MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA May 20, 1997

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 20, 1997, at 5:35 p.m., in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Randy O'Brien, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Nancy Higgs, Mark Cook, and Helen Voltz, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Helen Voltz.

Commissioner Mark Cook led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

RESOLUTION, RE: CONGRATULATING PILOT CLUB OF TITUSVILLE

Commissioner Scarborough read aloud a Resolution congratulating the Pilot Club of Titusville for 40 years of dedicated service to the citizens of North Brevard, and expressing appreciation for its contributions. He presented the Resolution to representatives of the Pilot Club.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution congratulating the Pilot Club of Titusville on its 40th Anniversary. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING MELBOURNE CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL

Commissioner Higgs read aloud a Resolution commending the Stingers and Dance Force, and Coach Sandy Bodfish of Melbourne Central Catholic High School, for their accomplishments in bringing national honor and recognition to Brevard County by winning the NCA DANZ Grand National Title after competing with 75 other dance teams at the Dallas Convention Center; and presented the Resolution to Sandy Bodfish and the dance teams.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution commending Melbourne Central Catholic High School Stingers and Dance Force, and Coach Sandy Bodfish. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Bodfish thanked the Board for recognizing students who do good.

APPLICATIONS TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS, RE: DRUG CONTROL AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve applications to the Department of Community Affairs for Drug Control System (Edward Byrne) grant of $352,112; and authorize distribution of $50,963 from Substance Abuse Trust Fund to Court Alternatives Department to be used as the local match. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

LETTER OF SUPPORT, RE: STATE GRANT FOR BEACH MANAGEMENT

Mark Crosley advised changes were made to the letter and copies presented to each Commissioner. He stated Senator Bronson said the Governor will meet Friday, and Brevard County is considered for the veto pen, so it is important to contact the Governor and Mr. Bradley and let them know how important it is.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairman to send a letter of support to Governor Chiles for State cost-sharing funds for Brevard County's Beach Management Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: COMMENDING MERRITT ISLAND HIGH SCHOOL CHEERLEADERS

Chairman O'Brien read aloud a Resolution commending the Merritt Island High School Cheerleaders for their outstanding performance, skills, competitive drive, and diligent sportswomanship in representing Brevard County throughout Florida and the Nation; and presented the Resolution to Suzanne Elliott.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to adopt Resolution commending Merritt Island High School Cheerleaders for their outstanding performance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Suzanne Elliott expressed appreciation for the recognition and apologized for being late.

AGREEMENT WITH USA BASEBALL, RE: TDC SPONSORSHIP FUNDS

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to execute Agreement with USA Baseball for $25,000 of TDC funds to assist in the training of the 1997 USA Baseball National Team at Space Coast Stadium, and to promote the Space Coast as their permanent training site. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AGREEMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION FOUNDATION, RE: TDC MATCHING FUNDS FOR EARTH STATION ONE

Commissioner Higgs advised the May 15, 1997 Memorandum from the County Attorney's Office questions the appropriateness of funding the activity; it is an exciting program, but may not be proper use of TDC dollars. She stated the law is specific in its uses and a museum would be inappropriate, so she cannot support it.

Commissioner Cook stated the Memo gave him concern also; and inquired if it says it is up to the Board to make determination or that the Board cannot do it; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding it is at the discretion of the Board, but it is questionable in terms of statutory requirements.

Commissioner Scarborough advised it came to the Board with a unanimous recommendation from the TDC; and recommended the TDC go back and review the Memo from the Attorney.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to return the Agreement with International Space Station Foundation for $50,000 of TDC funds for Earth Station One to the Tourist Development Council for review of the Memorandum from the County Attorney dated May 15, 1997, and return to the Board with a new recommendation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TRANSMISSION LINE SITING ORDINANCE, RE: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY v. BREVARD COUNTY

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize the County Attorney to seek discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court of Ordinance No. 95-13 providing for transmission line sitings, and file notice and jurisdictional briefs regarding the case of Florida Power & Light Company v. Brevard County.

Nick Rahal requested the Board authorize going to the Supreme Court to review and rule on the Ordinance, as it is the only government body that has the power to protect his rights. Commissioner Cook agreed and stated the reason the Board passed the Ordinance was to protect citizens and their properties and have control over siting of transmission lines.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN

Chairman O'Brien advised the Board is requested to discuss the proposed changes to the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP), and finalize the Plan for submittal to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. He advised there are many speakers, and five minutes each will take an inordinate amount of time. He requested speakers not be redundant.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Indialantic Elementary School Class received a distinguished award, and maybe the teacher could tell the Board of their outstanding achievement.

Christopher Straehla advised they represent the Florida State Championship Indialantic Elementary Community Problem Solving Team, and have been working on a year-long project entitled "Humanity", to increase awareness about manatees in elementary school children. He stated it is their belief that children will be able to make better decisions about manatees as adults if they are educated about manatees and their habitats as children; so they support the need for an educational coordinator presented in the Brevard County Manatee Protection Plan. He advised their project has been invited to compete at the International Future Problem Solving Competition at the University of Michigan next month; and they are honored to be able to raise manatee awareness, not only at their school, but to children from around the world. He requested the Board make education a part of its Manatee Protection Plan, as it can make a difference for their future and for all of humanity.

Frank Mohme stated he does not support boat fees to hire Marine Patrol officers; and he is concerned about the coordinator, speed zones, and misuse of signs. He stated boats are not the only thing to regulate as there is runoff from the power plants; and the manatee population is increasing.

Gary Yanko stated manatees are not endangered; their deaths are caused by disease, starvation, and large commercial vessels, not only boats; and closing Port St. John ramp will not help.

Kreatha Haston stated high-speed power boats detract from her quality of life with noise, pollution, and erosion of seawalls; and requested the Board approve the original plan. Robert Haston stated accountability should match responsibility.

Kim Johnson stated slow speed is unreasonable, but 25 mph is reasonable; Department of Environmental Protection should not dictate how the County protects manatees; and they do not need more government regulations.

Patty Eldridge stated she wants slow speed, paid educator, and reduction of pollution going into the Indian River Lagoon.

Walter Hausmann agreed with Gary Yanko.

Robert White requested the Board adopt the Manatee Protection Plan to protect the habitat, approve a full-time education coordinator, provide more law enforcement, and adopt speed zones as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee.

Brigitte Fontenot stated a variety of people made up the Ad Hoc Committee; a lot of time and energy was put into the plan; people are not endangered, but there are a lot of laws to protect them; so the Board needs to protect the manatees.

Johna Holloway presented petitions with 665 signatures; and noted 93 additional petitions were handed to her, and others were mailed to Commissioners and Secretary Wetherell. She requested the Board keep the Indian River Lagoon Conservation Management Plan in the Manatee Plan, maintain slow speed zones, provide funding for Marine Patrol, support a paid instructor for the education program, reduce pollution, and protect the natural resources and manatees.

John Hickein requested the Board keep an area in the Banana River south of SR 528 for non-combustion engines and retain it as slow speed, as the water is less than two feet deep most of the time, and it is not safe to operate at more than idle speed.

Perry McMahon stated page 22 recommends the Board take appropriate action concerning shellfishing in the Banana River; clamming causes no problems with sea grasses; their industry has been instrumental in cleaning up the river and not degrading it; and inquired why is there an attempt to put clamming in the plan when it has nothing to do with manatees.

Scarlett Romine stated manatees are endangered and need to be protected for future generations to enjoy.

George Reynolds, Vice President of Citizens for Florida Waterways, stated they all want to protect manatees, but oppose overregulation and boaters being blamed for manatee deaths. He read portions of the plan relating to acres and miles used by boats and manatees; stated if the plan goes into effect, 43% of the water will be regulated; and speed zones have not changed the death rate. He stated they have petitions with over 2,000 signatures.

Helen Ullian stated the manatee protection plan needs to be in effect to protect the creatures; and boaters can enjoy the water without high speeds.

Norman Danella advised of a Canadian company testing high speed jet skis, etc. in manatee zones and their permit will be renewed on July 15, 1997, unless David Arnold wrote a letter.

Harry Fuller stated there is not enough data to support the information in the plan regarding population, etc.; and presented and explained a handout to the Board.

George Bean advised they furnished the Board facts and trust it will base its decision on facts and science and not on emotion.

West Hoaglund advised of the watercraft show in Titusville; and stated the Board needs to realize the long-range repercussions, expunge superfluous verbiage, and look at the Growth Management Act for marinas. He stated the educator is a good idea, but will perpetuate myths rather than dispense facts.

Margie Derrick asked if the County wants government by convenience or laws that hold people accountable for their actions.

Fred Leiser stated the Committee had a slanted population of manatees and number of boaters; they provide jobs in the community; Brevard County is known as a boating community; and only five or six deaths were directly related to boating. He stated the Save the Manatee Club collected millions of dollars in the County; and inquired if it is another big business.

Pat Poole advised she has permission to speak for the Melbourne City Council which has supported the MPP from the beginning; the manatee is a tourist attraction; it is a plan for boating safety too; and most boaters and fishermen are good, but there are some endangering their lives and the lives of others. She presented the Indian River Lagoon coloring book; and requested the Indian River Lagoon Conservation Plan be included in the MPP. Chairman O'Brien stated the coloring book is biased and points to boaters.

The meeting recessed at 7:12 p.m., and reconvened at 7:30 p.m.

Commissioner Higgs advised people approached her during the break and asked to speak. Chairman O'Brien stated there are 31 speakers, and the Board should not accept any more. Commissioner Higgs stated it has been the Board's policy, when people submit cards, they are allowed to speak.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to open up the cards for five minutes, close it, and shuffle them to be heard by the Board.

Chairman O'Brien stated the Florida Fourth Grade Social Studies book has connotations that boaters are bad; and read portions of the book.

Pattie Thompson, representing Save the Manatee Club, stated Sandra Clinger wrote a good draft plan; thanked Commissioner Higgs for trying to keep environmental stewardship in Brevard County; and requested the Board transmit the plan to the State and hope it will be better stewards; if not then the Fish and Wildlife Service; and if not, then the courts.

Walter Blaser stated the fee is a State problem not the County's; and requested reopening of a small portion of the 400 channel between the east and west shore of Cocoa Beach.

Ron Pritchard stated answers are not based on facts; and inquired who decided manatees were endangered. He requested boaters' rights be protected.

Jeff Pira, representing Citizens for Florida Waterways, stated they have rights to the waterways; the Endangered Species Act is used to control people; Department of Environmental Protection is going too far; and requested getting manatees proper protection with good unbiased and fair educational programs and not unnecessary regulation by Department of Environmental Protection.

Commissioner Voltz advised Mr. Pira asked her a question about the rights and privileges; and requested Mr. Knox share that with the Board. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the waters are held in trust for the people, and they have the right to use the waterways.

Tom Mason stated there is a lot more than saving one creature; people need to put a lid on growth; Save the Manatee Club was good, but now they are anti-boaters; and they want a fair and just plan and not an educator to teach children to hate boaters. He requested power companies clean up their pollution.

Patricia Bean, member of Citizens for Florida Waterways, stated she is in favor of the amended version of the plan, and presented another piece of misinformation to the Chairman. Chairman O'Brien read the card presented to him indicating manatees are hurt by boats.

Kenny Boyd advised Dr. O'Shea stated there is no conclusive evidence that there was ever more than several thousand manatees in pre-Columbian times; there probably were no motor boats back then; and considering the development now, the manatee survived well. He stated he supports the initiatives he read from Commissioners O'Brien and Voltz; he was told Commissioner Cook objected to limiting boat ramp parking, and he supports that; he objects to Commissioner Higgs' initiatives except the last one which re-adopts the 25 mph zone on the west end of the Barge Canal; and he did not get anything from Commissioner Scarborough. He stated he finds it interesting that so many people who have homes on the water and enjoy the manatees want everything to stop because they have what they want; and he finds it difficult to believe all the people who support the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Plan read it because it is very comprehensive. He stated the criteria to list endangered species was not reduction in habitat but a narrow range of habitat; the manatee has a wide range of habitat and can live in brackish, salt, and fresh water, and can eat an abundance of different marine plants; so it was mis-stated at the last meeting. He stated the exemption process for commercial applications is very limited; that process was set up for net fishing, but there is no net fishing; so there is no real exemption.

Eric Fricker advised of his accomplishments to support the manatee and boat speed zones in the plan; and requested the Board do as well.

Rob Reed advised he is from Orange County and comes to Brevard County to visit, spend money, and bring friends and families to see manatees and boats; and it is a mistake not to realize it is a resource and there are benefits from tourism. He stated his wife is in the Save the Manatee Club; she volunteers and does not get paid; and hiring an educator will benefit boaters and everyone. Patty Reed agreed with Robert Reed; and stated she loves Brevard County for its natural resources, and requested the plan be sent to Department of Environmental Protection to protect the manatees.

Tom Marankowski stated nobody can say how many manatees exist in Florida; the numbers change in monitoring which is done from the air; science is unclear, but is close on mortality data; and mortalities are due to feeding patterns, birth diseases, and boating. He stated more scientific information is needed before protection can be made; there is cause for an education component in the plan; and any information should reflect multiple points of view.

Greg Taylor, owner of Wave Craze, stated there is a lot of conflicting information and little fact; he is on the water daily and never sees tourists or locals hit manatees; it is untrue that boaters are the killers of manatees; and Marine Patrol need to focus on protecting the manatees instead of speeding through manatee areas and destroying boaters' rights and manatees.

Deanna Reiter stated she does not want people's rights trampled on with over regulation; and she supports what Jeff Pira and Kenny Boyd said.

Diane Stees, representing Indian River Audubon Society, read a letter stating they do not support the plan because it eliminated the educator and speed zones, and because what has been done is not a comprehensive or pro-active plan. She stated she wants boater safety and protection for the manatees; and polarizing the community is not what is needed to solve the problem. She suggested use of prop guards or warning devices; and stated given the growth in residents and boats, more Florida Marine Patrol will be needed.

Daniel Dvorak requested the manatee plan be put on the County's web site and an e-mail list be set up to tell people when there is a meeting on the manatee plan. He stated hundreds of people enjoy the water every day, and it makes him feel good to see them; it also makes money for the area; but the $200 fine for speeding in manatee zones is too high, so perhaps the plan could set a reasonable fee, and trash cans be put on the island and picked up once a week. He stated Marine Patrol have zipped through manatee zones; the plan is not to protect the manatees, but to bring in money; and it should be changed or eliminated, or signs put up so people can enjoy recreation.

Gary Haydon stated he hopes when the Board makes its decision he can buy a boat and take his grandchildren out in it and let them fish.

Mary Todd, representing the Sierra Club, recommended the plan be improved before being sent to Department of Environmental Protection to include appropriate habitat protection, paid educator, extra Marine Patrol funding source if fees are not increased, slow speed zones to protect the manatees, and the CCMP.

Peggy White state she supports the first MPP.

Lloyd Lewis stated he is concerned about runoff, is faced with different restrictions, needs a berm so water does not run into the river, and sea grasses are dying. He stated he never saw manatees 21 years ago when he fished, but now there are more in the area; and there is too much regulation, so the Board should eliminate the plan.

Jim French stated the plan is based on junk science and not hard information; suggested manatees be screened out of power plants, moved and restocked in the Caribbean and Mexican waters, and be addressed in a rational manner. He stated it is a key to control people's access and lives and destroy the wonderful pastime of Brevard County; and suggested watering it down and kicking it back to the State.

Al DelGiorno advised page 22 states the Board should take appropriate action on shellfishing; it has nothing to do with manatees; the paragraph is political and prejudice and does not recognize their rights to dig for clams; however, they spent $150,000 to test it to see if shellfishing can be done in that water. He stated clamming is in the best interest of Brevard County and the State; they do not work in grassbeds; clams will not clean the water because they do not eat sewage and gasoline; and their impact is the 500 homes and families. He stated if the statement is approved, a lot of people will not be able to work there.

Heather Elko stated she agrees science is junk; the reason for having less than great manatee material is because they do not have professionals; and a professional educator could get rid of the Bambi syndrome. She stated a fee should be assessed for out-of-county boaters; and requested the Commissioners be open minded when they vote.

Patti Timmins advised there are plenty of manatees; she is out there every week and sees them; they do not need more Marine Patrol because she sees three to four of them quite often; and manatees should be tagged to get an accurate count.

The meeting recessed at 8:58 p.m., and reconvened at 9:15 p.m.

