MEETING XXVIII SUMMARY REPORT MONDAY AUGUST 24, 2015€¦ · Flagler, Duval and Nassau are...

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 XXVIII SUMMARY REPORT

MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015

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

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

Approve Unanimously by the SAC on October 26, 2015

http://www.northfloridawater.com/

“Facilitating Consensus Solutions, Supporting Collaborative Action.”

The Florida State University

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

NFRWSP SAC XXVIII Meeting Summary, August 24, 2015 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 MEETING SUMMARY 6 I. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW OF THE WORKPLAN 6 II. REVIEW OF THE WORKPLAN 6 III. SAC REQUESTED BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES 6 A. NFSEG Groundwater Model Development Status Report 6 B. Status Update on Water Demand Projection Methodologies and Values for Agricultural Use 6 C. Non Agricultural Water Conservation Potential Briefing 11 D. Presentation on Aquifer Replenishment Project Concept- Trail Ridge 13 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT & NEXT STEPS 16 APPENDICES 17 1. Meeting Agenda 17 2. Committee Members 18 3. Committee Meeting Evaluation Summary 19 4. Public Sign In Sheet 21 5. Public Comments- Meeting Comments and Email Comments 22 6. SAC Charge, Mission & Principles 28 7. SAC Background Documents 29 8. SAC Workplan 30 9. SAC Consensus Recommendations -2012-2015 30



MEETING XXVIII—MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Jeff Blair, facilitator, welcomed SAC members as well as the public to the Committee’s 28th meeting. The facilitator reviewed with the Committee the proposed meeting objectives and agenda. The Committee reviewed and unanimously adopted the Committee agenda and unanimously adopted the June 29 2015 SAC meeting summary with one spelling correction. John Fitzgerald welcomed Nancy Kilgo with JEA as a new SAC member replacing Bud Para. Jeff Blair reviewed with the SAC the updated Workplan. He noted that because of the schedule adjustments there will be more up to date BEBR data to incorporate into the model and this will be presented at the October 26 2015 to the SAC. He pointed out there will be NFSEG updates at each meeting, The Committee unanimously approved the updated Workplan.

John Fitzgerald provided the SAC with a briefing and update noting that the development of the NFSEG Groundwater Model was on track. He noted there had been a recent meeting with the two Districts and USGS to review the model development. He noted that a technical expert on the NFSEG will provide a presentation to the SAC at the October 2015 and talk more in depth regarding the calibration methods and results for the tests which represents the next major milestone.

Ray Scott with FDACS introduced Valerie Siedel and Dan Dourte with Balmoral the organization that FDACs has contracted with to develop the FSAID to provide the SAC with a briefing. Ms. Siedel provide a recap of the statewide schedule of deliverables. She noted that the statewide geo-database of irrigated lands in 2015 included: 25,913 Irrigated fields (1,800,312 acres) and 147,327 Agricultural fields (8,508,718 acres). She pointed out that the 2035 statewide forecast calls for a 5% increase in irrigated lands. In the SRWMD there will be a projected increase of 31% from 2015 levels (123,956 irrigated acres) of 38, 150 irrigated acres. In SJRWMD there is projected to be a 11% decrease from 2015 levels (177,371 irrigated acres) of -19,835 irrigated acres. In the NFRWSP area only two counties (Suwanee & Baker) show a projected increase in agricultural acreage between now and 2035. The remaining 12 counties show decreases with 7 counties (Hamilton, Columbia, Gilchrist, Union, Bradford, Alachua, and Nassau Counties) show a decrease between 0-5% and 5 counties (Duval, Clay, St. Johns, Putnam and Flagler) showing a decrease of over 5%. The projections for irrigated land show a projected decrease of over 50% for irrigated lands in Nassau, Duval and Flagler Counties; between 25-49% in Union and Putnam Counties; and 10-24% in St. Johns County. In terms of irrigated lands increase over 2015, Columbia and Clay Counties are projected to increase over 50% in irrigated acreage; Suwanee and Baker Counties will increase between 35 and 49%; Alachua, Bradford, Gilchrist and Hamilton Counties are projected to increase irrigated acres between 0 and 25%. Crop acreage throughout the region is expected to increase by 8% (from 128,208 to 137957 acres) by 2035.


In terms of projected water use, four counties (Suwannee, Baker, Columbia & Clay) are projected to increase more than 25% by 2035. Four counties (Alachua, Bradford, Gilchrist and Hamilton) are projected to increase water use between 0-25%. St. John is projected to experience a decrease of 0 to 10%. Union County is projected to experience a decrease between 10%-25% and Putnam County a decrease between 25-49%. Flagler, Duval and Nassau are projected with decrease in water use of over 50%. SAC Members comments or asked questions on the following topics: Decrease in demand; Agriculture movement from urban to rural areas; Shift from food to non-food crops; Impact of growing cattle processing industry

Dan Dourte from Balmoral then presented on the FSAID methods and results of irrigation conservation estimates of the potential in the 14 counties in the NFRWSP area. As there is nothing in the literature to guide measurement of future irrigation and conservation, they use USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Data (FRIS) which serves as a proxy for irrigation intensity. MIL data on actual water savings are ideal but there is a relatively short period of record (2009-2015). The data does indicate a general declining trend for how much water is being applied by agriculture. The MGD per irrigated acres is the basis for estimates of irrigation conservation out to 2035 and is sensitive to rainfall in wet years. The estimates suggests that water conservation overtime will get smaller and level off so at some point the gains will be smaller than today. SAC Members comments or asked questions on the following topics: Link between water demand and conservation. Estimating conservation numbers. Conservation as an alternative water supply; Conservation numbers uncertainties; Addressing changes in public policy; Impact of changing land use patterns; Ag land value as residential real estate; Cost estimates; Equity and subsidies in water costs; Alternative water supplies for agriculture and urban; and Fair allocation among users of a limited resource.

Jennifer Gihring with SJRWMD provided a briefing on water conservation potential noting the SAC had been briefed in February and June 2015 on FAWCET and the results of multiple runs. In July the Districts changed the methodology and this briefing covered the revised alternative methodology that does not use FAWCET and preliminary results. She described the “comparative per capita method” as a more transparent tool that uses projected demands in the water supply plan to estimate water conservation potential. Ms. Gihring reviewed the method and values and noted that the conservation potential is directly proportional to projected demand. If demand projections change, then the conservation potential will change accordingly. Finally she noted the Districts are developing cost estimates and will be reporting the results to the SAC at a future meeting. SAC Members comments or asked questions on the following topics: Water demand estimates; Tying strategies to conservation numbers; Motivating conservation with residential customers; Customer conservation education; Impact of Tiered Rates in Public Utilities; Adapt to new knowledge; Decreasing conservation gains over time; and Recharge costs.

In May 2015 the SAC agreed to provide Dr. Pat Welsh, a SAC member, an opportunity to present a recharge concept to the SAC. His presentation was titled: “Upper Floridan Aquifer Recharge: A Clay-Bradford County Solution to Northeast Florida’s Future Drinking Water Crisis” and focused on a Trail Ridge Aquifer Replenishment concept. He underscored this was a concept and not a project presentation. He also noted some positive developments in recent months in the Districts in moving


projects forward. He suggested that his comments today focus on the fact we have a problem dealing with our water supply in the future and that the region is headed for a crisis. He offered that we can beat the crisis but it will take all working together to get it done. Dr. Welsh noted that conservation is good but will be providing diminishing returns over the next several decades. Reuse is a good concept but there are significant costs associated with retrofitting systems. There is a high cost associated with recharge systems in the purification and expensive new plants and the high cost of deep aquifer recharge wells present great uncertainties and high costs. Comparatively, natural recharge through Trail Ridge is a cost effective option. He suggested that recharge should be the focus of the regional plan and the Natural Trail Ridge old mined area around Keystone Heights should be a target.

He reviewed a history trail ridge drainage changes that have led to increased flooding to North and West and dry Recharge Lakes to the South. The Keystone Heights area and Santa Fe Swamp are crucial for Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) recharge and Santa Fe River system, providing water to North Florida springs, SJR, SR, SFR, JAX and ORL He suggested the Solution Resides in Clay & Bradford Counties by rehydrating the OMA, Alligator Creek South and the Santa Fe River recharge area. He proposed a series of actions that could be undertaken in three stages: short term; interim and long term. The Trail Ridge Region drainage water is a major water resource, but has been dehydrated and diverted by man-made changes for over 50 years. He suggested we can mitigate this by adding new water to the OMA for nutrient reduction and an outlet from OMA to the Santa Fe Swamp via Double Branch Creek, decrease Flooding in Starke and natural drainage direct to Santa Fe River rather than Alligator Creek West (the ditch). Dr. Welsh concluded that the SAC should be backing this or some other plan to get water up to Trail Ridge and southward in the Old Mined Area to the Santa Fe Swamp and Keystone recharge areas but even if we took action today it will be years before significant recovery will take place.

SAC Members comments or asked questions on the following topics: Good test for project proposals. Recharge projects. Model defining recovery needed. Current water flow. Integrating a suite of projects. Demands vs. Constraints. Rainfall and Keystone Lakes. Recover 10 feet lost. High use and low recharge areas. Project review and checklist. Paul Still, Administrator, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District, Kathy Still, Vivian Katz and Taylor Crow provided public comments.

Following public comment the SAC reviewed the topics for the October 2015 SAC meeting including: Review Work plan action items and assignments; A NFSEG Groundwater Model Technical Committee Presentation; Proposed WSP & WRD Projects- Information Needed & Cost Estimation Resources; Water Demand Projections Methodologies and Values for Agricultural Use & SAC Recommendation; Water Irrigation Efficiency Potential Results and SAC Recommendation; Water of Non-Agricultural Conservation Potential Results and SAC Recommendation The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.



MEETING XXVIII—MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015

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

MEETING SUMMARY

SAC Members in attendance: Terry Baker, James Cornett, Thomas Harper, Rick Hutton, Kerry Kates, J. Michael O’Berry, Gene Higginbotham Nancy Kilgo, Lee Pinkoson, Jacqui Sulek &. Patrick Welsh SAC Members unable to attend: Steve Roberts Staff: Tommy Kiger, SRWMD, John Fitzgerald SJRWMD, Linda Clemens FDEP & Ray Scott FDACS Facilitators: Jeff Blair & Robert Jones, FCRC Consensus Center, FSU I. INTRODUCTION AND AGENDA REVIEW Jeff Blair, facilitator, welcomed SAC members as well as the public to the Committee’s 28th meeting. He asked members present to introduce themselves. The facilitator reviewed with the Committee the proposed meeting objectives and agenda. The Committee reviewed and unanimously adopted the proposed modifications to the Committee agenda. The Committee unanimously adopted the June 29 2015 SAC meeting summary with one spelling correction. John Fitzgerald welcomed Nancy Kilgo with JEA as a new SAC member replacing Bud Para. Ms. Kligo noted she has worked with JEA in real estate for 17 years in the government relations group and before working for JEA, she worked for FDOT and as a real estate appraiser in the private sector. II. REVIEW OF REVISED COMMITTEE WORKPLAN AND MEETING SCHEDULE Jeff Blair reviewed with the SAC the updated Workplan. He noted that because of the schedule adjustments there will be more up to date BEBR data to incorporate into the model and this will be presented at the October 26 2015 to the SAC. He pointed out there will be NFSEG updates at each meeting. The Committee unanimously approved the Workplan.

SAC Member Comments:

• Projects the SAC has been briefed on in the Districts have progressed. We should have a list of active projects presented to the SAC. A: This can be considered for upcoming Agendas.

III. SAC REQUESTED BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES

A. NFSEG Groundwater Model Development Briefing (RWSP #6)

John Fitzgerald provided the SAC with a briefing and update noting that the development of the NFSEG Groundwater Model was on track. He noted there had been a recent meeting with the two Districts and USGS to review the model development. He also offered in response to SAC member


questions, that at the SAC October 2015 meeting a technical expert on the NFSEG will provide a presentation to the SAC and talk more in depth regarding the calibration methods and results for the tests which represents the next major milestone.

B. Status Update on Water Demand Projection Methodologies and Values for Agricultural Use (RWSP #3)

Ray Scott with FDACS introduced Valerie Siedel and Dan Dourte with Balmoral the organization that FDACs has contracted with to develop the FSAID. Ms. Siedel provide a recap of the statewide schedule that featured Documentation out May 1, 2015 to Districts which include projected land use trends and ILG updates made throughout May 2015. Adjustments were made based on District feedback, additional data. Draft report and projections were distributed June 4 That included projections adjusted based on District feedback and additional data and featured two significant adjustments made to spatial distribution. The final projections were delivered June 30 and posted to FDACS website July 15, 2015. She noted that the statewide geo-database of irrigated lands in 2015 included: 25,913 Irrigated fields (1,800,312 acres) and 147,327 Agricultural fields (8,508,718 acres). She pointed out that the 2035 statewide forecast calls for a 5% increase in irrigated lands. In the SRWMD there will be a projected increase of 31% from 2015 levels (123,956 irrigated acres) of 38,150 irrigated acres. In SJRWMD there is projected to be a 11% decrease from 2015 levels (177,371 irrigated acres) of -19,835 irrigated acres.

In the NFRWSP area only two counties (Suwannee & Baker) show a projected increase in agricultural acreage between now and 2035. The remaining 12 counties show decreases with 7 counties (Hamilton, Columbia, Gilchrist, Union, Bradford, Alachua, and Nassau Counties) show a decrease between 0-5% and 5 counties (Duval, Clay, St. Johns, Putnam and Flagler) showing a decrease of over 5%. The projections for irrigated land show a projected decrease of over 50% for irrigated lands in Nassau, Duval and Flagler Counties; between 25-49% in Union and Putnam Counties; and 10-24% in St. Johns County. In terms of irrigated lands increase over 2015, Columbia and Clay Counties are projected to increase over 50% in irrigated acreage; Suwanee and Baker Counties will increase between 35 and 49%; Alachua, Bradford, Gilchrist and Hamilton Counties are projected to increase irrigated acres between 0 and 25%. Crop acreage throughout the region is expected to increase by 8% (from 128,208 to 137957 acres) by 2035.

In terms of projected water use, four counties (Suwannee, Baker, Columbia & Clay) are projected to increase more than 25% by 2035. Four counties (Alachua, Bradford, Gilchrist and Hamilton) are projected to increase water use between 0-25%. St. John is projected to experience a decrease of 0 to 10%. Union County is projected to experience a decrease between 10%-25% and Putnam County a decrease between 25-49%. Flagler, Duval and Nassau are projected with decrease in water use of over 50%.


