Snook Foundation
Sun Going Down on Matlacha Fishing?
DEP delaying restoration of protective barrier
Written by Staff | 30 December 2010
Cape Coral's NorthSpreaderCanal system is transporting sediment and pollutants into MatlachaPass. Aerial photo from 10/2010DEP delaying restoration of protective barrier
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 MatlachaPass 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 DEPknow.
Stormwater, silt and pollutants from Cape Coral's north spreader canal go right into MatlachaPass and nearby waters."We found that the creek was playing a greater role than we previously thought," said Rhonda Haag, DEP spokesperson, in October, 2010.
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 MatlachaPass 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 MatlachaPass 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 CharlotteHarbor 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 MatlachaPass, often in the same locations that natural creeks once flowed. This served to once again spread the flow of freshwater into MatlachaPass 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 MatlachaPass via tidal creeks is entering MatlachaPass 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 MatlachaPass 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 PineIsland. 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 PineIsland 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)
Setting the record straight: Experts support replacement of Ceitus Barrier - Misinformation being circulated byCape Coral City Council
In an editorial,” January 9, 2011, Dr. Gordon Ultsch, resident, writes that LeeCounty, in making a motion to support replacing the Ceitus barrier, ignored the “2 ½ 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 LeeCounty erred in not following their advice. Actually the group of experts voted 14 to 4 to replace the Ceitus Barrier. See 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 LeeCounty 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 ½ years of work, I would be rip-roaring mad.” Yes, those of us that were on the committee know that feeling. --- Phil Buchanan
History
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 CharlotteCounty, LeeCounty, 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 is e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Environmental Specialist II
Submerged Lands & Environmental Resource Program
South District Office
More comments 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 28December, 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 MatlachaPass 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 MyakkaRiver systems had little impact on the water located at the MatlachaPass 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 MatlachaPass.MatlachaPass is an important incubation area for CharlotteHarbor 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.