Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1987, Nassau County applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a dredge and fill permit to construct a public boat ramp, dock, and unpaved parking lot within the landward extent of the St. Mary's River. The St. Mary's River is a class III water of the state, and is not an "outstanding" Florida water. The boat ramp is designed to be 12 feet wide and 66 feet long. The dock is designed to be 60 feet by 4 feet. The unpaved parking lot is designed to be 100 feet by 80 feet. The relationship of these projects is shown by the drawing that is R. Ex. 4. The jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Regulation is determined by the dominant plant species on the land. Where there are no plant species, jurisdiction extends to the mean high waterline. With respect to the proposed boat ramp, dock, and parking lot, the DER's jurisdiction extends to the area above the blue line on R. Ex. 4. Thus, the DER jurisdiction extends to a small portion of the northwest corner of the parking lot, most of the dock (a 20 foot section of the dock ramp is excluded), and 44 feet of the end of the boat ramp that extends into the St. Mary's River. The small portion of the parking lot is not a deep swamp, but is a transitional wetland. This portion of the parking lot appears to be about 50 square feet of the total of 8,000 square feet of the entire parking lot, judging from the dimensions of the ramp and the dock on R. Ex. 4. The boat ramp will require the removal of 80 cubic yards of soil. The ramp is to be constructed at a place alone the river where there is no wetland vegetation of significance, and excavation will not remove any natural filtering vegetation of importance. At this point, the bank of the river is steep and the river is about 200 foot wide at this point, and has a relatively strong flow of water. The material to be excavated is fine. Any turbidity caused by excavation should be soon dissipated in the river. Physical barriers constructed during the excavation should adequately protect against excess turbidity. Special condition 3 of the proposed permit requires that turbidity controls be used throughout the project to contain any turbidity generated that exceeds state water quality standards. R. Ex. 3. The dock involves the placement of pilings on the river bottom along the shoreline of the river. If the dock were to be a private dock, it would be exempt from the requirement of a DER permit. The dock will not destroy wildlife habitat or cause the loss of important wetland. The flow of water would continue through and around the pilings of the dock and across the end of the ramp. The project would not change the natural flow of the river, cause erosion, or be a hazard to navigation. The project will not harm marine productivity. The project will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. There are no significant historical or archeological resources affected by the project. The project will enhance fishing and recreational values by providing access to fishermen and boaters to the river. A small portion of the parking as shown on R. Ex. 4 will result in the destruction of a transitional wetland, but the portion is not significant in comparison with the remaining wetland. The alteration to the wetland is lessened by the fact that the parking lot will be unpaved. The Petitioners presented evidence as to alternative sites that may be available to the County for a boat ramp, and evidence that the proposed public boat ramp may harm the adjacent or nearby property of the Petitioners due to noise and litter from public use. There is no evidence that the project will have an environmental impact upon the property of the Petitioners.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter its final order issuing permit number 451193582 to Nassau County with the specific conditions contained in the intent to issue dated June 26, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1988. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3838 The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties which have been rejected in this Recommended Order. The numbers correspond to the numbers of the proposed findings of fact as used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 5 and the second sentence of 6. These proposed findings are issues of law, not fact. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: None proposed. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon E. Hart, Esquire 205 Center Street Fernandina Beach, Fla. 32304 William H. Congdon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Michael S. Mullin, Esquire Nassau County Attorney Post Office Box 1010 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32304 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Respondent, while acting as pilot aboard the M/V Itanage in the St. John's River, Jacksonville, Florida on August 29, 1990, engaged in a practice which did not met acceptable standards of safe piloting. (F.S.A. s. 310.101(1)(k))
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed pilot in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 1) Respondent has been issued license number SP0000032. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 2) On or about August 29, 1990, Respondent was piloting the M/V Itanage outbound in Jacksonville, Florida. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 4) The Itanage is a 12,000 gross ton, Brazilian registered diesel powered container vessel. (Transcript p. 164) From May 1988 to August 1990 the Itanage entered and exited the port of Jacksonville under pilotage fifteen times without navigational incident. (Transcript pp. 21, 22) The same crew abroad the Itanage at the time of the allision was on the Itanage on its previous voyage of the Itanage. (Transcript p. 22) Respondent has piloted the Itanage or similar vessels many times previously. (Transcript p. 355) The Itanage was equipped with an overhead rudder angle indicator which is visible from the bridge wing. The rudder angle indicator exhibits the degree angle of the rudder and is color coded red for port and green for starboard so the pilot can glance up and see whether port or starboard rudder is applied. 2/ (Transcript pp. 166, 167) Each bridge wing of the Itanage was equipped with an RPM indicator which shows whether the engine was going ahead or astern and the number of revolutions per minute. (Transcript p. 168) The Itanage was equipped with an engine room telegraph which was operated by the second mate to communicate engine commands to the engine room. 3/ On August 29, 1990, the docking master, Captain Meers, undocked the vessel from Jacksonville Port Authority berths 3 and 4, turned, headed down the river on slow ahead, and disembarked around Coastal Petroleum. (Statement of Captain Steele; DPR Report, p. 2) Respondent assumed responsibility for directing the ship at 1454 hours with the vessel parallel to and favoring the west bank of the river. (Statement of Captain Steele; DPR Report, p. 8; engine bell book, Transcript p. 175) It was a clear day, the ride was at or near slack water, the weather was perfect. (Transcript pp. 92. 169, 170, 198) Respondent gave commands to the second mate who remained positioned by the engineroom telegraph on the bridge. The second mate repeated the commands in English then repeated the commands to the helmsman in Portuguese. (Transcript pp. 195, 337); Statement of Second Mate) The second mate spoke very little English and the helmsman did not speak any English. (Transcript p. 331) At 1454 the Respondent ordered course 320 degrees and slow ahead, which was executed. At approximately 1456, Respondent ordered a course of 310 degrees and full speed ahead. (Transcript pp. 82, 83, 191, 192; DPR Report p. 8; engine bell book; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman, Master, and Chief Mate; Statement of Captain Steele) Respondent's orders issued at 1456 were executed, and the engine speed was set at full ahead and the Helmsman steered 310 degrees. (Transcript p. 186; DPR Report p. 8; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman, Master, and Chief Mater; engine bell book; Statement of Captain Steele; Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 8) Respondent was in the wheelhouse and observed the master-gyro-compass. (Transcript p. 331; Statement of Captain Steele) Because the view forward was blocked by the deck cargo, Respondent went to the starboard wing to observe Buoy 71. (Statement of Captain Steele) At 1455 Respondent ordered "10 degrees port" from the starboard wing. (Transcript pp. 337, 338; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman) The helmsman steered 10 degrees to port (left). (Transcript p. 192; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman) After the order of "10 degrees port", Respondent remained on the starboard wing and had a radio conversation using a hand held marine radio with the master of the tug "Ann Moran" which took approximately 45 seconds about a ship they had handled the previous day. (Transcript pp. 338, 340, 247) At 1456 as Itanage approached Buoy 71, at point "D" on Hearing Officer Exhibit 1, from the starboard bridge wing, Respondent ordered hard right (starboard) rudder and engine ahead full. (Transcript p. 343) This was to start the turn around Buoy 71. (Transcript p. 384) Captain Steele did not at that time, however, go to the pilot house. Captain Steele remained on the wing to observe the response of the vessel. (Transcript p. 395) After a few seconds, Captain Steele observed the bow of the vessel swinging to port (left) not to starboard (right). (Transcript p. 345) He immediately rushed to the pilot house, repeating his hard starboard (right) rudder order as he did so. (Transcript p. 345) The rudder angle indicator in the pilot house, however, indicated the actual position of the rudder was passing from port (left) 20 degrees to starboard when Captain Steele entered the pilot house. (Transcript p. 345) Captain Steele did not alter the prior order for ahead full. Captain Steele reached the helm console and grabbed the helm. By that time, the helm was already in the hard starboard position. The only explanation as to how the rudder got to 20 degrees port (left) was that when Captain Steele gave the command hard to starboard, the helmsman actually went hard to port (left), then the helmsman realized his error and was correcting it when Captain Steele entered the pilot house. No one suggests that any other command was given which would account for the port swing of the vessel. (Transcript p. 235) Captain Steele again went to the wing to observe the response of the vessel. When it became apparent the vessel would not make the turn, Steele ordered full astern and ordered both anchors dropped. The vessel continued to make way in a sweeping curve alliding with the Shell Oil Terminal on the western edge of the Chaseville turn at approximately 1459 hours. The allision was not caused by a mechanical failure, weather, or tide. (Transcript p. 69). The allision was set up by the helmsman's turning the ship to port (left) instead of starboard (right). However, the Respondent contributed to this error by failing to give the steering command, "Right, full rudder," as required by the Rules of Road. See 33 USC 232. The Coast Guard conducted an investigation and prepared a report (Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the second page of which is a data sheet taken from the ship's bridge. This data sheet contains a diagram of the ship's turning circle to both port (left) and starboard (right) at half and full speeds. An overlay in proper scale was prepared and attached to Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 at the point where the turn was executed, Point D. The scaled extract of the Coast Guard report is attached to the back of Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. The overlay reveals that the vessel could not make the turn at full speed from Point D because the vessel's course takes it almost exactly to the point of allision. If the vessel's course is offset slightly to the left due to the helmsman's mistake and the vessel's turning circle adjusted for less speed, as would have occurred if the vessel went from half speed to full speed when the order for the turn was given, the vessel's projected track would again place the vessel at the point of the allision. The primary cause of the allision was Respondent's use of full speed in the turn. Although there was controversy about whether the vessel proceeded north the entire way at full speed or whether full speed was ordered as the turn was ordered approaching Buoy 71 (Point D on Hearing Officer Exhibit 1), there is no controversy that Captain Steele intended to execute the turn at full speed. The distance from where Captain Steele assumed control of the ship to where it came to rest is approximately 1 and 1/8 nautical miles. According to the logs, the vessel covered this distance in between four and five minutes. In order to cover that distance in that time, the ship was at or close to its full speed, adjusted for a dirty hull, of 15 knots. The advance and transfer of the ship was extended at full speed in such a way that the vessel could not make the turn in the sea room available. Referring again to the overlay, the vessel could have turned within the searoom available from Point D at half speed. The ship might have completed the turn at half speed from a point left of and forward of Point D, its track as the result of the helmsman's error, particularly with the reserve of thrust available to assist in turning after the emergency developed. The Chaseville turn is a tight turn without a great amount of sea room, and requires care to be exercised by pilots. (Transcript pp. 354, 362, 170, 171). The Respondent's failure to maintain proper speed caused the allision with the Shell Oil Terminal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Pilot commissioners issue a final order suspending Captain Henry A. Steele for three (3) months and levying a civil penalty of $5,000 against him. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 3rd day of June, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Carl J. Ekblom's (Ekblom's) application to install a boatlift at an existing dock in a man- made body of water in Islamorada is exempt from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP).
Findings Of Fact Background Ekblom owns property and resides at 107 South Drive (Lot 27), Islamorada. Padron owns the neighboring property immediately to the south located at 109 South Drive (Lot 28). The two pie-shaped lots sit at the V-shaped western end of Plantation Lake, an artificial body of water on which several houses are located. Each of the two properties has a marginal dock running along the shoreline that meets to form an acute angle.1 A 33-foot finger pier juts out from the vertex of the angle, running along the border of the property line. Pursuant to an understanding with the prior owner of Lot 28, and later formalized in an easement agreement, for the past 12 years Ekblom has used the north side of the finger pier to moor a 35 to 36-foot long boat with a beam of about 12 feet, six inches.2 During that time, he has never had a navigational incident or complaint. Recently, he purchased a slightly smaller boat that is 31 feet, seven inches long and will replace the larger vessel. The outboard motors will add an additional two feet. A jet ski lift currently exists on the north side of the finger pier and can only be accessed and used from that side of the pier. It was purchased, paid for, and installed by Ekblom in 2000 pursuant to an agreement with the prior owner of Lot 28. See Endnote 2, infra. The jet ski lift has not been used by Ekblom since 2004. The drawings submitted by Ekblom with his verification application did not depict the lift. The Project Ekblom has contracted with a marine construction firm to install a boat lift for his new boat. The lift will be on the north side of the finger pier, in a location selected to provide for straight ingress and egress. After inspecting the property, the contractor decided that a four-post, or cradle lift, is the best option for the space, to allow for a straight-in ingress and egress. A cradle lift consists of four pilings, one on each corner. Two lifting mechanisms sit on top of the pilings, running parallel to the boat's location, and a set of cables reach down from the pilings to a pair of lifter beams used to lift the boat out of the water. Ekblom selected a 13,000-pound cradle lift, which is approximately 12 feet, six inches, center to center, by 12 feet, six inches, out to out. A ten-inch piling on either side will add an additional five inches on either side of the center to center measurement. The lift is not physically attached to the pier because a four-post lift is freestanding, as opposed to an elevator lift, which attaches to the side of a seawall or dock. The lift will need to be placed adjacent to the finger pier so that it is approximately two feet inside of Ekblom's property line. The boat will be moored bow-in, so that two- thirds of the boat's overall length will be towards the inside of the finger pier. The contractor prepared the drawing depicting the placement of the lift, which was attached to Ekblom's application. The drawing, which was not to scale, showed the lift as 12 feet, six inches, by 14 feet. Use of a boarding platform or access walkway will be necessary to get to the boat on the lift, but this was not shown on the application. On August 10, 2012, an Environmental Specialist II, Celia Hitchins, who reviews between 30 and 60 exemption applications per month, reviewed Ekblom's request to install the cradle lift. The submittal consisted of a cover letter, an application, a property record card, a copy of the easement, and project drawings and specifications. Ms. Hitchins determined that the project was exempt from ERP permitting requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b)(1995).3 Because the activity would take place in an artificially created body of water, no proprietary review was required. After an exemption letter was issued, in October 2012 Ekblom filed a corrected application with new project drawings, but the project was not changed in any substantial way. After a challenge to the Department's determination was filed by Padron, Ms. Hitchens conducted a site inspection in February 2013. She did not change her original determination. The project drawings do not depict the boat lift as physically attached to the finger pier. About half of the exemptions Ms. Hitchins reviews are for elevator lifts, which attach to a dock, and the other half are for cradle lifts, which do not need to be physically attached to the dock. Both types of structures may be exempt, as the Department interprets the word "attached" in rule 40E-4.051(3)(b) to mean either physically attached or in close proximity and associated with a docking facility. "Close proximity" means a close step, or a reasonable step, or some sort of means of access, such as a boarding platform or access walkway. It does not include needing to run and jump on the vessel or needing to swim to the vessel. This is a more reasonable and logical interpretation of the rule than the narrow one advocated by Padron. Ms. Hitchins determined from the project drawings that the lift was in close proximity to the finger pier and met the requirements of the rule. Padron engaged Dr. Lin to take measurements of the project area and develop scaled drawings. In these scaled drawings, he depicted the boat lift as 12 feet, six inches, by 14 feet, ten inches. He arrived at the latter measurement by using the generic drawing specifications for the 16,000-pound boat lift that showed the width as 14 feet from center to center, and added ten inches to accommodate a ten-inch piling on each side. Dr. Lin prepared six alternative placements of the boat lift, including placements with a two and eight-foot "safety zone" (buffer zone) between the boat on the lift and Ekblom's marginal dock. Petitioner's Objections In the parties' Stipulation, Padron contended that the boat lift will not be used for recreational, non-commercial activities; it will involve filling or dredging other than necessary to install the pilings; it will create a navigational hazard; and it will not be the sole dock constructed pursuant to the exemption. She also argued that the boat lift must be physically "attached" to the finger pier. In her Proposed Recommended Order, however, she focuses primarily on whether the boat lift will create a navigational hazard and whether the cradle lift must be physically attached to the finger pier in order to qualify for an exemption. Padron purchased her home in January 2011. Between May and July 2012, she expended around $18,000.00 in maintenance work on the finger pier. She testified that she opposes Ekblom's proposed boat lift because it will prevent her from having full and complete use of the pier and will be dangerous to people jumping into the water near it. She owns a 23-foot boat, but only her son uses it. When not in use, the boat is normally stored in her garage or at her primary residence in Miami. She has never swum in the basin behind her house, and she does not kayak. Her family occasionally swims in the water. In both her pleadings and testimony, Padron suggests that if this appeal is unsuccessful, she is going to have the finger pier demolished. Marcos Soto, Padron's son, who resides in Miami, tries to visit his mother's house on weekends when he "[has] the chance." He testified that "we" use the area behind the house for boating, swimming, and fishing. However, only he and his nephew fish. Mr. Soto owns three small boats and plans to purchase a jet ski. He acknowledged that his primary objection to the boat lift is that he will be unable to use the jet ski lift. Mr. Soto has no ownership in the property. Recreational, Non-commercial Activities Ekblom testified that he will use the boat and lift for recreational purposes. Padron offered no contrary evidence on this point. Dredging To install the lift, the contractor will generally use a drop hammer from a crane on a barge to punch four holes for the pilings. Installation does not involve any more excavation than that. Also, Ms. Hitchins did not see anything in the plans that would require dredging or filling. Therefore, the lift will not require more dredging and filling than necessary to install the pilings. This evidence was not refuted. The proposed exemption does not include any exemption determination as to electrical service. Navigational Hazard There are no channel markers in the middle of the basin, and the basin has only one exit and entrance at its eastern end. The lift will be located at the dead end of the waterway, in an area of the basin in which only a few boats would navigate. Also, the boat will be on the lift in the same position as if Ekblom tied it to the finger pier. The small inlet into the basin limits the size of a boat coming in, and the water in the basin is calm, compared to the open ocean. Ekblom's neighbor to the northeast on Lot 26, Carl Wright, docks a 30-foot boat on the seawall in front of his property. When Mr. Wright leaves his dock, he pushes the stern of his boat away from the seawall, and backs away. Once he clears the seawall with his bow, he puts the port engine in forward, turns the boat on its center, then leaves the area with the bow pointing out. When he returns, he parks the boat against the seawall. There is no way for Mr. Wright to egress bow first. Mr. Wright did not file any objection to the project. Ekblom will egress parallel to the finger pier. He will never need to navigate on the south side of the finger pier. Once the lift is installed, Ekblom will not use his marginal dock to moor another boat, as one will not fit there. Ekblom's expert, Mr. Camuccio, testified that the boat lift would not create a navigational hazard. He visited the site by boat and reviewed the documentation submitted to the Department. His opinion did not change after reviewing Dr. Lin's drawings. Ms. Hitchins opined that the lift would not cause a navigational hazard. She further opined that the lift would not interfere with navigation to and from the Padron side of the finger pier to the south, since the lift was located on the north side. Also, it would not preclude ingress and egress of vessels to Lot 26 to the northeast. She would not consider the boat lift to be any more intrusive than a boat moored in the same area. Any boat on Lot 26 would only need a small amount of clearance for ingress and egress. Padron's navigation expert, Mr. Danti, concluded that the boat lift would be a navigational hazard in each of the six different scenarios Dr. Lin prepared. He concluded that the lift would preclude access to the northern side of the finger pier, would create a navigational hazard for the neighbor to the northeast on Lot 26, and would be a hazard for a jet ski's ingress and egress to the jet ski lift. The mere fact that the lift may preclude access to the north side of the finger pier does not make it a navigational hazard. As Mr. Camuccio testified, inherently, a boat lift occupies some portion of navigable water that is potentially open for navigation, but it does not mean the lift is a navigation hazard. Notably, Ekblom has moored a boat on the north side of the pier for at least 12 years without incident or complaint. The lift will not be a navigational hazard to Mr. Wright on Lot 26. Mr. Danti based his opinions on Dr. Lin's scaled drawings. But the specifications Dr. Lin used for the lift were too large, and Dr. Lin admitted that there was no way to verify whether he depicted the correct location of the riparian line. His drawings could inaccurately depict the proposed location of the boat lift by approximately two feet, seven inches. Mr. Danti admitted that he would need to recalculate his opinions if the proposed boat lift was up to two feet smaller in width than depicted. Mr. Danti's opinion was also based on his conclusion that a jet ski would need a minimum of an eight-foot safety zone for ingress and egress. He would not change the size of the safety zone even if the conditions presented were changed; his opinion is based on the premise that a safety zone must be one- half of the beam of the vessel all around the vessel. However, Mr. Camuccio approximated the distance needed for any jet ski as four feet, which would give six inches on either side for clearance of other structures. He added that when docking a boat, the distance between the boat and the dock becomes zero at some point, because docking is nothing more than a controlled crash. Mr. Danti admitted that when docking a vessel, the circumstances can get tight, as opposed to the open ocean. Even if the lift is installed to leave an eight-foot safety zone, any boat at Lot 26 will still have a small amount of room for clearance for ingress and egress. Sole Dock The Department considers a boat lift to be an associated structure under rule 40E-4.051(3)(b). Thus, the fact that Ekblom has a marginal dock on his property and a jet ski lift would not preclude a determination that the boat lift is exempt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving its determination that Ekblom's application to install a boat lift is exempt from Department permitting requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a Tampa Bay pilot. On the morning of January 6, 1982, Respondent boarded the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 to pilot the ship into Tampa Bay. Although the Administrative Complaint alleges the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 was outbound from Tampa, the evidence was undisputed that the ship was inbound and the grounding occurred while the pilot was changing course to the right while attempting to go from Cut F channel into the Gadsden Cut channel some 80 degrees to the right of Cut F. The allegation that the ship was outbound is not material to the charge of negligence and will be disregarded. Exhibit 5, a copy of a section of the chart of Tampa Bay where the grounding occurred, does not clearly show the name of this channel, but the transcript (p. 27) indicates it is Gadsden Cut channel. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 proceeded northward at half speed up Tampa Bay without incident from the time Respondent boarded until Tampa Bay Lighted Bouy 6F was abeam to starboard at 0600, and Respondent ordered 20 degrees starboard rudder. At this time the wind was light (about 5 knots) and the current was near slack water and negligible. Leaving Cut F inbound, Cut G leads westward some 85 degrees to the west (or left) of the Cut F heading and Gadsden Cut channel leads some 80 degrees to the right of Cut F heading. The course change of about 80 degrees to the right from Cut F to the Gadsden Cut channel can be made in two steps or in a gradual turn, as a large area is included in these channels at this intersection (Exhibit 5). Shortly after ordering 20 degrees right rudder, Respondent realized the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 was not turning as fast as necessary to enter Gadsden Cut channel and he ordered the rudder increased to right full. Shortly thereafter, at 0603, Respondent ordered the engines ahead full expecting the thrust from the propellers to increase his rate of turn. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 continued to swing slowly to the right and moved well north of the intended course. At 0604 Respondent ordered the engines stopped and shortly thereafter, at 0604.5, he ordered the engines full astern. By this time the ship was aground in 22 feet of water. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 is a 10,596 gross tonnage, twin-screw, single- rudder vessel equipped with a bow thruster. On 6 January 1982 she was drawing 23 feet forward and aft. Respondent's testimony that the bow thruster is not very effective at speeds in excess of three knots was not rebutted nor was his testimony that he was aware the ship was equipped with a bow thruster. Respondent had piloted the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 several times (five or six) before January 6, 1982. On the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 the single rudder is located in the center line of the ship between the two propellers. This is the normal configuration for a twin-screw, single-rudder ship. On such a ship an increase in the thrust from the propellers will not provide the turning force on a rudder that is generated when the rudder is mounted directly behind the propeller, as is customary on a single-screw ship or a twin-screw, twin-rudder ship. However, the location of the propellers on a twin-screw ship are such that a turning moment on the ship is generated if only one propeller is used and a greater turning moment may be generated by having one propeller in the ahead position and the other propeller backing. When the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 was sluggish in turning to the right from Cut F, the turning moment could have been increased (and the turning circle reduced) by stopping the starboard propeller. Had the starboard propeller been backed, the turning moment would have been increased even more and the turning circle reduced accordingly. Increasing the speed from half to full on a single-rudder, twin-screw ship will not change the turning circle at a given rudder angle absent significant wind and current factors. Since neither wind nor current was significant in this incident, the increase in speed from one-half to full served only to add speed to the ship without affecting its track. Since the ship was already well north of the entrance to Gadsden Cut when the full ahead command was given, the increase in speed served only to advance the time the vessel grounded. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 grounded at 0605 on a soft mud to silt bottom and remained there until 0904 shortly after tugs had attached lines and began to pull.