A recent news story suggested that Sarasota County missed an opportunity several years ago to purchase an environmentally sensitive property now known as the Isles of Athena. A developer now plans to turn that same 5,800 acres of forests and wetlands into 10,500 houses and 4.2 million square feet of commercial development. That’s four Sarasota Square Malls and enough rooftops and cars to support it!

The story raised, but failed to answer, two important questions. Why did Sarasota County pass up the opportunity to and preserve the property in 1998, at a fraction of today’s price? And why is the property prime for development if it was so environmentally sensitive?

The answers to these questions require a little historical background. During the 1990s, county staff, landowners and private citizens were bringing numerous proposals for environmentally sensitive land purchases to the County Commission. At that time, the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Acquisition program did not exist nor did the county have a dedicated funding source for environmental land purchases. Commissioners did not have guidelines to determine which purchases made the most sense. So they decided criteria were needed to evaluate acquisition proposals to assure that taxpayers’ money would be wisely invested.

Yes, the county missed an opportunity on the Isles of Athena property. But everyone who didn’t purchase at least one piece of waterfront property in 1998 missed the same kind of opportunity. But did everyone have the money then? Could everyone have afforded to carry the property until they resold it? We all should have purchased more real estate in the late 1990s, but we all weren’t financially able to do it. Waging this sort of criticism retrospectively is like betting on the outcome of a football game while watching its rerun.

In 1999, however, the county did create a program with a funding source that would generate money for future land acquisitions. The program has been’ enormously successful, but you can’t buy every property on the market.

Since the late 1990s, Sarasota County officials have been actively pursuing the acquisition of the environmentally sensitive Isles of Athena tract. The county has made numerous offers to the various owners who have purchased and resold the property. Each time the county was outbid by competitive real estate developers and investors who based their purchase offers on anticipated profits. The county couldn’t effectively compete in that market because it must use appraised values, which typically are based on historic sales and less ambitious development scenarios.

The most recent price of $61.5 million for this parcel is based upon outrageous expectations for development. The proposed development will destroy the land’s environmental qualities and create unavoidable traffic congestion in South County. The instant this land was annexed into North Port, the development potential skyrocketed, dragging its tethered price tag into the stratosphere.

Just five short years ago, some were questioning the wisdom of Sarasota County buying preservation lands in the far eastern areas of the county, seeing “no imminent threat of development.” To date, the county’s Environmental Lands program has cost the citizens of Sarasota County just over $3,000 per acre purchased.

This figure includes lands within the urbanized area, bayfront properties and lands to the east. I would say the county has invested wisely, especially considering the Isles of Athena owner paid more than $10,000 per acre.

Do you get the feeling taxpayers are going to be the ones to suffer to ensure that Isles of Athena is not a financial boondoggle? If not now, maybe you will when you’re asked to pay the bill to fix the overcrowded roads and schools that cost far more than the development fees will cover. For me, seeing yet another irreplaceable natural landscape become a casualty to bad development decisions and selfish motives is far too expensive a price to pay.

This April marks the first anniversary of the prescribed Carlton Reserve fire that resulted in some very non-prescribed events. As with any infamous event, there are lessons to be learned that should safeguard against a reoccurrence. And there are lessons that could advance beyond safeguards and be a long-term benefit to the community.

The most obvious lesson derived from the Carlton fire is that human habitats and wildland fires are inherently incompatible. Several suggestions have been offered to resolve this human/fire incompatibility, including: don’t build houses near wildlands, destroy the wildlands, or ensure that the wildlands and houses are protected from one another. In the aftermath of a destructive wildfire, you

may hear an additional suggestion, and that is, don’t burn the wildlands. Let me explain why this latter option is unrealistic. Stopping fires from burning homes within the pinelands of south Florida is not unlike stopping earthquakes from destroying homes straddling the San Andreas Fault. It is not a question of if they will burn, rather when they will.

The pine forest habitats in Sarasota have burned every two to five years for thousands of years. The plants and animals that thrive in these environs are not only adapted to fires, they are dependent upon them. In fact, they are so dependent, that they cannot survive long term without fire. The pines trees themselves ensure that frequent fires occur by attracting lighting strikes that start the fire. The trees then carry the fire throughout the landscape with their highly flammable needles. Imagine gasoline soaked straw and you have a fairly accurate description of pine needles.

Historic records from early pioneers describe the frequent wildfires of Sarasota as low burning and of medium to low intensity. For the most part these historic fires burned low-growing palmetto and grasses and were relatively cool. An old cracker story suggested the way to escape a pine-prairie fire is to first step over it with one leg, then the other. However, under the misguided impression that we were saving the forest by extinguishing these naturally occurring fires, the plants that fuel the fires accumulated and the fires became hotter, more intense, and flames grew to heights previously unheard of. As we have seen throughout the U.S., such as in Yellowstone, California and now Florida, controlling these unnatural and catastrophic fires is extraordinarily difficult, expensive and very dangerous. Sooner or later these volatile unburned pinelands will catch fire and burn, either by lightning, an errant cigarette, or a kid playing with matches.

On 1-75 between exits 34 and 33 (mile markers 187 and 189) in North Port, you can see the positive results of the Carlton fire where it did burn, in stark contrast to the areas that did not burn. The burned area is now characterized with low growing palmettos, numerous grass and widely scattered pines. These open vistas and herbaceous ground cover created by fire are the real Florida. This is the landscape that attracted early Europeans and sustained aboriginal Floridians. Should this area burn again soon, as it should, the fire will burn low, be more easily controlled and will benefit the indigenous plants and animals that rely upon these naturally occurring, low-intensity fires. On the contrary, the unburned area, with its 20-foot high shrubs, will burn intensely hot, kill many trees and animals and be very difficult to control.

Since the Carlton fire of 1991, Sarasota County has created a firewise coalition comprised of state forestry officials, fire department representatives and personnel from both county and city governments. Both, the negative impacts of the Carlton fire from the human perspective and the beneficial results from the natural perspectives will be used to formulate policies and procedures that will benefit future land management decisions. These decisions will preserve the environmental integrity of the unique natural landscape of Sarasota while not compromising the safety of its citizens.

A recent attempt to settle pending litigation between local governments and Mosaic, the world’s largest phosphate mining company, stalled when Sarasota County failed to ratify a proposed settlement agreement compact. The compact essentially prohibited local governments from opposing phosphate mining, in return for enhanced environmental protection. While some felt the compact was balanced and equitable, others, including myself, did not.

I propose an alternative settlement agreement designed to reconcile the disagreements that have been the subject of litigation rather than eliminating the right to litigate. But first, it is important to understand the details of the compact that failed to reach consensus.

The Mosaic company is offering environmental standards that are stricter than those presently required by law. These new standards require that future mining activity will avoid dewatering impacts to preserved wetlands, maintain downstream water quality, and mitigate adverse impacts to the quantity and timing of surface water flows into the Peace and Myakka River basins.

The compact also prohibits Mosaic from mining or constructing slime ponds (clay settling areas) within some, but not all, 100-year floodplains. It also requires slime pond construction standards that can withstand a hurricane. Mosaic further agrees to provide insurance coverage to pay for cleanup and restoration costs from slime pond failures and to enhance the flows of the Peace River for local governments’ future water supplies.

In return, local governments agree to dismiss all pending permit challenges and can not initiate any new permit challenges or make any comments opposing Mosaic’s mining activities to any permitting agency for 15 to 30 years.

Local governments would also be prohibited from Mosaic appears to be giving up more than local governments. But closer scrutiny of historical evidence and a standard known as “do the right thing,” reveals a bias that strongly favors Mosaic’s interests.

First let’s consider the concessions expected from local governments. Local governments are being asked to give up all rights to go to court to protect their community’s welfare, and would also agree to what amounts to a “hush order,” which would prohibit them from participating in the permitting process. These two provisions are critical and fundamental rights that have been the most effective tools in holding the phosphate industry accountable for unnecessary environmental destruction in the past. While local government concessions are few in number, they are significant in terms of effectiveness, as evidenced by Mosaic’s eagerness to eliminate them.