Commissioner Scarborough read portions of a letter from the Port St. John Homeowners Association supporting the manatee plan without changes that would weaken it, and not recommending closing Port St. John boat ramp and opening Manatee Hammock park to boat traffic. He stated the North Brevard Parks and Recreation Board also considered the issue of Manatee Hammock Park, and felt it would be harmful to the river and integrity of the park. Commissioner Cook inquired if the consensus is to keep Port St. John boat ramp open and not put facilities at Manatee Hammock Park; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he talked to Mary Tees, President of Port St. John Homeowners Association, and a viable option would be to acquire something else that would work, not disturb the manatees and grassbeds, and move the launch facilities at Port St. John; but no one has done any work on that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a contract with the State to come up with a plan; once the Board gives them a plan, they can accept, amend, reject, or send it back; but at the last meeting when the Board made changes, a representative from the State said the changes were unacceptable. He stated Commissioner Cook met with Secretary Wetherell; after that, the plan was sent to the cities for their comments; and as the Board proceeds, it should not project the image that it is sending a plan that is Brevard County's plan because it could be altered by the State or sent back. He stated the Board is not adopting a plan, it is communicating with the State which will adopt the plan; and reasons, ideas, etc. are important as motions because all of those things must be communicated to the State if the County is going to prevail with any of the ideas it is promulgating.

Commissioner Cook stated he met with Secretary Wetherell over a year ago; the representative who was here from Department of Environmental Protection when the plan first came to the Board indicated that it did not matter what the input was; and at that point the Board questioned why it was going forward. He stated there currently are regulations in Brevard County to protect the manatee which have been on the books since the 1980's; there are numerous boat zones and speed zones; and whether the Board adopts a plan or not, there will still be regulations to protect the manatees. He noted hopefully the Board can adopt something tonight with community consensus; he does not know if that is possible; but that is something the Board will try to do.

Commissioner Higgs advised Commissioner Voltz's written comments say there is a provision in the Comprehensive Plan that calls for a manatee plan, so there is not only a State involvement. She stated the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan which included the provision for a manatee protection plan, so it is also part of the local laws. Commissioner Cook inquired if what the Board is adopting tonight is its recommendations to go forward to the State; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated she just wanted to recognize that there is a local provision that calls for a manatee plan.

Chairman O'Brien recommended Executive Summary, page viii, first paragraph, last sentence, be changed to read "One of the most well known in Florida of these species. . .", as they may not be well known in California or other states.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to add "in Florida" to the Executive Summary, page viii, first paragraph, last sentence. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended Executive Summary, page viii, fourth paragraph, first sentence, be changed to read "This many human-related. . ." instead of "This high number of human. . . ."

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to change Executive Summary, page viii, fourth paragraph, first sentence, to read "This many human-related. . . ." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended Executive Summary, page viii, fourth paragraph, second sentence, be changed to read "Slow reproductive rate contributes to the Florida manatee being in jeopardy. . . ." instead of "Slow reproductive rate places the Florida manatee. . . ."

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to change Executive Summary, page viii, fourth paragraph, second sentence, to read "Slow reproductive rate contributes to the Florida manatee being in jeopardy. . . ." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended Executive Summary, page viii, fourth paragraph, last sentence, be changed to read "Protecting manatee habitat, but does not focus its goal on the major causes of manatee mortality (76%), namely disease, hypothermia, pollution, and perinatal (calf) deaths."

Commissioner Cook recommended dropping the percentage, as it could change; and Chairman O'Brien agreed.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to change Executive Summary, page viii, fourth paragraph, last sentence, to read "Protecting manatee habitat, but does not focus its goal on the major causes of manatee mortality, namely disease, hypothermia, pollution, and perinatal (calf) deaths." Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended when a Commissioner disagrees, a rationale be stated to communicate with the State. Chairman O'Brien stated his rationale is written and on the record. Commissioner Higgs advised she just liked the other language better.

Chairman O'Brien advised his rationale is that the plan addresses recreational boat speed zones, marinas, sea grass habitat, and other areas, but does not address the major cause of manatee deaths. He recommended Introduction, page 1, Objective, first sentence, be changed to read "This plan is to allow for reasonable recreational. . . ." instead of "This plan is to allow for adequate recreational. . . ." He stated the previous page says, "A major objective of this plan was to allow a level of reasonable use of the lagoon. . .", so the wording should be consistent.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to change Introduction, page 1, Objective, first sentence, to read, "This plan is to allow for reasonable recreational. . . ." instead of adequate. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended addressing the warm water discharge from power plants in Introduction, page 3, Overview. He stated if the Board continues to keep the warm water discharge from those plants, it will give the manatees a place to go to for warm water, but it may contribute to their deaths if there is a heavy cold snap. He advised staff told him the manatees were somewhat trained to go there to stay warm; animals can be de-trained; and one way to do that may be to put up a fence about 100 feet from the warm water this winter and move it out another 100 feet each winter to drive the manatees to continue south with the natural migration rather than stay in Brevard County and take a chance of getting hypothermia which contributes to their deaths. Commissioner Scarborough stated manatees are mammals, and if they cannot be retrained, the entire population could be lost. He stated he is concerned about playing with the science unless the Board has more data on how to transition a mammal. Chairman O'Brien suggested asking Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Fish and Wildlife Service to perform a study whether the warm water is good or bad for the manatees. He stated if one manatee came into the herd during a cold period with an infectious disease, it could infect the entire herd; but spreading out in southern Florida or along the Keys where they would naturally go during the winter may avoid that. He stated allowing the manatees to congregate at the plants may contribute to massive kills; and suggested someone take an objective look at it and come back with science saying it is good or bad for the manatees. Commissioner Voltz inquired who would pay for the study; with Commissioner Cook responding Department of Environmental Protection would have to pay for it. He recommended expressing

concern that it could be channeling the animals to one area and creating more of a problem. Chairman O'Brien stated the manatees should be naturally migrating south, but an artificial environment has been created for them which could also endanger them. Commissioner Scarborough expressed concern that if manatees are not trained to move further south and the temperature drops, there could be hundreds of them with hypothermia.

Chairman O'Brien advised the plan says, "However, deep water and areas of artesian uprisings respond at atmospheric cooling more slowly than shallow water." He stated manatees use the deep areas during the Fall and Spring or mild winters when water temperatures drop to between 65 and 70 degrees; there may be other areas they know about to go to; and inquired if there is a way to re-train or de-train manatees from going to certain areas.

Commissioner Cook suggested asking Department of Environmental Protection to look at it to see if it is practical to look at a way to address that. Commissioner Voltz stated idealistically it should be Florida Power & Light Company and OUC that would gradually cut down the temperature of the water to make it what it is all over the place, so when manatees go there, they realize it is not as warm and may find some place else. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there have been studies in the State regarding the effect of power plants on manatees; with Sandra Clinger responding she is not aware of any specific studies, but water temperature availability and migratory patterns have been looked at over time. She stated she is not aware of any active studies on ways to revert manatees back to pre-power plant migratory patterns.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to request Department of Environmental Protection to conduct a study to determine if manatees can be retrained to migrate, including whether it is healthy for them to congregate in warm waters from power plants. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien advised Recommendations, page 4, Habitat Protection, second paragraph, should be changed to read, "Brevard County has accepted the IRLNEP and has implemented many aspects of the plan. Due consideration shall be given by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners concerning the following issues. . . ." Commissioner Cook recommended adding goals since the Board accepted the goals of the IRLNEP.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to change Recommendations, page 4, Habitat Protection, second paragraph, to read, "Brevard County has accepted the goals of the IRLNEP and has implemented many aspects of the plan. Due consideration shall be given by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners concerning the following issues: . . . ."

Commissioner Voltz inquired when was the IRLNEP done; with Chairman O'Brien responding the Board accepted the plan but did not adopt it. Commissioner Cook stated the Board accepted the goals and it is an ongoing process. Commissioner Higgs stated the habitat protection portion of the MPP is critical for any ability of the manatees to survive in Brevard County; the statement in the

motion is much weaker than the statement in the draft plan; and the Board should include a phrase in the plan that would say Brevard County has adopted the NEP plan, including its implementation and is proceeding with implementation of the plan. Chairman O'Brien stated the Board did not adopt the plan; it came before the Board; and it accepted it. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board should take action to adopt the NEP plan. Commissioner Cook stated it would cost $80,000,000 to $100,000,000 to implement the NEP plan; and he does not want to commit to that. Commissioner Higgs suggested saying the Board of County Commissioners adopted the NEP plan's goals and is proceeding with implementation of the habitat protection elements. Discussion ensued on whether the Board accepted or adopted the NEP plan goals. County Attorney Scott Know stated he does not think the Board adopted it. Commissioner Higgs stated it was vague what the Board actually did, so it should take action to adopt the plan and proceed with implementation.

Commissioner Cook advised habitat is the most important thing to protect the manatees, more so than boat speed zones or anything else; and cleaning up the Indian River lagoon will do more to help the manatee and any other species out there than any regulation the Board or Department of Environmental Protection can pass. He stated he thought the Board adopted the plan; he agrees with the goals and the Board is working towards that; but it will take time to implement all the goals. He stated Brevard County is far ahead of the other counties that participated in that study; and Secretary Wetherell suggested incorporating what the County has already done to protect the lagoon in the MPP.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to suffice the habitat portion of the plan.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion states what the Board has done suffices as a habitat; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no, it states that the County will continue to implement additional aspects of the plan, and indicate what it has already done.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if it should read, "Brevard County has accepted the goals of the IRLNEP and has implemented many aspects of the plan"; add what actions it has already taken; and finish with "Due consideration shall be given by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners concerning the following issues:. . . ." Commissioner Higgs responded no, it says the Board will continue to implement the plan. Commissioner Scarborough suggested saying what has been done, and that the County is moving forward with implementation of specific elements. He stated the Board does not have a funding source, and needs to identify that to make it work.

Discussion ensued on accepting or adopting the NEP plan, no identified funding source, and adopting the goals of the plan.

Commissioner Cook amended the motion to include that Brevard County will do everything it can to clean up the Indian River Lagoon and include what has already been done to protect the lagoon such as the Comprehensive Plan, storm water plan, etc. Mr. Knox suggested the Board not use adoption because it carries legal significance in terms of what may be in that plan. He stated if the Board

adopts the goals of the plan, it creates a legal obligation to go forward and implement that plan, and suggested accepting the goals of the plan.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if the motion is to say Brevard County has accepted the goals of the IRLNEP and has taken the following actions, then have staff list which actions have been taken within the confines of the plan. Commissioner Cook and Chairman O'Brien suggested saying Brevard County has implemented many aspects of the plan, and has taken the following actions; and Brevard County will continue to take actions to protect the lagoon in concert with the IRLNEP. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board has not adopted the NEP. Commissioner Higgs suggested saying Brevard County will continue to implement projects to further those goals; and Commissioner Cook agreed. Commissioner Voltz stated she has not seen the plan. Commissioner Cook suggested the terminology "to accept the goals of the plan." Chairman O'Brien and Commissioner Higgs suggested the motion say Brevard County has accepted the goals of the IRLNEP, has taken the following actions, and will continue to implement projects to achieve those goals.

Discussion continued on committing to implement the goals of the NEP, no real definition seriously stating the County will work towards habitat protection, no funds to do the whole plan or prioritization of which items it can fund, directing staff to bring back an implementation plan with costs in six months, cost benefit analysis on elements of the NEP plan, list of accomplishments with regard to the plan, and no cost benefit analysis for the MPP.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to change the motion to read, "Brevard County has accepted the goals of the IRLNEP, has implemented many aspects of the plan, and will continue to implement a variety of projects to achieve those goals for manatee habitat protection."

Commissioner Higgs requested adding that staff has been directed to bring back to the Board in six months, a list of priority projects in each category. Commissioner Cook stated the Board will get a price tag of millions of dollars and people will say do it; the Board is already implementing the plan in stages; so he does not see the point. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is implementing certain areas, such as stormwater, but it needs to go beyond where it is today because there are no indicators of a great recovery coming. She suggested a statement in the MPP that the Board is going to have those projects delineated with a price tag and will make a decision. Commissioner Cook advised Chairman O'Brien's language addresses the continuing aspect of implementing the plan which the Board has to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated getting the report from staff does not commit the Board to do anything; it gives the Board the ability to see the magnitude of the problems. Commissioner Cook inquired if staff can get a report to the Board delineating those things; with Mr. Peffer responding it will be a very big project, but staff can identify some priority projects in certain areas and provide cost benefit analysis. Mr. Peffer stated there are several action plans in the NEP plan; there are many things the Board has already done, such as land acquisition, stormwater treatment, water quality monitoring, etc.; but there are a lot more things to do. Commissioner Cook stated land acquisition needs to be part of the list; and requested staff come back with a report on priorities and cost benefit analysis.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if the motion is to have staff fill in the list, and add the last paragraph; with Commissioner Cook responding yes. Chairman O'Brien seconded the motion; and called for a vote. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien recommended II, Habitat Protection, Water and Sediment Quality, Point Source Discharges, page 4, be changed to add, ". . .and to create a specific reasonable time when all exemptions for wastewater discharges are eliminated." He inquired if there is a time schedule when all point source discharges will be eliminated; with Mr. Peffer responding there are still point sources that will continue to operate in Brevard County; they have to meet very stringent water quality standards in order to discharge; most of the systems that were discharging into somewhat degraded water quality have been removed; and that includes all of the County's facilities. Chairman O'Brien stated this is one item that is in the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Plan, yet the MPP does not say it will achieve that goal within a reasonable time. Mr. Peffer advised the facilities the Board has control over are not discharge; however, the City of Cocoa Beach is, but the Board does not operate that facility.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if industrial discharges include the brine from the Melbourne R/O plant. She stated that is permitted, as well as 90-day wet weather discharges from plants that are operating along the lagoon even though they are not discharging daily. Commissioner Cook stated the brine is captured and not discharged; with Commissioner Higgs responding there is a brine from the R/O plant that is discharged into the river; and that is termed an industrial discharge. Commissioner Cook stated part of it is captured through filtration and disposed of as hazardous waste. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can have an objective, but there is nothing it can do to obtain that objective.

Chairman O'Brien advised County Manatee Sanctuary Resolution, page 5, says, "It is recommended that an appropriate statement be included with the MPP which recognizes Brevard County as significant manatee habitat without using language that has State or Federal regulatory significance, and which amends Brevard County Resolution which established all of Brevard County as a Manatee Sanctuary Zone." He stated it recommends an appropriate statement but does not say what that statement should be; the plan says Brevard County should not be a manatee sanctuary zone and should be a significant manatee habitat; and inquired what is the difference. Ms. Clinger advised under federal rule, a manatee sanctuary has special regulatory significance; the recommendation from the Ad Hoc Committee is to try and develop a statement that recognizes the importance of Brevard County to manatees, but steers away from language that carries regulatory significance because the Resolution was not intended to have regulatory significance. She stated the Committee felt it would create confusion to have a Resolution with manatee sanctuary zone; people who saw the signs that said manatee sanctuary saw them as regulatory and called the Marine Patrol; and the new statement is to not use language which could be misconstrued to have regulatory significance.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct the County Attorney to prepare an appropriate statement that would not have regulatory significance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if the 1:100-foot policy in Boat Facility Siting, pages 6 through 15, was meant to apply to commercial marinas. He stated if the intent of Department of Environmental Protection and the Cabinet was that policy was not to be applied to commercial marinas, it should read, "Marina siting criteria is incorporated in this plan as adopted by the Governor and Cabinet." He noted he was told the Ad Hoc Committee was advised the 1:100-foot policy applied to commercial marinas; and if the information that was given to the Committee was wrong, it would be simpler and more honest to incorporate the criteria adopted by the Governor and Cabinet.

Mr. Peffer advised the actual language does not make a distinction about commercial marinas, so it would appear they would be included because they are not listed as specifically excluded. Ms. Clinger read the portions of the document that were approved, as follows: "This policy, and the sentence above, describe the limitation on construction of new or expanded boating facilities within 13 key counties would be limited to a maximum of one power boat slip per 100 feet of linear shoreline under control by the applicant, unless the local government with jurisdiction has developed and implemented a manatee protection plan approved by the Department and a boat facility siting policy. This policy would apply to multi-slip facilities with more than five boat slips and to multi-slip expansion of more than five boat slips. This policy would not apply to applicants currently being processed by the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Regulation, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, applications for development approval of DRI currently being processed by local government, regional planning councils, or the Department of Community Affairs, or to the creation or expansion of dry storage facilities for sail boats. Such facilities will continue to be governed by the review process currently in place." Ms. Clinger advised it lists certain exemptions meaning anyone presently under review would have been exempted, but any boat facility with five or more boat slips planned to be new or expanded and requesting expansion would fall under the 1:100-foot policy according to the Governor and Cabinet.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if anyone who wants to put six slips or more, whether they be dry slips or wet slips, could not get a permit unless the Board has a manatee protection plan; with Ms. Clinger responding that is correct. Mr. Peffer noted the determining factor is the 100 feet; so if an applicant has 600 feet, he could get six slips under the current guidelines.

Commissioner Cook inquired what was done in 1986 when the Board adopted a manatee report that had all the zones; with Mr. Peffer responding it was a site specific study and more of a report than a plan. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board adopts something tonight, would it be a plan and the criteria would not apply; with Ms. Clinger responding the plan must be approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. Commissioner Cook stated the 1983 marina siting was approved by the State; with Ms. Clinger responding the 1989 recommendations pre-date this Governor and Cabinet. Commissioner Cook inquired if the 1:100 rule was approved in 1989; with Ms. Clinger responding yes.

