Findings Of Fact In his application for registration as a real estate salesman submitted August 21, 1972 (Exhibit 1), Respondent, in response to Question 9 which asked if he had ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation, answered yes and listed "1958 W. Va--traffic, 1964 So. Carolina-Traffic, 1/16/70 Fla--Traffic, 6/2/71 Fla--Traffic, and 9/17/71 Fla-- Traffic." In his application for registration as a real estate broker submitted February 4, 1972 (Exhibit 3), Respondent answered the same Question 9 exactly as he had done on his application for salesman. Court records from South Carolina (Exhibit 2) show that Ernest Clyde Bourne, Jr., was arrested on a warrant charging him with stealing a boat and trailer of the value of more than $200; that on November 30, 1964, he posted an appearance bond in the amount of $9,000; that he was indicted on March 3, 1965, on an indictment alleging that Bourne, on August 12, 1964, at Georgetown, S.C., feloniously did steal, take and carry away one 25 foot Bertran boat and one six wheel trailer of the value of more than fifty dollars the proper goods and chattels of Earnest Mohler, Jr.; and that on September 21, 1965, he pleaded nolo contendere to receiving stolen goods, the Court entered judgment that he be confined for six months or pay a fine of $500, and that the fine was paid on September 21, 1965. In his defense, Respondent testified that, prior to acquiring the boat he was charged with stealing, he had owned two or three boats, the last of which was destroyed in a fire while at a Princeton, West Virginia, storage during the winter of 1964; and that he was looking for a replacement for the boat. While enroute from his home in Princeton to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, he stopped at Columbia, South Carolina, to visit a boat yard and, while looking at a boat, was approached by a person representing himself as a salesman. The salesman told him that he knew of a 25 foot Bertram boat in an estate that may be for sale. When Bourne showed interest, he advised that he would know in about a week and Bourne was to call him. In due course, Bourne called the "salesman" who said he had the boat and arranged for Bourne to pick up the boat at Columbia. The address at which Bourne came for the pick up was a corner containing a Texaco station and a wrecked car lot. After inspecting the boat Bourne paid $5,000 cash and executed a lien on a trailer for $2,300. No record was subsequently found that the lien had been recorded and Bourne retained no copy. Bourne towed the boat and trailer to his home in West Virginia where the boat was registered and used by Bourne during the remainder of the summer. At this time Bourne was enrolled at Stetsen Law School in Florida, where his mother resided. Bourne returned to West Virginia in November, 1974, and enroute back to Florida with the boat in tow, he was stopped by the police and arrested at Orangeburg, South Carolina, and charged with larceny of the boat. The sheriff from Georgetown, South Carolina, picked up and drove Bourne to Georgetown where he spent the weekend in jail awaiting the posting of bond. At his trial in September, 1965, Bourne appeared, represented by his lawyer from West Virginia, and a South Carolina attorney. The attorneys arranged for a nolo contendere plea which Bourne entered under the impression he was pleading to an attempt to commit a misdemeanor. Exhibit 4, the deposition of the attorney who represented Bourne at the trial, confirmed that Bourne pleaded nolo contendere to an attempt to commit a misdemeanor in a negotiated plea worked out with the prosecuting attorney. Although the attorney characterized the charge to which Bourne pleaded as "no offense," the negotiated settlement included a $500 fine. This was described in the deposition as a forfeiture of a $500 bond (apparently connected to the $5,000 appearance recognizance previously entered to get Bourne released from jail) and as "the [law] firm check in the amount of $500 which was left with the clerk of the court when the clerk presented a blank form for Bourne to sign. It is presumed the "blank form" subsequently became the judgment page of Exhibit 2 on which Bourne plead nolo contendere to receiving stolen goods and the judge signed the sentence to be confined at hard labor for six (6) months or pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are, and at all times material hereto were, owners of residential real property adjoining the site of the proposed construction to the northwest. The City of Cape Coral is, and at all times material hereto was, the applicant for the permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction of the proposed project, which is a public boat ramp. This boat ramp is located within the corporate limits of the City of Cape Coral. The Department of Environmental Regulation is, and at all times material hereto was, the agency of the State of Florida which has the authority to issue permits for dredging, filling or other activities of a similar nature to include construction of boat ramps on the shores or banks of navigable waterways of the state. The Caloosahatchee River is a navigable, Class III waterway of the State of Florida. Lands covered by the waters of the Caloosahatchee River at the location of the proposed project are submerged lands of the State of Florida. The City applied to the Department on March 27, 1980, for a permit to construct a boat ramp on the Caloosahatchee River at the Cape Coral Yacht Club. A boat ramp currently is located at the site of the proposed project. The existing ramp was initially partially constructed in 1964, and subsequently a seawall was removed and the two existing seawalls projecting into the water were constructed in 1969. The City's application was initially incomplete, lacking evidence of approval by the City Council. At the request of the Department, the City submitted additional information. The application as originally proposed contemplated dredging waterward of the mean high water line at the proposed project site. The dredged material was to be placed along a beach area adjacent to the proposed boat ramp, and the spoil would have projected waterward of the mean high water line. The proposed project was revised in September, 1980, to delete placing the dredged material on the adjacent beach. The revised project would retain the dredged material landward on the mean high water line until it had dried, at which time it would be removed from the site. After the dredging described above has been completed, the revised project calls for the construction of a concrete boat ramp 42 feet wide and 58 feet long extending approximately 28 feet waterward of the mean high water line of the Caloosahatchee River. In addition, three timber poling walkways at the sides of and in the middle of the boat ramp will be constructed extending waterward of the mean high water line. On May 10, 1980, Dan Garlick, an employee of the Department, conducted a Permit Application Appraisal and concluded the project would have an insignificant impact on biological resources or water quality, and would comply with Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Garlick recommended approval of the project. David Key, another employee of the Department, conducted an on-site investigation and expressed concurrence with the findings contained in Garlick's report. Key also noted that no adverse impact on navigation was anticipated as a result of the project. On July 1, 1980, the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service investigated the proposed project. These federal agencies had no objection to the proposed boat ramp or the dredging aspects of the proposed project. These agencies had no objection to the proposed spoil basis located in the upland area of the site required to dry the dredged material. These agencies objected only to placement of the dredged material on the adjoining beach, which proposal was deleted in the City's revised plan. Petitioners introduced no expert testimony relating to the effects of the proposed project on water quality, marine resources or navigation. Lay testimony was received regarding conditions around the site of the existing boat ramp. Garbage, dead fish and flotsam accumulate at or near the site in the water and on the land. The existing seawalls extending perpendicular from the shore prevent matter in the water from being flushed by the current and tides. In the proposed project the seawall to the right of the existing boat ramp would not be removed. Prior to January, 1981, the existing ramp site was not regularly cleaned by the City. Since that date the area has been cleaned regularly; however, after weekends when the facility is most heavily used there are large quantities of refuse and garbage around the site. The City has requested and received permission from and payment has been made to the Department of Natural Resources for use of sovereignty submerged lands and the removal of 215 cubic yards of fill. After a review of the revised application, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue a permit for the proposed project by letter dated November 10, 1980. The Department based its intent to issue on a determination that the project would not adversely affect navigation, marine resources or water quality, provided the conditions set in the letter were met. The Department's Exhibit 2 is the only documentation presented by the City reflecting the City Council's action on the application. Exhibit 2 contains no findings by the local government that the proposed project would not violate any statute, zoning or ordinances; makes no findings that the project would present no harmful or increased erosion, shoaling of channels or stagnation of waters; and contains no findings that no material injury or monetary damage will result to adjoining land. The Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Minutes of the City Council for the City of Cape Coral Meeting of June 18, 1980, does not reflect that the final reports on the ecological effects of the proposed project were read into the record, and does not reflect that those reports were duly considered by the Council. It was at this meeting that final action on the application for permitting of the proposed project was presumably taken. However, the motion approved at that meeting did not authorize approval of the proposed project nor issuance of the permit. The motion empowered the Mayor to write a letter expressing approval. This motion presumable resulted in the letter of June 17, 1980, the Department's Exhibit 2, which was signed by the City Manager and not the Mayor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head withhold final action on the application for a reasonable period of time to permit the applicant to cure the procedural defects. Upon curing the procedural defects, the Hearing Officer would recommend issuance of the permits originally requested. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 12th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Sasso, Esquire Post Office Box 1422 1413 Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Richard Roosa, Esquire 1714 Cape Coral Parkway Post Office Box 535 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ERICH SCHLACHTA and ESTER SCHLACHTA, husband and wife, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-2258 CITY OF CAPE CORAL, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT and STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Petitioners Kay Rankin and Mike Beard have standing? Whether the project by Mahogany Mill Owners Association, Inc. ("Mahogany Mill"), to remove two existing finger piers and construct three new finger piers and two boat lifts (the "Project") is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP") from the Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department")? Whether the Project qualifies for authorization from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund (the "Board of Trustees") to use sovereign submerged lands?
