COUNTY:  Collier

LOCATION:  Section 22, Township 51 South, Range 27 East; and Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 27 East

CONSIDERATION:  $408,000

APPRAISED BY OPTION/

REVIEW Catlett APPROVED PURCHASE CLOSING

NO. PARCEL ACRES (09/17/97) VALUE PRICE DATE

820004 Abaza/491 172.60 $321,000 $321,000$300,000 180 days

(02/26/98) after BOT

820005 Jaeger/494 41.90 $117,000 $117,000 $108,000 approval

214.50 $438,000 $408,000

Without legal access

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing. In the event the commitments for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveal any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the properties or the proposed management of the properties, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

Certified surveys, title insurance policies, environmental site evaluations and, if necessary, environmental site assessments will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing.

The cypress swamps and old-growth slash pine flatwoods in the Belle Meade CARL project, extending to the fast-developing suburbs of Naples, are still important for such endangered wildlife as Florida panthers, red-cockaded woodpeckers and Florida black bear. Belle Meade is also the watershed for Rookery Bay. The Belle Meade CARL project will conserve the westernmost large natural area in southwest Florida, protect some of the southernmost populations of several rare animals and help protect the quality of the subtropical estuary of Rookery Bay, while providing a large area for recreation in a natural environment to residents of and visitors to rapidly urbanizing southwest Florida.

These properties will be managed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry as part of the Picayune Strand State Forest.

These acquisitions are consistent with section 187.201(10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 1, Pages 1-38)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY:  Charlotte

LOCATION:  Section 33, Township 42 South, Range 23 East

CONSIDERATION:  $95,200

Appraised by

REVIEW Bowen APPROVED PURCHASE OPTION

NO. PARCEL ACRES (01/12/98) VALUE PRICE DATE

820002 Jahaaski/47 62 $112,000 $112,000 $95,200 180 days after

BOT approval

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing. In the event the commitment for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the property or the proposed management of the property, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

A survey, title insurance policy, environmental site evaluation and, if necessary, an environmental site assessment will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing.

Northwest of Fort Myers lies the largest and highest-quality slash-pine flatwoods left in southwest Florida. The pines are home to red-cockaded woodpeckers, black bears, and bald eagles, and an occasional Florida panther ranges the area. The largest population in the world of the rare beautiful pawpaw grows here. Several drainage ditches flow through these flatwoods into the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve. The Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods CARL project will protect these flatwoods and connect the Charlotte Harbor State Buffer Preserve with the Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area, helping to protect both of these managed areas and the waters of the Aquatic Preserve.

The property will be managed by the GFC as part of the Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201 (10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 2, Pages 1-25)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY:  Collier

LOCATION:  Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 28 East

CONSIDERATION:  $79,000

APPRAISED BY

REVIEW Bowen APPROVED PURCHASE OPTION

NO. PARCEL ACRES (11/14/97) VALUE PRICE DATE

820007 2 West-B/ 10 $79,000 $79,000 $79,000 180 days

Turkey Trot Farms after BOT

Approval

This property is being acquired under a $25 million Farm Bill grant from the U. S. Department of Interior. As an acreage tract, this parcel was not included in the recent mass appraisal of subdivided lots performed as part of the settlement of the claim of inverse condemnation by nearly 3,900 lot owners in Southern Golden Gate Estates. While the settlement agreement required that the plaintiffs be given first priority, the plaintiff’s representative has given permission to proceed with the acquisition of this parcel.

Improvements on the property consist of two mobile homes, a bath house, a shop/utility building, equipment/pump sheds and fencing. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry (DOF), the future managing agency, intends to use the shop building and sheds to support DOF projects. The mobile homes can possibly be used to house volunteers.

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing.  In the event the commitment for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the property or the proposed management of the property, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

A title insurance policy, a survey, an environmental site evaluation and, if necessary, an environmental site assessment will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing.

West of the huge sawgrass marsh of the central Everglades spreads a landscape of cypress swamps, marshes, slash-pine flatwoods, and tropical hammocks, through which water slowly flows to the mangrove swamps of the Ten Thousand Islands. The Save Our Everglades CARL

project will connect and extend existing conservation lands, help to save the last of the Florida panthers and a host of other rare animals and tropical plants, preserve the flow of water to the rich estuaries of the Gulf coast, and allow the public to enjoy this unique landscape for years to come.

This property will be managed by the DOF as a part of the Picayune Strand State Forest.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201 (10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 3, Pages 1-21)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY:  Collier

LOCATION:  Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 29 East

CONSIDERATION:  $190,000

APPRAISED BY

REVIEW Bass APPROVED PURCHASE OPTION

NO. PARCEL ACRES (04/08/98) VALUE PRICE DATE

820006 Miller/2 324.78 $211,000 $211,000 $190,000 180 days

after BOT

approval

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing. In the event the commitment for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the property or the proposed management of the property, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

A survey, a title insurance policy, an environmental site evaluation and, if necessary, an environmental site assessment will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing. The seller will reimburse the purchaser’s title insurance costs.

Of the subtropical swamps in south Florida, the Fakahatchee Strand is perhaps the most significant - the richest in orchids and other rare tropical plants, the most critical to the survival of the Florida panther, and the most important for the mangrove swamps of the Ten

Thousand Islands. The Fakahatchee Strand CARL project, by preserving this ecosystem, will help to save the last of the panthers, protect the Ten Thousand Islands, and give the public an opportunity to learn about this unique part of Florida.

This property will be managed by the Division of Recreation and Parks as a part of the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201 (10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 4, Pages 1-26)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY: Lee

LOCATION:  Section 13, Township 44 South, Range 20 East; and Section 29, Township 44 South, Range 21 East

CONSIDERATION: $258,800

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing. In the event the commitments for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveal any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the properties or the proposed management of the properties, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

Title insurance policies, environmental site evaluations and, if necessary, surveys and environmental site assessments will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing.

A chain of sandy barrier islands, including Cayo Costa and North Captiva, protects the entrance to Charlotte Harbor, one of the largest and most productive estuaries in Florida. The

Cayo Costa Island project will protect the beaches, dunes and hammocks of these islands--the largest barrier islands in natural condition in southwest Florida--while giving the residents and tourists a beautiful natural shore to enjoy for years to come.

These properties will be managed by the Division of Recreation and Parks as part of Cayo Costa State Park.

These acquisitions are consistent with section 187.201(10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 5, Pages 1-20)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY:  Collier

LOCATION:  Sections 14 and 23, Township 51 South, Range 25 East

CONSIDERATION:  $90,000

APPRAISED BY

REVIEW Dane APPROVED PURCHASE OPTION

NO. PARCEL ACRES (01/28/97) VALUE PRICE DATE

820008 Conservancy/98 1.88 $153,200 $153,200 $90,000 180 days after

Improvements on the property consist of a dilapidated home, a dilapidated shed and a dock. The home and shed, excluding the concrete foundations of the buildings, will be removed by the seller prior to conveyance of the property to the Board of Trustees. The Bureau of Appraisal indicated that the improvements were not valued separately but as a part of the overall property. The Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, the future managing agency, intends to use the concrete slabs as a base for a new shed and a staging area for management activities. The dock will be used as an access point for resource management, research and educational activities on Keewaydin Island.

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing.  In the event the commitment for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the property or the proposed management of the property, staff will so

advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

A title insurance policy, a survey, an environmental site evaluation and, if necessary, an environmental site assessment will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing. The seller will reimburse the purchaser’s title insurance cost; survey cost, not to exceed $5,000; and environmental site assessment cost, not to exceed $2,500.

Rookery Bay is an outstanding subtropical estuary in the fastest growing part of Florida. Its mangroves shelter important nesting colonies of water birds, and feed and protect many aquatic animals. These animals in turn, are the foundation of commercial and recreational fisheries. The Rookery Bay CARL project will protect the bay’s water quality and its native plants and animals and will provide recreational opportunities to the people of southwest Florida. As an addition to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, the project will also further coastal ecosystem research and environmental education.

This property will be managed by the Division of Marine Resources as part of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201 (10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 6, Pages 1-42)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY:  Collier

LOCATION:  Section 05, Township 51 South, Range 26 East; and Section 31, Township 50 South, Range 26 East

CONSIDERATION:  $5,125,000

APPRAISED BY

REVIEW Dane Bowen Hettema APPROVED PURCHASE OPTION

NO. PARCEL ACRES (05/15/97) (05/15/97) (05/15/97) VALUE PRICE DATE

820001 214 48.40 $43,600 $ 43,600 03/19/99

213&216 327.27 $2,847,249$3,207,000$3,207,000

135&203 180.90 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 _________

556.57 $5,420,600 $5,125,000

*Appraised value was decreased because acreage was decreased by 27.13 acres.

Parcels 213 and 216 are subject to outstanding oil, gas, mineral and other hydrocarbon substances interests. On June 27, 1989, Collier Development Corporation, a Florida

corporation, reserved 100 percent of the oil, gas, mineral and other hydrocarbon substances interests in and under the property, below a depth of 125 feet from the surface of the property, without any right of surface entry for exploration, development or extraction and to run indefinitely. The Bureau of Geology determined there is no apparent significant potential for commercial oil, gas and mineral production at this site. The appraisers were aware of the outstanding interests and took them into consideration when determining the value of the property. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, the future managing agency, has determined that the property can be effectively managed subject to the outstanding interests.

The property is subject to two reservations for the benefit of the seller, its successors or assigns: (1) a sixty-five foot wide perpetual non-exclusive easement for a service road to be utilized by service vehicles and maintenance personnel needed to maintain a golf course; and (2) a forty-five foot wide perpetual non-exclusive easement for a golf cart path for access to the golf course which will be situated on adjacent property owned by the seller. On or before closing, the seller will grant the purchaser a 60-foot wide perpetual, non-exclusive easement acceptable to the Division of State Lands for ingress and egress to the property in sections 05 and 31.

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing.  In the event the commitment for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the property or the proposed management of the property, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

A title insurance policy, a survey, an environmental site evaluation and, if necessary, an environmental site assessment will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing.

Rookery Bay is an outstanding subtropical estuary in the fastest growing part of Florida. Its mangroves shelter important nesting colonies of water birds, and feed and protect many aquatic animals. These animals in turn, are the foundation of commercial and recreational fisheries. The Rookery Bay CARL project will protect the bay’s water quality and its native plants and animals and will provide recreational opportunities to the people of southwest Florida. As an addition to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, the project will also further coastal ecosystem research and environmental education.

The property will be managed by the Division of Marine Resources as part of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201 (10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 7, Pages 1-71)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY:  Collier

LOCATION:  Sections 02, 04, 09 and 10, Township 53 South, Range 26 East

CONSIDERATION:  $10,300

APPRAISED BY

REVIEW Miller APPROVED PURCHASE CLOSING

NO. PARCEL ACRES (10/05/97) VALUE PRICE DATE

820009 Milton/11 0.82 $8,300 $ 8,300 $ 8,300 180 days after

(08/06/97) BOT approval

820010 Carr/69A&B 1.35 $2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000

2.17 $10,300 $10,300

Both parcels are subject to outstanding oil and mineral interests. Over 75 percent of the oil and mineral interests in Parcel 11 were reserved on February 21, 1956, by Mary E. Sweeting and on May 2, 1969, by William D. Hixon, Trustee, both with right of entry and to run indefinitely. Parcels 69 A and B are subject to 100 percent oil and gas interests, reserved on April 19, 1955, by the United States of America, with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits. Staff recommends acquiring the property subject to the outstanding interests. The Bureau of Geology determined that the sediment with the greatest potential for development is sand; however, further investigation would be required to determine the commercial value, if any, of the sand. The appraiser was aware of the outstanding interests and took them into consideration when determining the value of the properties. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, the future managing agency, has determined that the properties can be effectively managed subject to the outstanding oil and mineral interests.

Parcel 11 is subject to deed restrictions limiting property use to single-family dwellings with no commercial use allowed. The future managing agency has determined that the property can be effectively managed subject to these restrictions.

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing.  In the event the commitments for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveal any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the properties or the proposed management of the properties, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

The purchaser will absorb all acquisition costs (excluding taxes and contingency fees), which may include title commitments, surveys, environmental site assessments and recording and documentary stamps, by either paying directly or reimbursement.

The Cape Romano complex consists of a series of undeveloped islands which form the southern end of the 37-mile stretch of beaches and barrier islands in Collier County. These beaches serve as critical nesting habitat for the endangered Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle, least tern and black skimmer. Most of the islands are fringed by mangroves and have intertidal seagrass beds, alga beds and oyster reefs. These habitats serve as nursery areas for larval and juvenile finfish and shellfish, many of commercial and recreational importance, and also provide forage for manatees, sea turtles, a variety of shorebirds and larger fish. Public acquisition of the lands will help ensure long-term preservation of pristine coastal resources

that can be utilized by listed species, as well as for research and public education.

These properties will be managed by the Division of Marine Resources as part of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

These acquisitions are consistent with section 187.201(10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 8, Pages 1-43)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY:  Lee

LOCATION:  Section 36, Township 46 South, Range 24 East

CONSIDERATION:  $287,000

APPRAISED BY

REVIEW Roper APPROVED PURCHASE OPTION

NO. PARCEL ACRES (03/31/98) VALUE PRICE DATE

820014 2 0.29 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 180 days

3 1.94 $ 98,000 $ 98,000 after BOT

4 4.62 $111,000 $111,000 approval

7 2.12 $ 63,000 $ 63,000 ________

8.97 $322,000 $322,000 $287,000

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing.  In the event the commitment for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the property or the proposed management of the property, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

This property will be managed by the DRP as an addition to the Mound Key State Historic Site.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201 (10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 9, Pages 1-58)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

REQUEST:  Consideration of a request to approve an amendment to the option agreement to purchase a previously excluded 23.97-acre parcel located within the San Felasco State Preserve Addition CARL project and contaminated by a cattle dipping vat, in its present "as is" condition, from the University of Florida Foundation.

COUNTY:  Alachua

LOCATION:   Domingo Fernandez Grant, Township 8 South, Range 19 East

CONSIDERATION:  $49,140

REVIEW APPROVED PURCHASE CLOSING

NO. PARCEL ACRES VALUE PRICE DATE

820003 UFF 23.97 $50,337 $49,140 150 days after

BOT approval

*The approved value is based on the appraised per acre value of the original parcel.

On July 14, 1994, the Board of Trustees authorized staff to amend the option agreement to close over 850 acres of the property as soon as possible and to close on the remaining portion of the property, under the same terms and conditions as the original option, after the cattle dipping vat had been remediated. The parties entered into a second amendment to option agreement on December 13, 1994, and closed the initial transaction on December 15, 1994. Subsequent to Board of Trustees authorization of the amendment and the initial closing, legislation was enacted pertaining to public acquisition of property containing cattle dipping vats. Chapter 97 - 164, Laws of Florida, provides in part, that it is in the public interest for the state and its political subdivisions to acquire cattle dipping vats from willing sellers, where such vats are located on or within the boundaries of parcels or tracts acquired or being acquired by the state and its political subdivisions.

Environmental testing has been performed on the property surrounding the cattle dipping vat and it indicated that there were no contaminants found on the property other than the contaminants associated with the cattle vat operation. The testing also revealed that the contamination was limited to an area of approximately 1.5 acres (250-foot radius, more or less) around the vat.

Paragraph 5 of the amendment provides that the purchaser may elect to purchase a contaminated area under the same terms and conditions set forth in the original option agreement, after all efforts taken by the seller to remediate the contaminated area have been completed to the satisfaction of the purchaser. The enactment of the cattle dipping vat legislation removed the obligation of the owner to remediate. If the Board of Trustees approves this item, staff will proceed to close on the remaining 23.9 acres under the same terms and conditions as the original option.

All mortgages and liens will be satisfied at the time of closing. In the event the commitment for title insurance, to be obtained prior to closing, reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value of the property or the proposed management of the property, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing.

A title insurance policy will be provided by the purchaser prior to closing. In cooperation with the managing agency, the Division of State Lands will acquire any special purpose survey work necessary for the effective management of the property.

The property will be managed by the Division of Recreation and Parks as an addition to the San Felasco State Preserve.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201(10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 10, Pages 1-13)

RECOMMEND APPROVAL

COUNTY: Hendry

APPLICANT: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

LOCATION: Sections 20 through 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34, Township 44 South, Range 30 East

CONSIDERATION: $2,743,236 (To be adjusted upward or downward at the rate of $938.50 per acre in accordance with the final surveyed acreage.)

STAFF REMARKS: This acquisition was negotiated by the South Florida Water Management District (District) on behalf of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) under the P2000 Program. The parcel is within the Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife Management Area and is ranked number 22 on the current GFC Acquisition List.

Okaloacoochee Slough was placed on the CARL list in 1996 as a shared acquisition. On December 16, 1997, the Board of Trustees authorized staff to enter into an acquisition agreement with the District to acquire the Alico, Inc. ownership located in the Okaloacoochee Slough CARL project in accordance with section 259.041(16), F.S., utilizing the procedures set out in section 373.139, F.S. The acquisition agreement was amended on November 13, 1998, to include the GFC Additions and Inholdings (A&I) parcel which is immediately adjacent to the Okaloacoochee Slough CARL project boundary.

The District contracted to purchase the Alico, Inc., ownership at 98.6 percent of the appraised value. Pursuant to the terms of the amended acquisition agreement, the District shall be reimbursed 100 percent of all costs associated with its attempt to acquire lands within the GFC A&I project, including all pre-acquisition and closing related costs. Fee simple title to the property acquired will vest in the Board of Trustees. The GFC’s purchase price will be 100 percent of the contract price, plus 100 percent of the costs incurred in the purchase of the property.

As provided for in the acquisition agreement, on November 13, 1998, the Governing Board of the District adopted Resolution No. 98-111, requesting reimbursement of GFC’s purchase price for the Alico, Inc. parcel, reimbursement of 100 percent of its pre-acquisition costs and reimbursement of 100 percent of its closing costs (recording, title insurance policy and survey costs). The District’s resolution contains all of the assurances required by the acquisition agreement.

Acquisition of this land will create a more complete pattern of state ownership for the wildlife management area, provide additional wildlife habitat, increase public access and enhance the overall management of the Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife Management Area.

The property will be managed by the GFC as an addition to the Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife Management Area for natural resource conservation and resource-based public outdoor recreation within a multiple-use management regime.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201(10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 11, Pages 1-30)

COUNTIES: Hendry and Collier

APPLICANT: Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry

LOCATION: Sections 19 through 21, 28, 33 and 34, Township 44 South, Range 30 East; Sections 04, 05, 08 through 11, 14 through 16, 22, 23, 26 and 30 through 32, Township 45 South, Range 30 East; Sections 24 and 25 Township 45 South, Range 29 East; and Sections 03 through 05, Township 46 South, Range 30 East

CONSIDERATION: $6,044,600 (To be adjusted upward or downward at the rate of $621.88 per acre for parcel L1-100-008, and at $554 per acre for parcels L1-100-013 and L1-100-014 in accordance with the final surveyed acreage.)

STAFF REMARKS: This acquisition was negotiated by the South Florida Water Management District (District) on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry (DOF), with funding from the DOF’s P2000 Additions and Inholdings funds.

Improvements on a twenty-acre portion of the property, known as the Keri Work Site, consist of an office building/equipment shed, three houses and miscellaneous site improvements. The DOF, the future managing agency, will use the improvements for management of the property.

Okaloacoochee Slough was placed on the CARL list in 1996 as a shared acquisition. On December 16, 1997, the Board of Trustees authorized the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to enter into an acquisition agreement with the District to acquire the Alico, Inc. ownership located in the Okaloacoochee Slough CARL project in accordance with section 259.041(16), F.S., utilizing the procedures set out in section 373.139, F.S. On June 24, 1998, the Board of Trustees authorized DEP staff to acquire an undivided 50 percent interest from the District in 18,957 acres. The acquisition agreement was amended on November 13, 1998, to include DOF Additions and Inholdings (A&I) parcels. Approximately 7,200 acres of this acquisition are within the Okaloacoochee Slough CARL project boundary.

The District contracted to purchase the Alico, Inc., ownership at 96 percent of the appraised value. Pursuant to the terms of the amended acquisition agreement, the District shall be reimbursed 100 percent of all costs associated with its attempt to acquire lands within the DOF A&I project, including all pre-acquisition and closing related costs. Fee simple title to the property acquired will vest in the Board of Trustees. The DOF’s purchase price will be 100 percent of the contract price, plus 100 percent of the costs incurred in the purchase of the property.

As provided for in the acquisition agreement, on November 13, 1998, the Governing Board of the District adopted Resolution No. 98-110, requesting reimbursement of DOF’s purchase price for the Alico, Inc. parcel, reimbursement of 100 percent of its pre-acquisition costs and reimbursement of 100 percent of its closing costs (recording, title insurance policy and survey costs). The District’s resolution contains all of the assurances required by the acquisition agreement.

This acquisition will enhance public use of the state forest. The parcels will be managed by the DOF under a multiple-use management strategy as a part of the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest.

These acquisitions are consistent with section 187.201(23), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 12, Pages 1-54)

COUNTIES: Broward, Palm Beach and Dade

LOCATION: Sections 23 through 25 and 36, Township 45 South, Range 41 East; Sections 01, 12, 26, and 42, Township 46 South, Range 41 East; Sections 19, 20 and 28 through 30, Township 47 South, Range 41 East; Sections 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 34, Township 50 South, Range 39 East; Sections 03, 15, 23, 27, and 34, Township 51 South, Range 39 East; Sections 05 and 19, Township 52 South, Range 40 East; Sections 02, 03, 09 through 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 29 through 31, Township 52 South, Range 39 East; Sections 06 through 08, 17 through 20, and 29 through 32, Township 53 South, Range 39 East; Sections 03 through 08, 17 and 19, Township 54 South, Range 39 East; and Section 13, Township 54 South, Range 38 East.

STAFF REMARKS: The East Everglades CARL project is ranked number 3 on the Mega/Multiparcel CARL List approved by the Board of Trustees on February 10, 1998, and is funded under the Division of State Lands’ Land Acquisition Workplan. The proposed agreement covers 72,230 acres known as the East Coast Buffer, contained within the East Everglades CARL project, and is owned by multiple owners.

The East Coast Buffer consists of approximately 72,230 acres of marshes, reservoirs, and groundwater recharge areas in Palm Beach, Broward and Dade counties. However, the most significant aspect of the East Coast Buffer is its role in restoring the Everglades. In 1992, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to conduct a restudy of the Central and Southern Florida Project. The reconnaissance report for this restudy was completed in 1994 and the COE incorporated the East Coast Buffer in its analysis, referring to the area as the "Water Preserve Areas".

The purpose of the East Coast Buffer/Water Preserve Areas is to: (1) increase storage and hold more water in the system by controlling seepage from the Everglades, thus restoring more natural Everglades hydropatterns; (2) capture and store excess stormwater currently discharged to coastal waters, thus retaining an important water supply source for both urban and natural systems; (3) provide a buffer between the natural and developed areas; (4) preserve and protect wetlands outside the publicly owned Everglades; and (5) provide important transitional land uses between the natural and developed areas. East Coast Buffer/Water Preserve Areas may also enhance flood control in areas to the east of these lands. The East Coast Buffer lands are under intense development pressure in all counties. Therefore, immediate public acquisition is needed to preserve and enhance wetlands and preserve opportunities for the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem.

To implement this restoration, during the last decade the South Florida Water Management District (District) has acquired over 16,000 acres at a cost of $119,000,000. In anticipation of the Board of Trustees’ participation in this effort, the East Coast Buffer was added to the East Everglades CARL project on March 15, 1996. District funding is now limited but the District has offered to take the lead in acquiring the property on behalf of the Board of Trustees. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff has prepared an agreement to cover the District’s purchases of parcels in the project. The agreement would allow the District to acquire the East Coast Buffer portion of the East Everglades CARL project in accordance with section 259.041(16), F.S., utilizing the procedures set out in section 373.139, F.S. On June 15, 1995, the Board of Trustees approved the use of the District's procedures to allow the District to acquire lands to be held jointly by the Board of Trustees and the District.

If the Board of Trustees approves this item, District staff will present the agreement to the Governing Board of the District for execution at its next Governing Board meeting. Upon receipt of the executed agreement, DEP staff will execute the agreement on behalf of the Board of Trustees.

Incorporated into the agreement are a number of assurances that the District is giving the Board of Trustees in return for its consideration of this agreement. The District has agreed to: (1) comply with the procedures set out in section 373.139, F.S.; (2) defend the Board of Trustees against all title and survey disputes or defects and environmental contamination associated with each acquisition negotiated by the District that were either known or should have been known by the District at the time the District acquired the parcel; and (3) reimburse the Board of Trustees 100 percent of any overpayment of the purchase price if an audit or investigation determines that the purchase price paid exceeded the actual appraised value.

Pursuant to the proposed agreement, District staff will obtain and review appraisals, negotiate a purchase contract and secure the approval of its governing board. The District will provide DEP’s Division of State Lands with a board resolution requesting reimbursement of the Board of Trustees' share of the purchase price. DEP staff will seek approval for the Board of Trustees' share of the purchase price for each parcel the District contracts to purchase. In addition, the agreement provides for the District to be reimbursed 100 percent of all costs associated with its attempt to acquire lands within the project, including all pre-acquisition and closing related costs, with the pre-acquisition costs and certain closing costs being reimbursed even if the District is unsuccessful in acquiring any property. The agreement authorizes DEP staff to reimburse these costs from CARL incidental expense funds. If the Board of Trustees approves a specific purchase, the District will proceed to closing with title to be vested with the Board of Trustees.

The East Coast Buffer portion of the East Everglades CARL project will be managed by the District in conjunction with COE Everglades restoration projects. As local sponsor for the restoration projects, the District is required to hold a title interest sufficient to meet COE certification requirements. While the COE would prefer the sponsor to hold fee title, section 259.101(3)(g), F.S., states that title to lands acquired with P2000 funds under the CARL program must vest in the Board of Trustees. The acquisition agreement includes a provision whereby the Board of Trustees will convey to the District an easement consistent with section 253.034(4), F.S., for any lands acquired under this agreement that are to become part of a COE approved Everglades restoration project. DEP staff is currently working with the COE and the District to develop an easement sufficient for COE certification. The COE will require the easement to include a statement that the land interest will not be impaired during the life of the project and that the COE is granted an irrevocable right to enter the project lands for the purpose of construction, inspection, completing, operating, repairing, maintaining, replacing or rehabilitating the projects. In the event that the COE determines that fee title is required to meet certification requirements and statutes are amended to permit entities other than the Board of Trustees to hold title to lands acquired with P2000 funds, staff would amend the acquisition agreement to provide for a transfer of fee title to the District and process the conveyance consistent with any statutory authority granted.

This acquisition is consistent with section 187.201(10), F.S., the Natural Systems and Recreational Lands section of the State Comprehensive Plan.

(See Attachment 13, Pages 1-13)

REQUEST: Consideration of an exchange agreement under which the Board of Trustees would convey an 80.15-acre parcel of Board of Trustees’ land to The St. Joe Company in exchange for four parcels of land containing 46.83, 47.81, 14.91, and 43.67 acres, respectively, owned by The St. Joe Company.

COUNTY: Leon

APPLICANT: Department of Management Services

LOCATION: Sections 16 and 21, Township 01 South, Range 01 East

CONSIDERATION: Parcel-for-parcel provided, however, the Board of Trustees will not compensate The St. Joe Company for any difference in value.

APPRAISED BY

REVIEW Carlton APPROVED EXCHANGE CLOSING

NO. PARCEL ACRES (11/03 /98) VALUE VALUE DATE

BOT 80.15 $2,404,500 $2,404,500 $2,404,500 60 days after

820020 ST. JOE #1 46.83 1,170,750 1,170,750 1,170,750 BOT approval

820021 ST. JOE #2 47.81 1,673,350 1,673,350 1,673,350

820022 ST. JOE #3 14.91 596,400 596,400 596,400

820023 ST. JOE #4 43.67 917,100 917,100 917,100

820024 ALT. PAR. #1 46.50 1,627,500 1,627,500 1,627,500

St. Joe approached DMS with an offer to exchange four parcels of land containing 46.83 acres (Parcel 1), 47.81 acres (Parcel 2), 14.91 acres (Parcel 3), and 43.67 acres (Parcel 4) located in the vicinity of the Southwood Complex for an 80.15-acre parcel of state-owned land. The state-owned land is a portion of the land originally donated by St. Joe and is presently undeveloped. Although the value of the parcels to be acquired by the Board of Trustees exceeds the value of the parcels to be deeded to St. Joe, the Board of Trustees will not be required to compensate St. Joe for the difference in value.

The following terms and conditions are included in the proposed exchange agreement:

1. If by January 1, 2003, the state has not commenced construction of an 80,000 gross square foot building, or expended $2,000,000 on development activities related to Parcel 1, Parcel 1 will automatically revert to St. Joe, and the Board of Trustees will be deeded an alternate 46.50-acre parcel (Alternate Parcel 1).

2. If by January 1, 2008, the state has failed to commence construction of an office building on Parcel 2, title to Parcel 3 will revert to St. Joe.

3. If by January 1, 2010, the state has failed to commence construction on an office building on Parcel 2, title to Parcel 4 will revert to St. Joe.

4. In no event will the swap result in the state having less buildable area than that contained in the 80.15-acre parcel to be conveyed to St. Joe.

5. In a worse case scenario, if all of the reverter provisions are triggered, the state will end up with contiguous Parcel 2 and Alternate Parcel 1, with at least as much buildable land as it is giving up in the swap.

The exchange agreement also contains the following provisions related to shared infrastructure costs:

1. The state agrees to share in the cost of design and construction of those roads shown on Exhibit H of the exchange agreement, except that the state shall not be required to share

in such costs associated with parcels that revert to St. Joe under the exchange agreement.

2. Sharing the costs on that part of the road lying immediately east of Parcel 1 is contingent on the state’s receipt of sufficient curb cuts in the roadway to allow reasonable access to Parcel 1 from such road.

3. The state will share equally in the costs of the other roads indicated in brown on Exhibit H of the exchange agreement.

4. St. Joe will be responsible for any additional cost on the road shown in blue, unless the state is responsible for more than 50 percent of the capacity of this road. In that event, the costs will be apportioned based on actual usage.

5. The state will share in the cost of other infrastructure, such as water and sewer, based on each party’s demand on capacity on buildout.

6. St. Joe will grant the following easements:

A. Temporary construction easement on Main Street;

B. Vehicular access easement to the west of Parcel 3 until internal roadways are constructed;

C. Subsurface utility easement across the parcel to be conveyed to St. Joe; and

D. Temporary storage easement for a 300 foot by 300 foot parcel on the north side of Main Street.

On June 11, 1998, the Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council voted to recommend the exchange. On June 24, 1998, the Board of Trustees conceptually approved the exchange. The reverter conditions contained in the proposed exchange agreement were not considered as a part of the conceptual approval.

All mortgages and liens on the parcels to be received by the Board of Trustees will be satisfied at the time of closing. In the event the commitment for title insurance reveals any other encumbrances which may affect the value or the proposed management of the parcels to be received by the Board of Trustees, staff will so advise the Board of Trustees prior to closing. Since St. Joe will not be reserving oil, gas, phosphate or other mineral interests in the parcels it is to convey, staff recommends that the Board of Trustees, pursuant to section 253.62, F.S., not reserve oil, gas, phosphate or other mineral interests in the parcels it is to convey to St. Joe.

A consideration of the status of the local government comprehensive plan was not made for this item. The Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the disposition of land is not subject to the local government planning process.

(See Attachment 14, Pages 1-57)

REQUEST: Consideration of a request by the United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) that the Board of Trustees (1) not take any action to lease or sell a 70-acre parcel of Board of Trustees’ land in Dade County until a determination is made by Congress regarding the possible relocation of USSOUTHCOM headquarters to another state; and (2) express a willingness to consider its proposals for the use of the parcel should Congress decide that USSOUTHCOM will remain in Miami.

COUNTY: Miami-Dade

APPLICANT: USSOUTHCOM

LOCATION: Section 28, Township 53 South, Range 40 East, within the local jurisdiction of Miami-Dade County.

The subject property is located in an unincorporated section of western Miami-Dade County, five miles west of the Miami International Airport. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, market research indicated that there had been over-building of speculative office and warehouse space in the area. There was a high vacancy rate and marketing of the state property was not feasible at that time. Since then, the market has greatly improved, and private and government entities have indicated some interest in gaining control of the property. Because of USSOUTHCOM’s relatively recent relocation, its infrastructure needs are just beginning to be identified. Additional time is needed for the Department of Defense to determine if USSOUTHCOM might benefit from development of the land adjacent to its headquarters.

A consideration of the status of the local government comprehensive plan was not made for this item. The Department of Environmental Protection has determined that negotiating for the leasing or sale of a real property interest is not subject to the local government planning process.

(See Attachment 15, Pages 1-2)

REQUEST: (1) Consideration of an offer to purchase the state’s three-fourth interest in the solid minerals in an 11.82-acre parcel of land; and (2) acceptance of the offer of $15,000 by James V. Smith, Lillian Taylor, and Irene Micher.

COUNTY: Polk

APPLICANTS: James V. Smith, Lillian Taylor, and Irene Micher

LOCATION: Section 09, Township 30 South, Range 23 East

CONSIDERATION: $15,000

STAFF REMARKS: Pursuant to section 270.11, F.S., the Board of Trustees reserved title to a three-fourth interest in the solid minerals under an 11.82-acre parcel of land conveyed by instrument dated February 6, 1946, and recorded in Official Records Book 764, Page 408, Public Records of Polk County, Florida. Pursuant to section 18-2.020, F.A.C., the applicants have submitted an application to purchase the solid mineral rights held by the Board of Trustees in the subject parcel. The applicants own all surface rights in the property as well as the remaining one-fourth mineral interest.

Section 18-2.020(2)(c), F.A.C., provides that sales of mineral interests shall be competitively bid unless the Board of Trustees do not own the surface, in which case the sale shall be negotiated with the surface owner. The Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Geology provided an evaluation of phosphate mineral rights which staff referenced as a basis for negotiating the sale price.

Prospecting data indicates that there are approximately 67,000 tons of minable phosphate rock on or beneath this parcel with a value of between $70,350 and $87,000 in the ground. The value of the state’s three-fourth interest must be substantially discounted because it does not own the surface estate. Further discounting is appropriate since the parcel is too small to be mined as an independent unit. If mining does not occur now, it is highly unlikely that this parcel will ever be mined and the state will never be compensated for its interest. Consequently, staff believes the applicants’ offer of $15,000 should be accepted.

Section 270.11(2)(a), F.S., states that sales of mineral interests shall be made on application of the owner of the title to the particular parcel of land with a statement of reason justifying such sale or release. The current landowners intend to sell the mineral interests to Agrifos, L.L.C., the company currently mining the surrounding area, which can effectively mine the area as a part of its larger operation.

A consideration of the status of the local government comprehensive plan was not made for this item. The Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the proposed request is not subject to the local government planning process.

(See Attachment 16, Pages 1-13)

REQUEST: Consideration of (1) an offer to purchase a parcel of RICO property in Martin County; and (2) acceptance of the highest and best offer of $115,006 from Michael Gerald Powell and Carman Melisa Powell.

COUNTY: Martin

RICO No. 103

LOCATION: Citrus Boulevard at Banks Street on the St. Lucie Canal, Palm City, Florida

CONSIDERATION: $115,006

STAFF REMARKS: Title to this property vested in the Board of Trustees on August 3, 1983, pursuant to section 895.05, F.S. The property contains 5.3 acres, more or less, is vacant and zoned A-2, Agricultural (Rural Residential). The property is rectangular in shape and has approximately 328 front feet along the St. Lucie Canal in Palm City, Florida, between Stuart and Indiantown.

