Title: CitrusLines
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090045/00014
 Material Information
Title: CitrusLines
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Publication Date: Winter 2010
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00090045
Volume ID: VID00014
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

CitruslinesSpring2010 ( PDF )


Full Text











The Mission of UF/IFAS is to develop
knowledge in agricultural, human and
natural resources and to make that
knowledge accessible to sustain and
enhance the quality of human life.


Winter 2010 UF

January, February &
March


UNIVERSITY of

FLORIDA

IFAS Extension
Lake County Extension


Well thankfully we are closing out the winter of 2010. We here in the more northern territory of citrus have
yet again dodged a bullet with cold weather. There was some fruit and tree damage, but thankfully not many
trees were lost. Hopefully we can put the cold weather in the rear view mirror for at least a few years. As Ben
Krupski told me after the ten days of freezing weather in early January which required long days and nights "if
we would have known what we were in for we would have saved our strength for later". It seems that the first
signs of freeze get us all active, even when the weather maybe a bit marginal. Once you go thru a few nights
of below 28 degrees for long durations, marginal nights don't seem so worrisome. Now as the weather turns
warm, we focus our attention to psyllid control, fertilization and irrigation. Hopefully like the freezes of last
year, by July you won't be able to tell the trees ever suffered this winter if given good care.
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, Larry R.
Arrington, Director, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, publishes this information to further the purpose of the May 8
and June 30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and is authorized to provide research, educational information, and other services only to individuals and insti-
tutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, na-
tional origin, political opinions, or affiliations. Single copies of extension publications (excluding 4-H and youth publications) are available free to
Florida residents from county extension offices. Information about alternate formats is available from IFAS Communication Services, University of
Florida, PO Box 110810, Gainesville, FL 32611-0810.








aiae 2

Other events of possible interest

Future of Global Orange Juice Industry Lake Alfred

Mechanical Harvesting Field Day Immokalee

Florida Citrus Mutual Annual Meeting Bonita Springs

Florida Agriculture Financial Management Conference Orlando

Brazil Citrus Tour Sao Paulo


April 8th

April 21st

June 9-11th

May 20-21st

June 19-26


Freezes of 2010
Having a weather watch extension program devoted to cold weather and specifically freeze
events I was fascinated by the maps below when I received them. These maps were created by
John Miley at the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service from data collected from F.A.W.N. sta-


Jan 5-6, 2010
Possible Freeze
Damage Areas


1.-. xs


I


5 Legend
SHours Below 28

-, --11-2
-3




-9

=11
12+
I Active Citrus


, Jan 6-7, 2010
Possible Freeze
Damage Areas


I ..
S.'Y 7 '

5 ...-" i j,



-. -
u I J I I


9,
r4~ *~
~)1 N~


La dN


I -~s
* 9 3 ..eI









nagye 3
tions. The maps show areas of the state shaded in different colors based on the estimated dura-
tions under 28 degrees. Sweet oranges become damaged typically starting after 4 hours at 28
degrees, so duration under 28 degrees is an interesting number. Every freeze event is different
for every location. Cold is much like water in that it will flow down hill to following the path of
least resistance to the lowest areas and pool up growing in diameter as it becomes colder.
When winds become calm, there is less mixing of the atmosphere and radiational cooling starts
to play an increasing role on temperatures. It is during these conditions when low/high effects
are most often in play. Look at map of Jan10-11 th where ridge locations such as Frostproof and
Sebring may have zero hours below 28 versus a lower lying area like Palmdale (which is 34
miles south) which had approximately 7 hours under 28 degrees.
Due to the severity of the freeze events the USDA declared the state of Florida officially a disaster
area. This designation makes farm operators in both primary and contiguous counties eligible to
be considered for assistance from FSA, provided eligibility requirements are met. This assistance




Jan 9-10, 2010 "_ Jan 10-11, 2010
Possible Freeze Possible Freeze
Damage Areas Damage Areas












Legend
Hours Below 28
S =110

L. C






"r -- l -. ." 10 '-/ "


z









Jaye 4
includes FSA emergency loans and the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (SURE).
SURE was approved as part of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and was implemented be-


ginning on January 4, 2010. FSA will consider
each application on its own merit by taking
into account the extent of losses, security
available, and repayment ability. Local FSA
offices can provide affected farmers with fur-
ther information. Get in touch with your lo-
cal FSA at:

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?
state=fl&agency=fsa
Chart to the right shows temperature and per-
cent fruit damage when subject to the tem-
perature (on left) for 1-12 hours (on top). This
chart was from research conducted on sweet
oranges by Drs. Gerber and Bartholic. Fruit
damage can vary slightly between different
citrus varieties.


Temp
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12
(F)
28 0 0 5 7.5 10 125 15 17.5 0 20
27 0 10 20 20 3 40 42-5 45 47.5 50 50
26 0 10 20 30 40 43 46 50 50 50 50 55
25 10 20 30 40 45 50 52 55 57 58.5 60
24 15 24 40 40 45 50 53 7 60 65 70 80
23 20 27 40 41 50 60 70 5 BO 90 100 100
22 25 30 40 55 70 O 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 30 35 50 65 BO 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 40 60 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 45 60 75 90 100 100 100 10 100 100 100l 100
18 50 90 10 100 100 100oo 100 100 100 100 100


r -


*.
-, Legend '
Hours Below 28
I I---I 1
-" E 1-2

4

... "i'. 117
i8



veCt11

Active Citrus
4- *11 art


Jan 12-13, 2010
'J Possible Freeze
Damage Areas
J.'\,


OU '. .
"L

'.




,~I,
* t ..'


>~ ~ '"*.
** *J m "


', -!.. 't -I -M e./ a S -r .

~' ';M -"

n '-Or-
^ ..' *SWf 'tjtI5' m aj
T-~iYCs~jY .'*^^*r' ''"

^ ^^T^^


s-I^ 1Jan 11-12, 2010
Possible Freeze
Damage Areas
^^^^^^^^^^^|L /"; \


I

4C~

K,








Jagye 5


The Florida Citrus Grower's Institute

Avon Park April 13th

For the last few years the citrus extension
agents have held the Florida Citrus Grower's
Institute. This years program is packed full of
great speakers and topics. In my opinion it is
the most important program of the year, due to
the fact it covers a wide range of topics with the
latest research based information. In addition,
the international and national speakers add to
the robustness of the program.
Avon Park is centrally located for the entire
state's citrus growing region. Most growers in
our area should be able to travel 2 hours or less
to this venue. A free lunch will be provided.
Registration is required and space is limited, so
do not wait until the last minute.
Check in begins at 8AM and the presentations
are from 8:30-3:45. Please see the flyer en-
closed with the newsletter for more details or
call my office at 352-343-4101.


Mid Florida Citrus Foundation Field Day

Winter Garden May llth

Please plan on joining us for a field day at the
MFCF in Winter Garden. Flyer provide at
back of newsletter with form.
Welcome/HLB Nutritional Trial -Ryan Atwood
New UF/IFAS Valencia release-Dr. Grosser
Sprout control and new herbicides-Dr. Futch
Remedial and preventative tests for HLB- Dr.
Albrigo
Rooted Cutting Trial- Ryan Atwood
Psyllid control work-Dr. Rogers
Psyllid control/Leafminer-Dr. Stelinski
Lunch
Peach Varieties-Dr. Olmstead
Horticultural Peach practices-Bob Rouse
Peach Pest Management- Gary England
Peach Nursery production-Phil Rucks


Economics of Peach Production-Ryan Atwood


Private Agricultural License Review & Exam May 19th 8:30-4:00

A pesticide license is required by any persons who apply or supervise the application of re-
stricted use pesticides for agricultural production. This certification requires a passing grade of
70% on the General Standards and Private exam. This certification must be renewed ever 4
years either by testing or by 8 CEU's.
There will be a review and exam in Kissimmee on May 19th. The review starts at 8:30 AM. There
is a $20 charge for the class. CEU's are available for the training session.
It is advisable to purchase the "Applying pesticides correctly" and "The private applicator train-
ing manual" from the IFAS bookstore on-line at www.ifasbooks.ufl.edu or by calling 800-226-
1764.
The private agricultural license itself cost $100 which does not have to be paid until after you
pass the exam. To register please send in sign up sheet located at the back of the newsletter.








Fane 6


CEU Day and WPS Training

Apopka June 10

If you are in need of a lot of CEU's for your
pesticide license you are in luck. Every year
in June we offer a CEU Day. This year the
CEU Day will be held at the Mid Florida Re-
search and Education Center in Apopka.
Registration is required. Please see attached
flyer.
8:20-9:10 a.m. Update on IPM and Biological
Control in Landscapes Dr. Steven Arthurs
9:10- 10:00 a.m. Yard Hole Makers, ID and Con-
trol Bill Kern


10:30 -Noon


25 Minute Hands On Sessions


Droplet Size and Wind speed Juanita Popeno
Calibration of Backpack Sprayers and Drop-
spreaders-Lelan Parker
Spill Cleanup Jennifer Pelham
Pesticide Safety Bingo Ryan Atwood

1:00 3:00 p.m. Worker Protection Standards/
Train the Trainer -Ryan Atwood


UF/IFAS Brazilian Citrus Tour

Sao Paulo June 19-26

Dr. Steve Futch will be conducting a Florida cit-
rus grower tour to Brazil June 19-26, 2010. This
tour will visit citrus sites in the State of Sao
Paulo. Citrus producing areas near Limeira, Ara-
raquara and Sao Jose do Rio Preto will be high-
lighted during the week tour. The approximate
cost for the tour will vary depending on the
number of participants and is estimated to be
$3,400 to $2,800. A $1,000 non-refundable de-
posit will be required by April 17, 2010. The
above fee includes airline tickets international
and domestic), hotel accommodations and
ground transportation. The tour will depart from
Miami on Saturday, June 19 (9:35 PM) and return
to Miami on Saturday, June 26 (7:10 AM). Depar-
ture from other locations can be arranged, but at
a slightly higher cost.
If interested in participating in this citrus tour,
please contact Steve Futch at shf@ufl.edu or by
phone at 863-956-1151.


Abandon Citrus Grove Abatement
A cooperative effort between the Florida Department of Agriculture, Florida Citrus Mutual, prop-
erty appraisers and landowners has begun to identify abandon groves. Groves that are regis-
tered under the Citrus Health Response Program (CHRP) maybe eligible for agricultural classifi-
cation for up to two years when removing living citrus trees that are not actively managed for cit-
rus (abandoned groves) and may act as a harbor for citrus pests and diseases. Once abandoned
grove pest threat is eliminated, the property owner is eligible for a CHRP abandoned grove
compliance agreement. CHRP abandoned grove compliance agreements will be valid for a
minimum of two years and may be extended in one-year increments based upon a written re-
quest justifying the need for additional time to complete land use transition. For more informa-
tion contact your local CHRP office (located on flyer in back of newsletter).









Fage 7


Pictures of recent Extension Activities


I included pictures of recent activities to
your extension program. If you have not
been coming, I wanted to show you what
Syou have been missing!

SBelow: Bill Lennon and Ben Krupski grill a
4H youth about citrus tree care. Thanks to
all the judges who volunteer their time!!


Above: Mr. Ryan auctions off the grand
champion citrus tree at the Central Florida
Fair. Sydney Feliciani of Orange County
was the top 4H youth and was overjoyed
with the highest bid of $550.00. Thanks
to all the growers who buy trees, it is your
support which makes the 4H citrus tree
program successful.


