Docstoc

Fertilizer_TF_Summar.. - FCRC

Document Sample
Fertilizer_TF_Summar.. - FCRC Powered By Docstoc
					        FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

                   FACILITATOR’S SUMMARY REPORT
                        December 17, 2007 MEETING IV
                 IFAS Mid-Florida Research and Education Center
                                Apopka, Florida
                              Meeting Design & Facilitation By



                                          Quic kTime™ and a
                                TIFF (Uncompres sed) dec ompress or
                                   are needed to s ee this pic ture.




                           Report By Robert Jones and Jeff A. Blair
                       Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium (FCRC)
                                   Florida State University




Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Website: http://consensus.fsu.edu/Fertilizer-Task-
Force/index.html Florida Consensus Resolutions Consortium Website: http:// consensus.fsu.edu
                                          FLORIDA CONSUMER FERTILIZER TASK FORCE
                                                      Meeting V
                                                   December 17, 2007
                  FACILITATORS’ SUMMARY MEETING REPORT
                                 IFAS Mid-Florida Research and Education Center
                                                Apopka, Florida

                                                                       CONTENTS
COVER................................................................................................................................................................. 1
CONTENTS......................................................................................................................................................... 2
OVERVIEW OF WORKGROUP’S KEY DISCUSSIONS AND ACTIONS ......................................................... 3

FACILITATORS’ SUMMARY MEETING REPORT ......................................................................................... 5

A. WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND REVIEW OF AGENDA AND CONSENSUS PROCEDURES ....... 5

B. BRIEFING PRESENTATIONS- FUNDING OPTIONS ............................................................................. 5

C. BRIEFING PRESENTATIONS- IFAS RESEARCH .................................................................................. 9

D. BRIEFING PRESENTATIONS- INDUSTRY ESTIMATES OF IMPACT OF DACS RULE ................. 10

E. BRIEFING PRESENTATIONS- LAKE APOPKA RESTORATION ......................................................... 11

F. TASK FORCE DRAFT STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 11
1. DACS LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN TURF FERTILIZER RULE ......................................... 11
2. THE COMBINED TRAINING PROGRAM- MODIFYING THE LCLM ...................................................... 13
3. MODEL LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE ......................................................................................... 15

G. PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 28

H. NEXT STEPS AND ASSIGNMENTS ......................................................................................................... 31

Appendices..................................................................................................................................................................... 32
#1 Consumer Fertilizer Task Force December 17, 2007 Meeting Agenda ........................................................................... 32
#2 Meeting Evaluation Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 33
#3 Public Sign In and Public Comments .............................................................................................................................. 34
#4 Education Campaign and Tips- IFAS Documents ......................................................................................................... 43
#5 Principles and Mission Statement .................................................................................................................................... 47




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                                                                                    2
OVERVIEW OF TASK FORCE’S KEY DISCUSSIONS AND ACTIONS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2007
IFAS Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, Florida

Agenda Review and Task Force Plan Overview
Following are the key agenda items discussed at Meeting V:

 To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, and Workplan Schedule)
 To Hear Reports and Updates on Task Force Assigned Issues
 To Review Consumer Fertilizer Regulation, Management Strategies and Uses Recommendations
 To Hear/Discuss Topical Presentations Related to Key Task Force Issues
 To Review Public Comment Received to Date
 To Consider Funding Options Regarding Implementing Recommendations
 To Discuss and Evaluate Strategies Regarding Recommendations for Addressing Regulation,
  Management Strategies and Use of Consumer Fertilizers by Topical Areas (Five Topical Areas)
 To Discuss and Evaluate Level of Acceptability for Proposed Recommendations
 To Identify Needed Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting
 To Receive Public Comment on Task Force’s Work Product to Date

Task Force Member Attendance
Meeting V was opened at approximately 8:30 am on December 17 and the following Task Force
members attended: Mayor Jay Arend, Peter John Barile, Jerry Brooks, Richard Budell, Casey
Fitzgerald, Richard Martinez, Representative Bryan Nelson, Ron Olson, Andy Rackley, Jerry Sartain,
Karen Taylor, Commissioner Jon Thaxton
Unable to Attend: Senator David Aronberg

DACS Staff Attendance
George Hayslip

Facilitation
The meeting was facilitated by Jeff Blair and Robert Jones from the Florida Conflict Resolution
Consortium at Florida State University. Information at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/

Project Webpage:
http://consensus.fsu.edu/Fertilizer-Task-Force/index.html

Welcome and Opening
Chair Andy Rackley opened the meeting, welcomed the members to the fifth and next to last Task
Force meeting and indicated that this was an important meeting in terms of testing support for key
policies and recommendations including a draft local government model ordinance. He asked the
Task Force facilitator, Jeff Blair to take a roll call of members and review the agenda and other
procedural matters.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007             3
Agenda and Consensus Guidelines Review and Approval
The Task Force voted unanimously, 12 - 0 in favor, to approve the agenda as presented. The Task
Force voted unanimously, 10 - 0 in favor of adopting the November 14, 2007 facilitators’ summary
report.

Presentation and Discussion of Funding Options
    DACS funding sources- Rich Budell, DACS
    DEP and other funding sources- Jerry Brooks, DEP

Presentation and Discussion of IFAS Research
    IFAS Report on Research Findings- Jerry Sartain

Presentation and Discussion of Industry Estimates of Implementing DACS Rule
    Industry report- Rich Martinez

Review of Task Force Draft Strategies and Recommendations
The Task Force reviewed, proposed and ranked new options and discussed the strategies and
recommendations including a review of the provisions of the draft model ordinance.

General Public Comment
Members of the public were invited to address the Task Force. In addition, the public was
encouraged to provide written comments on the form provided in the agenda packets. 22 members
of the public addressed the Task Force and 11 members of the public provided written comments for
the Task Force’s consideration.

Adjourn
The Board voted unanimously, 11 – 0 in support, to adjourn at 5:30 PM.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007           4
A.      WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND REVIEW OF AGENDA AND NOVEMBER
        14, 2007 DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY
Chair Andy Rackley opened the meeting, welcomed the members to the fifth and next to last Task
Force meeting and indicated that this was an important meeting in terms of testing support for key
policies and recommendations including a model ordinance and criteria for stricter local government
ordinances than a statewide standard. Representative Nelson, a Task Force member, introduced Fred
Brummer, a former member of the Florida House and County Commissioner. The Chair asked the
Task Force facilitator, Jeff Blair to take a roll call of members and review the agenda and other
procedural matters.

Mr. Blair reviewed the proposed agenda with the Task Force and its was unanimously approved
after adding a requested presentation from industry on estimates for nitrogen and phosphorus
reductions under the DACS rule. The Task Force unanimously adopted the November 14
meeting summary.

Mr. Blair noted the decision rule adopted by the Task Force at their first meeting requiring 75%
support of the member present for the final report at its January, 2008 meeting and for the
recommendations and options to be included in the report. This high threshold has and will continue
to require members to work together, to make compromises without sacrificing the key interests they
each represent in refining the recommendations. He noted that the final report will include
documentation of the options that were considered for which there is more than 50% support from
the Task Force and the differences expressed. He reminded the Task Force that in order to conduct
its formal business, the Task Force requires that a quorum of seven (7) of Thirteen (13) members
must be present. 12 of the 13 members were in attendance at this meeting.


B.      BRIEFING PRESENTATIONS AND REVIEW OF FUNDING OPTIONS

1. Funding Options for Implementation of Recommendations Discussion

a. Report on DACS Fertilizer Sales Tonnage Fee Monies and Usage—Rich Budell
     DACS collects from fertilizer manufacturers. Separate assessment on N & P- $.50 a ton fee.
       Generating about $1 million annually.
     Used to fund research for development of BMPs (focusing on ag use of fertilizer). Establishment and
       maintenance of landscapes. A few early on funded turf fertilization.
     Authorized to use funds for research, education, TA, monitoring, etc.
     Funds could be used to fund implementation of TF recommendations.
     Consider what % of fees come from agriculture (@ 75%) vs. non ag (@ 25%) commercial fertilizer.
       About $250,000 a year to fund TF recommendations.
     Note that funding is very difficult/tight to do this and next year.
Member Comments
     How was $$ used to implement BMPs? Practices funded included cost-share to retrofit equipment
       with variable rate technology, real time- puts out for size of tree. Results in less fertilizer going out.
       Haven’t quantified water quality benefits.
     TF shouldn’t hesitate to make recommendations based on current budget climate/crisis.
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                 5
       $1 million- competitive grants reviewed by board? No grant program. Works with WMD and DEP
        to identify priority water sheds where TMDL problems are the largest. Cost share through contracts
        with Soil and Water Conservation Districts. They rank using USDA water quality incentives program-
        e.g. acreage to be treated, distance from water body.
       Last time it was adjusted since instituted in 1994. Started with N only. P added in 2001. $.50 fee never
        changed. 13 years.
       TF should consider adjust tonnage fee up to a CPI value to cover costs of implementation of
        recommendations.
       Does DACS use this to fund the bag program. $.75 a ton designed to cover inspection costs. This is
        on top of the .50
       Looking ahead- increasing use of non ag fertilizer? Any contingencies for what to focus on and fund
        going forward by DACS? None now. As it becomes a more important proportion of fertilizer in the
        state. DACS would be prepared to do this over time.
       DACS $.75- funding pays for those doing the sampling of fertilizers. In future, inspectors will spend
        less time on ag samples and more time on turf. Make sure consumer getting what paying for and that
        the products don’t exceed formulations in the rule. Sampling will increase and the difficulty of this
        will require a change in DACS procedures.
       Figure for domestic use fertilizer to apply a user fee? DACS Reporting requirements would allow a
        better estimate of what is turf vs. landscape. Industry has offered data on this as well. Can this be
        tapped for education?
       Industry estimates 4% of consumer fertilizer
       75/25 ag/non ag. Assume most of 25% for non ag uses. Could increase the fee across the board? Or
        adjust the proportion? Equity issues for across the board fee.
       Increase tonnage fee for non ag fertilizer?
    
b. Report on DEP Documentary Stamps Fee Monies and Usage— Jerry Brooks
     3 sources of funding for water quality.
     Doc Stamps ¼ of 1% each to DEP and to DACS (= ½ of 1%). In times of real estate market health-
      around $8 million. Estimating $6 million or less depending on the market.
     SB 444- water bill. Directs 20 million towards TMDL implementation. Comes to DEP. Transfer 3
      million to DACS for ag TMDL implementation. DEP helps local government with these funds.
     Funding cut of 2 million. Effectively $15 million on DEP today. Directed to local government for
      implementing TMDLs (with action plans). Not many yet in the state. Early in implementation. 2nd
      priority- established TMDLs, third level- identified as impaired.
     3rd source- Federal- 319- subsection of Fed Clean Water Act. Funding to states for implementing
      controls of non point sources. Florida received $7.5 in last federal fiscal year. Allocated based on
      competitive application process to local governments. Florida Yards and Neighborhoods funded out
      of 319 funding.

