Public Outreach Meeting # 4
South Florida Water Management District
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Attendees:
Albert
Bastulto, South Florida Water Management District
Theresa
Brogan, General Chemical Corporation
Horace
Durance, Hi-Lo Caretaking
James
Erskine, Miccosukee Tribe
Matt
Ferguson, Private Citizen
Don
Fox,
Pete
Gawda, Okeechobee News
Harry
Gibbons, Ph.D., Tetra Tech Inc.
Susan
Gray, South Florida Water Management District
Larry
Harris, Friends of
Carroll
Head, Friends of
Angie
R.
T. James, South Florida Water Management District
Raymond
Jones, Private Citizen
Anwar
Kahn, EA Engineering, Inc.
Dan
Levy, EA Engineering, Inc.
Mike
Lockhart, Lockhart Ag Technology
Kathy
Lukasiewicz, Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
Eric
Nelson, US Environmental Protection Agency
Jorge
Patino, South Florida Water Management District, Project Manager
Ronald
Payne, City of
Ryan
Janet
Phipps, PBC Department of Environmental Resources Management
Curt
Pollman, Ph.D., Tetra Tech, Inc.
Max
Quackenbos, St. Lucie River Initiative
Gary
Ritter, South Florida Water Management District
Kim
Shugar, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Lee
Sweet, Lockhart Ag Technologies
John
Welch, Private Citizen
Herb
Welcome
Ms.
Ms. Lukasiewicz invited everyone in the room to
introduce themselves. Meeting attendees
and their affiliation are listed above.
Introduction
Ms. Lukasiewicz began the presentation on the
Feasibility Study:
The Feasibility Study is a three-year, desktop
study being conducted by the South Florida Water Management District (District)
through a contract with Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL). The study was initiated in the fall of
2000.
The overall objective of the Feasibility Study is
to evaluate a variety of sediment management alternatives to address internal
phosphorus loading in Lake Okeechobee; improve water quality and decrease
turbidity and blue-green algae blooms.
The Feasibility Study is considered necessary for
a number of reasons, including:
- There is an
estimated 51,600 metric tons of phosphorus in lake mud sediments;
- Internal
phosphorus loads equal external phosphorus loads from watersheds;
- This Feasibility
Study is required by the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act [Florida Statute
373.4595(3)(f)]; and
- The Feasibility
Study is needed to support management decisions by the District’s
Governing Board.
During Task 1 of the Feasibility Study, the
project team established goals and performance measures and identified potential
impacts. Five project goals and twenty–six
performance measures were collaboratively established with input from the
public and interagency personnel. The Goals and Performance Measures report,
finalized in June 2001, identifies the five overall goals for the project:
Goal 1 – Maximize Water Quality Improvements
Goal 2 – Maximize Engineering Feasibility and
Implementability
Goal 3 – Maximize Cost Effectiveness
Goal 4 – Maximize Environmental Benefits
Goal 5 – Maximize Socioeconomic Benefits
Task 2 of the Feasibility Study - Development of
Sediment Management Alternatives - incorporated public and interagency participation
to develop a specific array of technologies to be evaluated in detail by applying
four initial screening criteria. The
four screening criteria initially applied were:
·
Effectiveness,
·
Implementability,
·
Applicability
to
·
Risk and
reliability.
Thirty-five
different process options and technologies were identified and evaluated with
respect to the above screening criteria for use in
Through
the assessment process, some of the technologies and specific process options
were “screened out” (due to lack of: potential effectiveness, implementability,
applicability, set risks and concerns for reliability) and, therefore not
carried forward into the assembly of overall sediment management alternatives.
Retained Alternatives
The
retained technologies were consolidated into three major alternatives:
1)
No In-lake
Action while monitoring ongoing external phosphorus reduction efforts;
2)
In-place
Chemical Treatment using Aluminum Sulfate (Alum) and Sodium Alumate; and
3)
Hydraulic
dredging with various post-dredging sediment management scenarios, including
near-shore and upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs).
Task
3 of the Feasibility Study - Development of a Work Plan - defined how the
alternatives would be evaluated against the goals and performance measures
established for the project.
Task
4 of the Feasibility Study - Evaluation of Alternatives - provided full-scale
evaluation of the retained technologies. During this task each alternative was
evaluated in detail with respect to the following goals:
·
Maximize
water quality improvements;
·
Maximize
engineering feasibility and implementability;
·
Maximize
cost effectiveness;
·
Maximize
environmental benefits; and
·
Maximize socioeconomic
benefits
All
alternatives were also evaluated against each of the twenty-six clearly defined
performance measures.
Water
quality modeling was performed along with engineering evaluations, detailed
cost estimates, personal interviews, case study reviews and socioeconomic
analyses.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz continued with a presentation of the Results of the Draft
Feasibility Study.
Results of the Draft
Feasibility Study
Assumed Model Boundary Conditions
Water quality modeling
proceeded using a set of assumptions:
- Initial inflow loads
of phosphorus (P) equal to 426 metric tons in 2000 (representing the
average over the last 10 years)
- A decline
linearly of 25% between 2000 and 2010 to 328 metric tons (attributed to
the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) in the watershed)
and,
- A decline
linearly to 140 metric tons by the year 2015.
No In-lake Action
The
No In-lake Action Alternative was presented and discussed.
Results
of the evaluation include:
- Modeling results
for this scenario indicate a 25% decrease in the frequency of algal blooms
(to below 15% by the year 2015) and a decrease to below 10% by the year
2028.
- Steady-state lake
recovery conditions would be achieved approximately 35 years from the
point external loads are reduced to the inflow load of 140 metric tons of
P.
- 90% of the target
is achieved by 2063.
Mr.
Harris questioned: Do these
results show that the lake will reach the desired level by 2015?
Ms. Lukasiewicz responded: One of the key assumptions of the feasibility
study is that the TMDL goal will be met by 2015. Modeling results for the No In-lake Action
Alternative show that the project goal for in-lake P concentrations (40 µg/L) would
be met by 2063.
Mr.
Head noted: The results indicate a 25% decrease in algal bloom
“frequency” by 2015. Please explain.
Dr.
James explained: The 25% decrease is attributable to a decrease in
the frequency in the algae blooms from the current 22% of the time to 15% with
an overall linear reduction of 25%.
Mr.
Fox asked: What is the
metric used in the definition of an algal bloom?
Dr.
James of the SFWMD responded: The metric is the in-lake concentration of 40
µg/L of chlorophyll a. This metric is
based on actual data collected in the lake over a period of time (approximately
28 years).
Chemical Treatment
The
Chemical Treatment Alternative was presented and discussed.
Results
of the evaluation include:
- The cost of using
aluminum sulfate (alum) and sodium aluminate is estimated at approximately
$500 million.
- Chemical
treatment would start at about year 2012 and would take 3 years to
complete.
- Modeling results
and technical evaluations indicate chemical treatment would effectively
inactivate the existing P, and much of the new P introduced to the
sediments for approximately 15 years.
- Beyond 15 years,
the lake would progressively return to its original state unless chemical
treatment applications were repeated or significant reductions in external
loads were realized.
Ms. Lukasiewicz explained that the application of
alum would be preceded by many processes, including, but not limited to, an
involved permitting process, implementation and completion of pilot and
demonstration projects and an evaluation of ecological, benthic and biological
impacts.
Mr.
Quackenbos noted: Studies reveal the application of alum
produces a precipitate. He questioned
whether this precipitate would be inactivated.
Ms. Lukasiewicz responded: A
floculant is formed when the alum reacts with the phosphorus and effectively
inactivates the phosphorous in the sediment.
Mr.
Harris: Would
there be an additional cost of $500 million after 15 years for reapplication of
alum?
Ms. Lukasiewicz
responded: It
is possible, that unless external load reductions are achieved by 2013, alum re-application
and the associated costs would be required. Application of alum has not been determined to
be a permanent solution for the P in sediments in
Ms. Brogan questioned the estimated cost projection of $500
million.
Mr. Patino of the SFWMD
responded: There are numerous costs taken into account
when projecting costs in the Feasibility Study, such as design, engineering,
production, transportation, mesocosm studies, etc.
Ms. Lukasiewicz added: The Feasibility
Study incorporated the total cost of chemical treatment including, but not
limited to, a detailed pilot study to demonstrate the environmental benefits
and impacts to the benthic and fisheries communities, evaluation of potential
toxicity, design costs, shipment and transport of materials, equipment
permitting, implementation, and pre and post implementation monitoring. The cost of the chemicals are a fraction of
the total costs of chemical treatment.
Also, the costs developed during the feasibility study are for planning
purposes and have a fluctuation factor of ±30%
- 50%.
If
chemical treatment were used in
Mr.
Fox raised a concern over
using chemical treatment; noting the potential for elevated sodium hydroxide
levels that may cause problems for the biota.
Ms. Phipps commented: You have indicated that the size of the water
body is a factor as well as the turbidity within the lake. Lake Okeechobee has two significant factors
affecting the efficacy of treatment: size and continued inflow.
Ms. Lukasiewicz continued: Success
stories for lakes treated with alum include
There
is an advantage in that
Mr. Harris asked: Would a
hurricane or other act of nature have a significant effect on the lake’s
treatment?
Ms. Lukasiewicz responded: Under
storm conditions, there would be a lot of movement of material, but with the
proper dosing and application techniques, this movement would not necessarily
create a problem. There is a good chance
that the inactivated material would move around, but it would not likely come
out of the floculant state and negatively affect water quality.
Ms. Lukasiewicz initiated a question to Dr. Gibbons of Tetra Tech: Harry, what
are your thoughts on the affects of storm, wind and wave action in a situation
such as we face in
Dr. Gibbons responded: Many techniques can be used to apply alum which
control the environment given any number of circumstances. First, every effort could be made to apply
the alum during the non-storm season. In
addition, proper planning can allow for the distribution of alum to coincide
with the drift. Also, engineering
controls can be used to control water movement during application.
Dredging
The
Dredging Alternative was presented and discussed.
Results
of the evaluation include:
- The cost of
dredging using hydraulic dredges, is estimated at approximately $3 billion.
- Dredging of the
lake’s pelagic zone would start at about the year 2015 and would take 15
years to complete.
- Technical
evaluations indicate that dredging would leave behind a veneer (6 to 10
cm) of sediment which, based on the water quality modeling, would continue
to release phosphorus into the water column.
- The dredging alternative
showed limited or no effectiveness.
Mr.
Levy asked: Please explain further the problems in the
water quality caused by dredging.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded:
Water quality problems would result from the required continuous dredging
program that would take 15 years to complete.
Constant dredging and movement within the shallow lake, even when
employing engineering controls would show some increase in uncontrolled
movement of sediment - resuspending the settled material.
Mr.
Levy declared: We
at EAA did not find a problem with water quality when implementing the Pilot
Dredging Study in 2001, in fact, pre and post dredging water quality
measurement results were very close to the same.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: There is a notable scale difference between
size of the Pilot Dredging Study and treating the entire pelagic zone of Lake
Okeechobee. This difference in scale was
a key factor in evaluating the potential for impacts. The Feasibility Study projections for treating
Mr.
Head commented: Although dredging may increase the turbidity,
chemical treatment may have a negative effect on the benthic communities.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: In case studies, alum application has shown
temporary negative impacts on benthic communities, but typically, the
communities recover over time.
Mr.
Erskine asked: What is the timeframe for reaching the target
TDML in comparing No-In lake Action to dredging?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: The target TMDL would be reached in about the
same timeframe, but an enormous amount of money would be spent on dredging with
very little benefit.
Mr.
Khan asked: How much sediment would be dredged in the
pelagic zone?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: For the purposes of this FS it was assumed
that the entire pelagic zone would be dredged; removing sediments greater than
10 cm. This volume is estimated to be
about 177 million cubic meters. It was
determined through modeling evaluations, that there was no advantage to
isolating areas of the pelagic zone for dredging, or targeting specific depth
intervals to be removed.
Known Project Uncertainties
There
are uncertainties with all the alternatives evaluated, Ms. Lukasiewicz continued.
Project
Uncertainties include:
- Findings presented
in this Feasibility Study are in a large part associated with the
expectation and assumption that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP) goals, as currently understood for watershed phosphorus
reductions, can be achieved by the year 2015.
- Modeling into the
future, especially as it relates to projecting climate, water flow and
sediment burial rates presents uncertainties.
