The Image that Inspired Jono's "Hole in the Shoal" Column

The Sarasota Herald Tribune was kind enough to run my guest column on October 27th, but it did not run with the Google Earth image that inspired the piece. reproduced below is my column with the Google Earth image. 

-------------------

Watching the suspenseful lost-in-space movie, Gravity, I felt guilty at times -- abandoning the tense plot to stare at our wondrous planet. With borders erased and most human works minimized, it's so very easy to appreciate the sublime character of Earth. That got me wondering about what natural phenomena in Sarasota look spectacular from space, so I fired my laptop spaceship, Google Earth, and gazed down at Florida.  

The Gulf shoreline and darker “Myakka Island” area make Sarasota County easy to find. But being recognizable is not the same as being beautiful. I love the two Myakka lakes, but from space they are dark, potato-shaped blobs. Our beaches, which are so dramatic on the ground, are mostly fine white lines from space. The only naturally gorgeous natural phenomena I see are the two luminous, sinuous tongues of sand to the north and south of Lido Key. These are the so-called ebb tidal shoals of New Pass and Big Pass – glowing pale green flames flickering in a blue sea.

 

The Big Pass shoal is particularly striking. Two miles long, it departs from South Lido Park starting out wide and then turns and narrows in a reverse S curve, sheltering the north end of Siesta Key. Our other passes have been straitjacketed or bridged, but Big Pass remains wild and powerful  -- the juxtaposition of massive quantities of water and sand reshaping each other in a daily dance -- a place where the raw power of the Gulf can still be easily appreciated. Boaters and bathers need to be attentive and respectful.

These shoals are the result of two forces in dynamic tension. As the result of currents and winds, sand is generally moving from north to south along the Gulf shore. Meanwhile tides are surging in and out of the passes. The inhalation and exhalation of the bays sucks some sand into flood tidal shoals, and blows other sand out to ebb tidal shoals. Despite these distortions in flow, the sand keeps moving and the north-to-south trend is evident in the southward-bending shape of the shoals. While some of the sand lingers in the shoals, other sand continues on – so, metaphorically, some of Lido’s sand today was Longboat’s yesterday, and will be Siesta’s tomorrow.

The shallow shoals dissipate wave energy, which is why we see waves breaking on them. So in addition to passing some sand along to the next island, they shelter the shore in their lee, creating calmer areas that can lead to the accumulation of sand. In the passes this sheltering effect is contradicted by the force of water flowing in and out, but as the tidal flow is distributed, the wave shadow effect becomes more noticeable. So the shoals are doing at least three things: passing sand along, dissipating wave energy (sheltering areas of the shore), and thereby allowing for sand accumulation.

The competing forces that shape the shoals are so complicated (and so subject to random catastrophic events) that it requires extremely complicated and memory-intensive computer programs to even approximate pass behavior. There are very few people qualified to assess the predictive ability of these computer models. That doesn’t matter when the models are solely academic exercises meant to increase understanding of our barrier islands and passes.

But when people start using such models to make decisions about our beaches, then you want to make sure you understand the risks involved. Right now the City of Sarasota and the Army Corps of Engineers are proposing to remove more than 43 million cubic feet of sand from the Big Pass shoal. That’s going to create a big hole in the shoal. They want to put it on Lido Beach (and add three rock groins). The proponents have concluded, based on computer models, that the only noticeable effect of removing so much sand will be some “minor” increase in wave heights along the Siesta side of the pass.

But their model and conclusions have not been peer-reviewed. Local boaters, elected officials, homeowners, and other citizens do not have the training to assess how reliable these models are, so the only hope of objective interpretation of the risk to the shoal, and consequently the Siesta side of Big Pass, North Siesta Key and Siesta Beach lies in getting qualified experts to weigh in.

Did I mention Siesta Beach could be affected? The dramatically-wide Siesta Beach famed for its fine, blinding-white sand and gentle, family-friendly slope – our most popular park – the beach named the number one beach in the country in 2011.

Anyway, the City and the Corps are not currently planning on any peer-review (or any public hearings) on their hole-in-the-shoal proposal that will cost $23 million dollars and require a 50-year commitment with the Federal government. What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?

Top Ten Questions People Should be asking about the City of Sarasota Proposal to Dredge Big Pass

The City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are very deep into a project that would involve removing sand from the Big Pass ebb tidal shoal and placing it on Lido Key. 