Chairman O'Brien advised the boat facility siting part is important to the plan because it could give some relief to people who have marinas and want to expand or place dry slips in new marinas. Commissioner Cook stated he is not sure the plan gives that relief; they would still fall under the criteria of the State; so he is not sure putting criteria in the plan is going to make it easier; but if the

plan is accepted or adopted, it could open up the criteria. He stated marinas have to be State permitted; there are areas that are suitable for marinas and other areas that are not; and leaving it up to the State and saying it should be done on a site specific case-by-case basis is the best way to do it. Commissioner Voltz stated the State has ultimate control; with Commissioner Higgs responding not totally because the Board has land use control.

Mr. Peffer advised the marina facility siting plan is a requirement of the County in producing an MPP; what the Department is looking at is a comprehensive look at all the different aspects to protect manatees; so the marina siting alone would be viewed in the context of the other things that are occurring in the County with regard to manatee protection. He stated the plan and recommendation of the Committee take into consideration certain habitat features and existing usage features, and recommend a much higher marina intensity than the default scenario of the State; but it does so in the context that all the different things would be included in the plan. Commissioner Cook stated there are zones all over; and inquired what criteria is being used to say what is appropriate; with Commissioner Higgs responding there is a whole string of criteria.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended the Board return tomorrow evening to complete the plan because he does not think it will be able to finish at a reasonable time tonight. Commissioner Higgs inquired about returning tomorrow during the day as she has a commitment that night; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he cannot do it during the day. Discussion ensued on continuing the Manatee Protection Plan until Friday, July, or tomorrow night.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the hearing on the Manatee Protection Plan to 6:00 p.m. on May 21, 1997. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien advised the Board will continue to work on the plan until 10:40 p.m. then finish its agenda before leaving tonight.

Chairman O'Brien advised there are no changes recommended for the siting criteria for boating facilities. Commissioner Higgs stated she has recommendations on her list on the siting that would enhance the overall plan and put more stringent requirements on siting; and inquired if the Board wants to discuss it or go through the Chairman's list first. Chairman O'Brien advised he was going to go through it list by list. Discussion ensued on the appropriate procedure for reviewing comments from Commissioners.

Chairman O'Brien advised Marinas, Subparagraph (c), Development Guidelines and Recommendations for Dredging, page 9, says, "The creation of new navigation canals or expansion (widening and/or deepening) of existing ditches, drainage rights-of-way, drainage easements, and storm water facilities connected to the IRL to accommodate boat traffic shall be prohibited. (Existing Policy 3.8. . .)." He stated there may come a time when dredging of a canal or channel is directly related to boat traffic and water quality improvements; the plan states in numerous places that manatees enjoy being in deeper canals where they can rest, cavort, calve, and eat; it may be

beneficial to the safety of the manatee to have deeper channels and canals; and to prohibit it is contrary to the plan's information. He recommended saying, "Canal dredging shall be prohibited unless it is in the public interest as defined on page 5 of the Glossary, it does not adversely impact water quality or natural habitat, or unless activities prove maintenance dredging on existing public navigational channels and public canals, or existing marinas maintenance dredging, or deepening or widening may enhance the environment for the manatee." Chairman O'Brien stated saying no now may be doing the wrong thing because some dredging may be good; deepening a canal from three feet to five feet may be safer for the manatee; and it may actually improve water quality.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the change is to read just dredging shall be prohibited or delete the creation of new navigation channels or expansions; with Chairman O'Brien responding no, pick up where it says, "shall be prohibited" (existing Policy 3.8), and continue to say, "unless it is in the public interest as defined on page 5 of the Glossary." Commissioner Higgs inquired if all those things, creation of new navigation channels, or expansion of existing ditches, drainage rights-of-way, easements, and storm water facilities connected to the Indian River Lagoon would be prohibited unless. . .; with Chairman O'Brien responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired what happens if the Board adopts something that is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; with Mr. Knox responding the Board is not adopting the MPP as a regulatory plan, but whatever it does, it is supposed to be consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is stating it will amend the Comprehensive Plan, because it says existing Policy 3.8 of the Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element and Brevard County LDR; with Chairman O'Brien responding the Board may want to amend the Comprehensive Plan because there may come a time when dredging of a canal is directed to boat traffic and water quality improvements. He stated without the ability to do that, it is stopping itself from making water quality improvements. Commissioner Higgs objected to all the activities that are part of the sentence. Commissioner Cook stated it says, "does not adversely impact water quality or natural habitat." Chairman O'Brien stated FIND wants the County to dredge public navigational channels and canals for its grants; and if someone wants to do dredging, he would have to come and prove scientifically that it will enhance the environment for the manatee and not adversely impact water quality or the natural habitat.

Discussion ensued on creation of new navigation channels, expansion, widening and/or deepening existing ditches, drainage rights-of-way and easements, storm water, deepening canals by dredging, widening ditches for flood control, impact on water quality or natural habitat, and maintenance dredging on existing channels and canals.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to change subparagraph (c), Development Guidelines and Recommendations for Dredging, page 9, to read, "Shall be prohibited unless it is in the public interest, as defined on page 5 of the Glossary, and does not adversely impact water quality or natural habitat, or unless the activity is approved maintenance dredging on existing public navigational channels and public canals, or an existing marina's maintenance dredging, or where deepening or widening may enhance the environment for the manatee." Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien advised Water Quality, page 11, paragraph 2, says, "New seawalls or bulkheads shall be prohibited along the Indian River Lagoon except as provided in Ordinance 91-37 for private bulkheaded canals." He recommended it be changed to read, "New seawalls or bulkheads shall be prohibited along the Indian River Lagoon except as provided in Ordinance 91-37 or when the project would improve the water quality by acting as a swale and reducing the amount of pollutants which would enter the IRL, or have some public purpose." He stated the rationale is that a seawall or bulkhead may help to improve water quality, so it should not be prohibited in all cases; it could result in substantial reduction of eroded materials entering the river, and preserve property along the river; and it could benefit water quality of the IRL by reducing rain water runoff into the river.

Commissioner Scarborough expressed concern on how people would define public purpose. Chairman O'Brien stated it could end with "or when the project would improve the water quality by acting as a swale and reducing the amount of pollutants which would enter the IRL." Commissioner Higgs stated they can always put in a swale that would reduce pollutants without putting up a seawall; the detriment of seawalls to the habitat has been proven; and the recommendation is adverse to the lagoon.

Discussion ensued on defining public purpose, installation of seawalls to retain water on site, considering seawalls on an individual basis, engineering proving it will provide cleaner water, seawalls making it impossible for mangroves and marsh grass to live and thrive, Brazilian pepper trees, disturbed and pristine sites, precluding re-establishment of native vegetation, planting mangroves in front of the seawall on a percentage of the property, and whether or not the County can regulate seawalls along the Indian River.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Department of Environmental Protection has regulatory ability for seawalls along the lagoon; with Mr. Peffer responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Brevard County has regulatory ability along canals; with Mr. Peffer responding there may be some overlapping issues with regard to the County and Department of Environmental Protection on the lagoon; however, the County's jurisdiction could be divided that way, with the State looking at the lagoon's water's edge and the County at canals. Mr. Peffer advised the section is Development Guidelines and Recommendations; in many cases, the Committee provided a citation of existing Comprehensive Plan and LDR language; so they are regulations that the County already has. He inquired when the Board's dialogue directs that something be different from what exists now, is it direction to come back with amendments to the Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan in the future that would be necessary if it is substantially different; with Chairman O'Brien responding yes. Commissioner Cook stated it should be in consultation with the Attorney's Office to find out if it is really necessary or if it is just an interpretation problem.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to add, "which would enter the IRL and does not disturb existing native vegetation, or the re-establishment of native vegetation, or where the re-establishment of native vegetation is not viable."

Commissioner Higgs requested an explanation of how it will read; with Commissioner Cook responding where it says, "enter the IRL," the end would be cut off where it says "public purpose," and add "would enter the IRL where it does not disturb existing native vegetation, or the re-establishment of native vegetation, or does not prohibit the re-establishment of native vegetation, or where the reestablishment of native vegetation is not viable."

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien advised the Board will continue with its public hearings and postpone the manatee protection plan hearing until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow evening.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS

Chairman O'Brien called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Brevard County Code for towers and antennas.

Thomas Page presented an exhibit to the Board; advised of the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board on the proposed towers and antenna ordinance and of discussions with his bonding agent on the bond requirements. He stated his agent's response was that because of the economic life of the tower, possible multiple ownership, and some owners may not be bondable, it would be difficult if not impossible to find a surety company that can write a bond for that period of time. He noted his agent said if AT&T or IBM wanted to give corporate indemnity to the bonding company, they could probably get a bond, but the likelihood of individual owners or companies that never had surety bonds getting one is remote if not impossible. Mr. Page stated the mechanisms to condemn towers are already in place; if a tower is abandoned or unsafe, the building official has the authority to have the structure condemned and removed; FAA will shut down a tower and have it removed if necessary; and requested the Board delete that item from the ordinance.

Chairman O'Brien advised bonding is a nationwide problem, not just in Florida; government regulations in the past created new businesses; and this may be a new market for surety bonding agents to provide 20-year bonds even if ownership changes. He stated it is a demolition bond and not a construction or performance bond. Commissioner Higgs requested staff provided the Board with information prior to Tuesday's meeting on availability of bonds and cost.

Mary Doty, representing APT, Tampa/Orlando, Inc., a PCS provider, echoed Mr. Page's comments on bonding which is very expensive and extremely difficult to obtain and non-existent in some cases. She stated staff's reasoning for the bond requirement is that tower parcels are generally leased from property owners, and if the Code Enforcement Board enforces the Code, the lien goes against the property owner and not the tower owner; and staff felt there is a need to protect the property owners from liens due to failure of tower operators to remove towers. She stated all their leases contain provisions that require removal of the towers if abandoned; and the Local Planning Agency felt

it was not the County's responsibility to protect property owners from abandoned towers when they freely enter into agreements to lease the tower sites. Ms. Doty advised there is no correlation between five times the tower height setback, and the aesthetic impact of the tower and offsite land uses; and it would make more sense to tie the impact of the tower to offsite land uses. She stated at five times the tower height, a 200-foot tower would require a 92-acre parcel, and a 100-foot tower would require a 23-acre parcel; the setback requires the tower to be placed in the center of the parcel; and it makes it extremely difficult to obtain those parcels because not many people want to tie up the center of their properties with a 20-year lease for a tower which may preclude further development of the parcel. She noted the Local Planning Agency recommended reducing the setback to two times the tower height; that moves in the right direction, but is still restrictive; a 200-foot tower would require a 14.5-acre parcel, and a 100-foot tower would require a 3.7-acre parcel; and there is a waiver provision if the tower operator cannot meet setback requirements, but the criteria for granting waivers lack specificity, and allow the Board to approve or disapprove the tower on subjective tower criteria. Ms. Doty advised when a tower owner brings an application to the appropriate governmental body, he has spent $25 to $30,000 in site investigations, surveying, engineering, testing, etc.; and it is a risky bet after spending that kind of money to come to the Board for approval or disapproval based on unknown or subjective criteria. She stated another issue is the 3,500-foot distance between tower sites; there are approximately 42 towers existing in Brevard County; and as new tower sites come on line, and they have to work around existing tower sites, the distance could become 7,000 feet if there is a tower in the way and it is not co-locatable. She suggested a sliding scale for tower separation based on the type of tower and the height of the tower which is more supportable as it ties tower impact with aesthetics and types of towers. She stated the 3,500-foot separation for any tower could be considered arbitrary. Ms. Doty stated the Board already requires five times the tower height separation; it also requires a 50-foot existing vegetative buffer around the tower site; but the requirements around the tower site, along with the separation, more than amply cover any concerns about aesthetics of the tower base.

Donna McIntosh, Attorney representing Bell South Mobility, advised of a letter sent to the Board in response to the Local Planning Agency's meeting, summarizing the major concerns her client has with the proposed telecommunications tower ordinance. She stated the Local Planning Agency decreased the five times to two times on the setback; and that is still a strenuous requirement on behalf of Bell South Mobility, but it is better than five times. She stated the setback requirement is driven by a perception that there is a fall zone for towers and they could collapse and lay lengthwise; that is not true; towers are designed to fold over in the event of high winds; and that is proven by Hurricane Andrew experienced in South Florida. She noted if the Board could go below the two times it will help the industry and protect its citizens. Ms. McIntosh advised last meeting BU-1 and BU-2 were deleted from the permitted use category; and if it is inappropriate, they request those classifications be included in the conditional use category, and the Board consider adding GU and AU to the conditional use category, which will give the Board the ability to decide if that use is appropriate in a particular area on a case-by-case basis and provide a level of review and protection. She advised the 3,500-foot distance separation was arbitrarily selected by Brevard County; there have been no studies that they have been able to identify to support the distance; and it would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of cellular services in Brevard County. She stated the Federal

Communications Act passed last year says local governments, while they retain the authority to regulate in the area of location, placement, and construction of towers, are prohibited from adopting ordinances that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and the distance separation in the ordinance and setback requirement may have the effect of prohibiting provision of cellular services in Brevard County.

Commissioner Cook advised there is cellular service in Brevard County; and inquired at what level is Ms. McIntosh taking about; with Ms. McIntosh responding requiring towers to be further apart than the radio frequency engineering demands results in a degradation of the signal; in a high-use area, they may not get a signal; and if they cannot get enough towers in high-use area, there will not be service available. Commissioner Cook inquired if Bell South Mobility has towers in Brevard County now and is providing cellular service; with Ms. McIntosh responding yes, but they are not finished building their system. Commissioner Cook stated the service is available now; with Ms. McIntosh responding but not in all parts, and when she drove over from Seminole County, she experienced signal difficulties. Commissioner Voltz stated she has problems using her cell phone while riding around. Commissioner Cook stated Ms. McIntosh said the Board is prohibiting that service in Brevard County, but it is already here; so the Board is not prohibiting the service. Ms. McIntosh advised it will have the effect of prohibiting the service if they cannot get their towers where they need to have them to provide the service. She stated the ordinance does not say it is prohibited, but it can have the effect of prohibiting it. Commissioner Cook stated he cannot accept that as fact. Ms. McIntosh advised as service requirements pick up, more towers will be needed; and with the 3,500-foot distance, people will experience problems. She suggested a schedule for tower heights, depending on the type of tower, of 3,500 feet for lattice and guide towers, 1,500 feet between monopoles 80 feet and higher, 750 feet between monopoles less than 80 feet, and no distance requirement between camouflaged towers. She stated camouflaged towers come in a lot of different forms, including church steeples, bell towers, billboards, spires, etc. that people do not identify as a telecommunications tower, but with 3,500 feet separation, even those towers would have to be distanced from each other. Ms. McIntosh advised the ordinance requires a six-foot tall and 15-foot deep opaque landscape buffer and a 50-foot vegetative buffer around the parameter of the site, which will adequately protect the community from the appearance of the equipment building; and requested the Board delete the requirement for pitched roof and block or masonry equipment buildings. She noted the Board could add conditions under the CUP requirements if it thought something else was needed to protect the surrounding environment. She requested the County Attorney look at the waiver requirements as there are no standards established; with Mr. Knox responding he has fixed that.

B. B. Nelson advised he contacted several bonding companies, and requiring a bond is an impossible situation; the Board does not require bonds for power poles; and suggested it require $20 more for a permit, and reserve the funds to take down towers rather than require a bond. He inquired how will the County check to determine if towers are being used or not; and suggested the six months be changed to 12 months. He stated as more people use cell phones, there has to be more towers to provide the service; the ordinance makes no provision for tower farms; some areas are appropriate for tower farms that would not be visible; and in many cases FCC requires several towers to direct signals for radio stations. He stated the ordinance requires antennas on buildings to be painted, but they would not work well if painted, especially with lead paint. Mr. Nelson encouraged the Board to add BU-2 as a permitted use because it is heavy commercial; there are many places where BU-2 is appropriate for antennas if it meets other requirements; and the five times and separation distance are unreasonable and unjustified. He stated the vegetation requirement is unreasonable; engineering certification annually is unreasonable and should be every five years; and encouraged the Board to change that provision. He commented on the 30 days to take down a tower; stated the ordinance encourages concrete block buildings when pre-fab buildings look better; and unmanned requirement does not consider security where there are remote antennas. Mr. Nelson stated the Board has a moratorium on antennas, but the Sheriff is leasing its tower to PrimeCo; City of Melbourne has a moratorium, but leased space for $12,000 a year for an antenna; that is not fair government; and the moratorium should apply equally to government and citizens.

Commissioner Cook advised Section 8 allows towers in GU, AU, BU-1, BU-2, and GML zoning classifications, and any tower in excess of 200 feet shall require a public hearing for a conditional use permit. He stated the Board took BU-1 and BU-2 out of the permitted use category and put them in the conditional use category. Commissioner Voltz stated it is still there; with Commissioner Cook responding it would be in the conditional use section.

Tom Myers advised there are two parts to the ordinance; the first part has less restrictive conditions for commercial and industrial classifications where it could be permitted with conditions; and the second part is for the AU and GU classifications where they could be permitted with additional conditions to those of commercial and industrial. He stated Section 8 makes it clear that in all those classifications they can have towers with a conditional use permit (CUP), or where any tower exceeds 200 feet, or is not able to meet the conditions for the permitted use and is requesting a waiver, they could go through the CUP process.

Commissioner Voltz advised the ordinance says existing towers may be reconstructed or removed and rebuilt with up to 25 additional feet, but she thought the Board approved 50 additional feet as long as it did not go over 200 feet; with Mr. Myers responding he watched it on television and was still unclear what the Board directed, so he decided to put 25 feet so the Board could remove it and put 50 feet or no requirement as long as it did not exceed 200 feet. Commissioner Higgs advised the Board talked about 25 feet, 50 feet, and a maximum of 200 feet; and decided it could be any height as long as it did not exceed 200 feet. Commissioner Voltz stated the 25 feet should be removed. She inquired if the Board will address the five times, 3,500 feet, vegetation, and building tonight or at the last hearing; with Commissioner Cook responding he wants to review the Local Planning Agency's minutes and Ms. McIntosh's comments before addressing changes.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to forward the ordinance regulating towers and antennas to May 27, 1997 for its final hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FINAL PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING MID-YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FY 1996-97

Chairman O'Brien called for the public hearing to consider a resolution adopting the mid-year supplemental budget for FY 1996-97. He stated the first public hearing was held on April 15, 1997; he received a letter from Court Administration indicating it would be amenable to remove its request; and inquired if it was removed; with Budget Director Kathy Wall responding it was withdrawn from the April 15, 1997 submittal.

Commissioner Cook advised page 5, Public Works and Road and Bridge MSTU's, there is a balance of $772,000 and states it is appropriated for additional operating equipment and materials. He stated he recommended tracking separate MSTU's and how those monies are spent, what the law requires they be spent on, etc.; and inquired how is that being tracked; with Public Works Finance Manager Jim Helmer responding all the dollars in the MSTU funds were planned for projects that did not occur yet and were rolled forward for the current year, but stayed in the same MSTU Districts. Mr. Helmer stated they hope to have those projects that were not completed last year, completed with the cash forward this year, so those funds were appropriated again. Commissioner Cook inquired if equipment purchased with MSTU funds will only be used in that MSTU District; with Mr. Helmer responding yes, unless it is agreed to split the cost for equipment with another District.

Commissioner Cook stated page 8 has several changes to the Sheriff's Budget, such as $1,105,688 from contracted police service, $433,178 from contracted police services, $432,571 from SHOCAP Grant revenue, $709,363 from COPS grant for SRO's and K-9 unit, and maintenance of the COPS programs in the Law Enforcement MSTU. He inquired what is being referred to in the COPS in Law Enforcement MSTU. Ms. Wall advised those were the COPS approved on March 25, 1997 that replaced the SRO's the Board approved at that time; and this is to record those actions the Board took on March 25, 1997. Commissioner Cook inquired if five additional deputies were added when the Board approved the SRO's; with Ms. Wall responding yes, five COPS deputies. Commissioner Cook inquired if in addition to the SRO's, five deputies were moved into those positions; with Ms. Wall responding that is correct. Commissioner Cook inquired if the revenue from the City and Port are being transferred to the Sheriff's budget; with Ms. Wall responding yes, they contract with the Sheriff for law enforcement services. Commissioner Cook inquired if the amount for contracted service has been projected for next year; with Ms. Wall responding currently she does not have the projections for FY 1998, but spoke to the Sheriff's Office and they are working on it.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to adopt Resolution approving the Mid-Year Supplemental Budget for FY 1996-97. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 11:27 p.m. until May 21, 1997 at 6:00 p.m.

Chairman O'Brien advised the Board continued discussion on the manatee protection plan until this evening; and it will continue going through the Commissioners' comments from where it left off on May 20, 1997. He advised page 11, Other Issues, says, "The provisions of this plan shall not preempt or nullify any other restrictive federal, state or local regulation that applies. . . ." and recommended it be changed to read, "The provisions of this plan shall preempt or nullify any other restrictive federal, state or local regulation, to the extent authorized by law, that applies unless it is in the public interest and scientifically proven to be in the best interest of preserving the endangered species manatee. No further or superior regulation or provisions of this plan shall be implemented by any other governmental entity without specific scientific data and correct analysis to affect change. The Board of County Commissioners shall have the right to hold public hearings concerning any new provisions and either accept or deny the newly requested restrictions, provisions, or regulations." He stated without in-depth scientific data and analysis, more restrictive regulation could be implemented by any other governmental entity and impose upon Brevard County regulations and possibly costly expenditures of taxpayers money. He noted scientific data must be presented rather than a generalized, not proven methodology, or simple ideology.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board can prohibit any other governmental entity from providing more restrictive regulations; with Assistant County Attorney Katherine Harasz responding the Board cannot bind the State or federal government; and that is why the phrase "to the extent authorized by law" is included. She stated the State or federal government may consent to additional hearings, but they could only do it by consent, just as the federal government consented to allow the County to regulate nudity on Playalinda Beach. She stated "to the extent authorized by law" would mean that the federal or state government decided to consent to Brevard County's regulation.

Commissioner Higgs stated they have not done that; with Ms. Harasz responding they may in the future, and if they do not, they do not have to do what is in the plan and can adopt regulations without public hearings and the requested data. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board already discussed items that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; they have not gone through public hearings; so what is the effect of this change; with Ms. Harasz responding to the extent it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan would have to control; however, the Board has not followed the public hearing process to adopt this plan as an ordinance or regulation; and it would have to go through that process in order to adopt it as a regulation. She stated if the Board wants to amend the Comprehensive Plan, it would have to go through the Chapter 163 process. Commissioner Higgs stated the change says it nullifies local regulations; with Chairman O'Brien responding it nullifies any other more restrictive local regulation that applies unless it is in the public interest. Commissioner Higgs inquired what will apply; with Ms. Harasz responding the regulations the County has in effect will apply because of the status of this plan.

Commissioner Cook advised Mr. Knox said it is not a regulatory document; it is a plan being sent to the State as recommendations; and it is the State that has the regulatory power. Ms. Harasz advised Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, dictates the public hearing procedures the Board has to follow in order to adopt an ordinance and regulate; to amend the Comprehensive Plan, it has to follow provisions of Chapter 163; and this is not a regulatory hearing and has not been advertised.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board is not going to adopt the plan; with Commissioner Cook responding it will adopt it as a set of recommendations to send to the State; however, it will not be a regulatory document. Ms. Harasz stated it will not yet be binding. Commissioner Cook stated if the State accepts it, then it can implement it; it is the regulatory agency, not the Board; Department wanted local input so the County entered into an agreement to provide a set of recommendations that it wants to see the State implement; however, whether it does or not, the Board has no jurisdiction over the State. Commissioner Voltz stated Virginia Wetherell said the County can make changes to the plan, but if they are not more restrictive, they are not going to take it; with Commissioner Cook responding they may accept parts of it; and the letter seemed to indicate that, but when he talked to Secretary Wetherell, she was open to any input the Board wanted to give Department of Environmental Protection. He noted she made no commitments they would accept or reject anything, but she did indicate they were very firm about the speed zones in Sykes Creek.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the plan is not going to be the County's document; it is going to be something the State agency adopts; and the Board is trying to do something that is not within its purview. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees, and there are parts of the plan that should be deleted and left up to the State. Chairman O'Brien stated if the Board makes the changes he is requesting, it will send a message that the Board does not want any agency walking in and dictating what can and cannot be done and local government has no choice or say on the issues. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is where the Board is now; Department of Environmental Protection did not have to come here, but it did; and it contracted to come up with a plan, and it is going to be their plan. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to make the changes it wants whether the State likes it or not, to send a message saying this is what the Board wants.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board accepted the money and entered into a contractual relationship with the State to develop a plan; it is obligated to send a plan; it is obligated to have a plan under its Comprehensive Plan, unless it is amended; and it is a part of the State whose citizens elect representatives who are part of the law-making process. She stated the Board has an obligation to the species, its citizens, boaters, and environmentalists to do the best job it can, and to send a plan that it thinks is reasonable and fair. Commissioner Cook stated he was trying to clarify the issue because people may have a mistaken view of what the Board is doing with this plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated many people think the Board has the final authority, and because of that, it has become a confrontational issue; they should have looked at it as a means to express a community consensus to the State; and it has wasted a lot of time over three and a half years.

Chairman O'Brien asked Mr. Peffer to comment on the situation. Mr. Peffer advised the State treats the County with a set of default criteria; it deals with manatee issues according to those default criteria; however, if the County and State can reach agreement on a plan, the State would use that plan to make decisions regarding manatees in Brevard County. He stated that is the draft the Board is working on today; and after it is transmitted to the State, there should be further negotiations so the County and State can agree on all points, or try to achieve some level of agreement. He stated once they have more or less reached that agreement, in order to get away from the default criteria, the Board would have to adopt the plan by ordinance; and it is not at that point or even close to it tonight. Commissioner Cook inquired where Mr. Peffer got that from; with Ms. Clinger responding out of the Governor and Cabinet's Approved Recommendations to Approve Boating Safety, 1989. Commissioner Cook inquired if it says the Board has to adopt the plan as an ordinance. Ms. Clinger read language from the Recommendations on the issue of the 1:100 ratio default scenario, as follows: "The construction of new or expanded boat facilities within 13 key counties would be limited to a maximum of one power boat slip per 100 feet of linear shoreline under control by the applicant, unless the local government with jurisdiction has developed and implemented by appropriate ordinance, a manatee protection plan approved by the Department and a boat facility siting policy." She stated the next paragraph describes who it applies to; and the paragraph after that says, "A duly adopted local ordinance would be considered in compliance with the above requirements once it is adopted and effective, and the Department of Natural Resources has determined it will protect manatees and their habitat." Commissioner Cook stated having talked to Secretary Wetherell, there is no negotiation; if the Board sends the State something it does not like, it will reject it; the Board cannot pass an ordinance the State is not going to accept; otherwise it violates the 1:100 rule and is void. He stated there is a misperception that if the Board sends a plan, the State will accept 100% of it; but it is essentially the State's plan because it has veto power. Commissioner Higgs advised if the Board can come up with a comprehensive manatee protection plan that may get the State to back off the default criteria and restrictions on manatee zones for boats, and provide flexibility with the 1:100 rule because of other provisions in the plan, the County may get a better solution for both the manatees and the siting of boating facilities.

Discussion ensued on adoption of an ordinance, responsibility for implementation of the plan, siting of marinas, speed zones, default criteria, additional fees, Marine Patrol, habitat protection, educational programs, partnership with the State, what happens if the State rejects the plan, what would be gained and/or lost, what the State may do with the plan, local participation, leaving siting of marinas up to the State, access to the waterway, enhancing the lagoon and habitat to protect manatees, educating boaters, political changes, working together, lack of science, input into what affects Brevard County, negotiations, changes to the plan, and sending a good plan to the State.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the plan says, "The provisions of this plan shall not preempt or nullify any more restrictive federal or state. . . ."; it will not preempt anything that is less restrictive; the County is the subordinate body and the State has control; so the whole thing should be stricken.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to delete Other Issues on page 11 of the Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien advised Boat Ramps, Boat Facility Siting Zone B (Barge Canal), page 14, mid-paragraph says, "(with the exception of the proposed Brevard County ramp for the west end of the Barge Canal described below)"; that should be deleted because those boat ramps cannot be constructed; FDOT said it would not allow access from SR 528, and Representative Howard Futch indicated his willingness to seek the construction of ramps on State-owned property located west of Abby's Marina.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the change is to strike the west end and not exempt all boat ramps; with Chairman O'Brien responding just the enclosure, as it has no meaning at this time and is not proposed. Commissioner Higgs stated it develops a policy that says there are going to be no more ramps on the Barge Canal. Commissioner Cook advised it goes back to boat facility siting and beyond the scope of where the plan should be; and if the Board is going to do something about facility sitings, it should have an ordinance and public hearings. He stated the whole boat siting section should be deleted from the plan.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to delete boat facility siting section from the manatee protection plan.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if it includes pages 9 through 13 of the plan. Chairman O'Brien inquired if it is from page 6 through 16; with Commissioner Cook responding up to the speed zones, but not deleting the speed zones. Chairman O'Brien stated it is pages 6 through 15. Commissioner Cook stated all of C which is the boat siting criteria. Commissioner Higgs disagreed, and stated those pages contain information on how the County would site boat facilities, limit features, review habitat issues, and set out objective criteria that could be applied in situations. She stated the attempt is to move to an objective as opposed to subjective analysis of where those facilities should go; and eventually the Board would adopt an ordinance including that information and have a public hearing. She stated page 13 lists criteria for variances; it allows the ability to take into consideration particular items; so she cannot support taking that out as it is an important part of the plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated his concerns about acquiring development rights, but indicated support for overall guidelines and having some criteria rather than backing off. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board is going to do it, it should look at an ordinance rather than include it in a plan. Discussion continued on how to deal with boat facilities, restrictive requirements, and Port St. John, Kennedy Point and Stosberg Park boat ramps.

Commissioner Cook advised page 9 says it will change current zoning regulations to allow for residential marinas as a permitted use; he cannot commit to change zoning in a plan; it would be illegal because it requires public hearings; so the Board should say it will consider all that criteria, but not commit to it as a matter of law. Commissioner Higgs suggested a statement in the plan that a number of aspects to the plan would require adoption in an ordinance and public hearings; and noted all the hearings on the plan over the years and its circulation to the cities and public, providing opportunities for dialogue on the issues and thorough review; and stated failure to include a siting plan will doom the possible success of the manatee protection plan.

Chairman O'Brien advised Appendix 3, FDEP Guidelines for MPP's, second paragraph, says, "Boat facility siting elements are necessary components of area specific manatee protection plans. Boat facility siting must address marinas, wet slips and dry storage, and boat ramps. The objectives of boat facility siting plans are to determine appropriate dock densities in particular areas and to develop criteria for designating special use areas, i.e. for water skiing, jet skiing, commercial fishing."

Commissioner Cook stated the Board needs a disclaimer that just because zoning changes, etc. are in the plan does not mean the Board has committed to it; there is a procedure it has to go through, required by law, for enactment of ordinances; and inquired why would the Board have a public hearing to enact an ordinance if it has already decided what the ordinance will be.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem gutting the plan; he was told it will be easier for existing facilities to expand; it has parameters but will be more liberal than not doing it; and there are some good things that the Board may regret throwing out. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board has a plan, it may have something better than the default criteria. Commissioner Cook stated his problem is procedural and not criteria for marinas or protecting manatees; however, there should

be something that says because the Board adopts it as part of the plan does not obligate it to go forward with an ordinance or to the particular criteria being part of an ordinance because this is not a public hearing to adopt an ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would come back for a public hearing to adopt an ordinance, and at that time the Board could alter it.

Chairman O'Brien stated the State should pass laws about marina siting so it will be equal throughout the entire State. Commissioner Voltz recommended putting it in the legislative package. Commissioner Cook stated it is the State's prerogative. Commissioner Higgs stated the State has a default criteria of 1:100; that is what it will go by unless there is something else that allows some flexibility such as the plan. Commissioner Higgs called a question on the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what was the motion; with Commissioner Cook responding to delete the whole section, but he will agree to change it if there is language that will address his concerns. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about reference to the Barge Canal being removed; with Chairman O'Brien responding if FDEP wants a ramp for the clamming industry, it can build it on the 24 acres it owns and can pay for it.

Commissioner Cook withdrew the motion; and requested the County Attorney come up with language that would address his concerns. Discussion ensued on a boat ramp in the Barge Canal as referenced in the plan.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to delete "for the establishment of a new public or private boat ramp for public use (with the exception of the proposed Brevard County ramp for the west end of the Barge Canal described below), the requirements for construction shall be the same as the requirements for development of a new marina or the expansion of an exiting marina in excess of 1:100, as described in Section II D, Boat Facility Siting Zone B."

Commissioner Higgs stated there will be no criteria. Chairman O'Brien stated there is criteria previously addressed in the plan. Mr. Peffer advised the plan is saying facility siting ratio in the Barge Canal will be 1:100 except the one proposed for Brevard County; and the Board is saying to treat the whole area the same and not make an exception. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Chairman O'Brien is concerned about a boat ramp being imposed on the County; with Chairman O'Brien responding that is part of it, and the other part is that the west end of the Barge Canal is inaccessible. Commissioner Scarborough recommended including "any sitings in the Barge Canal must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners." The Board discussed the proposed language of having any boat ramp and marina come to the Board for approval, the referenced ramp is not a County ramp and is a FDEP ramp for the clamming industry, money collected from clammers to build ramps, traffic hazards on SR 528, the 1:100 Rule, same criteria for everybody, and trying to anticipate every situation.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to delete "with the exception of the proposed Brevard County ramp for the west end of the Barge Canal described below."

