DOCSLIB.ORG

Development of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) Assessing the Biological Condition of Florida Lakes: Development of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) Final Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Leska S. Fore*, Russel Frydenborg**, Nijole Wellendorf**, Julie Espy**, Tom Frick**, David Whiting**, Joy Jackson**, and Jessica Patronis** * Statistical Design 136 NW 40th St. Seattle, WA 98107 ** Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 December, 2007 This project and the preparation of this report was funded by a Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program Implementation grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through an agreement with the Nonpoint Source Management Section of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The cost of the project was $54,600, which was provided entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. v List of Figures............................................................................................................................ iv List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... vii Foreword..................................................................................................................................viii Abstract....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 5 Study area................................................................................................................................ 5 Lake sampling......................................................................................................................... 6 Quantifying human disturbance.............................................................................................. 8 Metric development and testing............................................................................................ 11 Sensitive and tolerant taxa evaluation................................................................................... 14 Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) development and testing ....................................................... 15 Expectations for statistical correlation.................................................................................. 18 Results....................................................................................................................................... 20 Human disturbance gradient ................................................................................................. 20 Metric selection..................................................................................................................... 21 Sensitive and tolerant taxa .................................................................................................... 31 Evaluation of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI)................................................................... 33 Correlation of LVI with human disturbance and natural features ................................... 34 Variability analysis of alternative lake sampling protocols ............................................. 35 Metric scoring for the LVI ................................................................................................ 40 Validation of the LVI with independent data .................................................................... 41 Description of outliers ...................................................................................................... 42 iii Comparison of spring and summer LVI values................................................................. 44 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 46 Human disturbance gradient ................................................................................................. 46 Biological indicators ............................................................................................................. 47 Statistical precision of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI)..................................................... 48 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 50 Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 53 References................................................................................................................................. 54 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Scoring rules for HDG.....................................................................................................10 Table 2. Examples of LDI coefficient values ................................................................................11 Table 3. Coefficient of conservatism (CC) scoring criteria ..........................................................13 Table 4. Correlation for HDG and its component measures..........................................................20 Table 5. Comparison of water chemistry measures for porous and non-porous soils ...................21 Table 6. Candidate plant metrics and their correlation with HDG, WQ index, LDI, and habitat index...............................................................................................................................................23 Table 7. Plant taxa most frequently identified as dominant ..........................................................25 Table 8. Plant taxa that were significantly associated with low or high HDG ..............................32 Table 9. Correlation between LVI, measures of disturbance, and natural features.......................34 Table 10. Coefficients from multiple regression for LVI and its component metrics...................35 Table 11. Cumulative number of taxa for 12 lake sections ...........................................................36 Table 12. Variance estimates and number of detectable categories for LVI.................................37 Table 13. Correlation between LVI, its component metrics and HDG for different sampling methods..........................................................................................................................................39 Table 14. Correlation between LVI and measures of disturbance for different numbers of replicate LVI samples ....................................................................................................................40 