The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan adopted through Ordinance No. 11-01 (“Plan Amendments”), are "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Gulf Trust Development, LLC (“Gulf Trust”) is a Florida corporation doing business in Manatee County. Gulf Trust is the contract vendee of property owned by Robinson Farms, Inc. Robinson Farms, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business in Manatee County and owning real property in the County. Manatee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184. Standing John Neal, the owner and manager of Gulf Trust appeared and spoke at the May 5, 2011, transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and at a later work session of the Board of County Commissioners on the Plan Amendments. Neal testified that, on these occasions, he was speaking for Gulf Trust and for Robinson Farms. William Robinson, the president of Robinson Farms, confirmed that Neal was authorized in advance to represent Robinson Farms at the public meetings on the Plan Amendments. The County contends that there is no evidence that Neal represented any entity other than himself, but the testimony of Neal and Robinson constitutes evidence. The Plan Amendment All coastal communities must have a coastal management element of their comprehensive plans that, among other things, designates the coastal high-hazard area ("CHHA"). See § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. The CHHA is defined in the statute as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." The CHHA must be mapped in the comprehensive plan. See § 163.3178(9)(c), Fla. Stat. The Manatee County planning staff proposed the Plan Amendments as a response to the publication of the 2010 Statewide Regional Evacuation Study for the Tampa Bay Region ("Storm Tide Atlas") by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. The Storm Tide Atlas is a public safety planning tool used to assist local governments with hurricane evacuation planning in a four-county region in the Tampa Bay Area, which includes Manatee County. It incorporates the SLOSH model to predict storm surge heights during hurricanes and includes storm tide zone maps depicting the landward extent of anticipated storm surge for the five categories of storms. The 2010 Storm Tide Atlas made use of a new mapping technique known as LIDAR, a remote-sensing laser terrain mapping system, which is more accurate than past technology used for topographic mapping. The Plan Amendments include an amendment to the definition of the CHHA, which brings the definition in line with the statutory definition. That change is not opposed by Petitioners. Petitioners' opposition focuses on the amended definition of Coastal Evacuation Area ("CEA") and the new maps of the CEA. The CEA is not a term used in chapter 163. The CEA is now defined in the Introduction and Definitions section of the Manatee Plan as follows: The evacuation for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to Manatee County pursuant to Ch. [sic] 163.3178(2)(h), F.S. as updated on a periodic basis. The CEA is a tool for emergency management. It identifies the area where people must evacuate in the event of a category 1 hurricane. The purpose of the CEA is described in Policy 2.2.2.4.2 as follows: To limit population in the Category 1 hurricane evacuation area requiring evacuation during storm events. To limit the amount of infrastructure, both private and public, within the CEA Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating for loss of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents. To, through exercise of the police power, increase the degree of protection to public and private property, and to protect the lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce the risk of exposing lives or property to storm damage. To accomplish shoreline stabilization along coastal areas by limiting development activity which may adversely impact shoreline stability. To protect coastal water quality by reducing impervious surface along coastal areas, thereby reducing the risk of incomplete treatment of stormwater runoff before discharge into coastal waters. To encourage, establish and maintain vegetative and spatial buffer zones, in order to maintain the capacity of natural vegetative communities in mitigating the negative effects of storm surge and tidal velocity, and the erosive effect of wave action. Policy 2.2.2.4.5 prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on lands within the CEA. Whether the CEA and the CHHA are the Same The Plan Amendments would change the definition of the CEA to remove the reference to section 163.31878(2)(h): Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA) - The evacuation Level A for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the hurricane evacuation study applicable to Manatee County, as updated on a periodic basis. Petitioners claim that the current definition of the CEA, cited in paragraph 11, above, makes the CEA identical to the CHHA and that by removing the reference to section 163.3178(2)(h), the CEA and the CHHA would be different for the first time. Although the definition of the CEA refers to section 163.3178(2)(h) where the CHHA is defined, the definition of the CEA does not express the proposition urged by Petitioners -- that the CEA and the CHHA are identical. As explained below, in order to map the CEA, the County begins with the map of the CHHA and then makes adjustments to it. Therefore, it is not illogical for the definition of the CEA to refer to section 163.3178(2)(h). The reference to the statute does not compel an interpretation that the CEA was intended to be identical to the CHHA. Another definition of the CEA appears in Policy 2.2.2.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE"). There, the CEA is defined as "the geographic area which lies within the evacuation area for a Category 1 hurricane." This definition of the CEA does not refer to section 163.3178(2)(h). Some of the testimony from County employees about the relationship between the CEA and the CHHA was ambiguous, but the ambiguity can be attributed to the way the witnesses were examined by Petitioners. Three County planners were each asked to admit that, because the definition of the CEA (in the definitions section of the Manatee Plan) refers to section 163.3178(2)(h), the CEA and the CHHA must be the same thing. The questions confused the witnesses. Kathleen Thompson, the Planning Manager, did not think the CHHA and the CEA are the same, Sharon Tarman, a planner, said they are. John Osborne, the Planning and Zoning Official, said the definition of the CEA "implied" that the CEA and CHHA are the same. A quick glance at the existing maps of the CHHA and the CEA in the Manatee Plan is sufficient to reveal that that the CHHA and the CEA are not the same. See Manatee County Exhibit 1, pages 232-234. The CHHA has irregular boundaries. The CEA is larger and has many regular (straight line) boundaries. Considering the two definition of the CEA, the ambiguous testimony of the County planners, and the CHHA and CEA maps, it is found that one definition of the CEA is ambiguous, but the County intended the CEA and the CHHA to be different and, as implemented, the CEA and the CHHA are different. The proposed change to the definition of the CEA in the definitions section to remove the reference to section 163.3178(2)(h) eliminates the ambiguity in the definition and makes it conform to the definition in FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.1. It is not a substantive change. The CHHA is the area below a category 1 storm surge line as produced by a computer model. In contrast, the CEA is an evacuation zone. The Storm Tide Atlas states that emergency management officials use several factors in determining evacuation zones, not just storm surge data: [I]t is important to note that the storm tide boundaries are not the only data used in this determination. Local officials use their knowledge of the area and other data such as: areas of repetitive loss, surge depth, freshwater flooding, isolation issues and debris hazards, and typically choose known landmarks to identify boundaries for public warning and information. In Manatee County, emergency management officials started with the CHHA line, and then adjusted the boundaries to follow streets, natural geographical features, and parcel boundaries so that the resulting CEA provided a better tool for emergency management and public information. That is why the CHHA has irregular boundaries, but the CEA has many regular (straight line) boundaries. The proposed CEA includes 10,690 fewer acres than the existing CEA because of the substantial changes that resulted from using the newest generation of the SLOSH model and the new LIDAR technology. The proposed CEA includes 8,365 more acres than are within the proposed CHHA as a result of the adjustment of the CHHA line to coincide with nearby streets and other geographic features, and with parcel boundaries. Petitioners argue that the effect of the change in the definition of the CEA is to add 8,365 acres to the area which is subject to the prohibition in Policy 2.2.2.4.5 against increases in allowable residential density. However, because the change in the definition of the CEA is not substantive, the real effect of the new mapping of the CEA is to reduce the lands subject to the prohibition by 10,690 acres. Public Notice Petitioners contend that public notice requirements were not met for the public hearings for the Plan Amendments. That contention is based on the claim that the Plan Amendments cause 8,365 acres of land to be added to the area subject to the prohibition against future increases in allowable residential density. Because that claim is rejected, Petitioners public notice issues are also rejected. Furthermore, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, allegations of inadequate public notice are irrelevant in a compliance determination. Data and Analysis Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendments are not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. The argument is based in large part on Petitioners' contention that the CEA and the CHHA used to be co-extensive, which is rejected above. Petitioners claim that the County failed to consider flooding, wave height, and other factors when mapping the CEA. The CEA boundaries were placed at streets and other physical landmarks as well as parcel boundaries, in order to make the area subject to evacuation clearer for emergency management officials and the public.2/ This is a sufficient basis to explain the boundaries of the CEA. The relevant data for such a purpose would be the location of the CHHA in relationship to nearby streets, other physical landmarks, and parcel boundaries. Petitioners did not show that any particular CEA boundary was illogical or inappropriate. Mitigation Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments do not include the mitigation measures referred to in section 163.3178(9)(a). The statute states that a proposed amendment shall be found in compliance with the state coastal high-hazard provisions if: The adopted level of service for out-of- county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a Category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale; or A twelve hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a Category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and shelter space reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by a proposed comprehensive plan amendment is available; or Appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy Subparagraph 1 or Subparagraph 2 above. Appropriate mitigation shall include, without limitation, payment of money, contribution of land and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Required mitigation may not exceed the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development. A local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan. These provisions are stated as alternatives. The mitigation measures referred to in subparagraph 3. are only applicable if the criteria stated in subparagraph 1. or 2. are not met. Petitioners did not prove that the County does not meet the standard described in subparagraph 2. Furthermore, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, section 163.3178(9) does not require that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph 3. must be included in a comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments adopted by Manatee County Ordinance No. 11-01 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 2nd day of March, 2012.
Conclusions The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FWC” or ‘““Commission’) hereby enters the following Final Order. ISSUE AND SUMMARY The Commission issued a permit to Chris Johnson to conduct leatherback turtle research through the Loggerhead Marinelife Center, Inc. (hereinafter “LMC’”) in 2001 and has continuously reissued this permit. However, Chris Johnson’s employment with LMC was recently terminated. On January 22, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson, Filed October 2, 2014 3:57 PM Division of Administrative Hearings authorizing him to conduct leatherback turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the Commission issued a permit to Sarah Hirsch, Data Manager for LMC, to conduct marine turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire, who works for LCM, to conduct a subset of the same activities that Chris Johnson’s permit authorizes Chris Johnson to perform with leatherback turtles. On February 12, 2014, LMC filed a Request for Enlargement of Time to File Petition. On February 28, 2014, LMC filed a Petition for a Formal Administrative Hearing, and on April 25, 2014, LMC filed an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “LMC Petition”), challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson. The LMC Petition states that the activities Chris Johnson proposes to conduct under his permit are not in the public interest as his activities would interfere with the research LMC conducts under contract with Palm Beach County, and would duplicate research that LMC employees have conducted for more than 20 years on the same beaches. The LMC Petition states that Chris Johnson has demonstrated no need for his research. The LMC Petition disputes that Chris Johnson has the necessary permits or concurrence from the appropriate park management units to conduct the research and claims that Chris Johnson submitted materially false information in his application for a permit. The LMC Petition states that following his termination by LMC, Chris Johnson misappropriated LMC’s leatherback sea turtle data set to start his own organization, and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, Chapter 68E-1, and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. LMC has filed a separate civil action against Chris Johnson alleging, among other things, the misappropriation of turtle data from LMC. The Commission transferred the case to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on April 17, 2014, which was assigned DOAH Case No. 14-001651. The permittee, Chris Johnson, filed a Motion to Intervene in the case on April 29, 2014, and was granted party status on April 30, 2014. On June 3, 2014, Chris Johnson filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “Johnson Petition’’) challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Manire at LMC, The Johnson Petition primarily states that the application for this permit was an attempt to keep Chris Johnson from being able to conduct his research, that Dr. Manire’s permit interferes with Chris Johnson’s permit, that Dr. Manire does not have the requisite knowledge and skill to conduct the permitted activities, that the public’s interest is best served by having Chris Johnson conduct the research and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, and Rules 68E- 1002(2), 68E-1.004(6) and (17), and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. On June 12, 2014, the permittees, Dr. Charles Manire and LMC, filed a Petition to Intervene, and were granted party status on June 19, 2014. This case was transferred to DOAH and assigned DOAH Case No. 14-002806. On June 23, 2014, this case was consolidated with LMC v. Chris Johnson and FWC, DOAH Case No. 14-001651, which was pending before DOAH. On July 22, 2014, Christopher Johnson filed a motion seeking sanctions, including attorney’s fees, On September 8, 2014, LMC, stating that the administrative action is negatively impacting LMC’s civil action and the turtle nesting season has passed, voluntarily dismissed its petition without prejudice, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of the permit to Chris Johnson. On September 8, 2014, Dr. Manire withdrew his application for a permit. As the substantive issues in the case were rendered moot by LMC’s dismissal of its petition and Dr. Manire’s withdrawal of his application, on September 11, 2014, DOAH relinquished jurisdiction over the permitting issues back to the Commission. However, DOAH retained jurisdiction over the issue of attorney’s fees. WHEREFORE, as LMC has voluntarily dismissed its Petition, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157 to Chris Johnson, the permit is hereby GRANTED. As LMC and Dr. Charles Manire have voluntarily withdrawn their application for the permit, the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire at LMC is hereby DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida this 30 day of September, 2014. t= Eric Sutton Assistant Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Filed with The Agency Clerk MULL, This 2 day of-September, 2014 LIFE Oe Sbtobe 7 enrol ATTEST: yy % ono Agency Clerk Cyriteeesanst CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above FINAL ORDER has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Rachael M. Bruce, 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Alfred Malefatto, Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Lewis Longman & Walker, 315 S. Calhoun St Ste 830, Tallahassee, FL 32301-1872; Frank Rainer, Broad and Cassel, PO Box 11300, Tallahassee, FL 32302-3300; and David ge Broad and Cassel, 2 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 21, Miami, FL 33131-1800, on this day “ane Copies furnished to: Ryan Smith Osborne (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Michael Yaun (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Florida Bar No. 956953 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (850) 487-1764 NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS The foregoing constitutes final agency action in this matter. Any party adversely affected has the right to seek judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to section 120.68 Florida Statutes, and rule 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office of the General Counsel, and the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of that this Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. The Notice filed with the District Court of Appeal must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee required by law.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Petitioner's (Mrs. R. C. Horton) amended petition filed by her son, Charles H. Horton, which petition opposes the proposed permit/certification that the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, intends to issue to the Consolidated City of Jacksonville. Particularly, this concerns the Permit/ Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida. The placard number is 01496. The Petitioner in this cause, Mrs. R. C. Horton, resides at 7357 Goodnow Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, on property which is adjacent to the project site in issue. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida which has, among other duties, the consideration of permits which involve maintenance dredging. The authority for this activity on the part of Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is found in Chapter 253 and/or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The second Respondent in this cause is the Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch. The Consolidated City of Jacksonville is a municipality in Duval County, Florida. The proposal in dispute is that request to excavate approximately 9700 cubic yards of material at the site by realignment of 600 feet of canal; widening 250 feet and cleaning and shaping 100 feet of drainage way in the location of Section 56, Township 3 South, Range 27 East, on Eagle Branch, a channelized drainage way in Duval County, Florida. The stated purpose of this work is to prevent an encroachment of the branch onto private property in the area of the 600-foot realignment. An additional purpose is to promote better drainage. The Petitioner's challenge to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulations intent to grant the permit was premised primarily on the testimony of Charles Horton and certain photographic slides which he presented in the course of that Hearing. It is Mr. Horton's position that if the work as applied for were completed, there would be erosion to the property of Mrs. R. C. Horton and a problem with siltation at the mouth of the Eagle Branch where it flows into Pottsburg Creek. In the mind of Charles Horton, this theory is supported by the opinion that clearing out and widening will increase the velocity of the water flowing out of the Eagle Branch, thereby promoting advanced erosion, and by the past when the Eagle Branch channelized in the early fifties and there was a problem with siltation and erosion, to the extent that maintenance dredging was necessary in the 1960's. (Moreover, Charles Horton was concerned about the cost considerations involved in the project; however, he was advised by the undersigned that the purpose of the hearing sub judice was not to question the cost, but to consider the effect of the project on water quality and biological resources as contemplated by Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code.) The petitioner did not offer engineering studies or other forms of data which would support the opinion of Mr. Horton. In defense of the project, the Respondent, Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch, offered testimony from George R. Knecht, a civil engineer. Mr. Knecht has had experience in this type project over a period of the last 7-1/2 years. He stated in testimony that the aims of the project were to take the creek bed away from private property on the north side of the city maintenance yard by process of realignment, and to clean out the Eagle Branch, thereby decreasing the velocity of the water flowing through that branch in the area of the maintenance yard. (The maintenance yard may be seen on the Respondent, Consolidated City of Jacksonville's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into Evidence.) It was to these ends that the City of Jacksonville submitted its proposals for permit, which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, received the application and made an application appraisal, which may be found as Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. In the process of conducting the appraisal, a biological study was done and other steps were taken to discern the effect of the project on water quality in the area which includes a flood plain at the mouth of the Eagle Branch, which flows into Pottsburg Creek. Among the things that were required as conditions to the granting of the permit were the placing of turbidity curtains at the mouth of the branch during the course of the entire construction; monitoring the turbidity daily on the downstream side of the turbidity curtain during the dredging operation; containing the dredging through the swamp flood plain in the existing channel to avoid destruction of trees of the flood plain, and placing the spoil from the flood plain on the existing berm or removing it to uplands. (These conditions, and a statement of intent to grant the permit, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence.) The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, also received comments from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and those comments may be found in the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The intent to grant the permit incorporates the protections suggested by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The testimony on the approach of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation to the request for permit was offered by Jeremy Tyler and Dave Scott, employees of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Upon consideration of the testimony offered, it is concluded that water quality and biological resources will not be unreasonably affected, and that it would be in keeping with requirements of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code, to allow the granting of Permit/Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida.
Recommendation It is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue Permit/Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida, for the benefit of Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles H. Horton, Esquire 757 Goodnow Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Carole Joy Barice, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Brown, Esquire Assistant Counsel 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by Ordinances 97-56, 97-59, 97-61, 97-63, 97-64, 97-66, and 97-67 are in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Background On November 14, 1997, Respondent Collier County (the County) adopted numerous amendments to its Growth Management Plan (the Plan). The County adopted these Plan amendments (the Plan Amendments) pursuant to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). By law, local governments must assess their comprehensive plans every seven years and prepare an EAR. On December 24, 1997, Petitioner Department of Community Affairs (DCA) published its Notice of Intent to find the Plan Amendments not in compliance with the criteria of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (Chapter 163), and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (Chapter 9J-5). A detailed Statement of Intent is attached to the Notice of Intent. The petition of DCA incorporates the Statement of Intent. The petition of Intervenors Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., and Florida Wildlife Federation (Intervenors) also incorporates by reference the Statement of Intent. The petitions cite 16 grounds for a determination that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance with Chapter 163 and Chapter 9J-5, although, at hearing, Intervenors dropped Issue 5. Intervenor Collier County School Board (School Board) intervened to defend the Plan Amendments regarding the siting of schools. The parties stipulated to the standing of all of the parties. The Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendments (County Exhibit 1), discloses repealed and added language by strikeouts and underlines, respectively. All but two of the issues involve amended Plan provisions. The two exceptions are the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) (Issue 1) and Housing Element (Issue 4). In Issue 1, DCA and Intervenors challenge ICE Policy 1.2.6 and its effect of allowing schools to be sited anywhere in Collier County. Although the County did not amend ICE Policy 1.2.6, it substantially amended another Plan provision with the effect of relaxing restrictions on the siting of schools. In Issue 4, DCA and Intervenors challenge Plan provisions governing farmworker housing as not supported by the best available data and analysis. Although the County did not amend these Plan provisions, Petitioner and Intervenors contend that updated data and analysis demanded that the County do so. Issue 1 ICE Policy 1.2.6 states: The County shall continue to coordinate with the Collier County School Board on the site selection for new schools and the provision of infrastructure, particularly roads, to support existing and proposed school facilities in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement adopted in accordance with Chapter 163.3177 F.S. on June 25, 1996. Although unamended by the Plan Amendments, ICE Policy 1.2.6 is subject to challenge because of the effect of other EAR amendments on school siting. Plan Amendments in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affect school siting, but the effect of other Plan Amendments is to restrict slightly school-siting standards. For instance, prior to the Plan Amendments, the Plan generally allowed schools in areas designated Agricultural/Rural. As amended, FLUE II.g adds some restrictions to schools as a land use in areas designated Agricultural/Rural. This provision reads: Community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, and schools which shall be subject to the following criteria: Site area and school size shall be subject to the General Educational Facilities Report submitted annually by the Collier County School Board to the Board of County Commissioners. The Site must comply with the State Requirements for Educational Facilities adopted by the State Board of Education. The site shall be subject to all applicable State or Federal Regulations. The County made the identical change in permitting schools in the Conservation designation. For the Urban designation, the County repealed the identical former language, but, in adding schools as a permitted use, did not include the three bulleted provisions quoted above. However, a Plan Amendment to the Sanitary Sewer Subelement (Sanitary Sewer) outweighs the slight restrictions added in the Plan Amendments to the FLUE and results in a net relaxation of the school-siting standards. In the Plan Amendments, the County repealed Sanitary Sewer Subelement (Sanitary Sewer) Policy 1.1.6, which provided: By January 1, 1990, review existing criteria and regulatory framework for septic tank installations and determine the suitability of same for Collier County by December 31, 1990, implement local ordinances regulating septic tank installations if above review indicates need to do so. Prior to its repeal, Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 threatened the continued reliance on septic tanks, especially for more intensive uses, such as schools. Although reliance upon septic tanks is not the School Board's preferred means of disposing of sanitary sewage, the School Board has determined that the use of septic tanks is economically feasible. At present, septic tanks exclusively serve the sanitary sewer needs of one public school, Big Cypress Elementary School, which is located on Golden Gate Boulevard east of State Road 951 and is attended by over 1000 students. As long as Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 was in effect, the School District was on notice that its ability to site schools without regard to the availability of central sewer, including larger package plants, was in doubt. The repeal of Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 eliminates that doubt and invites school-siting decisions without regard to Plan-imposed, or at least -threatened, requirements of central sewer. As a result of the Plan Amendments, the Plan effectively allows the School District to site schools through the entire range of future land use designations, including conservation areas. In place of regulating school uses like other land uses--i.e., in the Plan--the County instead has elected to resolve school-siting issues through another means--i.e., an Interlocal Agreement, which is mentioned in Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.2.6. However, the use of the Interlocal Agreement, rather than the Plan, attenuates public participation, precludes plan challenges by the public or DCA under Chapters 163 and 9J-5, and fails to ensure that the two parties will site schools consistent with the minimum criteria of Chapters 163 and 9J-5. Withdrawing school-siting decisions from the comprehensive planning process interferes with the ability of the Plan to address the demand that schools will place upon public facilities, such as traffic, sewer, water, solid waste, drainage, and recreation. As do the County and School Board in the Interlocal Agreement, the Florida Department of Education likewise recognizes the direct effects of school siting. Section 1.4(2) of the State Requirements for Educational Facilities, 1997, published by the Florida Department of Education, identifies numerous factors that school boards should consider in siting schools, including the compatibility of uses of adjacent property, the capacity of roads, and the effect (on the buildings) of siting in a floodplain. As the floodplain can affect the school, so the school can affect the floodplain, but the effects of schools on natural and manmade resources receives little, if any, attention in the State Requirements for Educational Facilities or the Interlocal Agreement. When addressing public facilities, the educational planning documents focus on the effects upon the users of the school, such as the capacity of the roads to accommodate the parents driving their children to school or the location of the school in an area safe from flooding. Schools also have indirect effects on natural and manmade resources, especially when a public school is sited in a relatively undeveloped area. Induced sometimes by the availability of relative inexpensive land and developer-provided incentives, the construction of a public school exemplifies the "if you build it, they will come" scenario. The construction of a public school may compete with excess road capacity as a development-attractor to a relatively undeveloped area within a larger area undergoing brisk population growth. Thus, school- siting decisions may have large indirect effects on the natural and manmade resources in an area, well in excess of the impact of the school itself or the demand upon public facilities made by its users. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, after consideration of the Plan Amendments affecting the siting of schools, ICE Policy 1.2.6 is inconsistent with the criterion of designating the future general distribution, location, and extent of educational uses of land. By ignoring the issue of school-siting in the Plan, the County has failed to address, in the planning process and in the Plan, issues such as the proximity of schools to existing or future residential development, the identification of land uses incompatible with schools, and the prohibition of the siting of schools in locations that fail to preserve environmentally sensitive lands, such as floodplains, unique native habitats, or habitats for listed species. By relaxing its school-siting standards, the Plan fails to meet the pleaded minimum criteria of land use planning and forfeits an opportunity to discourage urban sprawl and encourage a comprehensive planning solution to the challenges of population growth and the development and redevelopment of land. Issue 2 As amended, Natural Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Subelement (Groundwater) Objective 1.2 replaces a promise to adopt a groundwater protection ordinance by August 1, 1989, with the following: Implement the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance that includes: regulation of land use activities County-wide as well as within wellfield protection zones surrounding identified public water supply wellfields and identified sensitive recharge areas; and County-wide ground water quality criteria, to protect the County's ground water resources as well as sensitive recharge areas. Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.4 provide: The Ordinance will address both existing and projected future land use and surface activities. Apply action criteria specified in the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance to both existing and future regulated development according to procedures specified in the Ordinance to protect the County's ground water resources. The Ordinance will continue Apply criteria for ground water protection specified in enforcement procedures specified in the Ordinance, to provide an appropriate level of protection to sensitive recharge areas. The Ordinance will address the breaching of confining units by improper well construction, rock mining and other excavations, blasting and other similar activities. Apply the criteria of those sections of the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance that address: breaching of confining units by improper well construction, rock mining and other excavations, blasting, and other similar activities to protect recharge of the Surficial Aquifer System, to planned/permitted future development. The County will implement the Ordinance in a manner to minimize duplication of effort between the County and other State agencies. Implementation of the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance will follow Ordinance procedures, and other internal County procedures in a manner to minimize duplication of effort among County, municipal, and State agencies. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Groundwater Objective 1.2 does not supply a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. As presently formulated, this objective is nothing but a promise of the implementation of a land development regulation whose regulatory content or performance criteria are omitted from the Plan. The objective defers the establishment of regulatory content and performance standards to the land development regulations. The objective itself offers no protection to the groundwater resources or aquifer recharge areas because the County has relegated this crucial task to the land development regulations. The deferral and relegation of regulatory content and performance standards--required by Chapters 163 and 9J-5--to the land development regulations gravely undermines the entire comprehensive planning process for several reasons. Through deferral and relegation, the County retains the ability to amend or repeal the regulatory content and performance standards without a Plan amendment, which means without the public participation, agency review, and opportunity for a hearing that must accompany Plan amendments. Through deferral and relegation, the County insulates the regulatory content and performance criteria that are required to be in the Plan from determinations of consistency with the criteria of Chapters 163 and 9J-5 (including the crucial criteria of minimum content and supporting data and analysis), the regional policy plan, and the state comprehensive plan. Deferral and relegation to land development regulations do not insulate the provisions setting regulatory content and performance criteria from a consistency determination with the provisions of the Plan. However, the deferral and relegation effectively limit substantially affected persons to challenging the consistency of the land development regulations with the Plan, although this may be a meaningless right if the Plan lacks the required regulatory content and performance standards, against which the land development regulations may be compared. Also, because the comparison is between a land development regulation and Plan provision, the result of a finding of any inconsistency raises the likelihood of the elimination of the land development regulation, rather than the Plan provision with which it is in conflict, due to the relative ease of amendment or repeal of land development regulations as opposed to Plan provisions. Lastly, through deferral and relegation, the County insulates any regulatory content and performance criteria from an enforcement action, under Chapter 163, concerning development orders that are inconsistent with Plan provisions. Although other enforcement actions may be available for development orders inconsistent with land development regulations, the Chapter 163 action provides the added safeguards of statutory intervention by the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and recognition of relatively broad standing among private parties. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the four policies do not identify programs and activities by which the County will achieve the planning goals or objectives that the policies are supposed to serve. Like Groundwater Objective 1.2, Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4 improperly defer and relegate to the land development regulations the identification of those programs and activities that are required to be in the Plan. The policies are impermissibly vague because they rely on land development regulations to identify the programs and activities necessary to achieve goals and objectives, rather than identify in the Plan the programs and activities, possibly leaving to the land development regulations the task of providing an additional level of detail for these programs and activities. For the reasons stated in Paragraphs 26-30 above, the County has improperly deferred and relegated to the land development regulations descriptive material that must be contained in the Plan. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan, including Groundwater Objective 1.2, is inconsistent with the criterion of an objective protecting the functions of natural groundwater recharge, and the Plan, including Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.4, is inconsistent with the criterion of regulating land use and development to protect the functions of natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. Issue 3 Drainage Subelement (Drainage) Policy 1.1.2 provides: Outline how to iImplement procedures and projects within the County's Land Development Code and those procedures delegated by South Florida Water Management District during 5 year planning time frame to ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, pre- development versus post development discharge rates are monitored to assure that adequate water management facility capacity is available or will be available when needed to serve the development. The flaws of the Drainage Policy 1.1.2 start with the County's failure to adopt, in the Plan, an enforceable level of service (LOS) standard for drainage. Drainage Objective 1.2 provides that the County shall "Adopt Maintain adopted level of service standards for basins and sub-basins identified in the Water Management Master Plan." This master plan appears to be a part of the land development regulations, not the Plan. For the reasons stated in Paragraphs 26-30 above, this deferral and relegation of a crucial and required provision of a Plan--i.e., setting a drainage LOS--undermine the Plan's approach to drainage. Drainage Policy 1.2.1 formerly provided that the County would use the findings from a study to be conducted under the master plan to "identify existing levels of service for all the drainage basins and sub-basins." A parenthetical note states that the County completed this task in May 1990. New Drainage Policy 1.2.1.A provides, for "future 'private'" development, that the drainage LOS standards are the "water quantity and quality standards" specified in various ordinances that are not incorporated into the Plan. New Drainage Policy 1.2.1.B assigns "existing 'private'" development and "existing or future public drainage facilities" LOS standards identified in the master plan. For such development, a table assigns letters to various basins, but the meaning of the letter is not explained in the Plan. The net effect of this objective and policies is that the Plan defers and relegates to the land development regulations the crucial task of setting comprehensive drainage LOS standards--comprehensive in the components of drainage (e.g., hydroperiod, rate, quality, and basin) and comprehensive in the scope of development (i.e., all private and public development and redevelopment, including public development, not just "public drainage facilities"). In the context of other Drainage provisions, Drainage Policy 1.1.2 is essentially useless. It defers and relegates to the land development regulations the regulatory content (including setting a drainage LOS), performance criteria, and identification of programs and activities. On its face, given the failure of the Plan to set a drainage LOS, Drainage Policy 1.1.2 promises nothing more than the monitoring of post- development runoff. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Drainage Policy 1.1.2 does not identify programs and activities by which by which the County will achieve the planning goals or objectives that the policy is supposed to serve and that the Plan lacks a policy regulating land use and development to protect the functions of natural drainage features. Issue 4 This issue raises the question whether the County relied on the best available data when preparing Plan provisions concerning farmworker housing. In their joint proposed recommended order, the County and School Board offer proposed Plan amendments providing for the collection of new farmworker housing data in 1998, the analysis of the data in 1999, and the adoption of any necessary Plan amendments in 2000. This is consistent with the tenor of the testimony of their witnesses: the County wants more time to conduct more studies to determine if farmworker housing needs may have lessened somewhat. The data and analysis accompanying the revisions to the Housing Element (Housing) include analysis of 1990 census data done by the Shimberg Center at the University of Florida. Tables showing the percentage in the unincorporated County of owners and renters, respectively, paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing reveal that, for persons with annual incomes of less than $10,000, the percentages are 76.1 and 95.9; for persons with annual incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, the percentages are 44.3 and 75.9; and for persons with incomes of $20,000 to $34,999, the percentages are 32.3 and 31.4. After reciting these data, the Housing data and analysis state: The previous tables indicate a strong need for more affordable owner and rental opportunities throughout the County. Very low, low[,] and moderate income families who pay more than 30 [percent] of their gross monthly income on housing cost are considered to be "cost burdened" according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a County witness testified, 85-90 percent of County farmworkers reside in Immokalee. According to the County's own data, 36.8 percent of the housing units in the Immokalee area are substandard. The next highest area has 13.4 percent substandard housing, and the next highest has 4.7 percent substandard housing. Of the 4507 units in the Immokalee area, 101 lack plumbing, 74 lack kitchens, and 134 have more than 1.01 persons per room (with some units appearing in more than one category). After reciting these data, the Housing data and analysis state: As the housing stock continues to age, there is a need to provide housing rehabilitation programs for the very low to moderate income rental and owner occupied households in order to prevent continuing deterioration and potential substandard housing conditions. After displaying other data, the Housing data and analysis report that various tables prepared by the Shimberg Center project a very large deficit of affordable, renter occupied and owner occupied dwelling units for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010. Local estimates have not been calculated but efforts to address the estimated deficits are identified in the Housing Element. According to the Shimberg Center data, there is a county wide need for 4,973 affordable rental units and 9,500 affordable owner occupied units by 2000 for a total of 14,473 affordable housing units. Responding to these data, the Housing data and analysis state: The City [Naples] established a goal of encouraging the development of 500 affordable housing units each year within the urban area boundaries identified in a 1994 Interlocal Agreement. Based upon County data collected for this Interlocal Agreement's 500 unit goal, the statistics indicate that 30 [percent] of all single family building permits issued since July 1994 meet the Interlocal Agreement[']s affordable housing criteria. Since the adoption of this Interlocal Agreement, an average of 600+ affordable housing units have been produced countywide each year. Since the urban area target of 500 unit[s] per year has been met, it is recommended that the target be increased to 750 units countywide. A target of 750 units countywide is realistic based upon building permits and [certificates of occupancy] issued annually. The tables contain a comprehensive projection of affordable housing for all income ranges and are not limited to persons with moderate or less annual incomes. Thus, for unincorporated Collier County, one table discloses a deficit of 287 units by 2010 for persons making over $150,000 annually. Addressing farmworker housing specifically, the Housing data and analysis mention the County's 1994 Immokalee Housing Study. Housing designated exclusively for farmworkers consists of privately owned migrant labor camps and Farm Worker Village, which was built with the assistance of the Farmers Home Administration and is owned and operated by the County. The Housing data and analysis note that farmworkers "are also housed in a variety of other housing that is usually substandard, deteriorated or overcrowded." The Housing data and analysis report that farmworker housing in the Immokalee area includes migrant labor camps and shared housing. The Housing data and analysis note that there is no farmworker housing located on the farms in the Immokalee area. According to the Housing data and analysis, the 109 migrant camps in the County comprise 1987 units. The County owns and operates 571 one- to four-bedroom units for rent at affordable rates, but, at the time of the survey, there were 60 applications on the waiting list for these units. The County also has 276 Section 8 certificates from the Farmers Home Administration. Families paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing are eligible for these certificates, which are limited to housing expenses in rural areas. Surveying existing studies, the Housing data and analysis concludes that 4.5 persons reside in each farmworker household. Restating projections from the County's 1994 Immokalee Housing Study, the Housing data and analysis report that, in 2005, farmworker housing demand will consist of 10,711 permanent units and 3251 seasonal units for a total of 13,962 units. For 1995, the Housing data and analysis calculate that the 2961 available seasonal units could accommodate, at 4.5 persons per dwelling unit, 13,324 of the 33,134 seasonal residents, leaving a shortfall of housing for nearly 20,000 seasonal residents or, at 4.5 persons per dwelling unit, 4402 units. However, this analysis understates projected needs for farmworker housing because, without analysis, it uses for all future years the current estimate of 4.5 persons per dwelling unit without considering whether greater availability of affordable housing would reduce the number of persons per dwelling unit. The dispute begins to emerge when the Housing data and analysis note the obvious difficulty of establishing accurate farmworker population figures and conclude that the population increases are relative to the amount of acreage in production at the time of the population count. The County contends that future farmworker housing demands are artificially high because they do not reflect recent trends reducing agricultural operations. However, the County's contentions are unsupported by data and analysis collected in accordance with a professionally recognized methodology. To the contrary, the County elsewhere in the Plan estimated that seasonal farmworker residents, who are present in the Immokalee area during the winter months, would increase by 25 percent after 1992 "to reflect the anticipated expansion of the citrus industry." FLUE, page 57. The County elsewhere relied on the projection of the South Florida Water Management District that agricultural water demands will increase by 46 percent from 1990 to 2010. Conservation, page 35. According to the FLUE data and analysis, nearly 6000 acres of land in the Immokalee area were devoted to agricultural uses. This is only about 2.5 percent of the nearly 250,000 acres in agricultural uses in the County and only about 0.4 percent of the 1.3 million acres in the County. The County's contention of declining needs for farmworker housing repudiates the findings and conclusions of the County's own 1994 Immokalee Housing Plan and the Shimberg Center's more recent work. Rather than address these data and analysis in preparing the Housing goals, objectives, and policies, the County relied on speculation and conjecture that farmworker housing needs may have declined, or may soon decline, due to a perceived decline in agricultural operations. No data indicate what agricultural operations have declined or may decline or, more importantly, the effect of any such decline on the need for farmworker housing. The County did not analyze even this conjecture and speculation from the perspective of other relevant data and analysis, such as the leveling off of a decline, in the mid-1990s, in tomato farming; possibly offsetting trends in other labor-intensive farming; possibly offsetting trends in labor-intensive farming around Immokalee; and trends in Hendry County labor-intensive farming and the impact of Hendry County farmworkers choosing to reside in Immokalee. The available data and analysis reveal ongoing shortages in affordable housing of nearly 15,000 units by 2000. For migrant farmworkers, the available data and analysis suggest a shortage of nearly 4500 units in 1995. The data and analysis suggest that other farmworker substandard housing units will be lost to attrition. Except as it involves farmworker housing, the County relied on a 25 percent increase in farmworkers after 1992 and a 46 percent increase in agricultural water demands from 1990 to 2010. Ignoring the available data and analysis, the County relied on vague concerns about a reduction in labor-intensive agricultural operations in support of its development of affordable housing strategies that do not focus on the unique and pressing needs of farmworkers. The following Plan provisions repeatedly fail to respond adequately to the quantitative and qualitative housing needs of farmworkers. Housing Objective 1 is to increase by only 500 units annually the number of new affordable housing units for persons earning a wider range of incomes than do farmworkers "to continue to meet the housing needs of all current and future very-low, low[,] and moderate income residents of the County, including those households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County." Failing to focus measurably the affordable-housing effort on farmworker housing, Housing Policy 1.4 states: Affordable housing will be distributed equitably throughout the County using strategies which include, but are not limited to, density bonus agreements and impact fee waivers or deferrals. In addition, affordable housing will be located where adequate infrastructure and services are available. Housing Objective 2 is to create a nonprofit housing development corporation by 2000, with representatives from business, government, housing advocates, and the general community, to assist the County in achieving the annual goal of 500 new units, as stated in Housing Objective 1. Housing Policy 2.1 is to increase the supply of housing for very low, low, and moderate income residents, including farmworker housing, through the use of existing programs, such as low income housing tax credits, density bonuses, and impact fee waivers or deferrals. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited Housing objectives and policies are not supported by the data and analysis. In preparing the revised provisions of the Housing Element, the County relied on speculation and anecdotal evidence of reductions in the numbers of farmworkers, declining to address the professionally collected data and analysis of that data, including the County's own data- collection and -analysis. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan lacks policies providing guidelines or criteria for the location of farmworker housing. The data and analysis reveal a crucial need for such housing in the Immokalee area, but the Plan, most notably Housing Policy 1.4, fails to address these data and analysis by failing to focus affordable- housing efforts for farmworkers where the need is greatest. The Plan also fails to establish locational criteria or guidelines to assure that the farmworker housing best serves the needs of the farmworkers. Issue 5 Prior to these amendments, Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Golden Gate) Policy 2.2.3 provided that the County would apply the stricter of its special development standards or Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code, to applications for development within South Golden Gate Estates. However, these amendments repealed Golden Gate Policy 2.2.3 and replaced it with new Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4, which provides that the County will apply Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code, to applications in "those Golden Gate Estates units located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern." The state rules limit site alterations to 10 percent of the total site, limit impervious areas to 50 percent of the site, and prohibit alteration of the natural flow of water. The effect of the Plan Amendment is to remove these land use restrictions from the part of the South Golden Gate Estates that is not in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. As reported in the Golden Gate data and analysis, "hailed as the world's largest subdivision," the Golden Gates Estates subdivision encompasses about 170 square miles or eight percent of the County. Golden Gates Estates is located in central Collier County. Part of Golden Gate Estates is located east of Interstate 75, north of the point at which the interstate turns east and heads toward Miami. South Golden Gate Estates is located south of Interstate 75. Gulf American sold 95 percent of the lots in Golden Gate Estates by 1965. South Golden Gate Estates comprises around 17,000 parcels, including about 10,000 parcels under 2.25 acres. Approximately 2000 people live in South Golden Gate Estates, although the actual number may be higher due to unpermitted construction. About 8000 people live in the remainder of Golden Gate Estates. Totaling 94 square miles, South Golden Gate Estates is surrounded by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge to the north, the Picayune Strand State Forest and Belle Meade (about 16,000 acres on the CARL list for state acquisition) to the west, the Cape Romano/Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve to the south, and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve to the east. The Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve is separated from Big Cypress National Preserve to the east by State Road 29. Northwest of the Cape Romano/Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve is Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, which lies between Marco Island and Naples Bay. Major public conservation lands in the County--all near Golden Gate Estates--include Big Cypress National Preserve (534,947 acres), Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve (65,524 acres), and Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (24,300 acres). Major additions include another 100,000 acres added to the Big Cypress National Preserve, but in the northeast part of the County away from Golden Gate Estates, and 30,000 acres in Golden Gate Estates (with nearly 12,000 acres already acquired). A large portion, if not all, of South Golden Gate Estates is proposed for state acquisition under the Save Our Everglades program, but progress, until recently at least, has been slow. The state has imposed the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern over the entire County east of Golden Gate Estates, as well as a large area south of South Golden Gate Estates. Most of the Area of Critical State Concern encompasses publicly owned land, but privately owned land is also within the Area of Critical State Concern. DCA contends that the data and analysis do not support the Plan Amendments that are the subject of Issue 5. The effect of the replacement of one policy with another policy is to relax development restrictions in the part of Golden Gate Estates outside of Areas of Critical State Concern. The Drainage data and analysis describe the patterns of surface water runoff characteristic of the County prior to alteration of these natural drainage features. In general, there is a nearly imperceptible ground slope in the County from a high point near Immokalee in the north-northeast corner of the County to the south and southwest to the Gulf of Mexico. Slopes as little as 4 inches per mile are common east of State Road 29; slopes of 12 inches per mile are typical to the west of State Road 29. Prior to construction of artificial drainage facilities, the runoff traveled slowly through long sloughs, which are shallow but wide depressions, and extensive cypress forests in its journey toward the estuaries and bays of the Gulf of Mexico. The natural rhythm between the wet season and the slow, natural drainage left vast parts of the County, including what is now Golden Gate Estates, seasonally inundated. The natural drainage patterns attenuated the runoff, so as to permit the upstream deposit of much of the sediments and nutrients borne by the runoff prior to its entry into rivers and bays. The natural drainage patterns also created native habitat for various plant and wildlife species seeking the periodic or permanent wetlands hydrated by the runoff. The first major disturbance of this natural drainage process came with road construction. Development of roads in the County typically involved the excavation of a canal and the application of the excavated material into the road base, so as to raise the road surface above the surrounding water level. State Road 29, which runs south from Immokalee to Everglades City in the southeast corner of the County, was constructed in this matter in 1926, as was U.S. Route 41 (Tamiami Trail) two years later, reportedly in a transaction in which Baron Collier constructed the road in return for a conveyance from the state of what became Collier County. The logging industry used the same process to construct tramways for transporting cypress logs during the 1950s. The extension of these early canals allowed the expansion of agricultural and other uses of seasonally or permanently inundated lands. The Drainage data and analysis conclude their description of this process as follows: The above described method of "ditch and drain" development in Collier County resulted in a haphazard series of canals that had a tendency to lower the water table and change the flow patterns of the natural drainage basins. In addition to canals, many dikes were constructed around very large tracts of land and the water levels lowered by pumping to create agricultural land. This combination of development events impacted large areas of wetland and began to concentrate the flow of stormwater run-off instead of allowing the traditional sheetflow across the land. In the area adjacent to Naples, developers had cut canals in order to lower the water table and facilitate the construction of housing. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Gulf American Corporation took this practice to a new level in the development and worldwide marketing of 173 square miles of land and water that came to be known as Golden Gate Estates. Prior to development, much of the area consisted of waterbodies several feet deep through the wet season. In general, the area was flat swamp lands featuring cypress forests, pine forest islands, and wet and dry prairie. In order to market Golden Gate Estates as a vacation and retirement community, Gulf American undertook a vast drainage project in an effort to eliminate from the landscape and waterscape waterbodies several feet deep through the wet season and flat swamp lands featuring cypress forests, pine forest islands, and wet and dry prairie. Major components of this effort were clearing 813 miles of paved and limerock roads and dredging 183 miles of canals, which drain into the Gordon River, Naples Bay, and Faka Union Bay. The County approved the Golden Gate Estates subdivision in early 1960, and, five years later, 90 percent of the land had been platted and sold in parcels of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 acres. As the Golden Gate data and analysis explain, the County rezoned the area to low-density residential when it became apparent that it could not provide essential facilities and services. The artificial drainage facilities that replaced natural drainage features and converted land from water facilitated the urbanization of the County. Urbanization brought large increases in impervious surface. Large increases in impervious surface produced even more and faster runoff and a decrease in percolation into the groundwater system. The effect on the artificial drainage system was to overwhelm it during major or serial storm events, resulting in flooding. Flooding completed the cycle by resulting in additional artificial drainage facilities. The addition of more artificial drainage capacity adversely affected natural resources in several respects. The addition of more artificial drainage capacity accelerated the rate at which canals transported stormwater into the Gulf, so as to eliminate or reduce the duration of flooding. But the rushing stormwater destabilized channels and reduced the opportunity for natural filtration of sediments and nutrients. The bays and estuaries into which the stormwater eventually runs thus received increased loads of sediments from destabilized channels and increased loads of sediments, nutrients, and pollutants from decreased filtration. Another effect of the addition of more artificial drainage capacity was to lower the water table elevation at all times, not just during the wet season. Thus, the canals overdrained large areas, including Golden Gate Estates, leaving them especially vulnerable to fire during the dry season and droughts during the wet season. The Golden Gate data and analysis report that the annual acreage consumed by fire increased eightfold after Golden Gate Estates was drained so as to alter the hydroperiod and lower the water table. The fires became more severe, eliminating the organic (humus) part of soils and thus discouraging post-fire, vegetative recolonization. The replacement of natural drainage features with artificial drainage facilities dramatically altered natural hydroperiods and, in so doing, destroyed wetlands and wetlands habitat, encouraged saltwater intrusion, and degraded estuaries and eliminated marine habitat by altering the timing and amount of freshwater infusions on which commercially harvested fin fish, shellfish, and sport fish depend at some point in their life cycle. The effect of artificial drainage facilities on water quality, water quantity, and hydroperiod adversely affected recharge of the surficial aquifer, on which the County depends for most of its drinking water. The surficial aquifer receives 90 percent of its recharge from rain and surface flow with direct infiltration from rainfall being the most important source of recharge of the water table aquifer, according to the Groundwater data and analysis. As the Drainage data and analysis concede, artificial drainage facilities have reduced aquifer recharge, which is often best served during flood events when the drainage facilities are overwhelmed. Additionally, as the Groundwater data and analysis note, runoff-transported pollutants can enter the groundwater, just as they can enter surface waters. The Groundwater data and analysis state that protection of natural groundwater recharge relies on land use restrictions that ensure that land uses do not change the recharge process in terms of timing, water quantity, or water quality. The Groundwater data and analysis identify two factors as affecting timing and water quantity: covering recharge areas with impervious surfaces and overdraining recharge areas by canals. In terms of water quality, the Groundwater data and analysis warn of pollutants introduced directly into the water table aquifer by stormwater detention/retention facilities, sewage treatment percolation ponds and absorption fields, and septic systems. Based on a formula developed by the Environmental Protection Agency that considers, among other things, water table elevation and soil permeability, the Groundwater data and analysis warn that County groundwater is highly sensitive to groundwater contamination. In particular, the Groundwater data and analysis recommend the investigation of possible groundwater contamination through the agricultural use of pesticides and fertilizer and the residential use of septic tanks in the area of the East Golden Gate Wellfield. The Groundwater data and analysis recommend, among other things, land use controls around wellfields, areas of high transmissivity, and major hydrological flowways. In light of the deleterious impacts of artificial drainage facilities on water quality, water quantity, and aquifer recharge, the Drainage data and analysis suggest that the drainage LOS standards address these three factors. The Drainage data and analysis state that it is "essential" that the stormwater management standards concerning water quality provide treatment levels "at least compatible with current state requirements. Drainage, page D-I-3. Regarding water quantity, the Drainage data and analysis state that the standards must provide adequate flood protection for developed areas and sufficient water to maintain aquifers, wetlands, and estuarine systems. The Drainage data and analysis discuss the difficulties the County experienced in trying to set a drainage LOS. Historically inadequate systems compounded the problem. Developments permitted prior to 1977, including all of Golden Gate Estates, were designed only to protect against flooding in the event of the ten-year storm, and these developments have an inconsistent record in meeting even these relaxed standards. The County required post-1977 development to meet the more demanding standards of the 25-year, 3-day storm event, and these developments have generally done so. The Drainage data and analysis report that the County hired consulting engineers in 1989 to prepare the Stormwater Management Master Plan. Out of this work emerged LOS standards using water quality as a function of the storm event, water quantity, and the potential of the area to provide aquifer recharge. However, neither the Plan nor even the Drainage data and analysis disclose these drainage LOS standards. The discussion of the drainage LOS standards does not focus extensively on basin issues as to water quantity. Another feature of a drainage LOS, the basin in which runoff is naturally found is important because drastic alterations of basin may alter the periodic, natural changes in salinity necessary to the health of the receiving estuaries. Due to the flatness of the topography, basins in the County naturally shift, depending on the location of rainfall and amount of rainfall compared to the capacity of the natural drainage features. Roads that run along the barely perceptible ridge lines defining a basin change the dynamic of location and amount of rainfall compared to the capacity of the natural drainage feature, so as possibly to change the basin receiving the resulting runoff. Roads that cut across ridge lines have an obvious effect on receiving basins. Canals have similar effects on these basins. Citing the results of the Stormwater Management Master Plan, the Drainage data and analysis list the ten major basins in the County. However, after listing these basins, the Drainage data and analysis note: At this time, an aggressive stormwater management capital improvement project construction is not proposed. The intent is to respond to the will of the local citizens as they petition the Board of County Commissioners to design and construct stormwater management improvements through the creation of taxing and/or assessment districts. The omission of the drainage LOS standards from the Plan (and, although not strictly relevant, even from the data and analysis) precludes an determination of the scope and effect of the County's decision not to schedule stormwater improvements until residents demand such public facilities. Nothing in the Plan allows the informed reader to learn whether the County's undisclosed drainage LOS standards have adequately blended the objective of natural-resource protection with the objective of flood control. Nothing in the Plan allows the informed reader to learn of the extent to which the County must apply these undisclosed drainage LOS standards to development, redevelopment, and unchanged land uses (i.e., retrofitting). The effect of the omission of drainage LOS standards from the Plan is heightened by certain water-quality trends during the ten-year period ending in 1989, coupled with the County's reduction in water-quality monitoring during the ensuing ten years. Map LU-92 in the Conservation data and analysis identifies 24 "estuarine bays" from the Lee County line south to Everglades City. These bays include Clam Bay, which is just north and west of the terminus of Pine Ridge Road; Doctors Bay, which is immediately north of Naples; Naples Bay, which is immediately south of Naples and receives water from the Gordon River and Haldeman Creek; Rookery Bay, which is south of Naples about midway between Naples and Marco Island and receives water from Henderson Creek; and Faka Union Bay and Fakahatchee Bay, which are roughly midway between Marco Island and Everglades City. According to the Conservation data and analysis, the worst water quality reported by the Department of Environmental Protection in a 1994 statewide assessment of water quality was the estuarine portion of the Gordon River, which violated water quality standards for conductivity and dissolved oxygen. Rated as "threatened or moderately impaired" in this study, Naples Bay violated water quality standards for conductivity. A portion of the Henderson Creek Canal violated water quality standards for conductivity and dissolved oxygen. The Conservation data and analysis note that the County assessed available data collected from 1979 through 1989 and determined that, during this period, surface waters may have experienced an increase in nutrients. Inland-water data indicate that nutrient levels (nitrogen, phosphorus, or both) increased from 1979 through 1989 in the Gordon River Extension, Henderson Creek, Main Golden Gate Canal, and Faka Union Canal. Although there are less estuarine nutrient data, the data for Clam Bay reveal a steep increase in nitrogen and a slower increase in phosphorus. The sediments of numerous inland waterways contain organochlorine pesticides. Although polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not widespread in estuarine sediments, they were detected among 80 percent of samples taken in Naples Bay in 1992. Among inland sediments, they are very high in the Gordon River Extension. Heavy metals are at very slightly elevated levels in urbanized estuaries, which include Naples Bay. The Golden Gate data and analysis predict "substantial population increases" for Golden Gate Estates. However, the Golden Gate data and analysis indicate that only a 4 square-mile area is served by central sewer; the same area is the only area served by central water. The Golden Gate data and analysis of the relevant drainage facilities report that the drainage basin for Golden Gate Estates is the 107 square-mile Golden Gate Basin and the 185.3 square-mile Faka Union Canal System Basin. The Faka Union Canal System Basin discharges into the Faka Union Bay, and the Golden Gate Basin appears to discharge into Naples Bay. Given the role of drainage in preserving or restoring the health of bays and estuaries, maintaining or improving natural recharge of the aquifer on which the County depends for its drinking water, and maintaining or restoring viable wetlands habitat for a variety of terrestrial and marine wildlife and plant life, and the historic exacerbation of flooding and fire by poorly planned artificial drainage facilities, DCA has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis do not support the Plan amendments that repealed Golden Gate Policy 2.2.3 and replaced it with Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4, so as to restrict the coverage of pre-existing restrictions on site alterations that substantially impact the drainage of South Golden Gate Estates. Issue 6 Conservation Objective 1.1 provides: By August 1, 1994, the County will complete continue with the development and implementation of a comprehensive environmental management and conservation program that will ensure that the natural resources, including species of special status, of Collier County are properly, appropriately, and effectively identified, managed, and protected. Species of special status are defined as species listed in the current "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida," published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Conservation Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 respectively provide: By August 1, 1989, appoint and establish operational procedures for Continue with using a Technical Advisory Committee to advise and assist the County in the activities involved in the development and implementation of the County Environmental Resources Management Program. By the time mandated for the adoption of land development regulations pursuant to Chapter 163.3202, F.S., including any amendments thereto[,] incorporate the Goals, Objectives, and Policies contained within this Element into the County's land development regulations as interim environmental resources protection and management standards. Conservation Objective 1.3 provides: By August 1, 1994, complete Continue with the phased delineation, data gathering, management guidelines and implementation of the County Natural Resources Protection Areas (NRPA) program by implementing the Board- approved process for nominating potential areas for review. The purpose of Natural Resources Protection Areas will be to protect endangered or potentially endangered species (as listed in current "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida," published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission) and their habitats. Conservation Policy 1.3.1 specifies the components of the NRPA program. Specific requirements include identifying NRPAs on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), establishing development standards applicable within NRPAs to maintain functioning natural resources and restore or mitigate natural resources within NRPAs that are already degraded, identifying an NRPA review process, and deferring development within NRPAs through purchase, tax incentives, and transfer of development rights. Conservation Appendix D, which is part of the data and analysis, is devoted to Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs). The issue is not what the County did or did not provide DCA during the review and adoption process. This historical fact is superseded by the opportunity presented to both sides to present data and analysis at the de novo hearing. Conservation Appendix D states that the Board of County Commissioners approved on March 1, 1994, a process for identifying NRPAs and establishing management plans for NRPAs. The process requires initial Board approval before the process commences. Appendix D identifies 33 criteria to be considered in designating NRPAs. Nearly all of the criteria involve environmental factors. The criteria represent a comprehensive range of environmental factors. Appendix D notes that, on February 28, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved Clam Bay as a NRPA and directed staff to begin the preparation of a management plan for Clam Bay. Clam Bay is a wetland area within an approved development of regional impact. Clam Bay was the site of a considerable mangrove die- off in 1992 and 1995. County staff appear to believe that there is a problem with flushing and possibly high water levels, as well, so the County is seeking a permit to dredge the pass. Historically, Clam Pass was connected to Vanderbilt Pond to the north, but land development severed this connection. Clam Bay is the only NRPA that the Board of County Commissioners has designated. DCA contends that the data show that the NRPA process does not adequately protect wetlands, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. Intervenors likewise argue that the NRPA is ineffective, and the County's ineffectual implementation of the NRPA program deprives Conservation Objective 1.3 of support from the data and analysis. The issue of whether these two objectives and three policies are supported by data and analysis requires consideration of their purpose and the efficacy of the programs to be established to help attain these objectives and realize their purpose. Conservation Objective 1.1, with its policies, establishes the Environmental Resources Management Program, whose purpose is to identify, manage, and protect "properly, appropriately, and effectively" natural resources, including species of special status. Conservation Objective 1.3, with its policy, establishes the NRPA program, whose purpose is to protect endangered or potentially endangered wildlife and plant life. The broader scope of the Environmental Resources Management Program is offset by its offer of only conditional protection, as disclosed by the three quoted adverbs. The highly conditional promise of Conservation Objective 1.1 means that this objective and its policies do not require much in the way of supporting data and analysis. For this reason, DCA and Intervenors have failed to prove that Conservation Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 are not supported by data and analysis. The focus of Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1 is narrower--limited to endangered species and potentially endangered species--and its promise of protection is unconditional. A fair definition of potentially endangered species is threatened species and species of special concern, so this recommended order shall use the phrase, "listed species," to describe the species covered by Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1. In determining the extent to which Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1 are supported by data and analysis, it is necessary to consider the County's role in providing habitat to listed species, any trends in wildlife habitat and listed species, the treatment of listed species by other Plan provisions, and the County's use of NRPAs. In 1994, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission published Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System (Closing the Gaps). This report divides Florida into geographic regions; Southwest Florida comprises Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Glades, and Hendry counties. Closing the Gaps cites this region as "the most important region in Florida" in terms of "maintaining several wide-ranging species that make up an important component of wildlife diversity in Florida . . .." Closing the Gaps, page 173. Most prominent in Southwest Florida are the only stable panther population east of the Mississippi River; the only stable black bear population south of Interstate 4; the greatest populations of Audubon's crested caracara in the United States; core populations of sandhill cranes, swallow-tail kites, and burrowing owls; important foraging and nesting habitats for colonies of many species of wading birds; and favorable conditions for several species of tropical plants that are rare elsewhere in Florida. Closing the Gaps states that most of the County hosts at least seven "focal species." "Focal species" are 40 species-- many of which are listed--selected for their role as indicators of natural communities or requirement of large areas for habitat. Closing the Gaps, page 8. Although most of this area is within Big Cypress and other publicly owned lands, it extends through Golden Gate Estates and into extreme west Collier County. A land-cover map in Closing the Gaps shows that the largest contiguous area of cypress swamp occupies Golden Gate Estates. Another map depicts this area as a large area of "strategic habitat" that runs to the north and northeast to link with strategic habitat running through central Hendry County and eventually to the western half of Glades County. Closing the Gaps, page 172. "Strategic habitat" is intended to provide habitat to species "lacking adequate representation in current conservation areas." Closing the Gaps, page 7. Closing the Gaps divides Collier County into two geographic areas for more detailed analysis. One area is north of Golden Gate Estates, reaching the Lee County line. The other area is west of Fakahatchee Strand and occupies South Golden Gate Estates and the remainder of Golden Gate Estates to the north. The more northerly area consists of cypress swamp, hardwood swamp, dry prairie, and pineland and "represents one of the most important wildlife areas remaining in Florida." Closing the Gaps, page 174. This area includes Lake Trafford, which is the highest part of the County and the only area supplying relatively high, natural aquifer recharge, and provides strategic habitat for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, wood stork, and American swallow-tailed kite. The more southerly area provides strategic habitat for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, red-cockaded woodpecker, and several rare wading birds that nest elsewhere. South Golden Gate Estates provides strategic habitat for the American swallow- tailed kite, southern bald eagle, eastern indigo snake, and several plant species. Central Golden Gate Estates provides strategic habitat for the American swallow-tail kite, red- cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, and several plant species. Both the northerly and southerly areas provide the "largest contiguous blocks of high-quality habitat . . . outside of conservation areas" for Florida bears. Closing the Gaps, page The County hosts the largest black bears in Florida and one of the largest groups of bears. Closing the Gaps asserts that bear habitat in the County "appears to be of the potentially greatest importance to black bears and many other rare species." Closing the Gaps, page 62. Coastal Collier County also provides strategic habitat for numerous species, including the southern bald eagle, gopher tortoise, loggerhead turtle, least tern, snowy plover, Florida black bear (Rookery Bay), peregrine falcon (Rookery Bay and Cape Romano), yellow-crowned night heron, brown pelican, Florida burrowing owl, American oystercatcher, and Florida scrub lizard. An aquatic mammal of prominence is the West Indian manatee, which frequents the waters of the County. The greatest number of citings throughout the year are in the Faka Union Canal and around Marco Island. During the winter months, the animals congregate in the Faka Union Canal. Manatees are under considerable stress. According to Conservation data and analysis, the number of manatee deaths in the County was 71 in 1996, the last year for which data were available. This was 25 percent of the total manatee deaths recorded for the preceding 22 years and was five less than the total for the preceding five years. The other large mammal under stress is the Florida panther. In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, and National Park Service published Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan: South Florida Population (Panther Plan). The purpose of the Panther Plan is to identify actions to assure the long-term preservation of habitats that are essential for maintaining a self-sustaining population of panthers in South Florida. Data indicate that a minimum self- sustaining population in this area is 50 adult panthers. The reproducing South Florida panther population occupies only Collier, Dade, Hendry, and Lee Counties. Although estimates vary, approximately 30-50 adult panthers probably remain in the South Florida area. In 1990, an estimated 46 panthers (of all ages) roamed the Big Cypress basin. During the study period of 1979 through 1991, 46.9 percent of panther deaths were due to highway collisions, mostly along State Road 29 and Old Alligator Alley (State Road 84), which are both in Collier County. Range demands of the panther are substantial. Males panthers require 180-200 square miles with minimal overlap with other males. Females require 75-150 square miles and tolerate overlapping territories with other females. The vast area in public ownership represented by Big Cypress Preserve and Everglades National Park offer lower-quality habitat for the panther, which prefers drier land, as does the bear, although it is less demanding than the panther in terms of habitat type. The northern 53 percent of the South Florida panther range is in private ownership, but the higher soil fertility and forested habitat characteristic of this land allow it to accommodate over half of the adult panthers, who are healthier and more productive than their counterparts in the southern portion of the South Florida range. Partly for these reasons, the vast publicly owned lands can support only 9-22 of the adult panthers in South Florida. Publicly owned lands in the South Florida range are probably at their limit in supporting panthers. The first two recommendations of the Panther Plan are to develop "site-specific habitat preservation plans" for land south of the Caloosahatchee River, which comprises 75 percent of known panther range and contains 39 of the 41 panthers studied between 1981 and 1991, and for land north of the Caloosahatchee River, which offers superior habitat that may in the future become more available for settlement by panthers. Other Plan provisions address wildlife and wildlife habitat. Conservation Policy 1.3.2 is to continue management guidelines for wildlife and wildlife habitat, but the guidelines are deferred and relegated to the land development regulations. Moreover, a County witness conceded at the hearing that staff was having difficult preparing these management guidelines. Conservation Objective 6.1 is to prepare development standards for all important native habitats, but the Plan Amendments extended the deadline for doing so another six years, until June 1, 1998, and largely deferred and relegated to the land development regulations. However, Conservation Objective 6.1 incorporates Policies 6.4.6 and 6.4.7 until the County prepares the development standards. For new residential developments greater than 2.5 acres in the Coastal Area or 20 acres in the coastal urban area, Policy 6.4.6 requires the retention of a minimum percentage of viable, naturally functioning native habitat. However, this policy is undermined by vagueness concerning "Coastal Area," "coastal urban area," and "viable, naturally functioning native habitat"; the emphasis on the preservation of sample habitats, rather than contiguous wildlife habitat; and the County's practice of allowing compliance with this requirement through total landclearing following by replanting. For all new development, Policy 6.4.7 addresses contiguous habitat, but only by encouraging, not requiring, preservation, and without specifying a minimum area to be preserved. Conservation Policy 7.2 is to maintain the average annual number of deaths of manatees from boat collisions at 3.2, although this is a small fraction of the total annual manatee deaths. Conservation Policy 7.3.3 is to prepare management guidelines in the land development regulations to inform landowners of the proper ways to reduce disturbances to red- cockaded woodpeckers, Florida panthers, other listed species, eagle nests, and wood stork habitat. Pending the preparation of these land development regulations, Conservation Policy 7.3.4 is for the County to "evaluate and apply applicable recommendations" of two governmental agencies regarding the protection of listed species. Lastly, the County will designate unspecified portions of known panther habitat as Areas of Environmental Concern on the FLUM. There is no explanation in the record why the County has designated only Clam Pass as an NRPA. However, the record does not support an inference that the NRPA program has had any effect whatsoever in addressing the needs of wildlife and habitat. In 1993 and 1994, County staff recommended 10-12 areas as NRPAs, including Belle Meade, Cap Key Strand (which runs from Immokalee and Lake Trafford south to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge), and South Golden Gate Estates. These areas, which the County declined to designate as NRPAs, provide considerably more wildlife habitat and more wildlife habitat of higher quality than does Clam Pass, whose designation seems to reflect a reaction to mangrove dieoffs and possibly water quantity, but not habitat or even water quality. Considering the County's role in providing crucial wildlife habitat to listed species, weak Plan provisions concerning wildlife and wildlife habitat, and ineffective utilization of the NRPA program (at least for the purpose of protecting wildlife habitat), DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1 are not support by data and analysis. Issue 7 Conservation Objective 12.1 is: Continue to Eencourage the undertaking of activities necessary to attain maintain by 1994, hurricane evacuation clearance time for a Category 3 storm at a maximum of 28 hours as defined by the 1987 1996 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Plan Evacuation Study Update, and by 1999, 27.2 hours. Activities will include on-site sheltering for mobile home developments, increased shelter space, and maintenance of equal or lower densities of the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone Coastal high hazard area in the land use plan. Conservation Policy 12.1.1 states: Land use plan amendments in the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone Coastal high hazard area shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. shall be re-evaluated within three years and may change to a density level consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation Objective 12.1 is not to maintain or reduce evacuation times; it is not even to encourage the maintenance of evacuation times. Objective 12.1 merely encourages activities that are necessary to maintain evacuation times. Additionally, Conservation Objective 12.1 refers to the misdefined Coastal High Hazard Area, as discussed in Issue 8. These two flaws in Conservation Objective 12.1 mean that this objective has not responded to the Conservation data and analysis, including Conservation Appendix E, which discusses hurricane evacuation times. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 12.1 and Policy 12.1.1 are not supported by data and analysis and Objective 12.1 is inconsistent with a criterion to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. Issues 8 and 15 Following amendment, Conservation Policy 12.2.5 defines the Coastal High Hazard Area as the area "lying within the Category 1 Evacuation Zone as determined by the Emergency Management Director." The County amended the FLUM to depict the coastal high hazard area, as defined in Conservation Policy 12.2.5. The "Category 1 Evacuation Zone as determined by the Emergency Management Director" omits areas within the category 1 hurricane zone, as established in the 1996 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation Study Update, which is the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the County. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Policy 12.2.5 and the conforming FLUM amendment reflect a Coastal High Hazard Area that is not the category 1 hurricane zone, as established by the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the County. Issue 9 Conservation Objective 6.3 states: A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional zone wetlands defined by State and Federal permitting requirements shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless otherwise mitigated through the DER State and the ACOE permitting process and approved by the County. Conservation Objective 6.3 does not state what portion of the transitional zone wetlands shall be preserved, nor does it define "viable, naturally functioning transitional zone wetlands." Each of these concepts--viable, naturally functioning, and transitional zone--requires definition. There is thus no way to evaluate the success of the policies under the objective or that attainment of this objective marks progress toward a stated goal. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 6.3 is not a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Issue 10 Conservation Objective 7.3 states: By January 1, 1992, The County shall continue to develop and implement programs for protecting fisheries and other animal wildlife by including measures for protection and/or relocation of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern of status. The effect of the amendment of Conservation Objective 7.3 is to remove the deadline by which the County was to develop and implement programs to protect wildlife, including listed species. There is thus no way to evaluate the success of the policies under this objective or that attainment of this objective marks progress toward a stated goal. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 7.3 is not a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Issues 11, 12, 13, and 14 Conservation Objective 9.4 is: By September 30, 1989, the County shall establish The County shall implement the existing a local storage tank compliance program to protect ground and surface water quality including site inspections and information transfer. Conservation Objective 9.5 is: By August 31, 1989, the The County shall adopt implement construction, pretreatment, monitoring, and effluent limit requirements of the Collier County Ground Water Protection an Ordinance regulating the use of septic tanks serving industrial and manufacturing activities. Conservation Objective 10.6 is: By August 1, 1990, tThe County shall continue to implement the Coastal Barrier and Beach System Management Program by conserving the habitats, species, natural shoreline and dune systems contained within the County coastal zone. FLUE Policy 3.1.d is: Protect potable water wellfields and aquifer recharge areas. This shall be accomplished through the creation and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance. The ordinance shall establish cones of influence based on groundwater travel times, restrict land uses and activities within the cones of influence and establish development standards for those activities beyond the cones of influence which may endanger the wellfields and aquifer recharge areas based on their potential for pollution. The Groundwater Protection Ordinance shall be implemented to protect existing and future wellfields, natural aquifer recharge areas and groundwater resources through standards for development involving the use, storage, generation and disposal of hazardous waste products, disposal of sewage and effluent, stormwater management, earthmining, petroleum exploration, solid waste and other related aspects of land use and development within the mapped wellfield protection zones. Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are: The [Groundwater Protection] Ordinance [to be adopted by August 1, 1989, under Groundwater Objective 1.2] will address both existing and projected future land use and surface activities. Apply action criteria specified in the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance to both existing and future regulated development according to procedures specified in the Ordinance to protect the County's ground water resources. The [Groundwater Protection] Ordinance will continue Apply criteria for ground water protection specified in enforcement procedures specified in the Ordinance to provide an appropriate level of protection to sensitive recharge areas. Conservation Objective 9.4 promises the implementation of a storage tank program that is contained in the land development regulations, which are not incorporated by reference into the Plan. Because these land development regulations are not themselves subject to the compliance determinations that are the subject of this case, Conservation Objective 9.4 is not a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. This deferral and relegation to the land development regulations leaves no way of evaluating the success of the policies under this objective or that attainment of this objective marks progress toward a stated goal. The same deficiencies characterize Conservation Objectives 9.5 and 10.6, FLUE Policy 3.1.3, and Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, except that, for the policies, this deferral and relegation to the land development regulations leaves no way of identifying the way in which the County will conduct programs and activities to achieve identified goals. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objectives 9.4, 9.5, and 10.6, are not specific, measurable, intermediate ends that are achievable and mark progress toward a goal. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that FLUE Policy 3.1.d and Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 do not identify the way in which the County will conduct programs and activities to achieve identified goals. Issue 15 Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, sets out the State comprehensive plan. Section 187.201(8)(b)2 is to "[I]dentify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4 and FLUE Policy 3.1.d. Section 187.201(8)(b)9 is to "[p]rotect aquifers from depletion and contamination through appropriate regulatory programs and through incentives." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 9.5, Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4, and FLUE Policy 3.1.d. Section 187.201(8)(b)10 is to "[p]rotect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 6.3, FLUE Policy 3.1.d, Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4, Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 is to "[e]liminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 9.5, FLUE Policy 3.1.d, Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(9)(b)4 is to "[p]rotect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 6.3, 7.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 10.6 and Policy 12.2.5; FLUE Policy 3.1.d; Drainage Policy 1.1.2; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(9)(b)9 is to prohibit development that disturbs coastal dune systems. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 10.6 and Policy 12.2.5. Section 187.201(10)(b)1 to "[c]onserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3, and 9.5 and Policy 1.3.1; Drainage Policy 1.1.2; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(10)(b)3 is to "[p]rohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3, 9.5, and 10.6 and Policy 1.3.1; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(10)(b)7 is to "[p]rotect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 6.3 and 9.5, Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(26)(b)7 is to ensure the development of local government comprehensive plans that implement and reflect state goals and policies and that address issues of particular concern to a region. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3 10.6, and 12.1 and Policies 1.3.1, 12.1.1, and 12.2.5; Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4; and ICE Policy 1.2.6.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller Colin M. Roopnarine Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas W. Reese 2951 61st Avenue South Saint Petersburg, Florida 33712 Marjorie M. Student Rodney C. Wade Assistant County Attorneys 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Richard D. Yovanovich Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive Naples, Florida 34103 Donna Arduin, Secretary Executive Office of the Governor 1601 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 David Schwartz, Esquire Executive Office of the Governor 209 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether proposed regulations for Brevard County manatee protection areas by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC), which are amendments to Rule 68C- 22.006, Florida Administrative Code, noticed in the April 20, 2001, Florida Administrative Weekly (F.A.W.)("Proposed Rule"), with a Notice of Change published in the F.A.W. on June 15, 2001, are an invalid exercise of legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following material and relevant facts are found. Effective July 1, 1999, Respondent, FWCC became primarily responsible for implementation of the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, Section 370.12(2), Florida Statutes (2000) instead of the Department of Environmental Protection, by operation of Section 45, Chapter 99-245, Laws of Florida. FWCC is the State agency responsible for promulgating rules pursuant to Section 370.12, Florida Statutes. Respondent noticed proposed rules, and is a mandatory party to a challenge thereto. Section 120.56(1)(e), Florida Statutes. STANDING OF THE PARTIES McGill, Pritchard, Dovark, Gentile, Akins, Mason, Jaren, Robertson, Standing Watch, Inc., Save the Manatee Club, Inc., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., and Sea Ray Boats, Inc.1, are substantially affected by one or more of the Proposed Rules in that they operate motorboats in one or more of the areas proposed for regulation, or in that they represent the interests of members who operate motorboats in one or more of the areas proposed for regulations, or who desire to protect manatees and manatee habitats on behalf of members who derive aesthetic or other benefits from manatees, and who observe or otherwise enjoy manatees in Brevard County and elsewhere. Intervenor, Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), is a Florida corporation that owns and operates the Cape Canaveral Power Plant located in Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida. FPL's operations are specifically addressed in the proposed rule in that the proposed rule creates a no-entry zone along an area bordering the FPL Cape Canaveral Power Plant property boundary including easements and right-of-way where electrical generation operating equipment and electrical distribution and transmission equipment are located. Intervenor, Cocoa Beach is a Florida Municipal Corporation located in Brevard County. The Cocoa Beach Sports Area located with the Banana River Lagoon has been designated since 1988 as an area for water-related recreational activities for the residents of the City of Cocoa Beach and for the general public. The Proposed Rule seeks to impose speed restrictions for boats operating within this area and, if promulgated, will directly regulate and restrict the boating, fishing and other water-related recreational activities of the public within the area. Intervenor, Titusville is a Florida Municipal Corporation located in Brevard County, whose elected body has determined that a substantial number of its residents are substantially affected in the Proposed Rule. The parties alleged facts supported their standing in individual petitions, and the parties stipulated to standing. Therefore, none of the Petitioners presented any evidence regarding their standing. Petitioners and Intervenors are substantially affected by one or more sections of the proposed rule in that they operate motorboats in one or more of the areas proposed for regulation, or they represent the interests of members who operate motorboats in one or more of the areas proposed for regulation or who desire to protect the manatees and manatee habitat on behalf of members who derive aesthetic or other benefits from manatees and who observe or otherwise enjoy manatees in Brevard County. ADOPTION PROCESS FOR THE 2001 RULE PROPOSAL On September 6, 2000, the Commission authorized staff to initiate amendments to the Brevard County rules at a public meeting in Deland, Florida. On October 6, 2000, the Commission published a Notice of Rule Development in the Florida Administrative Weekly and announced a rule development workshop. On October 26, 2000, the Commission staff conducted a rule development workshop in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. On January 24, 2001, the Commission directed staff to conduct a second rule development workshop in Brevard County, Florida. On February 16, 2000, the Commission published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of the rule development workshop scheduled for March 7, 2000. On March 7, 2000, the Commission staff conducted a second rule development workshop in Viera, Brevard County, Florida. On March 30, 2000, the Commission conducted a public meeting in Tallahassee, Florida, and authorized publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On April 20, 2001, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Florida Administrative Weekly and advertised public hearings to be held on May 3 and May 23, 2001. On May 3, 2001, the Commission staff conducted a public hearing on the Proposed Rule in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. On May 23, 2001, the Commission staff conducted a public hearing on the Proposed Rule in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. On June 15, 2001, a Notice of Change was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. There are no algorithms, formulae, protocols, matrices, math models, or metrics used by the Commission to combine the individual data sources into findings that idle-speed, slow-speed, or no-entry zones were required for any specific zone in question. Aerial surveys have been conducted by the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) and others. One type of aerial survey technique is a statewide survey. These surveys are typically flown in the winter, after the passage of a cold front. Typical winter aggregation areas are included in these surveys. The synoptic surveys are used for monitoring winter aggregations of manatees. Population biologists working on manatee recovery view synoptic survey results as the best available information about the minimum estimated size of the manatee population in Florida at this time. The statewide synoptic survey data from the past several years is as follows: 1991 1,268 manatees 1991 1,465 manatees 1992 1,856 manatees 1995 1,443 manatees 1995 1,822 manatees 1996 2,274 manatees 1996 2,639 manatees 1997 2,229 manatees 1997 1,709 manatees 1998 2,022 manatees 1999 2,034 manatees 1999 2,354 manatees 2000 1,629 manatees 2000 2,222 manatees 2001 3,276 manatees During the most recent statewide synoptic survey, portions of Brevard County were observed in five counts made during January 5, 6, and 7, 2001. Of the 591 manatees observed in Brevard County on January 6, 2001, 457 manatees were adjacent to Florida Power and Light Company's thermal discharge, 38 manatees were in Sebastian River, 16 manatees were in Berkley Canal System, and 8 manatees were along the east Banana River shoreline on the southeastern extension of Merritt Island. In addition to statewide surveys, targeted aerial surveys in specific areas are used to establish manatee distribution and relative manatee abundance. These types of surveys are used by the FWCC in assessing manatee use of an area and then establishing manatee protection regulations. The most recent, comprehensive FMRI aerial survey in Brevard County consisted of 45 flights between September 1997 and September 1999. A standardized flight path designed to cover most probable manatee habitats was flown over Brevard County at least once per month during the two-year period at an altitude of approximately 500 feet (except for June 1999, where excessive smoke covered the area); the only area of the county not covered at all was restricted airspace associated with the Kennedy Space Center Complex. The highest number of manatees counted during this survey was 790 manatees in March 1999. General Description of Brevard County. Located in east central Florida, Brevard County is approximately 72 miles north-south and approximately 20 miles east-west. The west boundary of the county is the St. Johns River; the east boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. The Indian River Lagoon in Brevard County extends north of the Kennedy Space Center, at the north end of the county, to Sebastian Inlet, at the south end of the county. Brevard County consists of two major landforms and two major surface waters. From east to west, the geographical features are the Atlantic Ocean, a barrier island running the length of the county, the Indian River Lagoon, and the mainland. Northern Brevard County contains two other major geographical features. The barrier widens to form the Canaveral Peninsula on the east and Merritt Island on the west. Merritt Island is bordered by the Indian River on the west; the Banana River on the east; and the Mosquito Lagoon on the north. At the southern end of Merritt Island, the Banana River joins the Indian River. Besides Sebastian Inlet at the southern boundary of the county, the only navigable connection between the Indian River Lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean is at Port Canaveral. Port Canaveral cuts across the Canaveral Peninsula; along the west shoreline, the Canaveral Locks permit vessels to pass from the Port into the Banana River. The Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River and Banana River are located in a transitional zone between the temperate and tropical zones and form one of the most diverse estuaries in North America. The Indian River Lagoon varies from 0.5 to 5 miles in width and has an average depth of one meter (39.4 inches). The Indian River Lagoon system is not subject to significant periodic lunar tides. The water depths are depicted as mean lower low water, while the shorelines are represented in terms of approximate mean high water. In the lagoon system in Brevard County, the relative water levels rise and fall as influenced by wind, rainfall, storms, and tides. Expert witnesses with local knowledge of the waters acknowledged the variation in water level or relative depth and testified that the water level fluctuates in the Indian River Lagoon by more than three feet and fluctuates by two or two and one-half feet or greater annually. The Indian River Lagoon contains extensive sea grass beds, which are the preferred food for manatees. A bathymetric survey commissioned by the St. Johns River Water Management District determined the acreage of submerged land within the lagoon that can be potentially vegetated with submerged aquatic vegetation at a depth of six feet below mean sea level. Brevard County is the hub of the Atlantic Coast manatee population with a large year-round and a large migratory transient manatee population present throughout the year. THE MANATEE The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is one of endangered marine mammals in coastal waters of the United States. The West Indian manatee is presently classified as an "endangered species" by the federal Endangered Species Act and has protected status under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The West Indian Manatee is one of the four living species of the mammalian Order Sirenia, the other three are the West African manatee, the Amazonian manatee and the dugong; the fifth species, Stellar's sea cow, was hunted into extinction. In the southeastern United States, manatees are limited primarily to Florida and Georgia and this group forms a separate subspecies called the Florida manatee (T. manatus latirostris). The Florida manatee (hereinafter "manatee") is a migratory species with a large range of movement along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. During the winter, cold temperatures keep the population concentrated in peninsular Florida, but during the late spring and summer they expand their range and are seen infrequently as far north as Rhode Island, and as far west as Texas. Manatees demonstrate "site fidelity" with some individual mammals adjusting their behavior to take advantage of changes in the availability of resources. Manatees often return to the same winter thermal refuges and the same summer habitats year after year. Manatees prefer water temperatures above 68 degrees F and when ambient water temperatures drop below 68 degrees, they seek warm water refuges, such as spring-fed rivers and power plans discharge outs. Florida Power and Light Company and Reliant Energy Power Plants and the Sebastian River are the primary warm water refuges sought by manatees in Brevard County. For feeding, resting, cavorting, mating and calving, manatees prefer shallow sea grass beds in coastal and riverline habitats with ready access to deep channels, particularly near the mouths of creeks, embayments and lagoons. Manatees sometimes prefer vegetation growing along the banks of waterways, instead of submerged or floating aquatic vegetation. Manatees seek and find sources of fresh water for drinking. In brackish or estuarine environment, they locate fresh water sources, either natural or artificial. They have been observed drinking fresh water at marinas, from air conditioning condensate discharge, from pockets of fresh water floating on the surface of the saltier water, from storm water outfalls and from springs. Typically, six-to-eight hours per day are spent on feeding, usually at one-hour intervals. Intermittently, between two and 12 hours per day are spent resting or sleeping either at the surface of the water or on the bottom. Time not devoted to feeding or sleeping is spent in traveling, socializing or exploring during both day and nighttime hours. The basic social unit consists of a female manatee and her dependent calf. Manatees, apart from winter aggregations at warm water resources and transient mating herds, are semi-social or mildly social mammals. Manatees usually prefer to swim below the surface at one to three meters (3.28 to 9.84 feet) depth, surfacing every few minutes to breathe. They typically have a swimming cruising speed between four and ten KM/HR (2-6 MPH), but can swim in short bursts at up to 25 KM/HR (15 MPH). Manatees have been seen in shallow waters with their backs and heads out of the water and on occasion have been observed fully or partially out of the water to feed or escape pursuing male manatees. Female manatees reach sexual maturity by age five years and males at the age of three to four years. Mating occurs when estrous females are successfully approached by dynamic epherimal mating herds of between five and 20 males (lasting up to four weeks). Female manatees will swim to very shallow water when pursued by mating herds of males as a preventive measure from mating. Manatees have a low reproductive rate and a long life expectancy. Manatee's gestation period is 11 to 14 months with usual birthing of one calf. Dependent calves remain near their mother's side from one to two years, swimming parallel to its mother, directly behind her flipper. Life expectancy for a manatee is in excess of 50 years. A significant decrease in adult survivorship due to, among other things, watercraft collisions could contribute to a long-term population decline. The manatee population in Florida has shown yearly increases resulting in more manatees now than there were in 1976 in the areas of Brevard County that are subject to the Proposed Rules. MANATEE PROTECTION PLANS The United States Fish and Wildlife Service developed an initial recovery plan for West Indian manatees in 1980, primarily for manatees in Florida. The plan was revised in 1989 and 1996. A third revision to the Recovery Plan was noticed for public comment in November 2000, and in July 2001. The recovery plans hereinabove recognized the major human-related cause of manatee mortality is collisions with watercraft. The existing and draft recovery plans state: Because watercraft operators cannot reliably detect and avoid hitting manatees, federal and state managers have sought to limit watercraft speed in areas manatees are most likely to occur to afford boaters and manatees time to avoid collisions. Avoidance technology research is ongoing for deterrent devices designed to "avoid collisions"; however, no device or combination of devices has gained acceptance and approval by the Marine Biological Scientific Community. The Florida Legislature has designated the entire State a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee--the Florida State marine mammal. Section 370.12(2)(b), Florida Statutes. HISTORY OF MANATEE PROTECTION IN BREVARD COUNTY The Florida Legislature initially authorized the adoption of manatee protection rules for Brevard County effective July 1, 1978, when it required the (former) Florida Department of Natural Resources to adopt rules regulating the speed and operation of motorboats between November 15 and March 31, 1978, in those portions of the Indian River within 3/4 mile of the then Orlando Utilities Commission (now Reliant) and Florida Power and Light Company power plant effluents. These rules became effective on March 19, 1997 (former Rule 16N-22.06, Florida Administrative Code ("Brevard County Manatee Protection Rules" or "BCMPR"). In 1989, a strategy to improve manatee protection in 13 key counties was approved by the Governor and Cabinet. The strategy called for development of manatee protection plans, for boat facility siting criteria, for priority land acquisition of critical manatee use areas, and improved aquatic preserve management for sea grass protection. Guidelines for implementation included new or expanded speed zones, refuges or sanctuaries for the regulation of boat speeds in critical manatee areas. Financial assistance was given Brevard County for its manatee protection plan in 1993. After creation of the FWCC, effective July 1, 1999, the BCMPR and other manatee protection rules were transferred from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to the FWCC, and the Secretary of State renumbered the prior rules to Chapter 68C-22, Florida Administrative Code. In 1994, FDEP amended BCMPR to establish manatee protection zones in the Canaveral Barge Canal and portions of adjacent areas of the Indian and Banana Rivers; to expand the existing "slow speed" zone in Sykes Creek (north of "S Curve") to include the channel; to establish a maximum 25 MPH zone in the Sykes Creek channel between Sykes Creek Parkway and the "S Curve"; and to renumber and correct map inconsistencies. This site- specific rule-making action was taken in response to proposed additional threats to manatees resulting from development of Abby Marina (now Harbortown Marina), pending completion of Brevard County comprehensive countywide manatee protection plan. In 1998, FDEP amended the BCMPR to establish seasonal "motorboats prohibited" and "no-entry" zones at the then Orlando Utilities Commission's (now Reliant) power plant and a seasonal "no-entry" zone at Florida Power and Light Company's power plant. THE PROPOSED MANATEE PROTECTION RULE AMENDMENTS FOR BREVARD COUNTY 1906 Section II - Proposed Rules THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULES IS: (Substantial rewording of Rule 68C-22.006 follows. See Florida Administrative Code for present text.) 68C-22.006 Brevard County Zones. The Commission hereby designates the waters within Brevard County, as described below, as areas where manatee sightings are frequent and where it can be assumed that manatees inhabit on a regular, periodic or continuous basis. The Commission has further determined that a likelihood of threat to manatees exists in these waters as a result of manatees and motorboats using the same areas. The primary purpose of this rule is to protect manatees from harmful collisions with motorboats and from harassment by regulating the speed and operation of motorboats within these designated areas. A secondary purpose is to protect manatee habitat. In balancing the rights of fishers, boaters, and water skiers to use these waterways for recreational and commercial purposes (as applicable under 370.12(2)(j), F.S.) with the need to provide manatee protection, the Commission has examined the need for unregulated areas or higher speed travel corridors through regulated areas. Such areas or corridors are provided in those locations where the Commission determined, on the basis of all available information, (1) there is a need for the area or corridor and (2) the area or corridor will not result in serious threats to manatees or their habitat. Unregulated areas or higher speed corridors are not provided in locations where both of the above findings were not made. The following year-round and seasonal zones are established, which shall include all associated and navigable tributaries, lakes, creeks, coves, bends, backwaters, canals, and boat basins unless otherwise designated or excluded. As used in this rule, ICW means the Intracoastal Waterway. Access to the NO ENTRY and MOTORBOATS PROHIBITED zones designated in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) will be provided in accordance with procedures set forth in subsection (4), hereunder, and applicable provisions of Rule 68C-22.003. NO ENTRY (November 15 – March 31) Indian River, Reliant Corporation Delespine Power Plant Area: All waters within the discharge canal of the Reliant Corporation Delespine power plant, and; All waters southerly of a line extending eastward from and following the same bearing as the southernmost seawall of the power plant discharge canal, with said line bearing approximately 70º, westerly of a line 250 feet east of and parallel to the western shoreline of the Indian River, and northerly of the jetty on the north side of the power plant intake canal. Indian River, FPL Frontenac Power Plant Area: All waters in the vicinity of the Florida Power and Light (FPL) Frontenac power plant southerly of a line connecting the northern guy wires of the power poles immediately north of the FPL Unit 2 discharge area from the western shoreline of the Indian River to the third power pole east of the western shoreline (approximately 1,650 feet east of the shoreline), and westerly of a line running from said third power pole to the easternmost point (approximate latitude 28º 28' 07" North, approximate longitude 80º 45' 19" West) of the jetty on the north side of the FPL intake canal. MOTORBOATS PROHIBITED (All Year, except as noted) Indian River, Reliant Corporation Delespine Power Plant Area: All waters in the vicinity of the Reliant Corporation Delespine power plant southerly of a line bearing 90º from a point (approximate latitude 28º 29' 41" North, approximate longitude 80º 46' 35" West) on the western shoreline of the Indian River 95 feet north of the northernmost seawall of the power plant discharge canal, westerly of a line 250 feet east of and parallel to the western shoreline of the Indian River, and northerly of a line extending eastward from and following the same bearing as the southernmost seawall of the power plant discharge canal, with said line bearing approximately 70º. This zone is in effect from November 15 through March 31. C-54 Canal: All waters of the C-54 Canal (South Florida Water Management District Canal 54) east of the spillway (approximate latitude 27º 49' 50" North, approximate longitude 80º 32' 24" West) and west of a line drawn perpendicular to the northern shoreline of the C-54 Canal at a point (approximate latitude 27º 49' 55" North, approximate longitude 80º 32' 00" West) on the northern shoreline 2,500 feet east of the spillway. IDLE SPEED (All Year, except as noted) Indian River, Power Plant Area: All waters west of the western boundary of the ICW channel, south of a line bearing 90° from a point (approximate latitude 28º 30' 13" North, approximate longitude 80º 46' 48" West) on the western shoreline of the Indian River approximately three-fourths of a mile north of the Delespine power plant discharge canal, and north of a line bearing 90° from a point (approximate latitude 28º 27' 27" North, approximate longitude 80º 45' 43" West) on the western shoreline of the Indian River approximately three-fourths of a mile south of the Frontenac power plant discharge canal, except as otherwise designated under (2)(a) and (b)1. This zone is in effect from November 15 through March 31. Banana River, Cape Canaveral Area: All waters north of a line bearing 270° from the southwesternmost point (approximate latitude 28º 23' 29" North, approximate longitude 80º 37' 10" West) of Long Point in Cape Canaveral to a point (approximate latitude 28º 23' 29" North, approximate longitude 80º 37' 49" West) in the Banana River approximately 3,500 feet west of Long Point, and east of a line bearing 331° from said point in the Banana River to a point (approximate latitude 28º 24' 16" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 19" West) on the State Road 528 Causeway (west of State Road 401). Section II - Proposed Rules 1907 Banana River, Manatee Cove Area: All waters of Manatee Cove (on the east side of the Banana River, just south of State Road 520) east of a line at the mouth of the cove running between a point (approximate latitude 28º 21' 21" North, approximate longitude 80º 36' 52" West) on the northern shoreline and a point (approximate latitude 28º 21' 09" North, approximate longitude 80º 36' 51" West) on the southern shoreline. Turkey Creek: All waters of Turkey Creek north and east (downstream) of Melbourne- Tillman Drainage District structure MS-1 and south and west of a line at the mouth of Turkey Creek that runs from the southeasternmost point (approximate latitude 28º 02' 21" North, approximate longitude 80º 34' 48" West) of Castaway Point to the northeasternmost point (approximate latitude 28º 02' 14" North, approximate longitude 80º 34' 43" West) of Palm Bay Point. Sebastian Inlet Area: All waters of the cove on the northern side of Sebastian Inlet (commonly known as Campbell Cove) northwest of a line running between the two rock jetties at the entrance to the cove. Sebastian River Area: All waters of the North Prong of Sebastian River, and; All waters of the North Fork Sebastian River (also known as Sebastian Creek) and the C-54 Canal west of a north-south line from a point (approximate latitude 27º 50' 08" North, approximate longitude 80º 31' 02" West) on the northern shoreline of the North Fork Sebastian River at the intersection of the river and the North Prong and east of a line drawn perpendicular to the northern shoreline of the C-54 Canal at a point (approximate latitude 27º 49' 55" North, approximate longitude 80º 32' 00" West) on the northern shoreline 2,500 feet east of the spillway. SLOW SPEED (All Year) Mosquito Lagoon: All waters west of the ICW channel, south of the Volusia County/Brevard County line, and north of ICW channel marker “43,” and; All waters of Mosquito Lagoon (including the ICW channel) south of ICW channel marker “43,” southwest of a line commencing at ICW channel marker “43” and then running to ICW channel marker “45” and then on a bearing of 132° for a distance of 1,000 feet to the line’s terminus at a point in Mosquito Lagoon (approximate latitude 28º 44' 35" North, approximate longitude 80º 44' 35" West), and north of a line running from said point in Mosquito Lagoon on a bearing of 221° to the western shoreline of Mosquito Lagoon. Indian River, Turnbull Basin Area: All waters south and east of a line commencing at a point (approximate latitude 28º 44' 36" North, approximate longitude 80º 