| 20 January 2011
Following presentations from two experts on the pros and cons of replacing the Ceitus barrier in Cape Coral, the vote by the Matlacha Civic Association to have the barrier replaced was nearly unanimous.
"It was clear that the vast majority of our membership was in favor of having the barrier put back," said civic association president Bill Stoelker. "We had been asked to take a position on this matter and our position is now official."
According to Stoelker, many of the people attending the overflow meeting had already made up their minds as to the need for the replacement of the barrier. "Most of the people in favor of replacing the barrier have witnessed the unfavorable changes to the pass and realize the importance of replacing the barrier to preserve the water quality of the area," Stoelker said. "We also are in favor of doing whatever else is necessary, such as replacing the current sewer system, to improve the water quality in the pass." Read more about DEP dragging down Matlacha Fishing. and others Weigh In
Stoelker also said that the purpose of the meeting was to once again, hear from experts, both sides of the issue. Addressing the group was geologist, David Scott and biologist Aaron Adams. According to Scott, the current situation was not harmful to the pass and stood in favor of not replacing the barrier.
"We have seen studies that the storm water runoff into the pass is not polluting the area," Scott said. "Studies show that perhaps the storm water run off is among the cleanest in the state and pollution is not a problem. If we dam the thing back up, we don't know what's going to happen in the future."
Adams said the real concern was water flow and how the saline and freshwater mix was affecting the species which inhabit the area.
"I am 100 percent for putting the barrier back primarily because of the result of habitat loss. When the barrier was in place we saw a more natural mix of salt and fresh water as the fresh water, for the most part was diverted and it was a slower mix which results in less of an impact on bottom dwellers such as sea grass and oysters," Adams said. "When the bottom feeders no longer exist, then other species such as snook are impacted. When their food source is gone, they are forced to relocate and in many instances the relocation is not for the better."
According to Stoelker, the vote was 50 to put back the lift or another barrier, one vote to leave things as they currently are and one abstention.
"The main subject of the meeting was to take a position on the return of the Ceitus Boatlift, or other barrier that would restrict the flow of fresh water from Cape Coral into the Matlacha Pass. The people of Matlacha have witnessed the change of water quality and reduced marine life first-hand in our own canals and bays right behind our homes," Stoelker said. "We have seen the excess sand and fill on Shoreline Drive continue to accumulate. We have seen major changes to our water quality over the past two years and the only thing that is different is the removal of the lift. We don't think this is the only answer to ensure the best possible water quality, but it is a start. Our position is to put the barrier back so that the spreader system can operate as it was designed."
Weigh In - More Informed Views
Rae Anne Wessel, excerpted from CaptivaSanibel.com Click on link for full text
There has been a lot of misinformation circulating regarding the process and the conclusion that the barrier needs to be replaced. We’d like to clarify a few of these issues.
First a definition of “breaches.” In the 1970s, the construction of the Ceitus canal bisected a number of natural creeks that extended west from the land that became the City of Cape Coral to the coastal waters of Matlacha Pass. These natural estuarine creeks, that have today been incorrectly characterized as breaches, are critical habitat for juvenile fish, crabs and shrimp that are dependent upon the freshwater/saltwater mixing zone that serves as their nursery.
Contrary to what has been suggested, the barrier was never intended to prevent the movement of tidal waters through the western shoreline of the canal. Rather the barrier was specifically designed and functioned to hold back water to sheetflow west over the coastal mangroves and through the tidal creeks. This design enabled the slow movement of water from the canal into the estuary, providing water quality treatment, moderating the timing of water delivery and distributing the flow across the miles of mangroves and tidal creeks. This water becomes particularly critical in the winter months when water levels are lower and freshwater becomes especially critical to provide freshwater inflow.
Without the barrier, an unnaturally large volume of untreated freshwater is diverted out the south end of the canal into Matlacha Pass. Reinstalling the barrier will recreate the healthy mangrove sheetflow, treatment and flow through these vital tidal creeks. Healthy water quality and healthy flows are fundamental to the health of our estuarine food web including game fish, crab and shrimp species and seafood.
Opponents to replacement of the barrier have argued and this paper’s Editorial suggests that replacing the barrier will cause new blowouts and breeches in the canal, similar to what happened before. It is important to remember that the old barrier, built adjacent to mangrove wetlands, operated as designed for 30 years despite a total lack of maintenance, even though there is an escrow fund for that purpose. The new barrier location is proposed to be built adjacent to uplands to address that concern.
Water quality is a central issue in the decision to open up the stormwater system of Cape Coral canals into the State Aquatic Preserve of Matlacha Pass. The fact that the North Cape is only one quarter built out, and limited capacity to intercept and treat water from home sites, yards, septic tanks and stormwater, is built at an intense scale and in proximity to both surface and ground water makes this a critical time to address water quality projects.
The EMA process provided an opportunity to comprehensively address water quality to provide a net environmental benefit. Unfortunately, the city’s refusal to commit to an effective suite of projects fell short of this critical threshold. Failing to address water quality issues today threatens the health of our unique and valuable aquatic resources.
For more detail on how we evaluated the proposal, please visit our website to read our position paper at www.sccf.org.
