TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Local Wetlands Protections Essential

ADVERTISEMENT

By JADELL KERR and P. DANIEL ALBERDI, JR. Special To The Tampa Tribune

The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 31, 2009

In the article "Wetlands Division A Redundancy," Tampa Tribune, March 21, Keith Bricklemyer lays out a case against the Environmental Protection Commission's wetlands protection program, stating there is no documentation of facts showing the program's success. The "absence" of these facts causes Bricklemyer to infer that the longevity of EPC's program is fueled by long-term emotional rhetoric. Our guess is, since the "facts" contained in Bricklemyer's article are, at best, misleading and mostly incorrect, that he himself has been overcome by emotion.

Bricklemyer is a local land use attorney with ties to the Tampa Bay Builders Association, an organization that has battled bitterly against the EPC in attempts to reduce governmental oversight of development in Hillsborough County. Bricklemyer is not speaking from the perspective of a tax watch group interested in protecting tax revenues. If so, he would understand that the state and water management districts have significant budgets compared to the nominal costs of the EPC's local wetlands program.

If one discusses fiscal responsibilities, it is these agencies that should butt out of Hillsborough County and leave the regulating to the locals. With this in mind, it appears that Bricklemyer is more concerned with the EPC's regulatory standards rather than its costs to the county. He should simply admit the regulations are stricter and cost his clients money rather than argue the EPC is a redundancy.

While it is true that state and federal wetlands protection programs exist, the Florida Legislature of 1967 believed that Hillsborough's Tampa Bay, its estuaries and the rivers that flow into it, needed special attention. Bricklemyer infers that we should adopt a one-size-fits-all attitude and ask for nothing better in this county. Other counties across the state shun Bricklemyer's notion, as they seek to provide oversight to protect their unique natural resources.

To set the record straight, the EPC has a much more restrictive standard for approving wetland impacts than does the federal government, the state, or its water management districts. The EPC Wetland Rule requires avoidance of wetland impacts unless reasonable use of the property cannot otherwise be obtained. Only then can a wetland impact be approved, and upon this determination, mitigation is required.

The state and federal programs generally approve wetland impacts if mitigation appears adequate. There are two important points to understand here: 1. the order of EPC's review never changes; mitigation cannot be used to justify a wetland impact; and, 2. while mitigation provides an important opportunity for relief on problematic properties, it is very risky, requiring many man-hours to ensure its success.

With less strict wetland standards in place, a select few would be able to secure a significant amount of money at the expense of the environment and the majority of the citizens of Hillsborough County. It should be cautioned that under the laxer state rules, a developer could fill in all private wetlands on a parcel of property and mitigate in another county. Do we want our water resources moved out of our county? Although this scenario may be difficult to permit, it is foreseeable under existing state rules - that is a fact.

Contrary to Bricklemyer's statements, there exists ample evidence of EPC's stricter standards. After initial approval by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, it was EPC that required developers to reroute the proposed Sunlake Boulevard around Lake Ruth instead of through it. It was EPC and Manatee County's local program that prevented over 200 acres of wetlands impacts, already approved by the state, for phosphate mining. It was EPC that required developers of Tampa Palms, Area 4, to reduce their proposed wetland impacts by half, and again because of EPC, wetland impact acreage, already approved by SWFWMD, was dramatically reduced in the Highland Estates development.

It is well communicated within the environmental consulting community that because of EPC's stricter standards, the initial design of projects developed for Hillsborough County typically proposes far less wetland impacts than those developed for surrounding counties.

EPC does not claim to be the only guardian of half-acre or smaller wetlands as Bricklemyer's article suggests. However, EPC does recognize that every wetland provides some amount of wetland function: flood storage, erosion control, water purification, wildlife habitat, and protection from storm surge. The water management districts only require full-scale permitting of these small wetlands when they exhibit extraordinary function. Much of a wetland's full function can only be determined by exhaustive studies not typically carried out within the mandated timeframes of state permitting. This results in the loss of isolated wetlands which alone, or cumulatively, provide management of surface and groundwater or act as wildlife habitat.

Do we really want government agencies centered in Tallahassee and Brooksville making decisions about wetlands located in Tampa, Brandon, Lutz, Odessa, etc.? Your legislators and local elected officials need to know that you want EPC to continue protecting you by protecting your environment.

Jadell Kerr is former director of the Wetlands Management Division of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission and P. Daniel Alberdi, Esquire, is former manager of wetlands assessment , Wetlands Management Division, EPC.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT