The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 02-05-2019 BCC W - Fertilizer OrdinanceCOLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners BCC/FERTILIZER ORDINANCE WORKSHOP AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 February 05, 2019 1:00 PM Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 - Chair; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 – Vice-Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 Notice: All persons wishing to speak must turn in a speaker slip. Each speaker will receive no more than three (3) minutes. Collier County Ordinance No. 2003-53 as amended by Ordinance 2004-05 and 2007-24, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. WORKSHOP TOPICS 2.A. Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation (Danette Kinaszczuk) 2.B. Turfgrass Science - (Dr. Trenholm - IFAS) 2.C. Environmental Effects - (Mac Carraway - EREF) 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. ADJOURN Inquiries concerning changes to the Board’s Agenda should be made to th e County Manager’s Office at 252-8383. 02/05/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.A Item Summary: Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation (Danette Kinaszczuk) Meeting Date: 02/05/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 01/28/2019 3:21 PM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 01/28/2019 3:21 PM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Geoffrey Willig County Manager Review Completed 01/28/2019 3:52 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 02/05/2019 1:00 PM 2.A Packet Pg. 3 Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop February 5, 2019 Danette Kinaszczuk 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Fertilizer Ordinance Countywide ordinance Enforcement Science based 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) •Environmental staff recommendations •Presenters o Mac Carraway, Environmental Research & Education Foundation o Dr. Laurie Trenholm, University of Florida Workshop 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Fertilizer or Hurricanes? 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) 1. No phosphorus without soil test 2. 50% Slow release nitrogen 3. Nutrients in reclaimed water 4. Deflector shields 5. Fertilizer applicators must carry certificate Common Ground 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) 6.No fertilizer within 10 feet of a waterbody 7.No fertilizer on hard surfaces 8.No grass/plant clippings on hard surfaces 9.No mow/low maintenance zone Common Ground 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Ordinance Discussion Points 10. Maximum nitrogen limits- follow the “Turf Rule” 11. No ban/blackout period 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) •Turf is a crop •Crop science says fertilize during wet season •Proper feeding = healthy lawn •FDEP State Model Ordinance doesn’t have a ban To Ban or Not to Ban 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Takes away local control Requires a wet season ban Requires a 50% slow release fertilizer HB 157 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Florida Friendly Landscaping™ 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Florida Friendly Landscaping™ 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Florida Friendly Landscaping™ 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Live Green.Save Blue. www.livegreensaveblue.com Thank You Report Pollution. 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop Presentation-Pollution Control (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) 1. Phosphorus Application Phosphorus content/amount: Max. 0.25 lb / 1000 sq ft per application Max. 0.5 lb / 1000 sq ft per year (strongly encourage no Phosphorus) Phosphorus content/amount: Max. 0.25 lb / 1000 sq ft per application Max. 0.5 lb / 1000 sq ft per year (strongly encourage no Phosphorus) No phosphorus is permitted, with the exception of a soil test determining deficiency No phosphorus is permitted, with the exception of a soil test determining deficiency 2. Nitrogen Slow Release Content No less than 50% slow release nitrogen No less than 30% slow release nitrogen No less than 50% slow release nitrogen No less than 50% slow release nitrogen 3. Reclaimed Water If reclaimed water is used for irrigation, the nutrient loading of the reclaimed water MUST be included in the fertilizer calculations N/A If reclaimed water is used for irrigation, the nutrient loadings of the reclaimed water SHOULD be included in the fertilizer calculations If reclaimed water is used for irrigation, the nutrient loadings of the reclaimed water MUST be included in the fertilizer calculations 4. Deflector Shields Spreader deflector shield required when fertilizing via a rotary/broadcast spreader Spreader deflector shield required when fertilizing via a rotary/broadcast spreader Spreader deflector shield required when fertilizing via a rotary/broadcast spreader Spreader deflector shield required when fertilizing via a rotary/broadcast spreader 5. Certification Requirement for Commercial Fertilizer Applicators All commercial fertilizer applicators MUST possess and carry the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (F.D.A.C.S.) Limited Commercial Fertilizer Applicator Certification pursuant to Rule 5E-14.117, F.A.C. All commercial fertilizer applicators MUST possess and carry the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (F.D.A.C.S.) Limited Commercial Fertilizer Applicator Certification pursuant to Rule 5E-14.117, F.A.C. All commercial fertilizer applicators MUST possess and carry the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (F.D.A.C.S.) Limited Commercial Fertilizer Applicator Certification pursuant to Rule 5E-14.117, F.A.C. Must email the City of Marco to get a permit 24 hours before application All commercial fertilizer applicators MUST possess and carry the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (F.D.A.C.S.) Limited Commercial Fertilizer Applicator Certification pursuant to Rule 5E- 14.117, F.A.C. 6. Fertilizer Setback from Water No fertilizer within 10 ft of a waterbody, drain, or top of seawall No fertilizer within 10 ft of waterbody, wetland, top of seawall or native buffers (3 ft with deflector) No fertilizer within 10 ft of a waterbody, lake, wetland, or storm drain No fertilizer within 10 ft of a waterbody, lake, wetland, or storm drain. *Staff would like to research a potential LDC amendment for a 10 ft "no turf zone" from waterbodies except canals* 7. Fertilizer on Hard Surfaces No fertilizer on impervious surfaces (concrete, asphalt, pavers, etc.) No fertilizer on impervious surfaces (concrete, asphalt, pavers, etc.) No fertilizer on impervious surfaces (concrete, asphalt, pavers, etc.) No fertilizer on impervious surfaces (concrete, asphalt, pavers, etc.) 8. Grass/Plant Clippings No grass clippings or vegetative matter/debris shall be washed, swept or blown into waterbodies, stormwater drains, ditches, conveyances, wetlands, sidewalks or roadways No grass clippings or vegetative matter/debris shall be washed, swept or blown into waterbodies, stormwater drains, ditches, conveyances, wetlands, sidewalks or roadways No grass clippings or vegetative matter/debris shall be washed, swept or blown into waterbodies, stormwater drains, ditches, conveyances, wetlands, sidewalks or roadways No grass clippings or vegetative matter/debris shall be washed, swept or blown into waterbodies, stormwater drains, ditches, conveyances, wetlands, sidewalks or roadways Existing City of Marco Island Staff Recommendations Fertilizer Ordinance Comparison & Staff Recommendations Existing City of Naples Existing Collier County 2.A.2 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Fertilizer Workshop Ordinance Comparison Handout (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Existing City of Marco Island Staff Recommendations Fertilizer Ordinance Comparison & Staff Recommendations Existing City of Naples Existing Collier County 9. No Mow/Low Maintenance Zone A voluntary 10 ft, low maintenance (no-mow) zone is strongly recommended, but not mandated A voluntary 10 ft, low maintenance (no-mow) zone is strongly recommended, but not mandated A low maintenance zone is defined but not applied within the ordinance Staff doesn't recommend a voluntary no mow/low maintenance requirement *Staff would like to research a potential LDC amendment for a 10 ft "no turf zone" setback from waterbodies except canals* 10. Maximum Nitrogen Applications Max. 1 lb / 1000 sq ft per application Max. 4 lb / 1000 sq ft per year (except turf) Spring and Summer: Max. 2 lb / 1000 sq ft per application Fall and Winter: Max. 1 lb / 1000 sq ft per application Max. 1 lb / 1000 sq ft per application Max. 4 lb / 1000 sq ft per year Fertilizer may ONLY be applied 4x per year Maximum nitrogen application per the Turf Rule [Rule 5E-1.003(2) F.A.C.] which is a maximum application per turf type (e.g. 4-6 lbs per year for St. Augustine grass and per application, dependent on season) 11. Wet Season Ban No fertilizer application when soils are saturated, heavy rain (greater than 2 inches within 24 hours) is likely, or during a storm or flood watch/warning No fertilizer application when soils are saturated, heavy rain (greater than 2 inches within 24 hours) is likely, or during a storm or flood watch/warning Do not apply fertilizer when heavy rainfall is expected or during June 1 - September 30 No fertilizer application when soils are saturated, heavy rain (greater than 2 inches within 24 hours) is likely, or during a storm or flood watch/warning City of Naples Ordinance No. 52-181 Collier County Ordinance No. 11-24 City of Marco Island Ordinance No. 16-02Sources State of Florida- Rule 5E-1.003(2) F.A.C. & F.D.A.C.S. Compliance Manual 2.A.2 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Fertilizer Workshop Ordinance Comparison Handout (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff 5E-1.003 Labels or Tags. (1) Label requirements for all fertilizer products. (a) Labels setting forth the information specified in this section shall be attached to or accompany any fertilizer distributed in the state. For packaged products, this information shall either (1) appear on the front or back of the package, (2) occupy at least one- third of a side of the package, or (3) be printed on a tag and attached to the package. This information shall be in a readable and conspicuous form. For bulk products, this information in printed form shall accompany delivery and five analysis tags attached to the delivery ticket shall be supplied to the purchaser at time of delivery. The following information is required on labels for all fertilizer products. 