SWFWMD WebForum

Doug Leeper
Agenda for the 4/27/2020 Lower Peace River/Lower Shell Creek minimum flows peer review panel teleconference is attached.
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Written comments submitted by Mr. Angel Martin to Doug Leeper on 4/27/2020 based on oral comments provided during the 4/27/2020 peer review panel teleconference.

<><><><><>
As per the teleconference on April 27, 2020, concerning minimum flows for the Lower Peace River and Lower Shell Creek, below are a couple of questions/comments for consideration.

  1. Consider adding a sentence or two indicating that new climate change information/data will be considered in possible future analyses. It was indicated in the peer review process that more up-to-date climate information was available from the information initially considered in the analysis.
  2. Suggest adding a conversion table, water-quality units, and vertical datum definition to the document. An example is given below. Please note that there are two examples given for Datums. Only the factors, units, and datums used in the document are needed to be shown.

Please contact me if you need any additional information or clarification. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject document.

Conversion factors, water-quality units, and vertical datums

This report uses English and metric units. To determine equivalent metric values from English values, multiply the English values by the conversion factors listed below. To determine equivalent English values from metric values, divide the metric values by the conversion factors listed below.

Multiply

By

To Obtain

  

Length

  

inch (in.)

25.4

millimeter (mm)

inch (in.)

2.54

centimeter (cm)

foot (ft)

0.3048

meter (m)

mile (mi)

1.609

kilometer (km)

  

Area

  

acre

4,047

square meter (m2)

square foot (ft2)

0.09290

square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2)

2.590

square kilometer (km2)

  

Volume

  

gallon (gal)

3.785

liter (L)

cubic foot (ft3)

0.02832

cubic meter (m3)

  

Flow

  

inch per year (in/yr)

25.4

millimeter per year (mm/yr)

foot per year (ft/yr)

0.3048

meter per year (m/yr)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

0.02832

cubic meter per second (m3/s)

gallon per minute (gal/min)

0.06308

liter per second (L/s)

million gallons per day (Mgal/d)

0.04381

cubic meter per second (m3/s)

billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)

43.81

cubic meter per second (m3/s)

  

  

  

Temperature is given in degree Celsius (°C), which can be converted to degree Fahrenheit (°F) by the following equation: °F = 1.8 (°C) + 32

Water-Quality Units

Abbreviations:
grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3)
milligrams per liter (mg/L)
parts per million (ppm)
parts per thousand (ppt)

Conversions: Most chemical concentrations in this report are given in milligrams per liter, which is a unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of water. A few of the chemical concentrations are given as parts per thousand or parts per million; these are units of weight of solute per weight of water. Parts per thousand (that is, grams of solute per kilogram of water) is a concentration that is often used in reporting the composition of seawater. Concentration expressed as parts per million (that is, milligrams of solute per kilogram of water) can be converted to milligrams per liter by multiplying the concentration by the density of water, in kilograms per liter. At low concentrations, such as that of freshwater, concentrations expressed as parts per million are nearly equal to those expressed as milligrams per liter.

Vertical Datums

Because this report is based on a large number of previously published scientific investigations, "sea level" is not referenced to a single vertical datum. "Mean sea level" also is not used with reference to a single datum; where used, the phrase means the average surface of the ocean as determined by calibration of measurements at tidal stations. The vertical datum used for each investigation described in this report is identified where it could be determined from the published sources of information.

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Vertical coordinate information for historical data collected and stored as National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) has been converted to NAVD 88 for this publication. Conversion between NAVD 88 and the commonly used NGVD 29 varies spatially; however, over most of the study area the following conversion can be used:

NGVD 29 = NAVD 88 –3.6 feet.

This conversion generally is accurate within about ± 0.5 feet for 95 percent of the study area. The reader is directed to either the National Geodetic Survey Web site for VERTCON at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLS/Vertcon/vertcon.html or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Web site for at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/software/corpscon/corpscon.html for more accurate conversions.

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Horizontal coordinate information for historical data collected and stored as North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) has been converted to NAD 83 for this publication. Conversion between NAD 83 and the commonly used NAD 27 varies spatially, and the difference in lateral positions can be greater than 300 feet. For assistance with conversions, the reader is directed to either the National Geodetic Survey Web site for NADCON at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLS/Nadcon/Nadcon.html or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Web site at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/software/corpscon/corpscon.html .

