Telephone: 561 -461 -9757

E-Mail to: conservationalli@hotmail.com

August 1997

The Directors of The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Dear Sirs and Ladies:

We are enclosing with this transmittal letter a report on an impending act of destruction to the environmental integrity of Florida's Indian River Lagoon. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation can prevent this destructive action.  It can do so in complete consistency with its stated philanthropic mission and responsibility to marshal assets in support of its many admirable goals.

We trust that the substance of the report will explain our manner of communication. The ecological destruction is imminent and therefore the issue must be immediately addressed. We invite active inquiry and discussion of the report with the Foundation.

Our requests are designed to prevent the impending environmental destruction before it is too late to do so. We also propose a conceptual framework for an environmentally sustainable alternative that we hope you will support.   The requests are stated in the Summary of the report. We think they point to a way for all parties concerned to cooperate in a socially, economically and environmentally effective solution.

Sincerely,

The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County

The St. Lucie County Waterfront Council

The St. Lucie County Audubon Society

Enclosure: "Death of the Indian River Lagoon?"-A Report to The John D. and

Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

cc: Major environmental groups and news media

 

Introduction

The purpose of this report and its supporting documents is to inform The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation-and other persons or groups interested in the environmental health of Florida's Indian River Lagoon-of environmental issues at stake in the sale of property owned by the Foundation at the port of Fort Pierce. It is the present intention of the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority to purchase the MacArthur tract for use as the critical acreage in a large industrial cargo port expansion plan.  The prospective anchor tenant in this plan is Tropicana Dole/Seagrams which will divert all or most of its current Tampa citrus export traffic through the expanded Fort Pierce facility. The environmental cost of this plan is believed to be catastrophic for the unique estuarine ecology of the Indian River Lagoon and the multi-billion dollar economic base generated by this already threatened natural resource.

Statements of environmental issues, however well scientifically supported, do not alone fulfill the responsibility of environmentally concerned citizens. No more so than the MacArthur Foundation's responsibility to husband its real assets in support of its philanthropic mission is completed by seeking the highest price from any future user.  The long-term health of the Indian River Lagoon does not have to be framed in terms of a zero sum event. In view of the larger responsibility-which is to help solve environmental problems rather than merely to identify them, or to maximize asset values at the expense of the environment in one place in order to help the environment in another - an alternate disposition of the MacArthur property is proposed in conceptual form at the end of this report for the Foundation's consideration.

The MacArthur Foundation is in a unique position to play a pivotal role in achieving a positive sum solution by the clear expression of its support of environmental integrity on a sustainable macro scale. It has recently demonstrated such responsibility and dedication in its Loxahatchee Slough transaction accomplished in accordance with the goals of its World Environment and Resources division. The development that will occur if the MacArthur Foundation sells the port property in Fort Pierce to the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority for use in the current cargo port expansion plan is in direct opposition to the goals of the Foundation's World Environment and Resources Program and its current activities in Palm Beach County.

 Table of Contents

Introduction

Report:

Documents, Brochure, Book:

1. National Estuary Program, Indian River Lagoon Brochure.   Indian River Lagoon Book

2. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution Report, dated 28 October 1991, "Environmental Survey Relative to the Expansion and Development of the Port of Fort Pierce."

3. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Letter to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting in Response to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, dated February 2,1994.

4. (1) The Wall Street Journal, Florida Journal, "Seaports' Expansion Plans Could Create Overcapacity, "F1, 2/19/97; and, (2) Fort Pierce Tribune, "The most optimistic state port?," A1, 2/23/97.

5. (1) National Estuary Program, "Economic Assessment and Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon, Natural Resource Valuation of the Lagoon," January 1996; (2) Executive Summary of the Economic Assessment and Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon, entitled "Environmental Sustainability for a Healthy Economy in the Indian River Lagoon Basin;" and, (3) "Seagrass Preservation and Restoration: A Diagnostic Plan for the Indian River Lagoon, "St. Johns River Water Management District, Technical Memorandum #14, April 1996.

