SWFWMD WebForum

Doug Leeper
Agenda for the 6/22/2020 Lower Peace River/Lower Shell Creek minimum flows peer review panel teleconference is attached.
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Amended 6/22/2020 agenda is attached (with corrected date in one of the footnotes).
Quote 0 0
David Tomasko
Peter and Laura:

Attached please find the first draft of the table that could be used for the Panel to respond to the District's review of our initial report.  This is intended to concisely portray the comments and/or concerns we initially raised, the District's responses, and then the Panel's response to the District response.  In keeping with our last conference call, I formatted this table with two columns - the first covers whether or not the Panel agreed with the adequacy of the District response, and the second column covers whether or not the revised MFL report (as of June 1) was modified in a manner consistent with our concerns.  Though usually the responses were followed up with a modified report, that was not always the case.  For example, there are "concerns" about water quality parameters, influence of the Caloosahatchee River, etc. that were responded to by the District in an adequate manner, but there is not enough time or an ability to modify the report in response to these concerns.  The vast majority of our comments were responded to in their entirety - but our goal is not to get to 100% agreement on all topics, it is to provide an overview of the adequacy of the MFL effort - and to highlight any actual or perceived issues the Panel has with both the original draft MFL, and the revised MFL report submitted in response to our comments.

Please go through this document - perhaps do it one at a time(?) - in track changes mode and then send it back to me.  I will then add the sort of text we had in the initial report up front for each section, so that the final report will be more than simply a table.  I think that a similar format to our initial report will help folks see the logic of the topics we raised.  While I wrote quite a bit, there are places where either or both of you need to comment - I left those columns empty except for "Laura or Peter".  Text that is highlighted in yellow requires your special attention - please edit as you see fit.  In other portions of the table, the District response is straight forward, as is the response from the Panel.  But review for your agreement (or not) as this is my starting point, not our final table as a Panel.

I could not figure out how to get rid of that "draft" watermark on top of the page!  I think it's in the header, but each time I tried to edit the header, I couldn't get it removed.  So please feel free to get that out of the document, if you can.  Finally, to keep on schedule, could you please get your edits made this coming week?  That would give me time to incorporate your edits into a revised table, and to add the previously included text from the Initial Report as a way to summarize the topics on a chapter by chapter basis.

Thanks - and have a good weekend - Dave
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Posting a revised version of Section 8 (Potential Impacts of Sea Level Rise) of the draft minimum flows report for the Lower Peace River and Lower Shell Creek. The report section was revised to address the peer review panel request that NOAA sea level rise estimates be considered and incorporated into the document.
Quote 0 0
lbedinger
I should be able to post my comments by Thursday at 4 pm. Does that work for you, Dave and Peter?
Quote 0 0
David Tomasko
Folks:

Was out most of the week - not feeling good.  Waiting to hear back on whether or not just a flu, or something a bit more problematic (guess...).  Either way, feeling better today than yesterday, and better yesterday than the day before.  Hopefully, will be back to near-normal Monday, and will be able to take the edits from Laura and Peter - after discussing them next Monday - and get the final report done on time next week.  If anything changes that will scramble the deadline, I'll let you know ASAP.
Quote 0 0
lbedinger
So sorry to hear you are sick, Dave.

I was not sure if I should upload my edits to the document at this stage or not. I am attaching them here. 

Talk to you soon,
Laura
Quote 0 0
PeterSheng
Good morning Dave,
Hope you are feeling better today!
I attach my edits to the document here.
Peter
Quote 0 0
David Tomasko
Laura and Peter:

Thanks for the edits and additions.  For today's meeting, let's decide which ones we can skip over, and which ones we should spend more time on, to make sure that the Final Report represents our combined (or individual) responses to the District responses to our initial comments. Sorry to not have this put into the final report format, but I was out sick until Friday.  Much better now though - and no concerns about finishing this off in the next two or three days.

Dave
Quote 0 0
PeterSheng
The revised version of the report does include additional writing on the model results using NOAA SLR values. The following statement in the report needs to be discussed:

Given the differences between the USACE and NOAA SLR projections, it is important to
acknowledge that there is uncertainty in climate models regarding sea level rise
projection. Nevertheless, these findings indicate that minimum flows established for the
Lower Peace River and Lower Shell Creek may need to be reevaluated within 10 to 15
years after they are adopted into rule, to establish new baseline flow conditions that may
occur as a result of SLR.

Peter
Quote 0 0
lbedinger
Image of SLR tables on one page together for discussion. Click image for larger version - Name: SLR rise tables.jpg, Views: 6, Size: 264.47 KB
Quote 0 0
PeterSheng
My comments are related to the effect of Sea Level Rise on MFL:

Tables 6-10 and 6-11 should be better explained. Describe the "baseline" that the values are compared to. Explain the fact that the USACE SLR values came from older scientific study while NOAA SLR values are based on the latest Sea Level and Climate Sciences. Authors of the NOAA report include some of the best Sea Level scientists and practitioners. Therefore, the NOAA SLR values represent the best available science. Discrepancy between the USACE and NOAA values reflect the older science and the most updated science, but they do not reflect the uncertainties of climate models. 
Based on the significant impact on the habitat during the NOAA sea level scenarios, as shown in Table 6-10 and 6-11, SWFWMD should consider revising the MFL in 5 years, instead of 10-15 years. 
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Comments from Angel Martin provided via email to Doug Leeper, as a follow-up to oral comments provided during the June 8, 2022 peer review panel teleconference.

_____
As per the discussion with the peer review panel concerning the subject proposed minimum flows, I offer the following comments following today’s conference call.

The text that accompanies tables 6-10 and 6-11 concerning the sea-level rise information and discussion needs further clarification and expansion. The baseline sea-level conditions (two conditions for table 6-10 and six for table 6-11 as I understand) on which the MFLs are based must be clear. The plus and minus values shown on the tables bust be clearly defined. There should be some text added that as additional sea-level data and conditions become available, the MFLs may be adjusted by the District. As Doug Leeper mentioned, it must be made clear that the MFLs are determined based on the effects of withdrawals and not specifically on sea-level change. The sea-level conditions are considered part of the baseline conditions. The possible sea-level rise issues may add to the uncertainty in the determination of the MFLs.

Please contact me if you need any clarifications or additional information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed MFLs for the Lower Peace River and Lower Shell Creek.
__________
Angel Martin
Quote 0 0
lbedinger
Dave,

I am looking back over my notes from this afternoon and want to confirm whether or not you still need me to write text relating to the shift away from biological indicators in the HBMP program or if that was resolved enough on the phone or if you want to handle it. No problem either way, I could do it first thing in the morning tomorrow if desired. 

I think we are good on the 15%, but I can add something more if you think that would be helpful.

Also, I am not sure where we left the discussion about adding an average bar to graphs that shows data exclusively from the past. If you would like me to contribute something further about this for one of those boxes I can do that. Or if you would like to handle it or we can skip it.

Thanks,
Laura 
Quote 0 0
Doug Leeper
Draft 2020-06-22 peer review panel teleconference summary is attached for review and approval/acceptance by Laura Bedinger and Peter Sheng. Hes been developed and reviewed by Dave Tomasko and Doug Leeper
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