One of two scenarios must be true about Mosaic’s proposed concessions. The first scenario assumes that current environmental standards allow for adverse impacts to preserved wetlands, the degradation of downstream water quality, the construction of slime ponds in floodplains that are vulnerable to failure from hurricanes, inadequate insurance coverage and impacts to future water supplies. The second scenario assumes that Mosaic is offering us something that we already have. Either way, we are being offered a minimum standard that any effective environmental protection agency should already be using. This outlandish exchange also requires citizens to surrender one of their most coveted rights — the right to protect their interests in a court of law and the right to voice their opposition in a legal review process that affects their health and welfare.

It is inconceivable, but now demonstrably true, that Florida’s environmental regulations governing phosphate mining are pathetically inadequate, to the point where they are now being used as leverage against local governments’ ability to protect their communities. It is shameful that existing environmental regulations do not already preserve preserved wetlands, protect water quality and floodplains.

This is not a balanced settlement and I will continue to oppose it.

As an alternative settlement agreement, I suggest that local governments agree to hold pending litigation in abeyance in return for an agreement by Mosaic to partner with local governments to support changes to state environmental protection rules that will codify the enhanced standards offered by Mosaic in the pending settlement agreement.

Since the lack of these environmental standards led to virtually all recent litigation, adopting the standards into law will minimize, if not entirely eliminate the need for local governments to resort to litigation to protect their community’s interests in the future.

Mosaic suggests it is a “community partner” and willing to “do the right thing.” Well, this is the right thing to do. Expecting present and all future local governments to surrender their legal rights for up to 30 years in return for Mosaic’s willingness to protect the environment is unreasonable. It’s obviously financially viable for the industry to continue to mine phosphate with the heightened environmental standards — otherwise they would have never been offered. If they are feasible, viable and the right thing to do today, they should be the legal standard for the future.

Throughout my junior high and high school years in Venice, Caspersen Beach was quite the hangout. It was a great place for bonfires and teenage mischief, isolated just enough to create a false sense of security. Fishing off the beach for snook and the occasional tarpon was a favorite activity for us as teens. My uncles suggested, with remarkable accuracy, that the snook surf fishing began with the blooming of the Royal Poinciana trees.

Much of Caspersen and all of the Venice Beaches to the north are unique to the Southwest coast of Florida in that they are not on barrier islands. Rather, they are the mainland gulf shore. Actually, Venice is not a natural island at all. It only became an island in 1967 when the last section of a canal (we called it “The Ditch”) was dug east of town connecting Roberts and Lemon Bays.

Some of the earliest documentation of Caspersen Beach comes from a British surveyor, Bernard Romans, who mapped the region in 1771. Under British control, Venice was know as “Horse and Chaise Point” and Caspersen as “Haulover” possibly referring to a place where longboats could be careened to remove barnacles.

An 1880’s reference to Caspersen billed it as a great place to harvest Loggerhead sea turtles. So bountiful were the turtles that a Key West fishery made an annual trip to Caspersen just to slaughter the numerous slow moving nesting females.

Sarasota County first leased Caspersen Beach from the Caspersen family in the late 1960’s. However, recognizing the rapidly increasing price for gulf-front real estate, the County purchased the property in two phases. In 1973 the 113 acres gulf side was purchased for $3.5 million dollars. The 146-acre mainland parcel (including Shamrock Park) was purchased in 1985 for $8 million. The money for both acquisitions came from voter-approved referendums. I was a member of Venice High School’s Ecology Club during the 1973 referendum and I can remember critics complaining about this waste of taxpayer money. Both parcels are now worth many times their initial capital cost, and will forever be priceless in terms of economic and social investments.

The blistering hot “black” sand of Caspersen Beach that I abhorred as a child is actually one of its most attractive features. The dark grains of sand are small fragments of fossilized prehistoric plants and animals. Not all are fragmented; many of the fossils remain intact and have become the treasures of fossil hunters from all over the world. Dr. Sonny Cockerel, well known for his archeological finds in Warm Mineral Springs, has inspired many a Venetian youth to dive for fossils just off the shores of Caspersen Beach.

