Loading...
Item B Budget Hearing Harvey Government Center July 11, 2000 # 1 History of the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) Hendrick 1993-flexcept where and to the extent pre-empted by superior Federal or State". State & Federal permission needed by County and private waterfront property owner. # 2 Read into the 1999 Budget hearing # 3 Mr. Hendricks 1993 letter "except where pre-empted. # 4 Rob Wolf 2000 letter "where congress has not acted', # 5 Keith Williams, Florida assistant general council, the State bas been pre-empted . These rights are further defined by Title 43, United States Code Annotated, sections 130 I and 1311. # 6 U. S. Code 43 Sections 1301 and 1311. # 7 U. S. Supreme Court unanimous March 6, 2000 decision Shuck down the State of Washington's upheld rights to make navigation regulations, "(a) The State has enacted legislation in an area where The federal interest has been manifest since the Beginning of the Republic and is now well Established # 8 Rich Jones letter March 26, 1999 "Currently it cost the County tens of thousands of dollars to install and maintain these markers. If we were to implement markers at all the sites In the Keys that could use them it would cost in The millions of dollars" . In many areas of the Keys residents have installed their own permitted markers. Budget Monroe County Dept. of Marine Resources The Dept. of Marine Resources (DMR) was created at county commission meeting in Key West Oct~ber 1991 when George Garrettsjob with the County was being eliminated. As the last one of the public at that meeting I protested its creation. It was passed 8:30 PM. For years while the FKNMS was forming its management plan this department was supposed to be the liaison between the County and the Sanctuary. The State and NOAA, as partners, controlled the submerged land and the waters above it to the MHWL pre-empting the county who had no record of owning bay bottom at that time. The county commission has been told that their authority ends at the MHWL year after year and asked to do away with the DMR to no avail. As the State and Federal governments FKNMS management Plan became effective the liaison excuse no longer applied. The FKNMS had a Channel Marking Priority Plan in August 1994 The DMR needed a reason for being. Robin Dye, a county employee of the DMS at the direction of Mr. Garretts applied for a State grant of $35,000.00 to develop a comprehensive County Channel Marking Plan for the waters of the Florida Keys with a County matching fund on December 3, 1996. The State and Federal Government have never turned over to Monroe County anything beyond the MHWL but were delighted that Monroe County would sign a hold harmless to relieve them of their burden. The Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection agreed to this grant January 13th 1997. Mr. Richard Jones was hired by the DMS to make and implement a channel- marking program. As far back as March 1993 it has been put on the record that the County authority ends at the MHWL. Mr. Hendricks letter of March 18, 1993 confirms that "except where and to the extent pre-empted by superior Federal or State authority". The latest pre-emption is the FKNMS. Last February this commission asked the State for "expanded authority over nearshore waters" which Mr. Hendricks said the county lacks. As the County lacks authority over nearshore waters and had no ownership of submerged land its authority stops at the MHWL. You have no more authority beyond the MHWL than the private waterfront property owner. Both must obtain permission from the USCG and the State of Florida within the boundaries of the FKNMS to the MHWL. If you had the authority you would not need the permission required. Both must provide and maintain Markers plus sign a hold harmless agreement relieving the State and Federal Government of all liability. This commission has been told that the USCG has stated that the County is totally responsible for any markers it installs Since then the county has accepted responsibility and liability for 450 markers, 86 of which were damaged or destroyed by hurricane Georges which must be maintained. The County has more Markers in the FKNMS than the USCG. I hope you realize that the channel-marking program was to insure DMR job protection by the maintenance required. After one hurricane it now appears that the DMR wants rid of the responsibilities of most of the markers they have installed as Mr. Jones has stated in his March 26th letter to the Port Advisory Committee. Does Mr. Jones have legal authority to turn over channel markers to people and organizations that should have requested the markers themselves? There is no way the USCG and the State will assume these channel markers in their budgets. Mr. Jones is in his third year of employment by the County. For 8 years the DMR has done nothing but cost the taxpayers of Monroe County money since it's conception where its authority has been pre-empted. Therefore we are asking this commission, again, to' dissolve the DMR. ff y: f~ F Dept of Marine Resources Budget 7/23-26/99 Harvey Gov. Center As I am unable to