CAPTIONING JULY 15, 2010 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, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION MEETING. THIS WILL BE A CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE LAST MEETING, THE BOARD VOTED TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESUME WITH BOARD DISCUSSION. AT THIS POINT, MR. TSCHANTZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: JUST PROCEDURALLY, COMMISSIONER, WE DID BEGIN FERTILIZER USE IN LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT RULE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 10th, AND AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS STAFF PRESENTATION, PUBLIC COMMENT WAS TAKEN, AND THEN AS YOU JUST STATED ALL RIGHT PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. HOWEVER, DUE TO THE TIME CONSTRAINTS OF THAT FIRST MEETING, THE BOARD DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON THE VARIOUS OPTIONS OF THE RULE HAD TO BE CONTINUED UNTIL TODAY. SO TODAY'S CONTINUATION IS GOING TO BEGIN WITH BOARD DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS TO STAFF, IF THERE ARE ANY. THE STAFF DOES NOT HAVE A PREPARED PRESENTATION; HOWEVER, MR. TOM ASH HAS PREPARED VARIOUS SLIDES THAT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO QUESTIONS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE. AND IN ADDITION TO STAFF, WE HAVE THE COUNTY CONSULTANT, DR. SCOTT EMERY'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S UP TO BOARD DISCUSSION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: VERY GOOD. WE'LL PROCEED. I'M GOING TO BEGIN BY PASSING THE GAVEL AND WILL MAKE A MOTION, THEN THE BOARD CAN DEBATE THE MOTION. IS THERE A LIGHT ON? I DIDN'T SEE A LIGHT. I'M PASSING THE GAVEL TO THE VICE CHAIRMAN. SO MY MOTION WILL BE QUICK. >>JIM NORMAN: THANK GOD HE'S IN CHARGE. [LAUGHTER] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND IT'S HIGGINBOTHAM AND BECKNER. I WANT TO COMMEND EVERYONE FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE AND THE DEDICATION AND INTEREST THAT WE ALL SHARE -- COMMON INTEREST AND THE BOND THAT WE SHARE IN THE CLARITY OF OUR WATERS HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH, TAMPA BAY, AND NOTHING MEANS MORE TO ME THAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE LONG-TERM PROTECTION AND PROTECTION WITH COMMON SENSE, PROTECTION THAT WILL TAKE US INTO THE NEXT GENERATION. AND WHEN I REVIEW WHERE WE'VE GONE AND WHAT WE'VE HAD TO CONSIDER WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM STAFF, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S ON THE TABLE DOES PROVIDE A REGULATION OR A RULE HERE THAT FAR EXCEEDS DEP. IT REQUIRES THAT SOIL TESTING FOR PHOSPHORUS CONTAINING FERTILIZER, PROHIBITS NITROGEN FOR THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED TURF. EXTENDS TURF WATER BUFFER ZONES. SETS APPLICATION LIMITS FOR LIQUID FERTILIZER. ACCELERATES THE BMP TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE DEADLINES. EXTENDS WEATHER-RELATED -- I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT - - WEATHER-RELATED TO NO FERTILIZER RESTRICTIONS DURING STORM OCCURRENCES. AND ESTABLISHES A MORE RESTRICTIVE NUTRIENT LIMITS FOR ST. AUGUSTINE TURF. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE STRIKE IN SECTION 1-15.04, PARAGRAPH "A," WHICH STATES -- AND I CAN READ THE ENTIRE THING IF YOU LIKE, BUT NO APPLICATOR SHALL APPLY FERTILIZER CONTAINING NITROGEN AND/OR PHOSPHORUS TO TURF DURING THE RESTRICTED SEASON FROM JUNE 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30, BUT LEAVING IN THE MORE RESTRICTIVE ASPECTS OF THIS RULE. SO WITH THAT, I'M MAKING A MOTION. >>KEN HAGAN: I'LL SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION. >>MARK SHARPE: THIS MOTION, THAT WILL BE THE FULL EXTENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YES. WHAT THE STAFF HAS PRESENTED TO US, WITH MY MOTION, IT WOULD STRIKE -- WHEN YOU GO TO PAGE 3 OF 6, AND IT'S 1- 15.04, SUBPARAGRAPH "A." THAT'S NO APPLICATOR SHALL PROVIDE FERTILIZER CONTAINING NITROGEN. IT STRIKES THE BAN. IT KEEPS IN PLACE ALL THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS. >>MARK SHARPE: THERE WERE ELEMENTS OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT HAD CONCERNED ME IN THAT THE -- AND WE TALK ABOUT THE EDUCATION COMPONENT. AND THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS BY SOME MEMBERS ABOUT USING THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PROGRAM, AG'S COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PROGRAM, AND MAYBE EVEN SEEING IF WE COULD USE GRANT MONEY TO ENGAGE IN A MORE AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN OF EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PROPER APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER IN THE YARDS, YOU KNOW, POINT-OF-SALE INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE AT A LOWE'S OR A HOME DEPOT, BUT ALSO USING THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO DOING THAT OR TRYING TO APPLY FOR ANY FORM OF A GRANT THAT COULD BE USED TO PROVIDE EDUCATION TO OUR COMMUNITY REGARDING THIS ISSUE? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: DR. GARRITY. >>RICK GARRITY: YES, COMMISSIONERS. RICK GARRITY. ALONG WITH THE BOARD, THE STAFF FEELS THAT EDUCATION IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND WE WOULD DO EVERYTHING UNDER OUR POWER TO SEEK GRANT FUNDS. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S, I BELIEVE, $200,000 AVAILABLE TO START WITH FROM THE ESTUARY PROGRAM FOR REGIONAL EDUCATION ON THIS ISSUE, AND THAT'S A GOOD START. AND PLUS OUR OWN SERVICES AT EPC AND COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE WOULD ENGAGE IN AN INTENSIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM. >>MARK SHARPE: ONE OF THE THINGS I SAW -- I CHAIR, YOU KNOW, TAMPA BAY WATER, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING AGGRESSIVELY TO TRY TO -- OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS -- TO REDUCE THE USE OF POTABLE WATER FOR LAWNS AND SUCH. BUT WHAT I FOUND IS THAT THE EDUCATION COMPONENT AND GETTING THE COMMUNITY TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE HAS MADE US PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST WATER-CONSCIOUS COMMUNITIES IN THE NATION. AND MY CONCERN HAS BEEN -- AND I SAID THIS KIND OF LEADING TOWARDS THAT WHEN I HAD THE CONVERSATION AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, THAT THIS SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF REGULATION FOR A SOLUTION THAT REALLY IMPACTS ONE-QUARTER OF 1% WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT, POTENTIALLY, THAT COULD BE TAKEN OUT. AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A LENGTHY DEBATES TODAY, BUT WE'RE TALKING 30 TONS OR 60 TONS OR 80 TONS THAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY COME AS A RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE YARD, THAT IT STILL WORKS OUT STATISTICALLY SPEAKING TO THE 10,000 TONS A YEAR OF LESS THAN 1%. AND IF WE LITERALLY GAVE EVERYBODY POOPER-SCOOPERS AND TOOK THE POOP OUT OF FOLKS' YARDS, WE COULD ACTUALLY AFFECT MORE THAN 8% OF THE FERTILIZER. IN FACT, I UNDERSTAND THAT SARASOTA AND OTHERS ARE LOOKING AT ANIMAL WASTE FROM PETS AND THE IMPACT THAT HAS ON THE NITROGEN LOAD IN THE WATERWAYS. SO I'M JUST VERY, VERY HESITANT TO -- IN FACT, NOT HESITANT -- WON'T SUPPORT ANY ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS WHICH ARE GOING TO AFFECT STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NITROGEN. I WOULD PREFER THE EDUCATION, A STRONG, AGGRESSIVE, PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM TO EXPLAIN TO THE CITIZENS HOW TO APPLY IT. I ALSO WANT TO ASK ABOUT A STUDY. HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING A STUDY WHERE WE COULD LOOK AT NOT JUST WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND FOLLOW AND ANALYZE OUR PROGRAM TO SEE AND MEASURE THE IMPACT SO THAT AS WE DO MOVE FORWARD AND WE ADJUST OUR -- WHATEVER WE ULTIMATELY DECIDE TO DO HERE TODAY, THAT WE CAN BASE OUR DECISIONS ON FACTS AND SCIENCE AND DATA AND NOT ON A LOT OF SUPPOSITION? >>RICK GARRITY: YES, COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE GIVEN SOME CONSIDERATION TO A STUDY, AND IN FACT, OUR TECHNICAL TEAM CONSISTING OF TOM ASH AND SCOTT EMERY HAVE BOTH BEEN WORKING ON THAT CONCEPT, AND SCOTT HAS PUT SOME THOUGHTS TOGETHER. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN HAVE HIM COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND GO OVER THAT. I WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH THE STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. I KNOW IT'S A SMALL NUMBER. IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN THAT WAY. BUT THE 30 TONS IS MORE -- IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE A GLASS THAT'S FULL OF WATER BUT NOT OVERFLOWING, THAT'S THE CONDITION OF TAMPA BAY WITH NITROGEN. IT'S NOT OVERFLOWING, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING 17 TONS A YEAR OUT OF THE BAY, AND THAT'S KEEPING US IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN THAT WAY, 17 TONS OR 30 TONS OR 84 TONS IS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT TO COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE TO PAY MONEY TO IMPLEMENT PROJECTS TO KEEP US IN REGULATORY COMPLIANCE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WE OUGHT TO FOCUS -- SINCE 40% IS A CONCERN, MAYBE WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON THESE THAT ARE BIGGER POLLUTERS AND SEND OUR DIRECTION OF CONCERN TOWARDS THEM RATHER THAN AN AREA WHERE WE -- IT'S NOT AS SIGNIFICANT. BUT I SEE THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER FERLITA WHO WILL SPEAK NEXT. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE SOME OTHER COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE AS WE GO ALONG THIS CONVERSATION, BUT -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: CERTAINLY. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- JUST GO BACK TO THE MOTION THAT YOU MADE RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX HERE, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE TRANSCRIPT WHEN WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS AND WHAT WE WANTED TO DO, AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE GOING TO PASS THE GAVEL, MAKE A MOTION, AND THEN I THINK MR. NORMAN SAID ROSE, WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION SINCE YOU ARE OKAY WITH IT AND I'LL SECOND IT. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION THAT I AGREED TO IN HERE, WHAT IT SAYS IS TO INCORPORATE THE -- AND MR. TSCHANTZ, FOLLOW ME SO THAT I'M -- I'M SURE THAT THIS WAS ACCURATE. WE WILL ASK THE STAFF TO INCLUDE, AS THEY DRAFT THE LOCAL RULE, TO INCORPORATE THE ESTUARY SUGGESTION AS WELL AS THE ORANGE COUNTY MODEL AND WORK WITH THE CONSENSUS, MAKING SURE WE HAVE CLEAR NOTIFICATION TO THOSE WHO ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC, SCIENCE INDUSTRY, AND CONCERNED CITIZENS. SO THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IS BASICALLY THIS, AND I THINK WE GAVE DIRECTION TO EPC TO WORKSHOP THAT. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS REALLY REMOTE FROM THIS AND OFF TO THE RIGHT OF OPTION 4 INTO THE STATE SUGGESTION. AND THAT, NOWHERE, WAS IN MY MOTION THAT WAS SUPPORTED IN TERMS OF WORKSHOPS AND OFFERING THOSE AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN ON. SO I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT WASN'T ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE MOTION OR THE DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT. SO BRINGING THAT IN NOW AND HAVING NOT HAD THE PUBLIC HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, IT'S CERTAINLY CONTRARY TO THE MOTION THAT I MADE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU, MS. FERLITA. MR. TSCHANTZ, AS WE DISCUSSED ON TUESDAY, THIS MOTION WAS OPEN TO ANY LINES OR LANGUAGE TO BE ADDRESSED OR CHANGED IN ANY MANNER BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THE SCOPE OF OUR DISCUSSION. THAT'S WHAT YOU SHARED WITH ME AND DR. GARRITY ON TUESDAY IN OUR FINAL BRIEFING BEFORE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. BUT MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT PREPARED TO RELINQUISH THE FLOOR YET, AND MY QUESTION WAS AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, WHAT WAS YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT MY MOTION WAS? IT DIDN'T SAY BRINGING IN ANY OTHER OPTIONS. YOU WERE GIVEN A DIRECTION BY US, AND THE MOTION PASSED, TO LOOK AT THIS, LOOK AT THESE OPTIONS, HAVE PEOPLE FOR AND AGAINST TO LOOK AT THOSE, AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SECOND OPTION BY MODIFICATION BY THE CHAIRMAN THAT REALLY DOESN'T MIMIC ANY OF THESE. NOW, WHETHER YOU ALL WERE ABLE TO INTERPRET WHAT YOU WANTED FROM MY MOTION, THE MOTION WAS CLEAR. IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. AND IT SPECIFICALLY LISTED THE OPTIONS THAT WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT, FROM OPTION 1 ALL THE WAY TO OPTION 4. IT'S ALMOST LIKE I'M DEBATING WHAT MY MOTION WAS. I KNOW WHAT MY MOTION WAS. MY MOTION WAS NOT WHAT THE CHAIRMAN'S COMING UP WITH. SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, I AM JUST SAYING, AGAIN, WHETHER WE SUPPORT ONE SIDE, THE OTHER SIDE, SOMETHING IN BETWEEN, MY CONSIDERATION IS ALWAYS FAIRNESS, AND THAT'S KIND OF LIKE A NEW WAY THAT WE'RE GOING. I'D BE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED IF I WERE SITTING OUT THERE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: RIGHT. AND AS MR. TSCHANTZ PREPARES TO ANSWER YOU, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN THE STAFF WOULD HAVE COME BACK WITH THE OPTION OF DELETING THAT LANGUAGE AND ADDRESS THAT IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAD AND WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE LAST MEETING. OTHERWISE, I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THAT MOTION. BUT YOU DIDN'T TAKE THAT OUT, SO THAT'S STILL THERE. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: WELL, COMMISSIONER, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS A NOTICING ISSUE. IT'S NOT THAT WE COULDN'T -- WE COULDN'T GET TO THIS RESULT. IT'S JUST CAN WE GET TO IT TODAY? AND IN THE RULE, WE PUT OPTIONS IN THERE THAT WOULD COVER THE ENTIRE RANGE OF THE FOUR OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE CHART THAT'S BEFORE YOU. AND THEN ON PAGE 4 OF 6 OF THE RULE, WE HAD, IN RED, EVERY PLACE WHERE YOU COULD PUT IN OPTIONS OR TAKE OUT OPTIONS. THE OPTION TO STRIKE 1-15.04 "A" WAS NOT ONE OF THE PROPOSED OPTIONS BY THE STAFF. WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAD PUBLISHED. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YOU HAVE IT EVERYWHERE ELSE HERE, SIR. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: WHAT THAT DOES IS IT REMOVES ALL BANS OF ANY TYPE, WHICH IS MORE LIKE THE STATE MODEL THAT JUST SAYS DO NOT APPLY NITROGEN IF IT'S GOING TO RAIN. AND SO WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AS A PROPOSAL FOR TODAY. SO I'M NOT SAYING WE COULDN'T GET THERE, BUT MY OPINION WOULD BE IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURE FROM WHAT THE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS WERE GEARED TO AND WHAT OUR PUBLIC NOTICE WAS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: MR. TSCHANTZ, YOU SHOULD HAVE ADVISED ME OF THAT IN OUR BRIEFING, AND DR. GARRITY AS WELL. YOU DIDN'T. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: I BELIEVE I DID. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: NO YOU DIDN'T, NO, SIR. I TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY MY QUESTION AND YOUR ANSWER. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: THERE'S A RANGE OF OPTIONS. >>ROSE FERLITA: GENTLEMEN, YOU ALL ARE DEBATING THIS, AND EXCUSE ME, BOTH SIDES. MY ISSUE WAS SIMPLY THAT I WAS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, AND THIS REALLY IS NOT ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WAS STATED IN MY MOTION, AND I HAVE A CONCERN, JUST LIKE YOU STATED, IN TERMS OF A NOTICING ISSUE. I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU GUYS DISCUSSED IN YOUR PRIVATE OFFICE, BUT ALL I'M SAYING IS BASED ON WHAT PEOPLE ANTICIPATED US TO WEIGH IN ON TODAY FOR OR AGAINST, SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE OPTIONS, AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FAIRNESS AND NOTICING. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION ON BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST STARTED HEARING THE MOTION, IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO ME, IT WAS TALKING ABOUT STRIKING AND I HAD TO GET TO THE RULE TO START READING THIS. SO IN ESSENCE, WHAT THE MOTION IS IS -- REALLY RESEMBLES -- AND IF I HEARD MR. TSCHANTZ RIGHT -- AND I'M PRETTY SURE I DID -- THAT THIS WOULD BE JUST REALLY ADOPTING THE FDEP MODEL THAT WOULD HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS, NO BANS. IT WOULD HAVE, REALLY, NOTHING IN PLACE THAT WOULD GET TO ANYWHERE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED. IS THAT RIGHT? >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: YEAH, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S AMONG THESE OPTIONS THAT WAS WORKSHOPPED OR NOTICED. >>KEVIN BECKNER: YEAH, AND THAT, I THINK, AGAIN, THE PUBLIC WEIGHED IN ON THIS. THEY PARTICIPATED IN MEETINGS. AND YOU KNOW, STAFF SPENT A LOT OF TIME COMING UP WITH DIFFERENT OPTIONS. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER HERE WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION. DR. GARRITY. >>RICK GARRITY: COMMISSIONER, THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPTION 4, WHICH IS THE ORANGE COUNTY ALTERNATIVE, AND THE STATE MODEL IS THAT ORANGE COUNTY DOES HAVE AN APPLICATION BAN. BUT DURING THE SUMMER, DURING THE SAME FOUR MONTHS AS THE ESTUARY PROGRAM OPTION. BUT THEN THEY EXEMPT CERTIFIED, TRAINED APPLICATORS, AND THEY ALSO EXEMPT CERTIFIED HOMEOWNERS. SO THEY TREAT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THE STATE MODEL HAS NO -- NO RESTRICTED SUMMERTIME PERIOD, EXCEPT THEY SAY DON'T FERTILIZE IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE HEAVY RAIN. >>KEVIN BECKNER: ALL RIGHT. AND SO, AGAIN, JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THIS, THEN, IT'S SOUNDING LIKE WHEN WE'RE STRIKING THE ONE PART OF THE RULE THAT THE CHAIRMAN POINTED TO, THAT IN ESSENCE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS ON USE IN THE RAINY SEASONS AT ALL. IS THAT RIGHT? >>RICK GARRITY: YOU'D HAVE THE STATE MODEL, WHICH SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD NOT FERTILIZE IF YOU ANTICIPATE HEAVY RAIN. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL WE WOULD HAVE IN THERE; IS THAT CORRECT? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: NO, IT GOES WELL BEYOND THAT. IT'S EVEN STATED. IF I CAN STEP IN HERE. FROM YOUR OWN LANGUAGE, I MEAN, IT'S MUCH STRICTER THAN THE STATE MODEL. REQUIRES SOIL TESTING FOR PHOSPHORUS-CONTAINING FERTILIZERS. NOT IN THE STATE MODEL. PROHIBITS NITROGEN FERTILIZER FOR THE FIRST -- PROHIBITS NITROGEN FERTILIZER FOR THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF NEWLY ESTABLISHED TURF. EXTENDS SURFACE WATER BUFFER ZONES FROM 3 TO 10 FEET. SETS APPLICATION LIMITS FOR LIQUID FERTILIZERS. THIS IS MORE STRINGENT THAN THE DEP MODEL. ACCELERATES THE DEP TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE DEADLINES. EXTENDS WATER-RELATED -- WEATHER-RELATED NO FERTILIZER RESTRICTIONS, MEANING IF WE HAVE A STORM OCCURRENCE, TROPICAL STORM OR HURRICANE, THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE STRICT, WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM STAFF. AND THEN LAST IS MORE RESTRICTIVE NUTRIENT LIMITS ON ST. AUGUSTINE TURF. SO IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW, AND I'M GLAD FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, BUT STILL, I THINK TODAY, FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE PUBLIC HAS AN EXPECTATION AS I HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT WE WERE GOING TO DEBATE THE FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE, SO I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT WOULD BE ON THE TABLE. NOW, GETTING TO SOME OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR STAFF. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF NITROGEN, WE TALK ABOUT - - YOU KNOW, IT'S ESTIMATED THAT BY FOLLOWING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WE'LL MOVE ROUGHLY ABOUT 30 TONS OF NITROGEN FROM OUR WATERWAYS. CAN MR. ASH OR YOU GO INTO YOUR EXPLANATION, AGAIN, AS FAR AS HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR REGION, THE TAMPA BAY, HOW IT WOULD IMPACT US ENVIRONMENTALLY AS WELL AS FINANCIALLY? >>TOM ASH: GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. TOM ASH, EPC STAFF. I AM PREPARED TO GET INTO THAT FOR YOU. THE -- AND I APOLOGIZE, SINCE WE'RE KIND OF DOING THIS ON THE FLY, I NEED TO COME DOWN HERE ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE -- THANK YOU. NOW I CAN'T SEE IT AT ALL. THE IDEA HERE IS, AS DR. GARRITY HAD EXPLAINED, COMMISSIONER, THAT IF YOU LOOK AT TAMPA BAY AS A GLASS THAT IS FULL, RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT OUR PERMITTED CAPACITY. ACTUALLY, WE'RE BEYOND -- TECHNICALLY BEYOND OUR PERMITTED CAPACITY FOR NUTRIENTS INTO TAMPA BAY AND ITS CONVEYANCES, ITS TRIBUTARIES. IF YOU IMAGINE THAT, AS DR. GARRITY SAID, ALL WE NEED TO DO TO KEEP UP WITH THE PROJECTED GROWTH IS KEEP OR REMOVE, BUT PREFERABLY KEEP FROM ENTERING THE ESTUARY AND ITS TRIBUTARIES THAT 17 TONS PER YEAR, THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REALIZE THE BAY IMPROVEMENTS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP PACE WITH THAT AND STILL ALLOW SOME MODERATE GROWTH. IF WE LOOK AT THE 30 TONS IN RELATION TO THAT 17 TONS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT -- AND THAT GOT REALLY SKEWED OUT OF THERE. SORRY. BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WE COULD HAVE -- THE 30 TONS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT FIVE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CURRENTLY OPERATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS. THE ONES LISTED HERE ARE JUST A HANDFUL OF THOSE THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE BAY. BUT FIVE FULL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS THAT, ALL TOLD, WILL CONTRIBUTE OVER 30 TONS. IF YOU LOOK AT IT ANOTHER WAY, AS FAR AS BUSINESSES GOES AND INDUSTRY GOES, THE BUSINESSES LISTED HERE, THEY CONTRIBUTE -- ALL TOLD, TEN BUSINESSES CONTRIBUTE JUST LESS THAN 30 TONS OF NUTRIENTS INTO THE BAY. IF I CAN GET THAT TOTAL ON THERE. SO THE REALITY IS THAT JUST -- EVEN THOUGH IT MAY SOUND SIGNIFICANTLY INSIGNIFICANT OR STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT AND IT MAY SOUND LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF NITROGEN, 30 TONS IS A GREAT DEAL OF NITROGEN. JUST TO HOLD THE LINE NUMBER OF 17 TONS IS A LOT. THE 30 TONS WOULD ALLOW THESE TEN BUSINESSES, AFTER TMDLs ARE IN PLACE, WOULD ALLOW THESE BUSINESSES TO GET THEIR OPERATING PERMITS AND BRING THEIR BUSINESSES INTO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. IT WOULD ALLOW THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO EXPAND ON THEIR WASTEWATER TREATMENT TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE GROWTH IN THE COUNTY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEN, IS WE ARE AT MAXIMUM CAPACITY RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE NUTRIENTS BY REGULATIONS THAT CAN BE IN OUR BAY? >>TOM ASH: THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THROUGH THE WORK OF MANY, MANY SCIENTISTS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PRIVATE INDUSTRIES THROUGHOUT THE TAMPA BAY AREA, WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE NITROGEN MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM, WE HAVE WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, EPA AND DEP, WHAT IS KNOWN AS A REASONABLE ASSURANCE DOCUMENT. THOSE ENTITIES HAVE CONVINCED THE REGULATORY -- STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES THAT WE ARE DOING -- WE'RE ON THE RIGHT COURSE, WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THINGS, AND WE ARE STILL ABLE TO KEEP TAMPA BAY KEEPING UP WITH THOSE LOADS BY JUST DOING WHAT WE ARE STILL DOING AND WHAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO. IF WE STOP DOING THOSE THINGS AND WE ALLOW MORE NUTRIENTS INTO THE BAY AND WE DON'T ACCOMMODATE FOR THOSE EXTRA NUTRIENTS, THEN WE RUN THE RISK OF NOT GIVING THOSE AGENCIES REASONABLE ASSURANCE. AT THAT POINT, THOSE AGENCIES WOULD LIKELY PUT A TMDL ON THE BAY PROPER. RIGHT NOW, IT DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN TMDL BECAUSE OF THAT REASONABLE ASSURANCE DOCUMENT. SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE'RE PRECLUDING OR PREVENTING US FROM ENTERING INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE COULD VERY WELL FACE -- WE BEING THE COUNTY -- FACE FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR VIOLATING OUR FUTURE TMDLs. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO THEN WHAT I'M ALSO HEARING YOU'RE SAYING IS WE CAN THEN NOT ATTRACT NEW INDUSTRIES HERE BECAUSE OF THE MAXIMUM LOADS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY AT WITHOUT FACING PENALTIES FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT? >>TOM ASH: CORRECT. IF YOU THINK OF IT AS AN ELEVATOR CAR, IF THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH ROOM ON THE CAR, IF SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO COME INTO OUR COMMUNITY AND TRY TO GET ON THAT ELEVATOR CAR, SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO GET OFF. >>KEVIN BECKNER: ALL RIGHT. SO, THEN, BOTTOM LINE IS, WE ARE -- BY NOT TAKING ANY TYPE OF ACTION OR AT LEAST THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO REMOVE NITROGEN FROM OUR BAY, WE ARE STUNTING JOB GROWTH AND WE ARE STUNTING INDUSTRY GROWTH HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY? >>TOM ASH: CORRECT, AND IT'S STAFF'S OPINION THAT THIS IS THE EASIEST AND LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION FOR THE COUNTY TO MOVE FOR AND HELP DO THAT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: GREAT. AND I SEE MR. GORDON IS HERE FROM PUBLIC WORKS. MR. GORDON, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU THAT HAS TO DO WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS SYSTEM AND OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM. >>BOB GORDON: YES, SIR. >>KEVIN BECKNER: CAN YOU COMMENT AS FAR AS WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS SYSTEM IF WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO CREATE ADDITIONAL STORMWATER SYSTEMS AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THE COUNTY FINANCIALLY IF WE DID NOTHING TO REMOVE ADDITIONAL NITROGEN LOAD FROM OUR BAYS? >>BOB GORDON: THE BEST ESTIMATES THAT WE HAVE AT THIS POINT ARE, JUST FOR THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION ALONE, ANYWHERE FROM $40,000 TO $200,000 PER TON OF NITROGEN REMOVAL. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OPERATING COST. A LOT OF THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OUT THERE TO REMOVE NITROGEN ONCE NOTICE THE SYSTEM REQUIRES A LOT OF OPERATING EXPENSE AS WELL, SO IT WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON THIS COUNTY, AND IT'S BASICALLY THE 900-POUND GORILLA THIS COUNTY IS FACING IS GOING TO BE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO MINIMIZE THOSE COSTS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND AS FAR AS SYSTEM CAPACITY RIGHT NOW, IF WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOTHING NOW, WHAT WILL WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR AS FAR AS INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASING LOADS OF NITROGEN IN OUR BAY? >>BOB GORDON: WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A GOOD HANDLE ON WHAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THAT IS, BUT IT WILL PROBABLY EXCEED WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PAYING FOR JUST FLOOD PREVENTION. THE WATER QUALITY ASPECT THAT'S GOING TO BE UPON US, THE NUTRIENT LOADS, THE IMPAIRED WATER BODIES, IMPROVING ALL THOSE, IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE EXPENSE. I DON'T HAVE A DOLLAR FIGURE FOR YOU YET, BUT IT WILL PROBABLY EXCEED OUR CURRENT STORMWATER CAPITAL PROGRAM. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. MR. GORDON? SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS MOTION, IF IT PASSES, IS GOING TO COST -- THIS MOTION IS GOING TO COST BETWEEN $40 MILLION AND $200 MILLION? >>BOB GORDON: NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE SAID. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. SO IT'S NOT SOLE CONTRIBUTOR? >>BOB GORDON: OF COURSE NOT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: LOOKING AT THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, OPTION 4 AND OPTION 3 -- AND LET ME STATE BEFORE I GET TO THE QUESTIONS, I ABSOLUTELY SHARE IN COMMISSIONER BECKNER'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE NITROGEN LOAD, THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BEGIN TO LEVY FINES AGAINST COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T REMOVE NITROGEN FROM THE WATERWAYS, THE IMPACT OF NITROGEN ON OUR WATERWAYS, THE ALGAE BLOOMS AND THAT IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE. I GET ALL THAT. MY CONCERN HAS BEEN AND REMAINS THAT -- OUR FOCUS. AND I'M -- MY QUESTIONS MIGHT SOUND LEADING, BUT STILL IT GETS TO IF WE'RE GOING TO -- IF WE'RE GOING TO APPLY A LARGE NUMBER OF REGULATIONS ON OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T ENFORCE, UNLESS WE THEN -- UNLESS OUR JOBS PROGRAM IS TO HIRE ENFORCERS TO ENFORCE IT -- AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S IT -- WE'VE GOT TO FIND A PROGRAM WHERE THE COMMUNITY BUYS IN. MY PROBLEM IS I DON'T SEE COMMUNITY BUY-IN RIGHT NOW. I SEE A LOT OF FRUSTRATION AND ANGER. IF YOU READ FROM MR. BRONSON'S LETTER AND OTHERS, THAT THE ACTIONS WE TAKE POTENTIALLY COULD DO MORE HARM TO OUR YARDS, CREATING MORE RUNOFF THAT WOULD THEN GO INTO THE BAY. I ALSO, WHEN I LOOK AT THE CONTRIBUTORS OF THE 20% WHICH COMES FROM RESIDENTIAL, PET WASTE, CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT ACCOUNT FOR ALMOST 16% OF THE 20%. AND LET'S JUST LOOK -- LET'S GO BACK TO OPTION 4. WHAT PERCENT OF NITROGEN IS THE -- WOULD OPTION 4 -- WHICH HAS NO SALES RESTRICTION, DOES HAVE A [INDISCERNIBLE]. HOW MUCH NITROGEN DOES OPTION 4 REMOVE FROM THE WATERWAYS? WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO SEE ON OPTION 4? >>TOM ASH: COMMISSIONER, WE DON'T HAVE NUMBERS FOR ANYTHING BEYOND OPTION 1. WHAT THE ESTUARY PROGRAM HAD MODELED WAS FOR A FERTILIZER RULE THAT HAD A SEASONAL RESTRICTION -- APPLICATION RESTRICTION AND A SEASONAL BAN, AND THAT'S WHERE THE 30 TONS COMES FROM. WITH A 50% COMPLIANCE RATE. SO BEYOND THAT OR MOVING FARTHER TOWARDS OPTION 2, OPTION 3, OPTION 4 -- >>MARK SHARPE: SO WE CAN'T REALLY MEASURE THE EFFICACY OF OPTION 4 TO OPTION 1 BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE NUMBER? >> CORRECT. >>MARK SHARPE: WHAT ABOUT OPTION 3, THE HOMEOWNERS RESTRICTED, COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS EXEMPT, THE SAME THING, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT WILL REMOVE. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA -- THE STATE GAVE US A MODEL ORDINANCE WHICH IS BEING DEBATED. DID THEY GIVE US A MODEL ORDINANCE THAT'S NOT GOING TO REMOVE ANY NITROGEN FROM THE BAY? DID THEY COME FORWARD WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT THEY WANT US TO PASS THAT KEEPS EVERYTHING AS IT IS -- NOT KEEPS EVERYTHING AS IT IS -- IS INEFFECTIVE? >>TOM ASH: THE STATE IS IN THE SAME BOAT WE ARE IN, COMMISSIONER, WHERE SINCE THE ORDINANCE IS FAIRLY NEW AS WELL, THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH WOULD BE REMOVED BY THE STATE MODEL. >>MARK SHARPE: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE STATE MODEL ORDINANCE MIGHT REMOVE NITROGEN FROM THE WATER? >>TOM ASH: YES, IT IS. >>MARK SHARPE: AGAIN, MY CONCERN IS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, LOOKING AT WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO WITH WATER, WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD BEFORE WE STARTED WITH THE RESTRICTIONS, AND WE SAID LOOK, THIS BOARD'S DONE THIS BEFORE. WE HAVE A -- WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF DRY SEASON, DROUGHT. WE ARE ASKING THE COMMUNITY TO WORK WITH US TO DIMINISH THE AMOUNT OF WATER EACH HOMEOWNER USES, AND WE SAW A DRAMATIC DECLINE IN WATER USAGE AMONG HOMEOWNERS. IT WAS -- WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT -- AND I KNOW THERE'S -- I DON'T SUSPECT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT SOMETIMES THERE'S A WAY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYEES DOING IT, AND THERE'S A WAY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM WHERE YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYEES DOING IT. I'M PREFERRING RIGHT NOW TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO RESOLVE THIS WHERE THE COMMUNITY IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BUDGET CRISIS AS WELL. SO IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO BEGIN THIS PROCESS BY REALLY EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, USING EVERY RESOURCE AVAILABLE, THAT LOOK, IT'S NOT NECESSARY DURING THE RAINY SEASON TO APPLY AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER IN YOUR YARD, THAT IN FACT, WE ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO APPLY IT BEFORE WE EXPECT A MAJOR RAIN, THAT WE ENCOURAGE THE STORES, PERHAPS, TO BEGIN USING WHAT WE'RE ALREADY SEEING NOW, A FLORIDA FERTILIZER, WHICH HAS A LOT LESS NITROGEN THAN WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST. IN FACT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS -- ISN'T THAT TRUE? -- DID THEY NOT CHANGE THE MIX FOR FERTILIZER SEVERAL YEARS AGO? IS THAT TRUE? >>RICK GARRITY: YES, COMMISSIONER, THEY CHANGED THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS AND THE MIX. >>MARK SHARPE: IN THAT MIX, WAS THERE LESS NITROGEN? >>TOM ASH: YES, COMMISSIONER, THERE WAS. >>MARK SHARPE: AS A RESULT OF THAT, WAS THERE LESS NITROGEN GOING INTO THE BAY? >>TOM ASH: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES CANNOT GIVE US THAT DATA, NO, SIR. >>MARK SHARPE: SO WE ARE REALLY KIND OF DATA LACKING RIGHT NOW? >>TOM ASH: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THIS TODAY, AND I'M WILLING TO -- TO LISTEN TO ALL THE OPTIONS, BUT MY CONCERN IS THIS. BEFORE I JUMP WITHOUT ANY DATA, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE PICK OPTION 4 OR OPTION 3 WHAT THE RESULTS MIGHT BE, THE ONLY OPTION WE REALLY THINK WE HAVE ANY DATA ON IS OPTION 1, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE 30 TONS, WHICH IS LESS THAN ONE- QUARTER -- LESS THAN ONE-QUARTER OF 1% OF THE TOTAL PROBLEM, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE GOVERNMENT AT ITS WORST. WE WANT TO PUT A LOT OF REGULATION OUT THERE. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE IMPACT ON IT. AND IT'S GOING TO AFFECT LESS THAN ONE-QUARTER OF 1%, BUT IT'S GOING TO AFFECT A LOT OF JOBS. SO I WOULD PREFER TO FIND A WAY TO MAYBE AFFECT 5% OR 8%. I WAS PREPARED WHEN WE STARTED THIS, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN APPLICATION BAN AND THEY WERE SAYING 20%. WELL, OKAY, AN APPLICATION BAN AFFECTING 20%, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON BUSINESS. BUT I'M PREPARED BECAUSE OF THE COST AND THE ISSUES COMMISSIONER BECKNER BROUGHT FORWARD TO SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER, I THINK WE BETTER FIND A WAY TO IMPACT A LARGER NUMBER. IF THAT'S THE NUMBER BEING RELEASED BY THE CITY OF TAMPA INTO THE BAY, LET'S FOCUS ON THAT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: COMMISSIONER HAGAN. >>KEN HAGAN: I WANT TO GET BACK TO A PROCEDURAL QUESTION OR ISSUE. I THOUGHT THE INTENT OF COMMISSIONER FERLITA'S MOTION LAST MEETING WAS TO BRING BACK OPTIONS, AND WE HAVE THAT HERE. THEN I INTERPRETED COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM'S MOTION TO BE FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH IS OPTION 1, MINUS THE BAN, WHICH STRIKES THE BAN. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MR. TSCHANTZ IS ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT NO CHANGES CAN BE MADE TO ANY OF THESE OPTIONS TODAY? BECAUSE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THIS BOARD HAS OPERATED AS THE COUNTY COMMISSION IN PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS OR ORDINANCES. I THINK WE HAVE MADE CHANGES ON THINGS. SO ARE YOU SAYING TODAY WE CAN'T MAKE CHANGES TO ANY OF THESE OPTIONS? >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING THAT IF -- ON THE FOUR OPTIONS THAT'S LAID OUT ON THE CHART THAT WE SENT TO YOU, THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONS THAT CAN BE MIXED AND MATCHED AND COME UP WITH ONE THAT'S WITHIN THESE PARAMETERS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DIRECTION ON DECEMBER 17th WAS, TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING WITHIN THESE PARAMETERS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE PUBLISHED IN A RULE, IN A NOTICE, AND ATTACHED A RULE THAT HAD ALL THESE INTERCHANGEABLE OPTIONS THAT THE BOARD COULD PICK AND CHOOSE AMONG. THIS ONE, IF YOU'LL NOTICE, IS NOT IN RED AS A REMOVABLE OPTION BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY ALL RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER AS TO APPLICATION OR SALES, WHICH WAS NOT THE DIRECTION THAT THE BOARD GAVE ON DECEMBER 17th. IT'S NOT WHAT THE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS WERE OUT THERE DISCUSSING AMONG THE PUBLIC OR WHAT WAS NOTICED FOR TODAY. THIS KIND OF AN OPTION CAN CERTAINLY BE DONE. I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, LEAD THE BOARD TO THINK THAT IT CAN'T BE. WE COULD RENOTICE THIS, AND WE COULD COME BACK WITH THAT OPTION WHERE YOU WOULD GET INPUT ON IT, BUT THERE WAS NO INPUT ON THIS OPTION BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE DIRECTION WE WERE SENT OUT TO TAKE INPUT ON. >>KEN HAGAN: I'VE GOT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. YOU'RE CONFUSING ME BECAUSE HE MADE THE MOTION FOR OPTION 1. JUST MAKING A CHANGE. CAN CHANGES BE MADE TO THESE OPTIONS? TSCHANTZ IT'S A CHANGE TO TAKE OUT ALL RESTRICTIONS -- >>KEN HAGAN: GRANTED, BUT CAN CHANGES BE MADE TO THESE OPTIONS TODAY? >> [OFF MICROPHONE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT WAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION I ASKED IN BRIEFING. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: WELL, MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT THERE'S A NOTICING ISSUE WITH GOING OFF TO THE OPTION THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS IN IT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT BEEN DISCUSSED OR PUBLISHED. >> [OFF MICROPHONE] >>JIM NORMAN: HAS RAINY SEASON SALES, NO SALES RESTRICTION? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT'S WHY I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT WASN'T NOTICED? >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: YES, BUT YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE IN 4 THERE'S AN APPLICATION RESTRICTION IF YOU GET CERTIFIED. THIS OPTION WOULD TAKE ALL RESTRICTIONS OFF. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. OKAY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IF THAT WAS ANY SURPRISE TO THIS BOARD OR THE PUBLIC, I'VE RECEIVED CLOSE TO A THOUSAND EMAILS FROM PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES SAYING I WANT A BAN, I DON'T WANT A BAN. THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF THIS. IF THAT'S A SURPRISE TO YOU GENTLEMEN TODAY, I'M A LITTLE TAKEN BACK, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, CEAC HAS SAID -- HAS SPOKEN OUT STRONGLY ABOUT THE BAN, BUT COMMISSIONER WHITE IS NEXT. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I GUESS TO OUR EPC STAFF. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO KNOW, MAYBE DR. GARRITY OR SOMEBODY ON THE STAFF, FIRST OF ALL, HOW DO WE ACTUALLY MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN WE ARE PUTTING INTO THE BAY? IT CAN BE MEASURED DIRECTLY, COMMISSIONERS, THROUGH OUR WATER QUALITY SAMPLING, AND ALSO CAN BE MEASURED BY LOADING THAT COMES FROM THE CONTRIBUTORS. THERE ARE OVER 30 CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE NITROGEN MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM. EACH OF THOSE IS ASSIGNED A LOAD, A NITROGEN LOAD TO THE BAY, SO THEY HAVE ALL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEP AND EPA, HAVE ALL AGREED ON THOSE NUMBERS AND WHAT THEIR LOADS ARE. WE APPLAUD THE INDUSTRY FOR COMING OUT AND EVERYBODY WORKING ON THIS ISSUE TOGETHER. SO EACH KNOWS WHAT THEIR CONTRIBUTION IS, AND THEN WHEN YOU ADD THEM ALL UP, YOU GET A FEEL FOR WHAT THE TOTAL LOAD TO THE BAY IS FOR THOSE POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. FOR SOME OF THE LISTENING PUBLIC THAT MAY NOT KNOW, WHAT DOES -- WHAT ARE THE RESULTS TO THE BAY OF EXCESS NITROGEN? >>TOM ASH: WELL, COMMISSIONER, WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE ON THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU IS IN THE SUMMER MONTHS, AGAIN, JUNE THROUGH SEPTEMBER IS OUR RAINY SEASON, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS. TYPICALLY, WE SEE EACH YEAR A BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO THE RAINY SEASON AND THE NUTRIENT LOAD THAT IS CARRIED WITH THE STORMWATER RUNOFF. WE SEE IT IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS CHLOROPHYLL-A, THE PRIMARY PIGMENT IN THE ALGAE. WHEN WE SEE CHLOROPHYLL-A NUMBERS SPIKE LIKE THEY ARE HERE, EVERY YEAR, EVERY SUMMER, DURING THE SAME SUMMER MONTHS, THE FOUR-MONTH TIME PERIOD, THAT'S A BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR THAT THE NUTRIENT LOAD HAS CAUSED AN ALGAE BLOOM OR ALGAE GROWTH TO SPIKE, AND THEN WE SEE THE ADDITIONAL PIGMENT IN THE WATER COLUMN. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS -- COMMISSIONER SHARPE SAID I HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS OF DR. GARRITY AND DR. TSCHANTZ IN OUR BRIEFING. IT'S BEEN STATED THAT OPTION 1, IF WE DO THIS, IT WILL TAKE -- IT WILL ELIMINATE THE 17 MILLION TONS THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO THE BAY. BUT JUST GOING DOWN EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL OPTION, BUT I WAS LOOKING AT OPTION 2, WHICH JUST HAS THE BAN AND THE HOMEOWNER CERTIFICATION AND THE RESTRICTION TO COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS ONLY. I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE THAT WOULD BE, AND FOR SOME REASON, WELL, IT ALLUDES EVERYONE. WE DON'T KNOW. ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS WONDERING, YOU GO FROM ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER, FROM AN ALL TO NONE, WAS A CONCERN. AND NOT HAVING ANY VIABLE NUMBERS OR ANY QUANTIFIABLE DATA TO BACK THAT UP, I HAD SOME CONCERN. BUT I ALSO REALIZED THAT THE HEALTH OF OUR BAY AND THE HEALTH OF OUR ESTUARY SHOULD BE OUR PRIMARY CONCERN. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE THE ECONOMICS OF THIS SITUATION BEING ABLE TO ATTRACT JOBS AND ATTRACT NEW EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF BALANCING ACT HERE THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. BUT THE STAFF HAS GIVEN US NO QUANTIFIABLE DATA TO BACK ANY OF THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS UP OTHER THAN WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DONE. NOW, BASED ON THAT, HAVE ANY OF THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, SINCE THEY HAVE ENACTED THESE TYPES OF ORDINANCES OR BANS, BEEN ABLE TO GIVE US ANY OF THEIR DATA OF WHAT THEIR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS AND NITROGEN LOADS ARE? >>RICK GARRITY: COMMISSIONER, LET ME START, THEN I'LL ASK TOM TO HELP, BUT THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, AND IT KIND OF OPENS US UP TO TALK ABOUT THESE OPTIONS 1 THROUGH 4. OPTION 1 IS THE OPTION THAT THE ESTUARY PROGRAM WORKED ON. IT HAS THE MOST AMOUNT OF CERTAINTY WITH IT. SO THEY WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH ESTIMATES -- THEY'RE STILL ESTIMATES, THOUGH -- BUT ESTIMATES OF NITROGEN REMOVAL, AND IT WAS 30 TONS PER YEAR FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, ANOTHER 10 TONS IF YOU ADD IN THE CITY OF TAMPA. BUT STILL, THOSE ARE ESTIMATES, AND OPTION 1 HAS THE MOST AMOUNT OF CERTAINTY. >>KEVIN WHITE: LET ME JUST STOP YOU THERE, DR. GARRITY. SAY WE WENT WITH THAT PROGRAM RIGHT NOW. WHEN WOULD BE THE FIRST AVAILABLE TIME THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SOME REAL MEASURING TO SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE REDUCTION IN NITROGEN LOAD TO ACTUALLY HAVE SOME QUANTIFIABLE DATA FOR THAT? >>RICK GARRITY: WE CONTINUOUSLY MEASURE THE WATER QUALITY OF THE BAY -- >>KEVIN WHITE: NO, I'M SAYING IF WE ENACTED OPTION 1 RIGHT NOW, WHEN WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THIS -- THIS OPTION HAS REDUCED NITROGEN LOADS BY "X"? >>RICK GARRITY: IT WOULD BE A TRENDS DATA YOU WOULD SEE IN OUR WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN THE BAY. UNLESS YOU ALSO IMPLEMENTED A SITE-SPECIFIC SMOKING GUN TYPE OF STUDY WHERE YOU ACTUALLY WENT OUT TO YARDS AND -- WHICH IS A POSSIBILITY. YOU WENT OUT TO YARDS AND MEASURED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY OF THESE OPTIONS. THAT IS DEFINITELY A POSSIBILITY. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH DR. EMERY ABOUT. BUT THE OTHER OPTIONS -- I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, OPTIONS 2, 3, AND 4 ARE ALL, IN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, STEPS THAT WOULD LEAD TO WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT COMPARED TO THE STATE MODEL, BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT WHAT EACH ONE OF THESE OPTIONS DOES, AND THEY EITHER HAVE SOME SALES RESTRICTIONS OR APPLICATION RESTRICTIONS, OR IN OPTION 4, YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION RESTRICTION BUT WITH KINDS OF FORCED EDUCATION, WHERE YOU SAY TO THE HOMEOWNER, YES, YOU CAN APPLY FERTILIZER IF YOU BECOME CERTIFIED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT ALL OF THESE FERTILIZER CONTAMINATION ISSUES AND YOU GET THE PROFESSIONAL APPLICATORS ALSO CERTIFIED. SO THEY ALL LEAD TO GOOD RESULTS. THERE'S LESS CERTAINTY AND NOBODY'S BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH EXACT ESTIMATES OF NITROGEN REMOVED FROM THESE APPLICATIONS. >>KEVIN WHITE: THAT WAS MY CONCERN, AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK THAT THE PROTECTION OF OUR BAY AND ESTUARY AND OUR WATERWAYS SHOULD BE PARAMOUNT AND FIRST AND FOREMOST. BUT I STILL CAN'T SEE SWITCHING TO THE ABSOLUTE EXTREME WITHOUT HAVING ANY TYPE OF ASSURANCES OTHER THAN -- AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE COULD REALLY END UP IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM AND END UP -- EVEN IF WE WENT WITH OPTION 4, 2, OR 3 -- AND THEN FIND OUT THE WATER QUALITY ONLY IMPROVED BY 5 OR 6 TONS. AM I CORRECT? >>RICK GARRITY: COMMISSIONER, WOULD YOU ALLOW SCOTT EMERY TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF STUDY THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON? >>KEVIN WHITE: PLEASE. AND ALSO ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTION, DID WE HAVE IN I OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED THIS OPTION? HAVE THEY GONE AND DONE ANY QUANTIFIABLE DATA AFTER THAT AND PROVIDED US WITH THEIR RESULTS? >> WE DO HAVE COMMUNITIES SUCH AS SARASOTA, AND THERE ARE OTHER MORE THAN 40 DIFFERENT LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ENACTED ORDINANCES, COMMISSIONER. THEY'RE ALL DOING THE SAME THING THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING, AS THEY'RE TRYING TO TRACK THE PROGRESS. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS SCIENTIFICALLY THAT YOU HAVE IS YOU WANT TO AVOID TAKING A SNAPSHOT OF ONE OR TWO SAMPLING EVENTS AND DRAW TOO MANY CONCLUSIONS FROM THAT. AS DR. GARRITY INDICATED, WATER QUALITY WISE, YOU TEND TO LOOK AT TRENDS, WHETHER THEY BE SHORT-TERM TRENDS OR LONG- TERM TRENDS. BUT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH IN THE SAME BOAT WE ARE IN THAT THEY'RE SEEING -- INITIALLY, THEY'RE SEEING POSITIVE RESPONSES. THERE'S A COMMUNITY, ACTUALLY, IN MICHIGAN IN THE HURON RIVER THAT WAS IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIAL IN THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT THAT DID A VERY SIMILAR PROGRAM TO THIS. IN THEIR CASE, THEIR LIMITING NUTRIENT WAS PHOSPHORUS. AND THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND THEY SAW DRAMATIC REDUCTIONS IN THE NUTRIENT LOADING TO THE RIVER, JUST BASED ON A VERY SIMILAR COMMUNITY FERTILIZER RULE SUCH AS WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. >> I READ THAT STUDY, THOUGH, AND AFTERWARDS THEY SAID THEY WEREN'T SURE IF IT WAS BECAUSE OF A BAN OR THE COMMUNITY GETTING ENGAGED AND RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO REDUCE IT. >> THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE SO MANY VARIABLES YOU CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GOING AFTER LARGER POLLUTERS, LARGER LOADS, INDUSTRIAL SOURCES, CERTAINLY THERE'S PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE JUICE TO BE SQUEEZED FROM THOSE LEMONS, BUT THAT IS A HIGH-COST, A HIGH-DOLLAR SOLUTION. >> MR. EMERY. >>RICK GARRITY: DR. EMERY. >> GOOD MORNING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME'S SCOTT EMERY. I'M AN ADVISOR FOR THE COUNTY AND EPC ON WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY ISSUES. I WAS ASKED BY THE EPC TO EXAMINE POSSIBLE STUDY APPROACHES TO ANSWERING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN REGARDING THE USE OF NITROGEN-BASED FERTILIZERS, ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER RAINY SEASON. WE HAVE DEVELOPED AN OUTLINE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO EXAMINE INDIVIDUAL LAWNS THAT HAVE ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS, ONES THAT ARE CONSIDERED OPTIMALLY HEALTHY, LAWNS THAT ARE CONSIDERED LESS THAN OPTIMALLY HEALTHY, AND LAWNS THAT ARE CONSIDERED IN POOR HEALTH. WE WOULD ACTUALLY SET UP WATER SAMPLING DEVICES THAT WE WOULD COLLECT RUNOFF FROM DURING THE SUMMER RAINY SEASON STARTING NEXT SUMMER. WE WOULD ANALYZE ALL THOSE SAMPLES FOR NITROGEN CONTENT, AND FOR DIFFERENT LAWNS WE WOULD PLACE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SLOW RELEASE AND CONTROLLED RELEASE FERTILIZERS, PUT ON ACCORDING TO IFAS AND DACS RECOMMENDATIONS. WE WOULD HAVE A FEW LAWNS WE WOULD INTENTIONALLY OVERFERTILIZE THOSE TO SEE WHAT TYPE OF RUNOFF WE WOULD GET OFF OF THOSE, AND WE WOULD HAVE A SUBSECTION OF CONTROL LAWNS WE WOULD NOT FERTILIZE AT ALL. WE WOULD MONITOR THE RUNOFF OF THOSE. SAY BY OCTOBER OF NEXT YEAR, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON EXACTLY WHAT AMOUNT AND CONCENTRATIONS OF NITROGEN RUNOFF, ST. AUGUSTINE LAWNS OF VARIOUS HEALTH FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS. >>KEVIN WHITE: ALL RIGHT. DR. GARRITY, THIS IS THE LAST QUESTION, THEN I'LL PASS IT ON. YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE MAXED OUT AT OUR 17 TONS. WELL, IF WE'RE MAXED OUT IN OUR 17 TONS, AT WHAT POINT IN TIME -- NO MATTER WHICH MODEL WE CHOOSE TO ADOPT, AT WHAT POINT IN TIME WILL WE BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR LOAD IS AFTER WHATEVER RESTRICTION WE CHOOSE TO ALLOW -- AS THE ANALOGY WAS, TO LET MORE PEOPLE ON THE ELEVATOR? >>RICK GARRITY: WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT, COMMISSIONER, IS WE ARE JUST BARELY KEEPING OUR NOSE ABOVE WATER IN TAMPA BAY AS FAR AS BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY FOLKS. AND THE REASON THAT OUR HEAD IS ABOVE WATER IS BECAUSE OF A COOPERATIVE REGIONAL APPROACH THAT WE'VE TAKEN OVER THE LAST DECADE WITH THE ESTUARY PROGRAM AND ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES COOPERATING AND COMING TOGETHER TO PUT TOGETHER THE BEST SCIENCE AVAILABLE, THE BEST AVAILABLE WITH THE CONSORTIUM. EVEN WITH THAT, EVEN WITH DOING THAT, IT'S NOT EASY TO CONVINCE THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ENOUGH. THEY'RE EVEN GIVING US A HARD TIME AT THAT. BUT WE SEEM TO BE ABLE TO CONVINCE THEM THAT BY REMOVING THE 17 TONS A YEAR, THAT'S SUFFICIENT. ALL BETS ARE OFF IF THE NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA PASS AND COME DOWN NEXT YEAR, AND I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD FROM YOUR WATER UTILITIES FOLKS ABOUT THE COST OF GOING TO REVERSE OSMOSIS AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, WHICH NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. IT'S JUST AN ASTRONOMICAL COST. SO IT'S HARD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT -- >>KEVIN WHITE: I WAS ABOUT TO SAY -- >>RICK GARRITY: THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS WE'RE KEEPING OUR HEAD ABOVE WATER WITH NITROGEN. WE ARE RIGHT AT THE THRESHOLD. AND WE HAVE TO FIGHT TO STAY THERE. >>KEVIN WHITE: LET ME ASK IT MAYBE ANOTHER WAY. WE ARE AT OUR THRESHOLD. IF WE IMPLEMENT 1, 2, 3, OR 4, AT WHAT POINT IN TIME WILL WE HAVE ENOUGH QUANTIFIABLE DATA THAT WE CAN GO BACK TO THE STATE AND SAY WE'VE REDUCED OUR LOAD 10 TONS, WE'VE REDUCED IT 30 TONS, WE HAVEN'T REDUCED IT AT ALL? >>RICK GARRITY: IF YOU PICK OPTION 1, THE ESTUARY PROGRAM HAS ENOUGH CREDIBILITY WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES THAT THEY CAN -- >>KEVIN WHITE: I REALIZE THAT, BUT THEY ARE NOT JUST GOING TO TAKE THE CREDIBILITY. THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE SOME QUANTIFIABLE DATA, I IMAGINE, NOT JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. >>RICK GARRITY: THE 30 TONS IS BASED ON GOOD SCIENCE, GOOD SCIENTIFIC DATA. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. I'M DONE, MR. CHARITY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. A FEW MORE QUESTIONS HERE. GOING BACK TO COMMISSIONER SHARPE'S POINT, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REMOVING FROM THE BAY, THE ESTIMATED 30 TONS BY DOING OPTION NUMBER 1 -- AND I THINK, COMMISSIONER SHARPE, I TOTALLY SEE YOUR POSITION AND UNDERSTAND THAT LET'S DO WHAT WE CAN TO HAVE A GREATER IMPACT. AND I THINK AS I LOOK AT THIS, IF WE ARE AT OUR MAXIMUM CAPACITY NOW AND WE HAVE REASONABLE DATA TO SUGGEST THAT BY ENACTING THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO REACH THE LEVELS THAT WE NEED TO BE AT TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT -- TO BE ABLE TO -- THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS THAT WOULD ALLOW BUSINESS GROWTH AND OTHER THINGS TO COME IN HERE WITHOUT REACHING LEVELS THAT EXCEED CAPACITY AND EXPOSE US TO REGULATORY FINES, TAKING THAT FIRST STEP, I THINK, WOULD ACHIEVE ONE OF OUR FIRST GOALS. HOWEVER, WE ALSO KNOW THAT THIS IS A STEP THAT IT'S ONLY ONE STEP, IT'S ONLY ONE TOOL THAT WE DO. WE KNOW THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT. WE TALKED ABOUT, FOR INSTANCE, THE BUFFERS YESTERDAY AND GETTING THAT STUDY GROUP GOING ABOUT CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFERS. THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF OUR TOOLS. SO I THINK THAT AT LEAST WITH THE DATA THAT WE HAVE FROM OPTION NUMBER 1, IT'S A START AND IT GETS US SOMEWHERE. IS IT THE END? NO. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR DIFFERENT WAYS TO REMOVE THE EXCESS FROM OUR BAYS UNTIL WE'RE AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS. THAT'S JUST A COMMENT THAT I HAD. QUESTIONS ON -- AND SOMETHING I CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON AND REMAIN VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ARE THE IMPACTS ON BUSINESS. WE TALK ABOUT THAT EXISTING BUSINESS SUCH AS OUR LAWN SERVICES, THE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY, AND ALSO AGRICULTURE. LET ME START WITH AGRICULTURE. CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND JUST RESUMMARIZE FOR MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS TOTALLY EXEMPTS AGRICULTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? >>RICK GARRITY: THIS TOTALLY EXEMPTS AGRICULTURE. IN FACT, AGRICULTURE IS ONE OF THE INDUSTRIES THAT IF NOTHING IS DONE AND WE END UP SHOWING WE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT THE -- THOSE AGENCIES CAN COME DOWN AND ASK AGRICULTURE TO DO EVEN MORE, BUT AGRICULTURE IS EXEMPT FROM THIS REGULATION COMPLETELY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THEN FROM WHAT I ALSO UNDERSTAND, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME MISINFORMATION THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A BAN DURING THE RAINY SEASON, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT FERTILIZER CANNOT BE APPLIED; IS THAT RIGHT? >>RICK GARRITY: THAT'S CORRECT. THERE ARE OTHER PRODUCTS THAT DO NOT HAVE NITROGEN THAT COULD BE APPLIED. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THERE'S IRON-BASED PRODUCTS. THERE'S OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE OUT THERE. >>RICK GARRITY: AND ALSO, THERE ARE CONTROLLED RELEASE PRODUCTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT YOU COULD PLACE BEFORE A SUMMER RESTRICTED PERIOD. IN FACT, WE -- JUST BEFORE THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, WE WERE APPROACHED BY SOME OF THE APPLICATORS WITH A POLYMER COATED UREA PRODUCT AND DISCUSSED THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT. IT SOUNDED LIKE A GREAT PRODUCT THAT WOULD LAST A LONG TIME AND THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE USED RIGHT UP BEFORE THE RESTRICTED PERIOD. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO AS FAR AS THE IMPACT ON THE FERTILIZER BUSINESS, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. IT'S REALLY CHANGING THE BUSINESS MODEL OF WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE SELLING A PARTICULAR PRODUCT THAT MIGHT HAVE A NITROGEN BASE IN IT AS OPPOSED TO NOT HAVING THE ABILITY TO SELL ANY PRODUCTS WHATSOEVER. WOULD THAT BE A FAIR ASSUMPTION? >>RICK GARRITY: I WOULD SAY SO. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO THEN IT'S JUST REALLY A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PRODUCT. SO THERE ARE STILL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FERTILIZER INDUSTRY TO BE ABLE TO PROFIT AND MAKE MONEY DURING THE RAINY SEASON? >>RICK GARRITY: IF YOU GO WITH AN OPTION THAT HAS AN EXEMPTION FOR THE CERTIFIED APPLICATORS, THEN THEIR BUSINESSES WOULD BE OPERATING, AND THEY WOULD -- THEY COULD PUT DOWN SOME NITROGEN DURING THE SUMMER, BUT IT WOULD BE USING THEIR BEST TRAINING TO DO THAT, THE CERTIFICATION TRAINING TO DO THAT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE APPLICATORS OR THE LAWN CARE SERVICES, AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, IT'S REALLY PART OF A CHANGE OF A BUSINESS MODEL AS FAR AS LOOKING AT HOW AND WHEN WE WOULD APPLY DIFFERENT TYPES OF FERTILIZERS? >>RICK GARRITY: YES. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THE QUESTION I HAD, THEN, ON THE SUMMARY, HELP ME -- RESUMMARIZE THIS AGAIN AS FAR AS IF WE ELECT TO ENACT OPTION 1, WHEN -- HOW LONG IS THE STUDY? WHAT WOULD THE STUDY ENTAIL? I KNOW DR. EMERY STARTED TALKING SOMETHING ABOUT A STUDY. COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND SUMMARIZE THAT FOR ME, WHAT THE DETAILS OF THE STUDY WOULD BE AND HOW LONG THAT WOULD LAST? >> SCOTT EMERY. THE STUDY AS IS BEING DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BEGINNING NEXT SPRING AND WOULD GO THROUGH A RAINY SEASON, WOULD LOOK AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF FERTILIZATION PRACTICES ON DIFFERENT HEALTH CATEGORIES OF LAWNS IN THIS AREA. BY OCTOBER OF 2011, NOVEMBER OF 2011, YOU WOULD HAVE SOME RESULTS SHOWING WHAT THE CONCENTRATIONS OF NITROGEN WOULD BE COMING OFF THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF LAWNS WITH THE DIFFERENT FERTILIZER PRODUCTS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO WE WOULD HAVE ONE RAINY SEASON THAT WE WOULD GO THROUGH. IN YOUR OPINION, IS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO STUDY THE IMMEDIATE IMPACTS, OR IS THERE -- OR WOULD YOU RECOMMEND A LITTLE BIT LONGER STUDY? YOU WOULD GET, ACTUALLY, NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS COMING OFF THE LAWNS AT THE END OF THE RAINY SEASON, SO THAT WOULD GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF CONTROLLED AND SLOW- RELEASE PRODUCTS SEEM TO LAST VERSUS WHAT DON'T LAST OVER THAT THREE- TO FOUR-MONTH STAND. WITH REGARD TO IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-TERM HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWN, OBVIOUSLY, ONE SUMMER SESSION WOULD NOT DO THAT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL COST AND WHO WOULD CONDUCT THE STUDY, HAS THAT BEEN DETERMINED? >>RICK GARRITY: LET ME TAKE THAT ONE ON. THE COST -- SCOTT HAS BEEN JUST GREAT WORKING WITH US, AND HE HAS, ON SHORT NOTICE, PUT TOGETHER SOME STUDY CONCEPTS THAT PROBABLY YOU COULD DO WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT FOR IN THE RANGE OF $100,000, AND HE -- SCOTT IS ON THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA THROUGH THE INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, AS WELL AS BEING A CONSULTANT TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND AS FAR AS WHERE THE MONEY WOULD COME FROM, THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE FUNDED THROUGH THE POLLUTION RECOVERY FUND AS A POSSIBILITY OR THROUGH ONE OF THE COUNTY UTILITIES COULD HELP WITH THE FUNDING. >>KEVIN BECKNER: BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS BECAUSE SCIENCE IS SOMETHING WHERE THERE'S THEORIES, THINGS NEED TO BE TESTED, AND THERE ARE MANY ELEMENTS OF THE UNKNOWN, AND THAT'S WHY I'D WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A REALLY COMPREHENSIVE STUDY SO WHATEVER WE DECIDED TO ENACT, WE COULD HAVE SOME DATA TO SAY IS THIS WORKING OR IS THIS NOT? BECAUSE WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE, WE MAY DETERMINE LATER ON THAT PERHAPS MAYBE THAT WASN'T THE RIGHT DECISION AND WE NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. BECAUSE AGAIN, I HAVE A LARGE CONCERN OF HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT BUSINESS IN OUR COMMUNITY, JOBS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A STRONG STUDY COMPONENT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I'LL HAVE. I'LL WAIT TO HEAR THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES' COMMENTS, THEN I'LL COME BACK TO SUMMARIZE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: COMMISSIONER SHARPE IS NEXT, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS STUDY THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED. THE LEADING RESEARCH CENTER IN THE WORLD, IFAS, IS LOCATED HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. HAVE ANY OF THOSE SCIENTISTS -- HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THEM TO DISCUSS THIS STUDY? >> ACTUALLY, EARLY ON, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON THIS ISSUE, I ACTUALLY TALKED TO DR. HOCHMUTH ABOUT HAVING USF AND IFAS GET TOGETHER ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. I WOULD ENVISION HAVING IFAS COME IN TO HELP US DETERMINE THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A HEALTHY LAWN VERSUS AN AVERAGE LAWN VERSUS AN UNHEALTHY LAWN. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: RIGHT. AND IN THE LAST PART OF THE RULE WE HAVE HERE, IT DOES CALL FOR A STUDY PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS VERSUS ONE YEAR SO THAT YOU GET THAT HEALTHY LAWN. AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT OPPORTUNITY IS THERE, BUT WHILE YOU'RE HERE, BEFORE MR. SHARPE SPEAKS, WHY IS DEP -- AND IN TODAY'S TRIBUNE, THE COMMISSIONER OF AG -- ARE THEY WRONG WHEN THEY SAY THAT THIS IS -- THEY'RE SPEAKING TO THE CONTRARY OF WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM SOME OF STAFF. THEY SAID THE BAN WILL HURT AND IT WILL HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT OF WHAT WHERE YOU'RE EXPRESSING YOUR CONCERN, MR. BECKNER, THAT THIS COULD CAUSE FURTHER PROBLEMS. SO IS DEP WRONG IN YOUR OPINION, AND IS THE COMMISSIONER OF AG WRONG IN YOUR OPINION? >> I BELIEVE -- I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. I DID READ THE LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER. I THINK HE MENTIONED THERE MAY BE THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, AND I THINK PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH ON THE LABELS, IF YOU GO TO A FERTILIZER PLACE AND YOU LOOK AT THE LABELS, SOME OF THESE PRODUCTS WILL SAY THAT THEY CAN GO FOUR TO SIX MONTHS IN THEIR CONTROLLED OR SLOW RELEASE, YET WHEN YOU TALK TO EXPERTS ON THIS, SOME OF THEM WILL SAY THAT MAYBE THAT ISN'T REALLY A REALISTIC -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WHAT ABOUT DEP? ARE THEY WRONG? >> DEP, THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY LIKE THE SLOW-RELEASE FERTILIZER -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: BUT ON THE BAN. THE QUESTION WAS ON THE BAN. >> ON THE BAN? WELL, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING STATEWIDE -- IF I WERE TO DEVELOP A STATEWIDE -- WAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THEY DID BECAUSE THE RAINFALL PATTERNS DIFFER WIDELY FROM PORTIONS OF THE STATE TO PORTIONS OF THE STATE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE UP AROUND THE SUWANNEE RIVER AREA, YOU HAVE A BIMODAL, HIGH SPRING, HIGH SUMMER. THEY DO NOT HAVE A SUMMER RAINY SEASON LIKE DO YOU HERE. YOU'VE GOT A SUMMER RAINY SEASON. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. DO ALL OF THE OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE STATE OPTION, IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE STATE OPTION OR WHATEVER OPTION WE GO WITH, HAVE A STUDY? BECAUSE I THINK -- I WILL MAKE A MOTION -- I KNOW A NUMBER OF MOTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER WE DO, I ABSOLUTELY THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A STUDY DONE THAT USF AND IFAS BOTH NEED TO BE ENGAGED. WE OUGHT TO BE VERY DIRECT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BRING THEM BOTH IN, THAT WE USE MONEY THAT IS WOULD HOPEFULLY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH GRANTS AND/OR ANY CONCERN THAT ANY CONTRIBUTORS MIGHT POTENTIALLY TAINT -- NOT -- I DON'T THINK THEY'LL ACTUALLY TAINT, BUT THEN THERE WILL BE THE SENSE THAT SO-AND-SO PUT MONEY INTO THIS. WE'VE EVEN HEARD THIS WITH IFAS. IT SEEMS LIKE NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE ANYMORE, IF THERE'S ANY ELEMENT OF MONEY THAT COMES FROM AN INDUSTRY, SOMEHOW THAT STUDY IS TAINTED IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T IMPACT OR IMPAIR THE STUDY, BUT A STUDY MUST BE DONE. >>RICK GARRITY: COMMISSIONER, THE RULE CALLS, IN 1-15.15, IT CALLS FOR A REVIEW AFTER FOUR YEARS, SO IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY CALL FOR A STUDY, BUT -- >>MARK SHARPE: SINCE WE ARE IN CHARGE OF OUR OWN DESTINY HERE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A STUDY. THE ONLY THING I'M NOT SURE I'M SATISFIED WITH IS THE FOUR- YEAR PERIOD. I KNOW -- I UNDERSTOOD THE GENTLEMAN FROM EPC WAS STATING THAT SOMETIMES YOU TAKE A SNAPSHOT, YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION, WE MIGHT RUSH TO JUDGMENT, BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE HAVING A TURNAROUND ON THE STUDY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, THEN WE CAN HAVE THE STUDY ONGOING, BUT JUST SO WE CAN GET GOOD INFORMATION BACK AS TO THE EFFICACY OF WHAT WE DO. SO THAT'S ONE -- I WANT TO -- I THINK WE NEED TO MODIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE CALL FOR A STUDY AND MANDATE THAT THERE WILL BE ONE AND THAT WE WILL USE BOTH USF AND IFAS. YES. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: WE COULD DO THAT ON A SEPARATE MOTION WITHOUT WRITING IT INTO THE RULE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WE CAN INCLUDE IT IN MY MOTION. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: PARDON? YEAH. THE ISSUE OF PUTTING -- YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO COME BACK TO YOUR RULE TO HAVE TO READJUST IT IF THE STUDY CHANGED. SO IF YOU HAD A SEPARATE MOTION FOR THE STUDY, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE PREFERABLE TO PUTTING IT IN THE RULE, BUT YOU COULD HAVE IN THE RULE -- YOU COULD CHANGE THE FOUR-YEAR REVIEW TIME TO TWO YEARS SO WE COULD COME BACK. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. SO WE KNOW WE NEED TO STUDY. LET ME ASK YOU NOW, RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT THE STATE MODEL THAT THEY'VE RECOMMENDED, IS THERE ANY LIMITATION TO THE AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A YARD? IS THERE? >> NO. THERE'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FERTILIZER BAG AND THERE'S FLORIDA-FRIENDLY YARDS. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. UNDER THE DRAFT RULE THAT THE STATE HAS PROVIDED, DO THEY PROVIDE ANY APPLICATION RESTRICTIONS OF ANY SORT WHATSOEVER? >>RICK GARRITY: YES, COMMISSIONER. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THAT IF WE FOLLOW THE STATE RULE, THEN WE DO NOTHING AND THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION. AND I'M READING HERE NO MORE THAN FOUR POUNDS OF NITROGEN PER 1,000 FEET SHALL BE APPLIED IN ANY CALENDAR YEAR. SO HAVE THEY APPLIED A RESTRICTION, EVEN UNDER THE LOOSEST RULE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AVAILABLE AS AN OPTION? >>RICK GARRITY: LET ME GET TOM UP HERE TO ANSWER THAT. >>TOM ASH: YES, COMMISSIONER, THE GREEN INDUSTRY STANDARDS DO HAVE APPLICATION LIMITS TO HOW MUCH CAN BE APPLIED, AND IT'S WITHIN THEIR BMPs AND THEIR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. >>MARK SHARPE: BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FLORIDA-FRIENDLY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHICH WENT INTO EFFECT IT LOOKS LIKE IN DECEMBER OF 2008. >>TOM ASH: CORRECT. >>MARK SHARPE: AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE'VE SEEN REDUCTIONS IN NITROGEN AND REDUCTIONS IN PHOSPHORUS. IS THAT CORRECT? WE BELIEVE. I MEAN, I GUESS -- >>TOM ASH: I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXACT NUMBERS. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T WANT TO START TINKERING WITH AMOUNTS, BUT IF WE WERE TO GO FROM FOUR POUNDS TO TWO POUNDS, WOULD THAT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON YARDS, AND WOULD THAT POTENTIALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN GOING INTO THE WATER IF WE WENT FROM FOUR TO TWO? >>TOM ASH: ACTUALLY, THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED. THE FDACS HAD ASKED US THAT WHEN WE VISITED TALLAHASSEE AND SPOKE TO STAFF, THAT THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN BEING PROPOSED BY THE BMPs MAY BE HIGHER THAN IT NEEDED TO BE IN OUR AREA. >>MARK SHARPE: SO, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO HOW WE'RE REALLY GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM -- AND ANOTHER QUESTION. AN APPLICATION BAN, WE BAN IT DURING THE SUMMER, OR A REQUIREMENT THAT EVERY HOMEOWNER BAG ALL THEIR YARD CLIPPINGS AND THAT ALL THE -- AND THE STORM DRAIN -- EVEN I, AS A HOMEOWNER MYSELF -- AS A RESULT OF THIS DISCUSSION -- I REALLY WASN'T AWARE OF THE IMPACT OF THE APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER. I'M A STANDARD GUY, GO OUT AND BUY IT. A BAN WOULD HAVE VERY LITTLE ON ME BECAUSE WHAT I BOUGHT TWO YEARS AGO IS STILL IN MY GARAGE AND I USE IT. I GO OUT AND APPLY IT. NOW I SWEEP IT UP AND I SWEEP UP THE LEAVES BECAUSE I'M AWARE, BECAUSE OF THIS CONVERSATION, OF THE IMPACT. BEFORE I WAS LIKE OH, IT'S IN THE STORM DRAIN. IT WILL BE GOOD. IT WILL JUST GO AWAY. NOW IT'S GOING INTO THE WATER. IN FACT, I AM NOW EVEN TRY TO GO SWEEP UP MY NEIGHBOR'S. >> DO THEY HAVE A DOG TOO? >>MARK SHARPE: I CLEAN UP THE DOG POOP WITHIN THREE YARDS OF THREE HOMES OF WHERE WE LIVE. BECAUSE THEY BLAME IT ON ME. WE'VE GOT TWO DOGS, SO THEY'LL THINK I'M THE ONE, SO I CLEAN IT ALL UP. BUT LET ME ASK, IF WE WERE TO -- IF WE WERE TO FOCUS ON YARD CLIPPINGS AND EVERYONE WERE TO GET THE YARD CLIPPINGS OUT OF THEIR STREET WHICH GOES INTO THE STORM DRAIN, MIGHT THAT HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN THAT ENDS UP IN OUR BAY? >>TOM ASH: AND THERE'S TWO ANSWERS TO THAT, COMMISSIONER. IT CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT, BUT IT'S ALSO A GOOD SOURCE OF NATURAL NITROGEN. THE LAWN CLIPPINGS WILL ACTUALLY STAY IN THE LAWN, DECOMPOSE. AS THEY DECOMPOSE, THEY SUPPLY NITROGEN. IN A WAY, IF YOU TAKE THE LAWN CLIPPINGS AWAY, THEN THERE'S THIS PERCEPTION THAT I NEED TO SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH INORGANIC FERTILIZER. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RAKING YOUR YARD AND THE CLIP THAT IS GO IN YOUR YARD. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CLIPPINGS THAT END UP ON THE STREET. >>TOM ASH: ABSOLUTELY, THE ONES ON YOUR STREET OR ANY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. >>MARK SHARPE: DO YOU THINK THERE'S MORE SIGNIFICANCE TO REMOVING THAT AND THE IMPACT THAT HAS ON OUR BAYS THAN ON THE RUNOFF THAT COMES FROM APPLYING FERTILIZER IF WE FOLLOW THE RULES AND THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN THAT ENDS UP IN OUR BAY? WOULD THERE BE A GREATER IMPACT IF WE GET THE CLIPPINGS OUT THAN IF WE WENT AFTER THE APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER? >>TOM ASH: AND I DON'T HAVE DATA TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. >>MARK SHARPE: ONE OTHER THING. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SPIKE DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS, THAT THERE'S AN ALGAE BLOOM SPIKE. IS THAT A RESULT OF -- I MEAN, WHEN IT'S COLD, THE WATER'S COLD, IS THERE AS MUCH ALGAE AND WHEN THE WATER'S WARM? >>TOM ASH: NO, SIR, THERE'S NOT. >>MARK SHARPE: SO WARMTH CREATES MORE ALGAE OPPORTUNITY? >>TOM ASH: RIGHT. THERE'S A CHAIN OF EVENTS. >>MARK SHARPE: SOMETIMES WE HAVE THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WE WANT TO INFER IT'S BECAUSE OF THE FERTILIZER APPLICATION. COULD IT ALSO BE BECAUSE IT'S JUST VERY, VERY HOT? >>TOM ASH: WELL, IT'S -- THE WATER TEMPERATURE IS A COMPONENT OF THAT. THE WARMER THE WATER, THE LONGER THE DAYS, THE MORE -- >>MARK SHARPE: IS THERE ANY RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER BETWEEN AUTO EMISSIONS AND OTHER SULFUR THAT BURNS AND THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN THAT ENDS UP IN OUR WATER AND THAT IMPACT TO ALGAE AS OPPOSED TO, I GUESS, THE RUNOFF THAT COMES FROM ME APPLYING FERTILIZER TO MY YARD IN THE SUMMER? ASH YES, THERE HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVE STUDIES DONE ON ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION. ACTUALLY, POLLUTION RECOVERY FUNDING HAS FUNDED SUCH STUDIES. THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THROUGH POINT SOURCES, LIKE POWER PLANTS AND THINGS, WE CAN REGULATE, BUT OTHERWISE, IF IT'S LIGHTNING OR OTHER ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION, WE CAN'T -- >>MARK SHARPE: CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. WE ARE THE LIGHTNING CAPITAL. THIS HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL FOR ME, BUT I THINK THAT PERHAPS MAYBE WHEN WE SENT YOU OFF TO GO OUT AND TO COME BACK WITH SOME SOLUTIONS, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE EDUCATION COMPONENT IS ESSENTIAL. THE COMMUNITY -- AND HERE'S THE ONE THING. I WANT TO -- >> HOLD UP, MR. BECKNER. >>MARK SHARPE: COMMUNITY BUY-IN IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. IF THE COMMUNITY IS BASICALLY GIVING US THE -- YOU KNOW, THE LOOK, WE DON'T LIKE THIS, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM. WHAT WE HAD WITH WATER WAS EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD WE NEED TO USE LESS WATER BECAUSE OF ALL THE CHALLENGES WITH THE DROUGHT. WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO GET THE COMMUNITY TO REALLY BUY IN TO THIS, THE IMPACT OF ALL OF OUR ACTIVITIES ON THE WATERWAYS. AND SO THE EDUCATION COMPONENT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. WE HAVE TO DO THE STUDY. WE HAVE TO HAVE GREATER EDUCATION. I WANT TO SEE AS PART OF THIS THAT WE DO, WE MANDATE AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT AND THAT WE INCLUDE -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A -- IN BALM, WE HAVE A GREAT RESEARCH FACILITY. LET'S INCLUDE THEM. LET'S GO OUT AND GET GRANT MONEY, LET'S EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY, AND LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. AND IF WE CAN PERHAPS LOOK AT EVEN THE LOAD OF THE NITROGEN, BUT THAT'S NOT US. IS THAT A STATE ISSUE? PIQUE WE CAN ADDRESS IT HERE. >>MARK SHARPE: IF THE -- BECAUSE THERE IS A RESTRICTION. I'VE BEEN HEARING SEVERAL TIMES THERE IS NO RESTRICTION, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION. THERE IS ONE, UNDER THE STATE PLAN, THE STATE SAYS FOUR POUNDS. IF WE GO TO A LESS -- LET'S SAY TWO POUNDS OR THREE POUNDS, WE ARE APPLYING A RESTRICTION. THE DIFFERENCE IS IF WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT ANYWAY, EVEN IF WE GO WITH OPTION ONE, WE DON'T HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO ENFORCE IT. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE COMMUNITY BUY-IN. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT WORKS. SO FOR US TO TRUST IN THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE COMMUNITY, HAVE A VERY RESTRICTIVE FOUR-POUND RESTRICTION, MAYBE TAKE IT DOWN TO THREE OR TWO, IF THE SCIENCE SAYS IT WORKS, REALLY TALK ABOUT THE YARD CLIPPINGS, I THINK WE HAVE A STRONG PLAN. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IF I'M GATHERING FROM YOUR DISCUSSION, YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO MY MOTION ON 15 -- OR 1-15.15 THAT THE STUDY BE THREE YEARS, AND RATHER THAN REVIEW, CALL IT STUDY, AND THAT WE INCLUDE IFAS AND USF? >>MARK SHARPE: I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR THAT, BUT ALSO, WE NEED TO HIGHLIGHT UNDER ONE POINT -- >>JIM NORMAN: CAUTIOUSLY, THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TWO MOTIONS. SO HAVE ONE PASS AND THEN STRUCTURE THE SECOND ONE. CAUTIOUSLY, HE SAID YOU SHOULDN'T PUT THAT INTO THE RULE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. >>JIM NORMAN: NO, NO, ABOUT THE STUDY AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: 1-15.15, WE HAVE -- >>JIM NORMAN: WHAT'S WRONG WITH TWO MOTIONS? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: NOTHING. ALL RIGHT. MR. BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JUST TO THE COMMENT ON COMMISSIONER SHARPE'S POINT WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AND BEING ABLE TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE PUT IN PLACE HAS AN IMPACT, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE MORE PLAUSIBLE WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE AS FAR AS AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT WAS ON A SALES RESTRICTION, AND YOU -- CAN YOU DISCUSS AS FAR AS HOW THAT WOULD BE ENFORCED IF WE WERE TO ENACT THAT? AND YOUR CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE SUCH ENFORCEMENT? >>RICK GARRITY: YES, COMMISSIONER. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE SALES RESTRICTION IS SO WHATEVER YOU DO IS MORE EASILY ENFORCEABLE. SO IF THERE'S, LIKE, 100 SPOTS, BIG BOX STORES IN THE COUNTY THAT WOULD HAVE THE FERTILIZER FOR SALE, THOSE SITES ARE ALREADY LOOKED AT BY EPC'S SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR STAFF ON A ROTATING BASIS. SO THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM TO ENFORCE THAT AT THE RETAIL OUTLETS. THAT IS THE REASON -- AND I WAS AT THE ESTUARY PROGRAM WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED -- THE REASON WHY THE SALES RESTRICTIONS WERE IN THERE WAS BECAUSE OF EASE OF ENFORCEMENT. >> OKAY. THE OTHER REASON MY LIGHT WAS ON IS BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE SPEAK UP, AND I WANT TO BRING A POINT OF ORDER THAT THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR WITH A SECOND. MR. CHAIRMAN, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE BEFORE CALLING THE QUESTION ON THAT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I WAS GOING TO SAY LET'S CALL THE QUESTION. >> IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RESTATE YOUR MOTION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS STATED AND DRAFT 6-4 2010 RULE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION THAT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED AND PUBLISHED; THAT WE STRIKE PARAGRAPH SUBPARAGRAPH "A," WHICH FALLS UNDER THE SECTION OF 1-15.04. THAT'S MY MOTION. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAGAN. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I CAN'T SEE THE LIGHTS. >>MARK SHARPE: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THIS MOTION WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE FOUR POUNDS. THERE'S A RESTRICTION. THIS IS 1-15.05 "A." HOWEVER, NO MORE THAN FOUR POUNDS OF NITROGEN SHALL BE APPLIED IN ANY CALENDAR YEAR, THAT AN EDUCATION COMPONENT BE ALSO PART OF THIS MOTION AND THAT WE MANDATE EPC, WORKING WITH ALL OF OUR PARTNERS, TO EDUCATE -- IN FACT, EVEN, PERHAPS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO THESE DIFFERENT WHOLESALERS, THAT WE -- AND RETAILERS, THAT WE GO AND WE ASK THEM TO ALSO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AS TO THE AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE -- THE LIMITATION, WHICH IS FOUR-POUND RESTRICTION. I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT IT. I JUST DON'T HAVE ANY DATA, BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT LESS. RIGHT NOW, THE RECOMMENDATION IS STICK WITH FOUR. SO LET'S MAKE SURE THERE'S AN EDUCATION COMPONENT TO THIS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. YOU WANT ME TO ADD THAT TO MY MOTION? >>MARK SHARPE: YES, THAT THERE BE AN EDUCATION COMPONENT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT WE INCLUDE AN EDUCATION COMPONENT IN THIS ORDINANCE OR THIS RULE? >>MARK SHARPE: YES. THEN WE'LL MAKE A SECOND MOTION ON THE STUDY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, IN SECTION 1-15.05, IN SUBPARAGRAPH "A," THAT THE FOUR POUNDS BE REDUCED TO TWO POUNDS? >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I'M NOT SURE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I THOUGHT THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU ASKED ME. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK TOM ASH ON THAT. IT'S A STATEWIDE ISSUE. >>TOM ASH: YES, COMMISSIONERS, THE ISSUE BETWEEN FOUR POUNDS AND TWO POUNDS, WE START TO STRAY INTO WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE LESS STRICT THAN THE MODEL ORDINANCE OR MORE STRICT. WE CAN BE MORE STRICT, BUT WE CAN'T BE LESS STRICT THAN THE STATE MODEL. RIGHT NOW THE STATE MODEL ACTUALLY GOES PER SPECIES OF GRASS, SO THE RANGE IS ANYWHERE FROM 4 TO 6. >>MARK SHARPE: LET'S JUST DO THE STUDIES AND COME BACK WITH MORE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND COMMISSIONER FERLITA'S LIGHT'S ON. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS MOTION, LET ME AGAIN SAY -- AND LET ME PREFACE THIS SO WE DON'T HAVE THE DEBATE. I WAS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. I FEEL WHAT IS ON THE FLOOR NOW IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON IS NOT A MIX AND MATCH OF ANY OF THE OPTIONS THAT I SUGGESTED WE LOOK AT AND WORKSHOP AND GIVE THE AUDIENCE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE NOW, I FEEL -- MY OPINION -- THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING ELSE THAT REALLY WAS NOT SOMETHING I ASKED FOR IN THE MOTION. AS I LOOK AT THIS, I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS NOT ENOUGH. I KNOW OUR AUDIENCE IS KIND OF SEPARATED, AND THERE'S TWO ISSUES THAT I THINK ARE UPPER MOST FOR ME. IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT FROM TOO MUCH NITROGEN IN OUR WATER SUPPLY. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT OFTEN AND LONG. AND THE SECOND THING IS THAT ANOTHER GROUP OF THE AUDIENCE, MAJORITY OF THE AUDIENCE, IS WORRIED ABOUT THEIR JOBS, AND THEY'RE COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS NOWADAYS, IF YOU ASK PEOPLE WHAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT. WHAT'S THE TOP ISSUE? JOBS. WHAT'S THE SECOND ONE? JOBS. WHAT'S THE THIRD ONE? JOBS. THEN PERHAPS WE GO ON TO EDUCATION. SO FOR ME, MY FOCUS WAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN OPTION 1, MAYBE A 1 MINUS OR 2 PLUS BECAUSE IT DID TWO THINGS. AND A LOT OF THIS IS PERSONAL COMMITMENT. LET'S FACE IT. MR. SHARPE SUGGESTED ABOUT PICKING UP DOG WASTE. SO I CAN TELL YOU I'M PROBABLY LOSING SOME POTENTIAL VOTES WHEN I YELL AT MY NEIGHBORS AND SAY PICK UP YOUR DOG POOP. I HAVE TO PICK UP MINE FROM MY CRAZY DOGS. OR THE GRASS CUTTINGS. SOMETIMES I SEE THIS RACE BACK AND FORTH WHOSE LAWN PERSON DOES IT LAST SO THEY CAN BLOW IT IN THE STREET AND THE OTHER GUY BLOWS IT THIS WAY. SO NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, NO MATTER WHAT WE TRY TO ENFORCE, ULTIMATELY, IT COMES DOWN TO THE AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT OUR CITIZENS -- AND US INCLUDING -- MARK WAS VERY HONEST, AND I APPRECIATE THAT -- ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF EDUCATION, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE DON'T PUT IN STORM DRAINS. IN TERMS OF PICKING UP AFTER OUR PETS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE PERHAPS NOT QUANTIFIABLE, BUT THEY CERTAINLY ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE POLLUTION THAT NITROGEN, ET CETERA, CAUSES. TO ME, COMPROMISE IS THE BEST WAY WE CAN COME OUT OF THIS, AND TO ME, COMPROMISE WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1 AND 2, TAKE CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT, PROTECTION PEOPLE'S JOBS. THEY'VE BEEN CRYING. I'VE LISTENED TO IT. IT'S A TOUGH TIME. BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME MODIFICATION OF WHERE WE WANT TO GET WITHOUT HURTING TOO MANY PEOPLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS ECONOMY ALREADY HAS ON THEM. I WON'T SUPPORT IT. I THINK IT'S LUDICROUS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING THAT YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO DISCUSS, SO IT'S NOT A SOFT NO TO MR. HIGGINBOTHAM'S MOTION; IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY NO. I DON'T THINK IT'S A FAIR PROCESS. WON'T SUPPORT IT. AND I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. MR. NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: QUICKLY. ACTUALLY, I WAS PREPARED AND WAS GOING TO SUPPORT THE ORANGE COUNTY POSITION. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD COMPROMISE TO START. HOWEVER, LET ME JUST SAY I BELIEVE WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, AND IF WE WERE A DIVIDED BOARD AND VOTED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME TYPE OF A STARTING POINT -- AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORTED THE BODY OF THAT MOTION BECAUSE, COMMISSIONER SHARPE, YOU ACTUALLY PERSUADED ME THERE WOULD BE A STUDY NOW. I BELIEVE WE NEED TO GET STARTED. THAT'S WHY I SUPPORTED THE MOTION. AND I WANTED TO SUPPORT THE SECONDARY MOTION OF A STUDY THAT WILL BE SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: LET ME JUST MAKE A FINAL COMMENT HERE. I ALSO WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. I DON'T THINK IT DOES ENOUGH FOR, NUMBER ONE, OUR ENVIRONMENT, AND IT DOES ENOUGH TO REALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE FINANCIAL CRISIS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING WHEN EPA COMES TO US AND STARTS DEMANDING THAT WE HAVE TO START SPENDING DOLLARS TO REMOVE EXCESS NITROGEN FROM OUR WATERWAYS. I HAVE AN EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR COMMISSIONER BRONSON; HOWEVER, COMMISSIONER BRONSON DOES NOT LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I'VE NEVER READ A REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER BRONSON THAT SAID THAT THE STATE WILL PAY FOR THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS NITROGEN THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMOVE FROM OUR WATERWAYS. SO AGAIN, IT'S ANOTHER UNFUNDED MANDATE THAT IS COMING TO THIS COUNTY, AND THAT I WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT ACCEPT. I BELIEVE THAT IN OPTION 1 IT O PROVIDES A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY AND AN EASY WAY TO GET TO POINT WHERE WE NEED TO BE TO REMOVE THE NITROGEN. IT COSTS VERY LITTLE HERE IN THE COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE WE ALREADY HAD THE DISCUSSION, IT DOES NOT IMPACT AGRICULTURE. I KNOW -- LET ME TELL YOU, I KNOW FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT ABOUT CHANGING THE BUSINESS MODEL, AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE EVER TALKED WITH THE GENTLEMAN FROM TOP NOTCH, HE HAS FOUND A WAY TO USE SLOW-RELEASE NITROGEN AND IS IMPLEMENTING THAT MODEL JUST LIKE THEY HAVE CHANGED THE MODELS OVER IN PINELLAS COUNTY. AND BELIEVE ME, I COME FROM ONE OF THE MOST REGULATED INDUSTRIES THAT THERE ARE, AND THAT'S THE FINANCIAL SERVICES, SO I KNOW THE PAIN IT IS TO GO THROUGH CHANGING YOUR BUSINESS MODEL BECAUSE I GET COMPLIANCE NOTICES ABOUT CHANGES TO THE WAY THAT I HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS BECAUSE THERE ARE REGULATIONS THAT ARE GOING INTO PLACE. AND YES, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT CAUSES A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? AT THE END, WHEN I SEE THE IMPACTS OF THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY WE HAD TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THOSE MODELS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, I THINK, ARE VERY CLEAR. YOU KNOW, WE CAN SIT HERE AND ARGUE ALL DAY LONG ABOUT SCIENCE. I WILL TELL YOU THIS, IN THE FLORIDA YARDS HANDBOOK, THIS IS WRITTEN BY IFAS. YOU GO THROUGH THIS AND THEY TALK ABOUT YOU DON'T USE NITROGEN DURING THE RAINY SEASON. YOU USE IRON INSTEAD. THIS IS IFAS SPEAKING. THIS IS -- THIS STARTED BACK IN 1994. THERE IS SOME BASIS AS FAR AS WHY WE DON'T USE NITROGEN DURING THE RAINY SEASON IN THE FLORIDA YARDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS HANDBOOK. YOU CAN READ THAT ONLINE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE DOING ENOUGH FOR ENVIRONMENT AND WE'RE DOING ENOUGH HERE FINANCIALLY FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO AGAIN, WITH THAT, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. AND WITH THAT, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-2. COMMISSIONERS BECKNER AND FERLITA VOTED NO. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I WANT TO MAKE A SECOND MOTION THAT WE REQUIRE THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED, THAT IT CONSIST OF ELEMENTS FROM IFAS, FROM USF, AND FROM ANY OTHER ENTITY THAT EPC BELIEVES MIGHT BE HELPFUL; THAT WE TRY TO ACQUIRE FUNDS IMMEDIATELY FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE STUDY; AND THAT WE ALSO ASK FOR A REPORT BACK -- I THINK WE SHOULD BE GETTING AT LEAST ANNUAL REPORTS, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME CONCLUSION WITHIN TWO YEARS. IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO GO TO THREE, BUT I THINK FOUR IS TOO LONG. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THEN WE'D MODIFY -- I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS 1-15.15 TO THREE YEARS AND CHANGE THE WORD "REVIEW" TO "STUDY" AND INCLUDE USF AND IFAS IN THERE? >>MARK SHARPE: YES. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SEE NO LIGHTS. RECORDS, PLEASE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-1. COMMISSIONER BECKNER VOTED NO. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: CAN I MAKE A CLARIFICATION? MAY I GET THE FLOOR A SECOND? SINCE THE RULE WAS NOT CRAFTED TO INCLUDE THE MOTION THAT DID PASS, SOME OF THE EXEMPTIONS DON'T MAKE SENSE NOW, SO I'M ASSUMING THAT BY IMPLICATION, STAFF WILL, IN PREPARING A FINAL DRAFT OF THIS RULE, THAT WE'LL BE ALLOWED TO GO IN AND REMOVE THOSE EXEMPTIONS THAT NOW ARE IN CONFLICT BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S 1-15.11 IS AN ENTIRE SECTION THAT HAS TO COME OUT NOW. SO WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY GO PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH, BUT YOU ALLOW STAFF, BASED UPON A MOTION THAT DID PASS, TO GO INTO THE RULE AND REMOVE THE EXEMPTIONS THAT NO LONGER MAKE SENSE, THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: RIGHT, AND THAT'S WRITTEN IN HERE IN RED. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: YEAH, THE ONES IN RED MOSTLY, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH REAL CLOSELY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. VERY GOOD. >>JIM NORMAN: ACTUALLY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO GIVE THEM A AUTHORITY TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RULE. THAT WILL MEMORIALIZE THEM. TO GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY. >> SECOND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: COMMISSIONER BECKNER, DID YOU HAVE A -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: YEAH, I WANTED TO HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ON THE LAST PART. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. I'LL REMOVE MY MOTION UNTIL THAT. >> SECOND FOR RECONSIDERATION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LAST VOTE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>MARK SHARPE: I'LL ASK AGAIN THAT WE CONDUCT A STUDY AS WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JIM NORMAN: I'LL MOVE THAT WE EMPOWER STAFF TO GO BACK AND CRAFT THE LANGUAGE NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUS MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM AND HAGAN. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? >> SECOND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO DEBATE, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND TIME AND DEDICATION AS WE ALL HAVE TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO THE BAY. WE WILL NOW OPEN -- WE'LL WAIT JUST A MINUTE FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO STATE FOR THE MEETING. GIVE JUST A SECOND HERE. WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING. AGAIN, THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS. I KNOW WE HAVE A LONG DAY TODAY, AND WE'LL MOVE -- >>RICK GARRITY: THERE'S A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, COMMISSIONER. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: PARDON ME? >>RICK GARRITY: THERE'S A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: HELP ME. OH, YES, CONTINUATION OF THE FEE SCHEDULE. THANK YOU. >>RICHARD TSCHANTZ: COMMISSIONERS, WE BEGAN A PUBLIC HEARING WITH FEE SERVICES, CHAPTER 1-6, ON JUNE 16th, 2010, AND WE AGAIN CONTINUED THAT MEETING UNTIL TODAY, AND DR. GARRITY WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT WE'VE DONE THERE. >>RICK GARRITY: COMMISSIONERS, WE HAD THAT ORIGINAL PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 16th, AND THAT WAS REGARDING ADJUSTING SOME FEES AT EPC, AND AT THAT MEETING, I MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU THAT WE PUT THAT OFF UNTIL THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY AND THAT, INSTEAD, THAT WE GET WITH MIKE MERRILL AND TRY TO USE THE 12-MONTH PLAN TO ELIMINATE 12 FURLOUGH DAYS AT EPC, AND YOU VOTED AT THAT MEETING UNANIMOUSLY TO REFER THAT TO THE BOCC WORKSHOP THIS AFTERNOON. AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED, SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST NOW IS SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD THE WORKSHOP YET IS THAT YOU CONTINUE IT AGAIN UNTIL NEXT EPC MEETING. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE -- >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SEE NOTHING DEBATE, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE WHO -- FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THE FIRST IS HOLLY GREENING. THE SECOND IS ED ROSS. THE THIRD IS LINDA SAUL-SENA. AND THE FOURTH ONE IS VIVIAN BACCA. WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING. COMMISSIONERS, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RULE. I KNOW THIS WAS A LONG AND DIFFICULT DISCUSSION, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM -- AND AGAIN, I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM -- THE TAMPA BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM POLICY BOARD HAS APPROVED $200,000 FOR AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN, A REGIONAL EDUCATION CAMPAIGN, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOUR LOCAL STAFF TO CRAFT THAT MESSAGE FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AS WELL AS THE OTHER COUNTIES. OUR POLICY BOARD ALSO HAS APPROVED THE USE OF $100,000 IN THIS COMING YEAR FOR A STUDY SUCH AS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT, SO WE WILL BE -- WE'LL BE LOOKING AT WORKING WITH YOUR STAFFS TO HELP CRAFT THAT STUDY ALSO. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU, MA'AM. ED ROSS. GOOD MORNING. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR, TO SEE IF IT WAS GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, Y'ALL. THE REASON I'M HERE IS TO EXPRESS MY DISAPPOINTMENT ON THE VOTE THAT JUST HAPPENED. AND THE REASON IS WE TALKED ABOUT FUTURE GENERATIONS. WE TALKED ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENT. WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THOSE THINGS. I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE FAIRLY STRONG GROUPS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE; HOWEVER, I'D LIKE TO READ YOU JUST SOMETHING. IMAGINE A BEACH CROWDED WITH VACATIONERS ENJOYING A HOT SUMMER SUN, AS CHILDREN PADDLE ABOUT THE SHALLOWS, FORAGING FOR SHELLS AND OTHER TREASURES, DEAD AND DYING ANIMALS BEGIN TO WASH ASHORE. FIRST A FEW STRUGGLING FISH, THEN SMELLING MASSES OF CRABS, CLAMS, MUSSELS, AND FISH. ALERTED BY KIDS' SHOCKING CRIES, ANXIOUS PARENTS RUSH TO THE WATER TO PULL THEIR CHILDREN AWAY. MEANWHILE, OUT ON THE HORIZON, FRUSTRATED COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN HEAD FROM PORT WITH BOTH EMPTY NETS AND HULLS. WHILE THIS SCENE DOES NOT COME FROM A GRADE "B" HORROR MOVIE, INCIDENTS LIKE THIS TYPE ACTUALLY OCCURRED PERIODICALLY IN THE BLACK SEA. BEACH RESORTS IN ROMANIA IN 1970s AND '80s. HEAR THAT? THEY REGULARLY OCCURRED. BY 1986, THE DEAD SEA IN THAT AREA WAS -- IT WAS TOTALLY DEAD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED, IT TOOK THEM OVER UNTIL ABOUT 2002 FOR A RECOVERY TO BEGIN TO HAPPEN IN THAT AREA. SO IF WHAT YOU ARE TAKING A RISK ON TODAY BY REVIEWING ALL THAT WAS ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING TO THIS. THIS IS NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT JUST MIGHT HAPPEN. IT DOES HAPPEN. LAST YEAR I CAME BACK FROM HIKING IN THE MOUNTAINS. THERE WAS A DEAD ZONE OF 14 SQUARE MILES IN TAMPA BAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IS CLEARLY, RESTORING DEAD ZONES REQUIRING AT MINIMUM REDUCING -- OH, BY THE WAY, I SHOULD TELL YOU THIS IS ALL FROM A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE, WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING DEAD ZONES ALL OVER THE WORLD. CLEARLY, RESTORING DEAD ZONES REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF REDUCING NUTRIENT DELIVERY FROM NEARBY LANDS. MARINE ECOSYSTEMS HAVE COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF EUTROPHICATION, WHICH IS A PROCESS THAT HAPPENS, AND HYPOXIA. MAY NOT BOUNCE BACK WHEN HUMANS ALTER THEIR ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE THE AMOUNTS OF NUTRIENTS IN THE RIVER OR IN THE AREAS. KNOWING WHAT TO DO TO FIX DEAD ZONES WILL NOT BE ENOUGH. THE KEY -- THIS IS SCIENTISTS AROUND THE WORLD -- OF REVIVING THEM IS FOR GOVERNMENTS TO BELIEVE IT IS AN IMPORTANT GOAL TO TAKE A LEAD. THESE SCIENTISTS HAVE DOCUMENTED A FEW CASES OF DEAD ZONE RECOVERY BECAUSE REDUCING RUNOFF FROM LAND REQUIRES MAJOR CHANGES. I KNOW I'M AT THE END. THANKS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANYWAY, I WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT, AND I THINK I'LL SEA YOU LATER THIS AFTERNOON. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: LINDA SAUL-SENA AND VIVIAN BACCA. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M LINDA SAUL-SENA, AND I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION STAFF FOR TRYING TO EXPLAIN YOUR OPTIONS AND MY GRATITUDE TO COMMISSIONERS BECKNER AND FERLITA FOR OPPOSING THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED THIS MORNING. I'M VERY, VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED. AS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE ESTUARY BOARD AND THE INTERLOCAL RIVER BOARD, I THINK THAT THIS MORNING YOU ALL GUTTED A PROPOSAL. I DON'T THINK IT WILL SERVE OUR COMMUNITY WELL, JOBS WELL, OR THE ENVIRONMENT WELL. AND I WANTED TO REGISTER MY DISAPPOINTMENT IN YOUR LACK OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ESTUARY BOARD. PINELLAS COUNTY ADOPTED THIS RULE PRIOR TO THE SUMMER AND OUR RAINS AND THE FERTILIZER APPLICATION. I'M SORRY FOR TAMPA BAY THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SITTING AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION, HAS FAILED TO EFFECTIVELY PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT. THANK YOU. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: VIVIAN BACCA. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON, AND I'M HERE THIS MORNING TO TALK ABOUT ZOMBIE ALLIGATORS. NOW, THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF ONE OF THE SCI-FI LATE-NIGHT MOVIES, AND I WILL ADMIT THAT I WAS BROWSING THROUGH MY TV GUIDE, AND I SAW THIS THING, AND I SAID ZOMBIE ALLIGATORS. I GOT TO WATCH THIS. IT WAS ON NAT GEO WILD, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO LATE GRIFFIN IN FLORIDA BECAUSE OF A VARIETY OF FACTORS. IT TOOK THEM SIX YEARS TO FIGURE OUT WHY HUNDREDS OF ALLIGATORS WERE FIRST LOOKING LIKE ZOMBIES, ROLLING OVER, NOT ABLE TO MOVE, AND EVENTUALLY DYING FROM NEUROLOGICAL CONDITION. WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH WAS A NUMBER OF PROCEDURES, AND I WANTED TO TURN IN A LITTLE BIT HERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO READ BRIEFLY THAT 13 DIFFERENT AGENCIES FIGURED OUT THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY A VITAMIN B-1 DEFICIENCY FROM EATING TOO MUCH GIZZARD SHAD, BUT THE SHAD WAS THERE BECAUSE TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT WAS ALLOWED. PEOPLE ALLOWED RUNOFF FROM GOLF CAUSES INTO THE LAKE. [INDISCERNIBLE] COLONIZED THE REGION. CHEMICAL REACTION SEEMED INTO THE LAKE, CAUSING A CHAIN REACTION TO PAVE THE WAYS FOR TOXIC ALIEN INVADERS LIKE ALGAE BLOOM THAT ALMOST SUFFOCATED THE LAKE, KILLED ALL THE PLANTS, AND HUGE NUMBERS OF FISH DIED, BUT THE GIZZARD SHAD FOUND THESE RANCID CONDITIONS IDEAL AND RAN AMUCK IN THE LAKE, THEREFORE BEING THE PRIMARY AND ALMOST SOLE SOURCE OF FOOD FOR THE ALLIGATORS, WHICH WERE NOW DEPRIVED OF THE THIAMINE, THE VITAMIN B-1. AND ENDED UP DYING. THEY HAD TO REMOVE A LOT OF THE GIZZARD SHAD AND DO A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, BUT IT ALL STARTED WITH NITROGEN RUNOFF. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT INTO THE RECORD. IT'S NOT JUST THE BAYS. IT'S THE PONDS. IT'S EVERYTHING. THANK YOU. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. SEEING THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? >>MARK SHARPE: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, THOUGH. NOT SO MUCH THE ZOMBIE ALLIGATORS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY KINDS OF INTERESTING, BUT WOULD BUFFERING -- IF YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL ABUTTING LAKES SUCH AS THAT, WOULD A PROGRAM OF IMPROVED BUFFERING BETWEEN THE HOMES AND THE WATERWAYS AIR CYST IN THE REDUCTION OF NITROGEN AS OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING YOU CAN'T FERTILIZE YOUR YARD? I DON'T WANT TO REDO THAT ARGUMENT, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE BUFFERING ELEMENT COMES IN. >>RICK GARRITY: COMMISSIONER, I THINK IN THE RULE YOU DID PASS THERE'S A TEN-FOOT BUFFER IN THERE FOR FERTILIZING. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. AND I SHOULD JUST STEP RIGHT OVER IN FOLLOWING THROUGH THE PROCESS HERE. ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? ANYTHING TO BE REMOVED FROM CONSENT? >>RICK GARRITY: NOTHING REMOVED. THE ONLY CHANGES I HAVE, IF WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME, I WANTED TO, UNDER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BRIEF YOU ON SOME AIR QUALITY ISSUES AND GIVE THANKS TO SOME STAFF. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. I NEED APPROVAL FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT. >> SO MOVE. >> SECOND. >>JIM NORMAN: CAN I SAY SOMETHING? I JUST WANT TO ACTUALLY THANK DR. GARRITY. I KNOW THIS -- AND I SEE HIM IN THE AUDIENCE. THANK YOU FOR WORKING SO HARD WITH MR. DAVIS. WE APPRECIATE YOU FOR DOING GOOD WORK. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTES. >>JIM NORMAN: AND ACTUALLY, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE TOO. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JIM NORMAN: MR. DAVIS, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE. LOOKS LIKE IT'S WORKING OUT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: REPORT FROM CEAC, DANNY ALBERDI. >>RICK GARRITY: DANNY IS NOT HERE, AND THEY DIDN'T MEET THIS MONTH ANYWAY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE INTO YOUR REPORT, DR. GARRITY. >>RICK GARRITY: I HAD TWO LETTERS FOR STAFF. ONE IS FROM A CONSULTANT WHO WRITES TO ME AS YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED WITH YOUR STAFF ON NUMEROUS ISSUES OVER THE YEARS. THIS LETTER IS LONG OVERDUE. I WANTED TO SEND THIS NOTE COMMENDING AND THANKING DIANA LEE FOR HER CONTINUING WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST ME. SHE HAS SHEPHERDED A [INDISCERNIBLE] THROUGH YOUR AGENCY. AS A RESULT OF HER DILIGENCE, I RECEIVED MY DOCUMENTS BARELY A WEEK AFTER I ASKED FOR THEM, AND SHE TOOK THE EXTRA STEPS OF HELPING ME OUT. IT'S FROM STEVE CULLEN OF COUGAR AND ASSOCIATES. THEN WE HAD SOME STAFF OUT IN PLANT CITY WORKING ON A MOBILE HOME PARK, PREVATT MOBILE HOME PARK, THAT HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH THEIR SEWAGE SYSTEM, AND WE HAD, LIKE, FOUR DIFFERENT SURVEYS FILLED OUT ON OUR WEBSITE THANKING JEFF SKLUT AND BYRON BARTLETT FOR THEIR GOOD SERVICES. THE NEXT THING, BEFORE WE DO THE AIR QUALITY UPDATE, I WANTED TO ALERT YOU TO AN ISSUE REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 9th FURLOUGH DAY. AS YOU KNOW, THE ENTIRE COUNTY IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE A FURLOUGH DAY ON SEPTEMBER 9th, AND THE PAST YEAR, BECAUSE OF EFFICIENCIES THAT WE'VE IMPLEMENTED AT THE AGENCY AND BECAUSE OF VACANCIES THAT WE HAVE HAD THAT WE KEPT VACANT - - I ANTICIPATED POSITIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE SACRIFICED BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH MONEY NEXT YEAR -- WE DO HAVE SUFFICIENT MONEY IN OUR GENERAL FUNDS AND IN OUR CONTRACTS AND GRANTS TO ELIMINATE THE SEPTEMBER 9th FURLOUGH DAY. WE COME TO WORK THAT DAY, ON SEPTEMBER 9th, WHICH WOULD BE GOOD. IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR STAFF TO WORK AND RECEIVE THEIR PAY. I'VE ALERTED MIKE MERRILL TO THAT, WE'VE TALKED WITH MIKE JOHNSON. I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT WAS MY INTENTION UNLESS THE BOARD HAD OTHER DIRECTION THEY WANTED ME TO TAKE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I SEE NONE. >>RICK GARRITY: THANK YOU. >>KEVIN WHITE: DR. GARRITY, YOU MENTIONED THAT IN OUR BRIEFING, AND I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW, WILL THAT CAUSE A CONFLICT WITH COUNTY SERVICES? AND THE REASON I ASK THAT, WHEN WE HAVE THESE ANNOUNCED FURLOUGH DAYS, THAT SOME AGENCIES WILL BE WORKING NOW AND SOME WON'T, YOU KNOW, I JUST WONDER IF THAT WILL BE A HUGE CONFLICT. TSCHANTZ I DID ASK ERIC JOHNSON ABOUT THAT, IF THE COUNTY GOES WITH THAT AND EPC IS NOT, HE SAID YOU ARE A SEPARATE AGENCY. I DON'T THINK IT'S A PROBLEM. >>KEVIN WHITE: I AM IN SUPPORT OF THAT. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE MAY WANT TO DO WHEN THEY'RE PUTTING ON THE WEBSITE WHEN WE ARE ANNOUNCING THESE FURLOUGH DAYS, IF WE CAN HAVE COMMUNICATION PUT ON THERE ALL AFFECTED AGENCIES MAYBE EXCEPT EPC WILL BE, YOU KNOW WORKING ON THOSE AND THE SPECIFIC DAYS. >>RICK GARRITY: GOOD SUGGESTION. WE'LL DO THAT, COMMISSIONER. IF I CAN GET JERRY CAMPBELL TO COME UP. THE REASON I WANT TO DO A QUICK AIR UPDATE IS WE'VE BEEN SENDING YOU A LOT OF UNHEALTHY AIR ADVISORIES RECENTLY, AND I THOUGHT YOU MAY BE CURIOUS TO WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON. JERRY IS GOING TO EXPLAIN IT. >>JERRY CAMPBELL: GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. JERRY CAMPBELL, STAFF TO EPC. AS DR. GARRITY MENTIONED, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF AIR QUALITY NOTICES BEING ISSUED RECENTLY. WE WANT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHY THAT'S OCCURRING. THE CHART YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU NOW LISTS THE UNHEALTHY AIR DAYS WE HAVE HAD GOING BACK TO 1993. IN GENERAL, THE NUMBER OF UNHEALTHY AIR DAYS HAN DECREASED, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. THE BAD THING IS WE ARE STILL HAVING UNHEALTHY AIR DAYS. YOU CAN SEE WE'VE ALREADY HAD TWO TO DATE HERE IN 2010. WHEN I SAY UNHEALTHY AIR DAYS, KEEP IN MIND THIS GENERALLY, UNHEALTHY AIR DAYS, IS REALLY FOR THE SENSITIVE PART OF THE PUBLIC. THESE ARE THE ELDERLY, THE VERY YOUNG, AND THOSE WITH PREEXISTING RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, SUCH AS ASTHMA. GENERALLY, THE LEVELS WE SEE HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH HAS NOT BEEN SO HIGH IT'S AFFECTED THE GENERAL POPULATION AS A WHOLE. SO IF WE KEEP TELLING YOU THAT THE AIR QUALITY IS GETTING BETTER, WHY ARE WE STILL HAVING ADVISORIES? I THINK ONE WAY TO SHOW YOU IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING AGAINST IS THE USEPA SETS THE OUTDOOR AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, AND THEY DO THAT NATIONALLY. YOU CAN SEE HERE WE PICKED OUT JUST ONE OF THE DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS WE MONITOR FOR, AND THAT'S OZONE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PEAK CONCENTRATION IN THEIR STANDARDS, THEY STARTED -- THEY SET THE FIRST STANDARD IN 1971. THEY SET THE NUMBER AT 80 PARTS PER BILLION FOR ONE HOUR. IN 1979, THEY RAISED THAT TO 120. BUT YOU CAN SEE SINCE 1979 THAT THAT HAS BEEN DECREASED, AND THE EPA, IN OTHER WORDS, HAS MADE THE STANDARD MORE STRINGENT. THIS IS DRIVEN BY MEDICAL STUDIES WHICH INDICATE 120 WAS NOT PROTECTIVE ENOUGH FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IN 1997, THEY BROUGHT IT DOWN TO 85. 2008, THEY SET IT AT 75. YOU SEE IN YELLOW THERE, WE HAVE IN 2011, THEY'RE DISCUSSING MAYBE BRINGING IT DOWN TO 70, AND IN FACT, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE BRINGING IT DOWN AS LOW AS 60. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED, IF WE HAD A DAY WHERE WE HAD A PEAK CONCENTRATION OF 90 IN 1979, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED OKAY. THERE WOULD BE NO ADVISORIES ISSUED. IF WE HAD THAT TODAY, WE'D BE ISSUING ADVISORY AND THERE WOULD BE CONCERN ABOUT IT. AGAIN, THAT'S A RESULT OF THE STANDARDS COMING DOWN. LET ME TELL YOU THAT IN 2011, IF THEY DO REDUCE THE STANDARD FROM 70 OR 60, NOT ONLY WILL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BE NOT ATTAINED THE STANDARD, BUT MOST OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA WILL NOT. IN ORDER TO SHOW YOU THE AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN IMPROVING, THIS CHART RIGHT HERE SHOWS YOU -- WHAT WE DID WAS WE PICKED THE PEAK ONE-HOUR READINGS FOR OZONE, WHICH, AGAIN, IS PROBABLY THE MOST PROBLEMATIC POLLUTANT WE HAVE HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, SINCE WE STARTED MONITORING IN 1973, THE NUMBER OF DAYS WHERE WE REPORTED A ONE-HOUR READING ABOVE 120 HAS DECREASED DRAMATICALLY. WHERE IT WAS FAIRLY COMMON BACK IN THE EARLY '70s, WE WOULD HAVE THREE OR FOUR DAYS DURING THE OZONE SEASON IN ANY GIVEN MONTH WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE A READING ABOVE 120. IN THE PAST NINE YEARS, WE'VE HAD A SINGLE READING. AND TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, ALTHOUGH WE ARE REDUCING EMISSIONS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, TECO DID A TREMENDOUS JOB WITH THEIR CLEANUP, CLOSING A COAL-POWERED PLANT. THEY ARE SPENDING HALF A BILLION DOLLARS CLEANING UP THE BIG BEND STATION. THE FUELS WE BURN HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND OUR AUTOMOBILES ARE CLEANER. THE AUTOMOBILES THEMSELVES ARE CLEANER. SO WE'VE REDUCED EMISSIONS. THE OTHER PART OF THE AIR QUALITY ADVISORIES IS THE WEATHER. WHAT WE DID WAS HERE WE PULLED OUT WEATHER ON UNHEALTHY AIR DAYS IN 2010. THEY HAVE A COUPLE THINGS IN COMMON. GENERALLY, IN THE SUMMERTIME WHEN WE HAVE OUR THUNDERSTORMS, WE GET REALLY GOOD MIXING IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND WE GET THUNDERSTORMS IN THE AFTERNOON. THE FEW DAYS IN THE SUMMER WHERE WE DON'T GET THAT, WE HAVE A HIGH TEMPERATURE OVER 80 DEGREES, RELATIVELY DRY AND CLEAR, MOST PEOPLE WAKE UP AND SAY WOW, THIS IS GREAT. IT'S GOING TO BE DRY TODAY. FROM OUR AGENCY PERSPECTIVE, WE KIND OF DREAD THOSE DAYS BECAUSE WE REALIZE THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD AIR QUALITY DAY. SO THAT PART OF IT WE CAN'T WORK ON, BUT WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON REDUCING EMISSIONS. THE EPA, AS I MENTIONED, IS LOOKING AT REDUCING THE STANDARD FURTHER, AND ONCE WE GET THAT NUMBER FROM EPA AND WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TAMPA BAY AREA, WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS BOARD AND LET YOU KNOW THAT. THANK YOU, SIR. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS, WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. 1