The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent Prospect Marathon Coquina, LLC (PMC), is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the proposed expansion of a docking facility, and whether PMC is entitled to a modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact The Parties With the exception of Elizabeth Schuh, all Petitioners live in the Driftwood neighborhood, which is located across Big Bayou from the proposed project. All Petitioners use Big Bayou for various recreational purposes, including swimming and boating. Several Petitioners also use Big Bayou for nature observation. Petitioner Peter Pav owns waterfront property on Big Bayou. Respondents do not dispute Petitioners’ standing. The Department is charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in waters of the state. The Department has also been delegated authority from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities that will preempt the use of sovereign submerged lands. PMC is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns 2,786 linear feet of upland shoreline contiguous to the state-owned submerged lands of Big Bayou. PMC is the developer of the multi-family residential condominium development on Coquina Key that the proposed project would serve, known as Coquina Key North. The Affected Waterbody Big Bayou is near the southern end of the St. Petersburg peninsula. The mouth of the bayou opens to Tampa Bay. Big Bayou is part of the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve, which includes most of the coastal waters of Pinellas County. Like all aquatic preserves in Florida, the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water.1 Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.001 states that the aquatic preserves in Part II of Chapter 258 (which include the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve) “were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations.” The term “essentially natural condition” is defined as “those functions which support the continued existence or encourage the restoration of the diverse population of indigenous life forms and habitats to the extent they existed prior to the significant development adjacent to and within the preserve.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.003(24). In the 1960s and 1970s, development activities throughout Tampa Bay caused the loss of about 80 percent of its seagrasses and significant degradation of water quality. The seagrasses and water quality in Big Bayou were also adversely affected by filling and other development activities, including the filling and bulkheading of Coquina Key where the proposed project would be located. In more recent years, the water quality in Big Bayou has improved. Although trash sometimes washes up on the shoreline and one can sometimes see a sheen on the water surface caused by gasoline or oil, the water quality in Big Bayou is generally good, with high dissolved oxygen and low nutrient concentrations. The seagrasses have also recovered to a large extent. A variety of seagrasses grow in Big Bayou, including shoal grass, manatee grass, turtle grass, widgeon grass, and a relatively uncommon species, palm grass. Seagrasses are the foundation for the marine food web. They also serve as a nursery for small fish and invertebrates, stabilize sediment, and improve water quality. Manatees regularly enter and use Big Bayou because it provides good habitat. The manatees in this area are part of the Southwest Florida manatee subpopulation. Based on data collected through 2001, that subpopulation is either stable, or possibly declining. Pinellas County is not one of the 13 Florida counties that were required to develop and implement manatee protection plans. There are two areas of Pinellas County that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) has identified as needing additional manatee protection measures, but Big Bayou is not one of them. The Proposed Project The proposed authorizations would allow PMC to expand an existing multi-family, residential docking facility on the north end of Coquina Key, along an existing seawall and adjacent to the Coquina Key North condominiums that PMC converted from a former apartment complex. The proposed project would add 60 boats slips to the existing 30 boat slips at the project site. The new slips could accommodate boats up to 25 feet in length. PMC would restrict use of the boat slips to Coquina Key North condominium owners. In converting the former apartment complex to condominiums, PMC retained ownership of a strip of land immediately upland of the submerged lands on which the proposed project would be constructed. The ground for Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Order is that the ownership retained by PMS, because it does not include ownership of the upland residences, does not entitle PMS to obtain a submerged land lease for the proposed project. That legal argument is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Direct Impacts An earlier plan for the proposed project was to place 30 new boat slips on the north side of the existing docks and 30 new slips on the south side. However, to avoid direct impacts to seagrasses, the plan was modified to avoid an area of seagrasses on the south side. The proposed project now would add 38 boat slips on the north side and 22 slips on the south side. The over-water dock structures would be placed waterward of the seagrasses that currently grow along the seawall. The seagrasses adjacent to the proposed project are not likely to be harmed by wave action or turbulence from boating activity around and in the slips because of the distance between the slips and the seagrasses. The proposed authorizations include specific conditions that prohibit numerous activities that could cause adverse water quality impacts at the proposed project site, such as the discharge of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel; fish cleaning stations; boat repair facilities; fueling facilities; hull cleaning, painting or other external boat maintenance; and boat maintenance or repair activities requiring removal of a boat from the water, or removal of major portions of the boat for purposes of routine repair or maintenance on site, except where removal is necessitated by emergency conditions. No liveaboards would be allowed at the proposed project. PMC intends to incorporate these conditions into its agreements with the condominium owners who use the boat slips. Because Big Bayou is an Outstanding Florida Water, PMC is required to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not result in the lowering of existing ambient water quality. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2)(c) defines “existing ambient water quality” as the better water quality of either what existed on the date that the water body was designated an Outstanding Florida Water or what existed in the year prior to the permit application. Because the current water quality is better than it was in 1972 when the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve was created, the current water quality is the standard to apply in this case. Although some incidental non-compliance with the conditions of the proposed authorizations could occur, such incidental non-compliance would not likely result in significant2 degradation of the existing ambient water quality in Big Bayou. Secondary Impacts – In General Petitioners’ primary concerns with the proposed project are with the secondary impacts that would be caused by increased boating activity in Big Bayou. Petitioners contend that the additional boats using the 60 new boat slips would adversely affect water quality, seagrasses, manatees, and other natural resources. Petitioners also assert that the additional boating activity would cause erosion of the north shoreline of Big Bayou and impair Petitioners’ recreational uses of the bayou. It is reasonable to assume that there would be more boat trips on Big Bayou if the proposed project were built than if it were not built. However, it is impossible to say how many more boat trips would be generated by the proposed project. It cannot be assumed that because there would be 60 more boat slips, there would be 60 more boats on Big Bayou each day, each week, or even each month. Moreover, the number of boats on Big Bayou on any given day fluctuates because it depends not only on the whims of the boat owners who have boat slips in Big Bayou, but also on the whims of the boat owners who anchor their boats in the open waters of Big Bayou, launch their boats from the public boat ramps on Big Bayou, or enter Big Bayou from Tampa Bay or more distant waters. Secondary Impacts - Erosion Petitioners did not present competent evidence to support their claim that the proposed project would cause erosion of the north shoreline of Big Bayou. Secondary Impacts – Water Quality The Department has adopted by reference the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Basis for Review for Environmental Resource Permits (Basis of Review) to apply to applications for environmental resource permits for projects over which the Department retains permitting authority. For docking facilities, Section 3.2.4.3 of the Basis of Review requires the applicant to provide hydrographic information to demonstrate that the “flushing time” (the time required to reduce the concentration of a pollutant) is sufficiently short to prevent the accumulation of any pollutants to the point of violating water quality standards. PMC’s hydrographic analyses indicate that Big Bayou is well-flushed. The water of the bayou moves a half mile to a mile during a normal tide. The fact that the current water quality in Big Bayou is good indicates that contamination associated with the current level of boating activity in the bayou is not accumulating. Incidental discharges of contaminants from boats using the proposed project would likely be rapidly dispersed and diluted. Petitioners argued that PMC’s hydrographic analyses did not address every part of Big Bayou. The rule requires hydrographic characterization of “the project site and surrounding waters.” As the challengers, Petitioners needed to rebut PMC’s prima facie case regarding the hydrographic characteristics in the bayou with competent evidence showing PMC’s findings were inaccurate, or show that the scope of PMC’s hydrographic analyses did not conform with any reasonable interpretation of the applicable rule. Petitioners presented no such evidence or showing. Some additional, incidental contamination can be expected to occur as a result of the operation of the boats that would use the proposed project. However, PMC provided reasonable assurance that the addition of these contaminants would not significantly degrade the existing ambient water quality of Big Bayou nor cause any other applicable water quality standard to be violated. Secondary Impacts - Seagrasses The maximum water depth at which most seagrasses can grow is between five and six feet because of their need for light. When boaters attempt to cross shallow areas where seagrasses are located, they sometimes damage the grasses with the boat propellers, leaving areas of torn grass and “prop scars,” furrows in the bottom. Even when boat propellers do not touch the bottom, but come close, they can disturb the loose sediments and cause turbidity. It can be especially harmful when boats run aground, because the boater will sometimes grind away at the seagrasses in an attempt to move the boat to deeper water, causing holes 10 or 12 feet in diameter. Different seagrasses recover from such damage at different rates. In some cases, it can take years for a prop scar to become re-vegetated. A 1995 study of prop scars by the Florida Marine Research Institute found that the Tampa Bay area is one of four areas of Florida with the greatest acreage of moderate and severe scarring. There are prop scars visible in the bottom of Big Bayou and Petitioners testified about seeing boats run aground in Big Bayou. The main navigation channel on the north side of Big Bayou ranges in depth from slightly less than 8 feet to over 17 feet. There are channel markers to help boaters find and stay in this channel, but some of the original markers are missing. In addition to the main navigation channel, there is an area along the north side of Coquina Key that is used by the residents living along that shoreline to get to and from Tampa Bay. This second route, which is not marked, is much shallower than the main channel and its use by boaters at low tide is a threat to seagrasses in the area.3 If more boaters in Big Bayou stayed in the main navigational channel, there would be a decreased threat to the seagrasses. However, the evidence shows that boaters often travel out of the main channel, either by inadvertence or to take a shortcut, and cross shallow areas where the seagrasses are located. It was the opinion of David Crewz, a plant ecologist who specializes in seagrasses, that increased boating activity in Big Bayou could decrease the habitat quality of the bayou. He said that one can expect more prop scarring and more turbidity caused by stirring up the bottom sediments. He was most concerned about boats larger than 16 feet in length that do not stay in the marked navigation channel. The 1995 Florida Marine Research Institute study of prop scarring, which Mr. Crewz co-authored, recommended a four- point approach to reduce prop scarring: (1) boater education, (2) channel marking, (3) enforcement, and (4) speed zones. The conditions contained in the proposed authorizations would implement two of the four points recommended by the study. PMC would install informational signs about seagrasses at the proposed project and at Grandview Park so that boaters using the proposed project and boaters using the boat ramp at the park would be less likely to operate their boats in a manner harmful to seagrasses. PMC would replace all missing markers along the main navigation channel. The current distance between some of the channel markers may be causing some boaters to stray from the channel. PMC would mark the location of seagrasses adjacent to the navigation channel. The operation phase of the environmental resource permit would not become effective until the channel markers and seagrass markers have been installed. The proposed educational displays, channel markers, and seagrass markers would probably reduce boat traffic across seagrass areas, but they would not eliminate it. However, because the displays and markers would be viewed by boaters using Big Bayou other than just the 60 boaters who would use the slips at the proposed project, the “net” effect of the proposed project would likely be no significant increase in prop scars or related adverse impacts to seagrasses in Big Bayou due to the proposed project. Therefore, PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to seagrasses. To go further, however, and contend as PMC does that, even with the addition of 60 boats, the effect of the proposed project would be to significantly reduce the current incidents of prop scarring, boat grounding, and other adverse impacts to seagrasses, is mere speculation without a statistical analysis of boater behavior or other evidence that was not presented in this case. PMC would also limit the use of its boat slips to vessels with a draft that would provide at least a twelve-inch clearance between the vessel’s draft in a motor-down position and the top of submerged resource at mean low tide. This condition appears to been intended to track similar wording used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)8., but because the condition leaves unstated the depth of the submerged resources and the water level of Big Bayou at mean low tide, a prospective renter of a boat slip would not know whether his or her boat would comply with the condition. The rule cannot be more specific because it applies to all waterbodies, but the specific condition in the proposed authorizations can and should be more specific to provide for adequate notice and enforcement. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not cause significant adverse impacts to seagrasses. Secondary Impacts – Manatees In Florida, between 25 and 30 percent of the annual manatee deaths are caused by collisions with boats. From 2002 to 2006, in Pinellas County waters, 41 percent of the manatee deaths of a known cause were watercraft-related. That percentage exceeds the state average and corresponds to an average of 3.2 deaths per year caused by boats. However the study area from which these statistics were compiled does not include Big Bayou. Dr. John Reynolds, a marine mammal expert, believes that boat speed is the primary factor in manatee deaths from boat collisions. At higher speeds, boaters and manatees have less time to avoid a collision and the severity of the injury to a manatee is generally greater when the manatee is struck by a boat moving at higher speeds. There are no boat speed zones currently established in Big Bayou. Thirty-three years of data collected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) indicate that there are no known boat-related manatee deaths within two and a half miles of the project site. There have been two dead manatees discovered in Big Bayou, but their deaths were not attributed to boat collisions. Increasing the number of boats in an area used by manatees increases the potential for boat/manatee collisions. To minimize the potential for boat/manatee collisions, PMC would implement the standard manatee protection measures that apply during the construction of the proposed docks. PMC would also implement and maintain a manatee education program approved by the FWCC, including informational signs regarding manatees at the proposed project. Although reducing speeds by establishing, posting, and enforcing idle speed or slow speed zones in the bayou would probably be the most effective measure for the protection of manatees, PMC cannot be required by the proposed authorizations to control boat speeds because boat speed zones must be established by Pinellas County and the Florida Marine Patrol. The proposed authorizations incorporate the conditions recommended by the FWCC for the protection of manatees. Tom Logan, the former FWCC endangered species coordinator and now a consultant who focuses on endangered species and their habitat, believes that the special conditions included in the proposed authorizations provide adequate protection for manatees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also concluded that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect manatees. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not cause significant adverse impacts to manatees. Secondary Impacts – Recreation Petitioners claim that their recreational uses of Big Bayou for fishing, swimming, canoeing, kayaking, and windsurfing would be diminished by the proposed project. However, Big Bayou is large enough to accommodate the additional boat trips associated with the proposed project and Petitioners’ recreational uses. A public water body like Big Bayou must be shared by persons living along or near its shores with all other citizens of Florida. Although some Petitioners would prefer that the bayou had the feel of a more remote or wild place, the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve is recognized to have a “highly developed, urban nature.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.019. It already has the attributes of an urban preserve. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not prevent or significantly impair the existing recreational uses of Big Bayou. Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.006 and Section 3.2.8 of the Basis of Review require that cumulative impacts be evaluated in determining whether to issue, respectively, a submerged lands lease or an environmental resource permit. PMC and the Department state in their Proposed Recommended Orders that the consideration of cumulative impacts is limited to projects that are existing or under construction, but Florida Administrative Code Rule 18.006(1) also requires, for a sovereignty submerged lands lease, consideration of “the number and extent of similar human actions within the preserve which have previously affected or are likely to affect the preserve.” Because the principal source of potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed project is boating activity, the existing docking facility at Coquina Key North, the other docks in Big Bayou, and the boat ramp at Grandview Park are existing structures generating boating activity that must be taken into account in the cumulative impacts analysis. Although the proposed project, with the conditions on its construction and operation, would, alone, have no significant adverse impact on water quality, seagrasses, manatees, or recreational uses in Big Bayou, the cumulative impacts to Big Bayou from all similar activities in the preserve have created significant (material) adverse impacts to Big Bayou in the form of trash, water contamination, damage to seagrasses, and prop scars. Public Interest Criteria Section 258.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that a lease of sovereignty submerged lands within an aquatic preserve by the Trustees must be “in the public interest.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(46) defines “public interest” in this context as “demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action.” Florida Administrative Code 18-20.004(2) sets forth the public interest criteria to be considered and balanced by the Trustees in determining whether to issue a submerged land lease or other authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands. The Rule identifies public boat ramps and “marking navigation channels to avoid disruption of shallow water habitats” as examples of public benefits. These benefits, however, must “clearly exceed” the “costs,” such as degraded water quality, degraded natural habitat and function, harm to endangered or threatened species and habitat, and adverse cumulative impacts. For issuance of the environmental resource permit, a determination is required that the proposed project is “clearly in the public interest,” because Big Bayou is part of an Outstanding Florida Water. Fla. Admin Code R. 62-4.242(2). This determination requires the consideration and balancing of a number of criteria set forth in Section 3.2.3 of the Basis of Review: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.4 As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the “clearly in the public interest” test does not require the applicant to demonstrate that the intended activity would have a net public benefit. The counter-intuitive result is that, to meet the “in the public interest” test for the sovereignty submerged land lease, PMC must demonstrate a net public benefit, but to meet the “clearly in the public interest test” for the environmental resource permit, PMC does not have to show a net public benefit. The measures that PMC has agreed to undertake to meet the public interest criteria for the proposed authorizations are as follows: Contribute $300,000 to the construction of a second boat ramp at the current Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor; Install and maintain navigational aides marking the main channel in the bayou; Install markers indicating the location of seagrass beds; Install and maintain an informational display at the public boat ramp in Grandview Park, relating to the protection of seagrasses and natural resources within the bayou; and Install and maintain an aerial map at the Grandview Park boat ramp depicting the location of the navigation channel and the seagrass beds in the bayou. The $300,000 contribution for the boat ramp was based on a similar contribution ($5,000 per slip) that was made previously by the developer of another docking facility in Pinellas County. The Department had originally suggested that PMC contribute to a spoil island restoration project to satisfy the public interest criterion. However, due to the Trustees’ and/or Department’s concern about the reduction in the number of boat slips available to the general public,5 the Department proposed that PMC contribute $300,000 to Pinellas County’s Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor. The definition of “mitigation” in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(35) states that, “Cash payments shall not be considered mitigation unless payments are specified for use in a previously identified, Department endorsed, environmental or restoration project.” No evidence was presented to show that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project is an “environmental or restoration project,” and it does not appear to qualify as such. Implicit in the boat ramp contribution proposal is the view that the public interest in providing more recreational boaters with access to Pinellas County waters outweighs the negative impacts to marine resources that are associated with increased boating activity. No evidence was presented, however, to explain or support this view. The strange result here is that PMC would be mitigating for the adverse impacts associated with increasing the boating activity in Big Bayou by helping to increased boating activity in other county waters where seagrass losses have been greater, prop scarring is a bigger problem, and more manatees are being killed by boat collisions.6 Dr. Reynolds stated that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor could be a benefit to Big Bayou if the boat ramp project took boat traffic away from the bayou, but he did not know whether it would. A reasonable inference can be made that, being so far away, the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project is unlikely to add to or subtract from boat traffic in Big Bayou. As found above, the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, taking into account the proposed conditions, would be insignificant. However, because the record evidence shows that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project would put boats into county waters (and aquatic preserve waters) where there has been greater seagrass losses, more prop scarring, and more manatees killed by boat collisions than in Big Bayou, PMC’s $300,000 contribution to the boat ramp project actually increases the secondary impacts and cumulative impacts of PMC’s proposed project and causes it to fail to meet the public interest criteria. Without the $300,000 contribution to the Sutherland Boat Ramp project, PMC would meet the “clearly in the public interest” test for the environmental resource permit because the other mitigation offered by PMC would offset the secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. However, a different result would occur in the case of the sovereignty submerged land lease. Eliminating the $300,000 contribution to the Sutherland Boat Ramp project would result in a situation where the public benefits of the proposed project do not “clearly exceed” the costs of the project and, therefore, PMC would not meet the “in the public interest” test. Although the record in this case is insufficient to demonstrate that PMC’s contribution to the boat ramp project would cause the benefits of the project to clearly exceed its costs, the record evidence is sufficient to support issuance of the lease modification if PMC were able to get the appropriate government authorities to establish a boat speed zone in Big Bayou, or if PMC contributed to the enforcement of boat speed zones in the aquatic preserve. As restated in the Conclusions of Law, whether the proposed mitigation is sufficient to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed project is a determination that rests exclusively with the Trustees and the Department, based on the record evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Environmental Resource Permit No. 52-0258984-001 and the modification of Sovereignty Submerged Land Lease No. 520224543. In the event the Trustees determine to issue the submerged land lease, it is recommended that the lease be modified to add a condition that the boat slips shall only be subleased or sold to residents of Coquina Key North condominiums. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether the application of the Biscayne Bay Pilots' Association for an increase in the pilotage rates for the Port of Miami should be granted in whole or in part or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to the following facts, which are deemed admitted: The Cargo Carriers Association is a Florida not-for- profit corporation with its principal office in Miami, Florida. The purpose of the Cargo Carriers Association is to promote, advance, and secure laws, rules, and regulations concerning vessels utilizing the navigable waters of the State of Florida, in particular the Port of Miami and Port Everglades, in order that the waters, harbors, and ports of the state and the environment and property of all persons be protected to the fullest possible extent consistent with sound financial principles. A substantial number of the members of the Cargo Carriers Association are affected by the rates of pilotage currently set for the Port of Miami, inasmuch as they are required by Florida law, Chapter 310, Florida Statutes, to utilize and compensate the Port of Miami pilots whose rates are established by the Board, and they are, in fact, utilizing and compensating pilots in accordance with the rates established for the Port of Miami. Accordingly, the Cargo Carriers Association is substantially affected by and has standing to maintain this challenge to the Board's Decision dated March 9, 2000. The Board is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 310.151, Florida Statutes, which is invested with the authority and responsibility to determine the rates of pilotage at the various ports of Florida, including the Port of Miami. Section 310.151, Florida Statutes (2000). The Pilots' Association is an association of harbor pilots that is treated as a partnership for tax purposes and that performs the pilotage services at the Port of Miami. The offices of the Pilots' Association and its affiliate, Biscayne Bay Pilots, Inc., are located in Miami, Florida. In October 1999, the Pilots' Association submitted to the Board an application for an increase in the pilotage rates for the Port of Miami. On October 28, 1999, the Investigative Committee for the Board convened a fact-finding public hearing on the Pilots' Association's application in Miami, Florida, at which numerous interested persons provided comments and testimony, both for and against the Pilots' Association's requested rate increase. On November 29, 1999, the Pilots' Association submitted to the Board a version of its application that, in its words, "has been edited to correct scrivener's errors." On December 9, 1999, the Investigative Committee for the Board completed its review and investigation of the Pilots' Association's application and presented its written findings to the Board as required by Rule 61E13-2.007(4), Florida Administrative Code. On January 21, 2000, the Board met in Miami, Florida, to review the rate increase application of the Pilots' Association and heard comments and testimony from persons who supported or opposed the application in whole or in part. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Board preliminarily determined to grant the Pilots' Association's application in part with a phased-in increase in rates. The Board's written decision was filed with the agency's clerk on March 9, 2000. The Cargo Carriers Association timely filed its petition for a proceeding under Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Pilots' Association requested in its application a 10 percent increase in the rate for draft charges, for tonnage charges, for shifting or anchoring charges, and for minimum fees, effective immediately, with an additional increase of 5 percent in these rates and fees six months after the effective date of the initial increase. The requested increase would result in a total 15.5 percent increase in pilotage rates and minimum fees at the Port of Miami. The Board hired an Investigative Committee composed of two consultants, one a Certified Public Accountant and the other a retired Coast Guard officer, to examine the Pilots' Association's application in light of the statutory factors set forth in Section 310.151(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (1999). The Investigative Committee held a public hearing in which it received testimony from interested parties. The Investigative Committee Report was presented to the Board at the public hearing on January 21, 2000. The Board included in its written Decision findings of fact and comments with respect to each of the criteria set forth in Section 310.151(5), Florida Statutes (1999), 3/ an analysis and statement of its decision to approve an increase in the pilotage rates at the Port of Miami, and an order specifying the approved increases. The Board stated its intention to grant the Pilots' Association's application in part and to increase the rates of pilotage at the Port of Miami 3 1/2 percent for draft charges, tonnage charges, shifting or anchoring charges, and the minimum fees, effective on the date of its order, 4/ with an additional 3 percent rate increase in each of the charges effective 12 months from the effective date of the first increase and another 3 percent increase in each of the charges effective 24 months after the effective date of the first increase. This increase is 63.16 percent of the increase requested by the Pilots' Association. The public interest in having qualified pilots available to respond promptly to vessels needing their service. Section 310.151(5)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2000). 5/ In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at page 11 of the report. 6/ The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion. 7/ A determination of the average net income of pilots in the port, including the value of all benefits derived from service as a pilot. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "net income of pilots" refers to total pilotage fees collected in the port, minus reasonable operating expenses, divided by the number of licensed and active state pilots within the ports. Section 310.151(5)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 12 and 13 of the report, with the following modification to the depreciation adjustment included in the calculation of the pilots' total compensation if the requested rate increase were approved in toto and the resulting modification in the projected "adjusted (all inclusive) income per pilot": The depreciation adjustment projected for the year 2000 was decreased from $6500.00 to $1600.00, resulting in an adjusted (all inclusive) income per pilot for the year 2000 of $340,800.00; the depreciation adjustment projected for the year 2001 was decreased from $6500.00 to $4800.00, resulting in an adjusted (all inclusive) income per pilot for the year 2001 of $340,000.00. The Investigative Committee Report included in the computation of average net pilot income the value of health and retirement benefits, pension valuation, and discretionary costs such as political contributions, lobbying expenses, and business promotion expenses. The Investigative Committee identified the actual total pilot compensation for pilots at the Port of Miami, including adjustments for pension valuation and discretionary costs but not for depreciation, as $308,200.00 for 1998, and it projected the total pilot compensation for 1999, 2000, and 2001, without a rate increase, as $288,200.00, $296,200.00, and $290,200.00, respectively. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. Since 1993, the Pilots' Association has tried to maintain a roster of 18 active pilots at the Port of Miami, although this number has fluctuated from time to time. Currently, there are 17 pilots and one deputy at the Port of Miami. Excluding adjustments for pension valuation and discretionary costs, compensation in 1997 and 1998 for pilots at the Port of Miami was $281,000.00 and $278,000.00, respectively; compensation at Port Everglades was $329,000.00 and $344,000.00, respectively; compensation at the Port of Palm Beach was $154,000.00 and $230,000.00, respectively; and compensation at the Port of Jacksonville was $250,000.00 and $254,000.00, respectively. Because of the exclusions noted above, these amounts understate actual compensation. Compensation for the Port of Miami pilots increased 38.4 percent between 1989 and 1996. In 1989, pilot income at the Port of Miami was $203,000.00, and, in 1990, it was $181,000.00. The pilots received an effective 32 percent rate increase as a result of a 26 percent rate increase in 1992 and a 5 percent rate increase in 1993, and gross pilotage revenue increased 72 percent between 1989 and 1996, an increase primarily attributable to an increase in the number of larger vessels using the port. As a result of the revenue increase, pilot income rose to over $281,000.00 in 1997. In addition to piloting, the pilots at the Port of Miami carry out the duties of Harbor Master, which involve coordinating all of the ship traffic in the port. The pilots receive no additional compensation for this service. Reasonable operating expenses of pilots. Section 310.151(5)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 13 through 16 of the report. In the report, the Investigative Committee found that, with the exception of the costs associated with the Pilots' Association's retirement plan, the operating expenses included in the Pilots' Association's application were reasonable. The Investigative Committee Report included a detailed discussion of the Pilots' Association's retirement plan. The retirement plan of the Pilots' Association is a non-qualified plan under the Internal Revenue Code and is unfunded and, therefore, contingent on the future operations at the Port of Miami. The plan is in the form of a consulting agreement between the Pilots' Association and its retirees, pursuant to which each pilot who reaches 55 years of age and completes 20 years of service as a full-time active pilot, and who agrees to act in the best interests of the Pilots' Association, is eligible to be paid up to 50 percent of an active pilot's income, provided that the aggregate amount paid to retirees may not exceed 20 percent of the annual total gross pilotage revenue. The payments are to be made from future pilotage revenue. The total costs associated with retired pilot compensation and benefits (equity buy-outs, surviving spouse accrual, and health insurance) included in the Investigative Committee Report for 1998 were $2,093,086.00, of which $1.4 million was attributable to payments to 11 retirees for consulting services. The Investigative Committee questioned the reasonableness of this operating expense at page 16 of its report, although it noted that there are similar plans in other Florida ports. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. In 1998, payments to the five retired pilots at Port Everglades totaled $962,714.00. The retirement plan for the Port Everglades pilots has the same limits as the plan for the pilots at the Port of Miami: A Port Everglades retiree's benefit is limited to 50 percent of the income of an active pilot, and the aggregate benefits paid to Port Everglades retirees may not exceed 20 percent of the pilots' annual gross revenue. The plan at Port Canaveral limits the aggregate benefits paid to retirees to 33 1/3 percent of gross annual revenue; the limitation at the Port of Jacksonville for current retirees is 28 percent of gross annual revenue and 22 percent for new retirees. There are no aggregate limits on the amounts paid to retirees at the ports in Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia. Pilotage rates in other ports. Section 310.151(5)(b)4., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 16 and 17 of the report, and stated its intention to confine its comparative rate analysis to ports in Florida and the southeastern seaboard. It was noted in the Investigative Committee Report that, in 1998, the Port of Miami was ranked the seventh highest of 12 Florida ports with respect to the cost for piloting both a standard large and a standard small vessel and the eighth highest out of the 12 Florida ports in the amount of revenue per handle. 8/ As part of its comparison of pilotage rates in other ports, the Investigative Committee included in its report a chart based on 1998 data setting out the number of handles in each of the 12 Florida ports surveyed, together with 1998 revenue, average handle time, number of pilots, revenue per handle, and revenue per handle hour for each of the 12 ports. In 1998, the Port of Miami had 8,909 handles, revenue of $8,433.539.00, average handle time of 2.0 hours, 18 pilots, revenue per handle of $947.00, and revenue per handle hour of $473.00. Based on 1998 data, Port Everglades, the port closest geographically to the Port of Miami, had 10,168 handles, revenue of $6,899,006.00, average handle time of 1.9 hours, 16 pilots, revenue per handle of $679.00, and revenue per handle hour of $357.00. In its Decision, the Board recognized that pilotage rates cannot be considered in a vacuum and that a rate increase or decrease is not justified simply because a rate is comparatively low or high. Rather, the Board found that consideration must be given to the size and number of vessels using the port, the time required to service the vessels, and the characteristics of the port that impact positively or negatively on the gross revenue and net income derived from the rate structure. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. The Investigative Committee determined that Port Everglades was the closest and most relevant competitive port to the Port of Miami. The Port of Miami handles primarily cruise ships, excluding daily cruise ships, and container cargo vessels. Port Everglades handles both container cargo vessels and vessels containing bulk and neo-bulk products such as petroleum, cement, steel, and lumber, as well as a mix of large cruise ships and smaller, daily cruise ships. Port Everglades is one of the largest petroleum ports in the southeastern United States. The Port of Miami handles fewer but generally larger vessels than Port Everglades. The distance between the sea buoy 9/ and the turning basin where the pilots turn and dock cruise ships in the Port of Miami is approximately six miles; the distance between the sea buoy and the turning basin where the pilots turn and dock cruise ships in Port Everglades is approximately two miles. In Port Everglades, the distance from the sea buoy to the channel is short, so that there is little room to position the vessel properly for entry into the channel. The channel is, however, straight. In the Port of Miami, there is a 40-degree turn mid- channel. Currently, Port Everglades has 16 pilots and two deputies. A comparison of the pilotage rates in the Port of Miami and in Port Everglades shows that, without considering the rate increase proposed by the Board, the current draft rate in the Port of Miami is 38 percent higher than that in Port Everglades and the current tonnage rate is 7.5 percent higher in the Port of Miami than in Port Everglades. With the Board's proposed rate increase, the draft rate at the Port of Miami is roughly 40 percent higher than that at Port Everglades, and the tonnage rate is roughly 16 percent higher. Without a rate increase, total pilotage fees at the Port of Miami are 18 percent higher for small vessels and 14 percent higher for large vessels than the total pilotage fees at Port Everglades. Using the cruise ship Enchantment of the Seas as an example, without the rate increase, pilotage fees are $5,700.00 per trip in and out of the Port of Miami, or $260,000.00 annually; with the Board's proposed rate increase, pilotage fees are $6,270.00 per trip, or $326,000.00 annually. In contrast, the pilotage fees for the Enchantment of the Seas at Port Everglades are $5,150.00 per trip in and out of the port, or $268,000.00 annually. 10/ The amount of time each pilot spends on actual piloting duty and the amount of time spent on other essential support services. Section 310.151(5)(b)5., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at page 18 of the report. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion. The prevailing compensation available to individuals in other maritime services of comparable professional skill and standing as that sought in pilots, it being recognized that in order to attract to the profession of piloting, and to hold the best and most qualified individuals as pilots, the overall compensation accorded pilots should be equal to or greater than that available to such individuals in comparable maritime employment. Section 310.151(5)(b)6., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 18 and 19 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee recognized that the Board, in the Port Everglades case, concluded in its Final Order that the profession most comparable to that of a port pilot is that of a captain of a large United States-flagged vessel. The Investigative Committee further recognized that the Board, in the Port Everglades case, concluded that pilot compensation should be equal to or greater than $203,000.00, represented by the Investigative Committee in its report as the annualized compensation of a "U.S. master." The Investigative Committee found, further, that the skills, risks, and working conditions of a ship's captain and a pilot are considerably different in that a pilot must have a wider range of technical skills to pilot a variety of vessels of different sizes; a pilot assumes more physical risks because of the need to board and disembark each vessel; a pilot is constantly in a stressful situation while piloting a vessel into port; and a pilot is a private businessman rather than an employee and must face all of the attendant risks and obligations. In its Decision, the Board established the "floor" compensation for pilots at approximately $200,000.00 to $220,000.00, which represents the wage of the highest-paid ship's master on a United States-flagged ship. 11/ The Investigative Committee found in its report that the amount of compensation above the floor established by the Board depends on several factors, including the size of the ships calling on the port, the difficulty of the port, the cost of living in the surrounding community, and pilot compensation in other United States ports. Finally, the Board expressly recognized in its Decision that, unlike ships' masters, pilots are not employees of a corporation but are independent businessmen, with all of the financial risks that status implies. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. 12/ The education and training of a pilot and a ship's master is, in many cases, the same. A ship's master operating on the high seas, however, has the responsibility for the ship's well-being 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the course of the voyage. The scope of responsibility of a ship's master requires a wider array of skills than those of a pilot; he or she must make judgments regarding matters extending beyond the navigation of the ship. The ship's master is responsible for the ship's crew and, if the ship is a cruise ship, for the welfare of the passengers, and he or she must deal with the hazards of the ship catching fire, disease onboard, and a variety of other matters requiring non-technical skills. A ship's master must have navigational skills and must be knowledgeable about many ports throughout the world and many weather systems. Even when a ship is being piloted into port, the ship's master retains the ultimate responsibility for the ship, and the ship's master will sometimes dock the ship once the pilot has brought it to the docking area. Pilots are licensed to operate in a particular port, and they must have an intimate knowledge of that port. Because pilots must handle almost every vessel calling at the Port of Miami, they must be familiar with the peculiarities of numerous types and sizes of vessels, and they must continually take courses to keep up with the changing technology used on new vessels. Consequently, the knowledge and skills required of a pilot are more specialized and more narrowly focused than those required of a ship's master. When a vessel is ready to come into the Port of Miami, the pilot is taken to the vessel, which, depending on its size, may be located two-to-three miles east of the sea buoy. The pilot must, therefore, board and disembark from a vessel in open water. A pilot at the Port of Miami must guide vessels, sometimes exceeding 1,000 feet in length, through a 500-foot wide channel cut in rock, make a 40-degree turn, and guide the vessel into the port's turning basin and, ultimately, to its berth. There is little maneuvering room, and the pilot must deal with the ever-changing winds, currents, and tides that affect a vessel's passage to the berthing area. For ships of 1,000 feet or longer, there is adequate but not generous room for maneuvering in the turning basin. The number of large vessels using the Port of Miami has increased since 1989. Piloting large vessels increases the complexity of the pilot's job and increases the potential for an accident, necessarily increasing the amount of stress experienced by pilots routinely bringing such vessels into the Port of Miami. A pilot must direct the crew of a vessel when bringing the vessel into and through the channels leading to the turning basin and from the turning basin to the berths, and his or her success depends on his ability to communicate instructions to crewmembers. This communication is becoming more difficult because crewmembers are recruited from many different countries, including those from Eastern Europe, and they may or may not understand English. The stress experienced by a pilot is significantly increased when he must depend on crewmembers who do not understand English, because disaster could result if the pilot's instructions are not followed precisely. The stress experienced by pilots when they are on the job is much more intense, though of shorter duration, than that experienced by ship's masters. A pilot at the Port of Miami will pilot between six and 18 ships each week and is on-call 24 hours each day while on piloting duty, under conditions that are physically and mentally stressful. The pilots at the Port of Miami are not employees of the Pilots' Association. Rather, the Pilots' Association is operated as a partnership of the pilots, and it is funded from the pilotage revenue at the Port of Miami. There are significant operating expenses deducted from gross pilotage revenue before the pilots are paid. The Pilots' Association owns and maintains a building at the far eastern end of the Port of Miami that houses the pilots' business office and also contains bedrooms, restrooms, a lounge, and a chart room for use by the pilots. The Pilots' Association employs office staff to handle billing and accounting functions. The Pilots' Association owns and operates four pilot boats used to transport pilots to and from vessels arriving at and departing from the Port of Miami, and it employs six full- time boat operators. Replacement costs for the pilot boats exceed $2 million. The pilots must absorb rising fuel costs, which cannot be passed on as a surcharge to those using the port and are also responsible for the costs of maintaining the boats. The pilots provide communications services to the vessels entering the Port of Miami, and the Pilots' Association maintains three Federal Communications Commission licenses, a marine coastal station, a high power UHF repeater, and VHF radios in all of the pilot boats. The pilots have invested approximately $50,000.00 in communications equipment that they make available to the Port of Miami, including a 100-watt VHF long range radio and tower, as well as the UHF repeater, and they also maintain the equipment. In addition, the pilots employ dispatchers who handle the radios. The pilot's income is a function of the volume and size of traffic in and out of the port, and they are, consequently, affected by decisions made by the Port of Miami authorities with respect to services to be provided vessels using the port and with respect to port charges. The financial risks faced by the pilots at the Port of Miami are, for the most part, shared by all independent business owners. However, even though pilots of the Pilots' Association are the only pilots allowed to provide services in the Port of Miami and even though pilotage rates are highly regulated and, to an extent, non-competitive, pilots, unlike most private independent business owners, cannot pass on increases in operating expenses; rather, the pilots must absorb these increases until, and unless, an application for a rate increase is approved. 13/ The impact rate change may have in individual pilot compensation and whether such change will lead to a shortage of licensed state pilots, certificated deputy pilots, or qualified pilot applicants. Section 310.151(5)(b)7., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at page 19 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee found that all-inclusive pilot compensation for the pilots at the Port of Miami would increase 8.76 percent if the increase requested by the Pilots' Association were approved by the Board. As a result, the compensation of pilots at the Port of Miami would still be lower than that of the pilots at Port Everglades, but only slightly. The Investigative Committee noted that an opening at any of the four major Florida ports, the Port of Miami, Port Everglades, Tampa, and Jacksonville, draws 20 to 30 applicants from all over the United States. The Investigative Committee observed that, with or without a rate increase, any of these four ports would attract qualified pilots because they are likely to find more attractive compensation and working and living environments than provided by their present situations. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion. Projected changes in vessel traffic. Section 310.151(5)(b)8., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 20 and 21 of the report. The Investigative Committee accepted the estimated handles provided by the Pilots' Association in its application, which reflects an increase from 8,909 handles in 1998, to an estimated 9,200 handles in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Investigative Committee noted in its report that the number of cruise passengers at the Port of Miami has remained steady since 1991 and that, although the number of handles decreased between 1992 and 1995, there was steady growth in cargo tonnage between 1988 and 1998. Even with the decrease in the number of handles, the average revenue per handle increased from $545.00 in 1990 to $978.00 in 1998, accounting for a 73 percent increase in the gross annual revenue and a 79 percent increase in the average revenue per handle. The Investigative Committee found that the data suggests that the increase in the pilots' average revenue per handle, and, therefore, its gross annual revenue, is more a function of the increase in the size of the vessels calling at the Port of Miami than a function of the 32 percent rate increase in 1992 and 1993. The Investigative Committee found in its report, and the Board recognized in its Decision, that Port Everglades and the Port of Miami have a strong competitive relationship and that a large increase in pilotage rates at the Port of Miami might result in a decision by Maersk Shipping, a large shipping company currently calling at the Port of Miami and at Port Everglades, to consolidate its operations and use Port Everglades rather than the Port of Miami, resulting in a material decrease in the revenue of the Port of Miami pilots. Prior to the rate increase proposed by the Board, Maersk Shipping paid the pilots at the Port of Miami $1.08 million each year in pilotage fees. A change in operations to Port Everglades would result in a decrease in each pilot's annual income of approximately $48,000.00, with a $24,000.00 decrease in each retiree's benefits. 