Item I1
-
CM
ounty of onroe
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3
Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent, District 2
TheFloridaKeys
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
David Rice, District 4
Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
County Commission Meeting
August 17, 2016
Agenda Item Number: I.1
Agenda Item Summary #1900
BULK ITEM: DEPARTMENT:
No Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE:STAFF CONTACT:
Rich Jones (305) 289-2805
10:00
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Discussion of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) Pilot Program for Anchoring and Mooring (Pilot Program), including a
summary of the recent FWC workshop on the results of the Pilot Program to date, and direction
Program.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The Florida Legislature established the Pilot Program in 2009
(Attachment 1) and directed the FWC to select five local governments, including Monroe County
(County), to participate in the Pilot Program by establishing a variety of test ordinances. The County
became a participant in the Pilot Program, in partnership with the Cities of Marathon and Key West,
and adopted Ord. No. 009-
The Pilot Program was initially set to
expire to expire July 1, 2014, and was extended by the Legislature in 2014 to run through July 1,
2017, to allow for more time for the Pilot Program to be tested and for additional data gathering.
On July 14-15, 2016, the FWC held a Pilot Program workshop to gather information on the
successes of the five local programs (Attachment 3), to obtain enforcement effort information, and to
determine lessons learned. Marine Resources staff presented to the FWC at the workshop
Zones,-forward in terms of
enforcement, however o Anchoring Buffer Zlane Basin (surrounding the
Key West mooring field) was not well received by boaters due to its sheer size. Enforcement
activity is indicated in Table 1 below.
Table 1
No Anchoring Buffer Zones
(Feb. 2013 - Present)
Location Warnings Citations
Boca Chica Basin - -
Seaplane Basin 42 24
4EGOIX4K
-
Boot Key Harbor 4 -
,
100% due to the provision of free and convenient mobile vessel pumpout service. Enforcement
activity is indicated in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Managed Anchoring Zones
(Feb. 2013 - Present)
Proof of Pumpout
Location
Warnings Citations
Boca Chica Basin 10 2
Key West Harbor 6 -
Cow Key Channel 1 -
Boot Key Harbor 16 -
Prohibition of Vessels Exhibiting Pre-Derelict C
Pre-Derelict Condition P, regulatory) and the
, non-regulatory). Enforcement activity is indicated in
Table 3 below.
Table 3
Managed Anchoring Zones
(Feb. 2013 - Present)
Pre-Derelict
Condition
Location
Warnings Citations
Boca Chica Basin 2 2
Key West Harbor 8 1
Cow Key Channel 2 -
Boot Key Harbor - -
July
1, 2016 - see Attachment 5) is considered preferable over Prohibition of Vessel
Exhibiting Pre-Derelict Conditions,the FWC is mandated to enforce the
re effective language (i.e., it provides
for the owner or operator of the vessel to be cited and allows for citations to be mailed, whereas the
or the owner to be cited and that citation must be issued to the
owner in person). Table 4 (below) indicates the differences (and similarities) between the two
(County and State)
Pre-Derelict Clation in managed anchoring
zones.
4EGOIX4K
-
Table 4
County 'Pre-Derelict Condition'
State 'At Risk' Regulation
Regulation
Regulatory? Yes- non-criminal infraction Yes- non-criminal infraction
Vessel is not able to be used for The vessel is taking on or has taken
navigation on water without an effective
means to dewater
Vessel is listing Spaces on the vessel that are
designed to be enclosed are
incapable of being sealed off or
remain open to the elements for
extended periods of time
Vessel is aground The vessel has broken loose or is in
danger of breaking loose from its
anchor
Criteria
Vessel has broken its mooring and has The vessel is left or stored aground
been secured for the protection of the unattended in such a state that
health, safety and welfare of the would prevent the vessel from
citizens getting underway, is listing due to
water intrusion, or is sunk or
partially sunk
Vessel is sinking
Vessel is dragging anchor
Vessel is in danger of breaking its
mooring
Who is cited? Vessel owner Any person
Citation issuance In person In person and/or by mail
First offense- $50 First offense- $50
Second offense- $100 Second offense- $100
Penalties
Third offense- $250 Third offense- $250
After the Pilot Program participants completed their presentations, FWC staff stated that the Pilot
Program expires on July 1, 2017. FWC staff summarized the next steps for anchoring regulations,
including a summary report of the Pilot Program that FWC will be providing to the FWC
Commission, along with draft anchoring regulations for the State. Based on consideration and
direction by the FWC Commission at its November, 2016, meeting, the Pilot Program report and
recommended anchoring regulations will be submitted to the Legislature on January 1, 2017, for
consideration in the 2017 Legislative session. For clarity, FWC staff has asked that the local
government Pilot Program participants formally indicate to FWC whether or not they have a desire
to continue the Pilot Program. Staff is seeking Board directio
lack thereof) to continue with the Pilot Program (note that Ord. No. 009-
4EGOIX4K
-
The Legislative Agenda was approved by the Board at its January 20, 2016, meeting, which included
the following anchoring regulation recommendations with the objectives of reducing the number of
derelict vessels and preserving water quality.
1-Recommendation for time limits on anchoring of stored vessels (also supported by the
FWC Stakeholder Survey Conducted Nov. 21 Dec. 7, 2014; see Attachment 6)
2-Recommendation for authorization for Monroe County to require proof of pumpout
Keys-wide.
Those recommendations were not considered by the State last Legislative session, as the FWC and
the Legislature wanted the Pilot Program to run its course and for results to be evaluated before
considering subsequent anchoring regulations for either County or State-wide application. Staff is
seeking direction to submit the above recommendations to FWC, so that FWC staff may consider the
regulations for inclusion in their Pilot Program report and drafting of anchoring regulations due to
the Legislature on January 1, 2017. In addition, Marine Resources staff recognizes the benefit of
No-Anchoring Buffer Zones (also supported by the FWC Stakeholder Survey Conducted Nov. 21 -
Dec. 7, 2014; see Attachment 6) in preventing anchored vessels from swinging or dragging into
vessels within adjacent mooring fields. Staff is seeking direction to also include No-Anchoring
Buffer Zones in the list of recommendations for consideration by the FWC and the Legislature.
to sign and
send to FWC indicating that 1) The County desires the Pilot Program to expire on July 1, 2017, as
scheduled, if regulations are put in place which allow the County to continue the success of the Pilot
Program, 2) The new At-Risk regulation be enforced in lieu Prohibition of
Vessels Exhibiting Pre-Derelict anaged Anchoring Zones, and 3) That FWC
consider inclusion of the above legislative recommendations in their report and list of draft
anchoring regulations to the FWC Commission and the Florida Legislature.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Feb. 2013- Adoption of Ord.No.009-2013 providing
for anchoring and mooring restricted areas
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of recommendations and approval for Mayor to sign
letter to FWC.
DOCUMENTATION:
Attachment 1- Pilot Program Statute
Attachment 2- Ordinance No.009-2013
Attachment 3- Table of Statewide Ordinance Provisions
Attachment 4- Monroe County presentation at FWC workshop
Attachment 5- At Risk Vessel- F.S. 327.4107
Attachment 6- FWC Stakeholder Survey
Attachment 7- Draft letter from Mayor to FWC
4EGOIX4K
-
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing: If yes, amount:
Grant:
County Match
:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
REVIEWED BY:
Mayte Santamaria Completed 07/28/2016 6:42 PM
Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed
08/02/2016 9:48 AM
Peter Morris Completed 08/01/2016 10:23 AM
Jaclyn Carnago Completed 08/01/2016 10:26 AM
Budget and Finance Skipped 07/28/2016 6:38 PM
Maria Slavik Skipped 07/28/2016 6:38 PM
Mayte Santamaria Completed 08/01/2016 11:27 AM
Kathy Peters Completed 08/01/2016 11:31 AM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 08/17/2016 9:00 AM
4EGOIX4K
-E
4EGOIX4K
-E
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
-F
4EGOIX4K
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX8EFPISJ7XEXI[MHI3VHMRERGI4VSZMWMSRW
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'4MPSX
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
%XXEGLQIRX %XXEGLQIRX1SRVSI'SYRX]TVIWIRXEXMSREX*;'[SVOWLST
(MWGYWWMSRSJ*;'
-I
What is an "At Risk Vessel"?
At-Risk vessels are defined in Florida Statute 327.4107, This act shall take effect July 1,
2016
An officer of the commission or of a law enforcement agency specified in s. 327.70 may
determine that a vessel is at risk of becoming derelict if any of the following
conditions exist:
(a) The vessel is taking on or has taken on water without an effective means to
dewater.
(b) Spaces on the vessel that are designed to be enclosed are incapable of being
sealed off or remain open to the elements for extended periods of time.
(c) The vessel has broken loose or is in danger of breaking loose from its anchor.
(d) The vessel is left or stored aground unattended in such a state that would prevent
the vessel from getting underway, is listing due to water intrusion, or is sunk
or partially sunk.
A person who anchors or moors a vessel at risk of becoming derelict on the waters of
this state or allows such a vessel to occupy such waters commits a noncriminal
infraction, punishable as provided in s. 327.73.
Noncriminal violations of the At-Risk statutes may be enforced by a uniform boating
citation mailed to the registered owner of an unattended vessel anchored, aground,
or moored on the waters of this state
This section does not apply to a vessel that is moored to a private dock or wet slip with
the consent of the owner for the purpose of receiving repairs.
1. For a first offense, $50. 2. For a second offense occurring 30 days or more after a
first offense, $100. 3. For a third or subsequent offense occurring 30 days or more after
a previous offense, $250.
Any person cited for a violation of any provision of this subsection shall be deemed to
be charged with a noncriminal infraction, shall be cited for such an infraction, and shall
be cited to appear before the county court. Any person who fails to appear or
otherwise properly respond to a uniform boating citation shall, in addition to the charge
relating to the violation of the boating laws of this state, be charged with the offense of
failing to respond to such citation and, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor of
the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A written
warning to this effect shall be provided at the time such uniform boating citation is
issued
4EGOIX4K
-J
FWC Stakeholder Survey – Anchoring
Conducted November 21 – December 7, 2014
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), in assisting the
Legislature by exploring potential options for regulating the anchoring of non-live-
aboard vessels outside the marked boundaries of public mooring fields, has engaged
the public through a series of open public meetings and commenting opportunities.
In the summerand fallof 2014,three public meetings related to this topic were held
(in Tallahassee, Vero Beach and Bradenton). Both verbal and written comments
received as a result of those meetings led to six refined concepts for future
consideration. Those concepts, which contemplated the granting of limited
authority to local governments to regulate anchoring in their jurisdiction, included:
1.A setback distance where anchoring of vessels would be prohibited in the
vicinity of public boating access infrastructure, such as boat ramps, hoists,
mooring fields and marinas.
2.A setback distance where anchoring of vessels overnight in close proximity to
waterfront residential property would be prohibited.
3.The storing of vessels on the water in deteriorating condition would be
prohibited.
4.The timeframe for storing vessels on the water would be limited unless
relocated a specified distance away.
5.If authority was granted to local governments to regulate anchoring in their
jurisdiction, an allowance could be created for other anchoring regulations
where need is demonstrated.
6.If authority was granted to local governments to regulate anchoring in their
jurisdiction, the creation of an online, interactive map to help boat operators
know which local areas were covered under local anchoring restrictions.
Recognizing that the outcome of the three public meetings was not adequately
representative of the wide range of stakeholders potentially affected by this issue,
the FWC initiated an online survey intended to expand the reach and diversity of
stakeholders sharing their thoughts and preferences related to potential anchoring
restrictions.
FWC Stakeholder Survey - Anchoring
January 29, 2015 1
4EGOIX4K
-J
In addition to questions pertaining to the six concepts mentioned above, questions
were also included which were intended to gauge public sentiment about how best
to implement any potential restrictions (statewide, county or local level).
The survey, comprised of 25 questions,was conducted during the period from
November 21 through December 7, 2014; there were 11,693 completed surveys
submitted during the time period. Highlights of the survey responses are as
follows:
* 73% of survey responses were submitted within the first week of the survey.
* The results appear to confirm that the vast majority of completed surveys were
submitted from unique respondents(no duplicates). 86.4% were from unique IP
addresses, while there were two surveys submitted from the same IP address in
9.2% of the responses. 4.4% of responses shared an IP address with more than 2
other survey respondents.
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Residential status of respondents
41% of respondents identified themselves as a full-time Florida resident, with 11%
reported as part-time residents and 25% as occasional visitors to Florida.
18% of respondents identified themselves as waterfront residents, while 3% are
reported to be involved in waterfront water-related business. 2% identified
themselves as local, state or federal government officials.
Responses were received from residents of all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. 62.8% of U.S. resident respondents
identified Florida as their primary residence. At least 162 respondents (1%) were
residents of Canada.
The Florida counties with the highest number of resident respondents were:
Pinellas (8.8%), Charlotte (7.6%), Lee (7.4%), Broward (7.0%), Brevard (5.4%), Palm
Beach (5.4%), Miami-Dade (5.2%) and Monroe (5.2%).
Boating status of respondents
57% of respondents identified themselves as Florida resident boaters. 28% were
residents of another state who cruise Florida waters by boat and 8% reside outside
Florida and both store and use their boat in Florida. 7% stated they do not boat in
Florida.
FWC Stakeholder Survey - Anchoring
January 29, 2015 2
4EGOIX4K
-J
34% of respondents primarily use their boat for overnight trips of moderate to long
duration (a week or longer), while 31% use their boat for mostly day trips with
occasional overnight trips of short duration. 18% reported to only use their boats
for day trips, while 11% use their boat as a residence or domicile.
Most respondents reported to keep their boats on the water, either at a marina
(34%), docked at a residence (20%), on a mooring (11%) or at anchor (18%). 13% of
respondents stated they keep a boat on a trailer and 4% used a high and dry storage
facility.
ANCHORING REGULATION PREFERENCES
How best to implement regulationof anchoring
Respondents were provided a scenario where if the Florida Legislature chooses to
address the issue of anchoring on state waters, the respondents were asked their
preference on how best to regulate anchoring.
52% of respondents stated they preferred that anchoring regulations be
consistently applied everywhere in the state.
40% preferred that local governments which choose to restrict anchoring only be
authorized to adopt specific state-authorized restrictions.
8% of respondents preferred that local governments have the ability to regulate
anchoring on state waters in their jurisdiction in any manner they choose.
Respondents were also asked at what level of government they preferred authority
to regulate anchoring to reside.
66% preferred that authority to remain at the state level.
The remaining respondents (34%) preferred authority to be granted to county
governments (15%), both county and city-level governments (14%) or city-level
governments only (5%).
Anchoring regulation concept 1 – setbackfrompublicaccess infrastructure
Respondents were asked their thoughts about a potential setback distance (150 feet
was proposed) from public boating access infrastructure such as mooring fields, boat
ramps and other launching or landing facilities.
FWC Stakeholder Survey - Anchoring
January 29, 2015 3
4EGOIX4K
-J
66% either somewhat or strongly agreed that the concept of a minimum setback
from public access infrastructure was appropriate. 8% of respondents were neutral
on this topic, while 26%either somewhat or strongly disagreed with this concept.
44% of respondents identified 150 feet as the appropriate setback distance, while
23% preferred it to be 100 feet. The other preferred setback distances varied
significantly among respondents (greater or less than 150 feet).
Anchoring regulation concept 2 – setback from waterfront residences
Respondents were asked their thoughts about a potential setback distance (150 feet
was proposed) from waterfront residential property. Proposed exemptions included
boats seeking safe harbor, government vessels for law enforcement, fire-fighting or
rescue, vessels anchoring for short time periods while fishing and those involved in
construction or dredging activities.
51% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed that a setback from
waterfront residences was appropriate. 6% were neutral, and 43% either somewhat
or strongly disagreed with this concept.
32% of respondents identified 150 feet as the most appropriate setback distance,
while others preferred a 100 foot setback (21%) or a 50 foot setback (18%). The
other preferred setback distances varied significantly among respondents (greater
or less than 150 feet).
Anchoring regulation concept 3 – condition of stored vessels
Respondents were asked their thoughts about a prohibition against storing a boat
on waters of the state when in various states of disrepair or neglect or when
violating certain laws. Those scenarios included, but are not limited to, vessels
unable to navigate under its own means of propulsion (as intended by the
manufacturer), those taking on water or sunk, those violating marine sanitation
laws, those which have interior areas which are left open to the elements for
extended periods of time, etc.
86% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed that prohibiting storage of
vessels on public waters in the listed conditions is appropriate. 3% were neutral
and 11% either somewhat or strongly disagreed with this concept.
FWC Stakeholder Survey - Anchoring
January 29, 2015 4
4EGOIX4K
-J
Anchoring regulation concept 4 –time limit for stored vessels
Respondents were asked their opinions about limiting the number of days a vessel
may be stored on public waters in a given area. The proposal would limit the
number of days to 60 and would require the vessel to be moved to a private dock,
marina slip, removed from the water, or be relocated at least 5 miles from the
current location after 60 days.
66% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed with this concept. 6%
were neutral and 28% either somewhat or strongly disagreed with the concept.
When asked about the appropriate number of days to allow vessels to be stored in
one location, 31% of respondents identified 60 days as most appropriate, 16%
preferred a 30 day time period, followed by 14%preferring a 90 day limitation. The
remaining responses varied significantly (either more or lessthan60 days).
When asked about the appropriate distance a vessel would have to be relocated
following the time limitation, 27% preferred 5 miles, 20% preferred 1 mile, 17%
preferred one-half mile and 14% preferred 3 miles. 13% of respondents preferred
that stored vessels not have to be relocated. Other responses varied significantly
(either more or lessthan 5 miles).
Anchoring regulation concept 5 – provision for extraordinary restrictions
In the event local governments were granted authority to regulate anchoring, and
recognizing that there may be situations where there might be justification for a
local government to restrict anchoring that has not been fully identified,
respondents were asked about how best to deal with a compelling need to regulate
anchoring in ways other than those previously identified.
48% of the respondents either somewhat or strongly disagreed with the concept.
10% were neutral, while 42% either somewhat or strongly agreed with the concept.
When asked what level of justification should be demonstrated by local
governments in order for extraordinary restrictions be allowed, 81% of respondents
identified that a high degree of need be demonstrated.
Anchoring regulation concept – Internet publishing of local anchoring restrictions
In the event local governments were granted authority to regulate anchoring,
respondents were asked how important it would be to develop an interactive, online
mapping program or application to allow boaters to be informed of those
FWC Stakeholder Survey - Anchoring
January 29, 2015 5
4EGOIX4K
-J
locations/jurisdictions where they are not allowed to anchor and those specific
restrictions.
88% of respondents identified this as either somewhat or very important. 6% of
respondents were neutral, while 6% identified this as unimportant.
Written comments
ion concept offered an opportunity for respondents to
Each anchoring regulat
provide written comments to further explain their thoughts on the topic. More than
2,000 written comments were submitted for each concept, and those comments
further explain the respondent’s opinion of the concept, but have not been analyzed
in-depth for purposes of this report. The individual comments are available for
review by interested persons on FWC’s website.
The final question in the survey offered respondents an opportunity to provide any
final thoughts in written form. 3,796 written comments (33% of total respondents)
were received for this question, and those comments have been reviewed and
grouped into broad, general categories.
Those categories include the following:
Do not desire any regulation of anchoring – 8% of total respondents
Attention should be directed to derelict vessels – 4% of total respondents
Anchoring should be regulated only by a State-level authority – 3% of total
respondents
Some form of limited regulation is acceptable or inevitable – 3% of total
respondents
State waters should be managed for the benefit of the public – 2% of total
respondents
Any regulation should be uniform across the entire state – 2% of total respondents
Regulation of anchoring is highly needed and strongly desired – 1% of total
respondents
Designated locations for anchoring would be helpful – 1% of total respondents
FWC Stakeholder Survey - Anchoring
January 29, 2015 6
4EGOIX4K
-K
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
&0
RXQW\RIRQURH
Mayor Heather Carruthers, District 3
Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent, District 2
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
7KH)ORULGD.H\V
David Rice, District 4
Sylvia J. Murphy, District
August 17, 2016
Major Richard Moore, Boating Law Administrator
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Division of Law Enforcement
620 S. Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Dear Major Moore:
Monroe County (County) has been a participant in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) Pilot Program for Anchoring and Mooring (Pilot Program) since 2012, and
recognizes the benefit of testing a variety of anchoring restrictions to assist the State in developing
long-term solutions for addressing a multitude of anchoring impacts. While the five Pilot Program
participants have somewhat differing anchoring impacts in their various geographic areas, there are
certainly impacts and potential solutions that we have in common.
on the FWC Pilot Program workshop held in Deland, Florida on July 14-15, and which was
conducted to discuss the arious ordinances and recognize those
anchoring restrictions that have proven to be successful (or otherwise). The BOCC understands
that the results of the Pilot Program and information presented at the recent workshop will help
FWC in its assigned task to develop statutory anchoring restrictions which will be considered by
the State Legislature for implementation on July 1, 2017.
on
July 1, 2017, Monroe County provides the following recommendations:
1-The Pilot Program is allowed to expire on July 1, 2017, if regulations are put in place
which allow the County to continue the success of the Pilot Program.
2-is enforced in-
-
the remainder of the Pilot Program period.
3-The following draft regulations (approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
January 20, 2016 for the 2016 Legislative session) are considered by FWC for inclusion in
the draft anchoring regulations to be presented to the FWC Commission and subsequently
to the Florida Legislature for implementation on July 1, 2017.
a)Time limits on anchoring of stored vessels (also supported by the FWC Stakeholder
Survey Conducted Nov. 21 Dec. 7, 2014)
b)Authorization for Monroe County to require proof of pumpout Keys-wide based on
the provision of convenient Keys-wide mobile vessel pumpout service.
In addition, the County (and the Cities of Key West and Marathon) recognize the benefit of no-
anchoring buffer zones around mooring fields
involvement in the Pilot Program, and recommends the such buffer zone regulations be authorized
by the State.
4EGOIX4K
-K
Thank you for allowing Monroe County and its partners to participate in the Pilot Program and we
look forward to continued coordination with FWC, beyond the sunset of the Pilot Program, on
these very important issues and concepts for solutions.
Sincerely,
Heather Carruthers, Mayor
Monroe County Commission District 3
4EGOIX4K