Findings Of Fact Mahogany Mill Pond and the Channel Located in Pensacola, Florida, Mahogany Mill Pond is connected by a channel (the "Channel") to Chico Bayou. The bayou provides passage to Pensacola Bay and the bay, in turn, is adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. Prior to the dredging of the Channel in the 1950s to connect the pond and the bayou, the pond was used to store logs as part of a logging operation. After the dredging activity, the storage of logs in the pond ceased. The pond began to serve as a hold for sailboats and over the decades since, the Channel has been used by sailboats and powerboats alike to make their way to the bayou and onward to the bay and the open waters of the Gulf. Currently, Mahogany Mill Pond is "one of the few places left in Pensacola where you can have hurricane hold for deep water sailboats." Hr'g Tr. 231. "Hurricane holds" are safe places to moor a vessel in times of tropical storms and where, in the words of Petitioner Rankin, "you can get your sailboat out of the weather." Id. The petitioners in these four consolidated cases all own deep draft sailboats which they moor in Mahogany Mill Pond. The Channel is bordered to the south by a spit of land that juts into the bayou. The spit is approximately 600 feet long, and its vegetation line (estimated to be the mean high water line by an environmental consulting business) is roughly 60 feet from the Project. The tip of the spit is opposed in the bayou by the Palm Harbor Marina. The marina is a busy one with nearly every one of its slips occupied, as shown by photographic evidence. The marina is about the same distance from the spit as the Project is from the spit. There are shoals in the area and they exist between the spit and the Project. Whether an excursion originates in the pond or the Channel, boaters seeking egress to the bayou, the bay and the Gulf must make their way through the Channel alongside the spit, and around its tip in the vicinity of the marina, an area that includes shoals. Likewise from the bay or bayou, any boat headed for the Channel or the pond must make its way through the narrow area of the marina across from the spit, around the spit, and through the shoals in and near the Channel so as to not run aground. Despite a "quiescent environment with a little bit of intertidal flow" (Hr'g Tr. 149), the Channel requires dredging "probably every 10 years," id., to maintain its navigability. It has been dredged "a couple of times in the . . . 20 years," id., Petitioner Kriegel has lived in the area. The last time the Channel was dredged was six or seven years ago. To the best of Petitioner Rankin's memory, the cost was about $16,000. Dredging costs are borne by the members of the local homeowners association. The Channel's shallowness in some spots is a navigation concern for sailboats and contributes to the Petitioners' assessment of the Channel as "narrow" and "constricted." Despite shallowness and the presence of the shoals, as well as the tight configuration created by the spit, the Project's presence in the Channel does not create a navigation hazard for powerboats that have two engines. This is due to the ability of powerboats to maintain position during a maneuver. As explained by Petitioner Kriegel, "[A]s a result of [having two engines], you can push one side of the boat forward and pull the other side of the boat backwards and pivot the boat without making any headway." Hr'g Tr. 152. A powerboat's ability to maintain position aids maneuverability, particularly in constricted waterways. Sailboats, on the other hand, cannot maintain position while they turn. In order for a sailboat to execute a turn while under sail, it must be moving through the water largely because their keels create lateral resistance. When not under sail, sailboats are typically not able to maintain position while turning because they are usually equipped with only one engine. A structure in a constricted waterway may be an obvious navigational hazard to any boat or it may be a hazard to some boats but not others. More to the point, a structure that extends into a waterway can be a navigational hazard to a sailboat because of the sailboat's inability to maintain position during a turn while at the same time it is not a hazard for a powerboat that enjoys superior maneuverability based on its capability to hold position during a pivot. The Parties Petitioners Kriegel, Baars, Ed and Kay Rankin, and Beard are individual citizens who reside in Escambia County. They all own property in the vicinity of Mahogany Mill Pond, and they all moor their deep draft sailboats in the hurricane hold that is Mahogany Mill Pond. Each has extensive experience navigating the pond, the Channel, Chico Bayou, Pensacola Bay, and the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Mahogany Mill is a Florida homeowners association. It has been substituted in this proceeding as a respondent in the place of Mahogany Mill, LLC, the entity on whose behalf the application for the Project was submitted. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida that administers the provisions of section 403.813(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 346.051(5)(a) (which relates to exemptions from environmental resource permitting in Northwest Florida) and, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, if a project is shown to qualify for an exemption from permitting, to authorize the use of sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.005(1)(b), including compliance with rule 18-21.004(7)(g). The Application and the Pre-construction Mooring Pilings The Application for the Project was submitted under cover of a letter from Wetland Sciences with a date of October 5, 2012. The letter lists the applicant as "Mahogany Mill LLC, c/o Robert Montgomery." In the body of the letter, it states that the Application was submitted "on behalf of Mr. Robert Montgomery." Mahogany Mill Ex. 1. The October 5, 2012, letter is signed by Jason Taylor. Wetland Sciences employs Mr. Taylor as an environmental specialist. Mr. Taylor holds a four-year degree from the University of West Florida and has been employed by Wetland Sciences since 2004. During that time, he has been engaged in marine permitting and has participated in the permitting of several hundred projects. In conducting the permitting of the Project, Mr. Taylor interacted with both DEP personnel and personnel from the county. In the discussions, Mr. Taylor was careful to address compliance with any regulations related to the Project's water-ward extension. His main concern was with the County Code because it is slightly more stringent than DEP regulations. He informed Mr. Montgomery that a variance from the county might be necessary but that proved not to be the case. "[W]e could actually construct [the Project] . . . as long as it stayed within the same footprint as what was currently there, which extended . . . 24 feet . . . into the water body." Hr'g Tr. 89-90. The "Plan View of Existing Site Conditions" drawn by Mr. Taylor and submitted as an attachment to the Application (see page 2 of 6 attached to Mahogany Mill Ex. 1) shows that at the time of the submission the Project site encompassed two existing mooring piles (the "Preconstruction Mooring Pilings") and two finger piers. The Preconstruction Mooring Pilings served as bow or stern lines for smaller vessels that would dock alongside the two finger piers. The finger piers extended approximately 12 feet offshore. In contrast, the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings were at a point that extended twice as far into the Channel, i.e., 24.0 feet offshore. In Mr. Taylor's opinion, the water-ward extent of the location of the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings justified a 24-foot extension of the Project into the waterway. Some of the exhibits attached to the Application were scaled from an aerial. Others were supported by measurements taken by Mr. Taylor in the field. The location of the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings 24 feet offshore were among the locations supported by field measurements taken by Mr. Taylor at the site of the Project. The Project The Project is shown in the application to consist of two 24-foot by three-foot finger piers (the "Outside Piers") and a third finger pier between the other two (the "Middle Pier"). Like the Outside Piers, the Middle Pier extends 24 feet into the Channel, but it is six feet wide (twice as wide as the Outside Piers). Two uncovered boat lifts, 12 feet wide each, are also part of the Project. The points of the boat lifts that extend the farthest from shore are within the utmost extension of the piers, that is, within 24 feet from the shore (the identical distance from shore as the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings). As described in the application (the "information submitted to the Department"), there is no part of the Project that extends beyond 24 feet from the shore, i.e., where the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings stood at the time of the application's submission. The width of the Project (from the corners of the Outer Piers) alongside the Channel is 36 feet. The distances to an "APPROXIMATE CENTER THREAD OF CHANNEL" (see the estimation in the "Close-Up Plan View of Proposed Activity," page 5 of 6 attached to the Application, DEP Ex. 2) are 20.5 feet from one Outside Pier, 18.1 feet from the Middle Pier, and 16.0 feet from the other Outside Pier. The total area of submerged lands preempted by the Project is 288.0 square feet. At the shore (where there is a seawall), the Project lies within 49.6 linear feet of shoreline owned by the applicant. The Project is on the side of the Channel across from the spit. The Project's side would be starboard of a sailboat returning to the pond from the bayou. It is also the side for a boat headed toward the pond that a vessel would be obligated to keep under boating "rules of the road" to avoid collisions or scrapes with a boat coming from the direction of the pond headed out of the Channel. The Veal Dock Next to the Project is a dock and boat lift owned by James Warren Veal (the "Veal Dock"). Mr. Veal has a 21-foot Cobia powerboat that he keeps on a boat lift supported by the Veal Dock. His boat, equipped with an outboard motor and moored in the boat lift of the Veal Dock, was shown in Mahogany Mill Exhibit 21 "to be sticking out a few inches more," Hr'g Tr. 110, than the stern and engine of Mr. Montgomery's boat while docked at the Project. At the time Mr. Montgomery's boat was photographed to produce Mahogany Mill Exhibit 21, it's stern extended "[r]oughly, ball park, a foot and a half," Hr'g Tr. 109, past the piling. The boat's engine extended another foot and a half toward the center thread of the Channel. When docked at the Veal Dock, Mr. Veal's boat (including the outboard motor off its stern) at its water-ward- most extension is referred to as a "limiting point" (see Hr'g Tr. 191), by the Petitioners. Extending farther out into the Channel than any other structure, boat or engine (including the Project) on the Project's side of the Channel, the limiting point created by a boat in the Veal Dock is what a sailboat swinging around the spit into the Channel must avoid in order to enjoy safe passage in the Channel. The Letter of Exemption and State-owned Submerged Land Authorization The Letter of Exemption locates the Project both by Parcel ID Number, as shown in local government records, and at the street address of 1263 Mahogany Mill in Pensacola, Florida. Its description of the Project is consistent with the description in the Application. See DEP Ex. 1. The Letter of Exemption verifies that the Project is exempt from regulatory review: Based on the information submitted, the Department has determined that the construction of the boatlifts and finger piers, [sic] is exempt, [sic] under paragraph 62-346.0512(5)(a), F.A.C., from the need to obtain a regulatory permit. Therefore, the Department grants an exemption for the proposed activity under paragraph 62- 346.051(5)(a), F.A.C., and Section 403.813(1)(b), F.S. Id. The Department's Letter of Exemption also authorizes the use of state-owned submerged lands for the Project by virtue of the Department's status as staff to the Board of Trustees: The Department has reviewed the activity . . . and has determined that the activity qualifies for a Letter of Consent under rule 18-21.005(1)9(c)2., F.A.C.