Member Comments
    Doc stamps @ 6 million; Legislative directive SB 444 from Doc stamps @ 15 million DEP/3 million
       DACs; Federal 319
    Does Doc stamps get ―raided‖ in past for TMDL? Not in the past except for revenue short fall.

c. Member Discussion of Funding Options

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                6
 About $30 million total. Go to the biggest pot first? Look to the tonnage fee- direct nexus, user fee
    related to the Task Force charge.
   Distinguish between research, education? What is the boundary with federal funds to spend on research
    vs. implementation of TMDLs? Federal $$ are exclusively for ―research.‖ Some flexibility for
    implementation activities. If there is a research component- can combine with education as well.
   Wouldn’t be bothered by increasing the tonnage fee for education purposes.
   Don’t base decisions on assuming non-farm is the consumer side. Non ag looked at row crops and
    separated everything else. Non farm golf course, greenhouses, nurseries. Not accurate numbers. Probably
    between 15-25% but won’t know until new reporting requirements.
   Could DACS focus funds on non ag? Currently the .75 and .50 are not mixed.
   In the short term- flexibility to address need? Internally could make a priority decision. Not the case with
    the doc stamp and SB 444 funding- clear in statute division between DEP and DACS. The N & P funds
    doesn’t have this same division.
   Need to focus on urban fertilizer issues going forward in terms of research and education?
   Hard to determine a ―reasonable‖ source of funding for exactly what we are talking about beyond
    research and education.
   Some experience with cuts in research funding recently in terms of budget cuts.
   Match the research and education needs with the availability of the sources.
   There has to be a specific dedicated fund for education?

Draft Funding Recommendation Options

i. Recommend the tonnage fee source as a dedicated fund for consumer fertilizer education and
research. A % of fee should be directed towards consumer fertilizer and education.
                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
Dec.        2007         3                7                    2                    0
initial rank
Member comments after initial rank
 Need to check with constituents to determine what the impacts may be.
 Should focus on N & P not on consumer fertilizer.
 Need to make up ground for the last 10 years- catch up.
 Lets not reduce the funding going to agriculture today. Hold this funding harmless.
 Residential arena is a difficult, complex education task- funding will be needed.
 Should say N & P fee.
 Leaving open the amount of increase leaves industry and others wondering what impact this would have.
 Might help to have the Task Force address quantification. E.g. doubling (another million in revenue) and
     direct how much of the increase to go to consumer education.

ii. DACS will determine the exact increased fee amount through a rulemaking.
                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
DACS                   4                  5                       3                      0
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                       7
rulemaking
auth.
Member comments
 Might help to have the Task Force address quantification. E.g. doubling (another million in revenue) and
   direct how much of the increase to go to consumer education.


iii. Double the per ton fee on Nitrogen and Phosphorous in fertilizer from $.50 to $1 per ton.
3rd rank- doubling   4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major              1= not acceptable
fee                                                         reservations
Dec. 2007                 4                  3                       4                   0
Member comments after ranking
 Include caveats to the legislature in terms of ―how much‖ the needs will be.
 Need to clarify where the money will be used for
 Need to get funding through user fee.
iv. Legislature should give DACS the authority to increase N &P tonnage fee cap up to $1.00 a ton.
DACS will determine the exact increased fee amount through a rulemaking.
4th rank- DACS       4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major              1= not acceptable
auth.                                                       reservations
Dec. 2007                 4                  5                       3                   0
Member comments after ranking
 This is a serious problem needs funding
 This should be addressed as a user fee?
 Agriculture
Comments before ranking
 Got to figure more clearly where we are proposing to spend the $$. Industry may be willing doing the
    educational components including media use. Research will requires a multi year program.
   Note that industry can assist with the education effort in directly communicating to consumers without
    cost to the state.
   Recommend to the legislature a dedicated funding source to focus on the needs the Task Force has
    identified for consumer fertilizer research and education.
   Recommend that DACS create a priority for addressing the consumer education and research needs with
    adjustment in the proportion of existing funds.
   Focus on issue of N & P and not ―consumer fertilizer‖ for research and education?
   Urban water quality research and education issues related to N & P? Base on % going into consumer
    fertilizer use in the future.
   Research and education- Tonnage fee be a source for funding research and education and increased
   Increase in the consumer proportion of the total?
   Increase tonnage fee for fertilizer sales and a proportion be used for education and research.
   Increase the tonnage fee on consumer N & P? Yes-5, No- 7
   Support for leaving fee as it is Yes 5, No 7


DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                       8
 Demonstrate how far behind in funding the infrastructure to meet the TMDL implementation and
  support this consumer fertilizer approach as a wise preventive measure.
 e.g. doubling it to a $1? Given most funding in recent years went to ag. For an interim period refocus on
  consumer fertilizer. Point up the storm water estimates and TMDL estimates to bolster the
  recommendation.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007            9
C.          BRIEFING PRESENTATIONS AND REVIEW OF IFAS RESEARCH
Task Force member Dr. Jerry Sartain provided information as requested by the Task Force at the November
14 meeting on several research questions. His power point presentation can be found at:
http://consensus.fsu.edu/Fertilizer-Task-Force/index.html

     1. Review of Florida Soil Map of Phosphorus Composition

FLORIDA SOILS MAP OF PHOSPHORUS COMPOSITION

ACCORDING TO SOIL MINERALOLOGIST, DR. WILLIE HARRIS, A SOILS MAP
DELINEATING THE P COMPOSITION OF FLORIDA SOILS DOES NOT EXIST.

BECAUSE: VARIABLITY OF P IN FLORIDA SOILS IS VERY HIGH AND IT IS
         DIFFICULT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO CAPTURE IN A GENERALIZED
         MAP

Dr. Sartain noted that he had sought to bring back to the Task Force a soils map of phosphorus composition
but discovered it did not currently exist and would be difficult to capture a generalized map of phosphorous
composition due to variability of P in Florida soils.

Member comments
 Data base on surface soil ph content from extension service? Requested from director of soil testing lab.
   Difficulty to determine in short term (between Nov and Dec meetings).
 Publications- fertilizer needs of turf in terms of ph. Not needed because soil it is placed in.
 Cited in science subcommittee report

     2. Report on Urea Transformation Data

 REPORT ON UREA TRANSFORMATION DATA

 IN LEACHING LYSIMETERS WITHOUT TURFGRASS

 MOST OF THE UREA WAS DETECTED IN THE FIRST LEACHATE COLLECTED
 7 DAYS AFTER APPLICATION

 NO ADDITIONAL UREA WAS DETECTED AFTER THE 14 DAY LEACHATE
 COLLECTION

 THUS, CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE UREA TRANSFORMATION WAS
 COMPLETE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF APPLICATION

     Dr. Sartain reviewed a series of charts regarding the presence of urea urea
    Form and quantity of N released from urea: These studies haven’t demonstrated urea present.
    Form and quantity of N released from polyon: Urea only present in first 14 days.
    Form and quantity of N released from SCU: Urea only present in first 14 days

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007           10
 Form and quantity of N released from slow release IBDU: Urea only present in first 14 days
 Form and quantity of N released from Nitroform: Urea only present in first 14 days
REPORT ON UREA TRANSFOMATION DATA
IN GLASSHOUSE STUDIES WHERE LEACHATES
WERE COLLECTED FROM EXPERIMENTAL UNITS SUPPORTING TURFGRASS
GROWTH
REFERENCE :FERTILIZATION AND IRRIGATION NEEDS FOR FLORIDALAWNS
AND LANDSCAPES
L.E. TRENHOLM, E.F. GILMAN, G.W. KNOX AND R.J. BLACK ENH 860 JAN 2002

His conclusion was that the studies suggested that Urea transformation was complete within 14 days.
He noted that no ammonium nitrogen was found. He also suggested the research had found that during mid
summer period when grass is growing there was little nitrogen found. Dr. Sartain drew the conclusion in
terms of urea nitrogen loss was that there was little urea with turf grass.

Member comments
 More loss with slow release products?
 Slow release product- produce same dry matter and quality in plants. 1 shot 2.5 lbs.

3. Report on Fertilizer Requirements for Landscape Plants

FERTILIZATION RATES FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTS

    BEDDING PLANTS RECEIVING WATER-SOLUABLE FERTILIZERS MAY
     NEED MONTHLY FERTILIZATIONS TO KEEP THEM IN BLOOM
    ESTABLISHED LANDSCAPE PLANTS SHOULD BE FERTILIZED AS FOLLOWS:

LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE                   AMOUNT OF N FERTILIZER
BASIC                                           0-2 LBS N/1000 sq ft/yr
MODERATE                                        2-4 LBS N/1000 sq ft/yr
HIGH                                            4-6 LBS N/1000 sq ft/yr

Dr. Sartain reviewed the recommended fertilizer rates for landscape plants including a basic, moderate or
high level of maintenance.

Member Comments
 Draft model ordinance- don’t exceed P rate of 1. No rate of P is recommended in publication. P content
   of fertilizer should be 0-2%? This refers to N not P.

D.      INDUSTRY ESTIMATE OF PHOSPHOROUS/NITROGEN REDUCTION-DACS URBAN
        TURF RULE
Rich Martinez, Task Force member offered the following industry estimates
 July 2006-07- how much on home lawns
 DACs rule- restriction on 1.1.1 products. Previously constituted 60% of all Phosphorus in fertilizers.

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007            11
    Industry expects a 60-70% total phosphorus reduction from the implementation of the DACS rule. In
     addition, DACS will be able to document with the new required reporting procedures very accurately.
    Expect a 20-25% reduction in nitrogen applied to lawns.
    The industry believes this represents a very significant and positive change.

Member comments
 Can industry share how they computed this with staff? Yes
 Based on pounds of products applied/sold.
 Lawn care company- only consumer fertilizer. But lawn care companies doing BMPs.
 Rich will send to Jeff Blair- ask Peter and the subcommittee look at. Ask DACS to look at it.
 Will the 1-1-1 be used for other than turfs?
 Assumptions: consumer research for usage %. 80% use is on lawns. Looked at tonnage and consumer
   research. In future 1-1-1 will go down dramatically as we track.

E.       BRIEFING PRESENTATION ON LAKE APOPKA RESTORATION

Casey Fitzgerald, St. Johns River Water Management District and Task Force member provided the Task
Force with a presentation on the history of restoration efforts on Lake Apopka and the Harris Chain of
Lakes in the Upper Ocklawaha basin. His power point presentation can be found at:
http://consensus.fsu.edu/Fertilizer-Task-Force/index.html. The IFAS meeting facility at Lake Apopka where the
Task Force met, was established to help support these efforts. In concluding the presentation, Mr. Fitzgerald
noted that the SWIM (Surface Water Improvement and Management Act) Program has:

        Resulted in significant, documented water quality and habitat improvements on regional, ecosystem
         level
        Paved the way for TMDL and BMAP development
        Demonstrated that extensive nutrient source control was essential for success (e.g. a 75% P reduction
         was necessary for Lake Apopka recovery); and
        Provided a firm foundation for determining the most cost effective, albeit expensive, solutions to
         meet the TMDL challenge.

 Members in comments following the presentation noted that prevention efforts, such as controlling
 consumer fertilizer, is far less expensive than $ ¼ billion spent to date on the restoration of these chain of
 lakes.

F.       DRAFT TASK FORCE STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force reviewed and discussed the following draft strategy statements that had been
developed, reviewed and refined at the November 14 meeting.

Draft 12-07 Task Force Strategy Statement
1. The Task Force expressed support for the current DACS labeling requirements for urban
turf fertilizers rule, Rule 5E-1.003(2), on the basis that the rule is based on the best available
science at the time of promulgation, and recommends that the Rule serve as the statewide
guideline for formulations, with the understanding that the formulations will be reviewed and
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                12
revised if necessary, based on updated science. Research is currently being conducted by
IFAS to quantify nutrient leaching in lawn grasses. This DEP funded turf nutrient leaching
research will provide the best available science under which to review the DACS Rule’s
labeling requirements for urban turf fertilizers, including the prescribed application rates of
nitrogen and phosphorus for sustaining turf grass and minimizing or preventing leaching.