14/ The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. In choosing ports of call, ship owners, particularly cargo lines, consider many factors, including marketing factors, the availability of berths, the availability of terminal space, the availability of inland transportation, and port congestion, as well as port costs. Port costs, also known as port call expenses, at the Port of Miami are composed of many elements in addition to pilotage fees, such as terminal fees ($8,800.00) 15/ , dockage fees ($3,349.00), wharfage fees ($3,400.00), tug boat fees ($3,009.00), agent fees ($1,500.00), custom and agriculture entry fees ($1,995.00), and harbor fees ($162.00), for a total of $5,570.00; pilotage fees at the Port of Miami for a standard large vessel, according to 1998 data, were $1,085.40, or approximately 15-to-20 percent of port call expenses for a standard large vessel. Therefore, while pilotage fees are a significant part of the mix of port call expenses considered by ship owners in determining whether to call at the Port of Miami, pilots have no control over most of the fees and tariffs comprising port call expenses or over the many other factors that might influence the competitive posture of the Port of Miami vis-à-vis Port Everglades or changes in vessel traffic in the Port of Miami. The Port of Miami consists of Lummus and Dodge Islands, and it is run by the Miami-Dade County Seaport Department. The port rates at the Port of Miami increased approximately 30 percent between 1991 and 1998, generating a revenue increase of approximately 76 percent. Operating expenses increased approximately 44 percent during that time period, but, in general, the port's rate increases have gone primarily to finance improvements in the port's infrastructure and to provide its customers with facilities to accommodate their larger vessels. The port has also received a number of federal and state grants to fund construction programs to improve the port, as well as federal funds for the Port of Miami's dredging program. POMTOC, the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, recently received approval to raise its gate fee and empty container storage fee 2.7 percent. The Miami-Dade County Seaport Department also increased its harbor fee for large vessels from $195.00 in 1999 to $235.00 in 2000. In addition, the majority of the port's tariff items increased between 1999 and 2000. Competition is very aggressive among the ports along the eastern seaboard of the United States and along the Gulf of Mexico. As one response to the competitive nature of the market, the Port of Miami has, since 1998, entered into volume incentive agreements with several of its largest customers. The purpose of these agreements is to increase the level of activity at the port by offering a reduction in the port's tariff rate, while at the same time having a guaranteed minimum level of revenue for the port. The Port of Miami has entered into volume incentive agreements with Carnival Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Seaboard Marine, Maersk, Columbus Lines, and Chilean, and it is in the process of negotiating other such agreements. As a result of the agreements, these lines have brought additional business to the port or have brought new lines to the port. Cost of retirement and medical plans. Section 310.151(5)(b)9., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 22 through 25 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee determined that the estimated cost of the medical plan available to active and retired pilots for 1999, 2000, and 2001 was $8,125.00, $8,235.00, and $8,400.00, respectively, for each active pilot (or a gross for active pilots of $143,000.00, $140,000.00, and $148,000.00, respectively), and $4,636.00, $5,083.00, and $5,083, respectively, for each retiree (or a gross for retirees of $51,000.00, $61,000.00, and $61,000.00, respectively). The Pilots' Association funds both a money purchase pension plan and a 401k plan for all of its employees, after they have completed one year's service. The total annual contribution averages $6,000.00 per employee. Because the pilots are members of a partnership, they are not considered Pilots' Association employees. Their retirement plan is unfunded, and, as noted above, is in the form of a lifetime consulting agreement pursuant to which eligible pilots receive income that is limited to 50 percent of an active pilot's income, with the aggregate payments to retirees capped at 20 percent of the pilots' gross annual revenue. A surviving spouse of a retired pilot is entitled to receive 25 percent of an active pilot's income for life. The equity interests of retiring pilots in the Pilots' Association are also purchased by the Pilots' Association. These benefits result in an aggregate cost to the Pilots' Association of $2,093,086.00 per year. The Investigative Committee valued the pension plan at a conservative $30,000.00 per year, a figure that the Board accepted over objections by the Pilots' Association. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion. Physical risks inherent in piloting. Section 310.151(5)(b)10., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 25 and 26 of the report. The Investigative Committee found that boarding a vessel at sea is the most difficult and dangerous aspect of a pilot's job, and that several pilots were injured between 1996 and 1999. Pilots board vessels in the open sea under many different conditions, with considerable risk, and the pilot often receives minimal support from a vessel's crew. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion, except to the extent specifically set forth in the immediately following paragraphs. Even though they may refuse if conditions are unsafe, as a general rule pilots board and disembark from vessels in the open sea, in all kinds of weather, day and night, on rope ladders that are not fixed, that are sometimes not consistent with standards established by the International Maritime Organization, and that are sometimes in poor repair. Whenever possible, the vessels turn to create a lee, or sheltered side, where the pilot can board and disembark from the vessel with less risk, although it is always possible, even in a calm sea, for a cross swell to hit the vessel during boarding or disembarking. Another point at which a pilot is physically at risk is upon moving from the ladder to the deck of the vessel. Many cruise ships have pilot doors low on the side of the vessel to shorten the distance a pilot must ascend or descend a ladder to board and disembark from the ship. Once the pilot is on board the vessel, he is escorted to the bridge, which is accessible only by stairs, sometimes totaling 100 steps in many modern cargo ships. Special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the particular port. Section 310.151(5)(b)11., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 26 and 27 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee identified several special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the Port of Miami. It recognized that, due to the velocity and direction of the currents, the proximity of the Gulf Stream presents a variety of challenges to pilots as vessels approach the Outer Bar Channel and that the Gulf Stream, together with northerly winds and a flooding current, make transiting the jetties especially difficult. Because the channel bottom is hard coral from the sea buoy to the berths, it is extremely difficult to handle large, deep-draft vessels to and from the gantry berths, and the current and wind conditions require special handling of these vessels when they dock or turn. In addition, reefs lining the approaches to the Port of Miami are unmarked, and the background light from Miami-Dade County makes it difficult to identify land and navigational marks. Weather can cause hazards to navigation in the Port of Miami, with rapidly changing wind conditions resulting from thunderstorms and with changing tidal conditions resulting from heavy rains. In addition, northwesterly and northeasterly winds cause heavy sets on a flood tide for vessels passing through the jetties. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion, except to the extent specifically set forth in the immediately following paragraphs. 16/ The complexity of the waterway poses a high risk to vessels being piloted into the Port of Miami. Waterway complexity at the Port of Miami includes the amount of crossing traffic, turns in the channel, converging traffic from different channels, background lighting, and the large number of small pleasure craft in and around the channels. The hard rock bottom of the channels poses a high risk to vessels being piloted into the Port of Miami. The channel is dredged in a "U" shape, forming a narrow underwater trench through which vessels must pass, and vessels can be seriously damaged if they come into contact with the sides of the trench. Any other factors the board deems relevant in determining a just and reasonable rate. Section 310.151(5)(b)12., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board determined that there were no such factors. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the Board's finding. The board may take into consideration the consumer price index or any other comparable economic indicator when fixing rates of pilotage; however, because the consumer price index or such other comparable economic indicator is primarily related to net income rather than rates, the board shall not use it as the sole factor in fixing rates of pilotage. Section 310.151(5)(c), Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 28 and 29 of the report and in the attachments thereto. In its report, the Investigative Committee found that the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") had increased 17.8 percent since January 1, 1993, the date of the last pilotage rate increase, and 22.9 percent since October 1991, the date of the Pilots' Association's last application for a rate increase. In reaching its conclusion that some increase in pilotage rates at the Port of Miami is justified, the Board noted in its Decision that it considered it compelling that the CPI had increased 17.8 percent since the last rate increase and that pilotage rates at the Port of Miami had not increased for seven years. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Decision with respect to this criterion. Taken in its entirety, the evidence presented by the Cargo Carriers Association and the Pilots' Association in this proceeding with respect to the statutory factors set forth in Section 310.1151(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), yielded findings of fact in addition to those found by the Board in its Decision. There was not sufficient credible and persuasive evidence presented by the Cargo Carriers Association to support a finding of fact contrary to the findings of the Board in its Decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pilotage Rate Review Board consider the additional facts established by the evidence presented at the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings in determining, in accordance with its interpretation of its statutory mandate, its expertise, and the appropriate policy considerations, whether the Decision on the Biscayne Bay Pilots' Association Pilotage Rate Increase Application in the Port of Miami, filed March 9, 2000, will result in fair, just, and reasonable pilotage rates at the Port of Miami. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2001.
Findings Of Fact There is created within the Division of Professions of the Department of Professional Regulation a board known as the Board of Pilot Commissioners. See Section 310.011; Florida Statutes. That board, in conformance with Section 310.061, Florida Statutes, has authority to license state pilots for ports in Florida. This includes pilots for the St. Johns River, to include the Port of Jacksonville. In furtherance of this arrangement; the Department of Professional Regulation examines candidates for the positions of pilot and deputy pilot as a prerequisite to appointment and licensure or certification, depending on whether the position sought is that of pilot or deputy pilot. Out of this examination process; the Board; within its discretion, may decide how many pilots or deputy pilots it wishes to appoint and license or certify for a given port within the state. See Section 310.051, Florida Statutes. Petitioners and Intervenor, Captain Shiras M. Walker, and others stood examination for appointment and certification as deputy pilot for the port of Jacksonville in an examination given on August 26 and 27, 1985. All told, eleven candidates stood the examination for the position of deputy pilot in the Port of Jacksonville as held in August 1985. (There was one other candidate who was being examined for an unrelated port pilot position.) It was the intention of the Board to appoint and certify only one deputy pilot from this group of candidates. The candidates who stood the examination in August 1985 were required to be mariners who held a Master's License. This is a requirement of the Port of Jacksonville and is unique to that port. Petitioners and Captain Walker were qualified candidates in that sense. The candidates for examination in the August 1985 sitting, including Petitioners and Captain Walker, had been provided certain test information from the Department of Professional Regulation, Office of Examination Services, prior to being examined. Among those items was a document described as a "NOTICE TO APPEAR." Within those materials was found the admission slip to the examination, a description of the format of the examination and a suggested reading list which the candidates were encouraged to utilize in preparing for the examination session. The facets of the subject examination were as required by Rule 2155- 5.13, Florida Administrative Code which sets forth the seven test areas. They were: International Rules of the Road. Inland Rules of the Road and the Pilot Rules. Seamanship, Shiphandling and other subjects relating to piloting. Aids to Navigation. Local or specific knowledge of the port area for which the candidates are being examined. Chartwork for the port area for which the candidates are being examined. Knowledge of the federal and state pilotage laws. In carrying forward the examination process, the Department of Professional Regulation, in accordance with Section 455.217.