On May 14, 1990, the property was appraised by Harry D. Gray, MAI, SRA, for $200,000 with a quick sale value of $160,000. The property was subsequently offered for sale with the following offers being received: August 1991 - no offers; March 1995 - three offers, the highest of which was $67,510; July 1995 - no offers; and November 1995 - no offers. All offers were rejected because at the time they were substantially below the appraised value.

On February 13, 1996, the property was reappraised by Thomas M. Glitto, SRA, and William H. Benson, III, MAI, SRA, for $145,000 with a quick sale value of $109,000 to $123,000. There were two reasons for the decrease in value. First, the local comprehensive plan will allow only one residence to be built on the 5.30 acres while the original appraisal was based upon the assumption that two could be built. Second, a major business venture was proposed for the immediate area which caused land values to increase. Ultimately, the business venture failed to be built, causing land values to again decrease. The property was subsequently offered for sale with the following offers being received: April 1996 - one offer of $92,500; October 1997 - one offer of $51,031; and February 1998 - one offer of $92,500. All offers received were rejected because at the time they were substantially below the appraised value.

On July 7, 1998, the property was reappraised by James H. McKernan, State Certified Residential Appraiser, of Johnson and Parrish of the Treasure Coast, Inc., for $98,000. The McKernan appraisal reflects that land values in the area continue to decline because of the failure of the proposed business described above.

In October 1998, the property was again advertised for sale in the Stuart News and the Palm Beach Post. Detailed information was sent to all persons on the RICO master mailing list. The following is a tabulation of offers received and considered by the advertised deadline:

OFFER SUBMITTED BY GROSS OFFER NET OFFER

Michael Gerald Powell and

Carman Melisa Powell $ 115,006 $ 115,006

John P. Stelluto and

Debra Ann Levulis $ 103,000 $ 103,000

Larry Olson $ 99,100 $ 99,100

There is no existing mortgage on the property. Expenses to date total $10,874.91 which includes advertising, travel, appraisals, title search and miscellaneous. These expenses were paid out of the Forfeited Property Trust Fund which will be reimbursed upon closing the sale. In addition to repayment to the Forfeited Property Trust Fund for expenses incurred, a seven percent surcharge of $8,050.42 will be paid to General Revenue and the remaining proceeds

will be distributed as set forth in chapter 895, F.S.

Staff recommends that the Board of Trustees accept this offer. The Board of Trustees reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

A consideration of the status of the local government comprehensive plan was not made for this item. The Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the disposition of land is not subject to the local government planning process.

(See Attachment 17, Pages 1-22)

REQUEST: Consideration of a request for approval of a court-ordered mediated settlement agreement for the sale and purchase of the Board of Trustees’ interest in RICO #137, in the case of Ronald F. Holehouse v. Department of Environmental Protection (Board of Trustees), Case Number 96-502-CI-13, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida.

APPLICANTS: Department of Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands, Bureau of Public Lands Administration, and Ronald F. Holehouse

LOCATION: St. Pete Beach, Pinellas County (f/k/a St. Petersburg Beach)

CONSIDERATION: $435,000 to be deposited in the Forfeited Property Trust Fund.

STAFF REMARKS: In May 1992, the Board of Trustees acquired a proprietary leasehold interest in certain improved commercial and residential property (RICO #137) pursuant to the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, chapter 895, F.S. RICO #137, identified as Apartments 32, 33, 34, and 35, consists of a small one-bedroom apartment, a first-floor restaurant, and a second-story lounge, totaling approximately 7,000 interior square feet. The property is located in the Pass-A-Grille Beach Motel, Inc., a cooperative association ("the cooperative"). The underlying fee ownership of the entire property is vested in the cooperative. The cooperative’s Board of Directors has authority to approve or deny the sale of leaseholds.

When acquired, RICO #137 had delinquent cooperative fees, a second mortgage in arrears, and a history of poor rental receipts. The restaurant/lounge was operating as a going concern by tenants Soheil Soheili and Kouresh Bakhtarian, who were later evicted in the course of a lawsuit initiated by the Economic Crimes Unit of the Department of Legal Affairs for past due rent.

RICO #137 was appraised for $345,000 in July, 1992. The property was advertised for sale by competitive bid on two occasions in 1992 and again in 1993. The cooperative exercised its right to deny the sale of the leaseholds to the prospective buyers on both occasions (Soheili/Bakhtarian in 1992; Richard Falkenstein in 1993), and ultimately proposed Ronald F. Holehouse as a substitute buyer. In December 1993, Mr. Holehouse tendered a written offer in the same amount as Mr. Falkenstein’s offer of $373,000, together with a certified check for ten percent of the purchase price. However, Mr. Holehouse’s written offer of $373,000 included hand-written modifications not previously agreed upon, and the counteroffer was not accepted by staff.

Negotiations to finalize the sale to Mr. Holehouse continued into 1995. During this time, the previously mentioned lawsuit with the restaurant tenants, Soheili and Bakhtarian, ended in their eviction. The tenants vacated the property, and the resulting disagreement between staff and Mr. Holehouse over the property’s value induced staff to obtain a new appraisal for establishing a revised sale price. The new appraisal of RICO #137 estimated the market value at $585,000 as of October 12, 1995.

By the end of 1995, negotiations with Mr. Holehouse were discontinued. RICO #137 was readvertised in December 1995. Mr. Holehouse filed suit in January 1996, seeking to compel the Board of Trustees to sell the property at the original price. That litigation has been held in abeyance pending approval and performance of the court-ordered mediated settlement described below.

RICO #137 remained vacant while under litigation with Holehouse and continued to incur monthly expenses. Staff negotiated a month-to-month sublease on August 13, 1997, with G. Sandcastle, Inc. (Sandcastle), to operate the restaurant. The lease informed Sandcastle of the pending Holehouse litigation and provided that the lease term would be extended at the conclusion of the litigation if the Board of Trustees prevailed and retained possession of the property (paragraph 3B). The lease also gave Lessee (Sandcastle) a right of first refusal, at any time after expiration of the month-to-month tenancy, to purchase the property if Lessor (Board of Trustees) received a bona fide offer to purchase the property from a third party (paragraph 24). It is staff’s position that the conditional right of first refusal is not operative unless the Board of Trustees prevails in the Holehouse litigation and retains title to the property.

A court-ordered mediation conference between staff and Mr. Holehouse was held in January 1998, resulting in a Settlement Agreement providing for sale of RICO #137 to the plaintiff, Ronald F. Holehouse, for $435,000, subject to approval of defendant, Board of Trustees.

When the mediation settlement was reached with Mr. Holehouse, Sandcastle brought suit demanding that the Board of Trustees be ordered to sell the property to it at the same price as negotiated with Mr. Holehouse. The Circuit Court in Pinellas County granted the Board of Trustees’ motion to transfer Sandcastle’s suit from Pinellas County to the Circuit Court in Leon County.

During the course of the lease term, Sandcastle defaulted on its rent for March and April 1998. In May a check for the March and April rent was received, but neither the late fees nor the May rent and late fee were included. The partial payment was returned and a "three-day-notice" was sent pursuant to section 83.20, F.S., demanding that Sandcastle deliver the full amount of rent due or surrender the premises. A check for the full amount due was received, but funds were not available to cover the check, and the check was returned to Sandcastle. At the same time eviction proceedings were brought in the County Court for Pinellas County.

The County Court ruled in favor of the Board of Trustees and ordered Sandcastle’s eviction. The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department finalized the eviction on August 18, 1998, and put the Board of Trustees in possession of the property pursuant to the Court’s order. Sandcastle has appealed the eviction.

Both before and during the eviction litigation, Sandcastle committed other breaches of the lease by failing to comply with state and local laws as required in the lease (paragraph 10), e.g.: violated the conditions of its alcoholic beverage license resulting in an administrative complaint being filed by the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT Case No. 98-4724); allowed its workers’ compensation insurance to lapse, resulting in a "stop-work" order being issued on June 23, 1998, by the Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation, Bureau of

Compliance; and violated the St. Pete Beach City Code by dumping garbage behind the restaurant when its dumpster was removed for non-payment, resulting in a citation being issued by St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement on August 6, 1998, (Case No. 98-5702).

Pursuant to its previously-noted authority to approve or deny the sale of leasehold interests, on October 21, 1998, the cooperative’s Board of Directors adopted a Resolution that noted the litigation between Sandcastle and the Board of Trustees and resolved that Sandcastle would not be approved as a purchaser even in the event it prevailed in its argument that it possesses a right of first refusal superior to Mr. Holehouse. Numerous reasons for the decision were listed, most of which stemmed from dissatisfaction with Sandcastle as a tenant.

On November 4, 1998, Staff participated in formal mediation with Sandcastle in an attempt to reach a settlement. Mediation was unsuccessful.

Despite Sandcastle’s suit against the Board of Trustees pending in Leon County, staff believes it is in the Board of Trustees’ best interest to approve and consummate the sale to Mr. Holehouse. While the final settlement amount of $435,000 is $150,000 less than the most recent appraisal, it allows for the recoupment of all costs associated with the management of RICO #137, and is $62,000 more than the original appraisal. If litigated to an unfavorable conclusion, the total exposure to the state could exceed $200,000. Depending on Mr. Holehouse’s election of remedies, the Board of Trustees could face compulsory sale to Mr. Holehouse at the original bid amount of $373,000 plus payment of attorney fees and costs presently claimed to be $95,000. Alternatively, he could elect to pursue money damages in lieu of specific performance. Under this approach, Mr. Holehouse currently claims between $187,000 and $375,000 in damages, fees, and costs, depending upon the methodology of computing damages. Attorney fees and costs for all parties will increase if this settlement is rejected.

(See Attachment 18, Pages 1-31)

COUNTY: Marion

Lease No. 4022

APPLICANT: Ogden Entertainment Services, Inc.

LOCATION: Section 06, Township 15 South, Range 22 East

CONSIDERATION: $1,060,000 per year, to be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index, or 6.75 percent of gross revenues, whichever is greater; payment of $46,466 as the prorated lease payment for the lease period extending from December 16, 1998, through December 31, 1998, at which time the new lease fee will become effective; and donation of three parcels of land located within the Silver River CARL project to the Board of Trustees by

March 15, 1999.

Ogden’s lease is scheduled to expire on December 16, 2008. Ogden has submitted a request to DEP to extend its lease through December 31, 2029. When this property was acquired and the initial lease was approved, it was contemplated that the DRP would assume responsibility for the attraction property when the lease expired and manage it as part of the Silver River State Park. DEP’s Division of State Lands (DSL) has discussed Ogden’s request with DRP and it has consented to the extension being granted.

Under the terms of the current lease, the lessee pays the Board of Trustees $925,000 per year. This amount has been adjusted annually, on each anniversary of the date of the lease, by the same percentage as the increase in the Revised Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers - U.S. City Average (1982-84=100). The lease fee paid by Ogden for the period of December 16, 1997, through December 15, 1998, was $1,022,956.56. The proposed lease fee will be $1,060,000 per year, commencing January 1, 1999, which will also be adjusted annually, or 6.75 percent of gross revenues, whichever is greater. For the time period of December 16, 1998, through December 31, 1998 (the new lease fee will commence January 1, 1999), Ogden has agreed to pay a pro-rata payment based on the proposed lease fee of $1,060,000 ($46,466). Yearly gross revenues will be determined from gross revenue statements submitted to the Department of Revenue by Ogden. The gross revenues for 1994 through 1997 were: $14,874,761; $14,410,083; $15,325,679 and $16,345,158. At 6.75 percent of gross revenues, Ogden’s lease payments would have been $1,004,046, $972,681, $1,034,483 and $1,103,298, which would have been $238,000 more than was collected under the current lease.

Pursuant to section 18-2.018, F.A.C., the decision to authorize the use of Board of Trustees-owned uplands requires a determination that such use is not contrary to the public interest. The Board of Trustees, by virtue of its prior approval of Lease No. 4022, has already determined that a lease for the tourist attraction is not contrary to the public interest.

Pursuant to section 18-2.018, F.A.C., equitable compensation is required when the use of uplands will generate income or revenue for a private user or will limit or preempt use by the general public. The Board of Trustees may award authorization for such uses on the basis of negotiation if determined by the Board of Trustees to be in the public interest pursuant to the results of an evaluation of the impacts, both direct and indirect, which may occur as a result of the proposed use. Staff recommends that it is in the public interest to negotiate with the current lessee rather than accept bids for a new lease because of the specialized nature of the existing land use, the difficulty in finding and keeping qualified managers, and the fact that the current lessee is already familiar with the operation of the attraction. Ogden has also agreed to acquire and donate to the Board of Trustees, by March 15, 1999, the three leasehold parcels within the Silver River CARL project.

Lease No. 4022 includes several special conditions relating to water quality monitoring, compliance with building and safety codes, etc. The file indicates that Ogden is substantially in compliance with these requirements; however, 1996 and 1997 water quality testing revealed single sampling event readings of fecal coliform bacteria that exceeded state standards. By

letter dated February 3, 1998, Ogden was advised that if 1998 samples did not show levels below the standard of 800/1000 ml, DEP would provide notice, as required by paragraph 5.(f)(iii) of the lease, that Ogden would have 120 days to take such actions as are necessary to correct the cause of the deterioration in water quality. A preliminary 1998 report has been submitted which indicates that the majority of the samples continue to meet state water quality standards; however, there may be several exceedances in the Fort King Canal, which is an artificial waterway. The final report shall be provided to DSL within thirty days. If the final report shows a water quality that violates provision 5.(f)(iii) of the lease, then Ogden will either (1) make additional surface water and stormwater management improvements; or (2) relocate some of the animals (that are the apparent cause of the problem) located along this canal. Should the final report show that provision 5(f)(iii) of the lease has been violated, then, within sixty days of submittal of the final report, Ogden will present its plan for correcting the cause of water quality deterioration, including a timetable for each of the actions. Once the plan is approved by DSL, Ogden will implement the approved plan within the approved timetable. Ogden has indicated it is committed to working with DSL to ensure that it is not causing any water quality problems, and it will work with DSL before and after the final report is presented to ensure that it is adequately responding to this issue.

Ogden was also cited on August 7, 1998, by the State Fire Marshal’s Office for several deficiencies. Ogden has performed the required work with the exception of installing sprinkler and alarm systems for the main building. Estimates have been obtained for having this work completed. Ogden has agreed to have the violations resolved by March 17, 1999.

A consideration of the status of the local government comprehensive plan was not made for this item. DEP has determined that the proposed action is not subject to the local government planning process.

(See Attachment 19, Pages 1-52)

APPLICANT: Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks

LOCATION: Okeechobee and Osceola counties

STAFF REMARKS: This plan was developed by the Division of Recreation and Parks and describes proposed management activities for Kissimmee Prairie State Preserve (lease number not assigned) which consists of 38,134 acres of land owned jointly by the Board of Trustees and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and 8,239 acres owned by SFWMD.

The authority to approve management plans has been delegated to the Department of Environmental Protection; however, when the subject of a delegation involves a controversial matter or an issue of significant public interest, the matter shall be brought before the Board of Trustees for decision. Public interest in the Kissimmee Prairie State Preserve management plan centers around whether or not public hunting should be allowed.

Dry prairie, a state and globally imperiled community, is the dominant community type found on the preserve. This community type was identified in the Florida Preservation 2000 Program Remaining Needs and Priorities Report (1997) as being inadequately represented in public ownership. Encompassing nearly 19,000 acres, the dry prairie at Kissimmee Prairie State Preserve is considered to be in good ecological condition and supports a variety of designated species including Florida grasshopper sparrows, crested caracara, and Florida sandhill crane. To adequately preserve the natural and cultural resources found on the property, some of the management activities proposed by the Division of Recreation and Parks include: conducting prescribed burning on a three year rotation, conducting a Level I archaeological survey, developing and implementing a plan to protect cultural sites, removing exotic plants and animals, restoring hydrology, and surveying the property for designated species.

One of the primary goals in designing the recreational facilities on the property is to provide "public access for wildlife observation and interpretation" through establishing a "Watchable Wildlife" initiative. The purpose of this initiative is to "promote the enjoyment of wildlife observation and provide an understanding of wildlife habits and the relationships between the various animal species and the environment." To meet this goal, the Division of Recreation and Parks has divided the Preserve into the following zones: Developed Zones, Primitive Zones, and Wilderness Zone. The Division of Recreation and Parks proposes to allow visitors to enter the Preserve at two points in the Developed Zones and to use concessionaires to move visitors to other zones within the Preserve.

The Developed Zone will consist of two "Gateways" and two "Outposts." Development proposed at each Gateway includes: a visitor center, picnic area, observation tower, outfitters center, equestrian trailhead, horse livery, cabins, camping area, staff residences, equipment storage buildings, and parking. Currently, there is no access to Long Hammock Gateway on the western side of the preserve. Okeechobee County is currently investigating the possibility of extending Micco Bluff Road north to the southwestern boundary of the Preserve. Development proposed at the McGuire Hammock Outpost includes: a picnic area, interpretive exhibits, a marsh overlook, and a boardwalk. Development proposed at the Marsh Point Outpost includes: a picnic area, tent camping, primitive cabins, and an observation tower.

Primitive Zones will be designed to allow a "variety of trail, camping and guided tour activities." Seven primitive campsites are proposed for this zone. Approximately 15,700 acres along the northwest portion of the Preserve has been designated as a Wilderness Zone.

Uses and facilities proposed for the Wilderness Zone will be limited to: hiking, bicycling and equestrian trails; three primitive campsites with restrooms and small shelters; horse watering facilities at one campsite; and boardwalks for trail crossings of wet areas.

The Division of State Lands and the Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council (LAMAC) completed their reviews of the subject land management plan and found that it fulfilled all requirements of Rule 18-2.021, F.A.C., and sections 253.034 and 259.032, F.S. The plan was reviewed, during public hearings, by the LAMAC staff on October 1, 1998, and the LAMAC on October 15, 1998. During these meetings, the most controversial issue was whether the property should be designated as a state reserve, which allows hunting, or a state preserve, which would not allow hunting. After much deliberation, all Council members except for Dr. Allan Egbert, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, recommended that the management plan be approved as a state preserve with the following modifications: (1) a description of activities necessary to prevent the introduction of exotic species by horses and cattle; (2) a description of how appropriate stocking levels will be determined and how impacts of cattle grazing will be minimized and monitored; (3) a provision to restrict the outfitter tours

to regularly scheduled times; and (4) a detailed explanation of what the Division of Recreation and Parks has done with respect to identifying and removing Unexploded Ordnances (UXOs) from the property. The Division of Recreation and Parks has submitted all of the modifications.

APPLICANT: City of Key West

LOCATION: Monroe County, Florida

STAFF REMARKS: On July 28, 1998, the Board of Trustees considered a petition by the City of Key West (City) to stay ejectment of the structures on Houseboat Row (HBR). The Board of Trustees had prevailed in the case of the City of Key West and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Skifano, et al (Case No. 94-409-CA-12), and had been granted a Writ of Possession entitling the Board of Trustees to eject some 26 houseboats and other structures that were occupying an area of submerged land in Key West known as HBR. The City petitioned the Board of Trustees to stay the ejectment action and instead to lease the submerged land to the City so that HBR could remain. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) opposed the City’s petition and recommended that the residents of Houseboat Row be given six months to relocate and that a task force be formed to address the larger issues associated with unmanaged anchoring in Key West. The Board of Trustees ultimately agreed to defer action for three months in order to give the City an opportunity to prepare a proposal and a reasonable time schedule for dealing with HBR and with the other liveaboards located in and around Key West.

On September 2, 1998, the DEP wrote to Mayor Sheila Mullins to outline the conditions under which DEP could recommend whatever plan the City was to develop. DEP staff attended a Task Force meeting held in Key West on September 11, 1998, to further discuss the City’s plan. Shortly thereafter, Hurricane Georges blew through the Keys and seriously disrupted the ongoing efforts to develop the Comprehensive Mooring and Anchorage Plan. On October 21, 1998, the City requested a 45-day extension to develop and submit its preliminary plan, and the DEP agreed to delay scheduling the plan for consideration by the Board of Trustees until December 8, 1998.

In the DEP’s opinion, the City’s draft plan is deficient in two major regards. First, it does not contain any time lines for implementing the various actions called for in the plan. Second, it suggests that HBR remain where it is and that the Board of Trustees convey the submerged lands at the site to the City. The last time this issue was before the Board of Trustees, several members expressed concern that the matter of HBR had been dragging on since the mid-1980’s and that an expeditious and definitive resolution was essential. While the City’s draft plan appears to contain most or all of the elements the DEP believes are necessary to gain control of the unmanaged anchorage problem around Key West, the draft plan is short on details and contains no time lines or deadlines for accomplishing the tasks outlined.

While the City has agreed to assume responsibility for implementing and enforcing compliance with the plan, whether adequate resources would be available to accomplish this is unknown. In addition, the City is suggesting that HBR remain where it is and that the Board of Trustees convey sovereignty submerged land to the City so that it can maintain HBR on city-owned as opposed to state-owned land. The DEP has no proprietary objection to the City maintaining HBR as a community on city-owned land but it cannot support leaving HBR where it is or conveying state-owned land to the City. State policy prohibits permanent living structures on sovereignty submerged land and it is not an acceptable solution to circumvent that policy by merely changing the ownership of the land in question. Furthermore, the damage caused to the structures at HBR by Hurricane Georges clearly demonstrates the need to relocate these structures to a more sheltered area. Finally, the DEP has had some preliminary discussions with the City about the prospect of relocating HBR to an area of Garrison Bight that is currently undeveloped and, while this concept would have to be analyzed in more detail through the permitting process, it appears to be feasible.

In summary, the City’s plan, while a good start, needs a set of detailed goals and objectives with target completion dates that are capable of monitoring. A more detailed assessment of the staffing needs should be carried out that would allow the DEP and the Board of Trustees to determine whether implementation and enforcement are realistic. Finally, the Board of Trustees should tell the City that HBR cannot remain on sovereignty submerged land and that the City and the DEP should develop a time line for relocating HBR to Garrison Bight as soon as possible. If the City is unwilling to agree to these conditions, the Board of Trustees should authorize the DEP to execute on its Writ of Possession and eject the residents of HBR.

(See Attachment 21, Pages 1-40)

REQUEST: Consideration of an application for (1) a ten-year sovereignty submerged lands lease containing 163,761 square feet, more or less, for the reconfiguration of an existing city-owned commercial marina; (2) authorization to place fill on 15,202 square feet, more or less, of sovereignty submerged lands to relocate an existing public boat ramp; (3) authorization for the severance of approximately 17,320 cubic yards of sovereignty material; (4) authorization to place the dredged material on approximately 2.04 acres of sovereignty submerged lands to raise the existing elevations to establish a vegetated salt marsh; (5) a waiver of lease fees for the proposed public boat ramp; and (6) a wavier of severance fees.

COUNTY: Nassau

Application No. 45-75835-001-EI

Lease No. 450963069

APPLICANT: City of Fernandina Beach (City)

Fernandina Harbor Marina

LOCATION: Sections 17 and 22, Township 03 North, Range 28 East, in the Amelia River, Class III Waters, local jurisdiction of the City of Fernandina Beach

Aquatic Preserve: No

Outstanding Florida Waters: No

Approval by the Board of Trustees is requested only for those aspects of the activity which require authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands. If the Board of Trustees approves the request to use sovereignty submerged lands and the activity also qualifies for an environmental resource permit and no challenges are successful, a Consolidated Notice of Intent will be issued and will contain general and specific conditions. In the event the Board of Trustees denies the use of sovereignty submerged lands, whether or not the activity otherwise qualifies for an environmental resource permit, the DEP will issue a "Consolidated Notice of Denial" for both the environmental resource permit and the authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands.

The applicant is proposing to redevelop and reconfigure the existing city-owned commercial marina on the east side of the Amelia River by (1) reducing the number of existing slips from 148 to 72; (2) reducing the area preempted by the mooring and docking structures from 212,171 square feet to 148,559 square feet; (3) dredging 17,320 cubic yards of sovereign material to provide adequate water depth within the mooring area; (4) placing the dredged material on 2.04 acres of sovereignty submerged lands to establish a vegetated salt marsh; and (5) relocating an existing public boat ramp by filling and preempting 15,202 square feet of sovereignty submerged lands in order to reach navigable waters. The marina facility and the public boat ramp will preempt a total of 163,761 square feet of sovereignty submerged lands.

The reconfigured marina will have five floating piers, Piers A, B, C, D and E, totaling 24,025 square feet which will provide parallel mooring for 72 boats. The dimensions of Piers A, B, C, D and E are 707 feet long by 15 feet wide; 811 feet long by 5 feet wide; 395 feet long by

15 feet wide; 225 feet long by 8 feet wide; and 205 feet long by 8 feet wide, respectively. Portions of Piers A, B and C will be located on private submerged lands owned by the City. In addition to the mooring piers, a 1,060 foot long by 12 foot wide fixed pedestrian pier will be constructed around a proposed enhanced salt marsh area. Portions of the fixed pedestrian pier will also be located on the City’s privately-owned submerged lands. The fixed pier will be open to the public and utilized for passive recreational and educational activities. A minimum of 90 percent of the slips will be available on a first-come, first served basis. The applicant states that the type of boats anticipated to use the marina will range from a small dinghy to large motor yachts in excess of 100 feet. Approximately 15 vessels will provide local charter fishing services as well as inland water tours. The expected mix of sail to power boats will be about equivalent. The marina will provide sewage pumpout services, fueling facilities, portable oily bilge pump out services, waste oil collection, and a recycling station.

The existing marina facility has previously leased a slip to a vessel that operates as a "cruise to nowhere" with gambling activities. Due to the siltation problems at the marina this vessel relocated to a neighboring state. The City is negotiating with the cruise line to withdraw this lease, and if successful, the City is willing to exclude any new vessels with gambling activities from leasing space at the marina. At this time, the Department of Community Affairs has determined that the redevelopment of the marina is not required to undergo a review as a Development of Regional Impact.

The existing facility has been under long-term waterfront and over-water use since the middle of the last century. The site has been a recreational marina since 1961. In 1962, the Board of Trustees conveyed the sovereignty submerged lands on water lots 25, 26, 27 and 28 to the City for the construction of a marine welcome station. The marina is the first facility in Florida that out-of-state boaters, traveling south on the Intracoastal Waterway, encounter.

In the early 1980’s the Centre Street Waterfront Group (CSWG), a private entity, proposed a revitalization project for the marina. The City granted the group the necessary leases to the upland riparian property to proceed with the project. The revitalization included expanding the number of marina slips to 148 by installing an extensive system of floating docks. The Board of Trustees granted the CSWG a sovereignty submerged lands lease, #450963069, in August 1985. The lease was subsequently assigned to Fernandina Harbor Joint Venture (FHJV), also a private entity.

In April 1995, the FHJV filed for bankruptcy, and during the ensuing and prolonged litigation between the City, CSWG and FHJV, the lessee (FHJV) failed to pay the lease fees. The DEP terminated the lease for lack of payment of the required lease fees. In January 1996, the circuit court issued a writ of possession delivering possession of the upland riparian property to the City. On September 30, 1997, the City entered into a Temporary Use Agreement (TUA) and paid $14,784.27 for lease fees in arrears for the period from January 25, 1996, to April 10, 1998. The TUA only covered 80,605 square feet of the marina. The square footage was negotiated between the DEP and the City to reflect what was considered "useable" portions of the marina. The DEP and the City are currently working on executing a second TUA to authorize the facility until final action is taken on this pending application.

The proposed mooring areas will be dredged to - 8.0 feet mean lower low water to provide adequate depths for the 72 mooring slips. The dredged area is designed to be parallel with the currents in the river. This design will utilize the river currents as a means to reduce shoaling within the mooring area and reduce the need for frequent maintenance dredging. A total of 24,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated from sovereignty submerged lands and the City’s privately-owned submerged lands. Approximately 17,320 cubic yards will be sovereign

materials. The dredged material will be relocated to the proposed 3.44-acre enhanced salt marsh area. The enhanced marsh area consists of 2.04 acres of sovereignty submerged lands and 1.4 acre of the City’s privately-owned submerged lands.

The dredged material will be placed below the mean high water line, within the near shore area, to raise the elevations to convert the existing intertidal mud flat, within the marina basin, to a vegetated salt marsh. A low retaining wall, below the mean high water line, will be constructed around the enhanced salt marsh area to contain the dredged material. A temporary sheet pile wall, above mean high water, will also be constructed around the marsh enhancement area during the construction phases to contain the dredged material and to aid in the "drying" of the dredged materials prior to planting the salt marsh vegetation. The applicant analyzed the grain size of the material to be dredged. The material consisted of >90 percent silts and clays. Once the dredged materials have consolidated and "dried" and the area has been planted, the temporary sheet pile wall will be removed. Due to the fine nature of the dredged materials it is not possible to estimate the length of time needed for the material to consolidate for planting. The length of time could range from 6-12 months. Once the area is planted and the temporary sheet pile wall is removed, the tidal waters will inundate the salt marsh.

The final elevations for the enhanced salt marsh are designed to be below the mean high water line and; therefore, would not constitute filling for the purpose of creating upland property. A Specific Condition of the environmental resource permit will require that the applicant submit a mean high water survey of the enhanced salt marsh area to demonstrate to the Board of Trustees that the area remains sovereignty submerged lands. The placement of the dredged material and creation of the salt marsh will restore the historic shoreline resources which were eliminated by the previously permitted marina basin and dredging.

The enhanced salt marsh area is not included within the lease area pursuant to section 18-21.003(38), F.A.C., which allows for a reasonable portion of the nearshore resources to be excluded if the activities are moved waterward to avoid dredging or disturbance of this habitat. Section 18-21.004(2)(g), F.A.C., states that the severance of materials from sovereignty lands shall only be approved if it is the minimum necessary to accomplish the stated purpose and designed to minimize the need for maintenance dredging. The applicant has designed the project to restore the historic nearshore resources as well as to minimize the need for maintenance dredging.

To expand the marina in 1985, the shallow intertidal area of the river was dredged to create the existing basin. The basin has had a severe siltation problem that has required frequent maintenance dredging. A study conducted in 1991 estimated that the marina basin accumulates silt and sediments at a rate of approximately 10,000-12,000 cubic yards per year. The last maintenance dredging of the basin occurred in 1989. At low tide, the majority of the existing marina slips are located on an exposed intertidal mud flat with no water. The applicant conducted a feasibility study to identify and evaluate alternatives to eliminate the siltation problem in the basin. The design and reconfiguration submitted in this application was determined to be the most feasible alternative and will significantly reduce the siltation problems at the marina. Retaining the existing marina basin will result in the continued disturbance of sovereignty submerged lands through frequent maintenance dredging and prop dredging by vessels.

The applicant is proposing to place fill on 15,202 square feet of sovereignty submerged lands to relocate an existing public boat ramp. In order to reach adequate depths for the proposed boat ramp, the applicant will need to construct a fill causeway across the nearshore area of the Amelia River. The causeway and ramp will be located on the south side of the enhanced salt

marsh area and will extend from the existing shoreline a distance of approximately 180 feet. The causeway and ramps will be located on sovereignty submerged lands. Staff is of the opinion that the fill for the boat ramp complies with section 18-21.004(2)(e), F.A.C., which, in part, states that activities involving the placement of fill below the mean high water line shall not be approved unless it is necessary to access navigable waters. The proposed causeway and boat ramp are designed to provide access to the deep water which will be created by the dredging for the reconfigured slips. By filling out to the deeper water depths the applicant will eliminate the need for a dredged access channel to the boat ramp and frequent maintenance dredging of such an access channel.

The causeway and ramp will eliminate approximately 1,740 square feet (0.04 acre) of salt marsh and approximately 13,460 square feet (0.31 acre) of an unvegetated intertidal mud flat. Portions of the intertidal mud flat are located within the previously permitted marina basin and have been dredged in the past. The applicant states that the creation of the enhanced salt marsh will provide adequate mitigation for the salt marsh and mud flat area eliminated by the causeway and ramp surface. It is staff’s opinion that the creation of 3.44 acres (2.04 acres on sovereignty submerged lands and 1.4 acre on the City’s privately-owned submerged lands) of salt marsh, as well as the restoration of the historic nearshore habitat and the enhanced recreational value provided by the boat ramp, is adequate compensation for the resources eliminated by the causeway and ramp. The applicant requested a waiver of any fees for the boat ramp since it will be a public boat ramp and no fees will be charged. Staff is of the opinion that the boat ramp meets the criteria in section 18-21.001(1)(b)7, F.A.C., which states that the lease fees may be waived for government entities when any revenues collected are used solely for the operation and maintenance of the structure and the activity is consistent with the public purpose of the applicant organization and is not adjunct to a commercial endeavor. The applicant will not charge fees for use of the boat ramp and the ramp is not part of a commercial endeavor.

The location of Pier C, as proposed, will be along the eastern edge of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) federal deep-draft navigation channel. Vessels mooring along the western side of Pier C will be located within the deep-draft channel. On August 26, 1997, the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) submitted written comments to the ACOE expressing navigational concerns with the encroachment of Pier C and any vessels moored along the west side of this pier. The FMP has concerns that the vessels moored along the west side of Pier C, the vessels in transit on the Intracoastal Waterway, and the pier itself, would be at risk due to the proposed positioning. On September 4, 1998, the FMP verbally restated these same navigational concerns during a telephone conversation with staff in the DEP’s Northeast District office. On October 26, 1998, the ACOE sent a written response to the FMP addressing the navigational concerns. The conclusion of the ACOE was that the proposed location of Pier C, and the project as a whole, would not cause a risk to navigation.

The applicant is proposing to address any navigational concerns by having the limits of the federal channel in this reach realigned further west. Realigning the channel will provide a 100 foot setback from the channel and the proposed marina. The applicant has retained the Ocean Highway and Port Authority of Nassau County as the local sponsor to solicit the U.S. Congress for realignment of the existing channel. The realignment proposal has been forwarded to Congresswoman Fowler’s office and is in process. The applicant further states that this proposal is supported by the local harbor pilots, Rayonier Incorporated and the port authority. At this time, it is not known when, or if, the channel will be realigned. It appears that any consideration by the U.S. Congress on realigning the channel will not occur until the year 2000.

As additional compensation for the use of the sovereignty submerged lands for the enhanced salt marsh area and the boat ramp, the applicant is offering to create and maintain the

following programs for the education and enjoyment of citizens of the state and visitors from other states:

1) Recreating a Florida Marine Welcome Center at the facility. The center will provide information concerning Florida boating rules and individual responsibilities for protecting state waters and the ecological resources. The center would have combined information concerning the environment and endangered species, historic/cultural aspects of the state and the City, the U.S. Navy’s past and present relationship to Florida, museum exhibits and hands-on exhibits. Periodic seminars, workshops and other learning activities will also be held at the facility. The applicant will explore the possibility of a joint venture with the local, state and federal government as well as schools and the private sector.

2) Establish a low wattage radio informational system at the marina in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The radio system would broadcast information on issues such as manatee awareness, right whale information, the clean marina program, current or seasonal fishing regulations and any other pertinent information.

3) Establish a marsh interpretive display centered around the enhanced salt marsh area. The display would provide signs, pictures, audio and exhibits that interpret the flora and fauna of intertidal marshes and mudflats and explain the ecological importance of marshes. The marina will coordinate with public schools, colleges, and ecotourism groups to enhance their programs.

The applicant has not provided any details on these public educational programs. While the concept seems to be beneficial to the public and state resources, a complete evaluation of the plans, time frames and other details is not possible with the limited information submitted. The construction phase for the project will take approximately 6-12 months, which will provide sufficient time for the applicant to prepare and submit a more detailed plan of the educational programs. A specific condition of the environmental resource permit will require that the applicant submit a detailed plan of the proposed education plan to the DEP for review and approval prior to mooring any vessels along the reconfigured piers.

Five landowners were specifically noticed pursuant to section 253.115, F.S. Objections were received from two landowners. The objections concerned potential encroachments to the riparian lines. The applicant reset all structures a minimum of 25 feet from the riparian rights line pursuant to section 18-21.004(3)(d), F.A.C. In addition, a third objection from Mr. Joseph Hixon was received on September 5, 1997. Mr. Hixon was a member of the FHJV, the City’s previous marina lessee. The objection appears to be related to the past relationship between Mr. Hixon’s group and the City.

The DEP’s Bureau of Protected Species Management has recommended conditions to incorporate with the environmental resource permit. These recommendations have been included as specific conditions in the draft environmental resource permit. The environmental resource permit also authorizes sewage pumpout, fueling facilities, portable oily bilge pumpout services, waste oil collection, and recycling center. Specific conditions have been included in the environmental resource permit to address the operation of these marina services. Liveaboards are not authorized by the environmental resource permit.

A local government comprehensive plan has been adopted for this area pursuant to section 163.3167, F.S., however the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) determined that the plan is not in compliance. In accordance with a Compliance Agreement between the DCA and the local government, an amendment has been adopted which brought the plan into

compliance. The proposed activity is consistent with the adopted plan as amended according to a letter from the City of Fernandina Beach Community Development Department dated October 30, 1997.

(See Attachment 22, Pages 1-47)

REQUEST: Consideration of a policy regarding the removal of pre-cut sunken timbers from sovereignty submerged lands by private and commercial interests.

COUNTY: Statewide, primarily north Florida and the Panhandle area

APPLICANT: Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

STAFF REMARKS: The recovery of pre-cut, sunken timbers located on state-owned or sovereignty submerged lands has been an issue between the state and private and commercial interests desiring to recover these timbers for years. Conflicts have resulted over product ownership, the unauthorized recovery, and DEP’s enforcement of the current Board of Trustees’ policy against the recovery of pre-cut timbers on sovereignty submerged lands. Because of the recent increased interests and activity in the recovery of pre-cut timber and a reconsideration of the habitat value and the environmental impacts of recovery, the DEP is requesting that the Board of Trustees consider revising its policy to allow the recovery of pre-cut timber from sovereignty submerged lands.

The recovery of pre-cut, largely first-growth timber logs from submerged lands is commonly referred to as "deadhead logging." During the 1800’s and early 1900’s, first-growth timbers were harvested and floated in large rafts downstream to recovery sites along lakes and rivers. During transport, some of the timbers would break loose from the rafts, become waterlogged, and sink to the bottom, where they remain today. Recovery of these timbers today typically involves divers locating the timbers and attaching winch cables to them, in order for the timbers to be hoisted to the surface and floated to a recovery site. This activity is pursued throughout the state, but is primarily concentrated in north Florida where the river systems were the primary source of transport. In the northeast portion of the state, estimates are that approximately 20 percent of the submerged, pre-cut, timber is marketable, while in the panhandle, approximately 80 percent is estimated to be marketable.

A brief historical perspective of the state’s position on deadhead logging was prepared in 1995 by the DEP’s Office of General Counsel at the request of enforcement staff. Records reflect that the Florida Legislature and the Board of Trustees have historically viewed sunken logs as being the property of the state if located on sovereignty submerged lands and that the unauthorized removal of such logs constitutes trespass on state lands and theft of the products thereof.

Prior to 1974, the Board of Trustees actively leased and sold timber rights to individuals to recover sunken logs and other timbers from sovereignty submerged lands. However, the Board of Trustees discontinued this practice in 1974 because of an objection by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, whose major concern was the removal of aquatic habitat. Additionally, since 1974, deadhead logging has been considered contrary to the public interest because it appeared in conflict with section 253.034(2)(b), F.S., that states, in part:

"All submerged lands shall be considered single-use lands and shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, the propagation of fish and wildlife, and public recreation . . ."

The timbers to be recovered are not those on submerged lands through natural causes or events; rather, they are there as a result of past commercial timber activities. These timbers are of minimal habitat value since they have no crowns or root systems and have minimal, if any, bark.

At the request of the DEP, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Commission) reviewed its position on deadhead logging. The Commission provided its findings in a February 27, 1998, communication which states, in part:

Over the years, we have expressed concern that removal of large fallen trees from river systems, especially from navigation snagging operations, would be detrimental to fish and other aquatic organisms. Dead trees and tree tops provide a large amount of attachment sites for aquatic invertebrates due to the rough bark and large surface area of the tree crowns.

We have recommended strategies for minimizing this loss, including proper placement of tree trunks and branches removed from the navigation channels.

In order to compare known values of fallen trees with the values of deadhead logs, a biologist from the Division of Fisheries examined a number of pulled deadhead logs and talked to individuals conducting deadheading operations and concluded that the attachment value of deadhead logs is less than that of natural trees with branches and bark. Because of the cutting techniques used, especially leaving the tree crowns in the forest at the time of cutting, and because of nearly total bark loss after years of being submerged, these logs do not have the attachment value of fairly fresh trees that are swept into the river from the banks. However, these logs still retain some value as attachment sites, particularly in river systems that have limited opportunities for attachment such as rocks or other hard substrate.

On the other hand, we suspect that, in some places, deadhead logs might be detrimental to the function of a river system. In sloughs and backwaters, it is possible for enough of these long-lived logs to pile up to block flows and reduce beneficial high-water scouring. This is speculation at this time because we do not have good observations or data on this phenomenon; however, some of the filling in of sloughs on the Apalachicola River could have been partially attributed to log jams of this sort. Removal of some of these logs would likely be relatively harmless and possibly beneficial.

The Commission has also volunteered to assist the DEP in environmental assessments that may be required for the approval of deadhead recovery applications.

Since the practice of allowing deadhead logging was discontinued by the Board of Trustees, the DEP has, through the Florida Marine Patrol, made several arrests for the unauthorized

recovery of logs from sovereignty submerged lands. Because of the net ban, the general economic conditions in north Florida, and the increased commercial demand for deadhead logs, there has been an increase in the interest and activity of deadhead logging as both a primary and supplemental source of revenue.

In addition to the increase in deadhead logging, the DEP is also confronted with the issue of the recovery of branded timber (section 536.14, F.S.). Individuals who claim to have title to various brands that were recorded in the "marking" books in local courthouses have approached the DEP regarding the recovery of their property that is located on sovereignty submerged lands. The Attorney General reviewed the issue and opined that, with proper authorization, branded timbers can be recovered (AGO 96-64, 9/5/96). The DEP has no estimate of the number or percentage of branded timber on sovereignty submerged lands, except for estimates provided by prospective harvesters, who claim that nearly all the timber in the Panhandle was branded upon the original harvest and prior to being floated to a recovery site.

This claim is not unreasonable since, at the time the largest tracts were being timbered, the central Panhandle belonged primarily to six major owners. They owned over 200 recorded brands along the Choctawhatchee, Shoal, Yellow, Apalachicola, and Escambia Rivers. There were other smaller operations that may or may not have recorded brands and who harvested their upland timber using the same river system for transport, independent of the large land owners. As a result of multiple timber operations, both branded and unbranded pre-cut timbers exist on sovereignty submerged lands. The Attorney General, in AGO 96-64, recognized that the unbranded timbers are the property of the state, while branded timber is the property of those who have sufficient title interest.

The removal of deadheads may serve as an additional revenue source for the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The removal of deadhead logs may also open certain waterbodies for improved vessel navigation, allow for high water flushing action, and improve the fisheries and recreational use of previously inaccessible waterbodies. Additionally, the recovery of pre-cut timber may reduce a portion of the harvest of now mature upland forests.

It should be noted that the recovery of deadhead timber is a fairly short term nonrecurring event that will quickly deplete the resource if the Board of Trustees adopts a policy to allow such recovery from sovereignty submerged lands. Ultimately, it is expected that the illegal recovery of this pre-cut timber will continue to deplete the resource even if authorized recovery is not allowed.

Based on these considerations, the DEP recommends that the Board of Trustees adopt the following policy on the recovery of pre-cut timber from sovereignty submerged lands:

The recovery of dead falls, storm falls, or any other naturally occurring timber on sovereignty submerged lands will be prohibited.

The recovery of both branded and unbranded pre-cut timber shall not be allowed in waterbodies where such recovery could have negative environmental and recreational impacts.

Environmental issues that address habitat removal, possible water quality concerns, and site-specific recovery prohibitions will be addressed in the regulatory permit review. The following form of authorization and fee is recommended:

A nonexclusive one-year Use Agreement for the recovery of both "branded" and "unbranded" pre-cut timbers from sovereignty submerged lands. Authorization to

recover pre-cut timber under this Use Agreement does not imply the right to recover specific brands or constitute a determination of ownership of branded timber by the Board of Trustees. This agreement is for a two-person recovery team at a cost of $5,500.

A condition will be included in the Use Agreement to require the submittal of an affidavit from the Use Agreement holder, indicating the waterbodies, specific locations, and the numbers of pre-cut timbers recovered.

The DEP believes the proposed fee is equitable to the harvesters, provides sufficient revenues to the state to monitor the recovery operations, and provides the state a fair return for the products removed from sovereignty submerged lands. By limiting the Use Agreement to two persons, both the small and large operations are addressed equally, as a two-person team can only recover so many logs in a set period of time during the limited seasons that allow recovery.

(See Attachment 23, Pages 1-28)

REQUEST: Consideration of adoption of a Final Order of Denial of Petition for Declaratory Statement.

COUNTY: St. Johns

APPLICANT: C.R. & D. Developers, Inc., Petitioner

STAFF REMARKS: On August 28, 1998, C.R. & D. Developers, Inc., owners of Hat Island, filed a Petition for Declaratory Statement under section 120.565, F.S., requesting that the Board of Trustees find that Hat Island is not a "coastal island" within the meaning of section 18-21.003(13), F.A.C. and is not an "undeveloped coastal island" within the meaning of section 18-21.003(52), F.A.C. [now (53)]. Rule 28-105.003, F.A.C., requires the Board of Trustees to take action on a Petition for Declaratory Statement only at a duly noticed public meeting. Hat Island is located in a salt marsh adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway near the Tolomato River channel and near Guana River Marsh State Park. The waters surrounding a portion of Hat Island are within the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (Aquatic Preserve) owned by the State of Florida.

This petition is related to two administrative actions brought by Petitioner’s predecessors in title, which were consolidated and on which an appeal is pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Petitioner has been substituted as appellant in that appeal. Petitioner’s predecessor challenged the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) intent to deny Florida Power and Light (FP&L) a permit and easement across sovereignty submerged lands to provide upgraded electrical services to Vilano Beach via Hat Island. Hat Island has no electrical service. The reason for the intent to deny was that the DEP’s Northeast District had determined that Hat Island was an unbridged, undeveloped coastal island under the above-stated rules, and section 18-21.004(1)(h), F.A.C., prohibits activities on sovereignty submerged lands which will provide new or upgraded electrical service to customers on unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands. The coastal island rules were held to be valid in Lost

Petitioner argues that Hat Island is not within the Aquatic Preserve under section 18-21.003(13)(a), F.A.C., because Hat Island is not sovereignty submerged land; rather, it is private land which has not been included in the Aquatic Preserve pursuant to the provisions of chapter 258, F.S. Petitioner further argues that since Hat Island is more than one mile upstream of the mouth of the Tolomato River, it is not a "coastal island" under section 18-21.003(13)(b), F.A.C. The DEP disagrees, as explained more fully in the draft Final Order of Denial of the Petition for Declaratory Statement. Hat Island is a "coastline geological feature lying above mean high water that is completely separated from the coastal mainland by marine or estuarine waters. . . and is composed of any substrate material," and thus meets the primary definition of "coastal island" in the first paragraph of section 18-21.003(13), F.A.C. Whether Hat Island is within the Aquatic Preserve under 18-21.003(13)(a), F.A.C., is irrelevant because it meets the primary definition of coastal island, and it meets the definition under subsection (b) as well. Hat Island is further an island "within confined or semi-confined marine or estuarine waters with an open connection to the Atlantic Ocean. . . such as bays, lagoons, or inlets" under section 18-21.003(13)(b). Hat Island does not meet the exception of (13)(b) because it is not within a river "leading into marine or estuarine waters" because the marine system in which it lies is not a "river" but rather a coastal marine lagoon. The Hearing Officer in his Final Order in the coastal island rule challenge, Remington, Ott, et al. v. Board of Trustees, et al., 14 F.A.L.R. 3089 (D.O.A.H. 1992), made findings of fact, and the Minutes of the December 19, 1989 Board of Trustees’ meeting, state that the intent of section (13)(b) was to include islands within coastal bays, lagoons, and estuaries (e.g., Indian River Lagoon along the east coast and Charlotte Harbor/Pine Island Sound along the west coast), and not to include "islands that occur in river and lake systems within the interior portion of the state" such as the St. Johns or Caloosahatchee Rivers. Hat Island is like an island in the Indian River Lagoon. Therefore, the DEP finds, as it found in the previous two permit proceedings, that Hat Island is a "coastal island." Because Hat Island has no known development on it in accordance with the criteria in section 18-21.003(53), the DEP finds that it is also an "undeveloped coastal island" within the meaning of that rule. Therefore, because the petition requested a declaratory statement that Hat Island is not a "coastal island" and is not an "undeveloped coastal island," the petition must be denied. No hearing was timely requested, and none was held. Hearings are discretionary under section 28-105.003, F.A.C.

(See Attachment 3, Pages 1-22 submitted with the November 24, 1998 agenda)

REQUEST: Consideration of an application for a modification of a 25-year sovereignty submerged lands lease for an existing city-owned marina to permanently connect a floating sanitary facility, within the existing lease area, to upland utilities.

COUNTY: Manatee

Lease No. 410438743

Application No. 41-01332123-001

APPLICANT: City of Palmetto

a/k/a Regatta Pointe Marina

LOCATION: Section 23, Township 34 South, Range 17 East, in the Manatee River, Class III Waters, within the local jurisdiction of the City of Palmetto.

Aquatic Preserve: No

Manatee Area idle/slow speed/caution zone: Yes

Outstanding Florida Waters: No

STAFF REMARKS: The Board of Trustees authorized a rule amendment on September 14, 1995, to "link" the two processes of regulatory and proprietary reviews and authorizations. The rule became effective October 12, 1995. As a result of this linkage, the recommended Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulatory permit decision and the recommendation to the Board of Trustees on the proprietary authorization are contained in one document, the "Consolidated Notice of Denial," which is attached. The attached consolidated intent contains a recommendation for denial of a permit under Part IV of chapter 373, F.S., and a recommendation for denying authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands under chapter 253, F.S., for the activity described therein. This recommendation is provided to the Board of Trustees pursuant to section 373.427(2), F.S. A description of the requested activity is provided in Section I, "Description of the Proposed Activity." The specific basis for recommending denial of the authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands is contained in Section III, "Reasons for Denial."

The lessee is proposing to modify an existing 736,164 square foot sovereignty submerged lands lease, for a city-owned marina, by the addition of a 947 square foot floating sanitary facility (permanently connected to an upland sewer line) inside an existing slip. The original lease was approved by the Board of Trustees on December 8, 1981, for 98 slips with specific stipulations regarding the type of marina operations allowed both on uplands and submerged lands. The lease stated that "none of the facilities described in Exhibit "A" shall be constructed upon submerged lands with the exception of the piers, docks, and Dockmaster’s office." Exhibit "A" reads as follows:

"Description of Pier, Dock Marina Facility and Restaurant to be constructed upon the Subject Lands which description shall include:

1. A prohibition against inclusion of any boat repair or "in and out" facility; and,

2. A requirement that construction shall include a parking area for the restaurant to be located upon the uplands south of Riverside Drive, providing one (1) space for each two and one-half (2 1/2) seats.

3. A marina facility initially consisting of 95 slips which facility may be subsequently expanded subject to obtaining all necessary governmental approvals, which may include:

A. Laundry, Showers and Restrooms for the limited use of individuals renting slips.

B. Ships Store

C. Gas Dock

D. Dockmaster’s Office and Boat Brokerage

E. Shops and Boutiques located upon the uplands to the extent permitted by available parking facilities

F. Charter Boats

G. Dinner Boat

H. Touring Cruise Boat

I. Fishing Charters

4. Restaurant having a minimum of 200 seats.

IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY OF THE FACILITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN BE CONSTRUCTED OVER SUBMERGED LANDS EXCEPT THE PIERS, DOCKS AND DOCKMASTER’S OFFICE."

On February 13, 1991, an application to add 252 additional slips to the existing marina was received by the then Department of Environmental Regulation. The former Department of Natural Resources (DNR) West Central Florida Field Office received a copy of the application on February 20, 1991. On March 22, 1991, the DNR field office sent the lessee a completeness summary information request for the lease modification. In the completeness summary request, staff asked for proof of authorization from the Board of Trustees for an existing breakwater that appeared in the application drawings for the proposed 252 additional slips. Because the lessee failed to provide the requested information on the completeness summary by the specified deadline of September 22, 1991, the DNR field office sent an inactive letter to the lessee on September 23, 1991, and again on November 20, 1991. The inactive letters provided the lessee an opportunity to reactivate the file by requesting a time extension within 30 days of the receipt of each letter. The November 20, 1991 letter, sent by certified mail, also warned the lessee that if the requested information was not received by the specified timeframe, the DNR would take legal action to prevent the continued use of sovereignty submerged lands without authorization. There is no record in the file of any response by the lessee to any of the requests made in the above mentioned letters. The file’s internal routing sheet reflects that the application was deactivated on August 28, 1992, and sent to the DNR investigations unit for follow up inspection.

On August 2, 1993, the newly formed DEP issued a wetland resource permit to the City of Palmetto for the addition of 252 slips. Specific Condition Number 1 of the permit advised the permittee regarding the requirement, pursuant to chapter 253.77, F.S., that "no person shall commence any excavation, construction, or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands....until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use." DEP records indicate that the additional slips appear to have been constructed, within the boundaries of the original 1981 lease, in late 1994 without approval of the Board of Trustees.

In addition, Condition Number 3 of the original lease states that the Board of Trustees acknowledged that a designated sublessee may enter into further subleases of the sovereignty submerged lands described in the lease "so long as the use of the leased lands shall conform to the provisions of this lease and the description of the marina facility set forth in Exhibit "A" or such plans for the marina facility as they may be from time to time amended with the approval of the Board." Therefore, the construction of the additional 252 slips, without the approval of the Board of Trustees, appears to place the lessee in violation of both chapter 253.77, F.S., and the terms and conditions of the lease. Staff is currently investigating this and will make a recommendation after the matter has been thoroughly reviewed.

During a lease inspection of the subject facility by DEP’s Compliance/Enforcement staff on June 5 and June 17, 1997, it was noted that a 46 foot long by 20.6 foot wide floating sanitary facility, a non-water dependent structure, had been installed without the authorization of the

Board of Trustees. The vessel contained seven toilet and shower facilities, a maintenance area, three washing machines, two dryers, two vending machines, a TV, a table and a porch. This facility was connected to the available sewer and electric hook ups at the slip. On June 25, 1997, a warning letter, #97-070DF41SWD, was sent certified mail, by the DEP, to the lessee indicating that there was a potential violation regarding the floating sanitary facility. After a meeting on August 12, 1997, between the DEP and the lessee, it was decided that the DEP would give the City of Palmetto and sublessee, America Holdings Corporation, up to 60 days from August 12, 1997, to remove the floating facility. A subsequent site inspection by staff of Regatta Pointe Marina was conducted and confirmed that the floating facility had been removed. On November 20, 1997, the DEP received an application from the lessee for a permit to moor the same floating sanitary facility.

The lessee states in the application that the restroom facilities are needed over the water to accommodate the needs of boaters whose slips are on the outermost reaches of the docking facility. Currently, restrooms, showers and laundry facilities exist on the first floor of the restaurant building located on an island at the end of the main pier. These facilities are for the exclusive use of the boat slip renters and require a key to enter. In addition, a restroom, available for public use, exists inside the dockmaster’s office located at the end of a dock extending west about 200 feet from the restrooms, showers and laundry alluded to above. To reach these facilities, slip renters situated in the furthermost corner of the docking facility must walk about 1,700 feet. The lessee believes that the lack of easy access to restrooms at the marina leads to increasing use of individual heads on the boats resulting in the temptation of boaters to discharge waste into nearby waters.

Pursuant to the definition of water dependent activity in section 18-21.003(57), F.A.C., the proposed structure constitutes a non-water dependent use, because it is fully enclosed and climatized, permanently connected to the upland utilities, and contains activities that do not require "direct access to the water body or sovereign submerged lands for transportation, recreation, energy production or transmission, or source of water, and where the use of the water or sovereign submerged lands is an integral part of the activity."

Pursuant to section 18-21.004(1)(d), F.A.C., "activities on sovereignty lands shall be limited to water dependent activities only unless the board determines that it is in the public interest to allow an exception as determined by a case by case evaluation. Public projects which are primarily intended to provide access to and use of the waterfront may be permitted to contain minor uses which are not water dependent if:

1. located in areas along seawalls or other nonnatural shorelines;

2. located outside aquatic preserves or class II waters; and

3. the nonwater dependent uses are incidental to the basic purpose of the project, and constitute only minor nearshore encroachments on sovereign lands."

Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project meets the siting criteria of number 2, but does not meet the siting criteria of numbers 1 and 3. The project does not meet number 1, even though a seawall exists at the marina, because the existence of mangroves waterward of the seawall for the entire riparian shoreline renders the shoreline functionally natural. In addition, the proposed project would lie not along the seawall, but approximately 200 feet from it. While staff would agree that the proposed restrooms and showers are incidental uses, staff is of the opinion that the laundromat and vending machines are not incidental and, therefore, contrary to number 3.

Staff is also of the opinion that it is not in the public interest to allow an exception to the non-water dependent rule, because cumulative impacts statewide to sovereign resources would be substantial due to increased risk of spills and leakage and unnecessary shading of resources. In

addition, cumulatively, more sovereign land would be preempted needlessly from the traditional water dependent uses of the public. Staff’s site inspection revealed that sufficient space already exists on the uplands to accommodate restrooms and showers. The applicant has not addressed this alternative upland use of existing space. In addition, the applicant has not addressed the potential cumulative impacts by defining what is a reasonable number of bathroom facilities needed in proportion to the size of an overall marina.

As more and more marinas build out on the uplands, the DEP should, if this type of activity is allowed, expect an increasing number of applications not only to construct restroom and laundry facilities but to construct other types of non-water dependent structures over sovereignty submerged lands as well. This trend, if allowed, would be contrary to the public interest which under the Public Trust Doctrine has been weighted in favor of the public’s right to use sovereignty submerged lands for the traditional water dependent uses of fishing, swimming, and commercial and recreational navigation.

If the Board of Trustees decides to deny the request for proprietary authorization made herein, under sections 373.427(3) and 253.77, F.S., and sections 18-21.00401 and 62-343.075, F.A.C., the regulatory permit must also be denied.

(Attachment will be submitted separately.)

STAFF REMARKS: On September 24, 1998, the Board of Trustees received a petition filed by the organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The petition was titled: "Emergency petition to review the implementation of the delegated authority for sovereign submerged lands, to issue a protective order for personnel within the Sovereign Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Permitting Program, to take other appropriate action to protect sovereign submerged lands, and to initiate rulemaking."

By letter dated October 5, 1998, Deputy Secretary Kirby B. Green, III, notified the Board of Trustees that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was looking into the issues contained in the PEER petition and would prepare and submit a comprehensive report.

As detailed in the attached report, the DEP, as staff to the Board of Trustees pursuant to section 253.002, F.S., takes seriously its public trust responsibilities for the management of sovereign submerged lands, including aquatic preserves. The report provides information on each of the issues raised in the PEER petition.