SAC Member Comments and Questions

• Decrease in demand. In the SRWMD is anticipated demand up? A: No. In the North Florida planning area only Suwanee County is projected to increase from 26 mgd to 34 mgd.

• Is Duval decreasing? A: Irrigated land there is a 2% decline or flat. • Ag movement from urban to rural. Are farmers moving from cities to rural? A: Urbanization =

less agriculture land with the remaining lands in the next fringe irrigated more intensively with multi-cropping, etc. Crop mix changes may signal a shift to higher water crops.

• Shift from food to non-food crops. From an agriculture perspective, is there a move away from food to non food ornamental crops? A: Yes. Also seeing shift to more food that is processed/stored for a longer term. In the past there was shipment/migration for fresh markets. Over the long term horticultural crops and processed and stored food will increase.

• Impact of cattle processing industry. The cattle industry is experiencing a trend of more cattle being processed in state. There is an increased emphasis on food processing and growing more corn for feed.

• The consultants and DACS are to be complimented in helping to provide critical puzzle piece in our plan. In areas near the springs projections are a pretty big task.

Dan Dourte from Balmoral then presented on the FSAID methods and results of irrigation conservation estimates of the potential in the 14 counties in the NFRWSP area. They looked at changes irrigation equipment and management and reviewed various data including mobile irrigation data (2009-2015) and USDA data. Nothing in literature that gives clear guidance on how to measure future irrigation and conservation. The USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Data (FRIS) serves as a proxy for irrigation intensity and USDA’s ERS has a western bias. He noted challenges in MIL data on actual water savings are that it there is a relatively short period of record (2009-2015). However he noted that this is the best resource for monitoring observed conservation. The data does indicate a general declining trend for how much water is being applied by agriculture. The MGD per irrigated acres is the basis for estimates of irrigation conservation out to 2035 and is sensitive to rainfall in wet years. The statewide figures on irrigation conservation were developed at field scale and these were


used uniformly (in terms of spatial distribution of conservation) to scale down to individual counties and fields using the ratio of irrigation demand for fields vis-a-vis the statewide demand to produce the conservation estimate. They also took a look at conservation costs using farm and ranch data. For example the center pivot retrofits alone cost over $5,500. The estimate suggests that water conservation overtime will get smaller and level off so at some point the gains will be smaller than today.


• Link between water demand and conservation. What is the link between the 17.7 overall increase in water demand and this one on conservation? A: totally separate from conservation estimates. Don’t take in account either.

• Do have dry year estimates using historical average weather data? A: Not a specific dry year.


• How do you interface/join demand and conservation? Come up with something- X demand, with conservation efforts. A: Good question. Refine the water demand. Keep separate but look for real demands. Look for the potential for reducing demand.

• If we interject conservation, looking for a range with and without conservation to see what conservation will do. A: Long term demand projections are just demand. (not supply). Conservation data is within that demand and responds to market and climate projections.

• Estimating conservation numbers. Growth in water demand should be offset by conservation #s. What is that figure?

• 20 year increase 15 mgd. 5 billion additional water a year to take out of ground as demand. Currently recharging 4 billion per year. Increasing net demand/use. By 10 million gallons per year. Conservation won’t make this up. As you get better at conservation the margin of increase gets smaller and the costs get higher. Problem. Demand going up. Where are we going to get new water? A: Yes it is the challenge.

• Conservation #s may be drastically understated. Take same approach as on the demand size. Do the same with conservation. E.g. field crops, soil moisture probes, bit potential 25-30%, Evaporation piece is also large. Farmers are working on this reducing the need on crop. We should take a more scientific detailed approach on conservation side.

• Conservation as an alternative water supply. Conservation in previous conversations should be treated like an alternative water supply. If it is not an alternative to the need, won’t get financing.

• Conservation is good but is the market driving farmers to rural areas going to trump conservation? • The numbers say demand will be flat. A: In certain areas yes. On demand side it depends on crop use. • Model may help show if agriculture moving to rural areas helps the recharge to offset the past use. • They appear to be coming from out of state in Suwannee County. • Coasts going to continue to develop. Keep working details and we will have a good plan.

Conservation needs to get to another level of detail. • Conservation numbers uncertainties. We need a standard deviation plus/minus on every

number if using this to predict. Establish reasonable bounds and 50% within those bounds. A: Do have the number. Figure out better ways to address uncertainties. We did sensitivity testing- using different stream. Numbers don’t jump around. The appendices have the equations, etc.

• Changes in public policy. This projection doesn’t take into account changes in the direction of public policy. Ought to be addressed at a higher level from policy perspective and come up with an integrated approach.

• Impact of changing land use patterns. Accounting for movement of people if they come inland and change land use patterns. Planting houses vs. farms

• Ag land value as residential real estate. Ag land worth is generally more as residential real estate. E.g. Before the recession Pasco County was subdividing 2-300 acres at a time. This will return as the economy improves.

• Cost estimates. What are the cost numbers from mobile irrigation labs? Conservation one of the tools along with other alternative water supply. How much does it cost to get X amount of conservation? Do you have a feel for the costs side? A: Not a rigorous sense but a ballpark for what some of the costs. Not annualized, but total capital outlay. This is a “lower hanging” fruit costs.

• Equity and subsidies in water costs. On a gallon basis of 2-8 cents a gallon. Ag is paying about 12 cents a gallon per water whereas it is about 2 cents per gallon in the cities. Currently we don’t know exactly what water costs but this data needs to come out of this water supply plan. Urban areas are going to have to pay more. Ag won’t spend more on water if it can’t pass on costs to consumers.


• Taxes, costs of wells, center pivots, energy. Per 1000 gallons. Ag water shouldn’t be subsidized. A: A lot of this is statutorily driven. Worked for House when water supply planning create. “Grow the water pot” and didn’t worry about competition. What we are seeing- future ag demand here is large. We are not instructed to consider supply, only demand. District look at supply. This is a structural weakness in the water supply planning process.

• Alternative water supplies for agriculture and urban. Urban areas- alternative water supplies more feasible for public water supply systems than ag. Not sure how to address the need in the future ag demand. Not confident there is enough supply to meet the demand.

• Fair allocation among users of a limited resource. If we had overabundance of water we wouldn’t have problem. Future will have competition for the water. We need to look at all the users and address legitimate needs with a fair allocation of a limited resource.

• Water supply planning is laid out in statute. • We are not talking of the future as we are already there in terms of springs flows. • Next meeting SAC will deal with FSEAD.

C. Non- Agriculture Water Conservation Potential Briefing (RWSP #8)

Jennifer Gihring with SJRWMD provided a briefing on water conservation potential noting the SAC had been briefed in February and June 2015 on FAWCET and the results of multiple runs. In July the Districts changed the methodology and this briefing covered the revised alternative methodology that does not use FAWCET and preliminary results. She described the methods for calculating high and low range conservation potential values, with the low range based primarily on findings from the Central Florida Water Initiative Water Supply Plan and high range values incorporating a “comparative per capita” method for public supply and domestic self-supply. She suggested the approach is more transparent and offers the benefit of matching with the water demand projections set forth in the water supply plan. The down side is that it is a more broad brush tool and loses some of the subtleties that you can get from building from the bottom up. Ms Gihring reviewed application of the methodology to public supply and domestic self supply and to commercial/industrial/power generation and landscape/ recreational/aesthetic. She noted that the conservation potential is directly proportional to projected demand and that if demand projections change, then the conservation potential will change accordingly. Finally she noted the Districts are developing cost estimates. The Districts are looking into calculating cost estimates by multiplying MGD conservation potential by costs derived from conservation projects implemented in SJR/SR and will be reporting the results to the SAC at a future meeting. SAC Member Comments and Questions

• Water demand estimates. Using similar format from previous presentation with water demand per capita to 2012 vs. 2035? A: Yes. Water demands are estimated out to 2035. Have the 2013/2014 which will be put side by side with projections.

