Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog

Hillsborough County employs about 10,000 people, but, blaming budget cuts, county commissioners are poised to lay off the ONE guy responsible for protecting our wildlife from the bulldozers. If they adopt the budget with this proposed cutback, they will gut our upland habitat protection program, just like they tried to gut our wetland protection program last summer.

We have only one wildlife biologist who manages and enforces our Upland Habitat Ordinance. The Environmental Scientist II position reviews development proposals to ensure that areas designated as “Significant Wildlife Habitat” are protected. He decides whether a site qualifies as “Significant” or “Essential” habitat. And if you want to report someone who is bulldozing gopher tortoise habitat or cutting down Scrub Jay nests, he’s the guy you call.

Without this single wildlife biologist in the Planning & Growth Management (PGM) department, we would have no one qualified to handle your habitat protection program. PGM director Peter Aluotto says one of his staff’s urban foresters could try to take on these responsibilities, but foresters are not qualified for this job, and he knows it. Urban foresters are tree specialists, qualified for overseeing our tree ordinances, and deciding whether a tree can legally be cut down. The work requires a biologist, trained to evaluate habitat for various animal & plant species, assess damage to a whole ecological system and prescribe mitigation.

When a developer’s attorneys and their hired biologists testify at a zoning hearing about what type of ecosystem is on their site, and whether their project will impact this animal or that, they will claim our forester lacks the credentials to dispute their biologists — and they will be right. They will sue the county if our forester dares to restrict their development without adequate expert review — and they will win. Meanwhile, environmental groups could also sue the county for abandoning its responsibility to uphold our laws protecting our natural resources.

At the July 29 budget workshop, Commissioner Rose Ferlita responded to Aluotto’s idea of using a forester to do a biologist’s job:

“Well, pretty soon — and I’m being funny — we can have — because he may be not busy that afternoon — we can have an electrical inspector looking at it and see if maybe he thinks that we’re taking care of gopher turtles. I mean, then it becomes just a train wreck.”

Aluotto admitted his foresters are “not specifically trained” for this, offering,

“in those cases where they couldn’t — if they couldn’t get that job done, we would defer to state and federal agencies like Fish & Wildlife and DEP and those folks.”

Please. State agencies can not enforce Hillsborough County’s environmental standards. (Even if they could, they don’t have extra staff to lend us to do our work!) Aluotto’s suggestion that we “defer to state and federal agencies” is simply suggesting that we abandon our local rules protecting our wildlife habitat.

So why are we even thinking of eliminating our one and only wildlife biologist?

Good question - I’m glad you asked.

Some county commissioners have found the tanking housing market to be a good excuse to financially hamstring the agencies that regulate their developer buddies. Commissioner Jim Norman falsely claimed building had dropped 80% – 90%, arguing that we should cut these agencies by a similar percentage. After he was slammed by the Times’ Truth-O-Meter, Norman backed down from the 80% “off with their heads” stand, but still led the board to direct the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), and the Planning Commission to cut their budgets off at the knees — and PGM too, although they don’t want PGM cutting too many from their permitting staff, as that would inconvenience developers. (Heaven forbid we should slow down the process by which subdivisions and condos get built, because we don’t have nearly enough of that stuff laying around vacant driving down our home values.)

And so we find PGM’s Peter Aluotto offering to eliminate those positions that service small homeowners who want to add a room to the home they can’t sell in this market, and doing away with the one position that developers would most like to see eliminated: the one biologist qualified to handle wildlife habitat reviews.

Finally, at the July 31 workshop, the administration decided they need to meet with their “customers” to see how they want this handled. And by “customers” they do not mean us taxpaying residents of the county, they are talking about developers. That’s right, they want the regulated community to help decide which regulators they should fire.

But since it’s our money paying everyone’s salary, shouldn’t we tell them who to hire and fire?