6. National Marine Fisheries Service letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated September 30, 1996.

7. (1) John K. Reed, "Preliminary Survey of Mud Deposits on the Mid-Shelf Reefs Off Fort Pierce," St. Lucie County, Florida, Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, National Marine Fisheries Service, and St.Lucie County Port and Airport Authority, dated November 8,1996; (2) Fort Pierce Tribune, "Inlet dredging blamed for muck on reefs," A1, 10/9/96; (3) Indian River County, Press Journal, "DEP Divers Find Muck on Reefs," 9A, 7/18/97; and, (4) Fort Pierce Tribune, "Stuck With Muck," B1, 7/27/97.

8. Julie Ellen Vann, thesis on file at Florida Institute of Technology, "A Study of Dredged Material Dispersion on the Inner Continental Shelf, Cape Canaveral, Florida," August 1995.

9. BKI, Inc., Figure Showing Aerial Extent of Seagrass Beds in 1991,1995 and 1996 at the Fort Pierce port site.

10. Fort Pierce Tribune, "Tourist mecca planned at port," B1, 7/27/97.

11. Photographs of aragonite freighter at port of Fort Pierce MacArthur Property in May, 1997.

12. St. Lucie County Waterfront Council Tropicana Questions.

13. R. Grant Gilmore, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, transcript of address by Dr. Gilmore to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners on October 15, 1996.

14. (1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN LETTER" regarding comments on proposed dredging to 39 feet at the port of Fort Pierce, dated 6/25/97 and, (2) Copy of fax message and accompanying lists dated 7/7/97 to St.Lucie County Port Director Jack Karibo from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in response to his request for the mailing list of the "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN LETTER."

15. Thomas N. Lee, Ph.D., Research Professor, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, letter to St. Lucie Waterfront Council regarding probable impacts of future dredging, dated March 12, 1997.

Note: All references to and copies of documents and communications concerning legislative, regulatory and administrative documents in connection with public activities and reports concerning the State of Florida, are made in accordance with the mandate of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, the Public Records Act.

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Death of the Indian River Lagoon?

A Report to The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

The Indian River Lagoon

The Indian River Lagoon stretches over 150 miles along the east coast of Florida, from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County. It is a federally recognized "Estuary of National Significance" and is classified by the state as an "Outstanding Florida Water." Most of the Lagoon is designated as an "Aquatic Reserve." The Lagoon is the most biodiverse estuary in North America, and perhaps in the world, containing over 4,315 different plant and animal species. The Lagoon is home to at least 74 species which are either endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. It is home to at least one endemic plant species which is in immediate threat of extinction. Within the Lagoon, the greatest biodiversity and marine life nursery is in the vicinity of the Fort Pierce inlet, where temperate and tropical climates, waters and species overlap. (See enclosed Indian River Lagoon Brochure from the National Estuary Program, Document 1.)

Modern Port Development History

In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers completed a feasibility study and environmental impact report concerning cargo port expansion at the port of Fort Pierce.  Predictably, the Corps concluded that the economic benefits of deepening the harbor from 25 to 28 feet and deepening and widening the entrance channel outweighed the associated environmental destruction. The risk to the existing economic benefits of commercial, recreational, and tourism businesses based on the Lagoon's continued aquatic health as a natural resource were not seriously or quantitatively addressed.  Economic benefits of industrial cargo port expansion, as compared to economic losses due to environmental degradation of this enormously critical resource, were also not addressed, quantified or compared. The lack of such deliberation seems negligent in view of the fact that marine environmental degradation caused by intensive port usage in Tampa and Canaveral are well documented. A General Design Memorandum (GDM) was completed in May, 1991 for the port expansion. State and Federal agencies conducting field work at this time noted "significant environmental resources in the project area "and requested that the Corps prepare an EIS on those resources. The Corps, however, agreed to this only after the Treasure Coast Wildlife Federation filed suit in federal court to require the study.

The General Design Memorandum called for converting the small port of Fort Pierce into an industrial cargo port and included deepening and widening the inlet and turning basin. This expansion was strongly recommended against by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.