[,] and section 253.77 of the Florida Statutes to construct and use the activity on the specified sovereign submerged lands, as long as the work performed is located within the boundaries as described herein and is consistent with [certain] terms and conditions . . . . Id., page 2 of 5 (the letter of consent incorporated in the Letter of Exemption). The Letter of Exemption (with the letter of consent incorporated) was issued on October 24, 2012. Statutes and Rules Regulatory Exemption Section 403.813(1) provides, inter alia, that a permit is not required for activities associated with "[t]he installation . . . of private docks, piers and recreational docking facilities . . . [provided they] . . . [s]hall not impede the flow of water or create a navigational hazard." § 403.813(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The statue is implemented by rule 62-346.051. Among the activities listed in the rule that do not require an ERP are "the installation . . . of private docks, piers and recreational docking facilities . . . in accordance with Section 403.813(1)(b), F.S., [and its requirement that they not impede the flow of water or create a navigational hazard]." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-346.051(5). State-owned Submerged Lands Authorization Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, prohibits a person from the use of sovereign or other lands of the state until the person has the required the form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Rule 18-21.005 implements section 253.77. The form of authorization required for the Project is a "Letter of Consent." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.005(1)(c)4. In addition, rule 18- 21.004(7) imposes general conditions for authorizations including obtaining the necessary letters of consent. Among the other conditions are that "[s]tructures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(7)(g). Good Faith Efforts at Compliance Mr. Montgomery and Mahogany Mill made deliberate and careful effort to comply with the applicable statutes and rules prior to the issuance of the Letter of Exemption. They hired a consulting firm with appropriate expertise in the permitting of docks. Their consultant worked with the county and the Department. Based on the information submitted with the application and the Department's preliminary review, it is no surprise that the Department found the Project qualified for a Letter of Exemption under the statutes and rules that provided an exemption from regulatory review and that authorized the use of state-owned lands. This is especially true given the care taken by Mr. Montgomery and his environmental consultant in seeking the exemption and in light of the Project's extension into the Channel at a point no more than the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings, i.e., 24.0 feet. Installation Without delay, Mr. Montgomery "contracted with a marine contractor to install the improvements [authorized by the Letter of Exemption]." Hr'g Tr. 69. The Project was constructed and its installation was completed in December 2012. Mr. Montgomery and Mahogany Mill heard no objection from any party while the Project was under construction. There were no objections voiced in the month or so afterward. The first objection was made known to Mahogany Mill when Mr. Kriegel visited Mr. Montgomery in mid-February 2013. The Challenges Mr. Kriegel was out of town when the Project was installed. He did not see the Project until mid-to-late February aboard his sailboat when he "had great difficulty in getting [the boat] back in [his] slip [in Mahogany Mill Pond]." Hr'g Tr. 169. Following his experience navigating the Channel in February 2013, Mr. Kriegel met with Mr. Montgomery. From Mr. Kriegel's perspective, the meeting was to no avail. The four petitions challenging the Letter of Exemption and the letter of consent were filed shortly thereafter. The Hearing Mahogany Mill's Prima Facie Case As the applicant for the exemption and the consent to use state-owned submerged lands, Mahogany Mill provided evidence that the Project is not a navigational hazard to powerboats. The evidence included a video of Mr. Montgomery on board a 38-foot powerboat (see Hr'g Tr. 44) smoothly navigating its way from the bayou around the spit, into the Channel and to the Project. The powerboat was piloted by Captain Ben Cranford, who has 12 years of experience navigating vessels through the area, including into Mahogany Mill Pond from the Channel. When asked at hearing about navigating the Channel while being videotaped, Captain Cranford replied, "I'm not having any [difficulty], at all." Hr'g Tr. 46. After the presentation by the Applicant of a prima facie case of compliance and immediately following the supportive case of the Department, Petitioners presented their cases. Petitioners' Cases The evidence presented by Petitioners established that sailboats have far less maneuverability than powerboats as a result of a number of factors. Inability to maintain position during a turn is one of them. Sailboats may be less maneuverable than powerboats because of hull and keel design as well, even when equipped with an outboard motor which typically has a single propeller. Sailboat maneuverability limitations may be exacerbated, moreover, by wind and other conditions, particularly in the summer when the prevailing direction of the winds tend to push off a sailboat. Mr. Kriegel related difficulty the three to four times since the construction of the Project that he has navigated a return to the pond in his sailboat. On those occasions, he brought his boat in under "better than ideal conditions" (Hr'g Tr. 171), due in part to facilitation of the sailboat's turns by a north breeze, the wind that typically prevails in winter time. On one day, he brought the boat in twice on a relatively high tide, another favorable condition. He "had to make two efforts to do it because [he] ran aground . . . the first time. And the second time [he] almost hit the structure." Id. Mr. Baars owns a deep draft sailboat that is "45'3", which includes . . . a Bowsprit." Hr'g Tr. 197. A bowsprit is a spar that extends forward from a vessel's prow to which the stays of the foremast are fastened. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Baars had not attempted egress or ingress since the Project was installed. But he summed up his worry about the Project when Mr. Kriegel asked him on cross examination whether he thought he could safely navigate around the structure, "I'm concerned, other than trying to test it, I would not know. I mean, as I look down from my dock . . . it doesn't look too good." Hr'g Tr. 213. Like Mr. Kriegel, Mr. Baars has never collided with structures in the Channel but "came very close to the previous structures . . . [and safety] was always a concern when [he] came around the spit." Hr'g Tr. 221. Mr. Baars sailboat has also run aground in the Channel because of prevailing conditions that made maneuvering difficult. In his testimony, Mr. Rankin recollected that when the seawall was installed by a previous owner in 2001, the application showed eight pilings, all of which were "12-foot out." Hr'g Tr. 226. He has "bounced off and shoved off one of those pilings [the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings] before, getting around the corner." Hr'g Tr. 227. Mr. Rankin described his experience in navigating from the bayou through the Channel headed for the pond: . . . I've come in there, around that spit, at low tide, and run aground because the pass is so narrow you have to back up and find it. In the process of finding it, you sometimes have to power over it and that means you back up as far as you can and go full tip wide up to jump it. And in [the] process you're aiming straight for the problems of the piers where they are now. And I'm not saying I can't do it. I'm just saying . . . I'm afraid I'm going to hit it someday. It's that tight. It's that difficult. * * * So all of it [the shallowness, the shoals, the spit, the difficulty in maneuvering sailboats, the structures in the Channel], you've got to be moving. If you get stuck, then you have to cut -- you dredge that area and they dredged it as close to . . . the end of the spit. So it's very, cutting that corner, you're aiming straight at those docks or Mr. Veal's dock. And if I have to be powering over it, by the time I get over the hump, which is the end of the spit, then I have to turn. I can't be turning over the hump. * * * But I have pushed off -- my wife has pushed off one of the pilings. Hr'g Tr. 228-230. Ms. Simpson has navigated the deep draft sailboat owned by Petitioner Beard through the Channel numerous times over the past 20 years. She raced sailboats and participated in regattas so often that she "started racing sailboats in the women's regattas, where [she] captained and helmed [her] own boats." Hr'g Tr. 242. Compared to the three Petitioners who testified and the sailing population in the area, she and Petitioner Beard sail their boats and "come . . . into Mahogany Mill Pond, probably more often than anybody else." Hr'g Tr. 244. Ms. Simpson echoed the concerns of the three Petitioners who testified. She expressed her fears of a collision with the Project in the future based on difficulty in navigating the Channel prior to the Project's installation. Then there were only the two Preconstruction Mooring Pilings present 24 feet from shore as opposed to the Project that is now 24 feet offshore with a width of 36 feet: And like everybody else . . . we use Jim Veal's slip . . . we have to go in almost south of him . . . so you get the boat in. And once we pass the spit, we . . . do a sharp turn and come up . . . if there's any type of weather at all . . . you've got to keep the boat moving . . . there [have] been numerous occasions when the wind was heavy . . . that we will come so close to the pilings out there that I actually was on the bow of the boat pushing it away . . . . * * * . . . if there's a wind blowing . . . you have to be coming so fast to keep it up and then you have to make sure that you can make that run and keep it under control. And like I said, I've pushed off from [the pilings]. Hr'g Tr. 244-6. Mrs. Simpson's concerns were not limited to the Project. Boats with engines attached to their sterns docked at the Project can extend out further than the Project: "[N]ow there's been another . . . 4 feet added on to [the Project] because . . . everybody [who] builds a dock wants a boat bigger than the dock is." Hr'g Tr. 247. The three Petitioners shared the concern about the additional extension into a Channel of boats and engines beyond the 24 feet of the Project's extension. Ms. Simpson reiterated, "If there's any wind at all, [the Project and boats docked at it] are going to cause major problems." Hr'g Tr. 248. As the three Petitioners who testified, Ms. Simpson has never collided in a sailboat with the Preconstruction Mooring Pilings. At the time of hearing, Petitioner Beard had been in the Bahamas with his sailboat since October 2012 and had not returned. Ms. Simpson, therefore, had not yet contended with the Project or any boats docked there in navigating the Channel. Ms. Simpson, however, did observe Mr. Kriegel attempt to navigate his sailboat through the Channel clear of the Project. He ran aground trying to avoid both the spit and the structures. Ms. Simpson detailed potential consequences: . . . [S]ailboats running aground, it's not a good thing . . . you have got your keels and . . . instruments on the bottom close to your rudder . . . you run a sailboat aground, you take the bottom paint off and you hit whatever else is down there . . . then you have to put it in power drive to get it back off . . . you can do quite a bit of damage to a boat when you run it aground, especially a sailboat. Hr'g Tr. 259. Potential Solution Mr. Kriegel referred to a turning basin in the area of the Palm Harbor Marina. The turning basin is where Petitioners headed for the pond in their sailboats commence the swing around the spit taking into consideration the limiting point of the Veal Dock in order to avoid collisions with structures (or docked boats) that extend into the Channel. A potential solution to the difficulties encountered by navigators of sailboats in the Channel is to dredge the turning basin. If the turning basin were wide and deep enough, sailboats would have more opportunity to enter the Channel straight on rather than having to swing around the spit when entering. Some boats headed for the pond are able to make the necessary turn inside the turning basin now. Mike Lunn lives at Mahogany Mill Pond. When he looks out the sliding glass door at his house he has a clear view of the Project and the turning basin. From what he has usually seen, boats "turn around in [the] basin a little bit." Hr'g Tr. 266. He doesn't ever seem them "cut like that," id., in the swing described by Petitioners. Whether he was referring to sailboats or just powerboats is not entirely clear, but he testified with regard to Petitioners and the entry into the Channel they described, "that's what y'all are saying but that's not what I see." Id. In testimony that followed Mr. Lunn's, Mr. Kriegel explained that it is hard to judge when and where to make turns in the basin because of the narrowness of the Channel. There is no doubt, however, that navigation would be improved with dredging of the turning basin to make it deeper and wider even if it did not entirely cure the navigational problems described by all of Petitioners and Ms. Simpson. As Mr. Kriegel offered on cross-examination by Mr. Dunaway: Now, if the turning radius were expanded, if the turning basin were dredged out, if the boats had more room to maneuver, some of [the navigational problems getting to the pond from the bayou] could be improved, yes. Hr'g Tr. 166. Whether dredging the turning basin is an attainable solution was not confirmed. Mr. Kriegel testified, "I'm not sure . . . everybody would like to see it dredged out." Hr'g Tr. 167.