Abol\ Danny Finch co-owner of Record Buck
(C lsi Nuisery talks to Farm tour attendees about
ciuims Iccs. Attendees had the opportunity to
lacni moei about agricultural industries and their
imIpoI.iicc to Lake County's local economy.

LU fl Tlic Lake County Farm Tour included six
local .iinLumltural producers operations. This pic-
luiic \\iS tLiken at G&L Farms. Stops also in-
clided Fiiak Bouis's citrus grove off of HWY 19
aind CR 4x The tour consisted of Lake County
icsidciiccs government employees and elected
01o ficIll











J'age 8


RootStocks Affect the 17-Year Survival and Performance of'Valencia'Trees Grown in Immokalee.WILLIAM S.

CASTLE AND JAMES C. BALDWIN. UF/IFAS, Citrus REC, Lake Alfred, FL. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 121:140-144. 2008.

In honor of FSHS meeting coming up in June I would like to summarize the paper that won the "best paper"
award in the citrus section from the 2009 meeting. In 1991 non replicated large block plantings of Valencia on
nineteen different rootstocks were established near Immokalee. The soil at the site was Malabar-high-fine
sand with a average pH of 7.8. Tree survival was assessed at ages four and seventeen, average tree height was
determined at age nine, yield data was collected between 1996-2003. Fruit samples were collected in 1995,
1998, 2000, 2001 and 2003 to determine %juice, SSC, Ratio, and PS/box. In addition canopy ratings based
on micronutrient deficiencies were evaluated and compared against soil pH and CaCO3 percentages. Included


is part of Table 1 from this
paper, for the complete table
please see original paper.
The highest yielding root-
stocks over the six seasons
were Carrizo and Benton
citranges (14-15 boxes per
tree), while the lowest was
Cleopatra mandarin (9.5
boxes per tree). Highest
pound solids per box values
averaged over five seasons
were from Carrizo, Benton
and Rusk citranges. The
authors conclude by stating
that 500 boxes/acre is possi-
ble in Malabar series when
choosing the appropriate
rootstock. The specifically
mention Benton, Carrizo,
Sun Chu Sha as favorable
rootstocks and state the most
promising rootstock was F80
-14. In addition to the publi-
cations the Florida State
Horticulture Society (FSHS)
annual meeting is full of in-
teresting research based in-
formation for citrus produc-
tion. I encourage you to be-
come a member and attend
the annual meeting. Infor-
mation on the FSHS meeting
and membership can be
found at: http://
www.fshs.org/


Table 1. Perfonnance of 'Valencia trees on various in a planting at Inmnokalee. Trees planted in Apr. 1991 at 141 trees /acre (14 x 22 ft).


Tree survival, % Tree Yield, boxes/tree


Rootstock
1572 P. trifoliata (L.) Raf.
x Milam(Citrusjambhiri Lush. Hybrid



1573-26 P. rifoliata
X Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb. "Ridge Pineapple'



1578-173 'Ridge Pineapple' x Milam*


1578-201 'Ridge Pineapple' x Milam-


Benton citrange (C. sinensis x P. trifoliata)




Carrizo citrange




Changsha mandarin (C. reticulata Blanco)




Cleopatra mandarin




F80-5 citnruelo
(C. paradisi Macf, x P trifoliata)



F80-8 cirtnmelo




F80-9 citrumelo



F80-14 citrumelo


4 yr 17yr
98 90


100 91




50 48


48 45


99 90




100 81




99 98




88 67




99 88




100 97




100 93



100 88


ht, ft


Season Annual


94-95
10.5 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
9.0 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
11.5 99-00
00-01
94-95
11.5 99-00
00-01
94-95
12.0 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
11.5 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
12.7 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
14.2 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
14.5 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
12.5 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
13.5 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
94-95
9.7 99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03


Juice quality


Cun. % Juice
60.1
59.5
55.6

12.9 62.9
55.9
64.6
54.7

4.7 66.3
58.2

56.7
60.2
62.9
57.7

61.4
58.4

14.8 63.4

65.0
61.0


11.5 61.4
60.9
58.6
59.7

9.5 58.8
59.7
60.0
59.3

12.1 60.7
58.9
57.9
63.3

14.4 62.0
57.8
60.6
57.6

12.7 60.5
59.5
58.8
56.6

14.4 61.2








ai9e 9


IFAS Guidance for Huanglongbing (Greening) Management

Recently a document was developed by the UF/IFAS citrus extension team in an effort to provide
guidance to the Florida citrus industry when making management decisions about citrus green-
ing (HLB). This document was recently released and is reflects the best thinking of IFAS citrus
researchers, based on current scientific evidence and observations in Florida as of the spring of
2010. The document is presented in four sections:
1) HLB in Florida
2) Management strategies
3) Deciding which management strategy to use
4) HLB infection scenarios and management guidance.
I highly recommend that you review this document to aid in your understanding of the current
thought on HLB management. You can find a copy of the document online at: http://
cfextension.ifas.ufl.edu/agriculture/citrus/documents/IFASHLBGuidanceDocument.pdf and I
have also include a copy at the back of newsletter.
I would also encourage you to download the excel sheet developed by Dr. Fritz Roka at the
Southwest Florida Research and Education Center to see how different scenarios effect the eco-
nomic return of your operation. The excel file can be found at:
http://swfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/economics/
Click on the NPV Analysis to compare alternative HLB management strategies (Spreadsheet)
link.


EPA Nutrient Requirements

If you are not aware of EPA's proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for Florida please
take the time to read UF's recent release on this topic at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SS/
SS52800.pdf also provided in newsletter.
To give this topic a very brief summary, many of Florida's rivers and lakes are not passing The
Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) defined pollution standards for nitrogen and
phosphorus. Previously the DEP had developed standards for these nutrients however the stan-
dards were narrative in nature and not a numeric value. So why should you care? Because any-
one who uses fertilizer in the state will be affected by this rule. Obviously those of us in the agri-
cultural industry need to be involved and have input into this process. We do not want other
people making decisions that could impact our livelihoods without our opinions being heard.
Everyone wants to have clean rivers and lakes, let make sure we can do our part to ensure that
that objective goes hand in hand with the sustained success of Florida agriculture.
Please take the time to read more about this important topic.









12af&e ee(9/J5aUS /

Ryan Atwood
Extension Agent II
Multi County Fruit Crops
1951 Woodlea Rd
Tavares, FL 32778
raatwood@ufl.edu
Phone: 352-343-4101
Fax: 352-343-2627




*?-^?


The Vision for the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agri-
cultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) is to increase and strengthen the knowl-
edge base and technology for:

Expanding the profitability of global competitiveness and sustain-
ability of the food, fiber, and agricultural industries of Florida.
Protecting and sustaining natural resource and environmental sys-
tems.
Enhancing the development of human resources.
Improving the quality of human life.





Florida Citrus Agents Survey


The Florida Extension Citrus Agents work cooperatively on educational programs. We need to
survey these who participate in our programs to: 1). effectively evaluate the relevance of pro-
grams, 2). to determine how participants utilize the information received, and 3). to respond to
funding sources for our programs such as grants and sponsors.

If you attended the Florida Citrus Grower Institute Symposium last Spring (April 2009) in Bartow,
or one of the Fall 2009 Low Volume Technology Workshops in one of the six locations, would you
take four minutes and complete the survey at the following computer link:

htt ://www. survevmonkev. com/s/BWBDFYH


Intrepid 2F now has a supplemental label for citrus
leafminer control. It has a 1 day PHI and a minimal PPE
requirement. It has been touted by the manufacture to
not cause harm to beneficial insects. Research has
shown that trees with leafminer damage to there leaves
are much more likely to become infected with citrus
canker (when present in the area). Also control of leaf-
miner is important for young trees to maximize their
growth potential. For UF/IFAS official recommenda-
tions for leafminer control please consult the 2010 pest
management guide at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in686.




Think you haven't received my quarterly newsletter lately or
just want to look something up but misplaced an older copy.
Archived copies can be found at:

htt ://citrusaeents.ifas.ufl.edu/newsletters/atwood/index.htm


Supplemental
Labeling


4AgroSciences
* DowAgroSciences


Intrepid 2F
EPA Reg. No. 62719442
A10000
EPA 24(ce Spebial Local Need Registration SLN FL-
For Distribution and Use Only in the State of Flonda
Control of Lepidoptera Larvae Infesting Citrus Fruits (Crop Group 10)'
ATTENTION
SIt is ationo Federal lw ta use th product na manner nconssenrwih ts labeling
..n i * , . Caref yolc all

Acve ngrediert
methoxyfanode Berz M o acd 3-methoxy-
2-metnyl-,2-3.5-d, nethytBenzoyl)-2I
To tal .. 100.0%
Contains 2 b of active ingredient per gallon


Directions for Use
Citrus ruits {crop group 10 including calar-dn, chronja, ctrus 0tron gnpefuitr kumquat. emon, lime
mandarin, orange, pummeo, satsumn mandann, sour orange swee oa ans angeo tangenne. s angr, other
cult-va andor hybrids of these
Referto product label for General Use Precautions Mxing and Application instructions
Pests, Application Ratas, Application Tiling and Restrictions:
Application Rate

arvae than 14~-ay in tenuras intirpd 2F (1 Ib a) per
acre per season
Pre-harvest nteval: Do
not harvSt within 1 day
of apgicaton,


Spray Adjuvant: The addfton of asncultfral adliuvans I Intrepid 2F sprays wvli Impiove intal spray deposits
redisribulion arn w- ehnabfiiit Seiecl adjuvants that afe amended and reg stereo for your Specf l use
patter an follow teir use directions Always adad aduvans last n the miing process











IFAS Guidance for Huanglongbing (Greening) Management


Timothy M. Spann, Ryan A. Atwood, Megan M. Dewdney, Robert C. Ebel, Reza Ehsani, Gary England, Steve Futch,
Tim Gaver, Tim Hurner, Chris Oswalt, Michael E. Rogers, Fritz M. Roka, Mark A. Ritenour, and Mongi Zekri


This document has been developed in an effort to provide guidance to the Florida citrus industry in
making management decisions regarding Huanglongbing (HLB, citrus greening). Note that the information
contained in this document reflects the best thinking of IFAS citrus researchers, based on current scientific
evidence and observations under Florida conditions as of spring 2010. However, it is subject to change and the
document will be updated as necessary based on new research findings. Users of the document are encouraged to
consult with their IFAS Citrus Extension Agent to make sure they are referencing the most recent version.


This document is presented in four sections.
1. HLB in Florida.
2. Management strategies: a) inoculum reduction via removal of HLB-infected trees, and b) use of foliar
nutritional sprays to maintain the productivity of HLB-infected trees.
3. Deciding which management strategy to use.
4. HLB infection scenarios and management guidance.


1. HLB in Florida
HLB, also known as citrus greening, is the most devastating disease of citrus, affecting all citrus species
and varieties. This disease has severely limited production in many citrus-growing areas around the world. In
Florida, the disease is believed to be caused by the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (Las) and is spread
by the Asian citrus psyllid (Diaphorina citri Kuwayama). This insect was first found in Florida in 1998, and at that
time was considered to be a pest of minor importance since the HLB pathogen was not known to be present. The
2005 discovery of HLB in Florida changed the status of this insect to a pest of great importance. Since 2005, HLB
has spread to all citrus producing counties in Florida. Las is a phloem-limited bacterium that appears to cause
phloem plugging and likely has other undetermined effects on infected trees. Phloem plugging disrupts the
transport of carbohydrates leading to root and subsequent tree decline. Symptomatic trees display visual
symptoms of blotchy mottle leaf chlorosis and produce small, lopsided fruit that fail to ripen and drop
prematurely. Juice from fruit displaying these symptoms is similar in quality to juice from less mature fruit.


2. Management strategies
a) Inoculum reduction via removal of HLB-infected trees
At the time of its discovery in Florida, growers attempted to follow the guidelines used for HLB
management in other countries, including rigorous psyllid control and inoculum (i.e. infected tree) removal. In
reality, the urgency with which these guidelines needed to be followed for them to be most effective was not fully
appreciated initially. Inoculum removal is a sound epidemiological principle that has been practiced for decades in
many crop/disease systems, including other citrus producing areas where HLB is present. The principle behind tree
removal for HLB control is simple; by removing diseased trees, the percentage of the tree population that is
infected is reduced. A lower percentage of infected trees should result in reduced spread of the disease. Even
under the best circumstances, HLB will likely never be eradicated. The goal of this strategy is to keep the number
of infected trees low; ideally under 2%. This requires a rigorous management effort of psyllid control, scouting for
and removing infected trees, followed by resetting with clean nursery stock to recover productivity in the long
term. Since psyllid control and scouting are not 100% effective, psyllid control, scouting, tree removal and resetting
must be repeated judiciously.











Several factors may prevent tree removal from being as effective in practice as it is in principle. Perhaps
most important is HLB disease detection. Our current methods for detecting HLB-infected trees rely on visual
detection of symptoms. Currently, our best estimate places visual detection by scouting at about 50% 60%
effective in finding all the symptomatic trees in a single survey. In addition, there is a latency period between
infection and symptom development (estimated between 6 months and 2 years, or longer, depending on tree size
and other factors). During this latency period, psyllids can acquire the pathogen from asymptomatic trees;
however, the rate of acquisition may be lower than from symptomatic trees containing higher levels of the
pathogen. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is usually at least one asymptomatic tree for every symptomatic
tree found; although, some estimates put this number much higher. Despite this limitation, removal of infected
trees does reduce inoculum.
The second factor that impacts the effectiveness of tree removal is timeliness. Even growers with the
most aggressive tree removal program find it difficult to keep pace with new finds and many growers may delay
tree removal until the current crop is harvested. Thus, inoculum source trees may remain in the grove longer than
desired. Because of these inherent limitations, HLB inoculum reduction must be done in combination with
stringent psyllid control to maximize the management of inoculum spread.
The importance of keeping accurate records of the numbers and locations of infected trees and psyllid
control efforts cannot be over-emphasized. Growers should track their finds of infected trees over time to see
what impact their efforts are having. It is important to remember that because of the latency period of this
disease, it is very likely that the number of infected trees will continue to increase for some time after tree removal
is initiated. However, if the program is effective and good psyllid control is maintained without lapses, the number
of finds should decline and can be maintained at a relatively low level.
One factor that we have only begun to realize is the necessity for HLB inoculum management to be
regional. On many occasions, an inoculum control strategy in a grove is not as successful as desired because of
deficiencies in management practices in neighboring groves. If psyllid control is inadequate or not coordinated and
infected trees not removed, inoculum builds up in the immediate area. The experiences in Florida are similar to
those in Brazil. In Brazil, where there are large acreages of citrus with aggressive psyllid and inoculum
management, infection rates decrease from the outside edge to the center of a grove. Conversely, small blocks,
even with aggressive programs, are unable to reduce the rate of infection when surrounded by other blocks with
minimal or no HLB management programs. In Brazil, there are many very large farms that are able to implement
aggressive management programs over a wide area, thereby creating an HLB management buffer around them.
Large farms are fewer in number in Florida, which may prove to be a disadvantage to the citrus industry here
unless growers can begin to coordinate their efforts collectively to control inoculum as they have begun to do with
psyllid control.


b) Use of foliar nutritional sprays to maintain the productivity of HLB-infected trees
An alternative HLB management strategy being adopted by many Florida citrus growers uses various foliar
nutritional products, primarily micronutrients, to maintain tree health and productivity. There is substantial
scientific evidence about the positive effects of improved, balanced mineral nutrition on plant disease, particularly
with annual crops and foliar fungal and bacterial diseases. However, the data regarding the interaction of plant
nutrition and systemic vascular diseases, like HLB, are less conclusive. The beneficial effects of nutrition do not
extend to situations of excessive or luxuriant fertilization, which can in fact increase disease severity.
The theory behind the use of mineral nutrition for management of HLB-infected trees is fairly
straightforward. It is well documented that citrus trees respond to Las infection with the production of callose and
p-protein, natural wound/defense compounds that block the damaged or infected phloem vessels. This plugging of
phloem likely results in disruption of carbohydrate movement from leaves to roots, leading to root system decline.
The disruption of carbohydrate transport from the leaves leads to starch accumulation and chloroplast disruption,











expressed as the blotchy mottle symptom in leaves. The declining root system likely reduces water and nutrient
uptake contributing to the nutrient deficiencies and twig dieback that are general HLB symptoms. By supplying
nutrients to the tree by foliar application, the declining root system may be circumvented, and the tree may
tolerate the effects of the disease on disruption of carbohydrate, water and nutrient supply, thereby sustaining the
tree for some period of time depending on tree size, vigor and other factors. This potentially could result in new
phloem production and supply of carbohydrates to the roots, and eventually new root production and a
restoration of root function. Thus, the production of new vascular tissue may enable the tree to "live with" the
infection. That is, the tree may sustain an economic yield for some period of time in spite of the infection.
Nutrient supplementation may also affect trees by inducing naturally occurring plant resistance
mechanisms that are reported to protect against infection. Such mechanisms, including those known as SAR, SIR
and ISR, are thought to be preventative and not curative. If nutrient supplementation can induce these
mechanisms, the maximum benefit should be achieved when nutrients are applied to uninfected trees. At this
point, there is little evidence that these resistance mechanisms can protect against systemic diseases like HLB at
any stage of infection. Some users and/or manufacturers of nutrient supplement products add compounds to the
mixture, outside of traditional macro and micronutrients that have been postulated to induce plant resistance,
such as salicylic acid. These compounds should not be applied to commercial citrus if they are not registered for
this purpose. The maximum benefit from applications of properly dosed and balanced nutrients may lie in their
well-known effect on maintaining productive trees through balanced plant metabolism.
Although the potential exists for enhanced nutrition to increase tolerance to HLB, many unknowns exist.
First, what nutrients are important and at what rates? It is unlikely that one single nutrient will be the key; rather it
will likely be a combination of nutrients and possibly other compounds. Furthermore, it will be important to
maintain the balance between nutrients because having one nutrient drastically out of balance with the others is
just as damaging as a deficiency. How long can enhanced nutrition sustain the health of HLB affected trees?
Anecdotally, mature tree productivity has been maintained for at least 4 years on such a program when combined
with aggressive psyllid management. However, replicated scientific experiments to test these observations are
only in their second year. We also do not know if there is a point at which such a management strategy will not
work. It is likely that a nutritional program has a greater chance of success when implemented early (at first
disease detection or before) rather than after a grove has reached a state of significant decline from infection. In
addition, it is unknown if trees in the pre-bearing or early bearing stages will respond similarly to mature trees.
Good horticultural practices that promote healthy, productive trees make sense for all groves, regardless of HLB
infection.
In addition, significant questions remain about the build up and spread of inoculum under a nutrient
management program. As with tree removal, good psyllid control remains critical for two reasons. First, it is likely
that a tree will succumb to HLB-infection more quickly if it is repeatedly inoculated with the pathogen. Moreover,
since tree removal is not practiced under a nutrient management program, coupled with the fact that psyllids
reared on infected trees are more likely to spread the pathogen as adults, increases the risk for disease spread.
This raises the question of whether new plantings or resets can be brought into production where the regional
decision has been made to adopt the nutrient management strategy. Regardless of how long a nutrient
management program can sustain tree productivity there will come a time when those trees die. If the grove or
block is within a large area under nutrient management where high levels of inoculum have been allowed to
accumulate, can a new grove be planted and brought into production in such a situation? Experiences have been
that even in areas where inoculum control is aggressively practiced, it has not been possible to keep 100% of new
trees HLB free from the time of planting to bearing age. Thus, if inoculum is allowed to build in an area it is likely
that it will be even more difficult, if not impossible, to bring new trees into production.
To summarize, broadly accepted, sound scientific data to support which management strategy tree
removal or nutrient management strategy, or a combination of the two can sustain a grove or a commercial











citrus industry do not exist; although, a significant amount of research is currently underway to gather such data.
At this point, a recent study from Brazil has been published, and this, together with our experiences in Florida,
forms the basis of management under the infection scenarios presented below. Decisions about HLB management
are very difficult to make because of the continued uncertainty of how best to control inoculum or whether
inoculum control is even possible. Many factors other than biology are involved, including economics, sociology,
and regional HLB incidence that further complicate an individual grower's decisions on HLB management. The
decision of which strategy to pursue must be made by each grower based upon his or her particular situation and
objectives as discussed below.


3. Deciding which management strategy to use
The decision to remove infected trees to control HLB or pursue a nutritional supplementation program is
a difficult and complex one. The following series of questions and discussion are designed to aid you in making the
best decisions possible given your circumstances. The underlying presumption for these questions is that you are
reassessing whether to continue tree removal for HLB management or pursue a nutritional program instead. It is
our current opinion that a decision to abandon inoculum removal for a program of nutritional supplementation is a
one-way path that cannot be reversed for that grove, and the productivity of that grove and possibly surrounding
groves will be restricted to the life of the trees in the ground.


What percentage of trees in your grove is infected with HLB?
To accurately assess your situation and make an educated management decision, you must have accurate data
about HLB incidence and spread within your grove over time, as well as information about the incidence of HLB in
surrounding groves. Your data should include the number of infected trees per block and their location recorded
by GPS or on a physical map. This mapping allows you to track success or failure of your management efforts, and
make changes to your program in a timely manner.


What has your psyllid control program been?
This is one of the first questions you must ask yourself before making any further HLB management decisions,
because the vector of the disease, the Asian citrus psyllid, is the sole natural means by which HLB spreads. As
pointed out above, the efficacy of either management strategy relies on a sound psyllid control program.


Have all reasonable efforts been made to successfully control psyllids?
You must answer this question honestly. Have you invested the maximum and sufficient resources available to
control psyllids in your grove? If not, could this be why tree removal has not been successful for you? If you have
made the maximum investment in psyllid control, it is important to consider the local situation. Are your groves
adjacent to other groves (large or small acreage) where psyllid control is poor or not practiced? Can you work with
your neighbors to develop an area-wide psyllid control program? Can you use aerial or low-volume applications in
your grove to improve the economics and efficacy of psyllid control? Aerial and low-volume applications of
pesticides are known to be highly effective for psyllid control, especially when used over large areas. These actions
may increase your level of psyllid control allowing tree removal to be effective.


Has the grove been routinely scouted (3-4 times per year) followed by immediate tree removal up to this point?
As described above, identification of infected trees is perhaps the weakest link in the tree removal strategy. Since
not every symptomatic tree is found at each scouting, it is critical that scouting be repeated at least 3 4 times
annually. This will ensure that trees missed during one scouting event are detected and that newly symptomatic
trees are found as soon as possible. Additionally, a major reason why a tree removal strategy can fail is the lack of
timely tree removal. Once a tree is positively identified, it should be treated with pesticide and removed as quickly











as possible to stop psyllids from feeding on it and transmitting the disease to healthy trees. This must be done
regardless of the desire to harvest the tree's crop or because of interference with other grove operations. You
must ask yourself and honestly answer the question whether you have been dedicating all possible resources to
scouting and tree removal. Importantly, the HLB management practices of the immediate surrounding groves must
be taken into account in making this assessment. If possible, scouting and tree removal should be coordinated in
cooperation with your neighbors to develop a regional management program.


What is your long-term plan as a citrus grower?
If you are in the business for the "long-haul" then you must consider the future and your long-term investment. In
such a case, you may decide the goal of keeping inoculum levels low, despite current yield losses from tree
removal, is the best long-term strategy for yourself or the future of the Florida citrus industry. Perhaps you're
interested in staying in the business long-term, but surrounding citrus acreage doesn't indicate this will be feasible
because of encroaching development or other circumstances. Since tree removal demands a substantial financial
outlay, the economic realities of your citrus enterprise may also force a change in strategy. In this case, you may
decide that preserving your current investment in mature trees and maintaining their productivity for as long as
possible is the best strategy to maximize your current returns for future investment elsewhere. Psyllid control
must still be practiced in this situation. This is a serious question that everyone will need to answer before making
major management decisions.


4. HLB Infection Scenarios and Management Guidance
After assessing your situation, it is likely that you will find yourself in one of the three situations below. While we
would like to state the three scenarios below in more detail, our current knowledge does not allow us to define
these categories concretely. However, research is currently underway to help us better define these categories and
develop management thresholds. Growers, based on their unique set of circumstances, will have to determine
which category best describes their HLB situation.


Groves with low infection
If your grove has a low infection incidence and is located in a region of low infection, now is the time to begin
managing the disease. Psyllid suppression and scouting for and removing infected trees are the first and second
steps to keep HLB incidence low in your grove. Do not wait until you begin finding HLB infected trees in a grove to
begin controlling psyllids. HLB is in many ways a silent disease in its early stages because it is invisible to the naked
eye. HLB can be present in the tree for as long as 2 years or more before symptoms are evident. Such infected
trees still harbor the HLB pathogen that can be picked up by a psyllid and spread to neighboring trees. Thus, it is
important to implement a psyllid control program prior to the discovery of HLB in a grove that will maintain psyllid
populations as low as possible at all times of the year to minimize pathogen spread from asymptomatic trees.
Growers should not wait to remove an HLB-infected tree, even if it has fruit nearing harvest, as these trees will
serve as an inoculum source for continued pathogen spread. If your grove is close to other groves that are not
being managed by aggressive infected tree removal and psyllid control, it is just a matter of time before HLB begins
spreading through your grove. Collaboration with neighboring grove owners to insure that infected trees and
psyllids are managed effectively is the third step to keep HLB incidence low in your grove. Recent research and
experiences from Florida and Brazil indicate that chances for keeping HLB incidence low in your grove are much
greater if you 1) aggressively suppress the psyllid population, 2) remove HLB-infected trees immediately, and 3) are
located in an area of low HLB incidence. How large must this HLB-management area be? We are not precisely sure
at this writing, but evidence from Brazil indicates that at least a 1-mile distance between a managed grove and an
unmanaged grove is necessary to keep HLB incidence low. The larger the area of aggressive HLB management, the
larger the area will be with low HLB incidence. Keep in mind that infected psyllid incursions will likely occur on the











margins of a managed grove, creating higher HLB incidences along the grove edges. Additional scouting and psyllid
control measures may be needed in these border areas. The chances of bringing a reset tree, from clean nursery
stock, into production and keeping HLB infection rates low are much greater if the first, second, and third steps are
fully implemented. Good horticultural practices involving the application of optimal nutrition and irrigation must
be followed to reduce tree stress.


Groves with moderate infection
If you determine that you are at a moderate infection level, it will be imperative that you make an honest
assessment of your HLB management efforts up to this point. Have gaps in your program (e.g. inadequate psyllid
control, untimely tree removal) played a role in the rise of your infection level? Could an improvement in your
psyllid control and/or tree removal program be accomplished while maintaining the economic viability of the
grove? Would an increased level of psyllid control be sufficient for dealing with psyllid migrations from
surrounding unmanaged groves? Has an attempt been made to coordinate psyllid control and tree removal efforts
with your neighbors? Excellent psyllid control will be essential to reduce the spread of HLB. Tree removal may still
be an option in this situation, especially if you are located in a region of low HLB incidence, but your answer to the
above questions and your economic situation must be considered in the decision to maintain your management
strategy. Grove care practices should be evaluated and you should consider steps to improve overall tree health
and minimize tree stress, including the addition of foliar nutrition sprays, emphasizing micronutrients, even if
deficiency symptoms are not present.


Groves with high infection
In a high infection situation, economics is likely to be the primary factor influencing your management decisions.
That is, you will likely conclude that you can no longer survive economically with a reduced tree population,
scouting costs, tree removal costs, etc., and decide to pursue a nutrient management strategy. However, rigorous
psyllid control must continue in order to reduce infection of newly planted trees, the re-inoculation of infected
trees, and to minimize spread to nearby groves. Resources previously allocated to scouting for infected trees
should be shifted to scouting for psyllid populations to aid in control efforts. There is currently no IFAS
recommendation for a nutrient management strategy; however, information on formulations currently being used
in IFAS trials can be found on the IFAS greening website (http://greening.ifas.ufl.edu1. The goal of this strategy is to
maintain the productivity of HLB infected trees by increasing the levels of nutrients, particularly micronutrients,
within the tree by providing nutrients at remedial (corrective) levels. This strategy should be implemented before
trees have severely declined from HLB. It will likely be at least one-year before improvements are seen, depending
on the severity of disease symptoms in infected trees when the program was started.


At what point you decide to completely push a grove, rather than continuing either management program, and
replant with clean nursery stock will depend on your economic ability to manage a young grove given the HLB and
psyllid situation in your region.


Summary
IFAS realizes that the Florida citrus industry faces unprecedented challenges to its continued economic viability,
productivity, and existence. Making management decisions for HLB control have been greatly complicated by the
rapid buildup of HLB inoculum in the citrus industry, particularly in areas first affected by the epidemic. The
industry's muted response to the initial HLB challenge followed by a failure to realize the importance of rigorous
implementation of psyllid control and scouting coupled with immediate tree removal, has resulted in a dangerous
build-up of HLB inoculum statewide. Grove owners, who find HLB infection rates too high in their groves to remove
trees and remain economically viable, are looking to other management strategies that will keep their existing











trees in the ground. The nutrient management strategy can, at least for a short-term, maintain infected grove
productivity. However, most dangerously for the citrus industry, a grove solely on nutrient supplementation allows
HLB inoculum to remain: eventually every tree will become infected, as psyllid control is not perfect even in the
best case. Under such conditions, clean resets or newly planted groves will become infected with HLB and may
decline before they become productive, in essence throwing the investment in those young trees away.
Surrounding groves will find it difficult if not impossible to maintain low infection rates. Thus, with current
knowledge and technology groves managed under a nutrient program without infected tree removal are restricted
to the life of the trees in the ground. The management strategy that should ensure the continued economic
viability and productivity for the citrus industry is rigorous psyllid control, scouting for infected trees, removing
infected trees immediately, and establishing area-wide regions of such management, coupled with good nutrient
management practices, that will keep HLB infection rates low over large areas and maintain optimal health and
productivity of uninfected trees. We hope that this is achievable, given the current statewide inoculum levels and
psyllid populations. Until a long-term solution emerges in the form of a resistant citrus variety, managing HLB
successfully will remain one of the largest historic challenges to the Florida citrus industry.








SL316
U UNIVERSITY of
UFFLORIDA
IFAS Extension



A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water

Quality Criteria for Florida1

Thomas Obreza, Mark Clark, Brian Boman, Tatiana Borisova, Matt Cohen, Michael Dukes, Tom
Frazer, Ed Hanlon, Karl Havens, Chris Martinez, Kati Migliaccio, Sanjay Shukla, and Alan Wright2


Introduction

The purpose of this publication is to provide a
basic, concise, and understandable description of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida,
the background events that led to its release, some
pertinent scientific issues, and implications for the
future.3

(Authors' note: This topic is very complex with an
intricate and,, A.,h1iy historical background. Our
intent here is to provide highlights and basics. We will
present more detailed, comprehensive information in
subsequentfact sheets.)

What happened on January 14th,
2010?

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a
proposed rule called "Water Quality Standards for the
State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters." This


rule was published in the Federal Register on January
26th, 2010.4

What is this rule about?

EPA is proposing "numeric water quality
criteria" pertaining to nutrient concentrations to
protect aquatic life in lakes and flowing waters,
including canals, within the state of Florida. In
addition, EPA is proposing regulations to help
Florida develop "restoration standards" for impaired
waters.

Is Florida the only state where
numeric water quality criteria have
been required?

EPA's 1998 "National Strategy for the
Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria"
encouraged all states and tribes to adopt numeric
nutrient water quality criteria as a more effective way
to protect water resources from nutrient enrichment


1. This document is SL316, one of a series of the Soil and Water Science Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date February 2010. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
2. Thomas Obreza, Professor, Soil and Water Science Department; Mark Clark, Assistant Professor, Soil and Water Science Department; Brian Boman,
Professor, IRREC; Tatiana Borisova, Assistant Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department; Matt Cohen, Assistant Professor, School of Forest
Resources and Conservation; Michael Dukes, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering; Tom Frazer, Associate Professor, School of
Forest Resources and Conservation; Ed Hanlon, Professor, SWFREC; Karl Havens, Professor, Florida Sea Grant College; Chris Martinez, Assistant
Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering; Kati Migliaccio, Assistant Professor, TREC; Sanjay Shukla, Associate Professor, SWFREC; and
Alan Wright, Assistant Professor, EREC

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and
other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Millie
Ferrer-Chancy, Interim Dean






A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 2


and to meet specific aspects of the Clean Water Act.
A 2008 EPA status report5 indicated that nineteen
states have adopted numeric nutrient standards for
some or all of their lakes and reservoirs, and 14 states
have adopted numeric nutrient standards for some or
all of their rivers and streams.

What does "impaired water" mean?

An impaired water body is one that is polluted to
6
the point where it does not meet its designated use6
For example, a lake designated for swimming could
become "impaired" if pollution increased to such a
degree that it became undesirable or unsafe for
people to swim there. Or, a river designated for
aquatic life could become impaired if it were polluted
to the point at which certain types of fish that used to
thrive there could no longer live. Or, an estuary could
become impaired if seagrasses could no longer grow
in it. As a water body becomes impaired, the existing
aquatic ecosystem changes for the worse, fish or
wildlife habitat is degraded, and in extreme cases
public health may be threatened.

How many impaired water bodies
does the state of Florida have?

According to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's (DEP) 2008 Integrated
Water Quality Assessment Report,7 about 1000 miles
of rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900
square miles of estuaries are impaired by nutrients
(nitrogen and/or phosphorus)8. The extent of
impairment may be eventually found to be higher
because not all of Florida's water bodies had been
assessed as of 2008. Nutrients were ranked as the
fourth major source of impairment for rivers and
streams (after dissolved oxygen, mercury in fish, and
fecal coliform contamination). For lakes and
estuaries, nutrients ranked first and second,
respectively.

How do nutrients affect Florida's
water bodies?

