CAPTIONING
NOVEMBER 15, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION


***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the 
***following meeting.  It should be used for informational 
***purposes only.  This document has not been edited; 
***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words 
***that did not translate.

>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO THE NOVEMBER 15th MEETING OF 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION.
WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND 
INVOCATION, CONDUCTED BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS 
DAY.
EVERY DAY IS A BLESSING, FATHER, AND WE'RE JUST GRATEFUL.
FATHER, SOMETIMES WE THINK ABOUT THE WORRIES AND THE 
EVERYDAY PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE AND THE OLD ADAGE THAT WE 
SAW THE GUY THAT COMPLAINED ABOUT HIS SHOES AND THEN LOOKED 
OVER AND SAW THE PERSON THAT HAD NO FEET, AND WE SHOULD 
ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT AND CONSTANTLY NURTURE OUR FAITH AND 
BE GRATEFUL FOR THE BLESSINGS THAT WE HAVE.
FATHER, I'M SO GRATEFUL TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, AND I'M 
HOPING THAT WE CAN DO OUR BEST TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, 
AND WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE CITIZENS THAT GET INVOLVED AND 
HELP US TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE.
WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE STAFF THAT WORKS SO HARD.
FATHER, WE PRAY FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE 
CALLING UPON YOU, AND WE JUST PRAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT 
ARE FIGHTING OVERSEAS AND THAT THEY WILL ACCOMPLISH THEIR 
MISSIONS AND COME HOME SAFELY.
WE ALSO PRAY FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS HERE, LORD, AND WE 
ARE GRATEFUL, AGAIN, FOR ALL THE BLESSINGS THAT YOU BESTOW 
UPON US, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE WITH OUR NEW CHAIR, 
COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM, AS WE CONDUCT A WONDERFUL 
MEETING TODAY.
THANK YOU.
IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY.
AMEN.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
DR. GARRITY, WOULD YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THE CHANGES TO THE 
AGENDA, PLEASE.
>>RICK GARRITY:  YES.
GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
THERE ARE TWO CHANGES TO THE AGENDA.
WE HAVE A SPECIAL REPORT FOR YOU THIS MORNING ON THE 
AMMONIA PIPELINE INCIDENT, AND WE'D LIKE TO DO THAT RIGHT 
AFTER THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND THEN SECONDLY, IN ITEM 4, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE 
PROPOSE FLIPPING THOSE TWO AND DOING THE UNDERGROUND 
STORAGE TANK FIRST.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL GO INTO PUBLIC COMMENT NOW.
WE HAVE TWO FOLKS WHO'VE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THE FIRST IS DENISE LAYNE, AND THE SECOND IS NICK 
APPLEHEIMER.
HAVE I PRONOUNCED THAT CORRECTLY?
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS DENISE LAYNE.
I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST DURING ITEM 6, WHEN 
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOCAL EPC BILLS, 1, 3, AND 4, YOU 
TOOK WONDERFUL ACTION, THE CORRECT ACTION IN MY OPINION -- 
OF COURSE, THAT'S MY OPINION -- ON THURSDAY AS THE BOCC.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE THE SAME OPPOSITION POSITION AS 
THE EPC JUST TO MAKE IT CONTINUOUS.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, IF THIS -- IF ANY LOCAL BILL GETS TO 
TALLAHASSEE, IT'S OUT OF OUR CONTROL WHEN IT GETS UP THERE.
IT REALLY, TRULY IS, ESPECIALLY SOMETHING LIKE THIS, SO 
LET'S NOT OPEN A CAN OF WORMS THAT WE DON'T NEED TO.
LET'S CONTINUE WORKING ON -- AND WE'LL DO THE AG RULE, BUT 
THAT'S WHAT THIS AG RULE IS ABOUT, TO TRY TO MAKE THINGS 
BETTER IN THIS COUNTY.
LET'S GIVE IT A SHOT.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS NICK.
I'M WITH ATLANTIC CONCRETE WASHOUT, AND WE JUST RECENTLY 
OPENED AN OFFICE HERE IN TAMPA, AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW 
IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT MAYBE CONCRETE WASHOUT LATER ON, HOW 
IT AFFECTS THE ENVIRONMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN 
OFFER OF DISCUSSION LATER ON BECAUSE IT DEFINITELY AFFECTS 
THE ENVIRONMENT.
THAT'S ALL.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  DR. GARRITY.
>>RICK GARRITY:  COMMISSIONERS, STAFF WILL BE HAPPY TO GET 
WITH YOU OFF TO THE SIDE AND FIND OUT WHAT YOUR CONCERNS 
ARE, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  WELL, THANK YOU.
IT'S MY FIRST MEETING AS CHAIR, AND I'M WORKING ON WHAT TO 
EXPECT AS WELL, I GUESS AS THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE.
REPORT FROM THE CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
DAVID JELLERSON, CHAIR OF THE CEAC.
THE NOVEMBER 5th MEETING OF THE CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE INCLUDED A REVIEW OF ONGOING RULEMAKING 
ACTIVITIES OF THE EPC.
THE EPC STAFF PROVIDED UPDATES REGARDING THE PROPOSED 
AMENDMENTS TO THE STORAGE TANK RULE AND THE CREMATORY RULE 
THAT WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE THIS BOARD LAST MONTH.
IN ADDITION, WE REVIEWED AND COMMENTED ON THE PROPOSED 
AMENDMENTS TO THE WETLANDS RULE THAT ARE SCHEDULED FOR 
PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED AN APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED LOCAL 
LEGISLATION SUBMITTED BY HUGH GRAMLING AND SUPPORTED BY 
REPRESENTATIVE GLORIOSO.
THIS APPLICATION HAS THE SUMMARY TITLE "HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION REGULATION OF 
AGRICULTURAL LANDS."
IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING REGULATION OF 
AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE 
REGULATIONS WITHOUT HAVING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED 
BY EPC.
DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP AND 
ADOPT THE EPC WETLAND RULES AND THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE FATE 
OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, THE CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE PASSED A MOTION TO REQUEST THAT THIS 
BOARD TABLE ANY ACTION OR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE HYBRID 
RULE RELATIVE TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES PENDING RESOLUTION 
OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS?
BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEMS ON CONSENT 
AGENDA AND CHANGES, I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD FROM 
COMMISSIONER NORMAN, UNFORTUNATELY, I'LL BE UNABLE TO 
ATTEND THE EPC MEETING TODAY DUE TO A SCHEDULING CONFLICT.
PLEASE READ THIS INTO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AND CHANGES?
>>MARK SHARPE:  SO MOVE.
>> SECOND.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  RECORD YOUR VOTES, PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  DR. GARRITY, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU 
FOR THE REPORT ON THE GAS LEAK.
>>RICK GARRITY:  YES, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS MORNING WE HAVE WITH US CHIEF RON ROGERS OF 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS 
CHIEF BILL BAILEY.
THEY'LL BE FOLLOWED BY TONY D'AQUILA OF OUR WATER DIVISION 
AND STERLING WOODARD OF OUR AIR DIVISION, AND BETWEEN THESE 
FOUR INDIVIDUALS, I THINK YOU'LL GET A PRETTY GOOD FEEL OF 
THE RESPONSE AND WHAT HAPPENED AT THE AMMONIA INCIDENT THIS 
WEEK.
SO CHIEF ROGERS.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
RON ROGERS, ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FIRE 
RESCUE.
AS YOU-ALL KNOW, OVER THE LAST THREE DAYS WE WERE IN 
RESPONSE MODE TO AN AMMONIA LEAK CAUSED BY A JUVENILE THAT, 
FOR WHATEVER REASON, CHOSE TO DRILL INTO THE PIPELINE.
WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT JUST BRIEFLY IS WHAT WE KNOW 
SO FAR OF OUR -- OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED.
OBVIOUSLY WE JUST LEFT THE SCENE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, SO WE 
HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN-DEPTH AND DO OUR AFTER-
ACTION REVIEW, BUT WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION 
I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU, AND HOPEFULLY YOU-ALL HAVE THE 
PRESENTATION UP ON YOUR COMPUTERS.
THE FIRST SLIDE THERE THAT YOU SEE IS A PICTURE WE ACTUALLY 
CAME ACROSS ON THE INTERNET THAT'S A VERY TELLING PICTURE.
THAT'S VERY EARLY ON IN THE INCIDENT.
YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE THERE'S STILL TRAFFIC ON THE 
BRIDGE, BUT THAT CLOUD YOU SEE ABOVE THE WATER IS THE 
AMMONIA THAT'S BEING RELEASED FROM THE PIPELINE.
THIS PICTURE IS LOOKING EAST.
THE ACTUAL LEAK IS JUST OFF TO THE RIGHT OF THE PICTURE, 
BUT YOU CAN SEE THE KEY THING ABOUT THIS PICTURE IS HOW THE 
AMMONIA IS HUGGING THE WATER.
THE GOOD THING ABOUT AMMONIA ANHYDROUS AMMONIA, IN 
PARTICULAR, IS IT LIKES WATER.
IT'S GOING TO BE DRAWN TO THE WATER.
IN THIS CASE, THE FACT THIS IT WAS NEXT TO THE RIVER IS A 
GREAT BENEFIT TO US.
A LITTLE BIT OF COMPARISON FOR YOU SO YOU UNDERSTAND.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, BACK IN MAY OF 2003 WE HAD ANOTHER 
EVENT THAT WAS RELATED TO THE PIPELINE.
THIS WAS WHERE SOMEONE CHOSE TO TAMPER WITH THE PIPELINE.
THERE ARE SOME COMPARISONS THAT I WANTED TO GO OVER FOR 
YOU.
THE DURATION OF THE OPERATION, FAIRLY CLOSE.
YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS 34 HOURS.
THIS ONE WAS ABOUT 40.
THE WATER USE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME COMMUNITY EXPOSURE, BUT WE ALSO 
DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER AVAILABLE.
WE HAD WATER AVAILABLE HERE.
WE NEEDED TO USE IT, AND WE DID.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE ESTIMATED ABOUT 5.4 MILLION 
GALLONS OF WATER WERE USED.
THE CAUSE, STILL NOT EXACTLY SURE WHY HE DID IT, BUT THE 
PREVIOUS ONE WAS SOMEBODY TRYING TO STEAL IT FOR A METH 
LAB.
THAT'S A POSSIBILITY HERE.
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE LOOKING INTO IT, BUT 
RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST TERMING IT "VANDALISM."
PREVIOUSLY THEY TAMPERED WITH A VALVE BOX.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STEPS TO SECURE THOSE VALVE BOXES SO 
THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
NOW THEY'VE TAMPERED WITH THE PIPE, AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S 
GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT 
AND SEE IF WE CAN MINIMIZE THAT EXPOSURE.
JUST A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE MAP.
THE LEAK WAS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BRIDGE, JUST 
UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE.
FORTUNATELY FOR US, THE WIND DIRECTION CARRIED IT RIGHT 
ALONG THE RIVER.
WE WERE ABLE TO MINIMIZE THE EVACUATION, AND IT ALLOWED US 
TO CHANNEL THE AMMONIA SO THAT WE COULD USE THE WATER 
STREAMS TO A MAXIMUM EFFECT.
A FEW OVERVIEW PHOTOS.
THE TOP LEFT PHOTO THERE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE TOWARDS THE 
BOTTOM CENTER OF THE PICTURE THAT IS ACTUAL LIQUID COMING 
OUT UNDER HIGH PRESSURE OUT OF THAT HOLE IN THE PIPE.
KEEP IN MIND THAT HOLE WAS JUST SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN A 
PENCIL TIP COMING OUT AT 200 PSI.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY WE DIDN'T CAP IT 
SOONER, WHY WE DIDN'T SEND PEOPLE IN THERE AND CAP IT.
THE PROBLEM IS WITH IT COMING OUT WITH THAT VELOCITY AND 
IT'S LIQUID EXPANDING 800 TIMES, IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT 
TO BE ABLE TO GO IN THERE AND PUT ANYTHING OVER THERE 
THAT'S GOING TO STOP IT.
WE COULD HAVE DONE SOME CLAMPS, BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT 
IS ALL YOU'VE DONE IS THEN YOU'VE SLOWED IT DOWN, BUT 
THERE'S NO WAY TO STOP IT, SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE LONGER FOR 
IT TO LEAK OUT, SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE THERE A LONGER PERIOD 
OF TIME WITH THE ROAD CLOSED, SO THE BEST THING TO DO IN 
THIS CASE WAS TO LET IT GO, KNOCK IT DOWN WITH THE WATER, 
AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.
THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE -- AN OVERVIEW PICTURE 
THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH.
THE PIPELINE, AS IT'S COMING ACROSS THE BRIDGE, IT MAKES A 
90 AND GOES DOWN INTO THE GROUND, AND WHERE HE DRILLED INTO 
IT WAS FROM JUST ABOVE THE GROUND THERE WHERE THE ARROW 
POINTS TO.
AND THEN THE BOTTOM LEFT PICTURE SHOWS THE WATER STREAMS 
THAT WE HAD.
THE RIGHT SIDE IS ACTUALLY POINTING TOWARDS WHERE THE LEAK 
WAS, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER ONE'S CATCHING IT ON 
THE OTHER SIDE AS IT -- AS THE VAPOR CAME OUT FROM UNDER 
THE BRIDGE.
JUST SOME QUICK INFORMATION ON THE RESPONSE ITSELF.
WE GOT THE CALL AT 5:40 P.M. ON MONDAY.
OUR UNIT WAS VERY CLOSE TO THERE.
THEY WERE -- ARRIVED WITHIN A MINUTE, REPORTED A MAJOR 
RELEASE OF AMMONIA, AND IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TAKING DEFENSIVE 
ACTIONS.
THOSE DEFENSIVE ACTIONS ARE MAKING SURE, FIRST OF ALL, THAT 
WE PROTECT THE CITIZENS.
THAT'S OUR NUMBER ONE DIRECTIVE.
SO THEY STARTED TAKING -- EVACUATING THE PEOPLE IN THE 
AFFECTED AREA, DENYING ACCESS, YOU KNOW, STOPPING THE 
TRAFFIC, KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF THE PRODUCT.
THAT'S OUR NUMBER ONE STEP.
SO YOU'LL HEAR -- THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHY WE 
DIDN'T START PUTTING WATER ON IT QUICKER.
THAT'S BECAUSE INITIALLY WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE THREE GUYS ON 
THAT INITIAL TRUCK, THEY'RE GOING TO BE OBVIOUSLY VERY BUSY 
TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM COMING INTO THE PRODUCT AND 
TRYING TO GET THE PEOPLE IN IT OUT OF IT, SO THAT'S THEIR 
NUMBER ONE GOAL, SO IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE TO GET THAT 
DONE AND STEP BACK AND SAY, LET'S START PUTTING SOME WATER 
ON IT.
THE RESPONSE CONTINUED, AS MOST OF YOU SAW ON TV, I'M SURE.
WE STARTED APPLYING OUR MASTER STREAMS TO IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LEARNED FROM THE PREVIOUS 
RESPONSE WAS WE NEEDED TO HAVE A LOT OF UNMANNED MASTER 
STREAMS.
IF YOU LOOKED AT ANY OF THE PICTURES OF THE PREVIOUS 
RESPONSE, YOU SAW THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD PEOPLE OUT THERE ON 
HOSE LINES IN PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, BUT WE STILL WERE 
EXPOSING THEM.
WE HAVE NOW PURCHASED ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT THAT WE CAN PUT 
UNMANNED WATER STREAMS OUT THERE AND NOT EXPOSE OUR 
PERSONNEL, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS PICTURE.
INITIATED A FULL HAZMAT ALARM, A LOT OF UNITS, A LOT OF 
PEOPLE, ABOUT 70 PEOPLE AT THE MAXIMUM, USING A LOT OF 
WATER, ABOUT 3,000 GALLONS PER MINUTE.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO KNOCK DOWN AMMONIA.
WORKED WITH ALL THE STATE, LOCAL, AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS, AS 
WELL AS THE COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES TRYING TO FIGURE OUT 
WHAT WE COULD DO TO MINIMIZE THIS AND WORK THROUGH IT AS 
QUICK AS WE COULD.
THE BIGGEST THING WAS GETTING A HOT TAP IN PLACE BECAUSE 
THE KEY THING WAS TO SHRINK THE ENVELOPE THE CHEMICAL WAS 
IN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THEY CLOSED THEIR VALVES, BUT WE STILL HAD ABOUT A TWO-MILE 
STRETCH OF PIPE BETWEEN THE VALVES, SO WHAT THEY DID WITH 
THIS HOT TAP IS THEY ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO SHRINK THAT DOWN 
TO ABOUT A THOUSAND-FOOT SECTION, WHICH ALLOWED IT TO DRAIN 
A LOT FASTER, AND THAT GOT IN PLACE LATE TUESDAY AFTERNOON 
AND OBVIOUSLY EXPEDITED THINGS SIGNIFICANTLY, AND THAT'S 
HOW WE WERE ABLE TO WRAP IT UP YESTERDAY MORNING.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WAS WRAPPED UP YESTERDAY MORNING, 
FINALLY CAPPED AT 10:00.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HOT WASH TODAY, AND BASICALLY A HOT 
WASH IS GETTING OUGHT THE RESPONDERS TOGETHER, TALK ABOUT 
WHAT WE DID, WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WENT WRONG, WHAT WE COULD 
DO BETTER.
AFTER THAT, WE'LL HAVE AN AFTER-ACTION REVIEW WHERE WE 
BRING ALL THE RESPONDERS TOGETHER, COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES, 
EPC REPRESENTATIVES, AND TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN WE 
DO TO MAKE OUR RESPONSE BETTER IN THE FUTURE, WHAT CAN WE 
DO TO PREVENT THIS?
YOU KNOW, WE DID THIS THE LAST TIME.
A LOT OF STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SECURE THE VALVE BOXES, BUT 
OBVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF SECURING THE 
PIPELINE ITSELF, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO 
LOOK AT AND THEN FINALLY, WE'LL HAVE A FOLLOW-UP WITH THE 
REPORT TO YOU-ALL.
AND WITH THAT, I'VE GOT SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION JUST 
FOR YOUR REFERENCE, FOLLOWING THIS A LOT OF INFORMATION 
ABOUT AMMONIA, ABOUT THE PIPELINE ITSELF, BUT OTHER THAN 
THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  PERSONALLY, NO FROM THE CHAIR, BUT 
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  WELL, FIRST RON, LET ME COMMEND YOU ON A 
GREAT REPORT.
YOU ANSWERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS RIGHT IN THE REPORT.
OBVIOUSLY THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT WE'RE -- WELL, THERE'S 
A COUPLE THINGS THAT WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, ONE, 
WHAT'S HAPPENED ENVIRONMENTALLY, WHAT WILL THE -- WHAT WILL 
THAT DO IN THE FUTURE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT NUMBER TWO, 
THE SECURITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN 
BECAUSE THIS IS THE SECOND OCCURRENCE WITHIN A FEW-YEAR 
PERIOD.
SO -- BUT I THINK YOU COVERED THAT.
YOU'RE ON THE WAY, AND YOU'RE DILIGENT -- YOU'LL BE 
DILIGENT IN DOING SO, SO I APPRECIATE IT.
GREAT REPORT.
>> THANK YOU.
AND YOU HIT ON ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR 
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND.
IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WE ACTUALLY SACRIFICE THE 
ENVIRONMENT FOR PEOPLE.
THE PEOPLE COME FIRST.
KNOCKING THIS DOWN AND PUTTING IT IN THE RIVER VERSUS IT 
GETTING INTO HOMES IS A KEY HERE, SO UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S 
JUST WHAT WE HAD TO DO.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  YES, SIR.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CHIEF, LET ME ALSO EXTEND MY THANKS FOR WHAT OUR MEN AND 
WOMEN ON HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY RESCUE DID, PUTTING 
THEMSELVES, OBVIOUSLY, IN HARM'S WAY AS YOU OFTEN DO FOR 
THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS AND OUR 
CITIZENS.
I WAS READING THE PAPER THIS MORNING, AND I THINK TWO OR 
THREE OF THE REPORTERS ON THE TIMES MADE SOME COMMENTS ON 
MY BEHALF, AND I FOUND THAT A BIT STRANGE BECAUSE I HADN'T 
INTERVIEWED WITH THEM, BUT -- SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT I 
HAD DONE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS SAID.
I SENT AN E-MAIL ALREADY TO CHIEF NESMITH, AND I THINK 
WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
WE ALL WANT TO DO WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO.
YOU KNOW, FROM SOMETHING BAD CAN -- SOMETHING GOOD CAN 
COME, AND I THINK AT SOME POINT AFTER EVERYTHING IS DONE 
AND THE CHIEF OR YOU ARE NOT AS PRESSED FOR TIME, MAYBE WE 
CAN SIT DOWN AND SEE IF WE NEED TO EVALUATE THIS, IF 
THERE'S ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT THE COUNTY COMMISSION NEEDS TO 
HELP SUPPORT TO GET IT TO YOU, OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE 
NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF CHANGING OUR PROCEDURES, THEN 
CERTAINLY WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU FROM THE STANDPOINT OF 
PUBLIC SAFETY.
COINCIDENTALLY ENOUGH, I HAD TALKED TO SOME OF MY CITIZENS 
OR MY CONSTITUENTS IN MY DISTRICT, BOTH IN SOUTH TAMPA AND 
IN WEST TAMPA, THE NIGHT BEFORE THIS HAPPENED, AND I KNOW 
THAT DON BYRD WITH TAMPA PIPELINE ACTUALLY HAD MADE A 
PRESENTATION AT ONE OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS BECAUSE I 
HAVE PIPELINE ISSUES THERE, BOTH TAMPA PIPELINE AND WHAT 
KINDER MORGAN MAY OR MAY NOT DO EN ROUTE TO TAMPA 
INTERNATIONAL, SO I TALKED TO HIM YESTERDAY, AND HE AGREED 
TO MEET AS WELL AND SEE IF -- EVEN IF SOMETHING IS NOT 
MANDATED, WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T DO IN TERMS OF MAKING THIS 
A LITTLE BIT SAFER, WHETHER IT'S REQUIRED OR IT'S NOT.
AND OBVIOUSLY, AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE 
ISSUE THAT THIS DAMAGE WAS DONE BECAUSE OF SOME MISCHIEF 
THAT SOMEBODY DID.
WE CAN'T OVERLOOK THAT.
AS I WAS TELLING HIM, YOU CAN GET A TEMPERED LOCK AND SO 
SOMEBODY CAN'T BOLT CUT THROUGH IT, BUT STILL THEY CAN 
BRING A TORCH AND GET THROUGH THE TEMPERED LOCK, SO IT HAS 
TO BE LOOKED AT FROM BOTH SIDES, WHAT THE COMPANY, TAMPA 
PIPELINE OR ANYBODY ELSE, CAN AND SHOULD DO, AND ALSO WHAT 
WE NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF RESPONSE WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS 
ARE DONE THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE.
SO ANYWAY, I'M SURE I SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, AND WHEN 
THIS IS ALL DONE, IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE 
THE EQUIPMENT THAT YOU HAVE OR ANY NEEDS THAT YOU HAVE TO 
CONTINUE DOING THE FINE JOB YOU'RE DOING FOR OUR COUNTY, 
THEN CERTAINLY WE ARE HERE AT YOUR DISPOSAL.
>> THANK YOU.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHIEF.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I'LL ECHO, AS WELL, EXCELLENT JOB ONCE 
AGAIN.
LET ME ASK, WITH REGARD TO THE REPORT, THERE'S GOING TO BE 
A REPORT THAT KIND OF TIMELINES THIS OUT.
WILL WE BE ABLE TO SEE FROM THE MOMENT THAT THE INCIDENT 
WAS REPORTED TO WHEN YOU WERE ON-SITE HOW IT UNFOLDED?
>> YES, SIR.
WE'RE PREPARING THAT REPORT RIGHT NOW FOR THE COUNTY 
ADMINISTRATOR, MS. BEAN, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'D BE HAPPY TO 
COME PRESENT IT TO EITHER YOU OR THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M INTERESTED IN, 
WHETHER IT'S EVACUATIONS FOR HURRICANES, FIRES, OR NOW 
AMMONIA LEAKS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A REPORT WITH REGARD TO 
THE IMPACT OF THE TRAFFIC STOPPAGE ON 301, FROM GIBSONTON 
TO BALM, HOW THAT AFFECTED THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, COMMUTE 
TRAFFIC, AND AS WELL THE ABILITY FOR FOLKS WHO HAVE TO 
EVACUATE, HOW QUICKLY THEY WERE ABLE TO EVACUATE.
WHO WILL BE DOING THE TRAFFIC STUDY?
>> I WOULD ASSUME THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD LEAD THAT, 
OBVIOUSLY WORKING WITH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, BUT --
>>MARK SHARPE:  DO WE NEED TO -- I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO 
MAKE SURE THAT OUR TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT LOOKS INTO THIS AS 
WELL.
I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU, IF YOU WOULD KIND OF -- I 
DON'T FOLLOW-UP WITH YOU, BUT WE HAVE A FORMAL REPORT WITH 
REGARD TO JUST THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC?
I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT AS WELL.
>> WE'LL MAKE THAT PART OF THE AFTER-ACTION REVIEW, AND IT 
WILL BE IN OUR FINAL REPORT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  AND I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION, WHETHER IT'S 
AMMONIA OR AN INVENTORY OF OTHER, YOU KNOW, DANGEROUS 
MATERIALS THAT EITHER SOME JUVENILE OR OTHERS MIGHT WANT TO 
REACH -- WELL, I'LL ASK -- IF YOU'D JUST CONTACT MY OFFICE, 
I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME OTHER QUESTIONS OUTSIDE.
>> OKAY.
>>MARK SHARPE:  THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
AND THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ON ALL OF OUR MINDS IN THE 
CAPACITY THAT WE SIT AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION, 
AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
COMMISSION, I MET YESTERDAY WITH DR. GARRITY, AND WE 
DISCUSSED THE ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND THE 
PROTECTION THERE, AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS FOLLOW-UP THAT 
WAS DONE IN REGARDS TO THE LAST BREACH OF THE PIPE THAT WE 
HAD SOME YEARS AGO, AND THEY'RE PUTTING THOSE NOTES 
TOGETHER, AND WITHOUT SAYING, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS 
HAVE BEEN SUCH WONDERFUL COMMUNICATORS WITH THE BOARD HERE 
OR WITH THIS COMMISSION, WHEN YOU GET THOSE -- THAT 
REPORT -- AND I FORGET WHAT YOU CALLED IT, BUT WHEN YOU GET 
THAT REPORT, IF YOU'LL SHARE THAT WITH ALL OF THE MEMBERS 
OF THE COMMISSION HERE, WE'LL BE GRATEFUL.
DR. GARRITY, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>>RICK GARRITY:  WE WILL DO THAT, COMMISSIONER, AND WE DO 
HAVE -- WHEN CHIEF ROGERS IS FINISHED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF 
ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE ON THE INCIDENT ALSO.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, CHIEF, AND JUST COMMEND YOU 
FOR PLACING YOURSELVES IN HARM'S WAY AND THE WORK YOU'VE 
DONE, AND DR. GARRITY.
>>RICK GARRITY:  THIS IS -- WE'LL START WITH STERLING 
WOODARD, WHO IS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF OUR AIR DIVISION.
>>STERLING WOODARD:  GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
STERLING WOODARD, EPC.
I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE AIR IMPACTS, AND 
TONY D'AQUILA WILL COME UP AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE WATER 
IMPACTS.
I THINK I HAD TO RAISE IT UP LAST TIME.
I ACTUALLY DON'T SEE IT UP ON THE -- ON THE BOARD, BUT 
ANYWAY, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT YOUR MONITORS, IT SHOWS IN 
THE BACKGROUND THE WATER SPRAYS, AND OVER ON THE RIGHT-HAND 
SIDE YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE THE AMMONIA LEAK CIRCLED IN RED.
THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PEOPLE DID SUCH A GOOD JOB BY USING 
THE WATER BECAUSE THE WATER IS ACTUALLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE 
CONTROL MEASURE THAT YOU CAN USE TO TRY TO CONTROL THESE 
TYPES OF LEAKS, THAT -- WE REALLY DIDN'T GET ANY COMPLAINTS 
OR ANY CONCERNS OR ANY PROBLEMS ABOUT ODOR IN AND AROUND 
THE LEAK ONCE THEY HAD EVACUATED THE AREA.
THE ODOR THRESHOLD REALLY IS PROBABLY THE BEST INDICATOR OF 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM AN AIR PERSPECTIVE.
THE ODOR THRESHOLD IS ABOUT FIVE PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH 
MEANS THAT BY THE TIME YOU SMELL IT, IT'S ACTUALLY AT A 
LEVEL THAT'S REALLY NOT THAT MUCH OF A CONCERN BECAUSE ONE 
OF THE THINGS IS, IS THE OSHA SAFETY AND HEALTH LEVELS ARE 
LIKE 50 PPM, AND LIKE THE 100 PPM LEVEL IS THE LEVEL AT 
WHICH YOUR EYES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT BECOME 
IRRITATED.
200 PPM IS THE LEVEL THAT, YOU KNOW, MOST PEOPLE LOOK AT OR 
MOST OF THE REGULATORY AGENCIES LOOK AT AND SAY, THIS IS A 
LEVEL THAT PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO MOVE OUT OF THE AREA, THEY 
NEED TO ACTUALLY EVACUATE AND FIND SHELTER.
SO THE 5 PPM LEVEL IS REALLY WHERE WE WOULD CONSIDER, YOU 
KNOW, YOU WOULD JUST SMELL IT, AND IT'S MUCH LOWER THAN THE 
LEVEL THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL HARM.
SO TO BE HONEST, WHEN WE ACTUALLY WENT OUT INTO THE AREA, 
ONCE THEY APPLIED THE WATER CANNONS, WE REALLY DIDN'T SMELL 
ANYTHING OUT IN THE AREA, SO FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL 
STANDPOINT, THE LEVELS WERE MUCH LOWER THAN ANY HEALTH 
CONCERN.
NOW, IN RESPONSE TO THAT, AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IN RESPONSE 
TO THE LEAKS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST -- AND THERE 
WAS ONE ACTUALLY IN '97 AND '98 AT THE LITHIA-PINECREST 
PUMP STATION AND ONE IN 2003 WHICH INVOLVED THE VANDALISM 
OF THE
VALVE BOX.
IN BOTH CASES, EVEN THOUGH THESE -- THIS PIPELINE IS 
REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE EPA, THE STATE, 
AND THE DEP, WE ACTUALLY SAT DOWN WITH THEM IN RESPONSE TO 
SOME OF THESE LEAKS AND WORKED OUT AND AGREEMENT WHERE THEY 
WOULD ACTUALLY INSTALL SOME ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES.
BACK IN '97 AND '98 THEY INSTALLED AMMONIA SENSORS THAT 
WOULD BE ABLE TO GO OFF IN CASE THERE WAS A LEAK, AND THE 
WATER SPRAYS WOULD ACTUALLY BE APPLIED AT THOSE PUMP 
STATIONS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY PUT IN VIDEO MONITORS, OKAY, THAT 
WOULD ALLOW THEM TO REMOTELY RECORD AND VISUALLY LOOK AT 
THESE PUMP STATIONS THAT MAY BE UNMANNED SO THAT IF THERE 
WAS A LEAK, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT WITH THESE 
WATER SPRAYS AND SENSORS RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
WITH THE VANDALISM LEAK BACK IN 2003, THAT WAS -- A VALVE 
BOX WAS ACTUALLY BROKEN INTO.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DID IN RESPONSE TO IT WAS TO 
SIT DOWN WITH US AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WAS TO ACTUALLY 
PUT LOCKS ON THOSE BOXES, HIGH-STRENGTH LOCKS ON THOSE 
BOXES.
EVEN THOUGH YOU PROBABLY COULD USE TORCHES AND OTHER THINGS 
TO TRY TO ACCESS IT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO 
DO IN RESPONSE TO THIS LEAK IS TO SIT DOWN WITH THE FIRE 
DEPARTMENT AND TAMPA BAY PIPELINE AGAIN, AS WE'VE DONE IN 
'98 AND 2003, AND ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT PREVENTIVE MEASURES 
OR WHAT OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THEY MAY BE ABLE TO 
IMPLEMENT TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THIS TYPE OF A SAFETY ISSUE IN 
THE FUTURE.
ANY QUESTIONS?
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  MEMBERS -- BOARD MEMBERS?
THANK YOU.
>>TONY D'AQUILA:  GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
TONY D'AQUILA.
I'M DIRECTOR OF THE ERM DIVISION.
I'LL FOLLOW STERLING'S PRESENTATION HERE.
WE BECAME AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM ON MONDAY EVENING, AND I 
BEGAN MAKING PHONE CALLS AT THAT TIME TO ALERT OUR 
SCIENTISTS THAT THEY NEEDED TO GET BOATS IN THE WATER AS 
QUICK AS WE COULD ON THE MORNING OF TUESDAY TO GET OUT 
THERE AND DO SOME SPECIAL SAMPLING, SO ON TUESDAY WE 
DISPATCHED TWO VESSELS FIRST THING IN THE MORNING.
THEY WERE ABLE TO GET TO WITHIN ABOUT A HALF A MILE OF THE 
U.S. 301 BRIDGE.
THE COAST GUARD AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAD BOATS IN THE 
WATER AND HAD A SECURITY PERIMETER AROUND THE BRIDGE.
ON WEDNESDAY THEY DID FOLLOW-UP MONITORING, AND THEY WERE 
ABLE TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE BRIDGE, UP TO ABOUT A 
QUARTER OF A MILE TO THE BRIDGE.
THE REASON I BRING THAT UP TO YOU IS THAT I CAN'T GIVE YOU 
RIGHT NOW AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMMEDIATE IMPACTS ON OR 
AROUND THE 301 BRIDGE SINCE WE COULDN'T GET ANY OF OUR 
PERSONNEL THERE UNTIL TODAY.
MY PHONE IS ON RIGHT NOW.
I TOOK ONE CALL FROM THE GUYS THAT ARE OUT THERE IN THE 
WATER TODAY AGAIN DOING MONITORING.
RIGHT NOW THEY'RE CURRENTLY BETWEEN 41 AND 75 WORKING THEIR 
WAY UP THE RIVER, SO IF THE PHONE GOES OFF, THAT WILL BE TO 
TELL ME THAT THEY FOUND SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT THAT THEY 
NEED TO REPORT.
THE LAST CALL I GOT FROM THEM DURING THE CHIEF'S 
PRESENTATION INDICATED THEY HAD NOT FOUND ANY INDICATION OF 
ANY KIND OF FISH KILL, NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY ON THE 
WATER.
THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN SHOW WHAT THE 
WATER CURTAIN WAS DOING.
OUR CONCERNS WITH THIS UN-IONIZED AMMONIA AS IT IMPACTED 
INTO THE WATER WERE TWOFOLD.
BASICALLY THERE WAS THE ACUTE TOXICITY ISSUE OF WHAT THE 
AMMONIA AND THE IMPACT OF IT TO THE MARINE LIFE IN THE 
WATER -- THAT WOULD BE AN ACUTE TOXICITY THAT WOULD CAUSE 
POTENTIALLY SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
AT LONGER EXPOSURE, YOU'D, AGAIN, HAVE A CHRONIC IMPACT TO 
FISH LIFE.
FORTUNATELY, OUR MONITORING HAS INDICATED THAT THE AMMONIA, 
IT STOPPED FOR ONE THING, SO WE'RE NOT GETTING ANYMORE INTO 
THE RIVER, AND IT BREAKS DOWN PRETTY QUICK INTO THE -- IN 
THE RIVER.
ONCE IT HITS THE WATER, IT GOES THROUGH TRANSFORMATION FROM 
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA TO AN AMMONIUM FORM THAT CAN BE THEN 
BROKEN DOWN BY BACTERIA AND TURNED INTO A NITRATE THAT CAN 
BE PICKED UP BY OTHER BIOLOGICAL FORMS OF LIFE.
THE ONES THERE WE'RE CONCERNED WITH, OF COURSE, WOULD BE 
THE ALGAE.
THAT WOULD BE OUR SECOND CONCERN HERE.
WE'VE SEEMED TO HAVE DODGED A BULLET, HOPEFULLY, 
OPTIMISTICALLY, FROM CATASTROPHIC ACUTE TOXICITY IMPACT, 
BUT THERE'S A LARGE SLUG OF NITROGEN IN THE RIVER NOW THAT 
IS AVAILABLE TO ALGAE, AND WE GET AN ALGAE BLOOM, AND OF 
COURSE, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT COULD BE A DEPRESSION OF 
D.O., A VERY SIGNIFICANT DEPRESSION THAT COULD, AGAIN, HAVE 
SOME MORBIDITY ISSUES FOR MARINE LIFE.
THE MAP I'M SHOWING YOU RIGHT NOW -- HOPEFULLY IT'S COMING 
UP ON YOUR SCREEN -- THIS WAS TUESDAY, ALL RIGHT, SO THIS 
WAS OUR FIRST RUN UP THE RIVER, AND THOSE GREEN DOTS ARE 
WHERE THEY DEPLOYED THE MONITOR TO PICK UP WATER QUALITY 
SAMPLES AND TO GET ELECTRONIC READINGS.
WE DO TWO TYPES OF MONITORING THERE.
YOU GET AN ELECTRONIC READING THAT WILL GIVE YOU AN 
INSTANTANEOUS FEED, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE AN ACTUAL 
SAMPLE AM OF WATER, RUN THAT BACK TO THE LAB, AND DO THE 
ACTUAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, SO WE DID NOT GET THE RESULTS OF 
THAT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY.
WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU HERE, THE FIRST NUMBER ON THE LEFT IS 
THE PH, AND THE NUMBER ON THE RIGHT IS THE SALINITY, AND 
THIS IS AT SURFACE, SO YOU CAN SEE WE'RE RUNNING FROM -- 
THE CLOSEST BEING THE 301 BRIDGE UP THERE ON TO THE RIGHT 
OF THE SCREEN AND THEN OUT TOWARDS -- YOU CAN SEE THE 
PHOSPHATE POOL AND THE MOUTH OF THE ALAFIA, AND SO THAT 
PRETTY WELL ORIENTS YOU TO WHERE YOU ARE.
YOU CAN SEE AT THAT SECOND FIGURE, THE SALINITY IS RANGING 
FROM GETTING SLIGHTLY SALTY -- IT'S NOT EVEN OLIGOHALINE 
WHICH ISN'T THAT UNUSUAL, BUT I POINT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE 
PH.
LOOK AT HOW HIGH THAT PH NUMBER IS.
THAT'S WAY OUT OF RANGE FOR SURFACE WATER.
IF WE GO TO THE BOTTOM OBSERVATIONS, NOTE HOW THE NUMBER ON 
THE RIGHT -- THE SALINITY HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY.
YOU SEE HOW THOSE NUMBERS ARE NOW RANGING UP FROM 21 TO 27 
PARTS PER THOUSAND?
THAT'S SALINITY.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY, THAT SALINE WATER IS MORE DENSE THAN THE 
FRESH, SO THAT'S JUST SHOWING YOU THAT WEDGE FROM THE TIDAL 
INFLUENCE COMING UP, THE FRESHWATER SKIRTING OVER THE TOP 
OF THAT, WHICH IS WHY THAT SALINITY NUMBER ON THE PREVIOUS 
SLIDE WAS SO LOW.
THAT ENDED UP, WE THINK, BEING A GOOD THING FOR US BECAUSE 
THAT STRATIFICATION -- THE INDICATION THAT WE'RE GETTING 
FROM THAT PH BEING ELEVATED SURFICIALLY, THAT 
STRATIFICATION MAY HAVE PREVENTED A LOT OF THAT AMMONIA 
FROM GETTING DOWN INTO THE DEEPER PART OF THE WATER, GIVING 
THE FISH AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET AWAY FROM THE INCIDENTS OF 
THE AMMONIA, WHICH MAY -- I'M BEING -- THIS IS ALL 
THEORETICAL RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE A PLAUSIBLE 
EXPLANATION AS TO WHY WE HAVE NOT SEEN FISH KILL.
THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE WHEN WE GOT OUR 
ANALYSIS OF THE AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS BACK, WHICH WAS 
YESTERDAY -- AND WE SENT YOU AN UPDATE OF THIS YESTERDAY -- 
LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS.
THEY'RE PHENOMENALLY LARGE.
THEY'RE ON AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE 20 TO 30 TIMES LARGER THAN 
WHAT WE'D SEE IN BACKGROUND, AND THEY'RE DEFINITELY -- ALL 
THE CRITERIA AND DATA WOULD INDICATE AT THAT LEVEL YOU 
WOULD HAVE TOXICITY ISSUES WITH FISH, SO WE'RE THEORIZING 
THAT STRATIFICATION MAY HAVE HELPED US IN THE LONG RUN AND 
KEPT THE FISH KILL FROM OCCURRING, HOPEFULLY.
THEY HAVEN'T CALLED ME YET TO SAY THAT THEY FOUND A LOT.
WE HAVE HEARD OF SOME FISH KILL OCCURRING TO THE EAST OF 
THE I-75 BRIDGE.
THAT WAS REPORTED BY A CITIZEN, AND IT SOUNDED LIKE A VALID 
REPORT FROM HIM, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOME 
FISH WERE TRAPPED AND COULDN'T GET OUT AND THE AMMONIA GOT 
TO THEM, OR IT COULD BE THAT WE'RE SEEING THE IMPACTS OF AN 
ALGAL BLOOM, AND WE'LL KEEP YOU APPRISED OF HOW THAT GOES.
UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'LL GET ON WITH THE MEETING.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  BOARD MEMBERS?
I HAVE A QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, I HAVE A COMMENT.
GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'LL MAKE THE COMMENT AFTER YOU FINISH.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  YOU REFERENCED THE NITROGEN AND THE 
EFFECT IT WILL HAVE THERE, AND WE DON'T KNOW YET WHEN THAT 
WILL COME INTO PLAY.
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO SEE ANY I WILL EFFECTS --
>>TONY D'AQUILA:  THIS WILL BE WITHIN THE NEXT SEVERAL 
HOURS OR DAYS.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  SO WITHIN A WEEK --
>>TONY D'AQUILA:  OH, ABSOLUTELY.
YEAH, WITHIN A WEEK IF WE'RE GOING TO SEE A BLOOM.
I DON'T MIND TELLING YOU THAT THEY'RE SUSPECTING THAT THEY 
SEE SOME SEMBLANCE OF A BLOOM IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE 
WATER, AND IN DISCUSSION WITH THE CITIZEN THAT WE TALKED TO 
YESTERDAY, FROM HIS DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER, THERE MAY BE 
SOMETHING HAPPENING OUT THERE NOW, BUT WE'LL KEEP 
MONITORING AND LET YOU KNOW.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT.