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order determining that Mahogany Mill Owners Association, Inc.'s Project qualifies for an exemption from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit under section 403.813(1)(b) and qualifies for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands under rule 18-21.005(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Richard K. Stander is the owner of Tom's Harbor Key located in the Florida Keys between Duck Key and Grassy Key. Petitioner seeks a permit to construct a private, non-income producing fishing camp for personal acquaintances and guests. The construction includes a wood dock 80 feet long by six feet wide with nine finger piers two feet wide and 15 feet long running from this dock to provide boat slips, and 1350 linear feet of elevated walkway six feet wide running from the dock area across the mangrove area to seven cottages to be constructed on the upland area of Tom's Harbor Key. Piling across the mangrove area will be implanted by hand auger or water-jetted in. If jetted, appropriate turbidity screens will be used. The pilings for the dock will be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. The Department of Natural Resources reviewed the application and determined that since the proposed project is a private, non-income producing facility, a lease [from DNR] is not presently required. (Exhibit 3) The submerged lands where the dock and boat slips are to be constructed contain patchy turtle grass growth on an open sandy bottom. (Exhibit 4) Construction of the dock and finger pier boat slips as proposed will have no adverse impact on the flora or fauna in the area. The proposed walkway will cover approximately 2400 square feet (0.06A) of wetlands consisting primarily of red and black mangroves. Constructing this walkway over these wetlands will have no adverse effect on the plants other than the pruning which will be needed to keep the walkway clear. The proposed caretaker's house will be built over the wetlands area and it, like the walkway, will be elevated and will have no adverse effect on the plant or animal life. The cottages will be built on the upland area, and they, too, will be built on pilings with the bottom of the structures some ten feet above mean sea level. Petitioner proposes to use dry toilets in these cottages and remove all wastes to the mainland. Accordingly, no waste will be discharged into the waters adjacent to Tom's Harbor Key. Intervenor contends the proposed project is commercial in nature rather than private but presented no evidence to support this contention. Objections to Intervenor's attempts to infer error in the DNR determination made in Exhibit 3 were sustained as not relevant to the issue before this tribunal. Intervenor also inferred that the application was false because Petitioner stated in the application that the pilings would be implanted using a hand auger or water jet, while at the hearing it was learned the dock piling would be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. This difference was satisfactorily explained by the testimony of the individual who prepared the application. Moreover, the harm to the environment by implanting the dock pilings by driving or mechanical auger would be less than if these pilings were jetted. It is Intervenor's position that because Petitioner erred in stating in the application how the pilings were to be implanted perhaps he erred in other parts of the application, and therefore the application should be returned to Petitioner for resubmission. Tom's Harbor Key is a pristine area accessible only by water. The wetlands adjacent to this site consist of flourishing mangrove forests, and the area is highly productive. Those opposing the permit applied for are residents of Duck Key, a larger key adjacent to Tom's Harbor which is accessible by land, and which, before its development and occupancy, was also a pristine wetland habitat. Although these witnesses opined that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the marine habitat and on the birds at the site, no factual evidence to support those conclusions was presented.
Findings Of Fact Notices to Show Cause were issued by the Department against Roy D. Mathew, and William Gannaway on April 9, 1976. (See: Agency Exhibits 1 and 2). The final hearing was scheduled by notice dated May 12, 1976. (See: Agency Exhibit 3). Roy D. Mathew, d/b/a Anchorline Yacht Brokerage holds Yacht and Ship Broker License No. 12433, issued by the Department on December 18, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 5). Mathew has at all material times held a yacht and ship broker license issued by the Department. William G. Gannaway holds Yacht and Ship Salesman License No. 12657, issued by the Department on December 18, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 4). Gannaway has at all material times held a yacht and ship salesman license issued by the Department. Gannaway has at all material times served as a yacht and ship salesman for Roy D. Mathew and Anchorline Yacht Brokerage. Prior to July, 1975, R. A. McKenzie, the owner of a yacht called The Anokone, decided to sell the yacht. The yacht was housed at Anchorline Yacht Brokerage in St. Petersburg, Florida, and McKenzie agreed to pay Anchorline a commission for selling the yacht. On or about July 8, 1975, Jean C. Noll, a resident of Jacksonville, Florida, saw the yacht, and believed that it was the sort of vessel that she and her husband had been looking for. She entered into a purchase agreement with the understanding that her husband, the Reverend Joseph E. Noll, Jr., would have the opportunity to make a personal inspection. William G. Gannaway represented Anchorline Yacht Brokerage in the transaction, and received a deposit from Mrs. Noll. (See: Agency Exhibit 6). On or about July 15, 1975 Reverend Noll came to St. Petersburg from Jacksonville and inspected the yacht. Gannaway at that time advised Reverend Noll that the starboard engine on the yacht was broken down and would require extensive repairs. Reverend Noll liked the yacht, and hired the Wilkinson Company to conduct a survey of the yacht. Dean Greger conducted the survey on behalf of the Wilkinson Company. A very thorough inspection was performed by Greger. He made 24 recommendations respecting & repairs, some of which were significant, and some of which were minor. He was not able to conduct a sea test of the vessel because of the broken down engine. His report was issued on July 22, 1975. (See: Agency Exhibit 7). McKenzie was somewhat disturbed about the large number of discrepancies, and he offered the following alternatives to the Nolls: He would sell the boat "as is" for $15,000; he would sell the boat "as is" with a new starboard engine installed for $17,000; or he would sell the boat for $19,500 with a new engine, with him making all additional repairs up to $1,000 and with all remaining repairs being split evenly three ways between the Nolls, McKenzie, and Anchorline. The Nolls accepted the latter option, and a contract reflecting it was signed. (See: Agency Exhibit 28). All work was to be performed at Whistlers Yacht Service, Inc., which was located adjacent to Anchorline. Shortly after July 22, 1975, it became apparent that a new replacement starboard engine could not be obtained, because the engine was no longer in production. Gannaway advised the Nolls that Whistlers indicated to him that they could replace the "shortblock" of the engine, rebuild the engine, and that they would stand by their work. Gannaway told the Nolls that he thought the rebuilt engine would carry a one year guarantee. Reverend Noll believed that the guarantee would be for no more than 90 days, and he agreed to a rebuilt engine rather than a new engine. Extensive work was performed by Whistlers Marina, and more than $2,100 was paid to Whistlers to perform the repairs. (See: Agency Exhibits 14, 22, 23, 24, 25). Dean Greger conducted a supplemental survey, including a sea test of the vessel on or about August 14, 1975. Fourteen of the 24 discrepancies noted in the original report were found to have been satisfactorily corrected. It was noted that the generator, the depth sounder, the auto pilot, the signal horn, the marine air conditioning, and the docking lights were not performing properly. (See: Agency Exhibit 8). The Nolls were aware of these problems when they closed the transaction and purchased the yacht on approximately August 20, 1975. The closing took place at a Federal Credit Union in Jacksonville. No representative of Anchorline was present at the closing. Following the closing the Nolls took possession of the yacht, and renamed it "Escape Hatch II". The Nolls were advised by several persons, including personnel at Whistlers Yacht Basin, and personnel at Anchorline, that they should familiarize themselves with the vessel in the immediate area prior to their taking any long excursions. The Nolls nonetheless left St. Petersburg in early September to return to Jacksonville. On this return trip the Nolls experienced many mechanical difficulties. Major repairs needed to be performed on the vessel in Ft. Myers (See: Agency Exhibit II), and minor repairs were performed in Stuart and Melbourne (See: Agency Exhibits 12 and 13). Upon return to Jacksonville major repairs were required and are continuing to be performed. (See: Agency Exhibits 16, 17, and 27). It is apparent that the starboard engine was not properly repaired, and that considerable dry rot remained on the vessel. The Nolls are presently engaged in litigation respecting their liabilities in connection with the vessel. Whistlers disclaimed any liability for making repairs, but Mrs. Coe, the general manager at Whistlers testified that she would have performed any repairs within 90 days if the vessel had been returned to the yacht basin. Mr. Gannaway and Mr. Mathew had sound reason to believe that there were no discrepancies respecting the operability of the yacht other than those set out in the marine surveys. Mathew and Gannaway had sound reason to believe that all of the repairs required to rectify these discrepancies had been performed at Whistlers. There was no evidence offered to show that either Gannaway or Mathew intentionally misstated any facts to the Nolls, or that they knew or should have known that any statements they made to the Nolls were false. There was no evidence to establish that Mathew had any personal knowledge of any of the dealings or discussions between Gannaway and the Nolls.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the City of Naples's (City) Waterway Marker Permit Application should be granted, given the requirements of Section 327.40, Florida Statutes (2005) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 68-23.105(1)(b)(3) through (6).