All living things need nutrients to survive and
grow, but elevated nutrient concentrations may
impact the designated use of a water body. Many of
our natural areas in Florida developed in a limited


nutrient condition. If nutrient concentrations increase
in these areas, plant and algal growth can become
excessive and affect other living things. A short-term
example is when excess nutrients trigger an algal
bloom that looks and smells bad, and can result in
poor-tasting drinking water. A longer-term example is
when sustained algal growth reduces water clarity,
which in turn decreases the amount of light reaching a
lake bottom. The result can be a decrease in growth
of aquatic plants that provide critical fish habitat.

On the other hand, some Florida lakes, streams,
and springs are naturally high in phosphorus because
these water bodies directly interact with
phosphorus-rich bedrock and groundwater. It is
important to distinguish a water body that is naturally
high in nutrients from those that have become
impaired due to excessive inputs of nutrients from
human and/or animal sources.

Hasn't DEP already established water
quality standards for Florida?

Yes, Florida has had nutrient water quality
standards for many years, and DEP has been working
to develop numeric nutrient criteria. However,
standards previously established by DEP were
"narrative" in nature and not "numeric." (See the
Further Information section at the end of this
document for a historical timeline.)

So, what's the difference between
"narrative" and "numeric"
standards?

Narrative standards use descriptive language to
determine the point at which water quality is no
longer supporting the designated use of a particular
water body. For example, the Florida narrative
standard for nutrients presently indicates that: "In no
case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water
be altered so as to cause an imbalance in the natural
population of flora or fauna." This language implies
that at some as yet undefined concentration of
nitrogen and/or phosphorus, it is expected that
nutrients could be harmful to the water body, and that
reaching these concentrations would cause the water
body to become "impaired." This type of narrative
standard often results in a water body becoming






A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 3


impaired before the level of nutrients that cause
imbalance is determined.

A numeric standard defines the maximum
nitrogen and/or phosphorus concentration in a water
body that will permit that water body to maintain its
designated use. A standard expressed numerically
may eliminate the need for a case-by-case assessment
of risk associated with nutrient enrichment. With a
narrowly defined numerically expressed criterion, it
is much easier to determine if a problem exists or if a
known source of nutrients is a threat.

Here is an example of how a numeric water
quality standard would be expressed: "To protect
rivers and streams in the Florida panhandle, the
yearly average total nitrogen concentration in the
river or stream shall not surpass 0.824 ppm* more
than once in a 3-year period." This example standard
sets a nitrogen limit for a region of Florida (the
panhandle), but it does not get any more specific
relative to one river versus another within that region.

*ppm = parts per million, which is identical to
milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Both narrative and numeric
standards allow some nutrients to
exist in a water body. How do we
know when we have too much?

Determining a specific number (nutrient
concentration in the water) that protects the
designated use of a particular water body (without
being over-protective) is challenging for several
reasons. One reason is that no two water bodies are
exactly the same when it comes to the nutrient
concentration standards that will protect them from
impairment. In fact, different water bodies will
respond differently to the same nutrient inputs. In
addition, natural nutrient concentrations can be quite
high in many Florida waters.9 Both of these reasons
make it unlikely that just one number could apply to
all of Florida.

If water bodies are grouped by their natural
nutrient concentrations, and other factors that
influence nutrient response are accounted for, then
some of the natural variability discussed above can be
sorted out. Creating appropriate groupings of water


bodies that share similar natural levels of nutrients
and response characteristics is a critical part of
establishing nutrient criteria that will appropriately
protect the water bodies within the group. (See the
Further Information section at the end of this
document for details on how numeric nutrient criteria
are developed.)

What happened to change the way
DEP was addressing Florida's water
quality issues?

In July 2008, an organization called Earthjustice,
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the
Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida,
St. John's Riverkeeper, and the Sierra Club filed a
lawsuit against EPA. The suit: 1) claimed that there
was an unacceptable delay by the federal government
in setting limits for nutrient pollution; 2) claimed that
EPA had previously determined that numeric nutrient
criteria are necessary as described in the Federal
Clean Water Act; and 3) further argued that EPA was
obligated to promptly propose these criteria for
Florida.

So, what happened as a result of the
lawsuit?

After EPA assessed the situation, on January 14,
2009, EPA determined that numeric standards were,
in fact, needed to meet the requirements of the Clean
Water Act. EPA also declared that Florida's existing
narrative criteria were insufficient to protect water
quality. This determination meant that, despite
considerable and ongoing nutrient pollution control
efforts by state agencies, water quality degradation
remains a significant challenge, especially with
Florida's projected population growth and land use
changes.

In August 2009, EPA entered into a Consent
Decree with the environmental groups to settle the
2008 litigation. (A Consent Decree is a voluntary
agreement between the parties in a lawsuit.) EPA
committed to propose numeric nutrient standards for
lakes and flowing waters in Florida by January 2010,
and for Florida's estuarine and coastal waters by
January 2011. EPA agreed to establish final standards






A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 4


by October 2010 for lakes and flowing waters and by
October 2011 for estuarine and coastal waters.

What did DEP do as a result of the
Consent Decree?

DEP suspended their formal rulemaking process
to establish numeric water quality criteria. They are
now evaluating EPA's proposed rule and are
providing information relevant to deriving numeric
criteria. During the past decade, Florida has spent
more than $20 million to more fully understand
nutrient pollution and control, and DEP has
coordinated closely with EPA on this issue. Florida
has more data describing its water quality than any
other state, and it has shared these data with EPA.
The two agencies have worked closely to analyze and
interpret the data as the numeric criteria were
developed and will continue to do so throughout the
process.

What does EPA's proposed rule
say?

The proposed rule is long and detailed. The
document (obtainable from EPA's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/
florida/) is 196 pages of double-spaced text,
footnotes, and 27 data tables. Here are some
highlights:

Who will be affected by this rule?

Industries discharging pollutants to lakes and
flowing waters.

Publicly owned water treatment facilities.

Entities responsible for managing stormwater
runoff.

Non-point source contributors to nutrient
pollution. (Examples of these are agricultural
production, managed landscapes, and urban
areas. In short, everyone and everything in
Florida.)


What do the proposed numeric nutrient
criteria look like?

Key points:

This rule applies to "lakes and flowing waters,"
which are defined as inland surface waters that
we either drink (Class I) or use for recreation and
aquatic life support (Class III). Estuaries, coastal
waters, and wetlands are not included at this
time.

The numeric criteria proposed are designed to
support a balanced natural population of flora
and fauna in lakes and flowing waters, while also
ensuring the attainment and maintenance of the
water quality standards for downstream waters.
What this statement means is, the numeric
criteria for a water body you are looking at (a
stream, for instance) were developed with two
things in mind: the requirement of the stream
itself, plus the requirement of any water body
into which the stream flows (like a lake).

See tables 1 through 4 at the end of this
document for specific numeric criteria.

What is a "restoration" water quality
standard?

Some Florida water bodies have such poor water
quality that it will take a long time to rehabilitate
them. In these waters, there is a large difference
between current water quality and the nutrient
concentrations needed to protect aquatic life and
re-establish designated use. In these cases, EPA has
proposed that Florida could adopt temporary
designated uses and criteria that would be the basis
for enforceable permit requirements and other control
strategies while efforts are incrementally made to
achieve the original designated use. Florida would
need to demonstrate that the interim uses and criteria,
as well as the time frame, are based on a Use
Attainability Analysis that focuses on what is
attainable and by when. These interim designated
uses, criteria, and the applicable time frames would
all be incorporated into the State Water Quality
Standards on a site-specific basis, as would be any
other designated use change or adoption of
site-specific criteria.






A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 5


What is meant by "site-specific alternative
criteria?"

A site-specific criterion is a water quality
standard that differs from the statewide standard. The
site-specific standard meets the regulatory
requirement of protecting a water body, but it is
tailored to account for site-specific conditions.
Site-specific alternative criteria may be more or less
stringent than the state standard, but in either case,
must be based on sound science.

If I want to comment on the rule, what should
I do?

There is a 60-day public comment period within
which you can submit written comments to EPA on
the proposed rule. Comments must arrive at EPA's
offices by March 29, 2010. There are also several
public meetings where you can provide oral
comments. More information about the public
comment period and the location of meetings can be
found at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/
florida/. If you choose to comment:

Be ready to explain why you agree or disagree
with the proposed rule.

Suggest alternatives and substitute language for
your requested changes.

Describe any assumptions and provide any
technical information and/or data that you used.

If you estimate potential costs or burdens,
explain how you arrived at your estimate in
sufficient detail to allow for the estimate to be
reproduced.

Provide specific examples to illustrate your
concerns, and suggest alternatives.

Just how sensitive are Florida's water
bodies to nutrients?

One way we can answer this question is by
comparing the proposed numeric nutrient standards to
drinking water standards. For example, the drinking
water standard for nitrate-nitrogen is 10 ppm, while
the highest total N concentration found in the


proposed rule is about 1.8 ppm. (There is no
phosphorus drinking water standard.) This illustrates
that some of Florida's aquatic ecosystems are
sensitive to nutrients at concentrations much lower
than those directly affecting humans.

In the case of Florida's aquatic ecosystems,
changes in nutrient concentration of a water body are
more likely to cause an imbalance in aquatic life
compared with a water body that has a relatively
constant high or low nutrient concentration. For
example, if plant or algal growth is limited by lack of
nitrogen or phosphorus in a lake, that particular lake
will have an algae concentration proportional to the
amount of available nitrogen or phosphorus. If more
of the limiting nutrient is added to the lake, the algal
growth will increase. This increase in plant growth
can change the composition of the aquatic ecosystem,
potentially resulting in impairment.

On the other hand, if nutrient concentrations in a
water body are naturally high, the aquatic ecosystem
that developed there is supported by and in some
respects dependent on these high nutrient
concentrations. One result of human habitation in
Florida is the importation of nutrients to our
watersheds, some of which ultimately end up in water
bodies. It does not take much "extra" nutrient to upset
the balance and cause ecosystem change.

How does EPA's rule differ from what
DEP was working on?

When we compare EPA's proposed rule with the
draft rule DEP was developing before the Consent
Decree, we find that DEP's numeric criteria are quite
similar for lakes and in-stream protection. However,
the two agencies differ substantially in some
methodologies and approaches to certain aspects of
numeric criteria development.

One difference is that DEP was planning to
include a two-tier assessment approach in its rule,
with the first tier being numeric nutrient criteria
(similar to EPA), and a follow-up second tier that was
a biological assessment of the water body. It is
uncertain if the two-tier system would have been part
of a final rule proposed by the state, but the intent was
to have "biological confirmation" that nutrient
concentrations above the numeric standard actually






A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 6


resulted in biological impairment of the water body.
One way to look at this is, EPA's numeric criteria are
like a "caution light" on a traffic signal, whereas
DEP's biological assessment represents confirmation
of the presence or absence of water quality
impairment.

Another difference between the two rules is that
EPA is proposing to use an equation to adjust
in-stream total phosphorus criteria to protect
downstream lakes, and a different methodology to
adjust in-stream total nitrogen criteria to ensure
protection of water quality standards for downstream
estuaries. DEP's rule prior to the Consent Decree
proposed narrative criteria to protect downstream
waters using the best available scientific information
to translate this narrative.

Lastly, EPA is proposing to set numeric nutrient
criteria for canals in south Florida. They would use a
statistical distribution approach based on sites
meeting designated uses with respect to nutrients
identified in four canal regions. DEP did not propose
numeric nutrient criteria for south Florida canals in its
rulemaking.