The Big Pass shoal has never been dredged, primarily because of understandable fears of impacting Siesta Key and Siesta Beach.

There are a number of significant unanswered questions. 

1 Where's the peer review?  The County's generic inlet management plan has been peered review but this particular proposal has not. Why not? There are a number of very technical calculations and assumptions involved that only independent experts can fairly assess. (And there's some question that the peer reviews cannot be interpreted as open-ended endorsement of what is being proposed).

2 Where's the public hearing/input? The Corps alludes to public hearings held in either 1999, 2002, or 2004. That's their excuse for not having hearings now. We need to get the records both of those hearings and how they were advertised. 

Beyond that, it is an insult to current citizens to allude to meetings held a decade or more ago as meeting the need for public participation. Not only has Lido Beach changed, but so has our understanding of rising sea level, the ability of the state and federal government to pay for such projects, and even the appropriateness of such roles.

While they are not hearings, there will be additional public meetings 5:00 pm Dec.5 at St. Boniface Church on Siesta Key, 9:30 p.m. Dec. 6 at the Harley Sandscastle and another meeting on Dec. 7th. Don't be taken in, these brief opportunities to speak are NOT public hearings. 

3 Where would the sand that will be filling the hole in the Big Pass shoal have gone without the project? We've known for quite a while that the sand comprising the emergent and submerged portions of our barrier islands is a system and that, because it is a system, adding or subtracting sand anywhere in the system inevitably has other effects. So, conducting a thought experiment, imagine the sand filing the hole created in the shoal. Now ask where that sand might have gone if the hole was not there. If the answer could involve Siesta Key beaches, (or even the shoal that extends offshore of Siesta Key) then you have to conclude the dredging could affect Siesta Key. 

4 How can the project claim to make a big difference for Lido Key and simultaneously make no difference elsewhere? We know the sand comprising the above and below water portions of our barrier islands are a system. The Corps is proposing to excavate 1.3 million cubic yards of sand. A cubic yard is twenty-seven cubic feet. So imagine a box a cubic foot in size and imagine a line of these boxes 35,100,000 boxes long -- if my math is correct -- that is a line of square foot boxes over 6,500 miles long. A lot of sand. And a big hole in the shoal. How can that NOT affect the system?

5 Where's the comprehensive coordinated gulf Shoreline management plan for all of Sarasota County? An adopted inlet management plan is not a Gulf shoreline plan. Allowing the City of Sarasota, Longboat Key, the City of Venice and the County to plan separate approaches to what is one system makes no sense. There are two reasons for this: this first is the interconnectedness of the sand system and the second is explored in 10 below. 

6 How can the Corps of Engineers claim this project is congruent with the state plan when the state plan calls for an offshore send source (and Big Pass is not such a source)? The Corps's representative quoted from a state plan that specifically mentioned "offshore sources". 

7 What are the implications of a 50 year commitment with the federal government? Embarking on this path is a deliberate decision to start an addictive behavior - sand addiction that is supposed to last half a century. I've been told on more than one occasion that commissions should not be binding future commissions. This is the ultimate future bind.

8 How might this project impact Siesta Key, Siesta Beach, and Sand Dollar Island? Put another way: What is the degree of risk  we are willing to accept that Siesta Beach will not be negatively affected? 20% 10% 5%? 

The Corps acknowledges only some "minor" increase in wave heights along Big Pass shorelines. But these reassuring statements are based on some of the most complicated computer models imaginable. That's why professional independent peer review is needed. 

9 Is Lido Key really critically eroded? When was that determination made? The City engineer referred to Lido Key as "fairly eroded". The Corps determined (at some point) that the beach is "critically eroded". Go out and look for yourself.

 Look at the end of John Ringling Causeway at the beach that is more than 600 feet wider that the worst we can remember. Look south of the Pavilion (photo below). And check out the giant plume of sand heading south from New Pass.

South Lido Key gives rise to one of the most dramatic shoals
in all of Southwest Florida.
Click on the image to enlarge.

Is Lido Key "Critically Eroded" as the Corps of Engineers claims?
Click on the image to enlarge.

10 What opportunity costs are associated with moving forward with this particular project? Choosing this project will indirectly and inevitably limit our ability to address other coastal challenges.  