Table 15. Metric scoring rules for LVI..........................................................................................41 Table 16. Correlation between LVI and measures of disturbance for the validation data set .......42 Table 17. Lakes with higher or lower LVI values than predicted by HDG...................................43 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Diagram showing 12 lake sampling sections ...................................................................7 Figure 2. Detail of lake section sampling methods..........................................................................8 Figure 3. LVI plant metrics plotted against HDG..........................................................................27 Figure 4. LVI plant metrics plotted against the WQ index............................................................28 Figure 5. LVI plant metrics plotted against the habitat index........................................................29 Figure 6. LVI plant metrics plotted against LDI............................................................................30 Figure 7. Plant CC value plotted against the average HDG for lakes in which taxon was found .33 Figure 8. Species accumulation curve for lake sections ................................................................36 Figure 9. Number of categories that LVI could detect for different sampling protocols ..............38 Figure 10. Distribution of LVI values............................................................................................39 Figure 11. LVI plotted against HDG for the validation data set....................................................42 Figure 12. LVI plotted against HDG with outliers indicated.........................................................43 Figure 13. LVI for repeat visits during spring and summer for 15 lake sites................................45 Figure 14. Diagram showing recommended lake sampling for LVI .............................................50 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Aquatic plant attributes Appendix 2. EPA’s wetland plant attributes Appendix 3. Results of testing for tolerance and sensitivity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Brandon Road: Appendix C
    GLMRIS – Brandon Road Appendix C - Risk Assessment August 2017 US Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island & Chicago Districts The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study—Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement—Will County, Illinois (Page Intentionally Left Blank) Appendix C – Risk Assessment Table of Contents ATTACHMENT 1: PROBABILITY OF ESTABLISHMENT ........... C-2 ATTACHMENT 2: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR ASIAN CARP POPULATION SIZES ............. C-237 C-1 Attachment 1: Probability of Establishment Introduction This appendix describes the process by which the probabilities of establishment (P(establishment)) for Asian carp (both Bighead and Silver carp) and A. lacustre were estimated, as well as the results of that process. Each species is addressed separately, with the Bighead and Silver carp process described first, followed by the A. lacustre process. Each species narrative is developed as follows: • Estimating P(establishment) • The Experts • The Elicitation • The Model • The Composite Expert • The Results o Probability of Establishment If No New Federal Action Is Taken (No New Federal Action Alternative) o P(establishment) Estimates by expert associated with each alternative Using Individual Expert Opinions o P(establishment) Estimates by alternative Using Individual Expert Opinions • Comparison of the Technology and Nonstructural Alternative to the No New Federal Action Alternative Bighead and Silver Carp Estimating P(establishment) The GLMRIS Risk Assessment provided qualitative estimates of the P(establishment) of Bighead and Silver Carp. The overall P(establishment) was defined in that document as consisting of five probability values using conditional notation: P(establishment) = P(pathway) x P(arrival|pathway) x P(passage|arrival) x P(colonization|passage) x P(spread|colonization) Each of the probability element values assumes that the preceeding element has occurred (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Management of Spanish Needles (Bidens Spp.) in Ornamental Crop Production1 Yuvraj Khamare, Chris Marble, Shawn Steed, and Nathan Boyd2
    ENH1308 Biology and Management of Spanish Needles (Bidens spp.) in Ornamental Crop Production1 Yuvraj Khamare, Chris Marble, Shawn Steed, and Nathan Boyd2 Introduction Family All eight species of Bidens in Florida are commonly referred Asteraceae (Compositae) to as Spanish needles or beggar-ticks (Wunderlin, 2019). This document focuses on Bidens alba and B. pilosa, which Other Common Names are common weeds in container nurseries and landscapes Blackjack, beggar-ticks, cobbler’s pegs, farmer’s friends in Florida. Both of these species are very similar in appear- ance and biology and are capable of interbreeding (Norton, Life Span 1991). Due to the similarity between these species, they are Both species are annual or short-lived perennials sometimes recognized as one in the literature (Wunderlin, 2019). Their differences are distinctive, however, as B. pilosa Habitat flowers usually do not have petals while B. alba usually does. B. alba is also more widely distributed throughout Spanish needles occur in many different habitats, ranging Florida than B. pilosa. For the purposes of this document, from moist fertile soil to dry and infertile soil and sandy we refer to both species as “Spanish needles.” This EDIS soils. They are most often found in moderately dry, full-sun publication is designed for landowners, gardeners, horti- areas that have been disturbed by human or animal activity. culturalists, and consumers hoping to learn more about Spanish needles are also known to grow in grasslands or Spanish needle classification and management. pastures, forest clearings, wetlands, roadsides, ditch banks, landscapes, and agricultural production areas such as nurseries. In landscapes, these weeds can grow in planting Species Description beds or in turf, while in nurseries they are most often Class observed in non-crop areas and in pot drain holes.