Members discussed the level of agreement on whether the Task Force supported the DACS rules as
based on the best available science at the time of its promulgation. Peter Barile reviewed his
comments circulated to members in advance of the meeting:

        ―The above statement states that the Task Force support for the current DACS labeling
        requirements and the Urban Turf Rule are on the basis that the rule represents the best
        available science. The consensus statement of research findings by the Task Force Science
        subcommittee indicates that with respect to phosphorus, the Urban Turf Rule is not
        supported by the best available science from IFAS. Specifically, under a fertilization regime that
        falls within the proposed Urban Turf Rule, peer-reviewed published IFAS research results
        indicate ~40% leaching of P in experimental trials using St. Augustine turf. Per the concern
        of the legislature to Commissioner Bronson with respect to the sensitivity of the Lake
        Okeechobee/ Everglades system to even minor phosphorus contamination, the Urban Turf
        Rule with respect to phosphorus limits is not acceptable. Per the IFAS consensus statement
        that ―one should only apply P [to turf] when it is recommended based on a soil test,” the
        Urban Turf Rule should mandate a ―no‖ phosphorus mandate for urban turf applications
        (with exception to the small proportion of areas in FL deficient in soil P), and a ―low‖
        application rate (which is the current rate in most FL turf fertilizers) for ―starter‖ turf
        fertilizers.

        Another item in the rule that task force members have taken issue with (Thaxton leading) is
        the lack of rationale in the environmental cautionary statement…ie lack of language such as:
        ―Misapplication of fertilizers can contribute to water pollution and degrade water quality‖

Member comments
 The treatment of phosphorous may need changes in light of the Science Subcommittee’s review
   of best available science and
 ―Low ph‖ in rule would lead to a 40% leaching rate.
 Low should be zero ph.
 We should use ―best available‖ peer reviewed science as the basis for our recommendations.
 Turf rule based on calculations related to plant and growth rate of the grass not on the soil.
 Ericson- used sand high in phosphorous.
 Grass needs ½ lb.
 IFAS consensus apply P when it is recommended based on a soil test.
 Rule- ―no or low phosphate‖ Rule states no phosphorus in the rule (2b).
 Understand that industry wants consistency and least cost solutionswith ordinance and the rule
   but concerned about a 1 size fits all approach.
 The Task Force might consider the Minnesota approach- zero phosphorous law. Local
   governments could sign up. This is a multi billion $$ issue in the state.


DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                  13
   Consider a zero phosphorous level and leave the N the way it is in the DACS rule- this was a
    compromise with a modest slow release component.
   Minnesota’s law states ―you may not apply Ph but this is defined as up to .68. DACS rule allows
    only up to .5 There will always going to be a Ph in the bag due to tolerance- .5 in Fl, .68 in MN.
   Low Ph is only allowed on new turf in the DACS rule.
   Science subcommittee- reference to the Minnesota law and rule? .68% = no phosphorous.
   Didn’t count the tons of 888, 666 101010. Get rid of these?
   Under the rule- 82% reduction is possible. No recommendations for turf, no rate settings.
   Address 1-1-1 situation. 60-70%. What’s left the products will be applying it at ¼ of the rule.
    Arguing about the last 15% of Ph. In Minnesota, you can apply 1 lb to a new lawn.
   DACS rule- low vs. no P fertilizer. ―new or established lawns‖? .25 lbs per 1000 square feet, per
    application and .5 per year. E.g. 12-12-12. It will apply 1 lb of Ph. .08 will become the
    predominant turf product. There will soon be zero P in marketplace.
   Relating % composition vs. the application rate. What % P in fertilizer? DACS rule addresses P
    only in the context of new established lawn. Clarify that Low is only as a starter and no for
    established lawn.
   How much Ph is going out per 1000 square feet?
    Follow the Minnesota bill- zero P unless you do a soil test. This involves the issue of application.
    Take out over application issue? You would have to over apply five times to even get to the
    DACS rule.
   The Experience with soil sample programs elsewhere is that no one does it. $10. 100 tests and
    500 consumers submitted the tests.
   If you take the P out, you may undermine a healthy turf grass and increase leaching?

December 17 Option
Pass legislation for zero phosphorous unless you demonstrate a need through a soil test
(modeled after the Minnesota approach). Leave N in the DACS rule as is.

Initial straw poll: Support proposed change: 3 yes, 9 no

                    4=acceptable     3= minor reservations   2=major             1= not acceptable
                                                             reservations
December 17.              3                     1                     4                  4

Member Comments after Ranking
 Pierce rule with one opens it up?
 Fl is more restrictive than MN.
 The Task Force can’t second guess the work done over 2 years. We would need to take the time
   to review all calculations.
 Fl has a strong rule- based on ―good science‖ and what is required by grass.
 Missing semantics in the Florida rule? Regulating down to no Ph for the average application.
 No Ph except for….demonstrable need or new turf.
 Not an out of hand restriction-No Ph unless you do a soil test and demonstrate you need it.
 DACS Rule now says no P?

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   14
Draft 12-07 Task Force Strategy Statement
2. The Task force addressed applications through expansion of LCLM certification and
additional authority to require all commercial applicators to have the certification.
 The Task Force supports the Combined Training Program: modifying existing LCLM to
    include fertilizer BMP’s and adding BMP’s and updates to continuing education
    requirements; and,
 Modify Chapter 482 to authorize DACS to require limited certification for those who only
    apply fertilizer commercially.

The Task Force discussed the LCLM certification and Peter Barile reviewed his comments and
suggestion circulated to members in advance of the meeting:

        ―Per the comment of Mr. Michael Holsinger, a 20 yr. IFAS extension agent and an approved
        DACS trainer for the current limited certification (LCLM) for commercial landscape
        maintenance, the follow training modifications should be considered. The current training is
        six hours plus a test, and the test fee is $150. The training fee for providers like the
        Landscape Maintenance Association is $100. That’s $250. The number of practitioners
        trained is less than 5% of those out there applying Roundup in landscapes. The number
        passing the test is significantly less than the number trained. Adding the fertilization training
        to this would increase the training hours to at least eight hours total, maybe more, plus
        another test, or major addition to the existing test. The cost would likely also increase. The
        bottom line is that it is way to onerous for the fertilizer applicators, way to costly and WILL
        NOT result in the amount of trained applicators that we need. There is also the issue of local
        ordinance requirements, and how that would be handled. There is also no provision for
        institutional applicators to receive the training.

        Even the existing Green Industry BMP training managed under IFAS (Laurie Trenholm)
        leaves a lot to be desired. This training has resulted in a total of about 2500 or so people
        trained in two plus years…way too low. And it is too long as well, and does not focus that
        much on fertilization.

        Here is an alternative, as presented by Mr. Holsinger, that should be discussed by the Task
        Force:
        A ONE-HOUR TRAINING PROGRAM FOLLOWED BY A BASIC TEST FOCUSING
        JUST ON FERTILIZATION BMPS. The program should be done in power point and be
        visually oriented, showing good and bad practices, results of pollution, and explaining the
        rationale for the BMPs relating to fertilization as well as local ordinance requirements. This
        should be made available through all county extension offices, the Landscape Maintenance
        Association, Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association, and individual Counties
        and Municipalities. It should also be available on the WEB with a tutorial and a way to take
        the test. It should be inexpensive. If DACS would like to provide a limited certification for
        the above, great. THE OBJECTIVE AND THE NEED EDUCATIONALLY IS TO
        TRAIN AS MANY PRACTICIONERS AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THE MAJORITY
        APPLYING FERTILIZERS ARE TRAINED AND CERTIFIED. The one-hour program
        could be quickly and easily developed by IFAS extension specialist, Dr. Sydney Park Brown,
        and/ or other IFAS landscape education specialists.

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                15
Member Comments
    What about a shorter, more accessible course focused on fertilizer applicators only?
    Need to do this in Spanish as well
    Focus on getting the key messages to lots of applicators
    Amend 482, so DACS can require and license/certify fertilizer applicators only.
    ―Train the trainer‖ approaches so the effort won’t be that every applicator in the field is
       certified.
    Shorter more accessible course needs to be developed.
    Need industry buy in on this.
    IFAS training program. Reasonable model?
    DACS with the appropriate authority could issue license following training?
    The curriculum will be the same for fertilizer applicators whether delivered in the LCLM
       certification or in a short course version.
    Link with model ordinance and with IFAS vs. getting the change in statute. Problem with
       enforcement.
    This will be a very large increase in #s licensed.
    Educational requirements for fertilizers will be the same for both the LCLM and for the
       limited certification for the fertilizers.
    Did group consider the IFAS Green Industry training as a way to inform this. Should be as
       comprehensive as what is provided through IFAS (6 hour).
    Include those curriculum components from the IFAS Green BMPs that address fertilizer
       application.
    Include those curriculum components from the IFAS Green Industry BMPs that address
       fertilizer application.
    If there are model ordinance provisions that aren’t covered in the Green Industry BMPs need
       to identify areas.

Additional Option
Require training equal to and inclusive of certification under the IFAS Green Industry BMPs.
DACS would test and enforce the license.
                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
December 17.           7                  4                       1                      0


Draft 12-07 Task Force Strategy Statement
3. Use rates are addressed through the DACS urban turf labeling Rule and BMP’s, and the
model ordinance approach as well as through the training and education recommendations.

Draft 12-07 Task Force Strategy Statement
4. Adopt in state law a model ordinance for municipalities and counties concerning the use
of nonagricultural fertilizer for use by local governments who choose to adopt an ordinance.
Local Government can adopt additional or more stringent provisions to the model ordinance
provided the local government can demonstrate:

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   16
   They have verified impaired waters and are facing possible TMDL requirements
    (under state and federal laws).
   They have verified harm to human health or harm to the environment that warrants
    additional consumer fertilizer requirements.
   That they will improve water quality and prevent future impacts of consumer fertilizers
    on the environment.

Task Force members reviewed the draft model ordinance and proposed options for consideration
and ranking. At the outset members discussed the fact that the ordinance had been drafted at the
Task Force’s request as a starter document by representatives from DEP and Sarasota County. The
ordinance, as a whole, had never formally ranked or adopted by the Task Force. The Chair agreed
that it should not take a 75% vote of the members to delete any provision, rather proposed that any
member could ask that a provision be ranked for its acceptability and it would require a 75% support
of the members to remain in the draft. Unless the members raised concerns with any of the
provisions, it would be assumed that the language was acceptable going forward for the Task Force.

          FLORIDA FRIENDLY FERTILIZER USE ON URBAN LANDSCAPES
                           MODEL ORDINANCE

INTRODUCTION
The attached model Fertilizer Use ordinance is another tool to reduce sources of nutrients coming
from urban landscapes to reduce the impact of nutrients on Florida’s surface and ground waters.
However, restricting fertilizer use by itself will not minimize the impacts of nutrients from urban
landscapes. Local governments are advised they should also review their existing Land Development
Regulations to assure they promote ―Low Impact Design‖, which minimizes clearing of natural
vegetation and the compaction of urban soils. A Model Springs Protection Code is being developed
by DCA, DEP, and other stakeholders that will include specific Land Development Regulation
recommendations that promote Low Impact Design. This Model Code will be available in 2008.

Additionally, landscape design is a major determinant in the amount of fertilizer and irrigation that is
needed to maintain healthy urban landscapes and minimize adverse impacts on water resources. A
model Landscape Ordinance entitled ―Guidelines for Model Ordinance Language for Protection of
Water Quality and Quantity Using Florida Friendly Lawns and Landscapes‖ was developed by a
group of agencies, industries, and interest groups over a two year period. It is fundamentally an
adaptation of earlier water conservation ordinances revised to include water quality protections for
compliance with TMDL and NPDES requirements. The language focuses on continuing education
of lawn care and landscape professionals, proper planning and oversight during development and
construction, and the use of best management practices, including the Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods Program. This model ordinance may be downloaded from:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm#Model%20Ordinances.