Belinda Perry, at the time a County employee, professionalized the turtle monitoring methodologies that are now considered the research standard, at Caspersen Beach. Deurita Wozniak, a volunteer who worked with Belinda in the mid 1980’s, is the longest term volunteer at Caspersen and is still at it today. More sea turtles now nest at Caspersen Beach than anywhere else on the West coast of Florida. The warmer dark sand incubates the buried turtle eggs faster so the hatchlings are away before the typical Labor Day storms batter the beaches.

I have always been attracted to this beach, and my awe and appreciation for its grandeur has grown increasingly with my age. It should come as no surprise that Caspersen Beach has again received international attention. The July/August 2002 issue of National Geographic’s TRAVELER magazine has listed Caspersen Beach as one of America’s 40 beaches. The article cites Caspersens’s “abundances of serrated choppers” (sharks teeth) and its natural shoreline featuring “some 200 species of birds and other wildlife (including dolphins and manatees)”. What a great back yard we’ve got folks!

I read with interest your recent editorial in support of alternative fuels to help combat global warming and reduce America’s reliance on fossil fuel goal at all levels of government.

I join you in commending Gov. Charlie Crist for his efforts on this issue.

We can also be thankful for U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan’s leadership at the federal level. The congressman was one of just 44 Republicans who voted to establish a congressional panel to investigate the dangers of global warming and he has supported responsible legislation to reduce pollution from vehicles and power plants by placing mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. He has also fought efforts to weaken or eliminate the state’s coastal protections against offshore drilling while instead encouraging federal investments in energy conservation and efficiency, as well as domestic energy sources.

In Sarasota County, we are doing our part through our commitment to build “green” and have taken several steps to conserve energy and reduce emissions. By investing in improved energy efficiency in buildings; promoting flexible-fuel, plug-in, hybrid electric vehicles; and supplying recycled materials to industry we reduce our energy costs, conserve resources, reduce emissions and spur economic growth, while improving the region’s working and living environments.

When an Urban Land Institute team visited Sarasota County a few years ago, they were most impressed with the large blob of green they saw from aerial views of the county. That “blob of green” is one of the county’s most vital assets. It did not occur by chance. Sarasota County’s Environmental Lands Acquisition program began with a small group of citizens concerned about the rapid loss of natural landscapes to sprawling residential and commercial development. The group formed a political action committee, raised campaign funds and persuaded the Sarasota County commissioners to place a referendum on the ballot to dedicate 0.25 mills of the county’s ad valorem taxes to purchase environmentally sensitive lands. In March 2000, the referendum passed by a 2-1 ratio.

To date, the program has protected more than 15,000 acres of environmentally sensitive lands in Sarasota County. This acreage, combined with environmental land acquisitions of the past, places approximately 100,000 acres – about one-third of the county’s total land area under perpetual conservation.

The county made specific commitments to taxpayers and property owners about the program’s operation. Only parcels with willing sellers would be considered for purchase. The county would not use eminent domain or other forms of government taking. Once in the program, there would be no additional regulatory burdens and the landowner could withdraw at any time.

Criteria were developed to ensure that only parcels with certain outstanding environmental features were considered. The Sarasota County Commission appointed an oversight committee with a broad range of citizen representation to evaluate the properties according to the criteria. The Nature Conservancy was hired to negotiate purchase contracts on the county’s behalf.

Acquisition efforts have been spread throughout the county and include urban green space, waterfront and rural lands. Ten percent of the millage is set aside to fund the management and maintenance of the land. Each parcel has a plan prepared – with input from neighboring residents – to ensure that public access is available but does not degrade the site’s natural resources.

This program has demonstrated the value of partnerships and bottom-up management – a citizen’s initiative, administered by government through a private not-for profit organization with continuous citizen/government interaction, funded by local, state and regional monies. The county’s Environmental Land Acquisition program has maintained all promises made to the voters and property owners, and now enjoys one of the highest satisfaction ratings of any program the county administers.

