Alternative Concepts

FRIENDS OF THE CAUSEWAY ASSOCIATION

FOCAS

Other Links of Interest

Alternative Concepts from FOCAS

To Those Proposed by the LPCIP

As of September 1, 2009

Introduction:

The position statement published by FOCAS, (Friends Of the Causeway Association), details the objections which our organization has to the proposals in the LPCIP, (Long Point Causeway Improvement Plan). However, FOCAS realizes that to simply say “No” to a proposal that attempts to address a need is not sufficient. We feel an obligation to offer viable alternatives to the original proposal; alternatives that attempt to meet the same perceived needs. That is the objective of this document.

Need: To increase the population of turtles in Big Creek marsh.

The FOCAS position paper demonstrates that barriers would only save 0.8% of all the turtles that die each year. The remaining 99.2% are for the most part, victims of predation, (being eaten). The bulk of the predation occurs on turtle eggs, usually within the first 48 hours after they are laid. The lower water levels in the marsh and the appearance of the opossum may be responsible for greater mammalian penetration into the marsh and thus, greater predation pressure in recent years. To counter this, FOCAS proposes the following:

That suitable nesting habitat be established within the confines of Big Creek marsh in a readily accessible area to permit easy monitoring. Turtles cross the causeway in search of suitable drier ground for nesting. If, they were to encounter a man-made mound with the appropriate moisture content, aggregate mix, elevation, and exposure, most would lay their eggs in this predictable, accessible location. This would facilitate the monitoring that would be required to identify fresh nests that needed protection.

That a program of turtle nest protection be established. There are two commonly-practiced ways of accomplishing this. Firstly, a 4 foot square sheet of expanded steel, (similar to the open weave design seen on the floor of some trailers), is pegged over the fresh nest for at least the first 48 hours. Sometimes a piece of link fencing is used instead. Secondly, a wire cage with spaces wide enough to permit the hatchlings to leave the nest, but too narrow to admit predators, is placed over the freshly laid nest. Both methods ensure 100% emergence of the viable hatchlings, (Some eggs are not fertilized and others die before hatching). The question of how many nests would need to be protected to offset the impact of road kill can be calculated. If only five turtles are currently being killed on the road each year and if a typical nest contains 20 eggs, then the addition of the turtles from just one protected nest could more than offset the roadkill. This is a low tech, inexpensive solution to the problem that has a proven record of success in Florida’s swamps.

That the program of barrier installation by the LPCIP be continued. This proposal is conditional pending independent research which would demonstrate that such barriers have no significant negative effect on non-reptilian species. This program has demonstrated that road kill can be virtually eliminated by such barriers. To the extent that road kill may positively affect populations, FOCAS endorses its continuation.

Need: To provide a corridor of safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists.

FOCAS proposes that an elevated wooden walkway be constructed through the CWS marsh to the west of and parallel to the road. A drawing of this concept can be seen below. The drawing suggests that it would be adjacent to the road, but FOCAS proposes that, with the permission of the CWS, that it be some distance west of the road allowance. It should only be adjacent to the road if CWS co-operation is not forthcoming. The cost of this venture would be approximately $2,500,000. The results of a public opinion survey conducted by FOCAS suggests that the taxpayers of Norfolk are prepared to pay, through increased taxes, their share of the costs of such a venture.

Need: To provide more nutrients to and greater water circulation within the marsh.

These needs are currently being reviewed by FOCAS. At this time, there are several competing concepts being discussed by the FOCAS executive. Because of the amount of research and outside expertise, (eg. hydrologists), required for each concept, it will take some time before FOCAS can present a short list for consideration. However, the process has begun. Suffice it to say that all of the concepts currently being discussed appear to be more suitable and potentially less expensive than the LPCIP proposal.

Conclusion:

These concepts are not intended to be comprehensive. They are intended to demonstrate only that the needs met by the LPCIP can be met at a much lower environmental and economic cost if one thinks outside the “Ecoplans” box. FOCAS will not be coming forward with lowball cost estimates which do not include all foreseeable expenses. Also, FOCAS refuses to become caught in the same position as the LPCIP where they proceed too far down the planning path before they solicit genuine, diverse, input from the stakeholders. Therefore, it should be noted that there is a greater difference between the two groups than simply their two proposals. There is also a significant difference in the way each would devise and refine their proposal. Unlike the LPCIP, FOCAS is committed to an approach that is:
·        Transparent;
·        Broadly based;
·        Non-political;
·       Consensus-seeking;
·        Fiscally responsible;
·        Community driven.

Approved by the Friends Of the Causeway Association, (ON Reg No. 190186965)

Alternative Concepts