January 16, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on January 16, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: COMMISSIONER SCARBOROUGH’S BIRTHDAY

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated today is the anniversary of Commissioner Scarborough’s birth. The Board and staff extended happy birthday wishes to Commissioner Scarborough.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROCEDURE FOR WORKSHOP

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who are the two ladies sitting at the table with the Board; with Chairperson Colon responding they are representatives from the State. Commissioner Pritchard stated the discussion is with the Board; and inquired is the State given prominence by sitting at the table. Chairperson Colon stated staff will have a Power Point presentation; if there are any question to such presentation, the State will be here to answer any questions; after the presentation the Board will be asked if it has any questions; then there will be public comment; and after such comments, there will be more in-depth discussion by the Board. Commissioner Pritchard inquired will the two employees of the State be at the table after the presentation; with Chairperson Colon responding if the Board decides it wants them to be there. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the Board decides to have State representatives, he would like to have a representative from the boating community sitting at the table also. Chairperson Colon stated if the Board does not have any questions of the State, the representatives do not have to sit at the table; and the State was kind enough to be present today.

PERMISSION TO FILE, RE: FORMAL OBJECTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF APPLICATION FOR WATER SERVICE IN NORTH BREVARD

Commissioner Higgs stated she sent information to the Board concerning the application to provide water to North Brevard; sending a letter to the PSC objecting to the application is timely; it has to be done by January 20, 2003; and there is a request from the City of Titusville as well to object.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board of County Commissioners of Volusia County is filing an objection; Volusia County’s attorney has talked to County Attorney Scott Knox on the issue; and it is his understanding if the objection is not filed, there is a loss. He noted the City of Titusville is represented here today.

PERMISSION TO FILE, RE: FORMAL OBJECTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF APPLICATION FOR WATER SERVICE IN NORTH BREVARD

Commissioner Higgs stated the City is in support of the County objecting to Miami Corporation’s application for water services. Commissioner Scarborough noted the City wrote a letter to Chairperson Colon.

Attorney Dwight Severs stated Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs represented the City’s position; the Commissioners should have received a copy of the City Manager’s letter; and presented copies of a letter to the Board members, but not the Clerk, which enumerated a number of grounds that are appropriate. Commissioner Higgs noted the Board does not have to go beyond directing the County Attorney to draft a letter consistent with County Ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, and principles the Board has strongly supported over time; it would be sufficient direction; and the Board does not have to enumerate for the County Attorney. Attorney Severs stated the City has asked to be involved in conversations; it has retained De le Parte & Gilbert Law Office in Tampa to assist the City in the issue; this issue is of great significance to Titusville, as well as North Brevard; and requested the Board’s support in working with the City. He noted as a footnote, the Board will be receiving a letter from the City Manager based on the County’s action with regard to Marina Park; the City Council voted to reinsert the five acres back into Marina Park; and hopefully, the City and County can work together to resolve the issue. He stated the City appreciates the County’s cooperation and assistance; and it will work with the County on this particular issue as well.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct the County Attorney to work with staff and send a letter to the Public Service Commission objecting to Miami Corporation’s application for water services in North Brevard.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the letter received by the Board states, “The City of Titusville at its January 14, 2003 meeting authorized the City Manager to object to the issuance of the certificate due to conflicts with the City’s proposed wellfield number four currently under review by the St. John’s River Water Management District for a consumptive use permit”; and the City Council also authorized the City Manager to request a similar objection from the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board’s posture may be more similar to what Volusia County is doing; the City has different issues than Brevard County; he would not want the Board to define its issues and leave them up to the County Attorney to work with the City and Volusia County to extract the best posture; and the question is whether this is something the Board should be objecting to in the purview of the greater good for a large area. He noted there was an article in the Orlando Sentinel that dealt with holdings of the Miami Corporation; it is an enormous holding; and Volusia County could be defined by what the Corporation decides to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Corporation has no legal rights to any of the property; it is still destined to Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway Corporation; there was a meeting with the FEC; and the Miami Corporation was playing a political game. He noted one member of the Tallahassee staff was removed from office partially due to interfering with the process; and the issue is not something to be taken lightly.

PERMISSION TO FILE, RE: FORMAL OBJECTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF APPLICATION FOR WATER SERVICE IN NORTH BREVARD

Commissioner Pritchard stated he appreciates Commissioner Scarborough’s comments and supports them; he believes in home rule; and this is a Titusville issue and concern. Commissioner Higgs noted absolutely not. Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue is coming from the City of Titusville and is the City’s request to do this. Commissioner Scarborough noted the initial request came from Titusville. Commissioner Higgs stated the item was brought up at the Board meeting on Tuesday prior to the request from the City. Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue is of a magnitude that is touching two counties and vast holdings of land; the water will be discussed and managed within the whole region; so it is of a magnitude that reaches way beyond Titusville; and it is becoming a driving issue. He noted there are a lot of games being played in water; it reaches beyond County lines; and the counties need to work together to create a rationale legal process. He reiterated it is not a Titusville issue, but a massive regional issue that is extremely complex.

Chairperson Colon stated at the Board meeting on Tuesday, Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs discussed the issue; the Board took action and asked Commissioner Pritchard to request the Water Board meet; a meeting will be held on January 27, 2003 to discuss the issue; and the Board requested a staff report also. She noted the City was kind enough to be present, but the Board is moving forward on the issue.

County Attorney Scott Knox recommended the motion be to file a formal objection and request a formal hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend the motion to authorize staff to file a formal objection to the Public Service Commission (PSC) on the Miami Corporation’s application for water services in North Brevard and request a formal hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
WATER AND SEWER SPECIAL DISTRICT

Commissioner Carlson inquired when the Board discussed identifying the water district for the County, would it have been put in a better position and alleviated this problem by going forward; with Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer responding it is his understanding it would have. County Attorney Scott Knox stated the standard the PSC has without the district in place is to look at the Comprehensive Plan and consider what impact this particular application will have on Brevard County’s Comprehensive Plan; but the PSC is not bound by the Comprehensive Plan; it can ignore the Plan if it chooses to do so; and if the Board had the water district in place, there is a provision in the water district law that says it would require the consent of the Board, and absent that consent, it would not take place. Commissioner Carlson noted Miami Corporation is watching; it came in for the kill and may win it; and inquired where does it leave the County.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
WATER AND SEWER SPECIAL DISTRICT

Commissioner Higgs stated asking the Board to advertise a public hearing to bring the item back in a formal way on February 4, 2003 would allow the Water Supply Working Group to discuss the issue again and the Board to consider the ordinance in a formal way. She stated it does not mean the Board is going to do anything, but it puts the item back on the table; it puts everybody on notice that the Board is considering the issue again; and requested it support a motion to advertise the public hearing for February 4, 2003 to establish the water and sewer special district.

Chairperson Colon stated she has spoken to three municipalities and they are concerned about the Board going this far; and inquired is it possible to bring the discussion of what is happening with the Miami Corporation development on February 4, 2003 and take it from there.

Commissioner Scarborough noted the County is at a disadvantage as it does not have the entity; if the municipalities do not want the County there, it should be receiving letters from Titusville City Manager Tom Harmer; someone has to make a decision; and the Board needs to discuss the issue again.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it may be premature to bring the item up at an early meeting as the Water Supply Board will be addressing it on January 27, 2003 and attempting to digest the information; and perhaps the Board should wait until the first meeting in March 2003 to give the Water Board time to provide suggestions and recommendations, based on the input it has received. Commissioner Scarborough noted time lost could be critical. Commissioner Higgs stated advertising the public hearing for February 4, 2003 is important; the Water Board has an opportunity to review the issue at its meeting; the Board, League of Cities, and Water Board have each had a meeting to discuss the item; and between now and February 4, 2003 is a significant period of time. She noted because the focus will be clear at this point as to what the options are, everybody can discuss what they can do to accommodate the cities’ concerns; and on February 4, 2003, if the Board cannot clearly see that the issue is in the best interest of Brevard County, it will not adopt the proposed ordinance. She stated the focus on February 4, 2003 brings people to the table with specifics of what can occur. Chairperson Colon stated the County should notify all the municipalities and give the date of the Water Supply Board’s meeting so most of the discussion can take place on January 27, 2003; the Board would be able to get input from the municipalities at such meeting; and it can discuss the item again on February 4, 2003. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when did the Water Supply Board receive the information and discuss it; with Water Resources Director Richard Martens responding in late August 2002. Commissioner Pritchard stated it has been a while since the Board has seen the information; he has not seen it; he is now a member of the Board; this would be his first meeting on the issue; and he does not want to operate on something prematurely. Commissioner Higgs stated today is January 16, 2003; February 4, 2003 is weeks away; and in that amount of time the discussions can occur.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is it of benefit for the Board to strike on the issue; with Attorney Knox responding affirmatively. Attorney Knox stated the Board would need to act as soon as possible as he is not sure what the hearing time frame is going to be. Chairperson Colon noted if the Board does not do anything, it is going to be criticized; January 27, 2003 is plenty of notice for the municipalities; the discussion will not be brand new on February 4, 2003; and anyone who does not have the information has plenty of time to gather it. She stated staff needs to make sure Commissioner Pritchard has everything he needs for the meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the last time the item came up, the Board had objections; it did not want to handle the issue unless the cities wanted it; Attorney Dwight Severs could contact the city attorneys and ask them to articulate their oppositions in a format which could become a constructive tool for the betterment of the people in Brevard County; and it is not a technical issue, but a legal one.

Attorney Dwight Severs stated he would be happy to discuss the issues with the city attorneys and Attorney Knox as well; they can work with the language to try to help protect everybody’s interest; and it is the County’s and cities’ objective.

Commissioner Higgs stated she contacted Attorney Paul Gougelman yesterday to advise him what she was going to discuss today, including her concerns and what was taking place; and suggested everybody try to pull this together. Chairperson Colon stated she will be contacting the Chair of Space Coast League of Cities also; it needs to have an emergency meeting to discuss the issue; it needs to come forward and do it now as time is of the essence; and everybody needs to figure out what they want to do. Commissioner Pritchard noted the issue has been in the works for quite a while, but now it has become a last minute move; the Board is meeting approximately four weeks from now; he does not know whether it is going to have time to get all the entities to properly review and have input relevant for the February 4, 2003 meeting; and that is his concern. Chairperson Colon stated the cities have all the paperwork; as long as the municipalities feel the Board is communicating with them, they are all right; she has spoken to at least four city managers within the last two days and sent copies of the newspaper to all city managers in District 5; and she has been communicating with the people who have had a great deal of concern with the Board taking any actions regarding a special district.

Attorney Knox stated the Board does not have to make a decision at the public hearing on February 4, 2003; and if time constraints are such that it cannot notify everybody, there is always the opportunity to continue the public hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to grant permission to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing water and sewer special district on February 4, 2003; and direct staff to notify the municipalities of the Water Board’s meeting on January 27, 2003 to receive input from the cities. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard stated his objection is based solely on the Board moving too quickly on the item; and he wants to make sure all necessary input is received for the meeting.

REPORT, RE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING

Chairperson Colon stated the annual meeting of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) was well attended; one of the biggest concerns the EDC has addressed is Patrick Air Force Base potentially being on the list of bases to be closed; it was in the newspaper this morning; and the EDC is taking a lead on it.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated staff has briefed the Board members on the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP); the Board approved an MPP and submitted it to the State in the Fall of 2000; staff has received communications from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the Agency which reviews the Plan; and staff has attempted to compile the information it received from FWC on the County’s Plan. He noted the Board will see what the FWC would like to have changed; the workshop provides the Board an opportunity and mechanism to get clarifications from staff or State staff present today; the public will have an opportunity to comment as well; and the Board can provide further direction to staff on how it wishes to proceed with the Plan. He stated staff received comments from Terri Calleson in March 2001 concerning minor changes needed to update the Plan; there are other items that need additional discussion and input from the Board as to changes the State has requested; and staff has a power point presentation for the Board and audience.

Chairperson Colon stated the meeting will recess in approximately one hour to watch the Shuttle launch.

Office of Natural Resources Management (ONRM) Director Conrad White stated the first slide is a representation of the time sequence that has occurred over development of the MPP; in 1989, the Governor received a report from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that outlined protection for manatees; there was a series of tasks in the report; 13 coastal counties were designated as being important to survival of the manatee; and Brevard County was one of those counties. He noted such counties were mandated to develop an MPP; as part of the process, the Board allowed staff to develop the Plan; it designated two ad-hoc committees to draft the MPP, which was brought to the Board in 1996; and the Board considered the Plan. He stated in 1997, it approved the MPP; in 2000, the Board reconsidered the Plan, officially transmitted it to the State, and requested its comments; the State provided comments from Ms. Calleson, who is present today, as well as additional comments from FWC that outlined what was necessary for the State to accept the MPP; and on May 15, 2002, the Governor signed House Bill 1243. Mr. White noted up until this time, there was not a mandate for counties to develop an MPP; the 13 coastal counties are now mandated to develop an MPP by July 1, 2004; if it is not accomplished by January 1, 2005, the FWC will review the county; and if it is a problem area for manatee protection, the FWC will designate the county as a substantial risk. He stated the county must then adopt an MPP by 2006 or be in violation of State Statutes; another part of the Bill requires counties to adopt a boat facility siting plan into their comprehensive plans; the State has to develop biological goals that would define manatee recovery, as well as measurement of the effectiveness of the rules that are presently in place; and additional funding is also requested for marine patrols.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Donna Audie, Wildlife Biologist with ONRM, stated Tab A includes all the minor changes, such as removing typos, updating agency names, and updating data and references; and there are FWC requested changes, staff requested changes, information and data updates, and FWC changes to the executive summary. She stated Tab B includes the FWC required removals, such as funding of an education coordinator, reconnection of Banana Creek, funding of financial impact study, and placing a boat ramp on the Barge Canal; and Tab C is boating facility siting changes required by FWC that includes removal of Zone D, which is the urban category, reduction of powerboat ratios, simplification of decision criteria, and parking at boat ramps. She noted the powerboat ratio table shows the 2000 Brevard County proposal, new and existing facilities, 2003 FWC requirements for new and existing facilities, manatee criteria, and negative or limiting habitat features based on State data. She stated the criteria includes abundance, mortality, fresh water caving, cavorting, feeding, and resting areas; seagrass, Class II outstanding Florida waters or aquatic preserves; fresh water caving, cavorting, feeding, and resting areas is removed; and abundance is defined as the number of manatees observed per over flight within a five-mile radius. Ms. Audie stated previously, the Plan called for one point if there were five or more manatees present; currently, there is one point if 10 or more manatees are present; a second level was added, which is two points if 25 or more manatees are present; and mortality is defined as the number of watercraft mortalities within a five-mile radius, divided by the number of watercraft mortalities in Brevard County. She noted 5% or more seagrass is one point; one point is received for Class II outstanding Florida waterway or aquatic preserve; the positive or offsetting features of the manatee criteria are speed zones; and within two miles of Sebastian Inlet, the speed zones have not changed. She stated there are boat ramp changes required by FWC; Zone A is the Banana River; if there is less than two habitat features, it is equivalent to 15 parking spaces or less; and Zone B is the Barge Canal, which equates to one powerboat to 100 feet of linear shoreline with transfer development rights. Ms. Audie noted Zone C is the Port, which is unrestricted; Zone D is the rest of the Lagoon; zero or one habitat feature is equivalent to 40 parking spaces or less; and two habitat features is equivalent to 15 parking spaces or less. She stated the site specific recommendations are for Pineda Landing and South Mainland; and the State is looking favorably on 36 parking spaces at Pineda Landing and 50 spaces in the South Mainland with an area that has two or less habitat features. She noted Tab D is the implementation schedule required by the State; it consists of habitat protection, education, law enforcement, boat facility siting boat safety, speed zones, and MPP updates and adoption into the Comprehensive Plan; Brevard County is implementing many of the habitat protection features identified in the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan; and ONRM has implemented several of the education initiatives and will be implementing more as grant money becomes available. She stated periodically, ONRM will present updated watercraft-related manatee mortality data to the Sheriff’s Agricultural/Marine Unit as it is received from the State; ONRM will be conducting an updated inventory of marina and boat ramp facilities within the County in 2003, with assistance from the State; boating safety education will be conducted as grant funding becomes available; and the FWC adopted new speed zones in the County in 2002 through the rule-making process. Ms. Audie noted the County will remain in future discussions of any rule changes, MPP updates, and adoption into the Comprehensive Plan; it will review and update on a five-year cycle concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan; and requested the Board accept or reject the minor changes located in Tab A, accept or reject the State required removals in Tab B, accept or reject boat facility siting changes in Tab C, accept or reject the implementation schedule in Tab D, and provide other direction.

Chairperson Colon stated the manatee criteria is State data and not the County’s; with Ms. Audie responding all the data is obtained from the State. Chairperson Colon inquired about the status of MPP in other counties. Ms. Audie responded Broward County submitted a plan in 1992 and Volusia County submitted its plan in 2001, but neither plans have been approved; Brevard and Lee Counties’ plans are not approved; and Sarasota and Palm Beach Counties have not submitted plans. Chairperson Colon inquired what is a federal moratorium. Ms. Audie responded a federal moratorium has been implemented in Lee County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is a prevention of docks, ramps, and marinas; it is a result of new incidental take regulations that are being implemented in order for the Wildlife Service to be compliant with the Marine Mammal Protection Act; the moratorium has occurred because Lee County does not have any of the mitigating factors that the Wildlife Service has outlined in its incidental take regulation language; and the Wildlife Service considers mitigation factors to be manatee protection plans, speed zones, law enforcement, manatee education, etc. She stated Lee County recently had speed zones overturned in a local court; it does not have an approved MPP; so it is under a federal moratorium.

Carol Knox, representing Bureau of Protective Species with the FWC, stated the MPP is a good reflection of the manatee data; currently the outcome of permitting is close to what the Plan portrays; and if the Board adopts the Plan as it is, it would be a benefit to Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept Tab A, Minor Changes to the 2000 MPP, to remove typos, update agency names, update data and references, including FWC’s minor changes, staff minor change, information and data updates provided by FWC and other agencies, and FWC’s change to the Executive Summary.

Commissioner Pritchard stated there may be representatives present who would like the opportunity to discuss Tab A; it is a large portion of the book; while he realizes most of it is corrections, he would like to have input from at least the Florida Marine Contractors and Citizens for Florida Waterways; and he would like to provide input. He noted if the two organizations do not have a problem with Tab A, then he has no problem either; the Board does not need to rush this; and it has until July 2006 to get it finished.

Commissioner Carlson stated her motion was based on making sure today’s meeting is productive and not drawn on; she reviewed each correction; and the changes are minor. Mr. Peffer noted staff perceives the changes as minor, but it has to acknowledge that not everyone looks at it that way.

Chairman Scarborough withdrew his second to the motion and Commissioner Carlson withdrew the motion.

Captain Tom McGill, Director of Citizens for Florida Waterways (CFW), noted Tab A includes the Executive Summary, which states, “It is the goal of Brevard County to be 100% compliant with the Marine Mammal Protection Act”; and inquired how many Commissioners have read the Act, which is approximately 170 pages. He stated the CFW have legal questions as to whether the Act applies to Brevard waters; and inquired why the County does not say it wants to be 100% compliant with Florida Statutes. He noted everybody has looked at Florida Statutes, but few people have read the Act; Tab A does not include all minor changes; and inquired are FWC requirements of the Commission or its staff. He stated the CFW has problems with the criteria; and inquired has the FWC accepted such criteria or is staff doing it; the State, County, and Save the Manatee Club have integrated their input, but the CFW received the book last week; it has been trying to work on it; the last time the Act was put together, the CFW reviewed each paragraph and provided a formal document to the Board; and it would like to do it again for this version as it has changed substantially. Captain McGill noted one of the zone areas in the CFW’s original submittal has been deleted; there are new definitions; and inquired if the decisions were made by the FWC or its staff. He stated a lot of things have happened since the CFW submitted its proposal; State law has changed; the power point presentation did not address all the things that changed in State law; his summary includes approximately eight items; the presentation indicated the County has to complete the MPP by July 1, 2004; but it is not true as the MPP only has to be submitted by that date. He noted the entire MPP is completed after going through the approval process; the 2006 date indicates the MPP has to be completed; and cautioned the Board not to move too quickly. He stated he does not know of any moratorium the County is officially under at this time; there is a proposed federal regulation for the State, not just Lee County; it treats southwest Florida, which is Lee County, a little differently; and it will end up being a moratorium, but the rule was extended recently until January 27, 2003 for input. Captain McGill noted the CFW would like to give the Board another submittal as many things have happened since the last submittal; the CFW has challenged the Brevard rule in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which could have a significant impact; Lee County had a finding recently that the rules the FWC imposed were unconstitutional as they did not properly address boaters’ rights; and such finding is new and has not been published formally yet. He stated the Board has to use best available science; all of the numbers greater than two are not founded on science, but opinion; the CFW looks forward to participating in the MPP; and it is not trying to make trouble. He noted the CFW would like to see a reduced size document as there is a lot of chaff included that has no value; and it wants a MPP that means something and is consistent with State law.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Captain McGill has any input regarding boat ramps and parking spaces; and noted numbers given included 36 for Pineda Landing and 50 for South Mainland. Captain McGill responded he tried not to get into that as he is Chairman of the Marine Advisory Council; and it decided it would answer questions when the Board asked it.

Mr. Peffer stated it is his understanding that the comments are from FWC’s staff. Mr. White stated there was only one change that County staff recommended, which is on page 33; the Monofilament Recycling Plan is a good one and is accepted Statewide; and the rest of the changes are what the FWC has recommended or required the County to move forward on.

Ms. Knox stated the FWC Commissioners delegated the authorization of approval of plans to Executive Director Ken Haddad; he relies on staff recommendations; the letter that outlined what the FWC would need in order to approve the County’s Plan was signed by Brad Hartman, who was speaking for the FWC at that time. Ms. Knox noted Indian River County’s MPP was recently approved; Mr. Haddad has approved Martin and St. Lucie Counties’ MPP’s; and reiterated that the FWC Commissioners delegate the authority to Mr. Haddad.

Chairperson Colon inquired about the status of Lee County. Ms. Knox responded the manatee population is divided into sub-populations; there is not enough data collected on the southwest population, where Lee County is, in order to come to a definite conclusion of the status of the species; that is why development is limited until there is more information and until things look better there for the level of watercraft deaths; and Brevard County is in the Atlantic Coast population where the status of the manatee population is stable and positive at this point, but could be a risk if something catastrophic happened. Chairperson Colon inquired is there a moratorium or not in Lee County. Ms. Knox responded many permits are being held up, but it can change tomorrow; she is not privy to the discussions; and she is hesitant to speak, other than to know that the red flag has been raised about the status of the manatee population on the southwest coast.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the FWC’s staff made the recommendations in discussions with County staff and Save the Manatee Club that the Board is reviewing today; with Ms. Knox responding the FWC’s staff represented the opinion of the FWC. Ms. Knox stated she does not know how Commissioner Pritchard wants to define it, but it is the FWC’s recommendations to the County that this is what would be needed for Brevard County to get an approved MPP. Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Hartman did not make the recommendations; with Ms. Knox responding he agreed with them. Commissioner Pritchard noted Mr. Hartman agreed with the recommendations after the FWC’s staff made them. Ms. Knox stated the FWC’s staff had to get Mr. Hartman’s support or prove to him why its recommendations were appropriate. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is trying to define the process; and reiterated the recommendations were made by the FWC’s staff and County staff, and now they are coming to the Board for approval. Chairperson Colon stated the recommendations are from the State and it signed off on them; and the County did not make up the recommendations. Ms. Knox advised the State made the recommendations and said if these things were done it could approve the MPP; and it was trying to move forward and be direct about what it wanted so the County would know what it needed to do.

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Hartman’s letter represents the minimum standards that he would accept for a MPP; and such standards are what the County would have to put in its existing MPP in order for Mr. Hartman to accept the Plan. Ms. Knox noted that is correct. Commissioner Carlson stated if the County delivers anything less than that, the Plan will not be approved. Ms. Knox noted that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated the County can deliver what it wants to; whether or not the MPP is accepted by the State could mean a hearing before the FWC; the FWC can overrule the staff; and the Board does not have to do what the staffs and clubs have come up with. He noted the County has to provide something appropriate based on information it has; and if staff does not like the MPP, the County can go to the FWC to see if it likes it.

Diane Whitley, representing Whitley Marine, Inc., stated she owned a marina for 34 years; in 1999, the marina was hit by three hurricanes in succession; the last hurricane did the marina in; and she found herself deeply involved in the MPP with the FWC, DEP, Save the Manatee Club, etc. She noted she is present to address the boat siting facility portions of the plan and has to question why FWC is so concerned at limiting marinas and docks in Brevard County; in 1998 and 1999, the total number of registered vessels in Brevard County was 31,842, according to the State of Florida, Division of Motor Vehicles; 28,177 of those vessels were 25 feet or under; small boats do not need wet slips and marinas; and the vast majority of boats in Florida and nationwide are carried behind vehicles. She stated people who own boats come from all over the State and nation to go boating at various water bodies; limiting marinas does not make sense; the 28,177 vessels versus the total registered vessels in Brevard County is 88%; and 88% of all registered boats in the County do not have the need of a marina. Ms. Whitley inquired why is the FWC concerned about limiting power boats and the number of boat slips; stated the FWC is also trying to limit the number of boats on people’s dry privately-owned upland; the FWC is limiting the parking areas and boat launching ramps; and in 1997, there was a total of 751,153 registered vessels in the nation. She noted fewer than 1% of the registered vessels were sailboats; Brevard County has a small amount of sailboats; sailboats are the majority of vessels one will see at marinas as they are not real portable; and a sailboat has a mast and keel, which is difficult to put on a trailer and transport. She stated sailboats have to go to wet slips and marinas; the boat slips and private docks are limited; now the ability for anybody to boat of any kind is being limited; and the FWC is not saying that sailboats are killing manatees in any great numbers. She noted the FWC will say that building marinas is detrimental to the sea grasses and manatee habitat; today there is a barge in the Indian River installing over 1,500 slow speed manatee zone signs; each sign requires a minimum of two pilings; and it is a FWC project of installing over 40,000 pilings in the Indian River. Ms. Whitley stated it is producing an affect equivalent to billboards along Brevard County’s highways; no one wants to see a lot of billboards; and the waterways are beginning to resemble the highways. She noted the FWC was cooperating with Save the Manatee Club to put her out of business; she was handed a beautiful colored brochure produced by FWC when she was in Tallahassee, which bragged about producing over one million boating visits to the waters of Florida per year; so there is one branch of the FWC stating no more marinas, no more parking for boat launching ramps, and no more boating in Florida in order to protect the manatee; and the other branch of the FWC says look at all the money it has given to counties in order to increase and enhance public access to navigable waterways. She stated the manatee population in Brevard County and northern portions of the State is increasing tremendously; the list shows the possible and potential benefits of passing the MPP and rubber stamping it the way FWC would have the County do; the potential benefit is the County may get permits a little easier; and the threat is held over the County’s head if it does not rubber stamp the Plan as the FWC wants, the County may get sued. She noted she does not know if the FWC can sue Brevard County, but Save the Manatee Club will be right there to take up where its buddies left off.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much slip space is used for transients; with Ms. Whitley responding approximately 60% of slip space was reserved for transients at her marina. Ms. Whitley stated the boats were already on the water coming in from out-of-state; they spent money the length of the coastline of Florida; her marina attracted many boats in the Cocoa area to spend money in Brevard County; and a number of those people operated from their homes in various places north of Florida and relocated here. She noted it is a definite adverse economic impact to close Brevard County’s borders to boating; she cannot understand why since the manatee is thriving; she also does not understand why the MPP has been addressed numerous times by the Board and citizens; and when it is forwarded to the State, it gets rejected. She stated the County’s input is not wanted; it is being dictated to, which is exactly what happened to her; she was told by the Director of the FWC if she did not restrict power boats on her property, she would be sued, tied up in the courts for years, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and lose her FEMA/SBA disaster loan; and that is exactly what happened.

The meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.

Chris Combs, Sea Grant Marine Agent for Brevard County Extension Services, stated his role is public education; he is not involved in rules and regulations, and politics; he has a copy of the MPP and letters that accompany the document; and one of the items listed in Mr. Hartman’s letter dated June 12, 2002 was to fund an education position. He noted if there is not going to be a funded education person in the Plan, Extension Services and the Sea Grant Extension Agent are ready to assist in any way possible to further the education to the public on this issue; he works with different agencies, departments, and interest groups, such as ONRM, the Board, Marine Advisory Committee, Florida Power and Light Company, Reliant Energy, Marine Industries Association, CFW, FWC, Organized Fisherman of Florida, School Board, Natural Estuary Program, and St. Johns River Water Management District; there is an opportunity to provide a broad-based educational program; and he looks forward to the Board’s invitation to provide assistance.

Lisa Neal stated she has attended manatee hearings all over the State; her family likes to water ski in the Indian River; she grew up in Cocoa Beach and water skied in all the manatee zones back in the 70’s when one could water ski everywhere; but nobody can water ski in any of those spots anymore. She noted the River has been closed down; the Board should not pass any MPP without public comment and more public review; the CFW and other groups received the information, but the public did not as the meeting room is not filled with people; and the word is not out that the MPP is going to be passed. She stated she trailers her boat; one person mentioned there are 31,842 registered vessels in Brevard County; the data in the MPP says there are 12,000 vessels; and the Plan needs to be updated to be accurate before it is passed. Ms. Neal noted the County is short of boat ramps; limiting boat ramps is a disservice to the public; and inquired if any studies have been conducted that prove limiting boat ramps and boat slips save the manatees, and how many manatees are being saved with these regulations. She stated the Board would be passing the MPP with 1994 data, which is out of date; in 1994, there was not 1,000 or 500 manatee counted; when the MPP was done, there may have been one-third of that amount of manatees; and there were a lot less manatees than there are today. She noted Brevard County does not need more restrictions; she understands it is mandated by the State to do something, but the MPP needs additional public review; County staff makes recommendations; and when she went to the Board about water ski areas in the County, staff’s initial recommendation was to shut down practically every water ski area in Brevard County. Ms. Neal stated the Board opened a few areas for water skiing, but it was not sufficient; there are maybe four or five areas to water ski in Brevard County; the authority was delegated to staff; and the Board should not completely give away its authority and it does not have to do what staff says. She noted the Board needs to decide what is best for the County and base its decision on that; there are more manatees, more boats, and more developed property; and to blanket pass the MPP would be a mistake.

Chairperson Colon inquired about updated data. Virginia Barker, ONRM Environmental Management, stated page 126 of the MPP indicates there were an estimated 37,625 registered boats in Brevard County in 2001, so the information has been updated; those were the latest numbers staff could obtain; Ms. Neal may have been referring to a citation on page 140, where it says in 1994 there were an estimated 12,000 trailerable boats; and staff has not been able to obtain a new estimate on trailerable boats. She noted in 2003, with FWC’s assistance, ONRM staff will conduct an updated survey of the number of boat ramps present in Brevard County; and staff knows it needs to update some of the information, but could not do so prior to the workshop. Chairperson Colon stated the data is pretty updated; and inquired who does the studies with the data that has been submitted. Ms. Barker responded almost all of the data is provided by the State; and the particular data on State vessel registrations come from Department of Motor Vehicles.

Commissioner Carlson noted one of Ms. Neal’s questions was what studies have been done that justify limiting boat ramps; and inquired where was the information obtained and has the State done studies that define limiting boat ramps. Mr. White responded the State has reviewed the manatee population and mortality information. Chairperson Colon noted it is not the County, but the State; and she wants to keep things in perspective. Commissioner Pritchard stated the State has copies of the study, which the Board can go through today concerning boat ramps.

Ms. Knox stated the FWC reviews watercraft-related mortality as impacted by boats, where the boats are put in, and where boat launch facilities are located; the State has done correlation studies between the number of registered vessels and number of watercraft-related deaths; boat studies have been done in different counties; and Brevard County has a boat study that shows where boats are launched, where people live, and where people prefer to launch their boats.

Sandra Clinger, representing Save the Manatee Club (SMC), stated one thing the County can be assured of and not be accused of is moving too quickly on the MPP; it started the MPP process in 1991; she came on board as a full-time staff member working on developing an MPP for Brevard County in 1993; and the MPP has gone through extensive public workshops, Board review, and Board comments. She noted many public hearings, workshops, and public input opportunities have taken place for the MPP, probably more than any other document that the County has reviewed, and as much, if not more, than the Comprehensive Plan review process; there are three major issues SMC has with the proposal before the Board today; and SMC is concerned with Tab C, Habitat Features for Manatees, Level One, where Brevard County is being given credit for having high numbers of watercraft mortalities and allowing the level of significance to be raised. She stated higher densities of boat facilities would be allowed in the County more than any other county in the State of Florida, even in places where there are higher levels of mortality; and the SMC is concerned.

Ms. Clinger stated under Tab A, the SMC encourages the Board to reconsider enacting Florida Statutes, Section 328.66, to initiate an add-on fee for increased on-water law enforcement; the Statute describes the County’s ability to add 50% to the State’s portion of the boat registration fee for the purpose of law enforcement or other boating access issues; other counties, such as Volusia County, have enacted the fee for years; and they are funding on-water sheriff’s department patrol. She noted in the MPP, the County has indicated an interest in providing access to the waterways; by taking on that interest and fulfilling the public need, there is also responsibility that goes along with that; the County is providing access to the water; and it is not negatively impacting the resources. She stated people are able to enjoy the resources in a safe environment; the SMC encourages the Board to move forward with adopting the add-on fee for additional law enforcement; sitting around and waiting for the State to provide more law enforcement has not been a fruitful process; the SMC has been advocating for additional law enforcement for years; and only in the last year was it able to get 25 new officers. She noted the last issue of concern is the implementation schedule; it would be appropriate for the County to identify in the schedule a description of how it will notice customers or applicants coming into Brevard County on boat facility siting issues, upland issues, and other things the County deals with; the people should be made aware that there is an MPP; and they need to be compliant with that. Ms. Clinger stated the enabling legislation for the Marine Mammal Protection Act specifically describes that one of the reasons for the Act was to curtail watercraft-related mortalities of manatees; manatees were specifically identified in the legislation for the Act; the rule challenge in Lee County for the speed zone issue is not an administrative rule challenge; it was contesting a speeding ticket; and a local court judge threw it out, but the issue will be appealed and is not resolved. She noted she agrees with Captain McGill that Lee County is not under a moratorium, but the State is reviewing all permits stringently, including single-family docks; it may be a defacto moratorium in that few permits are going through; if there is any inclination of increasing threat to manatees, permits are not being issued; but there is not a dictated moratorium. She stated an issue was raised about sailboats in the County; the limiting factors in the MPP do not apply to sailboat density; and it is clearly spelled out that the intent is to limit the predominate threat to manatees, which is powerboats.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Clinger indicated that the MPP has not moved too quickly; it goes back to creation of the ad hoc committee, the result that was produced in 1996, and revisions made in 1997; and even though the State has said the MPP should be a local knowledge Plan since local people know best, it has rejected such Plan continuously. He inquired is the five-mile radius and 5% concerning habitat features in the MPP close to what was produced in 1996. Ms. Clinger responded the State has raised the bar for abundance and mortality, meaning it has allowed more manatees to be seen in Brevard County before it would trip the criteria in the MPP versus the 1996 Plan; SMC does not object to that; based on the new aerial surveys in Brevard County, it is appropriate; and there are more manatees in Brevard County. She stated the standard for criteria of watercraft-related mortality has also changed; and it allows for more manatee deaths in a vicinity of a facility before the criteria is tripped. Commissioner Pritchard inquired are there more manatees in Brevard County than in other counties; with Ms. Clinger responding it would depend on the time of day and which county Commissioner Pritchard is comparing to. Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Clinger indicated the Plan has gone through extensive review; in his observation, this version has gone south; the urban zone is gone; and the five-mile radius and 5% numbers are there, which was a Pat Rose introduction to the ad hoc committee, and have been there forever. He noted he has spoken to biologists who have told him the five-mile radius and 5% are arbitrary numbers; and seagrasses should be more like 25% and 30%. Ms. Clinger stated the Aquatic Preserve elects 1% as its level of significance. Commissioner Pritchard noted he would have to question who is on the Aquatic Preserve; every time there are more rules put into place, the comments are always “it is a good start”; and inquired when is it ever going to end, when there are not any boats on the water. Ms. Clinger responded it is a good start until the SMC sees the effect of the MPP having a positive benefit for manatees; the new speed zones put in Brevard County may have a positive effect when coupled with positive public outreach in education and on-water law enforcement; when that takes place, there may be a positive benefit for manatees and it may take care of the problem; but SMC has not seen that yet. She noted the new zones were initiated to be posted by the end of November, 2002, so they are just starting; the posting process is not completed; Brevard County is on the heels of a record watercraft-related mortality year; and it is more than it has had in the past. She stated until the SMC sees the fruit of its efforts in fewer numbers of manatees being killed, maimed, and injured in Brevard County, then it has not done its job.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired has Ms. Clinger reviewed the necropsy reports of manatee mortality in Brevard County, and is she able to distinguish what was done by family boaters versus barges and tugs. Ms. Clinger responded she is not a pathologist, but has read the necropsy reports. Commissioner Pritchard inquired are there any indications of massive trauma and deep laceration to manatees; with Ms. Clinger responding affirmatively. Commissioner Pritchard stated Brevard County has had slow speed zones imposed in Sykes Creek and the Barge Canal, and inquired which is the highest mortality corridor for manatees in the County and for how long; with Ms. Clinger responding she does not recall, but probably March is when the federal zone went into place in the County. Commissioner Pritchard noted the County has had more enforcement than it has ever had before; the FWC has had officers patrolling the waterways; there are reports of more tickets ever being issued before for minor infractions; and Sheriff’s deputies are also on the water. He stated Brevard County has more speed zones than it has ever had before; he has observed fewer boats on the water; Ski Island, where he would normally see 75 to 100 boats on a good day, is one-half of that now; and there have been less boats on the water and the manatee mortality has increased significantly. He noted the indications tell him the MPP is not working; the County needs to go to something that does work; Lee County, with the same amount of enforcement and speed zones, had its manatee mortality halved; and the only thing it stopped were fuel, oil, barges, and tugs. Ms. Clinger stated Commissioner Pritchard can make an observation that there are less boats on the water; however, there are more registered vessels in Brevard County than ever before; she assumes the same would hold true for Orange, Volusia, and Indian River Counties; she is only aware of one federal law enforcement detail that was conducted in Brevard County this year; and there have been numerous details conducted in Lee County this year. She noted there have been a few details on the Barge Canal; SMC has not seen the benefit of additional law enforcement officers; such officers were in training; and it takes almost one year before they are on the water patrolling on their own. She noted the new speed zones have not been fully posted in Brevard County; the manatee mortalities were distributed throughout the County this year; the speed zones can be effective; and the SMC has seen such zones effective in other counties throughout the State and portions of Brevard County.

Ms. Clinger stated with increased law enforcement, sufficient speed zones to cover areas where manatees are frequently sited, public education of where the areas are, and how to boat and react in areas where people encounter manatees, there will be improvements in Brevard County in the long run. Commissioner Pritchard stated SMC is looking to impose a registration fee on currently registered boats; and inquired why canoes and kayaks could not be included. Ms. Clinger responded it is within Commissioner Pritchard’s purview to make that recommendation to the State.

Steven Webster, Vice President of CFW, stated the CFW is a volunteer group; last week he became Executive Director of the Florida Marine Contractors Association; and he is speaking on behalf of the Association. He noted the Association represents approximately 200 highly qualified prudential marine contractors throughout the State of Florida, insurance agents, people who deliver services to contractors, and vendors that offer supplies and building materials to construct docks and marinas; the Association would appreciate more time to review the document; and there are a lot of items included in the Plan that do not belong. He stated the question was raised whether or not the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applies to the waters of Florida; Ms. Clinger said the MMPA specifically references manatees, so it must apply; the wording of the Act says it applies to the territorial seas of the United States; and it does not say anything of applying to navigable waterways or any other waters of federal jurisdiction. Mr. Webster noted the County is putting at the top of the document legislation that has no bearing or relevance to what the FWC is trying to do; it has been suggested that 100% compliance with the MMPA would be more appropriate at the top than a reference; the MMPA reference is a veiled way of making it appear that Brevard County approves of what the FWC is trying to do in the State; and he has an e-mail from the head supervisor of Fish and Wildlife Service Office in Jacksonville stating some of the things the proposed rule in southwest Florida and the State would do. He stated there will be annual renewals of letters of authorization from every government entity from the State that does any work on the water; NASA would need a letter of authorization to launch the space shuttle; the Coast Guard, Navy, Sheriff’s Office, Soil Conservation District, and St. Johns River Water Management District would also need letters of authorization; and he does not believe the FWC is going to be able to do that. He noted if the rule goes into effect in May, the FWC has 180 days to issue letters of authorization; in southwest Florida, there will be a five-year moratorium on docks, marinas, single-family docks, and perhaps boat registration; his Association estimates $100,000,000 annual impact in lost business due to implementation of this rule Statewide; the manatee population in the Atlantic is growing at almost 4% per annal; and it is a sustained rate. Mr. Webster stated human growth, including immigration, is 2.2% in Florida; the manatee, by reproduction alone in Brevard County, is growing twice as fast as humans, including immigration, and five times faster than humans produce; and that is a lot of growth. He noted there is an executive summary for a law that probably does not apply to the State of Florida; the FWC executive officers and lawyers are investigating it and the Board should do the same; the law is in effect for a mammal that is growing leaps and bounds; and the reason for the concern about southwest Florida is due to not enough information to make a conclusion about what is happening. He stated the public sector has dropped the ball and not done its job; and it is going to cost his Association $100,000,000 a year because the public sector has not done a good job in gathering data. He noted in 1983, Margaret Kinair wrote that manatee mortalities are caused more frequently by larger boats; research efforts should be directed toward dangerous vessels that have regular consistent travel routes through known manatee use areas, specifically tugs and commercial vessels; and Ms. Kinair cited a 1980 study by McCutchen which considered the significant danger of fully-loaded barges crushing manatees on the bottom on their way to power plants. Mr. Webster stated Ms. Kinair wrote that the production of the complete manatee ideogram is important; establishment of slow and idle speed zones throughout all bodies of water is an unrealistic endeavor for manatees; and speed zones are a short-term strategy. He noted for 28 years the short-term strategy was used, but is not working too well; Ms. Kinair also wrote that due to the dynamics of manatee growth, collisions and the extent of the manatees ability to avoid collisions at particular speeds would be valuable for management decisions; CFW raised money to get the complete manatee ideogram done; and inquired where did the 1:100 powerboat ratio come from. He stated the Indian River County Plan was approved and has a three-mile radius; the 1:100 powerboat ratio has nothing to do with science; 95% is what researchers look for to be sure that what they are coming up with in terms of correlation is real and not make believe; and a lot has been said today about how there is a correlation between the number of registered boats and manatee deaths. He noted the correlation for that relationship is approximately 80% and not 95%; what matters is the number of total manatee deaths versus the number of manatee watercraft deaths; that relationship has remained constant for 28 years; and the Plan is being based on a premise that has no statistical grounds. Mr. Webster stated he welcomes the chance to meet with staff to go over the numerous objections to the data that has been presented to come up with a plan that will work.

Edward Fiannaca stated he moved to Florida almost three years ago because of its beautiful waters, blue skies, warm weather, tall palm trees, clean beaches, and great recreation; shortly after being here, he heard about the manatee issue; in 1980, there were approximately 800 manatees counted; and between 1980 and 2001, about 3,300 manatees were counted. He noted during that 21-year period, there has been great growth in Brevard County and throughout the State of Florida; there has also been great growth on the waterways in the number of recreational boats that were bought during that period; and still, the manatee population increased by 400%. He stated all animals have their own certain characteristics; some birds can see their prey far away and some animals can change their appearance to protect themselves from their prey; the manatee has its own characteristics; and one negative feature the manatee has is a hearing deficiency. He noted putting up slow zones or no-wake zones is the worse form of protection for the manatee; they cannot hear slow-moving vessels as the sound level is not in their hearing capacity; there is documented scientific proof of this finding; and now there are discussions about putting more restrictions and limiting boat docks, boat slips, and boat ramps. Mr. Fiannaca inquired what is going to happen to people who buy a waterfront home and have a boat, but no dock; stated it is not fair; he is opposed to restricting boat ramps, new docks, and new slips; and there is a lot of misinformation. He noted there are certain rules that are pro environmental and their goal is to slow down growth, if not take as many boats off the water as possible as their passion is to protect the environment; it must be done with common sense and not with misinformation or lies; the manatee is not in danger of being wiped out or extinct; and their numbers are not dropping off, but increasing. He stated slow zones and no-wake zones are going to create a larger problem; the current system for the manatee is not working; more manatees are going to die because the wrong system is in place; the system needs to be reevaluated; and nothing should be passed today.

Chip Brunty, representing C & D Dock Works, stated he is a marine contractor in Brevard County; the manatee issue started as a federal lawsuit against the federal government several years ago; he pulls permits on a regular basis, so he is familiar with all of the agencies; and the federal government decided to come up with an arbitrary number of $250 for someone to say their dock would not endanger the manatee. He noted it was not right and did not fly; there are no documented cases of docks killing manatees; State law requires docks to have an elevated terminal; they enhance the environment and resources in the area; and docks promote the environment to be better as it provides an extension to get outside the grass beds, which allow them to keep propagating. He stated his livelihood relies on being able to build docks and structures; the State dock permitting has been going fine, but now the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) is required to get recommendations from FWC; and FWC is refusing to write back recommendations concerning individual dock structures, which is an unwritten moratorium on his business. Mr. Brunty noted he called FWC and asked if it was going to put a moratorium on Dock Works; it indicated that was not its plan, but it wants to review different dock structures on a case-by-case basis; he still applies for permits as usual; and if everyone is worried about manatee deaths from boats, it has to rely on boat registrations. He stated punishing a man who pays high property taxes because he bought land on the water so he can build a dock does not keep anyone from launching a boat trailer and hitting a manatee; there could be a mandatory rule of putting manatee protections around boat propellers; the dock itself is not the problem for manatee deaths; and the State and federal government have certain criteria established on how docks have to be built. He noted there is a temporary impact when a dock is first installed, but within two to three months, the pilings grow there; nature has a way of healing itself; and it is like a dune crossover on the beach.

Ray Smith stated Brevard’s waterways are precious, irreplaceable, and the envy of many counties in Florida and elsewhere; waterway regulations are necessary to the extent it provides safety for all who use the waters, whether it is a large ship or john boat; he is opposed to regulations that are primarily based on the opinions of those who may be unfamiliar or do not use the waterways; and it is ironic that over-regulation also reduces safety without recognizing that result. He noted in today’s environment and homeland security, people’s rights are often infringed upon, but it is done reluctantly and individuals try to minimize the impact; it should be the Board’s objective in developing Brevard County’s Manatee Plan; he had the opportunity to discuss the need for manatee protection with a wide variety of people; and he does not consider himself a manatee expert, but is knowledgeable about the status of the manatee species. Mr. Smith stated the manatee population is flourishing; State law requires several counties to develop a manatee protection plan, but Brevard County’s Plan must be based on common sense and not an attempt to stifle the economic and recreational use of the waterways; and requested the Board establish stakeholders to work on the Plan and develop a product that utilizes the best available science, as well as considers the rights of boaters. He noted it is easy to make rules, but the most important consideration must include boating safety and property rights, as well as manatee protection; the rules must be based on good science and not subjective opinion; and as a stakeholder and taxpayer, he is interested in development of a responsible manatee protection plan. He stated what is before the Board today is nothing other than returning to the flawed 1996 draft plan, due to demands from Bureau of Protective

Species Management, SMC, and ONRM; and inquired why waterfront property owners and family boaters were not allowed to participate in the process.

Mark Leslie, President of Marine Industries Association, stated the presentation showed aerial sitings are being used as a limiting criteria for development on the water; Ms. Clinger was quoted twice in today’s Florida TODAY newspaper warning against using the manatee counts as trends, yet they are suitable for regulation; he does not agree with that; the State is using permitting as a leverage to get the Board to vote for the Plan as it stands with the 36 and 50 parking spaces for boat ramps; and there is no guarantee of parking spaces and permitability on the ramp at Pineda Causeway. He noted there are a lot more aerial sitings there that are used as a tool; the Board should consider that if parking spaces are limited to 36 at Pineda Landing; stated if the permit is denied on the other ramp, there will be an overflow of parking again; and the voters have spoken and want more boat ramps and parking spaces. He stated it is a commitment the Board has to the citizens to make that happen as best as it can; it is similar to the Marina Park issue with the Vectorworks expansion; there are new regulations; and all the new speed zones are now going into effect as the signage has been erected. Mr. Leslie noted the Board may be signing off on another set of regulations that would further curtail boating; it is not a wise move at this time; time is needed to evaluate what the citizens of Brevard County want and what the Board can do for them versus what the State is going to mandate be done; and the driving force behind all of this is that SMC has millions of dollars, has filed lawsuits, and threatened federal and state governments. He stated while the lawyers get richer, the citizens battle for their rights as boaters and property owners; and encouraged the Board to evaluate everything and not slam-dunk the plan.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he supports the errata sheet that was produced by Ms. Calleson, which had several typos and incorrect references, but not all of Tab A; Tab A is more extensive and includes the MMPA that is not enforceable within territorial waters; the errata sheet with 80 or so items is acceptable as it has minor changes; but Tab A has other things that need to be considered. Commissioner Scarborough noted Tab A can be discussed after lunch; and the siting issue is going to require a different level of discussion.

The meeting recessed at 12:00 noon and reconvened at 1:10 p.m.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated this morning a number of individuals spoke about the MMPA; there were issues as to whether or not it should be included in the plan; he asked the State staff whether or not removing the MMPA from the draft would have any significance in terms of its ability to approve the plan; and it assured him it would not. He noted if the Board substitutes the language regarding Florida Statutes it is satisfactory.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to substitute the language in the Executive Summary from being compliant with the Marine Mammal Protection Act to the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, Florida Statutes 370.12. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he received a copy of the plan last week and was able to distribute it to a couple of organizations; the Board acknowledged recommendations from Ms. Clinger of SMC for amendments to the Plan and directed staff to include the items she outlined to determine the direct and indirect fiscal impact to the County on November 12, 2002; and inquired if staff has done that determination. Mr. White responded staff has not determined the exact fiscal impact at this time; it is going to cost staff time to implement the education features; and it takes staff time to apply for grants and manage them as it moves through the schedule.

Virginia Barker, Environmental Management, stated the plan does not commit the Board to additional expenditure of funds beyond what it is already doing in support of the Indian River Coastal Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) and other existing programs; but it commits some staff time to continue pursuing grants for education, boating safety measures, and updating data and tables; and the only fiscal impact to the Board’s budget is staff time spent implementing the plan. Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the impact to the residents, taxpayers, and citizens; what is the cost if one cannot put in a marina, and if waterfront properties increased 12% instead of 25%; and stated that is the direct and indirect fiscal impact to the County. Mr. White responded ONRM does not have an economic advisor or consultant to perform that work and it does not have the expertise to do it. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board instructed ONRM to determine the direct and indirect fiscal impact to the County; if it does not have someone to do it, it should come back to the Board and say it needs to hire somebody; his concern is this multi-million dollar package; and it is going to have a direct economic effect on Brevard County and put people out of business, including marine contractors and waterfront restaurants. He noted Tingley’s Marina is a good example; there was a direct economic impact; one of the amendments that came up in November, 2002 says there has to be a cost associated with any constitutional issues; he wants to know the costs; and citizens have a right to know what the costs are when the Board does something so they are not surprised when they find their taxes spiral out of control because certain things are not in operation.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does Commissioner Pritchard have any problem with the minor comments on the Brevard MPP dated March 15, 2001; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he does not have a problem with items 1 through 87.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to accept Items 1 through 87, Minor Comments, in the Brevard Manatee Protection Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the second executive summary says, “. . . high level to boating activity . . .”; it is opinion and the entire section is biased to the point of being unusable as a reference document; the opening sentence should be deleted and rewritten to correct the mission of collision deaths compared to total deaths; the comments in Tab A are not based on good science; and one example is the comparison of watercraft registration and manatee population. Commissioner Higgs noted if the problem is the tying of high levels of boating activities, combined with the presence of large aggregations of manatees, has lead to many manatees being injured and killed, the figures are what they are; unless the figures are wrong, they are part of the plan; and inquired does Commissioner Pritchard want to delete the whole paragraph or the first sentence. Commissioner Pritchard suggested deleting the opening sentence and rewriting it to correct the mission of collision deaths compared to total deaths.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to delete the first sentence concerning . . . “high level to boating activity . . .” in the second Executive Summary, and add a sentence about collision deaths compared to total deaths. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated on page 11, Introduction, the first sentence includes, . . . “reduce manatee mortality . . .”; the County cannot be expected to reduce total manatee mortality in a growing population; manatee deaths will arise as population rises; and suggested the sentence be deleted after “management plans.” Commissioner Higgs noted she cannot agree to that because the goal is to reduce manatee mortality.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to delete sentence on page 11, Introduction, . . . “reduce manatee mortality . . .” after “management plans.” Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to accept the Executive Summary, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 11, Goal, says, “A goal is to increase boating safety”; and inquired how does the County do that. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is wrong with wanting to promote boating safety; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he does not have a problem promoting it, but wants to know how it will be done. Commissioner Carlson noted the plan is supposed to find how to do it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the goal is where the County wants to be; how it specifies it comes later; and it broadens the whole concept beyond just the manatee to the boating community and their own safety. Commissioner Pritchard inquired will the County find out how elsewhere in the plan; with Commissioner Carlson responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson stated the plan lays out the goals and objectives and how the County is going to get there with performance measurements and outcomes; it is what a plan should offer; and if it does not, the County has a problem. Commissioner Pritchard noted the next line is the objective and includes, “reasonable recreation and commercial use”; and inquired what is reasonable. Commissioner Carlson suggested the word “reasonable” be stricken.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to strike the word “reasonable” on page 11, Objective, from “ . . . recreation and commercial use.” Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough stated people within the boating community want “reasonable recreational use of the coastal area”; and he is at a loss to understand why Commissioner Pritchard would not want reasonable recreational boating on the Lagoon.

Commissioner Pritchard stated his concern is what is reasonable; inquired how does it protect manatees, other than by reducing the number of boats; and noted he agrees with the objective, but the word “reasonable” is subjective. He noted page 14 indicates that Brevard County has the highest number of manatee mortalities, including the highest number of watercraft-related manatee mortalities than any county in the State; it should be put in a context that with a larger manatee population there is going to be a larger mortality rate; and suggested inserting a relationship between the manatee population and the mortalities.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to include the relationship between the manatee population and manatee mortalities on page 14. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 15 says . . . “reduced levels of human-related manatee mortality . . .”; and suggested the language, “Active commitments must be made to protect the manatee” be inserted. Commissioner Higgs noted active commitments must be made to protect the manatees habitat area and to reduce levels of human-related manatee mortality; and she cannot support Commissioner Pritchard’s suggestion. Chairperson Colon noted reducing the levels of human-related manatee mortality is what the plan is about.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 15, Recommendations, reads, “Habitat areas throughout the State are declining due to increasing population and development pressures, and the protection of key manatee habitat areas in the County’s waterways becomes increasingly important”; Haulover Canal, Sykes Creek, Barge Canal, and former Cocoa Beach water sports area are all manmade; Sykes Creek was a natural formation, but the dredging part was manmade; and for the most part, manatees did not inhabit those areas previously, with exception of the Sykes Creek Channel. He noted humans may be harming manatee food stocks, but they are not hurting habitats; they are creating it; he had a figure that said every pier, wharf, and structure that overhung every body of water throughout the State of Florida amounted to a coverage of less than ½ of 1% of the seagrass beds; and the whole thing about declining and being destroyed by human-related structures is difficult to accept. Commissioner Carlson stated humans produce those structures. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not want to include the idea that building a structure is going to depreciate a habitat; but he agrees the County should do something about septic outfall runoffs. Commissioner Scarborough stated the environment becomes more stressed because of man’s presence; people that come from urban areas around New Jersey and New York talk about how different it is here; there is much open area and wildlife; and South Florida is different than Brevard County, which has more open areas. Commissioner Pritchard noted the marine operators and dock builders have indicated when a marina is built, it increases a habitat for manatees; they hang out, find water, and people feed them; and manatees like interaction with people. He stated he does not want the issue to be interpreted that should one want to build a dock, he or she is destroying habitat; and if it is an agreeable issue that the County is not necessarily talking about construction of a dock, then it can move on. Commissioner Scarborough noted in some cases, the creation of manmade facilities have enhanced survivability of the manatee; and power plant discharge areas have saved manatees in the winter time. Commissioner Pritchard stated the power plants have created a detriment; when the manatee is there for a while and gets hungry, they can suffer cold, stress, pneumonia, and whatever else; he is talking about building a dock behind someone’s house; and if it is going to do anything, it is going to provide a refuge.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to include language on page 15, Recommendations, that in some cases, the creation of manmade facilities have enhanced survivability of the manatee. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Higgs noted the Board should leave the language as it presently exists. Chairperson Colon stated Commissioner Pritchard is trying to focus on the docks. Commissioner Carlson noted the present language under the Recommendations is a general statement. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is opposed to warm water outfalls that have changed the manatee habitat.

Mr. Peffer noted there is nothing in the plan that would prevent homeowners from building private docks; the plan will be focusing on boat ramps, marinas, and public facilities; however, it does not prevent a homeowner from getting a private dock if he or she can meet other permit qualifications.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve pages 1 through 43 of the Manatee Protection Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 44, Habitat, second paragraph, second sentence, says “. . . in their analysis, concentrations of manatees, etc. . .”; and suggested inserting, “Facilities built to support recreational and commercial boating, such as marinas, docks, and canals are important manatee habitat.” Commissioner Higgs noted it is describing the Marine Mammal Commissions’ (MMC) Report and analysis; and the paragraph describes what the MMC reported in 1988. Commissioner Pritchard suggested adding a paragraph between paragraphs one and two to read, “Facilities built to support recreational and commercial boating, such as marinas, docks, and canals, are important to manatee habitat.” Chairperson Colon suggested the language be inserted at the end as the Board’s opinion instead of part of the MMC’s opinion. Commissioner Pritchard stated the language can be inserted before B, Manatee Distribution and Abundance. Commissioner Pritchard noted Commissioner Higgs has a dock on the river, and inquired if she ever sees manatees there; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, but she would not call it important manatee habitat. Commissioner Scarborough suggested the language say “. . . may be attractive to manatee” instead of “ . . . are important to manatee. Commissioner Pritchard noted that is fine. Commissioner Scarborough stated part of the problem is that the facilities may be attractive to manatees and bring them into conflict; it is not the solution if it creates the conflict; and it is like building a major highway in front of a school. Commissioner Carlson stated staff has identified definitions for the animal, social behavior, reproduction, and habitat requirements; she does not see where it belongs under the habitat requirements; it does not seem to help in any way; and perhaps the language can be included where it can bring out the positive things that are there. She noted she sees the perspective of trying to bring in the elements that may help the manatee or promote manatee abundance; but they are not issues she recalls in discussions over the last four years that have come into play as actual statistics. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Titusville Marina Manager would attest to seeing manatees at the marina interacting with people and boats; manatees also like scratching on different things that hang off below boats; and reiterated that manatees enjoy interacting with people. Commissioner Pritchard stated he will keep his suggested language available and perhaps it can be inserted somewhere else in the plan.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 58, states, “Because of this variability, the synoptic survey results are not meaningful for comparison between years or between surveys”; Captain McGill discussed the issue with Dr. Ackerman; and the last two sentences should be stricken as they were cited by Dr. Ackerman who told Captain McGill the conclusion was wrong. Commissioner Higgs noted that information is not critical to the essence of the plan; and inquired if there is some reason the County has to have the sentence included if it is not Dr. Ackerman’s conclusion. Mr. White responded part of the controversy over the years is the use of the data associated with synoptic surveys as being absolute numbers, which they are not.

*County Attorney Scott Knox’s absence was noted at this time, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley was present.

Commissioner Pritchard noted the last two sentences on page 58 can be deleted. Commissioner Carlson stated the whole paragraph is cited by Dr. Ackerman. Chairperson Colon noted she does not have a problem deleting the language.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to delete the last two sentences on page 58, next to the last paragraph, which cites Dr. Ackerman’s comments “Because of the variability, the synoptic survey results are not meaningful for comparison between years or between surveys . . .” Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 59, first paragraph, includes, “ . . . Manatee uses documented throughout the lagoon”. . .; and suggested adding “in varying levels” after the word “lagoon.”

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to add language on page 59, first paragraph, . . . “manatee uses documented throughout the lagoon in varying levels . . .” Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 61 is a chart; charts are not representative of a manatee population; and nobody knows how many times the same manatee has been counted between 1997 and 1999. Commissioner Scarborough noted the chart shows 45 over flights; if

Commissioner Pritchard wants to make the information clearer, that is fine; but the chart shows the areas where manatees have been sighted more frequently. Commissioner Pritchard stated some charts were nothing but solid dots that represented 25 years of manatee observations; and it is extremely misleading. Commissioner Higgs noted further clarification could be added on what the data represents, describing what the over flights were and periods of time; and suggested staff recommend some language under the note.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize staff to include language on page 61 under the note, clarifying what the data represents, describing the over flights and periods of time. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 66, paragraph 4, discusses loss of habit, major threat, future survival, dredging and filling, and construction of docks and piers. Commissioner Higgs noted the language could include the improper construction of docks and piers. Commissioner Pritchard suggested eliminating the construction of docks and piers in the language; stated dredging eliminates bottom scraping; and people would not wander all over the grass flats if there were clearly identified marked channels. Commissioner Higgs noted dredging and filling destroys manatee food resources; if docks and piers are properly constructed, they are less likely to destroy manatee food sources; if there is no seagrass under the docks, they are probably not destroying a food source; and proper construction of docks and piers would be the right way to go. She stated the language could include dredging and filling, and improper construction of docks, piers, and seawalls. Commissioner Pritchard noted in some cases what the County has done in the past was wrong. Commissioner Carlson stated it is trying to identify what it did wrong so it can do something that is better; and including the information lends itself to the argument of improvement.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to add language on page 66, paragraph 4, “ . . . improper construction of docks and piers . . .” Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 66, paragraph 4, states, “ . . . although, the available forage is not presently a limiting factor . . .”; suggested deleting the words “although the” and capitalizing “Available”, to read, “Available forage is not presently a limiting factor”; and stated “although” is a supposition that may not be accurate. He further suggested deleting the word “will” and inserting “could” in the same sentence to read, “Available forage is not presently a limiting factor . . . and seagrass communities “could” affect the long-term recovery and survival of subspecies.” Commissioner Higgs stated she does not believe those are appropriate changes and the sentence should be left the way it is.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to include language on page 66, paragraph 4, to read, “Available forage is not presently a limiting factor . . . and seagrass communities could affect the long-term recovery and survival of subspecies.” Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 67, paragraph D., Analysis of Manatee Mortality, is by the State and not Brevard County; and suggested the paragraph be deleted as it is bad science because the State does not normalize the data. Chairperson Colon noted whether the County agrees with it or not, it is the analysis of the manatee mortality data by the State. Commissioner Pritchard stated anytime one does a statistical representation, he or she should normalize the data; it is not being done; and it is probably the basis of any statistical probability observation. Commissioner Carlson noted it is part of Dr. Ackerman’s citation; and inquired is it an issue. Ms. Barker responded it is a different Ackerman citation; whether one normalizes the data or not depends on what they are trying to learn from the data; what Dr. Ackerman was trying to explain with the data is that these are sites where there are a larger number of manatee deaths; and maybe it is because there are a lot of boats. She stated normalization can maybe explain why there are more manatee deaths, but it does not change the fact that if the County wants to know where it can potentially have an impact on stopping many manatee deaths, it needs to know where areas with high manatee deaths are. Commissioner Higgs noted the Board has already included the data in frequency of manatees.

Chairperson Colon inquired is the analysis of manatee mortality information necessary in the plan. Carol Knox responded it provides actual information that is correct; the Board can take whatever it wants from that; she would prefer the language be included; she is not sure the State would not approve the County’s plan if the information was not there; and the document is more useful with the information included. Commissioner Scarborough noted he understands Commissioner Pritchard’s point; and because there are more manatees in Brevard County, it is going to have a higher number of manatee deaths than Orange County. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is the primary thrust of other arguments.

Captain McGill noted it is not a matter of statistics, but a matter of misleading, which is the problem; it is not true that Brevard is the worse performing County in the State of Florida for killing manatees; Brevard County has the largest number of manatee mortalities because it has the largest number of manatees; and the State should be ashamed of itself for not normalizing data. He stated it is not something he made up; it is science; and the State is using junk science for absolute values. He noted he sent the Board an analysis of 13 counties; Brevard has been number 10 over the last 10 years; 10 is good and one is bad; and number 13 is the best. He stated the data is normalized; and population needs to be taken into account, whether it is people or manatees. Chairperson Colon noted language could be inserted that Brevard County has the largest population of manatees. Captain McGill stated this is Brevard County’s MPP; the County should do it right; it does not take much to normalize data; he sent the Board the data that should replace what is currently in there; and suggested the Board replace the language with something that is scientifically accurate. Commissioner Pritchard noted normalizing data is a standard protocol that is used; and the Board should not accept any data that has not been normalized. Chairperson Colon inquired how hard is it to normalize the data; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it has already been done. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem adding some things about the numbers; Brevard County has a lot of manatees, but still has a problem with manatee deaths; that is the issue and the County cannot leave it out; and it has a profound impact on manatees within the State and needs to recognize its responsibilities based on the data.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to add data on page 67, paragraph D., Analysis of Manatee Mortality, that indicates the population of manatees in Brevard County.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what if the Board included the normalized data at the bottom of the page; noted it is a standard; and normalizing data is a standard.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Carlson voted aye, Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested the table on page 70, Trend Analysis of Manatee Mortality, read, “trend analysis of mortality versus vessel registration and observed manatee population.” Commissioner Higgs noted she does not see the observed manatee population in the chart. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board does not need to include his proposed language and can move on to his next item. Commissioner Pritchard suggested page 74 include the numbers represented as percentages of population, which is another attempt to normalize data. Commissioner Higgs stated it is all Florida; the information is not normalized by county; so it is not an issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated the information says Brevard County. Mr. Peffer stated the manatee population is not known; there are numbers based on synoptic surveys, but they vary depending on various conditions; it is reality that nobody really knows what the population is; and he understands Commissioner Pritchard’s point. He noted perhaps adding the table of population would add some additional information that is relevant; however, once the County acknowledges that the numbers are not precise and pure, it would be building that same uncertainty in every calculation. Mr. Peffer stated staff could add a column with a footnote that these are the numbers that were observed. Commissioner Pritchard suggested a representative column that would show the mortality in relationship to population. Ms. Barker stated the amount of effort spent on counting manatees has increased over the 20-year time interval; and to try to compare manatee mortalities as a percent of the population now to the number of mortalities reported and the number of manatees counted 20 years ago is not an accurate calculation. Commissioner Pritchard noted the act of synoptic survey began in 1990. Ms. Barker stated aerial surveys would be used instead of synoptics. Commissioner Pritchard inquired when were aerial surveys considered reliable; with Ms. Barker responding she does not believe they are reliable, but would have to defer to the State. Commissioner Pritchard noted 2,800 manatee were counted this year and 1,700 were counted last year; and the issue is if one looks at it as a percent of countable population, which is the only thing the County goes by, there is a fairly flat trend line that shows the mortality remains fairly consistent. Commissioner Higgs stated the County has gotten better at counting the number of manatees over the years; there has been more emphasis on the counts and more people counting; and that means counted higher numbers. Commissioner Pritchard noted when higher numbers of manatees are counted it means there are better conditions; in 2000, 3,276 manatees were counted; there were optimal conditions on the East and West Coasts; and this year, it was good on the East Coast, but bad on the West Coast. He stated there is going to be a diversion there; and if the data is clocked, it is going to show a consistent trend.

Captain McGill stated the normalization is not to go to the estimated population or observed population, but to divide it by the counted mortality; he does not recommend the County divide it by population, as it is uncertain; the population represents the minimum; and he is not talking about aerial survey, but synoptic survey. He noted taking the minimum observed numbers, one can get a great deal of information; it is not unusable; and it can project the growth rate of the manatees.

Commissioner Higgs requested Ms. Clinger comment on the normalization, data, and manatee deaths. Ms. Clinger noted to compare to population surveys is mixing apples and oranges; some of the early surveys were only done in specific areas of Florida; there is different survey methodology represented in the numbers; and there are different areas of coverage represented in the numbers and different levels of effort. She stated at a population workshop in April 2002, a panel of experts convened on the manatee population from around the country; the panel unanimously rejected using the synoptic survey data and trend analysis representing the population; the County needs to be careful; and it is impossible to assign a population size for Brevard County, other than on the one day and specific flight path when a survey is done. She noted the counts fluctuate daily; numbers of animals moving in and out of the County can change on a daily basis; it is unstable territory making those associations; the scientific community does not support the association; and it is not reflected in the scientific literature on manatees.

The meeting recessed at 2:30 p.m. and reconvened at 2:52 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to include a column of data with an appropriate footnote referencing the manatee population was not a precise count, but may show some trend, on page 70, Trend Analysis of Manatee Mortality. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 88, paragraph 5, reads, “Boat speed zones are one of the most important manatee protection measures and causes of manatee mortality that we can control”; it is not true; and suggested the sentence be deleted. Commissioner Higgs inquired would Commissioner Pritchard agree to say that manatee protection speed zones are an important manatee protection measure for causes of manatee mortality that we can control; with Commissioner Pritchard responding negatively. Commissioner Pritchard stated manatees do not hear frequencies below 400 cycles per second; slowing boats down is going to put them more into harms way; that is the issue; and the whole point is to do something that is going to help the manatee. Commissioner Carlson noted the County has not had enough time to see if what it is doing with slow speed zones has made any difference; and it recently installed slow speed zones due to the manatee issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated such zones have been in place for years; speed zones are not the effective means as some people thought they were; and Brevard County had more speed zones and more enforcement, but the highest watercraft mortality ever. Chairperson Colon inquired is the information based on any opinion the State has provided, or is it local opinion; with Mr. White responding the State believes the information is true.

Ms. Knox stated she has read many reports, and the State believes the information is true; the County has no control over natural causes of death in manatees; but it can try to focus on human-related manatee deaths, such as boat impacts and structure deaths. Commissioner Higgs inquired can it be determined that both the federal and state governments, through their settlement of lawsuits, have concluded that the speed zones are going to protect manatees against death; and would it be a logical conclusion based on a federal lawsuit and settlement agreement. Ms. Knox responded she agrees; and that is why speed zones are installed. Commissioner Pritchard stated the MPP is the County’s plan; and the draft study done in the early 1990’s comparing pre-imposed speed zones in Brevard County showed the same number of manatee mortality after the speed zones were put in. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County received a letter in April 2000 discussing the speed zones in Brevard County; and the State has determined that speed is something it is going to get into. Commissioner Pritchard noted since the State is going to do this then the County can let it handle the issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated the State has already determined and established the speed zones; and it is a finished fact. Commissioner Higgs noted speed zones have been a big issue since 1996; and she does not have any discomfort in believing that enforced speed zones in the proper locations will reduce manatee deaths.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to delete the first sentence, “Boat speed zones are one of the most important manatee protection measures and causes of manatee mortality that we can control” on page 88, paragraph 5, and add, “The State rationale behind the establishment of the manatee zone is to reduce the high numbers of watercraft-related manatee mortality in the 13 key counties and Statewide.” Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested including language on page 98, underlying slow speed zone all year, that the City of Titusville has appealed the implementation of the slow speed zones. Commissioner Higgs noted the statement would be put in the Titusville area since it relates to that, which is item B. Commissioner Pritchard stated a portion of Turnbull Basin is included. Mr. White noted Turnbull Basin is north of the railroad bridge.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to insert language on page 98 that specifically states the areas the City of Titusville objected to for implementation of slow speed zones. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 124 includes a lot of historical sentences and should be deleted, unless the County is going to prove the validity of the statements; one sentence says, “Historic over-wintering areas in South Florida are no longer available or preferred by manatees due to habitat degradation”; such a comment needs to be valid; and having come from that area and not seeing many manatees over the years he spent on the water, he is not sure the comment is accurate. Commissioner Higgs inquired if anybody can validate the statement.

Ms. Clinger stated she cannot give the Board scientific literary citation; she believes increased levels of boating traffic in South Florida is an issue regarding over-wintering events; and Commissioner Pritchard wants something documented. Commissioner Pritchard noted he would like to know, by number, what the population of the wintering population of manatees was in South Florida, as well as the areas they would have been attracted to, having moved from north to south prior to introduction of artificial warm water refuges.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to include that any reference to historic data should be validated, on page 124. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support the motion; Commissioner Pritchard indicated he did not see many manatees in South Florida; and inquired is he willing to say something to that effect, and say South Florida waters are not preferred by manatees. He noted the purpose of the discussion is the necessity to have certain places for manatees in the winter in Brevard County; and the County could say that manatees are not frequenting South Florida waters.

Ms. Knox stated Brevard County cannot say that; there are power plants in South Florida where manatees do frequent; and if it is easier for the County to take out the sentence, she would recommend it.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to delete “Historic over-wintering areas in South Florida are no longer available or preferred by manatees due to habitat degradation” on page 124. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard stated page 124, paragraph 4, says, “Mechanisms must be developed. Scheduled power plant overhauls and shutdowns, alteration of power plant cooling streams, or other management activities, which could adversely affect the artificially-created warm water manatee refuge associated with Brevard’s power plants, are reduced. Necessary communication lines among various government agencies, public utilities, and interested citizens must be established and maintained.” He requested an explanation of the sentences. Mr. White stated the County needs a method to prevent mass mortality in the manatees.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Tab A, including changes to the 2000 Manatee Protection Plan, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) changes, Board and staff changes, information and data updates provided by the FWC and other agencies, and Executive Summary changes, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. White stated item 88 is the recent amendments to Brevard County Rule in terms of manatee protection speed zones; items 1 through 87 were approved; and a motion for approval of item 88 is needed.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested including the word “State” before “manatee protection speed zones.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to amend item 88 to read, “State manatee protection speed zones” in the recent amendments to Brevard County Rule. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated Tab B is FWC’s required removals from the 2000 MPP. Commissioner Higgs noted the FWC is not going to pay for a financial study; it is not going to allow a boat ramp on the Barge Canal; it is not going to reconnect the Banana Creek; and it is not going to fund an education position. Mr. White stated the items are stipulated in the first letter under Tab B, dated June 12, 2002 from the FWC; and the last sentence in the third paragraph states, “We want to advise you that the following items listed in the draft plan for us to accomplish are not possible for various reasons: Fund an education position, conduct a financial impact study for the MPP, reconnect Banana Creek to the Indian River, and find a potential boat ramp site on the Barge Canal.”

Ms. Knox stated the FWC is not willing to fund the County to hire somebody to do education; the FWC has requested a legislative change in its budget to try to have an education coordinator out of its Melbourne office to help with manatee education and other types of education at boat ramps; and it is going to try to put somebody in the County if it can get the money moved around. She noted the FWC consulted with researchers about reconnection of the Banana River; they did a historic assessment of the hydrology of the area and could not determine it was ever connected; so the FWC would not want to make a connection that had not been there. She stated the FWC is not able to do the financial impact study; the MPP previously said the FWC would find a place for a boat ramp on the Barge Canal; but it is not going to find one at this time; and it is different than saying it would not let the County have a boat ramp on the Barge Canal. Ms. Knox stated she received a submittal for a boat ramp on the Barge Canal at the eastern end, but does not know the outcome of the review.

A representative from Canaveral Port Authority stated the Authority sent in the application and received a letter from the FWC asking for additional time to consider the impacts.

Chairperson Colon stated the State believes it will be able to fund the education coordinator position. Ms. Knox noted it is going to try to fund it if it can get the money approved.

Mr. Peffer stated the State intends to try to assist with manatee education; and it would be appropriate to delete the item from the County’s 2000 MPP as it is written here.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the FWC’s required removals from the 2000 Manatee Protection Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Peffer stated Tab C is boat facility siting changes required by the FWC; when the County transmitted its plan to the State in the Fall of 2000, it deleted the Boating Facility Siting Element and referenced it would defer the element to the State; the State indicated it is an essential part of the Plan and the County must include it; and the recent legislation mandated that a boat facility siting portion of the plan be included. He noted the County is at the point of trying to figure out what the Brevard County boating facility siting section should look like; as part of the discussions with the State to get additional clarification as to what it objected to about the proposal, it came back with specific concerns; one of the things that was added to the addendum was the request from the Cities of Titusville and Cocoa; and the municipal marinas were treated differently and have options to expand. He stated the State indicated it cannot accept that; anytime there is a marina expansion proposed, the State wants to use the various factors the County has included elsewhere in any kind of decision; it suggested taking the section out; and the County would treat any location with regard to new or existing facilities according to the table. Mr. Peffer noted the State will not accept the proposed addition of an unrestricted area and needs to look at all of them according to a certain ratio and table; it proposed that the County use a similar methodology as in 1996 and sent in 1997; however, the methodology would yield fewer boat slips according to the new ratios the State has suggested. He stated the State has also taken out one of the factors that was included as a decision criteria; the County is looking at a way of using the boating facility siting criteria to establish a number of parking slips at boat ramps; boat ramps were never clearly articulated and spelled out in the previous draft; and there is language that would show how boat ramps would be addressed by the proposed plan. He noted staff tried to articulate what it understands are the State’s concerns and objections, and present them to the Board for its consideration.

Ms. Knox stated the State’s problem with the urban category is that it basically selected several cities and indicated they would be good places; it did not do case-by-case assessment of the actual manatee data, either seagrass presence, absence, mortality, or level of mortality; Titusville is not as restricted as Cocoa; and the urban category does not carry out a good assessment of the data. Ms. Knox noted Zone A was the Banana River, tributaries, and the power plant; Zone B was the Barge Canal; and Zone C was the Port, which was a good place. She stated the Barge Canal had a limited amount of shoreline; and the Banana River was a residential density that the State was looking for containing there. She stated Zone D was the rest of the Indian River Lagoon in Brevard County; the State suggested the County have a criteria-driven system where it assigns points for important features for manatees versus offsetting measures, such as proximity to an inlet or speed zones; the scores should come out better for development of boat facilities now that the County has speed zones in place; and it has four zones instead of five zones like it did before. Ms. Knox noted it is important that the plan be based on a good analysis of the data; if the State uses the plan, it makes comments and recommendations to permitting agencies and restrictions to have on the permits; if the State gets challenged and goes to court, it has to be able to back up its decisions; and reiterated it is important that plans be based on a good assessment of the data. She stated the Pineda boat ramp that the County wanted is set to go before the Governor’s Cabinet next month; and the State recommends favorably for that as it is a good place for expansion.

Commissioner Higgs noted in terms of marina sitings and boat facility siting, the State is not telling the County where to put something on the uplands; and it is saying these are the number of slips it will allow on State submerged land or upland storage as well. Ms. Knox noted it applies to dry storage as well. Commissioner Pritchard stated he can see the waters of the State as its business, and inquired why is placing the criteria on upland storage the State’s business; with Ms. Knox responding the secondary impacts; and if a dry storage is built, the boats are not only kept on the upland, but put into the water and become potential risk communities in greater numbers. Commissioner Pritchard noted there are a lot of boats in upland areas that never seem to hit the water again for one reason or another. Ms. Knox stated the State has looked at the average number for all new marinas, what their shorelines were, and the ratio number of slips per shoreline; the average was 4.5 boats per 100 feet of shoreline; the State increased it to five boats; and it tried to base it on assessments of Brevard County and the number of boats.

Mr. White noted in 2000, the County transmitted the Plan without the boat facility siting element; the State law requires Brevard County to have a boat facility siting; and what has been presented is what the State has said it would accept for the element of the MPP.

Mr. Peffer stated in the book is a strike-through and underline presentation of the draft with changes the State has suggested in order to make the plan acceptable; and if the Board approves the boat facility siting changes, the State would be able to approve the boat facility siting section.

Parks and Recreation Director Chuck Nelson stated this is the first detail the County has had in terms of how to site boat ramps as part of the plan; there is going to be an impact; and it affects what the County is currently doing in the referendum. He stated in 1995 there was a sea grant study that indicated the County needed 19 boat ramps based on the need they determined; and staff did a study in 1999 to look at that further and refine it. He noted the County could not afford 19 boat ramps; the ramps do not tell someone how many boats are launching; spaces give a better indication; staff came back with a study that said the County could add 476 spaces under ideal circumstances; and the 2000 referendum provided for 236 additional spaces. He stated as part of the design process, based on land availability and other issues, the spaces were reduced to 146; based on what has been proposed, 50 spaces could be met; it is assuming the County can meet the criteria; and expressed concern that the County may not get another ramp permitted due to the 5% seagrass limitation. Mr. Nelson noted he has not been to a site yet that does not have 5%; it is an issue the County works out in the permitting process with St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and permitting agencies; the County has to mitigate, etc.; and the criteria established is a point system. He stated there are limitations for Class II waters; the two areas there may be a problem are manatee mortality and manatee abundance; any site across from Mullet Creek is probably going to trigger a Level 1 or Level 2 number for manatees; and it would preclude the County from getting a boat ramp permit in that area.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how many referendum projects would be affected; with Mr. Nelson responding three projects, Pineda Landing, Banana River, and South Kennedy Boat Ramp. Mr. Nelson noted the Pineda Landing project is being addressed.

Commissioner Higgs stated portions of the South County have been exempted from the siting criteria, so the County can get a permit. Ms. Knox noted the State would like to work toward finding a location that has less impacts; it is trying to set a goal; and it wants to help Brevard County find a sizeable ramp in the south end.

Chairperson Colon inquired about the Banana River project. Mr. Nelson responded the spaces were reduced from 80 to 30 on the last design; the location is outside the aquatic reserve waters somewhere between Eau Gallie and Pineda Causeways; and it is basically the Grand Canal. Mr. Nelson stated the Banana River project area is interesting; people are currently launching off the Causeway, so if the County does nothing, they will still be launching; and approximately 50 parking tickets are issued every weekend during the spring as individuals are parking along the sides of the road. Commissioner Scarborough noted there is limited parking at Port St. John boat launch; there have been fights between clammers and fishermen; people park in the shopping centers; and if someone has a boat, he or she is going to put the boat in the water. He stated to assume that limiting parking places is going to prevent someone from putting a boat in the water is incorrect; there will be more parking tickets and more fights; and if people want to get their boats in the water, they will find a way to do it. Mr. Nelson noted the County could easily spend $100,000 for a boat ramp, plus other improvements; the limiting factor is the County does not have the land; and there is an impact beyond what is in the plan. Commissioner Scarborough inquired to what extent are the County’s facilities being utilized by inland counties, such as Seminole, Orange, and Osceola Counties; with Mr. Nelson responding he does not have a percentage, but it is significant. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff conduct a tag check sometime on a busy weekend as he would like to have the information; and noted Brevard, as a coastal county, is servicing millions of people from inland areas.

Commissioner Higgs stated the 50 parking spaces at the South County boat ramp does not meet the long-term need; and the County will address the issue in a few years and come back to the State for a permit. Ms. Knox noted that would be her suggestion; the proposed plan is not one that will last forever as it has an interval of review; it will take time to build the Pineda boat ramp and acquire the land to do the South County boat ramp; and there will be more information at that time to evaluate the need. Commissioner Higgs stated in the County’s original MPP in 1996, it had an element that included the additional fee for boats registered in Brevard County to go toward enforcement; and inquired if the Board is willing to approve additional fees, would the State be open to approving some of the siting issues, particularly with public boat ramps. Ms. Knox responded the additional fees would make it look better; and the State initially wanted it. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County funded additional law enforcement on the water, could it see some accommodation for the Banana River site, the 30 spaces, and the additional 25 spaces in the south area. Ms. Knox stated the problem the State had regarding the Banana River project is that it did not know the seagrasses and amount available to expand; and it is going to be difficult from a resource perspective. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County was willing to provide additional law enforcement on the water, would the State be willing to include an additional 100 parking sites. Ms. Knox responded she is uncomfortable with that as the State has not had an opportunity to decide where the sites would be; however, she appreciates the County’s effort to try to help get additional law enforcement as it is important to the State.

Chairperson Colon inquired is it correct that the 25 law enforcement officers are new. Ms. Knox responded there are 25 new positions Statewide; it takes time to train them; the State is losing people to retirement; and the State is having difficulty filling all the slots. Chairperson Colon inquired how many FWC officers are in Brevard County; with Ms. Knox responding between two and three at any given time.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the density per shoreline formula used Statewide; with Ms. Knox responding every plan has a different way of approaching it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem in District 1 is a practical matter; there are upland and depth problems; there is no place to develop; and Port St. John boat launch facility will be turned into a parking lot for boats from around the region.

Mr. Nelson stated it is his understanding that the shoreline criteria does not apply to boat launching. Ms. Knox noted it applies in the Barge Canal; and the Port is available. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County wanted to put more boat launching facilities in North Brevard and there were no restrictions, it would have physical problems finding a site; there are 20 miles of shoreline totally incapable of finding sites; it would require all kinds of permits, such as dredging, etc.; and it would be rendered almost impossible. Ms. Knox noted one good thing about improving the plan is that the State can implement it; the County can record all the problems it has had; when the State reviews the plan again, it can try to solve those issues; and Brevard County cannot always solve all of its problems every time government makes a decision. She stated the plan is a starting place; Brevard County has been trying for 10 years to get a plan; and it is going to help when it goes to the Governor’s Cabinet for people who live in the County to get submerged land leases.

Mr. Peffer inquired if the County owned a piece of property and knew it would never put a boat ramp on it, would it be able to transfer the potential that property might have in boat ramp parking spaces to another nearby site; and noted it would occur in one place as opposed to spreading out in other places. Ms. Knox stated it could be added as a consideration; the County could not do something in North County, but it would apply in South County; the State would have to determine the proximity that would be relevant to the exchange; and if the County includes the add-on registration fee, the State may review the concept at the same time. She noted she is hesitant to say yes or no without having an opportunity to think about it or establish the distance.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to insert, “The ability of the County to secure additional parking slots at public ramps can be reconsidered by the State if the County demonstrates additional law enforcement, additional preservation, or impact reduction along the Lagoon, in the MPP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is going to work best for Mr. Nelson; with Mr. Nelson responding he would rather see expansion of existing boat launching facilities as opposed to creation of new ones; multiple sites are probably worse than a single larger site; and from a cost and development perspective, it is better for the County. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the 36 parking spaces at Pineda Landing. Mr. Nelson responded it is the maximum and a historic number; and the design is such that the County could not safely include any more spaces there.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the State is limiting the County to the five-mile radius and 5% on ratios and development; it has been described to him as being arbitrary numbers; the biologists he spoke to said 25% or 30% would be realistic numbers in many situations; and the 5% does not have any basis. Ms. Knox stated different biologists can have different answers; many plans have used 10% as a threshold for impacts; the 5% in the habitat features for marina siting is recognition of habitat value; and a biologist in her office is willing to support 10% or 5%. She noted the State is trying to use the 5% as a way to narrow down sites and identify some kind of habitat value; it tends to look at 1% being impacts to seagrasses in the aquatic preserves; it is not arbitrary and capricious, but trying to set a level; and it is something that can be measured to consistently evaluate a site. Commissioner Pritchard stated if the State sets a low threshold like five sites instead of 20, it is incurring other regulation based on such threshold; if it is looking for optimal sites, perhaps it should raise the standard to 15 or 20, instead of five; the numbers are limiting and designed to help say no; and they are not designed to make it more acceptable to the County or municipality to do something. Ms. Knox stated the criteria help her to determine what is a better site than another site; the State raised two levels and added two levels as it was fairer and more sites would not trip; and in the old plan, every site tripped five miles. She discussed the sphere of influence; noted the State has to choose a consistent way to review it; boating studies have somewhat supported it, depending on the location; and it is better to be conservative and stay with the five miles as it is a way to limit the view. She stated if the whole County is reviewed, it would be more difficult to pare down; and it may be a disadvantage to the site the County is reviewing. Commissioner Pritchard noted Brevard County’s rivers are wide; they are not typical of South Florida where the river is 100 or 200 feet wide; Brevard County has twice the area and one-third the people compared to Broward County; and that is total volume. He stated the County’s waterways are miles wide; Turnbull Basin is nine miles across; he does not see the necessity for having such low threshold as five miles; and inquired if the number can be increased. Ms. Knox inquired is Commissioner Pritchard talking about the five-mile radius; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he is talking about everything, 5%, five miles, five manatees, and using five as the number. Ms. Knox stated if a larger number is used, the County would pick up more deaths of manatees; it would be detrimental to the review of the County’s project; the five manatees was increased to 10; and the level was increased as the State believed it was more appropriate. Commissioner Pritchard noted he was told by someone who is environmentally concerned that 5% is an arbitrary number; the threshold should be increased; seagrasses regenerate at a fast rate; and synoptic and aerial surveys are not good, but it is the only thing to use. Ms. Knox stated the manatee abundance calculations are based on the two-year survey, which is 45 over flights conducted twice a month for two years; the synoptic survey is a different data set; and in the criteria, the State is relying on the two-year study of manatee distribution.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to accept Tab C, Boat Facility Siting Changes, as amended.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Brevard County has intercoastal traffic, people buying boats, and individuals coming from other counties; he does not know what the County is creating or where it is going; there are other dynamics to the issue; and he is not prepared to proceed with boat facility siting this afternoon and will not support any further motions on the item. Chairperson Colon noted what is required from the State is what the County is talking about accepting; the State will not accept anything minimum or less; and this is the minimum documentation the State will accept. Ms. Knox agreed with Chairperson Colon. Commissioner Higgs stated she recognizes the limitations of the table and features; it is what the State is going to use; if the Board moves forward and accepts it today, it will get its plan in place; and there is a more definitive state of permitting and people can move forward with their plans. She noted the County will continue to evaluate data; the Board may wish to again entertain the issue of additional law enforcement on the water; it will provide a better ability to work with the State on siting issues and the number of boat slips; however, this is the ratio the State is using. She stated she will support moving forward today. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has not discussed boat siting in a long time; once the Board has done something, it is going to be harder to have a dialogue than if it deferred the issue; the County is not going to be able to stop certain things from happening; and it may end up having an enormous problem upland. He noted Mr. Nelson has addressed some of those things; he does not know if there is another way to address it, but it has all been nebulous; and he would like the “maybe” turned into a more definitive “yes” to better understand the County’s capacity. He stated the siting discussion has expanded approximately one hour and a half; the Board needs to have more discussions with other people; the County cannot keep someone from launching his or her boat; and he has had people dumping medical waste on his office desk and throw garbage in his front yard. Commissioner Scarborough noted people are not kind to commissioners when they do things that do not work. Chairperson Colon stated she is prepared to support the motion as it is what the State says is necessary; the Board needs to be fair with the process; it has been more than patient and fair today; and the process has been a good one. She noted she is pleased with today’s results; and Ms. Knox has indicated Brevard County is not stuck with the plan and there can be more dialogue. Ms. Knox stated the document is dynamic and periodically gets reviewed; the County can provide feedback to the State; there is nothing that says it has to be five years; and the Board could revisit the plan sooner. She noted the plan has been worked on for a long time; at times, the County and State relationship has been rocky because the State has been wanting to get a plan from the County, but has not had one; suggested getting the plan and improving the relationship so the County and State can better work together than it has in the past; and stated it is a positive step.

Commissioner Pritchard stated boat facility siting is one of the most critical elements of the plan; the ratios and standards are critical; Ms. Knox indicated there is a State staff member who would be interested in perhaps raising the standard; Mr. Nelson has said the issue is not going to work for him; and a representative of the Port indicated he only saw the draft for the first time today and had to leave. He noted while he finds Ms. Knox most agreeable, she is not the ultimate authority that is going to sign off on the plan; and the Board needs to give whatever time necessary to come up with the best thing for Brevard County.

Chairperson Colon inquired is this the minimum document today or is there room for negotiation; with Ms. Knox responding it is what the State would approve today.

Ms. Knox stated Brevard County is important; the proposed plan is what the State believes would work for the County; the documentation is what is required to get the plan approved; and the State tried to be straightforward with what it required. She noted County staff has worked hard and updated the plan; the Board has also spent a lot of time on it; and at some point, it is valuable to move forward and then reassess.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in April 2000, the County received a letter saying the State was going to handle the speed zones; only now has the County come back to the siting issue; there are two new Commissioners who did not go through the prior discussion; and the data today may be approved by the State, but it does not mean it is the best thing for Brevard County at this juncture. He noted if the Board wants to approve the plan, it is precluding any discussion for a five-year period; if it believes everything has been answered to its satisfaction, fine; he has dealt with some dynamic situations on how boaters deal with situations; and when they want to get in the water, they are getting in the water. Chairperson Colon stated regardless of what the Board does, the boaters will get in the water; she wants to have a dialogue with the State; but she is ready to move forward.

Mr. White stated when the Board approved the 1997 MPP, there was a mandate to staff to review the Plan every two years; it is not locked into a five-year period; and if the Board directs staff to review it in two years, it will do so.

Commissioner Higgs noted Boat Facility Siting, Zone B, says, “any boat facility that desires to exceed the 1 to 100 shoreline ratio must acquire additional development rights from other properties”; and inquired is there a particular reason it is not applied to all the zones. Ms. Barker responded it is going to require putting something on somebody’s deed and then having the State or County check deeds as part of the permit review process. Commissioner Scarborough stated the transfer of development rights (TDR’s) have always concerned him; there are approximately 20 miles of potential TDR’s in North Brevard; physically nobody should be able to get a marina there as the water depth is bad; and the upland, seagrasses, and manatee issues get extremely complex. He noted games can be played that are ridiculous; and he does not support TDR’s as they are too complex. Commissioner Higgs stated she has spent more than 10 years thinking about the MPP; she came ready today to deal with the boat facility siting issue, which is the meat of the plan; and she is ready to vote on the motion.

Chairperson Colon inquired is there something that prevents the Board from reviewing the plan a year from now. Ms. Knox responded the only downside would be that maybe it had not played out much in its implementation. Chairperson Colon inquired would it be more reasonable to review the plan every two years; with Ms. Knox responding two or three years. Ms. Knox noted she does not know how long the Pineda Boat ramp would take to construct and be ready to use; and perhaps the facility in South County would be better if it was in place and being used for the County to review what the impact is. Chairperson Colon stated January 2005 would not be unrealistic. Ms. Knox noted the County may not be able to evaluate the south boat ramp. Mr. Nelson stated the 2005 date may not be appropriate.

Commissioner Pritchard noted if a county or somebody makes an initial request or application to the Bureau of Protected Species in January 2005, it may not be until July 2007 when they are denied; there is no assurance they are going to get something; the Board could give staff 30 days to work on the boat facility siting issue; and it has made substantial progress today. He stated such issue is critically important to the welfare and economic well being of Brevard County; an additional 30 days would allow the Board, Mr. Nelson, and ONRM staff to resolve the issues; and the Board could discuss and implement it in 30 minutes on a Thursday morning.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough and Pritchard voted nay.

Chairperson Colon stated Tab D is the implementation schedule, which includes habitat protection, education, law enforcement, boat facility siting, boating safety, speed zones, the MPP updates, adoption into the Comprehensive Plan review, and update on a five-year cycle. Commissioner Pritchard stated the five-year cycle needs to be adjusted. Commissioner Higgs suggested a two-year cycle.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the MPP implementation schedule required by the FWC, with the MPP update being at least a two-year cycle. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. White stated one of the issues discussed was the variance procedure for boat ramps; and staff can present the law enforcement issue as a variance that would be applicable to boat ramps in all the zones. Commissioner Higgs noted she thought it was inserted. Mr. Peffer stated if the County preserves some area it could have the shoreline preservation considered. Ms. Barker stated it would not be specific to Zone D, but anywhere in Brevard County; and it may also address the Port and Mr. Nelson’s Banana River problems.

Chairperson Colon expressed appreciation to Ms. Knox for her attendance; and stated the workshop was productive.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff to make all changes voted on and approved by the Board; and transmit the 2002 draft Manatee Protection Plan (MPP), as amended, including changes to the 2000 MPP, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) changes, Board and staff changes, information and data updates provided by the FWC and other agencies, Executive Summary changes, required removals from the 2000 MPP, boat facility siting changes required by the FWC, and the implementation schedule required by FWC. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)