Sunday, January 15, 2012

Geneva MFLs & Lake Recovery

The following is an email exchange between Frank Host (LAWA) and Jennifer Gihring (SJRWMD) on October 14, 2011.


Jennifer,
Once again I want to thank the Water Management District for visiting with us.  I found it very informational.

I want to reiterate my request that a link to the agreement between SJRWMD, SRWMD and DEP be posted on “our” website so that it is readily available.  This document was cited at the last technical work group meeting.

Secondly, I request that a link to the SJRWMD 2008 MFLs Methods be posted.  Cliff said he would provide me a copy but I think others may be interested also so a link on that page would be appropriate.

Thirdly, please post a link to the draft report for the new MFLs for Geneva.  Several in our group appear to not have that available.  I was concerned that it was not a public document but at the meeting on Wednesday you stated that it is public record.

After the Wednesday meeting I questioned Cliff about the validity of the bathymetry that he used in the draft report.  He said he would provide me a better copy than was available in the draft report.  I will copy him with this email as a reminder.  And, I am not sure of the appropriate person to make requests of this nature.

The groundwater modeling of Geneva  should consider water in and water out.  I question whether the outfall from Geneva is being considered as a part of this modeling.  I did some quick investigation on this outfall and the attached is a copy of the notes I made.  I have more documentation if you would like.

And THE BIG QUESTION!!!  I should have thought of this Wednesday but it took two nights to work through my head.  How high would the proposed MIL on Geneva have to be raised to no longer be protected and become the limiting MFL?

Frank



Hi Frank,
Per your request:

1.       The SRWMD-SJRWMD-DEP MOA is attached.  This will go on the website soon.  Feel free to share this with whomever else you feel would be interested.  Note that we recently tasked a staff member to serve as a formal liaison with SRWMD on MFLs.  He may have other responsibilities as well, but since he does not start until next week, I don’t have many details at the moment.

2.       The MFL methods paper is available here:  http://floridaswater.com/minimumflowsandlevels/pdfs/SJRWMD_MFLs_Method_Paper_2008.pdf.  This was published in the journal “Environmental Management” (2008) 42:1101-1114.

3.       The draft Geneva re-evaluation document is attached. Posting this document online may take a bit.  I need to check to see if it’s OK to post it.  The web staff have some tight policies regarding posting of draft vs. final documents on the website.    

4.       The bathymetry map from Cliff is attached.

Wednesday’s attendees requested a few additional items.  I will send a complete packet, including the attached items & Wednesday’s powerpoint, to all of the attendees shortly. 

I will check with Price Robison, the staff member who conducts the MFL surface water budget modeling, regarding your question about integration of the Geneva outfall in his water budget model.  Can you forward your notes?  They weren’t attached to the email below.

In order to answer your big question, we would need to expand it a bit – “Is there a quantifiable and defensible basis for establishing an MIL that is more limiting than the proposed MIH?”  We could conduct an analysis in which we raise the MIL incrementally until it becomes the most limiting.  However, if there is no basis for that value, then I’m very hesitant to ask for the technical resources to support that exercise.  In order to take the next step, I encourage you to revisit the information in Cliff’s report about the basis for the MIL, within the context of Wednesday’s discussion, and continue to approach the issue with the goal of identifying an alternative (defensible, quantifiable, and non-arbitrary) criteria for the District to consider as a basis for a revised MIL.  You know there are no guarantees as to whether or not the proposed re-evaluated MFL would be modified, but it would move our conversations forward.  I can promise you that we would investigate such suggestions with due diligence.

Although you’re always welcome to request information directly from anyone here at the District, feel free to continue to use me as your conduit, if you like.  I am happy to help. 

Enjoy your weekend,
Jennifer

No comments:

Post a Comment