- There is a ±30 - 50%, degree of uncertainty in the modeling
results and the cost estimates. However,
these uncertainties are applied uniformly among alternatives.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz presented a graphical representation of modeling (ILPM and LOWQM
models, respectively) results comparing the efficacy of Chemical Treatment and
Dredging Alternatives in lake water total phosphorus concentrations relative to
the No In-lake Action alternative, as shown below:
The
two models revealed nearly the same results.
In the long-term, there is not a substantial benefit of either Chemical
Treatment or Dredging when compared with no In-lake Action.
Criterium Decision Plus Modeling
Ms.
Lukasiewicz continued with a presentation of the Criterium Decision Plus
Modeling results.
Using
the five Feasibility Study major performance measures: maximize water quality
improvements; maximize engineering feasibility and implementability; maximize
cost effectiveness; maximize environmental benefits; and maximize socioeconomic
benefits as the decision making criteria, and considering all performance measures to be equally important, the modeling revealed the following ranking:
1st)
No
In-lake Action
2nd)
Chemical Treatment
3rd)
Dredging
Next,
the Criterium Decision Plus Modeling was run identifying water quality and cost as the most critical performance
measures. The purpose of this
exercise was to determine: if there were any performance measures, if rated
exceptionally high, that would change the outcome. The same results were discovered.
Mr.
Head asked: Would the $500 million be spent in addition to
the ongoing and future external watershed clean-up activities?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded:
Yes, that is the alternative scenario evaluated in the Feasibility Study.
Mr.
Head responded: If you put that money into the current
external watershed clean-up efforts, perhaps you would reach the goal
faster. The evaluation results of the No
In-lake Action Alternative shows a response within a similar timeframe. The answer seems obvious - clean it up using
the additional money on increased external reductions, that would get quicker
results.
Mr.
Payne expressed support for
No In-lake Action.
Ms.
Phipps added: The study should recognize cost
effectiveness.
Mr.
Welch commented: I have been to every Lake Okeechobee Sediment
Management Feasibility Study Public Meeting.
It is my understanding that even if you reduce the external loads to the
lake you will still have 56 metric tons of phosphorus remaining in the
lake. This phosphorus contained within
the lake sediments may be resuspended every time there is a storm or heavy wind/wave
action. The resuspension will cause
continued algae blooms. Even if you
reduce the external loads to 140 metric tons per year you will still have high internal
loads. At the last public meeting [Moore
Haven, FL April 4, 2002] we discussed dredging.
It seemed to be the answer to all our prayers. I would like to go back a couple years and
revisit the idea of capping the phosphorus-laden sediment with a clean layer of
sand. I would like an answer as to why
that alternative would not be effective and how much it would cost.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: During the Development of Alternatives task
of the Feasibility Study we did consider capping as a sediment management
technique. The technique was not carried
forward because it is not considered a permanent solution. The sand would not inactivate the P. We also could not be sure that clean sand
would stay in place long term. External
loading is what drives the dynamics within the system. If you reduce the external loading, yes, you
will still have phosphorus, but when you shut off the source, you change the
dynamics of the lake system, the chemistry of the water column and relationship
of what is leaving the sediment and entering the water column. With reduced phosphorus inflow, you will see
the occurrence of a newer, cleaner, sediment layer. Over time, the old layer will be buried and
the chemical dynamics of the system will change such that less P will be
released into the water column from the cleaner layer. This is the point at which we are predicting
the lake will begin to recover.
Dr. James added: Numerous case studies have shown that with
reduced phosphorus loads, shallow lakes recover very well.
Mr. Welch asked: We have 56 metric tons in the lake now. How many years will it take before we reach
the goal of 140 metric tons per year?
Ms. Lukasiewicz responded:
Based on the modeling
performed, the year 2063 is the
point at which equilibrium is reached. It would essentially take 35 years for the
lake to reach steady state, equilibrium conditions after the initial target TMDL
of 140 metric tons is reached. It is
estimated that by 2060 we would expect to see phosphorous reductions in the
water column that would reflect the new TMDL load.
One
case study in
Mr. Zebuth added: There has been a gradual reduction in
external loads to
Mr. Harris expressed his support for reducing external
loads, suggesting that reduction in external loads may be a solution.