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Eric Alexander, is a resident of Collier County and a licensed boat captain. He is the owner of a charter boat business operating in Naples Bay, in Collier County waters. The Petitioner, Douglas Finlay is also a resident of the City of Naples and a recreational boater. He operates power boats and a kayak on the waters of Naples Bay involved in this proceeding. The Petitioner, James Pergola is also a resident of Naples and resident of Collier County. He is a recreational boater and uses the waters of Naples Bay for recreational boating purposes. He is also a homeowner, owning a home adjacent to Naples Bay. The Petitioner, Allen Walburn is a resident of Collier County and a licensed boat captain. He owns a charter boat business which operates in the waters of Naples Bay and Collier County. The Petitioner, Collier County, is a political subdivision of the government of the State of Florida. It operates a boat ramp and county park area on the waters of Naples Bay for use by its citizens and other members of the public. Its Sheriff Department employees patrol the waters of Naples Bay seeking to enforce relevant boating safety and other laws and ordinances. The Petitioner, Marine Industries Association of Collier County, Inc. (MIACC), is a non-profit association of businesses which are directly or indirectly involved in the marine industry on, or near the waters of Naples Bay. The members of the association and/or its customers use the waters of Naples Bay in the conduct of their businesses, employment, and for recreational boating and recreational and commercial fishing purposes. The City of Naples (City) is a unit of local government. It has authority to adopt the ordinance which triggered the dispute involved in this proceeding, based upon Section 327.60, Florida Statutes (2005). The City thus has authority to adopt ordinances regulating the operation of vessels on waterways within the jurisdiction of the City, so long as such ordinances or local laws do not conflict with the provisions of Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, or with other state or federal law. The City thus adopted the relevant slow speed, minimum wake boating restricted areas (slow speed zones) at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, FWC, is an administrative agency of the State of Florida charged in pertinent part with managing the navigable waters of the state and with the consideration of waterway marker permit applications filed and arising under Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, and the related rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68. The Intervenor, Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Conservancy), is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its purpose is the protection of the natural environment of Southwest Florida, including advocacy, education and research. The Intervenor, Citizens to Preserve Naples Bay (Citizens), is also a Florida non-profit corporation. Its organizational purpose is to preserve and protect the bay by actively supporting efforts it believes will further that mission. In arriving at its positions on issues affecting Naples Bay, Citizens considers questions of physical, chemical, biological, and navigational safety. The Waterway Marker Permit Application Naples Bay is a water body located within the boundaries of Collier County and the City of Naples. It is an inland water body connected to the Gulf of Mexico at "Gordon Pass." Near the seaward end of Naples Bay on its southerly margin is a connection with Dollar Bay, which extends southward of Naples Bay in the direction of Marco Island. Naples Bay contains a federally-maintained channel used for navigation and commerce. Naples Bay is both a destination and a transit waterway used by local businesses, citizens, and tourists for recreational, business, and commercial purposes. It is used for a wide variety of boating purposes and interests, including commercial fishing, commercial charter boat operations, recreational boating, and recreational fishing purposes, as well as by institutional/scientific users. There are already vessel speed zones established on portions of Naples Bay. The City of Naples, however, adopted ordinance number 04-10664 (the ordinance) creating the additional slow speed zones at issue in this proceeding. The ordinance, adopted on November 17, 2004, establishes new slow speed zones or minimum wake zones in portions of Naples Bay, Dollar Bay, and Gordon Pass. The ordinance was adopted under the authority of Section 327.60, Florida Statutes (2004), which allows a city to adopt ordinances regarding vessel operations on waterways so long as such ordinances or local laws do not conflict with the provisions of Chapter 327, Florida Statutes, or rules promulgated under that chapter. In order to implement the newly adopted slow speed zones the city applied for a Uniform Waterway Marker Permit (Permit) from the FWC on December 23, 2004, in accordance with Sections 327.40 and 327.41, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 68D-23. Section 327.40, Florida Statutes, provides that: Waterways in Florida which need marking for safety or navigational purposes shall be marked [uniformly]. . . . (2)(a) application for marking . . . navigable water under concurrent jurisdiction of the Coast Guard and the division shall be made to the division. . . ." (Emphasis supplied). Section 327.40, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2000 to provide FWC with the authority to adopt regulations to implement that statutory section. Florida Administrative Code Rule 68D-23.105 was amended by the FWC in 2001, pursuant to the statutory purpose of determining which waterways need marking for safety or navigational purposes. Since the time of that amendment the Rule (Florida Administrative Code Rule 68D-23.105(1)(b)), concerning the criteria for approval of regulatory markers, now provides that a valid vessel traffic safety or public safety purpose exists for "slow speed minimum wake" speed zones under the following facts and circumstances: The Division shall find a valid vessel traffic safety or public safety purpose is presented for ordinances adopted pursuant to Section 327.60, Florida Statutes, under the following facts and circumstances: * * * (b) For a slow speed minimum wake boating restricted area if the area is: * * * Subject to unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion. Subject to hazardous water levels or currents, or containing other navigational hazards. An area that accident reports, uniform boating citations, vessel traffic studies, or other creditable data demonstrate to present a significant risk of collision or a significant threat to public safety. * * * Fla. Admin. Code R. 68D-23.105(1)(b). The previous rules, prior to 2001, contained no similar factual criteria to those now found in the above-quoted rule. There are actually six factual criteria in the Rule, but only criteria four, five, and six, quoted above, are at issue in this proceeding, as stipulated by the parties. The FWC issued a Notice of Intent to grant the permit stating that the FWC's Boating and Waterways Section found that the criteria in their referenced rule had been met. See City Exhibit 26 in evidence. In arriving at this Notice of Intent to grant the permit application the FWC did not, however, independently make a determination or confirm that any of the factual circumstances referenced in the above Rule, and, specifically, subsections four through six of the Rule, actually existed. Rather, FWC assumed that all the statements in the application were true and issued the Notice of Intent to grant the permit. Standing Collier County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It expends county funds to provide for the patrol and regulation of safety on the waters of Naples Bay. It regulates Naples Bay through the patrolling of the Collier County Sheriff's Office. Section 125.01(j), Florida Statutes, grants the powers and duties to counties to "establish and administer programs of . . . navigation . . . and to cooperate with governmental agencies and private enterprises in the development and operation of such programs." Collier County also owns and operates the only county- owned boat launching facility on Naples Bay. Collier County citizens have the right to access and enjoy Naples Bay and the waters beyond Naples Bay through that access, including the Gulf of Mexico. Collier County has concurrent jurisdiction over Naples Bay and, like the other Petitioners, is concerned with recreation and enjoyment of use of the waterways of Naples Bay, including access to the Bay and adjacent waterways through traverse of the bay. The Petitioner, Eric Alexander is a resident of Collier County and has been for over 18 years. He is a licensed boat captain. He owns a charter boat business which operates in the waters of Naples Bay and adjacent waters in Collier County. He has recreational, commercial, navigational, and economic interests personal to him invested in the use of Naples Bay for both recreational and commercial purposes, as well as the access it provides to additional waterways. Naples Bay provides Mr. Alexander his only access to the Gulf of Mexico, where he takes his fishing charter parties in the conduct of his business. The proposed speed zones will have a substantial effect on his business and possibly his livelihood because the long transit times involved in the enactment of all the slow speed zones will tend to make his customers use charter boat businesses in other nearby areas that do not have to transit Naples Bay to reach fishing grounds, etc. His testimony of the substantial effect on his charter boat operations posed by the more pervasive slow speed zones was not refuted in the record. He established that his business will be substantially affected by the slow speed zones. The Petitioner, Douglas Finlay has resided in Collier County and Naples for over 10 years. He has been a recreational boater for that period of time. He has recreational and navigational boating interests in Naples Bay, including the access it provides to the Gulf and to additional waterways. He is particularly concerned that the proposed speed zone being moved from the protected area, out to the entrance to the Gulf at Gordon Pass, will adversely impact boating safety. The slow speed zone at that point will adversely impact safe boating operation because sufficient power and steerage provided by higher speed must be maintained to safely navigate the sometimes difficult wave, current, and wind conditions at the entrance to the Gulf. Mr. Finlay is directly affected in terms of his recreational boating and navigational interests by the imposition of the slow speed zones at issue. In terms of this concern, as well as, generally, the resultant long transit times through Naples Bay. The Petitioner, James Pergola resides on the waters of Naples Bay by owning a home on a canal that communicates with the bay. He has been a resident of Collier County for more than 29 years and is a recreational boater. He uses the waters of Naples Bay for all purposes related to recreational boating, including simply operating his boat on and traversing the bay when bound to other locations, as well as for fishing. The proposed speed zones will adversely affect the recreational boating use and trips Mr. Pergola takes on the waters of Naples Bay by substantially increasing transit times through the waters of the bay, a restriction he deems unnecessary from a safety standpoint. The Petitioner, Allen Walburn is a licensed boat captain and owns and operates a charter boat business. He conducts his charter boat operation in Naples Bay and adjacent waters of Collier County and the Gulf of Mexico. He has been a resident of Collier County since 1977. Mr. Walburn has commercial and economic interests which are intertwined with his navigational interests in operating his vessels in the waters of the bay. The restrictions at issue would adversely affect his access and the time of access through the waters of the bay, to additional water ways and to the Gulf. The proposed speed zones, and their adverse effect on transit times through the bay will adversely affect Mr. Walburn's charter boat business. Some days he will not be able to operate two charters in one day, which will substantially reduce his revenue. Additionally, his charter boat customers over time will tend to migrate to charter boat businesses that operate in areas other than Naples Bay and which don't have the attendant long transit times in reaching fishing grounds caused by the proposed speed zones. Thus, the Petitioner Walburn is substantially affected by the proposed permit regarding the slow speed zones, in terms of both his recreational and commercial navigational interests and economic interests related to vessel operations in the waters of Naples Bay. The MIACC is a non-profit trade