Get documents about "Section 5 - Projects that Provide a Net Ecosystem Benefit (NEB)
Document Sample
Cape Coral North Spreader Canal
Ecosystem Management Agreement Process
October 9, 2009 Meeting Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
Opening 4
5.0 Projects that Provide a Net Ecosystem Benefit (NEB) 4
5.1 Summary List of NEB Projects 5
5.2 Projects to be Implemented by the City of Cape Coral 5
5.2.1 Cape Coral Fertilizer Ordinance 6
5.2.2 Cape Coral Seawall Engineering Design Standard 7
5.2.3 Stormwater Treatment Improvement 9
5.2.4 Development of Public Sewer System 11
5.2.5 Maintain Cape Coral Canal Dredging Profile 13
5.2.6 Implementation of Boating Related Enhancements 14
5.3 Projects to be Implemented by Lee and Charlotte Counties, Cape Coral, SFWMD, SWFWMD
and others. 15
5.3.1 Coordination to Improve Flows and Timing of Water to the State Park and Aquatic
Preserves 15
5.3.2 Design and Management of NSC Watershed NEB Projects 16
5.3.3 Septic Tank Inspection & Maintenance Ordinance 16
5.3.4 CHNEP Committees as Forums for Discussion and Monitoring 17
5.4 Other Possible NEB Projects 17
5.4.1 Study of Ecosystem Enhancement Opportunities West of the NSC 17
5.4.2 Habitat Enhancement Pilots on the West Side of the NSC 18
5.4.3 Stormwater Treatment Areas 18
5.4.4 Multijurisdictional Coordination to Improve Flows, Timing and Distribution of Water to the
State Park and Aquatic Preserves 19
Appendices
A. Meeting Participants 20
Meeting Planning, Facilitation and Report by The FCRC Consensus Center
Technical Consultant Janicki Environmental, Inc.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 1
Executive Summary
The Cape Coral North Spreader Ecosystem Management Agreement (NS-EMA) Stakeholders
Group and other participants met on October 9, 2009 at the South Florida Water Management
District in Ft. Myers. There were representatives from local, regional and state government and
private groups and other interests. The focus of this meeting was on finalizing Section 5 of the
draft NSEMA Stakeholder Group Findings and Conclusions. The following are some key points
from the discussions:
5.2 Projects to be Implemented by the City of Cape Coral
5.2.1 Cape Coral Fertilizer Ordinance. The group decided to base the ordinance on the Lee
County ordinance rather than on the state model. DEP and others will investigate what legal
mechanisms and scientific basis can be used to substantiate a stricter ordinance that will stand up
to a challenge.
5.2.2 Amend the Cape Coral Seawall Engineering Design Standard to provide structure
and vegetation options. The group agreed to require one of several “living shoreline” options
for new construction and repair permits in Cape Coral saltwater canals (except the NSC). The
profile options will be refined.
5.2.3 Storm Water Treatment Improvement. There was strong support for the new proposal
to treat stormwater in existing swales, but not consensus. The proposal includes new catch basins
in swales west of Burnt Store Road and south of Kismet that would be designed to provide more
retention and treatment of polluted water than if the barrier is replaced. There were concerns that
money in the escrow account from Lee County should not be used for stormwater improvements
in Cape Coral that might well be funded in any case, and that additional retention in swales may
affect septic tank drain fields.
5.2.4 Development of Public Sewer Systems. The group discussed the Cape Coral proposal in
detail. Group members generally supported a lower condition-based density-equivalent criterion
in the vicinity of 35% (and ultimately to be set at a point defensible from an engineering point of
view) for areas west of Burnt Store Road and south of Kismet. East of Burnt Store Road, the
group was generally supportive of a higher density-equivalent criterion in the vicinity of 45%
and additional flexibility to take account of local conditions.
5.2.5 Maintain the Cape Coral Canal Dredging Profile. There was consensus on this item
after an additional line was added to make it clear that Cape Coral will not request deeper
dredging levels in the future.
5.2.6 Implement Boating-Related Enhancements. This item was unchanged from the previous
meeting. There was only one person whose objection was related to the potential increase in the
number and size of boats if the barrier is not put back.
Funding Cape Coral Projects. The group agreed that the final documents should include an
explanation of how the escrow funds will be used.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 2
5.3 Projects to be implemented by others.
5.3.1 Coordination to Improve Flows, Timing and Distribution of Water to the State Park and
Aquatic Preserve. A statement will be added clarifying that Cape Coral’s only enforceable obligation is
to convene quarterly meetings with the State Park and Aquatic Preserves that may also be attended by Lee
and Charlotte Counties, DEP, SFWMD, SWFWMD and other stakeholders. This item will be moved to
Section 5.2 and included as a condition in the ERP.
5.3.2 Action on Design and Management of NSC Watershed NEB Projects. Members agreed that
the projects grouped under this item are each important enough to be described individually. The
responsible entities for Gator Slough, Yucca Pens, Charlotte Flatwoods, Yellow Fever Creek and other
listed projects will study, request funding, design, build and/or manage these projects as appropriate and
seek input from other stakeholders in order to coordinate efforts and to increase the NEB for the
watershed
5.3.3 Septic Tank Maintenance Ordinance. Members agreed that it would be appropriate to redraft this
item as a possibility to be jointly explored and pursued by Lee County, the Lee County Health
Department, and the City of Cape Coral. The agreement is to explore a possible ordinance, not a
commitment to adopt one.
5.3.4 CHNEP Committees as Forums for Discussion and Monitoring. There was no objection to this
item, just a request for additional clarifying language. Cape Coral agreed to commit to providing the
implementation updates necessary for the committee discussions.
5.4 Other Possible NEB Projects
5.4.1. Study of Ecosystem Enhancement Opportunities West of the NSC. The group continued to
acknowledge the importance of this study, but there is no commitment to seek funding for it.
5.4.2. Habitat Enhancement Pilots on the West Side of the NSC. The group agreed that these pilots
may still have value, and there were concerns about possible negative impacts and the high costs.
5.4.3. Storm Water Treatment Areas (STAs). Members believed that additional STAs are still
desirable to retain and treat different water sources than the new storm water improvements in swales
west of Burnt Store Road and south of Kismet. These may be addressed in the TMDL and other
processes. There was not agreement on reinstating the development of an additional STA as an NEB
project.
5.4.4 Multi-jurisdictional Coordination to Improve Flows, Timing and Distribution of Water to the
State Park and Aquatic Preserve. This was discussed in conjunction with 5.3.1, which focuses on
water flowing into Cape Coral and out to the State Park and Preserves. The Group discussed possible
variations of this item that would involve expanding the scope of 5.3.1 to include projects up-stream and
north of Cape Coral and flows to Matlacha north of the NSC, or another entity that would convene
periodic meetings to coordinate projects and management for the whole watershed. There was not
consensus on the changes discussed.
In closing the facilitator summarized the meeting results. The group agreed that another meeting was
needed. Everyone was asked to hold the previously scheduled date, October 28 and to respond to a
scheduling survey. A revised draft will be sent out prior to the next meeting.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 3
North Spreader Canal Ecosystem Management Agreement Process
Stakeholder Group Meeting 13
Meeting Notes
The following are the meeting materials with facilitators’ notes from the discussions shown in
italics. Edits to the draft materials are shown with strike through and underlining. The notes do
not capture everything or exactly what was said. These notes will be used by the project
consultants and others to produce a revised draft of the NS-EMA documents prior to the next
meeting. The Stakeholders will meet with the agencies and groups they represent to get
guidance for the final amendment process at the final meeting in [ ]. The final documents from
that meeting will be sent to the Stakeholder Agencies and Groups to determine whether to accept
or reject the Findings and Conclusions and the Report.
Opening
The session began by having everyone introduce themselves and indicate whom they
represented. A list of the participants is in Appendix A. The proposed meeting agenda was
presented. It was suggested that much of the meeting would focus on negotiating agreement
language that will achieve, protect and balance the interests of the stakeholders. It will be
helpful to seek specific commitments while allowing flexibility to consider new conditions,
constraints, information and funding. There will also be a need to balance what is needed with
the willingness of taxpayers and institutions to pay.
It was explained that a majority of the meeting would be spent going through Section 5 and that
for each part it would be necessary to:
1. Refine project proposals
2. Specify who is accountable, measurable responsibilities
3. Determine appropriate timelines
4. Test acceptability
Section 5 - Projects that Provide a Net Ecosystem Benefit (NEB)
Section 5 specifies those projects that the Stakeholder Group agrees will achieve an NEB over
just replacing the barrier at the south end of the Cape Coral North Spreader Canal (NSC).
Section 5.1 provides a summary list of all the projects. Section 5.2 includes descriptions of those
projects for which Cape Coral will be responsible and which will constitute the full extent of its
obligations in fulfillment of the requirements of the Consent Order. Section 5.3 includes other
agreed-upon projects that entail additional responsibilities and commitments for identified
stakeholders. The projects, activities and commitments in Section 5.3 enhance the NEB, but are
not essential to meeting the requirements of the Consent Order. Section 5.4 describes other
projects that the Stakeholder Group recommends, but which have not been accepted as
commitments by any of the stakeholders.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 4
5.1 Summary List of NEB Projects
The Net Ecosystem Benefit (NEB) projects, pursuant to 403.075 Florida Statutes, listed below
are followed by more specific descriptions and proposed project conditions:
Projects to be implemented by the City of Cape Coral
[Note to Stakeholder Group: Wording of the list below reflects Cape Coral’s 9/24 proposal.]
1. Adopt a Cape Coral Fertilizer Ordinance
2. Amend the Cape Coral Seawall Engineering Design Standard to Provide Structure and
Vegetation Options
3. Storm Water Treatment Improvements
4. Condition Based Timing for Development of Public Sewer System
5. Maintain the Cape Coral Canal Dredging Profile
6. Implement Boating Related Enhancements
Projects to be implemented by Lee and Charlotte Counties, Cape Coral, SFWMD,
SWFWMD, FDEP and/or others
1. Cape Coral Coordination to Improve Flows, Timing and Distribution of Water to the
State Park and Aquatic Preserve
2. Design and Management of NSC Watershed NEB Projects
3. Septic Tank Maintenance Ordinance
4. CHNEP Committees as Forums for Follow-Up Discussion and Monitoring
Other Possible NEB Projects
The following are potential projects that the Stakeholder group recommends but that do not have
detailed descriptions or sponsor commitments:
1. Study of ecosystem enhancement opportunities west of the NSC
2. Storm water treatment areas
3. Multi-jurisdictional Coordination to Improve Flows, Timing and Distribution of Water to
the State Park and Aquatic Preserve
5.2 Projects to be Implemented by the City of Cape Coral
Section 5.2 includes descriptions of those projects for which Cape Coral will be responsible and
which will constitute the full extent of its obligations in fulfillment of the requirements of the
Consent Order. The projects in this section will be implemented by inclusion in an
Environmental Resource Permit.
[Note to Stakeholder Group: The following is a 9/24 proposal from Cape Coral for the language
to be inserted here. While Cape Coral believes the following descriptions are more viable and
more clearly defined than the previous versions, and that they will provide significant net
environmental benefits, these descriptions differ in significant respects from the direction
provided by the Stakeholder Group at its 8-19-09 meeting. Members are encouraged to review
the Summary Report of the 8-19-09 meeting for the prior language and discussion notes.]
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 5
5.2.1 Cape Coral Fertilizer Ordinance
Within 12 months following the approval of the North Spreader Ecosystem Management
Agreement by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) the City shall:
Adopt an Ordinance for Florida-Friendly Fertilizer Use on Urban that is similar to Lee
County’s ordinance;
The City shall defend that ordinance if legally challenged;
The NSEMA stakeholders will support the development of the ordinance; prepare the
scientific backup and support defense of the stricter ordinance.
If portions of the stronger ordnance are successfully challenged the City will retain the
rest of the ordinance. Sections will be separate and severable.
Provide ongoing public education regarding fertilizer use.
[DEP and others will investigate what legal mechanisms can substantiate a stricter ordinance
that will stand up to a challenge]
Stakeholder Group Acceptability Rating After the Discussion
4 3 2 1
5 10 0 0
Notes
Cape Coral wants to do a fertilizer ordinance quickly. Want to avoid a legal challenge
and be sure it can be implemented. The statute requires scientific study for an exemption.
The DEP General Counsel says there is not a requirement for a study and recommends
submitting the ordinance to IFAS and DEP. The Lee ordinance was sent in for comment.
Most are in favor of the Lee ordinance for consistency and improved pollutant reduction
results and that it includes a the blackout period for application in the rainy season.
Jim Beever has been asked to help local governments. All you have to do is to provide
information to IFAS and DEP and consider their recommendations. Just put it in the
public record. One of the IFAS papers has not been peer reviewed. There is a literature
nationally that supports the blackout period. The RPC met with DACS and IFAS and they
were OK with our approach. There does not have to be approved before adoption.
Lee is educating the industry and consistency is important. We should have the same
ordinance in the whole area.
Cape Coral agrees on the need for consistency. We may be able to use the review of the
Lee County ordinance as justification for the stricter ordinance.
There was a letter from 24 groups urging a strong fertilizer ordinance. There is one
person threatening a challenge and he hasn’t.
He now has the statute as a basis for a challenge.
There could be a rescission clause that would allow the rest of the ordinance to stand.
We could require the Lee standards unless challenged.
Would this just be an NEB if it was the state model?
In Tampa Bay they said they would do a fertilizer ordinance. DEP said that it had to be
greater than the model to be an NEB.
There was a 4% credit given for the using model ordinance. There have not been any
challenges to the ordinance to date. Not everyone has adopted an ordinance.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 6
The RPC has supported these ordinances in Tampa Bay
Lee County wants to get credit for the load reduction.
Having an enforceable ordinance and education is important.
Lee and private stakeholder groups could help with the defense.
DEP has data that would provide scientific support. If Cape Coral had this it would help
in a defense. This plus the IFAS/DEP review may give us a basis for a defense.
There is a study that is being done but there will be 2-3 years before the results are in.
Add a statement that the stakeholders agree to support Cape Coral in a challenge.
Cape Coral will probably have to do an ordinance anyway.
Will this reduce nutrients more than the barrier?
We are comparing to a barrier without an ordinance.
A legal challenge could cost millions and we don’t want to commit to that.
We will draft language and rate this later.
5.2.2 Amend the Cape Coral Seawall Engineering Design Standard to Provide Structure
and Vegetation Options
Within 12 months following the approval of the North Spreader Ecosystem Management
Agreement by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection the City shall amend the
City’s engineering design standard regarding sea walls on salt water canals (except the NSC) to
provide additional options for structure and vegetation plantings which provide beneficial marine
habitat. One of the options provided adopted by Cape Coral and approved by DEP will must be
utilized for new seawall and repair permits. at the property owner’s discretion. Owners must
maintain the living shoreline but may change the option used. City ordinance will specify City
and DEP enforcement responsibilities. The following options as conceptually illustrated in
Attachment A will be included in the amended City engineering design standard [These will have
detailed profiles before final approval]:
Living shoreline – Riprap and Mangrove
Living shoreline – Riprap and Oyster
Living shoreline – Riprap and Marsh Grass
Other options to be developed by Cape Coral and approved by DEP, possibly including:
gabion, planter box, 100% riprap, no bulkhead, etc.
Within 12 months following the amendment to the engineering design standard the City shall
construct each new option defined in the amended engineering design standard at Sirenia Vista
Park as conceptually illustrated in Attachment A to serve as a demonstration area. Each option
constructed shall be at least 100 feet in length.