Mr. Quackenbos asked: Can the modeling results be strengthened by
implementing a pilot project with respect to the uncertainties?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: Projections in climate, water flow and
sediment burial rates are specific factors in the modeling that could be
refined with additional scientific information.
Empirical data collected in the lake - in real time - including
turbidity, phosphorus levels, chlorophyll a, etc. will be useful in the future
for improving model certainty.
Mr.
Zebuth asked:
Are the results presented within the Evaluation
of Alternatives the results of two different models?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded:
Yes, two different models were used in this study. Modeling in both cases was performed to
determine the results of alternatives in relation to the No In-lake Action
Alternative. The two models – Lake
Okeechobee Water Quality Model (LOWQM) and Internal Loading Phosphorus Model (ILPM)
– were coded in different sequences which accounts for some of the variation in
results. The reason for the differences
is due predominately to the partitioning binding coefficient.
Draft Recommendations
Ms.
Lukasiewicz began the presentation of the Feasibility Study Draft Recommendations
and asked everyone to comment and /or make suggestions on the recommendations
presented.
Draft
Feasibility Study Recommendations include:
1)
External
load reductions in the watershed should be the focus of efforts to achieve
water quality goals in the lake.
2)
If the lake
does not respond to reductions in external loads as projected, consider
chemical treatment as a sediment management alternative to achieve water
quality goals. Chemical treatment would
require an in-depth pilot study.
3)
Continue to
collect water quality data to improve model certainty.
Mr.
Harris asked:
Are there adverse consequences to adding massive amounts of chemicals such as
alum to the lake?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded:
There are case studies where alum has been applied properly and there have been
no adverse impacts to aquatic life. There
have also been a number of studies where alum application was not managed
properly; where the lake’s pH was not been well understood; and the proper
pilot study was not performed. In cases
where the dynamics and chemistry of the lake has not been clear, and dosing is
not properly managed, alum application was not successful. Two of the case studies discussed in the Feasibility
Study include Cattle Lake in Wisconsin and Moorley Lake in New Hampshire. These
successful alum application projects were the result of properly managed alum dosing
and application with a clear understanding and buffering of the lake’s pH, and
close monitoring of the fish and biotic communities. Although this technique has been demonstrated
as a successful restoration technique, the exact results of its application in
Mr.
Quackenbos added: I am
interested in the size of the lakes where alum application has been successful. How do the lakes compare with Lake
Okeechobee?
Dr.
Gibbons responded:
They were all smaller, ranging from 400 to 2500 acres. These lakes were also eutrophic.
Mr.
Fox asked: Would the application of a chemical treatment
allow the survival and continued growth of benthic invertebrate organisms?
Mr.
Gibbons responded: After application, there is usually a gap in
the abundance of invertebrates; a period of lag in the productivity of the
system, but the systems usually shows a recovery state exceeding the initial
conditions.
Mr.
Fox commented: There have been decades of work by the public
and private sector on the black crappie in
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: In order to address and better understand those
issues, pilot studies would need to be performed to analyze the lake’s benthic
communities. There would probably be pre
and post sampling, mesocosm studies, demonstration projects, and a clearly
defined set of performance measures defined prior to implementation of pilot
testing and full-scale chemical treatment.
Mr.
Warren added: What
degree of certainty do we have that an alum application would be
successful? There are studies that show
the impact on benthic communities do not become evident in the short term, but
may be seen in the long term. What are
the assurances that the chemical treatment would not get out of control?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: A number of factors would need to be tested and
evaluated in a pilot study. Essential
information would include the ability to create a floc during application and treatment
that would allow deactivation of the sediments; continuous monitoring of the pH
- allowing proper control and buffering of pH levels in the water column; and
the engineering and design of a successful dosing procedure.
Dr.
Gibbons added: Successful case studies have shown
effectiveness in excess of 10 years. In
these cases the technique has not created toxicity in the benthic community or
aquatic habitat and the water quality has been maintained to an acceptable
level. Again, these cases were on a much
smaller scale than
Mr.
Fox noted: There is a commercial fishing industry in
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: That activity would have an impact on the
treatment, especially since the lake is approximately 12 feet deep in the
pelagic zone.
Mr.
