Snook Foundation
DEP delaying restoration of
protective barrier
30 December 2010
http://www.snookfoundation.org/news/research/388-sun-going-down-on-matlacha-fishing.html
After nearly
three years (see historical recap), we
are still battling for essential gamefish habitat in Matlacha.
As it now stands, freshwater that once was divided among
numerous flow ways into Matlacha Pass via tidal
creeks is entering the Pass at a single source. This has drastically changed
the quantity, timing, and quality of freshwater flowing into the aquatic
preserve waters, greatly degrading the estuary. Is DEP, the agency
charged with protecting our waters, unaware of what is happening? If you
care about gamefishing in Matlacha, let DEP know.
Letter from SF Advisory Council Member, Aaron Adams
Dear Ms. Mills:
I am writing to
express my views about the Cape
Coral spreader canal and Ceitus barrier. The Ceitus
barrier must be reconstructed to prevent the continued degradation of Matlacha Pass and nearby waters.
It is well
documented that alteration of freshwater flow into estuaries negatively impacts
estuarine ecology, causing changes in species composition and declines in
species abundances. What is now Northwest Cape
Coral used to drain into Matlacha Pass via numerous tidal creeks. An example
of this natural connection between uplands and the estuary can be seen today to
the north of Cape Coral, in lands owned by the State Park system. In these natural
creeks, there are more species of fish and higher fish abundances than in areas
impacted by altered freshwater flows into the Charlotte Harbor estuary system.
Prior to the
deconstruction of the Ceitus barrier, the northwest Cape Coral spreader system was working. Tidal creeks had formed between
the canal and Matlacha Pass, often in
the same locations that natural creeks once flowed. This served to once again
spread the flow of freshwater into Matlacha Pass across a large area, as had occurred naturally before northwest
Cape Coral was built. Given that these new creeks have served a good
ecological function, I am astounded that DEP defines them as ‘breaches’ and a
failure of the spreader system. This is entirely contrary to the truth. These
creeks are exactly what is needed, they are not
‘breaches’.
As it now stands,
freshwater that once was divided among numerous drainages and flowed into Matlacha Pass via tidal creeks is entering Matlacha Pass at a single source. This has drastically changed the quantity,
timing, and quality of freshwater flowing into the Pass, greatly degrading the
estuary. The changes in sediment distribution, loss of seagrass,
and algae blooms that are now occurring are just the beginning of the long term
degradation of Matlacha Pass and
adjacent waters.
The ecology of
this issue is about as basic as it gets: if the Ceitus
barrier is not replaced the ecology of the estuary will suffer. So will
the residents of Matlacha and Pine Island. Perhaps more importantly, the recreational and commercial
fisheries, worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, that rely on this
healthy estuary will suffer.
I have made an
honest effort to understand why DEP has not ensured that the Ceitus barrier is replaced. From an ecologist’s point of
view, it is a no-brainer. We have ample scientific evidence on the impacts we
are seeing and will continue to see. From an economist’s point of view, the
high value of the recreational and commercial fisheries alone dwarf any
increase in property values to northwest Cape Coral residents that would benefit from an open canal. Add in the
economic impact on Matlacha and Pine Island residents and there is really no contest. I cannot,
no matter how I look at it, justify DEP’s apparent
desire to prevent the barrier from being replaced. Put the barrier back.
Sincerely,
Aaron Adams, Ph.D. (Fish Ecologist) See more letters and comments.
Add your own comment
Setting the record straight: Experts support replacement
of Ceitus Barrier - Misinformation being circulated
by Cape Coral City Council
In an editorial,” January 9, 2011, Dr.
Gordon Ultsch, resident, writes that Lee County, in making a motion to support replacing the Ceitus barrier, ignored the “2 ˝ years of meeting by a
group of experts with strong credentials.” Dr Ultsch
erroneously stated in his letter that the Ceitus
expert group voted to not replace the barrier, and that Lee County erred in not following their advice. Actually the group
of experts voted 14 to 4 to replace the Ceitus
Barrier. Seehttp://www.dep.state.fl.us/south/tmdl/tmdl.htm
and look under the November 3 Final Report,
Annex J, for the votes of the experts as well as some excellent scientific
papers supporting their positions.
Dr Ultsch was probably misled by a recent Cape Coral City
Council flyer that falsely claimed only a few of the members of the expert
group supported replacement of the barrier. The flyer falsely inferred broad
expert opposition to replacement of the barrier and even incorrectly specified
federal government opposition.
The federal
Government representatives as well as every single representative of local,
regional, and national non-profit environmental organizations plus the Lee County and Charlotte County Governments all voted to replace the
barrier, which were 14 of the 18 votes cast. The Cape Coral flyer was incorrect, and was probably the reason Dr Ultsch was misled.
Dr Ultsch says ”If I had been on that
committee, and put in 2 ˝ years of work, I would be rip-roaring mad.”
Yes, those of us that were on the committee know that feeling.
--- Phil Buchanan
The current battle for gamefish
in Matlacha began for Snook Foundation in March,
2008, when we contested removal of one part of a spreader canal system that was designed in the 60s and 70s to hold back
storm water and pollutants dumping into Matlacha
Aquatic Preserve from the City of Cape Coral. Over the years the system had begun to deteriorate.
Needed maintenance was not performed by the City. Canal-front residents
began to see the flow ways in the system as potential boat-ways to Matlacha pass. A campaign to open one of them for
boat traffic started. Some envisioned a community such as exists in Port Royale, Naples where homes on armored seawalls have direct access to the bay
through dredged canals. Snook Foundation along with many others
hotly contested a proposal to remove one of the deteriorating berms and adjacent boat lift, because of the impact this
would have on prime juvenile gamefish
habitat.
Eventually, a compromise (Consent Order) was agreed upon, allowing the
temporary removal of the Ceitus Boat lift in 2008,
but requiring that the barrier be replaced unless a designated work group could
agree upon a better way to solve the problem of filtering polluted waters from Cape Coral homes before they reach the aquatic preserve.
Members of the
work group (called an EMA - environmental management assessment) included
representatives of Charlotte County, Lee County, City of Cape
Coral and 14 stakeholder groups
including the Snook Foundation. After 2 years of study (see summary page) there
was consensus among most of the group that recommended 2
basic steps be taken: restore living shorelines and remove septic tanks in the
affected area .
Unfortunately, the City of Cape
Coral would not consider these
recommendations. We were disappointed that the recommendations were not
acted upon, but relieved that the long attempt to negotiate had finally run its
course, and now the City would be required by law to do the right thing
(restore and maintain the spreader canal barrier as originally intended).
In 2008, the
Consent Order had directed that should an impasse result from the stakeholder
group meeting , then DEP would facilitate the approval of the City's permitting
to quickly restore the barrier, thus limiting continued environmental
degradation of Matlacha Aquatic preserve.
This brings us to
the current point where it suddenly appears that DEP, the agency that was
directed to facilitate the process is about to further delay
restoration of the
barrier. Putting the barrier back is the best hope at this point of
maintaining and restoring the essential juvenile and nursery habitat for gamefish that we all appreciate having in abundance. Snook,
Redfish, Tarpon and Trout all depend on healthy creeks, estuaries, and seagrass for successful maturation. Opening up
the flow of freshwater runoff and pollutants into the pass and allowing open
access of large predatory fish from the pass into the canals diminishes the
health of both the pass and the canals and their adjoining creeks. So why should there be any delay in restoring the barrier? A few residents may benefit in the short term, but at what
cost?
It's easy to see how seagrass
beds in the pass have been diminished by sedimentation and changes in water
quality. Less easy to see is how juvenile gamefish
which previously had safe refuge in the tidal creeks adjoining canals that held
fresh water are faring. These 'Gamefish for Tomorrow' are now prey
for mature Jacks, Snook, and other large predators that can easily enter the
system since removal of the barrier.
Let DEP know that you support restoration
of the Ceitus barrier -
Megan Mills Megan.Mills@dep.state.fl.us
Environmental Specialist II
Submerged Lands & Environmental Resource Program
South District Office
on Delay in Restoring Ceitus Barrier
From Phil Buchanan January 4, 2010:
Our thanks to Commissioner Manning for raising the Ceitus
Barrier issue at today's commissioner meeting. Our thanks also to all
five commissioners for approving a letter to be sent to DEP protesting the
arbitrary roadblocks they are placing in the barrier reconstruction permit
process. All five commissioners are obviously abreast of the situation
and committed to the protection of our estuary from Cape Coral runoff.
Commissioner
Judah said it right--the DEP claim that the Consent Order requires separation
of wetland waters from spreader waters along the entire seven mile spreader
canal is "patently ridiculous." The Consent Order in fact says just
the opposite. I appealed the erroneous Fort Myers Office interpretation of the
Consent Order to the DEP Tallahassee attorney on 28 December, but have not
received a reply.
------------------------------
From Noel Andres, Sunmark
Realty, Inc., Dec 28, 2010: I would
like to provide the following comments on the reconstruction permit for the
North Cape Coral Spreader Barrier Application (File No. 36-0295854-002).
The State of Florida went to
great expense and effort in the 1970's to require construction in certain
waterways of South Florida, barriers designed to restrict the direct flow of stormwaters into area bays and estuaries. There was
much scientific data presented as justification by the State for requirement of
these barriers. I read with interest your request for additional
information (RAI) sent to the City of Cape Coral. Items number 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were addressed previously
by the State in requiring the barriers to be constructed and you assured
members of the NCSEMA that should the majority of committee members agree the
barrier should be replaced that the DEP would not put unnecessary requirements
on the City of Cape Coral in granting an application to reconstruct the
barrier. What has changed in the environmental damage direct discharge of
stormwater to these systems caused in the 1970's and
will not cause to these waters at the present time to justify not
reconstructing the barrier? I'm not sure why the DEP is trying to
reinvent the wheel on this issue by requesting the extensive information in the
RAI from the City of Cape Coral.
I found the
request in item number 3 to address the breaches along the west wall of the
spreader canal to be in direct conflict with the DEP's
actual activities in managing this system. Why did the DEP sit on a fund
of approximately $700,000 set aside to repair any defects in the system if it
is so important in your RAI for the City of Cape Coral to construct structures to
prevent any exchange of canal waters to other water of the State through the
breaches and why did DEP sanction removal of the barrier in the first place if
it is critical that waters from the canal system not be allowed to direct flow
to other waters of the State. I think current flow patterns along the
over seven mile stretch of spreader will enhance water quality if the breaches
remain so water can be filtered through the mangroves over a wider area before
flowing to State waters.
A study by the University of Miami in the 1970's showed that water flowing from the south end of
the spreader into Matlacha Pass tended to
reside there instead of flowing out of the area which would lead to lowering of
salinity. Salinity was identified as one of the major impacts to the
estuary from the fresh water flows. The study indicated that the
Caloosahatchee, Peace and Myakka River systems had little impact on the water located at the Matlacha Pass bridge area.
There have been
ample changes to this estuary since removal of the barrier to support replacing
it. The siltation in the bay east of Matlacha has been extensive covering several oysters and seagrass beds and restricting navigation in the canal
system connecting the spreader to the waters of Matlacha Pass. Matlacha Pass is an
important incubation area for Charlotte Harbor and needs protection from stormwater
discharges that are high in nutrients harmful to seagrasses
and marine life.
I served for over
two and one-half years on the TAC and the Stakeholder committees and am very
disappointed to see the DEP put roadblocks in a process to do what is right
from their own studies to replace a structure that should have never been
allowed to be removed. Your action has added to the cost of replacement
and the information you have requested continues to add to that cost. I
trust in the end that you will do the right thing for the environment and grant
the permit to reconstruct the barrier for if this injustice stands then which
barriers will next be requested to be removed from systems in South Florida.