Agency's End Could Imperil Wetlands

By MIKE SALINERO The Tampa Tribune

Published: Aug 12, 2007

TAMPA - Hillsborough County commissioners this week may eliminate the division charged with protecting local wetlands by turning the work over to a regional agency.

Which one would do a better job is a spirited debate playing out in hearings, blogs and letters to the editor.

One thing, however, is certain: Laying off or reassigning the 18 county employees who track building plans affecting wetlands means less attention would be paid to protecting these vital wildlife nurseries and clean water filters.

The regional agency, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, has a wetlands staff of just 10 people to cover Pinellas and Hillsborough counties - the two most populous among the district's 16 counties.

And although chief responsibility for Hillsborough may be added to their workload, no extra workers come with it. Like Hillsborough County, which is considering the cuts in its Environmental Protection Commission to save money, Swiftmud faces a shrinking budget because of property tax rollbacks passed this year by the state Legislature.

"I think it's fair to say, if the EPC went away, we would see an increased workload," said Clark Hull, Swiftmud's program director for wetlands permitting.

Whether there are enough people to do the job is one question facing Hillsborough commissioners as they near a decision Thursday on cutting the wetlands division of the EPC.

Who would do a better job is another question.

Swiftmud's wetlands policies are not as strict as the county's. For example, the county protects all wetlands, even small isolated marshes. Swiftmud allows developers to compensate for destroyed wetlands by building new ones elsewhere and to destroy wetlands under a half-acre without compensation.

Developers find this approach more reasonable than the county's, which acknowledges a reluctance to allow compensation, also known as mitigation.

"Swiftmud has a good program," said Rick Garrity, executive director of the EPC. "But our standards have been in existence since 1985, and they offer an extra level of protection."

Swiftmud's Duties Increased

Originally created as a flood control agency, Swiftmud now regulates water supply and quality in an area with a population of more than 4 million people. The Tampa field office has an environmental regulation manager and nine environmental scientists.

Developers who want to build in one of Swiftmud's 16 counties must apply to the agency for an Environmental Resource Permit. The permits cover drainage, wetlands destruction and compensation for mitigation.

In Hillsborough today, developers who apply for Swiftmud permits also must have their plans reviewed by the EPC for wetlands impact. That extra layer of regulation has been a sore point with developers.

"As a consultant, you have to play this game of how do I design my site where I can get approved by all these different agencies," said Matthew Campo, a civil engineer and environmental consultant. "It's like a puzzle."

In October 2005, Swiftmud agreed to let the county handle monitoring and enforcement after wetland permits are approved. The EPC can make the developers fix problems if they violate permits.

Swiftmud's Tampa office currently has one compliance officer for wetlands permits. That probably won't change if the district has to take over compliance and enforcement from the county, said Swiftmud spokesman Michael Molligan.

"If we had to, we would be able to do it within our existing budget," Molligan said. "We would just have to shift some things around and reallocate some resources."

The demise of the wetlands division also would mean more work for another state agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The county now handles permits for mangrove trimming, a duty that is formally the responsibility of the DEP.

DEP Secretary Michael Sole, in a letter last week to the county, said he is happy with the job the wetlands division is doing with mangroves. Sole said he would like to see the division take over more duties now preformed by the DEP, including permitting marinas and boat docks.

"This can be particularly effective where the local knowledge … can provide better service to the people of Hillsborough County through streamlined permitting with no loss of environmental protection," Sole wrote.

The EPC Has Stricter Rules

From the back of his white government pickup, Hillsborough County biologist Mike Thompson looks out at a forested wetland in the middle of Stonebrier Estates, a subdivision just south of the Pasco County line. Thompson points to a map spread out on his tailgate that shows a road, Sunlake Boulevard, cutting through a lake within the wetland. Another map shows the road avoiding the wetland.

"We told [the developers] they'd have to justify this big of an impact," Thompson said. "They weren't able to do that. They went back and found they could move the road."

EPC officials say that changing the route is an example of how the county agency is able to save natural wetlands that Swiftmud might approve for destruction. EPC environmental reviews are embedded in the county's land development code so the agency is involved from the earliest stages of the development process.