• Tying strategies to conservation numbers. Can we build a bottoms up look on this- consider all the uses- all have drivers that allow us to say at a minimum this is how much conservation is still needed? The difference between the two would be the potential for conservation. What are the strategies to get at that- affect toilets, car washes, etc. and tie strategies to numbers? A: How much water do we each need every day? 50-70 gpd. Could look at current use versus minimum per capita needed and multiply out by population. That’s the bottom-up approach. Looked at parcels in NF planning areas. Proxy data- typical patterns for water use. Ended up at same place in the end.


• What about strategies to make this happen? A: Even building from bottom up is not a directive for utilities. Even with conservation values included in a water supply plan, utilities are still in a position to determine the most effective way to achieve conservation savings in the communities they serve.

• For this level of a plan, it will not be that prescriptive. How much of this can we make up? • Motivating conservation with residential customers. In Ag you have to motivate each producer.

How do you do this with a residential customer. A: Rate structures are way to do this and achieve about a 30% reduction. However, most North Florida utilities already have tiered rate structures in place.

• You will have to show them how you get there. A: Domestic self supply will be more difficult as we don’t have the bill as a powerful communications tool.

• Customer conservation education. Who would be responsible for education? Utilities are moving away, some Districts more involved than others. Who carries the ball? A: Public utilities- joint messaging for conservation. DSS is primarily a District function. IFAS and others are developing conservation messaging. All are working together communicating similar messages.

• Impact of Tiered Rates in Public Utilities. Tiered rates started to appear around 2007 and it appears that per capita went down 29% over that period. At some point we will have diminishing returns on conservation. Ag order of 15-17%. We project lower potential, achieved good level already. Thinking conservation potential. How much more cost to achieve an additional level of potential? A: It is difficult to do analysis with precision on conservation potential. The goal is to use reasonable numbers. We are comfortable with CFWI #. Everyone remains committed to implementing conservation.

• Adapt to new knowledge. As we move on we are learning a lot more, e.g. Alachua County is proposing irrigation efficiencies and as these are implemented we will have more data on how that has worked. A: Indoor fixtures are relative efficient, but outdoor is more challenging.

• Decreasing conservation gains over time. Conservation recovers about 40 million out of public water supply which is great news. However it will get harder each time we go each 10 year period into the future.

• Price signals play a big role. GRU’s rates- start at 2$ per 1000. 2nd tier. After 6000- 3.60 per though over 30- $6 per gallon. Public support gets a real price signal.

• Recharge costs. Agriculture is computing what are the costs for getting water out of ground to the customer. We need compute what it costs to putting water back into the ground. We need to look at the costs for recharge. Then we will have the right drivers in place. A: The costs for alternative water supply sources and water resource development projects will be in the plan.

• We need to be able to say here’s what our current GPD is and we will be growing by this much to 2035. Look at recharge rate. E.g. Duval- 15-20% right now down to 0-5%. Hamilton County’s recharge rate 25-30 %.

D. Presentation on Aquifer Replenishment Project Concept (RWSP #9 and #10)

In May 2015 the SAC agreed to provide Dr. Pat Welsh, a SAC member, an opportunity to present a recharge concept to the SAC. His presentation was titled: “Upper Floridan Aquifer Recharge: A Clay-Bradford County Solution to Northeast Florida’s Future Drinking Water Crisis” and focused on a Trail Ridge Aquifer Replenishment concept. He underscored this was a concept and not a project presentation. He also noted some positive developments in recent months in the Districts in moving projects forward. He suggested that his comments today focus on the fact we have a problem dealing with our water supply in the future and that the region is headed for a crisis. He offered that we can beat the crisis but it will take all working together to get it done. The challenge is how to make more drinking water for the future for your children and grandchildren in the upper Floridan aquifer.


Dr. Welsh noted that conservation is good but will be providing diminishing returns over the next several decades. Reuse is a good concept but there are significant costs associated with retrofitting systems. There is a high cost associated with recharge systems in the purification and expensive new plants ($100 M/P). high cost of deep aquifer recharge wells present great uncertainties and high costs. Comparatively, natural recharge through Trail Ridge Old Mined Area (OMA) (~$3-30M… $2 per 1000 gallons) is a cost effective option. He suggested that recharge should be the focus of the regional plan and the Natural Trail Ridge old mined area around Keystone Heights. should be a target. The Clay/Bradford County line marks the trail ridge where water goes either east or west, like a “Florida continental divide.” Water flows towards Gainesville fast due to the slope of the potentiometric surface. Lake Geneva and Lake Brooklyn are both connected to UFA, have deep sand basins and offer a huge opportunity for recharge. Most lakes in Florida don’t connect to the UFA. When both lakes are full this might be over 1 billion gallons of recharge a year. 1998 was a record high for the lakes with 2013 being a record low.

The “clay layer” slows the rate of water going downward” and that is recharge even though it sounds like we are losing water (i.e. “leakage”). It is a surface water mentality that keeps us from doing more recharge. There have been trail ridge drainage changes overtime that have led to increased flooding to North and West and dry Recharge Lakes to the South that took decades to show up. The changes included:

• Alligator Creek west to Starke was built in the 1930’s as a CC Corps ditch (not a natural creek); • DuPont Mining took out the heavy metals, created the OMA, and some of the cleanest white

quartz sand on earth (visible from space), and our future sand filter for reuse water to Lakes. • In 1973 the Governor ordered an enlarged berm be built to stop flooding, cutting off the

headwaters and drainage to Alligator Creek South. • Other new roads, culverts, ditches and berms have been created on the Trail Ridge

The only other recharge area in the greater region is around Valdosta Georgia. We should think of this as a water tower that flows outward in all direction. Water towers pressurize the water system and we should think of the potentiometric system in same way.


• OMA can clean approximately 20 MGD of secondary effluent to drinking water standards and send on to Santa Fe Swamp and Keystone recharge areas, thus directly to Upper Floridan Aquifer.

• It is not just rainfall! Alligator Creek (south) feeds Trail Ridge Water to the Keystone Recharge area…but even when it does not rain; recharge drains recharge areas…until they dry up. Deep river or lake water pressurizes the recharge! In 2012, two tropical storms dropped half a year’s rainfall in 30 days…Alligator Creek / Santa Fe did not flow all summer. Starke and Black Creek flooded extensively.

• Only natural cleaning and recharge increases the drinking water supply for all North Florida users! All they need is a well….no pipelines nor expensive purification plants.

