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 XXXI SUMMARY REPORT

MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016

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 SAC, May 23, 2016

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 XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 MEETING SUMMARY 6 I. INTRODUCTION & AGENDA REVIEW 6 II. REVIEW OF WORKPLAN, SCHEDULE & PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS 6 III. SAC REQUESTED BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES 6 A. RSWP Outreach Initiatives Briefing 6 B. NFSEG Groundwater Model Development Briefing (RWSP #6) 7 1. Status of NFSEG Steady-State Model Calibration 7 2. NFSEG Model Simulations 7 3. Transient Model Development & Motion 8 C. Water Resource Assessment Methodology: Summary &Recommendations 11 1. Motion on Method for Water Reservations Assessment 12 2. Motion on Method for Sensitive Vegetation Assessment 13 3. Motion on Method for Assessing Status of MFL water bodies 13 4. Motion on Method for Assessing Status of priority water bodies 13 D. Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Cost Estimate- FDACS Briefing 14 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT & NEXT STEPS 14 APPENDICES 15 1. Meeting Agenda 15 2. Committee Members 16 3. Committee Meeting Evaluation Summary 17 4. Public Sign In Sheet 19 5. Public Comments- Meeting Comments 20 6. Water Supply Projects Template 21 7. Dr. Welsh’s SOLO Alligator Creek Projects Presentation Proposal 22 8. SAC Charge, Mission & Principles 24 9. SAC Background Documents 25 10. SAC Workplan 25

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 3

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

MEETING XXXI—MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2015—1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Jeff Blair, facilitator, welcomed SAC members as well as the public to the Committee’s 30th 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 December 7, 2015 SAC meeting summary with corrections regarding Pat Welch’s comments. Jeff Blair reviewed with the SAC the updated Workplan and the Committee unanimously approved the updated SAC Workplan and meeting schedule with the March meeting to take place on March 28, 2016. Jeff Blair reviewed with the SAC the updated Workplan. He highlighted that the work on the NFSEG model has required adjustments to the workplan including resetting the deadline for SAC and stakeholder submission of project options from February 29, 2016 to April or later. Following the work plan discussion, the Committee unanimously approved the updated SAC Work plan and meeting schedule that moved the March date from March 30 to March 28, 2016.

Geoff Sample, Intergovernmental Coordinator with the SJRWMD briefed the Committee on water supply plan presentations and updates currently being made to local governments and utility staff. These are not meetings for decision making, His office has already met with many in the NFRWSP region and they hope to complete these briefings in February. SAC Members discussed the following topics: information meetings with staff; local water supply projects; smaller communities encouraged to submit water supply project options.

Trey Grubbs, with the Suwannee River Water Management District provided an update on the NFSEG Groundwater Model Development. He reported that the calibration of the HSPF base models is complete and the team is now evaluating calibration of models with irrigation and septic tank flows. The Calibration of the base model is complete with both agriculture and non-agriculture flows added and the Team is evaluating results. The development of the model has been slightly delayed due to some errors in elevation dataset which produced erroneous simulated flooding in some areas. While model discrepancies are typical in a model of this size, the team is not satisfied with the base flow and spring flows The model team has responded by reviewing and updating the Layer 1 top elevation and some boundary conditions with the improved USGS 3D land-survey elevation dataset. The PEST model calibration is in progress and they are working on improving the simulations of spring flows and river base flows and refining hydraulic conductivity distribution. The next steps include completing the model calibration and then releasing it to Technical Team for their review. Mr. Grubbs noted that the NFSEG Model Simulations will include multiple simulations, including 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035. In addition, simulations will include assessment of pumps-off conditions. SAC members discussed the following topics: pumps off scenario; calibration against historical data; USGS guidelines for evaluating groundwater flow models and the need for a transient

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 4

model in the region; impact of withdrawals in Keystone Heights Lakes Geneva & Brooklyn; and potentiometric maps.

The Technical Team is scheduled to meet on February 3 and the Steering Committee on February 10, 2016. In terms of next steps Mr. Grubs noted they will complete the NFSEG steady-state model development and review; develop more detailed work plan for development of transient NFSEG; establish a target start date for intensive transient model development in Spring 2017; and estimate time for completing transient model development: (probably 4-5 years after completion of steady-state model).

Mr. Grubbs noted that groundwork was established at the outset for the transition to a transient model as part of the model development effort. The steady-state simulation has been framed as the initial condition for transient model. He reviewed the steps taken, noting it was projected to take 5 years but will be completed in four. He noted that as they develop water use data sets they try to find monthly data to ease the transition to the transient model. The transient development effort has focused initially creating two transient data sets: Boundary Conditions (Recharge, ET, Water Use, etc.) and Observation data (levels and flows). A 9 year calibration with 12 time steps each year represents an effort that is 100 times as lengthy to complete one calibration run. Transient calibration will involve storage properties and transient recharge. Transient recharge is a big focus in the development of the model and is very hard to define over a large area that features karst topography. Documentation and technical review will be next followed by definition, execution, and post processing of scenario simulations. Mr. Grubbs noted the current target date for developing the transient model is a Spring 2017 launch with about 4-5 years of work to complete it. The Committee discussed the following topics: 1st and 2nd order magnitude springs and transient models; current vs. historic spring flows; and parallel team efforts to pursue transient model. After discussion of a motion the following motion was adopted following public comment on a vote of 9-1:

SAC recommends that the Districts initiate a process to accelerate the development of the transient model focusing on data collection and analysis. It recommends that this be accomplished with a parallel process and team, and with the caveat that this initiative does not detract from the effort to develop the steady state model. The goal is to ensure that the transient model is ready for use in the next five-year projected water use data and water supply plan update.