We're talking about a project of only 1.6 miles costing an estimated $22.7 million-- so that would be about $14 million per mile. So approaching all 35 miles of county gulf shoreline in this manner, would cost about $490 million. Add a little inflation or cost overrun and we're talking $500 million. Since that is obviously not viable, moving forward with this project is an implicit choice to work on Lido Key at the expense of other beaches. 

Because of the important role Lido Beach plays in local tourism, that may be entirely appropriate. But the proponents should be frank with the rest of the county and let Longboat Key, South Siesta, Casey Key, Venice, Caspersen and Manasota Key know that this choice may well limit the supply of dollars to address other beach concerns.

While it is true that forgoing this federal money (62.4% of the estimated $22.7 million) will not free up those dollars for other local coastal concerns, it is also true that the federal government, state, and tourist development dollars are not inexhaustible. So while sand-shuffling on Lido is unlikely to affect a locale as far south Venice Beach, dollar-allocating conceivably could.

___________________

Bottom line: The City of Sarasota and the Corps are contemplating using stale decisions and an inadequate public process to initiate a fifty-year relationship with the federal government for a questionable project that  has not been peer reviewed and which involves tampering with a submerged supply of sand that has some not-completely understood relationship with the most valuable beach in the County. 

The Corps and the City are attempting to frame this project in the form of an ultimatum: either accept what we are proposing, or "we will have to go back to square one" and start all over. In other words, don't bother to question, improve, modify or adjust what we have come up with. If you do, the feds are taking their $14 million dollar basketball and going home. In light of the current beach condition, the lack of public participation, the absence of peer review, the failure to have a coherent, coordinated plan for ALL our beaches, and the insights we've gained in the last decade about the full scope of our coastal challenges, that is an option worthy of serious consideration. 

------------------------------

You might also be interested in an earlier post on the subject of the Big Pass Shoal.

Term Limited Lame Duck Side Effects Coming Home to Roost?

One newspaper column doesn't constitute vindication -- it barely rises to the level of affirmation, but today's (September 12, 2013) Sarasota Herald Tribune features a front page Jeremy Wallace column "Term limits causing ripples" that

"has some critics wondering if commissioners are more willing to curb public records access, reverse restrictive land-use policies and take on the county administrator without the prospect of having to run for election again.

“It doesn’t look like they are looking at the voters as much,” said Lourdes Ramirez, a community activist from Siesta Key who has been considering running for the County Commission herself."

------•-----

On October 6th, 2011, I posted a blog I believe . . . term limits for County Commissioners with the following argument against term limits for Sarasota County Commissioners. I argued term limits would:

3) create guaranteed lame ducks with no second term accountability to an electorate, because once they get elected to a second term they need never consider the electorate again. If they are good commissioners they can vote their conscience, but if they are not so good they can act on behalf of their supporters, further their own interests, or generally thumb their nose at the electorate. ( And the whole premise of term limits seems to be based on the proposition that, if not initially rotten, elected officials soon turn towards the dark side.)

In his column Wallace recounts the curious sequence that led to us having four lame duck commissioners at one time. And that no doubt makes the situation more obvious. But I would argue this pattern was likely to emerge even with 60/40 split instead of 80/20. 

Then in November of 2011 I posted another blog Term Limits: Stifling Competition?, hypothesizing what I called Potential Contender Backoff (PCB) [political scientists probably have a real term for this phenomenon] in which I argued 

". . .instead of fostering challenges, two term limits may inadvertently give people a pass on their second term, functionally creating what amounts to an eight year term -- not a great outcome if candidate X is only a mediocre commissioner."

So, I was, and am, predicting that some of the many ramifications of term limits for Sarasota County Commissioners will be fewer, not more, challenges for first term incumbents as well as second term commissioners less responsive to the electorate. 

I'm not saying that will happen in every case, or even that our current commission's behavior is necessarily the result of term limits. But I continue to believe that letting 26,000 primary voters in 1998 determine who 283,189 registered voters vote for County Commissioners in the Twentifirst century was a dangerous and debilitating mistake. And, if I am correct, there will be no pleasure in finding out.

Bottom line: the combination of PCB and lame duck status is likely to make Sarasota County Commissioners more entrenched and less accountable. We can bemoan that this likely outcome was underanticipated, ignored, or otherwise given short shrift, but it was not, contrary to Jeremy's column, unexpected -- it was predicted. 

--------------------------

N.B. I have a total of seven or eight blog postings dealing with term limits (you can search for them), including a strange posting in which I aligned myself with Dave Waechter - proving not only that I am flexible, but fallible too.