Keystone Heights area and Santa Fe Swamp are crucial for Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA) recharge and Santa Fe River system, providing water to North Florida springs, SJR, SR, SFR, JAX and ORL Estimated 30-50% of total N FL Recharge to UFA. The Solution Resides in Clay & Bradford Counties by rehydrating the OMA, Alligator Creek South and the Santa Fe River recharge area. It could be undertaken in three stages:

• Short Term (1 year): • Clean Creekbed and send more Water from Lake Lowry ~3-5 MGD. Projects are underway

by SJRWMD. • Currently Mine sends ~1.5 Billion gallons/year to Starke and GOMEX under 15 year old

rules by SJRWMD/SRWMD. Consider sending this water to the UFA recharge areas. • Interim Term (3 years):

• Trail Ridge Natural Treatment Testbed (OMA). Create and hydrate a modern natural nutrient reduction testbed in OMA and monitor with local UF/UNF and WMD scientists. When successful and stable add additional effluent and stormwater to the project using adaptive water management principles.

• Pump to OMA’s NE Corner to be sand filtered and consume nutrients. Starke permit is expiring and should talk to your Bradford County counterpart.

• Long terms (5-10 years) • Stormwater from current mine to OMA, and natural nutrient reduction en route to recharge

areas when process established. • From Chemours Plant first (1 BG stormwater reservoir). • JAX Outer Beltway (GAI) Project later. • JEA reuse water to OMA, and natural nutrient reduction en route to lakes! • Later relook at roads and berms and culverts over time.

This should be a National Model Water Recharge Project for decades to come. We can fund these projects start-up lead time items now. This can also act as a test case for the sand filtration and nutrient consumption and initiates bacterial cultures needed.

The Trail Ridge Region drainage water is a major water resource, but has been dehydrated and diverted by man-made changes for over 50 years. We can mitigate this by adding new water to the OMA for nutrient reduction and an outlet from OMA to the Santa Fe Swamp via Double Branch Creek, decrease Flooding in Starke and natural drainage direct to Santa Fe River rather than Alligator Creek West (the ditch).


Dr. Welsh suggested in concluding that the SAC should be backing this or some other plan to get water up to Trail Ridge and southward in the Old Mined Area to the Santa Fe Swamp and Keystone recharge areas. Even if we took action today it will be years before significant recovery will take place. It took us 50 years to bring us to this point.


• Good test for project proposals. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that the Districts don’t agree with all the things presented, but the SAC should focus on the process on how to incorporate project concepts including this and other projects. This is a good test case for what the SAC needs to see and what you should be looking for. A: This may not the right answer but we need to look at recharge ideas.

• We should keep this concept on the table as one of the options to be considered. What got my attention was a possible response to the imbalance of flows on either side of trail ridge.

• Pat Welsh’s concept offers benefits for both the aquifer and also the springs. • Recharge projects. Would the SAC and Districts be looking for recharge projects in different parts

throughout planning areas? A: WMDs- Yes if feasible. There will projects to address the LSF and Ichnetucknee. MFLs are coming up with projects now. It is difficult to look at one project in a vacuum. Look at these together to review the value, feasibility, and environmental protection issues. The SAC will be asked to rank range of projects to determine whether to recommend them to the Districts. The Districts will need basic and consistent information so we can compare and prioritize.

• Recharge represents the biggest bang for the buck. • First priority should be recharging the aquifer. • Model defining recovery needed. With new model will be better able to define what is the

recovery we are trying to achieve. • If we recharge in the upper Santa Fe and re-hydrate the Santa Fe so more water will be flowing

down. The surficial aquifer is currently drained down and will have to rehydrate for a long time. A: Transient portion of the model tells us those things.

• Will model help with this? A: yes it will be able to help. • Adaptive management will be needed as there will be surprises. • Current water flow. Where is water going now? A: P. Welsh: Going down drainage ditch to Stark. Second

is the Black Fork at the north end of Camp Blanding. Can't prove but thinks shifted the drainage northward than southward. More flooding.

• Integrating a suite of projects. How can we integrate these projects. Need to look to overall integration that we are raise the aquifer. Look for synergies among the projects.

• Demands vs. Constraints. We have to be careful not to blind ourselves early and not see the whole picture. A: Demands will be balanced against constraints and a suite of projects need to be considered to meet both. That is what WSP process is deigned to do.

• Rainfall and Keystone Lakes. Is there something besides rainfall affecting Keystone lakes? Appears the primary driver on Keystone lakes may be rainfall. A: That would be the case for 90% of the lakes, but not these lakes as they are in a narrow part of Hawthorne layer where water goes faster than you would expect.

• Recover 10 feet lost. First priority is to look 20 years with a goal to make up 10 feet we have already lost. A: Prevention recovery strategies will be linked together in the WSP.

• High use and low recharge areas. The problem is that high use areas have low recharge rate. How can we get all the acre feet back into aquifer. That is the key and the criteria have to focus on that strategically as the overall goal while acknowledging constraints. A: If we don’t have a source won’t have a recharge.


• Project review and checklist. • What is the next step on Dr. Welsh’s concept. Will the Districts help provide a cost estimate or does

the entity proposing need to provide? A: The Districts can help. • How will we the SAC evaluate the projects? • Do we have a project check list? A: there are District projects that will be incorporated into the consideration for

the Plan and will deal with all of the constraints.

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT AND NEXT STEPS

Paul Still, Administrator, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District, Kathy Still, Vivian Katz and Taylor Crow provided public comments. A summary of their comments is included in Appendix #5.

Following public comment the SAC reviewed the topics for the October 2015 SAC meeting including:

• Review Work plan action items and assignments • A NFSEG Groundwater Model Technical Committee Presentation • Proposed WSP & WRD Projects- Information Needed & Cost Estimation Resources • Water Demand Projections Methodologies and Values for Agricultural Use & SAC

Recommendation • Water Irrigation Efficiency Potential Results and SAC Recommendation • Water of Non-Agricultural Conservation Potential Results and SAC Recommendation


• Are we going to get the basic structure document on the model that SAC can read? A: Separate process for the model but will provide a technical presentation

• Members of the public can provide proposals to their SAC representative to bring to the table.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.


APPENDIX #1—MEETING AGENDA


Florida Gateway College—Wilson S. Rivers Library and Media Center 149 SE College Place; Building 200; Room 102—Lake City, Florida 32025 MEETING XXVIII—MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015—1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.

COMMITTEE MEETING OBJECTIVES

ü To Approve Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, Workplan and Schedule) ü To Review Briefings/Updates on SAC Requested Issues: NFSEG Groundwater Model ü To Receive DACS Presentation on Water Demand Projections Methodologies & Values for Ag. Use ü To Receive WMD Briefing on Water Conservation Potential ü To Receive Presentations and Discuss Aquifer Replenishment Project Concept ü To Provide Opportunity for Member Issues, Comments and Discussion ü To Provide Opportunity for Public Comment ü To Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Work Plan Agenda Items for Next Meeting

MEETING AGENDA—MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015 All Agenda Times—Inc lud ing Publ i c Comment & Adjournment—Are Approximate &Subje c t to Change

1.) 1:00 PM WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS • Member roll call

2.) 1:05 PM REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (August 24, 2015) 3.) 1:10 PM APPROVAL OF FACILITATOR’S MEETING SUMMARY REPORT (June 29, 2015) 4.) 1:15 PM REVIEW OF PROJECT PROCESS AND SCOPE 5.) 1:30 PM REVIEW & APPROVAL OF UPDATED COMMITTEE WORKPLAN AND MEETING SCHEDULE

• Review and approval of updated Workplan and Key Topics for SAC evaluation 6.) 1:35 PM

1:35 PM SAC REQUESTED BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES • NFSEG Groundwater Model Development Briefing (RWSP #6) (10)

