RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS RATING EXERCISE OVERVIEW

Transcription

1 NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE JANUARY 27, 2014 SAC RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS WORKSHEET MFLS RULE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE LOWER SANTA FE & ICHETUCKNEE RIVERS & ASSOCIATED SPRINGS At the December 16, 2013 SAC Meeting, members agreed to review the relevant Lower Santa Fe River Basin Recovery Strategy and MFL setting 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: 1.) Individually review the Draft Recovery Strategy document (November, 2013) presented at the DEP November 18, 2013 Rule Development Workshop and discussed at the subsequent SAC Meeting and other relevant documents such as the Resolution document linked to the SRWMD website pertaining to the Lower Santa Fe River Basin Recovery Strategy. The URL for relevant documents is: 2.) Individually review the proposed recommendation statements and comments and submit electronically any additional recommendation statements and/or revisions to or withdrawals of your own existing recommendation statements you believe the SAC should consider at the Meeting. 3.) Forward to the facilitators additional and/or revised potential draft recommendation statements for the SAC to consider at its January 27, 2014 meeting by close of business, Monday, January 13, Mail to: and The facilitators compiled all of the SAC member recommendation statements and distributed the updated worksheet prior to the January 27, 2013 meeting. During the January 27 SAC meeting, some of these statements may be withdrawn by the proposer based on the discussion and clarifications. On January 27, 2014, the SAC will review, rate, and refine as necessary each draft recommendation statement and test the level of consensus among the members. A report from the meeting will be submitted to DEP by the deadline for public comment. RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS RATING EXERCISE OVERVIEW In advance of the meeting, members should review and rate this set of draft SAC statements. Following SAC discussion and refinement of statements, members may be asked to do additional ratings of proposed statements if requested by a SAC member. SAC members should be prepared to offer specific refinements to address any reservations. Once rated, 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 (~2/5/14). In any case, SAC members are always free to provide additional individual comments separate from the SAC s ratings/comments. The following scale will be utilized for the rating exercises: 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 1

2 SAC MEMBER RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS WORKSHEET DRAFT RECOVERY STRATEGY: LOWER SANTA FE RIVER BASIN MEMBER PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS SAC Members Responding to Date: Ray Avery, James Cornett, Tom Harper, Mary Lou Hildreth, Michael O Berry, Bud Para, Stan Posey, Steve Roberts (Jason Sparks Alternate), Jacqui Sulek and Patrick Welsh. PROPOSED SAC RECOMMENDATION STATEMENTS Lettered Member Statements Organized by Draft Strategy Sections 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, SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MFLS C.) The FDEP MFL rulemaking should be delayed to accommodate the new Peer Review process and the completion of the Recovery Strategy. (Bud Para; Ray Avery submitted a similar comment) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: D.) The criteria for the establishment of MFLs should be summarized in this Section rather than merely making reference to them. (Michael O Berry) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 2

3 E.) There should be discussion in the 2.0 about why flow was used to assess the status of the waterbody rather than level or some combination of the two. (Stan Posey) 4=, 3=, 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) 4=, 3=, G.) Follow ALL of the recommendations of the peer review panel (Mary Lou Hildreth) 4=, 3=, H.) Summarize the issues raised and how each issue was addressed/closed out. (Tom Harper) 4=, 3=, 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC INFLUENCE I.) Implement the transient model and re-do the study. (Pat Welsh) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 3

4 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, the Department and the scope and authority of this rule. (Michael O Berry) 4=, 3=, 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) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: 4.0 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 economy. (Bud Para) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: Recommendation Statements Worksheet 4

5 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) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: N.) SRWMD needs to estimate the approximate cost of each 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) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: GUIDING PRINCIPLES O.) Add: Use the best available information and display/verify the accuracy of the data modeling and analysis used. (Tom Harper) 4=, 3=, RECOVERY GOALS P.) Add as a Recovery Goal: Not impacting RECOVERY water bodies in the adjacent basins and counties of North Florida. Specifically, the Clay-Putnam Recoverydesignated Lakes of the Etoniah Chain and elsewhere. (Patrick Welsh) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 5

6 5.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY COMPONENTS (P 20) Q.) The Recovery Strategy should be developed in collaboration with all stakeholders, including the SAC. (Bud Para) 4=, 3=, 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) 4=, 3=, 5.2 WATER CONSERVATION COMPONENT (P 39) 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=, 3=, 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. Recommendation Statements Worksheet 6

7 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) 4=, 3=, 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 evaportranspiration should be in balance. Support the use of weather/eco stations to balance the use to the need. (Tom Harper) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION V.) Replicate the Ag Team concept across other user groups. (Tom Harper) 4=, 3=, 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) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 7

8 X.) This section should explain how the Lawn and Landscape irrigation rule will be enforced and policed. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) 4=, 3=, 5.3 WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT (P 28) Y.) There should be some numerical expectations for the potential magnitude of alternative water resources. (Stan Posey) 4=, 3=, 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) 4=, 3=, ALTERNATIVE GROUNDWATER SOURCES AA.) This Strategy should provide estimated capacity of the Surficial and Intermediate Aquifer Systems. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 8

9 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) 4=, 3=, 5.4 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT (P 30) CC.) Change the text to read: (2 nd 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=, 3=, AQUIFER RECHARGE DD.) The Strategy should provide a monitoring scheme to assess groundwater quality impact. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) 4=, 3=, OFF-STREAM STORAGE EE.) Status of WMD examining feasibility of creating off-stream storage projects? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 9

10 DISPERSED WATER STORAGE FF.) Add an element of Land Use Management Strategy. (Add subsection 5.5: Land Use Management Strategy) (Tom Harper) 4=, 3=, 6.0 RECOVERY STRATEGY RULE LANGUAGE (P 36) GG.) This rule language should not be incorporated by reference into the DEP MFL rule. (Stan Posey) 4=, 3=, HH.) There should be a clear discussion here about the continuous, iterative process of review, evaluation, and improvement of recovery strategies. (Stan Posey) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 10

11 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION, MEASURING SUCCESS, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT (P 39) 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=, 3=, 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 (Patrick Welsh) 4=, 3=, KK.) This time-table needs to be absolutely consistent with the currently projected schedule of the NFRWSP SAC. (Michael O Berry) 4=, 3=, 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) 4=, 3=, Recommendation Statements Worksheet 11

12 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) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: 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) 4=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: 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=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: 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=, 3=, Use Space Below to Note Your Comments and Suggestions in preparation for the January 27 SAC Meeting: Recommendation Statements Worksheet 12

13 MEMBER COMMENTS SAC Members Responding: Michael O Berry, Patrick Welsh, James Cornett. Tom Harper, Bud Para, Steve Roberts (Jason Sparks Alternate), Stan Posey & Mary Lou Hildreth SAC GENERAL COMMENTS We should consider the impact on outdoor recreational resource users in this process and the reduction in their economic impact as a result. (James Cornett) What about navigation of the waterways? Shouldn t that be of interest as well? (James Cornett) 1.0 Introduction SAC Comments The Introduction asks the public to trust the accuracy of the NF model to properly account for the interaction between aquifer level decline, pumpage, rainfall and land use changes with out graphic or numeric evidence of closure...model verification needs to be addressed, at least in overview form. (Tom Harper)(possible future presentation/ treat as comment) My reading of the excerpt quoted from Section in Section 1.1 of the draft rule leads me to conclude that this, or any other proposed rule, must be protective of all existing legal users, including, but not limited to, individual permittees. If not, it can result in the violation of the rights of those users. In other words, the imposition of the proposed requirements must not result in the rollback of existing authorizations upon which permittees have relied. Therefore, safeguards need to be clearly articulated and intertwined with each component of the strategy to ensure that there will be no infringement of those rights. This also needs to be more clearly articulated in the Introduction to the draft rule. Nevertheless, this should in no way negate the ability of either District to develop and offer existing permittees alternative water resources or incentives as a means of achieving prevention and recovery goals. (Michael O Berry)(Issue covered under statute- treat as comment) When was MFL section of the law passed, if 1972 why MFL in a big rush now? Recommend at least a one month delay in MFL approval. (Patrick Welsh) Much easier to prevent than recover it seems the WMDs were negligent in not preventing excessive aquifer withdrawals from creating the existing conditions. Does a PROPOSED but not legally adopted MFL meet the legal requirement for a RECOVERY Plan? Recommend recovery plan be delayed until transient model analysis and peer review is complete and THAT MFL is approved by the SRWMD Board of Directors. (Patrick Welsh) (The recovery plan is adopted with MFL rule) Based on the unique geology of the District, and the fact that the impacts to springflows and springfed rivers are linked to regional groundwater trends, both within and outside of the SRWMD, District staff concluded that water supply planning for the Lower Santa Fe Basin should be conducted as part of a broader multi-region planning effort with the SJRWMD. This statement is untrue and Recommendation Statements Worksheet 13

14 unacceptable scientifically SJRWMD insists that it is all rainfall and it is all caused locally. (Patrick Welsh) On December 10, 2007, the SRWMD established and adopted MFLs for the Upper Santa Fe River. At the time of the publication of that document, the SRWMD determined that streamflows in the Upper Santa Fe River had not fallen below the established MFL. For the purpose of establishing that MFL, the SRWMD defined the Upper Santa Fe as the Santa Fe River upstream of the USGS Worthington Springs Gage. So in 2007 the 20-year prediction of the UPPER and LOWER Santa Fe was that flows would be adequate and no recovery process was required? (Patrick Welsh) In regards to the IAA who are the listed as well as local elected officials and area stakeholders. Do they include local state Representatives and Senators? Patrick Welsh) The North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership works to develop joint water resource protection strategies, and focuses on communication with stakeholders across district boundaries during the preparation of a joint regional water supply plan between the SRWMD and the SJRWMD. This statement is untrue and the communication effort unacceptable. Many stakeholders have not been included in the process no effort has been made to publish interim reports other than Internet postings, on a website where stakeholders would not look. (Patrick Welsh) North Florida Regional Water Supply Plan (Plan) The Plan study area includes the four WRCAs in the SRWMD and the northern nine counties of the SJRWMD. Have the nine SJRWMD counties formally approved this process? (Patrick Welsh) This law amended s , F.S. to provide that any MFL and related recovery or prevention strategy adopted by the Department is to be applied by all relevant water management districts without the need for further rulemaking. Does this mean the SRWMD cannot take actions which further degrade an MFL or RECOVERY status in another WMD??? (Patrick Welsh) The addition of this legislation to the MFL program provide an important mechanism for the state s water management districts to establish MFLs in a manner that addresses regional impacts to water resources. This is particularly significant in the protection of groundwater-based resources, such as springs and springflow dominated rivers, as the impacts to these systems can be regional in nature, and may extend across district boundaries..to better address regional trends in the Upper Floridan aquifer and to achieve MFL targets where cross-boundary effects have been identified. Spring flow dominated streams as well? (Patrick Welsh) Although climatologic trends have affected the hydrologic regime, analyses conducted by SRWMD during the development of the Lower Santa Fe Basin MFLs indicated that regional groundwater use has contributed to observed stream and spring flow impacts within the Santa Fe Basin. What is the rationale of climate impact to groundwater withdrawal impact in the Santa Fe Basin? SJRWMD insists it is all climate controlled and local (Patrick Welsh) 2.0 Summary of Proposed MFLs SAC Member Comments In the discussion of how the MFL was determined, there should be discussion about why flow was used to assess the status of the waterbody rather than level or some combination Recommendation Statements Worksheet 14

15 of the two. There is clearly a relationship between flow and level as there are no direct measurements of flow; flow is calculated from level and stream rating curves. (Stan Posey) More time is needed to adequately review the 40 + page draft document. I concur with the SAC comments and am sure that many more will arise.(mary Lou Hildreth) The FSI estimated that flow reductions in the LSFR due to groundwater pumping are between 300 and 350 cfs, considerable higher than the District's estimate of 188 cfs. Similar issues with the Itchetucknee cfs..(mary Lou Hildreth) Revise the baseflow analysis and increase estimates of the current un-impacted flows Provide detailed evaluations of the sensitivity of all ten of the human use and water resource values required by Florida law in the establishment of MFLs 2.1 Proposed MFL Criteria SAC Member Comments Section 2.1 specifically avoided comment on Cross-Boundary Impact on the Decline of the Upper Floridan Aquifer on the Keystone Heights Lakes (AKA The Etoniah Chain of Lakes) which have existing MFLs and are listed in Recovery, along with the impact on South Alligator Creek which feeds them. But in its closing paragraphs it reopens crossboundary impact discussion without identifying these deleterious impacts on Lakes listed in RECOVERY status which are just across the WMD borders. This MFL WILL further impact these Lakes and South Alligator Creek to their degradation. (Pat Welsh) The SRWMD determined that the two listed gages on the Santa Fe at Fort White and the Highway 27 Gage for the Ichetucknee River are in RECOVERY Determination of RECOVERY status cannot be done without an APPROVED MFL, and certainly cannot be used to support a PROPOSED MFL setting at a certain level. How was climate taken into account in this process? There is no mention of the science process WRT climate variance. (Pat Welsh) WITHOUT Climate Variation considered these proposed MFL must be thrown out as invalid The two districts (SRWMD and SJRWMD) cannot have it both ways as it suits them, that is it is both CLIMATE and CONSUMPTION of groundwater and its impact of the Upper Floridan Aquifer. (Patrick Welsh) 2.2 Peer Review SAC Member Comments Summarize the issues raised and the how issue was addressed/closed out. (Tom Harper) (This will be included in a resolution document with the MFL report) This section CANNOT STAND. I have read the peer review by the UF Water Institute, and it essentially concluded (as I have) that the MFL document and the science behind it are fatally flawed. Setting these MFLs REQUIRES (per USGS modeling guidelines) use of a transient model of the system. No such effort was conducted. I cannot see how the below statement can be made in good faith, when the effort is not up to current scientific standards. (Patrick Welsh) Recommendation Statements Worksheet 15

