meeting xx summary report monday may 19, 2014—1:00 … · meeting xx summary report monday, may...

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.”

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING XX SUMMARY REPORT

MONDAY, MAY 19, 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 Advisory Committee on July 14, 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 XX Meeting Summary, May 19, 2014 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 MEETING SUMMARY 5 I. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW OF THE WORKPLAN 5 A. Introduction and Agenda Review 5 B. SAC Workplan Tasks & Schedule Review and Discussion 5 II. SAC REQUESTED BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES 18 A. Santa Fe River Basin Hydrogeology 18 B. Status Update on Lower Santa Fe River MFL Rule Development 18 III. PUBLIC COMMENT & NEXT STEPS 20 APPENDICES 1. Meeting Agenda 21 2. Committee Members 22 3. Committee Meeting Evaluation Summary 23 4. Meeting Sign In Sheets 25 5. Public Comments- Meeting Comments and Previous Email Comments 26 6. SAC Charge, Mission & Principles 26 7. SAC Background Documents 27 8. Stakeholder Advisory Committee Work plan 28 9. SAC Consensus Recommendations (August 2012- January 2013) 29



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

MEETING XX—MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014—1:00-5:00 P.M.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Carlos Herd, Suwannee River Water Management District along with John Fitzgerald, St. Johns River Water Management District, welcomed the SAC members as well as the public to the Committee’s 20th meeting and introduced the FCRC Consensus Center facilitation team of Jeff Blair and Bob Jones. The facilitators reviewed with the Committee the proposed meeting objectives and agenda. John Fitzgerald introduced Lee Pinkoson as the new SAC local government representative. The Committee reviewed and unanimously adopted the proposed Committee agenda as well as the Committee’s March 17, 2014 meeting summary that was sent to members in advance of the meeting. The SAC reviewed and discussed proposed changes to the Workplan consisting of principally of changes in dates for presentation based on updated schedule information on products from the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership. The facilitator noted that this was the SAC’s 20th meeting since June 2012 and that the facilitation team had met with the SAC staff leads Carlos Herd and John Fitzgerald in April to review each SAC and Partnership work plan task and clarify whether any adjustments in the schedule are needed. Mr. Blair noted that each task in the SAC workplan is described as either a “SAC Educational Component” or a “SAC Input Component.” The first two tasks (the Water Supply Plan Format and the collection of water use data) have been reviewed by the SAC and completed in 2013. The resulting updated workplan was sent as a part of the May 19, 2014 SAC Agenda Packet in advance to SAC members and posted for public review. Jeff Blair noted that the proposed changes in the workplan were highlighted in yellow and the SAC discussed questions and suggestions. Following the review and discussion, the SAC unanimously adopt the SAC Workplan as revised and the revised 2014 Meeting Schedule. Carlos Herd with the SRWMD provided the SAC with an update on the rulemaking process noting an administrative hearing is set for May 28-30 in Tallahassee at the Division of Administrative Hearings. Once the Administrative Law Judge issues a proposed recommended order it will go to the Secretary at DEP who will then review and issue the rule and send to the Secretary of State for filing. The Legislature waived verification and it is expected that the process will conclude in early Fall 2014.

Clay Coarsey, an engineer in the MFL program with the Suwannee River Water Management District, presented a briefing on the hydrogeology of the Santa Fe River Basin which covered: the general geology of the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River Basins; the general topography and drainage of the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River Basins; the general hydrogeology of the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River basins; the land use affects on Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River; and the Upper Santa Fe MFL Review.


!

He noted that land use (ditching/draining) changes in the upper Santa Fe River Basin do not appear to have much effect on lower Santa Fe River in terms of flow, even if the speed may change. Due to an increase of impervious surfaces in the urban areas and the ditching and drainage of silviculture lands, a possible increase in peak discharge would have little effect on the flow of the river.

For the Upper Santa Fe MFLs at Graham and Worthington Springs, Mr. Coarsey noted there is a 10 foot separation between the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) and the stream bottom. While there is interaction between the UFA up to the Worthington Springs, which is a transitional zone, there is little interaction at the Graham MFL. No public comment was offered. SAC member James Cornett suggested that the SAC might be ready to agree now that we are using more water than we have. The members discussed and the facilitator summarized the suggested items for the next SAC meeting scheduled for July 14, 2014 including: a presentation on the DACS water data; a status report on the SJRWMD 2013 district wide Water Supply Plan; a DEP/ Florida Geological Survey presentation on potentiometric surface maps; and a update on MFL rule making. The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.



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

MEETING XX—MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014—1:00-5:00 P.M.