Gene Higginbotham voted against the motion, citing that development of the steady state model is and should be the priority. Jennifer Gihring provided an overview of the water resource assessment methodologies presented to the SAC in March 2014, and February, April, and December 2015. She mentioned that water resource assessment informs the magnitude of projects and management actions needed to meet future demands and avoid unacceptable water resource impacts. Nancy Kligo left at the break before these motions were proposed discussed and adopted. Following the briefing and discussion the SAC review and adopted the following recommendations on methodologies: MOTION ON METHOD FOR WATER RESERVATION: Gene Higginbotham made a motion to accept the water resource assessment method for addressing water reservations as presented. Rick Hutton provided a 2nd and following discussion (see below) the Committee voted 8-1 in favor with Pat Welsh voted against the motion, citing the need to recommend water reservation for additional water bodies.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 5

MOTION ON METHOD FOR SENSITIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENT: Rick Hutton moved to accept the method as presented and Michael O’Berry provided a 2nd. Following discussion, the motion was amended to support the methodology on sensitive vegetation as presented contingent on the NFSEG model accurately predicting the expected results (surficial aquifer level changes). The SAC wants to receive an update regarding the same at a future meeting. The SAC voted 8 – 2 in favor of support the water resource assessment method for sensitive vegetation assessment as amended. Pat Welsh voted against the motion, citing that historical wetlands that no longer have wetland vegetation should be designated with having at least a moderate impact in the analysis. Michael O’Berry voted against adding he supported the original motion and felt the amendment was not necessary.

MOTION ON METHOD FOR ASSESSING STATUS OF MFL WATERBODIES: Gene Higginbotham moved to adopt the methods as presented and Michael O’Berry provided a 2nd. The SAC voted 8 – 1 in favor to support the water resource assessment method for assessing status of MFL waterbodies as presented. Pat Welsh voted against the motion, citing concern that the using the 2010 freeboard conditions as the baseline for measuring water flow differences could provide a shortcut to developing new and inaccurate MFLs based on this metric.

MOTION ON METHOD FOR ASSESSING PRIORITY WATERBODIES: Gene Higginbotham moved to adopt the methods as presented and Michael O’Berry provided a 2nd. The SAC voted unanimously, 9 - 0 in favor, to support the water resource assessment method for assessing priority waterbodies as amended. The SAC supports the methodology, but recommends that the baseline data be based on a “non-impact” ten-year average data set to be selected by the Districts. This would be in lieu of using “no pumping” as the baseline condition. The relevant metrics should be adjusted as needed to conform to the selected baseline conditions.

Cori Hermle, DACS provided a brief report noting that DACS is still working with the Districts on the ag irrigation efficiency cost estimates and are hoping to reach an agreed upon decision soon on how to consider these in the regional water supply plan. They will report at either the February or March SAC meetings on the results of these discussions and their recommendation.

The facilitator reviewed with the SAC the Work plan action items and assignments for consideration at the February 22, 2016 meeting. He noted the following items:

• To Receive Update on NFSEG Model Development Status • To Receive Briefing on Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Cost Estimate • To Receive Briefing on Method for Demonstrating Sufficient MFLs Related Project Options • To Receive Briefing on Water Reservations and Water Supply Planning

He invited Pat Welsh to provide his proposal in the form of a motion for an agenda item in February to provide 20 minutes for a Save Our Lakes Organization briefing on the Alligator Creek Enhancement projects to be presented by Peter Schreuder, CCPG. James Cornett moved and Rick Hutton provided a 2nd and the motion was passed unanimously by the Committee. Dr. Welsh noted he would not be able to attend the March 28, 2016 SAC meeting and the facilitator noted it appear other members were available for that date and urged him to provide notice to the District and the facilitator of any alternate he would propose serve in his absence. The meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 6

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

MEETING XXX—MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015—1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.

MEETING SUMMARY

SAC Members in attendance: Terry Baker, Gene Higginbotham, Thomas Harper, Rick Hutton, James Cornett, Kerry Kates, Nancy Kilgo, J. Michael O’Berry, Jacqui Sulek &. Patrick Welsh SAC Members unable to attend: Steve Roberts, Lee Pinkoson Staff: Carlos Herd, SRWMD, Jennifer Gihring SJRWMD, Linda Clemens FDEP & Cori Hermle, 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 31st 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 Committee agenda and the December 7, 2015, SAC meeting summary with a change that included moving SAC member Pat Welsh’s complete written remarks from an appendix to the body of the Summary. II. REVIEW OF REVISED COMMITTEE WORKPLAN, MEETING

SCHEDULE

Jeff Blair reviewed with the SAC the updated Workplan. He highlighted that the work on the NFSEG model has required adjustments to the Workplan including resetting the deadline for SAC and stakeholder submission of project options from February 29, 2016, to April or later. Mr. Blair noted the March 28 date is once again available at the College. Dr. Welsh noted he has a conflict with the date and will be out of the country. Following the work plan discussion, the Committee unanimously approved the updated SAC Work plan and meeting schedule that moved the March date from March 30 to March 28, 2016.