Finally, the 2004 Florida Legislature directed Florida’s water management districts to work with
interested parties to develop landscape irrigation and Florida-Friendly design standards for new
construction (section 373.228, F.S.). Local governments are to use the standards and guidelines when
developing landscape irrigation and Florida-Friendly ordinances. The Committee on Landscape
Irrigation and Florida-Friendly Design Standards convened and developed the standards. They are
published in a booklet called Landscape Irrigation and Florida Friendly Design Standards (December
2006). This document can be downloaded from:
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                17
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/land_irr.htm

1. FINDINGS
As a result of impairment to (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY)’S surface waters caused by excessive
nutrients under the Florida Impaired Waters Rule, or, as a result of increasing levels of nitrogen in the
surface and/or ground water within the aquifers or springs within the boundaries of
(municipality/county) the governing body of (municipality / county) has determined that the use of
fertilizers on lands within (municipality / county) create a particularly high risk to contributing to
adverse effects on surface and/or ground water. Accordingly, the governing board of
(municipality/county) finds that more restrictive measures than are otherwise required by the most
recent edition of the ―Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in
Florida, June 2002,”, shall be required by this ordinance.

2. PURPOSE AND INTENT
This Ordinance regulates the proper use of Fertilizers by any Applicator; requires proper training of
Commercial and Institutional Fertilizer Applicators; establishes training and licensing requirements;
establishes a Prohibited and Restricted Application Period; specifies allowable fertilizer application
rates and methods, fertilizer-free zones, low maintenance zones, and exemptions. The Ordinance
requires the use of Best Management Practices which provide specific management guidelines to
minimize negative secondary and cumulative environmental effects associated with the misuse of
Fertilizers.    These secondary and cumulative effects have been observed in and on
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY)’s natural and constructed stormwater and drainage conveyances,
rivers, creeks, canals, springs, lakes, estuaries and other water bodies. [Guidance: as appropriate]
Collectively, these water bodies are an asset critical to the environmental, recreational, cultural and
economic well-being of (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) residents and the health of the public.
Overgrowth of algae and vegetation hinder the effectiveness of flood attenuation provided by natural
and constructed stormwater and drainage conveyances. Regulation of nutrients, including both
phosphorus and nitrogen contained in Fertilizer, will help improve and maintain water and habitat
quality.

3. DEFINITIONS
For this Article, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this section unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise.

―Administrator‖ means the (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Administrator, or an administrative
official of (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) government designated by the City/County
Administrator to administer and enforce the provisions of this Article.

―Application‖ or ―Apply‖ means the actual physical deposit of Fertilizer to Turf or Landscape Plants.

―Applicator‖ means any Person who applies Fertilizer on Turf and/or Landscape Plants in
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY).

―Board or Governing Board‖ means                  the    Board    of   City/County      Commissioners      of
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY), Florida.



DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                    18
―Best Management Practices‖ means turf and landscape practices or combination of practices based on
research, field-testing, and expert review, determined to be the most effective and practicable on-location
means, including economic and technological considerations, for improving water quality, conserving water
supplies and protecting natural resources.

December 17 Option
    Replace the current BMP definition and replace with the following definition:
    ―Best Management Practices‖ (BMP) means turf and landscape practices outlined in the
    document i.e. BMP’s, for the ―Enhancement of Environmental Quality on Florida Golf
    Courses‖, published by Florida Department of Environmental Protection, dated January 2007 as
    referenced in rule 5E-1.003(2) and Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources
    in Florida, June 2002, Florida Green Industries as referenced in 5E-1003(2).

Member’s Comments and Reservations (December 2007):
    This was a proposal from Andy Rackley regarding the BMP definition circulated in the draft
       member comments to the Model Ordinance draft.
    Does this relate to other sections in the document (e.g exemptions for golf courses).
    Specifically limiting BMPs to the 2 adopted by DACS.
    Check if any reference to BMP that doesn’t have this statutory and rule reference. If not, then
       delete this definition.
    Agreed to leave the definition as proposed.

―Code Enforcement Officer, Official, or Inspector‖ means any designated employee or agent of
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) whose duty it is to enforce codes and ordinances enacted by
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY).

―Commercial Fertilizer Applicator‖ means any Person who applies Fertilizer on Turf and/or
Landscape Plants in (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) in exchange for money, goods, services or
other valuable consideration.

―Fertilize,‖ ―Fertilizing,‖ or ―Fertilization‖ means the act of applying Fertilizer to Turf, specialized
Turf, or Landscape Plant.

―Fertilizer‖ means any substance or mixture of substances, except pesticide/fertilizer mixtures such
as ―weed and feed‖ products, that contains one or more recognized plant nutrients and promotes
plant growth, or controls soil acidity or alkalinity, or provides other soil enrichment, or provides
other corrective measures to the soil. [Guidance: Regulation of pest control businesses and applicators, and of
pesticide use, is preempted to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) by Chapters
482.242, and 487.051 (2), F.S. and suspected pesticide misuse should be reported to FDACS. Weed and feed
products are registered pesticides. The Limited Commercial Landscape Maintenance Certification Program does not
allow landscape maintenance workers to make any kind of pesticide applications (including weed control and/or weed
and feed products) to any turf areas. Per 482.165(3) F.S., the penalty for unlicensed application of pesticides,
including weed and feed products, may not be less than $500 or more than $5,000 for each offense. ]

―Guaranteed Analysis‖ means the percentage of plant nutrients or measures of neutralizing capability
claimed to be present in a Fertilizer.

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                       19
―Institutional Applicator‖ means any Person, other than a non-commercial or commercial Applicator
(unless such definitions also apply under the circumstances), that applies Fertilizer for the purpose of
maintaining Turf and/or Landscape Plants. Institutional Applicators shall include, but shall not be
limited to, owners and managers of public lands, schools, parks, religious institutions, utilities,
industrial or business sites and any residential properties maintained in condominium and/or
common ownership.

―Landscape Plant‖ means any native or exotic tree, shrub, or groundcover (excluding Turf).

―Low Maintenance Zone‖ means an area a minimum of six (6) feet wide adjacent to water courses
which is planted and managed in order to minimize the need for fertilization, watering, mowing, etc.

―Pasture‖ means land used for livestock grazing that is managed to provide feed value.

―Person‖ means any natural Person, business, corporation, limited liability company, partnership,
limited partnership, association, club, organization, and/or any group of people acting as an
organized entity.

―Prohibited Application Period‖ means the time period during which a Flood Watch or Warning, or
a Tropical Storm Watch or Warning, or a Hurricane Watch or Warning, or a 3-day Cone of
Uncertainty is in effect for any portion of (CITY/COUNTY), issued by the National Weather
Service.

December 17 Option for ―Prohibited Application Period
Uncertainty is in effect for any portion of (CITY/COUNTY), issued by the National Weather
Service, or if heavy rain is expected.

                   4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                1= not acceptable
                                                          reservations
December 17.            8                  3                       0                     0

4-8      3-3     2-0    1-0

December 17 Option for Deleting ―Prohibited Application Period
―Restricted Application Period‖ means the rainy season period between June 1 and
September 30.

                   4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                1= not acceptable
                                                          reservations
December 17.            4                  2                       2                     4

Member’s Comments and Reservations before Ranking (December 2007):
     No science evidence to support the restrictions during the summer month turf growth period.
     DACS urban turf rule- ―don’t apply when rain is expected.‖
     100 year record of rainfall- those dates have expectation of rain in Southwest/Sarasota.
     Slow release fertilizers- address nitrogen needs over the summer?
     Need to apply ―threshold level‖ 5/10 of a pound of soluble N to see a response.

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   20
   Turf is best plant to absorb nutrients and prevent leaching.
   If you don’t feed golf/athletic field during summer. Won’t have a lawn in Fall.
   Future research needs- truly mature grasses 5-10 years vs. fresh sod in terms of leaching?
   Is it premature to put in ordinance if studies are in process.
   If turf grass is unhealthy going into the dry season- will water in fertilizer when grass is least
    capable of taking it up.
   Interested in protecting the resource- not just grass.
   Research on fertilizer leaching and runoff- occur with over irrigation and rainfall. Slow release
    appears to work effectively to keep turf greens. Getting P & N in rainfall.
   Nutrient loading coincides with rain events. What is causing the differences between observations
    of leaching and scientific tests show little or no leaching?
   Need to restrict application during this period? How to address citizens mishandling of the
    fertilizer.
   Avoid rain but not the rainy season.
   Can still use the manganese and 1 application of slow release.
   Come up with a county training and certification program for homeowners? How could this be
    provided? Internet program site- go through simplified curriculum of what they need to be aware
    of, with online test- get certification for applying fertilizers.

 ―(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Approved Best Management Practices Training Program‖ means
a training program approved by the (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Administrator that includes at a
minimum, the most current version of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s
“Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida, June 2002,” as
revised and any more stringent requirements set forth in this Article.

―Slow Release,‖ ―Controlled Release,‖ ―Timed Release,‖ ―Slowly Available,‖ or ―Water Insoluble
Nitrogen‖ means nitrogen in a form which delays its availability for plant uptake and use after
application, or which extends its availability to the plant longer than a reference rapid or quick release
product.

―Specialized Turf Manager‖ means a Person responsible for Fertilizing or directing the Fertilization
of a golf course or athletic field. [Guidance: Some ordinances exempt only publicly owned facilities. Athletes
using fields at private schools, colleges, etc. are also at risk if fields are not properly maintained.]

―Turf,‖ ―Sod,‖ or ―Lawn‖ means a piece of grass-covered soil held together by the roots of the grass.

4. APPLICABILITY
This Ordinance shall be applicable to and shall regulate any and all Applicators of Fertilizer and areas
of application of Fertilizer within the area of (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY), unless such
Applicator is specifically exempted by the terms of this Ordinance from the regulatory provisions of
this Ordinance.          This Ordinance shall be prospective only, and shall not impair any existing
contracts. [Guidance: Florida Statues 125.568(3), 166.048(3), and 373.185(3) provided that a deed restriction
or covenant entered after October 1, 2001, or local government ordinance, may not prohibit any property owner from
implementing Xeriscape or Florida-friendly landscape practices on his or her land. Any restrictions created after this
date are void.]

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                           21
December 17 Option
Add as a last sentence, prior to Guidance: This Model Ordinance shall be retroactive to January 15,
2008 and shall supersede existing ordinances addressing fertilizer content, sale and/or use.
                  4=acceptable      3= minor reservations   2=major              1= not acceptable
                                                            reservations
Dec. 17 2007           1                     8                       1                   2
Member’s Comments and Reservations (December 2007):
 ―Sound science‖ in the eyes of the beholder?
 Already passed the provision-in the strategy related to criteria.
 How would the criteria work with existing ordinances?
 Retroactive wasn’t addressed in the intro statement agreed to?
 People will be waiting to see what the legislature does before passing additional new fertilizer
   ordinances.
 If this is a ―model‖ then would local government.
 If there is an ordinance already in place, could it retain its strengthening.
 No local government can adopt that are more stringent.
 If the model ordinance is passed as state law, it would apply.
 If adopt, this will be internally inconsistent
 What if an ordinance already adopted is a weak ordinance? E.g. Wellington, Crystal River.

December 17 Option
Within XX months of the passage of the legislation, all local governments with existing
ordinances will revise them to be consistent with the model ordinance.
                  4=acceptable      3= minor reservations   2=major              1= not acceptable
                                                            reservations
Dec. 17 2007           2                     6                       2                   1
    Member comments after ranking
        None

5. TIMING OF FERTILIZER APPLICATION
No Applicator shall apply Fertilizers containing nitrogen and/or phosphorus to Turf and/or
Landscape Plants during the Prohibited Application Period. During the Restricted Application
Period only one application of nitrogen and/or phosphorus, via a slow release fertilizer, may be made
to existing Turf or Landscape Plants. [Guidance: Iron, manganese, and other non-polluting micronutrients,
may be applied to improve turf color and health.]