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent held a Florida license as a pilot for Tampa Bay. Shortly before midnight on 25 February 1982 Respondent boarded the M. T. JUPITER in Cut G, Tampa Bay, to pilot the ship to her destination at Florida Power Corporation's dock on Weedon Island. Two tugs, the BRADENTON and PALMETTO, were available and utilized from Cut G to the entrance to the Florida Power Corporation dock. The BRADENTON was made up on the port bow and the PALMETTO was made up on the starboard bow of the M. T. JUPITER. Around 4:10 a.m. on 26 February 1982 the M. T. JUPITER had made the last turn toward the Florida Power Corporation dock on Weedon Island and was proceeding westward at dead slow speed in the center of the entrance channel. The M. T. JUPITER was scheduled to moor port side to at the south dock at the Florida Power Corporation slip. Line handlers were standing by on the dock and the ship's crew had been called to cast the lines from the ship when so directed. The BRADENTON on the port bow was ordered to let go and stand by on the port quarter. Shortly after arriving at the port quarter the BRADENTON was ordered to stand by on the starboard quarter, but was never directed to put a line on the M. T. JUPITER. The PALMETTO remained fast to the starboard bow with her engines in the ahead position. Without having a line on the M. T. JUPITER, the BRADENTON could do nothing to reduce the speed or forward movement of the JUPITER. At 4:14 a.m. Respondent ordered all engines stopped on the M. T. JUPITER as the ship approached the slip. As the M. T. JUPITER entered the slip several people on the south dock waiting to take the lines from the M. T. JUPITER thought the M. T. JUPITER was moving too fast for a proper mooring. One of these witnesses equipped with a bullhorn yelled to the M. T. JUPITER a couple of times to slow down as he too thought the ship was moving too rapidly. At 4:20 a.m. Respondent ordered the PALMETTO to push M. T. JUPITER's bow to port and ordered all engines back full. As he did so the bow swung to starboard and at 4:21 a.m. Respondent ordered the engines stopped and the PALMETTO to let go and stand clear as the starboard bow was moving toward the north dock. As soon as the PALMETTO was clear, at 4:22 a.m., Respondent again ordered the engines back full. The M. T. JUPITER collided with the dock at 4:23 a.m. and Respondent ordered the engines stopped. The tugs secured lines to the M. T. JUPITER, pulled her away from the north pier which she had struck, and moored the M. T. JUPITER to the south slip. At the time of this incident the tide was high, there was no effective tidal current, and the wind was from the east-northeast at 10-15 knots. The effect of the wind, if any, was that to be expected from a following wind which would slightly increase the drift of the ship in a westerly direction. The south pier where the M. T. JUPITER was ordered to tie up is 1,100 feet long and the distance across the slip between the south and north piers is 250 feet. The north pier is shorter, just under 800 feet long. At the end of this slip Florida Power Corporation has its cooling water intakes at which are located six pumps with a combined rated capacity of 390,000 gallons per minute. During the time involved in this incident four of these pumps were on the line providing cooling water to the plant. These suction pumps are essential to the power plant's operation. Hence they may be expected to be on at all times. This fact is known to all Tampa Bay pilots and is an item included in the examination for licensure as a Tampa Bay pilot. No credible evidence was presented as to the actual current generated in this slip by these suction pumps. However, pilots have brought ships into this slip for many years and have generally experienced slight to no effect on the ship from these pumps. Respondent's testimony, that his first engine command following the 4:14 a.m. stop bell was slow astern, then half astern before the command for full astern was given at 4:20 a.m., is not supported by the bell book, the casualty report Respondent prepared immediately following the casualty (Exhibit 1), or by the statement he gave the U.S. Coast Guard investigator dated 26 February 1982 (Exhibit 11). Respondent did not know the speed the M. T. JUPITER made through the water with the engines ahead dead slow and no evidence was presented regarding this speed. Nor was any evidence presented regarding the speed imparted to the M. T. JUPITER by the tug PALMETTO on the starboard bow after the M. T. JUPITER's engines were stopped. The PALMETTO's captain testified that Respondent ordered him full ahead to push the bow of the M. T. JUPITER toward the south pier and that he responded to that command until told to get his tug out of the way before the M. T. JUPITER collided with the north dock. The lighting on the south pier of the docks provided good illumination in the area, resulting in good visibility for all witnesses.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On March 5, 1981, at approximately 6:00 or 7:00 p.m., Captain Thomas A. Baggett, a licensed Tampa Bay pilot, boarded the tug SHIELA MORAN, for the purpose of piloting it and the barge CARIBBEAN from the Big Bend Electric Power Plant, where it had discharged its load of coal, to the Eastern Associated Terminal, where it was to pick up a load of phosphate. The SHIELA MORAN is a 126 foot long, 4800 horse-power offshore tug boat. The barge CARIBBEAN is 480 feet long and 75 feet wide. At the time of the transit, the barge was light and had a freeboard of approximately 12 feet. Both vessels were federally enrolled. After respondent introduced himself to the Master, Captain Andrea Bicchiera, and the First Mate, Ronald DeMello, a discussion ensued between the Master and the respondent as to the appropriate method of pilotage. Bicchiera inquired as to whether respondent would be piloting the vessels from the barge. Respondent told Bicchiera that he would not be going on the barge and would pilot the vessels from the wheelhouse of the tug. A heated debate on this issue followed and respondent refused to pilot the vessels from the barge. The Master thereafter instructed First Mate DeMello to go up on the barge. Because the barge was unloaded and light, visibility to the port side of the barge was obstructed. The deck of the barge was four to five feet above eye level from the wheelhouse. It was the Master's opinion that proper navigation could only be accomplished by respondent from the barge. From the wheelhouse of the tug, respondent was able to see forward, aft and to the right. He could also see the ranges in the channel at three miles forward and less than a half mile aft. He felt that he had no real problem with visibility and that he needed to stay in the wheelhouse near the controls to properly navigate the vessels. He therefore remained on the tug SHIELA MORAN during the voyage between the two ports. It is not the custom in Tampa Bay for a harbor pilot to leave the wheelhouse or pilot house of the tug and go up on the barge, since the pilot would have no control of the vessels from the barge. It is common practice for Tampa Bay pilots to remain on the tug even when their vision is restricted on one side. Another tug (the A.P. ST. PHILLIP) was assisting at the bow of the barge. Near the turning basin, respondent instructed First Mate DeMello and a deckhand to release the stern line of the tugs so that they could swing around. As they attempted to release the stern line, the line fell over and got caught in the propeller of the assist tug. This rendered the assist tug inoperable. Respondent was required to reduce the speed of his tug in order to allow the assist tug time to get out of the way. The loss of the use of the assist tug, the reduced speed of the SHIELA MORAN and the current (ebb tide) caused the barge to set to the port (South) side of the channel. Three or four minutes after the assist tug became inoperable, the vessels went outside the channel and the tug bumped or touched the bottom. Shortly after this episode, the barge scraped a buoy. While the First Mate observed that a buoy went under the barge, no further evidence of a damaged buoy or a damaged barge was presented. It is not unusual for a tug boat to touch bottom during a transit through Tampa Bay. No report of the tug grounding or buoy incident was made. There was no evidence that the SHIELA MORAN was damaged in any manner from the grounding incident. While the respondent's tug and the barge were in "C" Cut, another vessel piloted by Captain O'Connell overtook them on the starboard side. Prior to the overtaking, Captain O'Connell called the wheelhouse of the tug SHIELA MORAN to arrange for the passage. Respondent answered the call and instructed O'Connell, in very clear and distinct words, to pass him very slowly because the tug and the barge were not made up too well. Further on the passage to the Eastern Associated Terminal, and at the time of final docking, there was some dispute between the respondent and the Master as to the proper method of maneuvering the tug, a new assist tug and the barge. The barge was docked without incident. After docking, respondent disembarked by climbing over the barge and crawling down through small hand holes from the barge to the dock. Captain O'Connell, who shared transportation with respondent back to their vehicles, observed nothing abnormal about respondent's behavior or speech during this ride. First Mate DeMello believed that respondent "smelled of alcohol" when he first boarded the SHIELA MORAN, and felt that respondent slurred his speech, was argumentative and was not cooperative. Respondent has been working on tugboats since 1945 or 1946, and has been a Tampa Bay harbor pilot since 1969. It was respondent's testimony that he had had no alcoholic beverages on March 5, 1981, prior to boarding the SHIELA MORAN. The First Mate never told the Master or the respondent that respondent should not be piloting the vessels because of intoxication or incapacitation. At the conclusion of the voyage, the Master signed respondent's pilotage slip.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent on November 9, 1981, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: W. B. Ewers, Esquire Post Office Drawer 9008 Coral Springs, Florida 33075 C. Steven Yerrid, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent Prospect Marathon Coquina, LLC (PMC), is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the proposed expansion of a docking facility, and whether PMC is entitled to a modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact The Parties With the exception of Elizabeth Schuh, all Petitioners live in the Driftwood neighborhood, which is located across Big Bayou from the proposed project. All Petitioners use Big Bayou for various recreational purposes, including swimming and boating. Several Petitioners also use Big Bayou for nature observation. Petitioner Peter Pav owns waterfront property on Big Bayou. Respondents do not dispute Petitioners’ standing. The Department is charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in waters of the state. The Department has also been delegated authority from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities that will preempt the use of sovereign submerged lands. PMC is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns 2,786 linear feet of upland shoreline contiguous to the state-owned submerged lands of Big Bayou. PMC is the developer of the multi-family residential condominium development on Coquina Key that the proposed project would serve, known as Coquina Key North. The Affected Waterbody Big Bayou is near the southern end of the St. Petersburg peninsula. The mouth of the bayou opens to Tampa Bay. Big Bayou is part of the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve, which includes most of the coastal waters of Pinellas County. Like all aquatic preserves in Florida, the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water.1 Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.001 states that the aquatic preserves in Part II of Chapter 258 (which include the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve) “were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations.” The term “essentially natural condition” is defined as “those functions which support the continued existence or encourage the restoration of the diverse population of indigenous life forms and habitats to the extent they existed prior to the significant development adjacent to and within the preserve.