1. Brand name. 2. The grade (Provided that the grade shall not be required when no primary nutrients are claimed). 3. Guaranteed analysis, in the following format: Total Nitrogen (N) _______% ___ percent Nitrate Nitrogen ___ percent Ammoniacal Nitrogen ___ percent Other/Water Soluble Nitrogen ___ percent Urea Nitrogen ___ percent Water Insoluble Nitrogen Available Phosphorus (P205) ________% Soluble Potassium (K20) ________% Secondary and Micro Plant Nutrients (list all claimed or advertised) ________% Derived From: 4. Name and address of licensee. 5. The net weight (The term “Bulk” shall suffice for bulk products). (b) The nitrogen breakdown shall be equal to the total nitrogen guarantee. When urea is present it may be guaranteed as other water soluble nitrogen, or urea nitrogen at the option of the licensee. When urea formaldehyde is present, not more than 40 percent of the total nitrogen from this source may be claimed as other water soluble nitrogen, or urea nitrogen at the option of the licensee. When the term “organic” is used in the label, labeling, or advertisement of any fertilizer, the water insoluble nitrogen must not be less than 60% of the total guaranteed nitrogen so designated. (c)The terms “Available Phosphoric Acid” or “Available Phosphate” and “Soluble Potash” may be used instead of “Available Phosphorus” and “Soluble Potassium”, respectively. (d) Unacidulated mineral phosphatic materials, basic slag, bone meal, and other phosphatic materials shall be guaranteed as to both the total and available phosphorus (P2O5), and, in addition thereto, unacidulated mineral phosphatic materials and basic slag shall be guaranteed as to degree of fineness. (e) Only those materials which actually constitute sources of primary and secondary plant and micro nutrients shall be shown on the application for registration and the label under the statement “Derived from: ____”. Commercial, registered or copyrighte d brand or trade names shall not be permitted in guarantees or listing of source materials and only in the product name or advertising claims of fertilizer produced by or for the firm holding the rights to such a name. (f) When a chelated form of a plant nutrient is claimed in addition to another form of the same element, the chelated portion shall be guaranteed and the specific chelated nutrient shall be listed as a source in the “Derived from” statement. The chelated guarantee shall be equal to or less than the “Soluble” or “Water Soluble” element guarantee. (g) Guarantees for secondary or micro plant nutrients except chelated forms of secondary or micro plant nutrients shall be as follows: 1. Magnesium (Mg) shall be expressed as “Magnesium” if derived from insoluble compounds; “Soluble Magnesium” or “Water Soluble Magnesium” if derived from “magnesium sulfate or other soluble compounds”; or both if derived from combinations of soluble and insoluble sources. 2. When sulfur (S) is claimed as a plant nutrient, it shall be specified as to the form present, either “free” or “combined”, or both. “Specialty Fertilizer” defined in Section 576.011(36), F.S., shall be exempt from Sulfur guarantees. 3. Manganese (Mn) shall be expressed as “Manganese” if derived from insoluble compounds “Soluble Manganese” or “Water Florida Administrative Code Turf Rule 5E-1.003 2.A.3 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Turf Rule 5E-1.003 FAC 1_8_2015 (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) Soluble Manganese” if derived from manganese sulfate, manganese nitrate, manganese chloride or other soluble compounds; or both if derived from combinations of soluble and insoluble sources. 4. Iron (Fe) shall be expressed as “Iron” if derived from insoluble compounds. “Soluble Iron” or “Water Soluble Iron” if derived from iron sulfate, iron nitrate, iron chloride or other soluble compounds; or both if derived from combinations of soluble an d insoluble sources. 5. Zinc (Zn) shall be expressed as “Zinc” if derived from insoluble compounds. “Soluble Zinc” or “Water Soluble Zinc” if derived from zinc sulfate, zinc nitrate, zinc chloride or other soluble compounds; or both if derived from combinations of soluble and insoluble sources. 6. Copper (Cu) shall be expressed as “Copper” if derived from insoluble compounds; “Soluble Copper” or “Water Soluble Copper” if derived from copper sulfate, copper nitrate, copper chloride or other soluble compounds; or both if derived from combinations of soluble and insoluble sources. 7. Boron (B) shall be guaranteed as to water soluble boron, expressed as “boron”. 8. Other secondary or micro plant nutrients shall be guaranteed as to the total element, expressed as the element. 9. Minimum secondary or micro plant nutrient guarantees for specialty fertilizer shall be as follows, except guarantees for those water soluble nutrients labeled for ready to use foliar fertilizers, ready to use specialty liquid fertilizers, hydroponic or continuous liquid feed programs and guarantees for potting soils. Aluminum (Al) .10% Manganese (Mn) .02% Boron (B) .02% Molybdenum (Mo) .0005% Calcium (Ca) .50% Nickel (Ni) .0010% Cobalt (Co) .0005% Sodium (Na) .10% Copper (Cu) .02% Sulfur (S) 1.00% Iron (Fe) .02% Zinc (Zn) .02% Magnesium (Mg) .10% (2) Specialty fertilizer label requirements for urgan turf or lawns (packaged in containers or bags such that the net weight is 49 pounds or less and distributed for home and garden use). (a) Definitions. 1.“Urban Turf” or “Lawns” means non agricultural land planted in closely mowed, managed grasses except golf courses, parks and athletic fields. 2.“No Phosphate Fertilizer” means fertilizer products with phosphate levels below 0.5% intended for established urban turf or lawns. 3.“Low Phosphate Fertilizer” means fertilizer products intended for new or established urban turf or lawns, with phosphate levels equal to or above 0.5% or as provided in paragraph (2)(b). 4. “Starter Fertilizer” means a fertilizer formulated for a one-time application at planting or near that time to encourage root growth and enhance the initial establishment. 5. “Established Urban Turf” means urban turf older than 12 months. 6.“New Urban Turf” means urban turf established less than 12 months. 7. “Actively Growing Turf” means turf that needs mowing at least once every tw o weeks to maintain the grass blade height recommended in the document entitled University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ENH 10 “Mowing Your Florida Lawn” dated March 2009, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule. Copies may be obtained from the Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 or online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04701. (b) Labeling Requirements. 1. Specialty Fertilizer products labeled for use on urban turf or lawns shall be no phosphate or low phosphate. a. “No phosphate” fertilizers shall not contain more than 0.5% of available phosphate expressed as P 2O5. The “grade” shall indicate a zero guarantee. b. Fertilizers labeled as low phosphate shall have use directions that do not exceed an application rate of 0.25 lbs P2O5/1000 sq. ft. and not to exceed 0.50 lbs P2O5/1000 sq. ft. per year. 2.A.3 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Turf Rule 5E-1.003 FAC 1_8_2015 (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) c. Fertilizers labeled as, or formulated for use as, starter fertilizer shall have use directions that do not exceed an application rate of 1.0 lb of P2O5/1,000 sq. ft. and that subsequent applications shall be made with products meeting the definition of Low or No Phosphate fertilizers. The term “starter fertilizer” shall be part of the brand name. 2. Fertilizers labeled as urban turf or lawn fertilizer shall have directions for use for nitrogen that: a. Are consistent with the recommendations in the following table: Annual Fertilization Guidelines for Established Turfgrass Lawns in Three Regions of Florida Nitrogen Recommendations (lbs N per 1000 sq. ft)* Species Bahiagrass Bermuda Centipede St. Augustine Zoysia North* Timing of Application : Only Apply to Actively Growing Turf Maximum Pounds N per Application Spring or Summer 2 2 2 2 2 Fall 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum Annual Pounds 2-3 3-5 1-2 2-4 2-3 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Central* Timing of Application Only Apply to Actively Growing Turf Maximum Pounds N per Application Spring or Summer 2 2 2 2 2 Fall or Winter 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum Annual Pounds 2-4 4-6 2-3 2-5 2-4 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ South* Timing of Application Only Apply to Actively Growing Turf Maximum Pounds N per Application Spring or Summer 2 2 2 2 2 Fall or Winter 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum Annual Pounds 2-4 5-7 2-3 4-6 2.5-4.5 *North Florida is defined as north of a line extending from Cedar Key to Daytona Beach. Central Florida is defined as south of the line extending from Cedar Key to Daytona Beach to a line extending from Tampa to Vero Beach. South Florida includes the remaining southern portion of the state. b. Nitrogen shall not be applied at an application rate greater than 0.7 lbs of readily available nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. at any one time based on the soluble fraction of formulated fertilizer. c. Not more than 2 lbs. of total nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. per application may be applied during the spring or summer; d. Not more than 1 lb total nitrogen per 1000 sq. ft. per application may be applied during the fall or winter. e. If a total controlled release product is applied, not more than 35 percent of the nitrogen in the controlled release fertilizer can be released within the first 7 days after application. f. Nitrogen applications cannot exceed the annual nitrogen recommendations in the Annual Fertilization Guidelines for Established Turfgrass Lawns in Three Regions of Florida, set forth herein. 