The Sarasota County issue that has created the longest controversy also has created the greatest confusion and misunderstanding. The issue of Midnight Pass has spanned two county administrators, 17 county commissioners and a countless number of newspaper reporters and consultants. As the lone vote against proceeding with a permit request to reopen Midnight Pass, I feel obligated to explain why, as an environmental advocate, I voted not to reopen an inlet that closed, or closed prematurely, at the hand of man.

The vote of Dec. 2, first of all, was not an ideological question about whether to reopen Midnight Pass. It was a vote on whether to proceed with a specific permit proposal to reopen the pass. Erickson Consulting Engineers, a firm hired by the county, designed the Dec. 2 proposal. The vote that day was a question of how, not if. An earlier policy decision that was made regarding specifics about how to reopen Midnight Pass influenced my dissenting vote.

In 1997, the Board of County Commissioners, frustrated with the Midnight Pass issue, asked activists from all sides if they would agree to participate in a professionally mediated forum to find common ground. I was one of those participants. After weeks of intense dialogue and emotional debate, all the participants agreed to a common goal. And while we continued to disagree on many issues, we all signed on to the following:

“Policy Goal: Any pass in the former Midnight Pass area, however reopened, should be a natural pass and the system shall be allowed to respond to natural barrier island processes including shoaling, pass movement, erosion, sea level rise, overwash, etc.”

In July 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted this same policy goal.

The specifics detailed in the Erickson proposal on how Midnight Pass would be opened, are not consistent with the Policy Goal adopted at the mediated forum. The Erickson report states “…maintenance dredging of the initial pass channel would likely be needed to maintain an alignment within a designated location, and thus provide for a fixed lateral position.” This does not describe a “natural pass” that was to be allowed to shoal and move. Neither is it consistent with the report’s historic description of Midnight Pass as one that had a “history of past pass migration and reversals.”

During the Dec. 2 vote, I was in a unique position. I was both a signatory to the mediated forum’s Policy Goal and I was required to vote on the new proposal at hand. As a commissioner, I was free to change policy. We regularly do that during commission meetings and state law actually prohibits one commission from mandating policy for a commission that’s subsequently elected. As a mediation participant, however, I felt I had a commitment to the original Policy Goal.

Politically, it would have been easy to vote with the flow, especially since my lone vote wouldn’t have affected Board policy. It’s possible that those who oppose reopening the pass would have understood the extreme political pressure and why I might have voted with the majority. But I felt compelled to keep my word and my commitment, regardless of any political fallout.

Since the Board has adopted a policy and clear direction, I will not sabotage nor circumvent its efforts. While I may not agree with the Board’s direction, my role and responsibilities as a commissioner are significantly different from the role of an environmental activist. I am now committed to make the open pass scenario as environmentally sensitive and fiscally responsible as possible.

One of the most commonly misunderstood principals of preserving wildlife is how animals survive after their habitat has been altered or destroyed. In Sarasota, these alterations typically come from converting natural habitats into agriculture or suburban development. Many developments still share their space with remnant wildlife, and in some cases the development is named after signature wildlife found on the site. A natural assumption to make is that since some of the wildlife is still there, it has adapted to the new human landscape, and we’ll all live together, happily ever after. Regrettably, this fairy tale forecast is far from reality.

First we should clarify what happens to wildlife displaced by the destruction of their own natural habitat and relocate to other natural areas. Most wildlife habitats are already at or near capacity. When displaced wildlife moves into a new area, it overpopulates that area and displaces the resident wildlife. The net loss of wildlife is the same as if none had survived the destruction of its homeland.

For the wildlife that stays, which species will survive in human modified landscapes will ultimately be determined by the quantity and quality of resources found in the natural habitat, that are maintained in the human habitat. The more resources that are maintained or simulated, the more species will survive. This may be more easily described with some examples. Bobwhite quail and Mourning doves are both common in Sarasota’s natural landscapes, and like the miner’s canary make excellent forecasters.

Bobwhite quail live exclusively in fire-maintained prairies and open pine flatwoods habitats. Early settlers to the Sarasota area modified most of the native prairies and pinelands by chopping back and burning the palmetto so that grasses would flourish and more cattle could be raised. Wildlife that relied on the palmetto died off. The quail, however, survived as the grass proliferated under the rancher’s care. However, when this native rangeland is converted to subdivisions, the native grasses are replaced by seedless lawn-grass and the quail are lost.

The Bobwhite quail survived the cattlemen’s alterations but not the housing development’s, because it was already adapted to a grass environment, a resource maintained by the rancher. It did not inherently have the ability to survive the loss of the critical grassland resources caused by the subdivision. The quail’s survival had nothing to do with its ability to adapt to one altered environment and not the other.

Many of the quail will survive the bulldozers blade as individuals, and it may take several generations (5-10 years) to disappear as a species. South Venice scrub-jays have been hanging on for over twenty-five years because of individuals surviving the slow, lot-by-lot land clearing process. As a species, scrub-jays are doomed in developed areas without the scrub habitat resource. Longer-lived wildlife, such as gopher tortoises, could take 50 years or more before they die as a species. Bottom line is that we cannot assess the impact of wildlife lost, as the result of habitat changes, by what we see today.

Mourning doves share the same pinelands with the quail. However, unlike the quail that depend on an herbaceous grassy understory, doves can be found in many of Sarasota’s native habitats. Quail feed primarily on grass seed, where as doves are opportunistic omnivores that will take advantage of almost any food available. While quails nest almost exclusively in woven clumps of native grasses, mourning doves naturally nest anywhere. Because of the dove’s natural adaptation to a multitude of habitat conditions, they are enabled to survive the conversion of natural lands into suburbia. They survive not because they have adapted to a new environment, but because they already had behavior traits that were compatible with the new altered human environment.

If we were to expect wildlife truly to adapt to human altered environs, then we would have needed to phase in our habitat alterations over eons. Rather than Sarasota going from completely natural to seventy percent developed in 100 years, for wildlife to adapt, it might take 10,000 years.

Wildlife cannot adapt to habitat alteration that result in a loss of naturally occurring resources. It reacts. What we’re seeing are instinctive survival skills altering the individual’s natural behavior in order to survive in the strange new environment. Survival of the species depends entirely upon the species’ long established relationship with the resources afforded within an environment. If the resources are not available, mortality will exceed reproduction and ultimately the species will be lost, it’s just a matter of time.

While some of Sarasota’s native wildlife will survive in man made environments, most will not. As a community our challenge is to make responsible decisions, and base them upon educated long-term expectations, not short-term fantasies that justify bad decisions.

From the first day European settlers staked their claims to Sarasota bayfront real estate, wetlands essential to the bay’s survival have been systematically destroyed.

As it became apparent that the loss of the wetland habitats would ultimately lead to economic and social decline, rules were adopted to turn the tide. Regrettably, Sarasota Bay had already lost about half of its estuarine wetlands before wetland protection laws were enacted. Despite rules that assume a “no net loss” policy to protect remnant wetlands, there is no mandate to restore wetlands where they once existed.

Expecting a bay to function without half of its wetlands is like expecting a body to function without half of its organs.

If we are sincere about restoring wetlands in Sarasota Bay, we have two basic options. Either waterfront property owners replace their seawalls, boat docks and channels with mangroves, grass flats and oyster beds, or we restore these same environs on lands already in public ownership. While the former would be more productive, as most of the destroyed wetlands are in private ownership, I can’t envision or dream of it ever happening.

Little Edwards Island is public land. It became a mangrove island, ringed with seagrasses “shortly” after emerging from the bay, following the last glacial recession. Despite periodic setbacks from tropical storms, hard freezes and the occasional Indian gathering oysters, the island remained relatively unchanged for about 3,000 to 4,000 years. Then all at once, with the advent of Europeans, the island, its estuary and hinterlands to the east were severely compromised.

In place of the mangrove island, with current passing through it on high tides, we dumped piles of dredge spoil, and introduced an alien plant from Australia that prohibits local native plants from growing. The current that once flowed freely throughout all reaches of the shallow bay was imprisoned within a deep channel constructed for boats. Many of the grassflats that once flanked the island have been thoughtlessly buried to provide waterfront home sites.