Member comment in draft model ordinance circulated in advance of the meeting
―This proposal suggests a rationale for striking the restricted application period provision and is consistent
with the proposal above: The proposed Restricted Application Period is not required and is not supported by
Agronomic data, environmental fate data, or consumer use and usage data. The model ordinance must be
founded on sound scientific principals and data. University of Florida research data that served as the
foundation of the use rate limitations and fertilizer content requirements in Rule 5E-1.003(2) (the ―Rule‖) is
based on research conducted throughout the ―rainy season‖ or Restricted Application Period. The Rule
addresses this period of heavy rainfall and provides for use rates that are protective of the environment
across the entire state of Florida.‖
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   22
December 17 Option
Strike: ―During the Restricted Application Period only one application of nitrogen and/or
phosphorus, via a slow release fertilizer, may be made to existing Turf or Landscape Plants.
                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
Dec. 2007              6                  2                       1                      3

Member’s Comments and Reservations before Ranking (December 2007):
   No science evidence to support the restrictions during the summer month turf growth period.
   DACS urban turf rule- ―don’t apply when rain is expected.‖
   100 year record of rainfall- those dates have expectation of rain in Southwest/Sarasota.
   Slow release fertilizers- address nitrogen needs over the summer?
   Need to apply ―threshold level‖ 5/10 of a pound of soluble N to see a response.
   Turf is best plant to absorb nutrients and prevent leaching.
   If you don’t feed golf/athletic field during summer. Won’t have a lawn in Fall.
   Future research needs- truly mature grasses 5-10 years vs. fresh sod in terms of leaching?
   Is it premature to put in ordinance if studies are in process.
   If turf grass is unhealthy going into the dry season- will water in fertilizer when grass is least
    capable of taking it up.
   Interested in protecting the resource- not just grass.
   Research on fertilizer leaching and runoff- occur with over irrigation and rainfall. Slow release
    appears to work effectively to keep turf greens. Getting P & N in rainfall.
   Nutrient loading coincides with rain events. What is causing the differences between observations
    of leaching and scientific tests show little or no leaching?
   Need to restrict application during this period? How to address citizens mishandling of the
    fertilizer.
   Avoid rain but not the rainy season.
   Can still use the manganese and 1 application of slow release.
   Review of rainy season/rainfall driving more leachate runoff. Problem with not going with peer
    reviewed science.

Member Discussion Following Ranking
   Concern that the Task Force didn’t formally adopt the restriction that a majority are supporting
    the deletion.
   During 4 month period- changing 1 application to a slow release scenario.
   5 year provision? Change when research is presented.
   For industry this is a deal breaker- give and take. What we know about science. If data shows
    something different.
   St. Augustine lawns may not fare will with this. Others might.
   Note that leaching increased in September/October for Bermuda grass.
   If we include restrictive period.
   Requirement for homeowner certification- alternative to a restrictive period. Conclusion is that
    this may be due to misapplication.

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   23
   Concern about changing the process- mid stream on the ordinance.
   The ones not supported by science are deal breakers for Jerry S.

December 17 Option
Allow for a county training and certification program for homeowners as an alternative to a
restricted period for application of consumer fertilizer.
                    4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                           reservations
Dec. 2007                 0                  3                       4                      5
Member Comments
 This may not be practical-no regulation/licensing of other pesticides.
 How could this be provided? Internet program site- go through simplified curriculum of what
   they need to be aware of, with online test- get certification for applying fertilizers.

6. FERTILIZER CONTENT AND APPLICATION RATES
 (a) Fertilizers Applied to Turf and/or Landscape Plants within (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY)
shall be applied in accordance with directions provided by Rule 5E-1.003(2), Florida Administrative
Code, Labeling Requirements For Urban Turf Fertilizers.
[Guidance: The requirement that specialty fertilizers such as 50% Slow Release Nitrogen per Guaranteed Analysis
Label be used should be justified by site specific conditions within the jurisdiction]

December 17 Option
Delete: [Guidance: The requirement that specialty fertilizers such as 50% Slow Release
Nitrogen per Guaranteed Analysis Label be used should be justified by site specific
conditions within the jurisdiction]

Keep guidance       4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                           reservations
Dec. 2007                 2                  0                       3                      6

December 17 Option
(a) Fertilizers Applied to Turf and/or Landscape Plants within (MUNICIPALITY /
    COUNTY) shall be formulated and applied in accordance with requirements and
    directions provided by Rule 5E-1.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, Labeling
    Requirements For Urban Turf Fertilizers.
                    4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                           reservations
Dec. 2007                11                  0                       0                      0

December 17 Option
Delete ―should‖ and insert ―should‖
(b) Fertilizers should shall be applied to Turf and/or Landscape Plants at the lowest rate necessary…
                    4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                           reservations
Dec. 2007                11                  0                       0                      0

            Fertilization Guidelines for Established Turfgrass Lawns in Three Regions of Florida

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                      24
                                     Nitrogen recommendations
                                       (lbs N / 1000 ft2 / year)*
                       Species                 North Central South
                 _________________________________________________
                       Bahia grass 2-3         2-4     2-4
                 _________________________________________________
                       Bermuda grass           3-5     4-6      5-7
                       Centipede grass         1-2     2-3      2-3
_                _________________________________________________
                       St. Augustine grass     2-4     2-5      4-6
                 _________________________________________________
                       Zoysiagrass             3-5     3-6      4-6
                 _________________________________________________

*North Florida is north of Ocala. Central Florida is defined as south of Ocala to a line extending
from Vero Beach to Tampa. South Florida includes the remaining southern portion of the state.

(c) For new turf or landscape plants that are being installed or established, a one-time use of starter
fertilizer as described in Rule 5E-1.003 shall be allowed at an application rate not to exceed 1.0 lb of
P2O5/1,000 ft2.
(d) No phosphorus Fertilizer shall be Applied to existing Turf and/or Landscape Plants within
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) at application rates which exceed 0.25 lbs. P2O5/1,000 ft2 per
application nor exceed 0.50 lbs. P2O5/1,000 ft2 per year,

(e) Nitrogen or phosphorus Fertilizer may not be applied to turf or landscape plants except as
provided above unless a soil or tissue deficiency has been verified by an approved soil test.

December 17 Option
Delete ―soil‖
…provided above unless a soil or tissue deficiency has been verified by an approved soil test.
                    4=acceptable     3= minor reservations    2=major                  1= not acceptable
                                                              reservations
Dec. 2007                11                    0                         0                      0


 [Additional Guidance: Soil and tissue tests for phosphorus are normally done by UF/IFAS or another
accredited laboratory. FDEP has sponsored research (ca. 2007-2008) to compare several retail home test kits to
IFAS extension lab results for a wide variety of Florida soils. This may allow more convenient testing by homeowners,
although enforcement may be more difficult without written test results.]

7. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
Fertilizer shall not be applied, spilled, or otherwise deposited on any impervious surfaces. Any
Fertilizer applied, spilled, or deposited, either intentionally or accidentally, on any impervious surface
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                           25
shall be immediately and completely removed to the greatest extent practicable. Fertilizer released on
an impervious surface must be immediately contained and either legally applied to Turf or any other
legal site, or returned to the original or other appropriate container. In no case shall Fertilizer be
washed, swept, or blown off impervious surfaces into stormwater drains, ditches, conveyances, or
water bodies.

8. FERTILIZER FREE ZONES
Fertilizer shall not be applied within ten (10) feet or three (3) feet if a deflector shield or drop
spreader is used, of any pond, stream, water course, lake, canal, or wetland as defined by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code) or from the
top of a seawall. If more stringent (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Code regulations apply, this
provision does not relieve the requirement to adhere to the more stringent regulations. Newly
planted Turf and/or Landscape Plants may be fertilized in this Zone only for the first sixty (60) day
establishment period.

December 17 Option
Add underlined language: Fertilizer shall not be applied within ten (10) feet, or three (3) feet
if a deflector shield or drop spreader is used, of any pond…
                    4=acceptable     3= minor reservations     2=major                  1= not acceptable
                                                               reservations
Dec. 2007                 4                     6                        1                       0

9. LOW MAINTENANCE ZONES
A voluntary six (6) foot low maintenance zone is strongly recommended, but not mandated, from any
pond, stream, water course, lake, wetland or from the top of a seawall. A swale/berm system is
recommended for installation at the landward edge of this low maintenance zone to capture and filter
runoff. If more stringent (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Code regulations apply, this provision
does not relieve the requirement to adhere to the more stringent regulations. No mowed or cut
vegetative material shall be deposited or left remaining in this zone or deposited in the water. Care
should be taken to prevent the over-spray of aquatic weed products in this zone. [Guidance: Care
must be taken to ensure erosion of the surface soil does not occur. Excessive erosion may be a greater pollution hazard
than occasional proper applications of fertilizer.]

10. MODE OF APPLICATION
Spreader deflector shields are required when fertilizing via rotary broadcast spreaders. Deflectors
must be positioned such that Fertilizer granules are deflected away from all impervious surfaces,
fertilizer-free zones and water bodies, including wetlands.

Delete ―broadcast‖.
Spreader deflector shields are required when fertilizing via rotary broadcast spreaders
                    4=acceptable     3= minor reservations     2=major                  1= not acceptable
                                                               reservations
Dec. 2007                 10                    1                        0                       0

Add: ―Drop spreaders are strongly recommended.‖
                    4=acceptable     3= minor reservations     2=major                  1= not acceptable
                                                               reservations

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                            26
Dec. 2007                0                    0                        8                      3
Member’s Comments and Reservations (December 2007):
 Requiring everyone with a spreader to purchase the shield. Scott is the only one selling this in the
   consumer market.
 You can no longer sell without a deflector shield? Recommend an amendment to the DACS rule.
 Amend the DACS rule to require that broadcast spreaders be sold in Florida only with a deflector
   shield.
 Product is getting on the hard surface- require- either a drop spreader or a deflector shield.

11. MANAGEMENT OF GRASS CLIPPINGS AND VEGETATIVE MATTER
In no case shall grass clippings, vegetative material, and/or vegetative debris either intentionally or
accidentally, be washed, swept, or blown off into stormwater drains, ditches, conveyances, water
bodies, wetlands, or sidewalks or roadways.

12. EXEMPTIONS
The provisions set forth above in this Ordinance shall not apply to:
(a) golf courses and athletic fields. For all golf courses, the provisions of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) document, ―BMPs for the Enhancement of Environmental Quality on Florida
Golf Courses, January 2007,” as updated, shall be followed when applying Fertilizer to golf courses. All
other Specialized Turf Managers shall use their best professional judgment to apply the concepts and
principles embodied in the “Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in
Florida, June 2002”as revised, and the instructions in Rule 5E-1.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, while
maintaining the health and function of their Turf and Landscape Plants.

December 17 Option
Delete all of 12 (a)
                   4=acceptable     3= minor reservations    2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                             reservations
Dec. 2007                11                   0                        0                      0

(b) bona fide farm operations as defined in the Florida Right to Farm Act, Section 823.14, Florida
Statutes, provided that fertilizers are applied in accordance with the appropriate Best Management
Practices Manual adopted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office
of Agricultural Water Policy for the crop in question.

(c) other properties not subject to or covered under the Florida Right to Farm Act that have Pastures
used for grazing livestock provided that fertilizers are applied in accordance with the appropriate Best
Management Practices Manual adopted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Office of Agricultural Water Policy for the crop in question.

13. TRAINING
 (a) All Applicators of Fertilizer within the unincorporated area of (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY),
other than private homeowners on their own property, shall abide by and successfully complete
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) approved Best Management Practices training program. This
training shall include the most current version of the FDEP “Florida Green Industries Best Management
Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida, June 2002,” as revised and shall include the more
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                        27
stringent requirements set forth in this ordinance. Upon successful completion, a Certificate of
Completion will be provided. A list of approved training programs shall be maintained by
(MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) on the (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Fertilizer Management
website.
 (b) A vehicle decal shall be affixed and maintained on the exterior of all vehicles and trailers used in
connection with the application of Fertilizer within the area regulated by this Article. The vehicle and
trailer decals shall be provided by (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY).
 (c) Private homeowners are required to follow the recommendations of the University of Florida
IFAS Florida Yards and Neighborhoods program when applying fertilizers.

December 17 Options
(a) All Applicators of Fertilizer within the unincorporated area of (MUNICIPALITY /
COUNTY), other than private homeowners on their own property, shall abide by and
successfully complete the DACS Chapter 482.156, F.S. Limited Commercial Landscape
Maintenance Certificate (LCLM) program, providing training and continuing education
requirements in minimizing nitrogen leaching and phosphorus runoff from fertilizer
applications (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) approved Best Management Practices training
program. This training shall include the most current version of the FDEP ―Florida Green
Industries Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources in Florida, June
2002,‖ as revised and shall include the more stringent requirements set forth in this
ordinance. Upon successful completion, a Certificate of Completion will be provided. A list
of approved training programs shall be maintained by (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) on
the (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Fertilizer Management website.
(b) A vehicle decal shall be affixed and maintained on the exterior of all vehicles and trailers
used in connection with the application of Fertilizer within the area regulated by this Article.
The vehicle and trailer decals shall be provided by (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY).
 (c) Non-commercial applicators not otherwise required to be certified Private homeowners
are required to follow the recommendations of the University of Florida IFAS Florida Yards
and Neighborhoods program when applying fertilizers.
                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
Dec. 2007              11                 0                       0                      0

December 17 Option
 A county shall establish a homeowner certification/education for the application of these
    consumer fertilizers indicating the completion of an education program for anyone not
    otherwise certified by existing programs consistent with the ordinance and the DACS
    urban turf rule. The state will support the development of an internet program and
    curriculum to assist local governments wishing to establish a certification program.

                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
Shall                  1                  2                       5                      2

December 17 Option
 A county shall may establish a homeowner certification/education program for the
    application of these consumer fertilizers indicating the completion of an education

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   28
      program for anyone not otherwise certified by existing programs consistent with the
      ordinance and the DACS urban turf rule. The state will support the development of an
      internet program and curriculum to assist local governments wishing to establish a
      certification program.

                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
May                    5                  4                       2                      0
December 17 Member Comments
 Certification/education bundled together.
 Access to internet an issue. Pressure on the county.
 Limited resources- apply this to media strategies.
 Come up with a county training and certification program for homeowners as an alternative to a
    restricted period. How could this be provided? Internet program site- go through simplified
    curriculum of what they need to be aware of, with online test- get certification for applying
    fertilizers.

December 17 Option
Allow for a county training and certification program for homeowners as an alternative to a
restricted period for application of consumer fertilizer.
                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
Dec. 17 2007           0                  3                       4                      5
Member Comments
    This may not be practical-no regulation/licensing of other pesticides.
    How could this be provided? Internet program site- go through simplified curriculum of what
       they need to be aware of, with online test- get certification for applying fertilizers.

Member’s Comments and Reservations (December 2007):
    Funded out of a source identified earlier. Developing an internet program. State DEP will
       check on whether they can support the development.
    Condo associations, homeowner associations who are not professional.
    Commercial property owners
    Concern- endorsing local governments to have an ordinance-
    Relates to earlier recommendation and is consistent. The LCLM training portion that
       addresses the fertilizer applicators.
    Applicator will get the certification.

14. LICENSING OF COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS
 (a) All Commercial Fertilizer Applicators shall obtain the DACS Chapter 482. F.S. Limited
Commercial Landscape Maintenance Certificate (LCLM) prior to obtaining a (MUNICIPALITY /
COUNTY) Local Business Tax Certificate for any category of occupation which may apply any
Fertilizer to Turf and/or Landscape Plants. Commercial Fertilizer Applicators shall provide proof of
completion of an approved training program to the (MUNICIPALITY / COUNTY) Tax Collector’s
office within 180 days of the effective date of this ordinance.

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   29
(b) All Commercial Fertilizer Applicators applying for a new or holding an existing Local Business
Tax Certificate shall ensure that all Applicators employed under the Tax Certificate receive the
necessary training in accordance with this ordinance and abide by all provisions of this Ordinance.
All new employees serving as Applicators shall receive the necessary training in accordance with this
Ordinance.

December 17 Option
Company owner would have to demonstrate they have a certified individual in their company
                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
Dec. 17 2007           11                 0                       0                      0

December 17 Option
Use the ―train the trainer‖ concept so that each company would have an individual certified
to train every applicator in the company.

                  4=acceptable   3= minor reservations   2=major                 1= not acceptable
                                                         reservations
Dec. 17 2007           9                  1                       0                      0
Member Comments
    How will this be regulated- DACS will review annually

G.      PUBLIC COMMENTS
Below is a brief summary of public comments offered at the Task Force meeting. See Appendix #
for written public comments submitted at the meeting.

Kurt Spitzer, Florida Stormwater Association
    Water quality is their concern and is a multi-million dollar issue.
    If the model is the only model. Mechanism to allow local government flexibility. One way to
       go is a problem. SW recycled waste water. Sufficient to fertilize lawn. DCA recycled
       wastewater from spray fields. Preemption.
    Harvey Harper- could have been involved. If certain amount of rate in the water.
Diana Fergeson. Florida Association of Counties, staff attorney.
    Funding for research- make general recommendations with a list of optons vs. the one
       solution. Sen Aronberg might be consulted.
    P & N reduction- DACS needs to address substance of fertilizer. If on home depot and
       lowes. If statewide standard, illeviate the need to regulate locally.
    Code enforcement- definition pp 3. If not addressed remove it.
    Local governments free to address code enforcement on their own framework.
    Local option- in terms of internet training. Consider what funding so no unfunded mandate.
    Less than 5% of local governments enacted or considered an ordinance
Karl Morrell
    Composting- using organics. Should address the use of organics- no leaching problems.
       Please address

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                   30
    Concerned with kids and impact of fertilizer on playing fields.
Kathy Harrelson Suncoast Sierra Club
    3 criteria- provided local government can demonstrate- meet all the criteria. No ―or‖
    Minnesota ordinance- Zero p message- solid, simple, message to consumers. Consumer use
        on the lawns. Educating is complex. Strong, solid, easy to understand. Important to stress a
        strong message.
    Discussion of the fees. Discussing the costs of lifeboats on the titanic. Mistake to take out
        restriction period. N is a big issue in Tampa and SW
Terill Nell, IFAS
    Tips endorsed last time. Areas for clarification. Back page- don’t bag clippings.
    Healthy lawn is a good environmental filter.
    Additional research needs.
Kim Ormberg, Seminole County government
    Flexibility to enact more restrictive
    Zero P recommended.
    Recommend- if not zero P. User fees for starter fee for Fertilizer. To help reduce the use of
        products.
Karen Bickford, Lee County
    1 Million- drop in bucket. Look at $1 a bag. Wouldn’t have a problem with an increased fee.
    Removal vs prevention- thousands time more expensive. Lee county ramping up education
        with 2 staff for education and 1 enforcement position. $250 k a year initially. 125 year
        thereafter
Craig Laschmidt.
    Furtigation company
    Look at other approaches at nitrate reduction. Recognized BMP for lawn care as it is golf
        course.
    Nitrate can be reduced 75-90%. Down to 2% with water sensors. Look at as a BMP practice.
    Another form of slow release. Putting out when you water. Supported by science.
Capt Wayne Guntener. Sarasota County
    Degraded water quality causes a big economic impact. Clean water first magnitude economic
        driver. 18% of revenue comes from tourism to enjoy the water.
    Why restrict local government- preemption- dealing with local water quality. Lawns are not
        economic drivers.
Jim Murphy, Gulf Restoration Network
    Work with recreational and commercial fishermen.
    Strong leadership- protect and sustain coastal fisheries, ecosystems.
    Sarasota County did a good job but should be seen as a start.
    Expensive to fix once it is broken. Future generation will judge harshly, stop from being
        broken in the first place.
Chris Wieble, Scotts
    Surcharge on starter already the case (around $24 vs. $7 for other fertilizer).
    Applaud SJRWMD and DACS for getting better data and decisions.
    Rule will change what is available to consumer- be designed for turf.


DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007           31
      Consumer won’t see the rule- narrow choice of products designed for turf. Leaves a few
       BMP:s- right time of year, not to hard surfaces,
Scott Dudley, FLC
    Water quality and cost of TMDL is what this is about for local government. Ounce of
       prevention, pound of cure.
    Cuts in budget- grant money is being cut. Local governments out regulating to preserve the
       economy of Florida. TMDL- Arizona court mandates moratorium on growth.
    Support Minn. Approach- make illegal. With soil test.
Erica Santalla
    DEP BMPs was about protecting the environment in the context of the market.
    Water quality and jobs works together.
    Rainfall- looked at peak in rainy season. Fertilizer or clippings.
    Unless soil test shows a need, industry loathe to proposed P fertilizer
Cathy Douglas
    Purpose is to protect our environment.
    Instead of focusing on grass- lets go native. Return Florida to way used to be. We could
       probably save lots of water.
    Future generations would thank you.
Stewart DeCew
    Focus on broader issues. In every watershed primary loading problem comes from fertilizers
       based on science.
    Cross section of researchers- experimental data vs. the real world problems highlighted by
       subcommittee.
    50% of water used for lawns
    Buffer zones – EPA- support/ consensus research. Not about horticultural science but water
       quality.
Don Cheney, Sarasota Fl
    Red tide effort 2 years ago. 2006 analysis of Sarasota bay. 60% non point sources. Non farm
       use increased almost 3 times.
    Use best cautionary principles to help reduce the nutrients before spending millions to fix
       problem.
    Degradation of waters along SW Florida is huge. Reduce the N as well as the P.
Tom Brosch, Landscape Maintenance Organization. ED
    2200 licensed limited landscape since 1992. Not a big program.
    Educate all the applicators – maybe DACS not the right agency.
    Certification of completion. Should be affordable and not intimidated. Test is in English, not
       in Spanish.
Mike Holsinger, Sarasota
    Make it simple and train lots of people.
    Existing programs- approach 5% of entire workforce.
    License holder train employees. Make it simple so they can do the right thing.
    Focus on native plants that once established don’t require additional fertilizers
    Mulch should be used


DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007          32
       Need a model contract- homeowners. Sarasota County example. Move to be more
        sustainable.

Nick Libretto,, Certified Pest Control
   Struggling with different ordinances.
   Hearing that local governments are rushing to pass
   Black out period- 4 month- this might be effectively 5-6 months related to scheduling.

Maureen Henderson, Orange County Farm Bureau
   Increase in fertilizers for ag is a problem.
   Licensure- 482 to incorporate DEP training. L & O, range of different licenses, no Spanish.
      Limited only covered 2200. Just changed requirement for 3 years working before you could
      apply.
   BMPs are used. Homeowners are eager to learn. Fall out of changed statute and impacts

Mary Hartney
   Right rate, product, right place and right time
   DACS rule right rate and product.
   Opportunity to see what will be voted on, stakeholders will appreciate.