(1), Florida Statutes, through the Office of Examination Services, is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the examination for deputy bar pilot in the Port of Jacksonville as given in August 1985, "adequately and reliability measures an applicant's ability to practice the profession" of deputy pilot. Further, this office must insure that the examination questions are a reliable measurement of the general areas of competence specified in the aforementioned rule. Those responsibilities as imposed upon the Department of Professional Regulation were adequately addressed in the examination process pertaining to deputy bar pilot for the Port of Jacksonville, August 1955 examination session. This examination as given in August 1985 was one related to placement of the top candidate in the one available position for a deputy pilot in the Port of Jacksonville. In order to gain that position, the candidates had to be successful in passing the various sections within the examination instrument. However, only the candidate who had passed the various sections within the examination process and attained the highest score would be selected. Rule 2155-5.13(3), Florida Administrative Code, mandates that a candidate correctly answer 90 percent of the subject matter set forth in the first two sections to the examination, described previously as (a) and (b) and 75 percent of the material in the five remaining subject areas. Failure in any one of these seven sections means that the candidate was unsuccessful, notwithstanding his overall percentage score as an average of the several sections within the examination instrument. The deputy pilot examination for the Port of Jacksonville administered in August 1955 was designed and written by the consultant to the Board of Pilot Commissioners, Captain John C. Hanson, with the assistance of Marty Persanpieri of the Office of Examination Services. These two individuals had the necessary expertise to design and ensure the fairness of the examination document. Captain Hanson is experienced and has gained expertise in the field of nautical science and seamanship and has sufficient appreciation of the circumstances in the Port of Jacksonville to test the candidates on matters of local knowledge of that port. Captain Hanson and Persanpieri graded the examination in question and carried out the review of protests to the examination scores. Based upon the examination and review of the test papers of Captains Dull and Walker, they were found to have successfully completed all portions of the examination. Captain Walker received an overall score of 90.71 percent, and Captain Dull received an overall score of 90.47 percent. Although Captain Flint achieved an overall score of 91.17 percent, the highest overall average, he was deemed by the graders to have failed the examination in that he scored only 86 percent on the Inland Rules portion of the examination, short of the required 90 percent score. On October 4; 1985, Captain Walker was informed by Fred Roche, Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation, that Walker was the successful candidate in the examination for appointment and certification as deputy pilot for the Port of Jacksonville. Upon receipt of this notification, and following confirmation of this communication through a letter from Secretary Roche Walker left his position as captain of a ship operating out of Valdez Alaska and took the position as deputy pilot for the Port of Jacksonville. In doing ; he sold his home in Merritt Island, Florida, and relocated his family to Jacksonville; Florida. He then executed a contract with the St. Johns Bar Pilots Association, through which that association obligated itself to afford Walker the necessary training to become a licensed state Pilot. Following the signing of that contract; Walker has performed the duties associated with deputy piloting in the St. Johns River related to the Port of Jacksonville. Around the time Walker had been notified of his success; the Petitioners were made aware of their examination results and followed the necessary procedures for review of their examination responses. They then offered timely written objections to certain questions within the examination, which should have been considered prior to the appointment and certification of Captain Walker as deputy pilot. Through his protest, Captain Flint objected to the following questions: Inland Rules No. 52; Inland Rules No. 54; Inland Rules No. 63; State and Federal Laws No. 154; Local Knowledge No. 2; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 15; Chartwork No. 27; Chartwork No. 9; the overall point total assigned for Chartwork; the Chartwork in general; and Chartwork sample questions. Captain Dull objected to the following questions: International Rules No. 20; Inland Rules No. 67; Inland Rules No. 65; Inland Rules No. 76; Navigational Aids No. 106; Navigational Aids No. 125; Federal Laws No. 165; Federal Laws No. 166; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 1; Chartwork No. 7; Chartwork No. 14; Chartwork No. 29; Chartwork No. 52; Chartwork light list reference; Chartwork No. 595; Chartwork No. 5300; and the Chartwork in general. These specific objections were considered by the Office of Examination Services and Captain Hanson. The protests were found to be without merit based upon an adequate analysis of the questions, an assessment of the recommended answers and the responses made by the candidates in answering the examination questions. Through this process, all candidates were given credit for answers for two examination questions unrelated to the challenges by the Petitioners. Having been unsuccessful in an attempt to gain adjustments to their examination scores; Petitioners individually petitioned for formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearings. Those petitions were timely submitted. The cases were then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings leading to the formal hearing of May 5 and 9, 1956. Prior to the date of formal hearing, Captain Walker and the St. Johns Bar Pilots Association offered a timely motion to intervene in these actions and intervention was allowed. Those Intervenors have demonstrated their standing in the record developed at the final hearing. In the course of the final hearing, Captain Flint abandoned his objection to the questions: Inland Rules No. 54; Local Knowledge No. 2; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 27; and the chart sample questions. This left for consideration these matters: Inland Rules No. 52; Inland Rules No. 63; State and Federal Laws No. 154; Chartwork No. 9; Chartwork No. 15; the Chartwork in general; and the chartwork point total. Captain Dull also abandoned objections pertaining to questions: International Rules No. 20; Inland Rules No. 68; Inland Rules No. 76; Navigational Aids No. 106; Federal Laws No. 166; Local Knowledge No. 19; Chartwork No. 29; Chartwork No. 895; and Chartwork 5300. He continued to protest the Questions: Inland Rules No. 67; Navigational Aids No. 125; Federal Laws No. 165; Chartwork No. 1; Chartwork No. 7; Chartwork No. 14; Chartwork No. 52; Chartwork in general; and the Chartwork light list reference. In the NOTICE TO APPEAR which the Petitioners and Captain Walker received, reference is made to the seven sections within the examination instrument. This notification gave the following information about the chartwork that was to be done in the Chartwork and Local Knowledge portions of the examination. It stated: Chartwork and local knowledge will be admin- istered in the afternoon. Chartwork requires you to draw on a tracing of the chart of the port, all channels aids to navigation and their characteristics (type, color, shape, number, light/sound characteristic, elevation when appropriate as listed in the 1985 C.O. Light List for more recent information see note at end of No. 3), shoaling areas, precautionary signs, anchorage areas, obstructions, COLRBGS demarcation lines, danger areas, pipelines and cable crossings and any other inclusions on the chart relevant to navigation. Indicate true course to be steered on ranges and straightaways as appropriate. You may also be responsible for indication of direction of tide flow as indicated in the Tidal Current Tables. Local knowledge requires you to recall, from memory, information contained in the Coast Pilot relevant to the chart. Included is information concerning controlling widths lengths and depths of channels. Four (4) hours will be allowed to complete this portion of the examination. By the NOTICE TO APPEAR the candidates were also referred to the examination study sources as follows: Listed below are some general sources that may aid you in your study for some of the examination areas. This list of sources is not exhaustive. Questions may appear from other sources. Abbreviations used: CG = Coast Guard Publication USC = U.S. Code FS = Florida Statutes BPC = Board of Pilot Commission Rules Area Source International CG: Navigation Rules: Inter- Rules and national-Inland (COMDTINST Inland Rules M16672.2)(including all rules, appendices and colregs) Federal Pilot- 46 USC 11; 211-215; 232. age Laws Coast Pilot Chapter 2; Parts 162 and 164. 14 USC 51-59, 642, etc. Knowledge of U.S. Coast Pilot for the Local Port particular port (State Pilots and Deputy Pilots) Aids to CG 193, Chart No. 1: Nautical Navigation Chart symbols and abbrevi- ations, 14 USC 51-59, 33 CFR 64.01. State Pilotage Chap. 310 FS, BPC 21-55 Laws Chartwork St. Johns River from the sea buoy to the fixed bridge at Red Bay Point above Green Cove Springs and the ICW from its junction with the St. Johns River South to the Atlantic Boulevard Bridge Chart Nos. 11491 7 July 1954 11459 1 Sept 1954 11492 5 Sept 1954 Seamanship Various seamanship textbooks (for example; Basic Ship- handling for Masters, Mates and Pilots by Willerton; Practical Ship Handling by Armstrong; Ship Handling in Narrow Channels by Plummer, Knights Modern Seamanship) NOTE: Basic publications utilized in developing Jacksonville exam; in addition to the charts listed above were: 1985 CGT Light List 1985 Coast Pilot Vol. 4 If more recent information is used from CO notice to Mariners or Corps of Engineers reports, please indicate source and date so proper credit may be given. Flint Challenge Question No. 52 in the Inland Rules portion of the examination, among the choices of answers, indicated that the "lookout," "shall not be assigned other duties." Petitioner Flint did not feel that this choice was a correct answer. Six of the twelve candidates gave the prescribed answer, to include Captains Walker and Dull. The prescribed answer contemplated the proposition that lookouts shall not be assigned other duties. The prescribed answer is found to be correct, and Petitioner in his suggestion that it is appropriate for a lookout to have other duties in an inland water situation is not credited. Having considered the presentation at hearing, it is determined that the lookout in that setting must give full attention to those duties. Question No. 63 in the Inland Rules portion of the examination states that: "Rule 2(b); known as the General Prudential Rule; could be properly applied in which of the following situations?" Seven of the twelve candidates correctly answered that examination question, to include Captains Walker and Dull in that they indicated that the only correct answer to the question was the choice "action contrary to the rules as proposed by one vessel and accepted by another." Petitioner Flint felt that this answer; as well as the answer which said, "When the stand-on vessel first has doubts as to the intentions of the give-way vessel," should be considered correct. Flint also believes that it is unreasonable to require that the candidates know rules by number reference and contends that this particular rule is not known as the "General Prudential Rule." This concern about the need to know the rule by number and the reference to the term "General Prudential Rule" is a reasonable requirement given that one of the source materials which the candidates were encouraged to study was that source Farnsworth & Young, Nautical Rules of the Road, wherein it is stated that Rule 2(b) is known as the "General Prudential Rule." On the merits of the protest, as to the answer given, Captain Flint is wrong to apply the ideas expressed in the "General Prudential Rule" to a situation in which the stand-on vessel first has doubts as to the intentions of the give-way vessel. Other steps must he taken before resorting to the subject rule. An example of those initial steps would be the sounding of a signal. In the section dealing with state and federal laws, in Question No. 154, it is indicated that the number of state pilots in the various ports is: (1) determined by the supply and demand for pilots and services, (2) determined by investigation conducted by the Department of Professional Regulation. The answer prescribed by the examination was the first choice only. Captain Flint did not feel that either of the choices of answer was correct. He is struck by the language of Section 310.061(2), Florida Statutes, which says, The Board shall determine the number of pilots in conformance with Subsection (1) based upon the supply and demand for piloting services and the public interest in maintaining efficient and safe piloting services. Therefore, according to Captain Flint, since there are fixed limits set forth in Subsection (1) on the number of pilots that may be available in a given port, in order to determine the number of pilots, one must not only be mindful of supply and demand, but also recognition of the finite number of available pilots as set forth in Subsection (1) should be taken into account. This interpretation by Captain Flint is sufficiently legitimate that he should be afforded credit for the answer to the examination question in which he selected the answer that indicated that neither of the two choices was correct. In the Chartwork referred to as No. 9, Petitioner Flint argues that the instructions were, "The chart drawing is to cover up the St. Johns River to the highway bridge at Red Bay Point," meaning that only the features within the system before the point of the bridge needed to be indicated. This would preclude necessity to set forth any of the characteristics of the Red Bay Point Bridge, per Flint. Those characteristics are matters