Head suggested:
Considering the eutrophic state of
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded:
Finalization of the Evaluation of Alternatives will complete our tasks in this
Feasibility Study. We are currently
collecting input from the public and interagency personnel on this draft. Final revisions will be submitted to the
District. The District staff will present the findings to the Governing Board
and the Governing Board will present their information to the Florida
Legislature in July 2003.
Mr.
Harris commented:
The case studies show that successful demonstrations have been in small,
shallow, stratified, northern lakes.
Dr.
Gibbons responded: That is correct.
Mr.
Quackenbos commented: In view
of the economics, if you took only 2% of the $500 million and applied that to
watershed clean up, that $10 million would have a huge impact on the lake.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: That is a good point.
Mr.
Quackenbos asked: Did the Feasibility
Study evaluate calcium hydroxide or ferrus sulfate as a treatment alternative?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: Yes. While
the use of calcium as a chemical treatment alternative was initially
considered, it was screened out in favor of aluminum sulfate, which was deemed
a more appropriate option for this lake.
Treatment with iron compounds was also considered, but the iron to phosphorus
ratio in the lake is not conducive to using iron as a treatment
alternative.
Mr.
Zebuth asked: What impacts would you expect to see in the neighboring
communities with implementation of chemical treatment?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: If the alum and sodium aluminate were
properly applied and the floc was created in the mud zone, as anticipated, you
would likely see rapid improvements in the water column. Alum is currently used by municipal water
treatment facilities to floc out suspended materials. So, based on case studies,
we would not anticipate a negative impact on the water supply to the
communities. There could actually be
some benefits based on the improved water quality and clarity.
Mr.
Zebuth continued: The study has a confidence level of ±50%. What
would the results look like [referring to the graphic display] if we put those
confidence levels to test on each alternative?
Dr.
James noted: There have been improvements in modeling
recently as well as changed assumptions that increase the accuracy of the modeling
results.
Mr.
Patino responded: The same uncertainties are applied to each
alternative equally. If you isolate the
No In-lake Action Alternative and calculate the ±50% uncertainty, you would reach the target either earlier or later
than expected by a margin of 18 or 54 years required to reach the target level.
Mr.
Warren asked: Have you done any modeling to determine the
results of partial treatment with the goal being to shift the steady state of
the lake and reach the target sooner?
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: The modeling performed assumed a percentage
of the lake would be treated every 6 months for approximately 3 years. In a sense, the modeling was stepped over the
three year period to look for improvement in the lake over time. Even though we did not focus specifically on
what happens if we treat just one section, we know what happens throughout the
process and no there were not benefits of partial treatments.
Dr.
Pollman added: Because there would be a continuation of
phosphorus loading from the watershed, you would not see the benefits of
treating only sections of the lake. It
would not be an efficient process.
Mr.
Erskine commented: In review of the draft report, BBL has
presented solid justification for ruling out the dredging option. The draft report does however, seem to leave
the door open for the future use of chemical treatment as a sediment management
technique by using phrases such as “when applied properly”. There is a lot of literature that presents
the successes as well as the failures of chemical treatment. The draft report highlights four. The draft report recommends chemical treatment
be considered only if the lake does not respond to the load reductions; or if the
load reductions are not achieved. I am not
convinced that the load reductions will actually be achieved on time. I suggest the statement “if target load
reductions are not achieved, then chemical treatment may be considered” be
deleted from the recommendations.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz responded: Can you provide us with a suggestion to
revise this text?
Mr.
Erskine suggested: I suggest that you recommend stating that if
the lake “does not respond” to
external load reductions, then chemical treatment may be an option.
Mr.
Head commented: South Florida Water Management District and
BBL, you have done a good job! The
results are what many of us were hoping you would find.
Ms.
Lukasiewicz thanked Mr. Head
for his comment.
Mr.
Patino noted: The full draft report is posted on the
project website for downloading and review.
Hard copies will also be sent to anyone who leaves their name and
address this evening. The District plans
to finalize the draft report by mid-March, so he asked that everyone submit
their comments and suggestions to him in early February. The District is most interested in receiving
any and all comments and suggestions.
Please respond to Jorge Patino, Project Manager, at 561-682-2731 or at
his e-mail address at jpation@sfwmd.gov.
Mr.
Patino and Ms. Lukasiewicz thanked all in attendance for their engaging
participation. The meeting adjourned at
8:00 P.M.