Long Bar Pointe and Western Manatee's Mixed-Use Challenge

Well, there's a bunch of us eligible for tee-shirts reading: 

THE LAST TIME I STAYED OUT 

'TIL TWO IN THE MORNING

WAS AT A MANATEE COUNTY 

COMMISSION HEARING. 

My main accomplishment, aside from staying awake, was being one of the last speakers and not repeating or re-phrasing any previous points.*

It is hard not to sympathize with Carlos Beruff when he pleads for "not another boring subdivision". The alternative apparently is Mixed Use, but despite Commissioner Benac's views to the contrary, I don't think this the Long Bar Point parcel is a very strong candidate for mixed use. You really want Mixed Use associated with significant transit, and definitely not in the Coastal High Hazard Area.

Kudos to Commissioners DiSabatino, Chappie, and Gallen for resisting the siren song.

From a development perspective Mr. Beruff and his partner, Larry Lieberman, have a very challenging (I was tempted to say crummy) parcel -- it is low, it is scrawny, most of the uplands have been trashed, and the coast happens to consist of the most significant, most easily impacted, and tallest mangrove section remaining on Sarasota Bay. But it was the last major hunk of undeveloped property on Sarasota Bay, so you can see its appeal. It has probably remained undeveloped for so long because the significant liabilities meant it would take a blend of clout, capital, vision, and hubris to attempt much of anything other than more McMansions. Enter Carlos Beruff. 

[And I have to say the development to the South of Long Bar is a textbook example of how destructive and sterile this development form can be - sorry IMG, but Legends Bay makes the case for Beruff's vision.].

With the Long Bar Pointe parcel that is pinched between El Conquistador Parkway (shortened to ElCon in the vernacular) and the Kitchen (a reliably productive section of Sarasota Bay), Mr. Beruff was hoping to implement a BOLD vision, but that vision was snatched away August 6th when the Manatee County Commission deleted reference to, and the possibility of, a marina in their approval of Mixed Use.

Mr. Beruff was quoted in the Sarasota Herald Tribune as saying the Hotel (5 or 4 star) depended on the marina (boat slips) that would require a channel through the seagrasses. "Without that water access, Beruff says, the destination hotel just is not feasible." Since it is possible the conference center hinged on the hotel, the entire vision may collapse. Or Mr. Beruff may have more strategy to employ.

The key challenge for environmentalists and those seeking to protect the bay, its Kitchen, and the adjoining seagrasses will be protecting the mangroves. Pruning 40 foot mangroves to 6 feet is a recipe for disaster.

But now that Mixed Use has been approved, the solution to Mr, Beruff's problem is simultaneously obvious, elegant, and quite probably impossible. But let's review it anyway.

The presumption of improper prejudice

I'll probably catch a bunch of crap from people suspicious of my environmental credentials, but I don't really care. The fact is I kind of admire Hugh Culverhouse Jr. He controls a lot of land, which is admirable. And if the best attorneys are those that win, he hires the best attorneys. And he doesn't always fall in with the other big landowner developers around here. 

I wish he'd take a page from Bertha Honore Palmer's sons and Elsa Scherer Burrows and commit to creating a meaningful native habitat connection between Oscar Scherer State Park and the Pinelands Reserve, but there's still time for that.

Mr. Culverhouse has a new bone to pick with Sarasota County. He believes he has unfairly been denied access to the County Commissioners --- access he believes other developers have, or at least have had. The County's attorneys agree he has been denied access, but contend that is for good reason -- to avoid what are known as "ex parte" communications that are inappropriate in "quasi-judicial" decisions. 

Quasi-judicial sounds a little like Elmer Fudd (think quasi wabbit), but refers to what kind of decision is being made. "The function of a quasi-judicial land use hearing is to be judicial-like in only applying the existing adopted regulations or policies to specific development applications, as opposed to the legislative-like creation of new laws or policies." So, as I understand it, if an administrative body is working on broad policy affecting hypothetical situations in the future, that it is legislative (or maybe quasi-legislative), but if what is being proposed involves application of existing laws here and now related to a specific proposal, that would be quasi-judicial.

Back to ex parte. So if it is quasi-judicial, the decision should be based only on testimony presented at the hearing. Thus you can see that having the applicant meet with Commissioners outside of the hearing could color the the Commissioners thinking. Communication outside of the open meetings is "ex parte".