3. The following language shall appear conspicuously on bags of fertilizer sold at retail: “Apply only to actively growing turf. Do not apply near water, storm drains or drainage ditches. Do not apply if heavy rain is expected. Apply this product only to your lawn, and sweep any product that lands in the driveway, sidewalk, or street, back onto your lawn. Check with your local Cooperative Extension Agency to obtain specific information on local turf best management practices. Check with your county or city government to determine if there are local regulations for fertilizer use. 4. Rates shall be expressed in units of weight or volume per unit of area coverage (where application rates are given in volume, the label shall provide sufficient information to calculate the application rates by weight). 5. Rates shall be expressed per 1000 square feet. 2.A.3 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Turf Rule 5E-1.003 FAC 1_8_2015 (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) 6. Coverage area per container or bag shall be displayed prominently on the Front of the container or bag. (i.e. This product covers 5000 square feet, This bag feeds 4000 square feet). 7. Existing Stock – Licensees are permitted to sell or distribute products that do not meet the label requirements of the rule for one and one-half years after the effective date of the rule. Products at the retail level on or after the effective date of the rule are permitted to be offered for sale. (3) Labeling requirements for sports turf. (a) “Sports Turf” means non-agricultural land planted exclusively for golf courses, parks and athletic fields. (b) Have directions for use not to exceed rates recommended in the document entitled University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences SL191 “Recommendations for N, P, K and Mg for Golf Course and Athletic Field Fertilization Based on Mehlich III Extractant”, revision: October 2013, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule. Copies may be obtained from the Soil and Water Science Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 or online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04700. (c) Have directions for use in accordance with the recommendations in “Best Management Practices for the Enhancement of Environmental Quality on Florida Golf Courses”, published by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, dated September 2012, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule. Copies may be obtained from Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station #3570, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 or online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04702. (4) Labeling requirements for fertilizers other than specialty fertilizers labeled for urban turf. Fertilizers other than specialty fertilizers labeled for urban turf shall have directions for use not to exceed rates recommended in the document entitled “Florida Friendly Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources by the Green Industries”, published by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Revised December 2008, 2nd Printing 2010, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule. Copies may be obtained from Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station #3570, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 or online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04706. (5) Soil additives, soil amendments and soil conditioners. The following information shall appear on the product label in a conspicuous and readable form: (a) Guaranteed analysis, in the following format. Soil Amending Ingredients: “Name of ingredient” ________% (Identify and list all soil amending ingredients) Total Other Ingredients ________% (b) Purpose of product. (c) Directions for application. (d) Net volume, in lieu of net weight, may be used for labeling mulch products or materials sold for primary use as above ground dressing. (6) Slow or controlled release, stabilized nitrogen and enhanced efficiency fertilizers. (a) Definitions: 1. Slow or controlled release fertilizer means a fertilizer containing a plant nutrient in a form which delays its availability for plant uptake and use after application, or which extends its availability to the plant significantly longer than a referenced “rapidly available nutrient fertilizer” such as ammonium nitrate or urea, ammonium phosphate or potassium chloride. 2. Stabilized Nitrogen Fertilizer means a fertilizer to which a nitrogen stabilizer has been added. 3.Nitrogen stabilizer means a substance added to a fertilizer which extends the time the nitrogen component of the fertilizer remains in the soil in the urea or ammoniacal form. Urease inhibitors and nitrification inhibitors are nitrogen stabilizers. 4. Urease Inhibitor means a substance which inhibits hydrolytic action on urea by the urease enzyme. When applied to soils th e effect of the urease inhibitor is less urea nitrogen lost by ammonia volatilization. 5. N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) means a compound that is the normal butyl derivative of thiophosphoric triamide and is a urease inhibitor (CAS No. 94317-64-3). 6. Nitrification Inhibitor means a substance that inhibits the biological oxidation of ammoniacal nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen. 7. Cyanamide means a commercial product consisting principally of calcium cyanamide (CaNCN). It is a nitrification inhibitor. 2.A.3 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Turf Rule 5E-1.003 FAC 1_8_2015 (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) 8. Dicyandiamide means a water soluble organic compound of formula C2H4N4 which contains at least sixty-five percent 65% nitrogen. It is a source of slowly available nitrogen. It is a nitrification inhibitor. 9. Ammonium Thiosulfate means a commercial product composed principally of (NH 4)2S2O3. It is a nitrification inhibitor. 10. Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer means a fertilizer product with characteristics that minimize the potential of nutrient losses to the environment, as compared to a “reference soluble” product. (b) When one or more slow or controlled release, stabilized nitrogen or enhanced efficiency fertilizers are claimed or advertised, the guarantees for such nutrients shall be shown as a footnote following the listing of source materials and shall be expressed as percent of actual nutrient. (c) Listing of source materials providing slow or controlled release characteristics by controlling the water solubility of a naturally soluble material (as by coating or occlusion) shall constitute a claim of controlled release nutrient, and a guarantee for such nutrient shall be required. (d) Listing of source materials in which availability of nitrogen is controlled through slow hydrolysis of water soluble organic nitrogen compounds shall constitute a claim of slow or controlled release nutrient and a guarantee for such nutrient shall be required. The reference for such availability shall be the enzymatic hydrolysis of urea. (e) No guarantee, claim or advertisement shall be made or required when a slow or controlled release, stabilized nitrogen or enhanced efficiency nutrient is less than 15 percent of the total guarantee for that nutrient. (7) Chlorine guarantee. (a) Chlorine shall be guaranteed as to maximum percentage content, when applicable, in agricultural fertilizer. “Specialty Fertilizer” defined in Section 576.011(36), F.S., shall be exempt from chlorine guarantees. (b) Maximum chlorine shall be guaranteed in all brands which contain one percent (1%) or more, or in which potassium chloride or other materials bearing substantial amounts of chlorine are present. (c) The maximum chlorine shall be guaranteed in all brands intended for use on tobacco. (d) Maximum chlorine guarantees shall be reasonably accurate and not misleading, and consistent with source materials present . Two percent (2%) shall be the maximum permissible guarantee in fertilizers, except where potassium chloride, fish emulsion, or other high chlorine materials are present. (8) Declaration of Florida licensee number. (a) The Florida Licensee Number, shall appear and be clea rly identified on all fertilizer labels with a capital “F” preceding the license number. (b) The number must be clear, legible and appear prominently and conspicuously on the label in proximity to the brand name or guaranteed analysis. The number must be placed in such a manner as to avoid any misinterpretation or confusion with percentages, pounds, or figures, statements, and in no way be misleading. (9) Registration or specialty fertilizer products. All specialty fertilizers to be sold within the state must be registered with the Bureau of Licensing and Enforcement prior to any sale. Each product will be registered by using either of the following methods: (a) Through the Department’s Feed, Seed, and Fertilizer Regulatory Website located online at http://lims.flaes.org/HomeNew.aspx. An illustration of the Web Based Licensing and Registration process dated October 30, 2014, is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in this rule and is available online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04746, or (b) Submission of completed Application for Specialty Fertilizer