association. Its members are made up of businesses which directly or indirectly operate in or are related to the marine industry in the vicinity of Naples Bay. Membership in the MIACC includes 60 or more businesses or persons located in Collier County. The members consist of recreational boaters, marina operators, yacht brokers, boat dealers, boat yards, marine construction contractors, marine professionals and charter boat businesses. The association members rely upon reasonable access and reasonable transit times to and through Florida waters and, in particular, Naples Bay. This is important to their engagement in commerce, including the selling, servicing, and maintenance of boats, marine contracting, charter fishing and general recreational boating. The members' market for their products and services, their revenues and the costs of their doing business depends substantially on reasonable public access, transit and safe use of the navigable waters in Naples Bay and the use of adjacent waters, which requires Naples Bay transit. Members of MIACC have lost some business in potential sales of boats and boat slip rentals, from customers who have elected not to locate boats or operate boats in Naples Bay because of the inconvenience caused by the speed zones. These additional speed zones have had the effect of discouraging recreational boating members or potential recreational boaters from boating on Naples Bay. At least one MIACC member has experienced several previous boaters placing their vessels with him for sale, ending their Naples Bay boating activities in the belief that the slow speed zones are, or soon will be, placed into effect. The members of MIACC will incur additional time and costs in conducting sea trials of boats they are placing into service or repairing. The proposed slow speed zones leave only a small area of Naples Bay where boats are allowed to exceed slow speed. Consequently, the proposed slow speed zone will force all boat testing to occur in one small area of Naples Bay. That fact alone will create more congestion and possibly a safety issue in that more confined small area of the bay. It will render more difficult the operation of the members' businesses, which are involved in testing boats and boat engines, and other operational systems of boats, when placed into service as part of a new vessel or when performing repair work on vessels. MIACC and its members' ability to navigate and conduct commerce in Naples Bay will be impeded by the proposed slow speed zones. They will substantially increase the time for fishing charter members to navigate to, from, and between fishing locations and will increase the time for recreational fishermen members of the association to navigate to and between their fishing grounds as well. The proposed slow speed zones will affect MIACC members by causing additional vessel congestion caused by excessively slow speeds over a longer distance, thereby potentially creating a safety issue. An additional and somewhat different safety issue will occur because the slow speed zones will reduce the maneuverability of the vessels moving at slow speeds, a different kind of safety issue than caused by vessels moving at excessive speeds, in terms of steerageway on slow moving vessels and the vessels ability to avoid collisions. The proposed speed zones will affect the members traversing Naples Bay by slow speeds increasing the risk of dangerous weather conditions. The corporate purpose of MIACC is to: represent and educate recreational boating citizens and members of the marine industry and its workforce in the promotion and protection of recreational boating as a traditional family and business past- time and element of commerce. It seeks to promote boating both commercially and recreationally as a source of business activity and tourism. It seeks to protect and enhance the environmental circumstances of Florida waterways. See MIACC Exhibit 26 in evidence. Its purposes are further to promote improved conditions on the waterways of Collier County generally, and improved operating conditions for recreational boating and the commercial boating industries as well. The interest of MIACC and its members in both commercial and recreational boating pursuits will be substantially affected if the relevant slow speed zones are enacted which would pose a significant restriction beyond the limitation already prescribed by state and local law. This is because access to fishing and recreational areas will require longer travel time, with more areas of interest to the boating public eliminated from reasonable use. This will have a negative effect on the manufacture, sale, chartering, docketing, equipping, servicing, maintenance, and operation of boats on the bay and adjacent waterways. The Intervenor, the Conservancy, is a Florida non- profit corporation organized in 1966 headquartered in Naples, Florida. Its purpose is the protection of the natural environment of Southwest Florida, including through environmental advocacy, education, and research. The Conservancy has approximately 4,100 members in Collier County. The Conservancy has conducted scientific research in Naples Bay for more than 20 years in support of its mission. It published the Naples Bay study in 1979, which was one of the first comprehensive studies of that estuary system. That study, and the research conducted by the Conservancy since, involves sampling of water in Naples Bay, primarily to monitor the water quality. Those samples are taken throughout the bay by the Conservancy staff, as well as volunteers. They usually employ a 14-foot Carolina Skiff type fishing boat to perform this work. During the course of its boating experience, conducting its sampling efforts in the bay, the Conservancy staff has encountered boat wake conditions which it believes threaten the safety of the small boat and its occupants which it uses for water sampling. It attributes those threatening boat wakes to the currently permitted boat speeds on Naples Bay and believes that slower boat speeds on the bay would make its research on the bay safer. The Intervenor, Citizens, was incorporated in 1988 as a Florida non-profit corporation. Its primary mission is to preserve and protect Naples Bay by actively opposing any projects or efforts which it believes will adversely affect the bay and by actively supporting projects or efforts it believes will help to preserve or improve the bay. Citizens considers the physical, chemical, biological, and navigational safety questions involved, in matters concerning the bay, upon which it decides to take a position. Citizens has been involved in issues regarding Naples Bay over many years, including the Naples Bay Project Committee upon which its president, Harry Timmons, sat by appointment. That committee investigated Naples Bay safety and made recommendations to the Naples City Council regarding vessel traffic congestion and vessel speed zones. Some 352 citizens members own homes on Naples Bay or on channels or canals connected to the bay. Both Mr. Timmins and Kirk Materne, members of Citizens, have taken positions before the Naples City Council on a number of occasions concerning issues regarding vessel speeds on Naples Bay. Affidavits, introduced into evidence as corroborative hearsay, support the testimony adduced by Citizens to the effect that there are members in addition to Mr. Timmins who own and operate boats on Naples Bay and are affected in some way by the issues concerning boating safety and boating speeds on Naples Bay. Both Mr. Timmins and Mr. Materne are boaters and have operated their boats on Naples Bay for many years. Levels of Vessel Traffic Congestion (Florida Administrative Code Rule 68D-23.105(1)(b)(4)) The applicant City presented the testimony of expert witness Andrew Anderson. Mr. Anderson is a Marine Consultant. Mr. Anderson is a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy and retired from the Coast Guard with the rank of Commander. He served as a boating and safety officer while in the Coast Guard and was certified as a 1,600 ton vessel master. He has captained vessels of varying sizes during his Coast Guard tenure. He has published articles and lectured on boating safety and has been recognized as an expert in boating safety, seamanship, and boating accidents in state and federal courts. He reviewed the City's exhibits, the depositions in this case, boating citations, accident reports, and Coast Guard commission records in preparing for his testimony. Mr. Anderson believes congestion is any situation with a sufficient number of vessels within a certain geographic area and, given the speeds at which they are operating, that there will be a risk of collision if any operator makes a mistake. He described an example he believed constituted congestion around marker 18, where four boats were coming into close proximity of each other, creating an "unsafe condition." Naples Bay's configuration more resembles a wide river than a bay. It is approximately 4.4 miles from marker seven, at the Gulf entrance to the bay, east and northeast to U.S. 41, the most inland extent of the bay. The bay is approximately one- quarter mile wide at its widest point. When Mr. Anderson observed conditions in Naples Bay by traversing it or a portion of it, he observed only approximately 20 to 30 boats. This was on a Tuesday afternoon for approximately two hours, some two weeks prior to the hearing; not as active a day for boating as would be a weekend day or a holiday. Mr. Anderson opined that he felt, "there is a problem with vessel traffic congestion, particularly at speed of 30 miles per hour." He believes that "the higher the speed, the fewer the vessels it takes to have a congested situation." Thus Mr. Anderson expressed the view that Naples Bay was subject to unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion. The basis for his opinion, however, was a mere two hours he spent on Naples Bay on that Tuesday afternoon shortly prior to the hearing. Although he has a great deal of boat safety and operation expertise, as described above, he had not previously navigated Naples Bay for over 30 years until retained as an expert witness by the City. During his two-hour tour of the bay, he found the bay to be congested and yet only saw 20 or 30 boats. Mr. Anderson conceded that the limited question that he was hired by the City to answer for this proceeding was "would the ordinance improve the safety of the boating public on Naples Bay?" He stated that it was his opinion that the ordinance would improve public boating safety. He also conceded that an idle speed zone on the entire Naples Bay (not proposed by the City in the ordinance or the permit application) would also improve safety, implicitly even more. He did not concede, however, that such an idle speed zone restriction for the entire bay would be appropriate. Other subjective testimony, offered by the Petitioners, concerning assessment of vessel traffic congestion was provided by a number of witnesses who collectively have spent thousands of hours in navigation of Naples Bay at various times of the day, week, and year. Those witnesses, such as Captain Alexander, with more than 1000 hours per year navigation of Naples Bay; Captain Walburn, with more than 30 years operating on Naples Bay; Police Officer Ayers, who patrolled the bay five days a week for the last three years; and the Petitioners Pergola and Finlay, collectively testified that it was their opinion that the bay was not subject to unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion. Objective evidence concerning vessel traffic congestion and representing an objective standard therefor, was presented by Petitioner MIACC's expert witness, Dr. Ed Baker. Dr. Baker has extensive site-specific knowledge of Naples Bay as he has previously conducted two vessel traffic surveys of the bay. These surveys analyze traffic patterns, numbers of vessels navigating the bay, and the inventory of vessels with access to the bay. His previous two studies were based on the level of service methodology (LOS) similar to that used with studies of automobile traffic. The LOS methodology was first employed and used in Naples Bay in a study by Heniger and Ray, Inc., a consulting firm commissioned by the City of Naples to measure boat capacity on Naples Bay. The LOS methodology is used to measure the capacity of a system, in this case Naples Bay, and the demand for its use of that system. The LOS for any particular