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

__________

Angel Martin

<><><><><>

 

Quote 0 0
PeterSheng
Attached is my revised version of the PRP report that Dave prepared. Revision was based on today's online discussion.
Quote 0 0
PeterSheng
I will send another version with some more revisions by tomorrow noon. 
Quote 1 0
David Tomasko
thank you Peter!  Let us know when you've got the version ready for Laura to review and revise, and Laura, let me know when you're done.  and then I'll include both the Track Changes version after I'm through it again, and a final version with no edits showing which I'll send back out to you two - hopefully Wednesday.  To the both of you - thanks for all the great work you've done on this! 
Quote 1 0
PeterSheng
Laura and Dave, The new version is attached for your review. Thanks Dave again for making this easier for us. 
Quote 0 0
lbedinger
Thanks, Peter. I will download and work on this. Will try to put the file back on here by 5 pm.
Quote 0 0
David Tomasko
Thanks Peter!  And thanks Laura! 
Quote 0 0
lbedinger
Here is the document with my changes completed with the Track Changes function on. I labeled the file with Peter's and my initials. Please let me know if you have questions.
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Dave, Laura and Peter:
Based on a quick look at the latest version of your draft initial peer review report posted by Laura yesterday, I have a few editorial comments to provide for your consideration. Please see the attached file (with my initials added to the end of the filename) for comments and suggestions intended to help clarify the prefatory or background information section of your draft document. Also, let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments.
Quote 0 0
David Tomasko
Folks:

I've gotten a copy of the report with edits from Peter and Laura, and some editorial review comments from Doug.  I will work from this latest version to produce the final of the initial report from the Panel, and will include the initial comments from Laura, Peter and myself as Appendices.  I hope to produce this and post it later today, but if not, certainly by COB tomorrow. 
Quote 0 0
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Hello,

I think Table 6-8 (in the MFL draft report) does not make sense. It says "Summary of allowable percent reduction" in the caption but "Allowable Flow Release" in the table. Can someone explain "allowable flow release" please? It sounds like during Block 1, 87% of the flow is allowed to be released, which seems odd if Block 1 is low flow. 
Also, I cannot find this language (allowable flow release) in any other MFL (FAC 40D-8).
I think Table 3 (in the recovery strategy) makes much more sense.

   MFL Report.jpg  MFL Recovery.jpg
Quote 0 0
David Tomasko
Doug:

Attached is the Final Initial Report from the Peer Review Panel.  This report includes edits and additional text from both Laura Bedinger and Peter Sheng, as well as incorporating editorial comments from yourself.  I have also included the initial document review comments from Laura, Peter and myself as appendices.  I have formatted the report and looked for typos, errors or misspellings or similar in the text of the report itself, but did not alter the information in the Appendices, as those documents are included here as they were written and received.

I wanted to thank you and District staff on your work here - we all thought the Draft MFL was a useful and thorough document that reflects the importance of the resources of concern, as well as the obvious professionalism of District staff. 

I also wanted to thank both Laura and Peter for their timely and insightful comments and the efforts they expended on the production of this report.  The value of this report is largely a function of the skillsets and attention to detail provided by Laura and Peter.  While this report summarizes our combined efforts, if there are any portions of the report that do not adequately or accurately reflect the review performed by Laura and Peter, that is on me.

This should fulfill our obligations for the tasks of review of the MFL report and production of the Initial Peer Review Panel Report.  We eagerly await the receipt of the District's formal response to this Initial Report.

Sincerely,

Dave
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Draft summary for the 4/27/2020 Lower Peace River/Lower Shell Creek minimum flows peer review panel teleconference is attached. Following review and approval or revision by the panelists, a final teleconference summary will be posted.
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Reply to 4/29/2020 post by Carollo Engineers, Inc. concerning Table 6-8 in the District's draft minimum flows report: 
  • We thank Carollo Engineering, Inc. for their post. 
  • District staff agree that Table 6-8 and its caption are not correct. 
  • We anticipate changing the table and caption in the revised, draft minimum flows report to indicate the listed percentage values represent required flow releases and to eliminate reference to withdrawals from Shell Creek by the City of Punta Gorda.



Quote 0 0
Southwest Florida Water Management District home page

Home Page  •  Who We Are & What We Do  •  Search & Site Map  •  Contact Us  •  Privacy & Disclaimer  •  © Copyright  •  pdf Download PDF Reader