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.003(24). In the 1960s and 1970s, development activities throughout Tampa Bay caused the loss of about 80 percent of its seagrasses and significant degradation of water quality. The seagrasses and water quality in Big Bayou were also adversely affected by filling and other development activities, including the filling and bulkheading of Coquina Key where the proposed project would be located. In more recent years, the water quality in Big Bayou has improved. Although trash sometimes washes up on the shoreline and one can sometimes see a sheen on the water surface caused by gasoline or oil, the water quality in Big Bayou is generally good, with high dissolved oxygen and low nutrient concentrations. The seagrasses have also recovered to a large extent. A variety of seagrasses grow in Big Bayou, including shoal grass, manatee grass, turtle grass, widgeon grass, and a relatively uncommon species, palm grass. Seagrasses are the foundation for the marine food web. They also serve as a nursery for small fish and invertebrates, stabilize sediment, and improve water quality. Manatees regularly enter and use Big Bayou because it provides good habitat. The manatees in this area are part of the Southwest Florida manatee subpopulation. Based on data collected through 2001, that subpopulation is either stable, or possibly declining. Pinellas County is not one of the 13 Florida counties that were required to develop and implement manatee protection plans. There are two areas of Pinellas County that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) has identified as needing additional manatee protection measures, but Big Bayou is not one of them. The Proposed Project The proposed authorizations would allow PMC to expand an existing multi-family, residential docking facility on the north end of Coquina Key, along an existing seawall and adjacent to the Coquina Key North condominiums that PMC converted from a former apartment complex. The proposed project would add 60 boats slips to the existing 30 boat slips at the project site. The new slips could accommodate boats up to 25 feet in length. PMC would restrict use of the boat slips to Coquina Key North condominium owners. In converting the former apartment complex to condominiums, PMC retained ownership of a strip of land immediately upland of the submerged lands on which the proposed project would be constructed. The ground for Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Order is that the ownership retained by PMS, because it does not include ownership of the upland residences, does not entitle PMS to obtain a submerged land lease for the proposed project. That legal argument is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Direct Impacts An earlier plan for the proposed project was to place 30 new boat slips on the north side of the existing docks and 30 new slips on the south side. However, to avoid direct impacts to seagrasses, the plan was modified to avoid an area of seagrasses on the south side. The proposed project now would add 38 boat slips on the north side and 22 slips on the south side. The over-water dock structures would be placed waterward of the seagrasses that currently grow along the seawall. The seagrasses adjacent to the proposed project are not likely to be harmed by wave action or turbulence from boating activity around and in the slips because of the distance between the slips and the seagrasses. The proposed authorizations include specific conditions that prohibit numerous activities that could cause adverse water quality impacts at the proposed project site, such as the discharge of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel; fish cleaning stations; boat repair facilities; fueling facilities; hull cleaning, painting or other external boat maintenance; and boat maintenance or repair activities requiring removal of a boat from the water, or removal of major portions of the boat for purposes of routine repair or maintenance on site, except where removal is necessitated by emergency conditions. No liveaboards would be allowed at the proposed project. PMC intends to incorporate these conditions into its agreements with the condominium owners who use the boat slips. Because Big Bayou is an Outstanding Florida Water, PMC is required to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not result in the lowering of existing ambient water quality. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2)(c) defines “existing ambient water quality” as the better water quality of either what existed on the date that the water body was designated an Outstanding Florida Water or what existed in the year prior to the permit application. Because the current water quality is better than it was in 1972 when the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve was created, the current water quality is the standard to apply in this case. Although some incidental non-compliance with the conditions of the proposed authorizations could occur, such incidental non-compliance would not likely result in significant2 degradation of the existing ambient water quality in Big Bayou. Secondary Impacts – In General Petitioners’ primary concerns with the proposed project are with the secondary impacts that would be caused by increased boating activity in Big Bayou. Petitioners contend that the additional boats using the 60 new boat slips would adversely affect water quality, seagrasses, manatees, and other natural resources. Petitioners also assert that the additional boating activity would cause erosion of the north shoreline of Big Bayou and impair Petitioners’ recreational uses of the bayou. It is reasonable to assume that there would be more boat trips on Big Bayou if the proposed project were built than if it were not built. However, it is impossible to say how many more boat trips would be generated by the proposed project. It cannot be assumed that because there would be 60 more boat slips, there would be 60 more boats on Big Bayou each day, each week, or even each month. Moreover, the number of boats on Big Bayou on any given day fluctuates because it depends not only on the whims of the boat owners who have boat slips in Big Bayou, but also on the whims of the boat owners who anchor their boats in the open waters of Big Bayou, launch their boats from the public boat ramps on Big Bayou, or enter Big Bayou from Tampa Bay or more distant waters. Secondary Impacts - Erosion Petitioners did not present competent evidence to support their claim that the proposed project would cause erosion of the north shoreline of Big Bayou. Secondary Impacts – Water Quality The Department has adopted by reference the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Basis for Review for Environmental Resource Permits (Basis of Review) to apply to applications for environmental resource permits for projects over which the Department retains permitting authority. For docking facilities, Section 3.2.4.3 of the Basis of Review requires the applicant to provide hydrographic information to demonstrate that the “flushing time” (the time required to reduce the concentration of a pollutant) is sufficiently short to prevent the accumulation of any pollutants to the point of violating water quality standards. PMC’s hydrographic analyses indicate that Big Bayou is well-flushed. The water of the bayou moves a half mile to a mile during a normal tide. The fact that the current water quality in Big Bayou is good indicates that contamination associated with the current level of boating activity in the bayou is not accumulating. Incidental discharges of contaminants from boats using the proposed project would likely be rapidly dispersed and diluted. Petitioners argued that PMC’s hydrographic analyses did not address every part of Big Bayou. The rule requires hydrographic characterization of “the project site and surrounding waters.” As the challengers, Petitioners needed to rebut PMC’s prima facie case regarding the hydrographic characteristics in the bayou with competent evidence showing PMC’s findings were inaccurate, or show that the scope of PMC’s hydrographic analyses did not conform with any reasonable interpretation of the applicable rule. Petitioners presented no such evidence or showing. Some additional, incidental contamination can be expected to occur as a result of the operation of the boats that would use the proposed project. However, PMC provided reasonable assurance that the addition of these contaminants would not significantly degrade the existing ambient water quality of Big Bayou nor cause any other applicable water quality standard to be violated. Secondary Impacts - Seagrasses The maximum water depth at which most seagrasses can grow is between five and six feet because of their need for light. When boaters attempt to cross shallow areas where seagrasses are located, they sometimes damage the grasses with the boat propellers, leaving areas of torn grass and “prop scars,” furrows in the bottom. Even when boat propellers do not touch the bottom, but come close, they can disturb the loose sediments and cause turbidity. It can be especially harmful when boats run aground, because the boater will sometimes grind away at the seagrasses in an attempt to move the boat to deeper water, causing holes 10 or 12 feet in diameter. Different seagrasses recover from such damage at different rates. In some cases, it can take years for a prop scar to become re-vegetated. A 1995 study of prop scars by the Florida Marine Research Institute found that the Tampa Bay area is one of four areas of Florida with the greatest acreage of moderate and severe scarring. There are prop scars visible in the bottom of Big Bayou and Petitioners testified about seeing boats run aground in Big Bayou. The main navigation channel on the north side of Big Bayou ranges in depth from slightly less than 8 feet to over 17 feet. There are channel markers to help boaters find and stay in this channel, but some of the