    [Show full text]
  • May – June 2018
    BROWARD COUNTY BUTTERFLY CHAPTER PLANT Swamp Rose Mallow, Hibiscus grandiflorus OF THE Perennial native, grows to 10ft. Likes brackish, fresh swamps or edges of streams, ponds. Bees MONTH are thought to be the primary pollinators of Swamp Rose Mallow, in spite of the fact that they devour vast quantities of its pollen. It also seems plausible that large butterflies such as the May 2018 Eastern Tiger Swallowtail are effective pollinators of Swamp Rose Mallow. Butterflies visit the flowers purely for nectar; they have no interest in consuming pollen. Photo Floridata.com Reminders Contents Hope to see you! Bees -The Sweat Bees Have It Amazon Users Butterfly Counts Please order thru website Coming Attractions Wild Poinsettia, A Bee Attractor www.browardbutterflies.or g Meeting Place BCBC earns 4% of your Monthly Meeting purchases. Orange Sulphur Butterfly Reminders Silent Auction Please ID donated plants. Swamp Rose Mallow We accept natives and non- The next meeting after May is in invasive plants. August The Sarasota Butterfly Club Visit Signing In Notebook Trees, Shrubs, Wildflowers that Members & guests, please attract Bees print your name. As a Walter & Sharmane’s Garden PatR guest, please give us your Tale email address to receive Euphorbia heterophylla, also known under the common names of What Comes Calling by Mona fireplant, painted euphorbia, Japanese poinsettia, desert poinsettia, our newsletters. wild poinsettia, fire on the mountain, paintedleaf, painted spurge Wild Poinsettia Please take your Plants Winner Raffle Basket, Water donated at each event or Matters Day THE NEXT MEETING AFTER MAY IS meeting home if not IN AUGUST. HAVE A NICE SUMMER! auctioned off.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary List of the Vascular Plants and Wildlife at the Village Of
    A Floristic Evaluation of the Natural Plant Communities and Grounds Occurring at The Key West Botanical Garden, Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida Steven W. Woodmansee [email protected] January 20, 2006 Submitted by The Institute for Regional Conservation 22601 S.W. 152 Avenue, Miami, Florida 33170 George D. Gann, Executive Director Submitted to CarolAnn Sharkey Key West Botanical Garden 5210 College Road Key West, Florida 33040 and Kate Marks Heritage Preservation 1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington DC 20005 Introduction The Key West Botanical Garden (KWBG) is located at 5210 College Road on Stock Island, Monroe County, Florida. It is a 7.5 acre conservation area, owned by the City of Key West. The KWBG requested that The Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC) conduct a floristic evaluation of its natural areas and grounds and to provide recommendations. Study Design On August 9-10, 2005 an inventory of all vascular plants was conducted at the KWBG. All areas of the KWBG were visited, including the newly acquired property to the south. Special attention was paid toward the remnant natural habitats. A preliminary plant list was established. Plant taxonomy generally follows Wunderlin (1998) and Bailey et al. (1976). Results Five distinct habitats were recorded for the KWBG. Two of which are human altered and are artificial being classified as developed upland and modified wetland. In addition, three natural habitats are found at the KWBG. They are coastal berm (here termed buttonwood hammock), rockland hammock, and tidal swamp habitats. Developed and Modified Habitats Garden and Developed Upland Areas The developed upland portions include the maintained garden areas as well as the cleared parking areas, building edges, and paths.