If, somewhere between the subdivisions and strip plazas, you’d like to see some natural spaces left green and alive with the wild magic of bobcats, foxes & otters — places where the woodpecker hammers out a staccato beat, and the Chuck-will’s-widow still sings, backed by a symphony of frogs — write your commissioners and tell them to keep the Environmental Scientist II in PGM’s budget. Here’s my letter. You can also speak to them at the public budget hearings, September 9 & 18, 6:00 p.m. at county center.

Despite a last-ditch effort by developer interests to weaken wetland protections last Thursday, interested citizens prevailed and your county commissioners adopted the final batch of wetland rule changes without any modifications.

Having failed to persuade EPC staff to agree to any weakening of the rules in this last part of the Hybrid, developers frantically lobbied county commissioners to stick last-minute changes into the proposal.

Speaking against those changes were representatives of the League of Women Voters, U-CAN, R-LAND, Sierra Club, Audubon, Tomorrow Matters!, Seffner Community Alliance, Taylor Road Civic Association, and several unaffiliated citizens. A few developers and agricultural interests spoke for looser regulations, but they were outnumbered and outmatched.

A key to the success of the conservationists was that many of their email and letters showed commissioners that they clearly understood the key points included in the changes.  Developers’ demands were couched in harmless-sounding doublespeak like “net environmental benefits” or “classification of wetlands,” but citizens pointed out how those innocent-sounding buzzwords would weaken wetland protections.

Still, Commissioner Jim Norman pushed hard for the “classification of wetlands” modification, which would have made it easier to destroy some wetlands deemed “low class.” This idea was opposed by EPC staff, all 3 advisory committees and the non-developer citizens involved.

Commissioner Brian Blair tried to lend support to Norman, but Blair didn’t seem to understand the issues well enough to do more than flail about, finally resorting to reading a letter out loud.  Blair wrongly claimed the letter was written by a member of the EPC’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG). In fact, the letter was written by Mike Peterson, speaking for the Greater Tampa Association of Realtors, not TAG.  Peterson is also known as a lawyer for developers.

(Side note - I wonder if Tampa Realtors approve of their spokesperson calling for weaker wetland protections?  He previously led Tampa Realtors to call for the total elimination of EPC wetland protections, and this letter reiterates that position.  It’s obvious how it would benefit Peterson’s developer-clients to be allowed to destroy wetlands to build more houses, but how would it benefit Realtors to have neighborhoods flooded by wetland destruction just so their market could also be flooded with more houses for sale, depressing prices?)

Thankfully, Commissioner Mark Sharpe argued firmly against Norman’s pitch for the requests for modifications, noting some of the economic benefits of strong environmental protections. 

Likewise, Commissioner Rose Ferlita moved to adopt the rules as proposed, and flatly refused to allow Blair & Norman to pollute her motion with any language that would direct EPC to weaken wetland protections.

If not for the concerted efforts of those above-mentioned groups and other interested parties, it is my belief that the already compromised rules would have been put off again, eventually leading to further weakening of wetlands rules. Instead, the concerns of citizens were heard by your county commissioners, and Mark Sharpe’s compelling arguments thwarted attempts to delay. With no commissioner wanting to be singled out as voting against wetlands (given all the heat the public & press has directed at them on this issue), the motion passed unanimously.

For more, see the Times and Tribune on the hearing, and the Times’ preview. The Tribune also printed an editorial and Denise Layne’s Op Ed before the hearing, both calling on commissioners to approve EPC staff’s proposal as is. At the hearing, all 3 of Blair’s Democratic opponents spoke in favor of EPC’s staff recommendation. Hear them all on this audio clip of WMNF’s excellent coverage. Full captioning of the hearing is here.

Bird watchers, plant lovers and tree huggers of all stripes will gather this Wednesday evening for the Annual Joint Meeting of Tampa Audubon, Tampa Bay Sierra Club and the Suncoast Native Plant Society. It’s really more of a party than a meeting, and it’s your chance to mingle with a bunch of nature-minded folks AND hear a terrific speaker: Jeff Klinkenberg.

From the meeting announcement:

Jeff is truly a voice of natural Florida and is one of Florida’s best known and most talented nature writers. … Jeff writes about all things Florida and integrates Florida’s history, environment, culture, and people into compelling and memorable stories about the real and vanishing Florida. Jeff is also well known as the “Real Florida” columnist for the St. Petersburg Times …

Please join us for an evening of great stories, fascinating essays, and memories and recollections of all things Florida as Jeff Klinkenberg shares with us his amazing array of tales and experiences gathered over years of exploring the backwoods, back roads, and backwaters of the Sunshine State.

The event will be held this Wednesday at 7:00 p.m.,

at the Hillsborough Extension Office, 5339 CR 579, Seffner (Exit 10 off I-4, then south 1 mile on the left). The presentation will be preceded by a potluck dinner, so bring a dish to share.

This annual get-together is always fun. The Native Plant Society will conduct their regular (very economical) plant auction, and they usually round up special offerings for this occasion. All the groups bring plenty of information to share, and they welcome everyone — you don’t have to be a member of any of the host groups to attend.

If you’re at all curious about the environmentalists around here, this is a good opportunity to see what they’re all about. I’ll be there, so if you do come be sure to say “hi.”

Breathtakingly beautiful, and breaking all the rules, the phenomenal Ghost Orchid of Corkscrew Swamp is in bloom right now within a couple hours’ drive of Tampa. The flowers are only expected to last until Tuesday, so if you want to catch this extraordinary sight you’d better hurry.

The endangered Ghost Orchid is exceedingly rare, but the blooms are even rarer as most plants go years without flowering at all. When they do bloom, it is typically with only one, or at most two flowers in midsummer. Amazingly, this Corkscrew specimen bloomed 3 times last year, first with 12, then 10 and finally 3 flowers. Last weekend, when my husband & I saw it on the 4th of July, it had 5 magnificent hand-sized blooms and 3 plump buds.

I took the photo at right through the park’s spotting scope on the boardwalk. The orchid is growing on a 400- to 500-year-old Bald Cypress tree, much higher than any other Ghost Orchid is known to grow. It’s also growing much farther north than this plant was previously thought to venture

Most people never get a chance to see a Ghost Orchid because they only live in a small area of south Florida and Cuba, and in Florida they’re buried deep in a few hard-to-reach swamps of the Everglades.

Although this incredibly robust specimen is 30-35 years old, and visible from the park’s well-traveled boardwalk, it was only just discovered last summer when it bloomed like crazy. When not in bloom, Ghost Orchids are difficult to spot as they have no leaves at all — just some greenish-grey roots, hugging flat against a tree’s bark. The plant is almost invisible until once in a blue moon, it extends a thin, nearly imperceptible stem, at the end of which a flower unfolds its fantastic white shape, floating in mid-air …like a ghost.

After viewing this orchid last week, my husband & I travelled south to the Fakahatchee Strand in the Everglades, where we waded into a thick sea of vicious mosquitos who suck DEET for breakfast. (They bit my eyelids!) We found a couple more Ghosts, including this one, but none in bloom.

The wildness of the Everglades (bugs and all) is an integral part of its magic. Last time we were there, searching for the Ghost Orchid, we had an astonishingly close encounter with a bear that will always be a treasured memory.

Still, there’s much to be said for strolling along the Corkscrew Swamp’s boardwalk in your flip-flops (as opposed to slogging through the Everglades’ swamps in your boots) and coming upon a spotting scope all set up for you under the trees through which to view an endangered species. We needed no DEET on the boardwalk, but Corkscrew Swamp is no Disneyland — there’s plenty of wildlife and it’s an authentic experience of the splendor of a south Florida Swamp.

Call the sanctuary before you go (239/348-9151) if you want to make sure the Ghost Orchid is still in bloom. For location, hours & fees check the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary web site. Several hotels in Naples are offering special Ghost Orchid rates. Enjoy the beach and bring a good book: The Orchid Thief, a fabulous true story about the Ghost Orchid and south Florida’s essential outlandishness.

Everybody is happy!

Last summer, citizens stood strongly against the attempt by four county commissioners to eliminate our wetlands protections, so the commissioners backed down and accepted the “Hybrid” proposal offered by EPC director Dr. Garrity as a solution to the criticisms leveled against the agency.

Commissioners promised at that hearing that the Hybrid would not weaken our wetland protections. Later, in a letter to the Tampa Tribune, EPC chair Al Higginbotham promised the Hybrid would “maintain the strong protections our wetlands enjoy.”

Keeping all of that in mind, the EPC has followed up on those promises and has proposed rule changes that do what commissioners said the Hybrid was supposed to do: builders get a streamlined process (one-stop permitting in many cases!) without weakening our wetland protections.

Your County Commissioners will discuss the proposed rules at a public hearing next Thursday, and I am hoping they pass it as is. Although I have had concerns about some parts of the Hybrid passed earlier, this batch of rule changes accomplishes what our commissioners said they wanted, and we can all be done with this whole Hybrid business.

But it’s not that simple.

Not everybody is happy.

As predictable as death and taxes, developers are once again attempting to make last minute changes, which will weaken wetlands protection. They have plans to show up at the hearing with four main arguments.

I have posted a detailed analysis of the four major demands developers are making, and why commissioners should not cave to them. Go to that page to check out all the details, but here they are in a nutshell:

1. Eliminate EPC review from the zoning stage. - It makes no sense to allow builders an initial go-ahead if they will later be denied. EPC should be involved from the beginning.
2. Classification of wetlands to allow “low-class” wetlands to be damaged more easily than “high-class” wetlands. - Human regulators at EPC already consider how pristine and ecologically valuable a wetland is. Giving an official classification adds unnecessary red tape and invites lawsuits.
3. “Net Environmental Benefit” considered to allow more wetland impacts. - this one has a great title, but is no more than a shell game.
4. Expand the “Reasonable Use” criteria to include “Future Land Use.” - Our local wetland rule is stronger than the state’s because it only allows wetlands to be damaged if necessary for “Reasonable Use” of the land. Developers are demanding that we broaden the definition of “Reasonable Use” to include the “Future Land Use” designation, in order to allow more wetland damage.

For more detail on these four demands — especially that last one — please take a look at my full analysis. If no one but developers speaks to our commissioners nor attends this hearing, you can be sure commissioners will try to stick these in. Citizens are strongly encouraged to show up at the hearing to let your commissioners know how you feel.

Again, your Commissioners will decide the matter at a public hearing on Thursday, July 17, 9:00 a.m., at County Center. You can speak if you want, but your presence alone would speak volumes. You can also write your commissioners ahead of the hearing. (Here is a sample letter for those of you who want to keep wetlands protection in place.)

The last time Tampa Bay Water suggested dumping treated sewer water into the Hillsborough River, the answer from the public, the reviewing agencies, and the City of Tampa was a big, booming NO. Of course they don’t call it “dumping treated sewer water into the river,” they call it “downstream augmentation with reclaimed water.”

Despite the public opposition, the idea is being discussed again as part of a contract with the City of Tampa. Tampa Bay Water wants to withdraw more clean water from our rivers—upstream—to supply future growth and development, and then replace that clean water (“downstream augmentation”) with treated sewer water (“reclaimed water”).

Scientists have raised red flags over the proposal to supplement downstream flows with highly treated, nutrient-rich wastewater currently discharged into Hillsborough Bay from the City of Tampa’s Howard Curren Wastewater Treatment Plant.

While overall nutrient loadings to Tampa Bay would remain unchanged, downstream augmentation would increase nutrient loadings in the lower Hillsborough River, proliferating the growth of algae and stressing marine life in summer months when temperatures rise and the water is stagnant.

Treated wastewater is damaging to Tampa Bay, but not nearly as damaging as it would be to our rivers where the pollutants would be concentrated in a much smaller quantity of water.

Another problem with trading wastewater for freshwater in the Hillsborough River is that it seems to require lowering the standard for dissolved oxygen in the river, since treated wastewater has less oxygen than the water it would be replacing. This would be a problem for the river’s fish and aquatic plants, which need oxygen to, um, live. Not coincidentally, they need the oxygen to remain at the standard that is already set for the river, as this standard is based on their requirements.

There are much better ways we can use reclaimed water instead of polluting our rivers with it. Reclaimed water should be used for agriculture, landscape irrigation, and industrial uses; which would reduce the use of potable water for these purposes.

On Monday, Tampa Bay Water will discuss developing a contract (technically a “Memorandum of Understanding”) with the City of Tampa, that would include the use of Tampa’s reclaimed water for downstream augmentation. (See the agenda item.)

Downstream augmentation of both the Hillsborough River and the Alafia River remain on TBW’s Shortlist of water supply projects. This Shortlist is still in the planning stage, which is a good time for you to provide your comments. Tell them which projects you like, as well as dislike.

That comment form is a good place to start providing input, but I suggest you also tell TBW’s board what you think—especially about dumping treated wastewater into the Hillsborough and Alafia rivers. Contact Tampa City Council member, Charlie Miranda, and County Commissioners Mark Sharpe and Al Higginbotham. (See my letter.)

Tomorrow Matters! is working hard to get thousands of people to participate in the public phase of One Bay’s regional visioning project (“VoiceIt”), which will be kicked off at 5 locations simultaneously on June 2, then continued at smaller meetings and in an online survey throughout the next 6 weeks.

Because I’ve been working with the Tomorrow Matters! (TM!) committee hosting the event, I was allowed to attend a private preview of the four scenarios.  I was disappointed to see that the survey form (against all my fabulous, free advice!) was basically just a series of multiple-choice questions asking participants to simply vote for one of the 4 scenarios. I complained about this to everyone I could corner, and I’ve suggested some questions that would encourage participants not just to rubber-stamp one scenario or another, but to provide meaningful input that can be used to shape the final vision. Dena Leavengood (TM! leader) is also suggesting better questions.

As I briefly explained in a previous post, the scenarios have been developed by the One Bay Tech Team which includes a lot of very well-intentioned expert planners, but also includes an awful lot of developers, and NO community activists, environmentalists, bicycle advocates, nor just plain folks. The Tech Team includes no environmental protection agencies besides water-based agencies — did they account for all the upland habitat and other green space besides the wetlands in the scenarios?

Let’s keep that process in mind as we review these 4 scenarios:

• Scenario A: Business as usual — a depiction of what Tampa Bay will look like if development is allowed to continue the way it has been going.
• Scenario B: A compilation of where the Reality Check invitees put their Legos during that 90-minute exercise.
• Scenario C: Combines the Reality Check results with an emphasis on compacting growth around transit corridors and walkable communities.
• Scenario D: Combines the Reality Check results with an increased focus on protecting water resources and wildlife habitat.

Note that Scenarios B, C, & D incorporate the Reality Check results as their starting point. Is that why Scenario D looks so sprawly? Are we expected to believe that protecting our natural resources (D) leads inevitably to more sprawl than transit-oriented development (C)? Why should we have to choose between Scenario C’s goal of promoting transit and Scenario D’s goal of protecting natural resources? Good planning should be able to accomplish both of these goals—and then some.

If we weren’t tied to the Reality Check “data” (a skewed sampling of opinions gathered under contrived conditions), could we come up with a future scenario that accomplishes more of what we want the future to look like?  What if we started with professional planners and without special interests?

But whether One Bay offers you a thought-provoking survey form or not, it’s up to you to think outside the four corners of their scenarios and—no matter what questions are asked—tell them what you want to say. Write your ideas on their form in the margins if you have to, or hand in a piece of paper with your thoughts. Pretend every multiple choice question has a write-in blank for “other.”

If none of the 4 scenarios matches your vision, don’t just choose the closest one. Describe your ideal future scenario. Combine parts of the 4 scenarios, or take one scenario and change it, or just explain what’s important to you. Tell them what you like and dislike about all the scenarios. Point out any important elements that are not addressed by the scenarios. You might also step back and comment on the process and suggest ways we might come up with a better vision.

Finally, don’t hesitate to question the underlying assumptions, including the growth projections. Note this point in an Orlando Sentinel commentary about Florida’s recent over development and the vacant suburban slums left in its wake:

“If we didn’t build another house in the suburbs, we still would have too many of them 17 years from now.”

Aside from our local glut of newly built, empty condos & houses, we also have over 50,000 unbuilt homes already approved just in south Hillsborough County.  50,000 homes.  Even if we didn’t rezone another farm field we could accommodate much of the growth projected for decades.

This is your turn to have a say in your region’s future. Don’t miss it. But don’t let them hand you a rubber stamp, and then claim that the public has spoken.

You might remember reading about One Bay’s Reality Check exercises, in which 300 hand-picked invitees, rushing against a 90-minute time limit, hurriedly heaped Legos on maps to depict their ideas for the 7-county region’s development over the next 50 years.  When selecting the participants, One Bay had set an artificial ratio of 1/3 citizens to 2/3 business and government, which doesn’t reflect the ratio of unaffiliated citizens to moneyed interests in our community.

The exercise was just over a year ago, and at that time I encouraged you to claim a stake in this planning process by joining their mailing list.

The results of this exercise are now being called “data,” and this “data” is being used to inform the next stage of this visioning process.  The One Bay Tech Team used this “data” to create 4 scenarios upon which you are now invited to comment.

We’ll get to those scenarios in a moment, but first, take a look at the makeup of the One Bay Tech Team which created the 4 scenarios:

27 Government
10 Development Industry
4 Economic Development
3 Private Consultants to Government
2 Academics
1 Event Facilitator

Notice there are NO unaffiliated citizens, but plenty of developers. Despite my requests to see the scenarios earlier, they’ve been kept a secret from citizens like you and I up until now.  Meanwhile development industry insiders have been helping to shape those scenarios before we get our say.

But wait, there’s more insider influence.  Recently, One Bay’s project manager was forced to resign due to serious conflicts of interest.  While guiding our region’s vision for growth, Amy Maguire was also working for a coalition of large landowners in south Hillsborough pushing for a mega-development on 5,500 acres of rural farmland; she was an advocate of our detested Green-Swath-Sprawlway; and an employee of John Thrasher’s powerful lobbying company that represents giant developers and other special interests across the state.

Now, One Bay is finally inviting everyone to participate in shaping the vision for our region.  The invitation proclaims

“One Bay is powered by the voice of the citizens who want to be heard and keep our region sustainable and an attractive place to live, work and play…”

Let’s make sure this comes true.  As warped as all this has been so far, I strongly encourage you to participate in One Bay’s visioning process.  One Bay is being embraced by our county commission, TBARTA, and other political and business leaders across the 7-county region. It will have great influence over the future of our region—right down to our neighborhoods and our daily quality of life—whether we participate or not.

Keep in mind that while the Tampa Bay Partnership and other One Bay partners are paying for the visioning process, we taxpayers will pay for the growth that is envisioned, and its infrastructure. Yes, new growth pays some impact fees, and the new residents pay new taxes, but that doesn’t begin to cover all the costs that we taxpayers must shell out. We pay even more when poorly planned growth lowers our quality of life, destroys our natural resources, and sucks our free time into the black hole of time wasted in traffic jams.

Citizens must demand—not just a seat at the table—enough seats to represent our numbers and our taxes. If there are 1,000 butchers, bakers & candlestick makers for every developer in this region, then we should have 1,000 seats at the table for every developer seat. After all, it’s our table.

We have 6 weeks, starting with the June 2 kickoff event, to make an honest program out of One Bay, and help make its claims of citizen participation come true. In the next post, I’ll spell out some details on the four scenarios, and how you can make a difference, but for now, PLEASE give serious consideration to taking an ACTIVE role in this.