7.) 1:45 PM FDACS PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTION METHODOLOGIES AND VALUES FOR AGRICULTURAL WATER USE (FSAID) (RWSP #3) • FDACS Presentation on FSAID and SAC Q&A (60 total)

~2:45 PM BREAK 8.) 3:00 PM WATER CONSERVATION POTENTIAL BRIEFING (RWSP #8)

• WMD briefing on alternative methodology, and results • SAC Q&A (30 total)

9.) 3:30 PM • 3:30 • 3:50 • 4:10

PRESENTATION ON AQUIFER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT CONCEPT (RWSP #9 AND #10) (60 minutes total) • Pat Welsh: Trail Ridge aquifer replenishment project concept presentation (20) • Districts’ response regarding presentation (20) • SAC Q&A and discussion (20)

10.) 4:30 PM MEMBERS’ COMMENTS AND ISSUES • Opportunity for members to offer any general comment

11.) 4:40 PM NEXT STEPS AND AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING • Review Workplan action items and assignments • Identify agenda items any needed information for next meeting

12.) ~4:45 PM PUBLIC COMMENT 13.) ~5:00PM ADJOURN


APPENDIX #2—COMMITTEE MEMBERS, STAFF AND FACILITATION TEAM

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP MEMBER REPRESENTATION PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIER Clay County Utility Authority Stephen Roberts (Jason Sparks, Alternate)

Lake City Utilities

COMMERCIAL/POWER GENERATION Nancy Kligo 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) Jennifer Gihring 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 Linda Clemens Florida Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) Ray Scott, Cori Hermle 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

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE AUGUST 24, 2015—LAKE CITY, FLORIDA

MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY 11 SAC Members completed the meet ing evaluat ion form and used a 0 to 10 Rating Scale Where a 0 meant Total ly Disagree and a 10 meant Total ly Agree . 1. Please assess the overall meeting.

9.3 The background information was very useful. 9.3 The agenda packet was very useful. 9.5 The objectives for the meeting were stated at the outset. 9.5 Overall, the objectives of the meeting were fully achieved. 2. Do you agree that each of the following meeting objectives was achieved? 9.5 Updated SAC Workplan Review and Approval. 8.1 SAC requested briefings: (Development of NFSEG Groundwater Model). 9.2 Water Demand Projections Methodologies & Values for Agricultural Use Presentation

(FSAID). 8.2 Water Conservation Potential Briefing. 9.0 Aquifer Replenishment Project Concept Presentation and Discussion. 9.0 Member comments and issues. 8.5 Review of next steps and agenda items for next meeting. 7.9 Public Comment. 3. Please tell us how well the Facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting. 9.3 The members followed the direction of the Facilitator. 9.7 The Facilitator made sure the concerns of all members were heard. 9.5 The Facilitator helped us arrange our time well. 9.5 Participant input was documented accurately in Facilitator’s Summary Report (last meeting). 4. Please tell us your level of satisfaction with the meeting? 9.0 Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting. 9.5 I was very satisfied with the services provided by the Facilitator. 9.0 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. 9.1 I know who is responsible for the next steps. 6. What did you like best about the meeting?

• Dr. Welsh’s presentation (2) & Balmoral’s presentation (2) • I think you got the AC at the right temperature for this meeting • Discussion on the process for evaluating projects


• Content • More discussion than normal

7. How could the meeting have been improved?

• Keep Carlos Herd as Executive Director of SRWMD • We need to address the concerns about lack of participation by the public and their input. • We need to improve in our public comment area • SRWMD allows public comment at the beginning of meetings or the stakeholders are allowed

to make comments during actual discussion that is relevant to their topic. Does it make sense considering this?

• More interaction with public comment. • Don’t cut public comments short.

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

• It may be time for a field trip? • 3-5 minutes at the end of each meeting for public comment is inadequate. • Independent/public interface with SAC.. process not being followed by public. Need a

solution. SAC members need to reach out to key stakeholders. • Too cold.


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 XXVIII

AUGUST 25, 2015—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 past SAC meeting in advance of the next meeting are included in the Meeting Summary. PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKERS- SUMMARY Paul Still, Administrator, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District, Bradford County has water you are looking for. Our lakes flood during these major events. The water goes down Santa Fe River and to the Gulf and it is gone. He indicated that he is working on a proposal to use OMA with funding through the Dupont reclamation plan to use 15,000 acres in the Trail Ridge region that holds water than can be used. This proposal is a little different from Dr. Welsh’s proposal in that it uses gravity and not pumping in Bedford Lake. He said he is not sure how to present it to the SAC and that there may be no stakeholder representative on the SAC that will bring it forward. The SAC needs good legal advice on what you are supposed to be doing in developing recommendations on the water supply plan. You don’t have an MFL list for this region which is a key mandatory part of the water supply plan. The SAC mechanism is not working as they are not willing to take input from stakeholder. This falls short of what the statute requires regarding stakeholder input. The SAC should take a hard look at what it should be doing and it needs to be looking at projects to do recharge. Conservation won’t do it.

Kathy Still, private citizen It is difficult for the public to have input in this process the way the agenda is set up. Every meeting I am told that public input is important but we only get 5 or 3 minutes at the end of a long meeting and multiple presentations to pose questions so the SAC can explain to the public what it is trying to do with the plan. Vivian Katz, Save our Lakes (SOL), noted that SOL represents over 6000 people, many of whom profit from the water out of the aquifer. She suggested that the SJDWMD has done a lot of studying however some of the permitted utility drawdowns have been harmful. It does matter- condition #34 come to recovery table. They will have to participate in a project. The North Florida Regional Partnership should focus on Keystone as priority area. We have informatiion and project proposals we will be bringing to the table. With new leadership at both Districts we have a chance to do something. We are looking to hydrate Alligator creek which will provide an exponential benefit. As the SAC and Districts/DEP move forward there should be an independent look at the trail ridge areas. There is major recharge possibilities and MFLs on both sides of these line and there needs to be reasonable and fair sharing. JEA would be in prevention and not recovery.


Rob Dennis, Liquid Solutions, commented on the water conservation presentations and suggested getting the science right is important and knowing the level of constraints and issues with constraints. Conservation is important but should consider what is achievable if it is about $4.5 million per mgd. In terms of recharge look where it is and needed and keep in mind that the lower recharge areas are far from and have less impact on constraints

Taylor Kroll, Engineer, Keystone Heights The District's should re-visit the agreement which divides water flows from the Old Mined Area on the Trail Ridge which is currently divided as 93% west and 7% south. Surface water lines are inadequate in characterizing the hydrology of the ridge system. Very little runoff occurs from the area as the ridge is composed of highly permeable dune sands; the majority of the water discharging from the ridge is through seepage from the surficial aquifer system. Ridge systems are one of the most complex hydrogeologic systems we have in the state of Florida. Contrary to District opinions, the Etonia Chain of Lakes is not solely a rainfall runoff fed system, Alligator Creek South as well as the lakes individually are fed by seepage from the surficial aquifer as evidenced by the numerous seepage creeks in the area such as Gold Head Branch. Surface water lines are insufficient and not nearly scientific enough to make a water management decision as significant as this one, we need a water budget for historic and existing flow in the surficial aquifer system to adequately characterize the system and determine how much water historically flowed in each direction. What makes the Santa Fe MFL more important than the Lake Brooklyn and Lake Geneva MFL's? The water allocation in question was in place for a decade before any problem was identified on the Lower Santa Fe River, furthermore the Lower Santa Fe River is a groundwater fed system according the the SRWMD, thus additional surface water will not be able to provide any meaningful recovery to the system and will do nothing to enhance spring flow. According to the report titled Springsheds of the Santa Fe River prepared for Alachua County, several of the lakes in the Etonia chain are in the Santa Fe River groundwater basin. During dry times, over 90% of the flow for the lower Santa Fe River comes from groundwater, the main conduit providing this groundwater baseflow is the Old Bellamy Cave system which is essentially an underground river which parallels the Upper Santa Fe river and discharges at River Rise. Where are the headwaters for the flow in the Old Bellamy Cave System, the cave comes into River Rise from the east and the entire eastern portion of the SRWMD is confined and there are no areas within the SRWMD that could provide enough recharge to feed that underground river system which is the essentially the upper reach of the lower Santa Fe and arguably more important in terms of baseflow for the Lower Santa Fe than the Upper Santa Fe itself. The water for the Old Bellamy Cave system has to originate in the Etonia Chain of Lakes because that is the only unconfined area to the east of River Rise capable of providing enough recharge to supply it. I thought the purpose of the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership was to get away from relying solely on surface water lines to make water management decisions, and be a venue for stakeholders to look at the big picture of North Florida hydrology and make decisions that are best for the system as a whole and recognize the connectivity of water bodies across district boundaries and underground. Keystone Heights is uphill of everything and our MFL's were the first to be compromised, now many waterbodies in all directions from this area are struggling to meet MFL's such as Newnan's Lake, Orange Lake, Lake Lochloosa, Cowpen Lake and the Santa Fe River, and regardless of the direction water may move on the surface of the land - all of these systems are connected below the surface, through flow in the surficial, intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. If we can restore the recharge at the top of the hill, there will be benefits for every system downhill in all directions. I would like the SAC to look at the water allocation that is already in place and look at defining water budget allocations for the surficial aquifer system from the old mined area as well and come up with new numbers that are better for everyone.


PUBLIC AND MEMBER EMAIL COMMENTS (submitted by email between the June 30 and August 25, 2015 SAC meetings) On Aug 24, 2015, at 9:06 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: The April 29, 2015, SRWMD Memorandum “Evaluation of the Potential Diversion of Surface Water Flows from the Santa Fe Basin to the Etonia Chain of Lakes Basin (Option 7) is very misleading because the Welsh proposal does not deal with Option 7. Option 7 was a specific proposal to have DuPont pump water into the area called the Old Mine Area. Unfortunately the rules that have been established for the SAC meetings do not allow me to ask these questions or raise new questions that may result from the Water Management District presentations. I would hope that at some point the SAC members would see the benefit of having true stakeholder input into the water supply plan and allow stakeholders the opportunity to comment on presentations as they are given. I am also requesting that I be allowed to give a 15 minute summary of the Bradford and Clay Soil and Water Conservation Districts’ proposal at the next SAC meeting. Our proposal places an emphasis on flood mitigation and aquifer recharge and uses the Trail Ridge site from Lawtey to Keystone Heights. The SRWMD Memo raises a number of questions. Why did SRWMD staff prepare the memo before they saw the Welsh proposal? Most of the DuPont (Chemours) mine site is in Clay County and the SJRWMD. Since SJRWMD staff should be better acquainted with the mine site why have they not responded to the Welsh proposal? There are several questions that that arise from the SRWMD Memo that I hope will be ask and answered. These questions are listed under each of the summary points of the SRWMD Memo. � Assessment of historical aerial photography and United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps reveals that areas contributing surface water to the Trail Ridge Water Treatment Area were historically part of the Santa Fe River Basin.

How is SRWMD defining the Trail Ridge Water Treatment Area?

Did SRWMD staff calculate the amount of water from the Black Creek watershed in the SJRWMD that is being diverted from the northern part of the Trail Ridge mine and the Southern part of the Highlands mine to the Santa Fe River Basin?

� Some areas of the SJRWMD in western Clay County were historically a part of the Santa Fe River Basin and continue to flow west into the SRWMD. The water management district boundary in this area follows the Bradford-Clay County boundary, rather than the actual surface water divide.

Can a surface water divide be determined accurately on maps with 10 foot contour lines? (memo page 8)

Why did the SRWMD not use current contours for area that have been reclaimed or will not be reclaimed to establish the surface water divide?


How much of the area covered was internally drained prior to mining and how of the reclaimed area is internally drained?

How do you define a surface water divide when areas are internally drained?

If water flowed to the west why do you not see established streams that flow to the west from the crest of the Trail Ridge?

� Comparison of historical and current surface water divides indicates that mining operations have not reduced the extent of the Etonia Chain of Lakes watershed. Conversely, historical mining activities have increased the extent of the Etonia Chain of Lakes watershed. Changes in the hydrologic divide have permanently shifted approximately 650 acres to the Etonia Chain of Lakes Basin from the Upper Santa Fe River Basin.

Did SRWMD staff calculate the potential loss to the Etonia Chain of Lakes due to reduction in aquifer recharge and reduced spring flow?

What data is available to show that surface flow from the 650 acres ever reached the Santa Fe River?

� Diverting additional water from the Santa Fe River Basin to the Etonia Chain of Lakes would be unlikely to provide significant benefits to the Santa Fe River from aquifer recharge, and would have a net negative impact on streamflows in the Lower Santa Fe River.

What data and modeling was used to support this statement?

The Welsh proposal calls for water to be delivered to the Upper Santa Fe Basin.

Why are the impacts on stream flows in the Upper Santa Fe Basin and the two MFLs set for the Upper Santa Fe River not addressed in the SRWMD memeo?

� The Lower Santa Fe River and priority springs are not currently meeting their pending Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs). Thus, to be consistent with the Lower Santa Fe River Basin Recovery Strategy, water resource development projects in the Santa Fe River Basin must either maintain or improve the condition of the Lower Santa Fe River. Option 7 is inconsistent with the Lower Santa Fe River Basin Recovery Strategy as it would divert waters from the Santa Fe River Basin to an adjacent basin, causing additional impacts to the Santa Fe River MFLs.

What modeling and data was used to support this statement?

The Welsh proposal calls for water to be diverted to the Upper Santa Fe Basin above the Graham Gage which has an MFL. Why is this not addressed in the SRWMD memo?

� Flood flows in the Santa Fe River Basin represent an important potential source of water for recovery efforts in the Santa Fe River Basin. As such, these waters should be captured and utilized for recovery efforts within the Santa Fe River Basin. No “excess” water exists for transfer to adjacent basins.

Is the SRWMD implying by this statement that residents in the City of Starke and around Lakes Sampson and Crosby will be required to have their homes flooded so the Lower Santa Fe MFL can be met?

� Over the last ten years, DuPont has delivered nearly 40% more water to Blue Lake and the Etonia system than it has withdrawn from groundwater wells in SJRWMD. What is the SRWMD implying by this statement?


� Option 7 proposals do not take into account future mine reclamation activities for the Trail Ridge Mine. Future reclamation and hydrologic restoration of mining areas will significantly reduce surface water flows to the portions of the Trail Ridge Mine affected by Option 7.

What data supports this statement? How much water is coming into the DuPont treatment facility from the reclaimed areas and areas that will not be reclaimed?

This cannot be determined before a final reclamation plan is approved.