Contemporary Port Development History

In August, 1996, a loan from the Florida Ports Financing Commission was applied for by the St. Lucie County Port Director, Morris Adger. This $7,975,000 (net proceeds) loan, part of a larger tax exempt bond issue, requires 50% matching funds from the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority and can only be utilized for port development as such uses are defined under the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Adger applied for the loan without bringing it before a public meeting of the Port Authority or County Commission.  Applying for the loan without public input was, at best, questionable for its administrative irregularity. The Port Authority nonetheless received approval of the loan application even though Mr. Carmen Lunetta, Chairman of the Florida Ports Council, received hundreds of calls and letters from St. Lucie County citizens requesting that the loan be denied. (Note: In May of 1997, Mr. Lunetta resigned as the Miami Port Director in the midst of a federal Operation Greenpalm related scandal that is still unraveling.) A recent poll of St. Lucie County residents clearly demonstrates that the majority of people in the county are in favor of a mixed-use cargo and recreational port with a large minority in favor of purely recreational use. The port charrette of 1996, various media polls, letters to the editors of local newspapers, and citizens' groups opposing this cargo port expansion demonstrate that the vast majority of citizens are opposed to any further industrialization of the port area. The principal reason they are opposed to the expansion is the inevitable damage that it will cause to the ecological health Indian River Lagoon at this most sensitive Fort Pierce Inlet.

Ignored Environmental Impact and Economic Analyses

The tremendous environmental degradation to the Indian River Lagoon related to cargo port expansion has been analyzed in detail by numerous government agencies and private consultants. An environmental survey regarding the expansion and development of the port of Fort Pierce was completed by Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in 1991.  This study was commissioned and paid for by the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority and details the unique conservation and economic values of the aquatic flora and fauna in the area. The "Future Impacts of Proposed Harbor Expansion" section of this report is enclosed (see Document 2.). The complete 187 page report can be provided on request.

Many of the environmental concerns raised in the Harbor Branch report are summarized in the 1994 Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission response to the Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (see Document 3.). In this letter, the Commission concurs with the conclusions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and states that: "The proposed expansion plan would result in the loss of approximately 14 acres of rock ledge habitat that has been documented to be an important nursery area for the Florida lobster" and which "provides habitat for a number of important commercial and sport fishes." "Expansion of the berthing areas would result in the loss of approximately 39.3 acres of seagrass, including Halophila Johnsonii, which is proposed for listing as an endangered species by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act" (see "Endangered Seagrass Delisting," below). Most importantly, this and many other reports share the same concern that "The most serious aspect of this project involves the potential secondary impacts due to water quality degradation from expanded port operations."

The economic importance of such secondary environmental impacts has been extensively studied and publicly demonstrated. However, these publicly financed data have been ignored, as if they did not exist, by the port expansion proponents who appear to subscribe to the bankrupt development cliché, "Build it and they will come!" (See Document 4., The Wall Street Journal and Fort Pierce Tribune articles.) The potential damage of such secondary impacts is substantial in comparison to the unsupported benefits to be gained from an expanded cargo port. In the five coastal counties bordering the Indian River Lagoon, a $2.8 billion recreation and tourism industry is supported by this unique natural resource. This economic benefit exceeds the combined benefits of agriculture and manufacturing in these counties. St. Lucie County's approximate share of the Indian River Lagoon based recreation and tourism economy is approximately $296 million. Of this amount, at least approximately $94 million depends directly on the biological production of the local seagrass meadows, all of which will be directly and negatively affected by the industrial cargo port expansion. The continued health and productivity of these seagrass beds are directly dependent on the secondary environmental impact of the port expansion. (See Document 5., which includes excerpts from the following publicly financed study reports: (1) Economic Assessment and Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon, Natural Resource Valuation of the Lagoon, submitted to the Finance and Implementation Task Force Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, January 1996; (2) Executive Summary of the Economic Assessment and Analysis of the Indian River Lagoon, entitled "Environmental Sustainability for a Healthy Economy in the Indian River Lagoon Basin;" and, (3) Seagrass Preservation and Restoration: A Diagnostic Plan for the Indian River Lagoon, St. Johns River Water Management District, Technical Memorandum #14, April 1996.)

Environmental Impact Observations

Despite objections based on these data, strong opposition from state and local environmental groups, and county residents at large, the expansion has gone forward in an environmental and economic vacuum. In June of 1995 a dredge ship from Great Lakes Dredging and Dock commenced deepening and widening the inlet and turning basin and dumping the muddy dredge spoils at an ocean disposal site approximately 4 miles from the inlet. At the time, there were numerous reports of short dumping witnessed by local fishermen and divers and even a Marine Patrol officer. Observations of the short dumping of maintenance dredging spoils have continued in the winter of 1997. These allegations are not far fetched as the dredging company has had a history of legal problems involving reef damage in Miami and Boca Raton and seagrass damage in the Florida Keys.

In 1995 and 1996, during and after the dredging, numerous accounts started to appear from recreational and commercial fishermen that the fisheries had significantly declined and local divers began reporting large areas of suspended mud smothering the reefs. This result is exactly as predicted by the agencies who had recommended against disposal of the silty dredge spoils at the offshore dump site (see Document 6., National Marine Fisheries Service letter to Colonel Terry Rice, Corps of Engineers, dated September 30, 1996). The Corps of Engineers immediately denied responsibility for this destructive result and numerous alternative theories were proposed to explain the thick layers of mud covering the reefs. A group of independent researchers collected and analyzed several samples of this mud and confirmed that: (1) layers of mud, from 6 inches to 19 inches thick, were present on some of the reefs; (2) based on 20 years of scientific historical data, the mud deposits are unusual and have not been documented before; (3) sediment and foraminifera analysis indicates this mud to have characteristics similar to the Fort Pierce Harbor; and, (4) although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated that these mud deposits occurred as a result of the dredging, the fact that the mud first appeared on these reefs in 1995 and 1996 suggests a strong cause and effect relationship (see Document 7).

Accountability Questions

It is hard to believe (local divers overwhelmingly subscribe to this view) that this mud could have originated from anywhere else in light of the fact that over a half million cubic yards of silty-muddy sand was dumped at the offshore site in an area of strong currents. It has been well documented that re-suspended spoil in the form of fine clay particles can be transported large distances. A previous study conducted by researchers from the Florida Institute of Technology concluded that mud from the Port Canaveral dredge spoil dump site had spread over an area of 360 square miles (see Document 8.). The United States Environmental Protection Agency conducted surveys of the dump site in January, 1997,comparing the 40K gamma activity (and thus fine clay particle amounts) with that from the pre-dumping data. Although the EPA has yet to complete its report (the first draft of which was due in May, 1997), analysis of the pre-dump and post-dump activities clearly show that mud content has dramatically increased both inside and outside of the dump site. The presence of this mud covering reefs several miles from the dump site was re-confirmed in July of 1997 by divers from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (see above, Document 7., muck articles).

The Corps of Engineers has repeatedly denied that the thick layers of mud washing up on the reefs are from the dredge spoil dump site. They initially proposed that it was mud from the deep ocean brought up by upwellings. This was disproved by the study cited, which indicates that it came from the Fort Pierce Harbor. The most recent "flocculation theory" proposed (originally reported by Morris Adger) is that this mud was washed out of the inlet by strong rains in 1995-1996 and subsequently drifted with the current to be washed up on the reefs 5 to 10 miles away. This theory is, however, in direct contradiction to their assertion that the exact same mud, when dumped through 50 feet of water on a site 5 miles offshore in an area of strong currents, will stay exactly where it was deposited. Faced with the immediate prospect of extensive additional dredging to depths of at least 39 feet to accommodate the industrial cargo port expansion, a rational explanation of the results of the last dredging, to meet the least standard of environmental responsibility, should be completed before consideration of further dredging is entertained (see below, "Industrial Plans and Uninformed Public," June 25, 1997 Corps of Engineers letter regarding comments on new dredging to depths of 39 feet).