16 In addition the peer review panel it appears that there are numerous experts that are second guessing the validating of the MFL levels and the ability to defend them. How do we intend to avoid protracted litigation as a result of the proposed plan being scrutinized to such a degree without addressing these concerns? (James Cornett) (This will be included in a resolution document with the MFL report) Have the technical problems identified by the UF peer reviewers been resolved by the modified MFLs and the new MFL methodology? Will additional peer review of the new MFL methodology be conducted? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) 2.3 MFL Compliance Status SAC Member Comments Again the District refers to findings of RECOVERY status without an approved MFL. This is not legal as I understand Florida statutes. (Patrick Welsh) 3.0 Assessment of Regional Hydrologic Influence SAC Member Comments Implement the transient model and re-do the study. WMDs must be very careful in such use to correctly reset the aquifer levels and let them equilibrate before running the pumps off boundary condition tests and sufficient sensitivity tests to determine their likely impact accuracy, which is, even with good testing, only a probabilistic likelihood vice a predictive outcome which is I am convinced the legal requirement. With these tests estimates of impact on the Etoniah Chain-of-Lakes (which are RECOVERY) need to be run as an adjunct to determine the SRWMD impact on those Lakes in accord with current Florida Statutes Chapter , see section 1 of this document. (Patrick Welsh) The assessment of regional hydrologic influence should be acknowledged as limited, with specific discussion about how new assessment tools can be used in the periodic review and update of the MFL. It should be acknowledged that the model used to assess the impacts of various withdrawal scenarios is a steady-state model, being applied to a transient (dynamic) recovery strategy. A comprehensive transient model is not currently available, but I understand is contemplated as a next step after the new regional steadystate model is finalized. (Stan Posey) Again the use of the steady-state NFM is inconsistent with the science required to determine Regional versus Extra-Regional impacts, for which a transient model is Required (USGS). Such models have been available from USGS for about 15 years, thus, not using them does not meet the statutory requirement for best science. Such a model was being developed for North Florida by SJRWMD at least three years ago, and thus should be fully mature, available, and implemented by now. The Florida Statutes do not set the standard of qualitative insight on impact as acceptable but require best science. While I accept the conclusion that Current findings and modeling results indicate that impacts to streamflows and springflows in the Lower Santa Fe Basin are the result of groundwater withdrawals both within and outside of SRWMD boundaries. The Recommendation Statements Worksheet 16