So, what does all of this mean to
Floridians, and what are the
implications for the future?

The intent of the rule is to better protect Florida's
water resources from excess nutrient enrichment so
these resources can continue to provide the
designated uses that we enjoy and depend on. The
challenge is that everyone who lives in or visits our
state contributes to nutrient enrichment. It may be
through a septic tank, a central sewer system, walking
a dog, raising and feeding animals, fertilizing lawns
and gardens, or managing nutrients on a large farming
operation, just to name some examples. We all benefit
from protecting water bodies from excess nutrients,
but we must also recognize that we are ultimately the
source of these nutrients.

Our present regulations say that nutrient
enrichment cannot detrimentally affect flora and
fauna in aquatic ecosystems. The only thing that
would change this statement is a fundamental
re-working of the Federal Clean Water Act, which


was implemented in 1972. This action is not likely to
happen.

There is no doubt that EPA's water quality goals
will be very challenging to meet. At this point, EPA
has issued their proposed rule for consideration and
comment, but they have not provided insight about
how their rules will be implemented. Since these
rules have only been proposed at this point, it is
difficult to say exactly how the future day-to-day
activities of Florida's residents, land and water
resource managers, businesses, and utilities will be
affected. In the case of wastewater disposal systems
like sewage treatment plants and septic tanks,
technology exists that would allow us to further
reduce nutrients from these sources. For other
sources of pollution, the answers are not as clear.

One substantive issue that almost certainly will
arise is a "misclassification" of lakes as impaired or
not impaired. This occurrence is likely because the
baseline or natural concentrations of nutrients across
Florida may not be sufficiently captured in the
proposed numeric nutrient criteria. Because EPA's
approach paints lakes with a broader brush, many
lakes with naturally high levels of phosphorus, for
example, are likely to be listed as impaired. This
result could lead to costly efforts to develop
site-specific alternative criteria or even to programs
to reduce phosphorus concentrations to less than what
naturally occurs.

Specifically, what does the proposed
rule mean for municipalities?

Many Florida cities have what are called
"Municipal Separate Stormwater Systems" (MS4s,
for short) that collect polluted stormwater runoff and
discharge it to surface waters belonging to the state.
Many of these MS4s are regulated, meaning
discharges must be permitted in compliance with the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) just like publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities. EPA's proposed rule could affect
municipalities that operate both MS4s and wastewater
treatment facilities if meeting the numeric nutrient
criteria for the receiving or downstream water body
requires that more stringent limits be put in place
when their NPDES permit is renewed. More stringent






A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 7


limits will require additional pollution control
measures to be put in place as part of the stormwater
management program, which will likely be costly.

Specifically, what does the proposed
rule mean to agriculture?

During the next 10 to 20 years, the sustainability
of Florida's agricultural production as we know it
today will be a hotly debated topic. In the short term,
numeric standards are not likely to have a great effect
on agriculture. The Florida Watershed Restoration
Act (FWRA) of 1999 and subsequent revisions to it
govern Florida's Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) program. The FWRA specifies that the Best
Management Practice (BMP) program administered
by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (DACS)10 is the method
agriculture will use to meet water quality standards.
The perspective of DEP and DACS is that the
FWRA will continue to govern agriculture, regardless
of numeric standards imposed by EPA. Agricultural
operations that implement appropriate BMPs after
filing a notice of intent to do so will receive a
presumption of compliance with water quality
standards even after acceptance of numeric criteria by
DEP. The state of Florida is highly invested in the
BMP program, and it is not likely to go away any time
soon. However, in the long term, the requirements of
the BMP program will likely change as a result of
numeric nutrient criteria. With numeric standards, the
success of the existing BMP program will be much
easier to assess. It is likely that more aggressive and
expensive practices will be required. It will be
important to document the success of existing BMPs
to ensure credit is established for on-going
commitments.
Further Information

A timeline describing the development of
numeric nutrient criteria in Florida

In 1998, EPA initiated their "National Strategy
for the Development of Regional Nutrient
Criteria." The intent was to assist states and
tribes in adopting numerical nutrient criteria into
state water quality standards as a more effective
means to protect water resources from nutrient
enrichment.


In 2000 and 2001, EPA published technical
guidance to develop nutrient criteria in
lakes/reservoirs, rivers/streams, and
estuaries/coastal waters.

In July 2004, DEP entered into a development
plan with EPA to establish numeric nutrient
criteria for Florida.

In 2007, the plan was revised and mutually
agreed upon by EPA to more accurately reflect
the evolved strategy and technical approach DEP
had developed.

In 2008, a lawsuit seeking to require EPA to
promulgate numeric nutrient water quality
standards for Florida waters was filed by the
Florida Wildlife Federation in an effort to speed
up the process of numeric nutrient development
and adoption.

On January 14, 2009, EPA formally determined
that Florida's existing narrative criteria on
nutrients in water was insufficient to ensure
protection of the state's water bodies as required
under the Clean Water Act.

In August 2009, USEPA entered into a Consent
Decree with the Florida Wildlife Federation to
settle the 2008 litigation, committing to propose
numeric nutrient standards for lakes and flowing
waters in Florida by January 14, 2010 and for
Florida's estuarine and coastal waters by January
2011, with final standards to be established by
October of those years.

On January 14, 2010, EPA released their
proposed numeric nutrient criteria rule, and it
was published in the Federal register 12 days
later.

How are numeric nutrient criteria
developed?

There are two main approaches to determine
numeric nutrient criteria: 1) stressor-response
relationship and 2) reference condition.

In the case of a stressor-response relationship,
experiments or monitoring of water bodies within a
particular group are studied to determine the nutrient







A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 8


concentration at which an impact on the designated
use is no longer acceptable. This method is the most
desirable approach because it directly relates the
nutrient stressorr" with the undesirable biological
"response."

When there is not enough information to
determine stressor-response, then a reference
approach is used. First, healthy water bodies are
identified in a particular region. Then, water quality
data from these water bodies are scrutinized, and
numeric nutrient criteria are based on the distribution
of nutrient concentrations found. In other words, a
healthy water body must be under the "threshold" for
impairment, whatever that threshold might be.

With the reference approach, it is assumed that
biological integrity is protected as judged by the
minimally impacted reference conditions, and that
increasing nutrient concentrations above reference
would unacceptably impact the designated use. Both
stressor-response relationships and the reference
approach were used by EPA to develop the proposed
rule.

Another challenging aspect in the development
of numeric nutrient criteria is that the nutrient
concentration determined for a particular water body
must also protect downstream water bodies. For
example, if a stream is flowing into a lake or an
estuary, then the nutrient criteria established for the
stream must protect not only its designated use, but
also the designated use of the downstream lake or
estuary.

Determining the nutrient concentration in a
stream that will protect downstream uses first requires
nutrient criteria to be established for the downstream
receiving water body. Next, the volume of stream
flow received by the downstream water body as well
as the mass of nutrients that might naturally be
removed as the water flows down the stream are
determined. From this information, a nutrient
concentration within the stream that will match the
downstream water body nutrient criteria can be
determined. The lower of the two criteria (in-stream
protection or downstream protection) is used to
establish the numeric nutrient criteria for that water
body.


All of the data used by EPA to develop the
proposed rule can be found at
http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/DEAR/Weaver/.


Stream Nutrient Regions
S Northeast
North Cenrall
Panhandle
-l Peninsula
Bone Valey
South Florida (Everglades)

Figure 1. Map of watershed regions applicable to rivers
and streams numeric water quality criteria.

Additional Notes:

3. Details can be found from the EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/florida/
factsheet.html#summary.

4. Seel. i .l ..I I .I .. -.! 1.,v/2010/2010-1220.htm.

5. See
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/files/reportl998-
2008.pdf.

6. Florida recognizes five designated uses for public water resources; Class
I is water used for drinking, Class II is water used to produce shellfish,
Class III is water used for recreation (e.g., swimming) and aquatic
life support, Class IV is water used for agriculture, and Class V is water
used for navigation, utility, and industrial purposes. Each type of water
use has specific quality standards that determine if the designated use is
being maintained.

7. See http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2008_IntegratedReport.pdf.

8. Of the Florida waters listed as "impaired" in DEP's report, these values
represent about 5% of the assessed river and stream miles, 23% of the
assessed lake acres, and 24% of the assessed square miles of estuaries.

9. Studies at the University of Florida and data collected as part of the
LAKEWATCH program indicate a wide range of natural nitrogen and
phosphorus concentrations among Florida lakes mainly due to
differences in the availability of these nutrients in soils and sediments.

10. See http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/AtaGlance.html.






A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida 9

Table 1. Numeric criteria proposed for lakes. A lake is a freshwater body that is not a stream or other water course, with
some open water free from vegetation above the water surface.

A B C D E F
Baseline criteria Modified criteriaa
Chlorophyll a (pg/L)b Total N (mg/L) Total P (mg/L) Total N (mg/L) Total P (mg/L)

Colored 20 1.23 0.050 1.23 2.25 0.050 0.157
lakesc
Clear 20 1.00 0.030 1.00- 1.81 0.030 0.087
lakes,
alkalined
Clear 6 0.500 0.010 0.500 0.900 0.010 0.030
lakes,
acidic
alf chlorophyll a is below the criterion in column B and there are representative data to calculate ambient-based,
lake-specific, modified TP and TN criteria, then DEP may calculate such criteria within these bounds from ambient
measurements to determine lake-specific, modified criteria.
bChlorophyll a is an indicator of phytoplankton biomass (microscopic algae) in a water body, with concentrations reflecting
the integrated effect of many of the water quality factors that may be altered by human activities.
CColored lakes are distinguished from clear lakes based on the amount of dissolved organic matter they have free from
turbidity. Dissolved organic matter concentration is reported in Platinum Cobalt Units (PCU). Colored lakes have values
greater than 40 PCU and Clear lakes have values less than or equal to 40 PCU.
dAlkaline lakes are distinguished from acid lakes based on their concentration of CaCO Alkaline lakes have greater than
3
50 mg/L CaCO3, while acid lakes have values less than or equal to 50 mg/L CaCO3


Table 2. Numeric criteria proposed for rivers and streams, defined as free-flowing surface waters in defined channels,
including rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside south Florida), and freshwater sloughs.

Watershed region* In-stream protection value criteria
Total N (mg/L) Total P (mg/L)
Panhandle 0.824 0.043
Bone Valley 1.798 0.739
Peninsula 1.205 0.107
North Central 1.479 0.359
*See Further Information section for a map of these regions.


Table 3. Numeric criteria proposed for springs (the point where underground water emerges onto the land surface, including
the spring run) and clear streams (free-flowing clear water other than a spring run:


Nitrate (NO3-N) + nitrite (NO2-N) shall not surpass a concentration of 0.35 mg/L as an annual geometric mean more
than once in a 3-year period, nor surpass as a long-term average of annual geometric mean values.
Total N and total P criteria for streams on a watershed basis are also applicable to clear streams.


Table 4. Numeric criteria proposed for south Florida canals. A canal is a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by
water with the upper edges of its two sides normally above water. (Note: All secondary and tertiary canals wholly within
Florida's agricultural areas are Class IV waters and thus are not subject to this proposed rule.)

Chlorophyll a (pg/L) Total N (mg/L) Total P (mg/L)

Canals 4.0 1.60 0.042

Applies to all canals within DEP's south Florida bioregion, with the exception of canals within the Everglades Protection
Area (EvPA) where the TP criterion of 0.010 mg/L currently applies.















Recognizing the pest and disease risks associated with abandoned citrus groves, the state has initiated a
comprehensive plan for their removal and destruction. This initiative will help mitigate the impact of exotic citrus
pests and diseases (namely citrus greening and citrus canker) by identifying abandoned groves and working
cooperatively with county tax assessor offices and property owners regarding abatement options and tax
incentives which will foster removal of these reservoirs of infection.

Key components:
S Catalog all abandoned groves throughout the state
S Map all high-risk abandoned groves
S Contact abandoned grove owners to ask their intentions for properties
S Inform owners if their groves are not kept in production, they will not be considered part of CHRP.
S Inform owners if they eliminate live citrus trees in abandoned groves, it is considered a bona fide
agricultural practice and will remain in compliance with CHRP guidelines, thus maintaining their
agriculture exempt status.

Agricultural land tax exemption FDACS' interpretation and position on Section 193.461(7), Florida Statutes,
is that if you have a valid CHRP compliance agreement and are in good standing, then the property covered
by the agreement is considered in agricultural use, thus for tax purposes is eligible for agricultural land use
classification. County property appraisers in citrus-growing areas are developing policies that comply with
Section 193.461(7), Florida Statutes.

Property owners with abandoned groves should contact their local CHRP office for more information (see
back). Proper documentation is required by county tax assessor offices for exemption, so please contact your
local CHRP office for details. If you know of abandoned groves in your area, please report the property to your
local CHRP office.


Abandoned Grove Defined:

No commercial fruit harvest
during last two seasons

No production care during the
past two years, including weed
control and mowing

Grove use transferred to other
uses (pine or livestock)


4A,









Citrus Health Response Program Mission
Working ;. ,. ih,. to produce healthy citrus
* Ensure security of citrus germplasm and citrus nursery programs
* Support effective disease / disease vector management
* Monitor defendable phytosanitary protocol that allows fresh fruit movement to all markets
* Implement citrus nursery clean stock program

Resources for the Industry
Tools to support citrus
* Compliance agreements and business plans designed to provide guidance and protect citrus
* Grower Assistance Program decontamination training, survey assistance, self-survey and business plans
* Best Management Practices
* Participate with growers in the Business Plan Share Program

Citrus Germplasm Introduction Program
Important disease-free start
* Ensures citrus germplasm is free from any known graft-transmissible pathogens
* Each variety undergoes years of intensive testing before release
* Provides approved germplasm to citrus budwood registration program
* New 20,000 sq ft facility at future Alachua County budwood site


Citrus Budwood Registration
Responding to disease pressures
* Provides clean budwood to citrus industry
* Facilities located outside of citrus-growing area
* 80,000 sq ft facility in Levy County
* Redundant 60,000-sq-ft location planned in Alachua County

Citrus Nursery Guidelines
Providing clean stock for citrus groves
* Rules and regulations to protect industry, 5B-62
* Geographic separation of new nurseries and groves
* Citrus nursery stock is propagated and housed in approved insect-proof structures
* All citrus nurseries are on 30-day inspection cycle
* Compliance agreements are required


FDACS/DPI Citrus Health Response Program Offices 7 <
Contact Information


Avon Park
3397 US Hwy 27 South
Avon Park, Florida 33825
Phone: 863-314-5900

Vero Beach I Ft. Pierce
8075 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32966
Phone: 772-778-5069

Immokalee
424 East Market Road, Unit 10
Immokalee, Florida 34142
Phone: 239-658-3684


Tavares
4129 County Rd. 561
Tavares, FL 32778
Phone: 352-253-4547

Winter Haven
3027 Lake Alfred Road
Winter Haven, FL 33881-1438
Phone: 863-298-7777


i" < 1 .



Legend
C r HRP Office Headquarters \
A CHRP Office Locations

CHRP Office Coverages "
Office Name,
AVON PARK ,- -,
VERO BEACH / FT PIERCE
.- -


IMMOKALEE
TAVARES HAVE
WINTER HAVEN


DACS-P-01613


Fresh


Flwida,






PURPOSE OF THE SYMPOSIUM
Citrus Greening or Huanglongbing (HLB)
continues to spread throughout citrus production
areas of Florida. The 2010 Florida Citrus
Growers' Institute is an opportunity for Florida
citrus growers to come together under a single
purpose to learn about effective management of
this devastating disease. Topics this year include
Asian citrus psyllid management, HLB field
experience, HLB management, plant
improvement and genomics.
CONTINUING EDUCATION UNITS
Continuing Education Units (CEU's) will be
offered for holders of restricted use pesticide
licenses (RUP) and certified crop advisors
(CCA). Six CEU's will be offered in the
following categories: private applicator,
agricultural tree crop, and demonstration &
research for RUP holders. CCA's will be offered
CEU's in the pest management (2 CEU's) and
crop management (2.5 CEU's) categories.
SPONSORS


PLATINUM
Bayer CropScience
FMC Corporation
Syngenta Crop Protection
GOLD
AgraQuest, Inc
SILVER
Triangle Chemical Company
BRONZE
Dow AgroSciences
Valent USA


t id W Main St 64 Av on Par EN














DIRECTIONS
The South Florida Community College is located at
600 W College Dr in Avon Park.
From the South: Take U.S. Hwy. 27/98 north
towards Avon Park, turn east onto W College Dr
and follow the signs to the Theatre.





From the North: Take U.S. Hwy. 27/98 south to
Avon Park, continue south to W College Dr, turn
east onto W College Dr anin follow the signs to the
Theatre.
From the East: Take U.S. Hwy. 98 north to where
rU.S. Hy. 27/98 merge south of Sebring. Proceed


on U.S. Hcontiy. 27/98 north towards Avon Park, turn
east onto W College Dr and follow the signs to the
Theatre.
From the West: Take .SR. 64 east to Avon Park,
Theatre.
From the West: Take S.R. 64 east to Avon Park,
turn south on U.S. Highway 27/98 to W College
Dr, turn east onto W College Dr and follow the
signs to the Theatre.

SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
THEATRE FOR PERFORMING ARTS
600 W COLLEGE DR
AVON PARK, FL


FLORIDA



CITRUS GROWERS



INSTITUTE


2010 Florida
Citrus Growier,
Insttitute


Conducted by -
University of Florida, IFAS Extension
Florida Citrus Production Research
Advisory Council
Greening Research Task Force
South Florida Community College
Theatre for Performing Arts
Avon Park, Florida
April 13, 2010







2010 Florida Citrus Growers' Institute


PROGRAM AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010
8:00 AM Registration
8:25 AM Welcome and Introductions
ASIAN CITRUS PSYLLID MANAGEMENT
& PRACTICAL HLB FIELD EXPERIENCE

8:30 AM Effect of Insecticides on HLB
Pathogen Transmission by Psyllids Dr: Michael
Rogers, CREC
8:45 AM Current and Emerging Psyllid
Management Tools and Pesticide Resistance -
Dr. Lukasz Stelinzkil CREC
9:00 AM The Future of Psyllid Management -
Dr. Phil Stawnly, SWFREC
9:15 AM Effect of Light and Cultural
Practices on Behavior of Asian Citrus Psyllids
- Dr: Manamuou Setanou, Texas A&M, Kingsville
Citrus Center, Weslaco, TX
9:45 AM Managing an Insectory Dr: Shawron
Weingarten, Orange Co., Arcadia, FL
9:55 AM Lessons Learned from 4 Years of
HLB Management Mr: Mike Irey, United States
Sugar Corp., Clewiston, FL
10:10 AM Florida Citrus Industry Research
Coordinating Council Update Mr. John
Jackson, Director, Lakeland, FL
10:20 AM Florida Citrus Administrative
Committee Mr. Duke Chadwell, Manager,
Lakeland, FL
10:25 AM Break
HLB MANAGEMENT
10:45 AM Update on Systemic Acquired
Resistance in Plants Dr: Arnold Schumann,
CREC
11:00 AM Nutrition and SAR's Effects on
HLB Infected Trees Dr: Bob Roue, SWFREC
11:15 AM HLB Infected Citrus Tree Yield
and Health when on a Nutritional Program -
Dr: Tim Spann, CREC


11:30 AM Advanced Production Systems in
Florida- Dr. KellyMorgan, SWFREC
11:45 AM South Africa's Perspective on
Advanced Citrus Production and Greening -
Dr. Hennie le Roux, Citrus Research International,
Nelspruit, South Africa
12:30 PM Lunch
PLANT IMPROVEMENT AND GENOMICS
1:30 PM Breeding, Genomics and Genetic
Engineering What This all Means to a
Grower Dr. MikealRoose, University of
California Riverside, Riverside, CA
2:00 PM USDA Plant Improvement Dr. Ed
Stover, USDA/ARS, Ft. Pierce, FL
2:15 PM Genetic Engineering Approaches to
Solving HLB and Canker Dr Jude Grosser
CREC
2:30 PM Transforming Tristeza to Give Trees
Resistance to HLB Dr. BillDawmsn, CREC
2:45 PM DNA Mining Shows that
Liberibacter is Lone Cause of HLB Dr Eric
Triplett, UF/IFAS, Gainesville, FL
3:00 PM Genome Sequencing and
Application to Genetic Improvement Dr Fred
Gmitter CREC
3:15 PM Southern Gardens Genetically
Modified Citrus Trees Mr. Rick Kress, Pres.,
Southern Gardens Citrus., Clewiston, FL
3:30 PM Adjourn
CES: County Extension Service
CREC: Citrus Research & Education Center,
Lake Alfred, FL
SWFREC: Southwest Florida Research &
Education Center, Immokalee, FL
UF/IFAS: University of Florida, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences
USDA/ARS: United States Department of
Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service










Mid Florida Citrus Foundation (MFCF) Field Day-Tuesday May 11th

AM Session Citrus

Welcome- MFCF overview and HLB Nutritional Trial Ryan Atwood

UF/IFAS New Valencia Releases Dr. Jude Grosser

Remedy for sprout control and new herbicide trials Dr. Steve Futch

Remedial and preventive tests for HLB infection Dr. Gene Albrigo

Rooted Cutting Trial Dr. Bob Rouse/Ryan

Psyllid Control research Dr. Michael Rogers

Leafminer and Psyllid Control research Dr. Lukas Stelinski

Free Lunch


PM Session Peaches

UF/IFAS Low Chill Peach Varieties

Horticultural Practices for peaches

Pest Management for peaches

Nursery production of peaches and its challenges

Economics of peach production


Dr. Mercy Olmstead

Dr. Bob Rouse

Gary England

Phil Rucks

Ryan Atwood


Name (s) of
attendees

I am planning on attending the Citrus AM session at the Mid Florida Citrus Foundation's
Field Day on May 11th

I am planning on attending the Peach PM session at the Mid Florida Citrus Foundation's
Field Day on May 11th

I am planning on attending the free lunch at the MFCF Field Day.

**PLEASE BRING A FOLDING CHAIR THAT YOU CAN MOVE AROUND THE GROVE WITH, SO THAT YOU
CAN SIT DOWN WHEN THE SPEAKERS ARE TALKING.**

Please fax this attendance sheet to 352-343-2767 attention Maggie Jarrell or email mjarrell@ufl.edu


9:00-9:30

9:40-9:55

10:10-10:25

10:25-10:40

10:40-10:50

10:55-11:15

11:15-11:35

Noon-1PM


1:00-1:15

1:15-1:30

1:30-1:45

1:45-2:00

2:00-2:15





UNIVERSITY o

UF FLORIDA

IFAS Extension


Osceola County Extension
1921 Kissimmee Valley Lane
Kissimmee, FL 34744
321/697-3000 PHONE
321/697-3010 FAX


REVIEW AND EXAMS FOR LA WN & ORNAMENTAL AND PRIVATE APPLICATOR
PESTICIDE LICENSES

OSCEOLA COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE, KISSIMMEE, FLORIDA MAY 19, 2010

ORNAMENTAL & TURF This license, also known as the O&T license is available either as a Public certification, for those applicators
that apply herbicides to golf courses, parks and cemeteries and that work for federal, state, county or municipal public agencies, or as a
Commercial certification for contractors to apply pesticides in those same areas.
The exam study manuals are (can be purchased from the IFAS bookstore www.ifasbooks.ufl.edu):
"Applying Pesticides Correctly" (SM-1) $7.00, also called the "Core" manual and
"Spray Equipment & Calibration" (SM-38) $2.00
"Ornamental and Turfgrass Pest Management" (SM-7) $20.00

PRIVATE APPLICATOR This license is available only for private individuals applying pesticides to their own property or to property
rented, leased to them or to their employer.
The exam study manuals are (can be purchased from the IFAS bookstore www.ifasbooks.ufl.edu)::
"Applying Pesticides Correctly" (SM-1) $7.00,
also called the "Core" manual and
"The Private Applicator Pest Control Training Manual" (SM-53) $7.00

$20 NON-REFUNDABLE FEE FOR THE CLASS
8:00- 8:30 .A\I Registration
8:30 .AI 10:00 AN Review for General Standards
10:15 ANI 11:15 ANI Calibration Review
11:15AMN -12:15 PNM Private Ag and O&T Review
12:15 PIM 1:00 PNI Lunch on your own
1:00 PNI-4:00M PNI All Exams Administered


CHECK WHICH CLASS YOU WILL BE ATTENDING REGISTRATION: REVIEW/EXAM FORORNAMENTAL &


General Standards (CORE)


Ornamental & Turf


Private Applicator


Review

Exam

Review

Exam

Review

Exam


I




I
I
| ]
DI
[
I
I]


TURF & PRIVATE APPLICATOR

NAME

BUSINESS

ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

PHONE


EMAIL


$20 NON-REUNDABLE FEE FOR THE CLASS
Deadline to Register: May 14th, 2010. Make check payable to ii i/i. I C" and send to Osceola County Extension, 1921 Kissimmee
Valley Lane, Kissimmee FL 34744. Attn: Cindy Rutherford. Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in program
should call Cindy Rutherford at least (5) five working days prior to the program.
The Foundation for The Gator Nation
An Eaual OoDortunitv Institution










CEU DAY


June 10, 2010


Your day for CEU and Worker Protection Standards Training needs.
At the Mid Florida Research and Education Center Apopka, FL
1 CATEGORY
"Update on IPM and Biological Control in Landscapes" Steven 2 CEU's in Demo & Research,
8:20-9:10 a.m. Arthurs, UF/IFAS Mid Florida Research and Education Center O&T, Private Applicator, Right of
Way, Limited L&O, Limited
"Yard Hole Makers, ID and Control" Bill Kern, UF/IFAS Fort Landscape & Maintenance, L&O
9:10- 10:00 a.m. Lauderdale Research and Education Center

10:00 10:30 a.m. BREAK
2
10:30 Noon 25 Minute Hands On Sessions
"Droplet Size and Windspeed" Juanita Popenoe, UF/IFAS 2 CEU's in Core
"Calibration of Backpack Sprayers and Drop Spreaders" Lelan Parker, UF/IFAS
"Spill Cleanup" Jennifer Pelham, UF/IFAS
"Pesticide Safety Bingo" Ryan Atwood, UF/IFAS

Noon- 1:00 p.m. Lunch (ON YOUR OWN)

AFTERNOON CONCURRENT SESSIONS (Choose Only One)e)
3 "Applied Plant Identification for Aquatic Applicators" Colette
Jacono, Ph.D. University of Florida, Dept. of Agronomy and 2 CEU's in Aquatic, Private
1:00- 3:00 p.m. Center for Aquatic & Invasive Plants Applicator
4 "General Household Pest Control Update" Phil Koehler
2 CEU's in GHP, Limited Structural
1:00 3:00 p.m.
5 "Worker Protection Standards/Train the Trainer" 2 CEU's in Aerial, Ag Row, Private
Ryan Atwood, University of Florida/IFAS Multi-County Applicator, Soil & Greenhouse,
1:00- 3:00 p.m. Extension Agent Forestry, Ag Tree Crop, O&T


CEU DAY REGISTRATION FORM CEU DAY
June 10, 2010
NAME


COMPANY

ADDRESS


CITY


PHONE FAX

COUNTY

Indicated which sessions) you wish to attend:


4
(Choose Only One)


Amount Enclosed: $


$20.00 a session (per person and non
refundable) Deadline June 8, 2010

Please detach and mail completed form
with payment to: Horticulture Advisory
Account
Mail to:

Maggie Jarrell
Lake County Extension
1951 Woodlea Road
Tavares, FL 32778


Individuals needing special accommodations to
participate in program should contact Maggie Jarrell
at 352-343-4101 five (5) working days before
program












To Leesburg and
Gainesville
Sorrento
Mt Dora 46



.al
Plymouth
West Orange Ave







2725 S. Binion Road
Apopka, FL 32703
(407) 884-2034 inion Rd


Ocoee-Appcka Rd

Lake Apopka E


To Wildwood
&To

To Clermont


(SR429)


To Sanford
7


To Altamonte
Springs &






SOrlando





E


To Orlando
&-T


To Orlando
&


Directions to MREC
From Florida's Turnpike, take SR429
(toll) north to the West Road exit #26 -
turn left on West Road. At Ocoee-Apopka
Rd (CR437) head north (right turn) to
Binion Rd. Turn Left on Binion Rd /2 mile
to MREC on right.


From US441, take CR437 (West Orange
Ave, which becomes Binion Rd) south to
MREC. Do not take SR429 from US441
There is no south-bound exit from SR 429
before MREC.


UF UNIVERSITY of
U FLORIDA
IFAS











CITRUS RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER
700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, FL 33850


Future of the Global Orange Juice Industry

Report Presentation & Discussion

On Thursday, April 8, 2010, the Florida Department of Citrus (FDOC) and the Food &
Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida (FRED-IFAS-UF) will host a presentation to all citrus industry stakeholders beginning
at 9:00AM at the Citrus Research & Education Center in Lake Alfred, FL. This report
presentation will answer the following question in economic terms: What are the relevant
factors and assumptions that will determine whether the global orange juice industry
grows, shrinks, or stabilizes at current levels? This informative meeting will provide an
economic basis for decision-making in both public and private sector forums.

Over the past several years, supply uncertainty and demand reaction have placed our
industry in jeopardy. An invitation-only workshop will precede this presentation.
Institutional citrus economists from the United States and Brazil will evaluate the factors
that impact the future sustainability of the global orange juice industry. Twenty-eight citrus
economic experts will report on their current research and points of view in their area of
expertise. These knowledgeable citrus economists will explore both sides of the supply
and demand equation during this unique event. The workshop agenda consists of
targeted presentations and detailed discussion and analysis.


All attending economists will be on hand to answer any questions that may come from the
audience.



Sponsored by:
Who Should Come and Why? FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CITRUS
All industry stakeholders are welcome to attend 605 East Main Street-P.O. 9010
the Thursday report presentation. Individual economists will Bartow, FL 33831-9010
Phone 863-537-3999
be on hand to answer any questions that may come from www.floridajuice.com
the audience. Those who should attend are: growers, www.fdocgrower.com
packers, processors, institutional leaders, policy-makers FOOD & RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences-UF
and allied industry members. This informative meeting will 1167 McCarty Hall-P.O. Box 110240
provide an economic basis for decision-making in Gainesville, FL 32611-0240
both public and private sector forums. Phone: 352-392-1826
www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu











, IMPACT OF HLB ON FUTURE ORANGE JUICE SUPPLIES IN FLORIDA AND BRAZIL

, FACTORS THAT WILL INFLUENCE THE COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

, MARKET FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEMAND FOR ORANGE JUICE

, INFORMATION AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY


IF- S


1. AYERS, Juliano Ayers Scientific Manager, Fundecitrus, Araraquara, SP Brazil
2. BARBER, Robert Economist, Florida Citrus Mutual, Lakeland, FL
3. BEINHART, Roger Statistical Analyst, NationalAgricultural Statistics Service-USDA, Washington, DC
4. BLAU ER, Reed Agricultural Economist, Office of Global Analysis-FAS-USDA, Washington, DC
5. BOTEON, Margarete -Researcher, Center for Advanced Studies on Applied Economics, U of SP Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
6. BROWN, Mark G. Senior Research Economist, Economic & Market Research Dept.-FDOC, Gainesville, FL
7. CLOUSER, Rodney L. Professor, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
8. DA SILVA, M.L.M. AGRAFNP-Info & ConsultingAgribusiness Co. & GCONCI-Group Citrus Consulting, SP Brazil
9. DA SILVA, Valquiria Director, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sao Paulo, SP Brazil
10. GAO, Zhifeng Assistant Research Scientist, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
11. GEUDER, Jeffrey K. Agricultural Statistics Director, Florida Field Office-NASS-USDA, Maitland, FL
12. GUNTER, Dan L. COO, Citrus Research & Development Foundation, CREC-IFAS-UF, Lake Alfred, FL
13. HODGES, Alan W. Extension Scientist, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
14. HOUSE, Lisa A. Professor, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
i5. LOHBAUER, Christian Executive President, CitrusBR-Brazilian Assoc. of Citrus Exporters, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
16. MORRIS, Robert A. Assoc. Extension Scientist/Economist, Citrus Research & Education Center-IFAS-UF, Lake Alfred, FL
17. MOSS, Charles R. Professor, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
18. MURARO, Ronald P. Professor, Citrus Research & Education Center-IFAS-UF, Lake Alfred, FL
19. NORBERG, Robert P. Deputy Executive Director of Research & Operations, Florida Department of Citrus, Bartow, FL
20. PAGLIUCA, Larissa Gui Graduate of Agronomy Engineering, U of SP Piracicaba, SP Brazil
21. POLLACK, Susan Agricultural Economist, Economic Research Service-USDA, Washington, DC
22. RACEVSKIS, Laila A. Assistant Professor, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
23. RAHMANI, Mohammad Economic Analysis Coordinator, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
24. ROKA, Fritz M. Associate Professor, SW Florida Research & Education Center-IFAS-UF, Immokalee, FL
25. SCHMITZ, Andrew Eminent Scholar, Food & Resource Economics Dept. -IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
26. SPRE EN, Thomas H. Professor, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL
27. TOZATTI, Gilberto Consultant, GCONCI-Group Citrus Consulting, SP Brazil
28. VANSICKLE, John J. Professor, Food & Resource Economics Dept.-IFAS-UF, Gainesville, FL

















Pir.ti ir


FLORIDA AGRICULTURE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
ROSEN PLAZA, ORLANDO, FL


CONFERENCE


MAY 20-21, 2010
PRESENTED BY FNGLA ON BEHALF OF FLORIDAS AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES


IFNNGLA.
FORIDANURSERY, GROWERS
SND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
Leading Florida's Green Industry


Pain




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs