DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
4400 PGA BOULEVARD, SUITE 500
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410
JANUARY 31, 2012

PUBLIC NOTICE
Permit Application No. SAJ-2012-00131(IP-EGR)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This district has received an application for a Department of
the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403) as described below:
APPLICANT: Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners
Department of Environmental Resources Management
C/o Robert Robbins, Director
2300 North Jog Road, 4th Floor
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in navigable waters of the United States,
in Lake Worth Lagoon, east of 1300 U.S. Highway 1, North Palm Beach (Section 4, Township
42 South, Range 43 East), in Palm Beach County, Florida.
Directions to the site are as follows: From I-95 in Palm Beach Gardens, exit PGA Boulevard and
head east to U.S. Highway 1. Head south on U.S. Highway 1 to the project site located in Lake
Worth Lagoon, east of 1300 U.S. Highway 1.
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude 26.839° North
Longitude 80.055° West
PROJECT PURPOSE:
Basic: The basic project purpose is to enhance the aquatic environment.
Overall: The overall project purpose is to create seagrass habitat in eastern Palm Beach County.
PROPOSED WORK: The applicant proposes to cap approximately 42 acres of muck sediment
in a dredge hole (average depth -17 feet NAVD) area known as Turtle Cove with approximately
640,000 cubic yards of sand to create approximately 37.8 acres of seagrass habitat with an
elevation of -6 feet NAVD. The project includes signage for seagrass protection. The applicant
has not requested compensatory mitigation credit for the project.
Avoidance and Minimization Information: The applicant has provided the following information
in support of efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: The project
would result in improved aquatic habitat within the project area. Temporary construction
turbidity would be minimized through the use of turbidity curtains. The construction
methodology, including the construction of a submerged perimeter berm with subsequent fill
placed on the inside of the berm, would minimize turbidity in surrounding waters.
Compensatory Mitigation: The applicant has provided the following explanation why
compensatory mitigation should not be required: No impacts to seagrass or any other special
aquatic site are proposed. The project would result in a net increase in seagrass habitat based on
the success of similar projects completed by the applicant in Lake Worth Lagoon including the
Snook Islands Natural Area and the Ibis Isle Restoration Project.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The project site consists of an open water dredge hole with an
average depth of -17 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) and a minimum depth of -14
feet NAVD. The project site contains an average of 10 feet of muck sediment with no seagrass
based on project area substrate and depths. The existing area surrounding the project area
consists of open water, marinas, and residential/institutional development.
ENDANGERED SPECIES: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined the
proposal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) and would not result in an adverse impact to its designated critical habitat.
The Corps has received U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence with this determination
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The Corps has determined the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the endangered smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), or the endangered/threatened swimming
sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys kempii, Dermochelys
coriacea, Caretta caretta). The project would not result in an adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat for these species. The Corps will request National Marine Fisheries
Service’s concurrence with this determination pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act.
The Corps has determined the proposal would have no effect on any other listed threatened or
endangered species or designated critical habitat.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): This notice initiates consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service on EFH as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act 1996. The proposal would impact approximately 42 acres of unvegetated
muck/sand substrate utilized by various life stages of penaeid shrimp complex, reef fish, stone
crab, spiny lobster, migratory/pelagic fish, and snapper/grouper complex. Adverse impacts due
to construction would be temporary and the project would result in a net increase in seagrass
habitat. Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial
adverse impact on EFH or Federally managed fisheries in the South Atlantic Region. Our final
determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to
review by and coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
NOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This
information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulations
governing the regulatory program. The jurisdictional line has been verified by Corps personnel.
AUTHORIZATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: Water Quality Certification may be required
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or one of the state Water
Management Districts.
Comments regarding the application should be submitted in writing to the District Engineer at
the above address within 30 days from the date of this notice.
If you have any questions concerning this application, you may contact Eric Reusch at the
letterhead address, by electronic mail at Eric.G.Reusch@usace.army.mil, or by telephone at 561-
472-3529.
The decision whether to issue or deny this permit application will be based on the information
received from this public notice and the evaluation of the probable impact to the aquatic
environment. This is based on an analysis of the applicant’s avoidance and minimization efforts
for the project, as well as the compensatory mitigation proposed.

Unsurprisingly, the proposal by the city of Marathon to outlaw anchorage on portions of Boot Key Harbor where formerly this practice was welcome, has elicited an outpouring of reaction from the cruising community. The volume of messages has grown so large, that we have moved all these many welcome notes here, and linked this page from the original posting concerning this topic, at:

/?p=80539

This appears to be a very informative and balanced article. Well done to Charmaine, please keep us up to date on this.
Phil Johnson

We spent five winters in Marathon on a mooring ball, met many great cruising friends and enjoyed our time there. However, last year we tired of the City Marina treating cruisers like naughty school children and scolding them on the morning radio net (I was one of the Net controllers one day per week). So this year we decided to try a winter elsewhere and are glad we did!
I wrote to the Chamber of Commerce to let them know that we won’t be back and that other cruisers we talk to are beginning to see Boot Key Harbor changing from a cruiser friendly place to being hostile to the year-round mooring residents and those who prefer to anchor.
Anchoring out in the open roadstead south and west of Boot Key in the winter season is at best uncomfortable and sometimes downright dangerous! Taking a chance on arriving to find the moorings all taken and being told I couldn’t anchor in Sister Creek or in the harbor until a mooring was available is NOT something that I would recommend to anyone.
Boot Key Harbor and the City Marina have lost us and others we know as customers already. Unless they change their current position on rates and anchoring restrictions they will lose more customers.
Larry Sherman
s/v Enchantress

Sad to see all of the changes going on down there. I used to skydive once a year down in Marathon and always wanted to stay a few months to revisit when I started in cruising.But for that price I can just dodge up to the Port Charlotte area and pay for a nice slip with shore power, good wifi, and all the perks and not have to worry I’d be waiting exposed in a harbor while room freed up. I stayed at Gasparilla last year and it was secure, extremely friendly and had a good work yard with reasonable prices.
From that area I have Cayo, sailing on Charlotte is divine, Ft Myers mooring and a quick motor across the Okeechobee waterway gives me access to the Bahamas.
I got into cruising to get away from the hassles of life, not add to them.
Mark

I am not always opposed to change, changes can be made in a good way. We did anchor in Boot Key for a week or so waiting on a mooring ball to come available. I do think that maybe the council could consider temporary anchoring in all areas suitable when the mooring fields and set up anchorage is full, so as not to drive away cruisers, while this would still prohibit, derelict boats from permanent anchorage in these other areas. But at the same time, the derelict boats are just going to occupy the set up anchoring field and fill it so that cruisers won’t be able to anchor there when they arrive. So I do understand the councils problem. I do hope that maybe they will consider some way of making it work for everyone. Marathon was one of our favorite spots to visit, and we did spend time at Marina’s there as well, but even those are full much of the time. Best wishes with the efforts here, we are not cruisers who wish to boy-cott, because of change or rules, but at some point, things do become inconvenient, and when that happens, it does slow the flow. Us included.
Capt. Clay

There are existing ordinances to rid Boot Key Harbor of Derelict boats however the are NOT ENFORCED! Not by the City of Marathon nor the Florida Maine Patrol nor by the Monroe County Sheriffs Office which has a patrol boat @ Marathon Municipal Marina. Any excuse by the town,county or state is only an admission of there own violation of there own existing laws.
Our Lord’s Blessing to All
Ed & Bonnie Spomer
S/V Almost Heaven

Thanks, Charmaine and SSECN for bringing this situation to our attention.
We last visited Marathon two years ago. When had a reservation at Sombrero Dockside marina, but when we arrived the boat in our slip had not left and we were forced to anchor out overnight in Sisters Creek until they left the next day. I’m not sure what I would have done if I had not been able to anchor in Sisters Creek. The mooring field was full. The marinas that could accomodate a boat of our size were all full, and it was too late in the day to head over to Newfound Harbor.
The city does, of course, have the right to charge whatever it chooses for slips, mooring balls and dinghy dockage. However, the isssue of anchoring and safety are another matter. Derelict boats can be handled with current regulations, so I still do not understand why the city would choose legislation to restrict anchoring that could cause a negative reaction from the crusing community and be potentially dangerous.
We had planned to cruise back to the keys next winter, but we will definitely be bypassing Marathon if this legislation is enacted.
Bill Root

I have been making ready to stay over in Marathon for the last two years, this new news is making me re think my plans. I am retired and on a budget. Being on the hook in more open water is not on my to do list. Maybe the islands are better. Regretfully,
Nick Leva

I have to say the current state of Marathon was shocking. Just took a nice group of sailing students on a week long cruise. Never had the time to anchor in Book Key Harbor before so I decided what a great time to visit and show some West Coast sailors how great the Keys were. Again, not having spent any time in Marathon, I always thought of it as one of the few real cruising friendly areas down here in the Keys, a little taste of what I had in the Carolinas and Chesapeake.
Big mistake. I was embarrassed for my clients. Not only were we harassed in the anchorage by some very derelict live aboard boaters, yelling and screaming while pounding down beers and smoking at 9am, but walking the streets was a big wake up call. I’ll never take any clients to Boot Key Harbor again. So sad to have to make that statement.
Being a sailing instructor, I am trying to show cruisers in training what our lifestyle is all about. How to get safely from destination to destination and how wonderful it is to pull into that funky, cool little down, dinghy up and have great time, or sit in the cockpit and watch the sun go down.
Marathon does need a massive clean up, as true of many Key’s anchorage areas. Real cruisers are getting a bad rap from all the derelict boaters. But penalizing the active cruising community is not the way to accomplish this.
Marathon I don’t want to give up on you but you have a long way to go.
Capt. Edana Long

We were just down at Marathon for a month in an RV, with a boat, and visited the harbor almost daily. There was always a 2 to 3 day waiting list for moorings. The parking places were nearly full. I can see the point of showering on shore, if the water is $.05 a gallon!

We did notice that boats seemed to be having difficulty getting anchors to hold’“and it may well be the type of anchor ‘“mostly Bruce type or Claw seemed to be having problems.
Bob Austin

My husband and I have visited Marathon the past 2 seasons, anchoring out for a few days before taking a mooring. We’ve had very positive experiences with both the local boaters and the cruisers and the sense of community we find here is what draws us back. Yes, there are those who live a different lifestyle than what we choose, but there is room here for us to coexist, and the general atmosphere of the community is one of support and friendship.
Cathy Dieter s/v Orion JR

The problem with derelict vessels can be resolved by having an Insurance requirement requiring Liability, wreck removal and polution coverage. The Certificate of Insurance could be required by the harbormaster within 48 hours after anchoring or the harbormaster could call the police to evict and or ticket the owner. Derelicks are uninsurable because a condition survey is always required prior to coverage being bound. This could be a requirement much like the DMV. Cruisers / snow birds are always aboard seaworthy boats because they need to be to cruise. Boat yards require coverage to haul so why can’t the state, municapality and local harbormasters require coverage as part of the FL registration?
Bill Owens

Localities can’t require equipment or insurance above and beyond what is state mandated’“that is a state-level requirement, just as car equipment requirements are set at the state level. If you start allowing localities to impose their own rules you would be constantly having to go through hoops every time you moved on to the next harbor, making cruising impossible. However, there are numerous laws already on the books that can deal with supposed `derelict’ boats, which is really more about derelict boat owners who have problems above and beyond any maritime rules. However, these laws are just not enforced: proper registration, proper sanitation equipment, proper boat equipment, anchor lights, etc. In the case of Marathon, sure there are some boats there that are marginal, but the real reason the city is making anchoring difficult and expensive is they have a shortfall in the marina and mooring budget and they want to force more people to pay for the moorings. It is about $$, and don’t let them throw a smoke screen over it by declaring it is about derelict boats, which they refuse to do anything about using the laws already on the books.
And, I should have added above that they may be solving the derelict boat problem by eliminating legal anchoring areas, but they are going to do it by chasing away legitimate tourist boaters who prefer to anchor out. They will lose money in the long run with that attitude. Cruisers don’t want to visit places that are a hassle’“they go cruising to get away from all that.
John Kettlewell

I have gone to Marathon many times over the last 15 years and enjoyed the friendly people and the area. I got to know many locals who treated me as if I were one of them. I sure hope that the fees for the mooring field don’t price me out of one of my favorite place.
Richard Bruning

Claiborne,
After reading the entire article, if possible, I would like to add that the three boats we were visiting with were 25 foot C Dorys, who anchored in Sister Creek until a mooring became available. It would have been very uncomfortable and on some days dangerous for this size of boat or smaller, to have anchored in the open roadstead to the West and South of Vaca Key. One night it blew up to over 30 knots–another night it was 50 knots in gusts.
Bob Austin

January 27th 2012

St. Petersburg: Nothing SAINTLY About It!
by Charmaine Smith Ladd

Somebody grab the Brasso: St. Petersburg’s halo is badly tarnished! For a city who sports the motto of “Always In Season,” with their proposed anchoring ordinances it appears St. Pete is attempting to replace their friendly olive branch with a thorny Russian Olive branch and advertise instead: “Always Off Season” to cruisers.

Essentially, what St. Petersburg’s ordinances propose is no access to downtown St. Pete for cruisers visiting the area. Is this the way to treat tourists? Imagine arriving by car and seeing a sign at the City Limits stating “Non-residents limited to a 72-hour stay.” Is this the Wild Wild West of old, “Hey stranger, we don’t like your kind ’round here. You best be out of town by sundown.” Am I in a time warp? Is this the Twilight Zone or is it the 21st century and someone has laced Florida’s oranges! It is all nothing short of madness.

To ban liveaboards from anchoring is totally contrary to FL Statute, in fact it is blatant discrimination. There is absolutely no justification for it. It is as if to say anyone who lives aboard their vessel and does not navigate the waters is guilty of something and considered an undesirable. This rationale will ultimately lead to Florida returning to the “No Liveaboards Allowed” status they had years ago in marinas. Most marinas allowed it, but on the down low so as not to get a rise of their neighborhood watch monitors. Many of us have worked very hard to quell the fears marinas had of those who chose to live aboard. If we allow this to be done to liveaboards, then cruisers will be next. Of this, I have no doubt. These municipalities want you either in the cookie cutter mode of society or you’re out. This is the 21st Century, but apparently Florida does not know times have changed. Prejudice is prejudice–be it against color, creed, or aimed at those who live aboard a vessel rather than a house on land. Ignorance always fuels such prejudice. This situation is no different in that regard.

What St. Petersburg will have to do is define when a cruiser becomes a liveaboard. This is the danger of their ordinance. Many cities already have tried to do this. Most recently in Stuart, the city in Florida that in 2008 had an ordinance stating after 72 hours at anchor a boat becomes a “Liveaboard.” It was immediately challenged and removed. This is the can of worms that St. Petersburg is opening again. It is an enormous problem. Derelict vessels has become “Derelict People.” Some cannot see through their greed and fear that either the derelicts will rob their house when they are gone, or that a boat on the water has a better view than they do! Either way, it’s ridiculous.

The Pilot Program is perpetuating myths that allow those who only really want a clear view of the horizon a manner by which to kill the dream of living aboard. There are no other reasons as the excuses drummed up simply do not wash. We all know that millions of gallons of raw sewage gets dumped into Florida waters quite routinely. The septic systems for the homes that built where there used to be swamp (basically all of Florida) are not adequate and constantly seep or spill over into Florida’s waters. Sewage from boaters is nothing in comparison. Even the Department of Environmental Protection does not blame boaters for the pollution of Florida’s waters: they know better. We have orange groves that use fertilizers that pollute our waters, golf courses don’t stay green naturally. These pollutants all come from LAND. Should we as boaters begin to demand golf courses and orange groves be banned and houses torn down because they are the largest contributors to pollution in Florida waters? That would be absurd, would it not?

Now that the cat is out of the bag on the ridiculousness of using boater sewage as a health issue that should be regulated, the powers that be are no longer using it. Yet it still remains on the Pilot Program agenda as an objective with which to be dealt. That is irresponsible, in my opinion, as it is misleading and arguably an untruth. So that takes us to the derelict and abandoned boat problem.

If only these areas would deal with that very real problem: derelict vessels. Derelict vessels most often are those that have been stored for years. You know the “fixer uppers” that people can’t seem not to buy but purchase and let it for years. At some point, someone takes it off their hands for a few dollars and it continues to sit. Out of sight, out of mind. It sits there and rots. Most of these stored vessels are owned by those who live on land.

There is a lot of ignorance about the lifestyle of those who live aboard be they cruisers or not. As if those who do are an alien species to be eradicated. The freedom to choose one’s lifestyle is there for everyone. Sure, there are bad apples in every walk of life…as we all know, there are millions more on land than on the water, yet severely restricting or ridding waters of inhabited boats will make the world a better place? It is laughable.

Rather than resort to blanket ordinances that infringe on the inalienable rights of others in their pursuit of happiness, those who complain about boaters need to realize they do not own the water. Their ordinances are Constitutionally unsound because there are laws in place to handle those who break the law — be they on the water or on land. USE THEM. But give someone an inch and they’ll take a nautical mile! The adage doesn’t quite go that way, but tailoring it to make a point here certainly fits.

To the powers that be in St. Petersburg, you are not listening to your public. It is evident to me that the waters of St. Petersburg are being held as if owned by those who live in homes there. If we allow such reasoning to go unchecked, waters held in the public trust for use by the public will be gated and available only to those in similar tax brackets — just as their land communities are. It will never end.

The Pilot Program, in my opinion, has done far more harm than good for the State of Florida. We are throwing the baby out with the bath! The remainder of the States are laughing at us…one of the oldest Ports in the U.S. should know by now how to get it right and be an example of how things can work amicably between sailors and landlubbers. But noooo. The world must think mainland Florida has lost its mind. You can’t kill sailing and living aboard, people…remember, it’s how you got here!

Tourists are tourists, commerce is commerce, and effectively your proposed ordinances are saying “We don’t want you here.” If you say that to citizens of the US, what do you say to foreign visitors? It’s shameful. President Obama is pushing hard to tout America as THE place for tourism. I don’t think St. Petersburg got the memo. So suck it up and get out the Brasso. Restore the saintly shine that halo of St. Petersburg and let it be the Port of the PUBLIC. Shake out your Unwelcome Mat and replace it with a Welcome Mat! Live up to your motto: “Always In Season.”

Charmaine Smith Ladd, SSECN Special Correspondent & Representative
Executive Director, Mariner’s BARR (Boaters’ Anchoring Rights & Responsibilities)
csmithladd@marinersbarr.org

Great report! The sad thing is that the laws they propose don’t solve the problems they say they are worried about. Derelict boats aren’t anchored in downtown St. Pete, and in any case existing laws can and should be used to take care of them. All these laws do is impact legitimate transient boaters who wish to visit St. Pete. I have read elsewhere that occupancy in their mooring field is very low’“this is also a push to try to force people to pay for those moorings.
John Kettlewell