46' 19" West) on the eastern shoreline of Turnbull Basin (about one mile north of Haulover Canal) and then bearing 193° to a point 1,500 feet northwest of the ICW channel, then running in a southwesterly direction 1,500 feet northwest of and parallel with the ICW channel to a point (approximate latitude 28º 41' 22" North, approximate longitude 80º 49' 05" West) 1,500 feet northwest of ICW channel marker “12,” and then running in a southerly direction 1,500 feet west of and parallel with the ICW channel to the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge, including all waters west of the ICW channel and south of an east-west line 1,500 feet north of the point where the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge crosses over the ICW, but excluding the ICW channel as designated under (2)(e)2. Indian River, Titusville Area: All waters south of the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge, east of the ICW channel, and north of an east-west line 1,200 feet south of the point where the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge crosses over the ICW, and; All waters west of the ICW channel south of the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge and north of the State Road 402 Bridge and Causeway. Indian River, State Road 402 (Max Brewer Causeway) to State Road 405 (NASA Parkway): All waters within 2,000 feet of the general contour of the western shoreline of the Indian River, excluding the ICW channel where the channel is less than 2,000 feet from the western shore; All waters within one mile of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River south and east of a point (approximate latitude 28º 36' 04" North, approximate longitude 80º 44' 44" West) on the western shoreline of Peacock’s Pocket (northwest of Banana Creek), and; All waters south of an east-west line 3,400 feet north of the point where the State Road 405 Bridge crosses over the ICW, excluding the ICW channel as designated under (2)(e)3. Indian River, State Road 405 (NASA Parkway) to State Road 528 (Bennett Causeway): All waters north of an east-west line 3,000 feet south of the point where the State Road 405 Bridge crosses over the ICW, excluding the ICW channel as designated under (2)(e)3.; All waters west of the ICW channel and north of the overhead power transmission line that crosses the western shoreline of the Indian River approximately 1,200 feet north of State Road 528, excepting those areas otherwise designated for seasonal regulation under (2)(a), (b)1., and (c)1. when said seasonal zones are in effect; All waters south of said overhead power transmission line and west of a north-south line running through the second power pole east of the western shoreline; All waters within one-half mile of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River north of a point (approximate latitude 28º 25' 47" North, approximate longitude 80º 43' 24" West) on the eastern shoreline of the Indian River 1,500 feet south of the canal on the southern side of Meadow Lark Lane, including all waters of Rinkers Canal, and; All waters east of the ICW channel and south of the overhead power transmission line that crosses the eastern shoreline of the Indian River approximately 3,900 feet north of State Road 528. Indian River, State Road 528 (Bennett Causeway) to State Road 518 (Eau Gallie Causeway): All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the western shoreline of the Indian River; All waters south of State Road 528 and within 1908 Section II - Proposed Rules 500 feet of the State Road 528 Causeway, within 500 feet of the State Road 520 Causeway, within 500 feet of the State Road 404 Causeway, and north of State Road 518 and within 500 feet of the State Road 518 Causeway; All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River between State Road 528 and State Road 520; All waters east of the ICW channel from State Road 520 to an east-west line 300 feet south of the southernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 19' 22" North, approximate longitude 80º 42' 00" West) of the spoil island east of ICW channel marker “80,” and; All waters within 500 feet of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River south of the aforementioned east-west line and north of State Road 404 (Pineda Causeway). Indian River, State Road 518 (Eau Gallie Causeway) to Cape Malabar: All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River; All waters south of State Road 518 and within 500 feet of the State Road 518 Causeway and within 500 feet of the State Road 192 Causeway; All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the western shoreline of the Indian River south of State Road 518 and north of the easternmost point (approximate latitude 28º 02' 24" North, approximate longitude 80º 34' 48" West) of Castaway Point (including all waters of the Eau Gallie River and Crane Creek), and; All waters south of said easternmost point of Castaway Point, north of Cape Malabar, and west of a line commencing at a point (approximate latitude 28º 02' 29" North, approximate longitude 80º 34' 38" West) in the Indian River 1,000 feet northeast of said easternmost point of Castaway point, then bearing 130° to the westernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 02' 15" North, approximate longitude 80º 34' 19" West) of the spoil site west of ICW channel marker “14,” then bearing 153° to the westernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 01' 32" North, approximate longitude 80º 33' 55" West) of the spoil site southwest of ICW channel marker “15,” then bearing 138° to the line’s terminus at a point (approximate latitude 28º 01' 12" North, approximate longitude 80º 33' 35" West) in the Indian River approximately 2,400 feet northeast of Cape Malabar. Indian River, Cape Malabar to Grant: All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River south of Cape Malabar and north of a point (approximate latitude 27º 55' 59" North, approximate longitude 80º 30' 30" West) on the eastern shoreline of the Indian River (north of Mullet Creek); All waters south of Cape Malabar, north of the spoil island between ICW channel markers “25” and “27,” and west of a line commencing at a point approximate latitude 28º 01' 12" North, approximate longitude 80º 33' 35" West) in the Indian River approximately 2,400 feet northeast of Cape Malabar, then bearing 157° to the easternmost point (approximate latitude 28º 00' 26" North, approximate longitude 80º 33' 13" West) of the spoil site between ICW channel markers “16” and “17,” then bearing 152° to the easternmost point (approximate latitude 27º 59' 21" North, approximate longitude 80º 32' 35" West) of the spoil island west of ICW channel marker “22,” then bearing 166° to the line’s terminus at the easternmost point (approximate latitude 27º 57' 50" North, approximate longitude 80º 32' 10" West) of the spoil island between ICW channel markers “25” and “27;” All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the western shoreline of the Indian River south of said spoil island between ICW channel markers “25” and “27,” and north of ICW channel marker “35,” and; All waters west of the ICW channel between ICW channel markers "35" and “38.” Indian River, Grant to the Indian River County Line: All waters west of the ICW channel between ICW channel marker "38" and the Brevard County/Indian River County line, including those waters east of the centerline of the U.S. 1 Bridge over the Sebastian River, and: All waters within 1,500 feet of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River, south of a point (approximate latitude 27º 55' 59" North, approximate longitude 80º 30' 30" West) on the eastern shoreline of the Indian River (north of Mullet Creek) and north of an east-west line running through ICW channel marker “59” (approximate latitude 27º 51' 38" North, approximate longitude 80º 28' 57" West), including those waters within 1,500 feet west of the westernmost edge of the Mullet Creek Islands, within 1,500 feet west of the westernmost edge of the islands south of Mathers Cove, within 1,500 feet west of the westernmost edge of Long Point, and within 1,500 feet west of the westernmost extensions of Campbell Pocket south to said east-west line running through ICW channel marker “59,” and; All waters of the Indian River and Sebastian Inlet east of the ICW channel, south of said east-west line running through ICW channel marker “59,” north of the Brevard County/Indian River County line, and west of a line 200 feet southwest of and parallel with the centerline of the State Road A1A Bridge, except as otherwise designated under (2)(c)5. and excluding the marked Sebastian Inlet channel. Sebastian River Area: All waters of the Sebastian River (including waters also known as San Sebastian Bay), the South Fork San Sebastian River (also known as St. Sebastian River, Sebastian River and Sebastian Creek), and the North Fork Sebastian River (also known as Sebastian Creek) within Brevard County west of the centerline of the U.S. 1 Bridge and east of a north-south line from a point (approximate latitude 27º 50' 08" North, approximate longitude 80º 31' 02" West) on the northern shoreline of the North Fork Sebastian River at the intersection of the river and the North Prong of Sebastian River. Canaveral Barge Canal: All waters of the Canaveral Barge Canal east of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of the Indian River and west of the general contour of the western shoreline of the Banana River. Sykes Creek and Kiwanis Basin: All waters of Sykes Creek and Kiwanis Basin south of the Canaveral Barge Canal and north of the centerline of State Road 520. Section II - Proposed Rules 1909 Newfound Harbor: All waters south of State Road 520 and within 1,000 feet of the State Road 520 Bridge and Causeway; All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the western shoreline of Newfound Harbor north of the runway for the Merritt Island Airport (approximately one mile south of State Road 520), and; All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the eastern shoreline of Newfound Harbor and an extension of said shoreline to a point 1,000 feet south of Buck Point. Banana River, North of State Road 528: All waters within 1,500 feet of the general contour of the western shoreline of the Banana River south of a point (approximate latitude 28º 26' 10" North, approximate longitude 80º 39' 35" West) on the shoreline near Kars Park on the boundary of the federal No Motor zone; All waters south of an east-west line running through the westernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 24' 42" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 34" West) of the first spoil island north of the Canaveral Locks (commonly known as Ski Island), including those waters in Port Canaveral west of State Road 401, and; All waters east and south of a line commencing at the northernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 24' 44" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 32" West) of Ski Island, then running to the southernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 24' 55" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 31" West) of the second spoil island north of the Canaveral Locks, then following the eastern shoreline of said spoil island to its northernmost point, then bearing 6° to a point (approximate latitude 28º 25' 09" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 29" West) in the Banana River underneath the overhead power transmission line south of the third spoil island north of Canaveral Locks, then following said transmission line (which is the boundary of the federal No Motor zone) in an easterly direction to the line’s terminus at a point (approximate latitude 28º 25' 16" North, approximate longitude 80º 36' 13" West) on the eastern shoreline of the Banana River. Banana River, State Road 528 to State Road 520: All waters south of State Road 528 and north of an east-west line 1,000 feet south of the point where the State Road 528 Bridge crosses over the main Banana River channel, except as otherwise designated under (2)(c)2.; All waters west of a line running from a point (approximate latitude 28º 24' 16" North, approximate longitude 80º 39' 30" West) on the State Road 528 Causeway east of the western State Road 528 Relief Bridge to a point (approximate latitude 28º 21' 26" North, approximate longitude 80º 39' 32" West) on the State Road 520 Causeway approximately 1,200 feet west of the water storage tanks, and; All waters south of a line bearing 270° from the southwesternmost point (approximate latitude 28º 23' 29" North, approximate longitude 80º 37' 10" West) of Long Point in Cape Canaveral to a point (approximate latitude 28º 23' 29" North, approximate longitude 80º 37' 49" West) in the Banana River approximately 3,500 feet west of Long Point, and east of a line bearing 174° from said point in the Banana River to a point (approximate latitude 28º 21' 28" North, approximate longitude 80º 37' 35" West) on the State Road 520 Causeway approximately 1,000 feet west of Cape Canaveral Hospital Complex. Banana River, Cocoa Beach Area: All waters south of State Road 520 and within 1,000 feet of the State Road 520 Causeway, excluding the main Banana River channel; All waters within 1,000 feet of the general contour of the western shoreline of the Banana River, south of State Road 520 and north of Buck Point and an extension of said shoreline to a point 1,000 feet south of Buck Point, excluding the main Banana River channel where the channel is less than 1,000 feet from the western shoreline, and; All waters east of a line commencing at a point (approximate latitude 28º 21' 25" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 30" West) on the State Road 520 Causeway (approximately 2,000 feet east of the State Road 520 Bridge over the main Banana River channel), then bearing 190° to a point (approximate latitude 28º 19' 15" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 55" West) in the Banana River approximately 1,900 feet west of the northwesternmost point of the Cocoa Beach Municipal Park, then bearing 270° to a point (approximate latitude 28º 18' 38" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 55" West) in the Banana River approximately 1,700 feet west of the southwesternmost point of the Cocoa Beach Municipal Park, then bearing 171° for approximately 3,000 feet to a point (approximate latitude 28º 18' 07" North, approximate longitude 80º 38' 50" West) in the Banana River east of channel marker “15,” then bearing 124° to a point (approximate latitude 28º 16' 52" North, approximate longitude 80º 36' 45" West) in the Banana River 1,000 feet west of the eastern shoreline of the Banana River, then heading in a southerly direction 1,000 west of and parallel with the eastern shoreline of the Banana River to the line’s terminus at a point (approximate latitude 28º 15' 51" North, approximate longitude 80º 36' 38" West) in the Banana River near the northern boundary of Patrick Air Force Base. Banana River, South of Cocoa Beach to State Road 404 (Pineda Causeway): All waters south of an east-west line running through the southernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 16' 19" North, approximate longitude 80º 39' 25" West) of the more southerly of the two islands east of Macaw Way (on Merritt Island) and west of a line bearing 162° from said southernmost point to State Road 404; All waters south and east of the overhead power transmission line in the Banana River adjacent to Patrick Air Force Base, and; All waters north of the centerline of State Road 404 and within 2,000 feet of the State Road 404 Bridges and Causeway, excluding the main Banana River channel as designated under (2)(e)5. Banana River, South of State Road 404 (Pineda Causeway): All waters south of the centerline of State Road 404, including those waters east of a line bearing 270° from the southernmost point (approximate latitude 28º 08' 32" North, approximate longitude 80º 36' 15" West) of Merritt Island 1910 Section II - Proposed Rules (commonly known as Dragon Point) to the Eau Gallie Causeway, excluding the main Banana River channel as designated under (2)(e)5. 25 MPH (All Year) Mosquito Lagoon: All waters in the ICW channel south of the Volusia County/Brevard County line and north of ICW channel marker “43” (north of Haulover Canal). Indian River, Turnbull Basin and Titusville Area: All waters in the ICW channel southwest of ICW channel marker “1” (southwest of Haulover Canal) and north of an east-west line 1,200 feet south of the point where the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge crosses over the ICW. Indian River, State Road 405 (NASA Parkway) Area: All waters in the ICW channel south of an east-west line 3,400 feet north of the point where the State Road 405 Bridge crosses over the ICW and north of an east-west line 3,000 feet south of the point where the State Road 405 Bridge crosses over the ICW. South Indian River Area: All waters in the ICW channel south of ICW channel marker “59” and north of the Brevard County/Indian River County line. South Banana River Area: All waters in the main Banana River channel south of a point in the channel 2,000 feet north of the State Road 404 Bridge, and north of a point (approximate latitude 28º 09' 15" North, approximate longitude 80º 36' 32" West) in the channel on the northern boundary of the local Idle Speed zone approximately 1,900 feet north of the Mathers Bridge. Commercial Fishing and Professional Fishing Guide Permits: The following provisions pertain to the issuance of permits to allow individuals engaged in commercial fishing and professional fishing guide activities to operate their vessels in specified areas at speeds greater than the speed limits established under subsection (2) above. Procedures related to the application for and the review and issuance of these permits are as set forth in 68C-22.003, Florida Administrative Code. Permits shall be limited as follows: Permits shall only be available for the zones or portions of zones described under (2)(d)1. through (2)(d)9., and (2)(d)13. through (2)(d)18. Permits shall not apply on weekends or on the holidays identified in s. 110.117, F.S. Permit applications may be obtained at the Commission’s Law Enforcement office at 1-A Max Brewer Memorial Parkway in Titusville or by contacting the Commission at Mail Station OES-BPS, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (850-922-4330). Access to the NO ENTRY and MOTORBOATS PROHIBITED zones is allowed for Reliant Corporation employees or their authorized agents (for the zones designated under (2)(a)1. and (b)1.) and for Florida Power and Light Company employees or their authorized agents (for the zone designated under (2)(a)2.) provided that entry into the zones is necessary to conduct activities associated with power plant maintenance, emergency operations or environmental monitoring. The Commission must receive notification of the activity prior to its commencement. In the event of an emergency activity, the Commission shall be notified no more than one week after the activity has been commenced. All vessels used in the operation or associated with the activity shall be operated at no greater than Idle Speed while within the zones and must have an observer on board to look for manatees. The zones described in 68C-22.006(2) are depicted on the following maps, labeled “Brevard County Manatee Protection Zones.” The maps are intended as depictions of the above-described zones. In the event of conflict between the maps and descriptions, the descriptions shall prevail. DATA SOURCES CONSIDERED BY FWCC IN PROMULGATING THE PROPOSED RULE FWCC's staff who were primarily responsible for the development of the recommended revisions to the BCMPR to the FWCC included: Scott Calleson, who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Marine Science and a Masters of Science degree with emphasis on Environmental Planning and Natural Resource Management, and has worked with manatee protection rules since 1992; David Arnold, who holds both a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and a Master of Science degree in Biological Oceanography, and who supervised the Department of Environmental Protection's marine turtle protection program prior to becoming Chief of the Bureau of Protected Species Management in 1995; and Dr. Charles Deutsch, who has both a Bachelor of Science and a Doctorate degree in Biology with specialization in biology of marine mammals and behavior, animal behavior and behavioral ecology, and worked for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in a number of analyses of manatee radio tracking along the Atlantic Coast. The verbal, narrative and graphical presentations of the experts were relied upon in making recommendations to the FWCC for the proposed rule revisions. FWCC's staff gave good faith consideration to the experts' opinions, publications, articles, data analysis, and reasonable inferences and predictions. MANATEE MORTALITY DATA FWCC relied upon manatee mortality data in evaluating manatee inhabitation (Brevard County Mortality Information and Brevard County Misc. Information), including FMRI manatee salvage database for Brevard County from January 1974 to December 2000 (including carcass recovery location and cause of death). AERIAL SURVEY DATA In evaluating manatee inhabitation, FWCC relied upon manatee aerial survey data in existing manatee inhabitations. Included in this process were: information on aerial surveys performed for Kennedy Space Center by Dynamic Corporation; Geographic Information System information for FMRI's 1997-1999 Brevard County aerial survey along with data in "Seasonal Manatee Distribution and Relative Abundance in Brevard County, Florida, 1997-1999"; Geographic Information System data from earlier Brevard County aerial surveys; and aerial surveys conducted by the Florida Marine Research Institute and others. Aerial Surveys Aerial surveys have been conducted by the Florida Marine Research Institute and others using various techniques. One type of aerial survey technique is a statewide survey. These surveys are typically flown in the winter, after the passage of a cold front. Typical winter aggregation areas are included in these surveys. The synoptic surveys are used for monitoring winter aggregations of manatees. Population biologists working on manatee recovery view synoptic survey results as the best available information about the minimum estimated size of the manatee population in Florida at this time. The statewide synoptic survey data from the past several years is as stated in Finding of Fact 23 herein above. In addition to statewide surveys, targeted aerial surveys in specific areas are used to establish manatee distribution and relative manatee abundance. The commission in assessing manatee use of an area and then establishing manatee protection regulations uses these types of surveys. SYNOPTIC AERIAL SURVEYS Considered by FWCC was the statewide synoptic survey for the period 1991 to 2001. These surveys are used for monitoring winter aggregation of manatees and provide a minimum estimate of the number of manatees observed. Population biologists view synoptic survey results as the best available information source to estimate the minimum size of the manatee population in Florida at the present time. The statewide synoptic survey data for the years 1991-2001 are detailed in paragraph 22 herein above. The Berkeley Canal system location, where manatees were observed on January 6, 2001, has four connecting canals to the eastern shoreline of the Banana River; the northernmost connection is just south of the Pineda Causeway and the southernmost connecting canal is located about three and three-fourths miles to the south between Carter's Cut and the Mathers Bridge. The West Banana River shoreline locations where manatees were observed on January 6, 2001, is the Banana River Marina. MANATEE DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE Targeted aerial surveys in specific areas are used to establish manatee distribution and relative manatee abundance. They are used in assessing manatee use of an area and then in establishing manatee protection regulations in those areas. Forty-five flights between September 1997 and September 1999 are the most comprehensive and recent FMRI aerial surveys in Brevard County. Aerial surveys possess an inherent bias because the location of animals can only be seen during daylight hours and do not account for nighttime locations. FWCC's aerial survey data were presented in various forms: raw data entry sheets completed by the surveyors; a composite, GSI plot of the data points for Brevard County; small- format GIS plots of data points that depicted manatees seen by month; and small-format GIS plots of data points that depicted manatees seen during each flight, along a flight path. Before the 1997-1999 Bervard survey, relative abundance and distribution surveys for portions of Brevard County were conducted in late-1985 through early-1987. The 1985-87 Banana River surveys included only the area between Launch Complex 39B and Eau Gallie, but included portions of Canaveral Barge Canal, Sykes Creek and Newfound Harbor. Flights were flown over the Cocoa Beach area during morning hours for a nine-month period (March 3, 1990- November 27, 1990), and showed more than one manatee during each flight, with one exception on March 3, 1990. SATELLITE TELEMETRY DATA AND VHF RADIO TELEMETRY DATA The FWCC relied upon manatee telemetry data in evaluating manatee inhabitation for Brevard County. Included in the satellite and VHF radio telemetry data relative to inhabitation was a GIS database obtained from the "United States Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Division, Florida Carribean Science Center, Sirenia Project, Gainesville, Florida," and reports authored by Dr. Charles Deutsch who analyzed the USGS data. The USGS Sirenia Project data analyzed by Dr. Deutsch were collected from May 1986 to May 1998, and included both VHF radio and telemetry and satellite telemetry data for the 78 manatees that were tagged for varying amounts of time during that period along the lower East Coast of the United States, excluding data for manatees that were born and raised in captivity. This data was considered by Dr. Deutsch as the best telemetry data available. Of the full USGS Sirenia Project data evaluated by Dr. Deutsch, 61 manatees were tracked at some time during the study period in Brevard County, including 16 manatees that were only tracked using VHF radio tracking and not satellite telemetry. The maximum number of tagged manatees observed in Brevard County during the study period was 12 manatees at one time. Dr. Deutsch opined that about one or two percent of the documented East Coast manatee sub-population was tracked each year. The radio telemetry data subsets from the Sirenia Project covered a ten-year period from May 1986, and included over 6,000 manatee observations for 54 individual tagged manatees. Of those 6,000 observation points, three-quarters (almost 5,000) were actual visual sighting of manatees made by persons on shore or in vessels. Of those visual sightings, approximately ten percent were made by non-government employees. The satellite telemetry data evaluated by Dr. Deutsch included data for 45-tagged manatees that was collected from April 1987 to May 1998, with over 34,000 location records of Class 1, 2, or 3 accuracy. Of the 61-tagged manatees that were observed in Brevard County during the 12-year study period, the median tracking period was 135 days, with some animals tracked for several years while others were tracked for shorter periods of time. Of the 61 manatees tracked in Brevard County, approximately one-half were fitted with radio or satellite telemetry transmitters (tags) while in Brevard County, the other half were tagged in different areas of northeast Florida, in southeast Georgia, or in southeast Florida. A majority of the animals tagged outside of Brevard County were observed in Brevard County, and Dr. Deutsch opined that this data demonstrated Brevard County to be the hub of manatee activity along the Atlantic Coast. MIGRATORY RANGE OF TAGGED MANATEES The size of the migratory ranges of tracked manatees varied with considerable variation of movement by individual manatees in Brevard County. Some manatees would spend eight months of the year near Canaveral Sewer Plant (Banana River) and spend each winter near Port Everglades (Ft. Lauderdale). Many tagged manatees displayed strong site-fidelity, returning to the same seasonal locations yearly while others did not. Telemetry data points are not precisely a depiction of the actual and true location of the manatee at the time of data transmission from the tag to the satellite. Services Argos, the company that administers the hardware, assigned 68 percent of the data points within 150 meters of the true location in class three locations. In 1994, USGS performed accuracy experiments in Brevard County of satellite telemetry and found location class 3 data points to be within 225 meters of the true location, and 95 percent within 500 meters of the true location. In addition to Dr. Deutsch's reports, FWCC considered various telemetry papers and publications pertaining to Brevard County: "Tagged Manatee Use of the Cocoa Beach/Thousand Island Area;" "Winter Movements and Use of Warm-water Refugia by Radio- tagged West Indian Manatees Along the Atlantic Coast of the United States;" and "Easton, Tagged Manatee Movement through the Canaveral Barge Canal, Brevard County Florida" (February 14, 1997). MANATEE SIGHTING DATA FWCC relied upon manatee sighting data in its evaluation of manatee inhabitation. Included in the sighting data was the Brevard County 2001 Rule Development and Trip Notes of February 6- 7, 2001; Sea Ray Boats, Inc. Water Test Re-Run Manatee Sighting Records for 2000-2001; Canaveral Barge Canal Boater Activity and Compliance Study; Sharon Tyson's Sykes Creek Observation Records; and cold-seasons sighting logs for the C-54 canal structure. STUDIES AND REPORTS PERTAINING TO MANATEE DISTRIBUTION, RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, HABITAT, BEHAVIOR, OR OTHER MANATEE INFORMATION. FWCC considered and relied upon the Brevard County Manatee Protection Plan that included an inventory and analysis section about manatees, analysis of manatee mortality data, manatee legislation and protection, law enforcement, habitat issues, existing boat facilities, Brevard County boating activity patterns, and an inventory of present manatee education programs. The existing Federal Manatee Recovery Plan, to which members of the Bureau of Protected Species and Florida Marine Research Institute contributed, was relied upon. SCAR CATALOG DATA FWCC considered and relied upon scar catalog data in evaluating manatee protection needs with Brevard County Misc. Information as the source provider. EXPERT OPINIONS FWCC relied upon expert opinions in evaluating manatee inhabitation. A staff meeting with manatee experts, as part of the process, included, but was not limited to, meetings with Jane Provancha and Sharon Tyson in December 2000, meetings and discussions with Dr. Charles Deutsch between November 2000 and May 2001, and various discussions with members of the federal Recovery Plan Team. OTHER AVAILABLE SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FWCC considered site-specific information that was available, principally drafts of the Brevard County Manatee Protection Plan. FWCC also considered site-specific information about water skiing areas and prospective additional travel times in various waters proposed for new, or changed, regulations. DATA ANALYSIS Threat Analysis Rule 68C-22.