MEETING SUMMARY

SAC Members in attendance: Ray Avery, James Cornett, Thomas Harper, Gene Higginbotham, Kerry Kates J. Michael O’Berry, Bud Para, Lee Pinkoson, Jason Sparks (alternate for Steve Roberts), Terry Baker, Jacqui Sulek & Patrick Welsh SAC Members unable to attend: Steve Roberts Staff: Carlos Herd, SRWMD, John Fitzgerald SJRWMD, David Trimble, DEP & Ray Scott DACS Facilitators: Jeff Blair & Bob Jones I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF WORKPLAN

A. Welcome and Agenda Review Carlos Herd, Suwannee River Water Management District along with John Fitzgerald, St. Johns River Water Management District, welcomed the SAC members as well as the public to the Committee’s 20th meeting. John Fitzgerald introduced and welcomed Alachua County Commission Chair, Lee Pinkoson, as the new SJRWMD local government representative replacing Mary Lou Hildreth. He then introduced 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 March 17, 2014 meeting summary that was sent to members in advance of the meeting.

B. SAC Work Plan Tasks Review and Discussion The facilitator noted that this was the SAC’s 20th meeting since June 2012 and that the facilitation team had met with the SAC staff leads Carlos Herd and John Fitzgerald in April to review each SAC and Partnership work plan task and clarify whether any adjustments in the schedule are needed. The resulting updated workplan was sent as a part of the May 19, 2014 SAC Agenda Packet in advance to SAC members and posted for public review. Jeff Blair noted that the changes in the workplan are highlighted in yellow and proposed that the SAC walk through each task so the changes are clarified and discuss any reactions and suggestions. He noted that each task in the workplan is described as either a “SAC Educational Component” or a “SAC Input Component.” The first two tasks (the Water Supply Plan Format and the collection of water use data) had been reviewed by the SAC and completed in 2013.


C. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES/COMPONENTS BY TASK CORRELATED WITH

RWSP WORK PLAN RWSP Goal: Develop a North Florida Regional Water Supply Plan (Plan) for the North Florida planning region that ensures the protection of the water resources and related natural systems and identifies sustainable water supply for all reasonable and beneficial water uses in North Florida through the 2035 planning horizon.

The Committee will determine the priority and role, if any, for the development of each of the key Regional Water Supply Plan components. This may involve receiving briefings and updates, monitoring and commenting on progress, developing recommendations, etc.). 1. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN (PLAN) FORMAT {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 1}

Educational Component—WMDs’ Function (The format of the Plan must be defined consistent with the statutory requirements in Section 373.036, F.S. and Section 373.709, F.S., and as detailed in Rule 62-40.531, FAC.) A. Plan Outline Template (Define the format of the Plan) B. RWSP Boundary Area

A. Committee unanimously voted to support proposed boundary area for RWSP January 2013.

9/1/12 10/12 12/12 1/13 1/13 Plan Outline/Format

defined (districts) RWSP Boundary

SAC review RWSP Boundary

SAC review RWSP Boundary

SAC recommendation Task Complete

Task Completed- January 2013 2. ASSEMBLE AVAILABLE WATER USE DATA {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 2} SAC INPUT COMPONENT At a minimum, the available water use for the last five years will be collected into a central database as follows: • Collect the data for each water use type • Describe the limitations and quality of the data • Develop/use a database that is compatible with the NFSEG Model

A. Water Use Data (10/1/12 – 1/15/14) (Develop a reproducible methodology for assembling the most accurate water use data) Report from WMDs regarding methodology for collecting historic water use data at February 2013 meeting, and SAC feedback.

A. Public Supply


ii. Domestic Self-Supply iii. Agricultural Self-Supply iv. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Self-Supply v. Recreational Self-Supply vi. Thermoelectric Power Generation Self-Supply

9/1/12 3/31/13 4/22/13 5/20/13 7/31/13 8/13 10/12 Presentation to SAC

2001 and 2009 historic water use data for NFSEG model assembled completion target

WMDs report to SAC 2 year data (2001 & 2009) for model calibration: Full meeting discussion SAC input on data

SAC recommends model calibration assumptions, methodology and data set years (2001 and 2009)

WMD full water use data set for RWSP: 2006-2010 historic water use data for RWSP assembled

Evapotranspiration Data briefing

9/23/13 Presentation to SAC on 2006-2010 water use data set; SAC discussion

Task Completed- September 2013 3. DEVELOP AND ASSIMILATE POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS FROM 2015 – 2035 IN FIVE-YEAR

INCREMENTS {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 3} EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT—WMDS’ FUNCTION Projecting water demands is complex and uncertain, particularly for the self-supplied agriculture water use group. The WMDs will develop a consistent region-wide

methodology to project water demands for all water use groups throughout the planning region. It is understood that there is an effort to develop a consistent projections methodology for the entire state. The methodology will align with the statewide method(s).

A. Develop/use a central database compatible with the Regional Groundwater Flow Model B. Population Projections (Primarily related to: i. Public Supply, and ii. Domestic Self-Supply.)

8/31/13 2/14 Fall 2014 WMDs reach consensus on demand

projection methodologies Methodologies presented to SAC

SAC Q&A and comments

Brief SAC on final demand projections including SJR. SR, NWF, SWF and Georgia as applicable.

SAC Q&A and comments


SAC Member Questions & Answers and Discussion

• DACS completed its statewide Agriculture projections in May 2014. Should these be presented to the SAC? A: DACS will provide a briefing for the SAC at its July 2014 meeting on their projections.

• The presentation should address how the DACS and WMDs view this data and its relevance to or incorporation in the regional water supply plan. The Districts and DACS were comfortable with this approach.

• In terms of the water supply data sets, can we go beyond 2010 at this point? A: These are rarely discreet measurements of that year. DACs has updated projections based on more recent data and does both 2010 and 2015 projections. It will do a 2015 projection to formally to compare to 2010. For some parts of the state, the 2010 numbers are not complete.

• What are the current expectations of which data will come in early or later? Is there a rough % of the completeness of water data sets for both the WMDs and DACS data?

• How often do we update the water supply data? Looking for the big picture of putting this plan together. A: We need to distinguish the water use projections from calibration years for the model. The water use demand projections are being worked on over the summer of 2014 and the SAC will review these in the Fall. In February 2014 the SAC was briefed by Tammy Bader and Dale Jenkins on the methodology for using projects and the data that supported that. (http://northfloridawater.com/pdfs/2014_02-24_meeting/presentation_NFRWSPDemandProjMethods.pdf)

• Does it make a difference that water regime changed between 2010 and 2014? Do we account for that in modeling and future estimates in trying to be predictive? A: We picked the years 2001 and 2009 for steady state model calibration. The changes going forward will be addressed as we move towards building a transient model. Before we get to transient models, we need the base of the steady state model in order to get a good handle on parameters of system.

• It will be important to plug meteorological factors into the model. • Depending on each time step, we will need substantial data for each. • The rainfall, water use and land use were used to calibrate the model in the 2 stable years. Will we run it, following 2015 in 5 year

increments? A. We will use the same data sets for each 5 year increment in the WSP comparing these to the stressors in the system. • If we assume rainfall is constant the model, we know population and land use won’t be constant. We will have to discuss this. A: We

will project population growth and estimate withdrawals for the model to predict future stresses. Rainfall and recharge will be the same until transient model is in place..

• Is the needed additional data needed for the transient model being gathered? Is there a plan to gather? A: Yes. We are gathering it as fast as we can and are committed to moving to a transient model in the future.


4. RESOURCE PROTECTION CRITERIA {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 4} EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT—WMDS’ FUNCTION (Review & understand resource protection criteria evaluation measures used by each WMD in development of the Plan) The Team will review available resource protection criteria evaluation measures in development of the Plan. Based on review of the measures, an approach to resource

protection criteria will be developed. WMDs will use the approach to ensure a consistent application of the evaluation measures in the planning process.

A. Potential Environmental Constraints (WMDs will explain the environmental constraints and how they are applied to NFSEG Model results)

i. Wetlands ii. Springs iii. Rivers and Streams iv. Lakes v. MFLs vi. Groundwater Quality

B. Reservation

(A water reservation is a legal mechanism to set aside water from consumptive uses for the protection of fish and wildlife or public health and safety, authorized by Sec. 373.223 (4) Florida Statutes.)

C. Climate Change

9/1/12 2/13 9/1/13 3/14 Fall 2014 August 2015 Task start date WMD report to SAC Resource protection

criteria determined by WMD

SAC briefing on resource protection criteria used for RWSP

Update on water resource protection

criteria.

SAC Q&A and comments.

Briefing on final water resource assessment.

(8/15 Milestone)

SAC Q&A and comments.

SAC Comments 5-19-14

• No comments


5. ASSEMBLE AND INCORPORATE EXISTING MFL PREVENTION & RECOVERY STRATEGIES {RWSP Objective—Task 5} EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT AND SAC INPUT REGARDING RWSP As required in the Interagency Agreement between the two WMDs and DEP, both WMDs are developing consistent MFL P&R Strategies when withdrawals in

one WMD contribute to water resource impacts in the other WMD. Existing MFL P&R Strategies will be described in the Plan along with the approach for developing additional necessary MFL P&R strategies.

A. Creating Consistency and Coordination in Setting Minimum Flows and Levels {RWSP Objective} Members should review web and provide written comments/questions B. Development of Prevention and Recovery Strategies {RWSP Objective} 9/1/12 5/13 5/13 6/13 7/13 7/13 Task Start Date

Technical Document Lower Santa Fe River MFLs ready for peer review

SRWMD’s Board review prior to release of report; and SAC briefing and discussion

Briefing on recommendations of the Clay-Putnam MFLs Implementation Workgroup

Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers MFLs P&R strategies discussion

Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers MFLs briefing

8/13 9/13 11/18/13 11/13 12/13 Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers MFLs P&R strategies SAC feedback

Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers MFLs P&R strategies SAC feedback; Decision on SAC rulemaking participation

Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers MFLs rule development workshop at SAC meeting

SJRWM staff’s rec. to Board regarding Clay-Putnam MFLs prevention & recovery strategies

Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers MFLs recovery strategies review

1/14 2/14 3/14 3/14 January 2015 Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers

MFLs recovery strategies SAC recommendations

SAC briefing on Clay-Putnam MFLs P&R

Strategies staff draft recommendations

SRWMD Governing Board accepts Lower Santa Fe & Ichetucknee Rivers

MFLs recovery strategies and MFLs

SAC briefing on Clay-Putnam MFLs P&R

Strategies

Compile existing MFL P&R strategies and acknowledge the

development of additional MFL P&R strategies in the

planning region. SAC Q&A and comments


• No comments


6. NORTH FLORIDA SOUTHEAST GEORGIA REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL SIMULATIONS {RWSP—Task 6}

EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT PRIMARILY AND SAC INPUT ON MODEL PROJECTIONS The NFSEG Model is being developed by SJRWMD and SRWMD in collaboration with stakeholders through the NFSEG Model Team. The utilization of the

NFSEG Model is necessary for predicting changes to water resources due to projected water demands. Therefore, its availability is critical for the completion of the Plan.

COLLECTING AND SHARING SCIENCE-BASED DATA

A. Developing a Shared Tool to Predict and Assess Water Resource Impacts B. Studying the Regional Groundwater Decline in North Florida C. Evaluation of Groundwater Resource

MODEL DEVELOPMENT WORKPLAN (OCTOBER 2012 – SPRING 2015) Data

Analysis Model

Development Initial Model

Construction

Initial Model

Calibration

Data Development

Final Model

Calibration

Model Verification

Determination of Predictive Uncertainty (using EOP data)

2035 Predictive Scenario

Water use dev. Simulations

Report

Resources for model development are under review and schedule will be revised once a decision is made on strategy going forward. NFRWSP SAC WORKPLAN

10/12 4/13 5/13 3/14 October 2014 Report SAC

Model calibration data: available water use review with SAC

Briefing on the conceptual model

Model Development update report to SAC

Briefing on NFSEG status and draft RWSP model simulations SAC Q&A and comments

December 2014 Spring 2015 Briefing on final RWSP model simulations SAC Q&A and comments

Briefing on RWSP model simulation results SAC Q&A and comments


• Is the model development behind original schedule? A: Yes. We are targeting June/July for the initial calibration and planning to be briefing the SAC in the early Fall 2014. In the Partnership plan this was originally scheduled for Summer 2014. We reviewed the


situation and assigned more internal staff and hired 3 outside contractors in order to get the input files to the model so the calibration can begin. That will allow us to begin initial testing to address any issues. We hope to be back on schedule by January 2015 to run the model simulations.

• Is there a team for each input area? A: Suwannee River WMD and St. Johns River WMD are working in coordination and there is one staff person heading up and leading each area but with several staff assisting. E.g. for the recharge package there are several staff working with Doug Dearden in the lead.

7. EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 7} EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT—WMDS’ FUNCTION The NFSEG simulation results will be the basis for estimating available water from traditional sources (primarily fresh groundwater) and potential impacts to the

natural systems if all future demands are met from the traditional sources. Predicted changes in groundwater resources will be compared with the resource protection criteria to determine potential impacts to natural systems and established MFLs.

Fall 2014 Summer 2015

Briefing on groundwater availability calculation methodology. SAC Q&A and comments.

Briefing on final groundwater availability calculations. SAC Q&A and comments.


• No comments 8. WATER CONSERVATION COMPONENT (DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES AND POLICIES) {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 8}

{KEY COMMITTEE POLICY ISSUE} SAC INPUT REGARDING OPTIONS

A consistent methodology for determining the water conservation potential for each water use group in the planning region will be employed. It is understood that there is a statewide effort to develop a consistent water conservation methodology for the entire state. The developed Plan methodology will align with the statewide method(s).

10/1/12 7/13 8/13 Fall 2014

Task start date WMDs’ briefing on water conservation strategies

SAC discussion and feedback on possible strategies

Briefing on water conservation potential calculation methods. SAC Q&A and comments, and recommendations.

Winter 2014/2015


Briefing on final water conservation potential estimates. SAC Q&A and comments, and recommendations.


• Will you include estimated costs in Fall 2014 for the conservation component of the water supply plan? The Amount for conservation on public supply may not see large gains in conservation for the investments as most are already being done. To do a lot more, the cost for quantity of water gained will be very expensive in terms of investment and manpower. A: Yes, we will do that. The Districts will use a tool to do cost estimates and have developed this in the contexts of utilities and agriculture.

9. WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT OPTIONS (DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES AND POLICIES) {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 9} SAC INPUT REGARDING PROJECTS In accordance with Subsection 373.709(2)(a), F.S., the WMDs shall develop a consistent methodology for evaluating each water supply development option,

including, but not necessarily limited to: project description, potential yield, implementation timeframe, planning-level costs, water source, water resource constraints (e.g., MFLs), potential water users (e.g., local governments, self suppliers), feasibility and permittability, funding analysis, and public interest.

A. Alternative Water Supplies {KEY COMMITTEE POLICY ISSUE} i. Surface Water ii. Reclaimed Water iii. Brackish Groundwater iv. Desalination

B. Fresh Groundwater

9/23/13 10/1/13 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Surface water use issues briefing

Start Task Briefing on WSD & WRD project options used in previous Water Supply Plans and Prevention/Recovery Strategies. SAC Q&A and comments.

Workshop to develop preliminary WSD & WRD project options list. SAC Q&A and comments, and recommendations.


Fall 2015 Fall 2015 Briefing on draft WSD & WRD project options list. SAC Q&A and comments.

Review of final WSD & WRD project options list. SAC Q&A and comments.


• Will the refinement of recovery/prevention strategies be driven by what the ground water model predicts? A Yes. Based on constraints. There could also be additional projects not related to MFL, in addition to the recovery strategies of the MFL.

• The early assumption was there would be a shortfall so there is no reason to proceed in parallel? Water supply plans contain a longer list of projects than you need. It will be guided by what is required by the model.

• Will this include alternative water supply options? A: Yes.

10. WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT OPTIONS (DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES AND POLICIES) {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 10} SAC INPUT ON STRATEGIES In accordance with Subsection 373.709(2)(b), F.S., the WMDs shall develop a consistent methodology for water resource development options, including, but not

necessarily limited to: project descriptions, water made available, implementation timeframe, and planning-level costs. A. Hydrologic Data Collection and Analysis B. Aquifer Replenishment (Key Committee Policy Issue) C. Other Water Resource Development Project Options

8/13 10/1/13 Spring 2015 Atkins Study briefing on aquifer replenishment project

Task start date Workshop to develop preliminary WSD & WRD project options.

Fall 2015 Fall 2015 Briefing on draft WSD & WRD project options list. SAC Q&A and comments and recommendations.

Review of final WSD & WRD project options list. SAC Q&A and comments.



• In the past few years we have had storm events and both high and low (drought) river conditions with hundreds of millions of gallons flowing out to the Gulf of Mexico. Shouldn’t we be thinking about using the lost water for recharge? A. Capturing surface water for projects relates to Task 9

11. DRAFT REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN (CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS) {RWSP OBJECTIVE—TASK 11} SAC INPUT COMPONENT The Team will compile and produce a draft of the Plan for review.

A. Draft Plan for Comment

3/1/13 Fall 2015 December 2015 Task start date Presentation of draft RWSP document.

SAC Q&A and comments, and recommendation.

Review of SAC comments and recommendations.


• How does the schedule for the Regional Water Supply Plan fit with the Draft District 2013 Water Supply Plan of the St. Johns Rivers WMD? A: Staff is going to the Governing Board with the draft in June 2014 following public meetings earlier in 2014. It is anticipated that the plan will be adopted later in the year.

• Where does SJRWMD 2013 Plan plug into the RWSP process? Is it used as an input? A: We will use the historic data, but we are developing a new groundwater model. Different forecast of demand. Updated methodology for future population, and consideration of DACS’ updated methodology.

• There appears to be a big overlap and it would be valuable to get a briefing on the 2013 Draft SJRWSP. A: In July we can brief you on the plan and the results of the June Governing Board meeting and an update on the plan for plan adoption.

• What is the current schedule for adoption of the RWSP? We anticipate going early in 2016 to both Boards. There is no rule development process for the RWSP under statute. Only the portions that require someone to do something are subject to the Chapter 120 process.


• When model is running and being updated in terms of data there will be ongoing tracking, review of rainfall package and update every 5 years.

• In Fall 2014 SAC will receive a briefing on demand projections • Anticipate as we run the model it will be prompting a relook at inputs going forward through an iterative process. By 2035 we are

projecting statewide population of 30 million vs. 19 million today. Land use will be impacted. A: We will schedule a SAC briefing in the Fall on how model will be used and how runs will be made, once it is calibrated before simulations and the methodology.

D. CRITICAL-PATH RWSP EDUCATION TOPICS Research questions that must be answered in order to address key policy issues in Section C, Regional Water Supply Plan Development. The Partnership has identified and is seeking to answer key questions related to science and diagnostic modeling. 1. DO REGIONAL GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL ALLOCATIONS EXCEED THE AQUIFER’S CAPACITY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT WATER FOR

HEALTHY NATURAL SYSTEMS DURING DROUGHT? May 2014 Staff reviews with SAC how questions are being addressed: SAC Q&A/Discussion 2. DIAGNOSTIC MODELING KEY QUESTIONS:

A.) Do groundwater withdrawals in the St. Johns and Suwannee districts and southeast Georgia influence each other? B.) Are there impacts to the flows and levels in the Suwannee and Santa Fe rivers, and other area lakes and springs as a result of

groundwater use in both districts and in Georgia? C.) How do we distinguish the impacts from drought versus those from groundwater withdrawals?

A.) May 2014 Staff reviews with SAC how questions are being addressed: SAC Q&A/Discussion B.) May 2014 Staff reviews with SAC how questions are being addressed: SAC Q&A/Discussion C.) May 2014 Staff reviews with SAC how questions are being addressed: SAC Q&A/Discussion SAC Member Questions & Answers and Discussion

• How will groundwater withdrawals in drought be addressed? A: We deal with this through water shortage orders/regulations. Under Florida Statute, 1-in-10 year certainty of droughts must be accounted for.


• In terms of model simulations, can we running a permitted simulation with what future demands will be to clarify how permit allocation will be handled? A: The strategy will be different from building projects. All that will be in demand projections. Model will put future withdrawals into groundwater withdrawals and impacts on wetlands or springs.

• The future agriculture, population changes, business and commerce can’t be answered now? A: All these are critical path questions that the model is designed to answer.

• A WMD meeting in early May there was consideration of a 2.4 million CUP. The Governing Board asked staff if this would impact the Ichnetucknee River. While it was 9 miles from the river they replied yes. A: That was a key component of getting the MFL set.

• In terms of interactions should we expect the model to provide answers that may result in changing MFLs? A: Yes. • There is a challenge in distinguishing impacts of drought vs. impacts of water withdrawals? In drought water demand and withdrawals

may increase dramatically. It appears difficult to distinguish the drought itself and lack of recharge and the impacts of additional withdrawal. What is our margin of error? Is it 10% vs. a 50% estimate?

The facilitator noted that the April meeting had been cancelled and asked the SAC whether it should skip June and August 2014 SAC meetings. The SAC reviewed the current meeting schedule and unanimously agreed to skip the June 2014 meeting and determine at the July meeting if there was sufficient agenda items to convene the August meeting. By skipping one at a time, this will preserve the option, if needed, of convening future meetings.

APPROVED MEETING SCHEDULE—2014 XIX. Monday, March 17, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College XX. Monday, April 21, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College XX. Monday, May 19, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College

XXII. Monday, June 16, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE—SECOND HALF 2014

XXII. Monday, July 14, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College XXIII. Monday, August 18, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College XXIV. Monday, September 22, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College XXV. Monday, October 20, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College XXVI. Monday, November 17, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College XXVII. Monday, December 15, 2014 1:00 PM Lake City/Florida Gateway College

Following the review, the Board moved to unanimously adopt the SAC Workplan as revised and the 2014 Meeting Schedule.


II. SAC REQUESTED BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES A. Status Update on LSFR MFLs Rule Development Carlos Herd with the SRWMD provided the SAC with an update on the rulemaking process. He noted that Paul Still petitioned for an administrative hearing contesting the rule and the Ichetucknee Alliance has joined as a petitioner. Earth Justice is also seeking to join the petitioners. Several interveners have joined DEP supporting the proposed rule including, Alachua, Columbia and Bradford Counties and the Utilities Coordinating group. The hearing is set for May 28-30 in Tallahassee at the Division of Administrative Hearings. Once the Administrative Law Judge issues a proposed recommended order it will go to the Secretary at DEP who will then review and issue the rule and send to the Secretary of State for filing. SAC Member Questions & Answers and Discussion

• What about legislative approval? A: In the 2014 Session the Legislature waived verification of this rule.