Commissioner Cook withdrew his previous motion.

Chairman O'Brien call for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to require all boat ramps and marina sitings to come to the Board of County Commissioners for review.

Chairman O'Brien inquired where would the wording be placed in the plan; with Commissioner Cook responding wherever appropriate. Chairman O'Brien recommended 5th paragraph, page 14, 3. Boat Ramps.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if municipalities should have jurisdiction in their areas, and if it should be part of the motion; with Commissioner Cook responding yes.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board adopts the language on sitings and comes back with language that says the Board of County Commissioners must approve everything, what does the other language mean; with Ms. Harasz responding it will first be a permit issue with FDEP, and the Board may be putting another layer of permitting where the applicant has to come to the Board or city council to put in a structure. Commissioner Cook stated FDEP may approve something the Board may totally object to, so the Board should be plugged in as well as the cities. Commissioner Scarborough stated FDEP may be oblivious to upland problems that some water activities create. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner Cook wants to insert another layer of government control; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it is not duplicative because FDEP looks at one issue and the Board will be looking at the upland impacts, traffic flows, etc.

The Board discussed a new conditional use permit for boat ramps, addressing health and safety issues not addressed by FDEP, commenting when FDEP considers permits, and working out a review procedure. Ms. Clinger advised there is no zoning classification for marinas in Brevard County so they must come to the Board as a CUP; and the Board will have review through that process. Commissioner Cook stated so there is nothing wrong with putting it in the plan.

Commissioner Voltz advised if a person who gets a permit from FDEP to put in a boat facility has to get a building permit from the County, the Board could look at all the issues at that time. Commissioner Cook stated that is administrative. Ms. Harasz stated a CUP would go through a public hearing process, but a building permit would not.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien advised Commissioner Scarborough wants to discuss page 15, Site Specific Recommendations.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended subparagraph 1, regarding Port St. John ramp be deleted. He stated there are problems trying to cut a channel from Manatee Hammock Park that would probably be disruptive to the lagoon, so it is not a prudent thing to do.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to delete page 15, Site Specific Recommendations, subparagraph 1, "It is recommended that Brevard County develop a new major boat ramp facility at Manatee Hammock Park and that the Port St. John boat ramp should open to non-motorized vessels only once the new ramp is open to the public." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to change page 15, Site Specific Recommendations, subparagraph 2, to read, "It is recommended that Florida Department of Environmental Protection develop a new boat ramp on the west end of the Canaveral Barge Canal." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended changing page 24, paragraph 2, 25 mph Zone, Sykes Creek Channel (SR 528, Audubon Bridge excluding the "S" curve) be changed to read, "reducing the risk of collisions with boat docks, as well as substantially reducing wake damage to waterfront properties, and protecting the eastern shore berm, which is the border of a significant wildlife sanctuary and wetland which includes many different types of endangered birds and animals from severe erosion and eventual breach. Although there have been frequent manatee found dead in Sykes Creek, those deaths are mainly attributable to perinatal death and other causes. There is a severe lack of known manatee mortality data attributable to the recreational boater upon Sykes Creek, especially since the County Code (Brevard County Code 122, Sec. 122-29, CDD 122:6) established the slow speed zones outside of the channel. Without the empirical data, the existing regulation would be deemed inappropriate for Sykes Creek. There is a historical lack of boating accidents in Sykes Creek except for the "S" curve which should remain slow speed in the interest of safety. This proposed reversion is therefore appropriate."

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to amend page 24, paragraph 2, 25 mph Zone, Sykes Creek Channel (SR 528, Audubon Bridge excluding the "S" curve), Rationale, to add after "reducing the risk of collisions with boat docks, as well as substantially reducing wake damage to waterfront properties," "and protecting the eastern shore berm, which is the border of a significant wildlife sanctuary and wetland which includes many different types of endangered birds and animals from severe erosion and eventual breach. Although there have been frequent manatee found dead in Sykes Creek, those deaths are mainly attributable to perinatal death and other causes. There is a severe lack of known manatee mortality data attributable to the recreational boater upon Sykes Creek, especially since the County Code (Brevard County Code 122, Sec. 122-29, CDD 122:6) established the slow speed zones outside of the channel. Without the empirical data, the existing regulation would be deemed inappropriate for Sykes Creek. There is a historical lack of boating accidents in Sykes Creek except for the "S" curve which should remain slow speed in the interest of safety. This proposed reversion is therefore appropriate."

Commissioner Higgs advised it will modify the speed zone that is there and decrease the level of regulation in that area of Sykes Creek; it is an important area for manatee; so she will not support reducing the speed zone in that area. Chairman O'Brien stated he just added to the rationale.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 30, Item H., Navigational Channel Markings, be changed to read, "The navigational channel throughout Sykes Creek, from SR 528 to SR 520, shall be clearly marked on both sides. Funding source: FIND." He also recommended adding paragraph 3 to say, "Funding for manatee signage shall not be derived from the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND). FDEP shall fund all manatee signage in Brevard County." He stated FIND funds are derived from the taxpayers of Brevard County; saving the manatee is a State responsibility; and local tax dollars are needed to mark channels, but not to warn of manatee zones. He advised use of FIND funds for manatee signage reduces the funding available for many needed projects and the much needed marking of the waterways for safety; and it was never intended to pay for manatee protection signs.

Commissioner Higgs advised Florida Statute 374.977 requires inland navigation districts to be responsible for manatee protection speed zones and responsible for sign posting; it reads, "Each inland navigation district shall be responsible for posting and maintaining regulatory markers," not should, or would, or may be. Chairman O'Brien accepted the requirement; and recommended a motion to put in the legislative package that FIND money not be used for manatee protection signs, but for navigational safety issues only.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to include in the legislative package a request to the Legislature to change the law so that FIND dollars shall not used for manatee signage, but for safety and channel markings for navigational reasons, and FDEP pay for the signage. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 30, Item J, Maintenance Dredging Projects, be amended to say, "It is recommended that all access channels be dredged and maintained at five-foot depths at mean low water," rather than just the three access channels on the east shore. He stated throughout the plan there is data stating manatees utilize canals throughout Brevard County for resting, calving, and cavorting; the channels are also the routes for manatees to enter and leave canals; and the five-foot depth would protect them from boat collision and offer warm water refuge. Commissioner Higgs asked Ms. Clinger what is the implication of all access channels. Ms. Clinger responded there were several access channels on the east shore of Merritt Island that were shoaled in, making access into the residential canals difficult; the Committee recommended, as a starting point, looking at all of those on the east side of Merritt Island because they are known to have a shoaling problem; and the Committee talked about setting up a subcommittee to look at all the canals in the County and work forward from there. She stated the Committee felt the three should be addressed first because of their known problems. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many access channels are there; with Chairman O'Brien responding four or five more on the west side of Merritt Island, a few in Titusville, and one or two in District 3. He noted Cocoa Beach has a lot of them also. Commissioner Higgs inquired if an access channel is different than a canal; with Ms. Clinger responding an access channel typically leads from a main channel to the residential canals.

Discussion continued on locations of access channels, not limiting the plan to three access channels, depth of the channels, water drawn by different types of boats, and protecting manatees with five feet of water depth.

Commissioner Higgs suggested, "It is recommended that channels be dredged and maintained for navigation and manatee mobility, unless it is proven to be detrimental to the public interest." Commissioner Cook inquired if the five feet would not be put in the plan; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, it would not set a level. Chairman O'Brien agreed with the suggestion.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to amend page 30, Item J, to read, "It is recommended that access to channels be dredged and maintained for navigation and manatee mobility, unless it is proven to be detrimental to the public interest."

Commissioner Cook inquired who would determine public interest; with Commissioner Higgs responding the public agency that approves the projects.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 31, Item K, Law Enforcement Recommendations, be changed to read, "It is recommended the FDEP continue to work with the Legislature and the Governor to increase the budget of the FMP to allow for additional officers in Brevard County for the purpose of providing greater law enforcement for boating safety, manatee protection and. . . ." the rest of the sentence, instead of Brevard County raising boating registration fees.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to change page 31, Item K, Law Enforcement Recommendations, to read, "It is recommended the FDEP continue to work with the Legislature and Governor to increase the budget of the FMP to allow for additional officers in Brevard County for the purpose of providing greater law enforcement for boating safety, manatee protection, and boater education by specifically implementing the following: (See Appendix 7)."

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would delete the law enforcement part of the plan and preclude raising boater registration fees; with Chairman O'Brien responding that is his purpose. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not mind asking FDEP to work with the Legislature to increase the Marine Patrol budget, but she is in favor of funding additional law enforcement personnel, whether it is the Sheriff's Office or FMP, to protect people who are out there as well as manatees, so she cannot support the motion.

Discussion ensued on the FMP being a State-funded police, out-of-county boaters, statewide increase in boater registration fees, additional revenues for local law enforcement, requesting

additional Marine Patrol officers in the legislative package for the past three years, applying the fee to adjoining counties, and assurance of receiving the increment mark of additional funding.

Mr. Peffer advised there is a way to assure the money will come to Brevard County. Commissioner Scarborough stated will it be such that the money will come to Brevard County and the State not fund the balance the County would normally get; with Mr. Peffer responding the assurance he received is that there would not be any reduction of the already State-funded positions; however, the County may lose out if the State was intending to give it additional officers and found out the County did that and would divert it somewhere else. He stated they were assured that there would be a net increase in number of positions funded. Chairman O'Brien stated a surcharge is not added to every car in Brevard County to pay for more Highway Patrol officers; and FDEP should lobby the Legislature to provide counties like Brevard with ample FMP on their waters. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board could say it will pass a fee increase only if adjoining counties do the same; with Mr. Peffer responding he will check with staff, but understands the Board's empowerment under the Florida Statutes is specifically to Brevard County and not any other county. Ms. Clinger advised Florida Statute 327.22 allows the Board to add the fee to all boats stored or used in Brevard County, but it would have to develop a mechanism to do that.

The Board continued discussion on a boater registration fee, a mechanism to implement the fee, adequate law enforcement on the waterways, people with several boats having to pay the fee several times, out-of-county boaters using facilities, the fee increase providing leverage to work with the State, and the Chairman going to the State to discuss funding FMP.

Commissioner Cook advised his impression, after talking to Secretary Wetherell, was they would like to see the County do it, but it is a State function, and it would not be something that would cause rejection of the plan. He inquired if it would delete that portion of the plan that says the County will raise boating registration fees; with Chairman O'Brien responding yes.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Cook, Voltz, and O'Brien voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 7:59 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m.

Chairman O'Brien advised the last motion eliminated the rest of the law enforcement recommendations; and Mr. Peffer wants to make sure the motion deleted paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. He stated the motion actually meant to delete paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Chairman O'Brien recommended adding to page 32, Item M, Ways to Reduce Other Causes of Manatee Mortality, before "Canal Locks", several recommendations.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to add to page 32, Item M, Ways to Reduce Other Causes of Manatee Mortality, before Canal Locks, "It is recommended that U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, FDEP, and other cooperating agencies and organizations participate and fully fund research to develop programs to eliminate, or

substantially reduce manatee mortality due to perinatal death, disease and bacterial infection in cold stress. Research funding should be substantially increased for the development of high-bred, fast growing grasses the manatee ingest. It is further recommended that the State of Florida and FDEP restructure funding of manatee protection programs to accommodate the necessary and crucial research required. Supporting data indicates that manatee deaths are caused by disease, perinatal death, and bacterial infection in substantially larger numbers (76%) than boat collision. Because of this, to save the manatee, intensive research should be the highest financial priority." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 34, Item O, Education Initiative, Recommended Educational Programs, paragraph 1, be changed to "Establishment of a Manatee Education Volunteer Program" instead of a Manatee Education Coordinator and Volunteer Program. He stated an educational coordinator is not necessary; and a volunteer corps could be created to go to the schools, public forums, boat clubs, homeowners associations, etc. and give presentations concerning education about manatees. Chairman O'Brien also recommended deletion of "The program shall require the creating and funding of an Education/Volunteer Coordinator position. The Education Coordinator shall be responsible for implementing the MPP Education Initiative, seeking and applying for grant funds for Initiative items and continued funding for the Education Coordinator position, recruiting and coordinating the volunteers, and developing and implementing ideas for volunteer projects"; and change it to read "The manatee education volunteer shall be responsible for implementing the MPP education initiative. . . ." He stated volunteers would not collect mileage for transportation, would not require office space, computers, retirement benefits, health insurance, and other employee benefits; and they would be able to travel to any destination within a Commission District in a reasonable amount of time. He stated using volunteers instead of a paid coordinator is a good use of time; reduces costs to zero; and allows the community to participate in a meaningful manner.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to change page 34, Item O, Education Initiative, Recommended Educational Programs, paragraph 1, to read "Establishment of a Manatee Education Volunteer Program"; delete "The program should require the creating and funding of an education/volunteer coordinator position. . . ."; and add, "The manatee education volunteer shall be responsible for implementing the MPP education initiative. . . ."

Commissioner Cook inquired if the motion is to delete the paid coordinator and establish a manatee education committee made up of volunteers; with Chairman O'Brien responding yes. Commissioner Cook advised Secretary Wetherell indicated they are going to have a paid coordinator, at the time he talked to her about a year ago, and the State would paid for it. He stated even if the FDEP pays for a coordinator, it does not preclude the Board from having a manatee committee of volunteers who would go out and educate people to protect the manatees; so he supports a volunteer committee. Commissioner Scarborough suggested putting in the plan a coordinator paid by the State if it is going to happen.

Discussion ensued on a paid coordinator versus a volunteer committee, including it in or excluding it from the plan, a Florida Marine Patrol officer as coordinator, not a full-time job, State's position, coordinator for education and habitat improvement, use of volunteers, FDEP willing to fund the position shows significance of it, and objections to the County paying for the coordinator.

Commissioner Voltz advised the plan states, "The potential partnership matching fund program is presently being evaluated to fund this position. Potential participants for the cash match to support the position include FDEP, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Florida Marine Patrol, Florida Sea Grant Assistance Program, and Brevard County." Chairman O'Brien stated his next recommendation is to eliminate the last part of that sentence. Commissioner Voltz stated the State is assuming somebody else is going to pay for it. Commissioner Higgs stated the plan needs to be corrected to reference that FDEP offered to pay for it. Commissioner Cook stated it was not an official offer. Discussion continued on a paid coordinator's position and who would pay for it.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to request the FDEP fund a Marine Patrol officer for the manatee education program and the County establish a manatee education volunteer program.

The Board discussed whether or not an FMP would be proper, training requirements, sworn officer in different pay category, changing it to manatee education volunteer program, and what the School Board is doing for manatee education. Chairman O'Brien recommended changing the title to Establishment of the Manatee Education Volunteer Program, and deleting references to education coordinator. Discussion continued on the State's desire to have a paid coordinator, including in the plan what is being done in the school system, what the County has done, and that the Board will establish a volunteer program to supplement the education coordinator, the Board appointing the members to the volunteer committee, funding staff for the committee, and using FDEP's funds for an educational program.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to include in the MPP the projects and programs already in existence and that the Board will establish a manatee education volunteer program.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion would include accepting any funds from the State to fund a full-time coordinator for the program; with Commissioner Voltz responding no. Discussion ensued on funds from the State.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to list the existing programs with the schools, etc., and add Brevard County will establish a manatee education volunteer program, and recognize that the State intends to fund a manatee education coordinator.

Discussion continued on the coordinator working for FDEP in conjunction with other County programs, funding the volunteer program, and coordinating with the School Board. Commissioner Voltz called a question on the motion.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 34, Item O, Education Initiative, Recommended Educational Programs, paragraph 1, Potential Funding Sources, be changed to delete "and Brevard County (cash match or in-kind services)."

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to amend page 34, Item O, Education Initiative, Recommended Educational Programs, paragraph 1, Potential Funding Sources, to delete "and Brevard County (cash match or in-kind services)." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 35, Item C), paragraph 4, change, "A Brevard County manatee educational video has been developed and is available for distribution." to "A Brevard County manatee educational video has been developed and is available for distribution after review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. In addition to the video, a slide presentation with a script should be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval." He stated the Board is responsible for the quality, content, and presentation of all materials that go out to the public; it is important that it not adopt by default any educational materials which may be biased or present incomplete information or information that is deceptive or incorrect; and some information he saw last night was outside the bounds of good taste in education because it did not address the reality of the situation.

Commissioner Cook recommended just review and not approval because it sounds like censorship. Discussion ensued on who will review the videos, responsibility for educational materials, and information going out to the public via the plan.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to amend page 35, Item C), paragraph 4, last two sentences, to read, "A Brevard County manatee educational video has been developed and is available for distribution after review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. In addition to the video, a slide presentation with a script should be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval."