"Through the development review process, we can give early input to steer projects away from wetland impacts," said Garrity, the executive director. "That early input is critical as far as cost savings to developers so they don't go too far down the road without getting approval."

But Drew Sanders, an environmental consultant who was involved in the Stonebrier project, said he doesn't think the EPC is more effective in preventing wetland impact than Swiftmud or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which also reviews wetlands permits.

Sanders said all three agencies recommended rerouting Sunlake Boulevard.

"None of the three agencies wanted us to put a road right in the middle of the lake," Sanders said.

But a letter to the EPC from Sanders' firm, Biological Research Associates, said the developers moved the road after the EPC rejected the route. Records in Swiftmud files say the same thing.

At the heart of the EPC's power to prevent wetlands destruction is the county wetlands rule, adopted in 1985. The rule says developers can destroy wetlands only if not doing so denies them "reasonable use of the land."

Since 1985, the EPC has approved destruction of 1,417 wetland acres. To make up for the destruction, developers had to build 2,044 acres of mitigation projects.

That's not to say Swiftmud allows rampant destruction. The district also has rules that seek to minimize wetlands damage.

"Once we receive the application, the first thing we do is go through this elimination and reduction step," said Hull, the permit program manager.

Only Practicable Solutions Wanted

But the district can demand only "practicable" modifications to construction plans. The agency can't reject a project, as the EPC can.

"We can't say, 'Here's an idea: Why don't you not build this?'" Hull said.

Nor can Swiftmud impose modifications unless they are "economically viable."

Jadell Kerr, former director of the county's wetlands division, said the local agency can scrap projects that pose a severe threat to wetlands.

"Swiftmud can only recommend practicable design modifications, but they can't affect the nature of impacts," Kerr said. "We could keep a big box from coming in."

Still, Swiftmud has a record of preventing wetlands destruction. Records show that between 2002 and 2006, the district approved permits for Pasco County developments that included 6,133 acres of wetlands. A total of 379 acres of wetlands were allowed to be destroyed, while 5,783 acres were left unharmed.

The success of the agency's policy is exemplified by the Laurel Highlands residential development in Lakeland. Originally, the developers proposed destroying 52 acres of wetlands. Swiftmud was able to negotiate that down to less than an acre, district spokeswoman Robyn Hanke said.

Critics are not appeased by the numbers.

Swiftmud, they say, has caved on some large projects with major environmental consequences. This year, the agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the destruction of about 60 acres of wetlands to make way for the Cypress Creek Town Center, a mall in southern Pasco County.

The wetlands are near Cypress Creek, a tributary of the Hillsborough River.

"Cypress Creek allowed more wetlands impacts than we allow in any one year on average," Thompson said.

Reporter Mike Salinero can be reached at (813) 259-8303 or msalinero@tampatrib.com.

SCHOLARSHIPS' BACKGROUND

May 1997: The Legislature creates Bright Futures scholarships, which cover 75 percent or 100 percent of a Florida student's tuition and fees, depending on school performance. Lawmakers spend $75 million to fund nearly 43,000 scholarships.

March 1998: State House members propose raising the minimum SAT requirement for Bright Futures 75 percent scholarships from 970 to 1,100, the first of many failed attempts to tweak the popular scholarship.

February 2001: Outgoing university system Chancellor Adam Herbert calls the merit scholarship a "ticking time bomb," saying the costly program grows out of control at the expense of Florida's neediest students.

May 2003: House Republicans agree to make it harder to get the scholarship and approve a tuition increase that students would have to pay themselves. The measures eventually fail.

January 2007: Connecticut education consultant Alceste Pappas reviews Florida's public university system and writes that low tuition and Bright Futures, "while well-intentioned," will help "bankrupt the state's higher education system."

May 2007: Lawmakers vote to raise tuition by up to 40 percent over several years at UF, FSU and USF, an increase Bright Futures won't cover. After promising to veto the plan, Gov. Charlie Crist relents.

July 2007: The state's university oversight board votes to raise tuition in spring 2008 by up to 5 percent, irrespective of whether Bright Futures will cover the increase. Key lawmakers threaten a court challenge.

Adam Emerson