attend either meeting I wish this letter to be read and entered into the record. As far back as March 1993 it has been put on the record that the County authority ends at the MHWL. Mr. Hendrick denied this in his letter of March 18, 1993 "except where and to the extent pre-empted by superior Federal or State authority". Both Federal and State have pre-empted Monroe County. Last February this commission asked the State for "expanded authority over nearshore waters" which Mr. Hendricks said the county lacks, The Department of Marine Resources (DMR) created a County Channel Marking Plan for 700 markers. Mr. Richard Jones was hired by them to implement this program. The State and Federal Government were delighted that Monroe County would sign a hold harmless to relieve them of their obligations. The county has accepted responsibility and liability for over 250 markers, 86 of which were damaged or destroyed by hurricane Georges. After one hurricane it now appears that the DMR wants rid of the responsibilities of most of the markers they have installed as Mr. Jones has stated in his March 26th letter to the Port Advisory Committee. For 8 years the DMR has done nothing but cost the taxpayers of Monroe County hundreds of thousands of dollars and placed them in jeopardy. As Monroe County is being downsized by incorporation we no longer need a DMR,please dissolve it. Sincerely, 1/, T p~ H. T. Pontin 951 W. Indies Dr. Ramrod Key, F1. 33042 LAW OF'F'ICES MORGAN 8. HENDRICK lUo\_.'1 I Mt.l'.C."" 317 WHITEHEAD Sl REET KEY WEST rlORIOA tN C UHH 1 H.~HIS J....rs' HC,..OAI(.,. "'(NA..D M "1.lrP'iIC" U80J-I..., ItlLARy U 4L8UHY RALr G BAOO"[~ ,AUIA[O. t'\AAl.I:E,. A GRANT or COUNSCl March 18, 1993 Robert L. Herman, Director Growth Management Division Public Service Bldg, Wing III 5100 Jr. College Road, West Stock Island Key West, Florida 33040 RE: Pontin inquiry; County regulation of sUbmerged lands Dear Mr. Herman: . As I advised the BOCC at the March 9th meet ing concerning the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County has jurisdiction over all land within its boundaries (see flQrig~LSt~t!lt~!? S7,44), whether or not submerged, e~<<::~pth~h~!:~._ a)'}~L_!~._!t!.~___e~t ent pr~-~~ptl?_q t>y. ~llPg.r j-.Q!. Federal or State..~.!=.h_Qrit~. County Attorney Randy Ludacer's opinlon to tlieBOCC dated March 4, ] 992 addresses the related sUbject of regulating water-borne activities, and may be referred to as a general guide to regulatory pre-emption, applicable as well to most' submerged land regulatory issues. JTH:mjg Respectful} . /~ /-:1 'Ii I ~~~s T. Hendrick 1 Arcane sUb-issues such as oil and gas or mineral extraction from submerged lands, treasure salvaging operations, etc. would require further analysis. RECE.\VED f/-.J r 1...J.." v. ~ ~,W t " k IJ..-ur ~ .' 1l.~/{J g.,y vtr-~. Tn rp.,n"r. 11,-'.-,1 l1f.R 2 2 1~93 MONf;OE CCl.'tlTY r.1 ~"I"i1r'~ r;r.pT i. . 'r I r {. ( P I oJ 11 ") ':..' ) t". f~ '.t' 'i" \ ,. - g) p n Flr,I( II,",' l',. Wt".T ".1 "-l.-l-.!I . ...If . r I MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 2000 TO: Rich Jones Planning Department FROM: Rob Wolfe ~ ) Chief Assistant County Attorne~ V RE: County regulation of waterborne activity ...........~~~............"""'...........~............................~~~~~~~........AlM ..........~"""""''''''''~...........~.......~~~'''''''tNM...........~4111'M14.........hM'''''''''''''''''' The boundaries of the state extend out three geographic miles, Art. 2, See, 1, Fla. Cons't. (1968). Monroe County includes all of the state south of Collier and Dade counties and so must necessarily include the state water out to three miles, Sec. 7.44, FS. As a matter of legal theory, Congress has plenary power over navigable waters. However, where Conaress has n.o! acted t9 prA€l'm~ate rp.OlJlation, the state may act o('aelegate its power to its inferior political subdivisions, e.g" counties. With regard to such items as local no-wake/slow speed zones, etc., Congress has generally not preempted the states from acting, and the State of Florida (the Legislature actually) has authorized local regulation of boating related activities in Sees, 327,22 and 327.60, FS as long as the local regulation has not been preempted by state law. Thus, by the inaction of Congress and the action of the Legislature, the County may regulate boat speeds in certain areas1 and restrict the use of jet skis in state waters, as well as in artificial canals that are not state waters. AGO 90-60. RNW /jeh 1 For example, the County could not regulate any waterborne activity in the Intracoastal Waterway, see Sec. 327.60flj, FS; AGO 90.60. Department of Environmental Protection Jeb Bush Governor Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee. Florida 32399.3000 David B. Scruhs Secretary July 28, 1999 H.T. Pontin 951 West Indies Drive Ramrod Key, FL 33042 RE: Freedom of Information Act Inquiry Dear Mr. Pontin: This letter is response to your request to provide concerned citizens with proof of jurisdiction by federal, state, county, and city [governments](sic) pertaining to navigable waters and submerged lands including bays, harbors, inlets, and