to adopt the consensus recommendations, the SAC would hear from the public.

B. Review and Ranking of SAC Statements on Draft MFL Strategy Sections The SAC reviewed, rated, and refined, as necessary, the 42 draft recommendation statements (A-OO) and tested the level of consensus for each among the members. (See Appendix #6 for ratings and related member comments). 25 statements were withdrawn by the proponent after discussion, 8 statements failed to secure 75% support. 11 Recommendation Statements received 75% or more support.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT Paul Still, Administrator, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District and Jeanette Hinsdale provided public comment on the SAC recommendations. A summary of their comments as well as comments submitted by email to the SAC are included in Appendix #4. IV. SAC ADOPTION OF CONSENSUS STATEMENTS AND NEXT STEPS Following public comment, the package of 11 SAC consensus recommendations were unanimously adopted by the SAC members to present to FDEP and the Districts. FDEP and the Water Management Districts agreed to return to the SAC at the next meeting to present their final draft and brief the SAC on how its recommendations were considered.


The facilitators noted the February 24, 2014 SAC meeting would include a review of revisions to the Recovery Strategy based on SAC and public comments, briefings on population and water demand projection methodologies, and on the Clay-Putnam MFLs and P &R strategies. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.


APPENDIX #1—MEETING AGENDA


Florida Gateway College—Wilson S. Rivers Library and Media Center 149 SE College Place; Building 200; Room 102—Lake City, Florida 32025


COMMITTEE MEETING OBJECTIVES ü To Approve Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, SAC Workplan and Meeting Schedule, and Matrix

of SAC Information Briefings) ü To Provide Feedback Regarding Lower Santa Fe & Ichetucknee Rivers MFL Recovery Strategies ü To Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Agenda Items for Next Meeting

MEETING AGENDA—MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2014 All Agenda Times—Including Publ i c Comment and Adjournment—Are Approximate &

Subjec t to Change 1.) 1:00 PM WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

• Member roll call 2.) 1:05 PM REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (JANUARY 27, 2014) 3.) 1:10 PM APPROVAL OF FACILITATOR’S MEETING SUMMARY REPORT (November 18,

2013 and December 16, 2013) 4.) 1:15 PM REVIEW & APPROVAL OF UPDATED COMMITTEE WORKPLAN AND MEETING

SCHEDULE; AND REVIEW LIST OF SAC INFORMATION AND BRIEFINGS • Review and approval of updated Workplan and Meeting Schedule; and Key

Topics for SAC evaluation 5.) 1:20 PM LOWER SANTA FE AND ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS AND PRIORITY SPRINGS MFLS

RECOVERY STRATEGIES UPDATE AND DISCUSSION (RWSP TASK #5) • SAC recommendations to DEP pertaining to draft Rule (e.g., recovery strategies)

~3:00 PM BREAK 3:15 PM LOWER SANTA FE & ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS & SPRINGS MFLS—CONTINUED 6.) 4:25 PM MEMBERS’ COMMENTS AND ISSUES

• Opportunity for members to offer any general comment 7.) 4:35 PM NEXT STEPS AND AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING (FEB. 24, 2014)

• Review action items and assignments • Identify agenda items any needed information for next meeting

8.) ~4:45 PM PUBLIC COMMENT 9.) ~5:00 PM ADJOURN


APPENDIX #2—COMMITTEE MEMBERS, STAFF AND FACILITATION TEAM

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

MEMBER REPRESENTATION PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIER Ray O. Avery Clay County Utility Authority Stephen Roberts (Jason Sparks, Alternate)

Lake City Utilities

COMMERCIAL/POWER GENERATION Bud Para JEA James Cornett Cornett’s Spirit of the Suwannee Inc. INDUSTRIAL/MINING J. Michael O’Berry Vulcan Materials Company Stan Posey PCS Phosphate AGRICULTURE Kerry Kates Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Thomas Harper Harper Farms ENVIRONMENTAL Dr. Patrick T. Welsh University of North Florida and Save Our Lakes Jacqui Sulek Audubon Florida LOCAL GOVERNMENT Mary Lou Hildreth Mayor, City of Keystone Heights Gene Higginbotham Commissioner, Dixie County WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS STAFF John Fitzgerald St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Al Canepa St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Teresa Monson St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Vanessa Fultz Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) Carlos Herd Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) STATE AGENCIES Florida Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

(FDACS) Other State Agencies as Required FACILITATION TEAM Bob Jones & Jeff Blair FCRC Consensus Center, FSU


APPENDIX # 3—MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY


JANUARY 27, 2014—LAKE CITY, FLORIDA

Members used a 0 to 10 Meet ing Evaluat ion Rat ing Sca l e where a 0 means “Tota l ly Disagre e” and a 10 means “Tota l ly Agree .” 1. Please assess the overall meeting.

8.4 The background information was very useful. 8.8 The agenda packet was very useful. 9.2 The objectives for the meeting were stated at the outset. 9.0 Overall, the objectives of the meeting were fully achieved. 2. Do you agree that each of the following meeting objectives was achieved? 8.8 Updated SAC Workplan review and approval. 9.2 Lower Santa Fe & Ichetucknee rivers and associated springs MFLs recovery strategies feedback. 8.9 Members’ comments and issues. 9.1 Review of next steps and agenda items for next meeting. 9.1 Public Comment. 3. Please tell us how well the Facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting.

9.2 The members followed the direction of the Facilitator. 8.8 The Facilitator made sure the concerns of all members were heard. 9.9 The Facilitator helped us arrange our time well. 9.0 Participant input was documented accurately in Facilitator’s Summary Report (last meeting). 4. Please tell us your level of satisfaction with the meeting?

8.6 Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting. 8.9 I was very satisfied with the services provided by the Facilitator. 8.4 I am satisfied with the outcome of the meeting. 5. Please tell us how well the next steps were communicated?

8.8 I know what the next steps following this meeting will be. 9.0 I know who is responsible for the next steps. 6. What did you like best about the meeting?

• Good discussion and airing of concerns. • Good conversation. • Process was clear. • Discussion.


• Moving forward. • All members were present.

7. How could the meeting have been improved?

• Jeff needs to get his glasses fixed. • View of the water cycle and recovery needs is too parochial and narrowly focused. • Concerns and recommendations that went across rec. doc. • Addressed before details rec by section addressed. • Turn the AC off. • Warmer.

8. Do you have any other comments? Please use the back of this page if needed.

• This MFL will be challenged in the courts by numerous stakeholders. The fault will be SRWMD’s and DEP’s for very poor science and research.