We cannot expect to recapture the original beauty of Sarasota Bay; it is forever lost. However, what remains is worth an extraordinary effort to preserve.

The proposed plan to restore not only Little Edwards Island, but also many of the interior bay islands, is one such effort. The spoil and the alien plants that man dumped on the islands will be removed. In their place will be shallow water, landscapes including mangroves, buttonwoods and intertidal grass flats.

Rather than having Australian pine trees that are used mostly by suburban birds, such as European starlings, mourning doves and great blue herons, the native estuary plants will provide habitat for threatened species such as reddish egrets, tricolor herons and American oyster catchers.

It is these less common species that the island restoration project is targeting. Additionally, the Little Edwards Island restoration project alone is expected to create eight acres of habitat supporting a substantial increase in juvenile fish, crab and shrimp production.

The natural resource managers who are responsible for bay restoration must wade through a long and tedious permitting process. The red tape is overwhelming, even for a government project. Agencies responsible for wildlife preservation will review the application to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The spoil that is to be removed from the island and used to elevate a portion of the bay bottom to the photic zone for new grassflats, must be closely analyzed. If the spoil contains too much silt, clay or other contaminants, it cannot be returned to the bay.

From the bay’s point of view, we have been inordinately selfish. We dredge, we fill, we take, we consume and we destroy. No source can be sustain extractions indefinitely. If we wish to continue to take from the bay, and I assure you we will, we must replenish it. Wetlands are the vital organs of the bay, if we cannot restore them on our public lands, then where?

On behalf of over 1,000 members of Sarasota Audubon Society, I extend thanks and best wishes to former Sarasota County Commissioners Eugene Matthews and Charley Richards. Despite our numerous and often confrontational disagreements, Commissioners Matthews and Richards have always supported, and often assumed leadership roles in, the preservation of new public conservation lands. For this, they deserve special recognition.

By building coalitions with environmental groups, private landowners and funding agencies, Commissioners Richards and

Matthews have been successful in preserving thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive land, including numerous parcels within the Myakka River watershed. Most visitors and, for that matter, many full-time residents of Sarasota will never see the trademark open prairies or evergreen pine lands that characterize these Myakka acquisitions. And few will appreciate the biological basis for preserving, in perpetuity, large, intact associations of habitats which allow complex ecosystems to function. However, most citizens will appreciate the higher quality of air and water now afforded Sarasota residents – the result of having preserved these lands, rather than having phosphate mines or additional suburban development with all their infamous byproducts.

Worth preserving: A habitat for wildlife and a haven for humans.

Other environmental purchases provide critical habitat for rare and endangered species. The Shamrock Park in Venice now provides accessible wildlands for schoolchildren to learn natural science first-hand. The Oscar Scherer State Park addition is considered to be the most accessible spot on the planet to view the threatened Florida scrub jay and consequently, ensures a steady flow of ecotourist revenue into Sarasota’s economy.

In recognition of Commissioners Richards’ and Matthews’ proactive approach to environmental lands acquisition, Sarasota Audubon is planting a longleaf pine and a live oak in the picnic area of Oscar Scherer State Park. Just as the environmentally sensitive lands the county has acquired provide multiple uses for both man and wildlife, the planted trees will provide shade to Fourth of July picnickers, and food and shelter to some of Sarasota’s most endangered wildlife.

Of all the capital improvements funded b the County Commission, such as a new library, the Administration Center, Honore Avenue, and purchasing public lands, while all are needed now, all but the latter will be antiquated, depreciated or obsolete in 50 years. Imagine trying to operate today’s Sarasota out of the 1907 courthouse, or teach Generation X out of the 1925 high school, or driving a Lexus on the 1941 Tamiami Trail! Conversely, the natural re source lands acquired consistently add to our quality of life, appreciate in value, supplement our tax base and, despite our techno society, have become anything but obsolete.

Commissioners Richards and Matthews have acquired specific skills and contacts relative to preserving environmentally sensitive lands. We encourage them to use those attributes as private citizens to continue to build upon the, work they accomplished in office. Sarasota Audubon looks forward to working with Gene and Charley as they assume proactive leadership roles in the community, and we thank them for their service.