Flagler Estates Concerned Citizens, Inc.

September 3^rd 2009 DEP Meeting in Tallahassee

The meeting was called to order at approximately 9:30 A.M. by Drew Bartlet Deputy Director regarding 62-304.415 Fl. Administrative Code. He introduced the folks on the review Board

All participants who planned to testify were sworn in.

First up - 16 Mile Creek (62-304.415)

Methodology for classifying waterways as impaired was discussed.

Wayne Flowers of Lewis, Longman & Walker provided a summary of concerns. He explained that Flagler Estates is a special district created basically for drainage & storm water treatment. 16 Mile Creek is a collection feature of drainage system. It was created in 1971 by a Plan of Reclamation, which turned 16 Mile Creek into water control structure. The crux of concern - establishing TMDLs for what is essentially a storm water treatment - pond - if you will. Canals, technically by default, are classified as class 3 water bodies. For 40 years, it has been operated as a storm water treatment system. Because of unique factors, it should be removed from the TMDLs. DEP’s predecessor approved conversion to water treatment structure and it was separated from the waters of the state. This was done by the construction. Its purpose is to treat & reduce nutrients within system. Not navigable. Testing is done where the nutrients are being treated.

System was created before rules. Next segment following the system is Deep Creek. Testing should be done AFTER the treatment pond and before entering Deep Creek.

Mr. Flowers suggested that the battle maybe should have been done in the classification phase but this is where we are now. (See below when DEP talks about why we are classified as we are)

Question from DEP -”Have you researched under federal law if the water would be considered a water of the US?” Answer “No, but I could.”

MIKE KELTER, Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District Board of Supervisors Engineer and his part of the show…

He stated that the people of Flagler Estates are committed to taking care of 16 Mile Creek.

He said he does not want to wind up with a BMAP (Basin Management Action Plan) that the District just cannot meet.

The reach of the system is increasing. There is lots of digging out there, increasing the inflow. Size - we (he) believe it is 21,151 acres and maybe more. 13,431 is the size in the report. We want to make sure that everyone who drains through us is held responsible and he wants that in the record. (DEP talks about delineation below - That dog did not hunt.)

He disputed the 123% reduction.

He perceives the analysis of TMDL Data - generalized linear modeling - problematic.

He spoke to site specific issues. Mr. Kelter contended that testing needs to be done every day.

He looked at flow - Rainfall data in Jacksonville is not a good proxy for Flagler Estates. He recommended using Spuds. He mentioned a relationship between flows and pH.

pH - He does a sniff test when the crews are working. (He doesn’t work - he consults…) (Is a Sniff Test scientific?) He smells Hydrogen Sulfite. He suspects a stronger connection than the Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus. Mr. Kelter asserts that there is something else going on in those canals.

MK links pH and DO. (Dissolved Oxygen) (At a prior District meeting (8-20-09), a scientist‘s review of this information was brought to Mr. Kelter‘s attention. The expert strongly disagreed with Kelter’s premise. He went with that argument anyway.)

Something is there with the sulfates and/or sulfites. (MK interchanged and confused the two terms.) ( They mean two different things) (Kelter claimed that Jan and Dr. Manglay have discussed this with Mr. K)

According to Mr. Kelter, with the amount of $$$ that will be spent on BMAPs, we want to be sure we are after the right component.

“We” do a lot of environmental work in Flagler Estates. Paving roads, reinforcing intersections, getting dirt out of ditches (He said this twice). He claimed to be reducing the amount of dirt in the system by 22-23% (He refers to his own  in his report for the last couple of years for evidence of this reduction.) (Of course, these are HIS reports… He could be skewing.)

He disputes the TSF (sedimentation) amount projected by DEP.

He talked about the fact that there are lots of systems- lots of swales that go into tributary canals. Drop pipes impound sediment.

He talked about getting over-run with water.

Then he talked about all the money spent developing lots of plans and his intent to continue to develop unless DEP says we cannot. TMDLs will detract resources from our ability to do this. (ALERT! ALERT! - We are talking about the WTF!!!) Resources would be used to do something that may not be achievable. Kelter pleaded - “Do not adopt this rule and recognize 16 Mile Creek as part of Storm Water Management System.”

DEP Question - “In the public workshop we held over in Jacksonville,… you indicated that you had currently been involved with the development of the Lower St. John’s TMDLs.”

MK “Yes, but for other entities.”

DEP - “The language included in this particular rule links 16 Mile Creek as a tributary in that main stem nutrient TMDL that had previously been adopted by the by the department and that we included language, at YOUR suggestion, frankly, to give the 16 Mile Creek watershed …credit for what might have been done under the presumption of complying with that Lower St. John’s TMDL & BMAP, And so the intent here and the language that we have included, just for clarification purposes, is not to put an added burden that you might not already have absorbed through the adoption of the Lower St. John’s TMDL."

MK - “That is correct. I do appreciate that and we did have that conversation.  As we look, though the percentages, there is clearly a difference in the SJC non-urban area where the agricultural BMAP has been separated from the urban BMAP and there is a different contribution a different allocation for each“….(blathering…)

MK - The District should not have to do more than the county.

DEP went on to clarify that they did focus on the correct boundary of delineation and that the District is responsible for what they are responsible for. DEP further disagreed with the contention that Flagler Estates was responsible for 123% of the total reduction of the county.

According to DEP, the crux of the issue is if water quality standards apply and is it a water of the state or a ???(Unintelligible)

DEP DID receive the report submitted by the District but it came in the night before the September 3, 2009 meeting and it was an awful lot of information and there was insufficient time to review it.

It was decided to hold the record open until the close of business on September 8, 2009.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

I JUST WENT TO THE FERWCD OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD SITE.  THE ENGINEER REPORT FROM AUGUST 6, 2009 IS NOT THERE.  IT IS THE REPORT WITH THE DISPUTED SCIENCE.

THE AUGUST 20TH REPORT IS THERE.

WE TAKE ISSUE WITH THE SEPTEMBER 10TH REPORT - ALSO NOT POSTED.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

This is quoted from a hard copy of the August 6, 2009 Chief Engineers Report submitted by Mike Kelter, P.E.

Included is the scientist/expert response to Mr. Kelter's conjectures.

Expert Answer 1. No - elemental sulfur will only react to form sulfates under high temperatures and/or pressures. (Example - at hydrothermal vents.)

Mr. Kelter continues: "This better explains the rapid drop in DO levels in the days following a storm event than does slightly elevated levels of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous after a storm."(2)

Answer 2. The expert disagrees. Rainfall washes organic material into the waterway; bacteria decompose organic material, causing increased TN & TP levels in the water and lowering DO.

 Mr. Kelter continues " As long as the sulfur does not come from flooded septic tanks and drainfields, a TMDL which puts some focus on sulfate is much easier and cheaper to correct than a TMDL which focuses on Total Nitrogen and Total Phosporous. "(3)

Answer 3. - but is wrong.

____________________________________________________________________________

WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RESEARCHING THE SEPTEMBER 10TH REPORT THROUGH FDEP AND RESPECTED EXPERTS AND WILL POST FINDINGS UPON VERIFICATION.