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, contemplates a qualitative assessment and exercise of discretion by taking into consideration a balancing of manatee protection needs, including an assessment of relative threats to manatees, with the right of boaters, fishers and water skiers. In assessing where threats to manatees may exist from motorboats, the manatee death database provides information on confirmed interactions, such as locations where manatee carcasses have been recovered. Manatee deaths, carcass recovery and confirmed interactions locations are maintained in FMRI's database. From January 1974 to December 2000, 728 manatees died in Brevard County and 184 of those deaths were because of interactions with watercrafts. Watercraft related deaths account for 23.5 percent of all manatee deaths recorded in Brevard County between 1974 and 2000. Approximately 19 percent of all watercraft related deaths of manatees in Florida have occurred in Brevard County. FWCC has determined that manatee death from watercraft interaction is due to blunt trauma more than 50 percent of the time. Deaths from propeller cuts account for less than 50 percent. Often injury instead of immediate death from motorboat strikes is the case. Many manatees have scars from previous sub- lethal motorboat strikes, and manatees have been observed with more than 30 different strike patterns. Where the cause of death is classified as watercraft related, carcass recovery may or may not be where the collision occurred depending upon the acuteness of the injury at the time of collision. Acuteness of the injury, wind, current, tide, and decomposition all affect the location of the carcass at the time of salvage. Additionally, operation of motorboats can disrupt essential manatee behaviors such as warm water sheltering, feeding, sleeping, mating, and nursing. This harassment can lead to cold-related illnesses and increase mortality risk by driving manatees from warm water refuges. The increase in the Atlantic Coast manatee population and the increase of the number of boat registrations result in an increase in the threat of harmful collisions between boats and manatees. Geographic Scope of Threat Analysis Section 370.12(2)(m), Florida Statutes, does not specifically describe the geographic scope of the FWCC's evaluation of "other portions of state waters" for manatee sightings and assumed inhabitation on a periodic or continuous basis. Subsection 370.12(2)(g), Florida Statutes, suggests that the evaluation of manatee sightings is appropriate for large portions of navigable waterways, such as the Indian River between St. Lucie Inlet and Jupiter Inlet. A "waterway" is generally defined as "a navigable body of water." (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1333.) Rule 68C-22.001(3)(a)2.f., Florida Administrative Code, contemplates a qualitative assessment of the "likelihood of threat" to manatees. The only reference is to the "characteristics of the waterway in question." The rule does not mandate the geographic scope of a "threat evaluation." The FWCC analyzed various data on different scales depending upon the nature of the inquiry - the evaluation of sighting "frequency" generally considered a large geographical area such as a section of a river. Conversely, the regulatory alternatives to protect manatees were evaluated at a smaller or finer scale. The Commission also considered segments of waterways divided by causeways or natural barriers. The Commission considered research that divided Brevard County (north of Eau Gallie) into 12 zones for purposes of analysis. In the Brevard County Manatee Protection Plan, the waterways were analyzed in terms of seven "planning zones," to include review of physical characteristics such as bathymetry and sedimentological conditions, shoreline conditions, and water quality; Manatee Habitat Features, including sea grass, mangrove/salt marsh, freshwater sources, warm water refugia, calving and resting areas, feeding areas, travel corridors, and habitat protection; Manatee Data including manatee abundance and distribution and manatee mortality; boat facilities; boating activity patterns; waterspouts areas; and manatee zones. The Commission's consideration of waterway characteristics and manatee behavior during the Brevard County rule-making process, including the geographic scope of manatee inhabitation and threat from watercraft, was reasonable and consistent with the approach taken by other resource management agencies and researchers as contemplated by the statutory purpose. Proximity and Degree of Known Boating Activities FWCC evaluated available boating activity information in assessing threat. Staff considered the general analysis of boating activity and detailed analysis of boating activity in specific portions of Brevard County as provided in the County's MPP; included therein were maps that show locations of the County's 72 marinas and 65 boat ramps, of which 27 are public ramps. Also considered was the study of Brevard County-Wide Boating Activity by Dr. J. Morris, of the Morris of Florida Institute of Technology. Dr. Morris' inquiry resulted in the following specific finding. First, Brevard County residents are the primary ones who launch at boat ramps, followed by residents of Orange, Osecola, Seminole, Indian River and Volusia counties. Second, the Inter Costal Waterways experiences increases in transient traffic during late fall and winter months, including out-of-state boats. Third, Class One boats (16 to 25 feet) are the most observed type, followed by Class A (less than 16 feet) vessels. Fourth, most boating activity occurs during weekends. Fifth, the greatest concentrations of boats were in specific areas such as NASA causeway (SR 405, Indian River), East Canaveral Barge Canal, SR 520 and the Banana River (the Merritt Island Causeway), the Pineda Causeway (SR 404, Banana River), the Melbourne Causeway (Indian River), near Grant Island Farm, the Sebastian River and the Sebastian Inlet. Dr. Morris concluded that the boating public preferred to cruise the waters of the lagoons with the marked channels and use Indian and Banana Rivers as highways for recreational boating purposes. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) closed a portion of the northern Banana River within the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge to public boat entry, limiting public entry to wading or by non-motorized vessels. The closed area has one of the largest concentrations of manatees in the United States, and recently has been the most important springtime habitat for the east coast manatee population. As a result of the March 1990 closing to motorized boats, an average increase of manatee use observed during the summer months in the area increased by 60 percent. The increased use is attributed to improved habitat quality aided by the lack of human disturbance and reduced propeller scarring of sea grass. In December of 1994, Dr. Morris submitted a report, "An Investigation of Compliance to Boat Speed Regulations in Manatee Protection Zones in Brevard County, Florida." This report contained an analysis from on-water and aerial observations in both "slow speed" and "idle speed" zones in various areas of Brevard County for a one-year period of April 1993 to April 1994. At Mosquito Lagoon, of 1,214 boats observed, speeds were clocked for 98 percent of the boats and 11 percent of those exceeded the posted Inter Costal Waterways 30 MPH speed limit, all of which were recreational boats. At the Indian River site between Grant and Sebastian, 2,511 boats were observed, speeds were clocked for 97 percent of the boats and 16 percent of those exceeded the posted ICW 30 MPH speed limit. In posted "slow speed" zones outside the ICW channel, 25 percent of boats observed underway were deemed non- compliant with the speed zone limitation. Of those non-compliant Class A powerboats, the violators were typically personal watercrafts ("Jet Ski" type vessels.) A detailed boater activity study was made of the Canaveral Barge Canal and Sykes Creek Area. The study found, in part, that: highest boating use occurred during holidays, except during bad weather; most use occurred on weekends; and in Canaveral Barge Canal and Sykes Creek 63 percent of the vessels were Class 1 boats and 74.3 percent of the vessels were Class 2 or Class 3 boats. INCREASED LEVEL OF BOATING ACTIVITY IN BREVARD COUNTY In general, the level of boating activity in Brevard County continues to increase with the increasing population, launching facilities, and boat registrations in Brevard County and nearby counties, including Orange and Seminole counties. In 2000, 34,316 vessels were registered in Brevard County. In the preceding year there were 31,842 vessels registered. In 1995, 28,147 boats were registered and in 1987, 23,352 boats were registered in Brevard County. In 2000, Florida registered 840,684 recreational vessels, an increase over the 695,722 vessels registered in 1994. Boating accidents increased with the increased registration of vessels with Brevard County ranking 10th out of the state's 67 counties with the number of boating accidents. Brevard County, since mid-1990's, has registered an increased number of "flats skiffs" which are shallow draft, low profile motorboats capable of speeds up to 50-60 MPH while operating in shallow (about 1 foot) water and often used for sight-fishing in shallow sea grass flats. SEASONAL AND/OR YEAR-ROUND PATTERNS OF MANATEE USE AND THE NUMBER OF MANATEES KNOWN OR ASSUMED TO OCCUR IN, OR SEASONALLY USE THE AREA FWCC staff evaluated whether seasonal restrictions could or would be effective. Staff concluded that the only seasonal regulation of motorboats justifiable by the data was at the power plant discharges in the Indian River. At those locations, extreme concentrations of manatees are regular during the cold season. Year-round manatee protections were proposed for this area, but they would have to be more restrictive during the winter months. During the coldest periods of winter, following a strong cold front, manatees have been observed in large concentrations in: the power plant discharges at Florida Power and Light Company's Indian River plant and at the adjacent Reliant Energy Plant and the Sebastian River Canal. The congregation of manatees at thermal refuges on cold winter days was not for the duration of the winter season. They have been known to leave the thermal refuge for a part of a day, a day, or for many days at a time. Sharon Tyson, observer, performed a detailed Brevard County Manatee Photo-Identification Project during late 1999 and early 2000 at the Brevard County power plants, and documented a number of manatees in the FPL discharge zone between December 24, 1999, and March 4, 2000. During that period the number of manatees in the zone varied greatly, through late-December to mid-January (from 7 to 57 manatees). On January 16, 2000, no manatees were present. On January 17, 2000, 10 manatees were present. On January 23, 2000, 29 manatees were counted. Two weeks later, February 6, 2000, 111 manatees were present. Similar sightings made at the C-54 Canal Structure (near Sebastian Creek), during the same time-period, found as few as 11 manatees to as many as 90 manatees. Apart from the extreme concentration of manatees during extremely cold periods, manatees are distributed through the county waterways during each season of the year. The 1997-1999 Brevard County Aerial Survey GIS Plots gave a clear representation of year-round manatee distribution patterns varying greatly. MANATEE MORTALITY TRENDS WITHIN THE AREA Only in rare cases is the approximate or actual location of a manatee and motorboat collision known. The FWCC considered and relied upon a review of the general trend of watercraft-related (and other) mortality County-wide to assess a generalized increased mortality trend. In doing so as part of the rule-making process, FWCC reviewed total manatee mortality for Brevard County for the period for which records existed from 1974 to 2000. That data base source indicated increasing watercraft mortality in recent years. FWCC evaluated manatee salvage data for January-March 2001 and preliminary information for April-May 2001. Staff employee, Scott Calleson's working file mortality information was reviewed and considered as was Dr. Ackerman's "Mortality Rates White Paper," which concluded that human-caused manatee mortality levels were at an unsustainable rate in the Atlantic, Brevard County, Tampa Bay, and Southwest Florida Regions. The Florida Inland Navigation District provided documentation that was considered in the FWCC rule making that included a regional evaluation of "Watercraft Related Manatee Deaths in the Nine Critical Counties of FIND" from 1990-1999. Of these nine critical east coast counties, Brevard County had the highest mortality trend. During the last two-to-three years, there has not been a clear trend of increased manatee mortality in Brevard County, but the number of watercraft-related mortalities is capable of being reduced, in part, through improved regulations. Historical manatee mortality data for Brevard County from 1977 through 2000 demonstrates a clearly increasing trend in watercraft-related manatee mortality. For each five-year increment, water-related manatee mortality has increased as follows: from 1977-1979 there were an average of 1.9 water-related mortalities/year; 1980-1985 there were 4.6 mortalities/year; 1986-1990 there were 7 mortalities/year; 1991-1995 there were 8.8 mortalities/year; and 1996-2000 there were 11.8 mortalities/year. EXISTENCE OF FEATURES WITHIN THE AREA THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF, OR KNOWN TO ATTRACT, MANATEES SUCH AS SEAGRASSES, FAVORABLE WATER DEPTHS, AND FRESH OR WARM WATER SOURCES Dr. Deutsch stated that his telemetry analysis indicated that the most important habitat correlation for Brevard County manatees was with sea grass, and in particular, often with outer edge of sea grass beds. Manatees prefer feeding on submerged, emergent and floating vegetation, generally in that order. Manatees extensively use Brevard County sea grass beds for feeding. Sea grass coverage is depicted on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Boater's Guide to Brevard County, which has no date, but was prepared by the DEP. Sea grass coverage in 1989 is depicted in the 2000 maps prepared by the STMC, using the Atlas of Marine Resources, Versions 1.2 and 1.3b. The most recent St. Johns River Water Management District sea grass coverage data for the Indian River Lagoon indicates a strong correlation between sea grass coverage in waters with an average depth of 66.93 inches (1.7 meters) or less. As of 1992, of the estimated 46.190 acres of sea grass in Brevard County, nine percent of the sea grass suffered light scarring from boat activity; 4.2 percent of the sea grass suffered moderate scarring; and 13.4 percent of the sea grass suffered severe scarring. Areas with boat scarring of sea grass included a number of areas that are included within proposed "slow speed" zones: the eastern portion of Turnbill Basin; the eastern shoreline of the Indian River between the NASA railroad bridge and Rinkers Canal; the Banana River around Manatee Cove and south of the City Golf Course; the northwest part of Newfound Harbor; and the western shoreline of the Banana River, between Newfound Harbor and Pineda Causeway. The location of the proposed manatee protection zones corresponds well to the location of sea grass beds, deeper waters and channels adjacent to sea grass beds or established migratory routes, and fresh warm water sources. FAVORABLE WATER DEPTHS Dr. Deutsch stated that his telemetry analysis indicated that bathymetry is an important habitat correlate for Brevard County. Generally, tagged manatees were observed in the area from a two-meter (6.65 feet) depth contour to the shoreline. FWCC consideration of "favorable water depths" took into account the fact that water levels fluctuate in the Indian River Lagoon. However, unlike many coastal areas of Florida, the Indian River Lagoon does not experience significant daily tidal fluctuation. On an annual basis, however, the water level fluctuates about 2.5 to 3 feet in response to environmental conditions. It was determined to be impractical to amend manatee protection rules (and to move regulatory signs implementing the rules) in response to changing water levels. Manatees usually swim between one to three meters (3.28 to 9.84 feet) below the surface, surfacing every few minutes to breathe, and typically feed at just below the surface to a depth of three meters. Manatee experts, including persons with extensive experience observing manatee behavior in Brevard County, all testified that manatees used areas where the water level at the time was less than three feet for mating, feeding, fleeing a pack of male manatees, and resting. The FWCC used a bathymetric survey prepared on behalf of the St. Johns River Water Management District for purposes of establishing preferred sea grass habitats during the rule-making and considered the bathymetry in conjunction with other data to predict areas where manatees are likely to inhabit. The St. Johns District advised the FWCC staff that the 1.7-meter depth on its bathymetric survey was the rough depth limit for sea grass, and provided the FWCC staff with a GIS file on the bathymetric survey at 0.3-meter depth intervals for most areas, although the approximate sea grass contour was shown as 1.5 to 1.7 meters. Surveys are tied to a horizontal datum and a vertical datum. A survey depicts the three-dimensional lagoon basin, part of the spheroid planet Earth, on a two-dimensional map. The hydrographic survey data used by the FWCC in the rule-making was based upon a survey tied to a horizontal datum - North American Datum (NAD) 83/90; and a vertical datum - North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD-88). The horizontal and vertical accuracy of the survey differs. Positional accuracy of horizontal (e.g. shorelines) points is within 1 to 5 meters (3.28 to 16.4 feet). Vertical accuracy of depth data points averages within .03 feet. The hydrographic survey states that it is not to be used for navigation - - "The use of NAVD-88 for the bathymetric survey gives the impression of deeper water than is actually present within the lagoon since the "0" contour of NAVD-88 is located on dry land approximately 1 foot above the ordinary water line." Manatee distribution from aerial surveys and 1992 bathymetry data was graphically depicted by the STMC and confirms manatee use of areas proposed for regulation in the proposed rules. FRESH WATER SOURCES FWCC considered and relied upon major fresh water sources that have been historically used by manatees such as: Turnbull Creek; Titusville Marina/POTW; Addison Canal; the two Indian River power plants; two wells along the eastern shoreline of the Indian River approximately two miles south of Rinkers Canal; the intersection of Bacardi and Dakar Drive in Sykes Creek; the Cape Canaveral POTW (sewer plant); the Banana River Marina; the outfall into the Indian River from the east shore of Merritt Island westerly of the south end of Newfound Harbor; the Indian River Isles; the Eau Gallie River; Crane Creek; Turkey Creek; and the Sebastian River. Also considered were less significant sources of fresh water found at many marina basins, at the Sear Ray Boats, Inc. facilities and in residential canals. WARM WATER SOURCES FWCC considered major warm water sources in the two Indian River power plants and the Sebastian River Canal. Minor sources of warm water include deeper water and areas with artesian springs such as: Port Canaveral; a basin off Wynar Street in Sykes Creek; the Banana River Marina; and the Berkeley Canals. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WATERWAY IN QUESTION IN RELATION TO KNOWN BOATING ACTIVITY PATTERNS FWCC considered, as its basic source document, Morris' Final Report for Brevard County Boating Activity Study. Boating activity patterns in Brevard County are dependent upon weather, economic conditions, and other factors. Larger motorboats (including tug/barge combinations) are constrained in movement to deeper water--in some areas, primarily within marked or maintained navigation channels including the Canaveral Locks, Canaveral Barge Canal, ICW, and Banana River main channel. In the Indian River, south of the NASA railroad bridge, the deeper area outside of the marked channel widens to between half-a-mile to a mile with depths ranging from seven to 12 feet MLLW, all the way to Rock Point, just north of Grant. For most of the length of the County, larger boats have sufficient water depth to travel adjacent to the ICW channel. Waters outside the main channel in the Banana River are relatively shallow. The Canaveral Barge Canal is dredged to maintain a depth of approximately 15 feet. Barges and escorting tugs navigate through the Canaveral Locks and into the ICW. Some barges proceed northward from the Canaveral Locks into the Banana River channel to make deliveries to the Space Center, according to the Lockmaster, Mr. Querry. Sea Ray Boats, Inc.'s, design and production facilities located along the Canaveral Barge Canal use the Canal to access testing areas to the west in the Indian River ICW, to the east in the Banana River channel, and in the Atlantic Ocean. Limited retests are permitted in an area adjacent to the Canaveral Barge Canal facilities. Recreational motorboats and personal watercrafts can be operated outside of marked channels. Some of these recreational motorboats can navigate "on plane" and up to 60 MPH in water about one-foot deep. Motorboat users engage in a variety of activities having differing operational patterns. Fishers might prefer to travel at relatively high speed enroute to preferred fishing areas, and then operate with a push pole, trolling motor or adrift, in order to hunt certain species of fish. If no fish are located, then high-speed operation to another spot is used, repeating the pattern of locating fish by sight. Water-skiers usually operate at high speed in a relatively small area, usually protected from the wind, and often located near an island or park. BOAT-MANATEE INTERACTIONS FWCC considered that manatees display varying reactions to motorboats. Higher speed motorboat operation in relatively shallow water presents a greater threat to manatees than operation at slow speed or idle speed or than operation in relatively deeper waters, since manatees have fewer opportunities to avoid the collision. Manatees can swim or rest at the surface or underwater and must come to the surface to breathe air every two to three minutes for smaller, active manatees and up to 20 minutes for large, resting manatees. Their general cruising speed is two to six miles per hour, but they can travel at short bursts up to 15 MPH. Boats operated at "slow speed" vary in miles-per-hour over the bottom within a range of about seven to eight miles-per- hour. At "slow speed," the manatee and vessel operator have more time to avoid collision, or the manatee can avoid serious blunt trauma injury from collisions with most vessels. The ability of manatees to avoid being hit by motorboats has diminished in Brevard County as a result of an increase in the manatee population, increase of motorboats, increase in boating access points, and development and use of faster boats that operate in less-predicable (non-linear) patterns in relatively shallow waters where manatees often feed on submerged vegetation. TESTIMONY REGARDING MOTORBOAT-MANATEE INTERACTION Officer Dennis Harrah, qualified as expert in boating safety, marine law enforcement, and local knowledge of the waterways of Brevard County, testified that "slow speed" zones provide greater reaction time for the vessel operator to avoid collision than unrestricted speed areas and than the "25 MPH maximum speed" areas. He further testified that "idle speed" zones provide greater reaction time for vessel operators to avoid collision than "slow speed" areas. Dr. John Reynolds, qualified as expert in marine mammal conservation and policy, manatee biology and behavioral ecology of marine mammals, opined, based on frequent observation of motorboat-manatee interactions, review of videotapes of such interactions, and review of studies on the subject, that there is an increased threat to manatees associated with boats that operate in planing speeds as opposed to slow speeds. His opinion is based, in part, on "common sense" that objects moving faster have greater momentum and therefore greater magnitude of impact, and on the reduced reaction time of both vessel operators and manatees to avoid collision. Dr. Reynolds was not aware of any evidence to suggest that the majority of watercraft strikes to manatees are from vessels operating at "slow speed," and it is his belief that "a good percentage of manatee mortality was from fast-moving vessels." Ms. Spellman, qualified as expert in marine biology and in manatee rescue and salvage, testified that she had observed considerable variability in manatees' reactions to kayaks, canoes and windsurfers, including manatees approaching the vessel, manatees not reacting at all, and manatees swimming away. She has observed manatee reactions to small motorboats as highly variant, depending upon the animal, including: swimming under a slow-moving motorboat, moving just as a motorboat approaches at idle speed, or diving and leaving the area as soon as a motorboat got anywhere near. Ms. Spellman testified, based upon her presence in the waters of the Canaveral Barge Canal or in the Port east of the Locks, that she has been in the water with manatees on five occasions when a barge/tug combination came by and in all cases the manatees reacted to the barge well in advance of the barge coming near her and the manatee, and that in each instance the manatee swam to within 15 to 20 feet of the shoreline. Of the thousands of times that she has seen manatees, she estimated that 95 percent of the time the manatees had scars from boat propellers or skegs. Dr. Powell testified, based upon over 30 years of observation of boat-manatee interactions, that the typical reaction is a flight or startle response, often to dive to deeper water. The diving response may take the manatee under the boat, away from the boat, or across the path of the boat. Based on his observations, including manatees reacting to motorboats moving at "idle-speed," "slow-speed" and at "faster-speeds," Dr. Powell opined that the manatees' reactions resulted from acoustical cues, visual cues, and perhaps pressure cues. Captain Singley, tugboat operator in Brevard County for over 30 years, observed a group of manatees react to a fast moving planing hull; some animals broke the surface, others scattered to the right or left, and others dove to the bottom. Mr. Walden, Sea Ray's Boat, Inc.'s, performance and water test specialist, testified that he had observed manatees in the Barge Canal, and sometimes the manatees would react to the motorboat. The majority of time when the boat was operating at planing speed or faster the manatee would dive and go deeper, and would began evasive action, upon hearing and noticing the motorboat a couple of hundred feet away. Dr. Gerstein testified that fast moving boats can hit manatees and that he was not aware of any physical evidence, eye- witness account, or law enforcement report of a slow-moving boat hitting a manatee. STUDIES ABOUT MOTORBOAT-MANATEE INTERACTION KNOWN BOAT STRIKES FWCC considered that watercraft collisions with manatees are rarely reported to authorities, and, as a result, it is difficult to directly assess the circumstances of such collisions, such as boat size, type and speed at the time of collision. A summary entitled "Watercraft-related Manatee Deaths Where the Responsible Vessel is Known," indicates that barges, displacement hull vessels, and planing hull vessels are known to have been in fatal collisions with manatees. In those planing- hull incidents where the vessels and estimated speed are known, the speed of the vessel ranged from getting-up-on-plane (45-foot boat with twin 425 HP outboard motors) to 35 MPH (18-foot boat with 150 outboard motor). Two other incidents were a 46-foot boat with twin inboard motors operating at 18 knots and a 20- foot boat with 200 HP outboard operating at 20 MPH. The only indication that a slow-moving planing-hull vessel struck a manatee is a report from an individual who was operating at estimated five MPH in a flat hull vessel and reported to have "felt a bump on aft hull, saw two animals (manatees) swam off." PROTECTION OF MANATEE-SEA GRASS HABITAT FWCC considered protection of sea grass habitat a secondary purpose in the Proposed Rule for areas subject to Section 370.12(2)(m), Florida Statutes. The Florida Guide To Recreational Boating notes that: Sea grass beds have been severely scarred (torn up) by boats operated in extremely shallow water. This is due, in part, to the "flats fishing craze" and the rising popularity of vessels designed to operate in shallow water. The Guide recommends that operators set the boat's drive unit at the highest possible setting and that the operator "proceed at idle speed when moving through shallow grass beds." Dr. Reynolds testified that "idle speed" or "slow speed" shoreline buffer zones provide greater sea grass protection (and manatee conservation) than higher motorboat speeds. The Executive Director of the Indian River Guides Association testified that the group is promoting "pole and troll" areas within the Merritt Island National Wildlife refuge portions of the Indian River Lagoon. He stated that many people from Orlando and elsewhere bring their boats by trailers to Brevard County, or move to Brevard County, and operate their boats so as to tear up seagrass beds. FWCC correctly concluded that "slow speed" and "idle speed" zones provide a greater measure of protection to shallow seagrass beds than do higher speeds for motorboats. DATA SOURCES CONSIDERED BY FWCC IN PROMULGATING THE PROPOSED RULE Differing Opinions About Manatee Protection Areas FWCC's Opinion The FWCC, based on the following, took the position that the proposed rules are more likely to protect manatees from motorboat impacts than the existing rules, and that the proposed rules take advantage of the available science of manatee biology and conservation, using the same basic approach used in manatee conservation by officials in Australia to protect dugongs (another Sirenian) from motorboats. The FWCC postulates that "idle speed" and "slow speed" zones provide greater protection to manatees than do higher motorboat speeds. "Maximum 25 MPH" speed zones in deeper water areas provide greater manatee protection than do unregulated waters. Most motorboats observed operating in unregulated areas (outside "slow speed" or "idle speed" zones) in Brevard County, during Dr. Morris' boating compliance study, were operating at or below 25 MPH. The FWCC correctly concludes that "maximum 25 MPH" speed was reasonable in light of research into the minimum planing speed of most recreational motorboat models, the observations of typical motorboat speed and operation in unregulated waters of Brevard County. The FWCC considered 1997 DEP-solicited information from motorboat manufacturers to determine minimum planing speeds and maximum planing speeds, and draft on- and off-plane for various sizes and types of motorboats. Considered also by the FWCC was boating test literature to determine that most boat models could reach planing speed at or slightly below 25 MPH. The FWCC considered information that was submitted showing that many production boats reached planing speed between 20-25 MPH. For example, Scout Boats' 11 models planed between 20- 25 MPH, and Shamrock's 13 models planed between 20-25 MPH. The Florida Marine Research Institute's 1992 information on this topic found a range of minimum planing speed between 14 and 24 MPH. Motorboats operating at speeds higher than 25 MPH are many. Ranger Boats offered several models with maximum speed in the "upper 60's" to "low 70's"; Scout Boats' models had top speeds of 35-60 MPH; Shamrock's models ran at the top end between 36-41 MPH; Donzi Boats operate at speeds in the 70 MPH range; and Bayliner's Capri 1700LS had a top speed of 46 MPH, as did Stingray's 180RS. Since the FWCC's creation, speed zone rules adopted for Lee County included maximum 25 MPH zones. Rule 68C-22.005, Florida Administrative Code for Brevard County has regulated motorboats with a "maximum 25 MPH" speed in channels. Commission staff applied their professional judgment in developing recommendations on manatee protection areas, and presented those recommendations to the FWCC, who considered staff recommendation, in context with public comment, to determine what manatee protections were warranted. PETITIONERS' OPINIONS The various Petitioners advocate manatee protection zones that, in many cases, are similar to the FWCC's proposed rules, including "slow speed" shoreline buffer zones and "maximum 25 MPH channels." Petitioners' challenge to many of the protection zones alleges that FWCC's basic regulatory mechanisms are flawed. FEDERAL LAWSUIT-SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On or about January 13, 2000, STMC and other related environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court against Alan Egbert as Executive Director of the FWCC. The suit alleged, inter alia, that the FWCC is in violation of the Endangered Species Act by permitting the unauthorized taking of manatees in the State of Florida. During the pendency of the litigation, FWCC engaged in a series of mediations resulting in a settlement agreement approved by FWCC and executed by the parties in April 2001. The agreement contained a series of maps with draft manatee (speed) zones for Brevard County. Petitioners alleged that "the genesis of the Proposed Rule is this settlement agreement reached in the Egbert case, and there is a definite connection between the language of the Proposed Rule being challenged and the settlement agreement." Petitioners' speculative conclusion regarding this suit was tendered without one iota of evidence. Mr. Calleson, FWCC's staff employee, acknowledged that portions of existing speed zones and proposed speed zones in maps resulting from the federal mediation process contained a "lot of similarities" with speed zones in maps of the proposed rule. Mr. Calleson acknowledged that the FWCC did not direct