    [Show full text]
  • Cobbler's Pegs (467)
    Pacific Pests, Pathogens and Weeds - Online edition Cobbler's pegs (467) Summary Widespread. Asia, Africa, North, South and Central America, Caribbean, Europe, Oceania. In most Pacific islands. Annual weed of crops, plantations, forests, pastures, waterways, gardens, parks, roadsides, waste lands, coastal and other disturbed sites. Produces large amounts viable, long-lasting, easily-dispersed seed, grows in range of habitats, developing dense populations, out- competing crop plants and native species. Alternative host for viruses (Tomato spotted wilt virus), nematodes (Meloidogyne, Rotylenchus and leaf miners (Liriomyza). Slender, erect, branching, up to 90 cm tall. Stems, square, hairless, green to purple. Leaves, opposite along stems, toothed margins, single at base, compound above (three leaflets). Flowerheads in clusters at end of branches, 7-8 mm across, yellow flowers in centre. Some with surrounding white petals-like structures. Fruits black, flattened with hooked bristles. Strong tap root. Photo 1. Cobbler's pegs, Bidens pilosa, erect Spread: seed; clothing; water; contaminant of rice seed; vehicles. herb, with compound leaves and yellow Biosecurity: high risk of introduction; contaminant of seed, clothing. One of the worst flowers. weeds in New Caledonia and Guam. On Global Invasive Species Database of alien invasive species (IUCN, 2020). Biocontrol: little known. Cultural control: hand weed, hoe or cultivate mechanically between rows; shade by intercropping; vehicle hygiene. Chemical control: in Australia: diuron; glyphosate (and Fiji); bentazone; metribuzin; 2,4-D; glufosinate-ammonium; pendimethalin; dicamba; fluroxypyr. Common Name Photo 2. Cobbler's pegs, Bidens pilosa, flowers. Cobbler's pegs; it is also known as beggar's ticks, or pitchforks. The name beggar's ticks is Note, not all plants have the white ray florets.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: Sections 303(D), 305(B), and 314 Report and Listing Update
    2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Report and Listing Update Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Florida Department of Environmental Protection June 2020 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 floridadep.gov 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, June 2020 This Page Intentionally Blank. Page 2 of 160 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida, June 2020 Letter to Floridians Ron DeSantis FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Governor Jeanette Nuñez Environmental Protection Lt. Governor Bob Martinez Center Noah Valenstein 2600 Blair Stone Road Secretary Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 June 16, 2020 Dear Floridians: It is with great pleasure that we present to you the 2020 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida. This report meets the Federal Clean Water Act reporting requirements; more importantly, it presents a comprehensive analysis of the quality of our waters. This report would not be possible without the monitoring efforts of organizations throughout the state, including state and local governments, universities, and volunteer groups who agree that our waters are a central part of our state’s culture, heritage, and way of life. In Florida, monitoring efforts at all levels result in substantially more monitoring stations and water quality data than most other states in the nation. These water quality data are used annually for the assessment of waterbody health by means of a comprehensive approach. Hundreds of assessments of individual waterbodies are conducted each year. Additionally, as part of this report, a statewide water quality condition is presented using an unbiased random monitoring design. These efforts allow us to understand the state’s water conditions, make decisions that further enhance our waterways, and focus our efforts on addressing problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A. Plant Species Known to Occur at Canaveral National Seashore
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Vegetation Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2012/256 ON THE COVER Pitted stripeseed (Piriqueta cistoides ssp. caroliniana) Photograph by Sarah L. Corbett. Vegetation Community Monitoring at Canaveral National Seashore, 2009 Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRDS—2012/256 Michael W. Byrne and Sarah L. Corbett USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, Georgia, 31558 and Joseph C. DeVivo USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network University of Georgia 160 Phoenix Road, Phillips Lab Athens, Georgia, 30605 March 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Inventory of Selected Natural Areas on the University of Florida Campus: Final Report
    Floristic Inventory of Selected Natural Areas on the University of Florida Campus: Final Report 12 September 2005 Gretchen Ionta, Department of Botany, UF PO Box 118526, 392-1175, [email protected]; Assisted by Walter S. Judd, Department of Botany, UF PO Box 118526, 392-1721 ext. 206, [email protected] 1 Contents 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................3 2. Summary........................................................................................................................4 3. Alphabetical listing (by plant family) of vascular plants documented in the Conservation Areas........................................................................................................7 4. For each conservation area a description of plant communities and dominant vegetation, along with a list of the trees, shrubs, and herbs documented there. Bartram Carr Woods ……................................................................................20 Bivens Rim East Forest ...................................................................................26 Bivens Rim Forest............................................................................................34 Fraternity Wetland............................................................................................38 Graham Woods.................................................................................................43 Harmonic Woods..............................................................................................49