Registration, FDACS-13220, (Rev. 11/14), online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04703 and Application for Registration of Specialty Fertilizer , FDACS- 13203, (Rev. 07/14), online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04704 for each product, which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Licensing and Enforcement, 3125 Conner Boulevard, Building 8, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. (10) Licensee. (a) Any person whose name is on a fertilizer label and who guarantees the fertilizer must obtain a license prior to distribution of that fertilizer to a non-licensee. (b) A license may be obtained using either of the following methods: 1. Through the Department’s Feed, Seed, and Fertilizer Regulatory Website located online at http://lims.flaes.org/HomeNew.aspx. An illustration of the Web Based Licensing and Registration process dated October 30, 2014, 2.A.3 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Turf Rule 5E-1.003 FAC 1_8_2015 (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) is adopted and incorporated by reference in paragraph (9)(a) of this rule, or 2. Submitting an Application for Fertilizer License FDACS-13222, (Rev 11/14), online at http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04705 which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference and shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Licensing and Enforcement, 3125 Conner Boulevard, Building 8, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650. Rulemaking Authority 570.07(23), 576.181 FS. Law Implemented 576.021, 576.031, 576.045, 576.181 FS. History–New 1-23-67, Amended 10-22- 68, 1-1-77, 3-27-77, Formerly 5E-1.03, Amended 8-3-93, 7-9-95, 10-25-98, 12-31-07, 1-18-10, 1-8-15. 2.A.3 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Turf Rule 5E-1.003 FAC 1_8_2015 (7894 : Fertilizer Ordinance - Staff Presentation) 02/05/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: Turfgrass Science - (Dr. Trenholm - IFAS) Meeting Date: 02/05/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 01/28/2019 3:22 PM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 01/28/2019 3:22 PM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Geoffrey Willig County Manager Review Completed 01/28/2019 3:31 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 02/05/2019 1:00 PM 2.B Packet Pg. 25 1The Science Behind Fertilizer Timing and Rates for Turfgrass in FloridaLaurie E. Trenholm, Ph.D.Urban Turfgrass SpecialistUF‐IFAS2.B.1Packet Pg. 26Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Warm‐Season Grass Growth Curve2.B.1Packet Pg. 27Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Warm Season Grass Growth Cycle•Dormancy:–Temporary cessation of shoot growth as a result of extended drought, heat, or cold. Plants are able to regrow when conditions become favorable.Do grasses go dormant in south Florida?2.B.1Packet Pg. 28Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Environmental Fate of Fertilization Timing051015202530May June July Aug Sept OctPercent of Applied N LeachedTrenholm et al., 20122.B.1Packet Pg. 29Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Nitrogen Rate Study ‐Nitrate‐N Leaching from Floratam012345Yr 1 FC1Yr1 FC2Yr2 FC1Yr2 FC2Yr2 FC3Yr2 FC4Yr3 FC1Yr3 FC2Yr3 FC3Yr3 FC41 lb N4 lb N7 lb N10 lb NNitrogen applied as 100% soluble ureaNO3- N Leached (kg ha-1)Trenholm et al. 20092.B.1Packet Pg. 30Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Nitrogen Source Leaching Study‐Annual Load from Floratam 2008NO3- Leached (kg ha-1)00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.4ControlANUrea30% SRN50% SRN30% PCU30% PCU 2 lbs/120Mil2.B.1Packet Pg. 31Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Winter Leaching: NO3‐N Loading By N Rate and Month Yr 272.B.1Packet Pg. 32Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Groundwater Recharge•Turfgrass preserves water by its ability to trap, filter, and hold water•This results in more water infiltrating and filtering through the soil‐turfgrass ecosystem2.B.1Packet Pg. 33Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) Surface Runoff and Groundwater Recharge2.B.1Packet Pg. 34Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) What We Know On Water Quality Protection Due to Fertilizer Bans•Stable Isotope TracingIsotopic signature in NO3− from fertilizer, atmospheric, soil and manure‐derived sources differs sufficiently to enable an unambiguous distinction to be made between them 102.B.1Packet Pg. 35Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) What We Know On Water Quality Protection Due to Fertilizer BansSources of N in stormwater runoff and stormwater ponds in Tampa area:1. Atmospheric deposition2. SOM3. Fertilizer(Yang and Toor, 2016)It is known that impervious urban surfaces that limit rainfall infiltration into soils can be expected to channel atmospheric N to runoff and receiving water bodies. 112.B.1Packet Pg. 36Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) IFAS Recoomended Fertilizer Rates for South FloridaSpecies Annual Nitrogen Rates(lbs. N/1,000 sq. ft.)Bahiagrass 1-4St. Augustinegrass 4-6Zoysiagrass 2.5-4.512A range of rates is recommended to accommodate appropriate fertilization for lawns growing in sites with inadequate conditions due to soil, pH, excess shade, lack of organic matter, etc. Rates may also vary due to improper cultural practices such as mowing too low or overirrigating. All of these conditions can result in abiotic stresses on turf.2.B.1Packet Pg. 37Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) How Should This Guide Decision Making?•UF‐IFAS research overwhelmingly shows that when applied to healthy, actively growing turf, very little nitrate leaches from the system•UF‐IFAS recommended fertilizer rates help maintain turf health and limit nitrate leaching•No data to support reduced nitrate loading where summertime fertilizer bans in place132.B.1Packet Pg. 38Attachment: Turfgrass Science (7895 : Turfgrass Science - IFAS) 02/05/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.C Item Summary: Environmental Effects - (Mac Carraway - EREF) Meeting Date: 02/05/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – County Manager's Office Name: Geoffrey Willig 01/28/2019 3:22 PM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 01/28/2019 3:22 PM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Geoffrey Willig County Manager Review Completed 01/28/2019 3:31 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 02/05/2019 1:00 PM 2.C Packet Pg. 39 Collier County, Florida February 5, 2019 Presentation By: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH & EDUCATION FOUNDATION (EREF) Mac Carraway, Executive Director 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Who is EREF? We are a nonprofit industry group with stakeholders in the green industry: Professional lawn-care Sports turf Golf Turf production Affiliated suppliers 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Background My background as an environmental advocate and water policy advisor has been provided to you and is a matter of record (Exhibit 1) It runs from serving two strong environmental governors –Bush and Crist, the SWFWMD, the FDACS and the environmental interests of my home, region and state for over 20 years. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Bird Nerd ©maccarrawayphotography.com 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Goal of the Presentation To offer a positive assessment of the current water- quality in SWF as it relates to nutrients. To promote evidence-based efforts to manage nutrients responsibly, consistent with critical regional water-quality goals. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage This year’s red tide. Calls for drastic action in coastal communities. So let’s address red tide briefly. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage https://venice.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3699892&GUID=5CFB2E27-4A8A-4FDF-80C1-D307427C66D3 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage The Conflicting Narratives: Things are worse now, as indicated by the 2018 red tide and therefore more fertilizer restrictions are needed; or Things are better now because the fertilizer blackouts have worked. Obviously both can’t be true at the same time and, as stated above, BOTH OF THESE ARE UNTRUE! 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage Things are NOT worse. They are definitely better now because of the decades of CWA actions by local governments, industry and agencies to manage coastal pollution. The well-documented trends in nutrient reductions and recovered estuaries started LONG before any blackouts were ever enacted (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3). Florida’s west coast is NOT considered impaired for Nitrogen loading by FDEP. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage The red tides are totally unrelated to policy making as clearly shown in the prior slide. History and science tell us they are like hurricanes –periodic, unpredictable and often very traumatic. And they will happen again. FWC red tide organism counts were consistently the HIGHEST in the coastal areas around the counties with the oldest and “strongest” blackouts –Sarasota, Manatee, and Pinellas. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage https://venice.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3699892&GUID=5CFB2E27-4A8A-4FDF-80C1-D307427C66D3 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage The blackouts passed have done nothing to materially reduce nutrient loading. Manatee County’s blackout(Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5). County provided graphs showing a “deflection point” where N was shown to decline right after the ordinance passed. Their own raw data belies any such thing on its face. A third-party peer review of the County’s methodology on the slide showed no statistical inflection or correlation whatsoever. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) Setting the Stage The blackouts passed have done nothing to materially reduce nutrient loading. The Indian River Lagoon (IRL) Activists promoted the blackouts with promises that the IRL would be just like Tampa Bay if they just passed the blackouts. Today, nothing has changed, leaving broken promises and the legacy of false hope. Septic leaching has, AS WE STATED THEN, emerged as the principal culprit in the IRL and elsewhere (Dr. Brian LaPointe). 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) A Different Take Recoveries results offer a hopeful perspective. We are doing things right: Elimination of point-source pollution Active, advanced stormwater management Beneficial use of reclaimed water Industry’s decades-long implementation of best management practices and professional licensure. THESE THINGS are what have made and will continue to make Florida’s water clean and safe. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) The Science and the Evidence What are we really worrying about? Phosphorus (P)? Nitrogen (N)? N is not just one thing. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) The Science and the Evidence Fertilizer bans only address the last one. How much is there? What about those studies? Total Nitrogen = Total Highway Traffic 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) The Science and the Evidence Only one? How can that be? Even in blackouts, exemptions for licensed lawn-care pros and BMP-trained homeowners is the trend, as are WINTER blackouts 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) The Challenge Collier County is making the effort to lead. So let’s all agree that: Promoting best practices that don’t punish the innocent is the best kind of public policy. Science and evidence need to be respected –they don’t take sides. THE PAYOFF IS IN EDUCATION AND COLLABORATION, not quick-fix regulations for the sake of politics and “just doing something”. 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) THANK YOU 2.C.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Collier County Presentation EREF Final (7896 : Environmental Effects) EXHIBIT 1 Environmental Research & Education Foundation Mac Carraway – Executive Director WATER POLICY BIO ❑ Served on SWFWMD’s Manasota Basin Board by appt of two strong environmental governors – Bush and Crist; chaired their Basin Board Education Committee. ❑ Served over 20 years on SWFWMD Ag/Green Industry Advisory Committee – Current Co-Chair. ❑ Recipient of Ag Environmental Leadership Award. ❑ Served on the Florida Chamber Water Task Force in 2005. ❑ Have been involved in the nutrient issue for 10 years+. 2.C.2 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Exhibit 1_Carraway Bio (7896 : Environmental Effects) EXHIBIT 2 THE TAMPA BAY SEAGRA SS MIRACLE Living Green Blog Posted March 18, 2016; Mac Carraway, Executive Director In three stories or editorials (May 19th 29th and 30th, 2015) the Bradenton Herald wrote about the tremendous recovery in seagrass beds in Tampa Bay – news all Floridians should be absolutely thrilled about. A reading of these pieces includes far more than a suggestion that there is a cause-and-effect connection between the seagrass bed recoveries and the fertilizer blackout component of the relevant fertilizer ordinances passed in the region (Pinellas-2010; City of Tampa-2011; Manatee-2011). Confessing that this blog advocates for the Green Industries (turfgrass, landscape, golf, sports turf, professional lawn care, etc.), and that I have strong feelings about personal property rights, I’ll defer offering my own assessment of those editorial suggestions. Instead, let me use the information offered by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) itself. The following comes from an article published on TBO.com on March 22, 2014. In that article, the TBEP was attributed as stating that 34,642 acres of seagrass beds had recovered through 2012, only 3,358 acres shy of the TBEP’s total goal of 38,000 acres. The TBEP went on to say that 1,745 of those recovered acres happened from 2010 – 2012. That means that the balance of the recovery (32,897 acres) occurred in 2009 or before. For starters, that means that 87% of the TBEP goal is indisputably UN-attributable to the fertilizer blackout policies. Stated another way, that means that 95% of the 34,642 recovered acres happened before 2010 when the first blackout was passed. Finally, that means that looking at the implementation years (passage-year plus 1) of the blackouts (Pinellas-2011; City of Tampa-2012; Manatee-2012), it is clear to see that 0% of the recovered acres could be attributable to blackout policies. Fast-forward to the TBEP’s most recent inventory of 40,295 acres of recovered seagrass beds. That is an additional 5,653 acres from the 2012 count (i.e. in 2013 and 2014). Looking again at the implementation dates, at the acknowledged fact that the blackouts are largely unenforced, at the enormous scale of the endeavor, at the relatively slow seagrass growth rates (studies of compensatory seagrass replacement suggest average density recoveries ranging from 3 to 17 years), and given the beneficial impact of the significant “side populations” of already-recovered beds, no reasonable person could say that these recoveries 2.C.3 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Exhibit 2_Tampa Bay Miracle (7896 : Environmental Effects) EXHIBIT 2 have any significant connection whatsoever to the blackout element of the fertilizer ordinances noted. In addition, you must logically say that the blackouts have not added anything material to the improvement of the bay – what was working before 2012 (pre-blackout) is simply still working. OK, so what happened then? I feel like I can express an educated opinion on this, completely apart from my involvement with the Green Industries. Having spent two terms on the SWFWMD’s Manasota Basin Board, and having been a consistent supporter in that role of the TBEP and its efforts connected with Tampa Bay, the answer is, in a way, easier than you might think. Further, the TBO.com article really makes my case. Namely that subsequent to the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, local governments and industry got seriously busy doing the right things. They quit dumping effluents in the bay, they adopted strict management techniques for stormwater and nutrient management, and they partnered with the FDEP, SWFWMD and TBEP on huge reclamation and treatment projects. And in the ensuing decades, like a battleship on a new bearing, those efforts continued, the bay started to respond, and it has picked up the glorious head of steam it now enjoys. Once again, the efforts and forces at work, worked! Kudos of the highest order to all involved. Given this information, is it simply OK now to say of the blackouts “OK, no harm, no foul”? No, no, no. There is a flagrant foul in the form of the punitive impacts on an industry that was in fact a partner in the solution. Then there is a foul in the blackout legacy that is adversely impacting other communities (e.g. the Indian River Lagoon / IRL area). Having attended numerous public hearings in that region, I heard blackout enablers say over and over and over again “Look at Tampa Bay’s recovery that happened because of their blackout ordinances – you need to do that here too”. Sadly, in spite of the Green Industry’s extensive efforts to provide the local media and local elected officials the crystal -clear facts above, some of those local governments opted to include the blackout element in their ordinances, and, in my opinion, their citizens were sold a bill of goods that the IRL was going to miraculously recover because of it. Spoiler alert – it hasn’t. The reality is that until those local governments take the hard (and expensive) steps that were taken in southwest Florida to address the real root causes, including septic reform, reclaimed water redirection, and aggressive stormwater management and treatment, the IRL is going to remain impaired. Low-hanging fruit in this issue is a myth. I lay the legacy of false hope squarely at the feet of the leadership of the blackout enablers who perpetrated a real fiction on those east coast elected officials and residents looking for ans wers. To those who say the blackouts are a means of educating the public on responsible fertilizer use, I would suggest that we try a radical approach that the 2.C.3 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Exhibit 2_Tampa Bay Miracle (7896 : Environmental Effects) EXHIBIT 2 SWFWMD has used very successfully in natural resource protection matters (in lieu of a punitive regulatory-first mentality). Wait for it – it’s called… education! I think people want to do the right things and should be given the benefit of the doubt – not a 2 x 4. Based on the TBEP data then, the informed outcome would be to repeal the blackouts or provide fair and evidence-based exemptions for professionals and BMP-trained homeowners. Short of that, they should be revisited with meaningful stakeholder workshops to get a thorough and balanced look at the science and the facts. Then having done some actual due diligence, we can come up with something a little more sophisticated than the blackouts. Isn’t that what good government is supposed to do? 2.C.3 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Exhibit 2_Tampa Bay Miracle (7896 : Environmental Effects) 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 2 of 32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Manatee County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 11-21, a residential fertilizer ordinance, in May, 2011. The goal of the regulatory program is to “. . . help improve and maintain water and habitat quality” with a focus on lawn fertilization (§2-35-2). The requirement that is arguably the most controversial is the ban on applying nitrogen-containing fertilizers during the growing season. The Manatee County Board of County Commissioners held a workshop on the ordinance March 13, 2018. At this workshop, Manatee County Department of Parks & Natural Resources staff presented slides to demonstrate that the ordinance had a beneficial impact on the environment. They purported to show that total nitrogen (TN) concentrations in surface water in two tributaries to the Manatee River began to decline when the ordinance was passed in 2011. The County presentation supported the concept that the ordinance has the net effect of improving water quality. Apparently, the trends depicted in the slides were not accompanied by rigorous statistical analyses. Further, it was not clear that TN and other related parameters analyzed are directly relevant to lawn turf fertilization. Therefore the Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF) requested this analysis of these two issues. That is the purpose of this report. RESULTS An analysis of all data available for six parameters (TN, dissolved oxygen [DO], total Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN], nitrate, nitrate-nitrite, and chlorophyll-a) indicates no improvement triggered by passage of the ordinance. All six parameters have improved in an environmentally beneficial manner over a 22 year period (1995-2017) in Rattlesnake Slough. Likewise, two key parameters improved in Nonsense Creek - - DO and chlorophyll-a - - in the same time period. Our analysis contradicted the County staff’s analysis of the trend in TN. This difference could be due to one or more of the following factors: 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 3 of 32 • The County chose to exclude data prior to 2005, whereas we used all of the available data, i.e., beginning in 1995. • The County chose to exclude “outliers” from their analysis, whereas we used all available data. • The County’s apparent lack of analysis of statistical significance in the differences between the slopes of their graphs may have hidden the possibility that there was no significant differences in the slopes, even with the large amounts of excluded data. There can be multiple causes for increases or decreases in concentrations of the six parameters. Therefore it is not clear what could have been learned about the effectiveness of the ordinance even if there were significant improvements in the six parameters after full implementation of the ordinance. The types of analyses most relevant to this issue would be for stable isotopes of the nitrogen and oxygen contained in nitrate (NO-3). 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 4 of 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................................ 5 II. METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 6 III. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 6 IV. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................ 9 A. The Relevance of the Analytical Parameters .................................................................................... 9 B. The Significance of the Trends ........................................................................................................ 10 C. Differences Between the Two Bodies of Water .............................................................................. 11 V. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX A. June 7, 2018 email from County Staff Describing Methods of Data Analysis ....................... 14 APPENDIX B. Detailed Results of Statistical Analyses of the Water Quality Monitoring Results for Six Parameters for Nonsense Creek and Rattlesnake Slough .................................................................... 16 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures 1(a) & (b). Graphs of Total Nitrogen vs. Time for Nonsense Creek and Rattlesnake Slough, Respectively, Produced by Manatee County Staff ................................................................................. 8 Figure 2. δ18O and δ15N Cross Plot with the Adjusted ‘Box’ for Manure and Septic Waste ....................... 10 Table 1. Results of Statistical Analyses of Six Water Quality Parameters for Nonsense Creek .................... 6 Table 2. Results of Statistical Analyses of Six Water Quality Parameters for Rattlesnake Slough ............... 7 Table 3. A Comparison of the Manatee County Analysis of TN Results with our Analysis of the Same Parameters ........................................................................................................................................... 11 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 5 of 32 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Manatee County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 11-21, a residential fertilizer ordinance, in May, 2011. The goal of the regulatory program is to “. . . help improve and maintain water and habitat quality” (§2-35-2). There are many components of this ordinance relating to training, fertilizer application methods, etc. The requirement that is arguably the most controversial is the ban on applying nitrogen-containing fertilizers during the growing season, specifically: “§2-35-5(a) No applicator shall apply fertilizers containing nitrogen and/or phosphorus to turf and/or landscape plants during the restricted season from June 1 through September 30.” The Manatee County Board of County Commissioners held a workshop on the ordinance March 13, 2018. At this workshop, Manatee County Department of Parks & Natural Resources staff presented slides to demonstrate that the ordinance had a beneficial impact on the environment. Two of those slides are reproduced below: Figures 1(a) and (b) purport to show that total nitrogen (TN) concentrations in surface water in two tributaries to the Manatee River began to decline when the ordinance was passed in 2011. Other parameters relevant to the County analysis include dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrate-nitrite, nitrate, chlorophyll-a, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Outliers and all data prior to 2005 were excluded, and results below the method detection limits (MDLs) were substituted with values that were 50% of the MDLs (Appendix A). The County presentation supported the concept that the ordinance has the net effect of improving water quality. However, the trends depicted in the slides were not accompanied by rigorous statistical analyses. When this analysis was done, using all available data, there was no support for the County’s position (see below). Further, it was not clear that the other parameters available for analysis are directly relevant to lawn turf fertilization. Therefore the Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF) requested this analysis of these two issues. That is the purpose of this report. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 6 of 32 II. METHODS Water quality data were obtained from Manatee County’s Water Atlas (http://www.manatee.wateratlas.USF.edu). We did not exclude any of the data from the analyses; i.e., no “outliers’ were excluded, and we included data back to 1995. The frequency of results with no detections was less than 20%; therefore the substitution method was used (US EPA 2000; US EPA 1996) whereby concentrations of 50% X the MDL substitute for sample results with no detection (the County’s approach). Results for TN, TKN, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, nitrate, and nitrate + nitrite were analyzed using the GraphPad Prism v. 7.02 statistical analysis software by GraphPad. III. RESULTS The County staff presented results for Nonsense Creek and Rattlesnake Slough that depicted a distinct inflection point - - a change from a positive slope to a negative slope for TN - - at the beginning of 2011 (Figures 1(a) & (b)). Therefore we analyzed the data two ways: we determined whether the trends in the results prior to the ordinance were significantly different than the trend in results after the ordinance, and we determined whether there were significant trends with all data for each parameter pooled together, starting with the beginning of the data set, 1995. The date we chose to seek a possible inflection point was May, 2012. This was one year after passage of the ordinance, but it was the month of final implementation. The detailed results of our analyses are included in Appendix B and summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1. Results of Statistical Analyses of Six Water Quality Parameters for Nonsense Creek Parameter Is the Trend (Slope) in the Data Prior to May, 2012 Significantly Different than the Slope after May 2012? Overall Apparent Trend of the Pooled Data Does the Slope of the Overall Trend Differ Significantly from Zero? DO No Increasing Yes TKN No Increasing No TN No Increasing No Nitrate No Increasing No Nitrate + Nitrite No Increasing No Chlorophyll-a No Decreasing Yes 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 7 of 32 Table 2. Results of Statistical Analyses of Six Water Quality Parameters for Rattlesnake Slough Parameter Is the Trend (Slope) in the Data Prior to May, 2012 Significantly Different than the Slope after May 2012? Overall Apparent Trend of the Pooled Data Does the Slope of the Overall Trend Differ Significantly from Zero? DO No Increasing Yes TKN No Decreasing Yes TN No Decreasing Yes Nitrate No Decreasing Yes Nitrate + Nitrite No Decreasing Yes Chlorophyll-a No Decreasing Yes 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 8 of 32 Figures 1(a) & (b). Graphs of Total Nitrogen vs. Time for Nonsense Creek and Rattlesnake Slough, Respectively, Produced by Manatee County Staff 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 9 of 32 IV. DISCUSSION A. The Relevance of the Analytical Parameters Dissolved oxygen (DO) and chlorophyll-a are indicators of overall system health. Higher DO is good for fish; DO concentrations below 5 mgl/L can lead to fish kills. DO concentrations drop significantly in the presence of an algal bloom, which is fueled by excess nutrients. Likewise, chlorophyll- a production - - an indicator of photosynthetic activity - - is also fueled by excess nutrients. However, impacts on DO and chlorophyll-a are not exclusively due to the lawn fertilizers that are the subject of the ordinance. Rather, there are multiple potential sources of excess nutrient contributions to aquatic systems: septic tanks and leaking sewer lines (e.g., Lapointe et al., 2015; http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/sewage.htm), animal feed lots (e.g., Burkholder et al., 2007), farms and the atmosphere (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1998), etc. TKN, TN, nitrate, and nitrate + nitrite are all parameters directly related to nitrogen-nutrient pollution. TKN consists of organic N plus ammonia, so it is most relevant to septic tanks and animal waste. TN is a combination of TKN plus nitrate/nitrite, so it is relevant to all sources of N. Nitrate/nitrite are relevant to synthetic fertilizers as well as septic tanks, etc. Thus, one cannot draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the ordinance from this suite of analytes, unless these are watersheds in the county that have lawn care as the sole source of N. So, what water parameter(s) could be analyzed that would produce data relevant to the effectiveness of the ordinance? The answer is stable isotopes of N and O. The isotopes would be 15N (the dominant, ‘normal’ form of N is 14N) and 18O (the dominant, ‘normal’ form of O is 16O). These heavier isotopes of N and O are processed in the environment slightly slower than the lighter isotopes, and they also tend to be metabolized slower. The analytical results are transformed into ratio terms called delta 15-N (δ15N) and delta 18-O (δ18O). Figure 2 illustrates how the δ15N and δ18O results could be used to discern the sources of nutrients (Kendall, 1998). Thus δ15N results that are consistently between -5 and +9 coupled with δ18O results consistently between 16 and 25 indicate the dominant source of the nitrate (NO-3) is likely synthetic fertilizers, the type used in lawn care. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 10 of 32 Figure 2. δ18O and δ15N Cross Plot with the Adjusted ‘Box’ for Manure and Septic Waste (from Kendall 1998) B. The Significance of the Trends None of the 12 data sets - - six parameters each, for two water bodies - - contains significantly different trends pre-ordinance compared with post-ordinance (Tables 1 and 2; Appendix B). An important observation is the fact that our TN analysis contradicted the TN analysis offered by the County staff at the March 13, 2018 workshop, i.e., Figures 1a and 1b. These two graphs indicate an increasing trend in TN concentrations pre-ordinance and a decreasing trend post-ordinance for both Nonsense Creek and Rattlesnake Slough, whereas our analyses indicate that the pre- and post-ordinance slopes are not significantly different (Appendix B). Thus the question arises, ‘how is it possible for two different organizations to reach radically different conclusions using the same dataset?’. The answer can be deduced from the information contained in Table 3 below. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 11 of 32 Table 3. A Comparison of the Manatee County Analysis of TN Results with our Analysis of the Same Parameters Parameters County Staff ETS/EREF Dates Analyzed 1/1/2005-2017 All data (1995-2017) Pooled data evaluated for statistical significance in the overall trend No Yes Outliers Excluded Yes No Slopes pre- and post-ordinance evaluated for statistically significant differences No Yes Basically, the County analyses provided no information about statistical significance of the trends, whereas we provide that information. Further, we analyzed all available data, and the County staff was much more selective in their choice of data to analyze. The basic conclusions regarding TN are as follows: • There are no significant differences in pre- and post-ordinance trends for both water bodies for TN or any other of the six parameters; • Over a 22 year period, there has been a statistically significant downward trend in TN in Rattlesnake Slough; and • The TN concentrations in Nonsense Creek appear to be increasing over the same 22 year period, but the trend is far from significant. C. Differences Between the Two Bodies of Water A quick look at Tables 1 and 2 reveal some interesting differences between the two bodies of water. TKN, TN, nitrate, and nitrate-nitrite appear to be increasing in Nonsense Creek, but the trends are not significant. (However, the only two trends that are significant are favorable to the environment - - DO is increasing and chlorophyll-a is decreasing.) These results contrast with Rattlesnake Slough results. Trends for all six parameters are significant, and they are all favorable to the environment. The reason for this is unknown. There are some differences in land use. The areas around both water bodies - - the watersheds - - are residential, but Nonsense Creek flows through a golf course and the Rattlesnake Slough watershed seems to include more wetland forests and ponds compared with the Nonsense 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 12 of 32 Creek watershed. However, it is not clear how these land use differences could affect time trends. V. CONCLUSIONS The TN Analysis, when done correctly, does not support the County staff’s conclusion that a decline in TN concentrations began with the passage of ordinance 11-21. In fact, the long-term trend for TN is not different from zero, no trend, for Nonsense Creek. The long-term TN trend - - since 1995 - - for Rattlesnake Slough is decreasing. Eight of the 12 parameter/water body combinations have long-term statistically significant trends that are environmentally favorable and pre-date the ordinance. The four remaining trends are not statistically significant. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 13 of 32 REFERENCES Burkholder, J., B. Libra, P. Weyer, S. Heathcote, D. Kolpin, P.S. Thorne, and M. Wichman. 2007. Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality. Environ. Health Perspect. 115(2):308-312. Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W.Howarth, A.N. Sharpley, and V.H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Ecological Applications, 8(3):559-568. Kendall, C. 1998. Tracing Nitrogen Sources and Cycling in Catchments. Chapter 16, In: Kendall, C. and J.J. McDonnell (Eds.), Isotope Tracers in Catchment Hydrology, Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam. pp. 519-576. Lapointe, B.E., L.W. Herren, D.D. Debortoli, and M.A. Vogel. 2015. Evidence of Sewage-Driven Eutrophication and Harmful Algal Blooms in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon. Harmful Algae, 43:82-102. US EPA. 2000. Assigning Values to Non-detected/Non-quantified Pesticide Residues in Human Health Food Exposure Assessments. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. US EPA. 1996. Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis. EPA/600/R- 96/084. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 14 of 32 APPENDIX A. June 7, 2018 email from County Staff Describing Methods of Data Analysis 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 15 of 32 From: "Dana Rawls" <debbie.scaccianoce@mymanatee.org> To: <mac@carrawayconsulting.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:57:02 -0400 Subject: RE: Manatee County, FL case number 12517 Dear Mr. Carraway, In response: The graphs included in the referenced BCC worksession PowerPoint Data were constructed from data available on Manatee County’s Water Atlas (http://www.manatee.wateratlas.usf.edu/). The conventions utilized with regard to data processing included the following: 1) Total Nitrogen data reported represents a summation of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Nitrite/Nitrate analyses results. 2) Parameters selected based on “Characteristic” field, to include all data for specific parameter regardless of laboratory methodology. 3) Rattlesnake Slough data represented by data from Manatee County station TS1. 4) Nonsense Creek data represented by data from Manatee County station TS7. 5) Parameters reported below method detection limits (MDL), i.e., “Non-Detect”, converted to a value represented by 50% of laboratory MDL; i.e., TKN = 0.025 mg/L and Nitrite/Nitrate = 0.01 mg/L. 6) Discard of all “J” quality assurance (QA) coded laboratory results. 7) Discard of all data outliers. Quartiles for the entire dataset (2005-2017) were calculated utilizing Excel function “Quartile.Exc” and the Inter-Quartile Range (IQR) determined (i.e., difference between 25th and 75th percentiles). Individual data points exceeding more than the IQR plus 50% (i.e., IQR multiplied by 1.5) below or above the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, were deleted from dataset. 8) All metadata information regarding the water quality data is available through the water atlas site referenced above. Respectfully, Dana Rawls Public Records Assistant Property Management 941-748-4501-Ext 6286 Dana.rawls@mymanatee.org 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 16 of 32 APPENDIX B. Detailed Results of Statistical Analyses of the Water Quality Monitoring Results for Six Parameters for Nonsense Creek and Rattlesnake Slough 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 17 of 32 Nonsense Creek Statistical Results Pre vs Post Ordinance (before and after May 21, 2012) 1. DO Are the slopes equal? F = 2.286. DFn = 1, DFd = 248 P=0.1318 R2 Pre-Ordinance = 0.01581 R2 Post-Ordinance = 0.07802 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 13.18% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals 0.0454. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 1.127. DFn = 1, DFd = 249 P=0.2894 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 28.94% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 5.622. Pooled equation: Y = 0.06607*X + 5.381; R-square: 0.04769; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.0005 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 18 of 32 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 5 10 15 20 DO D ateDO Y = 0.05267*X + 5.454 Y = -0.1822*X + 10.53 D O - P re O rdinance DO - Post Ordinance 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 19 of 32 2. TKN Are the slopes equal? F = 0.8656. DFn = 1, DFd = 331 P=0.3528 R2 Pre-Ordinance= 0.0647 R2 Post-Ordinance = 0.00682 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 35.28% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals -6.36. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 5.199. DFn = 1, DFd = 332 P=0.0232 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 2.32% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are significant. Pooled equation: Y = Y = 4.484*X + 552.2; R-square: 0.003814; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.2597 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 20 of 32 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 TKN D ate TKN Pre Ordinance TKN Post Ordinance Y = -7.541*X + 866.2 Y = 23.17*X + 67.63 3. TN Are the slopes equal? F = 0.1173. DFn = 1, DFd = 223 P=0.7323 R2 Pre-Ordinance = 0.01786 R2 Post-Ordinance = 4.699E-07 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 73.23% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals 12.54. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 6.403. DFn = 1, DFd = 224 P=0.0121 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 1.21% chance of randomly 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 21 of 32 choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are significant. Pooled equation: Y = 0.08335*X + 1051; R-square: 1.395e-006; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.9859 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 2000 4000 6000 TN D ate TN Pre Ordinance TN Post Ordinance Y = 12.97*X + 963.2 Y = -0.138*X + 962.8 4. NO3 (Note: No NO3 data after September 2013.) Are the slopes equal? F = 0.2797. DFn = 1, DFd = 230 P=0.5974 R2 Pre-Ordinance = 0.01356 R2 Post-Ordinance = 0.01088 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 59.74% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals 2.939. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 22 of 32 Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 0.0003676. DFn = 1, DFd = 231 P=0.9847 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 98.47% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 76.55. Pooled equation: Y = 2.923*X + 76.71; R-square: 0.01511; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.0604 11-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-2015-500 0 500 1000 1500 NO3 D ate Y = 2.956*X + 76.44 Y = -45.38*X + 949.6 NO3 Pre-Ordinance NO3 Post-Ordinance 5. Chl a Are the slopes equal? F = 0.1437. DFn = 1, DFd = 267 P=0.7050 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 23 of 32 R2 Pre-Ordinance = 0.02813 R2 Post-Ordinance = 0.007371 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 70.50% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals -0.2791. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 0.04437. DFn = 1, DFd = 268 P=0.8333 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 83.33% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 5.749. Pooled equation: Y = Y = -0.262*X + 5.58; R-square: 0.05894; p-value (H0: slope = 0): <0.0001 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 24 of 32 14-Sep-200313-Sep-200813-Sep-201314-Sep-201814-Sep-2023-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 C h l a D ate Chl a-Pre Ordinance Chl a-Post Ordinance Y = -0.2898*X + 5.755 Y = -0.1344*X + 3.575 6. NO3 + NO2 Are the slopes equal? F = 3.426. DFn = 1, DFd = 292 P=0.0652 R2 Pre-Ordinance = 0.0174 R2 Post-Ordinance= 0.02778 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 6.52% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not quite significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals 2.844. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 1.523. DFn = 1, DFd = 293 P=0.2181 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 21.81% chance of randomly 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 25 of 32 choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 73.45. Pooled equation: Y = 1.232*X + 93.31; R-square: 0.003632; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.3014 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 500 1000 1500 NO3 + NO2 D ate NO3+NO2 Pre-Ordinance NO3+NO2 Post-Ordinance Y = 3.472*X + 76.09 Y = -14.06*X + 389 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 26 of 32 Rattlesnake Slough Statistical Results Pre vs Post Ordinance (before and after May 21, 2012) 1. DO Are the slopes equal? F = 0.5853. DFn = 1, DFd = 305 P=0.4449 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 44.49% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals -0.01352. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 7.474. DFn = 1, DFd = 306 P=0.0066 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 0.66% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are very significant. Pooled equation: Y = 0.02603*X + 5.671; R-square: 0.01361; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.0404 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 27 of 32 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 5 10 15 DO D O - P re O rdinance DO - Post Ordinance Y = -0.01058*X + 5.917 Y = -0.08628*X + 8.174 2. TKN Are the slopes equal? F = 0.6079. DFn = 1, DFd = 352 P=0.4361 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 43.61% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals -3.199. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 0.8314. DFn = 1, DFd = 353 P=0.3625 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 36.25% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 28 of 32 Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 1046. Pooled equation: Y = -6.511*X + 1089; R-square: 0.01241; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.0356 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 TKN D ate TKN Pre Ordinance TKN Post Ordinance Y = -2.414*X + 1057 Y = -20.82*X + 1359 3. TN Are the slopes equal? F = 0.1594. DFn = 1, DFd = 237 P=0.6901 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 69.01% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals -10.48. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 0.8046. DFn = 1, DFd = 238 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 29 of 32 P=0.3706 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 37.06% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 1354. Pooled equation: Y = -13.98*X + 1395; R-square: 0.06145; p-value (H0: slope = 0): 0.0001 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 1000 2000 3000 TN D ate TN Pre Ordinance TN Post Ordinance Y = -10.09*X + 1369 Y = -21.96*X + 1532 4. NO2+NO3 Are the slopes equal? F = 2.826. DFn = 1, DFd = 291 P=0.0938 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 9.38% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not quite significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 30 of 32 The pooled slope equals -13.62. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 9.717. DFn = 1, DFd = 292 P=0.0020 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 0.20% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are very significant. Pooled equation: Y = -8.525*X + 250.8; R-square: 0.1134; p-value (H0: slope = 0): <0.0001 11-Jan-199511-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-201511-Jan-20200 500 1000 1500 NO2+NO3 D ate NO2+ NO3 Pre Ordinance NO2+ NO3 Post Ordinance Y = -14.32*X + 291.7 Y = 4.594*X + 13.62 5. NO3 (Note: No NO3 data after September 2013.) Are the slopes equal? F = 0.5262. DFn = 1, DFd = 204 P=0.4690 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 46.90% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are not significant. 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 31 of 32 Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals -13.61. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 0.473. DFn = 1, DFd = 205 P=0.4924 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 49.24% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 288.2. Pooled equation: Y = -12.93*X + 281.7; R-square: 0.1776; p-value (H0: slope = 0): <0.0001 11-Jan-200010-Jan-200510-Jan-201011-Jan-2015-500 0 500 1000 1500 NO3 D ate NO3 Pre-Ordinance NO3 Post-Ordinance Y = -13.58*X + 285.6 Y = -97.14*X + 1822 6. Chl a Are the slopes equal? F = 0.07126. DFn = 1, DFd = 295 P=0.7897 If the overall slopes were identical, there is a 78.97% chance of randomly choosing data points with slopes this different. You can conclude that the differences between the slopes are 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) Page 32 of 32 not significant. Since the slopes are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one slope for all the data. The pooled slope equals -1.067. Are the elevations or intercepts equal? F = 0.1399. DFn = 1, DFd = 296 P=0.7087 If the overall elevations were identical, there is a 70.87% chance of randomly choosing data points with elevations this different. You can conclude that the differences between the elevations are not significant. Since the Y intercepts are not significantly different, it is possible to calculate one Y intercept for all the data. The pooled intercept equals 20.71. Pooled equation: Y = -0.9619*X + 19.62; R-square: 0.06303; p-value (H0: slope = 0): <0.0001 13-Jul-200312-Jul-200812-Jul-201313-Jul-201813-Jul-2023-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 C h l a D ate Chl a-Pre Ordinance Chl a-Post Ordinance Y = -1.094*X + 20.42 Y = -0.7333*X + 16.23 2.C.4 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Exhibit 3_Manatee County Peer Review (7896 : Environmental Effects) 2.C.5 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Exhibit 4_Manatee Graph 1 of 2 (7896 : Environmental Effects) 2.C.6 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Exhibit 4_Manatee Graph 2 of 2 (7896 : Environmental Effects)