Link to WORD 97 Report File 99oct8.doc
Link to previous meeting 99may7.htm
SANTA FE RIVER AND SPRINGS WORK GROUP
OCTOBER 8, 1999 MEETING REPORT
Overview
After an initial conference on water quality in the Santa Fe River and Springs, public and private sector representatives have met quarterly for a year. Action teams have worked between meetings on best management practices, rules and regulations, hydrogeographic data, public education and other issues. The meeting October 8, 1999 at Poe Springs provided an opportunity to review the group's accomplishments and plan for the future. This was the agenda for the meeting:
After the opening, a brief history of the work group and a review of the accomplishments the agencies explained their Santa Fe related activities and their plans for future efforts. The meeting ended with a discussion of the future direction for the Work Group. It was agreed that the leadership needs to shift from the agencies to the community and that there should be more regular, informal activities that provide education and outreach to more people in the community. The initial leadership team will be coordinated by John Owens and will include Paul Still, Dan Rountree, December McSherry, Dave Bruderly and Erik Lewis. The agencies agreed to provide support and speakers for the events and to continue their water quality activities. It was also suggested that periodically the agencies would convene with the community interests for planning and coordination meetings.
The following notes provide a summary of the products of the meeting but do not capture all or exactly what was said. It is provided as a record of the meeting and as a basis for ongoing discussions and action.
Santa Fe River and Springs
Water Quality Work Group
Accomplishments
Draft List of Accomplishments Presented at the Meeting
A list of the stakeholders and their desired outcomes
Identification of Work Group challenges and dilemmas to be addressed.
Cataloguing of Santa Fe related activities and who is responsible.
Establishment of a mission statement and goals for the Work Group.
A description roles of the Work Group.
Formulating criteria for prioritizing projects.
Organization of action teams that developed, implemented and refined action plans.
The Best Management Practices Action Team identified BMPs that are available and area where they are needed.
The Rules and Regulations Action Team documented rules and regulations affecting the Santa Fe and others from elsewhere in the state that can be used as a model for changes here.
The Hydrogeology Action Team created an inventory of existing water quality data within the study area and collected maps and databases in hard copy and electronic formats. They also identified additional information needed to gain an understanding of the dynamics of the Santa Fe River and Springs system and the tasks that should be funded and performed by the appropriate entities. They also formed a sub-committee to determine which materials would be useful in setting parameters for action and to make available to the public. Support was pursued for legislative funding for additional studies and for a graduate student to work with Dr. John Martin.
The Landuse Action Team discussed ways to provide input into local EARS processes, reviewed available information, developed simplified landuse categories to aid in area wide use of landuse maps, identified additional information needed, and considered action on several specific projects.
The Education and Communication Action Team has analyzed their audiences and developed appropriate strategies. They have supported all of the other teams by posting their information on the Work Groupís web site and making it available at local libraries. They are also planning to reach the public at the upcoming Santa Fe River Fest.
The Stakeholder Consensus Action Team has advocated for participation by the full range of stakeholders. They involved students in conducting stakeholder surveys and are gathering information from different interest groups. Consensus building and conflict resolution techniques have been studied and the team is ready to convene stakeholders to address controversial issues that may arise.
The Funding and Advocacy Action Team has researched funding opportunities, has advocated for legislative funding and plans to apply for grants that may be available.
As a whole the work Group supported legislative funding for the wastewater treatment plant for High Springs and the DEP, Very Intensive Study Area Research Project. Both projects were funded but vetoed by the Governor.
The Work Group as a whole identified a number of strategies at the last meeting that are and can be implemented.
Work Group Comments on the List of Accomplishments
ï EPA has good materials for storm water BMP. These can be used to develop restoration & retrofit rules. There seems to be a lack of connection between rules to protect ground water and surface waters, especially here where ground water becomes surface water. There may be a need to change land use regulations.
ï There has be a recognition that rules look mainly at health impacts and do not make the link to surface water. The 10 ppm standard is not adequate to address environmental impacts
ï The Watson dairy case established the link between ground and surface water ñ a legal precedent was established.
ï The hammer side is linked to the incentive side ñ we need to show the benefits of water quality efforts, e.g. commodities.
ï The Hydrogeology Action Team gathered a lot of data. We need a repository and a consistent format. We also identified study needs.
ï Vicki compiled an inventory of goals, objectives, and strategies in comp plans in the basin.
ï The Education Action Team created a virtual tour down the Santa Fe. It can be seen October 20 at the Milhopper Library at 6:30.
ï The group Current Problems is combining this with their nutrient and education work.
ï The Work Group has been supporting other groups.
ï Current problem's is doing slide shows.
ï Students did surveys of farmers and businesses, it will be put on the web site. We learned that farmers are willing to work on water quality problems.
ï 44 of 45 dairies and 140 of 143 poultry facilities in the area have signed an agreement with USDA to use best management practices.
ï High Springs got enough Funding to go forward and may apply again
ï River Fest - November 13, 10:00am at Poe Springs
ï Idea of state conference on Springs was initiated here - we could co-host - February 8-10
Agency Action Plans for Water Quality Protection
Each of the participating agencies made brief presentations on current and projected activities related to the Santa Fe River and Springs. The following are the notes made during their presentation and the comments from the other participants.
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council
ï The RPC has and will continue to provide support for work group meetings; email notices, newsletters, etc.
They will look for ways to strengthen the conservation element of regional plan.