rivers located within the Florida Keys. Please be advised that this will only provide guidance concerning the location of specific statutes and other information, which may generally be found within any public library. This is not to serve as a legal opinion or other determination of rights. Jurisdiction in Florida's submerged lands and navigable waters are controlled by statute. Chapter 253, Florida Statutes (1997) generally outlines the ownership rights of the state with respect to submerged lands. These rights are further defined by Title 43, United States Code Annotated, Sections 1301 and 1311 (1997). Jurisdiction to determine disputes regarding boundaries and title to submerged land r~sts with the circuit court of each county pursuant to Chapter 26, Florida Statutes (1997). In general, title to all submerged lands from the mean high water line of the shore to three miles seaward are held in trust for the public by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. Section 253.001, Florida Statutes, (1997) outlines the existence of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and their duty to hold lands in trust for the use and benefit of the people pursuant to Article II, Section 7 and Article X, Section 11 of Florida's Constitution. Section 253.01, Florida Statutes (1997) establishes the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Section 253.03, Florida Statutes (1997) enumerates which lands are to be administered by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Section 253.12, Florida Statutes (1997) vests title to all previously unconveyed submerged land in the state. "Protect, Conserve and Manage Florida's Environment and Natural Resources" Printed on recycJed poper. ~. I H.T. Pontin July 29, 1999 Page 2 All of the documents, which provide authority for jurisdiction, may be located at either a public library or at the law library located at or near each county courthouse in Florida. Therefore, copies of these items will not be provided to you by this agency. However, a list of these items is included to facilitate retrieval of these documents in your area of the state. Thank you for your request. szrelY, Ith L. Williams, Assistant General Counsel ~A ~ /klw Enclosures FEDERAL STATUTES: Title 43, United States Code Annotated, Section 1301 Title 43, United States Code Annotated, Section 1311 FLORIDA CONSTITUTION: Article II, Section 7 Article X, Section 11 FLORIDA STATUTES: Chapter 26, Florida Statutes (1997) Chapter 253, Florida Stautes (1997) Section 253.001, Florida Statutes, (1997) Section 253.01, Florida Statutes (1997) Section 253.03, Florida Statutes (1997) Section 253.12, Florida Statutes (1997) ~I~LZ 43 - PUBLIC LANDS CHAPTER 29 - SUBMERGED LANDS SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS -HEAD- Sec. 1301. Definitions -STATUTE- When used in this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter _ (a) The term "lands beneath navigable waters" means _ (1) all lands within the boundaries of each of the respective Stat.. which are covered by nontidal waters that were navigable under the laws of the ODited stat.. at the time such Stat. became a member of the Union, or acquired sovereignty over such lands and waters thereafter, up to the ordinary high water mark as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction; (2) all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal . . 1 .', -, - - _ _ __ __-2 SBMERGED LANDS ACT, 43 USC Sec, 1311 (a) Powers retained by the United States (a)"The United States retains all its navigational servitude and rights in and powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the constitutional purpose of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs,. . . . " Sec. 1311(d) "Nothing in this act shall affect the use, development, improvement, or control by or under the constitutional authority of the United States of said lands and waters for the purposes of navigation... .or be construed as the release or relinquishment of any rights of the United States arising under the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate or improve navigation, " ~A...sk Jee"lleS .t~'ls,"ver: SlJPP~~T1E COl~~T COLLEC1"'!Ol'I Dan.. 1 ,,4-' 1 ... lo....,;;:;;:-=-- . ...... ~ _ I"> LIT lc:gaIinformation institute .... . Supreme CAJurt Collection - UNITED STATES v. LOCKE (98-1701) 148 F.3d 1053, reversed and remanded. Syllabus Opinion [ Kennedy) HTML version PDF version collection home wU m~ mort' - HTML version PDF version Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United Slales v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. LOCKE, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, et al. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1701. Argued December 7, 1999-Decided March 6,20001 After the supertanker Torrey Canyon spilled crude oil off the coast of England in 1967, both Congress, in the Port and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA), and the State of Washington enacted more stringent regulations for tankers and provided for more comprehensive remedies in the event ofan oil spill. The ensuing question offederal pre-emption of the State's laws was addressed in Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 432JJ.S. 15.1.. In 1989, the supertanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, causing the largest oil spill in United States history. Again, both Congress and Washington responded. Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OP A). The State created a new agency and directed it to establish standards to provide the "best achievable ... III Answer.asp.q ategory= 05 I - ttp 0 02 supct 0 a 02 corne 0 UNITED STATES v. LOCKE Page 2 of 4 Federal Government. At the appeal stage, the United States intervened on Intertanko's behalf, contending that the District Court's ruling failed to give sufficient weight to the substantial foreign affairs interests of the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit held that the State could enforce its laws, save one requiring vessels to install certain navigation and towing equipment, which was "virtually identical to" requirements declared pre-empted in Ray. Held: Washington's regulations regarding general navigation watch procedures, crew English language skills and training, and maritime casualty reporting are pre-empted by the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme governing oil tankers; the case is remanded so the validity of other Washington regulations may be assessed in light of the considerable federal interest at stake. Pp. 6- 25. (a) The State has enacted legislation in an area where the federal interest has been manifest since the beginning of the Republic and is now well established. Congress has, beginning with the Tank Vessel Act of 1936, enacted a series of statutes pertaining to maritime tanker transports. These include the PWSA, Title I of which authorizes, but does not require, the Coast Guard to enact measures for controlling vessel traffic or for protecting navigation and the marine environment, 33 U.S.C. ~ 1223(a), and Title II of which, as amended, requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations addressing the design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of covered vessels, ~6 Q..S.CJ)703(a). Congress later enacted OPA, Title I of which, among other things, imposes liability for both removal costs and damages on parties responsible for an oil spill, 33 U.S.C. 92702 and includes two saving clauses preserving the States' authority to impose additional liability, requirements, and penalties, ~~2718(a) and (c). Congress has also ratified international agreements in this area, including the International Convention of Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). Pp. 6-11. (b) In Ray, the Court held that the PWSA and Coast Guard regulations promulgated under that Act pre-empted Washington's pilotage requirement, limitation on tanker size, and tanker design and construction rules. The Ray Court's interpretation of the PWSA is correct and controlling here. Its basic analytic structure explains why federal pre-emption analysis applies to the challenged regulations : and allows scope and due recognition for the traditional authority of the States and localities to regulate some matters of local concern. In narrowing the pre-emptive effect given the PWSA in Ray, the Ninth Circuit placed more weight on OPA's saving clauses than they can bear. Like Title I of OP A, in which they are found, the saving clauses are limited to regulations governing liability and compensation for oil pollution, and do not extend to rules regulating vessel operation, design, or manning. Thus, the pre-emptive effect of the PWSA and its regulations is not affected by OP A, and Ray's holding survives OPA's enactment undiminished. The Ray Court's prefatory observation that an "assumption" that the States' historic police powers were not to be superseded by federal law unless that was the clear and manifest congressional purpose does not mean that a presumption against pre- emption aids the Court's analysis here. An assumption of non pre-emption is not triggered when the State regulates in an area where there has been a history of significant federal presence. The Ray Court held, among other things, that Congress, in PWSA Title I, preserved state authority to regulate the peculiarities of local waters, such as depth and narrowness, if there is no conflict with federal regulatory determinations, see 435 U.S., at 171-172, 178, but further held that Congress, in PWSA Title II, mandated uniform federal rules on the subjects or matters there specified, id, at 168. Thus, under Ray's interpretation of the Title II provision now found at 461L_s.,C--,-!370~(a), only the Federal Government may regulate the design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of tankers. The Court today reaffirms Ray's holding on this point. Congress has left no room for state regulation of these matters. See Fidelity Fed ...