• When should we expect the rulemaking to be complete? A: Probably in early Fall 2014.

B. Santa Fe River Basin Hydrogeology

Clay Coarsey, an engineer in the MFL program with the Suwannee River Water Management District, presented a briefing on the hydrogeology of the Santa Fe River Basin which covered: the general geology of the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River Basins; the general topography and drainage of the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River Basins; the general hydrogeology of the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River basins; the land use affects on Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River; and the Upper Santa Fe MFL Review. He suggested this educational presentation provided information for future reference for the SAC.

!At the conclusion of his presentation on the geology and topography and hydrogeology of the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River Basins, Mr Coarsey offered the following conclusions:

• Hawthorn Group rocks are present throughout the entire USFRB and eastern half of the LSFRB and impede recharge to the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA)

• Drainage patterns and drainage density in the USFRB and eastern half of the LSFRB are indicative of relatively impermeable sediments near the surface

• The Cody Scarp is the erosional edge of Hawthorn Group rocks and represents a location of intense recharge via sinking streams and sinkholes of surface water to the UFA

• The UFA transitions from confined to unconfined conditions near the Cody Scarp • The UFA is generally under confined conditions in the USFRB and eastern half of the

LSFRB (low recharge), and is unconfined west of the Cody Escarpment (high recharge) • Recharge rates to the UFA are generally high west of the Cody Scarp • The UFA discharges to the lower Santa Fe River west of the Cody Scarp as expressed by

numerous springs


!

He noted that land use (ditching/draining) changes in the upper Santa Fe River Basin do not appear to have much effect on lower Santa Fe River in terms of flow, even if the speed may change. A possible increase in peak discharge due to an increase of impervious surfaces in the urban areas and ditching and drainage of silviculture lands, would have little effect on the flow of the river.

For the Upper Santa Fe MFLs at Graham and Worthington Springs, Mr. Coarsey noted there is a 10 foot separation between the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) and the stream bottom. While there is interaction between the UFA up to the Worthington Springs, which is a transitional zone, there is little interaction at the Graham MFL.



• What is the reason for the Winter Peak? A: This is brought on by Spring flood events. The area receives Continental and Southern rainfall together but there is a climate divide with South receiving little rainfall where the north receives much rainfall.

• Rainfall is plotted in months vs. the discharge and is creating the flow? A: Yes. • What changed the fall off in the Upper and Lower Santa Fe River from 1970-1990?. A:

Groundwater withdrawals are responsible for that change in the Lower Santa Fe River. In Graham with 100 feet of confinement, withdrawals have not had much impact on the fall off. Worthington springs more a transitional zone and there is not clear cut evidence about whether or not the drop in flow was affected by groundwater withdrawals.1

III. PUBLIC COMMENT AND NEXT STEPS No public comment was offered. SAC member James Cornett suggested that the SAC might be ready to agree now that we are using more water than we have. The members discussed and the facilitator summarized the suggested items for the next SAC meeting scheduled for July 14, 2014 including:

• A presentation on the DACS water data; • A status report on the SJRWMD 2013 district wide Water Supply Plan; • A DEP/ Florida Geological Survey presentation on poteniometric surface maps; and • An Update on MFL rule making.

Members completed a meeting evaluation (See, Appendix #3 for a summary) The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

1 Following the May 19 meeting, Mr. Coarsey offered the following clarification regarding the Santa Fe River at Worthington Springs: “The fit of the SLR model at Worthington Springs, shown in Figure 80, was poor. Unlike the other stations that were analyzed, the Worthington Springs station is dominated by surface runoff processes. The hydrologic response from surface water dominated basins is difficult to represent with linear models due to the non-linearity of the processes as well as the complexity of inter-related processes including rainfall intensity, evaporation, interception storage, depression storage, and inter-event time. In addition, the Worthington Springs gage, unlike other gaging stations, is influenced by significant storage in Santa Fe Lake and Santa Fe Swamp. Despite the poor fit of the SLR model at the Worthington Springs station, the model was applied to the post-1970 data, resulting in a small (relative to the observed baseflow) trend in the model residuals in the post 1970 time period. The lack of a trend in the residuals combined with the fact that the basin upstream of Worthington Springs is well confined from the Upper Floridan aquifer and therefore isolated from groundwater impacts indicates the station shows minimal impacts due to changes in the groundwater system. Figures 80 and 81 show the fit of the SLR model and baseflow residuals at Worthington Springs. Although calculated, these adjusted baseflow time series were not used since the relative magnitude of computed impact was so small.”


APPENDIX #1—MEETING AGENDA


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 Terry Baker PCS Phosphate AGRICULTURE Kerry Kates Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Thomas Harper Harper Farms ENVIRONMENTAL Dr. Patrick T. Welsh Save Our Lakes Jacqui Sulek Audubon Florida LOCAL GOVERNMENT Lee Pinkoson Commission Chair, Alachua County 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) Carlos Herd Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) Dale Jenkins Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) STATE AGENCIES David Trimble Florida Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) Ray Scott 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


MAY 19, 2014—LAKE CITY, FLORIDA MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY

NOTE: Members used a 0 to 10 Rating Scale Where a 0 Meant Totally Disagree and a 10 Meant Totally Agree. 1. Please assess the overall meeting.

8.6 The background information was very useful. 8.5 The agenda packet was very useful. 9.2 The objectives for the meeting were stated at the outset. 8.8 Overall, the objectives of the meeting were fully achieved. 2. Do you agree that each of the following meeting objectives was achieved? 9.3 Comprehensive Review and Discussion of Updated SAC Workplan and Meeting Schedule. 9.3 Approval of Updated SAC Workplan. 8.5 Lower Santa Fe River Basin MFLs Update. 8.5 Technical Data Comparison Between Upper and Lower Santa Fe River Presentation. 8.8 Member comments and issues. 8.9 Review of next steps and agenda items for next meeting. 9.3 Public Comment. 3. Please tell us how well the Facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting.

9.6 The members followed the direction of the Facilitator. 9.4 The Facilitator made sure the concerns of all members were heard. 9.4 The Facilitator helped us arrange our time well. 9.6 Participant input was documented accurately in Facilitator’s Summary Report (last meeting). 4. Please tell us your level of satisfaction with the meeting?

8.8 Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting. 8.9 I was very satisfied with the services provided by the Facilitator. 8.7 I am satisfied with the outcome of the meeting. 5. Please tell us how well the next steps were communicated?

9.4 I know what the next steps following this meeting will be. 9.3 I know who is responsible for the next steps. 6. What did you like best about the meeting?

• Scheduling discussion. • Moved along, but good discussion.


• Well planned. • Structure/organization

7. How could the meeting have been improved?

• More flow comparisons on upper lower Santa Fe presentation. • A little more meat on the presentation bones. • Staff might be more creative, proactive about coming up with material for meetings. (If

possible.) 8. Do you have any other comments?

• One of our better meetings. • Change of participating members. • Staff makes it feel like we are losing momentum.


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 MAY 19, 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 There were no members of the public offering public comment at the May 19, 2014 SAC meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT-- EMAIL COMMENTS (submitted by email between the March 17, 2013 and May 19, 2014 SAC meetings) No public comments were submitted by email.

APPENDIX # 6—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 XVIII Meeting Summary, February 24, 2014

27

APPENDIX # 7—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


28

APPENDIX #8—COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Committee Workplan is set forth in the May 19, 2014 SAC Agenda Packet posted at: http://northfloridawater.com/documents.html

APPENDIX #9—COMMITTEE CONSENSUS DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- AUGUST 2012- MAY 2014

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: August 28, 2012, October 29, 2012 and July 15, 2013 Committee Organizational Policies and Procedures. The SAC 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 SAC Mission Statement: The SAC 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 SAC Guiding Principles: The SAC unanimously adopted the following 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.

January 23, 2013 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.


29

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.

Therefore, the SAC recommends to the Districts that the proposed planning boundary be utilized for the Regional Water Supply Plan. April 22, 2013 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. July 15, 2013 Public Opportunity To Be Heard Policy: The unanimously SAC adopted an expanded public opportunity to be heard policy. September 23, 2013 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 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. January 28, 2014 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. February 24, 2014 Lower Santa Fe River Basin MFLs and Recovery Strategy. The SAC unanimously voted (by a vote of 11 – 0 in favor) to support the revised Draft Recovery Strategy Lower Santa Fe River Basin—Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and Priority Springs Minimum Flows and Levels (dated February 21, 2014) incorporating the SAC’s consensus recommendations pertaining to the document. Staff agreed to work with Tom Harper to incorporate item #4 of the SAC’s recommendation for “Agricultural Water Use Approach” for inclusion in “Section 5.2 Water Conservation Component.”