Endangered Seagrass Delisting

Another direct casualty of the Fort Pierce port expansion is Halophila Johnsonii, also known as Johnson's seagrass. Johnson's seagrass is a species endemic to the Indian River Lagoon and has the most limited distribution of any known seagrass worldwide. It also has a very limited ability to recolonize compared to other seagrasses in that it does not undergo sexual reproduction. In order to protect the remaining stands of this rare plant, Johnson's seagrass was placed on the endangered list of the Florida Regulated Plant Index in May of 1996. Halophila johnsonii, however, happened to have the bad luck of being present along the shoreline of the MacArthur and Cotton properties where the county plans to dredge and bulkhead in order to construct ship berths for the port expansion. On September 4, 1996, an "Emergency" meeting of the Endangered Plant Advisory Council was held in order to consider removal of Johnson's seagrass from the endangered list. This meeting was held on short notice and without being announced in the Florida Administrative Weekly as is customary. The majority of documents submitted and testimony presented were from various port, navigation, and inlet districts, and included comments by then Fort Pierce Port Director Morris Adger, whose objections to the listing were based upon purely economic arguments. The leading authorities on this rare seagrass, and its occurrence at the port of Fort Pierce site, were not present at the hearing, although spokesmen for the Marine Industries Association of Florida were prominently in attendance. The council voted to de-list the plant and it was subsequently removed from the Regulated Plant Index effective December 10, 1996, nine days before the $222,320,000 Florida Ports Financing Commission bond issue and the accompanying $7,975,000 Loan Agreement between that Commission and the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority executed the same day.

As stated above, the project for which the Port Authority entered into the Loan Agreement not surprisingly requires the removal of a significant stand of Johnson's seagrass. In stark contrast to such rough treatment in Tallahassee, the National Marine Fisheries Service has recently removed Johnson's seagrass from its "Watch List" of progressive rankings toward extinction in preparation for including it in its "Endangered Species List." The same spokesmen for the Marine Industries Association of Florida are currently actively lobbying the Service not to do so.

During this same period, beginning in the early fall of 1996 and continuing to the present, an unexplained analytical silence has descended upon public dialogue involving cargo port expansion and environmental issues. Experts who previously had been effective environmental educators and advocates have been conspicuously absent from public forums and are no longer part of active public discussion of these issues. Fortunately, their publicly financed written analyses have not disappeared, although cargo port proponents continue to try to ignore or marginalize them.

Cargo Port Habitat Issues and History

Some of the environmental damage caused by the dredging and off-shore dumping described above, although devastating, does not have to be permanent. Given a chance to recover, the new ledges in the channel will eventually be re-colonized with invertebrates. This process will undoubtedly take decades to reach the biodiverse richness removed by the dredging. The currents will eventually disperse the mud covering the reefs and these will, over the years become re-colonized by the corals, sponges, and other filter feeders which now lie dead under layers of muck. The fish and lobsters will eventually return and again provide the fishermen and divers with a source of recreation and livelihood. The offshore reefs, inlet and channel ledges, and Indian River Lagoon seagrass beds, without the turbidity, wake damage, fuel spills, and bilge discharges will flourish. The numerous dive shops, bait shops, fishing guides, charter boats, crews and captains, boat dealers, hotels, restaurants, and many other recreation and tourism based businesses that depend on the rich natural resources St. Lucie County has been famous for can again prosper.

None of this ecological recovery from previous damage will occur, however, if the port is developed as an industrial cargo facility. One needs only to look at other large cargo ports to see the devastation of once thriving biodiverse ecosystems.  Approximately one-third of the 600,000 hectares of seagrass habitat that were present in Florida in the 1940's no longer exist. It is estimated that Tampa Bay has lost over 80% of it's seagrass habitat. Although other factors contribute to seagrass loss, turbidity, pollution, and fuel spills related to the shipping industry and maintenance dredging have been shown to be the major factors. There have been two more seagrass surveys along the MacArthur and Cotton property, one in June of 1995, as the dredging was commencing, and one in 1996, after the dredging had been completed. This report showed a drastic decrease in seagrass coverage in this area since the Harbor Branch study of 1991. Although other factors possibly may have contributed to this die-off, turbidity generated by the dredging is certainly a major contributing cause (see Document 9., figure showing loss of seagrass at port site between 1991, prior to the previous round of dredging, 1995 and 1996).

