|
12 March 2010
Posted in
General
Editor's Note: The opportunity is laid out on a silver platter for the newly elected Cape Coral City Council to adopt two critical measures that will assure the future of fishing to it's residents and visitors. Will they act? The problem is that the Cape has not yet agreed to even consider these recommendations, the result of nearly two years of study by area stakeholders and scientists.
Editorial - Dr. Phil Buchannan:
I agree with the
general thrust of the March 3 guest opinion by Peter Brandt and Oliver Clarke,
which was that certain environmental improvements in the North Cape would be of
greater environmental benefit than replacement of the Ceitus Boat Lift/Barrier.
The problem is that the Cape has not agreed to those improvements in meaningful
form.
Forty years ago, the area west of Burnt Store Road and south of Kismet was mangroves owned by the State of Florida and protected by law. The mangroves filtered the sheet flow from the 120 square mile watershed before the waters entered the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. The Gulf American Corporation, developer of Cape Coral, turned much of those mangroves into house lots by dredge and fill during the 1960’s and 70’s. The State of Florida charged Gulf American with a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act (signed by Nixon in 1972). The resulting legal proceedings in 1976 forced Gulf American to build the spreader system and install the Ceitus Barrier in hopes that they it would function as a filter mechanism to replace the destroyed mangroves.
The Cape Government, successor to Gulf American, seeks to permanently remove the Barrier. In my view, their claim that it has not worked as well as originally hoped is correct. Many people argue that’s because the Cape failed to maintain it. In any event, I see no reason why the Barrier could not be permanently removed if the Cape were to adopt other suitable and reasonable environmental safeguards to ensure the proper environmental functioning of this very sensitive area—the same safeguards adopted by numerous other saltwater-front communities in South Florida. They are two in number and very simple.
One: Mangroves are essential in saltwater areas for water quality and wildlife habitat. The Cape Government cannot permanently remove the Barrier until they agree to institute an aggressive program of rip rap and compulsory planting of mangroves in future construction in the saltwater shorelines west of Burnt Store Road. If functioning mangroves were restored, filter-feeding shellfish that cleanse the waters and fish nurseries would also soon follow. The result would be a functioning “living shoreline” instead of the sterile vertical concrete walls now required by City regulations.
Two:On-site septic systems are not acceptable in an area designed to serve as a functioning filter marsh. If we are to permanently remove the Barrier, it is absolutely critical that we set up a legally binding program to convert that area to central sewer as soon as possible. The area west of Burnt Store and south of Kismet is only about one mile wide and totals only about 5.5 square miles. It could be served by a single main line to the existing wastewater facility.
These two requirements are not unreasonable. They are the same rules already followed by other South Florida waterfront communities. Even rural unincorporated Matlacha, which includes all inhabited areas west of the barrier, already has full central sewer and abundant living shorelines.
The environmental organizations of Southwest Florida, private and government, have joined to address the Ceitus Barrier issue. The majority of them generally agree on the two minimal points above—if living shorelines are not established and septic systems eliminated in the critical environmental area, the Barrier has to be reinstalled. A few environmental organizations prefer reinstallation of the Barrier in any event—personally, I don’t agree with that view.
I recognize that the Cape sorely wants residents in the critical environmental area to enjoy a saltwater habitat and open boating access to Matlacha Pass and beyond—residential lots with those amenities are often worth $150,000 or more, a tax base badly needed by Cape Coral. But with those benefits come responsibilities--among them are restoration of mangroves and elimination of septic systems. There is no free ride.
Most of the factual errors in the Brandt-Clark opinion are of no serious consequence and I will ignore them. One however must be addressed. The Brandt-Clark opinion erroneously stated that living shorelines and elimination of septic systems are actions with which they are willing to agree in order to get permanent removal of the Barrier. The devil is in the details. In fact, the Cape has thus far refused to even discuss, much less agree to a legally binding commitment for compulsory planting of mangroves in future shoreline construction. Without mangroves, a saltwater shoreline is not “living” and is of little environmental benefit. Their opinion also failed to note that their proposed schedule for elimination of septic systems in that area is actually designed to delay any action whatsoever for many years if not decades. Nether position is acceptable.
The Brandt-Clark opinion also mentioned numerous other environmental projects that have already been approved by the stakeholders in the last two years of discussions. They include a Cape fertilizer ordnance, dredging of the channel along Pine Island Road, storm water swales and ditch improvements, and a follow-up study on storm water storage and filter marshes north of the Cape--all good stuff, and all important to the environment of the entire region. But they are augmentations of, not proper substitutes for, the two items discussed above. They do not perform the intended functions of the Barrier.
Failure of the environmental organizations and the Cape to agree on alternatives legally requires that the Ceitus Barrier be reconstructed (probably with a lock) at a more suitable spot some 1338 feet north of the previous location. Reconstruction of the Barrier is not the preferred course (neither by the Cape or me, nor I think by the majority of the stakeholders), but it is certainly better than doing nothing to protect the environment.
I’m hopeful that the Cape Coral City Council will accept the need for living shorelines (with mangroves) and elimination of septic systems in the critical environmental area described above. Acceptance of those provisions is the only obstacle to adoption of a responsible and vigorous environmental program for the City of Cape Coral--a program that would increase city revenues while placing the Cape on the progressive side of environmental protection. It would also release them from a punitive DEP consent order that has been hanging over their heads since 1976. That would signal a new direction for the Cape.
Is the newly-elected Cape Coral City Council up to the task? We will soon find out.
-Dr Buchanan is one of the twelve environmental individuals and organizations (including the Snook Foundation and Lee County) that brought a legal action in 2008 to prevent the Cape from permanently removing the Ceitus Barrier without adopting legally binding alternative environmental measures.