    [Show full text]
  • Studies on Polyacetylene Production in Normal And
    STUDIES ON POLYACETYLENE PRODUCTION IN NORMAL AND TRANSFORMED TISSUE CULTURES OF BIDENS ALBA By ROBERT ALLEN NORTON B. A., The University of Missouri, Kansas City, Mo. 1970 M.Sc., The University of Missouri, Kansas City, Mo. 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Botany) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1984 <§> Robert Allen Norton, 1984 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. BOTANY Department of The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date tf Tcj/v-e /Zt' IE-6 (3/81) ii ABSTRACT The organs of B idens alb a each have a different compo• sition of polyacetylenes (PAs). Factors affecting production of these compounds in tissue and organ cultures, and character• istics of cultures showing sustained synthesis of PAs were - - investigated. Additional studies evaluated transmission of tumour markers and leaf PAs in sexually produced offspring. Polyacetylenes were separated and quantitated by high pressure liquid chromatography. Twenty-one compounds, repre• senting six chromophores, were identified or indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • A Geographical Checklist of the Micronesian Monocotyledonae
    A Geographical Checklist of the Micronesian Monocotyledonae F. R. FOSBERG,MARIE-HELENE SACHET and ROYCE OLIVER B01a11yDepar1me111. Narional M11se11m ofNa111ra/Hisrory, Smi1hso11ia11ills1i1111io11, Washi11g1011, D.C . 20560 Abstract. The monocotyledonous plants known to us as occurring or reported to have occurred in Micronesia are listed systematically by families and alphabetically under the families. They belong to 272 genera (in a broad sense) . Of the 677 species and varieties included, 367 are considered indigenous, 308 exotic (indicated by an asterisk). Of the indigenous ones, 166 are endemic in Mi- cronesia, so far as we know. The other 204 extend to other lndo-Pacific islands or countries border- ing the lndo-Pacilic region. The strand and coastal plants are mostly widespread, some are pan- tropical. Of the endemics, 135 are restricted to the Caroline Islands, 19 to the Marianas, 11 to both groups, and one to Wake and the northern Marshalls. There are no endemics, (with the possible exception of the poorly known Crim1m bakeri) in the central and southern Marshalls, the Gilberts, or the other isolated islands . The affinities of the species are mostly lndo-Malaysian and New Gui- nean-Melanesian, a few are Australian . For each species and smaller taxon the known distribution by islands is given, as well as basionyms, synonyms, misapplications or misidentilications that have appeared in the Micronesian literature known to us. Introduction The third and last part of our Geographical Checklist of Micronesian Vascular Plants includes all taxa of Monocotyledonae known to us from Micronesia. Earlier parts covered the dicotyledons, and pteridophytes and gymnosperms (Micronesica 15: 41-295, 1979; 18: 23-82, 1982).
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Action Concerning Permit Application Number 190508-18, Received May 8, 2019
    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATER USE INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO: 190508-18 PERMIT NUMBER: 50-09597-W DATE ISSUED: May 24, 2019 EXPIRATION DATE: May 24, 2039 PERMITTEE: PALM BEACH STATE COLLEGE 4200 CONGRESS AVENUE LAKE WORTH, FL 33472 PROJECT NAME: PBSC WELL NO 8 IRRIGATION DRIVING COURSE AND PSTC GROUNDS PROJECT LOCATION: Palm Beach County, S29/T44S/R43E PROJECT DESCRIPTION/AUTHORIZING: The use of groundwater from the surficial aquifer system for industrial water supply and landscape irrigation of 4.93 acres of turf using a sprinkler system with an annual allocation 39.02 million gallons. This is to notify you of South Florida Water Management District's (District) agency action concerning Permit Application Number 190508-18, received May 8, 2019. This action is taken pursuant to Chapter 373, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), Rule 40E-1.603 and Chapter 40E-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Based on the information provided, District rules have been adhered to and a Water Use Individual Permit is in effect for this project subject to: 1. Not receiving a filed request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S. and Section 120.569, F.S., or a request for a judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, F.S. 2. The attached 29 permit conditions. 3. The attached 9 exhibits. By acceptance and utilization of the water authorized under this permit, the Permittee agrees to hold and save the District and its successors harmless from any and all damages, claims or liabilities that may arise by reason of the construction, maintenance or use of activities authorized by this permit.
    [Show full text]