Barry Troutman, Landscape Maintenance. Valley Crest
    Bert Sperber became a landscape architect.
    Taking 200 people through training.
    All of the players have a role- how to get those in the trenches. They learn by being in the
       field.
    Task Force concept of #s in this industry. Standardization of what I need to train.

H. NEXT MEETING AND ASSIGNMENTS
The Task Force reviewed the schedule and agreed to meet the afternoon of January 10 from 1:00
p.m. until concluded and on January 11 until the Task Force completed its review and adopted its
report to the Legislature.

The Chair urged members to carefully review the December 17 meeting summary and draft
recommendations worksheet which the facilitators agreed to circulate by the end of the year. The
facilitators also agreed to circulate prior to the next Task Force meeting a draft final report format
for review by the Task Force.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                33
                                                 Appendix # 1

                  Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
                     Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V
                                    December 17, 2007
                       Mid-Florida Research and Education Center
                    2725 Binion Road—Apopka, Florida—407.884.2034
             Note: All Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—
                                    Are Subject to Change
                                             Meeting Agenda
Monday, December 17, 2007
8:30        Welcome and Opening
 8:35       Agenda Review and Approval
 8:40       Approval of the November 14, 2007 Facilitator’s Summary Report
 8:45       Review of Submitted Public Comment
 9:00       Funding Options for Implementation of Recommendations Discussion
            Report on DACS Fertilizer Sales Tonnage Fee Monies and Usage—Budell
            Report on DEP Documentary Stamps Fee Monies and Usage—Livingston
9:45        Statewide Guidelines for Use—Improved Standards Recommendations Review (1)
            Review of Florida Soil Map of Phosphorus Composition—Sartain
            Report on Urea Transformation Data—Sartain
            Report on Fertilizer Requirements for Landscape Plants—Sartain
            Industry Estimate of Phosphorous/Nitrogen Reduction-DACS Urban Turf Rule
10:30       Break
10:45       Statewide Guidelines Review Discussion—Continued
11:00       Local Government Regulations—Model Ordinance Recommendations Review (2)
            Review and Discussion of Member Identified Issues and Recommendations
12:00       Lunch—Working Lunch On Campus
12:20       Lunch Presentation on Lake Apopka Restoration Project—Fitzgerald
12:30       Model Ordinance Review Discussion—Continued
 1:00       Local Government Mechanisms—Proper Use Recommendations Review (3)
 1:30       Training and Education on Proper Use Recommendations Review (4)
            IFAS Report and Recommendations on Task Force’s PSA Key Messages
2:00        Research and Studies Needs Recommendations Review (5)
            Research Subcommittee’s Revised Recommendations Report—Barile
2:30        Overview of Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Delivery and Meeting Schedule
2:35        Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting
            Next meeting agenda items, needed information/presentations, location, and date
2:45        Recess
3:00        Public Comment and Input on Task Force’s Work Product to Date
4:00        Adjourn and Happy Holidays




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007         34
                            Appendix # 2 Meeting Evaluation Summary
                  Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
                           Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force
                                               December 17, 2007
                                                Apopka, Florida

INSTRUCTIONS:           MEMBERS USED A 0 TO 10 RATING SCALE WHERE A 0 MEANS TOTALLY
                        DISAGREE AND A 10 MEANS TOTALLY AGREE.

1. Please assess the overall meeting.
 8.3    The background information was very useful.
 8.7    The agenda packet was very useful.
 8.5    The objectives for the meeting were stated at the outset.
 8.3    Overall, the objectives of the meeting were fully achieved.
 7.7    Review and of Public Comments to Date.
 7.5    Review and Discussion of Funding Options Recommendations.
 8.4    Review and Discussion of State Guidelines for Use and Improved Standards Rec’s (1).
 8.2    Review and Discussion Local Government Regulations - Draft Model Ordinance (2).
 8.0    Review and Discussion Local Government Mechanisms and Proper Use of Rec’s (3).
 8.6    Review and Discussion of Training and Education on Proper Use Recommendations (4).
 8.6    Review and Discussion of Research and Studies Needs Recommendations (5).
 8.7    Next Steps and Agenda Items For Next Meeting.

2. Please tell us how well the facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting.
 7.8 The participants followed the direction of the facilitators.
 8.5 The facilitators made sure the concerns of all participants were heard.
 8.5 The facilitators helped us arrange our time well.
 8.8 Participant input was documented accurately.

3. What is your level of satisfaction with the meeting?
 8.0    Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting.
 8.5    I was very satisfied with the services provided by the facilitators.
 7.8    I am satisfied with the outcome of the meeting.

4. What progress did you make?
 9.5    I know what the next steps following this meeting will be.
 9.2    I know who is responsible for the next steps.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007       35
                                             Appendix #3
                                       December 17, 2007
                                         Apopka, FL
Name                        Affiliation                            E-Mail
David Belt                  AHP                                    dlbelt52@yahoo.com
Jim Skillen                 Rise, Washington, DC                   jskillen@pestfacts.org
Sanford Simon               United Industries, St. Louis, MO       sandy.simon@spectrumbrands.com
Erica Santella              TruGreen                               erica_santella@landcare.com
Michael Beckeis             CPCO                                   certifiedpestcon@bellsouth.com
Richard Royal               Sunniland Corp                         richardroyal@sunnilandcorp.com
John Walkinshaw             GPI Southeast                          jwalkinshaw@gpinet.com
Chris Wible                 The Scotts Company                     chris.wible@scotts.com
Blas Gomez                  City of Tallahassee                    blas.gomez@talgov.com
Diana Ferguson              FAC                                    dferguson@fl.counties.com
Karen Bickford              Lee Co.                                kbickford@leegov.com
C.H. Cline                  Sunniland Corp.                        ccline@sunnilandcorp.com
John Schmidt                John Deere Landscape                   jschmidt@lesco.com
Fred Brummer                Orange County Commission               Fred.brummer@ucfl.net
Casey Wohl-Pace             FL Turfgrass Assn                      casey@ftga.org
Veronia Craw                SFWMD                                  Veronica.craw@watermatters.org
Chris Zajac                 SFWMD                                  chris.zajac@watermatters.org
Kathy Douglas               Sierra                                 KJDAUTO@aol.com
Catherine Harrelson         Sierra Club                            cathy.bam@earthlink.net
Gordon Leslie, Jr.          EPC/Hillsborough Co                    leslieg@epchc.org
Kim Ornberg                 Seminole Co.                           kornberg@seminolecountyfl.gov
Mary Hartney                FFAA                                   mhartney@ffaa.org
Scott Dudley                FL League of Cities                    sdudley@flcities.com
Barry Troutman              ValleyCrest                            btroutman@valleycrest.com
Norman Goldenberg           TruGreen                               normangoldenberg@trugreenmail.com
Dave Cross                  Fertigator Lawn Care                   dcross@fertigator.com
Eberhard Roeder             Dept. of Health                        eberhard_roeder@doh.state.fl.us
Mike Holsinger              Holsinger Horticultural Svcs           mjholsinger@comcast.net
Tom Burish                  Landscape Maint. Assoc.                lmaflorida@aol.com
Carl Moro                   Our Vital Earth Inc                    carl@ourvitalearth.com
Mick Denham                 Mayor, City of Sanibel                 mickdenham@aol.com
Maureen Henderson           Farm Bureau                            outmowinggrass@aol.com
Steve Kelly                 The Scotts Co.                         steven.kelly@scotts.com
Don Chaney                  Sierra Club                            dlc100@comcast.net
Craig Lashmet               Fertigator                             clashmet@fertigator.com
Stuart DeCew                Sierra Club                            stuart.decew@sierraclub.org
Joe Murphy                  Gulf Restoration Network               joe@healthygulf.org
Kurt Spitzer                FSA                                    kurtspitzer@ksanet.net
Nick Libretto               ABC Pest Control                       abc123pest@aol.com


DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007          36
The following written comments were submitted at the meeting for the Task Force’s
consideration.

                       CONSUMER FERTILIZER TASK FORCE
                           PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
Name:                   Erica Santella
Organization:           TruGreen
Meeting Date:           12-17-07

COMMENT: Green grass and water quality can co-exist. The BMPs are the way to achieve this.
As a co-chair of GIBMPs there was never a discussion of restricting fertililzer at any time of the year.
Never. Imminent heavy rain was clouds on the horizon. The rain issue is likely from material getting
on impervious surfaces. Turf does have a place not only in environment but erosion, tourism,
hotels, real estate, jobs. Trying to reinvent the wheel by modifying 1 BMP BMP rest. Is not about
fertilizer. It is educate ????, mowing, clippers??? Industry does not use ??? unless available test
indicates the need. The state rule helps us educate these folks on this controllable expense. Sampled
25 years and SW&SE part of state have 30% low ? These are problem laws and not represent.

Name:                   Joe Murphy
Organization:           Gulf Restoration Network
Meeting Date:           12/17/07

COMMENT: In 1900 Florida’s population was 500,000 people. Today many estimates place
Florida’s population at roughly 18 million people. 18 million and in 2050 or 2060 it could hit 35
million people. What may have been sustainable in 1900 or 1950, or even 1990 will not be sustainable
in Florida’s future. Green Lawns with turf grass and ornamental plants, heavily dependent on water
and fertilizer can not and should not be a part of Florida’s future. We can not sacrifice our coastlines,
our water quallity or our marine industries for green lawns full of the wrong plants in the wrong
place. Fertilizer for food is important, fertilizer for grass is a luxury we may not be able to continue
to afford. Local governments should and do have the right to protect their local economics and
environments by passing strong local fertilizer ordinances. Sarasota County has offered a good
model. The Task Force should produce a plan/document that raises the bar for Florida, and ensures
Florida has a sustainable future with healthy waters and healthy coastlines.

Name:                   Mary Hartney
Organization:           Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Assoc.
Meeting Date:           12/17/2007

COMMENT:           Right Product
                   Right Rate
                   Right Place
                   Right Time
FDACS Urban Rule takes care of 1st two. We’re working with you on the rest.



DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                37
Name:                   Jim Skillen
Organization:           RISE
Meeting Date:           12/17/2007

COMMENT: I was confused. The committee did not vote on the conditions which allowed a
local municipality to write their own ordinance. The committee did not vote publicly for the three
criteria that were used. You asked for comments and we provided them through our representative
on the committee. You need to start over at the beginning and agree on the limiting criteria before
you can get into the specifics of the ordinance. I need clarification.


Name:                   Sanford Simon
Organization:           United Industries
Meeting Date:           12/17/2007

COMMENT: 1) I want to reiteriate that the Urban Turf Rule is based on sound science from data
generate by the University of Florida. The model ordinance must be based on the Urban Turf Rule
and Green Industry BMPs for landscapes. Local ordinances in place in Florida and other states are
based more on perception and emotion rather than factual evidence that lawn fertilizer is a significant
contributor to nutrient enrichment of surface and ground water, i.e. the Wekiva Study off by 250%.
2) Zero phosphorus legislation in Minnesota in 2004 has resulted in no change in water quality after
three years. If lawn fertilizers were a significant source, then one would expect a detectable change in
water quality.
3) As mentioned in the meeting today, the model ordinance submitted for consideration was not
disected and approved as a starting point. It has been wrongly presumed to be in a form gererally
accepted by the committee. The Task Force should reconsider the model.

Name:                   Michael Holsinger
Organization:           Holsinger Horticultural Services
Meeting Date:           12/17/2007

COMMENT: The sale of non-agricultural fertilizers in Florida has almost tripled in the past 10
years. Potential pollution is possible each time a fertililzer is applied primarily through run-off from
compacted landscapes and from surrounding impervious surfaces. The more frequent applications,
the greater the potential. This is why slow release fertilizers are preferable to reduce actual and
potential pollution.

The following are specific suggestions for use of funding from an increase in the per ton fee on sale
of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers:
        Education/Training
    1) Focused application certification program
    2) Model landscape maintenance contract with BMPs (Sarasota produced such a model)
    3) Fertilization BMP checklist
    4) Checklist for new development designed to reduce run-off.
        Research
    1) Low input groundcovers and shrubs as alternatives to turf. 2) Run-off and pollution from
        compacted landscapes. 3) Greater evaluation of slow-release fertilizers. 4) Field evaluations
        of summer blend fertilizers without nitrogen and phosphorus. 5) By the month reception and
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                38
        use by landscape plants and turf of nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients. 6) Real world
        evaluation of pollution from fertigation through irrigation systems. 7) Evaluation of top
        dressings (organic) on urban lawns. 8) Evaluation of mitigation plantings and designs to
        reduce pollutant discharges into stormwater systems. 9) Determine fertilizer-free buffer
        zones next to water bodies and 10) Nutrients provided by breakdown of organic mulches and
        grass clippings and their specific impacts on
        fertilization requirements. (continued on next page)

    Training and certification program presently outlined will not result in enough people being
    trained unless employees can be trained by license holders. What is needed is a one-hour video
    and quiz that IFAS can produce.

Name:        Don Chaney
Organization: Sierra Club
Meeting Date: 12/17/2007

COMMENT: No preemptions of city or county stronger ordinances.
No nitrogen or phosphate during raing season: June thru September.
An adequate fee charde on all fertilizer sles to be applied to educaiton of applicators and public.
A 10 foot setback from all water elements where no fertilizer is applied.
A state rebate for removal and St. Augustine turf.

Name:                   Kim Ornberg
Organization:           Seminole County
Meeting Date:           12/17/2007

COMMENT:
1) Task Force recommend surcharges or user fees for ―starter fertilizer‖ (and other non-sero P
blends) in order to ensure the reduction of use of these products by consumers and/or professionals.
Money generated could be used by FDEP to assist in funding for TMDL implementation projects
and/or consumer fertilizer education.
2) Exceptions for model ordinance should be clearly included in ordinance.

Name:                   Karen Bickford
Organization:           Lee County Div. Natural Resources
Meeting Date:           12/17/2007

COMMENT: Given the condition of our water resources and the critical balance required to
support our state’s economy; it is fair and prescriptive for the stat to levee a user fee (per bag) on all
consumer (retail) sales of fertilizer to fund public/consumer education and local initiatives to increase
preventative measures and source control. If agriculture is required to pay for source control then
too should residential consumers. It may be feasible to incorporate compliance and and enforcement
activities into NPDES compliance programs and continue to expand IFAS FYN programs and
promote more residential attendance, new resident/homeowner programs with focus on residential
use. This fee should be per bag!

Name:                   Diana Ferguson
Organization:           Association of Counties
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                39
Meeting Date:           12/17/2007

COMMENT: Funding for education and research: Jerry Brooks outlined some good optionsfor
funding. The best approach might be to make general recommendations to the legislature that
outline all the options rather than trying to reach only one solution. Keep in mind that the legislature
might not want to be instructed as to where to get the money. Instead, they would likely appreciate
being given a full set of options so that they can have this debate. Senator Aronberg sits on General
Government Appropriations in the Senate. The task force has an excellent resource available to it in
Senator Aronberg, as he is intimately familiar with the appropriations process. It would do the task
force well to consult with him on this during the next meeting.
          The phosphorus and nitrogen reductions that were discussed as a result of the urban turf rule
assume that the average homeowner will apply fertilizer according to the rule requirements and the
bag label. It also assumes that homeowners will buy ―no phosphorus‖ fertilizer when other products
are still readily available on retailers shelves. This all misses the point. DACS needs to substantially
address the content of fertilizers containing large amounts of phosphorus at Home Depot and
Lowes. Professionals can easily do soil tests to determine whether phosphorus is needed, and that
should be required in order to apply phosphorus to turf. This would be a more meaningful statewide
standard, giving the desired consistency to the regulated community and it would alleviate the need
for local governments to address this issue locally.
          Code enforcement: if this issue isn’t to be addressed by the model, the definition of ―code
enforcement officer, official or inspector‖ on page 3 can be removed. It also needs to be made clear
in the task force’s recommendations tht local governments are free to address code enforcement
within their own local framework.

County certification program for homeowners: this could be a very good concept. We are
encouraged that the state could provide assistance here; but we do have a couple of concerns. First,
we want to make sure that this would be a local option. Not every county will have the resources or
the technical ability to implement such a training problem. We are still working to ensure that all 67
counties have websites. Secondly, the funding for these training programs should be provided
through whatever education and research funding is identified. After property tax reform the last
thing local governments need is an unfunded mandate.
        The tide of local government ordinances: less than 5% of the local governments in Florida
are currently considering or have implemented a local fertilizer ordinance. Most of those local
governments that are currently considering an ordinance are waiting for the development of the
model ordinance. The fear over the tide of local government ordinances is simply unfounded.

Drew Martin – Sierra Club – 12/17/2007 (see below)




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007               40
                                       QuickTime™ and a
                              TIFF (Uncompressed) decompre ssor
                                are neede d to see this picture.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007   41
                                            QuickTime™ and a
                                  TIFF (Un compressed) decompressor
                                     are neede d to see this picture.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007   42
                                      QuickTime™ an d a
                             TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
                                are need ed to see this p icture .




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007   43
                                      QuickTime™ and a
                            TIFF (Un compressed) decompressor
                               are neede d to see this picture.




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007   44
                Appendix #4 Education Campaign and Tips- IFAS Documents


Drought Media Campaign
February–September 2008
December 3, 2007


Characteristics
The drought kit will feature materials in different media and will be available online through the
Gardening Solutions Web site (in a password-protected section). It will be:
       1. cost-efficient
       2. downloadable
       3. accessible (different file formats)
       4. Florida-friendly-focused

Purpose
To get research-based drought information with a Florida-friendly focus out to the public.

Audience
The audience is the general gardening public, which will be reached through both direct and indirect
means.
Direct: Gardening in a Minute Web site and radio program, other CLCE and EHD Web sites
Indirect: Extension agents and Master Gardeners; policymakers, including WMDs and legislators;
         UF/IFAS administrators

Strategies
    1) Drought management for now
    2) Drought management for later

Tactics
    1)  PSAs (we have four; we need to develop a couple more)
    2)  Handouts/fact sheets (five to eight)
    3)  Ads for newspaper (one per month; six total)
    4)  Articles for Gardening Solutions
    5)  Features for MG and agent newsletters in the form of press releases (one per fortnight;
        twelve total)
    6) Corresponding content on all Web sites (YourFloridaLawn, Trees & Shrubs, GiaM, MG,
        FYN, Gardening Solutions)
    7) GiaM shows
    8) PowerPoint (at least one general; maybe one about firewise landscaping; others?)
    9) Source list, split into categories (will link to all drought-related EDIS pubs, WMD sites, etc.)
    10) Video news release?

Evaluation Methods
DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007               45
    1)   Number of downloads of these materials
    2)   Number of articles in newsletters, newspapers
    3)   Number of ads in newspapers
    4)   Website visits
    5)   Landing page? (drought.ifas.ufl.edu)—this would be advertised in all materials so we can track
         users

Topics for Materials (with Drought Focus)
    1)  What is drought?
    2)  Choosing grass
    3)  Watering grass
    4)  Ways to be water smart (evaluating irrigation system)
    5)  Dealing with water restrictions (helping landscapes cope with drought) (hand watering, set
        irrigation, don’t forget to water containers)
    6) Capturing rain
    7) Wildlife and drought (snakes on the move, providing water)
    8) Choosing and planting landscape plants (RPRP, mulch, etc.)/drought-tolerant plants
    9) Saving water in the landscape/watering well (soil moisture sensors)
    10) Evaluating drought damage/stressed plants
    11) Firewise landscaping
    12) Evaluating irrigation system for water efficiency
    13) Evaluating the landscape after/helping the landscape recover
    14) Planning the landscape for future water shortages (landscape design for water conservation)

Reviewers
    1)   Laurie Trenholm
    2)   Sydney Park Brown
    3)   Michael Dukes
    4)   DEP
    5)   Joan Dusky

Future Campaigns
    1) Hurricanes: May–November 2008
    2) Fertilizer: September 2008–March 2009




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007              46
                 Consumer Fertilizer Communication Tips (IFAS Annotations)
                                      December 17, 2007


Choose a fertilizer designed for lawns.
        Use an appropriate fertilizer – this is one that will have some of the N in slow-release
        form*, no or very low P, K for stress tolerance, and other nutrients as needed

Apply fertilizer when grass is actively growing. Apply fertilizer to the lawn and keep
  off other surfaces and away from water.
      Do not apply fertilizer to dormant turfgrass
Mow lawn at highest lawnmower setting.
      Suggest being specific about mowing height based on the type of turfgrass.
             St. Augustinegrass and bahiagrass -- 3.5 to 4 inches
             Centipedegrass and zoysiagrass -- 1.5 to 2 inches
             Dwarf St. Augustinegrass cultivars -- 2-2.5 inches
Use water wisely through proper irrigation.
      Suggest being more specific about the time to water
Fertilize in the fall.
      Message will need to be developed for each climatic zone. Be specific about fertilizer
      type and application time.
Spot treatments for pests and weed problems.
      Non-chemical application practices can be encouraged also.

In addition the Task Force supports the following five additional messages:

     Provide the reasons why consumer should follow BMPs and labeling
      requirements.
     Preface the best practices with If you choose to fertilize
      Proper fertilization maintains healthy turfgrass. Is the question IF or use of proper
      application methods?
     Avoid water bodies in applying fertilizer.
     Look for low to no phosphorous in consumer fertilizers.
     Right plants in the right place.

UF-IFAS suggestion additions to tips:

       Don’t bag your clippings

       Irrigate fertilizer in with ONLY about ¼‖ of water. More water may cause leaching or runoff
        while no water may cause volatilization or burn

DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007            47
       Avoid fertilizing immediately prior to a significant rain since excessive water may cause
        fertilizer to run off the landscape.

       Do not leave fertilizer on walks, driveways, patios or other impervious surfaces. Sweep these
        granules onto the lawn.

       Keep a buffer zone around lakes, streams and rivers and be sure that fertilizer granules are
        not getting directly into water.

       A healthy lawn that is properly fertilized provides a good environmental filter for urban
        runoff




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007               48
                                                Appendix #5
                      Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Principles and Mission

  (Principles 1-4 adopted unanimously September 6, 2007; Principle 5 revised as a mission statement and adopted
                                            unanimously, October 11, 2007)

Principle 1: The overall purpose of the Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force is to develop
recommendations for submittal to the Florida Legislature regarding the education and use, and
management strategies and regulation of consumer fertilizers.

Principle 2: The Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force shall operate under clear, concise,
consistent, and fair procedural protocols.

Principle 3: The Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force shall strive to achieve consensus on
substantive recommendations made to the Florida Legislature.

Principle 4: The Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force shall serve as an accessible liaison
between the Task Force and their representative constituency groups to meet their mission.

Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Mission Statement
The mission of the Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force is to develop and deliver a
package of consensus recommendations to the Florida Legislature designed to ensure that the
education and regulation for the proper use of consumer fertilizers is informed by best available
science and is uniform subject to variations necessary to meet local state and federal water
quality standards. It will recommend statewide guidelines for management strategies
(nonagricultural fertilizer use rates, formulations, and application), based on the best available
science as well as model ordinances for municipalities and counties.
(Adopted Unanimously October 11, 2007)




DACS Consumer Fertilizer Task Force Meeting V Draft Summary, December 17, 2007                       49

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:68
posted:8/13/2010
language:English
pages:49