system is an "indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by a system," and it indicates the capacity per unit of demand for the facilities. This methodology showed the carrying capacity of Naples Bay to be 528 vessels per hour (this is aside from the question of what level of congestion that represents). In a roadway transportation system, the relationship between road capacity and the number of vehicles on the road is described by letters A to F. Each letter represents a range of vehicles using the road in comparison to the road capacity. The A through F LOS categories are based on several operating conditions, such as traffic flow, number of vehicles, speed, and maneuverability. See MIACC Exhibit two in evidence. The Heniger and Ray study applied the same LOS methodology to boat traffic on Naples Bay. The Heniger and Ray study, as well as Dr. Baker's studies, defined A to F LOS categories as follows: Level A - represents a free flow condition in which there is little to no restriction on speed or maneuverability; Level B - a zone of stable flow but the presence of other boats begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select speed is relatively unaffected; Level C - a zone of stable flow; speed and maneuverability becomes affected at this level as a result of other boats; Level D - usually a stable flow of traffic, but a high density of boats cause significant restriction on speed and maneuverability; Level E - traffic in an unstable flow representing conditions at or near capacity of the system with speeds and maneuverability severely reduced because of congestion; Level F - traffic in an unstable flow with speed and maneuverability extremely limited by severe congestion; frequent occasions of no forward progress. Each level of service category is defined by increasing values of the volume to capacity ratio, such that LOS A described the situation where up to 15 percent of Naples Bay's carrying capacity is using Naples Bay. Therefore, under LOS A, up to 79 boats per hour would be using Naples Bay. LOS B would describe a situation where up to 27 percent of Naples Bay's carrying capacity LOS is using Naples Bay or 143 boats per hour. LOS C would describe a situation where up to 43 percent of Naples Bay's carrying capacity LOS is using Naples Bay or 228 boats per hour. LOS D would describe up to 64 percent of the carrying capacity, or 338 boats per hour using Naples Bay. LOS E would then equate up to 100 percent of the carrying capacity or up to 528 boats per hour using the bay, and LOS F would describe a situation where boats would exceed the carrying capacity or more than 528 boats per hour resulting in gridlock. The LOS methodology is an objective method by which to analyze vessel traffic on the bay established by the testimony and evidence elicited through Dr. Baker, as well as Dr. Staiger. Dr. Baker's initial Boat Traffic Studies and Models conducted in 1999 and 2002 concluded that at peak times Naples Bay is at an LOS A or B level on 10 out of 13 segments of the bay. Of the remaining three segments, at those times, the LOS level was C. Prior to the hearing in this case, Dr. Baker again conducted a study and survey of the bay to assess the current boat traffic situation. He described that his recent 2005-2006 analysis showed that the LOS for the bay during a weekend in September 2005, and a holiday weekend in January 2006, was at an LOS A or B level. It is noteworthy that the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan adopts LOS C as the acceptable level of service for Naples Bay. The Naples Bay boat traffic studies and Dr. Baker's testimony indicate that there is no unsafe level of vessel traffic congestion on Naples Bay. Major Paul Ouellette of the FWC, testified as to his finding that the permit application with its supporting documentation, and additional data, was insufficient to allow him to conclude that the new speed zones were warranted based upon an unsafe level of vessel traffic congestion. The City of Naples Marine Unit Officer who testified, Russ Ayers, has over three years of daily patrolling experience on Naples Bay. He found that Naples Bay is not subject to unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion. The Naples Bay traffic studies, including those of Dr. Baker and Dr. Baker's testimony, are more objective in terms of applying an objective standard and methodology. The methodology is deemed to be acceptable for practioners and by practioners in Dr. Baker's field of expertise. Because of the more extensive opportunity for observation of Naples Bay and its boat traffic and boat numbers, this testimony and evidence and that of Major Ouellette, Officer Ayers and the Petitioners Alexander and Walburn, is deemed more compelling, credible, and persuasive, than that offered by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Timmins and other evidence offered by the City or Intervenors. Safety concerns caused by boat wakes, boat speeds, and careless, discourteous or illegal operation by boat operators, which cause safety hazards, or fears of safety hazards, do not equate to unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion. The preponderance of the persuasive evidence establishes that Naples Bay is not subject to "unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion." Hazardous Water Levels, Currents or Other Navigational Hazards (Florida Administrative Code Rule 68D-23.105(1)(b)(5)) The Respondents and Intervenors contend that the proposed slow speed zones are needed in the Naples Bay area because of hazardous water levels, currents or that the area contains other navigational hazards. The City seems to contend that boats which are accelerating or decelerating upon leaving or entering the existing slow speed zones themselves constitute "navigational hazards." While the term "navigational hazard" is not defined in the statutes or rules at issue, it has been defined by the U.S. Coast Guard in terms of "hazard to navigation" as "an obstruction, usually sunken, that presents sufficient danger to navigation so as to require expeditious, affirmative action such as marking, removal, or re-definition of a designated waterway to provide for navigational safety." 33 C.F.R. § 64.06 (2005). A "navigational hazard" within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 68D-23.105(1)(b)(5) equates in meaning to be the same as a "hazard to navigation" treated in the above federal rule related to the Coast Guard's jurisdiction. While boats operating under power might, under certain circumstances, (chiefly improper, careless, discourteous, or illegal operation,) be dangerous to the safety of other boaters or users of a waterway, they do not comport with the generally accepted sense of what "navigational hazard" means. It means a fixed object which poses a hazard to navigation of any or all boats operating under power or sail or human propulsion; examples being a sunken vessel, an oyster bar, a shoal, a stump or any other object which might pose a danger if struck by a moving vessel. Some witnesses, such as Captain Walburn, Dr. Staiger, witness Davis, and witness Timmins described such factors as a dock in the channel (encroaching somewhat apparently) between marker 21 and marker 23, narrow or serpentine portions of the Naples Bay Channel, and strong tidal currents in several areas, There is no persuasive evidence, however, to show these are anything other than normal physical complications to be contended with by a reasonably prudent mariner, operating a vessel in the areas in question. They do not pose hazardous conditions, in terms of water levels, currents, or navigational hazards. Thus, there is no preponderant, persuasive evidence that the area of the proposed slow speed zones includes any areas that are subject to hazardous water levels, currents, or contains other navigational hazards. This is established by the testimony of Officer Ayers, among others. Major Ouellette established with his testimony that the permit application with supporting documentation and additional data he reviewed was not sufficient for him to be able to conclude that the new speed zones were warranted because of the area being subject to hazardous water levels, currents, or because it contains other navigational hazards. Thus the preponderant evidence demonstrates that the proposed slow speed zones are not for areas that are subject to these hazardous factors. Whether there is a Significant Risk of Collision or a Significant Threat to Public Safety as Demonstrated by Accident Reports, Boating Citations, Vessel Traffic Studies, or Other Creditable Data Florida Administrative Code Rule 68D-23.105(1)(b)(6) The City adduced testimony from its expert witness, Mr. Anderson, as well as its other witnesses, as did the Intervenors, to the general effect that slowing of boat speeds on Naples Bay would render the bay safer for boat operation and traffic. Such testimony from Mr. Timmins and others, recounted anecdotal incidents where boating accidents occurred. Several of these caused injuries, boat damages, threw boating passengers out of their seats, on one occasion swamped a small boat, and caused another boat to take on water, due to excessive boat wakes of passing vessels. Mr. Timmins has boated on the bay for many years and does not feel safe or comfortable at certain times and in several areas in the bay. He described two places where the channel is significantly narrow and where he described what he felt were unsafe conditions caused by converging boat traffic, such as at the convergence of the Naples Bay channel with the channel entering into Dollar Bay. It is logical to assume that if boat speeds could effectively be substantially reduced or possibly the horsepower of boats or the size of boats using Naples Bay could be drastically reduced, or the numbers of boats using the bay substantially decreased, that Naples Bay could be rendered "safer." However, rendering Naples Bay simply "safer" is not the factual showing required by the above-referenced rule (or the legal standard imposed by it in order for the FWC to issue the waterway marker permit). Rather, the above-referenced sources of information, described in the rule, must demonstrate a significant risk of collision or a significant threat to public safety in order to demonstrate a need for the imposition of the slow speed zones. Accident Reports The MIACC entered its Exhibit 31 into evidence. Exhibit 31 is a summary chart analyzing vessel accidents occurring in Naples Bay between the years 2000-2004. It was prepared by the FWC. Major Ouellette of the FWC, in his expert opinion, concluded that while a total of 17 vessel accidents occurred over that approximate five year period, only four of them could be relevantly linked in their cause and effect to the boat speeds involved, such that new slow speed zones might have prevented those four accidents (assuming the operators involved were complying with the regulation). Indeed, most accidents occurred with vessels already operating in existing slow or idle speed zones or attempting to dock. The evidence adduced by the City and the Intervenors referenced individual reports of some eight accidents occurring over the five-year period, which they maintain are relevant, such that new slow speed zones might have prevented the accidents. Dr. Baker performed an analysis correlating the number of accidents to the number of vessel trips taken in Naples Bay, however. Dr. Baker's analysis using the eight accidents contended to be relevant by the City and the Intervenors, rather than Major Ouelette's finding of four relevant accidents, determined that there was one boat accident for every 67,500 boat trips in Naples Bay during that period of time. One accident per 67,500 boat trips does not establish a significant risk of collision or significant threat to public safety in Naples Bay predicated on the accident reports. Eight accidents over a five-year period is not a "significant risk of collision or significant risk to public safety." The City of Naples Police Department's Marine Unit is charged with enforcing regulations on Naples Bay. It monitors and compiles reports of boating accidents and makes yearly summaries thereof. If the Marine Unit identifies or experiences a significant risk of collision or threat to public safety due to accidents, then additional enforcement action will be taken such as dispatching additional officers to patrol the bay, changes in their schedules