which a pilot should reasonably be expected to be examined on as to horizontal and vertical clearances of the bridge. This is a more persuasive interpretation of the examination instruction than the literal reading which Captain Flint gave in determining to cut short his chartwork before describing the characteristics of the bridge and points should have been deducted from his score. Another challenge described as Chartwork No. 15 dealt with Captain Flint's belief that the area of the St. Johns River described as St. Johns Bluff Reach is not a range or straightaway. Consequently, he did not believe that it was necessary to set out a true course through that portion of the river in keeping with instructions which indicated that the candidates should establish courses in ranges and straightaways in the chartwork. St. Johns Bluff Reach is of sufficient dimension in length that the candidate should have identified a course. For failure to set forth the course; it was appropriate to deduct points from Petitioner Flint's score in the chartwork. Generally speaking, Captain Flint believed that no points should have been deducted from his examination for his failure to relate items set forth on the Coast Guard Light List 1985, in setting up his chart drawing. He premises his argument on the fact that the instructions allowed the candidate to use either the chart information from the various charts which the candidate was referred to or to set forth on the chart examination that information reflected in the Coast Guard Light List 1985. It is not possible to set out complete characteristics of the navigational aids without reference to both the charts and the Coast Guard Light List 1985. Taking this into account, and in view of the basic instructions given the candidates prior to and at the point of examination, it was an unreasonable interpretation to suggest that it was unnecessary to refer to the Coast Guard Light List 1995 and offer information from that source on the examination chart, and points should have been deducted for this oversight. Petitioner Flint had initially contended that the total score related to his points in the chartwork was incorrectly computed in that he was entitled to 577 Points when the examination was graded as contrasted with the 575 points which he was awarded. In his fact proposal this position is abandoned in that he concedes that 575 points was the correct total to be awarded when the examination was graded. No adjustment has been made to that score, and 575 points remain his entitlement. Although some slight adjustment is indicated in the overall score for Captain Flint, the critical matter of the point total for the Inland Rules questions has not been overcome, and having failed to pass that portion of the examination, Captain Flint has failed the entire examination. Dull's Challenge In the Inland Rules portion of the examination at Question No. 67; it is stated that "A vessel proceeding with a following current in a narrow channel or fairway shall have the right of way over a vessel proceeding against the current in/on, and the choices were (1) western rivers, (2) all inland waters; (3) Great Lakes. The correct answer is (1) and (3). The answer is taken from reference material which the candidates were referred to, Farnsworth & Young, Nautical Rules of the Road, which points out that these vessels are given the right of way in operating on the Great Lakes, western rivers, and waters specified by the Secretary. Captain Dull was incorrect when he indicated that the answer should have been "all inland waters." Captain Dull objected to Question No. 125 in the portion of the examination related to navigational aids. That question states, "A preferred channel buoy indicating the preferred channel will be followed by leaving it on your port hand could:" (1) show red and black horizontal bands, (2) show a composite group flashing light; (3) show red or white light. Captain Dull rightly asserts that all three of those items would be correct in the instance in which a ship was proceeding to sea; however, the available answers for the question did not include the possibility that all three items were correct. If the ship were to be proceeding inbound, away from the sea, (1) and (2) are correct and (3) is incorrect in that the buoy could not show a red or white light. Therefore, the correct answer to the question is (1) and (2) only, and that answer was available to the candidates. The question asked was a legitimate question which was missed by Captain Dull. In that portion of the examination dealing with knowledge of federal and state pilotage laws there is Question No. 165. That item states, "To legally provide pilot service to a foreign flag vessel arriving at a Florida Port, a person must hold a valid" (1) state license or certificate, (2) federal license. The prescribed answer was that it is only necessary to hold a state license or certificate. Captain Dull felt that the answer which pertained to choices (1) and (2) was the correct answer in that in order to gain a license or certificate in Florida one must have a federal license. Nonetheless, once the Florida license has been obtained; it is no longer necessary for the federal license to be in force and effect in order to legally provide pilotage service to the foreign flag vessel arriving at a Florida Port. Under these circumstances; Captain Dull is not entitled to receive credit for his answer. In chartwork under Question No. 1 Captain Dull contends that the four anchorage positions which he failed to indicate on his chart were set forth on chart sheets not described in the instructions given to the candidates prior to examination or at the point of examination. He states that those four anchorage Positions are areas which the candidates were not alerted to study for. One of the charts which is referenced as a study source, No. 11491; has a Note A making reference to the anchorages in question by referring the reader to the Coast Pilot No. 4 which provides the information as to location of the four anchorages at issue. Moreover, the anchorages at issue are within the approaches to the St. Johns River which the candidates were instructed to depict in the chart which they prepared in response to the chartwork requirement in the examination. By failing to note these anchorages on his chart, he was subject to have points deducted from his examination, which deductions were made. In the Chartwork Questions No. 7 and 14, Captain Dull failed to set forth true courses from various locations at issue by not giving response in degrees and minutes. This relates to May Point Cut Range and White Shells Cut Range in which it was possible to give the answer in degrees and minutes. Captain Dull did not do his, although the instructions required that he give the answers in degrees and minutes. It was appropriate to deduct points from his score for failure to give the more exact responses to the requirements. Captain Dull in Question No. 52 related to chartwork also believed, as did Captain Flint, that the alternative was presented to the candidates to use either the charts or Coast Guard List 1985 in preparing the chartwork. For reasons discussed in the challenge to this matter fostered by Captain Flint Captain Dull is also incorrect in his assertions. Therefore he is not entitled to any adjustment in points for this matter. Captain Dull has not established the entitlement to further points; and Captain Walker remains the high scorer of all candidates who passed the deputy pilot examination at issue.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are fact are determined: In this examination for licensure challenge, petitioner, Mason L. Flint, contends that he is entitled to a higher score on the March 1994 deputy pilot examination for the Port of Jacksonville. The examination is administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Pilot Commissioners (Board). Although the original petition challenged the grade in twelve respects, petitioner now contends that only two items are in issue, item 21 relating to the local knowledge part of the examination, and item 270 relating to the aids to navigation part of the examination. Both are true-false questions. Unlike the more than fifty other professional licensure examinations administered by the DBPR, the seven-part pilot examination requires a candidate to achieve a minimum passing grade on each part, but candidates doing so then compete with each other for vacant positions. In other words, if only one position at a particular port is open, the candidate achieving the highest score above the minimum passing grade is the only candidate receiving a license. In this case, three deputy pilot positions were available at the Port of Jacksonville, and thus the candidates having the three highest scores among those exceeding the minimum passing grade would be given a license. Petitioner finished sixth on the original grading, but after having his examination regraded by the Board prior to hearing, he was ranked number four. By this challenge, he seeks to have his grade changed on items 21 and 270 so as to raise his ranking to number three. In order to preserve the confidentiality of Item 21 for future examinations, it is suffice to say that the item required a response of true or false concerning limitations on vessels leaving the Talleyrand Docks in Jacksonville, Florida. The examination answer key shows true as the correct response. In preparing all questions pertaining to local knowledge, including item 21, the Board's consultant used the U. S. Coast Pilot, a compilation of operational guidelines governing the movement of vessels in the St. Johns River (and Port of Jacksonville). The specific source of authority for item 21 was paragraph (16) on page 153 of the 1993 edition of the U. S. Coast Pilot. That paragraph reads in pertinent part as follows: (16) Outbound vessels: Vessels with a draft of over 23 (sic) feet sailing between Main Street Bridge to, and including, U. S. Gypsum Co. Pier, shall get underway after 1-1/2 hours after flood current with a cut off time at the beginning of ebb current . . . Because Talleyrand Docks lies between the Main Street Bridge and the U. S. Gypsum Company Pier, this paragraph has application to vessels leaving those docks. The 1993 version of the U. S. Coast Pilot contained a typographical error. Rather than "23" feet, the guidelines should have read "32" feet. To correct this error, paragraph (16) was revised in mid-March 1994, or the same month the examination was given, to provide that any vessel drawing more than 32 feet would be subject to the above movement restrictions. However, candidates were advised that only revisions to the U. S. Coast Pilot through January 1, 1994, would be included in the March 1994 examination. Besides the limitation described in paragraph (16), two other paragraphs on the same page of the U. S. Coast Pilot made reference to the correct 32 foot limitation. In addition, the Guidelines of Vessel Movements on St. Johns River, which form the basis for the data in the U. S. Coast Pilot, used the correct 32 foot limitation. Candidates familiar with those provisions should have been on notice that a typographical error existed in paragraph (16). Although the Board's suggested response is arguably correct, the more persuasive evidence shows that the statement in item 21 was confusing and unclear due to the typographical error in the U. S. Coast Pilot and the conflicting provisions on the same page of the source material. Thus, item 21 does not reliably measure the specified area of competency. Under these circumstances, a candidate should be given credit for either a true or false response, or alternatively, the question should be discarded in calculating a candidate's final score. Accordingly, petitioner's grade should be adjusted in this respect. Petitioner has also contended that only a false response is correct since the question implies that a restriction exists because of its use of the words "up to the beginning of ebb current." The evidence shows, however, that a candidate could reasonably reject that suggested implication and properly make a true response. Item 270 requires a true or false response to a statement regarding identifying marks or buoys marking a channel. The item identifies a set of conditions and then states that such a marking "could" properly be made. The examination answer key shows true as the correct response. The primary source of authority for item 270 is 33 CFR 62.43. According to that federal regulation, buoys marking the side of a channel (lateral aids) are always a solid color, and all solid color buoys marking a channel are numbered. The regulation goes on to provide that, in addition to a number, all solid color numbered buoys may also carry a letter suffix to aid in their identification, or to indicate their purpose. They cannot, however, be identified by letter only, but only by number and letter. Because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows that the question, as stated on the examination, clearly suggests that only a letter could be used for identification of a sidemark buoy, the correct response should be false. Therefore, petitioner should be given credit for his answer. The record is not altogether clear as to how changing petitioner's overall grade will impact his ranking. According to the DBPR psychometrician who is in charge of the pilot examination development, both petitioner and the third ranked candidate gave the same response on one of the challenged questions. On the other item, the two gave different responses, but if either response is deemed to be a correct response, it would have no bearing on their overall ranking. The pychometrician added that if an item is challenged and credit given to the protesting candidate, the answer key is changed and all candidates' scores are adjusted to reflect the change in the answer key.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board regrading petitioner's examination consistent with the above findings and conclusions. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5327 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4-5. Rejected as being unnecessary. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 14-27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3-8. 28-39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9-11. Respondent: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Rejected. See finding of fact 11. Note: Where a proposed findings has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejcted as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordiante, not supported by the evidence, or cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Mason L. Flint 1605 Brookside Circle East Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Wellington H. Meffert, II, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Susan J. Foster, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0773