staff to conduct negotiated rule-making on the proposed rule, and staff participation in the federal mediation process was not a negotiated rule-making process pursuant to Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part: (d)1. An agency may use negotiated rulemaking in developing and adopting rules. The agency should consider the use of negotiated rulemaking when complex rules are being drafted or strong opposition to the rules is anticipated. The agency should consider, but is not limited to considering, whether a balanced committee of interested persons who will negotiate in good faith can be assembled, whether the agency is willing to support the work of the negotiating committee, and whether the agency can use the group consensus as the basis for its proposed rule. Negotiated rulemaking uses a committee of designated representatives to draft a mutually acceptable proposed rule. * * * 3. The agency's decision to use negotiated rulemaking, its selection of the representative groups, and approval or denial of an application to participate in the negotiated rulemaking process are not agency action. Nothing in this subparagraph is intended to affect the rights of an affected person to challenge a proposed rule developed under this paragraph in accordance with s. 120.56(2). THOMAS MCGILL PETITIONERS Most of the McGill Petitioners support the adoption of rules that are consistent with the Citizens for Florida Waterway, Inc. (CFW), proposal submitted on December 29, 2000. The CFW proposal endorsed the use of "slow speed" zones, the use of "maximum 25 MPH zones," existing power plants "idle speed" and "motorboat prohibited" zones, and the use of shoreline buffers. The CFW proposal differed from the proposed rules primarily in scope of the proposed zones, rather than the nature of the proposed zones. The CFW proposal recommended numerous 25 MPH channels (in marked channels) through protected areas: from the Canaveral Locks through the Canaveral Barge Canal to the Indian River (except for three slow-speed boating safety zones); in North Sykes Creek; in the Banana River north of State Road 528 and between Bicentennial Park to the State Road 520 Relief Bridge. STANDING WATCH, INC. Stowell Robertson, one co-Petitioner of Standing Watch, Inc., is Executive Director of the Indian River Guides Association, Inc. (Guides). Mr. Robertson wrote the Guides' Recommendations, but his personal recommendation differed in two respects: in the North Indian River between NASA railroad bridge and the State Road 405 bridge, he would establish a "slow speed" zone from the western shoreline out to 500 feet (instead of 300); and he would impose a maximum 25 MPH speed in the Canaveral Barge Canal instead of 20 MPH. The Guides recommended that motorboat speed and operation be limited as follow: Mosquito Lagoon-make no changes to existing rule Turnbull Basin, North Indian River Create two "slow speed" zones in Turnbull - one in the Mimms Scottsmoor Canal, another from Jones Road boat ramp to Little Flounder Creek from the shore to 100 feet into the Basin; Set a new "slow speed" zone on the north side of the NASA railroad causeway and bridge out to 250 feet; Set a maximum 25 MPH in the ICW from Haulover Canal to the NASA railroad bridge; Take no further action [to change regulations]. Indian River, NASA railroad bridge to S.R. 402 Place "slow speed" zones on the south side of the NASA railroad bridge and causeway out to 250 feet; Reduce the [existing] west shoreline "slow speed" zone so that the western boundary is 350 feet from the ICW between markers R2 and G1; Set a maximum 25 MPH in the ICW; Take no further action [to change regulations] Indian River, State Road 406 to State Road 402 (1) and (2) Replace eastern "slow speed" zone with reduced "slow speed" zone extending from Peacock's Pocket to the existing "slow speed zone north of the State Road 405 Causeway, extending from shore to 250 feet west of the sand bar/drop off or three feet of water; Reduce the size of the "slow speed" zone north of State Road 405 Causeway to 300 feet; Reduce the size of the existing western shoreline "slow speed" zone to 500 feet from shoreline; Take no further action [to change regulations]. Indian River, State Road 405 to State Road 528 Bridge Close the warm water refuge sites at the power plants to manatees, not to boats; Deliver fuel to the power plants by land; Reduce the existing "slow speed" zone on the western shoreline to 1,000 feet from the shore; Take no further action [to change regulations]. Canaveral Barge (and Banana River to Locks) Maximum 20 MPH channel from Indian River to entrance to Canaveral Locks with "slow speed" zones at 100 feet either side of State Road 3 bridge, Sea Ray docks, Harbor Square Marina; Take no further action (to change regulations). Banana River (1) (2) All waters of Banana River, including channels, not otherwise regulated at "slow speed" should have 25 MPH limit; Reduce all existing "slow speed" zones along east and west shorelines, causeways, and bridges to 500 feet of shore; Retain existing "slow speed" zones in the two channels into "Long Point"[north and south ends of Canaveral Sewer Plant area]; Take no further actions [to change regulations]. Newfound Harbor (1) (2) All waters of Newfound Harbor, including channels, not otherwise regulated at "slow speed" should have a 25 PMH daytime limit and 20 MPH nighttime limit; Establish a "slow speed" zone along western shoreline from State Road 520 south to Two Islands; Establish a "slow speed" zone along eastern shoreline from State Road 520 south to the inside point north of Buck Point; The east and west "slow speed" zones be 500 feet from shorelines, and 200 feet[along northern shore] from S.R. 520; Take no further action. Sykes Creek North State Road 520 Set speed limit in marked channel at 20 MPH; All residential canals should be "slow speed"; Take no further action. Indian River State Road 528 to State Road 520 Establish 500 foot "slow speed" zones along western and eastern shorelines and 200 feet from causeways and bridges; Take no further action. Indian River State Road 520 to State Road 404 Establish 500 foot "slow speed" zones along western and eastern shorelines and 200 feet from causeway bridges; Take no further action. Indian River State Road 404 to State Road 518 Establish 500 foot "slow speed" zones along western and eastern shorelines and 200 feet from causeways and bridges; Take no further action. Indian River State Road 518 to State Road 192 Establish 500 foot "slow speed" zones along western and eastern shorelines and 200 feet from causeways and bridges; Establish Eau Gallie River "slow speed" zone with 20 MPH speed limit in marked channel daytime only, "slow speed" at night; Take no further action. Indian River (1) Establish 500 foot "slow speed" zones along western and eastern shorelines and 200 feet from causeways and bridges; (2)-(5) Crane Creek, Turkey Creek, St. Sebastian River, C-54 canal should be "slow speed"; Take no further action. Mr. James Kalvin, Standing Watch co-Petitioner and also President of Standing Watch, Inc., testified at deposition that neither he, nor the corporation, had any objection to the existing Brevard County manatee protection rules. SPECIFIC PROPOSED ZONES CHALLENGED The Petitioners' Challenge All Petitioners challenged the validity of Proposed Rule 68C-22.006, as "an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" as that phrase is defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. MCGILL PETITIONERS The McGill Petitioners challenged the proposed rule amendment for Brevard County manatee protection areas, Proposed Rule 68C-22.006 (2)(d)2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. They allege that additional slow speed zones in Brevard County are invalid because the FWCC exceeded the authority granted in Section 370.12(2), Florida Statutes. McGill Petitioners based their allegations on the FWCC's lack of definable principles or data and an erroneously assumed cause-effect relationship for boat-manatee collisions, failure by the FWCC to consider the hearing limitations and capabilities of manatees in their environment, and a failure by the FWCC to employ standards and definitions for critical terms in its rule promulgation. At the final hearing, McGill Petitioners agreed that they do not object to that portion of Proposed Rule 68C- 22.006(2)(d)15 that reduces the width of the slow-speed zone in the Banana River between State Road 528 and State Road 520 causeways. Petitioners do, in fact, object to removal of the 25 MPH exemption for residential channels. The McGill Petitioners' position as set forth in their Prehearing Stipulation states: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission has exercised unbridled discretion and acted beyond the authority delegated in 370.12(2)(m), Florida Statutes, and has developed the proposed rule in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The proposed rule exceeds the delegated legislative authority because it is not based on scientifically definable principles or data. By failing to understand the root cause of watercraft mortality such as the manatee's inability to hear slow moving vessels, the Commission cannot deem their actions "necessary" to justify imposing speed restrictions as required by Section 370.12(2)(m), Florida Statutes. The Commission continues to impose speed motorboat restrictions even after finding that such restrictions are ineffective at preventing manatee mortality. The Commission relies on a flawed mortality database, a poor understanding of the limitations and applicability of satellite telemetry data, and lack of standards and definitions for critical terms. [emphasis added] The McGill Petitioners' Amended Petition alleged in paragraph 6: The Commission has not employed the best available science or even reasonable science. . . . aerial survey and telemetry data were misapplied. . . . in that areas that did not reflect frequent usage . . . were designated . . . slow speed zones. Also, the use of inaccurate telemetry tracking information was used as the basis for justifying areas where aerial survey data showed no manatee activity. . . . In support of their alleged inaccuracy of the satellite telemetry data, Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. Dvorak and his Power-point Presentation of Aerial Survey Mortality, Telemetry and Bathymetry Assessment, and other technical papers. Mr. Dvorak did not include in his presentation/analysis survey data available on the Atlas or Marine Resources and did not include all telemetry data available from the United States Geological Survey, which was included in Dr. Deutsch's analysis presented for Respondent, FWCC. The Amended McGill Petition, paragraphs 10 and 12, stated: The McGill Petitioners advised the FWCC that creation of new "slow speed" zones was based upon incorrect assumption "that such slow speed zones alleviate collisions between vessels and manatee" and they suggested that "slow moving vessels are responsible for the majority of documented manatee collisions." McGill Petitioners' evidence proffered to demonstrate that "slow moving vessels are responsible for the majority of documented manatee collisions," consisted of inclusive studies and undocumented theories to demonstrate that slow speed zones do not alleviate collisions between vessels and manatees. FWCC considered an abundance of the best evidence of known or suspected collisions between vessels and manatees that demonstrated that "fast moving motorboats" are a known major source of manatee- vessel collisions. The McGill Petitioners further stated in paragraph 11 that: The rule does not consider the acoustic realities of the manatee's hearing limitations and its environment. McGill Petitioners presented the testimony of Dr. Edmund Gerstein regarding his measurements of the manatees' ability to hear noises. Dr. Gerstein concluded from his research that manatees have difficulty hearing and locating low-frequency sounds (below 400Hz), and they have difficulty detecting sounds of any frequency when it is not sufficiently louder than the ambient noise level. The testimony of Dr. Joseph Blue was given in support of the McGill Petitioners' position that low-frequency sounds are quickly attenuated in shallow water because of the Lloyd Mirror effect. Upon this foundation, Dr. Blue testified that since sound is shadowed ahead of the barge(s), the tugs that push the fuel oil barges between Prot Canaveral and the power plants on the Indian River emit low-frequency sound that is shadowed in the forward direction by the barge(s) and it would be undetectable to animals. Thus, the McGill Petitioners' witnesses concluded that there are acoustic consequences associated with slowing down boats. According to Dr. Gerstein, requiring motor boats to travel a slow speed deprives manatees of acoustic information they can use to detect, localize, and avoid boats. It is this "science of acoustics" Petitioners alleged that the FWCC gave no weight in promulgating the proposed rule. The FWCC considered the issues raised by acoustic studies. The FWCC's Executive Director was advised on the subject by the Manatee Technical Advisory Committee (MATC) whose recommendation resulted from a workshop on acoustic research and technology with presentations of the work of Drs. Gerstein and Blue. No reliable scientific sources, professional literature, expert opinions, and direct observations of manatee reactions to motorboats, supports the proposition of Drs. Gerstein and Blue that manatees cannot hear slow-moving motorboats. The FWCC rejected the studies of Drs. Gerstein and Blue. McGill Petitioners' alleged in paragraphs 3, 4, 13, and 14, of their Amended Petition that the FWCC did not provide a reasonable opportunity for and ignored much of the public's input. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the McGill Petitioners' acknowledgement of public hearings held by FWCC and the opportunity for pubic input during those hearings. There is an abundance of evidence in the record that demonstrates that the FWCC staff held non-mandatory pre-rule development meetings with interested persons, including some of the McGill Petitioners. The Staff held two rule development workshops in Brevard County. Staff held a public hearing specifically on the Proposed Rules in Brevard County. Staff considered the rule adoption at many hours of public hearings on three different dates and locations. Staff mailed special notices regarding the Proposed Rules to all identified waterfront property owners of whom many are the McGill Petitioners, and Staff mailed a series of survey documents to identified boaters and businesses in conjunction with the preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory cost. (CSERC) In paragraphs 7 and 9 of their Amended Petition, the McGill Petitioners alleged that the FWCC entered into a Negotiated Rule-Making Process with litigants to the exclusion of a balanced committee in violation of 120.54(2)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Section 120.54(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes an agency to engage in development of a "preliminary text" or "preliminary draft" of proposed rules prior to the publication of a notice of rule development. Preliminary maps of amendments to the BCMPR were similar to maps being discussed as part of the federal mediation. This fact alone is not a basis to conclude violation of the above-cited statutes. A second rule development workshop was noticed to discuss a preliminary copy of the Staff's "zone configuration" being considered. Subsequent to the second workshop, the FWCC authorized publication of Notice of Proposed Rule-making that incorporated changes to the preliminary draft maps that were discussed at the workshop. The McGill Petitioners, during the hearing, agreed that they do not object to that portion of Proposed Rule 68C-22.006(2)(d)15 that reduces the width of the slow-speed zone in the Banana River between State Road 528 and State Road 520 causeways. Petitioners do, in fact, object to removal of the 25 MPH exemption for residential channels. Petitioners offered no testimony in support of this allegation, choosing rather to adopt the evidence and position proffered by Standing Watch, Inc., herein below addressed. In paragraphs 5 and 15 of their Amended Petition, the McGill Petitioners alleged that the Commission did not properly address the consideration of lower cost regulatory alternatives. The "lower cost regulatory alternatives" submitted by McGill, Pritchard and Dvorak were considered and were discussed in the draft SERC. The draft SERC gave reasons for the rejection of each of the proposed "lower cost regulator alternatives," primarily because none would substantially accomplish the objectives of the law being implemented. The SERC was finalized, as required by Sections 120.541(1)(a) and (c); and 120.56(2)(b), Florida Statutes, before filing for adoption with the Secretary of State. In paragraph 17 of their Amended Petition, the McGill Petitioners alleged that the FWCC failed to employ metrics or standards that could be used to validate the effectiveness of both proposed and existing rules, in rule promulgation, and that without the use of metrics, the FWCC had no way to determine and verify that speed zones they propose are necessary to protect harmful collisions with motorboats. The McGill Petitioners proffered no evidence of specific "metrics or standards" that would validate the effectiveness of the existing and or the proposed rule they contend the FWCC could have or should have used in the Proposed Rule development. The FWCC relied upon the best available and reliable information in its rule-making, including opinions of experts. To the information available to it, the FWCC applied its professional judgment, gave consideration to public comments/concerns provided during public meetings, and considered the estimated regulatory costs and other applicable rule-making requirements. In paragraph 18 of their Amended Petition, the McGill Petitioners alleged that the FWCC repeatedly ignored requests to sub classify watercraft-related mortalities in order to properly identify appropriate corrective action. The FWCC considered all available data regarding manatee injury and death resulting from the speed of motor boats and rejected Petitioner's contention that boat size, large boats such as tugs and barges, were more dangerous to manatees than smaller and faster motorboats. Sea Ray Boat, Inc. Petitioner, Sea Ray Boats, Inc., challenged only Proposed Rule 68C-22.006(2)(d)(11) that modifies the existing manatee protection speed zones in the Canaveral Barge Canal (that is 200 feet wide with a 125-foot navigation channel maintained at a depth of 12.5 feet) such that the entire Canal will now be designated a "slow speed" zone. Sea Ray does not argue that the FWCC did not consider all available information or that FWCC's consideration of the information was not complete. Sea Ray's position is, were one to consider the information presented to the FWCC, as balanced against the federal lawsuit filed by Save the Manatee Club, Inc., the challenged Proposed Rule is the result of the latter not the former and, therefore, is an invalid delegation of legislative authority. Sea Ray alleges that the FWCC did not analyze nor address the adequacy of the existing rule and speed zones in effect in the Canaveral Barge Canal. Sea Ray alleged that the FWCC did not consider the alternative (with weekend boating increases over weekdays) whether the risk to manatees would be reduced by "restricting slow speed zones in the channel to weekend and holidays." Sea Ray alleged that the FWCC failed to apply "properly" the mandatory balancing test of the impact of the proposed rule on the rights of commercial and recreational boaters. Section 370.12(2)(j), Florida Statutes. Sea Ray argues that the FWCC's consideration of information in formulating the Proposed Rule was devoid of "ascertainable quantitative criteria, standards or analytical processes," that Sea Ray maintains is required by Section 370.12, Florida Statutes. Standing Watch, Inc. Standing Watch, Inc.'s, Second Amended Petition challenged and alleged that the proposed speed in proposed Rule 68C-22.006(2)(e) 1-5 is not based upon "competent, substantial evidence" and does not comport with Section 370.12(2), Florida Statutes. Paragraphs 38 and 39 alleged that the proposed speeds in the Proposed Rule 68C-22.006(2)(c) 1-6 and (2)(d) 1-18 are not based upon "competent, substantial evidence" and do not comport with Section 370.12(2), Florida Statutes. Standing Watch, in essence, challenges all "idle," "slow" and "25 MPH" maximum speed zones proposed. Standing Watch argues that the FWCC failed to "quantify" by rule or working definition such terms such as "frequent" and "seasonal" and failed to define the term "periodic." Therefore, without working definitions the FWCC had no "threshold" from which to determine whether manatees were "frequently sighted," and the proposed rule is, accordingly, invalid in its entirety. Thus, it is alleged that the FWCC made no independent findings based upon the data reviewed that manatees were "frequently sighted" in any specific area of Brevard County. Standing Watch alleged, "The genesis of the Proposed Rule is this settlement agreement reached in the Egbert case, and there is a definite connection between the language of the Proposed Rule being challenged and the settlement agreement." Mr. Calleson acknowledged that portions of existing speed zones and proposed speed zones in maps resulting from the federal mediation process contained a "lot of similarities" with the speed zones in maps of the Proposed Rule. The FWCC declined to direct staff to conduct negotiated rule-making on the Proposed Rule. Accordingly, staff's participation in the federal mediation process was not a negotiated rule-making process pursuant to Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. Continuing their argument, Standing Watch alleged that the FWCC without algorithms, formulae, protocols, matrices, mathematical models, or metrics made no separate determination for each zone and/or area (of the proposed rule) and had no factual basis for the identification of separate speed zones, rendering all determinations made by the Commission as arbitrary and capricious. Based upon the foregone foundation, Standing Watch challenged Proposed Rule 68C-22.006 in its entirety as arbitrary and capricious. City of Cocoa Beach Watersports Area Cocoa Beach intervened to challenge that portion of Proposed Rule 68C-22.006(2)(d)16, that "reduces allowable speeds in the area known as Banana River, Cocoa Beach Waterspouts Area." In support of its challenge, Cocoa Beach adopted the Proposed Final Order submitted on behalf of Petitioners, Standing Watch, Inc., Jim, Kavin, Thomas Mason, Dougals P. Jaren and Stowell Robertson. Additionally, Cocoa Beach relied upon "facts" particularly applicable to the Cocoa Beach (Waterspouts Area). Cocoa Beach alleged that prior to the Proposed Rule and subsequent to 1988 the FWCC had no evidence of manatee deaths attributed to watercrafts having occurred in the Watersports Area; that two years prior to the proposed rule only one or two manatees were sighted in that area; that the sea grass preferred by manatees is not found in the area, and that the Watersports Area does not have the depth [bathymetry] preferred by manatees. Petitioners contend that a "sub-classification" would corroborate Mr. James Wood's view "a majority of watercraft collisions are caused by large, slow-moving vessels, not by small, recreational motorboats." Mr. Wood's analysis was inconclusive as to the characteristics of watercraft that caused manatee injury. The reliable and available evidence, including documentation on known or suspected boat strikes, scar catalog data, and affidavits of persons who perform manatee necropsies, does not support the view held by Mr. Wood. To the contrary, evidence and testimony of experts herein presented, established that small, fast moving motorboats kill and injure manatees and their habitat. The sub-classification of watercraft-related mortalities is not required for rule adoption. The proposition set forth by McGill Petitioners, and adopted by other Petitioners, that larger vessels and barge/tugs were responsible for Brevard County manatee mortalities was raised in an earlier rule challenge filed by McGill, and was rejected, as it is herein rejected. DOAH Case No. 99-5366, page 18 (officially recognized); Final Order, McGill v. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 23 F.A.L.R. (DOAH 2000). All data, 1997-1999 Brevard County relative abundance and distribution aerial survey, 2000 synoptic aerial survey, telemetry analyses, other data considered, and professional literature indicated that Brevard County is an important year- round habitat for manatees.
The Issue Whether petitioner has standing to request consent of use of marine bottoms? Whether the site in question lies within the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park? Whether petitioner's application for consent to dredge in two places east of Angelfish Creek should be granted, under Chapters 253 and 258, Florida Statutes (1989) and Chapters 16D and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Angelfish Creek in Monroe County runs virtually due east from Card Sound (which opens into Biscayne Bay just north of Angelfish Creek) to Hawk Channel, which hugs the upper Florida Keys at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. The "creek" or strait separates Key Largo and Angelfish Key on the south from Palo Alto Key to the north. Three flashing red lights and other navigational aids mark a channel traversing the saltwater pass between sound and ocean. Petitioner South Florida Waterways Improvement Foundation, Inc. (SFWIF) is a non-profit corporation owing its existence chiefly to John A. Bott, a public spirited boater known in some circles as the "king of luggage racks." T.134. Mr. Bott, whose home at the Ocean Reef Club fronts on Card Sound, (T.145), owns "a 63 Ocean Sports fisherman, a 22 Mako and a 16-foot dinghy." Id. He once ran aground in his big boat in the Angelfish Creek channel. Respondents are state agencies charged with managing state lands in general, including submerged lands like those underlying Angelfish Creek and further east where petitioner proposes to dredge; and state parks in particular, including the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, a pioneering and world- renowned "underwater park," about whose northern boundary the parties are in dispute. Petitioner Named for Predecessor Boats navigated Angelfish Creek as early as March 13, 1945, the date of an aerial photograph received as petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. But Angelfish Creek was first dredged (T.154) only after the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit in the wake of approval by Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) on March 12, 1968, approval which is reflected on page 469 of Volume 36 of the official minutes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. After expiration of the original permit, a non-profit corporation, South Florida Waterways Improvement Foundation, Inc. (proto-SFWIF) applied for and received permission to dredge "190 cubic yards of material from an area [in the mouth or slightly easterly of Angelfish Creek] 350 feet long by 60 feet wide." T.159. On December 30, 1975, DER issued a dredging permit to proto- SFWIF. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. On January 22, 1976, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to proto-SFWIF for the same project. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13. After dredging took place as authorized, proto-SFWIF "was allowed to dissolve for failure to pay or failure to file the corporate annual reports." T.164. Proto-SFWIF paid for spoil it removed to uplands (which, when deposited, ceased to belong to it) but "did not [ever otherwise] own any property." T.164. After Mr. Bott engaged Tallahassee counsel, another non-profit corporation, petitioner SFWIF, was formed, in 1990. SFWIF owns no property in Monroe County, either. Mr. Bott and twelve other members of Key Largo's Ocean Reef Club, some of whose boats draw several feet, are members of SFWIF. Two were also members of proto-SFWIF, and at least one, Mr. Bott, owns waterfront property within a few miles of the proposed site. William J. Roberts, the lawyer who formed SFWIF, together with others in his office, serve as SFWIF's corporate officers. Park Boundaries The overwhelming weight of evidence adduced at hearing establishes that the site SFWIF proposes to dredge lies within the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. When the then newly formed DER issued a dredging permit to proto- SFWIF, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, it did so on the mistaken assumption "that the project was not in an aquatic preserve, and . . . not within the boundaries of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park." T.162. (At the time, SFWIF, the petitioner in the present case, was not in existence. Nor did respondents make any representations directly to proto-SFWIF.) DER may have relied on advice from Jack W. Pierce, then an attorney for DNR, in his letter of August 18, 1975, which stated: "In my opinion, these rules would not affect the maintenance dredging on Angel Fish Creek as that is not on Key Largo." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. But, when expressly addressing the question of park boundaries, Mr. Pierce's letter stated simply that "the boundaries . . . are those set out in the Presidential Proclamation of 1960 plus those described as set forth in the Dedication of the Trustees dated September 21, 1967, . . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. Successive Dedications On December 3, 1959, the Trustees dedicated "for park, recreational and preservation purposes, . . . [a] portion of the outer Continental Shelf situated seaward of a line three geographic miles from Key Largo." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 23. The Presidential Proclamation of 1960 stated similar federal intentions with respect to the same "portion of the outer Continental Shelf." Known as the Key Largo Coral Reef, this offshore tract has a perimeter of some 21 miles. The northern end of its landward edge lies slightly north (and three miles east) of the northernmost point of Key Largo. In describing the offshore dedication by metes and bounds, the Trustees put the northwesternmost point at "Can Buoy '21' (approximate Latitude 25o20'06" N., Longitude 80o12'36" W.) southeast of Old Rhodes Key." Id. Can Buoy "21" has since been lost. A new day marker, No. 23, has replaced it, although possibly at a slightly different point, viz.: Latitude 25o 20' 08.58967" N., Longitude 80o 12' 34.5983" W. T.419; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22. The current marker is 2.58967 seconds (approximately 260 feet) north and 1.4017 seconds (less than 140 feet) east of what was described as the approximate location of Can Buoy "21" in 1959. If, as a witness testified is likely, the 1959 coordinates were rounded to the nearest tenth of a minute, the apparent discrepancy may be attributable to rounding. In any event, under no analysis advanced, would a difference of 295 feet (to take the hypotenuse) prove significant, for present purposes. T.336. In the dedication of 1959, the Trustees described the southern, as well as the northern, end of the western or landward edge of the original, offshore tract with some specificity. The southern end of the landward edge of the original offshore tract, also some three miles east of the island, lies south of the northern tip of Key Largo, but well north of the island's southern tip. The southern boundary of the original, offshore tract runs approximately east-west, while its northern boundary runs more or less southeast-northwest, as it reaches the northwestern corner. By the time the Trustees dedicated additional sovereignty lands on September 21, 1967, Key Largo Coral Reef had come to be known as John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. On that day, the Trustees added: Those submerged tidal bottom lands in the Atlantic Ocean lying between [what was then] the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo including the submerged land in Largo Sound and the various inlets along the easterly coast of Key Largo. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24. While preserving to their owners "any riparian rights and interest," the Trustees extended the park landward from the original offshore tract to the shore of Key Largo, without, however, listing coordinates of latitude and longitude for the northernmost and southernmost points on shore. Lying Between The southern boundary of the original, offshore tract is on a line approximately perpendicular to Key Largo's Atlantic shoreline. Surveyors who have considered the problem apparently agree that extending the southern boundary of the original tract to the shore of Key Largo appropriately defines the southern edge of submerged lands lying "between" the island and the original, offshore tract. But the northern boundary of the offshore tract, if extended landward, would proceed northwesterly and come ashore somewhere on Rhodes Key, well north of the northernmost point of the offshore tract, and still further north of the northern tip of Key Largo. T.532. Before the present controversy arose, DNR engaged James Weidener, a professional land surveyor "to survey basically the Pennekamp Park and to provide boundary maps . . . and then as part of that to locate and monument both the north and south boundaries." T. 528. As part of this project, Mr. Weidener and others working with him conducted mean high water surveys at points along the eastern shore of Key Largo and extrapolated a boundary between state-owned bottom lands and uplands in private ownership. In locating the northernmost point on Key Largo, however, Mr. Weidener did not rely on a mean high water study. Instead he chose the northern edge of tidally washed mangroves or "the apparent edge of vegetation" (T.537) that extended probably 40 to 60 feet north of the mean high water line. Nothing in the record raised the possibility that the point he chose was more than 100 feet north of the mean high water line. By joining this point with marker No. 23, he defined the northern boundary of the submerged lands "between" Key Largo and the original tract. Even before the Weidener survey, a sign had been erected "only 30 or 40 feet off the line," (T.533) which the surveyors ultimately decided on. The piling holding the sign stands 34.45 feet off the line. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. The north side of the sign "says entering Pennekamp State Park. On the south side it says entering Biscayne National Park." T.530-531. The line between the northernmost point on Key Largo and marker No. 23 is depicted as (A) in Appendix B to the recommended order. The site at which petitioner proposes to dredge lies south of the northerly boundary described in the Weidener survey and depicted as (A) in Appendix B. If a point 100 feet further south than the one Mr. Weidener identified as the northernmost point on Key Largo is connected to the marker, the resulting line lies well north of the proposed site. T.565. If a point 260 feet south of marker No. 23 is connected to a point 100 feet further south than the one identified by Mr. Weidener as the northern tip of Key Largo, the resulting line still lies north of the proposed site. The scaled drawing attached as Appendix B requires these inferences, although these variants of line (A) are not depicted there. Forensic Surveying In preparing for litigation in the present case, petitioner engaged a surveyor, George Cole, who assembled Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22. Citing "Hayes v. Bowman, Fla., 91 So.2d 795 and Bliss v. Kinsey, Fla. 233 So.2d 191," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22, p. 2, Mr. Cole testified that "these cases suggest the best courses [sic] of action is one that's perpendicular to the channel out here if this indeed was a riparian rights case." T.344. But, since the Trustees took care, in expanding the park, to preserve to their owners "any riparian rights and interest," the location of the northerly boundary of the tract dedicated in 1967 has nothing to do with riparian rights; and lines (C) and (D) depicted in Appendix B have no support in the record, aside from Mr. Cole's unfounded speculation. Line (B) depicted in Appendix B, also proposed by Mr. Cole, reflects the same methodology Mr. Weidener employed (in the sense of joining a point on Key Largo to marker No.23), but proceeds on the assumption that the northernmost point on Key Largo of relevance is at the mouth of an inlet known as Pumpkin Creek. Mr. Cole conceded that "Key Largo does indeed go further to the north, but . . . [testified that] this portion up here is obscured and shielded from the Atlantic Ocean by Angelfish Key and this is Pumpkin Creek and various other creeks. These are distinct, discrete islands. They have their own land mass. They are not Key Largo." T.342-3. But Angelfish Key (and Little Angelfish Key) resemble El Radabob Key in this regard. El Radabob Key is the largest of the small islands lying alongside Key Largo in the Atlantic Ocean. All witnesses testifying on the point agreed that submerged land lying between Key Largo and El Radabob Key fell within the Trustees' 1967 dedication of "submerged land in . . . [the Atlantic Ocean including] the various inlets along the easterly coast of Key Largo." Similarly, as Key Largo tapers to a northern point, Angelfish Key and Little Angelfish Key lie on its Atlantic side, separated from it (and each other) by narrow, elongated inlets of the ocean. T. 535, 537. The submerged bottoms of these elongated inlets, no less than the submerged bottom lands in Key Largo Sound, comprise part of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. Poorly Marked Although charts overstate the controlling depth, the channel in Angelfish Creek is already the best channel connecting the Atlantic Ocean to inland waters north of Snake Creek and south of Government Cut. Tavernier Creek to the south and Broad and Caesar Creeks to the north are also navigable by small craft. Of course, weather and low tides make navigation more difficult everywhere they have an effect. Depicting depths at mean low water, Respondents' Exhibit No. 2B maps the ocean bottom in the vicinity of markers Nos. 2A and 3A, including the eastern end of the channel petitioner seeks to widen. The two formations petitioner proposes to dredge aside, depths within the channel vary from 4.9 to 13 or 14 feet, at mean low water. The topographical survey features one-foot contours (between five and fifteen feet below mean low water) and reports hundreds of soundings. Respondents' Exhibit No. 2B. A shoal lies inside the channel about 15 feet from the southerly edge, some 30 feet easterly of green day marker No. 3A. In the worst spot, fossilized coral lies under only 3.5 feet of water at mean low tide. Boats run aground there as well as on another ledge of fossil coral on the other side of the channel, near marker No. 2A. At the latter site, Mr. H. R. Pender once measured the depth at five feet (T.125); and mean low water is shown at 5.4 feet. Whether dredging would actually increase boat traffic was not established, although dredging would permit the channel to handle more traffic. The narrower and more serpentine a channel becomes, the smaller the vessels it can accommodate. But traffic could be routed around these shoals by repositioning markers Nos. 2A and 3A, or by adding markers. Outside the channel opposite marker No. 2A is a deep hole; there is ample water into which to shift the channel. Opposite marker No. 3A outside the channel, depths at mean low water are as low as 5.6 feet. Although that is deeper than places in the mouth of the channel, it might be preferable simply to narrow the channel by moving marker No. 3A the few feet necessary to locate it channelward of the out-cropping of "fossil coral [or] calcium carbonate rock," (T.382) petitioner proposes to dredge. Environmental Effects The DER permit conditions specify turbidity screens, limit dredging to slack and incoming tides, and require deposition of spoil upland. Biota in the vicinity can withstand "spurts of turbidity," in any event. Tidal currents have scoured the channel, removing most fine particles, but intermittent northwesters flush slugs of particulate matter from Card Sound through Angelfish Creek. The project site is on the order of a mile from the nearest active coral reef in the park, but a few small colonies of coral, both hard and soft (gorgonian) grow where petitioner proposes to dredge, as do algae, marine grasses, and perhaps other alcyonarians. Dredging would displace these individuals but create a new and deeper hard substrate for colonization by like organisms. A representative of DER is to help pick which fossil coral to remove. Marine life, if established at a greater depth, would less likely suffer interference from boats' 60- to 100-feet long running aground. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. Groundings entail the risk of fuel spills. Traces of presumably toxic bottom paint have been found on fossil coral near the surface. But these hazards would also be greatly reduced if markers Nos. 2A and 3A were repositioned, or additional markers placed, to mark the outcroppings, so boaters could avoid them.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended: That respondents deny petitioner's application for consent to dredge. That respondents specifically initiate relocation of markers Nos. 2A and 3A or take other steps to mark the channel appropriately. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX A TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4285 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 97 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 58, 59, 60 and 71 are immaterial. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12, no causal connection between the letter and the permit was proven. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 18, the owner's testimony was largely hearsay. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the shallows are a hazard on account of the markers' location. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the adequacy of the width would depend on the vessel. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 28, no fatality occurred from grounding. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 30 and 32, see finding of fact No. 24. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 33, such an event blocked the channel for "another large vessel." T.38. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 36, Mr. Bott had only one grounding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 37 has been adopted, in substance, but proto-SWFIF is now defunct. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 38, a new corporation was organized. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 39, at least one nonprofit corporation obtained such permits. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 40, 50, 70, 74 and 76 have been rejected. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 41, while apparently accurate, the proposed finding is not supported by the citation to the record. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 53 and 73, the evidence showed that the new marker was likely at the same spot as the old. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 54, 55, 72, 75 and 77 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 79, the effect of possibly increased traffic in larger vessels was not considered. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 81, the testimony was "on the order of" a mile. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 96 so-called is actually a proposed conclusion of law. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 98 and 99, the proposed dredging is contrary to administrative rules which, at least in the absence of a rule challenge, express public policy definitively. Respondents' proposed findings of fact were not separately numbered, but have been addressed, in substance, in the findings of fact. APPENDIX B TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4285 (From Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22) COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire P.O. Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6506 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire John W. Corrigan, Esquire 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Ken Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Tom Gardner, Exec. Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact On or about April 12, 1982, Raymond Gritton entered into a contract for the treatment of drywood termites with Palm Beach Exterminating Service covering his residence at 371 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. This contract provided for a five year guarantee, with annual renewal thereafter upon payment of annual renewal charges. There is no dispute that Gritton had made his annual renewal payments, and that at all times material hereto he had coverage under this contract with Palm Beach Exterminating Service. Under the terms of his guarantee, Gritton was entitled to an annual inspection and written report, upon request, from Palm Beach Exterminating Service. In early February, 1990, he requested an inspection, and on or about February 8, 1990, Respondent Douglas Armand conducted an inspection of the premises. Respondent went into Gritton's attic during the course of his inspection of the premises, and told Gritton that he had discovered an infestation of live drywood termites in the attic. Respondent showed Gitton what he represented were the remains of a drywood termite he had just killed in his attic. Following his inspection, Respondent told Gritton that he should have his house tented and fumigated for drywood termites, and that there would be a $40 charge for a written inspection report. In fact, the remains that Respondent showed to Gritton were of a carpenter ant, and not a recently killed drywood termite. This finding is based upon the inspection of the property by Joseph Parker, an expert in termite inspection, on May 8, 1990. There was no evidence of any live infestation of drywood termites in Gritton's attic, and therefore, there was no need for fumigation of the premises. Although another representative of Palm Beach Exterminating Service, David Sprague, informed Gritton on February 14, 1990, that there would be no charge for an inspection report and that one would be forthcoming, at the time of hearing in this matter, Gritton had still not received a copy of any inspection report on his house from Palm Beach Exterminating Service. At hearing, Respondent produced a copy of an inspection report which Respondent claims was sent to Gritton. However, this report evidences on its face that it was sent to the wrong zip code, and in any event, this report is of Sprague's inspection on February 14, 1990, and is not a report of Respondent's inspection on February 8, 1990. There is no dispute between the parties concerning Respondent's certification by the Department. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified operator with Palm Beach Exterminating Service in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $200.00 upon the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-4. Adopted in Finding 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 3. 7. Adopted in Finding 4. 8. Adopted in Finding 6. 9. Adopted in Finding 5. 10. Adopted in Finding 7. 11. Adopted in Finding 6. 12. Adopted in Finding 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Miller, Esquire District Legal Office 111 Georgia Avenue, #317 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 James L. Kolkana Palm Beach Exterminating Service 2110 Florida Mango Road West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Douglas J. Armand Palm Beach Exterminating Service 2110 Florida Mango Road West Palm Beach, FL 33409 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Acting General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“the Commission”) correctly determined that a sailboat owned by Jeffrey Sundwall was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017),1 and thus subject to sections 376.15(3)(a) and 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Commission is empowered to remove, or cause to be removed, derelict vessels from Florida’s public waters. §§ 376.15(3)(a) and 823.11(3), Fla. Stat. A vessel is considered to be “derelict” if it is left, stored, or abandoned “[i]n a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition upon any public waters of this state.” § 823.11(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. Mr. Sundwall was the registered owner of a 28-foot sailboat named the Sea Joy. Facts Specific to the Instant Case Lieutenant Andy Cox of the Commission found the Sea Joy anchored off Wisteria Island in the Florida Keys on March 27, 2017. The Sea Joy had an expired registration decal, and a large amount of seaweed on the outboard motor, which probably rendered the motor inoperative. The Sea Joy had been left open and exposed to the elements, and Lieutenant Cox observed one-inch deep, green water inside the vessel. Lieutenant Cox also determined that the Sea Joy had no working bilge pumps or battery power. Lieutenant Cox initiated a derelict vessel investigation. While the Commission did not take custody of the Sea Joy at that time, Lieutenant Cox affixed a large, red sticker to the Sea Joy announcing that the vessel’s owner had 5 days before the Commission disposed of it pursuant to its authority under chapter 705. Lieutenant Cox met with Mr. Sundwall on approximately March 28, 2017, in a Florida Keys jail and served him with three infraction citations. Lieutenant Cox also provided Mr. Sundwall with a written notice indicating the Commission considered the Sea Joy to be a derelict vessel. On July 24, 2017, the County Court for Monroe County issued an Order requiring the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office and the Commission to preserve the Sea Joy as essential evidence in a criminal case against Mr. Sundwall. Thus, the Sea Joy could not be “destroyed, removed, altered, moved, or otherwise disposed of.” After Hurricane Irma struck Florida in September of 2017 and wrecked several hundred vessels, the Commission partnered with the Coast Guard in an effort to identify and remove derelict vessels. If an owner of a derelict vessel waived his or her ownership interest, then the State of Florida would not charge for a vessel’s removal and disposal.2 Wisteria Island is owned by the FEB Corporation. In November of 2017, the Commission found the Sea Joy hard aground on the shore of Wisteria Island, and the Sea Joy could not be moved without mechanical assistance. The Sea Joy had no mast or sail, and the vessel was still left open and exposed to the elements. In sum, the Sea Joy was nothing more than a hull at that point. Contemporaneous photographs and video of the Sea Joy indicate that it was resting on “wrack lines” left by the tide. Those wrack lines demonstrated that the Sea Joy was on public waters at high tide.3 In response to a request for reconsideration from the State of Florida, the Monroe County Court issued an Order on December 12, 2017, allowing the State to remove the Sea Joy from Wisteria Island. On December 17, 2017, the Commission transported the Sea Joy to a marina in Marathon, Florida. 2 The Commission’s attorney announced during the final hearing that the Commission would not seek to recover the costs of removing and disposing of the Sea Joy from Mr. Sundwall. Ordinarily, the owner of a derelict vessel is responsible for all costs associated with its removal and destruction. See §§ 376.15(3)(a), 705.103(4), and 823.11(3)(b), Fla. Stat. However, in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, the State of Florida assumed all of those costs. 3 This finding is based on the testimony of Major Robert Rowe of the Commission, and the undersigned found him to be a credible and persuasive witness. Officer David Bellville of the Commission met with Mr. Sundwall on January 4, 2018, at the Stock Island Detention Center in Key West. Officer Bellville served Mr. Sundwall with a notice stating that he had 30 days to take possession of the Sea Joy or it would be destroyed pursuant to the Commission’s authority under chapter 705. Officer Bellville also served Mr. Sundwall with an election of rights form stating he had 21 days to protest the Commission’s proposed action. Mr. Sundwall declined to waive his property interest in the Sea Joy and ultimately executed the election of rights form and a request for an administrative hearing on January 20, 2018. Mr. Sundwall’s hearing request was postmarked on January 23, 2018, and received by the Commission on January 29, 2018. Because Mr. Sundwall’s documents were received after the 21-day deadline, the Commission had the Sea Joy destroyed on February 21, 2018, and issued an Order on March 6, 2018, dismissing Mr. Sundwall’s hearing request with prejudice. Mr. Sundwall appealed the Commission’s Order to the First District Court of Appeal, and the appellate court issued an opinion in Sundwall v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, 271 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), on May 16, 2019, reversing and remanding the Commission’s dismissal: After Hurricane Irma struck Florida in 2017, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) identified Mr. Sundwall as the owner of a boat declared derelict upon the waters of Florida. See § 823.11, Fla. Stat. (2017) (defining derelict vessels and empowering FWC to deal with them). Mr. Sundwall was incarcerated at the time. FWC sent Mr. Sundwall notice of the declaration, an explanation of his rights, an Election of Rights form, and a form for a Petition for Administrative Proceeding. The notice stated that a failure to make any election within twenty-one days from receipt of the notice would constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing. Mr. Sundwall signed a receipt for these documents on January 4, 2018. The twenty-first day after that fell on January 25, 2018. He signed the Election of Rights form, requesting a hearing; and also completed the Petition for Administrative Proceeding, dating both of his signatures January 20, 2018. There was no certificate of service or institutional date stamp on any of the papers, nor any institutional mail log indicating when he gave the papers to prison officials. The envelope was postmarked January 23, 2018. FWC stamped it as received on January 29, 2018. FWC dismissed the petition with prejudice because FWC did not receive it within twenty-one days and Mr. Sundwall did not request an extension within that period. FWC's order of dismissal acknowledged that the envelope from Mr. Sundwall was postmarked January 23, 2018. However, FWC relied on Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.104(1), which defines filing as receipt by the agency clerk during normal business hours. In his pro-se brief, Mr. Sundwall relies on the January 20 date of his signatures and the January 23 postmark date, arguing that he is entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule under Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992). FWC does not dispute that argument, but argues that Mr. Sundwall provided no proof that he placed his papers in the hands of prison officials before expiration of the deadline; i.e., no institutional mail stamp or log and no certificate of service. The record does not reflect whether Mr. Sundwall’s institution utilizes dated mail stamps or logs, but one reason there were no certificates of service is because none of the forms that FWC supplied to him contained a certificate of service. In a literal sense, however, Mr. Sundwall "provided" FWC a postmarked envelope that evidences timeliness. He argues on appeal that FWC calculated the time erroneously, and he points out that the envelope was postmarked on January 23. The postmark date was before expiration of the twenty-one-day period for requesting a hearing, and therefore the petition necessarily was submitted to prison officials before the deadline. FWC acknowledged the postmark date in its order of dismissal, and the postmarked envelope is in the record. We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings on Mr. Sundwall's petition.[4] Ultimate Findings There is no dispute that the Sea Joy was a “vessel” within the meaning of section 327.02(46), Florida Statutes. When it was beached on Wisteria Island, the Sea Joy was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. It was left or abandoned in a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition upon the public waters of this state. While the Sea Joy no longer exists, the photographic evidence and the witness testimony conclusively demonstrate that it was wrecked or substantially dismantled by the time it ran aground on Wisteria Island. The photographic evidence also demonstrated that the Sea Joy was upon the State of Florida’s public waters at high tide. Mr. Sundwall made several factual arguments during the final hearing. For instance, section 823.11(1)(b)3. defines a “derelict vessel” as one that is “[d]ocked, grounded, or beached upon the property of another without the consent of the owner of the property.” Mr. Sundwall testified that he had permission for the Sea Joy to be on Wisteria Island. Mr. Sundwall’s argument is not persuasive because the Commission determined the Sea Joy to be a 4 To whatever extent that Mr. Sundwall is seeking damages from the Commission for the Sea Joy’s destruction, he must pursue that claim before a different tribunal. DOAH’s role in this matter is limited to making findings as to whether the Sea Joy was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. and thus subject to sections 376.15(3)(a) and 705.103. derelict vessel pursuant to section 823.11(1)(b)1., not section 823.11(1)(b)3. However, even if the Commission had deemed the Sea Joy to be derelict pursuant to section 823.11(1)(b)3., Mr. Sundwall’s testimony that he had permission to keep the Sea Joy on the shore of Wisteria Island was uncorroborated and unpersuasive. In preparation to take control of the Sea Joy, Mr. Sundwall asserted that a friend of his had attempted to inspect the Sea Joy while it was beached on Wisteria Island. He claimed that the Commission forced Mr. Sundwall’s friend away from the wrecked vessel. Because the Commission was dealing with several hundred displaced vessels in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, it is very unlikely that the Commission would have been in a position (or to have been inclined) to prevent any willing person from removing the derelict Sea Joy from Wisteria Island or inspecting it. Moreover, the undersigned generally found Mr. Sundwall’s testimony on this point to be unpersuasive and self-serving. Mr. Sundwall’s witnesses did not present any persuasive testimony to corroborate his assertions. Mr. Sundwall also argued that the instant case is part of the Commission’s ongoing effort to retaliate against him for undermining a criminal investigation. Even if that were the case, there is no evidence that the Commission left the Sea Joy anchored off Wisteria Island or caused it to become a derelict vessel. Mr. Sundwall asserts that he has been denied due process. However, the facts refute that assertion because: (a) he was given notice of the Commission’s proposed action to dispose of the Sea Joy; (b) he had an opportunity to request a hearing; (c) his case was referred to DOAH; and (d) a formal administrative hearing was conducted on February 7, 2020, at which he fully participated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission issue a Final Order deeming the Sea Joy to have been a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. and that the Commission was authorized under section 376.15(3)(a) to relocate or remove the Sea Joy. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 1st day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Brandy Elaine Elliott, Esquire Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jeffrey Ray Sundwall, 829113 Jackson Correctional Institution 5563 10th Street Malone, Florida 32445 Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The subject application requests a water use permit from the Central and South Florida Flood Control District (FCD) for use as a public water supply for an area consisting of 12,000 acres. Received into evidence without objection were the notice of public hearing appearing in The Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, Florida; Supplementary Report - Water Treatment Plant and Raw Water and Transfer Mains - September, 1970; Water and Sewer Rate Study, July, 1971; Water and Sewer Rate Study, January, 1972; Summary Report, Water and Wastewater Program, October, 1972; Comprehensive Report, Water Works Improvements, January, 1965; pages 20, 21 and 24 of Addendum to supplementary report filed with application; letter to J.B. Jackson from James C. Williams dated July 17, 1975; letter to Abe Krietman from John H. Klinch, dated July 31, 1975; letter to J.B. Jackson from J. Eldon Mariott dated July 22, 1975; and the Staff Report of the FCD. The application was a part of the hearing officer's file. The application requested a diversion (by way of 18 existing and 4 proposed new wells) of 12,293.2 million gallons of ground water a year and a maximum daily diversion of 33.68 million gallons for a fifty year period. The Staff Report, which is attached hereto, recommends the issuance of a five year permit for an annual allocation of 4,668 million gallons, a maximum daily diversion of 25.45 million gallons and a maximum installed field capacity of 20,000 gallons per minute, with certain conditions attached thereto. Mr. John Klinch, a consulting engineer, testified as to the contents of the application, as revised, which he prepared. It was explained that the projected number of proposed new wells did not include the possibility of failure of some of the existing wells, which do show indications of deterioration at this time. He further compared the water consumption projections for 1976 with the actual demand of the first half of 1975. Said comparison indicates that the projection was underestimated. Projected for 1976 were 9,000 meters. For the first six months of 1975, there were 8,342 meters. The projected average daily use for 1976 was million gallons. As of June of 1975, it has exceeded that at million gallons. The average per capita daily consumption in Delray Beach is approximately 240 gallons. The water consumption projection for the year 1980 is estimated at approximately 25 million gallons per day. Mr. Klinch testified that there had been no problems with salt water or chloride levels in the existing wells. The next witness called by the applicant was Louis Martin, Director of Public Utilities for the City of Delray Beach. He has never, since October of 1973, had to restrict water use, a fact which he attributes to good water management. In December of 1972 the City Council adopted a bond resolution authorizing the validation of issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds in the amount of $5,000,000.00 to expand the water treatment plant to 24 million gallons per day and to construct four new wells. The bonds were approved by the citizens of Delray Beach. Other long range plans include the engineering for the enlargement of the sewage treatment plant from 12 to 24 million gallons a day. This, together with the addition of 4 extra wells, is part of a plan whereby the City of Delray Beach would become a regional water center. Mr. Gerry Winter, a hydrogeologist with the FCD, testified that he evaluated the subject application and prepared the Staff Report in this case, and testified as to its contents. As criteria in evaluating the application, Mr. Winter looked at whether the use was a reasonable and beneficial one and whether the use would present damage to resources or other users. The limiting factor in this particular application was the danger of salt water intrusion. It was recommended that the applicant be required to replace monitoring wells, so that the FCD could obtain valid salt water interface data. It was determined by Mr. Winter that the diversion requested by the applicant would not be a reasonable use of the water with regard to the resource since the current estimate of recharge will equal discharge by the year 1980. Therefore, it was recommended that a five year permit be issued for a maximum annual diversion of 4,668 billion gallons (such amount being equal to the estimated 1980 demand - an average day demand of 12.79 million gallons - times 365); a maximum daily diversion of 25.45 million gallons; and a total maximum installed field capacity of 20,000 gallons per minute, with certain conditions attached thereto pertaining to reports to the FCD and salinity monitoring wells. Finally, Mr. Winter testified that, although his report was prepared prior to receipt of the letter from the Palm Beach County Health Department (Exhibit No. 7), the letter was reviewed by the FCD staff and it was considered insignificant to the impact of this application. Mr. Saberson expressed agreement with the Staff Report.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be granted in accordance with the recommendations and conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Respectfully submitted this 8th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida Roger Saberson, Esquire City Attorney City of Delray Beach 100 North West 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 =================================================================