Discussion continued on a procedure to review the videos, sending videos to Commission offices for review, censorship, other documents from the County not reviewed and approved by the Board, education on manatee protection being biased, irrational and inflammatory at times, boats not being the major cause of manatee deaths, more research needed, and letting the committee do the review.

Commissioner Cook withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend page 35, Item C), paragraph 4, last two sentences, to read, "A Brevard County manatee educational video has

been developed and is available for distribution after review by the Manatee Education Volunteer Program. In addition to the video, a slide presentation with a script should be presented to the Program for approval." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 36, paragraph 5, Development of a Public Announcement Series, Description, be changed to, "A series of Public Service Announcements (PSAs) will be developed, each focusing on a different aspect of manatee protection and boating safety and shall be presented to the volunteers appointed by the County Commissioners for approval before it is shown to the public in Brevard County."

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to amend page 36, paragraph 5, Development of a Public Announcement Series, Description, to read, "A series of Public Service Announcements (PSAs) will be developed, each focusing on a different aspect of manatee protection and boating safety, and shall be presented to the volunteers appointed by the County Commissioners for approval before it is shown to the public in Brevard County." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 39, paragraph 14, Development of an Interactive Manatee Education Computer Program, Description, be changed to, "This program should include key information on habitat, behavior, biology, human-manatee conflicts. . . ." and delete the need for safe warm water refuges. He stated the Board asked for a study on whether the warm water refuge at OUC and FP&L plants is the best route to go; and the reason he wants it deleted is because there is no proof that the warm water refuges are healthy for the manatee. Commissioner Higgs suggested including the effects of warm water discharges on manatees so it can be discussed as key information. Commissioner Cook stated it could be part of the committee's job to review those types of educational programs. Chairman O'Brien stated it should then read "This program should include key information on habitat, behavior, biology, human-manatee conflicts, and effects of warm water discharges on manatees as reviewed by the volunteer committee."

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to amend page 39, paragraph 14, Development of an Interactive Manatee Education Computer Program, Description, to, "This program should include key information on habitat, behavior, biology, human-manatee conflicts and effects of warm water discharges on manatees as reviewed by the volunteer committee." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 39, Item 14, Development of an Interactive Manatee Education Computer Program, Description, delete "safe warm water refuges"; and Item 15, Development of a Manatee Education and Information Segment on Computer Bulletin Board/Internet, Description, should include, "All postings created by staff or Brevard County government committees for the Internet or bulletin board shall require the approval of the volunteer committee."

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to amend page 39, Item 14,

deleting "safe warm water refuges", and Item 15, adding, "All postings created by staff or Brevard County government committees for the Internet or bulletin board shall require the approval of the volunteer committee." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 40, Item 19, Development of Manatee Educational Curriculum, Description, be changed to delete "need for safe warm water refuges", because there is no proof that the warm water refuge provided by OUC and FP&L are healthy for the manatee, so it should not be part of any educational program until empirical scientific research has been completed. Commissioner Cook inquired what is the curriculum for since there is already a curriculum in the School System; with Chairman O'Brien responding this curriculum would probably be a new one developed for the School Board by the paid coordinator, or the Save the Manatee Club, or anybody. Chairman O'Brien stated the educational part is most important, but the information should be accurate and not inflammatory rhetoric.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to have the curriculum on safe warm water refuges reviewed by the volunteer committee.

Chairman O'Brien recommended adding at the end of the sentence which reads, "and the avenues for getting involved with existing manatee clubs and programs", "however, the curriculum should warn that manatee clubs and programs may be biased and offer information which may be deceiving, lack critical information, and offer an unbalanced viewpoint to the children of Brevard County."

Commissioner Cook stated it should not be included in the plan because it would do the same thing that is being done to boaters. Commissioner Higgs stated there has been inaccurate information from both sides; it is not accurate to present one side as not totally presenting all the facts; the Board wants an accurate scientific rational program to present to the public; and it should be reviewed by the volunteer committee. Chairman O'Brien stated if there is no support, he will continue.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 41, Education Initiative Implementation Recommendations, paragraph 1, be changed to delete the entire paragraph and change paragraph 2 to paragraph 1, because there is no grant-funded education coordinator in the plan.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is going to fund the activities of the volunteer committee; with Chairman O'Brien responding funding may not be required; it is not difficult to develop the curriculum because materials are available from staff and other counties; and it may get off to a slow start without a coordinator or staff assistance, but it can be done. He stated those people who will volunteer care about manatees and want to educate others about them; and to insist that hundreds of hours of staff time would be required is not true. Commissioner Higgs stated it will require reproduction of materials and other things; and inquired if the Board will fund those things; with Commissioner Cook responding sure. Commissioner Higgs suggested putting it in the plan that the Board will fund materials, the committee, and other educational things because it is something good that the Board is doing.

Discussion ensued on what the committee can do, educational information from Save the Manatee Club, and changing paragraph 2 to 1.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to delete all of paragraph 1, Implementation Responsibility, on page 41, and change paragraph 2, Implementation Schedule, to paragraph 1. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 41, Item P, Education Coordinator Funding, be deleted.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to delete Item P, Education Coordinator Funding, on page 41.

Commissioner Higgs suggested stating, "It is recommended that FDEP provide funding for the education coordinator position."

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to add to Item P, Education Coordinator Funding, "It is recommended that FDEP provide full funding for the education coordinator position." Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 41, Item R, Reconnection of Banana Creek, be changed to say, "The FDEP shall communicate with the Army Corps of Engineers and diligently coordinate their efforts to reconnect Banana Creek. This reconnection, as pointed out historically in this plan, is imperative and critical to the protection of the endangered species Manatee. The reconnection will substantially reduce the number of manatees which presently traverse the Barge Canal from the Indian River Lagoon to the Banana River and back. In order to preserve the safety of the manatee and to accommodate the public, the number of manatees which use the Barge Canal should be substantially reduced. In addition, Banana Creek was historically used by manatees as a travel corridor between the Indian and Banana River Lagoons. The development of the Space Shuttle crawler-way bisected Banana Creek. Manatees continue to use both the Indian and Banana River sides of the now disconnected creek. The entire creek is in the NASA security zone and closed to the public. (Source: Page 7, Manatee Planning Zone 2 - Indian River, Turnbull Basin to NASA Causeway.)" He stated it would put some pressure on the federal government to make the reconnection.

Commissioner Higgs suggested a feasibility study of the reconnection to determine the cost/benefit ratio. She stated she made a few inquiries on whether or not it is imperative and critical to reconnect, and no one could substantiate it at this time; nor has she seen documentation that says the back and forth activity occurs, and by reconnecting it would get the manatees to traverse the old connection as opposed to the Barge Canal. She stated because the Board wants to be sure it is scientifically correct, it should recommend that the feasibility and advisability of the reconnection be investigated by FDEP. Chairman O'Brien stated page 7 of the Plan states, "In addition, Banana Creek was historically used by manatees as a travel corridor between the Indian River and Banana River Lagoons." Commissioner Higgs stated she is not disputing it was a travel corridor, but she is unsure how heavily it was traveled. Ms. Clinger advised Dynamac, the environmental research organization that works for NASA, did investigative work and obtained some very old maps of the Banana Creek which indicate the statement in the Plan may be in error; the waters were typically 18 inches or less in depth across a large part of Banana Creek, making transition by manatees very difficult; and a lot of Banana Creek was too shallow in the early 1800 maps for manatee travel. Chairman O'Brien advised the Board discussed the ability to dredge certain waterways within the plan; and it may want to request KSC and the Corps of Engineers to take a good look at Banana Creek to protect the manatees. Commissioner Scarborough recommended a cost/benefit analysis be done before going ahead.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to recommend the FDEP investigate the cost/benefit ratio and the feasibility and advisability of reconnecting Banana Creek. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 85, Item 5, Manatee Protection Boat Speed Zones, be changed to read, "Manatee protection boat speed zones may be important to manatee protection measures; however, intensive research efforts concerning perinatal deaths and disease, which are the leading cause of manatee deaths, should be deemed most important and critical to the survival of the species."

Discussion ensued on the proper wording of the sentence, unknown causes of manatee deaths being the largest cause, and the item referring to protection measures and not causes of death.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to change page 85, Item 5, Manatee Protection Boat Speed Zones, to read, "While boats are not the major known killer of manatees, manatee boat protection zones are one of the most important manatee protection measures; however, intense research efforts concerning perinatal deaths, disease, and unknown causes, which are the primary leading causes of manatee deaths, should be deemed also important and critical to the survival of the species." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien advised page 111 refers to liveaboards; the studies within the plan point out that 137 liveaboards were distributed among 13 marinas during the survey period; it also said pumpout facilities were not as widely used attributable to inconvenience and associated costs; and in 1990, there were 256 liveaboards at 20 marinas, and only 16 marinas had some type of sewage disposal system. He stated on the West Coast of Florida, counties got together as a co-op and passed ordinances that were equal so all the laws were on a level playing field for all liveaboards; and recommended the Board look at that program to see how it would affect Brevard County.

Commissioner Cook stated he is not sure why liveaboards are in the plan; with Chairman O'Brien responding for water quality. Commissioner Cook stated there is an Ordinance that deals with that. Commissioner Higgs stated she agrees with Chairman O'Brien that the Board needs to take action to investigate the advisability of pumpout facilities being required at marinas, but she is not sure it should be in the plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are unknown deaths; it cannot be healthy for the manatees to live in a sewer environment; and if they are diseased, it can be assumed that some of it may be because they are in a less than healthy environment. Commissioner Higgs recommended Brevard County shall investigate the feasibility and advisability and cost benefit of requiring pumpout stations in marinas.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to include on page 11, "Brevard County shall investigate the feasibility and advisability and cost benefit of requiring pumpout stations in marinas." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien advised Manatee Planning Zone 1, Mosquito Lagoon, page 4, first paragraph, states, "Every effort should be made to coordinate Brevard's MPP habitat conservation efforts with Volusia County's developing MPP in order to protect seagrass beds, mangroves, saltmarshes, and insure water quality is maintained in this near pristine system." He recommended the Board direct staff to make those efforts.

Commissioner Cook advised it is in the estuary plan and Volusia County is part of that. He stated Brevard County is coordinating with seven counties on the coast. Chairman O'Brien inquired if staff has coordinated with Volusia County; with Ms. Clinger responding yes, staff has been in contact with Volusia County throughout this process, and their manatee plan coordinator has attended most of the County's ad hoc committee meetings. Discussion ensued on the status of Volusia County's plan and Indian River County's plan. Chairman O'Brien recommended staff provide each Commissioner with copies of Volusia and Indian River Counties' plans when they are accepted by their boards.

Chairman O'Brien recommended a new section of the plan be created for "Canal Dredging", and read, "Because dead end canals are frequently used by manatees for calving and resting, and deemed to be important for the species survival, the FDEP shall participate in the funding of the dredging of canals located in Brevard County." He stated in all the planning zones, it is repeated many times that canals provide quiet areas with limited boat traffic that are sought out by manatees for calving and resting; manatees rest in canals intermittently during the day, returning to the Banana River to forage; so if the County is a partner with the State, it should share the cost of dredging the canals for manatees.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board cannot compel FDEP to do that. Chairman O'Brien stated FDEP pontificated that manatees need protection, and paid the County to create a plan; in the planning process, they found that the canals are great places for manatees to rest, cavort, live and calve; so FDEP should be interested in helping the County fund the dredging of canals to perpetuate the species. Commissioner Higgs advised what has taken on added interest around the State is how to get muck out of the Lagoon; Brevard County is a partner with Melbourne in some projects and partners with FIND in other projects; and it may be, as they remove muck in some of the places, that they find out how important it is to the overall habitat; however, it does not need to be in the plan. She stated it is referenced in the habitat plan in the NEP plan; and the Board should wait and see how that all transpires before adding it in the MPP. Chairman O'Brien advised they will start dredging on Merritt Island some time in August or September; a lot of the canals are dead end canals; and if they start without FDEP's financial participation, they would not be considered for funding. He noted FDEP wants the County to fund Marine Patrol and the educator; local tax dollars fund all the signage; they may want the County to fund the office space for their coordinator, computer, car, gas, insurance, expenses, benefits, and holidays; and this is part of the plan that is important for the species.

Discussion ensued on how important canals are for manatees, how often it is repeated in the plan, improving the environment in canals, and water quality.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to include in the plan, "Because dead end canals are frequently used by manatees for calving, resting, cavorting, and living, Department of Environmental Protection and Brevard County will coordinate and work together to improve the water quality of the canals where manatees frequent." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended the slow speed zone located at the intersection of the Barge Canal and Sykes Creek be removed, and all other speed zones, except those along Tingley's Marina, Sea Ray Boats, and Abby's Marina be seasonally specific May through September. He stated the data from FDEP points out that the eight manatee deaths that occurred in the Barge Canal since 1989, were one in May, three in June, one in July, and three in September; and no other months were mentioned. He stated there are a lot of speed zones regulated by the season throughout the State; the data points out that those are the months manatees are killed; there were no deaths in October, November, December, January, February, March, or April; no dead manatees were found at the intersection; and most were found close to or inside of no wake zones, so maybe no wake zones are doing more damage than good. Chairman O'Brien advised speed zones have been in Brevard County for 20 years; they have increased each year, but dead manatees from boat collisions over the past ten years have not substantially increased; ten years ago 13 manatees were killed by impact of boats; the following year there were six; and in 1980 or 1981 there were six. He stated the Board can put up speed zones all over the place and the number of manatee deaths will not decrease or increase; and most of them were found at Abby's Marina, and at Sea Ray's zone in 1991 and 1993.

Commissioner Cook stated originally the Board looked at the speed zone where boats speed up and slow down, speed up and slow down, and that was near the "S" curve or just beyond it. Chairman O'Brien stated that is on Sykes Creek; but the one he is referring to is located where Sykes Creek comes into the Barge Canal from about a quarter of a mile west and east of the intersection. Commissioner Cook stated Department of Environmental Protection was very adamant about retaining the speed zone in Sykes Creek. Chairman O'Brien suggested recommending it be seasonal from May through September because their data can back that up. Commissioner Cook recommended asking Department of Environmental Protection to investigate all speed zones with regard to making some of them seasonal if appropriate. Commissioner Voltz stated Chairman O'Brien could talk to Secretary Wetherell about that. Commissioner Scarborough agreed with asking FDEP to consider seasonal speed zones.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to include in the plan that Department of Environmental Protection examine and implement seasonal speed zones where appropriate.

The Board discussed where it should be inserted in the plan, and agreed to put it at the beginning of the section on speed zones. Chairman O'Brien recommended page 85, and Ms. Clinger suggested page 15.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to amend the motion to insert the sentence on page 85, Item 5, as the first paragraph. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien recommended the Board take appropriate action in conjunction with FDEP concerning shellfishing in the Banana River, referenced in the Manatee Planning Zone 7, Page 9, which says, "Shellfish harvesting and other activities that would increase boat traffic or damage seagrass should be prohibited." He stated he received a letter from the City of Cocoa Beach saying it did not think it was appropriate that clamming should be allowed near the Banana River. He noted FDEP has already given the go ahead on that, so it would not require further action.

Chairman O'Brien recommended Proposed Modification of Manatee Protection Boat Speed Zones, be changed to read, "Boats under 20 feet in length and using a short shaft outboard, or a motor which has been raised to a height that minimizes the depth of the shaft, shall be exempt from slow speed zones and allowed a maximum of 25 mph close to shore and in waters which are less than 2-1/2 feet in depth." He stated Manatee Planning Zone 1 states, "Potential reasons for this include the area is too shallow; manatees prefer to forage along deeper areas that provide an escape route from boats." He noted Manatee Planning Zone 2, Indian River, states, "These deeper water areas, particularly the deep dredge holes near the Railroad Causeway and the Titusville Marina, are frequented by manatees. Manatees using dredge holes and other depth contours have a better opportunity to quickly submerge." Chairman O'Brien advised in Turnbull Basin the cow and calf pairs were documented feeding and resting along the four-foot depth contour line; page 8 states, "manatees are mainly located in close proximity of the four-foot contour line"; and page 11 states, "However, the resurgence of the red fish population has helped foster a burgeoning flats industry." He stated Planning Zone 3 states, "In addition, the deep dredge holes along the NASA Causeway frequently get used by manatees for resting and are in close proximity to seagrass beds."; and Port Canaveral has the same thing, deep waters. Chairman O'Brien advised there is a severe lack of empirical data to suggest that slow speeds in less than three feet of water are necessary for manatee protection; staff was directed to acquire that data which would or would not support such speed zones in less than three feet of water; and he is not sure if they did that or not. He stated data within the plan indicates that manatee do inhabit water that is less than three feet; and Florida Statutes state, "It is not the intent of the Legislature to permit the Department to post and regulate speed zones generally in the above described inlets, bays, rivers, creeks, thereby unduly interfering with the rights of fishermen, boaters, and water skiers using areas for recreational and commercial purposes." He stated the loss of the industry would have a significant negative impact on the local economy; boats less than 21 feet with a short shanked outboard should be allowed to attain 25 mph in waters less than 2-1/2 feet deep; if manatees are in two feet of water, people will see them and not hit them; and if a boat is coming, they will go down to deeper water. He stated the plan will eliminate an entire industry that has caused no manatee deaths because they are in shallow water.

Commissioner Cook recommended asking FDEP to study the feasibility of boats under 20 feet. Chairman O'Brien repeated the Florida Statutes requirements; stated manatees do not generally inhabit shallow water; they are sighted frequently in waters three to five feet; and the plan proves that in seven places. Commissioner Cook recommended the Chairman talk to the Secretary about it.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to request FDEP to study the feasibility of boats under 20 feet, and include what Chairman O'Brien recommended be changed.

Commissioner Higgs advised Chairman O'Brien has data that is contrary to the response from FDEP; why the Department established and maintains manatee protection zones in less than three feet of water is because manatees frequently use three feet mean low water or less; and as a result are in danger in those areas. She stated manatees feed on submerged aquatic vegetation, predominantly seagrasses; and Kinnaird determined positive statistical correlation with high number of watercraft manatee deaths in Brevard County in the amount of saved submerged aquatic vegetation, and the high amounts of manatee and boat use in the amount of non-linear boat traffic.

Commissioner Higgs stated boaters traveling in shallow areas exhibit non-linear unpredictable travel patterns when compared to boaters traveling through marked channels; and shallow depths, plus the unpredictability of boater travel, places manatees in those areas in danger, as evidenced by manatees which were killed by watercraft and recovered with SAV in their mouths. She noted adaptations are available to boaters that allow modifications of hulls and engines to facilitate travel in shallow water at very high speeds; but those adaptations and increasing use of shallow water vessels, such as personal watercraft, jet boats, etc. create even greater threat to manatees. She stated there are two sides of the issue; she is not ready to support the three feet, but has no problem asking FDEP to look at it; however, there is scientific data that was provided on that side of the issue. Chairman O'Brien stated it sounds like opinion and not data, because he did not hear that there are five manatees per square acre, or that they are frequently sighted and can be assumed to inhabit those areas on a regular and continuous basis. Commissioner Higgs stated she did not bring the scientific journals but can get them for the Chairman; with Chairman O'Brien responding it would be very important to have that.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman O'Brien advised a financial impact study should be done; FDEP has informed the County a financial impact study cannot be conducted until the plan is approved; and because of that, the Board should consider that no further signage be conducted nor zones created until the MPP is accepted by FDEP. He stated the expenditure of any money on signage for speed zones may be a wasteful use of taxpayers dollars if any of the zones presently being signed are changed or removed; and until the plan is finalized and approved, it would seem inappropriate to post any further signage.

Commissioner Cook inquired if no additional zones would be created until the plan is completed and accepted; with Ms. Clinger responding Department of Environmental Protection has no plans on doing rule making in Brevard County until the County comes up with a proposed plan. Chairman O'Brien stated that is not true because since 1986 the channel in Sykes Creek was 25 mph and it was signed as being slow speed. Ms. Clinger advised it was done during the Barge Canal/Abby Marina agreement; they notified the Board of their intent to go to rule making on that issue; Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing Abby Marina requested relief from the 1:100 policy and negotiated an interim agreement where a speed zone would be established and Abby Marina would be allowed to proceed with a portion of its development. Chairman O'Brien stated a financial impact study should be done before the plan is approved.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to state that a financial impact study be done with regard to the implementation of the plan.

Ms. Clinger advised Department of Environmental Protection routinely performs economic impact studies; they have an economist to do those studies; but they have to have a plan before they can do that economic impact study. She stated Department of Environmental Protection typically does economic impact studies when they have developed a proposed rule; and if the State plans to go to rule making on an issue, then they do an economic impact study. Chairman O'Brien inquired if this would be rule making; with Ms. Clinger responding speed zones would be rule making. Commissioner Cook stated his motion stands because it should be done on the whole plan. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it should be done prior to approval of the plan; with Commissioner Cook responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated once there is agreement with Department of Environmental Protection then the Board will know what the plan is going to be, and would want a financial analysis prior to it adopting the final plan. She inquired if that is the motion.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman O'Brien advised he was told staff was directed to request Department of Environmental Protection give the County additional information and supporting data for having slow zones set up in areas in depths of less than three feet; and requested a copy of the letter dated July 15, 1996 from Department of Environmental Protection signed by Dave Arnold.

Chairman O'Brien recommended page 94, subparagraph f), be changed to read, "The 400 channel within the City of Cocoa Beach shall be marked 25 mph in the channel year round. Signage shall be posted to read: Idle speed to oncoming vessels.'" He stated the City and the planners pointed out it is more a safety issue than a manatee issue; due to the low volume of boats that traverse the channel and the short length of the channel, it would seem appropriate to put signs at both ends of the channel telling boaters they must idle speed when other vessels are coming toward them; that makes sense; and if nobody is coming, they can go to 25 mph. He noted right now it is slow speed.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Chairman O'Brien is asking to change the speed zone; with Chairman O'Brien responding it is not a manatee speed zone. Commissioner Cook inquired if it was a request from the City of Cocoa Beach; with Chairman O'Brien responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook suggested putting it in the plan as a request from the City for FDEP to look at changing it. Chairman O'Brien stated the rationale is it is not a manatee issue, it is a safety issue and has nothing to do with manatee mortality. Commissioner Higgs stated between December 1 and February 28 the channel is regulated at slow speed; and what Chairman O'Brien is requesting is that it no longer be slow speed and just have signs. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it would be something boaters would normally see; with Chairman O'Brien responding it would be a new sign, and suggested adding "or other appropriate language." Ms. Clinger advised all signs on waterways in the State must conform to the Uniform Waterway Marker Program; there is specific defined language that can be used and must be used on any regulatory signs, whether for boating safety or manatee protection; and the sign, shape, language, and design are all permitted through the Florida Marine Patrol Office Waterway Management and must be consistent. Commissioner Higgs inquired how long is the zone; with Ms. Clinger responding she would have to calculate it. Commissioner Higgs suggested going to the next item and returning to this item later.

Chairman O'Brien recommended adding language to the plan stating, "Prop dredging of the SAV should be unlawful and carry an appropriate fine. This should be done to protect the SAV from damages caused by propeller scarring." He stated he is not sure whether there is a law on that; with Ms. Clinger responding it is illegal. Ms. Harasz advised with the permitting of Scottsmoor Landing, that became an issue, and the County was required to put up signs that informed people that it was already illegal, so it is already a rule. Chairman O'Brien inquired what is the fine; with Ms. Clinger responding she does not know what the fine is, but knows it is illegal. Chairman O'Brien stated it is a habitat problem; and careless and reckless boaters go through it and scar the bottoms so the grasses do not grow back. Ms. Clinger advised Brevard County is the 10th highest prop scarred county in the State, so it may be appropriate to include that in the education segment of the plan.

Commissioner Cook stated Brevard County is also the 8th largest county in the State; and it has a huge waterway, so that does not surprise him, but it is something that needs improvement. He inquired how long is the canal; with Ms. Clinger responding one-third of a mile. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Chairman is asking FDEP to reassess it at the request of the City of Cocoa Beach; with Chairman O'Brien responding if that is the way the Board wants to go.

Discussion ensued on signage, appropriate language, safety issue, not making it part of the plan, but a separate request to the Secretary, boaters complaining and requesting relief, and certain boats that may not be able to idle for long.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to take no action.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired why is a motion necessary if the Board just decides to take no action. Chairman O'Brien stated it is unfair to the people who live there. Commissioner Cook stated it should not be in the plan, but he will make a motion. Chairman O'Brien stated it is already in the plan on page 94; with Commissioner Cook responding it should not be.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize the Chairman to bring the concerns of the City of Cocoa Beach to the attention of the Secretary of Department of Environmental Protection to reassess the signage in the 400 channel, not as part of the MPP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:20 p.m., and reconvened at 10:38 p.m.

Chairman O'Brien advised there was a newspaper item about the people in Cape Canaveral who have been surrounded by slow speed zones to no engine operation except trolling motors; Mr. Bill called him about it; there is a condominium and a channel out to the river; and inquired if there is language in the plan that would exempt those people who live there so they can use their motors to get out from their condos to the river and return. Ms. Clinger advised the Department of Environmental Protection does give landowners with riparian rights along no entry zones idle speed exemptions to those zones; they provide each homeowner along an area designated no motor area three passes or however many boats they have, plus a few extra for friends who may motor to the homesite; they put those on the vessels and are allowed to proceed at idle speed through the no motor zone with the motor on. She stated only those people who have riparian access can obtain those passes. Chairman O'Brien stated Mr. Bill has a sailboat and was concerned about getting it out to the river; he is with the Treasure Island Condos; so he will call Mr. Bill and tell him about the passes. Ms. Clinger advised she can fax to the Chairman's office a copy of FDEP's Code that provides for it. Chairman O'Brien stated there are other condominiums or homes along there that would like to know about it also.

Commissioner Cook advised he mentioned his concerns about the siting element of the plan; the Board decided to hold off until later in the meeting to address that; and language the attorney came up with would address his concerns about obligating the Board to pass laws as a result of this plan because it would be contrary to State law which requires public hearings. He recommended including at the beginning of the document, to apply not only to the boat siting, but to the entire plan, in the introductory wording, that, "To the extent this plan proposes, describes, or implicates changes in the County's Land Use Regulations or Comprehensive Plan, the adoption of this MPP shall not serve as nor commit the County to such changes. Rather the Board of County Commissioners shall undertake appropriate public hearings to consider such changes, and shall only adopt such changes if determined that it is in the public's best interest."

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to include in the Introductory, "To the extent this plan proposes, describes, or implicates changes in the County's Land Use Regulations or Comprehensive Plan, the adoption of this MPP shall not serve as nor commit the County to such changes. Rather the Board of County Commissioners shall undertake appropriate public hearings to consider such changes, and shall only adopt such changes if determined that it is in the public's best interest." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook recommended another statement be added that relates to funding, as follows: "Nothing in this plan requires the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County to spend tax dollars on improvements recommended or described unless a specific fund for construction or purchase of the improvements is designated." He stated something should be in the introduction saying the Board is not committing funds for the plan, because the funding comes later in specific programs and ideas; and the Board cannot do it until it knows what programs are going to come forward. Chairman O'Brien inquired if Commissioner Cook wants it in the Preface; with Commissioner Cook responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to add to the plan, "Nothing in this plan requires the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County to spend tax dollars on improvements recommended or described unless a specific fund for construction or purchase of the improvements is designated" in the Executive Summary, page ix. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook recommended references to the number of parking slips with regard to boat ramps on pages 14 and 15 be deleted. Commissioner Scarborough stated Kennedy Point has an existing channel; there are large deep draft boats that arrive there; and from the beginning there were issues on how many parking places would be there. He stated there were problems with Scottsmoor Landing; the State may have a desire to limit access to the river for boaters; but that same agency will give thousands of clamming licenses. He advised of upland problems not addressed by the State, and FIND wanting to fill prime sites, including a site across the river from KSC on the NASA Causeway.

Commissioner Cook recommended deleting all references in the plan regarding parking spaces at boat ramps; there is no reason other than to restrict people from using the ramps; and what will happen is boat trailers lining the rights-of-way and parking on roads. He stated it is a safety issue.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to remove references to the number of boating slips at ramps from the plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz advised when one speaker said too much fiction and not enough fact, she became more convinced that the plan is not good; the far-reaching implications of the plan have not been clearly thought out; and no cost-benefit analysis has been done. She stated it was said last night there were other plans done with no cost-benefit analysis; maybe that is the problem with government, too many things being done without knowing future costs; and this costs the taxpayers a lot of money. She inquired if there is no money to implement the plan, why is the Board going through the motions just because FDEP says it has to do it. She stated it is time to stand up to FDEP and say Brevard County had enough; and inquired what is it going to take to break the cycle of the bureaucratic intrusion. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board as the governing body should be able to determine what is good for its citizens; the plan should have good science, but it does not; and inquired how can the Board vote for a plan that has almost no scientific facts. She stated they are taking away the rights of boaters and landowners; and Mr. Rose said it is not about manatees, it is about capping growth. She noted she hopes the Board does not forget that statement. She advised there is no current scientific data that say the Florida manatee is an endangered species in Executive Summary, page viii; it was placed on the endangered species list in 1967; things have changed since then; and the Board needs to look at getting it off the list, which does not mean it does not need to continue protecting it. Commissioner Voltz stated Executive Summary, page viii, paragraph 2, says, "In fact, Brevard County has been described as the hub of the east coast manatee population with both a large year round and migratory transient manatee population present throughout the year"; and inquired if that is so, why is it on the endangered species list and in danger of extinction. She stated the statistics in the third paragraph say 24% or manatee deaths are attributed to watercraft collisions, then lists the rest; it is actually the third largest cause of manatee deaths; and it looks like it was put first to say that watercraft is the #1 when it is not.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to rearrange the order of manatee mortalities on page viii, Executive Summary, so they are listed in descending order. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz stated if FDEP and Florida Game and Fish Commission do not have current and accurate manatee counts, how can anyone say it is endangered and in jeopardy of extinction. She advised page ix, paragraph 1, says, "A major objective of this plan was to allow a level of reasonable use of the lagoon by Brevard's power boaters while still maintaining the overall goal of manatee protection"; that comment is totally ridiculous; and she objects to it, because it says the people do not have a right or are not using it reasonably now, and they are allowing people to use it when they have a right to be there anyway. Commissioner Voltz advised paragraph 3 talks about brochures; development of education programs, representatives, education communities, and all those things; Save the Manatee Club has brochures and so does the Florida Marine Patrol; so the County should use what they already have and not reinvent the wheel. She stated line 2 says goals and objectives of the MPP but there is only one goal and one objective in the entire plan; so it should say accomplish the goal and objective. Commissioner Higgs advised page 1 says, "The goal of this plan is to protect the manatee and its habitat, and to increase boating safety in Brevard County" ; and it could be construed as two goals in one sentence.

Commissioner Voltz advised page ix, paragraph 5, first bullet says, "provide boat speed zone maps and brochures with boat registrations"; she would have thought FMP or somebody would be doing that by now; and if those things were done all along, maybe the County would not be in the predicament it is in today. Chairman O'Brien stated speed zone maps and brochures are already available because he has seen a map. Jeff Pira handed a map to the Chairman. Commissioner Voltz stated those things are already done, so the County would just be redoing them. She advised the second bullet says, "Inclusion of manatee information in boating safety courses"; the third bullet says, "Public service announcements, workshops and education programs"; the fourth bullet says, "Public displays, including kiosks, signs, computer bulletin boards, and newspaper announcements"; and those should all be the responsibility of the Florida Marine Patrol or Save the Manatee Club.

She stated the County should not be doing what somebody else should already be doing. Commissioner Voltz advised page 1, Introduction, Purpose, does not say the MPP is mandated by the State; however, when the Comprehensive Plan was developed in 1988, the Board adopted Policy 14.8 and put the County in a position to develop an MPP by using the word "shall" in the Policy. She stated the same scenario applies to Conservation Element Policy 10.8; and maybe the Board needs to change the wording accordingly, but it may be irrelevant since the Board is already doing it.

Commissioner Voltz advised the third paragraph says, "recommendations for important land acquisitions. . ."; and she is totally against buying any more land. She stated paragraph 4, Goal, should be the job of the FMP or Save the Manatee Club; page 3, OUC and FP&L provide an unnatural habitat, so manatees have not been allowed to naturally migrate south; and that issue needs to be addressed. She stated paragraph 2 relates to the number of manatees in the aerial surveys; the bottom line is weather conditions for any given survey greatly influence the number of manatees counted; and that is extremely important when it comes to whether or not the manatee is endangered.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if Commissioner Voltz wants to rearrange the information in paragraph 3, page 3; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to rearrange the statistics in paragraph 3, page 3, in descending order. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz advised paragraph 3 should have other agencies already doing those things; paragraph 4, line 1, states, "Many of the other natural manatee mortalities are attributed to cold stress"; and that is probably because of the unnatural habitat created for them. She stated page 3, paragraph 5, says, "As the human population grew, the seagrass beds in the nearby Indian River Lagoon declined. Extensive development with poor soil conservation practices, storm water runoff, and discharge of a large volume of wastewater into surface water have over time degraded water quality of the estuary"; and it may have been a problem in the past, but it has been taken care of with new laws and regulations and should not be a problem today. Chairman O'Brien recommended adding a positive statement after the last topic.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to add "Brevard County has taken significant positive steps to reverse the degradation of the water quality of the estuary." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz referenced the bullets under Habitat Protection; and advised the Board addressed boat siting facilities and speed zones. She identified "Other Recommendations to Reduce Manatee Mortality"; and stated she does not understand why all agencies cannot work together so there is no duplication of materials and services. She noted the same thing applies to law enforcement. She advised page 4, Habitat Protection, paragraph 5, says, "Brevard County should support the efforts of the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Conservation and Recreational Lands Program (CARL), the Brevard County Environmentally-Endangered Lands Program (EEL), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and other entities which work to improve the quality of the Indian River Lagoon." She recommended changing it say Brevard County is supporting the efforts of those agencies because it is, instead of telling the Board it should do something that it is already doing.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to reword page 4, Item A, Habitat Protection, first paragraph, to say, "Brevard County is supporting the efforts of the St. Johns. . . ." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz advised page 4, Item A, Habitat Protection, second paragraph, says, "Brevard County shall adopt the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (IRLCCMP). . . ."; she cannot support it because she has not seen the plan; and it says when it is finalized, but it has been finalized. Commissioner Higgs advised that has been changed.

Commissioner Voltz advised paragraph 1 on page 5 says, "Objective: to engage the boating public and marine industry as active participants in the protection and restoration of the resources of the Indian River Lagoon"; and it should be reworded to say, "encourage and educate the boating public and marine industry as active participants in the protection and restoration of the resources of the Indian River Lagoon." Commissioner Higgs advised that segment refers to the NEP Plan and their objectives; and she does not think the Board can change it whether it agrees with it or not. Commissioner Voltz stated it says, "The draft includes action plans which address the following issues:"; and inquired if it addresses the issues, why is it included in this plan. Commissioner Higgs stated it talks about the Board's position regarding the NEP, then about what the following issues are in the NEP and the objectives of each of those segments of the plan; those are the objectives whether the Board likes them or not; and it really cannot change them. Commissioner Voltz inquired why do they need to be in the MPP if they are already in the other plan which was accepted by the Board. Discussion ensued on segments of the NEP being in the MPP.

Commissioner Voltz advised page 30 refers to buoys, navigational channel markings, causeway and relief bridges, maintenance dredging projects, law enforcement recommendations. . ."; and those are State responsibilities, so she does not know why they are in the plan since the Board cannot do anything about them. She inquired if Port Canaveral is exempt from the plan; with Ms. Harasz responding the federal government is not subject to State regulations, so if they have some response to manatees as an endangered species, it would be under the Endangered Species Act rather than the MPP. Commissioner Voltz noted it does not make sense to have Port Canaveral in the plan; with Chairman O'Brien responding it is probably to identify it as a special planning area, and they are showing their cooperation. Ms. Clinger advised Port Canaveral participated as a partner in the program and agreed to participate with the County and wanted its portion of the issues they agreed with represented.

Commissioner Voltz advised page 32, Item M, Ways to Reduce Other Causes of Manatee Mortality, Pesticides and Herbicides, states, "It is recommended that the pesticide and herbicide issues be addressed through education programs identified in the Education Initiative"; and inquired who will educate on that issue and who will they educate; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board agreed that the committee would approve the education curriculum. Commissioner Voltz stated the committee will not teach kindergartners about pesticides, so who will they educate; with Chairman O'Brien responding probably homeowners and appropriate groups or people.

Commissioner Voltz stated manatees are not going to get stuck in crab traps; and inquired if a manatee has been found in a crab trap line; with Ms. Clinger responding many have been entangled in crab trap lines. Commissioner Voltz inquired if monofilament lines are the same; with Ms. Clinger responding crab trap lines are typically nylon lines that attach the trap to a float; monofilament line is fishing line that is very thin; and manatees have been entangled in both lines and had to be rescued very frequently. Commissioner Voltz inquired about a recycling program at places that sell bait and fish and tackle equipment; with Ms. Clinger responding recycling has been in existence for a while, but she does not know the participation level. She stated several line manufacturers offer a recycling program at bait houses, so people have to bring the monofilament lines there.

Commissioner Voltz advised she received information that said, "Approximately three million dollars are received each year in non-ad valorem tax assessment on the unincorporated single family homes, and over half of that sum is expended annually on water quality projects to stem the flow of pollutants entering the Brevard waterways"; and inquired, on page 32, Conveyance Structures, which says to develop a list of outfalls, if there is already a list of those; with Ms. Clinger responding there is a list of outfalls in the County, but there are a limited number that would actually pose a threat to manatees. She stated those that would are greater than 36 inches in diameter and are submerged by half or more during the regular water cycle; and all it would take is for someone to look at the existing list of outfalls, narrow those down to the ones that are 36 inches or more in diameter, and assess whether or not they are submerged. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County would be responsible for replacing those; with Ms. Clinger responding no, Indian River County has a program where its Mosquito Control District made wide grates out of rebars that slide down over the front of the culverts; and they are inexpensive to manufacture.

Commissioner Voltz stated page 35 says one of the potential funding sources is the Citizens for Florida Waterways which has not agreed to do that; and inquired if it is presumptuous to put it in the plan; with Commissioner Higgs responding none of the agencies have agreed to funding, but they are all listed as potential funding sources. Commissioner Voltz stated if they have not agreed, they are not potential sources. Commissioner Higgs stated she understands none of them agreed, but they are people the County could go to for funding. Chairman O'Brien stated there are possibilities they may want to participate, or they may say no. Commissioner Voltz stated even though she does not support the plan, she knows it has to be done, but that does not make her happy.

Commissioner Higgs advised #1 on her list was how the Board would support the Conservation Comprehensive Management Plan; it made a decision on that last night; and she would like to add that beginning in July, 1997, the Board would do a monthly review of two of the action plans in the CCMP and take action on those. She stated that action could be the full range, deem it inappropriate, take no action to continue, or begin implementation in some way. She stated the Board needs to include in the MPP a strong statement and some action regarding the CCMP; there are 13 different action plans in the CCMP; and requested the Board include in the MPP the action it would take to review those monthly beginning in July.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to include in the MPP that the Board will do a monthly review of two of the action plans in the CCMP and take action on those, beginning July, 1997. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Cook stated he cannot support it and does not see what purpose it has since the Board already supported the NEP and its goals. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board asked staff to come back in six months; and it would be more appropriate to get the report from staff and prioritize projects than to request staff to bring them back two at a time.

Discussion proceeded on the report from staff, 13 action plans in the CCMP regarding removal of muck, surface water, freshwater, stormwater discharge, etc., and prioritization and cost-benefit analyses of the action plans.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board made some changes to the boat facility siting in Zone D; and recommended further defining that in Zone D.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to further define boat facility siting in Zone D, page 12, that it would alter the shoreline ratios from top to bottom, from 9:100, 7:100, 4:100, 1:100, 1:100 and 1:100 in the last column regarding new facilities. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Higgs stated there were changes made to the Plan regarding Turnbull Basin; on May 16, 1996, a number of changes were made to the draft plan; and inquired if the Board is assuming that those changes are in what it is contemplating tonight, or is it contemplating the document as it is written, dated February, 1996. Commissioner Cook inquired what the Board did with Turnbull Basin. Mr. Peffer advised he would have to look in his records on what happened with Turnbull Basin, but the Board made changes in May, 1996 which were sent to the cities for consideration; and he needs to know if the intent was to incorporate all those in the plan, or only those that were addressed last night and are being addressed tonight. Commissioner Higgs stated the Turnbull Basin was listed as cautionary with signage; it was removed in May, 1996; and she is comfortable with it being a cautionary area.

Discussion continued on what document to use as the plan to send to Department of Environmental Protection, and changes made at the May 16, 1996 meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, that the Board assume the draft of 2/96 is the draft MPP unless the changes that have been passed by the Board over the last two days are incorporated into the Plan.

Commissioner Cook advised there were 16 changes made in May; the major ones dealt with boating registration fees, should and shall, and the education committee; and the rest were to get more information, send it to the cities, and hold additional public hearings. Discussion resumed on the changes made in May, 1996.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if the Board changed page 31, Law Enforcement Recommendations, to delete paragraphs 1 through 6 and did not touch the paragraph above that; with Ms. Clinger responding a sentence was added. Mr. Peffer advised the Board added a sentence on page 11 that reads, "It is recommended the FDEP continue to work with the Legislature and the Governor to increase the budget of the. . . ." Discussion continued on the changes made on May 16, 1996.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs advised page 59 has a reference to the synoptic surveys; she provided the Board with information on the most recent data on synoptic surveys; and the most recent data should be included in the plan.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to include the most recent data on synoptic surveys in the MPP. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs advised there is a speed zone on page 27 in the Executive Summary that is being removed; it is going from the west side of the Indian River over to the Sebastian Inlet; it does not include the channel; and it is not advisable to remove the speed zone.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Scarborough, to delete the recommendation to remove the speed zone on page 27 from the west side of the Indian River to the Sebastian Inlet.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is unique about that section; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Sebastian River is a significant area for manatees; they travel across the Indian River Lagoon to the Inlet; and the speed zone is warranted because of those patterns of manatee travel. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the death ratios in the area. Ms. Clinger inquired if the Board wants to know all causes of death or just watercraft deaths; with Chairman O'Brien responding watercraft. Ms. Clinger advised there were several watercraft related deaths, but they tend to be located along the shorelines or near the mouth of the Sebastian or further up in the Sebastian River. Commissioner Cook advised the deletion of that zone was recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner Higgs advised the unique aspect to this particular zone is a channel allowing full speed for boats to travel and it would still remain. Commissioner Voltz called a question on the motion. Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted aye; and Commissioners Cook, Voltz and O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs advised on page 22 is the Committee's recommendation to expand the 35 mph water sports area; that is not a wise decision; and recommended deleting the expansion from the plan.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to delete the expansion of the water sports area from the plan and maintain the current regulation. Motion died for lack of a second.

Chairman O'Brien advised he cannot support it because the Florida Legislature enabled Department of Environmental Protection to post and regulate boat speed zones only where manatees are sighted frequently and it can be assumed they inhabit those areas on a regular or continuous basis; and the Statute provides that it is not the intent of the Legislature to permit the Department to post and regulate boat speeds and unduly interfere with the rights of fishermen, boaters, and water skiers. He stated it has been a traditional water skiing area for years; the regulation has cramped them in; it has become a safety issue for the people who are skiing there; and they require the room to enjoy their ability to water ski.

Commissioner Higgs advised page 25 has a very large expansion of almost six miles; it is too large; and recommend the proposed removal of the existing manatee protection area be deleted.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to delete the recommendation to remove the existing manatee protection area on page 25. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Cook stated it was a recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Commissioner Higgs advised on page 24, the present regulation is for 25 mph in the Barge Canal channel west of Marker 10 and slow speed in all other waters; the recommendation will remove that protection on the west end; and recommended the Board not support that.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to not support recommendation D.2 on page 24 removing the existing speed zone at the west end of the Barge Canal. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough advised page 18 has no entry zones around FP&L and OUC power plants; there is a need for manatees to go in there to be protected; however, the Board could recognize any disturbance that frightens and drives them away from the water, which could expose them to cold stress and hypothermia, restrict those, but find a compatible means of having boaters and manatees live in close proximity and allow boats to come in if they result in no disruption to the manatee to the extent that they leave the area. He stated he does not know if adequate study is another option or if it has been studied sufficiently, and if the Board has to jump to the conclusion of no entry at this point. He stated if the Board would accept that as a vague motion, he will make it. Commissioners Higgs and Voltz stated they did not understand the motion, and requested a restatement. Commissioner Scarborough advised page 18 says there should be no entry zones at FP&L and OUC power plants, a seasonal no entry zone; the rationale says disturbances could drive them from there, but everyone knows there is boat traffic that does not disturb them enough that they would move out of the way. He stated people could row in or use other methods; and if that activity is not disturbing the manatees, it would be a shame to jump to the conclusion of no entry. He stated he would like to see additional studies before saying no entry; and if that is required, fine, but try to see if there are other ways first.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, that the Board recognizes any disturbance that would drive manatees from the protected warmer waters would endanger their health because of hypothermia; that the Board needs to provide for their safety and make sure that any boat usage in the area does not lead to disturbance; and request FDEP perform a study that mainly restricts boat traffic but not necessarily.

Commissioner Higgs suggested considering implementation of the no entry zone for one year while FDEP is doing the research to determine those issues and if FDEP would agree to review that policy based on its research. Commissioner Scarborough stated without having boats come into the area and someone see the manatees actually migrate out with the movement of boats, there is no way of knowing if it disturbs them. He stated it would create an artificial environment that would not prove a case. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the status now. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is an indication that manatees run out to cold water when boats come in; with Ms. Clinger responding yes. She stated the National Biological Survey Sirenial Project, which is now under U.S.G.S., has been studying manatees at those power plants for many years; they do scar catalog photography there and also radio transmitter track from there; and they have made numerous observations of disturbances to manatees at the plants from people accessing the plants by boat. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is it about the boat that makes them leave; with Ms. Clinger responding it depends; individual manatees respond differently to different stimulus; some manatees leave in response to people shifting position in a boat if the manatee is sitting next to the boat; and fishing equipment being used where manatees happen to be sitting tends to make them move away. She stated the operation of a power boat has the greatest response; and more manatees left the area when a power boat came motoring in. She noted if everyone sits quiet for a while, some animals come back in, but some do not; and it depends on the individual manatee how they respond.

Chairman O'Brien inquired if the men and women are in the area tagging manatees and photographing scars, are they driving the manatees out; with Ms. Clinger responding they are not in the water; they photograph from the towers at the power plants using high-powered photographic equipment, so they are not actually in the water where the animals area. Chairman O'Brien inquired how do they tag the manatees; with Ms. Clinger responding they do not tag them at the plants because the animals are under duress; they tag them in the North Banana River most frequently, and in other areas if a breeding herd is gathered; and the only time they would tag at the plant is if they have an animal with a belt that is missing a transmitter. She stated if a transmitter is knocked off and they see the manatee again, which is a rare occurrence, they have the opportunity to re-tag a transmitter on a previously tagged animal. Chairman O'Brien stated if it is a rare occurrence to see the same manatee again, would it be a rare occurrence to start moving them away from the power plants to have the same one come back twice. He stated if that is true about one, it may be true about 300. Ms. Clinger clarified her statement that it is a rare occurrence referred to having an animal with a belt still intact that lost a transmitter and be able to recognize that animal and re-tag it because each transmitter has a unique transmission code that corresponds to that individual animal. She related a story about the manatee named "Sea Cow".

Commissioner Scarborough stated the plan says they seek warmer waters when the water temperature falls below 68 degrees; if there was a means of monitoring water temperature about 100 yards from the plants, and only when the temperature falls to 70 degrees or below put the restrictions on, or have restrictions during a certain time of the year, would that be a reasonable compromise; with Ms. Clinger responding it would address the times when manatees would most frequently be at the plants. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if a temperature monitor could be installed further out towards the channel, away from the influence of the heated water, and when the temperature gets above 70 degrees, allow boats to come into the area; with Ms. Clinger responding the Board can do that. Commissioner Higgs inquired how would it be done; with Commissioner Scarborough responding by putting a thermometer out in the water. Commissioner Higgs inquired who will monitor it and put up the sign; with Commissioner Scarborough responding there are things that can be radio broadcasted. Chairman O'Brien stated there are solar powered markers out there now; he is certain it could be done by solar power with a temperature monitor at a given level in the water, not at the surface or the bottom; and on top of the maker would be a solar panel and small transmitter to FP&L that could be done easily.

Discussion ensued on how to monitor water temperature and put up the sign, the NOAA outfit that monitors water temperature, wave action, etc., if FP&L and OUC would be required to do the monitoring and changing of the sign, the Marine Patrol taking care of it, method of posting the zone, and a radio transmitter hooked up to a sign that is signaled from the temperature and turns on the sign when the temperature reaches 70 degrees.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize no entry signage that takes effect upon 70 degrees in the general facility far enough removed from the hot water emitted from the FP&L and OUC power plants.

Commissioner Higgs suggested saying FDEP would initiate the development of that sign and the placement of that sign and that the seasonal no entry zone would be temperature activated at the time that those signs go in place. Discussion continued on the responsibility for the signs and seasonal no entry zone.

Commissioner Voltz seconded the motion.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Voltz suggested a sunset clause two years after the final date of approval of the plan so the Board can go back and look at the effectiveness of it and see what changes need to be made.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to establish a sunset clause that after two years from the final date of approval of the plan, the Board go back and look at the effectiveness of it and see what changes need to be made.

Chairman O'Brien stated it is a good idea because in a few years they may notice slow speed zones do more damage than good and can make some changes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the ordinance that creates the plan would go away; with Commissioner Voltz responding no, it is just a time for the Board to re-address the plan. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is to implement a review in two years; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes. Chairman O'Brien recommended the review and evaluation not be delegated to appointees or committees and that the Board hold a workshop, get the information from staff, and make viable decisions.

Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to forward the recommendations on the manatee protection plan to Florida Department of Environmental Protection as amended last night and this evening, and authorize the Chairman to travel to Tallahassee to meet with Secretary Wetherell to present it and discuss the Brevard County Manatee Protection Plan. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:06 a.m. on May 22, 1997.

RANDY O'BRIEN, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)