original markers are missing. In addition to the main navigation channel, there is an area along the north side of Coquina Key that is used by the residents living along that shoreline to get to and from Tampa Bay. This second route, which is not marked, is much shallower than the main channel and its use by boaters at low tide is a threat to seagrasses in the area.3 If more boaters in Big Bayou stayed in the main navigational channel, there would be a decreased threat to the seagrasses. However, the evidence shows that boaters often travel out of the main channel, either by inadvertence or to take a shortcut, and cross shallow areas where the seagrasses are located. It was the opinion of David Crewz, a plant ecologist who specializes in seagrasses, that increased boating activity in Big Bayou could decrease the habitat quality of the bayou. He said that one can expect more prop scarring and more turbidity caused by stirring up the bottom sediments. He was most concerned about boats larger than 16 feet in length that do not stay in the marked navigation channel. The 1995 Florida Marine Research Institute study of prop scarring, which Mr. Crewz co-authored, recommended a four- point approach to reduce prop scarring: (1) boater education, (2) channel marking, (3) enforcement, and (4) speed zones. The conditions contained in the proposed authorizations would implement two of the four points recommended by the study. PMC would install informational signs about seagrasses at the proposed project and at Grandview Park so that boaters using the proposed project and boaters using the boat ramp at the park would be less likely to operate their boats in a manner harmful to seagrasses. PMC would replace all missing markers along the main navigation channel. The current distance between some of the channel markers may be causing some boaters to stray from the channel. PMC would mark the location of seagrasses adjacent to the navigation channel. The operation phase of the environmental resource permit would not become effective until the channel markers and seagrass markers have been installed. The proposed educational displays, channel markers, and seagrass markers would probably reduce boat traffic across seagrass areas, but they would not eliminate it. However, because the displays and markers would be viewed by boaters using Big Bayou other than just the 60 boaters who would use the slips at the proposed project, the “net” effect of the proposed project would likely be no significant increase in prop scars or related adverse impacts to seagrasses in Big Bayou due to the proposed project. Therefore, PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to seagrasses. To go further, however, and contend as PMC does that, even with the addition of 60 boats, the effect of the proposed project would be to significantly reduce the current incidents of prop scarring, boat grounding, and other adverse impacts to seagrasses, is mere speculation without a statistical analysis of boater behavior or other evidence that was not presented in this case. PMC would also limit the use of its boat slips to vessels with a draft that would provide at least a twelve-inch clearance between the vessel’s draft in a motor-down position and the top of submerged resource at mean low tide. This condition appears to been intended to track similar wording used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)8., but because the condition leaves unstated the depth of the submerged resources and the water level of Big Bayou at mean low tide, a prospective renter of a boat slip would not know whether his or her boat would comply with the condition. The rule cannot be more specific because it applies to all waterbodies, but the specific condition in the proposed authorizations can and should be more specific to provide for adequate notice and enforcement. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not cause significant adverse impacts to seagrasses. Secondary Impacts – Manatees In Florida, between 25 and 30 percent of the annual manatee deaths are caused by collisions with boats. From 2002 to 2006, in Pinellas County waters, 41 percent of the manatee deaths of a known cause were watercraft-related. That percentage exceeds the state average and corresponds to an average of 3.2 deaths per year caused by boats. However the study area from which these statistics were compiled does not include Big Bayou. Dr. John Reynolds, a marine mammal expert, believes that boat speed is the primary factor in manatee deaths from boat collisions. At higher speeds, boaters and manatees have less time to avoid a collision and the severity of the injury to a manatee is generally greater when the manatee is struck by a boat moving at higher speeds. There are no boat speed zones currently established in Big Bayou. Thirty-three years of data collected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) indicate that there are no known boat-related manatee deaths within two and a half miles of the project site. There have been two dead manatees discovered in Big Bayou, but their deaths were not attributed to boat collisions. Increasing the number of boats in an area used by manatees increases the potential for boat/manatee collisions. To minimize the potential for boat/manatee collisions, PMC would implement the standard manatee protection measures that apply during the construction of the proposed docks. PMC would also implement and maintain a manatee education program approved by the FWCC, including informational signs regarding manatees at the proposed project. Although reducing speeds by establishing, posting, and enforcing idle speed or slow speed zones in the bayou would probably be the most effective measure for the protection of manatees, PMC cannot be required by the proposed authorizations to control boat speeds because boat speed zones must be established by Pinellas County and the Florida Marine Patrol. The proposed authorizations incorporate the conditions recommended by the FWCC for the protection of manatees. Tom Logan, the former FWCC endangered species coordinator and now a consultant who focuses on endangered species and their habitat, believes that the special conditions included in the proposed authorizations provide adequate protection for manatees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also concluded that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect manatees. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not cause significant adverse impacts to manatees. Secondary Impacts – Recreation Petitioners claim that their recreational uses of Big Bayou for fishing, swimming, canoeing, kayaking, and windsurfing would be diminished by the proposed project. However, Big Bayou is large enough to accommodate the additional boat trips associated with the proposed project and Petitioners’ recreational uses. A public water body like Big Bayou must be shared by persons living along or near its shores with all other citizens of Florida. Although some Petitioners would prefer that the bayou had the feel of a more remote or wild place, the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve is recognized to have a “highly developed, urban nature.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.019. It already has the attributes of an urban preserve. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not prevent or significantly impair the existing recreational uses of Big Bayou. Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.006 and Section 3.2.8 of the Basis of Review require that cumulative impacts be evaluated in determining whether to issue, respectively, a submerged lands lease or an environmental resource permit. PMC and the Department state in their Proposed Recommended Orders that the consideration of cumulative impacts is limited to projects that are existing or under construction, but Florida Administrative Code Rule 18.006(1) also requires, for a sovereignty submerged lands lease, consideration of “the number and extent of similar human actions within the preserve which have previously affected or are likely to affect the preserve.” Because the principal source of potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed project is boating activity, the existing docking facility at Coquina Key North, the other docks in Big Bayou, and the boat ramp at Grandview Park are existing structures generating boating activity that must be taken into account in the cumulative impacts analysis. Although the proposed project, with the conditions on its construction and operation, would, alone, have no significant adverse impact on water quality, seagrasses, manatees, or recreational uses in Big Bayou, the cumulative impacts to Big Bayou from all similar activities in the preserve have created significant (material) adverse impacts to Big Bayou in the form of trash, water contamination, damage to seagrasses, and prop scars. Public Interest Criteria Section 258.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that a lease of sovereignty submerged lands within an aquatic preserve by the Trustees must be “in the public interest.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(46) defines “public interest” in this context as “demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action.” Florida Administrative Code 18-20.004(2) sets forth the public interest criteria to be considered and balanced by the Trustees in determining whether to issue a submerged land lease or other authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands. The Rule identifies public boat ramps and “marking navigation channels to avoid disruption of shallow water habitats” as examples of public benefits. These benefits, however, must “clearly exceed” the “costs,” such as degraded water quality, degraded natural habitat and function, harm to endangered or threatened species and habitat, and adverse cumulative impacts. For issuance of the environmental resource permit, a determination is required that the proposed project is “clearly in the public interest,” because Big Bayou is part of an Outstanding Florida Water. Fla. Admin Code R. 62-4.242(2). This determination requires the consideration and balancing of a number of criteria set forth in Section 3.2.3 of the Basis of Review: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.4 As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the “clearly in the public interest” test does not require the applicant to demonstrate that the intended activity would have a net public benefit. The counter-intuitive result is that, to meet the “in the public interest” test for the sovereignty submerged land lease, PMC must demonstrate a net public benefit, but to meet the “clearly in the public interest test” for the environmental resource permit, PMC does not have to show a net public benefit. The measures that PMC has agreed to undertake to meet the public interest criteria for the proposed