17 current scientific efforts to define how much QUANTITATIVELY they impact are completely inadequate. (Patrick Welsh) How will WMD differentiate the impact of SE GA and N FL groundwater withdrawals? Seems N FL interests should not be unfairly penalized for SE GA Impacts? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Analysis Approach and Methodology SAC Member Comments The first paragraph of this subsection makes reference to how the NFM can be used. This is inappropriate in a rule document. It needs to be more clearly articulated in terms of how the NFM has been used, is used and will be used. How it can be used is irrelevant from a rule standpoint because it does not clearly establish parameters or make statements of fact. If this is the model to be used until the joint model is developed, then it should say so. If there are other tools, then they should be identified. A rule should not have the open-ended statements as are found in this paragraph. Furthermore, if the joint model will be used when developed, then it should definitively say so. (Michael O Berry) (Section 6.0 Regulatory refers to best available modeling tool ) SRWMD and SJRWMD are currently working on the development of broader regional groundwater modeling tools, particularly the North Florida Southeast Georgia Model (NFSEG). Once completed, the WMDs will utilize continue the best available tools to further assess regional water use and hydrologic trends. This is not a future requirement, it is currently the law. (Patrick Welsh) Regional Impacts SAC Member Recommended Statements 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, the Department and the scope and authority of this rule. (Michael O Berry) 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) 4.0 Recovery Strategy Goals and Approach Guiding Principles Add: Use the best available information and display/verify the accuracy of the data modeling to achieve public/ user confidence/buy in. (Tom Harper) The Districts and Department are to be commended for the Guiding Principles articulated in this Section. (Michael O Berry) Recovery Goals Recommendation Statements Worksheet 17

18 Add as a Recovery Goal: Not 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) This is actually quite good. It only lacks the goal of: 5.0 Recovery Strategy Components (p 20) The Recovery Strategy should be developed in collaboration with all stakeholders, including the SAC. (Bud Para) 5.1 Planning Component (p 20) 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) Contains reasonable conservation and landscape alternatives to current consumption practices. (Patrick Welsh) 5.2 Water Conservation Component (p 39) 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) Agriculture Water Conservation 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 evaportranspiration should be in balance. Support the use of weather/eco stations to balance the use to the need. (Tom Harper) Non-Agricultural Water Conservation Replicate the Ag Team concept across other user groups. (Tom Harper) 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) This section should explain how the Lawn and Landscape irrigation rule will be enforced and policed. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Recommendation Statements Worksheet 18

19 5.3 Water Supply Development Component (p 28) There should be some numerical expectations for the potential magnitude of alternative water resources. (Stan Posey) Both WMDs need to support equitable sharing of the storm water from the DuPont property along the Trail Ridge, using Lake Lowry water to stabilize South Alligator Creek and Lakes Brooklyn and Geneva which are natural Rapid Infiltration Basins restoring the Upper Floridan Aquifer by direct augmentation. Water Quality issues have been shown to be negligible compared to the eutrophication and nutrient pollution at these Lakes current extreme low levels. See the minority reports to the Clay-Putnam MFLs study groups and the Implementation Work Group results (established by SJRWMD), which have not been implemented to date. The use of intermediate and Lower Floridan Aquifer water in the Upper Santa Fe basin is highly recommended for all new permits and for subsidized projects by high consumption users.(patrick Welsh) Reclaimed Water This section should clarify how the WMDs will provide assistance to small utilities who desire PAR expansion, but cannot proceed. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Alternative Groundwater Sources This Strategy should provide estimated capacity of the Surficial and Intermediate Aquifer Systems. How is their presence/location determined? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Surface Water Sources The Strategy should provide estimated cost and logistics of conveying surface water from source to end user. Are specific source surface water locations identified? How will water be stored (esp. if on-site ponds already utilized)? How will WMD help provide storage? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) 5.4 Water Resources Development Component (p 30) Change the text to read: (2 nd 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) Recommendation Statements Worksheet 19

20 Aquifer Recharge The Strategy should provide a monitoring scheme to assess groundwater quality impact. If adjacent private well is contaminated, how resolved? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Off-Stream Storage Status of WMD examining feasibility of creating off-stream storage projects? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Dispersed Water Storage Other Add an new element on land use management strategy. (5.5) (Tom Harper) 5.5 Regulatory Component (p 31) This Section is really too loosely worded. It should reference the specific regulations of the Districts that they use to regulate the use of the water resources. Specific rules are referenced elsewhere but not here. Therefore, I do not see how this Section, and possibly others, are going to pass legal review. (Michael O Berry) Discusses concurrent development of the MFL and Recovery Strategy Is that LEGAL under Florida Statutes??? My reading of the law requires an MFL be developed and approved first, and then id the water body does not meet the criteria, then it may be designated in RECOVERY status, and then a RECOVERY STRATEGY is required to be developed. (Patrick Welsh) Revocation of Unused Water Use Permits Does this include reducing the allocation of existing permits? i.e., facility permitted for 7 MGD, but system utilizing only 4 MGD.can WMD revoke the 3 MGD (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Ref Water Shortage Orders, describe hydrologic threshold determination and what is the water consumer prioritization for imposition? i.e., ag, PWS, Industrial, etc. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Phase I Regulatory Strategies A No New Harm criteria is potentially problematic. No New Harm could be interpreted by otherwise well-meaning District staff as meaning that no additional allocations should be granted or classes of allocations should not be authorized. This may be an extreme interpretation but it must be realized that the issues are complex and significant analyses must be performed before making a decision to grant or decrease a proposed allocation. Proposals must be carefully evaluated and applicable criteria carefully applied. (Michael O Berry) If Adaptive Management becomes the basis for reducing the allocation of a legal user, it should be noted that this can be potentially devastating to that business and possibly force it to close. This must be carefully considered before any such criteria is Recommendation Statements Worksheet 20

21 implemented. The focus should not be on those that have already been issued a permit but on prospective new permittees. The Districts should not be in a position to go back to a party that has been granted an allocation and then take a part or all of it away. Sufficient analyses should be performed at the outset and when an allocation is issued it should remain as long as that permittee faithfully fulfills their obligations pursuant (Michael O Berry) Under permit criteria and under Phase I Regulatory Strategies: Include impact to adjacent counties with water resources designated in RECOVERY. in all appropriate sub-sections. (Patrick Welsh) What influence does Lake City s permitted allocation have on the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee MFLs respectively? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Additional Review Criteria for all Individual Permit Applications Under permit criteria and under Phase I Regulatory Strategies: Include impact to adjacent counties with water resources designated in RECOVERY. in all appropriate sub-sections. Change the wording to read: The rule establishes that the WMD shall use their best available information and USGS transient modeling tools to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed water uses to MFL water bodies and any adjacent area water bodies listed in recovery. These additional review criteria for individual water use permit applications shall be implemented in the entirety of the SRWMD and the portion of the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership located in SJRWMD. (Patrick Welsh) The Section entitled Additional Rule Criteria for all Individual Permit Applicants, is one of the clearest and most succinct sections of the proposed rule and appears to be reasonable as written. (Michael O Berry) Additional Individual Permit Conditions Every effort needs to be made to ensure that long-term projects not be limited to fiveyear duration permits. This is critical to the economic viability of such projects whether they be agriculture or commercial / industrial. There needs to be assurance that a business can get and maintain (Michael O Berry) While the phrase Secondary and Cumulative Impacts is somewhat dated at this point, it, nonetheless, describes what has to occur in the review process of a new permit application. It needs to be made clear that if such an analysis reveals that the withdrawals of a prospective (Michael O Berry) Phase II Regulatory Strategies Delete Phase II section and Section 6: They apply to a condition that should not legally exist, that being current and proposed future use of the non-transient model for scientific and regulatory study of water resources in the Karst topography region of North Florida. (Patrick Welsh) Recommendation Statements Worksheet 21

22 6.0 Recovery Strategy Rule Language (p 36) This rule language should not be incorporated by reference into the DEP MFL rule. Recovery strategies should be dynamic, with clear adaptive management used to adjust to changing conditions and availability of improved management tools. Fixing the strategies in the rule will be a significant impediment to adaptive management. (Stan Posey) The latitude already exists for the Districts to tailor conditions of permits to meet the various regulatory criteria in order to achieve the established conservation goals including MFLs. (Michael O Berry) Seems SE GA data is critical for accurate modeling and forecasting. How will SE GA groundwater withdrawals be regulated? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) What if strategy does not produce intended results? i.e., little or no effect on MFL water bodies? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Specifically, what water resource and/or water development projects are/may be required to meet the MFL and what do they cost? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) What will be the total economic impact of full MFL compliance? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Where is funding coming from for MFL compliance projects? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) What is the estimated economic impact for Lake City in the Recovery Strategy and associated Prevention Plan(s)? (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) As in the comment on section 5.1, there should be a clear discussion here about the continuous, iterative process of review, evaluation, and improvement of recovery strategies. Stan Posey 7.0 Implementation, Measuring Success, and Adaptive Management (p 39) 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) This is a good discussion of the long-term process. No additional comments. (Stan Posey) 7.1 Water Resource Monitoring Program (p 39) 7.2 Metrics for Recovery Success (p 39) 7.3 Periodic Evaluation of Water Resources 7.4 Time-Table for Project Implementation 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 (Patrick Welsh) This time-table needs to be absolutely consistent with the currently projected schedule of the NFRWSP SAC. (Michael O Berry) Recommendation Statements Worksheet 22