~. & http://supct.law.comell.edulsupct/html/98-1701.ZS.html 4/4/00 UNITED STATES v. LOCKE Page 3 of4 Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 US. 141. Although the Ray Court acknowledged that the existence of some overlapping coverage between the two PWSA titles may make it difficult to determine whether a pre-emption question is controlled by conflict pre-emption principles, applicable generally to Title I, or by field pre-emption rules, applicable generally to Title II, the Court declined to resolve every question by the greater pre-emptive force of Title II. Thus, conflict pre-emption will be applicable in some, although not all, cases. Useful inquiries in determining which title governs include whether the regulation in question is justified by conditions unique to a particular port or waterway, see Ray, supra, at 175, or whether it is of limited extraterritorial effect, not requiring the tanker to modifY its primary conduct outside the specific body of water purported to justifY the local rule, see id, at 159--160, 171. Pp. 11-20. (c) The field pre-emption rule surrounding PWSA Title II and 46JlS..Cc_~J703-<a) and the superseding effect of additional federal statutes are illustrated by the pre-emption of four of Washington's tanker regulations, the attempted reach of which is well demonstrated by the briefs and record. First, the imposition of a series of training requirements on a tanker's crew does not address matters unique to Washington waters, but imposes requirements that control the staffing, operation, and manning of a tanker outside of those waters. The training and drill requirements pertain to "operation" and "personnel qualifications" and so are pre-empted by ~3703(a). That training is a field reserved to the Federal Government is further conflnned by the circumstance that the STCW Convention addresses crew "training" and "qualification" requirements, and that the United States has enacted crew training regulations. Second, the imposition of English language proficiency requirements on a tanker's crew is not limited to governing local traffic or local peculiarities. It is pre- empted by ~3703(a) as a "personnel qualification" and by 33 US.C. ~ 1228(a)(7), which requires that any vessel operating in United States waters have at least one licensed deck officer on the navigation bridge who is capable of clearly understanding English. Third, Washington's general requirement that the navigation watch consist of at least two licensed deck officers, a helmsman, and a lookout is pre- empted as an attempt to regulate a tanker's "operation" and "manning" under ~3703(a). Fourth, the requirement that vessels in Washington waters report certain marine casualties regardless of where in the world they occurred cannot stand in light of Coast Guard regulations on the same subject that Congress intended be the sole source ofa vessel's reporting obligations, see 46JJ.S,C",-~._~Q13717(a) (4). On remand, Washington may argue that certain of its regulations, such as its watch requirement in times of restricted visibility, are of limited extraterritorial effect, are necessary to address the peculiarities ofPuget Sound, and therefore are not subject to Title II field pre-emption, but should instead be evaluated under Title I conflict pre-emption analysis. Pp. 20-24. (d) It is preferable that petitioners' substantial arguments as to pre-emption of the remaining Washington regulations be considered by the Ninth Circuit or by the District Court within the framework this Court has herein discussed. The United States did not participate in these cases until appeal, and resolution of the litigation would benefit from the development of a full record by all interested parties. It: pending adjudication on remand, Washington threatens to begin enforcing its regulations, the lower courts would weigh any stay application under the appropriate legal standards in light of the principles discussed herein and with recognition of the national interests at stake. Ultimately, it is largely for Congress and the Coast Guard to confront whether their regulatory scheme, which demands a high degree of uniformity, is adequate. States, as well as environmental groups and local port authorities, will participate in the process. See 46 US.C. U703(a). Pp. 24-25. 148 F.3d 1053, reversed and remanded. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. http://supct.law.comell.edulsupct/htmV98-1701.ZS.htmJ 4/4/00 County of Monroe Department of Marine Resources 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420 Marathon, Florida 33050 Phone: (305) 289-2805 FAX: (305) 289-2536 Board of County Commissioners Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey, Dist. I Mayor Pro Tern Shirley Freeman, Dist. 3 Commissioner George Neugent, Dist. 2 Commissioner Nora Williams, Dist. 4 Commissioner Mary Kay Reich, Dist. 5 March 26, 1999 To: Marine and Port Advisory Committee From: Richard Jones, Channel Marking Planner Re: Channel marking and regulatory marking projects Recently it has become apparent that past and future channel marking/regulatory marking projects need to be looked at on a comprehensive scale, rather than piece meal projects, in respect to the significance of the projects as far as County responsibilities and objectives are concerned. I have had numerous inquiries in the last six months from residents and/or property owners associations in locations where the County has installed either channel markers, regulatory markers, or both. Typically the citizens feel that the channels leading into their development or the perimeter canal need additional markers. Relying on the knowledge I have acquired from my numerous surveys throughout the Keys, I have observed that there are hundreds of residential areas that have dredged approach channels leading into them, sometimes with a dredged perimeter canal surrounding the area, These channels and canals were dredged decades ago by developers, These channels are neither owned nor maintained by the County. Historically, the residents in these areas would often mark the entrances or boundaries with unpermitted markers, typically PVC. In the last ten years some residents, resort owners, marina owners, etc., have approached the County to ask if the County could please help them by installing and maintaining markers at the County's expense. Most recently these types of projects have gone through the MP AC- some have been approved, others have not. Currently the County has markers of this type at Duck Key, Hammer Point, Layton Channel, Ninety-Seventh Street Channel, Ramrod Key Channel, Summerland Key Channel, Tamarac Park Channel, Upper Matecumbe West Channel, and Windley Key Channel. What I want to point out is that there are many more subdivisions/associations that could or would approach the County asking for assistance if they knew we do this sort of thing. Currently it costs the County tens of thousands of dollars to install and maintain these markers. Ifwe were to implement markers at all the sites in the Keys that could use them it would cost in the millions of dollars. However, the problem that we are having at this time is more markers are being requested in some of th~:private channels that we have currently marked. In fact, some people have actually requested tllat the County dredge their approach channels further out to deeper water! The perception appears to be that it is the County's responsibility to properly mark private channels (what started out as a favor by the Department of Marine Resources is now considered by some as a responsibility and that we owe it to them). In some cases, the personls requesting the markers use the environment (seagrass beds, etc.) as their purpose for request, when really (upon further investigation by our department) the motive appears to be self serving- r as in the case of a resort owner having the County establish a marked channel leading into the resort. I have already discussed with the MP AC members my push for relinquishing ownership of some of the County marked areas to more appropriate entities. I have been fairly successful at this so far, for example: Bonefish Bay, Port Largo, Reef line markers off Key Largo, Ohio Key Channel, and a few others. However, after the County has installed markers leading into a private area it is often' difficult to convince the homeowner's association (or other appropriate entity) that we would like to hand the markers over to them. Now that we have a comprehensive channel marking plan for the County we have described the objectives for marking, the criteria, and we have indicated those areas that meet those criteria. Basically we want to try to mark areas that: 1) need markers to help minimize propeller damage; 2) need modifications to existing marker chains to improve navigation, and; 3) most importantly, those areas that serve all the boating public (not just homeowners or businesses in a subdivision). This if very important to acknowledge that Boating Improvement Funds are used for the populace, and not a select group of individuals. In many areas of the Keys residents have installed their own permitted markers. It is not fair to those people that install their own markers, or people in other areas that have no markers that the County continues to provide markers that only serve small subdivisions. Now that w~ have a comprehensive marking plan and staff to implement the plan and oversee these projects we must ensure that funding and marker installations are used appropriately. We only have so much funding, and it is critical that we use the funds in the most cost effective manor which best serves the public. The Department of Marine Resources feels it is not a responsibility of the County or any other agency to mark private channels and canal systems any longer. The MP AC needs to acknowledge and address this concern. Only by making some decisions and policies regarding this matter will I be able, with authority, to tell people (in certain situations) that the County is not responsible for marking or adding markers to their private channels. We want to be able to use funding to implement marking systems that benefit all the citizens of the County, tourists, and cruising boaters alike. This means marking nearshore areas, through channels, and improving existing systems, and harbors that are used by everyone. Please take the time to think this matter over. This issue will be added to the April MP AC meeting agenda. I will be available to discuss the matter.