authorizations are as follows: Contribute $300,000 to the construction of a second boat ramp at the current Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor; Install and maintain navigational aides marking the main channel in the bayou; Install markers indicating the location of seagrass beds; Install and maintain an informational display at the public boat ramp in Grandview Park, relating to the protection of seagrasses and natural resources within the bayou; and Install and maintain an aerial map at the Grandview Park boat ramp depicting the location of the navigation channel and the seagrass beds in the bayou. The $300,000 contribution for the boat ramp was based on a similar contribution ($5,000 per slip) that was made previously by the developer of another docking facility in Pinellas County. The Department had originally suggested that PMC contribute to a spoil island restoration project to satisfy the public interest criterion. However, due to the Trustees’ and/or Department’s concern about the reduction in the number of boat slips available to the general public,5 the Department proposed that PMC contribute $300,000 to Pinellas County’s Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor. The definition of “mitigation” in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(35) states that, “Cash payments shall not be considered mitigation unless payments are specified for use in a previously identified, Department endorsed, environmental or restoration project.” No evidence was presented to show that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project is an “environmental or restoration project,” and it does not appear to qualify as such. Implicit in the boat ramp contribution proposal is the view that the public interest in providing more recreational boaters with access to Pinellas County waters outweighs the negative impacts to marine resources that are associated with increased boating activity. No evidence was presented, however, to explain or support this view. The strange result here is that PMC would be mitigating for the adverse impacts associated with increasing the boating activity in Big Bayou by helping to increased boating activity in other county waters where seagrass losses have been greater, prop scarring is a bigger problem, and more manatees are being killed by boat collisions.6 Dr. Reynolds stated that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor could be a benefit to Big Bayou if the boat ramp project took boat traffic away from the bayou, but he did not know whether it would. A reasonable inference can be made that, being so far away, the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project is unlikely to add to or subtract from boat traffic in Big Bayou. As found above, the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, taking into account the proposed conditions, would be insignificant. However, because the record evidence shows that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project would put boats into county waters (and aquatic preserve waters) where there has been greater seagrass losses, more prop scarring, and more manatees killed by boat collisions than in Big Bayou, PMC’s $300,000 contribution to the boat ramp project actually increases the secondary impacts and cumulative impacts of PMC’s proposed project and causes it to fail to meet the public interest criteria. Without the $300,000 contribution to the Sutherland Boat Ramp project, PMC would meet the “clearly in the public interest” test for the environmental resource permit because the other mitigation offered by PMC would offset the secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. However, a different result would occur in the case of the sovereignty submerged land lease. Eliminating the $300,000 contribution to the Sutherland Boat Ramp project would result in a situation where the public benefits of the proposed project do not “clearly exceed” the costs of the project and, therefore, PMC would not meet the “in the public interest” test. Although the record in this case is insufficient to demonstrate that PMC’s contribution to the boat ramp project would cause the benefits of the project to clearly exceed its costs, the record evidence is sufficient to support issuance of the lease modification if PMC were able to get the appropriate government authorities to establish a boat speed zone in Big Bayou, or if PMC contributed to the enforcement of boat speed zones in the aquatic preserve. As restated in the Conclusions of Law, whether the proposed mitigation is sufficient to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed project is a determination that rests exclusively with the Trustees and the Department, based on the record evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Environmental Resource Permit No. 52-0258984-001 and the modification of Sovereignty Submerged Land Lease No. 520224543. In the event the Trustees determine to issue the submerged land lease, it is recommended that the lease be modified to add a condition that the boat slips shall only be subleased or sold to residents of Coquina Key North condominiums. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Respondent, Thomas A. Baggett has been licensed by the State of Florida as a pilot in Tampa Bay for fifteen (15) years and at all times pertinent to this proceeding was licensed by the State of Florida as a pilot. On February 5, 1984, at about 0620 hours, while Captain Baggett was piloting M/V Triton C outbound from the Gardinier Wharf in Hillsborough County, Florida, the M/V Triton C ran aground outside the prescribed limits of CUT D in Tampa Bay on the east side. The M/V Triton C is a Liberian bulk carrier with an approximate length and width of 576.7 feet and 81 feet, respectively, with a gross tonnage of 17,823 tons. At the time of grounding, the M/V Triton C had a forward draft of 29 feet, 11 inches and an aft draft of 30 feet and 1 inch. The M/V Triton C was experiencing no engine or navigational equipment problem before it ran aground. All aids to navigation, including ranges and buoys, were in place and working properly at the time of the grounding. The M/V Triton was travelling at a speed of 11.7 knots. Range lights, when properly aligned, provide a way for the pilot or anyone navigating a vessel to know the vessel is in the center of the channel. On the morning of February 5, 1985, shortly before the grounding of the M/V Triton C, Captain Baggett gave orders for the turn from CUT E into CUT D, or from a heading of 198 degrees to a heading of 213 degrees. Captain Baggett ordered the wheel 20 degrees to starboard and then eased to 10 degrees. Captain Baggett then ordered the quartermaster to midship the wheel and steady the vessel on 213 degrees. He gave no instructions to the quartermaster concerning the use of the range lights for navigating the center of the channel. At this point the confusion begins. Captain Baggett testified that the M/V Triton C steadied up on 213 degrees, an appropriate course for the transit of CUT D, while he was present and he observed the M/V Triton C as being on the ranges for about 2 minutes before going into the chart room. As he stepped back into the chart room, he glanced at the compass and observed that the vessel was on a heading of 213 degrees. Captain Baggett gave no further instructions or orders other than "hard to starboard" when he came out of the chart room 15-20 seconds later and noticed the bow swinging to port, the rudder indicator showing 20 degrees rudder and the ranges being already opened. Captain Baggett testified that upon giving the order "hard to starboard" the quartermaster pulled the wheel and went "hard to port" and the vessel almost immediately went aground. The mate and quartermaster tell a different story. The master was below and not present on the bridge at the time of grounding. The mate testified that Captain Baggett went into the chart room while the compass was swinging through 210 degrees and before the vessel steadied up on 213 degrees, and that Captain Baggett remained in the chart room for 40 seconds to 1 minute and came out as the vessel went aground. The quartermaster testified that Captain Baggett went into the chart room immediately upon the vessel steadying up on 213 degrees, and did not stay to watch the course or range for 2 minutes. He further testified that Captain Baggett was in the chart room for 5-6 minutes; that he came out of the chart room as the vessel went aground; and, Captain Baggett gave no order of "hard to starboard". The quartermaster at the time of the grounding was Maheswaran Gnanasundran and the mate was Siburs Ioannas. As evidenced by the depositions, both were foreign; neither spoke English and each required an interpreter at the deposition. The master of the M/V Triton C on the day of grounding was Stamatios Stanou, a citizen of Greece, and required an interpreter for his deposition. Captain Baggett experienced a communication problem with quartermaster Gnanasundran in the beginning of the turn out of CUT E to CUT D, and earlier with another quartermaster at the beginning of the turn out of Hilisborough A CUT into Hillsborougn C CUT who was on duty just prior to quartermaster Gnanasundran. The M/V Triton C was at a heading of 206 degrees immediately after grounding and did not move significantly from that heading while grounded. Both the mate and the quartermaster testified that the M/V Triton C, after steadying up, stayed on the course heading of 213 degrees during the entire time and was on the same course heading when the vessel went aground. The mate testified that as the M/V Triton C began to run aground it began to list to the right, and its heading as it finally came to rest aground was 206 degrees. The master of the M/V Triton C testified that the wind was out of the northwest at 15 knots, with full tide, and the current being with M/V Triton C at about 2 knots. Captain John C. Hanson, an investigator for petitioner, testified that at the time of grounding, based on tidal information and weather reports, the wind was out of the northwest and there was an ebb tide running in a southerly direction which would tend to set the M/V Triton C in a southerly direction to the east of CUT D. Captain Hanson further testified that these conditions would have an effect on navigation. Captain Baggett testified that there was an ebb tide in a southwest direction and that it would tend to set to the southwest but at that point in time, it would have had very little effect on the M/V Triton C. Therefore, he did not make any allowances for the tide, wind, or a combination of them. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 shows the mean lower low water depth outside of the confines of the channel in the area of grounding to be 24 feet to 25 feet. Captain Hanson testified that the chart was current but that the depth of the water in a Particular area could be deeper, depending upon tides and winds. Captain Baggett testified that soundings taken on February 5, 1985, during the morning of grounding, put the depth of the water at the bow (point of grounding) and stern to be 25 feet and 37 feet, respectively and, that he visually observed, after daylight the stern of the vessel as being located in the ship channel of CUT D. The ship channel in CUT D has an approximate width of 400 feet with shoaling on both sides. Captain Hanson boarded the M/V Triton C 3 days after the grounding and testified that he plotted the position where the vessel went aground by taking "crossbearings of fixed structures, (no floating aids) and one radar range to one of the radar structures." Captain Hanson plotted the position of the M/V Triton C to be on the east side of CUT D, at a point 450 feet from the centerline of the CUT D approximately 1325 yards from a midpoint between buoys 1E and 2E. For an exact position see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The crossbearings used to locate the exact position of the M/V Triton C are shown on the chart on the right side of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The left side of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 is an enlargement of CUT D prepared by Captain Hanson showing the various courses the M/V Triton C could have taken from a point abeam of buoys 1E and 2E to the position of grounding based on the speed of the M/V Triton C at 11.7 knots. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 demonstrates that if the point of grounding was 450 feet from the centerline of the channel, as Captain Hanson testified, and, the M/V Triton C grounded on the heading of 206 degrees, then, at that heading, the stern of a vessel 576.7 feet long could not have reached the channel. Captain Hanson's testimony concerning his method of locating the position of the M/V Triton C, the crossbearing used and the calculations went unrebutted. With a vessel drafting 29 feet 11 inches forward and the point of grounding being 450 feet from the centerline of the channel, the depth of the water outside the confines of the channel along the heading taken by the M/V Triton C was deeper than 25 feet or the grounding would have occurred sooner and at a point closer to the east bank of CUT D. As Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 demonstrates, the testimony of the quartermaster that the M/V Triton C steadied up on 213 degrees after making the turn from CUT E to CUT D and steered that course for five to six minutes while Captain Baggett was in the chart room is incorrect as to how long Captain Baggett was in the chart room, because the vessel would have travelled beyond the point of grounding in 5 to 6 minutes. As Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 demonstrates, the testimony of the mate that Captain Baggett went into the chart room while the compass was swinging through 210 degrees and before the vessel steadied up on 213 degrees and that the vessel went aground within 40 seconds to 1 minute while Captain Baggett was still in the chart room is incorrect as to how long Captain Baggett was in the chart room because the vessel could not have travelled to the point of grounding in 40 seconds to 1 minute from the time it made the turn out of CUT E into CUT D. As Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 demonstrates, the testimony of Captain Baggett that the vessel steadied up on a heading of 213 degrees in the center of CUT D and that he viewed the ranges in line for 2 minutes before going to the chart room and that "almost immediately" upon coming out of the chart room 15 to 20 seconds later the vessel went aground was incorrect as to how long he stayed after the vessel steadied up before going into the chart room because in that time frame the turn, causing the vessel to go aground would have been so sharp the vessel would have gone aground at a heading significantly less than 206 degrees. The most believable evidence demonstrates that Captain Baggett was in the chart room 2-3 minutes prior to grounding. Captain Baggett went into the chart room to make his time and distance calculations because light was more readily available. Captain Baggett could have made the time and distance calculations without going into the chart room. While Captain Baggett was in the chart room, he was facing away from the chart room entrance and did not look at the rudder indicator, the ranges, or otherwise determine if his orders were being properly carried out. Captain Baggett's expertise as a pilot was available to the mate and quartermaster while he was in the chart room had either of them been aware of a problem and requested his assistance. But, his expertise as a pilot was not totally available to the vessel due to his position in the chart room. Where the crew is unfamiliar with the harbor and its lights and there is a language problem, courses are usually given on compass rather than instructions on the range lights.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Notice to Show Cause dated March 30, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers in Florida. Section 326.003, Florida Statutes (1997). Nivardo Beaton is a resident of Miami, Florida. He is not now, and never has been, licensed as a yacht broker or salesperson. The Division has no record of any prior enforcement or disciplinary actions against Mr. Beaton. At the times material to this action, Mr. Beaton worked at Avanti Powerboats, where he did assembly, electrical installation, and motor installation work on the boats built by Avanti Powerboats. Although he was originally a salaried employee of Avanti Powerboats, at the times material to this action, Mr. Beaton worked on a "piece work" basis and was paid a flat fee when he completed rigging a boat. Mr. Beaton also had a verbal agreement with Raul Rodriguez, the owner of Avanti Powerboats, whereby he was to be paid a five-percent commission for each direct sale of an Avanti boat and a one-and-one-half- percent commission for each Avanti boat sold by a dealership he had recruited as an Avanti distributor. An advertisement appeared in the October 17, 1997, edition of South Florida Boat Trader in which "Beaton Boat Sales and Service - Nivardo Beaton" offered three new boats and three used boats for sale. The three new boats were all Avantis; the three used boats were a twenty-one-foot Corona, a thirty-five- foot Contender, and a thirty-three-foot Avanti. Mr. Beaton owned the Corona; the Contender was owned by a friend, and Mr. Beaton did not expect any compensation from the sale of this boat; and the Avanti, an open-decked fishing boat, had been taken in trade by Mr. Rodriguez and was owned by Avanti Powerboats. Pursuant to a verbal agreement with Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Beaton was to receive a five percent commission on the sale of this used thirty-three- foot Avanti. The advertisement was seen by an employee of the Division, and, when the Division's records revealed that neither Mr. Beaton nor Beaton Boat Sales and Service were licensed to offer yachts for sale, an investigation was initiated. Peter Renje, the Division's investigator, contacted Mr. Beaton on November 19, 1997, and informed him that he could not offer for sale used boats over thirty-two feet in length with the expectation of compensation unless he was licensed as a yacht broker. After Mr. Renje's first visit, Mr. Beaton immediately contacted the South Florida Boat Trader and discontinued the advertisement. He also provided Mr. Renje with the materials he requested to assist him in his investigation. Mr. Beaton abandoned the idea of doing business under the name of Beaton Boat Sales and Service. Mr. Beaton never sold a boat or transacted any other commercial transaction through this business. The only action Mr. Beaton took under the name of Beaton Boat Sales and Service was placing the advertisement in the October 17, 1997, issue of the South Florida Boat Trader. Mr. Beaton has worked in the management and production areas of the boat-building industry for over twelve years; he began working in sales in 1997. Before working for Avanti Powerboats, he worked for a short time selling Boston Whalers, Zodiac Inflatables, and Key West Boats. He also was employed as a full-time salesman by Fisherman's Paradise, Inc., a division of Warren Craft Distributing, Inc., from January to June 1997. Mr. Beaton was aware at the time he placed the advertisement in the South Florida Boat Trader that a person must have a broker's license in order to sell used yachts. He was not aware at the time he placed the advertisement that he needed to have a broker's license to offer for sale the thirty-three-foot Avanti open fishing boat. The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish that Mr. Beaton, doing business as Beaton Boat Sales and Service, offered for sale a used boat over thirty-two feet in length and that he expected to earn a commission if he sold the boat. The evidence is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Beaton worked with Avanti Powerboats as an independent contractor, that he cooperated with the Division in its investigation, that he immediately cancelled the subject advertisement, and that he did not do any business as Beaton Boat Sales and Service. Mr. Beaton's testimony that he was not aware that a thirty-three-foot open-decked fishing boat fell within the statutory definition of a yacht is accepted as credible. Although Mr. Beaton had a few months' experience in boat sales, there is no evidence to establish that he engaged in the sale of used boats or that he sold boats in excess of thirty-two feet in length. The evidence presented by the Division is, therefore, not sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Beaton knew or should have known that offering for sale a used boat over thirty- two feet in length without a broker's license violated Chapter 326. Likewise, the evidence presented by the Division is not sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Beaton intended to violate Chapter 326. There was no evidence presented by the Division to establish that any member of the public suffered any injury as a result of Mr. Beaton's action in advertising for sale the used Avanti.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, enter a final order finding Nivardo Beaton guilty of violating Section 326.004(1), Florida Statutes (1997); ordering Mr. Beaton to cease and desist from any other violations of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder; and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $250. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William Oglo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nivardo Beaton, pro se Beaton Boat Sales and Services 14812 Southwest 81 Street Miami, Florida 33193 Philip Nowicki, Ph.D., Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1030 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