WE CERTAINLY WERE QUICK TO -- I KNOW WE SHOULD BE VERY 
QUICK TO THANK FIRE RESCUE AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR 
BEING OUT THERE AND PROTECTING OUR CITIZENS, AND CHIEF, YOU 
SAID THAT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO TAKING CARE OF THE CITIZENS 
OR TAKING CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT, OBVIOUSLY THE SAFETY OF 
OUR CITIZENS WAS THE FIRST THING THAT YOU HAD TO RESPOND 
TO, BUT IT'S VERY, VERY NICE THAT ONCE WE'VE GOT THAT UNDER 
CONTROL AND YOU'VE GIVEN US A REPORT AND THINGS ARE GOING 
AS WELL AS CAN BE EXPECTED OR BETTER THAT I JUST SIT HERE 
THINKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S ALSO VERY, VERY NICE THAT 
ONCE THAT'S UNDER CONTROL WE LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENT WITH A 
LOCAL AGENCY THAT'S HERE TO TAKE CARE OF LOCAL ISSUES, AND 
SO I DON'T WANT TO NOT TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY, DR. GARRITY, 
TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR RESPONDING TO THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AS WELL WHILE OUR FIRE RESCUE STAFF IS 
DOING THE OTHER, SO THANKS FOR BEING HERE AND THANKS FOR 
RESPONDING AND THANKS FOR THE REPORT YESTERDAY, AND WE 
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU-ALL DID.
>>RICK GARRITY:  TONY AND ALL HIS STAFF ARE ON THE SPOT AND 
WERE OUT THERE VERY QUICKLY, SO THANKS TO THEM.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE LEAKS, I'M GOING TO MOVE INTO THE 
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WE HAVE TWO THIS MORNING.
IT WAS THE PLEASURE AND VOTE OF THE BOARD TO TAKE THE FIRST 
PUBLIC HEARING OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RULE FIRST, AND 
SO I'M GOING TO -- I SEE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 35 PEOPLE HERE 
TO SPEAK ON UNDERGROUND STORAGE.
I'M JUST MESSING WITH YOU.
BUT AT THIS TIME, WE'LL --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THERE IS AN OVERFLOW CROWD UPSTAIRS, I 
BELIEVE, MR. HIGGINBOTHAM.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS TIME WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE 
CHAPTER -- AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1-12, UNDERGROUND STORAGE 
TANKS.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'LL ASK FOR DR. GARRITY -- 
DO I NEED TO HAVE A VOTE TO OPEN THE HEARING?
>>MARK SHARPE:  NO.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL RIGHT.
THE NEW GUY.
THANK YOU.
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  COMMISSIONER, I'LL BE PRESENTING THAT.
WE WON'T HAVE ANY POWERPOINTS.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH A NONCONTROVERSIAL RULE HERE.
I WILL DO A SUMMARY OF THE RULE, AND THEN IF THERE IS 
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'LL TAKE THAT, AND THEN WE WOULD JUST GO 
INTO A VOTE.
SO COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS -- EPC IS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE 
DEP TO -- IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO REGULATE THE STATE 
STORAGE TANK COMPLIANCE REGULATIONS.
THESE ARE STATIONARY TANKS THAT CARRY POLLUTANTS, SO TO 
CARRY OUT THESE DUTIES, EPC HAS ADOPTED THE STATE'S RULE, 
WHICH IS 62-761, WHICH WE LAST-MINUTED IN IN 1998, AND WE 
ADOPTED THAT BY OUR RULE CHAPTER 1-12.
THE STATE'S PREVIOUSLY COVERED ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS 
AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS UNDER ONE RULE, AND THAT WAS, 
LIKE I SAID, 62-761, THAT CARRIED OUT BOTH REGULATIONS OF 
BOTH OF THOSE TYPES OF SYSTEMS, BUT DEP AMENDED THE RULE TO 
SEPARATE ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK SYSTEMS FROM UNDERGROUND, 
CREATING A NEW RULE OF 62-762, SO WE NEED TO AMEND OUR 1-12 
RULE TO COVER THE NEW RULE AND TO UPDATE OUR RULE TO BE IN 
CONFORMANCE WITH DEP'S.
THIS DOES NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE EPC'S DUTIES IN ANY WAY, 
SO IF YOU'LL LOOK AT PAGE 32 OF THE RULES, THE ONLY CHANGES 
WE'VE MADE IN ANY PARTS OF THE RULE IS JUST ADDING 62-762 
WHEREVER WE ADOPTED 62-761.
SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING HERE, AND WITH THAT, IF THERE'S 
ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
OTHERWISE, WE COULD GO SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON 
THIS.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO 
THIS ISSUE?
IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THE PA?
>> YES, SIR.
WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL RIGHT.
I'LL REPEAT.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'RE CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1-12, UNDERGROUND 
STORAGE TANKS.
IS THERE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO 
THIS ISSUE?
>>MARK SHARPE:  I'LL MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  SECOND.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL IN FAVOR, RECORD YOUR VOTES, 
PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS.
THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS A -- WAS THERE A QUESTION?
THE NEXT ITEM FOR PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO BE THE 
CONSIDERATION OF CHAPTER 1-11.
THAT'S AGRICULTURAL RULE.
WE WILL HAVE -- BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS, WE WILL HAVE 
PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE HAVE TEN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO 
WILL BE SPEAKING TODAY.
THE TIME LIMIT ON THAT IS THREE MINUTES PER MEMBER, AND I 
SPOKE -- AND AS I WILL AS PRACTICE AS THE CHAIRMAN HERE, I 
WILL BE VERY MINDFUL OF THE TIMES WHEN YOU SIGN IN.
I DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO SIGNED IN AT THE SAME TIME, AND 
I'M GOING TO TAKE THEM IN ALPHA ORDER, AND I'LL ALSO 
APOLOGIZE AHEAD OF TIME IF I DON'T GET THE PRONUNCIATION OF 
NAMES CORRECTLY, BUT WE'LL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING NOW.
DO I NEED A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING?
ALL RIGHT.
DR. GARRITY.
>>RICK GARRITY:  ACTUALLY, WE'LL START WITH A BRIEF 
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL TSCHANTZ.
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  JUST PROCEDURALLY HOW WE'D GO IS DR. 
GARRITY WOULD DO AN INTRODUCTION, AND THAT WOULD BE 
FOLLOWED BY A SUMMARY OF THE RULE BY MR. ZODROW.
THE RULE IS IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL.
THAT WOULD THEN BE FOLLOWED AFTER MR. ZODROW BY PUBLIC 
COMMENT, AT WHICH TIME DR. GARRITY WILL MAKE THE STAFF 
RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN THE BOARD DISCUSSION AND VOTE.
SO WE'LL START OFF WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY DR. GARRITY.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
>>RICK GARRITY:  OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE -- ELAINE, IF YOU COULD GET THE 
FIRST SLIDE UP THERE.
WE HAVE -- I WANT TO JUST KIND OF GO OVER THE BACKGROUND OF 
HOW WE GOT TO TODAY.
AND AS YOU RECALL IN THE HYBRID MODEL THAT WE HAVE -- WE 
TALKED EXTENSIVELY IN PART OF THE HYBRID MODEL ABOUT THE 
AGSWM PROGRAM AND HOW WE THOUGHT THAT AGRICULTURAL WAS A 
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO 
STREAMLINE OUR PROCEDURES FOR AGRICULTURE AND, MAYBE IN 
SOME INSTANCE, LIGHTEN THEIR BURDEN A LITTLE BIT, AND -- 
BECAUSE IT'S -- WE CONSIDER IT TO BE VERY IMPORTANT TO TRY 
TO KEEP AGRICULTURE ACTIVE, ALIVE, AND HEALTHY IN 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND IN FACT, LAST WEEK I THINK THE 
WELL-RESPECTED THOUSAND FRIENDS OF FLORIDA CAME OUT WITH A 
POSITION PAPER TALKING ABOUT THE NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO 
KEEP AGRICULTURE HEALTHY AND WELL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
SO BEFORE I MAYBE GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, IT'S IMPORTANT 
FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO 
WETLAND APPROVALS.
THE FIRST PART IS A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT AN 
APPLICANT CANNOT HAVE REASONABLE USE OF THEIR LAND WITHOUT 
THE IMPACT.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT WE DETERMINE.
AND THEN IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THEY CANNOT HAVE 
REASONABLE USE OF THEIR LAND WITHOUT THE IMPACT, THE IMPACT 
IS AUTHORIZED, YOU GO TO THE SECOND PART, AND THE SECOND 
PART, THEN, IS DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF MITIGATION, IF 
ANY, THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED.
SO WE ENDORSED THE CONCEPTS OF AGSWM.
AGSWM IS KIND OF UNIQUE.
I THINK IT'S ONLY IN THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT -- SOUTHWEST 
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND IT'S A PROGRAM THAT 
ENCOURAGES WORKING WITH FARMERS TO PUT TOGETHER 
CONSERVATION PLANS FOR THEIR FARMS, BEST MANAGEMENT 
PRACTICES.
IT ACTUALLY HAS INCREASED SETBACKS FROM WETLANDS, IT 
PROMOTES AVOIDANCE OF WETLANDS, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS SOME 
MINOR WETLAND IMPACTS, AND WE THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD 
PROGRAM, AND WE SUPPORT JOINING THEIR AG TEAMS AS THEY CALL 
THEM AT THE DISTRICT.
SO IN THE NEXT SLIDE YOU SEE THAT -- THAT'S KIND OF THE 
BACKGROUND.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS, WELL, WHAT EXACTLY WAS IN THE HYBRID 
ABOUT ALL OF THIS, AND WHAT WAS IN THE HYBRID WAS IS THAT 
WE WILL DEVELOP SPECIFIC RULES AND STANDARDS TO INCORPORATE 
THE PRINCIPLES OF AGSWM AND WE'LL CONSIDER PROJECTS THAT GO 
THROUGH THE AGSWM PROCESS AND RECEIVE AN EXEMPTION FROM 
PERMITTING OR PERMIT AS MEETING THE REASONABLE USE 
CRITERIA.
THAT'S THE FIRST PART OF THE TEST I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
AND THEN ALSO SECONDLY, THE SECOND PART OF THE TEST 
MITIGATION, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL 
PROJECTS WILL BE EXEMPTED FROM MITIGATION IF THE IMPACTS 
ARE TO QUARTER-ACRE ISOLATED WETLANDS AND DON'T EXCEED ONE-
HALF ACRE.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF SPELLED OUT IN THE HYBRID.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE THIRD SLIDE IS MY ATTEMPT TO KIND OF 
GIVE YOU A CONCEPTUAL SUMMARY OF WHAT THE RULE ACTUALLY 
DOES, AND ANDY ZODROW WILL GO INTO THIS IN MORE DETAIL.
WHAT THE RULE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY DOES, AS FAR AS THE 
REASONABLE USE PART OF THE TEST, WE ACCEPT -- IT'S SAYING 
THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT WETLAND IMPACTS RECEIVING AGSWM 
EXEMPTIONS OR SIMILAR LOW WETLAND IMPACT PERMITS FROM 
SWFWMD AS MEETING THE REASONABLE USE TEST, SO IF A PROJECT 
RECEIVES AN AGSWM EXEMPTION OR THERE'S AN ERP WITH LOW 
WETLAND IMPACTS, WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS MEETING THE 
REASONABLE USE TEST, AND ANDY WILL GO OVER THESE EXAMPLES 
FOR YOU.
WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED IS IF THERE ARE ERP AUTHORIZATIONS FOR 
WETLAND IMPACTS GREATER THAN A HALF ACRE BECAUSE WE 
CONSIDER THAT THESE ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH AGSWM BECAUSE 
AGSWM TALKS ABOUT MINOR WETLAND IMPACTS, AND IN FACT, 
ACTUALLY, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO -- AT LEAST WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO 
DOCUMENT ANY ERP AUTHORIZATIONS ALLOWING WETLAND IMPACTS 
GREATER THAN A HALF ACRE.
I THINK THERE WAS ONE SIX YEARS AGO.
AS FAR AS MITIGATION, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCEPTING 
EXEMPTIONS FROM MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO QUARTER-ACRE 
ISOLATED WETLANDS WHICH DO NOT EXCEED HALF-ACRE TOTAL, AND 
THAT WAS EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS SPELLED OUT IN THE 
HYBRID MODEL.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE LANGUAGE THAT ANDY WILL GO OVER WITH 
YOU INCORPORATES A MULTI-YEAR INCENTIVE TO KEEP THE LAND IN 
AGRICULTURAL USE.
IT'S SORT OF IN COMPENSATION FOR NOT HAVING TO DO THE 
QUARTER-ACRE MITIGATION.
SO THAT -- THAT'S -- THAT SETS THE BACKGROUND.
I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THERE'S NOT UNANIMITY OR CONSENSUS 
ON ALL OF THIS ON THE PART OF ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.
WE HAVE SENT THESE CONCEPTS OUT TO THE TECHNICAL GROUP, AND 
WE HAVE SOME FEEDBACK FROM THEM BACK THAT BOB STETLER COULD 
GO OVER WITH YOU, BUT I THINK PROBABLY NOW ANDY ZODROW WILL 
GO OVER THE DETAILS OF THE RULE WITH YOU.
>>ANDREW ZODROW:  OKAY.
GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS ANDREW ZODROW.
I'M AN ASSISTANT COUNSEL OF THE EPC LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND 
AGAIN, I'VE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE RULE 
THAT IS CONSIDERED FOR ADOPTION TODAY.
AS DR. GARRITY SAID, WE HAVE A PROPOSED RULE FOR ADOPTION 
THAT ADDRESSES WETLAND IMPACTS ARISING OUT OF BONA FIDE 
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.
AGAIN, THIS COMMISSION APPROVED THE HYBRID MODEL IN AUGUST 
2007.
INCORPORATED IN THE HYBRID MODEL WAS A PROVISION OF 
ADOPTING CHANGES TO THE EPC WETLAND RULE THAT STREAMLINES 
THE REVIEWS FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.
CONSISTENT WITH THE HYBRID MODEL, THE STAFF, INCLUDING 
MYSELF, HAS DRAFTED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC AND THE 
REGULATED COMMUNITY, A PROPOSED RULE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
IT'S ACTUALLY A PROPOSED NEW SECTION TO THE EPC WETLAND 
RULE.
AGAIN, THE HYBRID MODEL ADDRESSED THE CONCEPT CALLED 
"AGSWM" THAT DR. GARRITY MENTIONED.
AGSWM IS THE AGRICULTURAL GROUND AND SURFACE WATER 
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
IT IS A JOINT STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAM THAT ENCOURAGES 
FARMERS TO DESIGN A FARM IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE 
MANNER WHILE STILL ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING AGRICULTURAL 
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE, AND WE THINK HIGHLY OF THAT 
PROGRAM.
IT SEEMS TO WORK PRETTY WELL WITH THE FARMERS IN THE 
COMMUNITY.
AGAIN, TO GO OVER ANOTHER THING, THE WETLAND RULE -- THE 
CURRENT RULE REQUIRES A TWO-PRONG TEST TO GET A WETLAND 
IMPACT.
AN APPLICANT MUST SHOW THAT THE IMPACT IS NECESSARY FOR 
REASONABLE USE, AND THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW THAT THERE'S 
APPROPRIATE MITIGATION IF NECESSARY.
THE RULE THAT'S BEEN DRAFTED IN FRONT OF YOU HAS PROJECTS 
THAT GO THROUGH AGSWM, MEETING THE FIRST TEST, AND AGSWM 
AND OTHER PRODUCTION-RELATED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WOULD 
BE EXEMPT FROM THE SECOND PART OF THE TEST IF THE IMPACT IS 
LIMITED TO A QUARTER-ACRE ISOLATED WETLAND.
ONE THING -- BEFORE I GET INTO THE MEAT OF THE RULE, ONE OF 
THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS THE INCENTIVES AND 
THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED FOR FARMERS PREVIOUSLY.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND 
SOME OF THE THINGS IN THIS RULE THAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD 
ABOUT FROM THE COMMUNITY OR THE PUBLIC OR ANYONE BECAUSE 
IT'S ACTUALLY -- IT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE AUGUST RULE THAT 
WAS ADOPTED BY THIS COMMISSION.
THOSE THINGS INVOLVE DITCH CROSSINGS, VEGETATION REMOVAL, 
UPLAND-CUT DITCHES, AND THE PROVERBIAL COW POND ISSUE, THE 
EXISTING ARTIFICIAL WETLANDS LESS THAN ONE ACRE.
SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND THESE IN THIS RULE BECAUSE 
THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED.
THERE'S OTHER ONES, FISH PONDS.
I WON'T GO INTO ALL THE DETAILS.
FINALLY, AGAIN, BEFORE I GET INTO THE MEAT OF THE RULE, I 
DID WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS RULE -- THIS PROPOSED RULE 
WAS WORKSHOPPED WITH THE PUBLIC ON TWO OCCASIONS.
WE CONDUCTED ONE EVENING OR AFTER-HOURS PUBLIC WORKSHOP.
THAT WAS AN INCENTIVE TO GET MORE OF THE PUBLIC IN, AND 
THEN WE CONDUCTED -- CONDUCTED A SECOND WORKSHOP ON OCTOBER 
30th DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS.
BOTH OF THOSE WORKSHOPS WERE WELL ATTENDED.
WE RECEIVED VERY GOOD COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
AND THEN FINALLY, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EPC ENABLING RULE, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC 
HEARING ON A RULE ADOPTION, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PUBLICLY 
NOTICE THE RULE -- THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT WAS, IN FACT, DONE ON NOVEMBER 5th, 2007, IN THE TAMPA 
TRIBUNE.
SO THIS PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN PUBLICLY NOTICED.
NOW, GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE RULE.
THIS IS THE REAL MEAT OF THE RULE.
THE RULE WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SECTION 1-11.12, AND IT'S 
GOING TO BE IDENTIFIED AS BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL 
ACTIVITIES.
GETTING INTO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE RULE, WE'VE 
ACTUALLY DEFINED A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY BECAUSE 
THAT'S BEEN SOMEWHAT OF A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT.
IT IS DEFINED AS ACTIVITIES WHICH INCLUDE NECESSARY FARM 
OPERATIONS WHICH ARE NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY FOR THE AREA.
THERE IS -- INCLUDED IN THAT THERE'S AN INCLUSIVE LIST OF 
THINGS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO.
IT'S A PRETTY LONG LIST, BUT IT'S CONTOURING LAND, SITE 
PREPARATION, SO WE HAVE NARROWED IT DOWN.
WE HAVEN'T NARROWED IT DOWN SO MUCH THAT IT WOULD CAUSE 
PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.
THERE ALWAYS NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE ROOM BECAUSE SITTING HERE 
I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, GUESS WHAT WOULD MEET AN AGRICULTURAL 
USE, A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE IN THE FUTURE, SO WE'VE 
LISTED A DEFINITION THAT HOPEFULLY WILL WORK WELL IN THE 
FUTURE AND IT WON'T CAUSE SOME THINGS TO BE EXCLUDED THAT 
WE MIGHT WANT IN OR VICE VERSA.
AFTER WE DID THE INCLUSIONS, WE ALSO INCLUDED A FEW 
EXCLUSIONS, THINGS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AGRICULTURAL 
ACTIVITIES, ESPECIALLY UNDER THE STATE RULES, BUT THAT THEY 
WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS EXEMPTION.
THESE WOULD INCLUDE LOGGING, SILVACULTURAL ACTIVITIES, 
CONSTRUCTION OF NONAGRICULTURAL RELATED STRUCTURES LIKE 
RESIDENCES.
SOMETIMES A RESIDENCE CAN BE DEFINED AS AN AGRICULTURAL 
ACTIVITY UNDER THE STATE RULES, IF IT'S, FOR INSTANCE, FOR 
MIGRANT FARMING, BUT WE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED LIKE 
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT REALLY 
AGRICULTURAL.
GETTING INTO THE FIRST PART OF THE RULE, THE ACTUAL 
EXEMPTIONS, IS AGAIN THE REASONABLE USE -- WE BROKE DOWN 
THE RULE INTO TWO SECTIONS, REALLY, THE REASONABLE USE AND 
THE MITIGATION.
THE REASONABLE USE EXEMPTION IS UNDER SUBSECTION 1-A, AND 
THE FIRST THING THAT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM REASONABLE USE, 
ESSENTIALLY AUTOMATICALLY PERMITTED -- YOU MAY STILL HAVE 
TO GO THROUGH MITIGATION, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW -- A 
FARMER DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT'S NECESSARY FOR 
REASONABLE USE, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ECONOMIC 
JUSTIFICATION ACCESS.
THESE WOULD JUST BE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED.
AND THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE WETLAND IMPACTS AUTHORIZED UNDER 
THIS AGSWM PROGRAM BECAUSE THE AGSWM DOES ALLOW CERTAIN 
WETLAND IMPACTS.
GENERALLY THEY'RE NOT IN EXCESS OF A HALF ACRE, THOUGH, SO 
THESE ARE GENERALLY IMPACTS LESS THAN A HALF ACRE.
THE SECOND ONE THAT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM REASONABLE USE IS 
IMPACTS TO A QUARTER-ACRE ISOLATED NONFORESTED WETLAND THAT 
THOSE IMPACTS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER CERTAIN STATE 
EXEMPTIONS, AND GENERALLY THIS ONE IS FOR MAINTENANCE 
ACTIVITIES.
IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT -- WHAT THOSE 
EXEMPTIONS -- STATE EXEMPTIONS ARE, I'D REFER YOU TO BOB 
STETLER FOR THE SPECIFIC DETAILS, BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE 
QUESTIONS.
THE THIRD AREA THAT'S GOING TO BE EXEMPT FROM REASONABLE 
USE UNDER THIS PROPOSED RULE WOULD BE IMPACTS TO A QUARTER-
ACRE ISOLATED NONFORESTED WETLAND OTHER THAN CONVERTING THE 
WETLAND TO AN UPLAND.
THAT MEANS THEY CAN TILL, THEY CAN EXCAVATE, THEY CAN 
CREATE FARM PONDS.
IT'S A PRETTY EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO.
THEY'RE JUST NOT ALLOWED TO BRING FILL IN AND TURN IT INTO 
AN UPLAND AREA.
THIS EXEMPTION CAN ALSO BE INCREASED TO A HALF-ACRE WETLAND 
IF THE -- IF IT'S DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND 
DEVELOPMENT CODE RECLAMATION STANDARDS.
WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS YOU CAN -- YOU CAN GO IN AND WIPE 
OUT A HALF-ACRE ISOLATED NONFORESTED WETLAND IF YOU DO THE 
SHORELINE SUCH THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF 
WETLAND FRINGE, WETLAND COMPONENT ATTACHED TO IT, AND WE 
THINK THAT'S A GOOD PART OF THE RULE TO INCLUDE THAT, AND 
AGAIN, THAT IS FOR THE FARM PONDS, TAILWATER RECOVERY 
PONDS, THOSE NORMAL, CUSTOMARY TYPES OF EXCAVATION THAT 
FARMERS NEED ON THEIR PROPERTY.
CUMULATIVELY, THAT EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE UP TO A HALF ACRE 
OF IMPACTS, SO IT CAN BE MULTIPLE LESS THAN A QUARTER ACRE 
OR, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY ANY RANGE, BUT YOU GET UP TO A 
HALF-ACRE IMPACT.
AGAIN, YOU MUST -- IN THIS CASE, YOU MUST OBTAIN A STATE 
ERP OR A STATE EXEMPTION TO BE ELIGIBLE.
FINALLY, UNDER "REASONABLE USE," ANY IMPACTS TO A QUARTER-
ACRE ISOLATED NONFORESTED WETLAND.
THAT INCLUDES FILLING AND CONVERTING UPLANDS.
AGAIN, IT'S CUMULATIVELY UP TO A HALF ACRE, AND YOU MUST 
OBTAIN A STATE ERP, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT, OR A 
STATE EXEMPTION.
GOING INTO MITIGATION, WE'VE PROPOSED EXEMPTING OUT -- IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE HYBRID MODEL THAT WAS APPROVED -- 
WETLAND IMPACTS TO A QUARTER-ACRE ISOLATED NONFORESTED 
WETLAND.
IF IT'S A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, THEY CAN IMPACT 
THAT WETLAND TODAY AND NOT HAVE TO MITIGATE FOR IT.
IT'S A BIT OF A CHANGE, BUT IT WAS DIRECTLY OUT OF THE 
HYBRID MODEL, AND WE THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING BASED ON 
THE NUMBER OF THOSE WETLANDS IN THE COUNTY.
WE'VE DONE CALCULATIONS, AND AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE, I'D REFER YOU TO BOB STETLER, OUR -- 
THE DIVISION DIRECTOR OF THE WETLANDS DIVISION.
THE NEXT EXEMPTION IS WETLAND IMPACTS THAT ARE MITIGATED 
THROUGH STATE EXEMPTION.
IF A FARMER GOES AND GETS A WETLAND IMPACT APPROVED THROUGH 
AN ERP, STATE ERP, AND HAS TO DO MITIGATION, EPC WILL 
ACCEPT THAT MITIGATION, WON'T REQUIRE A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL 
MITIGATION AGREEMENT.
NOW, WE'VE ADDED A PROVISION IN THE MITIGATION EXEMPTIONS 
BECAUSE IT'S REALLY ONLY APPLICABLE TO MITIGATION, IT'S NOT 
APPLICABLE TO THE REASONABLE USE PORTION, BUT WE'VE ADDED A 
PROVISION THAT THE LAND NOT BE CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL OR 
NONAGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL USE FOR SEVEN YEARS.
THE FARMERS ACTUALLY -- WE'RE NOT REQUIRING THE FARMER TO 
CONTINUE FARMING.
THE LAND CAN GO FALLOW.
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN INCENTIVE WHERE WE FORCE PEOPLE TO 
FARM OR MITIGATE; HOWEVER, IF A DEVELOPER PURCHASES THE 
PROPERTY AND WANTS TO DEVELOP THE LAND, WE WOULD REQUIRE 
FOR AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS THAT THE LAND BE MITIGATED BECAUSE 
KEEP IN MIND, THESE AREAS ARE BEING DESTROYED, AND THERE'S 
NO COMPENSATION FOR IT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
SO WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT DEVELOPERS DON'T TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF THAT BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY AN INCENTIVE FOR 
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.
SO THE LAST PART OF THE RULE IS JUST THE GENERAL CONDITIONS 
AND LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE RULE.
THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THAT STANDS OUT TOO MUCH HERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS -- THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION IS 
THE PROPERTY CAN'T BE SUBDIVIDED AND YOU GET ADDITIONAL 
EXEMPTIONS, SO IT'S SORT OF A ONE-TIME DEAL, YOU KNOW.
ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, THE FARMER WOULD HAVE TO JUST COME IN 
FOR AN APPLICATION AND WOULD GET APPROVED OR DENIED BASED 
ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THEN THERE'S A LIST IN FRONT OF YOU -- IT'S ALSO IN THE 
RULE -- ABOUT OTHER CONDITIONS.
I DON'T THINK I NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL THOSE.
AND THEN FINALLY -- THAT REALLY CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AGAIN, IS TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED 
DRAFT SECTION 1-11.12, BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY 
SECTION OF THE EPC WETLAND RULE, AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU 
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
I DO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO'VE INDICATED THEY WANT TO 
SPEAK.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST UNLESS THERE WAS A 
POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT YOU HAD.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  YES.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER BLAIR, CLARIFICATION?
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  WE TALKED ABOUT REASONABLE USE AT THE 
BEGINNING, ABOUT THE -- IT BEING SUBJECTIVE AND WHERE WE 
WERE LOOKING FOR CLARITY, SO ARE YOU GOING TO DEFINE 
"REASONABLE USE" SEPARATELY IN EACH CASE-BY-CASE, SO WHAT 
WE JUST SAW, WAS THAT THE DEFINITION OF "REASONABLE USE"?
>>RICK GARRITY:  NO, COMMISSIONER.
THE ISSUE OF THE DEFINITION OF "REASONABLE USE" WILL COME 
UP IN -- AS WE GET INTO THAT PART OF THE RULE, WHICH I 
THINK WE'RE SCHEDULED TO BRING BACK TO YOU IN MAY, AND WE 
HAVE AGREED IN THE HYBRID PROPOSAL TO ADD GUIDELINES AND 
DEFINITION TO "REASONABLE USE" TO MAKE IT CLEARER TO ALL OF 
THE APPLICANTS.
IN THE SENSE THAT SOME OF THESE EXEMPTIONS WE CONSIDER 
REASONABLE USE, YEAH, I GUESS WE ARE ADDING DEFINITION HERE 
TOO.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  RIGHT.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT "REASONABLE 
USE" IS AND WE'RE APPLYING REASONABLE USE AND WE'VE NOT YET 
DEFINED "REASONABLE USE", AGAIN, WE GET INTO THE SUBJECTIVE 
AND NONSUBJECTIVE SITUATION THAT KIND OF STARTED THE WHOLE 
SITUATION THAT WE STARTED -- I MEAN THAT WAS -- THE BONE OF 
CONTENTION.
>>RICK GARRITY:  RIGHT.
THAT'S PART OF THE HYBRID MODEL, AND THE TIMETABLE TO DO 
THAT IS COMING UP.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  IN MAY.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  OKAY.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  JUST QUICKLY, ON THE ISSUE OF -- WHEN WE 
BEGAN TO DISCUSS THE EXEMPTIONS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 
QUARTER-ACRE OR LESS, SO THERE IS NO WETLAND -- IS THERE A 
WETLAND GREATER THAN A QUARTER ACRE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED 
UNDER THIS RULE, OR IS IT CUMULATIVE?
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING?
WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN HAVE, LIKE, TWO QUARTER ACRES WHICH 
CAN -- WHICH CAN COMBINED BE A HALF AN ACRE, BUT YOU CAN'T 
HAVE, LIKE, A HALF-ACRE WETLAND THAT'S GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE 
UNDER THIS PROGRAM; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>RICK GARRITY:  NOT FOR FILL, BUT FOR EXCAVATION, WE'VE 
ALLOWED IN SPECIAL --
>>MARK SHARPE:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>RICK GARRITY:  -- INSTANCES UP TO A HALF ACRE IF YOU 
CREATE A LITTORAL SHELF LINE AND ALLOW THE VEGETATION TO 
GROW THERE, SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY -- BY THE WAY, THOSE 
EXCAVATED WETLANDS REMAIN AS DELINEATED WETLANDS SO THEY'RE 
NOT LOST, BUT IN THAT ONE INSTANCE --
>>MARK SHARPE:  WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THIS?
I KNOW THAT WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT, WE WERE TALKING -- AGAIN, 
I MEAN, THE FOCUS WHEN WE ASKED THIS RULE TO BE BROUGHT 
BACK WAS FOR QUARTER ACRE OR LESS, SO IN THIS INSTANCE, 
WHAT WAS THE REASON, THE JUSTIFICATION?
>>RICK GARRITY:  IF THERE WERE A NEED FOR -- TO GO ABOVE A 
QUARTER ACRE FOR PURPOSES OF TAILWATER RECOVERY PONDS, I 
GUESS IT WOULD BE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS THAT THE FARMER 
WOULD COME IN AND SHOW US THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR FARM 
USAGE THAT THEY WOULD NEED A TAILWATER RECOVERY POND THAT 
WOULD BE LARGER THAN THE WETLAND THE QUARTER ACRE WOULD 
ALLOW FOR.
>>MARK SHARPE:  OKAY.
>>RICK GARRITY:  OR THAT POND HAD TO BE IN A CERTAIN SPOT, 
LOW SPOT, AND MAYBE INSTEAD OF A QUARTER-ACRE WETLAND THERE 
IT'S SOMEWHAT LARGER THAN THAT BUT LESS THAN A HALF ACRE, 
AND THEY STILL NEED TO PUT THEIR TAILWATER RECOVERY POND 
RIGHT IN THAT SPOT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WOULD -- WOULD -- ARE WE DESIGNATING FOR 
LARGER THAN A QUARTER ACRE SPECIFIC ALLOWANCES?
I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RULE, WOULD WE THEN SAY, 
OKAY, IF IT'S GREATER THAN A QUARTER ACRE, LESS THAN A HALF 
ACRE, UNDER THESE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES WE MIGHT ALLOW IT SO 
THAT IT'S CLEARER?
>>ANDREW ZODROW:  WELL, YEAH.
I MEAN, THE RULE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST 
AN AUTOMATIC, SO IT'S ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE FARMING, BONA 
FIDE FARMING, BUT IF IT'S BETWEEN A HALF -- OR A QUARTER 
AND A HALF, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXCAVATION.
YOU WON'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MITIGATION.
YOU STILL HAVE TO MITIGATE ANYTHING OVER A QUARTER-ACRE 
WETLAND.
>>MARK SHARPE:  RIGHT.
>>ANDREW ZODROW:  BUT AS FAR AS --
>>MARK SHARPE:  BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXCAVATION.
>>ANDREW ZODROW:  RIGHT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I MEAN, JUSTIFYING THE PURPOSE OF THE 
EXCAVATION, BECAUSE THIS IS, AGAIN, INTENDED FOR THE 
PURPOSE OF HELPING THE FARMER TO FARM HIS LAND.
>>ANDREW ZODROW:  RIGHT.
WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT WHEN YOU APPLY THOSE LDC 
STANDARDS, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE PART OF THAT AS YOUR 
MITIGATION BECAUSE YOUR POND MAY -- YOU MAY GET THE BIGGER 
POND, BUT PART OF THAT POND MIGHT BE STILL A WETLAND, AND 
YOU MIGHT STILL BE ABLE TO USE SOME OF THAT CREDIT IF YOU 
PLANT IT, IF YOU DO THINGS.
WE DON'T REQUIRE PLANTING IN THE RULE FOR THE RECLAMATION 
STANDARDS, BUT IF THE FARMER CAME IN POTENTIALLY AND 
PLANTED IT AND MADE A WETLAND FRINGE ON THE SIDE OF THEIR 
OLD WETLAND, THEY MIGHT GET CREDIT OUT OF THAT FOR THEIR 
MITIGATION.
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  COMMISSIONER, FOR THESE EXCAVATIONS 
AND ANY OF THESE EXEMPTIONS, THE FARMER MUST APPLY FOR 
THEM.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU DO OUT IN THE FIELD, SO WE ARE ABLE 
TO TRACK TO SEE WHAT CHANGES TAKE PLACE ON THE PROPERTY.
WE COVERED ALL OF THESE EXEMPTIONS HAVING AN APPLICATION BE 
NECESSARY.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I'LL HOLD MY QUESTIONS FOR LATER.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
THE FIRST THREE SPEAKERS WILL BE TERRY FLOTT, GEORGE 
NIEMANN, AND KERMIT OSTEEN.
>> I HAD TO GO WAIT IN THE LOBBY.
IT WAS TOO COLD IN HERE.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  AND FOLLOWING KERMIT WILL BE MARSELLA 
OSTEEN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
TERRY FLOTT, UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK, AND I'M THE 
CHAIR.
AS TAXPAYING CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND 
STAKEHOLDERS, WE ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:  THESE 
QUESTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED ALREADY AS PART OF A 
REASONED COMPLETE PACKAGE READY FOR VOTE, AND IT APPEARS 
THEY HAVE NOT.
IF EPC ADMINISTRATION IS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ANSWER THE 
QUESTIONS HERE TODAY, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THIS PROCESS IS 
FLAWED BY POLITICAL MOTIVATION, PROFESSIONAL INCOMPETENCE, 
OR SIMPLY A RUSH TO MEET AN ARBITRARY DEADLINE FOR 
ADOPTION.
LET ME MAKE IT REAL CLEAR TODAY AS I STAND HERE THAT WE ARE 
NOT ANTI-AGRICULTURE, BUT WE DO BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING 
QUESTIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL.
I'LL BEGIN.
NUMBER ONE, WHY THE URGENCY TO RUSH THROUGH AN AMENDMENT 
WHEN NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED?
TWO, WHERE ARE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND/OR ANY 
REPORTS OR STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE HOW EXISTING 
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON 
AGRICULTURE?
WHERE ARE THE STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE HOW RELAXING 
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION WILL RELIEVE THE 
ALLEGED -- THE ALLEGED BURDEN?
WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY AN EXEMPTION 
FOR ONE TYPE OF LAND USE AND NOT ANOTHER?
ANECDOTAL STATEMENTS OR CLAIMS SHOULD NOT SUFFICE TO AMEND 
REGULATIONS.
THREE, WHERE ARE THE IMPACT STATEMENTS AND/OR REPORTS OR 
STUDIES THAT SHOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL IMPACTS 
TO ALL RESIDENTS IN -- OOH -- HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT 
WOULD RESULT FROM ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT?
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON THE NATURAL 
HABITATS, THE WILDLIFE POPULATION, THE WATER QUALITY, 
ESPECIALLY TO ALL IMPAIRED WATER BODIES WE HAVE IDENTIFIED 
AND WILL HAVE TO USE TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN ORDER TO MEET 
FEDERAL STANDARDS?
RELATING TO SECTION 1-11.12, BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL 
ACTIVITIES.
ONE, WHAT IS A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY?
THAT HAS YET BEEN DEFINED.
STATING THAT THE ACTIVITIES INCLUDE FARMING OPERATIONS AND 
LISTING EXAMPLES OF THOSE OPERATIONS DOES NOT PROVIDE AN 
ADEQUATE DEFINITION.
SOME ALLOWABLE AG USES IDENTIFIED IN THE HILLSBOROUGH 
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.02.01, AGRICULTURAL 
USES, INCLUDE BEE KEEPING, PRIVATE HORSE STABLES, KENNELS, 
FEED LOTS, AND RURAL HOME INDUSTRY, A BED AND BREAKFAST, 
AMONG OTHERS.
WOULD THESE AND OTHER PROPOSED USES CONTRADICT AND UNDULY 
BROADEN THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS?
WITHOUT CLEARLY IDENTIFYING AND LIMITING ACCEPTABLE 
ACTIVITIES --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, MRS. FLOTT.
>> -- TO ROW CROPS, CITRUS, ET CETERA, ARE WE WILLING --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  GEORGE NIEMANN.
>> -- INVITING LEGAL CHALLENGE?
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
>> KERMIT OSTEEN, BALM, CONTINUING U-CAN STATEMENT.
TWO, WHAT DOES NECESSARY FARMING OPERATIONS THAT ARE NORMAL 
AND CUSTOMARY FOR THE AREA MEAN?
WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS NECESSARY AND NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY?
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESS ROAD TO A KENNEL SEEMS NORMAL 
AND CUSTOMARY, SO DOES THIS MEAN PUTTING IT THROUGH THE 
WETLAND WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE?
IF NOT, THEN WHAT PROVISION ALLOWS YOU TO DENY THE IMPACT?
THREE, WILL IT BE THE APPLICANT OR THE EPC STAFF WHO 
DETERMINES WHAT IS NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY FOR THE AREA?
WILL THIS INVITE LEGAL CHALLENGE?
FOUR, THE EXISTING REASONABLE USE REVIEW ALREADY TAKES INTO 
CONSIDERATION A VARIETY OF FACTORS WHEN DETERMINING 
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS TO WETLANDS.
IS IT TRUE THAT THIS STANDARD CURRENTLY APPLIES TO ALL 
USES?
IS IT TRUE THAT APPLICANTS FOR ALL USES HAVE THE SAME 
OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE AN AUTHORIZATION?
IS IT TRUE THAT WE ALREADY PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 
VARIANCES OR WAIVERS FOR HARDSHIPS?
WHY, THEN, DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR 
AGRICULTURE?
FIVE, MUST A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY BE A VIABLE 
COMMERCIAL VENTURE, OR CAN IT BE A PRIVATE USE?
SIX, MUST A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY BE CONDUCTED ON 
AGRICULTURALLY ZONED LAND, OR CAN IT OCCUR ON RESIDENTIALLY 
OR COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT IS GRANTED A GREENBELT 
CLASSIFICATION?
IF GREENBELT IS ALLOWED, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ALLOWING 
IMPACTS ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH AN AG USE BUT NOT ON 
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT?
WHAT ABOUT APPLICANTS WHO REZONE PROPERTY BUT KEEP AG AS AN 
INTERIM USE, DO THEY GET IMPACTS UNDER THE INTERIM USE THAT 
WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER THE APPROVED FUTURE USE?
SEVEN, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY MEETINGS WITH PLANNING 
COMMISSION AND PGMD STAFF TO DETERMINE WHAT IMPACT, IF ANY, 
THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE APPLICATION OF THEIR PROVISIONS AND 
REGULATIONS?
WHAT LAND USE REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE THAT WOULD SERVE TO 
DISCOURAGE THE PREMATURE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURE TO 
DEVELOPMENT IF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE RELAXED?
ARE THERE ANY?
EIGHT, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REFERS TO AN APPLICATION FOR 
IMPACTS.
WHY IS NO TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE OR TIME FRAME IDENTIFIED?
PERTAINING TO SECTION 1-11.12(A), REASONABLE USE EXEMPTION.
ONE, ONCE AGAIN THE EXISTING REASONABLE USE REVIEW ALREADY 
TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION A VARIETY OF FACTORS WHEN 
DETERMINING ALLOWABLE IMPACTS TO WETLANDS.
IS IT TRUE THAT THIS STANDARD CURRENTLY APPLIES TO ALL 
USES.
IS IT TRUE THAT APPLICANTS FOR ALL USES HAVE THE SAME 
OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE AN AUTHORIZATION?
IS IT TRUE THAT WE ALREADY PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR 
VARIANCES OR WAIVERS OR HARDSHIPS?
WHY, THEN, DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR 
AGRICULTURE?
TWO, WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER AN 
APPLICANT DOES OR DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A NATIONAL RESOURCE 
CONSERVATION SERVICE, NRCS, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, RMS 
PLAN, OR A STATE SWFWMD RMS PLAN?
ARE THEY THE SAME?
HOW OFTEN DO THEY CHANGE?
WILL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADOPT A SPECIFIC SET OF 
CRITERIA OR WILL THE CRITERIA BE --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I NEED YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
>> KERMIT OSTEEN.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  AND WE ARE OUT OF ORDER THERE.
I'M SURE MR. NIEMANN DOESN'T OBJECT, SO HE'S NEXT.
THANK YOU, SIR.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD, I NEED YOU TO JUST STATE 
YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
IF YOU'RE NOT READY -- ARE YOU READY?
>> YES.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  OKAY.
JUST NAME FOR THE RECORD.
THANKS.
>> GEORGE NIEMANN, DOVER, FLORIDA.
I'M CONTINUING WITH THE U-CAN STATEMENT.
WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER AN APPLICANT 
DOES OR DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A NATIONAL RESOURCE 
CONSERVATION SERVICE, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLAN, OR A 
STATE SWFWMD RMS PLAN?
ARE THEY THE SAME?
HOW OFTEN DO THEY CHANGE?
WILL THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ADOPT A SPECIFIC SET OF 
CRITERIA, OR WILL THE CRITERIA BE IN CONSTANT FLUX?
AGSWM IS NOT A CODIFIED RULE, IT IS AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM 
AND, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE OR 
INPUT.
WILL EPC HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER CHANGES TO THE PROVISIONS 
IN THIS PROGRAM?
WILL THERE BE ANY PUBLIC NOTICE IF AND WHEN THE CRITERIA 
CHANGES?
NUMBER THREE, AS THE LANGUAGE IMPLIES, WETLAND IMPACTS, IF 
PERMITTED, ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE RMS PLANS.
THE FEDERAL RMS PLAN WOULD INCORPORATE IMPACTS PERMITTED BY 
ANOTHER AGENCY SUCH AS DEP OR EPC, AND THE SWFWMD RMS PLAN 
WOULD INCORPORATE IMPACTS THAT ARE PERMITTED UNDER THEIR 
REGULATIONS.
SINCE THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THE PERMITTED IMPACTS WOULD 
BE PART OF THESE RMS PLANS, IS THERE A SIZE THRESHOLD, A 
QUARTER ACRE, A HALF ACRE, GREATER THAN THAT?
NUMBER FOUR, CAN AN APPLICANT CLAIM IMPACTS UNDER 
PROVISIONS II AND III, THEREBY RECEIVING AND EXEMPTION FOR 
IMPACTS GREATER THAN A HALF ACRE?
SECTION 1-11.12, MITIGATION EXEMPTIONS.
ITEM ONE, PROVISION "I" LIMITS IMPACTS TO QUARTER-ACRE 
ISOLATED WETLANDS WITH A TOTAL NOT TO CUMULATIVELY EXCEED 
HALF ACRE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE AG LAND?
IS THIS ZONING OR IS IT THE LAND AREA USED FOR A BONA FIDE 
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY?
THE TERMS "AGRICULTURAL LAND" AND "AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY" 
ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.
DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE MITIGATION EXEMPTION WOULD APPLY TO 
PROPERTY NOT UTILIZED FOR A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL 
ACTIVITY?
ITEM TWO, PROVISION II STATES THAT MITIGATION MUST OCCUR IN 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY; HOWEVER, IF EPC MUST ACCEPT THE DEP'S 
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT MITIGATION, HOW WOULD THAT BE 
ENFORCEABLE IF EPC HAS NO INPUT IN DETERMINING WHAT WOULD 
BE APPROPRIATE AND ACCEPTABLE MITIGATION?
DEP REGULATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE MITIGATION WITHIN THE COUNTY 
WHERE THE IMPACTS OCCUR.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT THREE SPEAKERS WILL BE MARCELLA OSTEEN, HUGH 
GRAMLING, AND DENISE LAYNE.
>> MARCELLA OSTEEN, BALM, FLORIDA, FINISHING U-CAN 
STATEMENT.
NUMBER THREE, PROVISION III STATES THAT THE WETLAND IMPACT 
AREA MUST REMAIN IN AN AGRICULTURAL USE -- NOTE, THE TERM 
"BONA FIDE" IS NOT INCLUDED -- FOR SEVEN YEARS FROM THE 
DATE OF IMPACT.
DOES THIS MEAN THAT ONLY THE WETLAND AREA, ONE-QUARTER-
ACRE, ONE-HALF-ACRE, ET CETERA, MUST REMAIN IN AN AG USE 
WHILE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY CAN CONVERT TO OTHER 
USES BEFORE THE SEVEN-YEAR TIME FRAME EXPIRES?
IF SO, THEN THIS TIME RESTRICTION IS USELESS AND ONLY 
SERVES TO ENCOURAGE THE PREMATURE CONVERSION OF 
AGRICULTURAL LAND TO OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT.
THIS DOES NOT SERVE TO ENSURE A GOOD-FAITH COMMITMENT FROM 
THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY TO USE THE LAND FOR FARMING.
IT DOES NOT SERVE TO ENSURE THAT AGRICULTURE WILL REMAIN AN 
ECONOMICALLY VIABLE INDUSTRY IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY NOR 
DOES IT JUSTIFY THE WEAKENING OF OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS 
FOR AN INDUSTRY NOT WILLING TO MAKE A GOOD-FAITH 
COMMITMENT.
NUMBER FOUR, PROVISION III AT A MINIMUM SHOULD REQUIRE A 
TEN-YEAR COMMITMENT.
WHY SEVEN YEARS?
THESE ARE THE MOST OBVIOUS AND GLARING QUESTIONS THAT AN 
INVOLVED LAYMAN WOULD ASK.
WE COULD ONLY ASSUME THAT EPC WETLAND STAFF WOULD HAVE MORE 
QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, AS TAXPAYING CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND 
STAKEHOLDERS, WE ARE ASKING THAT ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS 
BE FORTHCOMING TODAY BEFORE A VOTE IS TAKEN.
FURTHER, IF EPC ADMINISTRATION IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO 
ANSWER, THEN WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE PROCESS HERETOFORE 
HAS BEEN FLAWED BY POLITICAL MOTIVATION AND/OR PROFESSIONAL 
INCOMPETENCE AND SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.
THIS DOG WON'T HUNT AS IT IS NOW.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  HUGH GRAMLING.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M HUGH GRAMLING.
I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
COUNCIL.
THE COUNCIL YESTERDAY ASKED ME TO COME BEFORE YOU AND TELL 
YOU THAT THEY ENDORSE THE RULE WITH TWO CAVEATS THAT HAS 
BEEN PROPOSED BY THE STAFF.
THE FIRST CAVEAT IS, IS WE DO NOT FEEL THAT ALL OF THE 
DETAILS OF THE HYBRID RULE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE 
PRESENT RULE, SPECIFICALLY THAT THE ERP BE CONSIDERED A 
REASONABLE USE CRITERIA WITHIN THAT RULE; HOWEVER, IF THAT 
WERE ADDED AT THIS POINT, THAT WOULD DELAY THE PROCESS, AND 
WE FEEL THAT THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED ADEQUATELY IN THE 
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEN THEY START DISCUSSING THE 
REASONABLE USE CRITERIA.
NUMBER TWO IS THE PROVISION FOR MITIGATION AND THE TIME 
FRAME INVOLVED.
THE COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT TWO -- THAT SEVEN YEARS IS 
EXTREMELY ONEROUS AND BURDENSOME, AND THEY ASK YOU TO 
PLEASE CHANGE THAT TO A TWO-YEAR TIME FRAME, THE REASONS 
BEING FIRST OFF IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUCH LESS THAN 70 
ACRES OF WETLANDS WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BEING IMPACTED 
BY THIS PROVISION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
NUMBER TWO, IT COSTS $35- TO $50,000 A YEAR IN EXPENSES TO 
FARM LAND, AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THE DEVELOPMENT 
COMMUNITY WOULD USE FARMING AS A SHAM TO VIOLATE A QUARTER-
OF-AN-ACRE WETLAND.
IT'S JUST NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.
THE -- THE HALF-ACRE -- WE BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A 
TIME FRAME INVOLVED.
WE DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 
AN UNSCRUPULOUS PERSON TO USE THE RULE TO VIOLATE A WETLAND 
FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; HOWEVER, THE SEVEN YEARS, WE 
THINK, IS ONEROUS AND BURDENSOME, AND WE REQUEST THAT YOU 
ADOPT THIS RULE BUT CHANGE THAT PROVISION TO TWO YEARS.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
DENISE LANE.
FOLLOWING MS. LAYNE WILL BE VIVIAN BACCA AND THEN BEV 
GRIFFITHS.
>> AGAIN, GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
DENISE LAYNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COALITION FOR 
RESPONSIBLE GROWTH.
I SENT YOU-ALL AN E-MAIL THIS MORNING.
I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE ISSUES.
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY HEADING DOWN THE RIGHT TRACK, BUT IT'S 
NOT THERE YET, AND I WANT TO LIKEN THIS TO WHAT JUST 
HAPPENED UP IN THE LEGISLATURE, BAD LEGISLATION BASED ON A 
TIME FRAME COMMITMENT MADE TO YOU DOES NOT JUSTIFY DOING 
SOMETHING THAT'S NOT READY.
THE LEGISLATURE JUST PASSED A TAX RELIEF PACKAGE -- HA -- 
BECAUSE THEY HAD ONE DAY LEFT TO DO IT, AND LOOK WHAT WE 
GOT.
THIS IS NOT READY FOR MANY -- YOU'RE HEARING MANY, MANY 
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED.
WE'VE NOT TOUCHED THESE RULES IN 22 YEARS, AND TO 
ARBITRARILY START THROWING AROUND TWO YEARS, FIVE YEARS, 
SEVEN YEARS, 20 YEARS, 10 YEARS, IT'S ARBITRARY.
WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT WHAT REALLY WE'RE DOING FOR THE 
FUTURE.
LET'S DO THIS RIGHT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.
I WAS AT THIS LAST OCTOBER 30th MEETING.
THE AG INDUSTRY WASN'T THERE.
ONE LITTLE FARMER GUY SAT THERE, THANK GOD, GIVING US A 50-
ACRE PERSPECTIVE FROM THE LITTLE GUY FARMER ON WHAT HE SEES 
AND DOESN'T SEE.
PART OF HIS PROBLEM WAS THIS THING IS GETTING TO A POINT -- 
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED BY THE AG INDUSTRY.
IT'S TOO ONEROUS FOR THEM TO USE IT.
IF THEY NEED A ROAD GOING THROUGH THAT QUARTER-ACRE WETLAND 
TO GET TO THEIR FIELDS, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT.
IF THEY GET CAUGHT, THERE'S FORGIVENESS STUFF.
THESE NOT WHAT WE WANT, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE CLARIFYING FOR YOU, FOR THE STAFF, 
LESS STAFF INTERPRETATION.
THIS WILL ACTUALLY CREATE MORE.
AND I'M SORRY, IF THE FARMING INDUSTRY -- THE TRUE FARMERS 
IN THIS COUNTY ARE TRUE FARMERS, HELLO, THEY'LL MAKE A 
COMMITMENT TO YOU FOR A 20-YEAR COMP PLAN CYCLE TO STAY 
FARMING.
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.
THAT'S WHAT THE PROTECTION IS.
TWO YEARS IS A TURN-AROUND TO DEVELOP.
TWO YEARS, FIVE YEARS, SEVEN YEARS.
THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN ASKING -- WE'VE -- WHERE DID YOU PICK 
THE FIVE-YEAR NUMBER ORIGINALLY?
ARBITRARY.
SO NOW THEY'RE UP TO SEVEN.
ARBITRARY.
SO I'M ARBITRARILY GOING TO TELL YOU LET'S TIE IT TO 
SOMETHING THAT HELPS YOU MAKE DECISIONS ON LANDS USE, HELPS 
YOU WITH THE WHOLE PROCESS, AND IT'S CALLED THE COMP PLAN, 
AND THAT'S OUR LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT GUIDES DEVELOPMENT AND 
WILL PROTECT THE FARMER, WILL PROTECT THE FARMER.
AGSWM IS A GOOD THING.
THE PROBLEM WE'VE GOT HERE IS YES, WE START WITH A QUARTER 
ACRE, BUT THAT RIGHT TO USE YOUR LAND, YOU COULD ACTUALLY 
QUALIFY FOR ALL FOUR OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS.
WE NOW HAVE TWO ACRES YOU JUST EXEMPTED, NOT QUARTER ACRE, 
NOT UP TO A HALF-ACRE CUMULATIVE.
YOU'VE GOT TWO ACRES, PLUS, AND THERE'S NO ACREAGE THAT'S 
ACTUALLY IN PART OF THIS TO SAY THAT AGSWM COULD ACTUALLY 
BE FIVE OR SIX ACRES IN ITSELF.
IT'S USUALLY NOT A LOT.
IT DEFINITELY KEEPS THAT DOWN.
AGSWM IS TO KEEP THE IMPACT DOWN, BUT IT DOES NOT MANDATE 
QUARTER-ACRE OR HALF-ACRE OR LESS.
MOST TURN OUT THAT WAY.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
>> NOT READY.
PLEASE DON'T ADOPT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I WANT TO APOLOGIZE.
THE CHAIR HAS MADE A MISTAKE.
IF MARIELLA SMITH WOULD PLEASE COME UP.
SHE SIGNED IN AT 8:48.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MS. BACCA.
THANK YOU.
>> HOW COULD YOU FORGET ME?
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I WAS JUST GIVEN YOUR CARD.
>> I'M MARIELLA SMITH, AND I ASK YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THE 
CEAC RECOMMENDATION AND TAKE NO ACTION ON THE AGRICULTURE 
EXEMPTION TODAY.
WE SHOULD NOT NEGOTIATE OUR RULES WITH THE AGRICULTURAL 
LOBBY WHILE THEY ARE TRYING TO PASS A STATE LAW THAT WOULD 
GET THEM OUT OF ANY LOCAL RULES WE PASS FOR THEM TODAY.
A COUNTY RULE CHANGE PASSED UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WOULD 
LEAVE US FEELING YOU HAD BEEN BULLIED INTO GIVING AWAY TOO 
MUCH WITH THE THREAT OF STATE ACTION HANGING OVER YOUR 
HEADS.
THE AG LOBBY HAS NOW REVEALED THAT EPC'S LOCAL RULE CHANGE 
IS MERELY THEIR PLAN "B" IN CASE THEIR PLAN "A," THE STATE 
RULE, DOES NOT PASS.
LET'S SEE HOW THEIR PLAN "A" WORKS OUT FOR THEM FIRST.
IF THEIR BILL FAILS, THEN HOPEFULLY THEY'LL BE WILLING TO 
WORK WITH US DIRECTLY IN GOOD FAITH.
THE GOOD THING IS THAT IF THEY DO DECIDE TO DEAL OPENLY 
WITH US WITHOUT THE THREAT OF STATE ACTION, WE NO LONGER 
NEED TO RUSH TO CHANGE OUR 22-YEAR-OLD RULES FOR THEM.
THEIR STATE LEGISLATION WOULDN'T BE PASSED UNTIL NEXT 
SPRING, SO THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO CHANGE OUR RULES 
IMMEDIATELY.
WE NEED MORE TIME.
THE DRAFT RULE CHANGE IS SIMPLY NOT READY.
IT'S STILL CHANGING EVERY FEW DAYS.
THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO MEET 
AND DISCUSS THE FINAL VERSION.
LET'S LET THIS THING GEL.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU ARE THE FIRST BOARD TO CHANGE OUR 
WETLAND RULES IN 22 YEARS.
YOU HAVE PROMISED THAT THE HYBRID WOULD STREAMLINE THE 
PROCESS WITHOUT WEAKENING PROTECTIONS, BUT THIS PROPOSAL 
WOULD WEAKEN OUR PROTECTIONS.
WE WERE PROMISED THAT ONLY QUARTER-ACRE WETLANDS WOULD BE 
EXEMPTED, BUT THIS EXEMPTS HALF-ACRE WETLANDS.
ALSO, IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE OUR RULES TO ALLOW FARMERS 
TO FILL WETLANDS THAT DEVELOPERS CAN'T, THEN WE SHOULD AT 
LEAST REQUIRE MITIGATION ONCE THE LAND USE CHANGES FROM 
AGRICULTURE TO DEVELOPMENT.
THIS DOESN'T PREVENT A FARMER FROM DEVELOPING THE LAND, IT 
JUST REQUIRES MITIGATION AT THAT POINT AND PROVIDES AN 
INCENTIVE TO KEEP THE LAND IN AGRICULTURE AFTER WE'VE 
ALLOWED THE WETLANDS TO BE DAMAGED.
FARMERS SAY KEEPING THE AG LAND -- THE LAND IN AG FOR TWO 
YEARS SHOULD GET THE DEVELOPER OUT OF MITIGATION, BUT 
ANYTHING LESS THAN 10 TO 20 YEARS IS JUST GIVING AN 
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION TO LAND THAT WILL SOON BE DEVELOPED, 
AND WITH THE SHORT TIME FRAME, FARMERS COULD BE PRESSURED 
TO FILL WETLANDS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE FUTURE SALE OF THEIR 
PROPERTY TO DEVELOPERS MORE LUCRATIVE, FUELING THE 
PREMATURE CONVERSION OF AG HAPPENED TO DEVELOPMENT.
SEVEN YEARS HAS NO LOGICAL REASONING OR GROUNDS BEHIND IT.
20 YEARS WOULD TIE IT TO OUR HORIZON OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE 
PLAN AND MAKE MORE SENSE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES.
WE NEED MORE TIME TO SORT OUT THESE SORTS OF ISSUES AND 
MORE, LIKE THE U-CAN FOLKS SAID.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
VIVIAN BACCA, BEV GRIFFITHS, AND THEN MARILYN SMITH.
>> VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON.
TUESDAY MORNING I SAT IN THIS VERY ROOM WHILE EDITH STEWART 
PRESENTED LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BILLS TO THE BOCC TO ASK 
WHETHER THE BOARD WANTED TO TAKE A POSITION ON THEM.
THE FOURTH BILL FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE AGENDA RELATED TO 
WETLANDS AND AG LANDS.
COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM FELT THAT SUPPORTING THAT BILL 
WHILE WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF CONSIDERING THESE CHANGES TO 
OUR WETLAND RULES WOULD SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE.
COMMISSIONER NORMAN SAID, WE WERE ALL SHOCKED BY THIS BILL.
THIS IS AN INDICATOR THAT IT IS NOT RIGHT.
WE STILL HAVE SOME WORK TO DO.
THEY'RE STILL NOT HAPPY.
THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO AREN'T HAPPY.
WHEN I ATTENDED THE OCTOBER 3rd -- 30th INFORMAL WORKSHOP 
AT THE EPC ON THIS RULE CHANGE, MANY CITIZEN CONCERNS WERE 
PRESENTED.
I HAVE REVIEWED THE LATEST VERSION OF THIS RULE NOVEMBER 
8th, '07, AND IT STILL DOES NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE 
ASSURANCE THAT THE SMALL ISOLATED WETLANDS WE'RE 
SACRIFICING WILL PROLONG THE AGRICULTURAL USE OF THESE 
LANDS.
SEVEN YEARS IS NOT A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT.
EARLIER THIS YEAR -- MY SLIDE, PLEASE -- EARLIER THIS YEAR 
I PROVIDED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES ON THE BENEFITS OF SMALL 
ISOLATED WETLANDS.
I DIDN'T DISCUSS MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF HOW A SMALL 
POND THE SIZE OF A CHILD'S PLASTIC WADING POOL CAN ALLOW 
FROGS IMPORTANT RESOURCES TO RAISE THEIR YOUNG.
THIS WAS MY SUMMER OF 2005 UNEXPECTED EXPERIMENT INTO FROG 
REPOPULATION OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE KNOW THAT THE AMPHIBIAN POPULATION IS IN CRISIS.
WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR HABITAT WHEN 
THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY IS NOT MAKING A SIGNIFICANT 
COMMITMENT TO PRESERVE THESE LANDS FOR AGRICULTURAL USE?
ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTARY, "THE FLORIDA DREAM, IN 1940 
FLORIDA HAD 35 MILLION ACRES OF LAND IN AGRICULTURAL USE."
IN 2006 WE WERE DOWN TO 36,530 ACRES.
IF FILLING IN THESE WETLANDS IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THE 
FARMERS KEEP THEIR LANDS FOR AG USE, WHY ARE THEY ONLY 
WILLING TO CONSIDER A SEVEN-YEAR HOLDING PERIOD?
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  BEV GRIFFITHS.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
BEV GRIFFITHS, 7201 ALAFIA RIDGE ROAD, RIVERVIEW.
COMMISSIONERS, AS CHAIR OF TAMPA BAY SIERRA CLUB, I'M 
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR OVER 2,000 MEMBERS IN 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS REGARDING 
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS FROM WETLAND REGULATIONS AND TO 
REQUEST THAT THE EPC BOARD POSTPONE TAKING ANY ACTION ON 
CHAPTER 1-11 UNTIL WE KNOW WHETHER RECENTLY PROPOSED STATE 
LEGISLATION WILL SUPERSEDE OUR LOCAL JURISDICTION.
THE FILLING OF WETLANDS FOR FARM OPERATIONS IS A CUMULATIVE 
IMPACT.
ONE BY ONE THE IMPACT IS MINIMAL IN TERMS OF FLOODING OR 
IMPACT ON WILDLIFE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE WETLANDS; 
HOWEVER, THE IMPACT CAN BE GREAT WITH BOTH ECONOMIC AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND WILDLIFE 
IF MANY SMALL AREAS ARE FILLED ON MANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SO YOU'RE BASICALLY PRODUCING A LARGER RUNOFF SURFACE.
IN TERMS OF ADJOINING OR DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES, THE 
PROBLEMS COULD BE FLOODING OR LOSS OF PROPERTY OR USE OF 
SUCH PROPERTIES.
IN TERMS OF WILDLIFE, THE PROBLEM LIES IN REDUCING LAND 
THAT SERVES AS HABITAT OR FOOD SOURCE FOR WILDLIFE.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAS ENJOYED STRICTER WETLAND PROTECTION 
STANDARDS THAN PROVIDED UNDER STATE RULES AND STATUTES 
SINCE 1985.
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF EPC AND THE EPC BOARD INDICATED 
THAT THE HYBRID PLAN WOULD RESULT IN A STREAMLINE APPROACH 
WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN A WEAKENED RULE OR A WEAKENING OF 
THE EXISTING STRICTER WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS AND 
WOULD REMAIN LOCAL -- AND WOULD REMAIN UNDER LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.
THE SIERRA CLUB SUPPORTS THE PROTECTION OF SMALL WETLANDS.
WE OBJECT TO EPC'S PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL 
LANDOWNERS WHO WANT TO FILL QUARTER-ACRE WETLANDS.
THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WILL INDUCE PREMATURE 
CONVERSION OF FARMLAND TO DEVELOPMENT.
IT CHIPS AWAY AT OUR STRONGER LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAVORS 
ONE SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION OVER OTHERS.
WE ALL WANT FARMERS TO MAKE A GOOD LIVING, AND THEY DO MAKE 
AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO OUR ECONOMY AND FOOD SUPPLY, 
BUT THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER INCENTIVES AND BREAKS WE CAN 
GIVE THEM BESIDES SACRIFICING OUR WETLANDS, SO WE ASK THAT 
YOU SLOW THIS PROCESS DOWN.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
MARILYN SMITH, AND THEN OUR FINAL SPEAKER WILL BE JOHN 
HENDERSHOT.
>> I'M GLAD THIS IS HERE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE.
BON GIORNO.
THIS HAS BEEN A 25-YEAR BATTLE, LET ME REMIND YOU.
MR. STEWART WENT INTO THE MILITARY, FOUGHT FOR HIS COUNTRY 
AGAINST FOREIGN ENEMIES, THEN HE HAS TO COME HOME AND FIGHT 
HOME-GROWN ENEMIES TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S GETTING OLD, BOYS AND GIRLS.
AND THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY NOTHING BUT 
MONEY, AND THEN THEY GO TELL COMMISSIONERS WHO REALLY DON'T 
UNDERSTAND SCIENCE, OH, WE'VE GOT TO GET RID OF THAT RULE, 
AND THEN YOU OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS.
WE'RE NOT BEING PROTECTED.
AND I WANT TO GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW.
SWFWMD DOES NOT PROTECT US.
THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS CAN BE OUR WORST ENEMY ON ALMOST ANY 
DAY, WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT.
SINCE ALL OF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THEM 
AND I HAVE, BELIEVE ME, IT'S NOT A PRETTY PICTURE.
I JUST WANT YOU TO BE REMINDED OF THE AMENDMENT.
I SENT YOU PEOPLE AN E-MAIL.
I HOPE YOU READ IT.
OVER THE YEARS, THE GREENBELT HAS BEEN INSTITUTED TO HELP 
THE REAL FARMER.
THE BLUEBELT YOU PROBABLY DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT, BUT THAT'S 
THERE AS AN INCENTIVE FOR THE FARMER WITH HIS WATER TO BE 
PROTECTED.
WE, MEANING THE REAL PEOPLE OUT HERE, WE'RE THE REAL 
STAKEHOLDERS, OKAY.
THE VOTERS OF THIS COUNTY ARE THE REAL STAKEHOLDERS, AND WE 
TAKE GREAT UMBRAGE THAT ANYBODY IS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR 
WETLANDS, AND THE COMMUNITY OF AGGREGATE IMPACT OF WHAT 
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AROUND THE FRINGES IS JUST HEINOUS.
YOU'RE NOT HELPING AND PROTECTING.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TO PROTECT US AND LISTEN TO WHAT 
WE WANT, NOT A FEW PAID MOUTHPIECES, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE 
LOOKING AT THEIR MONEY AND DISREGARD THE FOOD PRODUCTION.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FEED US, OKAY.
LET'S GET REAL.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
WHEN DO YOU WANT TO START IMPORTING OUR FOOD FROM CHINA, 
GUYS?
NOW, HERE'S THE OTHER THING.
THE VAST FAILURE -- THE VAST FAILURE BY MITIGATION FROM 
SWFWMD, YOU MUST REMEMBER NO MITIGATION IS EVER, EVER, 
EVER, EVER ALLOWED OUT OF THIS COUNTY.
THE IMPACT IS HERE, THE MITIGATION MUST TAKE PLACE HERE, 
NOT THREE COUNTIES AWAY.
THAT'S CRAP, AND THAT'S SPELLED C-R-A-P.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME, 
AND IT JUST MAKES ME FEEL SO BAD THAT SOME OF YOU PEOPLE 
HAVE YOUR HEAD TURNED FOR THE WRONG REASON.
WE MUST HAVE LEGITIMATE AGRICULTURE, NOT FOO-FOO PLUMS AND 
PLANTS.
THOSE HAVE TO COME TOO, BUT FOOD IS NUMBER ONE, FOOD AND 
WATER, AND YOU ARE CHARGED WITH ITS PROTECTION, OR YOU'LL 
BE PAYING FOR IT REAL SOON, NEXT NOVEMBER.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
AND OUR LAST SPEAKER IS JOHN HENDERSHOT.
>> HI.
I'M JOHN HENDERSHOT.
I LIVE AT 8210 LA SERENA DRIVE, AND I'M ONE OF THE 2,000 
SIERRA CLUB MEMBERS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
ONCE AGAIN, THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL AND SMALL WETLANDS 
IN PARTICULAR ARE UNDER ASSAULT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
A FEW SHORT WEEKS AGO THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IN 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BY ELIMINATING THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 
EPC.
THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED EXCEPT FOR A MAJOR PUBLIC 
OUTCRY BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITIZENS.
HERE WE GO AGAIN.
EVEN AS WE SPEAK, STATE LEGISLATORS ARE INTRODUCING A BILL 
TO REDUCE OVERSIGHT BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH 
COUNTY WETLANDS.
WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERING THIS LOCAL LEGISLATIVE 
ASSAULT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNTIL THE ASSAULT BY CERTAIN 
STATE LEGISLATORS IS OVER ON HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
IT APPEARS THAT A PRIMARY MOTIVE AND CERTAINLY A LIKELY 
RESULT OF THIS LOCAL ACTION IS TO ENABLE THESE SMALL 
WETLANDS IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS TO BE ELIMINATED BEFORE 
THESE AREAS COME UP FOR SALE TO DEVELOPERS SO THAT THE 
DEVELOPERS ARE NOT INCONVENIENCED BY THESE WETLANDS.
WHAT WE SEE REPEATEDLY IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS THAT BONA 
FIDE AGRICULTURAL LANDS TODAY ARE VERY LIKELY TO BECOME 
SUBURBS TOMORROW, OKAY, TWO YEARS OR SEVEN YEARS OR TEN 
YEARS.
IF WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS FOR THESE LANDS TO REMAIN 
AGRICULTURAL, TWO YEARS OR SEVEN YEARS OR TEN YEARS DOES 
NOT MAKE SENSE.
IT SHOULD BE PERMANENT IF WE WANT IT TO REMAIN 
AGRICULTURAL.
AND IT SHOULD REQUIRE MITIGATION IN ALL CASES.
SMALL WETLANDS PERFORM A VARIETY OF FUNCTIONS.
THEY SERVE AS HABITAT AND NURSERY FOR AQUATIC PLANTS AND 
ANIMALS, THEY SERVE AS A SANCTUARY AND DINING ROOM FOR 
LOCAL AND MIGRATORY BIRDS.
EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLANTS AND THE 
ANIMALS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, WE NEED CLEAN WATER TO 
DRINK.
THESE SMALL WETLANDS HELP FILTER OUT FERTILIZERS AND 
PESTICIDES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE GET INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT, 
OUR AQUIFERS, OUR RIVERS QUICKLY, AND CONTAMINATE OUR 
DRINKING WATER.
IT COSTS MONEY TO REMOVE THE CONTAMINANTS IF WE CAN BE SURE 
THAT THE PURIFICATION PROCESS COMPLETELY REMOVES THESE 
CONTAMINANTS.
WE NEED BETTER SHORT- AND LONG-TERM PROTECTION FOR OUR 
ENVIRONMENT THAN THIS BILL PROVIDES IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC.
I HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER WHO'S ON QUEUE TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
DR. GARRITY, BEFORE I RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER SHARPE, WAS 
THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT MAY HELP 
DIRECT OR FORMULATE QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS?
AND ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT JUMPED OUT TO ME WAS I HEARD A 
COMMENT MADE THAT MITIGATION -- THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION 
ABOUT WHERE MITIGATION WOULD TAKE PLACE, BUT AS I'VE READ, 
THE MITIGATION MUST TAKE PLACE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>>RICK GARRITY:  YES.
YES.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  OKAY.
SO GO AHEAD, AND I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE DR. GARRITY 
CLARIFY, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MR. SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  THAT'S FINE.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
>>RICK GARRITY:  ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS, AS A COUPLE OF POINTS I THINK THAT ARE 
IMPORTANT, THE FIRST IS THAT YOU ADOPTED THE HYBRID MODEL 
IN AUGUST, AND THAT HAD A PARAGRAPH IN IT ABOUT THE 
AGRICULTURAL GROUND AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 
THAT -- AND I THINK THE INTENT OF THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR -- 
THAT WE WOULD TRY TO IMPLEMENT RULES CONSISTENT WITH AGSWM, 
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU TODAY.
AS PART OF THE HYBRID PLAN, WE ALSO OUTLINED CERTAIN 
TIMELINES THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW, AND WE TOLD YOU THAT WE 
WOULD COME BACK ACTUALLY LAST MONTH WITH PROPOSED RULES, 
AND WE DID GET A ONE-MONTH EXTENSION TO THIS MONTH, BUT IT 
WAS CLEAR TO STAFF THAT WE THOUGHT THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE 
HYBRID WAS CLEAR ENOUGH THAT WE COULD PUT THE RULE LANGUAGE 
TOGETHER IN THIS TIME FRAME AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU TO 
IMPLEMENT THE INTENT OF THE HYBRID.
STAFF IS COMFORTABLE THAT THE RULE LANGUAGE WE HAVE BROUGHT 
TO YOU TODAY DOES EXACTLY THAT.
IT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THE HYBRID, THE 
PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE AGSWM PROCESS.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE SPEAKERS WHO TALKED ABOUT THE 
IMPORTANCE OF SMALL ISOLATED WETLANDS, I COULDN'T AGREE 
WITH THEM MORE THAN THAT.
STAFF FEELS EXACTLY THE SAME.
SMALL ISOLATED WETLANDS ARE IMPORTANT.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
BUT WE'RE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT FARMING NEEDS SOME HELP 
FROM US AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY TO BE ABLE TO -- AND 
CERTAIN THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS HEALTHY AND 
ECONOMICALLY AND SO FORTH IN THIS COUNTY, AND THE HYBRID 
SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT -- AND YOU ADOPTED AS A POLICY THAT 
WE WOULD TRY TO WORK WITH AGRICULTURE TO LIGHTEN THEIR 
REGULATORY BURDEN SOMEWHAT.
IF YOU ADD UP ALL OF THE QUARTER-ACRE WETLANDS THAT ARE ON 
THE AG LAND, YOU COME TO A FIGURE SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF 
70 ACRES.
BOB STETLER, I THINK, CAN VERIFY THAT.
AND THEN ONE FINAL POINT IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A ONE-
TIME VARIANCE OR ONE-TIME EXEMPTION FOR A FARMER.
THEY'RE NOT COMING BACK OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO USE 
THIS.
SO YOU COULD HAVE A 50-ACRE PARCEL AND COME BACK AND ASK 
FOR THIS EXEMPTION OR YOU COULD HAVE A 500-ACRE PARCEL AND 
ASK FOR THE EXEMPTION, AND THE LIMITS ARE STILL THE SAME.
THE LIMITS ARE STILL THE SAME UP TO A CUMULATIVE OF A HALF 
ACRE, SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING OVERBOARD HERE, AND AS 
YOUR DIRECTOR OF THE -- OF EPC, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN A 
POSITION OF SITTING HERE AND RECOMMENDING TO YOU SOMETHING 
THAT WOULD -- THAT I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY OR 
EVEN CLOSE TO SIGNIFICANTLY HARM THE ENVIRONMENT OF THIS 
COUNTY.
SO MAYBE RICK TSCHANTZ HAS SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT AS 
BACKGROUND.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WELL, EVERYBODY'S FRUSTRATED, SO YOU'VE 
DONE A GOOD JOB.
[LAUGHTER]
I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT LET'S START WITH JUST THE 
MACRO BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MICRO QUESTIONS AND A 
LOT OF -- YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS, IS THERE'S A 
POINT AT WHICH -- I MEAN, YOU CAN ASK -- CAN YOU ASK A 
MILLION QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN HAVE EVERY VARIATION OF CONCERN AND EVERY QUESTION 
BASICALLY THAT'S ANSWERABLE JUST RESULT IN TEN MORE 
QUESTIONS, AND THEN IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO MOVE 
FORWARD, SO I'M GOING TO PULL BACK FROM A LOT OF WHAT I 
THINK ARE SOME VERY PERTINENT QUESTIONS, SOME OF THEM I'M 
NOT SO SURE, BUT LET'S ASK THE PURPOSE.
ORIGINALLY WE WERE TOLD THAT WE NEEDED TO ADD THE QUARTER-
ACRE EXEMPTION FOR WHAT REASON?
WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
>>RICK GARRITY:  IT STARTED WITH US LOOKING AT THE AGSWM 
PROGRAM AND HOW THAT WORKS WITH FARMERS AND HOW THE FARMERS 
HAVE TO PLANT THEIR FIELDS, ESPECIALLY THEIR ROW CROPS IN 
STRAIGHT LINES, AND QUITE OFTEN THEY WILL ENCOUNTER -- AS 
FARMERS HAD PUT IT -- SMALL WETLANDS THAT ARE IN THE WAY OF 
THEIR NORMAL FARMING ACTIVITY, SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE 
ARRIVED AT THE CONCEPT THAT NOT ONLY IS AGSWM A GOOD 
PROGRAM, BUT SOME OF THE VERY SMALL ISOLATED WETLANDS WOULD 
BE ABLE TO BE -- YOU'D HAVE AN EXEMPTION FROM THE 
REASONABLE USE CRITERIA FOR THOSE, AND COMMISSIONERS, I 
HAVE ONE OTHER FIGURE HERE.
IF YOU ADD UP ALL THOSE QUARTER-ACRE ISOLATED WETLANDS, IT 
COMES TO 70 ACRES.
IF YOU ADD UP ALL OF THE WETLANDS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 
THAT ARE ON AG LANDS, THAT COMES TO 67,000 ACRES.
THAT'S TWO-THIRDS OF ALL OF THE WETLANDS IN HILLSBOROUGH 
COUNTY ARE ON AG LANDS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  TWO-THIRDS OF THE WETLANDS ARE ON THE AG 
LANDS, BUT ONLY 70 OF THOSE ACRES ARE ELIGIBLE UNDER THIS 
PROGRAM?
>>RICK GARRITY:  WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THE EXCAVATION 
THAT CAN -- THERE IS A STIPULATION IN THE RULE ABOUT 
EXCAVATION UP TO A HALF ACRE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  OKAY.
NOW, WHAT IMPACT -- I'M KIND OF JUMPING MY QUESTIONS, BUT 
WHAT IMPACT MIGHT THAT HAVE IF EVERYONE WERE TO TRY TO 
TAKE -- TAKE -- TO TAKE THAT EXEMPTION?
>>RICK GARRITY:  OKAY.
I THINK BOB STETLER CAN HELP WITH THAT.
>>BOB STETLER:  BOB STETLER, THE EPC WETLANDS STAFF.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOKED AT AND ONE REASON THERE'S A 
DIFFERENTIAL IN ACREAGE BETWEEN THOSE TWO CLAUSE, ONE OF 
THOSE INVOLVES FILLS, IT'S THE QUARTER-ACRE MINIMUM/MAXIMUM 
THRESHOLD.
THE OTHER IS THE HALF-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR EXCAVATION.
WE FEEL THAT THIS FITS IN WELL WITH THE WAY WE HAVE ALWAYS 
DONE PERMITTING AND THE WAY WE REVIEW IMPACTS TO WETLANDS 
IN THAT EXCAVATION IN THIS SENSE WOULD BE PRIMARILY A 
TEMPORARY IMPACT TO THAT WETLAND.
THERE'LL BE AN IMPACT BY WAY OF THE EXCAVATION, YET THERE 
WOULD BE NO ELIMINATION OF THE WETLAND AS A JURISDICTIONAL 
WETLAND WATER BODY.
IT REMAINS A JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND WATER BODY.
IT, IN FACT, PROBABLY HAS EXPANDED --
>>MARK SHARPE:  WHO'S MONITORING THIS PROCESS?
>>BOB STETLER:  WE WOULD.
>>MARK SHARPE:  SO YOU'RE MONITORING IT?
WE'RE MAKING SURE IF THIS LAND IS EXCAVATED THAT, "A," 
THERE'S A LEGITIMATE REASON OR PURPOSE FOR IT BEING 
EXCAVATED, AND THEN YOU'RE FOLLOWING THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THERE'S NO DAMAGE?
>>BOB STETLER:  EXACTLY.
THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE TO MAKE THIS AN APPLICATION.
THIS FITS IN AS WE WOULD REVIEW A PERMIT APPLICATION.
WE WOULD BE REVIEWING A PLAN, WE WOULD MODIFY THAT PLAN 
UNTIL IT FIT THE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN THE PLAN ONCE IT'S 
PUT IN PLACE IS A CONTRACTUAL PLAN BETWEEN US AND THE 
APPLICANT THAT WOULD FOLLOW WITH MITIGATION IF THAT WAS 
NECESSARY, AND THESE ARE ALL THINGS -- AND THE DESIGN THAT 
WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THAT PERMIT, AND IT WOULD ALL BE 
PART OF OUR NORMAL REVIEW, COMPLIANCE, AND TRACKING SYSTEM.
>>MARK SHARPE:  THANK YOU, SIR.
DR. GARRITY, WITH REGARD TO THE -- WE GAVE YOU, I GUESS, A 
MANDATE TO COME BACK TO US WITH THIS EXEMPTION IN -- WITH 
THE LANGUAGE IN PLACE FOR THIS EXEMPTION, WHICH YOU'VE 
DONE.
WHAT IS DRIVING US -- I MEAN, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY -- I 
RECOGNIZE -- AND I'M A STICKLER FOR TIMELINES.
I DON'T WANT TO IN ANY WAY DO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT PUT YOU -
- I THINK YOU'RE ALWAYS -- IT SEEMS LIKE YOU SIT BETWEEN A 
ROCK AND A HARD PLACE THROUGHOUT, BUT HERE WE ARE SAYING ON 
ONE HAND WE WANT YOU TO COME BACK AND WE WANT YOU TO STICK 
WITH THE TIMELINE, AND ANY -- AND ANY SLIPPAGE ON YOUR PART 
WILL BE REFERENCED, I'M SURE, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE 
YEARS FROM NOW, IF NOT, YOU KNOW, NEXT WEEK, AS TO WELL, WE 
TOLD YOU TO DO SOMETHING AND YOU DIDN'T DO IT, SO YOU'RE 
COMING BACK HERE WITH THESE -- WITH THIS LANGUAGE, BUT 
OTHER THAN THAT, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE -- I MEAN, IF -- I'M 
NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DELAY, BUT I'M ASKING WHAT WOULD BE 
THE IMPACT IF WE WERE TO TAKE MORE TIME TO ALLOW THESE 
RULES TO BE STUDIED AND TO BE -- AND REALLY MORE TO BE 
EXPLAINED BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WITH ALL THE ISSUES 
THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH -- IT'S NOT SO MUCH A MATTER 
OF WHETHER OR NOT THE RULES MAKE SENSE BUT DO FOLKS 
UNDERSTAND THEM, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND 
DEEP SUSPICION.
>>RICK GARRITY:  WELL, COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE -- WE SET 
FORTH AN AMBITIOUS SCHEDULE OVER THE NEXT YEAR TO IMPLEMENT 
THE HYBRID.
I THINK WE'VE KIND OF COMMITTED TO NOT ONLY HAVE THE WHOLE 
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED WITHIN A YEAR BUT ACTUALLY TO HAVE THE 
RULES IN PLACE IN LESS THAN A YEAR, BY NEXT MAY, SO THAT WE 
COULD HAVE A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO LET THEM RUN AND OBSERVE 
THEM BEFORE NEXT AUGUST WOULD BE -- WHICH WOULD BE ONE YEAR 
FROM THE DATE THAT THE HYBRID WAS IMPLEMENTED.
>>MARK SHARPE:  DO YOU THINK -- I MEAN, YOU SAID -- HOW 
MANY REQUESTS HAVE THERE BEEN FOR THESE TYPE OF EXEMPTIONS 
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS?
>>RICK GARRITY:  THEY'RE -- BOB, HELP ME AGAIN WITH THAT.
I THINK IT'S ABOUT -- AS FAR AS THE AGSWM EXEMPTIONS, I 
THINK IT'S ABOUT FIVE PER YEAR.
>>BOB STETLER:  THAT'S RIGHT.
32 OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  32 OVER THE --
>>BOB STETLER:  32 TOTAL AGSWM EXEMPTIONS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  I MEAN -- AND AGAIN -- AND I WOULD ASK THE 
CITIZENS WHO'VE SPOKEN IN OPPOSITION -- YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS 
LIKE IN ONE INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY 
IS OUR FRIEND.
WE WANT THEM TO BE -- WE SUPPORT THE FARMER.
WHEN THEY ASK FOR HELP, THEY'RE THE AG LOBBY, YOU KNOW.
IT'S THE -- YOU KNOW, THESE GUYS JUST CAN'T WAIT TO TURN 
THEIR LAND OVER TO THE DEVELOPER, AND MY DRIVING PURPOSE 
HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING GENUINELY IS 
DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING THE FARMER FARM HIS LAND, 
AND I THINK A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS COMING FROM THIS -- 
THESE BOARD MEMBERS AND OTHERS ARE COMING FROM PEOPLE WHO 
AREN'T FARMERS.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FARMER HAS TO GO THROUGH.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE -- THAT'S WHY I RELY ON YOU TO 
DISTILL FROM ALL THIS -- ALL THESE QUESTIONS LEGITIMATE 
PURPOSE AND LEGITIMATE REASON FOR DOING THIS.
THE TIME ISSUE IS ANOTHER BIG ISSUE.
I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, TWO, FIVE, SEVEN, I'VE HEARD FOREVER 
I THINK SOMEONE SUGGESTED.
AND I THINK THAT TWO IS NOT REASONABLE PERSONALLY BECAUSE I 
FEEL LIKE IF WE'RE MAKING THESE CHANGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF 
FARMING, THEN THE LAND OUGHT TO BE USED FOR FARMING.
I'M NOT SURE, THOUGH, HOW DO WE COME UP WITH THE SEVEN, I 
MEAN, AND IS THAT --
>>RICK GARRITY:  YOU GO AHEAD.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A TIME AT SOME 
POINT, I'M SURE.
WE HAVE TO PICK A NUMBER.
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  THIS IS REALLY A POLICY QUESTION.
WE -- WE KNEW THAT IF YOU HAVE A -- A TEN-YEAR GUARANTEE 
THAT YOU'RE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO NOT HAVE A DEAL BETWEEN A 
DEVELOPER AND A FARMER LASTING THAT LONG, THAT YOU GET 
THESE EXEMPTIONS AND THE DEVELOPER WAITS THIS OUT.
THE LOWER NUMBER YOU GO, THE MORE CHANCE YOU HAVE OF 
SOMETHING HAPPENING LIKE THAT, SO IT'S -- LEGALLY THIS 
BOARD THIS MORNING CAN CHANGE THAT NUMBER WITHOUT US HAVING 
A DELAY.
IT'S NOT A MATERIAL OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE.
THE LONGER YOU GO, THE MORE LIKELIHOOD YOU'LL HAVE OF A 
GUARANTEE THE LAND STAYS IN AG; THE LOWER YOU GO, THE LESS 
LIKELY THAT THESE EXEMPTIONS COULD BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY 
A DEVELOPER.
SO IT STRICTLY UP TO THIS BOARD ON THAT NUMBER.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  WHAT WE'RE REALLY DISCUSSING HERE TODAY 
IS POLICY ISSUE AND NOT THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF THIS.
>>MARK SHARPE:  YEAH.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR QUESTIONING?
>>MARK SHARPE:  FOR NOW, YES.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. SHARPE YOU BRING UP SOME VERY GOOD QUESTIONS AND 
CONCERNS, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, RIGHT NOW NOBODY IS HAPPY.
I'VE LOOKED THROUGH THE MANY E-MAILS I'VE GOTTEN, AND I 
WANT TO READ AN EXCERPT OUT OF ONE OF THEM ABOUT 
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION IS NOT READY TO BE ADOPTED.
WE SHOULD NOT NEGOTIATE COUNTY RULES WITH THE AGRICULTURAL 
LOBBY WHILE THEY ARE TRYING TO PASS A STATE LAW THAT WOULD 
NEGATE ANY LOCAL RULES WE WRITE FOR THEM.
ANY LOCAL RULES CHANGED/PASSED UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WOULD 
LEAVE US FELLING LIKE OUR LOCAL LEADERS HAVE BEEN BULLIED 
INTO GIVING AWAY TOO MUCH WITH THE THREAT OR STATE ACTION 
HANGING OVER THE DEAL.
THIS IS MY CONCERN.
YOU ASKED ABOUT WELL, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HELP THE FARMERS, 
BUT THEN WE CALL THEM AGRICULTURAL LOBBYISTS.
WELL, WHEN THEY ARE NEGOTIATING AND WORKING WITH EPC STAFF, 
I CALL THEM FARMERS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF, BUT 
WHEN THEY GO AND PULL UP THIS AGRICULTURAL LOCAL BILL 4 OR 
LEVERAGE BILL 4 AND DO THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE 
NEGOTIATIONS, TO ME THAT IS ABSOLUTELY DISAPPOINTING, AND 
IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.
SO THEN I FEEL I'M PUT IN A POSITION TODAY THAT WE'VE GOT 
TO DO ALL THIS BECAUSE I THINK THE STAFF IN GOOD EARNEST 
EFFORT FEELS LIKE WE'VE MADE SOME ACCOMPLISHMENTS, BUT THEN 
I LOOK TO MY VERY OWN REP, MR. WOFFORD JOHNSON, AND HE 
MAKES A VERY GOOD POINT.
HE SUGGESTS THAT WE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION TODAY BECAUSE 
WE -- YES, WE DID ASK YOU TO COME BACK AND WORK WITH THE AG 
COMMUNITY, DR. GARRITY, BUT WE ALSO ASKED YOU TOO TO DEPEND 
ON THE OUTCOME OF DIALOGUE WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND 
WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE.
MR. JOHNSON SAYS, A TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AND STAKEHOLDERS 
COMMITTEE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO REVIEW CHANGES IN OUR 
WETLANDS CODE.
YOU NEED TO LET THAT PROCESS FUNCTION PRIOR TO ADOPTING ANY 
CHANGES.
AND I AGREE.
WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN ALL THE INFORMATION WE CHARGED HIM TO 
BRING US, EITHER THROUGH HIS STAFF, EITHER THROUGH 
COMMITTEES, EITHER THROUGH THE PUBLIC, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN 
WE'RE ASKED OR IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE ASKING ABOUT TAKING 
ACTION NOW.
THAT'S LIKE SAYING, OKAY, VOLUNTEER YOUR TIME AS THIS 
COMMITTEE, GIVE US WHAT YOU THINK, ALTHOUGH WE'VE ALREADY 
MADE OUR DECISION.
TO ME THIS IS SOMEBODY PUSHING US TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE 
OF THAT BILL LOOMING OVER US, I THINK BECAUSE OF LEVERAGE.
I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE AG COMMUNITY DID THAT.
I'M VERY HOPEFUL, I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL FAIL.
YES, WE DID OPPOSE IT, BUT TO ME THAT GETS RIGHT IN THE WAY 
OF US TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE EXPECTED TO DO 
THROUGH OUR OWN LOCAL EPC.
I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANY ACTION TODAY, AND I TYPICALLY 
TAKE TO HEART WHAT EPC STAFF SAYS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE 
COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, BUT YOU KNOW, DR. 
GARRITY, IN ALL FAIRNESS TO YOU, WHAT MR. SHARPE SAID IS 
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
LET'S HURRY AND GET THIS DONE BECAUSE, OH, MY GOD, TOMORROW 
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT LOCAL BILL.
THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE MIX.
THAT'S, AGAIN, SUCH A DISAPPOINTMENT TO ME, AND MR. 
GRAMLING, I'M TALKING RIGHT TO YOU.
AND I THINK THAT IF IT'S NOT DONE AND CRAFTED 
APPROPRIATELY, SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD -- SOME OF US MAY 
NOT BE HERE, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT WAS DR. GARRITY 
THINKING?
BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN THOUGHTFUL, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE 
THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS WE CHARGED YOU TO DO, IT IS VERY 
PREMATURE AND FOR ME IT'S NOT THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO TAKE 
TODAY TO APPROVE ANYTHING.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
[APPLAUSE]
>>KEN HAGAN:  WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DO SUPPORT AMENDING THE 
WETLAND RULE TO GIVE THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION.
I THINK THE FARMERS NEED THE HELP.
DR. GARRITY, I WANT TO GO DOWN SOME STATEMENTS FROM YOUR 
COMMENTS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE IT ACCURATE YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING AND IMPRESSION.
YOU FEEL THAT THE HYBRID LANGUAGE WAS CLEAR ENOUGH AND 
YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE AMENDMENT.
THE LIMITS ARE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE, WHETHER 
IT'S 50 ACRES OR 500 ACRES.
AND YOU ALSO SAID THAT YOU FELT THAT THIS WAS NOT GOING 
OVERBOARD, AND IF IT'S ACCURATE, THAT THERE ARE 67,000 
WETLANDS ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS, YET THIS WOULD APPLY TO 70 
ACRES, THAT WOULD TELL ME THAT -- I WOULD BELIEVE THAT THIS 
IS NOT GOING OVERBOARD.
COMMISSIONER SHARPE, I GUESS, ASKED YOU WHY NOW OR ALONG 
THOSE LINES, AND YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS AN AMBITIOUS 
SCHEDULE TO HAVE THE RULES IN PLACE AND TO -- YOU KNOW, AND 
TO IMPLEMENT THE HYBRID, YET WE HEARD FROM THE CITIZENS 
ABOUT NEEDING MORE TIME, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE RUSH, AND I 
GUESS I WANT TO ASK A SIMILAR QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER 
SHARPE DID.
IS THERE ANY VALUE IN NOT MAKING THE DECISION TODAY AND 
PUTTING IT OFF?
I MEAN, I'M NOT NECESSARILY INTERESTED IN DELAYING OR 
POSTPONING INDEFINITELY, BUT IS THERE ANY VALUE IN THAT?
>>RICK GARRITY:  WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ALL OF THE STATEMENTS 
THAT YOU SAID THAT I MADE, THAT'S CORRECT, I DID SAY ALL OF 
THAT, AND WHERE THE STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE RULE THAT 
WE HAVE BROUGHT YOU TODAY.
THE -- AS FAR AS THE VALUE -- I THINK THE VALUE -- IF 
THERE'S A VALUE IN PUTTING IT OFF, IT'S PROBABLY THE VALUE 
OF TRYING TO GET MORE EDUCATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE 
RULE, AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SAID, AND -- BUT OTHER 
THAN THAT, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN WELL THOUGHT OUT BY OUR 
TECHNICAL STAFF AND OUR LEGAL STAFF, AND WE'VE BROUGHT IT 
TO YOU IN CONFIDENCE TODAY.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  DR. GARRITY, WITH REGARD TO THE -- LET'S GO 
BACK TO THE -- THIS BILL THAT WE'VE -- THAT THE BOARD -- 
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION YESTERDAY RECOMMENDED 
AGAINST, WHICH IS -- WILL BE COMING BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE.
I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW -- WE'VE KIND OF DISCUSSED IN MY 
OFFICE AND, YOU KNOW, READ THE E-MAILS TACTICALLY WHETHER 
OR NOT WE SHOULD ACT BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE HAS A CHANCE TO 
ACT AND SET IN PLACE OUR POSITION OR WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL 
THE LEGISLATURE ACTS AND THEN, I GUESS, RESPOND TO THEM, 
BUT I GUESS MY POINT IS IF WE TAKE OUR TIME TO GO THROUGH 
THE PROCESS, THE LEGISLATURE'S GOING TO ACT.
I MEAN, I GUESS IF WE TAKE AN ACTION AND THE LEGISLATURE 
TRUMPS US WITH THEIR ACTION, WHAT HAPPENS?
IF WE WERE TO TAKE -- IF WE WERE TO TAKE ACTION TODAY AND 
THEN THE LEGISLATURE WERE TO TRUMP US WITH THEIR ACTION -- 
BECAUSE, I MEAN, WHERE I AGREE WITH MS. FERLITA -- THE 
ISSUE IS I'M NOT A STATE LEGISLATOR.
I DON'T WORRY ABOUT -- I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE ASKED TO WEIGH 
IN, AND I PERSONALLY WEIGHED IN AGAINST THAT BILL, BUT 
THEY'VE GOT THEIR JOB, WE'VE GOT OUR JOB, AND SO I'M NOT 
LETTING THAT WEIGH OR INFLUENCE ME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, 
BUT IF WE WERE TO ACT TODAY AND THEN THE LEGISLATURE WERE 
TO LET'S JUST SAY ENACT THAT BILL, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  WE WOULDN'T KNOW -- WE WOULDN'T KNOW 
EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN FOR A WHILE BECAUSE ON 
DECEMBER 7th THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THESE LOCAL BILLS.
IT WAS OUR POSITION THAT WE SHOULD GO THERE AND SPEAK 
AGAINST IT.
IN FACT, LATER ON THE AGENDA WE WERE GOING TO ASK YOU 
PERMISSION TO DO THAT.
IF WE CAN GET UP ON THAT DAY BEFORE OUR DECEMBER MEETING 
EVEN OCCURS AND SAY WE HAVE ACTED LOCALLY ON THIS, WE HAVE 
TAKEN CARE OF THIS, THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE, YOU KNOW, 
BILL FOR THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO GET INVOLVED 
IN AND TO PASS, AND WE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THIS ISSUE.
WE FEEL THAT THAT WOULD BE A STRONGER POSITION TO TAKE AND 
HAVE THAT BILL NOT PASS OUT OF THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE 
DELEGATION; HOWEVER, IF WE TAKE THIS ACTION TODAY AND THAT 
BILL DOES PASS, WE WOULDN'T KNOW UNTIL THEN NEXT -- WELL 
INTO PROBABLY -- BY THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHAT 
WOULD ACTUALLY COME OUT OF TALLAHASSEE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  IF WE -- LET ME ASK YOU THIS AS WELL.
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  AND ANYTHING ELSE COULD HAPPEN TO THAT 
BILL.
>>MARK SHARPE:  ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN.
IF -- WHEN MIGHT OUR FARMERS BE ABLE TO USE THIS EXEMPTION 
IF WE ARE -- IF WE EXPEDITE THE PROCESS, IF WE MOVE FORWARD 
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WE DO ALL THE STEPS THAT ARE BEING 
RECOMMENDED, HOW QUICKLY CAN THIS -- CAN THIS PROGRAM COME 
INTO PLAY FOR OUR FARMING COMMUNITY, THOSE FARMERS THAT 
WE'RE TRYING TO HELP?
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  NEXT WEEK.
ALL WE HAVE TO DO AFTER THIS BOARD PASSES A RULE IS TO FILE 
IT WITH THE CLERK.
>>MARK SHARPE:  IF WE WAIT AND A FARMER COMES TO YOU AND 
SAYS THERE ARE ONEROUS PROHIBITIONS TO MY USE OF THE LAND 
THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO USE UNDER THE EXEMPTION THAT YOU 
WERE GOING TO VOTE FOR BUT NOW YOU'VE DELAYED, I MEAN, ARE 
WE GOING TO JUST TURN A HAND UP TO THEM AND SAY, WELL, 
YOU -- YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, OR ARE WE WORKING WITH 
THEM TO TRY TO HELP THEM IN LIEU OF THIS EXEMPTION?
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  THEY WOULDN'T GET A CLEAR-CUT 
EXEMPTION, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE REGULAR PROCESS THAT 
OUR RULE IS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, AND SOME OF THESE IMPACTS 
WOULD BE ALLOWED, MAYBE SOME WOULDN'T.
>>MARK SHARPE:  ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAID -- AND THEN I'LL 
CLOSE FOR MY QUESTIONS.
ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAID -- AND I LIKED WHAT I HEARD, WHICH 
WAS WE'RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION -- I THINK THAT 
WAS DENISE LAYNE -- WE'RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, 
BUT SOME OF THIS IS ACTUALLY TOO ONEROUS, AND I GO BACK TO 
ULTIMATELY WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE, 
LEGITIMATELY TO HELP THE FARMING COMMUNITY SO THAT THEY CAN 
DO THEIR BUSINESS, AND I WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE CREDIT.
I THINK WE -- AGAIN, THEY GET HAMMERED BECAUSE THEY'RE 
SELLING THEIR LAND, WELL, BECAUSE WE MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR 
THEM TO USE THEIR LAND, AND THEN WE CONDEMN THEM FOR DOING 
IT, BUT HERE WE ARE TRYING TO HELP THEM, AND NOW THE 
SUGGESTION IS BY HELPING THEM, SOMEHOW ULTIMATELY THIS IS 
GOING TO BE DONE IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO SPEED UP 
THE PROCESS OF SELLING IT.
I WANT TO HELP THEM, BUT I'D LIKE FOR US -- I THINK 
PERSONALLY FOR ME -- AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DELAY 
MAKING A FINAL DECISION ON THIS RULE CHANGE UNTIL WE'VE HAD 
TIME FOR YOU TO, "A," REVIEW AND RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS 
THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DIFFERENT GROUPS.
I MEAN, I'VE GOTTEN ONE E-MAIL THIS MORNING AND ONE 
YESTERDAY, AND I REALLY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE -- I'VE BEEN 
WRITING A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS DOWN, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD A 
CHANCE TO LEGITIMATELY RESPOND AND TO SIT BACK DOWN WITH 
THE STAKEHOLDERS AND GO BACK OVER THE PURPOSE AND THE 
INTENT AGAIN, MAKE IT VERY CLEAR.
I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT YOU ULTIMATELY ONCE I'M CONFIDENT 
THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE THINGS 
SMOOTHER AND HELP THE FARMER.
I'VE STILL GOT SOME QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T -- THAT'S WHY 
I'M JUST NOT PREPARED TODAY TO SUPPORT IT.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  SECOND TO MR. SHARPE'S MOTION.
>>MARK SHARPE:  AND THEN, "B," THOUGH, I WANT THERE TO BE -
- I DO WANT THERE TO BE AN END AS WELL.
I'M AFRAID WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS WE'RE GOING TO RESPOND 
TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK HERE, AND 
THEN, BOOM, WE'RE GOING TO GET NAILED WITH ANOTHER 100 
QUESTIONS, TYING IT INTO GLOBAL WARMING AND WHAT IMPACT 
THERE.
THERE'S A POINT THERE'S GOT TO BE AN END.
WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE 
AND WE'RE SATISFIED WITH THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE, SO I DON'T 
WANT THIS TO BE AN ENDLESS PROCESS, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED 
MORE TIME BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME VERY GOOD QUESTIONS THAT 
WERE POSED THAT I THINK NEED -- THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. SHARPE.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  COMMISSIONER SHARPE, I -- RESPECTFULLY I 
SAY TO YOU -- EARLIER I THINK YOU SAID THAT IF WE GO INTO 
ANSWERING A BUNCH MORE QUESTIONS, THEY'RE GOING TO LEAD TO 
MORE AND MORE QUESTIONS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER.
AND NOW YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS.
SO IT'S GOT TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER, AND I THINK THE STAFF'S 
PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS.
WE HAD THE AG INDUSTRY SAY THAT THEY WANT TWO YEARS FOR AN 
EXEMPTION, AND WE HEARD SOME OF THE SIERRA CLUB AND THE U-
CAN MEMBERS SAY THAT 10 OR 20 YEARS.
THIS COULD GO ON AND ON.
WE HAVE TO COME TO A POINT WHERE WE'VE GOT TO TRUST OUR 
STAFF.
WE HAD A MEETING, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO 
GO.
I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF STAFF DOESN'T HAVE A 
PROBLEM IN CONTINUING IT IF THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO BE 
BENEFICIAL.
IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO KEEP TURNING INTO SOMETHING MORE 
DIFFICULT, OR AGAIN, IF WE SUPPORT IT TODAY, WE'RE REALLY 
NOT SATISFYING THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY, WHICH WAS THE 
PURPOSE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET ACCOMPLISHED TODAY.
SO IT'S A -- WE'RE CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD SPOT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. SHARPE, AGAIN, I'M SUPPORTING YOUR MOTION.
I THINK YOUR CONCERNS WERE THAT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS 
THAT ARE NOT ANSWERED AT THIS POINT.
I AGREE WITH YOU, SOMETHING CANNOT CONTINUE INDEFINITELY 
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET ON IT, BUT THE POINT IS I DON'T WANT 
THE THRESHOLD OF THE DECISION TO BE DETERMINED BY SOME 
LOOMING LEGISLATION IN TALLAHASSEE, SO I THINK WE NEED TO 
GIVE EVERYBODY A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO GET THEIR ANSWERS TO 
THEIR QUESTIONS.
THEN WHETHER SOMEBODY AGREES OR NOT, THAT'S THE PROCESS, 
AND WE VOTE, SO I'M STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR HOLDING OFF 
ON A DECISION PROCESS TODAY.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
I HAVE -- ARE YOU DONE COMMISSIONER?
I HAVE JUST A COUPLE THINGS TO ADDRESS.
I THINK PART OF THIS IS THE LEGISLATURE IS LOOKING TO US 
FOR LEADERSHIP AND TO MAKE A DECISION, AND I DON'T WANT IT 
TAKEN OUT OF OUR HANDS LOCALLY, AND THAT IS PART OF MY 
CONCERN WITH A DELAY, ALTHOUGH I SEE THE MERITS OF THE 
DELAY, AND I'VE TALKED UP HERE AS RECENTLY AS LAST 
WEDNESDAY EVENING ABOUT PROCESS AND THE PROPER INVOLVEMENT, 
BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO GET PASSED ON AND TAKEN AND HAVE 
GOOD STEWARDSHIP.
IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
STEWARDSHIP OF OUR WETLANDS.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE ARISEN I KNOW WERE 
ADDRESSED IN THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND COMMENTS.
THE URGENCY WAS ONE THAT COMES UP, AND I KNOW WE'VE HAD A -
- A DELIBERATE AND CONSERVATIVE EFFORT THAT WE'VE -- I KNOW 
I'VE MADE SURE THAT FROM OUR SIDE THAT STAKEHOLDERS WERE 
INVOLVED, BOTH FROM THE-IF WE WANT TO CALL IT THE LOBBY OF 
THE AG, BUT EVEN MORE SO THE LOBBY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND 
THE FOLKS WHO ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE THIS TWO -- YOU KNOW, 
TWO NOT OPPOSING FORCES BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED 
ABOUT THE WELFARE AND THE DIRECTION OF OUR COUNTY.
FINANCIAL IMPACT WAS ONE THAT CAME UP.
WHAT'S THE UNDUE BURDEN ON AG TODAY?
WELL, WE DO HAVE THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS STEWARD PROGRAM, 
AND THE ECONOMIC DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, HAS PUT THAT IN 
PLACE, AND THAT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS 
KEEPING GREEN AND KEEPING GROWING BECAUSE THAT -- THE 
FARMERS THAT I TALK TO AND -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT A 
QUESTION.
IF YOU WANT TO ASK ME AT THE END, I'LL BE GLAD TO RECOGNIZE 
YOU, BUT -- BUT I DON'T KNOW FARMERS WHO WANT TO GO INTO 
THE BUILDING BUSINESS, AND I KNOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, BUT 
THEIR HEART IS IN TURNING THE SOIL, AND I THINK THAT -- 
SOMEONE MADE THE COMMENT THAT POSSIBLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT 
WITH -- ADDRESSING THESE QUARTER ACRES THAT THE WETLANDS 
MAY INCREASE IN SOME CASES.
I KNOW THE FARMERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUARTER ACRE -- 
NOT TO PUT A ROAD THROUGH BUT AS THEY PLOW A ROW, AND MAYBE 
THE PRESENTER SAID ROW RATHER THAN ROAD, BUT WE'RE TALKING 
ABOUT ROWS AND NOT ROADS.
THE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CLEARLY DEFINED.
I KNOW THAT CAME UP, BUT THAT WAS CLEARLY DEFINED.
WE HAVE TO HAVE COMMON SENSE IN HOW WE LOOK AT THIS, AND 
WE'VE GOT THOSE OF US WHO HAVE TO COBBLE AND -- THE WORDS 
AND LETTERS AND THEN THE FARMERS WHO DO BUSINESS ON A 
HANDSHAKE AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING 
THE SAME THING, AND THAT'S GOOD STEWARDSHIP OF OUR LAND.
THE REASONABLE USE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT A LOT OF SITUATIONS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING DEFINED IN THE HYBRID, AND 
I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE THAT GOES, BUT TODAY AGAIN -- 
TODAY IS ABOUT POLICY AND NOT ABOUT THE TECHNICAL SIDE, THE 
SCIENCE SIDE, AND WHY SHOULD AG BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY WAS 
ONE, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT 
CERTAINLY NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE PROVIDERS OF THE 
FOOD, A MAJOR ECONOMIC FORCE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WHAT I THINK WE'VE WORKED ON, 
BUT THERE'S BEEN ADEQUATE IMPACT -- INPUT FROM ALL OF US, 
AND I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF, DR. GARRITY, YOU FELT UNDUE 
PRESSURE ON ANY ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, BUT I THINK THERE'S 
BEEN JUST GOOD COMMUNICATION AND GOOD WORKING WITH THE 
COMMUNITY ON BOTH SIDES TO MAKE SURE WE END UP WITH GOOD 
POLICY, AND THAT'S THE ONLY INPUT I HAVE.
I DO SEE COMMISSIONER SHARPE AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAGAN, 
AND THEN WE DO HAVE A MOTION, AND I'LL REPEAT IT.
>>MARK SHARPE:  OKAY.
I GUESS HERE'S MY POINT, AND COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I DID SAY 
THAT, AND IT'S TRUE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, YOU RUN THE RISK 
WHEN YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS OF JUST OPENING YOURSELF UP TO 
MORE QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB, AND I DON'T -- 
I DON'T MIND ANSWERING -- AND I THINK PART OF WHAT WE HAVE 
TO DO IS TO TRY TO ANSWER LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS, LEGITIMATE 
CONCERNS SO THAT THERE'LL BE A COMFORT LEVEL WITHIN THE 
COMMUNITY TO THE RULE CHANGE.
IT IS TRUE -- I HATE TO REPEAT WHAT'S BEEN E-MAILED TO ME 
BECAUSE THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M PART OF ONE SIDE OR 
ANOTHER, BUT, I MEAN, THE RULE HASN'T BEEN CHANGED IN 22 
YEARS, SO IF WE TAKE AN ADDITIONAL -- AND I WAS GOING TO 
ASK ORIGINALLY FOR A MONTH, BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT NOT BE 
ENOUGH TIME, SO IF WE WERE TO TAKE TWO MONTHS AND ALLOW THE 
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO WEIGH IN AS WELL -- BECAUSE I THINK 
THIS IS WHAT'S -- WHAT'S LACKING IS THERE'S SOME -- WE HAVE 
THE POLICY CHANGE WHERE WE'RE GETTING READY TO CHANGE THE 
POLICY, BUT WE DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THE DETAILS, SO THERE'S 
SOME CONCERN THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVIL WILL BE IN THE 
DETAILS AND IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT FOLKS DON'T LIKE, SO 
WHY NOT LET US BRING IT BACK IN JANUARY, LET THE TECHNICAL 
COMMITTEE REVIEW AS WELL THIS PROCESS, STRENGTHEN IT FOR 
THE PURPOSE OF WHAT IT WAS INTENDED FOR ORIGINALLY, WHICH 
IS TO HELP MR. 
GRAMLING AND THE OTHERS, THE FARMING COMMUNITY, AND I DO 
BELIEVE THAT YOU DO SPEAK LEGITIMATELY FOR THOSE WHO ARE 
TRYING TO DO THEIR -- TO DO THEIR WORK, SO, YOU KNOW, IT 
HASN'T BEEN CHANGED IN 22 YEARS.
AN ADDITIONAL TWO MONTHS, I REALLY DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY 
DAMAGE IN THAT.
I THINK THAT IF WE WEIGH ON THE SIDE OF -- AND I HATE DELAY 
BECAUSE WE DO DO THAT AT TIMES.
WE'LL FIND OURSELVES IN A BIG ISSUE AND THE FOLKS COME OUT 
AND THEY'RE ALL UPSET, AND WE DELAY AND THEN WE PUT OFF 
THAT DIFFICULT DECISION, AND THEN EVEN MORE PEOPLE SHOW UP 
THE NEXT TIME, BUT I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE -- AND YOU'VE 
DONE A GOOD JOB, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I THINK EVERYONE REALLY 
HAS DONE A GOOD JOB IN TRYING TO MOVE US FORWARD, BUT LET'S 
CLOSE THE LOOP.
LET'S TAKE THE TIME TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
I'M GOING TO ASK, THOUGH, THAT THE CITIZENS WHO ARE 
INVOLVED WITH THIS PROCESS WORK THROUGH THE QUESTIONS THAT 
YOU'VE SUBMITTED, AND LET'S NOT START, YOU KNOW, JUST 
SHOTGUN HERE, WE'RE JUST FIRING, BAM, BAM, BAM, AND THEN 
OFF ON THE NEW GOOSE CHASE.
LET'S KEEP IT FOCUSED.
I THINK ONE AREA WHERE WE REALLY DO NEED TO LOOK AT IS THIS 
WHOLE ISSUE OF THE TIME BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME 
CONCERNS HERE.
I PERSONALLY DO NOT SUPPORT, MR. GRAMLING, THE TWO YEARS, 
BECAUSE I THINK THAT SOME MIGHT SEE THIS AS A TROJAN HORSE 
TO TRY TO GET IN WITH THIS IDEA FOR THE PURPOSES OF 
PREPARING IT FOR FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR SUBURBAN 
COMMUNITIES, SO LET'S LOOK AT THAT AND COME BACK WITH SOME 
JUSTIFICATION AS TO HOW WE PICKED THIS TIME.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER HAGAN.
>>KEN HAGAN:  FIRST OF ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO SAY I 
THINK YOU MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS REGARDING THE NEED FOR 
THIS BOARD TO SHOW LEADERSHIP AND GIVE DIRECTION TO THE 
LEGISLATURE.
DR. GARRITY, I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO DELAY AND 
GIVE YOU OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND TO RESPOND TO THE 
CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS, AND NOW COMMISSIONER SHARPE 
INDICATED TO CONTINUE FOR TWO MONTHS.
WHAT'S YOUR OPINION OF THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU WILL NEED OR 
IS NECESSARY TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS?
>>RICK GARRITY:  COMMISSIONERS, THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE, AND 
I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE SORT OF PHILOSOPHICAL THING, AND THIS 
IS NOT PRO OR CON A DELAY.
IT'S JUST -- I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS, THE FOLKS THAT 
SPOKE TODAY, HAVE GOOD MOTIVATIONS, AND I THINK THE FARMERS 
HAVE GOOD MOTIVATIONS, AND THE FARMERS TRULY KEEP AREAS 
GREEN AND ARE ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL LISTS, AND IT'S A SHAME 
THAT THERE'S THIS MISTRUST BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS, AND WE 
WOULD TRY TO NARROW THAT GAP.
>>KEN HAGAN:  RIGHT.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM 
SUPPORTING THE MOTION; HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I DO -- I MEAN, I 
ALWAYS GIVE RESPECT IN DEFERENCE TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF 
HAS TO SAY.
YOUR COMMENTS WERE THIS WAS WELL THOUGHT OUT BY THE 
TECHNICAL AND LEGAL STAFF, AND IT WOULD REALLY ONLY PROVIDE 
VALUE IF THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO EDUCATE AND FOR THE PUBLIC 
TO BE EDUCATED AND TO UNDERSTAND THE RULE MORE, AND WHILE 
I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, I WILL SAY THAT WE SAW 
THE CITIZENS THAT CAME DOWN TODAY.
THEY'RE NOT NEOPHYTES.
I MEAN, THEY'RE WELL VERSED, THEY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, AND 
WHILE I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, I DON'T THINK ANY 
LEVEL OF EDUCATION IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION, I JUST 
THINK THERE'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE OF 
OPINION, SO --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
>>BRIAN BLAIR:  WELL, I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER FERLITA, 
COMMISSIONER SHARPE, AND YOU, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAGAN 
ALL HAVE GOOD POINTS.
I THINK THE BEST POINT, THOUGH, WAS THE POINT THAT DR. 
GARRITY MADE, AND THAT IS THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT A -- 
WE'RE HERE TO HELP AG, BUT AGAIN, WE WANT TO LISTEN TO THE 
COMMUNITY.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY CERTAINLY HAS SOME GOOD POINTS, 
THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE STATS, 
I BELIEVE IT SAID THAT THE -- IT WAS -- I THINK ANDY STATED 
THAT THERE WAS 32 AGSWM PERMITS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
WAS THAT CORRECT?
OKAY.
AND THAT OUT OF THE 67,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS IN TOTAL IN 
THE AG, COMP PLAN AG-ZONED LAND, THERE'S 70 ACRES, WHICH IS 
A MINUSCULE AMOUNT OF -- I MEAN, EVERY PIECE OF WETLAND IS 
IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND AS I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE 
GAINING WETLANDS.
WE WENT INTO THAT AT ONE POINT.
AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP A BIG CAN OF WORMS, AND AS 
FAR AS EVERYBODY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME, THAT JUST 
DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN.
WE HAVE TO RELY ON THE FARMERS, AND THERE DOES HAVE TO 
COME -- THERE HAS TO BE A POINT WHERE THE FARMERS AND THE -
- AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOLKS TRUST EACH OTHER SOME WAY, SO 
AGAIN, I -- IF YOU THINK IT'S VALUABLE, I'LL SUPPORT THE 
MOTION AS WELL, BUT I'M JUST BRINGING OUT SOME POINTS FOR 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOLKS AND THE AG INDUSTRY TO THINK ABOUT 
WHEN THE -- IF YOU THINK THERE'S MERIT IN MORE TIME SO 
THAT -- THESE ARE THE MAJOR POINTS.
I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE ACTIVITY, IF YOU THINK 
ABOUT 32 AGSWM PERMITS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AND THE 
AMOUNT -- IF EVERYBODY SOLD THEIR LAND AND WENT AROUND THE 
RULE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 70 ACRES, AND THEY WOULD -- 
SOMEHOW WE'D MAKE UP A LOT MORE THAN THAT THROUGH 
MITIGATION.
AND ALSO, SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP A POINT ABOUT MITIGATING 
THREE COUNTIES AWAY.
I DON'T LIKE THAT EITHER.
I DON'T BUY THAT.
IT HAS TO BE -- MITIGATION TO ME SHOULD BE IN THE SAME 
WATERSHED, AND -- BUT I'LL LEAVE IT LIKE THAT.
I'LL SUPPORT WHAT THE BOARD WANTS.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  OKAY.
THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
WOULD YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION, PLEASE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  THE MOTION IS THAT WE DELAY FOR A PERIOD OF 
TWO MONTHS, GIVE THE EPC AND OUR STAKEHOLDERS AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF IRON OUT THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE 
BEEN POSED AS WELL AS ALLOW THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TO COME 
BACK WITH HOPEFULLY SOME MORE SPECIFICS SO THAT WE CAN BE 
CONFIDENT THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS INDEED ASSISTING THE 
FARMING COMMUNITY.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  AND THERE WAS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER 
FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  SECOND.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ANY OTHER DEBATE?
PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTES.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS --
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  COMMISSIONERS, CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT 
ABOUT THE DELAY AT THIS POINT NOW THAT THE VOTE HAS PASSED.
I KNOW THAT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT OUR STAFF LEVEL.
FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS WE WILL BE WORKING ON THE AG BILL.
IT'S THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS.
IT'S GOING TO CONSUME A LOT OF OUR TIME.
WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FINISHED IN OCTOBER.
IT WASN'T.
IN JUST THREE WEEKS WE'RE DUE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO DEP 
FOR DELEGATION OF THE ERP PROGRAM.
THAT TIME FRAME IS NOT GOING TO BE MET BECAUSE OF THIS.
SO JUST NOT -- I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE ANY 
DECISION TODAY, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE ON THE RECORD THAT OUR 
END PROCESS HERE, THE GUARANTEES OF MAY AND THEN BRING BACK 
TO YOU IN ONE YEAR ALL THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE HYBRID, 
IT MAY BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THIS, AND I JUST WANT THE 
BOARD TO THINK ABOUT THIS.
I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT BUT 
EXTENDING THE BACK END OF THE HYBRID WOULD BE SOMETHING I 
WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO AT LEAST HAVE ON THE RECORD HERE 
AND TO THINK ABOUT FOR -- FOR THE FUTURE.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN STILL SEE HOW WE DO, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT 
TO BE CRITICIZED AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS THAT THE STAFF 
DIDN'T DO WHAT IT SAID IT WAS GOING TO DO IN THE TIME FRAME 
IT SAID IT WAS GOING TO DO IT.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL RIGHT.
YOU'RE ON RECORD.
COMMISSIONER SHARPE.
>>MARK SHARPE:  WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SPOKE TO EARLIER, WHICH IS THERE IS A 
TIMELINE THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO 
GET -- TO BE INJURED AS A RESULT OF OUR REQUEST FOR YOUR 
DELAY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT I DON'T WANT TO ALLOW IS 
A TIMELINE TO PUSH US INTO A BAD RULE, SO LET'S JUST DO IT 
RIGHT.
WE RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU'VE SAID AND WILL TAKE THAT INTO 
CONSIDERATION.
LET'S TRY TO -- LET'S TRY TO DO IT IN THE TIME WE ASKED 
ORIGINALLY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE 
PURPOSE OF THIS IS NOT TO MEET A TIME SCHEDULE BUT TO 
IMPROVE THE RULE.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  COMMISSIONER FERLITA.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  THAT'S MY SENTIMENT TOO, MR. TSCHANTZ.
WE'VE GIVEN YOU SOME EXTRA UNDUE BURDEN HERE.
WE WOULD PREFER -- IF YOU'RE NOT READY AT THAT POINT, I 
WOULD RATHER YOU COME BACK WITH A GOOD PROPOSAL AND A GOOD 
COMPROMISE AS OPPOSED TO A PREMATURE, NOT-SO-GOOD 
COMPROMISE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
DO THE BEST YOU CAN, BUT IF THE TIME ISSUE IS A PROBLEM, I 
THINK WE SHOULD BE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT.
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  THANK YOU.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  MR. ZODROW, WERE YOU TRYING TO GET MY 
ATTENTION DURING THE MEETING?
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE SIGNALING ME 
YOU WANTED TO SPEAK OR NOT.
NEXT ITEM IS THE HYBRID REPORT FROM --
>>RICK GARRITY:  COMMISSIONERS, I -- JUST FOR THE SAKE OF 
TIME, I WAS GOING TO GO OVER THE SPREADSHEET THAT'S IN YOUR 
AGENDA AND BASICALLY TELL YOU THAT WE'RE KEEPING ALL THE 
TIMELINES.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>RICK GARRITY:  I DON'T THINK I NEED TO GO OVER ALL THOSE 
DETAILS.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  OKAY.
LOCAL BILLS.
OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION OF LOCAL BILLS, PLEASE.
>>RICHARD TSCHANTZ:  COMMISSIONERS, WE HAD LOCAL BILLS 1 
AND 3 THAT DEALT WITH THE MAKEUP OF THE COMMISSION ON THE 
AGENDA ONLY FOR YOUR INFORMATION, NOT KNOWING THAT YOU 
WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED IT BEFOREHAND.
WE DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THAT FROM THE STAFF LEVEL.
YOU'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT.
SO LOCAL BILL NUMBER 4, THOUGH, IS THE LEGISLATION THAT 
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ON THIS WETLAND AGRICULTURAL 
ISSUE.
THERE IS A DECEMBER 7th MEETING BEFORE THE LOCAL 
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.
DR. GARRITY AND I WOULD LIKE TO APPEAR THERE AND SPEAK IN 
OPPOSITION TO THAT BILL, AND WE WOULD LIKE -- THAT IS THE 
SAME POSITION YOU TOOK ON TUESDAY, SO WE WOULD LIKE THE EPC 
TO ALLOW THIS UNDER OUR LEGISLATIVE POLICY, THAT'S WHAT WE 
HAVE TO DO --
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MOVE THAT REQUEST FOR --
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  IS THERE A SECOND?
>>MARK SHARPE:  SECOND.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ALL IN FAVOR.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
>>RICK GARRITY:  COMMISSIONERS, DEPENDING ON YOUR PLEASURE, 
IT'S BEEN A LONG MEETING SO FAR, WE CAN TAKE THE NEXT THREE 
ITEMS UP AT THE NEXT MONTHLY MEETING UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE 
TO TAKE ONE OF THEM UP NOW.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
>>ROSE FERLITA:  MOTION TO DO THAT NEXT TIME.
>>MARK SHARPE:  [INAUDIBLE]
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE S THERE A 
MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
>>MARK SHARPE:  SO MOVED.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  ONE MINUTE.
DR. GARRITY.
>>RICK GARRITY:  YOU DO HAVE ITEM 10 TO TAKE UP.
>>AL HIGGINBOTHAM:  THANK YOU.
>>ROSE FERLITA:  FUNNY YOU NOTICED THAT.
>>TOM KOULIANOS:  COMMISSIONERS, I'LL BE REAL BRIEF.
THIS IS TOM KOULIANOS, EPC STAFF.
AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, WE DISTRIBUTED EVALUATION FORMS 
FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO COMPLETE AND RETURN TO THE 
CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE.
WE RECEIVED THREE COMPLETED FORMS, AND WE COMPILED THE 
RESULTS IN THE REPORT THAT'S JUST BEING HANDED OUT, AND IN 
THE DIMENSIONS LISTED UNDER ASSESSMENTS, BEHAVIORS, AND 
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF GOALS WE HAVE PUT AN AVERAGE SCORE ON 
THOSE SHEETS.
FOR BEHAVIORS WE HAVE AN AVERAGE SCORE OF 4.59 OUT OF A 
POSSIBLE FIVE, AND UNDER ACCOMPLISHMENT OF GOALS, WE HAVE 
4.21 OUT OF A TOTAL SCORE OF A POSSIBLE FIVE.
IN ADDITION, TWO COMMISSIONERS INDICATED SOME NOTES THAT 
THEY ATTACHED TO THEIR EVALUATION FORMS, AND I HAVE PLACED 
THOSE NOTES ON PAGE 4.
THERE ARE -- THERE IS NO PAY INCREASE INVOLVED WITH THIS 
EVALUATION, AS THE BUDGET PROCESS THIS YEAR ONLY ALLOWED 
FOR A MARKET EQUITY INCREASE, WHICH IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN 
DR. GARRITY'S CONTRACT, TO BE AWARDED THE FIRST PAY PERIOD 
AFTER DECEMBER 1st, SO WE WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO -- IF YOU 
HAVE ANY DISCUSSION -- IF NOT, IF YOU WOULD JUST ACCEPT THE 
EVALUATION AS COMPLETING A REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN DR. 
GARRITY'S CONTRACT THAT HE RECEIVE AN ANNUAL EVALUATION.
>>KEVIN WHITE:  MOVE TO ACCEPT