23 7.5 Public and Shareholder Participation 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) 7.6 Adaptive Management The Strategy should provide assurances that the MFL s will be revisited timely and adjusted accordingly as new information comes forth?. (James Cornett) As already stated in reference to Section 5.5, if Adaptive Management becomes the basis for reducing the allocation of a legal user, it should be noted that this can be potentially devastating to that business and possibly force it to close. This must be carefully considered before any such criteria is implemented. The focus should not be on those that have already been issued a permit but on prospective new permittees. The Districts should not be in a position to go back to a party that has been granted an allocation and then take a part or all of it away. Sufficient analyses should be performed at the outset and when an allocation is issued it should remain as long as that permittee faithfully fulfills their obligations pursuant to that permit. In other words, the work needs to be done up front. (Michael O Berry) What assurances do we have that the MFL s will be revisited timely and adjusted accordingly as new information comes forth? (James Cornett) Good. (Steve Roberts/Jason Sparks) Other SAC Recommendations Potential SAC Recommendation Statements: The general permit by rule for less than 100,000 gallons/day should remain in place. (From SAC November 18 Discussion) SAC Member November 18, 2013 Discussion of MFL Issues: 5-year permits is a big issue for agriculture and for growth in the region. Balance need for longer term permits with flexibility for adjustments and adaptive management. Providing sufficient certainty for investments in infrastructure and operations. Clarify how the several plan development and regulatory processes fit together and will there be flexibility for changes. Invite a representative from the Peer Group to the SAC December 16, 2013 meeting. What are the cost estimates for the strategies and projects that are needed to fix the regional water resource problem? Recommendation Statements Worksheet 23

24 What is the longer term plan regarding the further development of the tools and models (e.g. from steady state to transient, etc.). Science should guide the decisions and planning. Clarify the changes in the methodology and seek Peer Review of those changes. Clarify what a delay of a month or more would mean for the adoption of the Lower Santa Fe River Basins MFLs and related Recovery Strategy. What is the downside to not recommending MFLs? If delayed, how long of a delay in adopting and implementing MFLs? Who bears the burden to prove adverse impacts to the water supply? Will the general permit by rule for less than 100,000 gallons/day a day remain in place? Do the recent SRWMD CUPcon changes affect this MFL rule? Can new CUPs not have an impact on MFLs? A.: Will depend on where and how much water is being requested. Will Ag lose crop type flexibility with the CUPcon or the MFLs? What kinds of offsets will be needed to extend a permit beyond 5 years? E.g., Ag may not be able to use offsets for reclaimed water due to restrictions on what you are growing and where you are. Need to be able to evaluate costs and savings of conservation strategies. Need water security for recreational industry in the region as well. The MFL SERC analysis is expected to be released by December 8, Clarify the scientific basis of assessing the impact of withdrawals on one district or another. Submitted in writing by Tom Harper prior to the meeting: I have concern with the modeling for Ichetucknee and Lower Santa Fe Rivers flows. Specifically, the unexplained inflection in 1970 on the flow curve as well as the sensitivity to area rain data coverage used, calls in to question the proposed flow limits. Recommendation Statements Worksheet 24

25 ADDITIONAL MEMBER COMMENTS RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY: In my opinion: 1.) The process needs to be slowed down enough to allow time for a review and comment period on the final proposed MFL. Substantial changes were made in the methodology for setting base line flows of the revised MFL than were used in the original MFL. We believe all stakeholders must be allowed a reasonable amount of time to review, understand and make comments on this new method. 2.) 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. 3.) SRWMD needs to estimate the approximate cost of each compliance strategy and show how that cost will impact each of the stakeholders and allow and consider comments before finalizing the cost estimates. In my opinion, anything short of this will bring into question the scientific validity of the MFL as well as the Recovery Strategy and its cost, thus leading to stakeholder uncertainties. Until these issues are well defined, opponents on both sides of this issue will be inclined to challenge the MFL rather than to cooperate and agree to help fund compliance projects to meet the MFL. (Ray Avery; submitted electronically 12/13/13) Regarding the subject of Adaptive Management included in the draft rule, I would propose that a threshold level be set 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; submitted electronically 12/16/13) Recommendation Statements Worksheet 25