APPENDIX # 4—PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET


APPENDIX # 5—PUBLIC INPUT- COMMENT FORMS, COMMENTS AND EMAIL COMMENTS

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP

STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING XI JANUARY 27, 2014—LAKE CITY, FLORIDA

Members of the public were encouraged to provide input and submit written comments with the understanding that all comments would be included in the Meeting Summary Report. All written comments submitted by email after the pat SAC meeting in advance of the next meeting are included in the Meeting Summary. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS- SUMMARY Name: Paul Still Organization/Affiliation: Administrator, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District Mr. Still noted that the MFL will not make it for consideration in this year’s legislative session. He suggested addressing the issues and taking the time to do so won’t cause a delay. Another peer review needed because of the big changes in the proposed methodology. He suggested that the Technical report has many errors. He was concerned that members may have been “bullied into withdrawing” their statements during the meeting. Revisiting these MFLs later when the model is ready is not a good assumption. This MFL will not protect the springs. The SAC should recommend that the technical document be redrafted. Name: Jeanette Hinsdale Organization/Affiliation: Lover of Alachua County Ms. Hinsdale indicated that she loves the springs and that the spring flow has diminished since 1970 and has gone down more than rainfall. More pumping and less recharge is responsible for this. We need to take care of the water, as we have to take care of the land. Concerned when she hears utilities speak of an economic decline by putting in springs protections. She believes it is critical to get something on the books now. The longer it takes to put springs protection in place the more expensive it will be. She supports adopting this MFL to begin the effort. While she believes that the Districts will not pull the plug on big Agriculture and utilities, she suggested that mother nature will. PUBLIC COMMENT-- EMAIL COMMENTS (submitted by email between the December 2013 and January, 2014 SAC meetings) Paul Still Administrator, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District From: [email protected] To: Ray Avery <[email protected]>, Kerry Kates <[email protected]>, Dave Clanton <[email protected]>, Thomas Harper <[email protected]>, Bud Para <[email protected]>, James Cornett <[email protected]>, Jacqui Sulek <[email protected]>, Mary Lou Hildreth <[email protected]>, Mike O'Berry <[email protected]>, Stan Posey <[email protected]>, Gene Higginbotham


<[email protected]>, Pat Welsh <[email protected]>, Robert Jones <[email protected]>, Al Canepa <[email protected]>, Carlos Herd <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: 1/25/2014 Subj: FWD Lower Santa Fe MFLs I would hope a member of the SAC would be willing to propose that the Santa Fe MFLs should be delayed to allow the best information available to be used including the Surface Water Model being developed by the SJRWMD. Thanks, Paul Still Major Points of Concern with Draft Lower Santa Fe MFL Rule 1. The method used to establish the baseline flow period and baseline flow is flawed. The watershed yield concept could be used to establish the impacts of pumping. However, the method used by the SRWMD to estimate watershed yield did not include all the parts that should be included in E in the watershed yield model Q = A*Re where Re = (Rw - E). The consultants who did the calculations for the watershed yield indicate they treated E as a constant. It appears the only factor they included in E was ET and it is not clear what value was used for ET. It should be noted that for the period of record ET is not even a constant. Making ET a constant makes the model a linear model. The peer reviewers pointed out that there is not a linear relationship between rainfall and flow in the Santa Fe River. E should have included recharge from rain fall and net withdrawals. Net withdrawals is the result of taking the estimate of gross withdrawals and subtracting the estimated amount of the withdrawn water that returns to ground water. For example, domestic self supply water use is often combined with septic tank treatment of wastewater. This results in a high percentage of the withdrawn water being returned to groundwater. A part of agricultural and public water supply withdrawals also returns to groundwater. To use the watershed yield method for establishing a baseline you would have to use the best information available for E and run the model. You would then run the model without the net withdrawals part of E. The difference between the two would give you the impacts of withdrawals on watershed yields. I learned on the afternoon of January 22nd that the SJRWMD is developing a surface flow model for the domain of the new groundwater model and that the surface flow model should be available around March 1. This surface flow model should provide the data that would go into the recharge part of E in the watershed yield model. The surface flow model should also produce a value for net withdrawals. The out put from the surface flow model may become the best information available for establishing the MFL for the Lower Santa Fe. 2. The use of a Flow Duration Curve is not appropriate for setting the MFLs for Lower Santa Fe The the MFLs should be set using river levels and a Level Duration Curve (LDC). It is important to recognize that flows are determined by first using the level or stage of the river and a point flow measurement and a formula to calculate the flow. The level or stage data is the most accurate and best information available for the river. The water resource values and metrics used to set a MFL are also based on levels not flows. The use of Fort White flow also creates problems because


tailwater from the Suwannee River effect the flow at Fort White. Once the levels are set they can be converted to flows. The MFL would be expressed as both a level and a flow. The MFL statue clearly requires that an MFL be related to withdrawals. Since withdrawals that impact the Santa Fe Basin are from groundwater the MFL is limited to impacts to the river and springs associated with groundwater. Impacts of groundwater levels on flows above the baseflow of the Santa Fe River cannot be addressed with an MFL. Therefore, only the parts of a FDC or LDC that are impacted by groundwater should be included in the MFL setting process. 3. The fact that the data used to set the MFLs ends in 2010 is also a concern. All the data used needs to be updated to the end of either the water year 2013 or the calendar year 2013. Relying on data that ends in 2010 is clearly not using the best information available. Given the fact that it should be clear at this point that the Lower Santa Fe MFL will not be finished in time to be adopted in the 2014 legislative session the best approach at this time would be to draft a new MFL Technical Report that covers the entire Santa Fe Basin. This would allow the concerns about the existing Final Lower Santa Fe Technical Report to be addressed. It would allow the many errors that are currently in the Final Lower Santa Fe Technical Report to be corrected. These errors can be found in my and others previous submissions to the SRWMD and DEP. Paul Still 14167 SW 101st Ave Starke, FL 32091 Paul Still 14167 SW 101st Ave Starke, FL 32091 904 368-0291


APPENDIX # 6—SAC MOTION ON PARTICIPATION IN THE LOWER SANTA FE &

ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS & ASSOCIATED SPRINGS MFLS RULE DEVELOPMENT


NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE —SEPTEMBER 23, 2013

SAC PARTICIPATION IN THE MFLS RULE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LOWER SANTA FE & ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS & ASSOCIATED SPRINGS

(Adopted Unanimously September 23, 2013)

At the September 23, 2013 meeting the SAC was asked to decide how they preferred to provide feedback to DEP and the Districts during the rule development process for setting the MFLs and related prevention and recovery strategies for the Lower Santa Fe & Ichetucknee Rivers and associated springs initiative. The SAC voted unanimously, 11 – 0 in favor, to participate as a Committees and decided on the following participation option:

The SAC members will identify and rate a series of strategies/options and provide a rating on each Prevention and Recovery (P&R) Strategy. Strategies and/or options with 75% or greater level of support will be considered consensus recommendations to the Districts and DEP (This is a formal rating of individual strategies/options). The SAC may decide to make recommendations regarding the setting of the MFLs in conformance with their adopted consensus-building procedures. Any SAC member may provide a minority report pursuant to the procedures adopted by the SAC. Following is the adopted process for conducting ratings of P&R strategies and/or options: During the evaluation of prevention and recovery strategies for the Lower Santa Fe & Ichetucknee Rivers and associated springs, members will be asked to rate P&R strategies/options using a four-point rating scale where 4 is acceptable, 3 is acceptable with minor reservations, 2 is not acceptable with major reservations, and 1 is not acceptable. In general, 4s and 3s are in favor of an option and 2s and 1s are opposed to an option. Following discussion and any refinements of options, members may be asked to do additional ratings of strategies/options if requested by a member or staff. Members’ should be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address their reservations. Once the final ratings are complete, strategies/options with a 75% or greater number of 4’s and 3’s in proportion to 2’s and 1’s shall be considered consensus advisory recommendations. The following scale will be utilized for the rating exercises:

ACCEPTABILITY RATING SCALE

4= Accep tab le , I agree

3= Accep tab le , I agree with minor r e s e rva t ions

2= Not Accep tab le , I don’t agree unless major r e s e rva t ions addressed

1= Not Accep tab le


APPENDIX # 7—THE LOWER SANTA FE & ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS & ASSOCIATED SPRINGS

MFLS RULE DEVELOPMENT- JANUARY 27, 2014 SAC STATEMENT RATINGS AND COMMENTS

OVERVIEW OF SAC CONSENSUS STATEMENTS

(The letter in parentheses refers to the initial listing of the 42 SAC member statements).

2.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MFLS 1. (D) The criteria for the establishment of MFLs should be summarized briefly in this Section

rather than merely making reference to them. 2 (E.) There should be discussion in the 2.0 about why flow was used to assess the status of the

water body rather than level or some combination of the two. 2.2 PEER REVIEW 3. (H.) Summarize the issues raised and how each of the key issues raised by the Peer Review

Panel was addressed/closed out in the Recovery Strategy. 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC INFLUENCE- REGIONAL IMPACTS 4. (J.) The fact that withdrawals in Georgia are having some effect on the water bodies in the

region should be acknowledged in the Recovery Strategy. 4.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY GOALS AND APPROACH- RECOVERY GOALS 5. (P.) Add as a Recovery Goal: Recovery strategies should not adversely impact water bodies in the

adjacent basins and counties of North Florida. Specifically, the Clay-Putnam Recovery-designated Lakes of the Etoniah Chain and elsewhere.

5.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY COMPONENTS 6. (Q.) The SAC will be given an opportunity to make comments on the final draft Recovery

Strategy. 5.2 WATER CONSERVATION COMPONENT 7. (S.) It should be stated that conservation is expected of all users, and that successful

conservation practices among some user categories will not allow other user categories to reduce their conservation efforts.

8. (T.) Add a section after intro paragraph entitled “Agriculture Water Use Approach” as follows: “Agriculture’s approach to water conservation is to minimize water use to what the producer needs to meet product requirements for their operation and to limit producer ground water withdrawals to what their operation provides in recharge such that the aquifer is not impacted. Key strategies being pursued to optimize agriculture water use processes are: • Continuous process improvement through the use of Best Management Practices

maintained by FDAC and DEP in conjunction with the industry to assist the producer in minimizing water use for their products.

• Equipment technology improvements to improve water use efficiency. • Continuous producer implementation support with MIL labs and Ag Teams from FDAC,

WMD and the agriculture industry. • Science based modeling of the water cycle to ensure that for each producer the water use is

minimized for the specific land use and withdrawals are aligned to recharge, employing such groups as IFAS and the UF Water Institute in conjunction with industry, and using weather/eco stations to provide rainfall, ET, and soil moisture data to verify closure.”

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION


9. (X.) This section should include a strategy for developing consistent long-term enforcement of the Lawn and Landscape irrigation rule. Land use management strategies will be addressed as we go from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the Recovery Strategy.

OTHER SAC RECOMMENDATIONS 10. (OO.) The general permit by rule for less than 100,000 gallons/day should remain in place. 11. (PP.) Identify needs and next steps for gathering “additional information”. As many responses

to concerns are “based on best available information” we need to identify critical areas where data is insufficient and commit to expanding research in these areas. Examples should include manatee use of the springs, impacts to the oval pigtoe (as federally endangered species) and other species as identified by FWC and other stakeholders. Needs should be identified as a condition for supporting the proposed MFLs for the lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers.

SAC STATEMENTS, RATINGS AND COMMENTS

The summary of member comments on the draft statements and rating include reference to each member using the following key: Ray Avery (RA), James Cornett (JC), Thomas Harper (TH), Gene Higginbotham (GH) Mary Lou Hildreth (MLH) Kerry Kates (KK) J. Michael O’Berry (MOB), Bud Para (BP), Stan Posey (SP), Steve Roberts (SR), & Jacqui Sulek (JS) & Patrick Welsh (PW) Carlos Herd SRWMD (CH), John Fitzgerald SJRWMD (JF), Janet Llewellyn FDEP (JL), Jeff Blair FSU (JB). The yellow highlighting signifies those SAC member statements receiving consensus support of over 75%.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A.) Recommend a transient model analysis prior to MFL approval, to meet the “best science” required by Florida statute (Patrick Welsh) • Withdrawn by Patrick Welsh, December 16, 2013

B.) Recommend at least a one month delay in MFL approval. (Patrick Welsh) • Withdrawn by Patrick Welsh, December 16, 2013

2.0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MFLS

C.) The FDEP MFL rulemaking should be delayed to accommodate a the new Peer Review process and additional time to review the completion of the Recovery Strategy. (Bud Para; Ray Avery submitted similar comment See, Comment M & N below)

Acceptability Rating Scale

4= Acceptable ,

I agree

3= Acceptable , I agree with minor

reservat ions

2= Not Acceptable , I don’t agree major

reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

3

0

5

4

N

SAC Jan. 27 Comments

• RA & BP: Is there a new process being considered? Change the to “a”. • And additional time to review the “Recovery Process”


• GH: These can be reviewed, evaluated after adoption and revise. • RA: need to know what this will cost when implemented. Need to know before setting. Fear of

shutting down economic development. • TH: In December Technical report had just been released. Why another peer review? • RA/BP: change in methodology from model to data in response to Peer Review. The change

itself needs to be peer reviewed. • PW: Critical of the science applied to date. Using a strictly statistical analysis to get an MFL out

is a step backwards (15 years). Best available science is not being used. Need to update the model and bring it up to speed with the science. Peer Review “panned” the original draft MFL document. UF said we need to move to a transient model. They expressed support for development of a regional transient model.