� The implementation of Option 7 would not have prevented downstream flooding in the City of Starke and the surrounding watershed during the Tropical Storm Debby rain events in 2012.

This statement is correct but the Welsh proposal would reduce flooding in the developed areas of Bradford County.

Why is the SRWM focusing on Option 7 and not focusing of the Welsh proposal?

� Alligator Creek drains a 22 square-mile watershed to Lake Rowell, southwest of the City of Starke. Due to the magnitude of peak flood flows in Alligator Creek, Option 7 would not have the capacity to significantly reduce downstream flooding along Alligator Creek during peak flooding events.

Why was a map of the Alligator Creek watershed not provided?

The 22 square-mile area is a little different from other estimates of the area watershed.

How was the added surface water from the Black Creek, Alligator Creek North, and Water Oak Creek watersheds that is diverted to the DuPont water treatment facility accounted for?

Why is flooding around Lakes Sampson and Crosby not addressed?

At the two lake locations peaks are not as important as duration of the flood event.

This statement appears to be based on a flood study that has not been completed and appears to have significant problems. The information about Flood Mitigation on pages 19-21 of the memo needs to be revaluated.

Why are the predicted flows at the E Laura Street Bridge lower than the SR 230 Bridge which is up stream of the Laura Street Bridge?

Why were flows not provided for the bridge at NE 17th Ave and the bridge at SR 230 east of NE 14th Ave?

The peak discharge from the DuPont mine of 85.6 cfs during Tropical Storm Debby needs to be verified.

Why were the actual discharge amounts from the DuPont mine not provided?

Option 7 would not impact flooding but the Welsh proposal along with a proposal the Bradford and Clay Soil and Water Conservation Districts are developing would reduce flooding in Starke and around Lakes Sampson and Crosby.

Why is the SRWMD only addressing Option 7?

� Previous meetings of the North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership, including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Office of Water Policy Staff, SJRWMD and SRWMD staff, and the District Governing Board Chairpersons and Executive Directors from both water management districts, found that all existing surface flows from the Trail Ridge into Alligator Creek in eastern Bradford County are needed to support the MFLs of the Santa Fe River, and that no


water is available for diversion to adjacent watersheds. Are the SAC members part of the Partnership and are the SAC members aware of this? Again this statement implies that Starke homes and homes around Lakes Sampson and Crosby must be flooded to support the Lower Santa Fe MFLs. Is it reasonable to require that Bradford County residents sacrifice their homes to support the Lower Santa Fe MFLs? Thanks, Paul Still


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 XXVII Meeting Summary, June 29, 2014

29

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


30

APPENDIX #8—COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Committee Workplan is set forth in the April 27, 2015 SAC Agenda Packet posted at: http://northfloridawater.com/documents.html

APPENDIX #9—COMMITTEE CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SRWMD & THE

SJRWMD- AUGUST 2012- JUNE 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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:


31

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

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

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

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

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


32

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.” May 19, 2014 SAC Workplan Annual Review and Revision. The SAC reviewed and unanimously voted (by a vote of 12 – 0 in favor) to update the revised Workplan. The revised Workplan correlated to revisions to the various RWSP tasks. December 15, 2014 Water Demand Projection Methodologies and Values. The SAC unanimously voted (by a vote of 12 – 0 in favor) to support the water demand projection methodologies and values for all user groups as presented (except agricultural*). The SAC’s recommendation included support for the projection methodologies and values for: 1. Public Supply; 2. Domestic Self-Supply and Small Public Supply Systems; 3. Landscape/Recreational/Aesthetic Irrigation Self-Supply; 4. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional and Mining/Dewatering Self-Supply; and 5. Thermoelectric Power Generation Self-Supply.

*The SAC will discuss Agricultural Irrigation Self-Supply at the January 26, 2015 meeting. February 17, 2015 Projection Methodologies and Values for Reclaimed Water (Reuse). The SAC voted 9 –1* to support the projection methodologies and values presented for Reclaimed Water (Reuse).

* Jacqui Sulek voted against the motion, citing a preference that there be a 100% beneficial utilization rate change instead of the 75% rate used in the projection methodologies. April 27, 2015 Revised Committee Workplan Schedule. The SAC voted 9 –1* to support the revised Regional Water Supply Plan Workplan schedule.

* Pat Welsh voted against the revised Workplan schedule, citing disagreement with the strategy for developing the NFSEG Model. April 27, 2015 Water Resource Assessment, Groundwater Quality Methods and Results. The SAC voted unanimously (by a vote of 10 – 0 in favor) to support the Water Resource Assessment, Groundwater Quality Methods and Results as presented.

NFRWSP SAC KEY AGENDA ITEMS EVALUATED


33

FROM THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 2014 – JUNE 2015 September 22, 2014 • Lower Santa Fe River Basin MFLs Update including rule challenge decision • Update on Development of SJRWMD Water Supply Plan • Presentation on Water Resource Development Project Options Feasibility Status • FDACS Weather Station and Soil Probe Program Briefing • Stakeholder Perspectives on Conservation and Alternative Water Supply Options Discussion October 20, 2014 • Lower Santa Fe River Basin MFLs Rule Development Status Update • Update on Regional Water Supply Plan Tasks and Review of SAC’s Role Regarding the Same • Water Demand Projections Methodologies Briefing December 15, 2014

• Lower Santa Fe River Basin MFLs Rule Development Status Update • Development of NFSEG Groundwater Model Update • Water Demand Projections Methodologies and Values for All User Groups Summary • SAC Consensus Recommendations Regarding Water Demand Projections Methodologies and

Values for User Groups Except Agricultural February 17, 2015 • Lower Santa Fe River Basin MFLs Rule Development Status Update • Development of NFSEG Groundwater Model Update • Briefing on Conservation Potential Estimation and Potential Irrigation Efficiency Methods • Briefing on Water Resource Assessment, Groundwater Quality Methods and Preliminary Results • SAC Consensus Recommendations Regarding Water Demand Projections Methodologies and

Values for Reclaimed Water • Status Update on Water Demand Projections Methodologies and Values for Agricultural Use April 27, 2015 • FDACS Update on Development of Projection Methodologies and Values for Agricultural Water

Use (RWSP #3) • NFSEG Groundwater Model Development Briefing (RWSP #6) • Review and Approval of Revised SAC Workplan and Meeting Schedule • Overview on Water Resource Assessment, Groundwater Quality Methods and Results and SAC

Consensus Recommendation June 29, 2015 • NFSEG Groundwater Model Development Briefing (RWSP #6) • Current Water Supply Development and/or Water Resource Development Projects Briefing

(RWSP #9 and #10) • Update from DACS Regarding Water Demand Projections Methodologies & Values for

Agricultural Use (RWSP #3) • Overview on Water Conservation Potential Results (FAWCET) (RWSP #8)


34

August 24, 2015 • NFSEG Groundwater Model Development Briefing (RWSP #6) • Water Demand Projections Methodologies & Values for Ag. Use Presentation (RWSP #3) • Water Conservation Potential Briefing (alternative methodology, and results) (RWSP #8) • Aquifer Replenishment Project Concept Presentation (RWSP #9 AND #10)

MEETING XXVIII SUMMARY REPORT MONDAY AUGUST 24, 2015€¦ · Flagler, Duval and Nassau are...

Documents

Transcript of MEETING XXVIII SUMMARY REPORT MONDAY AUGUST 24, 2015€¦ · Flagler, Duval and Nassau are...