archive-org.com » ORG » S » SWFWC.ORG

Total: 80

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • ground rules
    Watershed Council members require more detailed information than can be conveyed in the allotted time they should request that a decision be postponed and seek a meeting with the chairperson and or other committee members before the next scheduled Watershed Council meeting Watershed Council decision on the recommendation will be deferred for one month to enable this meeting to occur 3 Following discussion the Watershed Council members will by consensus act on the recommendation in one of five ways 1 accept it as presented 2 modify it in a way that is acceptable to all 3 reject it 4 send it back to the committee for further work or 5 table it until changed circumstances warrant it being reconsidered 4 If an issue of a substantive nature rises from the floor as opposed to coming through one or more Watershed Council committees at a Watershed Council meeting it shall be handled as follows 1 the topic will be introduced under the New Business Public Comment portion of the meeting 2 a member in good standing must propose a course of action non members may introduce a topic but only members will participate in the decision making process The Watershed Council

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/ground_rules.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • January 23
    Southwest Florida Watershed Council suggests that other tributaries to Estero Bay should also be considered for priority listing due to various hydrological alterations resulting from land use changes in their respective watersheds We suggest that Hendry Creek Mullock Creek Spring Creek and the Imperial River be considered for MFL priority listing These additional tributaries are subject to the same low flow conditions as the Estero River A review of the USGS gauging station data for flow and stage indicate a need for regulating flows during the dry season Periodic hypersaline conditions occur in Estero Bay as a result of flow modifications stemming from overdrainage and wetland loss in the Estero Bay watershed The Estero Bay Watershed Assessment SFWMD 1999 discusses hydrologic alterations as one of the most significant problems impacting the Bay Further evidence of flow alterations affecting the salinity of the Bay can be found in annul reports of the Estero Bay Marine Laboratory In addition very high chloride and conductance levels during the dry season for the tributaries mentioned above are indicative of inadequate flow during the dry season These data can be found for the tributaries mentioned above on STORET Furthermore Estero Bay and its tributaries are

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/SFWMD_EBMFL_Letter_102303.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • SWFMDmfl120302
    trendline for river flow to the estuary for November was staying well below 300 cfs daily and was often zero This lead to our concern that the management of the river flows was being driven by priorities unrelated to the health of the estuary Upon contacting District staff our concern was validated We were told that unless an MFL violation was occurring there would be no flow to the estuary Since the SWFWC represents business and political interests whose economy is as dependent upon river flow as any other users we question why the MFL Rule is being interpreted in the way it is The MFL Rule is apparently not being used to guide a management system of flow to prevent problems Instead it is being used in a way that will undoubtedly result in considerable problems for the Caloosahatchee estuary which will then require drastic regulatory remedy How can we get this reversed in our current management framework On a related topic we made a request to you in June of this year that the Caloosahatchee MFL rule be opened for review in September 2002 and that the SWFWC be notified of any public hearings document mailings or other

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/SFWMDmfl120302.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • the Recovery and Prevention strategy and future storage options proposed in the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study We request that the Caloosahatchee MFL rule be opened for review in September 2002 and that the SWFWC be notified of any public hearings document mailings or other activities relating to the MFL rule for the Caloosahatchee We also request official participation in Minimum Aquifer Level rule development for the Water Table Aquifer in

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/SFWMD%20%20MFL%20Rule%20Letter%20062702.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • 14 1 ppt The LCHCD hydrolab multimeter located near the Mid Point Marina is very close to the SFWMD recording meter at the Ft Myers Yacht Basin As a result of this close proximity we would expect similar results but would request the specific SFWMD salinity information for verification as requested in our first letter Our interpretation of the recently passed MFL rule for the Caloosahatchee River would be that a MFL exceedance has occurred during two consecutive years 2001 and 2002 and that the significant harm threshold has been breached as defined in the rule According to the MFL rule Phase III water restrictions are to be implemented when significant harm has occurred If this is not your interpretation then please indicate why If your interpretation is that exceedances have to occur during two consecutive 365 day periods then another exceedance between September 2002 and September 2003 will presumably trigger the MFL violation and significant harm threshold requiring Phase III restrictions under the shared adversity component of the rule We realize the rule was only adopted in September 2001 but in reality there have been minimum flow exceedances for at least the past three possibly four years and we

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/SFWMD%20%20MFL%20Letter%20053002.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • last September Salinity levels have been rising in the estuary as of late and we hope there will not be a MFL violation this year We would also like to list the salinity readings from the District s recording instrument in the Caloosahatchee River on the SWFWC web site or provide a link to the District s site if available Salinity information since September 30 2001 through the most current

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/SFWMD_MFLLetter051502.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Friday September 14th and again on Friday October 12th from 2 00 p m to 4 00 p m at the Lee County Public Works Building 3 rd floor conference room 1500 Monroe Street in Fort Myers Would it be possible to have a District representative at one of these meetings to discuss the MFL components mentioned above If you have any questions about the Southwest Florida Watershed Council I

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/SFWMDMFLLetter082701.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • SWFMD WaterReseverationcommentletter082602
    resources up to and including the one in ten year drought frequency These problems need to be resolved before the pre CERP reservation can be effectively determined Page 12 lines 30 34 While this principle includes the quality of the water for the baseline and WRDA speaks in terms of quantity and quality of water for the environment there is no discussion in the White Paper about how the quality of the water that is reserved for protection of fish and wildlife will be ensured This has been an issue in the Okeechobee Caloosahatchee system with polluted back pumped agricultural runoff used to provide freshwater flows for the estuary Page 13 lines 1 9 This principle needs to be clarified particularly for a pre CERP baseline for water necessary for fish and wildlife If the Caloosahatchee River for instance had ample freshwater flow in 1995 but not in December 2000 what would the baseline be for water for fish and wildlife Page 13 lines 19 40 If projects and operations in place as of December 2000 are considered part of baseline will MFLs also be considered part of baseline Page 13 line 42 46 It is unclear how local rainfall surface storage and runoff can be regional sources of available water If these local sources were allocated to the region then they would no longer be available locally Page 14 lines 4 5 While sources may vary with precipitation and hydrology we do not believe that they should be assigned priority based on manipulation of the sources for human needs This could mean that the environment is always assigned the least reliable sources Page 14 lines 7 16 We disagree with the principle as stated We strongly support a principle as discussed in the issue statement that demands should be based upon permits in use Page 14 lines 26 29 We support the inclusion of MFLs as demands Page 14 lines 30 37 We support the inclusion of demands for water deliveries for wetland protection aquifer recharge other resource protection and fish and wildlife It is unclear whether the use of the term regional environmental areas is intended to restrict fish and wildlife demands to certain specific areas or whether the term is used generally Does this mean that water necessary for fish and wildlife in other areas cannot be considered a demand Page 14 lines 39 42 Historic operational deliveries under federal regulation schedules have caused extensive impacts from low flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary and as such should not represent fish and wildlife demands Page 15 lines 9 17 It is unclear how the definition ties in with the definition of demands on page 14 Instead of demands the term of which there was a dependence is used Is this synonymous with demands We support the inclusion of resource protection and protection of fish and wildlife as existing legal sources The problem however is that these sources are not necessarily being adequately protected now We want to make

    Original URL path: http://www.swfwc.org/Documents/SFWMD%20WaterReservationCommentLetter082602.htm (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive



  •