Seagrass restoration via mitigation bank another tool to improve water quality | Opinion

After entering public service in 2018, I became the only member of the Florida House with a master's degree in biology and extensive knowledge of restoration ecology. As a resident of the Treasure Coast, I have seen the degradation of the marine resources firsthand, and as a legislator, I am working to expand environmental restoration tools.

Recently, along with Rep. Tyler Sirois, we filed CS/HB 349, Water Resource Management. If approved, the bill allows public and private entities to use sovereign submerged land to establish mitigation banks. The mitigation banks allow private equity to invest in the restoration of mangroves, hard bottoms, seagrass, bivalves, corals, and other benthic habitat/ecology.

Mitigation banks are not a new idea, and the establishment of mitigation banks is NOT authorized by the bill. That process is controlled by the Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993 (Section 373.4135, Florida Statutes), which directed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and water management districts to adopt rules governing mitigation banking.

An opposing view:With manatees in crisis, don't let developers kill seagrass here; plant it there | Opinion

The 1993 Act created the Mitigation Bank Statute, 373.4136, and Mitigation Bank Rule, 62-342, which provide the authorization for permitting banks by the state. This includes BOTH state and federal approvals as well as comprehensive reviews from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and FDEP.

Section 373.4136(1) establishes the following requirements for a mitigation bank: improve ecological conditions of the regional watershed, provide viable and sustainable ecological and hydrological functions for the proposed mitigation service area, be effectively managed in the long term, not destroy areas with high ecological value, achieve mitigation success, and be adjacent to lands that will not adversely affect the long-term viability of the mitigation bank due to unsuitable land uses or conditions.

2022 Florida legislative session:Here are 8 environmental bills we're watching

Sharks, manatee deaths, goliath grouper harvest:2021 was unforgettable year in outdoors

The proposed bill changes none of the agency oversight, requires extensive monitoring, and requires extensive private capital investment. The bill does NOT authorize any impacts to resources. All authorization for impacts to resources are by FDEP and Corps of Engineers approvals, combined, as well as other agencies as noted above.

Examples of impacts include new FDOT or local government bridge construction and/or maintenance, navigation channel dredging for maritime traffic (used by pleasure craft, cruise ships, shipping containers), single-family docks, marine repair facilities, municipal piping projects, utility transmission and others.

In most cases, the authorized impact permits complete disjointed, small, and low impact mitigation that does not have the same oversight, size, and financial requirements that mitigation banks must, by law, retain. In accordance with state law, mitigation banks provide regionally significant restoration of resources that are proven through independent monitoring and backed by perpetual financial requirements.

Will this proposed legislation save the entirety of benthic ecology within Florida? Will this bill be able to magically restore seagrass lost in Tampa Bay or the Indian River Lagoon? The answer is a resounding “no.” In order to do that, we MUST attack detrimental water quality conditions.

According to the South Florida Water Management District, since January 2019, 37 restoration projects broke ground, hit major milestones, or finished construction. Each project is part of the solution, but, individually, none are the silver bullet to fixing water quality. Knowing that, should we abandon each because they aren’t the silver bullet? Shouldn’t we give our state every ability to use all possible means of restoration of our environment?

Rezek (2019) found that after 32 years, 88% of restoration projects continued to support seagrass. But, funding is a key item to restoration. Rohr, J. et al (2018) stated, “financial needs for restoration typically exceed available resources, even where solid planning is in place; thus, the success of future restoration projects will undoubtedly depend on economic efficiencies and adequate capital … Payment for Ecosystem Services programs provide another progressive approach to funding restoration.”

It all comes back to water quality, and to that, I agree with my constituents that more work must be done. Regarding the success of seagrass mitigation in the Chesapeake Bay, once water quality improved, K. Samurovic (2020) wrote, “Besides being beneficial for mitigating emissions and pollution, researchers hope that this project will be a beacon in the dark for other devastated marine ecosystems, which now suffer poor water quality, algal blooms, and fish kills as a consequence of seagrass disappearance … once the water is cleaned up … seagrasses can recover rapidly.”

I, along with Rep. Sirois, remain committed to providing Florida with a variety of restoration tools and am fully committed to the long-term restoration of water quality within Florida’s waterways.

Toby Overdorf, R-Palm City, represents District 83 in the Florida House of Representatives.