Within 3 months following the amendment to the engineering design standard the City shall
initiate a public education program regarding the benefits of both structure and vegetation near
and along seawalls to marine habitat and water quality. The education will include information
regarding the restrictions and requirements for the maintenance of vegetative plantings as
required in regulations promulgated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Stakeholder Group Acceptability Rating After the Discussion
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 7
4 3 2 1
6 10 0 0
Notes
Cape Coral is concerned about reef ball impacts on navigation. The demonstration site
could be linked to a manatee observation platform. Marsh grass probably won’t work. A
contractor offered another choice using a second wall because the canal slope is about
45 degree.
The previous write-up said that the options are required for new and repair permits.
Planting tubes are another option to consider.
The new design had clean fill. The outer wall needs to have slits so the fill has to be
riprap or it will wash out.
DEP supports this with specific designs. We don’t want to leave things up to the owner.
The concern was about the sea grass is true but there is not a problem with the marsh
grass option too.
Requirements need to be consistent with state requirements.
Use the special treatment in a couple of places but not the full length of the seawall.
There is a timeframe and enforcement question. What if an owner or new owner cuts the
mangroves at a later date?
People need to complete the improvements before a certificate of occupancy. We can put
in a sentence requiring maintenance.
We need to decide if the options are mandatory or voluntary.
Cape Coral can probably go with the mandatory requirement.
Do seawalls require riprap?
Only on natural water bodies. This state requirement applies to NSC but not other
canals
Maintenance is an issue. Red mangroves will probably be the only ones that survive. Do
owners need to be replaced them if they freeze?
We need to be flexible. The demonstration pilot will test the ideas. We don’t know
enough now.
There was a Sarasota and Tampa Bay educational program and this could be useful
here. Whites and Blacks will grow in riprap. We will get natural seeding. We have used
geoweb designs.
We would get pushback from owners who want to modify and they could change to
another approved option.
We have agreed to require an option, Cape Coral can develop new options to be
approved by DEP, we will relay on state requirements on mangrove rule.
How can you require an owner to do something on city property?
This is common, like street ROWs and lawns
This is in the current language.
We don’t want requirements in 2 places; use references to the other requirements.
Could we require 100% riprap as an option?
This should be above the waterline to recruit the mangroves. They would be able to have
a pier or boatlift.
Hans will work on the redraft with others.
This is for the Cape Coral canals except the NSC.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 8
Address enforcement and maintenance in the redraft.
An option without a vertical seawall could save people a lot of money.
5.2.3 Storm Water Treatment Improvement
Within 6 years following the approval of the North Spreader Ecosystem Management Agreement
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection the City of Cape Coral shall accomplish
the replacement storm water catch basins having no detention features at existing outfalls in the
area north of Pine Island Road, west of Burnt Store Road and south of Kismet Parkway in the
City of Cape Coral. The new basins shall contain two 3” bleeders set at the flow line of the
swale with the top of the basin set a minimum of 0.6 ft. above the invert of the bleeder, as
conceptually illustrated in Attachment B.
Notes
Cape Coral assessed the STA and the costs and uncertainties. The new approach will
treat a greater volume of more polluted water before it gets in the canals, uses existing
land, uses proven technology, and can be implemented easily. We will remove old and
install new catch basins with a slot that are higher. The city has a stormwater utility to
pay for and maintain these.
Great idea. Go after the sources. You may have plugs in slots that can be removed if
there is not quick enough absorption.
Other places (Marco) have done this and I will send a link to Oliver.
We have gone from a major STA dealing with different water to this. It is a big jump.
Cost is estimated at 3.7 million; some from escrow and some from the stormwater utility.
Lee County will want credit for TMDL for the portion of the trust fund from Lee Co. It
will be part of the BMAP.
It would be proportionate credit to Cape Coral and Lee County.
This is for west of Burnt Store Road and south of Kismet.
We may want to coordinate this with the sewering and people need understand this. We
want to minimize redoing work.
We need to ultimately do both this and the STA because it is different water.
This is better because it controls pollution at the source with better nutrient uptake.
Need to change the culture to understand that it is OK to have water in the swale for a
day; it is not a flood. Need a catch basin design that is not easy for owners to modify.
Will this take 6 years? Yes.
I am uncomfortable with the 77 acre-feet as a basis.
The 77 acre-feet is with the new barrier in the new location.
With the tidal action there would be little retention even with the new barrier.
Need to see flows and retention in summer and winter months. What is the impact on the
fisheries?
There is little water coming over the weirs in the dry season.
What about loadings with STI and barrier?
The STI retains a greater volume of more polluted water than the barrier
With the breaches there is not much storage and it varies depending on the amount of
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 9
freshwater coming in and the tidal exchange. There would be very limited treatment
because of the short retention time.
The calculations that estimate the retention in swales are conservative. There are many
variables.
Will this impact septic tanks?
This is done many places using this technique.
Most tanks in this area have raised drain fields.
Load reduction is significantly greater in the swales because the concentration is greater
here than in the NSC [and because of the nutrient uptake by the grass].
Not sure the retention is only 77 acre-feet if the barrier is rebuilt.
Can new swales go away with new roads? No, new stormwater standards are greater.
I am concerned about drainage from septic tanks being held in the swales [The slots will
shorten the time water stays in the swale].
You have to estimate the load reduction with the barrier in.
Don’t you have to do water quality analysis for the BMAP? Yes, but that it won’t be as
detailed as you want.
The STI will be more efficient than the canal. The canal treatment would be minimal.
Modeling showed that the breaches allow most of the water to flow east and west, not
north and south. We are having mangrove die off on the west side because of velocities.
A new structure push even more water through the breaches.
A lot of the water has been treated before coming into the NSC. Most heavy metals have
settled out. No water is coming out in the dry system. We didn’t have a way to treat
sources west of Burnt Store Road before. I don’t see the damage of the freshwater.
The Cape Coral sludge dump is north or Pine Island Road.
You need to treat point sources like this.
There is also a concern about the Zimel property development.
I like this solution but Cape Coral should pay for this, not Lee Co. I liked using the trust
fund for the stormwater treatment area (STA). This shouldn’t replace the STA.
We wouldn’t do this until the sewers go in if this is not a NEB project. Sewering is dead
at this time.
This is a doable job and no science needed. The STA requires land acquisition, has many
hurtles and could take years.
I don’t want to pay for this.
I am concerned about the Department of Health saying you can’t stack up water in the
ditches.
If you can’t treat water in the swale where can you treat it?
Stakeholder group ratings after the discussion
4 3 2 1 with 4 year time limit
9 6 1 2
We need to block slits to see if percolation is adequate.
This should be done with the sewering.
If Cape Coral paid for this with non-escrow money I am OK.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 10
5.2.4 Development of Public Sewer Systems
Definitions:
Section(s): Land area as defined in the Public Land Survey System.
Developable Land: Parcels upon which buildings can be developed, which excludes
public rights of way, canals, lakes, and parks.
Septic System: An on site sewage treatment and disposal system as referenced in Florida
Administrative Code, Department of Health, Rules 64E-6.005 and 64E-6.006, for which
there is a Florida Department of Health permit application or permit issued on record.
Septic Systems per Acre: The ratio of Septic Systems per acre of Developable Land.
Following the approval of the North Spreader Ecosystem Management Agreement by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, the City of Cape Coral shall design and install a public
sewer system as provided for herein. The requirement for the design and installation of a public
sewer system in any Section of the City north of Pine Island Road shall be based upon Septic
Systems per Acre. The computation of Septic Systems per Acre is illustrated as follows:
A typical home site in the City has an area of approximately 10,000 square feet and is
typically comprised of two 5000 square feet platted lots. When such a Section is
comprised of these typical home sites (excluding area which is not Developable Land)
and is fully developed with single family homes, the Section has a Septic Systems per
Acre of approximately 4.36 single family homes per acre. Septic System per Acre at
selected lesser density levels of such a typical residential area corresponds are:
o 1.74 - Corresponds to a 40% density level (4.36 x 40%).
o 1.96 - Corresponds to a 45% density level (4.36 x 45%).
o 2.18 - Corresponds to a 50% density level (4.36 x 50%).
The Septic Systems per Acre in each Section shall be updated annually as of January 1 of each
calendar year based on the information then available. A summary report listing the results by
Section shall be provided to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection not later than
March 1 of each calendar year. The first report shall be updated as of January 1 and provided
not later than March 1 of the calendar year following the approval of the North Spreader
Ecosystem Management Agreement by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Within 18 months following the approval of the North Spreader Ecosystem Management
Agreement by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection the City shall submit an
amendment to the City of Cape Coral Comprehensive Plan permitting the municipal extension of
public utilities into the Urban Reserve. The development of public sewer systems as provided
for herein is subject to the Florida Department of Community Affairs approval of this
amendment to the City of Cape Coral Comprehensive Plan permitting the municipal extension of
public utilities into the Urban Reserve.
Within 18 months following submittal of an annual report to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection which indicates one or more Sections have reached a Septic Systems
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 11
per Acre of 1.96 or higher, the City shall award a contract for the construction of a public sewer
system in the effected Section(s), except as otherwise provided due to factors described below.
The development of public sewer systems in Cape Coral is affected by practical considerations
for the canals, major roadways, master lift stations, force mains, and other factors that divide the
land areas. Hence, in some areas the development of sewers in a Section may be excluded from
the requirement in order for the construction and operation of the sewer system to be functional
and cost effective. Sewer development of an equivalent area in a different Section will be added
to the project scope to mitigate an area excluded due such considerations. Sewers in excluded
areas would then be included with an adjacent Section when the sewers in that Section is later
developed based on the Septic Systems per Acre criteria.
Notes
The Cape Coral Council is concerned about a time certain and a lower percentage. This
is politically difficult. This is the most important project.
The data on the number of septic tanks has problems that are being corrected. The results
on the maps are improving and tanks per acre of developable land are going up. 8 red
boxes about 34% (this is low). Some areas have sewer now.
Property appraisers have data on improved properties and the utilities have addresses
with meters. Cape Coral is checking out utilities data.
Can existing sewers be expanded with existing mains? All of this was based on a master
plan so pipe sizes should be adequate.
We could build off existing lines first.
There is some savings per unit if Cape Coral hooks up more houses.
The Cape Coral proposal is unacceptable. It would mean doing nothing for years. This
is very important. Cape Coral needs to get things started near the canal and do the area
west of Burnt Store Road.
This is linked to septic tank maintenance program. If they were paying a monthly fee the
cost of sewers wouldn’t seem as much of an additional cost.
If you just go on density we may not be focusing on the most sensitive areas. We may
need to focus on areas nearest the preserves. We need something that we can get through
the Cape Coral Council for the most critical areas. Sections are too large a unit. There
are small areas where occupancy is denser.
The property valuations west of Burnt Store Road are about $5000. If you do this the
owners of vacant land will walk.
You have to have enough lots for a gravity sewer to function.
This wording was presented to the council. They will not go along with a day certain.
We might accept a density level. This will be considered more in the next year. There
could be a mix of gravity and vacuum systems.
I am concerned about tanks within 300’ of a canal but not ones a mile away. I could
support a lower threshold for areas <300’ from a canal.
We need to have a large enough project for the system to function.
Most of the area west of Burnt Store Road and south of Kismet is less than 300’ from a
canal. We need to start with section 58. It will take years to implement.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 12
There may be some support on the Council based on a comparison of septic tanks and
sewering.
We need to focus on area west of Burnt Store Road.
We need to be sure that there are no septic pollution issues. We need to make sure this is
really needed.
Section 58 is near 37%.
Could we do Section 58 based on a 35% threshold?
There is concern about the density needed to operate a gravity system.
A gravity system can be flushed if the density is low. We may want to explore using a
vacuum system. A successful community can draw more development.
It could be 34% and 40% for design and construction.
I suggest 35% W and 45% E of Burnt Store Road.
Once the design is done the land doesn’t change.
2011 is the earliest start date.
Vacuum systems may not be acceptable.
Let’s set the lower % based on system function.
Revised Concept:
The threshold west of Burnt Store Road will be 35% based on what is functional. Section 58 will
get started relatively soon. Swales will be done with the sewering for areas to be sewered in a
specified number of years. We would consider a different threshold and other criteria for areas
east of Burnt Store Road. Practical considerations will be spelled out for where sewering may
not be done. Construction will begin within 18 months of reaching the threshold but not before
2013 Cape Coral will do annual reports on the build out.
Cape Coral will check on the engineering issues
5.2.5 Maintain the Cape Coral Canal Dredging Profile
The group agreed to add the sentence below.
The City of Cape Coral will maintain the dredging profile for the City maintained portion of the
canal system north of Pine Island Road at 5 feet below mean low water (MLW) and in
accordance with the other provisions of the Environmental Resources Permit #36013749-001-
E1. Dredging activities shall be conducted no deeper than 6 feet below MLW to achieve the 5
feet below MLW profile. The City of Cape Coral commits to not request a deeper level in the
future.
Stakeholder group ratings after the discussion
4 3 2 1
11 5 0 0
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 13
5.2.6 Implement Boating-Related Enhancements
Within 12 months following the approval of the North Spreader Ecosystem Management
Agreement by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection the City of Cape Coral shall:
Adopt an ordinance which prohibits launching of gasoline operated motorized vessels
from the Sirenia Vista kayak/canoe launch.
Post the Lee County Boaters Guide (both sides) as published by Lee County, Division of
Natural Resources, (last update dated 2006) at the City’s designated boat ramps and
docks. Updates will be posted if / when available.
Install a tidal staff gauge and navigation warning sign on the North Spreader Canal at the
location of the former boatlift clearly visible to outbound boaters. The navigation
warning sign shall state: “Heavy shoaling in area, mariners are advised to use caution
while transiting this area”. Install a “Seagrass Warning” sign providing the information
illustrated in Attachment C at the City’s Burnt Store Road boat ramp.
Modify the City’s Burnt Store boat ramp facility to cause bilge water from boats drained
by boat operators just beyond the top of the existing boat ramp slope to be captured in a
storm water retention basin.
Stakeholder group ratings after the discussion
4 3 2 1
9 6 0 1
Notes
I still have a concern about the impacts of increased boating
The NSEMA escrow established under the Second Amended Consent Order in Florida
Department of Environmental Protection Case Number 06-2345-DF shall be utilized to
reimburse the City of Cape Coral for the costs of all projects described above with the exception
of the development of public sewer systems and the storm water improvements.
We need a separate item in the documents on use of the escrow account.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 14
5.3 Projects to be implemented by Lee and Charlotte Counties, Cape Coral,
SFWMD, SWFWMD, FDEP and/or others
Section 5.3 includes other agreed-upon projects that entail additional responsibilities and
commitments for identified stakeholders. The projects, activities and commitments in Section
5.3 enhance the NEB, but are not to be considered in meeting the requirements of the Consent
Order. [Section 5.3 will not be included in the North Spreader Canal Ecosystem Management
Stakeholder Group Report, which pursuant to the Consent Order focuses only on the
commitments of the City of Cape Coral.]
5.3.1 Coordination to Improve Flows, Timing and Distribution of Water to the State Park
and Aquatic Preserve
The City of Cape Coral does not have control over upstream discharges as they relate to water
quality, quantity and timing. The City currently is positioned, however, through the Alligator
Slough conveyance, as a pass through for water from upstream sources through the city’s weir
and canal system, into the receiving waters of Matlacha Pass. If additional water is made
available by any regional project specifically for the State Park and Aquatic Preserves, the City
will convey it as intended to the extent that the existing weir system is capable of so directing
such flows and providing that such water conveyance is consistent with the City’s utility
commitments.
The City of Cape Coral, DEP Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve and DEP State Park will also
meet quarterly with the to explore ways to improve the volume, timing, and spatial distribution
of water to address the needs of the ecological systems in the Park and Preserves. Lee and
Charlotte Counties, DEP, SFWMD, SWFWMD and other stakeholders may participate in the
meetings and provide input as needed. The city’s enforceable obligation is to convening the
group.