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, filed an Administrative Complaint in prosecution of a probable cause finding by the Board of Pilot Commissioners, an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating entry into the profession of harbor piloting and enforcing the practice standards for that profession for those already licensed. The Respondent at all times material hereto, was admitted as a licensed pilot in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0000033. The Respondent resides in Jacksonville, Florida and practices his profession by piloting vessels in and out of the port of Jacksonville. On February 26, 1987, the motor vessel, Fernpasset, was approaching the port of Jacksonville for the purpose of discharging a load of Volkswagon automobiles. The Fernpasset is a Liberian registered car carrier having a gross tonnage of 9841 tons, a length of 536 feet, with an 89.5 foot beam. The vessel is somewhat unique in that it has a very large "sail area" or wind-affected profile as a necessary part of its structure, which extends approximately ninety percent of the vessel's total length and at a height of approximately sixty feet above the water line. This represents a much larger wind-affected profile for this vessel, as compared to more conventional cargo ships. The Jacksonville Harbor is reached by navigation of the St. Johns River channel inland from the Atlantic Ocean. At the point where the river and river channel reaches the Atlantic Ocean are two jetties, composed of granite rocks, serving as a breakwater at the entrance to the harbor. The harbor entrance has a north jetty and a south jetty. The north jetty projects waterward from the land for approximately 2,400 yards. The south jetty projects out into the water approximately 1,400 yards. Buoy number seven in the St. Johns River channel is located nine hundred yards inside the jetties. At approximately 1800 hours on February 26, 1987, the Fernpasset commenced preparation for entering the port of Jacksonville. The chief mate made VHF radio contact with the Jacksonville pilot station at about this time and gave the dispatcher at the pilot station, at his request, his estimated time of arrival at the sea buoy, his deep draft, approximately twenty-two to twenty- four feet, and what the weather conditions were at sea. During the initial radio contact between the Fernpasset and the pilot dispatcher, Errol M. Hatton, at approximately 1815 hours, the dispatcher asked First Officer (Chief Mate) Oleson whether he wanted to pick the pilot up inside the jetties or at the sea buoy. He replied that it would pick up the pilot inside the jetties. The vessel's master, Ole Brakstaad, agreed to that procedure. After this initial contact, and after the arrangement with the Fernpasset was made that it would pick the pilot up inside the jetties, the dispatcher called the Respondent, Captain Register and informed him of the job and the boarding arrangement. Prior to the Fernpasset arriving in the port area, the Jacksonville area had experienced moderate to severe weather from the northeast with "northeasters" blowing for approximately a week, with choppy and rough seas. Indeed, the official log of the M/V Fernpasset reveals that wind conditions on February 26, 1987, while at sea, varied from wind force four through wind force six and seas varied from sea scale four through sea scale five. Just two hours before the initial radio contact with the pilot station, at approximately 1600 hours, the Fernpasset was experiencing winds from the Northeast at force five, gusting at six. The sea had a heavy swell running at that time. Wind force six is approximately twenty-two to twenty-seven nautical miles per hour. Sea scale five consists of waves running eight to twelve feet high. See Respondent's exhibit two, (Brakstaad's Deposition). After Captain Register arrived at the pilot's station, the dispatcher, Mr. Hatton, spoke with the vessel approximately two more times, checking on its estimated time of arrival and having the vessel confirm that it would pick up the pilot inside the jetties. This arrangement had already been made before Captain Register had been called at his home by the dispatcher and told to report for duty to pilot the Fernpasset into the harbor. Captain Register did not participate in the conversation that set up this arrangement because he was at home and not on duty at the time. The evidence does not reflect that this choice was anything but freely made by the master of the Fernpasset and it does not indicate that Captain Register had any reason to believe that the master of the vessel had not freely chosen to pick up the pilot inside the breakwater, especially in view of the fact that inclement weather conditions were prevailing, with the attendant danger involved in boarding a pilot in heavy seas. In any event, the master of the vessel, Captain Ole Brakstaad, commenced conning his vessel into the entrance to the St. Johns River. He used his radar and the navigational markers to line up the vessel to transit between the north and south jetties. The vessel's master had assumed control of the vessel's movement from the Chief Mate at approximately 1900 hours. At approximately 1943 hours, the vessel passed the sea buoy preparing to enter the entrance channel to the river. At 1944 hours, several rudder commands were given to the helmsman and the vessel "steadied up" on course 278 degrees, lined up to enter the channel. At about this time, the winds had shifted to north- northeast at approximately 16 knots. As the vessel entered the channel, the master and the chief mate were unable to see the range lights. At 1946 hours, the master ordered a slow ahead "bell" to reduce the ship's speed to 10 knots for transiting the channel. The range lights were still not visible to the master or chief mate. As the vessel passed buoys three and four, it was centered in the channel. The wind speed increased to approximately eighteen knots from the northeast. In order to counteract the effect of the wind and strong current, which was in a southerly direction, the master ordered the helmsman to come to starboard to course 283 degrees, in order to remain centered in the channel. The master determined that the vessel was being "set" to the south by the combined forces of the northeast wind and the southerly current and therefore had to steer further north to compensate for the set. He ordered courses of 285 degrees, 290 degrees and finally 295 degrees. At 1953 hours, he increased the vessel's speed from slow ahead to half speed ahead to provide for greater maneuverability. At approximately 1954 hours, he ordered full speed ahead, with an emergency bell, to the engineer after realizing that his ship was sideways in the channel and still being set to the south. At 1955 hours, however, the Fernpasset grounded on her port side on the St. Johns River entrance channel south jetty. Before he could contact the pilot, however, he received a call from the pilot boat stating that the Captain should proceed into the channel at a speed of 10 knots. The master informed the pilot that his vessel had run aground and that he needed tug assistance. At approximately 2015 hours, Captain Register boarded the grounded vessel. Captain Register was only able to board the vessel after great difficulty because of the rough weather. After he got aboard, he assisted in towing the vessel off the breakwater and out to sea and in assessing damages. The practice of boarding a pilot requires the vessel being boarded to slow down and make a "lee" or sheltered area on one side of the vessel, sheltered from winds and waves, to help the pilot boat approach and place the pilot aboard the ship. The pilot boat is a fifty-two foot boat, specially designed, with a platform over the deckhouse or cabin upon which the pilot stands in order to catch a rope ladder thrown over the side of the ship to be boarded. The ladder must be caught on the up-roll of the pilot boat so as to avoid the pilot's being crushed between the pilot boat and the side of the ship while he is on the rope ladder. Boarding a pilot is dangerous under any circumstances, and especially so during heavy, severe weather. Weather conditions off the mouth of the St. Johns River are usually much worse as to the wind and rough waves than inside the jetties. Captain Elija Guillory is a shipmaster who has an unlimited Master's License for any type of vessel. He has been a master mariner for twenty-five years. He is currently the master of the tanker, Neches. He has entered and exited the port of Jacksonville many times. In fact, he enters the Jacksonville port approximately one and one-half times per month on trips between Houston and Corpus Christi, Texas and Jacksonville. He is also a licensed pilot for the port of Houston, Texas. Captain Guillory was accepted as an expert in shipmaster's duties and practices. Captain Guillory's testimony establishes that the master of a vessel always makes the final decision about when and where to pick up a pilot. He is the person best able to, and responsible for, determining the safety of a given situation, both as to his vessel and the pilot's safety. Captain Guillory testified that, if it be assumed that a northeast wind of Beaufort force five or six, with a heavy swell, was operating that it would be a "borderline situation" as to the safety of picking up a pilot outside the jetties under those conditions. He testified that it would depend on the characteristics of the vessel and circumstances aboard the vessel. On his own ship, which has about thirty-five feet of free-board, (less area exposed to the northeast wind), he felt he would be able to have boarded the pilot outside. A car carrier, however, has a large "sail area" of approximately sixty feet above the water line extending approximately ninety percent of the length of the vessel. This might have made it risky to slow or stop a ship with that much sail area, with a strong wind blowing, in order to pick up a pilot outside the jetties in view of the southerly set caused by both the wind and current. Captain Guillory established that it is regular practice for him and other shipmasters to tell the pilot where he will pick the pilot up during episodes of rough weather. In nice weather, he gives the pilots a choice about where they are to be picked up. He established that that is the standard practice between shipmasters and pilots for East coast United States ports. Finally, Captain Guillory opined that the Captain of the vessel should not have decided to enter the port without a pilot. In any event, it is the practice of master mariners to make the decision at sea, before entering the port, as to the safety of the vessel, the crew and the boarding pilots. It is customary and common for the master to make a decision that, due to bad weather conditions, he will pick the pilot up inside the jetties at the port of Jacksonville. This is decided after the master has made an independent evaluation of all the safety factors to consider. Although the United States Coast Pilot, volume four, states that the pilot boarding area for Jacksonville is between the sea buoy and the outermost entrance channel buoy, this is merely a guide for optimum conditions. Pilots are normally and customarily boarded where ever the master feels it is safe to do so under then-prevailing conditions. In this instance, the master of the vessel made the final decision as to where to board the pilot. That decision was made before the pilot had been informed that the vessel to which he was assigned was approaching the sea buoy and that it was time for him to go on duty and prepare to board the vessel. He did not participate in the decision about picking up the pilot inside the jetties.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Captain Clifton A. Register, should be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Reject as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in part, but not as dispositive of any material issue presented. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of any material issues presented. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of any material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence of record, with the exception of the similarity consisting of the sea buoy being one and one-half miles from the entrance to the port between two rock jetties or breakwaters, which is not in and of itself dispositive of any material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Even if Port Everglades was a port of essentially the same configuration as the Port of Jacksonville, which the record does not establish, the weather and sea conditions and condition and configuration of the vessel involved at the particular day and time in question has a great deal to do with consideration of what safe piloting practices are for such conditions. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as having little or no weight in finding facts and concluding the law applicable to this case, because of the subjective circumstances involved in deciding whether safe piloting practices have been observed, as delineated above. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 (904) 488-0062 Gary A. Bubb, Esquire Toole, Bubb, & Beale, P.A. 25th Floor Southern Bell Tower Post Office Box 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Louella Cook, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