• PW: withdrew first 2 comments but still has no support for science put forward. • SP: policy will never catch up with science. Need to go with best we have with an iterative

process, continuous cycle of review and revision. Need to start somewhere. We are years from transient model under the best of circumstance. Have to get the steady state model done to then move to transient model. Use the best we have. “You can never have too much, but at some point you can have enough.”

• MOB: What if this is delayed what will happen after? Will all these concerns addressed or not. Will funds be devoted to it etc. Looking at an evolving iterative process. Conditions and science will change over time.

• RA: Looking out for ratepayers. Hired consultants to look at MFL. Initially not enough info to look at this. UF Peer Review was considered. Results to date, we are close to the proposal. Estimated withdrawals is where there is a big difference. Utility numbers is Santa Fe not in recovery/prevention through 2035. Numbers substantially different. Recovery strategies/ projects add up to $380 million worth of projects. Agriculture with no increase in withdrawals over next 20 years. We don’t have a recover situation because of way the withdrawals are estimated. Numbers have been submitted to the District and providing additional information. Going forward until process is complete is a mistake.

• PW: Target the data you need and get it. Not new technology. WMD isn’t writing the model. Published by USGS, national transient model (version 3) that can be reframed, etc. Put data in, and check that model output makes sense. This is what we should be doing and what is required by Florida statute.

• MOB: If set now, will this cause harm to existing legal user or to the water demand projections. If we take PW’s approach, does it call into question other MFLs set to date? A: No won’t affect other MFLs. If we adopt now affect existing legal users. Proposal has a provision for renewal of existing permits. Modify to include projects. Development of transient model would be years away. Not as simple

• TH: Overall Subject is delay. 3 arguments presented. • 1. Peer review needs to be done again to review the final technical report. (TH: Don’t support

delay for this) • 2. Allow more time for recovery strategy to be fleshed out before we go forward with

adopting MFL. • 3. Do a transient vs. steady state model. (TH: question is what caused the fall off in flows? Align

strategies with cause and effect). • Issue with models- using data based models not science based models. They use science to

smooth out and connect data. Delay will be getting the data set to work with the model.


• GH: question is delay or not. Doesn't matter which reason is put forward? • SP: Clarify on all 3 points. Both peer review and recovery strategies are continuous and iterative

processes. Third one- intent to move from an established steady state regional model, the plan is to move then to a transient model.

• TH: peer review in setting the MFL not the recovery strategy. Recovery- do we have enough info on table on costs, timing etc. Transient model- goes to setting the MFL.

• CH: Charter for modeling group. 1st step is steady state model. Next proceed with developing the transient model. In the Partnership charter.

• JL: Looking at making changes to rule language-we will evaluate the status of the model upon completion of the steady state model.

• RA: MFL driven by ecological factors. Does the hydrolic model matter. The regional model will not review the MFL. Evaluation of the water body is what is of concern to the utility. Recovery and prevention is what follows the evaluation.

• PW: if we get MFL wrong by 1 foot on SFR (e.g. 93 feet but it is 92 feet). How many million gallons of water would we have erred by?

• John Good (SRWMD)- MFL not set in an elevation but in a flow rate (volume). Not clear on how to answer.

• PW: low flow site on SFR and get it wrong. It will be a large number? A: Yes. Any flow measurement error. Substantial more at high end than low end.

• PW: that is why we need to get this as well as we can get. • JS: Acknowledge that public have shared opinions on this. Talked with constituents. There is a

lot of discussion. Sense she is getting, most people are ready to get going to the next step. Weighing decision on the Partnership charter. Saw the proposed adaptive approach which we assume will happen. Large permits will be up for review very soon. Acting on those without an MFL will be problematic.

C-1. SAC recommends delaying the Recovery Strategy until a transient model is run so we can assess cause and align it with correct recovery actions. (TH)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

4

0

4

4

N


• SP: practical effect is that no MFLs will be set for years. • PW: big projects will have to be developed in the Recovery strategy and someone will have to

pay that. Set an MFL but can’t hold people accountable with bad science. Cause and effect needs to be shown

D) The criteria for the establishment of MFLs should be summarized briefly in this Section rather than merely making reference to them. (Michael O’Berry)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?


Rating 1/27/14

9

2

1

0

Y


• MOB- short summary • JC: won’t cause a delay? A: No. • MOB: what was the basis stated more clearly for how the MFL set- in terms of data.

E.) There should be discussion in the 2.0 about why flow was used to assess the status of the water body rather than level or some combination of the two. (Stan Posey)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

7

4

1

Y


• SP: some further clarification of why flow was the choice. • JL: relevant to MFL technical document vs. the recovery strategy? Is this directed towards the

MFL methodology. • SP: section of recovery strategy that is a summary. • TH: Difference between flow and level? (level= level of river). • SP: they are related. • MOB: state simply why it was done in the recovery strategy document. • PW: SFR- when Suwanee had very high levels, LSF can be affected by it.

2.2 PEER REVIEW

F.) The MFLs announced on Nov. 12 substantially modified the previous methodology and the draft MFLs. The Peer Review committee should be asked to review the new methodology and the new MFLs. (Bud Para)


• BP withdraws

G.) Follow ALL of the recommendations of the peer review panel (Mary Lou Hildreth)


• MLH: heartburn that the Peer Review panned the document. Don’t think all their recommendations have been addressed. A: Resolution document responded to all peer review as well as public comments.

• MLH : withdrawn


H.) Summarize the issues raised and how each of the key issues raised by the Peer Review Panel was addressed/closed out in the Recovery Strategy.(Tom Harper)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

5

5

2

0

Y


• TH: goes to MOB’s earlier statement. Looking for a brief summary in terms of the concerns and how addressed in the Recovery Strategy.

• JC: relatively simple to do? • CH: Perhaps we can use the Resolution Document as an appendix. • TH: raised questions about the model. Decided to use data vs. model. Provide a brief summary.

Provide a sentence on each key point by the Peer Review. • CH: e.g. Setting the Baseline, etc. - 3 main topics? • TH: Yes. It tells the way you are approaching this.

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC

INFLUENCE

I.) Implement the transient model and re-do the study. (Pat Welsh) Acceptability Rating Scale

4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

2 2 4 4 N


• PW: Put to a vote. • TH: recovery or MFL? A: Both. REGIONAL IMPACTS

J.) The impacts outside the purview of the SRWMD and SJRWMD, e.g. impacts originating in South Georgia, should be clearly differentiated and include some form of specific acknowledgement that they are beyond the control of the Districts and the Department and the scope and authority of in the Recovery Strategy .this rule. (Michael O’Berry) J. The fact that withdrawals in Georgia are having some effect on the water bodies in the region should be acknowledged in the Recovery Strategy.

Acceptability Rating

4= Acceptable ,



1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?


Scale I agree reservat ions reservat ions Rating 1/27/14

12 0 0 0 Y


• MOB: in the narrative he wants further clarification. • MLH: will this be reflected in the model? • CH: will the MFL rule exclude Georgia. In the rule, recovery strategy? • MOB: In the rule to define the limits. • JL: legally only binding on FL. Recovery strategy could set that rules • BP: How were the impacts from S GA addressed in the MFL or Recovery Strategy? Was it

mentioned? • JL: recovery strategy recognizes MFL set without accounting for who is causing what. Just

focuses on the ecological value. Recovery Strategy acknowledges regional impacts on this system. The Strategy does not put a number on Georgia’s role in these impacts. That will be indicated once the steady state model is completed. Does it just say “regionally” vs. Georgia? If so, reference Georgia more explicitly.

• TH: See page 16 of Recovery Strategy

K.) It is necessary to quantify those impacts so as not to inordinately burden the residents and businesses within the State of Florida which compliance criteria that are beyond their control. (Michael O’Berry)


• MOB: this is a comment not a statement to be ranked. Withdrawn by MOB.

6.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY GOALS AND APPROACH

L.) The MFLs should not be adopted without a comprehensive and effective Recovery Strategy, including expected project costs and impacts on the overall economic impacts. (Bud Para)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

1 4 3 4 N


• BP: Does the Recovery Strategy have economic impacts and costs? A: Yes. Let’s vote on this. • JS: The overall economic impact is not clearly set forth. Project costs are provided • TH: 2-step process. Adopt MFL and then deal with recovery strategy. Can set MFL without a

completed Recovery Strategy? Statute is different from the Rule. A: Rules say must have at same time. Also estimate of regulatory economic costs of rules to be adopted.

• PW: Law says you do MFL first and then follow with Recovery Strategy. • JL: Statute- if MFL is not being met or proposed to not being met within a 20 year period, the

District should “expeditiously” implement the Recovery Strategy. The rule says have this done at the same time. Rule doesn’t come into effect until the following legislative session.

• JC: would this result in a major delay. A: Estimate of regulatory costs is being prepared by the District and will be on schedule to be presented with the rule.

• CH: Economic impacts may be different than “estimate of regulatory costs.”


• JL: broader reading of economic impacts is not required presently and will not be done at a part of this MFL by SRWMD/SJRWMD and DEP.

• Anything that changes the costs to regulated entity is what the estimate of regulatory costs gets at.

• TH: costs to producer and costs to customers. A: won’t pick up this under the current process. • GH: This will be another delay if we go with this recommended statement. • JS: What would the economic impact be if we lose rivers and streams? Concerned about the

potential delay.

M.) SRWMD needs to establish a comprehensive Prevention and Recovery Strategy that clearly provides projects, with quantification of the impact of each, that will bring us into full compliance with the proposed MFL and allow and consider comments of stakeholder before finalizing this strategy. (Ray Avery)


• RA: Withdrawn

N.) SRWMD needs to estimate the approximate cost of each user’s share of the compliance strategy and show how that cost will impact each of the stakeholders and allow and consider comments before finalizing the cost estimates. (Ray Avery)


• Following the discussion points below, RA decided to withdraw statement. • RA: important to know this from the utilities perspective. Need to know what share their

customers will be responsible for. Objects to adopting an MFL without knowing what each stakeholder’s pro rata responsibility is. Does the draft rule accommodate the 2 years delay on creating the water supply plan and regional model. JL: A water body status would be reevaluated upon completion of the model.

• JL: MFL sets out LSF in recovery and will have recovery strategies. In recovery by X? Also adopting recovery strategy rules.

• RA: does the estimate in the recovery strategy cover Georgia impacts? A: Yes but permit holders won’t be responsible for Georgia impacts. Permit holders should only be responsible for impacts of their withdrawal.

• SP: Expertise for estimating these costs is with the stakeholders who should give this to the District.

• JL: This can be apportioned once the model is developed. Stakeholders are better at estimating this. Not adopting this by rule. Utilities don’t agree with the actual MFL.

• TH: Costs show up in Recovery Strategy. Changing BMP process for Ag will have cost implications. Who picks up? A: Do this as part of process- joint effort among Districts, FDACS USDA.

• RA: Each will have responsibility for the recovery. • JL: Draft rule- Section 6. Discussing with stakeholders whether to add language in Section 6

about reevaluating after model is done and accepted by technical peer review. Review whether it shows we are in recovery. Decisions about whether or not in recovery would be petition-able. Make sure all stakeholders have an opportunity to challenge if they disagree.


GUIDING PRINCIPLES O.) Add: Use the best available information and display/verify the accuracy of the data modeling and analysis used. (Tom Harper)


• TH: purpose of this, whether data or model, we would have confidence in the reliability of the data. Making costs, and project decisions based on this.

• Iterative process addresses some of the concern. • TH: modeling approach is not precise enough. Delay until Section 6. Will come back to this. • TH: applies to Phase 2. Come back to SAC at that point. • CH: sensitivity analysis on model is standard practice. • TH: will withdraw this statement. RECOVERY GOALS

P.) Add as a Recovery Goal : Recovery strategies should not adversely impacting RECOVERY water bodies in the adjacent basins and counties of North Florida. Specifically, the Clay-Putnam Recovery-designated Lakes of the Etoniah Chain and elsewhere. (Patrick Welsh)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

4 5 3 0 Y


• PW: Clear. Included Florida Statutes. Recovery strategy that further degrades water bodies is not good. If you want springs to recover, start the Etoniah Chain first and recover.

• MLH: take out “recovery” water bodies.

5.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY COMPONENTS (P 20)

Q.) The final Recovery Strategy shall be developed in collaboration with all stakeholders, including the SAC. The SAC will be given an opportunity to make comments on the final draft Recovery Strategy. (Bud Para)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

8 3 1 Y


• BP: It wasn’t done. We are making our comments now. • PW: The “final” shall be developed • JS: if we think we have already done this, vote no? • TH: come back before this group before going to the Legislature?


• CH: Section 6 is only section going to legislature. Rest is adaptive and can be modified. Once it is accepted by Governing Board, it will no longer be a draft.

• BP: gave us a draft. We make comments. You will consider and take some and not others. Like to see it come back to see what changes have been made and again comment on.

5.1 PLANNING COMPONENT (P 20)

R.) This discussion should explicitly acknowledge the continuous, iterative character of these planning and assessment processes, including review and update requirements of rule and statute. New and improved assessment tools can be integrated into this continuous process as they become available. (Stan Posey)

SAC Jan. 27 Comments • SP satisfied we have covered. Withdrawn.

5.2 WATER CONSERVATION COMPONENT

S.) It should be stated that conservation is expected of all users, and that successful conservation practices among some user categories will not allow other user categories to reduce their conservation efforts. (Stan Posey)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

9 3 Y


• SP: Doesn't change intent and clarifies text.

T.) Add a section after intro paragraph entitled “Agriculture Water Use Approach” as follows: Agriculture’s approach to water conservation is to minimize water use to what the producer needs to meet product requirements for their operation and to limit producer ground water withdrawals to what their operation provides in recharge such that the aquifer is not impacted. Key strategies being pursued to optimize agriculture water use processes are:

A. Continuous process improvement through the use of Best Management Practices maintained by FDAC and DEP in conjunction with the industry to assist the producer in minimizing water use for their products.

B. Equipment technology improvements to improve water use efficiency. C. Continuous producer implementation support with MIL labs and Ag Teams from FDAC, WMD

and the agriculture industry. D. Science based modeling of the water cycle to ensure that for each producer the water use is

minimized for the specific land use and withdrawals are aligned to recharge, employing such groups as IFAS and the UF Water Institute in conjunction with industry, and using weather/eco stations to provide rainfall, ET, and soil moisture data to verify closure.(Tom Harper)

Acceptability Rating

4= Acceptable ,



1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?


Scale I agree reservat ions reservat ions Rating 1/27/14

10 2 0 0 Y


• Brings clarity and unity about what Ag is doing. Ag is answering some of the issues we are debating. Through putting in weather stations, etc. to produce data locally.

• MOB: Should other sectors put in? Note, difference with Ag is that it has a unified set of BMPs and others don’t.

• KK: Important to note explicitly state that they are constantly improving and changing as a result of new technologies resulting increased water savings.

AGRICULTURE WATER CONSERVATION

U.) Use the Agricultural Assistance Team to establish user by user “water budgets” based on the principle that pumpage and aquifer restorage from rain and recharge less evapotranspiration should be in balance. Support the use of weather/eco stations to balance the use to the need. (Tom Harper)


• TH withdraws.

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION

V.) Replicate the Ag Team concept across other user groups. (Tom Harper) SAC Jan. 27 Comments

• TH: withdraws. Discussed in December

W.) This section should explain how WMD resources will support marketing campaign within the PWS service area. Including, but not limited to coordination with PWS owners/customers, procurement and installation of High efficiency fixtures and appliances, education and outreach…college interns/privatization may be advantageous, especially for systems with limited Staff. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks)


• JS: Withdrawn. Was trying to address the mitigation projects and the resources to support them. What are the options other than denying permit.

• CH: Permit application in conjunction with District to develop a water conservation strategy. Negotiate this in the permit process.

X.) This section should include a strategy for developing consistent long-term enforcement of the Lawn and Landscape irrigation rule. will be enforced and policed. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

7 4 0 1 Y



• SR/JS: Not clear locally on this. Component in the Resource Recovery strategy. Need clarification on it.

• JL: there is a discussion in strategy (not in Section 6) about rules that exist. • CH: Landscape rules already a part of the District’s other rules. That rule is on the books.

Address how the existing rule is enforced. JL: Its an issue but other counties in the state have taken on the policing. CH: District takes the lead on investigations.

• JS: What about “A consistent enforcement process and guidelines will be developed by XX time.” It’s an issue. Conservation takes $$ to enforce.

• PW: this is a serious issue. 1/3 of drinking water goes into vegetation and lawns. Lack of enforcement is an issue. JEA e.g. Million gallons of water a month.

• MOB: this concern should be addressed elsewhere. E.g. leaks, Have to be careful. Rules in place already.

• Utilities don’t want to be the policing business against customers.

5.3 WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT

Y.) There should be some numerical expectations for the potential magnitude of alternative water resources. (Stan Posey)


• SP: other parts of the section had numeric expectations but didn’t see on alternative water supply.

• BP: also had this concern. • CH: alternative water supply projects with costs (Appendix A) • SP: Following discussion agreed to withdraw.

RECLAIMED WATER

Z.) This section should clarify how the WMDs will provide assistance to small utilities who desire PAR expansion, but cannot proceed. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks)


• SR/JS: cover this on a case-by-case basis. JS Withdraws.

ALTERNATIVE GROUNDWATER SOURCES

AA.) This Strategy NFRWSP should provide estimated capacity of the Surficial and Intermediate Aquifer Systems. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks)


• SR/JS: tried to get a sense of what is available. Understands this isn’t an easy thing to do. It is in the recovery strategy.

• JS withdraws in light of the discussion. • CH: We need to do this- viability of the surficial and intermediate. Need to do the work as a

part of the adaptive management.


• JL: this fits in the regional Water Supply Plan. Falls in the Planning Step. SURFACE WATER SOURCES

BB.) The Strategy should provide estimated cost and logistics of conveying surface water from source to end user. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks)


• SR/JS- Appendix A contains some numbers. Withdraws.

5.4 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT

CC.) Change the text to read: (2nd bullet) Capture and recharge of wet season streamflows. Capture, diversion to alternative stream flows (specifically South Alligator Creek vice West Alligator Creek which floods Starke, FL) and recharge of the Upper Floridan Aquifer through natural processes (for example: excess stormwater runoff diverted to the Etoniah Chain of Lakes for natural treatment and recharge). (Patrick Welsh)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

1 6 5 0 N


• PW: 1973. 15 dikes and berms were erected and diverted water northward has had major impact on the springs. Need to acknowledge this is going on and take a hard look at the strategy. This is a scale not currently modeled by WMDs.

• BP: Why would this be in the LSF Recovery Strategy. Does it belong in recovery for Sand Lakes. Is this the right place?

• JB: part of the broader water supply plan? • PW- if only deal in broad generalizations. • MOB: real problem but not the right place to put it. Find the right vehicle. AQUIFER RECHARGE

DD.) The Strategy should provide a monitoring scheme to assess groundwater quality impact. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks)


• JS: withdraws after discussion below • SR/JS: Some mentioned needed regarding water quality and health issues regarding

groundwater for recharge. • RA: Seems like a permitting issue. • JL: Projects injecting water must get a permit and have monitoring conditions. Would include

this concern in permits.


OFF-STREAM STORAGE

EE.) Status of WMD examining feasibility of creating off-stream storage projects? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks)


• JS: Withdrawn. DISPERSED WATER STORAGE

FF.) Add an element of Land Use Management Strategy. (Add subsection 5.5: Land Use Management Strategy) (Tom Harper)

• Land use management strategies will be addressed as we go from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the Recovery Strategy.


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

6 6 0 0 Y


• TH: No strategy to address land use especially important for Phase 2. • JL: Districts/DEP no authority over land use. Local government function. • TH: Phase 2 of project. What will we do with land use then? • JL: look at permitted groundwater wells from each user and determine what % caused be each.

Corrective actions and projects to offset impacts. • TH: modeling effort only working on groundwater? We’ll miss the whole train A: Withdrawals

is the focus. • JL: Projects will involve rehydrate wetland areas. Zoning, development. • MLH: Local government responsible for how to grow/build. • TH: Land use will be piece of this. What is the strategy. • CH: Public private partnership- e.g. payment for environmental services, swap, etc. • TH: Land use will have to be addressed. • Land use management strategies will be addressed as we go from Phase 1 to Phase 2 of the

Recovery Strategy. • JL: think the water resource development projects address this. E.g. finding recharge areas, etc.

In the table. • Trying to deal with past ditching etc. • RA: reducing the density of forested lands? Could be part of the project.

6.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY RULE LANGUAGE


GG.) This rule language should not be incorporated by reference into the DEP MFL rule. (Stan Posey) SAC Jan. 27 Comments

• SP Withdrawn.

HH.) There should be a clear discussion here about the continuous, iterative process of review, evaluation, and improvement of recovery strategies. (Stan Posey)


• SP Withdraws that.

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION, MEASURING SUCCESS, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

II.) Section 7 and all appendices: Delete all subsections and comments relating to the use of non-transient models and results of such modeling efforts. See immediately above section. (Patrick Welsh)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

1 3 4 4 N


• PW: requests a vote on the statement. • Delete Section 7? A: Yes. • TH: what will language accomplish? • PW: Science allowing the use of a steady state model in Florida is not good. (apart from Karst

topography, wet/dry seasons and large storms.) Not investing the science and data. SRWMD plan projecting.

7.4 TIME-TABLE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

JJ.) Delete all subsections and comments relating to the use of non-transient models and results of such modeling efforts. Redevelop this section to include current use of the transient model rather than in 2015. (Patrick Welsh)


• PW: We don’t need to vote again. Withdrawn.

KK.) This time-table needs to be absolutely consistent with the currently projected schedule of the NFRWSP SAC. (Michael O’Berry)


• MOB: This was a comment only

7.5 PUBLIC AND SHAREHOLDER PARTICIPATION


LL.) Provide ample public education campaign and public comment period for the revised draft MFLs and subject them to a more thorough peer review. (Mary Lou Hildreth)


• MLH: Comment not a proposed statement. Withdrawn.

7.6 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MM.) The Strategy should provide assurances that the MFL’s will be revisited timely and adjusted accordingly as new information comes forth. (James Cornett)


• JC: Covered, withdrawn. • BP: Take the time to do right now vs. letting it go and address later.

NN.) Establish a threshold level before Adaptive Management could be employed and then a maximum percentage change in the authorized allocation for the affected users. That threshold level should be established based upon a declared water shortage by the District Governing Board. At that point, the District would be limited to the amount of a permittee's allocation that can be restricted. I would propose that such a change be limited to no more than ten percent (10%). (Mike O’Berry)


• MOB: Intent- adaptive management doesn’t become a means of overriding permitee’s allocation. If taken to far, operator can’t operate facility with restrictions on water. Will adaptive management override permit conditions. If that is adequately provided for already.

• JL: before cutting existing allocations, do over time and identify alternative sources and projects before reducing permit allocations. Statute provide guidance on this.

•

OTHER SAC RECOMMENDATIONS

OO.) The general permit by rule for less than 100,000 gallons/day should remain in place. (From SAC November 18, 2013 Discussion)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

10 1 1 0 Y


• JL:General permit by rule for small water uses. Reviewed whether to revoke of leave in place. District estimated impacts- Santa Fe basin. Represented 4% of allocated water. Bang for buck. Not worth eliminating general permit. Small amount of water.

• TH: Phase 2- with model. Amount of water not an issue, but location of wells is an issue. A: JL can revisit that. SRWMD Looked at locations as well. In SF basin less than 1%. Well construction permitting requirement. Know where the wells are and keep track by project area.


Can’t game system by putting in lots of small wells vs. a large well. Still gathering data. Revisiting is a good idea.

PP.) Identify needs and next steps for gathering “additional information”. As many responses to concerns are “based on best available information” we need to identify critical areas where data is insufficient and commit to expanding research in these areas. Examples should include manatee use of the springs, impacts to the oval pigtoe (as federally endangered species) and other species as identified by FWC and other stakeholders. Needs should be identified as a condition for supporting the proposed MFLs for the lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. (Jacqui Sulek)


4= Acceptable ,

I agree


reservat ions


reservat ions

1= Not Acceptable

Consensus Y/N?

Rating 1/27/14

3 7 2


• JS: Provided examples to illustrate the intent of the statement. Commit to getting new data/information.


APPENDIX # 8—SAC CHARGE, MISSION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES

COMMITTEE CHARGE AND PURPOSE (Charged By the SRWMD, the SJRWMD, and DEP) The purpose of the Committee shall be to provide guidance and advisory recommendations to the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD), St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) on development of the regional groundwater model, data needs, minimum flows and levels (MFLs), MFL prevention and recovery strategies and implementations, and ultimately a regional water supply plan. Committee members are appointed by the Districts to represent the concerns of specific affected groups as well as to communicate information about the North Florida water supply process to other members of their represented group. COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT The North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership Stakeholder Advisory Committee, representing stakeholders in both districts, seeks to build consensus on advice and recommendations for the development of a North Florida regional water supply plan and related Partnership activities. The Committee’s efforts will be informed by sound science, and focused on supporting joint actions on water supply and resource issues. COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. The Committee will adhere to their charge and purpose as provided by the SJRWMD and the SRWMD.

2. The Committee will strive to achieve consensus on the evaluation and development of substantive advisory recommendations submitted to the SRWMD, SJRWMD and DEP.

3. The Committee will operate under adopted policies and procedures that are clear and concise,

and consistently and equitably applied.

4. Committee members will serve as liaisons between the stakeholder groups they have been appointed to represent and the NFRWSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and should strive to both inform and seek input on issues the Committee is addressing from those they represent.

The Committee’s complete package of adopted Committee Organizational Polices and Procedures are available at the Committee webpage at the following URL: http://northfloridawater.com/

NFRWSP SAC XIV Meeting Summary, January 27, 2014

36

APPENDIX # 9—SAC PROJECT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS INDEX


PROJECT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS INDEX NFRWSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee Presentations: http://northfloridawater.com/committee.html Northeast Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater Model Documents: http://northfloridawater.com/groundwaterflowmodel.html Minimum Flows and Levels (MFL) SJRWMD: http://floridaswater.com/minimumflowsandlevels/prevention-recovery.html Minimum Flows and Levels (MFL) SRWMD: http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=55 Aquifer Replenishment Pilot Project (Keystone Heights): http://floridaswater.com/facts/KeystoneHeights_pilot_project.html Consumptive Use Permit Process SJRWMD: http://floridaswater.com/permitting/ Consumptive Use Permit Process SRWMD: http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=368 http://www.mysuwanneeriver.com/index.aspx?nid=89 Consumptive Use Permit Process Consistency (CUPcon) DEP: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/cupcon.htm DEP CUPcon Workgroup: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/cc-issue-wg.htm#workgroups DEP CUPcon Rulemaking: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/rule.htm WMD Policy Documents (DEP): http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/watman/ Agricultural Water Supply BMPs (FDACS): http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/BMP.html


37

APPENDIX #10—COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Committee Workplan is set forth in the January 27, 2013 SAC Agenda Packet posted at: http://northfloridawater.com/documents.html


38

APPENDIX #11—COMMITTEE CONSENSUS DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONSENSUS NFRWSP SAC RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were unanimously adopted by the SAC and submitted to the St. Johns River Water Management District, Suwannee River Water Management District and FDEP: 1. Committee Organizational Policies and Procedures. The SCA unanimously adopted Organizational Policies and Procedures for the Committee to utilize to operate and develop consensus recommendations to the SRWMD, SJRWMD and DEP. The Polices include: consensus-building decision-making procedures, meeting process procedures, roles and participation procedures, alternate member policy and absentee member policy. Additional polices may be developed as needed. The policies and procedures are consistent with the Districts’ goals regarding developing a regional water supply plan under the Partnership agreement. (August 28, 2012, October 29, 2012 and July 15, 2013) 2. SAC Mission Statement: The SCA unanimously adopted the following Mission Statement: The North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership Stakeholder Advisory Committee, representing stakeholders in both districts, seeks to build consensus on advice and recommendations for the development of a North Florida regional water supply plan and related Partnership activities. The Committee’s efforts will be informed by sound science, and focused on supporting joint actions on water supply and resource issues. (August 28, 2012) 3. SAC Guiding Principles: The SCA unanimously adopted the following Guiding Principles:

5. The Committee will adhere to their charge and purpose as provided by the SJRWMD and the SRWMD.

6. The Committee will strive to achieve consensus on the evaluation and development of substantive advisory recommendations submitted to the SRWMD, SJRWMD and DEP.

7. The Committee will operate under adopted policies and procedures that are clear and concise, and consistently and equitably applied.

8. Committee members will serve as liaisons between the stakeholder groups they have been appointed to represent and the NFRWSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and should strive to both inform and seek input on issues the Committee is addressing from those they represent. (August 28, 2012)

4. Regional Water Supply Plan Boundary Area: The North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership Stakeholder Advisory Committee (NFRWSP SAC) has reviewed and discussed the proposed boundary for the Regional Water Supply Plan that is based on science and the Partnership technical team and steering committee’s recommendations. The SAC understands:

1. That the boundary for the groundwater modeling that will be utilized in the water supply plan is much broader than the Regional Water Supply Plan boundary.

2. That each District will engage simultaneously in developing their water supply plans for District areas that are not part of this Regional Water Supply Plan and that the Regional Water Supply Plan will be a chapter in each District’s overall water supply plan.

3. That including complete county areas in the plan boundary area makes sense since splitting up counties would produce expensive challenges for data collection and segregation.

4. That if the Regional Water Supply Plan boundary presents unexpected problems during the course of the Regional Water Supply Plan development, the Districts can adjust it consistent with the supporting science and modeling results.


39

Therefore, the SAC recommends to the Districts that the proposed planning boundary be utilized for the Regional Water Supply Plan. (January 23, 2013) 5. N.E. Florida S.E. Georgia Regional Groundwater Model: The North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership Stakeholder Advisory Committee supports the Districts’ methodology and assumptions including using the selected two-year water use data sets (2001 & 2009) for calibration of the N.E. Florida S.E. Georgia Regional Groundwater Model. In addition, the SAC recommends the following considerations:

1. Where ever possible and available, the Districts should utilize actual water use data; and, 2. The Districts should identify any data gaps and address how these will be handled to ensure

calibration of the regional ground water model is based on the best available science and data. (April 22, 2013)

6. Public Opportunity To Be Heard Policy: The unanimously SAC adopted an expanded public opportunity to be heard policy. (July 15, 2013) 7. Motion to Continue Committee’s Support Structure: The SAC recommends that the Governing Boards of the Suwannee River Water Management District and the St. Johns River Water Management District continue with the Committee’s current support structure including the facilitators and the Districts’ technical and logistical support team. (September 23, 2013) 8. Process for SAC to Provide Formal Feedback to DEP and the Districts Pertaining to Proposed MFLs and Recovery Strategy for the Lower Santa Fe River Basin. The SAC will participate as a Committee using the following participation strategy: The SAC members will identify and rate a series of strategies/options and provide a rating on each Prevention and Recovery (P&R) Strategy. Strategies and/or options with 75% or greater level of support will be considered consensus recommendations to the Districts and DEP (This is a formal rating of individual strategies/options). The SAC may decide to make recommendations regarding the setting of the MFLs in conformance with their adopted consensus-building procedures. Any SAC member may provide a minority report pursuant to the procedures adopted by the SAC. (September 23, 2013) 9. Lower Santa Fe River Basin MFLs and Recovery Strategy. The SAC unanimously adopted a package of 11 Recommendation Statements (each of which achieved a 75% or higher level of support on separate acceptability rankings) were unanimously adopted (by a vote of 12 – 0 in favor) for submittal to FDEP and the Water Management Districts as the SAC’s formal recommendations pertaining to the proposed MFLs and Recovery Strategy for the Lower Santa Fe River Basin. (January 27, 2014.)

Date post:	09-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times