They review local plans for compliance with the regional plan, especially the conservation element
They provide monitoring of plan compliance.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
ï DEP has been working on a number of tributary streams and sources of pollution
ï They will make presentations to the Work Group on TMDLs or other topics
ï Ground water studies will continue
ï Information from Orange Creek - Paines Prairie and other studies will be shared
ï DEP has a Springs Task Force and will be holding a conference in February
ï Invasive plant management will continue; removal and permitting of private removal. DEP is expanding the number of species addressed.
C. Do you use volunteers?
A. Yes but people lose interest.
C. We will help you!
C. They are involving volunteers in a river watch program
C. Mercury deposition is a critical issue, affects whether fish are edible. This is related to litigation on the permit for the cement plant
C. DEP is allowing groups in the state park to do studies
C. DEP needs to address nitrogen in the atmosphere
Florida Department of Community Affairs
ï In the Franklin Co vs. SGI Ltd. Case, the court upheld the Countyís denial based on potential pollution of the bay using comp plan. This precedent could be used to protect water quality here.
ï DCA will continue to review DRI's and will try to insert "best development practices" and seek ground water and springs protection.
ï Examples from other parts of the state will be shared, e.g. Charlotte Harbor.
ï DCA Secretary Seibert wants us to be more helpful and proactive; less regulatory; Jim Crew will be the contact for the Work Group.
Suwanee River Water Management District
ï The WMD provides water sampling and monitoring.
ï They are developing a ground water network - doing trend wells.
ï Several studies are under way on streams, springs and ground water.
C. Do you have water models linked to sources?
C. What tools do you have to use in educating the public?
A. We have data - some are not statistically significant in this basin.
C. Have you found phistera A? No.
C. Need to put indicators in to determine human impacts.
Alachua County
ï The County is doing monitoring - coordinating with DEP and WMD and filling the data gaps.
ï They are having the data and monitoring evaluated
ï The search for funding for a Santa Fe study will continue
ï The Evaluation and Appraisal Report, EARS, is being completed. There are 80 recommendations related to conservation.
ï A blue belt ordinance for high aquifer recharge areas is being considered.
ï Work on a land acquisition program that is being developed that will be balanced with regulation, includes land in the Santa Fe basin - focus of the KBN study.
ï There is a water quality volunteer coordinator for SJWMD and possibly there could be one for the SRWMD.
C. The County will coordinate with FL Comm. Trust regarding land acquisition.
Gilchrist County
ï EARS activities includes the designation of sensitive areas.
ï They are holding symposiums - one on conservation and eco-tourism.
ï We want to get education and consensus in an agriculture based community.
ï Dairy moratorium has been lifted but there have been no new applications.
ï No land fills permitted.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
ï DACS has a coordinator co-located in Live Oak at the WMD.
ï Work is underway with several water quality work groups.
ï We have money from the nitrate bill and EPA to work on Suwannee, etc. and will apply for resources here.
ï They will get their coordinator from the lower Suwannee to come talk to the Work Group.
ï DACS is focusing on what they know enough about to do things now.
ï BMP plans on dairies and poultry and row crops are being developed.
ï They are also doing monitoring on all but 1 dairy and 1/2 of poultry operations; Gold Kist is requiring their growers use BMP's.
C. Is Gold Kist or grower taking the responsibility? Is the public bailing out Gold Kist?
Needed Next steps
The group then discussed the future or the Work Group. The challenge was to decide how to get more public involvement and how citizens and government agencies can each do what they do best.
Suggestions for next steps
ï Citizens have problems getting to sessions like todayís meeting. Some will attend symposiums then they will join work groups.
ï Include the whole basin - not just the river and springs.
ï Government needs to continue to meet and coordinate activities in open meetings.
ï Hold a work group meeting after Springs Conference.
ï Include agency reports on web.
ï Explore possible funding by the Florida Defenders of the Environment, the Turner Foundation and others.
ï Do 6 month program of events and announce them - Alachua Co will do the printing.
ï Move hydrogeology files to High Spring library.
ï NRCS, WMD, DACS can put money in.
Basic Work Group Activities
It was agreed that the Work Group needs to:
ï Provide educational events. :They need to be entertaining: films, River day, other events, field trips, etc.
ï Action projects: BMP, regulations - show successes
ï Shape vision and strategic overview and plan
ï Continue to build information base
Organizational Options
The question of whether to continue the Work Group or create a private Friends of Santa Fe was discussed. It was agreed that the work group should continue and the leadership should shift from the agencies to citizen participants. The agencies will still be involved by providing speakers and support for Work Group activities and in their ongoing activities related to water quality. The following will be on the new leadership team for the Work Group:
The agency contacts will be:
Comment Form
Participants were given the opportunity to submit a comment form at the end of the meeting and this one response was received.
There are two agencies - SRWMD and DEP that are directly responsible for the "Health and Welfare" of the Santa Fe River - A designated "Outstanding Florida Water." They should be taking the lead in doing what is necessary to protect this OFW. This should be a high priority. The nutrient problem is known, and the sources generally identified: Agriculture - 80-85%, Septic tanks - 5-10%, Other - 5%. Failure to protect the Santa Fe -OFW - by failing to enforce state water quality laws is a violation of the law in itself. The plan by these two agencies is to continue to study - hold meetings - stall- delay - ignore - and NOT enforce state law until they are forced to - Burkelt Neely