or other efforts to reduce the risk or threat concerning collision or public safety. No such action has been taken by the Marine Unit in terms of additional enforcement efforts because, as established by Lt. Traczyk, it experienced no significant risk of collisions or treats to public safety. If such additional enforcement actions were taken and they did not successfully reduce the risk of collision or threats to public safety, the police department's Marine Unit would inform its superiors, such as the chief of police or other officials, that additional measures, such as more stringent regulations, were needed. The City police department, through Chief Moore, however, has not informed or notified the City manager, City counsel or other City officials that additional regulations were needed to address any safety issues on Naples Bay. It did not deem such issues to be significant enough. No Marine Unit Officers have informed their commanders that safety issues existed on the bay because of accidents or congestion of boats. The police department therefore has never suggested or recommended additional speed zones because of accidents or vessel traffic congestion or significant risk of collision or threats to public safety. Major Ouellette established, with his expert testimony, that the accident data did not demonstrate "a significant risk of collision or significant threat to public safety." Thus, the preponderance of persuasive evidence regarding accident data and experience on Naples Bay does not demonstrate that a significant risk of collision or significant threat to public safety exists on the bay. Boating Citations An analysis of the boating citations found approximately 180 citations issued per calendar year for the bay. The vast majority of these citations were issued for vessels violating existing slow speed or idle speed zones. Since the vast majority of citations are issued for violators operating their vessels in existing slow speed, minimal wake or idle speed zones it cannot logically be concluded that the addition of speed zones would reduce boat operators' violations of boating speed limits, whether of the present ones or those proposed. Thus, it has not been established how the fact of the boating citations, in evidence, served to demonstrate a significant risk of collision or a significant threat to public safety, implicating a need for additional speed zones. The fact of the boating citations may demonstrate an enforcement issue or a boat operator education issue, but they do not demonstrate a need for additional speed zones. In fact, to the contrary, Major Ouelette, in his expert opinion, which is accepted, established that boating citations were insufficient to support a conclusion that new slow speed zones were needed. Vessel Traffic Studies As found above, Dr. Baker's testimony and his vessel traffic studies and analysis demonstrate that Naples Bay is operating below its capacity and essentially at LOS A and B. Thus the vessel traffic studies in evidence do not demonstrate "a significant risk of collision or significant treat to public safety" on Naples Bay. Whether "Other Creditable Data" Represents a "Significant Risk of Collision or a Significant Threat to Public Safety" The City's expert witness, Andrew Anderson, opined, based upon his review of the permit application and its supporting data, coupled with only a two-hour observation and experience of conditions on Naples Bay, that the areas proposed for the pertinent speed zones did present a significant risk of collision or significant threat to public safety. The City's own Marine Unit police officer, Russ Ayers, has had more than three years' experience of daily patrols on the water on Naples Bay. He found no significant safety issues on Naples Bay, nor any significant risk of collision or threat to public safety on the bay. Additionally, the Petitioner's witnesses, Police Chief Moore and Lt. Traczyck, determined that there were no significant safety issues on Naples Bay and that a significant risk of collision or of a threat to public safety did not exist. These witnesses established that if the Police Department Marine Unit personnel identify or observe a significant risk of collision or threat to public safety then additional enforcement action or additional regulation would be taken, as found above, in order to alleviate the risk. The Marine Unit has not seen fit, due to its observances, to embark on such additional enforcement actions. Additionally, two Collier County Sheriff's Department Marine Unit Deputies, Rocco Marion and Joe Scalora have extensive experience operating and observing boat traffic and Marine conditions on Naples Bay. They have found no significant risk of collision or significant threat to public safety on Naples Bay. Because it was based upon thousands of hours operating vessels on Naples Bay, at all times of the day, week and year, the testimony of Capt. Alexander established that the bay does not experience a significant risk of collision or threat to public safety. His testimony is corroborated by that of Major Ouelette, as found above. In summary, the testimony and evidence adduced by the Petitioners is more credible, persuasive, and compelling than that of the Respondents and Intervenors. It is accepted as the most "creditable data" in establishing that the proposed slow speed zones are not in areas where accident reports, uniform boating citations, vessel traffic studies, or other creditable data demonstrate a significant risk of collision or significant risk to public safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: that a final order be entered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission denying the subject waterway marker permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006 Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of December, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Matthes, Esquire Captain Allen Richards, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Frank E. Matthews, Esquire Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Douglas Finlay 3430 Gulf Shore Boulevard North, No. 5H Naples, Florida 34103-3681 Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esquire Colleen M. Greene, Esquire Collier County Attorney's Office 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112-4902 Allen Walburn 678 14th Avenue South Naples, Florida 34102-7116 Eric Alexander 654 Squire Circle Naples, Florida 34101-8352 Jack Hall 2675 Bayview Drive Naples, Florida 34112-5825 James Pergola 1830 Kingfish Road Naples, Florida 34102-1533 Dave Sirkos 750 River Point Drive Naples, Florida 34102-1400 Mimi S. Wolok, Esquire 1112 Trial Terrace Drive Naples, Florida 34103-2306 Robert G. Menzies, Esquire James D. Fox, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Michael R.N. McDonnell, Esquire McDonnell Trial Lawyers 5150 Tamiami Trial North, Suite 501 Naples, Florida 34103 Ken Haddad, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent was a licensed pilot in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 0000025. On January 15, 1986, Respondent boarded the ship Act 5 as her state pilot for approaching an intended berth at Port Everglades. The Act 5 was over 700 feet long, had a single handed screw, a single rudder and was equipped with bow thrusters. The ship drew 34 feet at her stern on the date in question. The ship had a bulbous bow which protruded outwardly under the forward waterline. A tugboat, the Captain Nelson, captained by John A. Cummings was beside the Act 5 to assist in the berthing maneuver. The approach to Port Everglades is negotiated through a narrow canal. Vessels seeking berth proceed through the canal, past a jetties area, and into a turning basin. Once inside the basin a turn is required in order to bring a ship parallel to the intended berth. On January 15, 1986, the Act 5 was to be berthed at a location on pier 3 identified as berth 17. In order to approach berth 17 a sweeping turn to port must be made. On that date the Captain Nelson was positioned off the starboard bow during the Act 5's swing to port. Once this swing had been initiated, the Respondent ordered the tug to proceed to the port stern quarter. It was intended that the tug would assist to breast the ship beside the docking area. After the tug had begun its trip from starboard bow to stern, Respondent realized that the ship's swing would not be sufficient to bring her parallel to the dock. Accordingly, the Respondent ordered the tug to hook up and to pull at full throttle to slow the ship and bring her parallel. Additionally, since it was apparent the ship might collide with the dock, the despondent ordered the Act 5 to reverse at full throttle. Despite the corrective efforts, the Act 5 did not swing sufficiently to port and her bulbous bow struck the underplatting of the dock at berth 17. The platting cracked and the fill behind it washed out. When the fill washed out, the road built on top collapsed and the dock eroded. Approximately sixty feet of dock surface was destroyed. Unpredictable surface and subsurface currents in Port Everglades very dramatically affect docking procedures. The tides, which are repetitive, also affect docking maneuvers. Given the fluctuating tides and currents within the Port Everglades turning basin, it is not uncommon for a ship's handling to be predictable. Given the tide and current conditions known to Respondent on the date at issue, the collision was unpredictable and unforeseeable by a reasonably prudent pilot. Given the times and speeds noted in the Act 5's "bell book," the Respondent approached the intended berth under prevailing standards used by other pilots at Port Everglades.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pilot Commissioners enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's, DPR/Board of Pilot Commissioners, proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, the times and speeds noted in the Act 5's bell book are estimates which are within a reasonable range for approaching berth at Port Everglades. Distances are in unsubstantiated estimates and should not suggest Respondent used excessive speed. Three witnesses testified the ship approached at a reasonable rate. Such direct evidence controls over speculative estimates. Accordingly, paragraph 4 is rejected. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, the cause of the collision is unknown. The ship did not swing to port sufficiently to become parallel to the dock. This lack of swing, coupled with the forward movement of the ship, resulted in the collision. As to why the ship did not continue its swing is speculative. Surface tides and currents as well as subsurface currents interfere with docking maneuvers and may have inhibited the swing. With regard to paragraph 10, the tides and currents noted were only surface ones. The subsurface currents which run deeper and which might effect a ship the size and draw of the Act 5 were not measured or charted. With that clarification, paragraph 10 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 11, it logically follows that Respondent's unforeseeable encounter would then serve as a warning to pilots involved in future docking procedures. That such pilots have benefitted from Respondent's incident does not suggest Respondent should have prejudged the problems. Accordingly, paragraph 11 is rejected as immaterial, irrelevant, and unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent's proposed finding of fact: Paragraphs 1-51 are accepted. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 53 is rejected a unnecessary, irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraphs 54-58 are rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial, or argumentative. Paragraphs 59-62 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 63 and 64, the Act 5 did collide with the underplatting at berth 17. The impact was felt by the tug Captain. Whether the dock was poorly maintained (and should have withstood the impact) or whether the fenders should have absorbed the shock is speculative but the touching was established. However, such touching was not caused by excessive speed or conduct falling below acceptable standards of safe pilotage. With that clarification, the paragraphs 63 and 64 are accepted. Paragraph 65 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Margaret Mathews, Esquire One Tampa City Center Suite 2600 201 N. Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