Port Expansion, Corporate Welfare and Uncertain Public Financing

The plan proposed for the port of Fort Pierce is for an industrial cargo facility, largely serving only the financial interest of citrus giant Tropicana, the prospective anchor tenant. The citizens of St. Lucie County are being told that the port will be a pleasant mix of cargo and recreation. The conceptual plans envision a hotel, general business offices, residential buildings, shops, a marketplace, an aquarium, and a museum on the port property (see Document 10., article entitled "Tourist mecca planned at port"). The recreational aspect, however, is not a reality.  The specific terms of the $7,975,000 Loan Agreement and its associated closing documents allow only for cargo port development under the Port Authority's Borrower Tax Certificate pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Few, if any, of the "mixed use" activities mentioned above qualify under the rules that the Port Authority must follow in order to receive, or retain, its loan proceeds.

The matching funds for purchase of the MacArthur property and port expansion infrastructure are to be provided by means of an industrial (private activity) revenue bond and a lease between the Port Authority and Tropicana Dole/Seagrams. This bond, however, will be subject to the same Internal Revenue Code use restrictions which govern the $7,975,000 Loan Agreement. The enclosed pictures (see Document 11.),taken in 1997, show a large aragonite freighter (the principal current, low intensity, user of the facility) moored along the east side of the MacArthur property. The amount of turbidity generated when this ship is being maneuvered into and out of the harbor is immense. Yet this behemoth only requires a draft depth of 28 feet. Tropicana has already stated that they need at least a "commercially viable" depth of "30+" feet.  Tropicana shipping traffic which would presumably be transferred to Fort Pierce from its present location in Tampa, currently operates there with depths of approximately 40 feet. There have been no answers forthcoming after repeated questioning as to what type, size and draft of ships the company plans to bring to Fort Pierce and what its long range plans for port traffic will be (see Document 12.). As the photographs show, it is hard to see how credible recreation/tourism can coexist in this small area of land where one freighter occupies nearly the entire waterfront. It is therefore equally difficult to find the public benefit for the citizens of St. Lucie County to offset the cost it will suffer in the degradation of the environmental health of the Indian River Lagoon.

Social, Economic and Environmental Costs and Benefits

The social and economic implications of the vast environmental destruction caused by port expansion are staggering. The economy of the St. Lucie County area depends heavily upon recreation, tourism, commercial fishing, diving, and other water related activities.  Recreation and tourism based industries bring more money into St. Lucie County than agriculture and manufacturing combined. Yet the St. Lucie County Port and Airport Authority is about to risk killing it's most valuable resource in order to provide corporate welfare to Tropicana Dole/Seagrams and projected new "Roll On / Roll Off" container and cruise ship traffic. The deep concerns for secondary environmental impacts were documented by nearly all of the State and Federal agencies and in the Harbor Branch study. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission stated that "The increase in ship traffic would likely increase turbidity, wake damage, fuel spills, bilge discharges, and other port-related water quality degradation in an area of rich fish and wildlife resources." Concurring with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, their final analysis was "In conclusion, we continue to believe that the Indian River Lagoon is not an appropriate place for a major port, and we recommend against the implementation of the Fort Pierce Harbor expansion."

The past, present, and possibly dreary futures of our fishery resources were presented to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners by Dr. R. Grant Gilmore on October 15, 1996. Dr. Gilmore is a world renowned fish biologist and has been featured on, among others, BBC, PBS, the Learning Channel, and the Discovery Channel, most recently in "The Galapagos, Beyond Darwin" on TDC. Dr. Gilmore has extensively studied the Indian River Lagoon, our near shore, and our off shore ocean reefs for over 25 years. In the enclosed transcript of Dr. Gilmore's remarks (see Document 13.), he estimated that one acre of seagrass will support an annual production of approximately 10,000 marine organisms (e.g., snook, snapper, grouper, sea trout, red drum and lobster), or about 393,000 animals in the seagrass beds which would be sacrificed by the industrial cargo port expansion plan if the MacArthur Foundation allows such property usage.

Industrial Plans and Uninformed Public

We have already seen the extreme environmental damage caused by the previous dredging.  Since Tropicana requires at least six more feet of depth (28 feet to 34 feet), it is certain that dredging will start again if the MacArthur land is sold to the County for port expansion. In fact, as if in preparation for high impact use of an expanded Fort Pierce deepwater cargo port, the Corps of Engineers on June 25, 1997 circulated a letter soliciting comments in connection with the proposed further deepening of the harbor, inlet and channel to depths ranging up to 39 feet. (See Document 14., Corps of Engineers letter dated June 25, 1997 and mailing/distribution lists.) This report is being solicited at a time when the general public in St. Lucie County is of the opinion that all parties had agreed not to seek deeper depths than 34 feet in perpetuity; and, when controversy over the environmental effects of the last dredging (see muck and seagrass loss data, above) remains unresolved because the Corps, the EPA, and the Florida DEP have not yet finished studying and reporting on such effects.  Some of the probable impacts of further dredging have been described by Dr. Thomas N. Lee, Research Professor at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Miami (see Document 15.)

Destructive Environmental History Repeated

We have seen the devastation of the Everglades and Florida Bay, the environmental destruction brought on by the dredge and the bulldozer in Tampa Bay, the Lake Worth Lagoon, and the Laguna Madre in Texas. Must an ecosystem be brought to the brink of collapse for the benefit of a few at the expense of many before we wake up and try to save it? It is less expensive in sociological, political, biological, and financial terms to prevent environmental destruction than it is to return years later and attempt to correct mistakes. The multi-million dollar restoration of the Kissimmee River basin is a prime example of this principle. Undoing the Corp's channelization of this river is turning out to be one of the most costly civil projects in our nation's history.

The development that will occur if the MacArthur Foundation sells the port property to St. Lucie County for the current port expansion purposes is in direct opposition to the goals of the Foundation's World Environment and Resources Program. The environmental and social economics of this proposed development are disastrous. The plan calls for the tax subsidy of a major corporation so that it can improve it's profitability without an appropriate allocation of environmental costs to the county, the state, or the nation - this prospective anchor tenant currently provides approximately one half of one per cent (0.5%) of the jobs in St. Lucie County. No demonstrable net positive change in Florida's, or the United State's, trade balance will result, no significant net employment opportunities will be created, and, meanwhile, local citizens and their environment will suffer grave long term consequences. This is not an acceptable example of sustainable or desirable development, because no significant offsetting community or ecological benefits have been or can be demonstrated.  It is widely conceded, including senior county employees, that local employment will be minimally affected by the expanded cargo port activities planned for the anchor tenant. Once the expanded port is in place, the natural estuarine resources, which generate approximately $300 million annually in tourism and recreation revenues in St. Lucie County, and $2.8 billion in all five lagoonal counties, will become the first and principal casualty. Where is the public purpose or benefit of this deal?

Positive Sum Solution

In zero sum situations, there must be a winner and a loser - winner takes all. In positive sum situations, winners and losers each take some. In a political context, the principle of positive sum solutions can be defined as democracy, the type of democracy advocated by Madison, Calhoun, and contemporary proponents of proportional interest issue voting and local legislative decision-making.

Why is such theorizing relevant to this report? It is relevant because the citizens of St. Lucie County have repeatedly and overwhelmingly stated their preference for a recreational and tourism based port area development. If votes were weighted to reflect popular opinion - instead of winner take all opinion - there would be no cargo port expansion, or at most, very limited expansion. If the public had the opportunity to voice its opinion explicitly, as compared to the symbolic (sound bite framed) opportunities presented so far, a representative vote (that is, weighted accurately to reflect the intensity of voter preference on the issue) would be decisively in favor of a conservation oriented, sustainable port area development which both protected the Indian River Lagoon environment and the present St. Lucie County natural resources. As stated above, these resources constitute the area's principal economic base, a unique resource base which holds the greatest and the only historically demonstrable potential for both growth and sustainability.

Any decision concerning the sale of the MacArthur property is clearly within the exclusive discretion of the Foundation. This report seeks only to suggest several other compelling alternatives to a sale for the stated use of a high impact expanded cargo port activity. Other options exist which are highly consistent with the Foundation's stated goals and practices.

The port area is a prime location for low impact research activities in biodiversity, ecotourism, environmental economics, environmental education, and sustainable recreational and cultural development. The MacArthur Foundation spends millions of dollars annually to help fund organizations performing productively in these areas. It is certain that many such organizations might be eager for the chance to use a portion of the port area property for their activities. As an example, the Smithsonian Institution is currently in the process of building a research facility on Causeway Island MacArthur Foundation property approximately one mile from the port.

The infrastructure already in place in the port area is more than adequate for research vessels utilized by such marine research organizations as the Smithsonian and Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution (located four miles north on the Indian River), and others. The location of the port area, at the convergence of the tropical and temperate zones, makes it a perfect jumping off point for marine and estuarine research.

The location of Fort Pierce, at the northernmost edge of the Miami to Palm Beach megalopolis, makes it ideal for research in sustainable growth and environmental policy issues. The high unemployment rate in St. Lucie County makes it an ideal area for community initiatives research, demonstrating that more jobs can be created by preserving and capitalizing upon the sustainable environmental resources of an area than by destroying those resources. The latter qualification is a direct analogy to the Foundation's Community Initiative Program in Palm Beach County, with the Loxahatchee Slough transaction as an environmental example, and with the goals of the World Environment and Resources division. The Community Initiative Program's work supports "new efforts to develop the links among economic community, and environmental issues that must be addressed in order to help rebuild and sustain the environmental integrity of the Florida Everglades ecosystem.  In the Fort Pierce port case, the closely related environmental integrity of the Indian River Lagoon is at stake. The value of the MacArthur property as a resource in long term sustainable development far outweighs the short term benefits (and long term environmental costs) of the currently proposed high impact industrial cargo port development. 

Summary

The sale or other disposition of tracts of environmentally sensitive land subject to conservation restrictions is an increasingly established convention. The pending current sale in St. Lucie County of the Cypress Creek and Trail Ridge properties negotiated by the Conservation Fund between the landowners, the County and the State is a case in point. Why cannot the MacArthur Foundation, the Conservation Fund - and other like-minded conservation institutions - coordinate with St. Lucie County and the State of Florida to preserve the Indian River Lagoon at Fort Pierce? An alliance of this nature could easily cooperate to encourage, and accomplish, environmentally sound and sustainable development which does not include lagoon destructive expansion. The rhetorical question presents a conceptual framework for a positive sum solution to the subject of this report. The answer, of course, is that nothing prevents such a solution if the interested parties have the desire and the will to achieve it. 

Our specific requests to the MacArthur Foundation therefore are:

Please do not sell the port of Fort Pierce property:

(A) Without contractual environmental protection for the Indian River Lagoon, in its present state, as to future riparian land usage by means of conservation easements, deed restrictions, and similar protective covenants.

B) In such a manner that creates a windfall increase in the hypothetical value of existing leasehold interests, which increase would place an undue burden on any future public and environmentally sustainable use of the property.

Seek to balance the Foundation's interest in realizing proper asset values while, at the same time, conserving the environment by negotiating any sale of this environmentally critical property only to a consortium of interests, county, state, public trusts, and foundations, in concert with a property development plan that is environmentally sound and sustainable with regard to the present ecology of the Indian River Lagoon.

Direct Foundation employees who are expert in and responsible for natural resource and environmental conservation research, analysis and decision making to examine the substance of this report and its requests, and to advise the Board of Directors of the Foundation what actions the Foundation should take to support them.

Sincerely,

The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County

The St. Lucie County Waterfront Council

The St. Lucie County Audubon Society