Notes
We need to distribute water to achieve the salinities that are needed for fisheries and
other environmental needs. Choose which weirs water flows from and when.
Will Cape Coral take water for ASRs and how is this related to flows and timing?
Priority should be to achieve the historic flows.
We are supportive of this. The timing of the release is important for better outcomes.
Cape Coral is concerned about what it is committed to and has to take full responsible
for. This is a collaborative effort.
Cape Coral is not required to do what others want; only to consult them.
We need to look at the watershed and see how all the water is redistributed.
It is OK to move to this item to 5.2 if Cape Coral's obligation is clear.
DEP thinks that this is critical enough to the downstream results and the need to
transcend human uses. We need a way to follow-up on this dialogue.
There needs to be a way to get agreement on actions.
Cape Coral can’t do 5.4.1. The WMD needs to do it.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 15
5.3.2 Design and Management of NSC Watershed NEB Projects
Lee and Charlotte Counties will agree to consult with the City of Cape Coral in the design,
permitting and management of projects that they are responsible for implementing that will
affect the water quality, quantity and timing of water flowing through Cape Coral and into the
receiving waters of the watershed, including:
Gator Slough Channel Improvements (AKA Gator Slough/Powell Creek Hydrologic
Restoration; North Fort Myers Surface Water Restoration Project.)
Yellow Fever Creek/Gator Slough Storm Water Transfer Facility
Yucca Pens Hydrologic Restoration
Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods Hydrologic Restoration
Matlacha Pass Hydrologic Restoration Phase 2 (This Lee County project addresses
historical flow paths west of Burnt Store Road and includes the restoration of historical
flow-ways and base flows, and improving drainage while minimizing flooding
downstream of Burnt Store Road and reducing fresh water flow to the Gator Slough
Canal.)
Notes
We need to distinguish this item from Yucca Pens and the description in Section 4.
The responsible entities for these projects will conduct studies, request funding, design,
build and/or manage these projects as described and seek input from other stakeholders
in order to coordinate efforts and to increase the NEBs for the watershed.
5.3.3 Septic Tank Maintenance Ordinance
Lee County will adopt an ordinance that requires septic tank inspection every five years and the
timely correction of deficiencies. Lee County will collaborate with the municipalities within the
County, including Cape Coral, in the development of the ordinance and methods to apply the
requirements of the ordinance in the municipalities where septic systems exist. This ordinance
will not require Advanced Treatment Units (ATU) for new and replacement systems. It may be
modeled after a successful program in Charlotte County, developed as part of the Manchester
Lock Ecosystem Management Agreement. It is funded through inspection fees or as part of a
monthly utility charge.
Notes
This is important countywide. There are similar options being considered in Lehigh
Acres. We are thinking about septic tank districts. DOH is a state agency with a county
office.
Add a provision to require inspections when ownership changes.
We talked to Herman Valasco from Charlotte County and he sold us on the value of this.
Inspection is cost effective for the owner. Cape Coral doesn’t have good data. There are
staffing and legal questions. We didn’t have time to get this together.
Charlotte County is administered by DOH in the EMA area.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 16
This project could just lay out the steps to initiate development of an ordinance.
We can do our homework but not agree to an ordinance by a set time.
It should not be seen as an alternative to central sewer.
Leave in 5.3 and indicate Cape Coral will participate.
There is a need to pool expertise, staffing and funding.
The real issue is being lost. I don’t want 100,000A north of Pine Island Road on septic
tanks. This is a bit of a pilot project in Charlotte County. Not sure there is a benefit in
Manchester lock area. Tanks are full a few days after pumping. Not sure this is an NEB.
5.3.4 CHNEP Committees as Forums for Discussion and Monitoring
The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP) conducts quarterly meetings for its
Citizens Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Management Committee, and
Policy Committee. These meetings reach interested citizens, business, industry, scientists,
resource managers, government officials, and elected officials for a seven-county area, including
Lee and Charlotte. The CHNEP agrees to provide these committees with updates on
implementation and to allow opportunities in their agenda for periodic implementation or
monitoring related discussions.
Notes
The CHNEP needs a commitment from Cape Coral for periodic updates on monitoring
results or changes of status to be distributed to its committees and a contact name. This
could be done by links to the Cape Coral or DEP web site.
The wording needs to be clear. Not sure all 7 counties would be interested.
5.4 Other Possible NEB Projects
These are projects that the Stakeholder Group agrees could possibly provide a NEB but do not
have a sponsor or funding source. [This Section 5.4 will not be included in the North Spreader
Canal Ecosystem Management Stakeholder Group Report, which pursuant to the Consent Order
focuses only on the commitments of the City of Cape Coral. It will be included in the Findings
and Conclusions.]
5.4.1. Study of Ecosystem Enhancement Opportunities West of the NSC
The Stakeholder Group examined the historic and current channels between the NSC and
Matlacha Pass and recognized the potential value of redirecting current flows to achieve a
broader distribution of freshwater from the NSC and possibly to more closely mimic historic
distribution. Potential benefits appear to include reduction of erosion in some areas,
enhancement of fisheries habitats and reduction of exotic vegetation. Currently there is
insufficient information to determine whether these benefits could be realized, or what would be
needed to do so. The Stakeholder Group strongly recommends that these possibilities be studied
as part of an update to State Park’s management plans.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 17
5.4.2. Habitat Enhancement Pilots on the West Side of the NSC
Initial discussions of this project focused on using rock from public and private construction
projects in Cape Coral to create habitat for mangroves, marsh grasses, oysters, juvenile fish, etc.
Further analysis indicated that this would be much more costly than anticipated and there were
concerns about unintended consequences. It was agreed that pilot projects could be developed to
test the rock placement and other habitat enhancement methods, possibly using fisheries
enhancement grants.
Notes
This may be amended to include “living shorelines” in seawall permitting by DEP
There may be negative habitat impacts. It would take lots of money.
5.4.3. Storm Water Treatment Areas
The concept of having one or more large storm water treatment areas was explored by the group
and was replaced by the Cape Coral commitment to retain additional water in swales. The
Stakeholder Group believes there may still be a benefit to additional stormwater treatment areas
in Lee and Charlotte Counties to capture and treat excess flows in the wet season and release
water in the dry season to help achieve a more natural timing for the flows to Matlacha Pass.
Notes
It would be needed as well as the STI in swales. We should look hard at this.
This concept came from DEP. The optional sites have not been narrowed down.
The canal system is already a huge storage system. If there is land we could do it. It
should not be required in the report. The STI is going to do more for pollution reduction
than a STA. It will be an issue if mandated.
The STA may be addressed in the TMDL process.
It would need to be huge to capture excess flow.
Educate people about the swale and fertilizer program that includes wetlands
discussions.
Swales could produce mosquito-breeding areas.
The STA should move up and it will get on the screen with the TMDL process. The city
could find some areas. Not sure how good canals are at water treatment.
We can’t move this up because of the high cost of acquisition. It does not have a sponsor
or funding
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 18
5.4.4 Multi-jurisdictional Coordination to Improve Flows, Timing and Distribution of
Water to the State Park and Aquatic Preserve
The Stakeholder Group agreed that regular coordination among its members to review
monitoring results, assess changing conditions, and discussion implementation would offer
significant benefits. Such coordination would also provide a vehicle for an ecosystem
management approach to a broad range of stakeholder activities in the NSC watershed. Such
coordination might include:
1. An initial NSC Watershed and Receiving Waters Summit/Workshop to:
a. Review and summarize data and conclusions from studies on NSC watershed and
receiving waters.
b. Seek consensus on general and area specific habitat objectives for the receiving
waters and/or studies needed to determine them.
c. Seek consensus on general and area specific ranges for seasonal water quantity,
quality and distribution and/or studies needed to determine them.
d. Identify current and potential projects that may impact these targets and their
sponsors.
e. Seek consensus on coordination procedures for agencies and jurisdictions involved.
2. The City of Cape Coral, Lee and Charlotte Counties, the SFWMD, the SWFWMD and DEP
(Aquatic Preserves and State Park) to meet quarterly or as needed (any party can request a
quarterly meeting if one is not scheduled) to:
a. Review monitoring results and future projections.
b. Seek agreement on changes (if needed) in desired flows.
c. Coordinate studies, project design, permitting and water facility management as
needed.
3. The City of Cape Coral, Lee and Charlotte Counties, the SFWMD, the SWFWMD and DEP
(Aquatic Preserves and State Park) shall seek input from each other and from other
stakeholders during design and permitting of projects that may impact the quality, flow,
timing and distribution of water to the NSC and receiving waters.
4. The City of Cape Coral will make updates on the Cape Coral web site and CHNEP will
include quarterly monitoring updates in their committee meetings and on their web site.
Closing and Next Steps
The facilitators reviewed the progress made during the meeting. It was acknowledged that an
additional meeting would be needed. When this meeting had been schedule the group was asked
to also hold October 28 for a follow-up meeting. Several people were not available on that date.
It was agreed to send out a schedule availability request for the 28th and other dates in early
November. The meeting report will be sent out. There are several drafting assignments to
complete before a revised draft is available. This will reviewed in preparation for the next
meeting.
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 19
Appendix A
Meeting Participants
First Name Last Name Title Organization Name
Stakeholder Representative = R,
Alternate = A
Peter Brandt Councilman City of Cape Coral - R
Roland Ottolini Director Lee County
Bill Byle Env. Specialist Charlotte County Growth Mgt - R
Megan Fairobent Florida Dept of Env. Protection - R
Judith Nothdurft Project Manager S FL Water Mgt District - A
Lisa Beever Director Charlotte Harbor NEP -R
Jim Beever Regional Planner SW FL Reg. Planning Council - R
Phillip Buchanan Master Naturalist Calusa LT, GPineIsCA, Individual - R
Caloosahatchee Riverwatch - A
Rae Ann Wessel Policy Director Sanibel Captiva Conser. Fnd - R
Noel Andress SW Florida Watershed Council - R
Rick Williams Northwest Neighborhood Assn - R
Nate Bliss NW Neighborhood Association
David Scott Northwest Neighborhood Assn
Jon Iglehart Director Florida Dept of Env. Protection
Oliver Clarke Project Manager City of Cape Coral
Jack Schrager PE, VP Avalon Engineering, Inc
John/Eileen Feldmann Residents Matlacha Isles
Tony Janicki President Janicki Environmental
Hans Zarbock Janicki Environmental
Rafael Montalvo Facilitator FCRC Consensus Center
Tom Taylor Facilitator FCRC Consensus Center
10-9-09 NSEMA Stakeholder Group Meeting Report
Page 20
Related docs
Other docs by oxr14149