III. SAC REQUESTED BRIEFINGS AND UPDATES

A. RWSP OUTREACH INITIATIVES UPDATE

Geoff Sample, Intergovernmental Coordinator with the SJRWMD briefed the Committee on water supply plan presentations and updates currently being made to local governments and utility staff. These are not meetings for decision making, His office has already met with many in the NFRWSP region and they hope to complete these briefings in February.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 7

SAC Questions/Comments

• What type of presentation? A: highlight the statutory requirements, the process for coming up with estimates, and where we are in the process. They are designed 1-on-1 briefings at the staff level.

• How will information and local government feedback be provided back to the SAC? Can you report back on what are you hearing in terms of water supply concerns? A: We are mostly hearing site specific concerns about facilities, e.g. aging pipes in Fernandina Beach and how to apply for cost share opportunities. The SAC will review any water supply projects proposed by local governments and utilities.

• Are these all water supply projects? A: They include a variety of projects. These have been good meetings with local governments and utilities.

• Are you hearing concerns from smaller communities? A: These will be reflected in the potential local projects placed into the mix for evaluation.

B. NFSEG GROUNDWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT UPDATE (RWSP #6)

Trey Grubbs, with the Suwanee Rivers Water Management District provided an update on the NFSEG Groundwater Model Development.

1. Status of NFSEG Steady-State Model Calibration

Mr. Grubbs reported that the Calibration of the HSPF base models is complete and the team is now evaluating calibration of models with irrigation and septic tank flows. The Calibration of the base model is complete with both agriculture and non-agriculture flows added and the Team is evaluating results.

The development of the model has been slightly delayed due to some errors in the elevation dataset which produced erroneous simulated flooding in some areas. While model discrepancies are typical in a model of this size, the team is not satisfied with the base flow and spring flows The model team has responded by reviewing and updating the Layer 1 top elevation and some boundary conditions with the improved USGS 3D land-survey elevation dataset. The PEST model calibration is in progress and they are working on improving the simulations of spring flows and river base flows and refining hydraulic conductivity distribution. The next steps include completing the model calibration and then releasing it to to Tech Team for their review.

2. NFSEG Model Simulations

Mr. Grubbs noted that the NFSEG Model Simulations will include multiple simulations, including 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035. In addition, simulations will include assessment of pumps-off conditions.

SAC Comments/Questions • In the pumps off scenario are you putting in agriculture and other man-made recharge for surface

water and for checking calibration and are you adjusting land use? A: No we are just adjusting pumps.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 8

• Are you checking calibration against historical data? A: We will evaluate and check for reasonableness against other maps. Designed model to have boundaries far enough away to minimize changes in flux.

• In “Guidelines for Evaluating Groundwater Flow Models” USGS shows a map of US and areas where there are sufficient data for the transient models. North Florida is not one of the sites. The modelers should be asked to meet all the requirements of the USGS document. In non-steady state contexts, a transient model is required. This is having an impact withdrawal permitting and we are overdrawing both drinking and agriculture water. Essentially we are faced with too little recharge and too much withdrawal from the upper Floridan aquifer. Using a steady state model in our region is fundamentally inadequate for withdrawal permitting. FDEP needs to be more involved in this as we are moving towards a water crisis in 15 years.

• Keystone Heights Lakes Geneva & Brooklyn have been devastated and yet we are allowing further withdrawals by draining the lakes from the bottom. These are great recharge assets capable of contributing 1 billion Mgd each into upper Floridan aquifer when they are full not empty. We can’t wait for another 5 years for the Water Supply Plan to address these lakes that are in recovery. The system is not supporting that community.

• Tim Cera- SJR river and stream modelers lead the nation in what they are doing. They are able to predict surficial aquifer input to streams at small stream levels. First in nation to feature runoff as part of the surficial aquifer component. That is the transient part in the model. Great attribute. This bodes well for the development of a transient model.

• There is a Potentiometric map for 2009 but not for 2001? Similarly the calibration closure shown for 2009 but not 2001. Can you add it to the report? A: Will do so.

The Technical Team is scheduled to meet on February 3 and the Steering Committee on February 10, 2016. Issues related to the pumps off scenario as a way to assess the influence of pumping as well as other technical issues will be presented and discussed. In terms of next steps Mr. Grubbs noted they will complete the NFSEG steady-state model development and review; develop more detailed work plan for development of transient NFSEG; establish a target start date for intensive transient model development in Spring 2017; and estimate time for completing transient model development: (probably 4-5 years after completion of steady-state model).

3. Transient Model Development

Mr. Grubbs noted that groundwork was established at the outset for the transition to a transient model as part been the model development effort. The steady-state simulation has been framed as the initial condition for transient model. He reviewed the steps taken, noting it was projected to take 5 years but will be completed in four. He noted that as they develop water use data sets they try to find monthly data to ease the transition to the transient model. The transient development effort has focused initially creating two transient data sets: Boundary Conditions (Recharge, ET, Water Use, etc.) and Observation data (levels and flows). A 9 year calibration with 12 time steps each year represents an effort that is 100 times as lengthy to complete one calibration run. Transient Calibration will involve storage properties and transient recharge. Transient recharge is a big focus in the development of the model and is very hard to define over a large area that features karst topography. Documentation and technical review will be next followed by definition, execution, and post processing of scenario simulations. Mr. Grubbs noted the current target date for developing the transient model is a Spring 2017 launch with about 4-5 years of work to complete it.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 9

SAC Comments/Questions

• 1st and 2nd order magnitude springs and transient models. In State of Florida, lots of impetus to working on 1st and 2nd order magnitude springs. Should show up as a dark spot on the chart, the same as a huge pump cone of depression. It is a strong hydraulic variant- otherwise no flow out of the spring. This is one of the reasons we need the transient model. Functioning with calibration for these springs we can accurately represents them on the potentiometric surface maps. We will need a stronger, better model that can simulate the natural environment and support permit withdrawals.

• Current vs. historic spring flows. Does modeling only feature current spring flows and not historic? E.g. the Worthington Springs formerly a tourist spot has dried up with a flow rate of 0. A: Spring flows in the model are for those years. The model will show if caused by pumping.

• Parallel tem effort to pursue transient model. How we are going to strategically approach the development of the transient model? The model will require a different flow of data than we currently have. We have achieved better sensing systems and telemetry. We need to look at way we collect data. Perhaps we need a parallel effort to solve the transient data-crunching problem. This really isn’t a model and science issue. We need to be able to establish what we will do with the data once we get it. Recommend we consider setting up parallel and funding a parallel team to set up this model. A: The Team has tried to assemble some of the data sets for the transient model. Not just compiling but things like, interactively building data, writing computer programs to aid in this. We are using the same process with same data compiled in the development of the transient model so we don’t duplicate efforts and correcting errors. There may be some limitations in developing it on a parallel track including securing the immense computing power.

• If we stay on schedule for the transient model we may miss 2 5-year updates (2020 and 2025). • Current team appears to be trying to do 2 things at once. Recommendation from SAC

shouldn’t take away from steady model. Schedule is too far out from development. • Find a way to jump start data collection, data simulation, data crunching. We need an IT team

to begin solving those problems now ahead of detailed model to put together. • Data crunching can address the science part of this. Data collection and handling in volume.

NFSEG Transient Groundwater Model Development Motion Tom Harper offered a motion (seconded by Michael O’Berry) that the SAC recommend that the Districts initiate a process to accelerate the development of the transient model focusing on data collection and analysis. The SAC recommends that this be accomplished with a parallel process and team, and with the caveat that this initiative not detract from the effort to develop and complete the steady state model. The goal is to ensure that the transient model is ready for use in the next five-year projected water use data update. SAC discussion of the motion

• Will the motion aid in the acceleration of the completion of the transient model development in an efficient way to achieve the result of a better project? A: It could.

• Overall, it is better to have it as a goal and the Districts can start simulating data for transient calibration by next WSP in 2020.

• This motion is intended to to put a focal point on creating and supporting a 2nd team with a timeline and charge to address data acquisition and handling.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 10

• Is there anything in the way for developing this “critical path” effort? A: No. However, we are trying to finish steady state as quickly as possible. The 2nd team will need information from the 1st team. There will be a need to package and prepare things and we will need to be careful of that effort slowing down the completion of the steady state.

• Is there the political will to spend the money it will take to do a parallel effort? Concern if it is there to add those costs.

• In terms of the transient model CFWI, it appears that it is not being used in permitting. If we develop a transient model here, what is the likelihood it wouldn’t be used? A: Good question. What kinds of outcomes from transient will you get? For certain things a steady state model is sufficient. We will need to spend some time to identify the questions we want to answer with this model just we did with the Steady State model.

• If we weren’t predicting 33% growth we need to solve this challenge with a transient model. We need to answer, once and for all. if and how we can move water around the region to meet the population growth we are expecting along the coastal areas. We will need to use more surface and a lot less groundwater. Spread over the region this challenge represents a big transient issue. Can we move water around? If the answer is no, then the strategy should focus on handling water locally and not moving it. A: Districts will try to accelerate any aspects of the transient model. Data flow and data measurement. Develop with an eye towards late 2016.

• Will this involve outsourcing? Yes, for people, money and computer power. • Continue with an integrated approach with high praise for the magnificent job on the data

efforts and the HSPF.

Public Comment on the Motion

The public was invited to speak on the motion:

• Vivian Katz, Save our Lakes, Keystone Heights applauded the motion and encouraged a positive SAC vote. She suggested that time is of the essence in working to minimize and shorten the transition to a transient model. Water supply important to all of use as we want to avoid damage from pumping that the steady state model might permit.

• Paul Still, Secretary, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District suggested a more fundamental approach should be taken to go back and clarify what data is needed in a transient model in order to figure out the costs involved. Without that it may not be of value to go out and collect data. Also, there appears to be no flow data out of Lake Samson and this is the missing piece.

Following public comment, the SAC voted 9 – 1 in favor of recommending that the Districts initiate a process to accelerate the development of the transient model focusing on data collection and analysis. Gene Higginbotham voted against the motion, citing that development of the steady state model is and should be the priority. Mr. Harper noted that the motion provides that nothing will slow the steady state model development.

C. WATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: SUMMARY AND SAC CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION

Jennifer Gihring provided the SAC with a summary of their review water resource assessment in past meetings:

• March 2014: SAC briefed on water resource assessment methods

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 11

• Feb. 2015: SAC briefed on results of saltwater intrusion/upwelling assessment • April 2015: SAC approved saltwater intrusion/upwelling assessment • Dec. 2015: SAC briefed on revised water resource assessment methods • Today: Potential SAC recommendation

Jennifer Gihring provided an overview of the water resource assessment methodologies presented to the SAC in March 2014, and February, April, and December 2015. She mentioned that water resource assessment informs the magnitude of projects and management actions needed to meet future demands and avoid unacceptable water resource impacts. Following the briefing and discussion the SAC review and adopted the following recommendations on methodologies:

• Method for addressing water reservation • Method for sensitive vegetation assessment • Method for assessing status of MFL water bodies • Method for assessing priority water bodies

SAC Comments/Questions

• Has the 2010 validation run of the NFSEG model been completed? A: The reference year for the water resource assessment may be changed from 2010 to 2009, in order to reflect a calibration year versus validation year for the NFSEG model. This remains under discussion, but would not change the basic methodology of the water resource assessment.

• For Lakes 2010 freeboard is the starting point which includes 15 lakes in SJR with existing positive freeboard in 2010. These numbers may change when the 2010 data is updated with more recent values. For example, we might see it go from .5 to .6 or .3. When updated with final numbers, these will be shared with SAC.

• Brooklyn, Geneva and Cowpen Lakes are considered a special case with the 2017 MFLs in process.

• The Lower Santa Fe /Ichnetucknee MFL set a starting point at 17 cfs. • The starting point for the Lower Santa Fe is 17 cfs. Will this be adjusted to reflect future

withdrawal scenarios from the NFSEG? A: The Districts are still discussing some of the details regarding exactly how the 17 cfs recovery goal will be incorporated into the method for determining sufficient project options.

• Will it be consistent with FDEP adopted recovery plan? A: Yes. Came out of technical work numbers that FDEP adopted.

• FDEP doesn’t have exact amounts in the MFL. 17 is not in the rule but did the same analyses result in the 17 cfs? A: The regulatory portion of recovery strategy is included/incorporated.

• MFLs proposed and adopted, sandhill lakes, high recharge lakes, elevated topographic lakes that send pressure and water into aquifer are susceptible to the elimination of the median/mean water level from the MFL document. Going to frequent high or low and allowing for the oscillation.

• The range between minimum frequent low and frequent high tends to go further apart over time. It increases as we draw down the lakes if we only use the previous 20-year record.

• Are we assuming you can decrease flow by 10%? A: No, this is a flag. It doesn’t mean 10% is a concern necessarily. Come back and do detailed MFL work to figure out whether it is 2%, 10% or some other number.

• Why is there no pumping as a base? A: Reflects the structure SRWMD uses in its approach. Flag at 10% reduction - need something to measure from as a baseline.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 12

• No pump runs and not changing land use estimates raises the concern they won’t be a helpful comparative point. We want to be sure if we use that as a comparative point, it really is predicting pre-development condition and does that without artificially maneuvering the model. We might get a distorted view if we are not checking the model.

• When you do this, what decision will the results drive? A: • What’s the point? A: fundamental purpose of WSP is communication- provides a “what if” view if we were

to meet our future water needs with traditional sources. The plan does not present a view of where we are headed. The view of the future helps us all determine what path we should take.

• You assume model can do these things. You should be prepared to come back to the SAC and show that we did get a reasonable result with no pumping in the NFSEG model. This impacts the Wetlands Vegetation and the MFLs assessment. “Provided that…”

• What if we picked a 10-year average in the 80s vs. no pumping as an alternative. Base will remain the same. Base will change every time the model changes. As an alternative, consider picking 10 years with measured data from a time period where groundwater was un-impacted by withdrawals.

• Least guidance in terms of statutory requirements for this. Line up with foundational work done for rest of Suwannee springs.

The facilitator suggested the SAC review each of the four components to see if there is a potential SAC motion and recommendation on each. Nancy Kligo left at the break before these motions were proposed discussed and adopted. 1. MOTION ON METHOD FOR WATER RESERVATION

Gene Higginbotham made a motion to accept the water resource assessment method for addressing water reservations as presented. Rick Hutton provided a 2nd and following discussion (see below) the Committee voted 8-1 in favor. Pat Welsh voted against the motion, citing the need to recommend water reservation for additional water bodies.

SAC Discussion on the motion

• We should strongly consider and recommend historically famous Florida water bodies be nominated for water reservation status, in particular the Ichetucknee Springs and other 1st and 2nd magnitude springs on the Suwannee River and the Keystone Lakes.

• The statutory basis for water reservations requires a clear impact on fish, wildlife, public health or safety and consideration of 10 water resource values.

• The Water Supply Plan is only required to address existing water reservations in the planning area.

• Water reservations don’t require recovery of a water body. Look at condition of the resource and what can be protected. MFL can consider non-consumptive uses. Water reservations are tied to fish and wildlife/ health and safety.

• Water will be necessary for preservation of Florida’s great tourist regions if the MFLs don't work.

• Should we receive a briefing on the process for water reservations vs. MFLs at a future meeting?

• Work needed to adopt water reservations is comparable to MFL work.

2. MOTION ON METHOD FOR SENSITIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENT

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 13

Rick Hutton moved to accept the method as presented and Michael O’Berry provided a 2nd. Following discussion, the motion was amended to support the methodology on sensitive vegetation as presented contingent on the NFSEG model accurately predicting the expected results (surficial aquifer level changes). The SAC wants to receive an update regarding the same at a future meeting. The SAC voted 7 – 2 in favor of support the water resource assessment method for sensitive vegetation assessment as amended. Pat Welsh voted against the motion, citing that historical wetlands that no longer have wetland vegetation should be designated with having at least a moderate impact in the analysis. Michael O’Berry voted against adding he supported the original motion and felt the amendment was not necessary. 3. MOTION ON METHOD FOR ASSESSING STATUS OF MFL WATERBODIES

Gene Higginbotham moved to adopt the methods as presented and Michael O’Berry provided a 2nd. The SAC voted 8 – 1 in favor to support the water resource assessment method for assessing status of MFL waterbodies as presented. Pat Welsh voted against the motion, citing concern that the using the 2010 freeboard conditions as the baseline for measuring water flow differences could provide a shortcut to developing new and inaccurate MFLs based on this metric. SAC Discussion

• Discussion regarding individual MFLs will still occur in the future? A: Yes This covers 15 lakes and several additional unique cases.

• If the 2010 freeboard proves inaccurate or is poorly done, it will affect the outcome. The 2010 data gives you an unrealistic value especially North Putnam where the area is drawn down substantially.

4. MOTION ON METHOD FOR ASSESSING PRIORITY WATERBODIES

Gene Higginbotham moved to adopt the methods as presented and Michael O’Berry provided a 2nd. The SAC voted unanimously, 9 - 0 in favor as amended, to support the water resource assessment method for assessing priority water bodies but recommends that the baseline data be based on a “non-impact” ten-year average data set to be selected by the Districts. This would be in lieu of using “no pumping” as the baseline condition. The relevant metrics should be adjusted as needed to conform to the selected baseline conditions.

D. AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY COST ESTIMATE- FDACS BRIEFING

Cori Hermle, DACS provided a brief report noting that DACS is still working with the Districts on the ag irrigation efficiency cost estimates and are hoping to reach an agreed upon decision soon on values for the regional water supply plan. They will report at either the February or March SAC meetings on the results of these discussions and their recommendation.

IV. NEXT STEPS AND AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING The facilitator reviewed with the SAC the Work plan action items and assignments for consideration at the February 22, 2016 meeting. He noted the following items:

• To Receive Update on NFSEG Model Development Status

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 14

• To Receive Briefing on Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Cost Estimate • To Receive Briefing on Method for Demonstrating Sufficient MFLs Related Project Options • To Receive Briefing on Water Reservations and Water Supply Planning

He invited Pat Welsh to provide his proposal in the form of a motion for an agenda item in February to provide 20 minutes for a Save Our Lakes Organization briefing on the Alligator Creek Enhancement projects to be presented by Peter Schreuder, CCPG. (See Appendix #7). James Cornett moved and Rick Hutton provided a 2nd and the motion was passed 9-0 by the Committee. Dr. Welsh noted he would not be able to attend the March meeting and the facilitator noted it appear other members were available on that date and urged him to provide notice to the District and the facilitator of any alternate he would propose serve in his absence.

The meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 15

APPENDIX #1—MEETING AGENDA

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

MEETING XXXI—MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016—1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.

COMMITTEE MEETING OBJECTIVES ü To Approve Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, Workplan and Schedule) ü To Receive Update on RWSP Outreach Initiatives ü To Review Process for Submittal of WSD and WRD Projects ü To Receive Briefings/Updates on SAC Requested Issues: NFSEG Transient Groundwater Model Development Schedule

Report ü To Receive Briefings on Calibrated NFSEG Model and NFSEG Model Simulations ü To Receive Water Resource Assessment Methodology Summary and Provide SAC Consensus Recommendation ü To Receive Briefing on Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Cost Estimate 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, JANUARY 25, 2016 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 (January 25, 2016) 3.) 1:10 PM APPROVAL OF FACILITATOR’S MEETING SUMMARY REPORT (December 7, 2015) 4.) 1:15 PM REVIEW & APPROVAL OF UPDATED SAC WORKPLAN AND MEETING SCHEDULE 5.) 1:30 PM RWSP OUTREACH INITIATIVES UPDATE (15) 6.) 1:45 PM WATER SUPPLY AND WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: SAC PROCEDURES REVIEW

(RWSP #9 AND #10) (15) 7.) 2:00 PM

NFSEG GROUNDWATER MODEL BRIEFINGS (60) • Districts Report on Schedule for the Development of a Work Plan for the Development of the

NFSEG Transient Groundwater Model (RWSP #6) • Calibrated NFSEG Model Briefing (RWSP #6) • NFSEG Model Simulations Briefing (RWSP #7)

~3:00 PM BREAK 8.) 3:15 PM WATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: SUMMARY AND SAC CONSENSUS

RECOMMENDATION (RWSP #4) (45) 9.) 4:00 PM AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY COST ESTIMATE FDACS BRIEFING

(RWSP #4) (15) 10.) 4:15 PM MEMBERS’ COMMENTS AND ISSUES

• Opportunity for members to offer any general comment 11.) 4:30 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 (Feb. 22, 2016)

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

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 16

APPENDIX #2—COMMITTEE MEMBERS, STAFF AND FACILITATION TEAM

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP MEMBER REPRESENTATION PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIER Rick Hutton Gainesville Regional Utilities Stephen Roberts 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) 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

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 17

APPENDIX # 3—MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY

NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PARTNERSHIP STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING XXXI

JANUARY 25, 2016—LAKE CITY, FLORIDA MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY

9 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. 8.2 The background information was very useful. 8.2 The agenda packet was very useful. 9.0 The objectives for the meeting were stated at the outset. 8.3 Overall, the objectives of the meeting were fully achieved. 2. Do you agree that each of the following meeting objectives was achieved? 9.4 SAC Workplan and Meeting Schedule Update Review and Approval. 7.0 RWSP Outreach Initiatives Update. 7.3 Process for Submittal of WSD and WRD Projects Review. 8.8 NFSEG Transient Groundwater Model Development Schedule Report. 8.1 Calibrated NFSEG Model and NFSEG Model Simulations Briefing. 7.1 Water Resource Assessment Methodology Summary and SAC Consensus Recommendation. N.A. Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Cost Estimate Briefing. 7.3 Member Comments and Issues. 8.3 Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting Review. 8.4 Public Comment. 3. Please tell us how well the Facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting. 8.3 The members followed the direction of the Facilitator. 9.3 The Facilitator made sure the concerns of all members were heard. 7.7 The Facilitator helped us arrange our time well. 8.6 Participant input was documented accurately in Facilitator’s Summary Report (last meeting). 4. Please tell us your level of satisfaction with the meeting? 7.0 Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting. 9.0 I was very satisfied with the services provided by the Facilitator. 7.4 I am satisfied with the outcome of the meeting. 5. Please tell us how well the next steps were communicated? 8.3 I know what the next steps following this meeting will be. 7.7 I know who is responsible for the next steps. 6. What did you like best about the meeting?

• Carlos Herd back in the front seat. Paul Still back at the meeting. Public attendance • NFSEG Development report

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 18

• Discussion 1. How could the meeting have been improved? • Some of the motions were confusing. • Definition of what is being voted on. • Amendment process reviewed. • Overall ability for stakeholders to provide information is inadequate. • There was a tendency to dwell on tangents today. Need to keep the discussion on track. 2. Do you have any other comments? • Encourage public comment whenever possible.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 19

APPENDIX # 4—PUBLIC SIGN IN SHEET

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 20

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

Members of the public were encouraged to provide input and submit written comments with the understanding that a summary of public 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

2. Vivian Katz, Save Our Lakes, President. She expressed her concerns about the methods and criteria being used for MFLs for Lakes Geneva and Brooklyn. It appears only fish are given high priority. Proposed MFL for Lake Geneva call for15 feet and 20 feet for Lake Brooklyn. Compared 81 to 101 and went down criteria. Under the Current MFLs 9 criteria were met, 1 was vague. With current MFL, only 1 is met. It feels like the Districts are picking and choosing. For example calculating “freeboard” measure of current groundwater levels and groundwater levels needed to achieve MFL. Statutes provide for action if MFLs are in violation and yet nothing has happened for 20 years in Lake Geneva. I believe the utilities are pushing hard so they can have the freeboard water. Lakes Brooklyn, Geneva and Cowpen are relevant to this system. Lake elevation determines where freeboard pumping can continue. Geneva lowering 15 feet. This is lower than Lake Geneva has ever been and it means that pumping can continue. JEA has a consumptive use permit. Provision 34 should mean they come to recovery table for the Lake Geneva recovery. MFLs designed to allow free boarding and pumping to continue. Pay attention to this and Utilities and requested MFLS move forward quickly. Recovery projects should come to the table. In past these have been given short shrift. Not just for lakes, but also for aquifer recovery and flood abatement. We are on the borderline of 2 districts so we need to come together and erase the line between the 2 districts and solve this problem.

3. Paul Still, Secretary, Bradford Soil and Water Conservation District Sensitive vegetative assessment is not adequate. The model won’t address isolated wetlands that are common in Upper Santa Fe River and driven locally but won’t show on regional models. You continue to leave MFL water bodies such as the Upper Santa Fe MFL out of this plan. 17 cfs is inappropriate and cannot be found in the governing statute. The SAC and Districts need to go back and review the MFL language. There are serious flaws that are making this model and plan unworkable. The SAC should recommend the Districts correct these now not later. Lakes in Bradford county and some in Alachua County have been left off the priority water bodies list. No pumping condition in a lake. Looked at water bodies for including.

4. Rob Dennis, Liquid Solutions representing the NFUCG. We support moving forward when assessing MFL water bodies. Adopted recovery plan actions should be included in the Water Supply Plan. It sets a framework for recovering those water bodies. We support the DEP findings.

PUBLIC AND MEMBER EMAIL COMMENTS (submitted by email between December 7, 2015 and the January 25, 2016 SAC meetings) None received.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 21

APPENDIX # 6—NFRWSP PROJECT OPTION TEMPLATE FOR STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEMBERS- July 13, 2015 The following template reflects the information requirements for water supply plan project options specified in 373.709(2), F.S. (excerpts provided on page 2, for reference). Project Type (identify one):

1) Water Supply Development (e.g. reclaimed water, brackish groundwater) 2) Water Resource Development (e.g. aquifer recharge) 3) Other (please describe)

Project Details • Description: • Location: • Project Infrastructure Components: • Source Water: • Destination/Use: • Quantity of Water Made Available/Project Size (MGD):

Planning-Level Cost Estimate • Total Capital Costs (construction and non-construction1 costs): • $/kgal (not applicable for water resource development projects): • O&M (annual): • Basis of cost estimate:

Implementation Details • Lead Entity Implementing the Project: • Additional Implementation Partners: • Status of Project Implementation (e.g. feasibility analyses, pilot project(s), agreements among

implementation partners, etc.): • Estimated Project Timeframe (feasibility studies through construction):

For Reference: Statutory provisions applicable to NFRWSP project options … users may propose specific projects for inclusion in the list of alternative water supply projects. If such users propose a project to be listed as an alternative water supply project, the district shall determine whether it meets the goals of the plan, and, if so, it shall be included in the list…Where the district determines it is appropriate, the plan should specifically identify the need for multijurisdictional approaches to project options that, based on planning level analysis, are appropriate to supply the intended uses and that, based on such analysis, appear to be permittable and financially and technically feasible. The list of water supply development options must contain provisions that recognize that alternative water supply options for agricultural self-suppliers are limited. [373.709(2)(a)2., F.S.] For each project option identified, the following must be provided:

a. An estimate of the amount of water to become available through the project. b. The timeframe in which the project option should be implemented and the estimated planning-level costs

for capital investment and operating and maintaining the project. c. An analysis of funding needs and sources of possible funding options. For alternative water supply

projects, the water management districts shall provide funding assistance pursuant to s.373.707(8). d. Identification of the entity that should implement each project option and the current status of project

implementation. [s. 373.709(2)(a)3., F.S., and s. 373.709(2)(b), F.S.] 1 Non-constructions costs: design, permitting, and construction phase services.

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 22

APPENDIX # 7—- Solo Alligator Creek Enhancement (ACES) Projects

=

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 23

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2015 24

APPENDIX # 8—SAC CHARGE, MISSION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES COMMITTEE CHARGE AND PURPOSE (Charged By the SRWMD, the SJRWMD, and DEP) The purpose of the Committee shall be to provide guidance and advisory recommendations to the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD), St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) on development of the regional groundwater model, data needs, minimum flows and levels (MFLs), MFL prevention and recovery strategies and implementations, and ultimately a regional water supply plan. Committee members are appointed by the Districts to represent the concerns of specific affected groups as well as to communicate information about the North Florida water supply process to other members of their represented group. COMMITTEE MISSION STATEMENT The North Florida Regional Water Supply Partnership Stakeholder Advisory Committee, representing stakeholders in both districts, seeks to build consensus on advice and recommendations for the development of a North Florida regional water supply plan and related Partnership activities. The Committee’s efforts will be informed by sound science, and focused on supporting joint actions on water supply and resource issues. COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. The Committee will adhere to their charge and purpose as provided by the SJRWMD and the SRWMD. 2. The Committee will strive to achieve consensus on the evaluation and development of substantive advisory

recommendations submitted to the SRWMD, SJRWMD and DEP. 3. The Committee will operate under adopted policies and procedures that are clear and concise, and

consistently and equitably applied. 4. Committee members will serve as liaisons between the stakeholder groups they have been appointed to

represent and the NFRWSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and should strive to both inform and seek input on issues the Committee is addressing from those they represent.

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

NFRWSP SAC XXXI Meeting Summary, January 25, 2016

25

APPENDIX # 9—SAC 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

APPENDIX #10—COMMITTEE WORKPLAN The Committee Workplan is set forth in the October 26, 2015 SAC Agenda Packet posted at: http://northfloridawater.com/documents.html