I'm sure attorneys can bill plenty of hours exploring the nuances of all this, but on face value it appears pretty simple: If you are dealing with the application of existing rules to a specific proposed project, it's going to be quasi-judicial, and if you are working on adopting new general policy with broader application it is legislative. 

On July 28, 2013 the Sarasota Herald Tribune ran an editorial "A question of access" discussing all this and came down on the side viewing special meetings with developers regarding rezonings as quasi-judicial.

Last four paragraphs of the Herald Tribune Editorial

But are the two (quasi-judicial and legislative) really that different?

What if instead of one developer seeking a rezoning, two developers team up and seek a comprehensive plan amendment instead that, as a practical matter, only applies to them? Then instead of general policy with broad application we end up arguing about rules that will apply to specific parcels of land -- should people seeking those changes be treated differently than people who only want one thing changed? Couldn't one argue that changes that apply to multiple parcels deserve even more protection from special access that could bias commissioners? 

Or what if one developer wanted to have the Comprehensive Plan changed in a way that only affected their property. That is what a developer is claiming to be doing in Manatee County with a project called Long Bar Pointe. 

His proposed project does not comply with the existing Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, so he was advised to try to change the plan. And he believes he has laden the proposed changes with so many specifics that, when taken in total, the changes could only apply to his project. The Comprehensive Plan exception would only apply to:

• Water-Related Uses or Water-Enhanced Uses, that also

• demonstrate new, substantial, and material public benefit, that also

• increase public access to the waterfront, that also

• provide appropriate mitigation of impacts by the use of performance or design standards that seek to achieve the objects of the Chapter (of the Comprehensive Plan), and that also

• are large, innovative, mixed use projects, and are

• at least 200 acres in size, and are also

• along a coastal line adjacent to navigable waters, as well as being adjacent to 

• an arterial roadway as shown on the Future Traffic Circulation and Functional Classification Map. 

Now, for the record, some people don't agree that this set of constraints could only apply to one parcel in Manatee County, and they worry that this change would be precedent setting.* Their arguments will probably be brought forward at the hearing Tuesday Aug 6 starting at 1:30 pm at the Bradenton Area Convention Center at 1 Haben Blvd in Palmetto.

But let's assume the developer is correct and these eight conditions in combination could only apply to one parcel. Adopting ostensibly "comprehensive" plans that apply to only one parcel starts seeming a lot more like a specific project that is being discussed than a general policy with broad application. So why might it make sense to allow decisions in that situation to be based on testimony that was provided outside of public purview??

I mean if the principle is that the commissioners should be free to talk with anyone about general policies being proposed with broad application but that dealing with specific parcels and projects requires that the sole basis of the decision be based on testimony provided in open, advertised meetings, why would Comprehensive Plan amendments that only deal with one parcel be treated differently than a re-zoning?

-----------------------------------

• Some believe the proposed skyway development would qualify, but that section of highway is shown  as limited access (being I-75) and not an arterial. 

Sleight of Finger?

If you're like me and enjoy professionals who use misdirection and banter to mislead an audience, you should have been at this afternoon's (July 1 2013) Sarasota City Commission meeting. 

Perhaps because I grew up in Jersey, I've always enjoyed the pitchmen at the State Fair and on the Boardwalks (think Ron Popeil) who could get you interested in buying something you really had no need for. Pitchmen like Popeil and Billy Mays relied almost solely on banter (and excited audiences that unknowingly functioned as shills). 

Then there are the magicians, mentalists, and pickpockets who escort your attention somewhere else while the real "magic" is happening precisely where you are not looking.

And then there is a certain class of attorneys who also can use both banter and misdirection to great effect.

Urbanist Andres Duany Returns to Sarasota

Well, Andres Duany has been in town the past few days, escorted around town through a variety of speaking events and site tours, shepherded by a variety of people hoping he won't say something diametrically opposed to their own views on urbanism and dreams for Sarasota.

Duany combines encyclopedic knowledge gleaned from careful observation of hundreds of cities with a provocative style that swings from acerbic quips to brilliant insights. And just when people are about to conclude he's just on a prolonged slashing riff, Andres drops a compliment on some aspect of Sarasota and the audience experiences a warm glow.

Andres Duany addresses a joint
Sarasota City and County Commission meeting

I didn't get to all his presentations, but I do have eight pages of notes -- so what follows are some things I think are worth repeating: