Planning to Protect ’s Deep Water Access

Thomas T. Ankersen Legal Skills Professor and Director

Susan Novak, Andrew Hoek, Byron Flagg & Meagan Standard

Funded in part by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Coastal Management Program, pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Number NA09NOS4190076. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the State of Florida, NOAA, or any of its subagencies.

August, 2011

PANAMAX 2014 Florida Ports

 Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Act  Lists 15 statutory Ports  These ports have special access to matching funds for port and waterway improvements and streamlined permitting (port conceptual permits – 2011legislation)  These ports must have a local port authority  These ports must have a “port master plan”  These ports sit on the Florida Seaports Council

Major Statutory Ports: Depth FLORIDA’S MAJOR Anchorage Depth Cargo Pier/Along-side Vessel Length Capacity STATUTORY PORTS if Applicable Berthing Depth N/A 35-40 feet 9 Berths (400-1000 feet length each) (Canaveral Port Authority)

Port of Jacksonville (Jaxport- Blount Island Blount Island Terminal Blount Island Terminal Largest Deepwater Port in the Terminal 36-40 feet 6,600 linear feet berthing space South) 36-40 feet Tellyrand Marine Tellyrand Marine Terminal Tellyrand Marine Terminal Terminal 36-40 feet 4,780 linear feet berthing space 36-40 feet Dames Point Dames Point Marine Dames Point Marine Terminal Marine Terminal Terminal Two 1,200 foot berthing spaces plus 6 36-40 feet 36-40 feet Post-Panamax container cranes Port of 76 feet 40-45 feet +500 feet (Miami-Dade County) 76 feet 31-35 feet +500 feet

Port Manatee N/A 40 feet Panamax ready. Closest Deepwater (Manatee Co. Port Authority. port to Canal Dependent special district) Port Panama City 31-35 feet 31-35 feet Up to 500 feet (Panama City Port Authority)

Port Everglades (Broward 76 feet and deeper 41-45 feet +500 feet Co. BOCC) Tampa Port Authority 46-50 feet 46-50 feet Up to 500 feet

Port of Big Bend (Tampa Port N/A 15 feet Up to 180 feet Authority) Non-Major Statutory Ports: Depth

Florida’s Non-Major Statutory Anchorage Depth Cargo Pier/Along- Vessel Length Capacity Ports if Applicable side Berthing Depth

Port of Fernandina (Ocean, Highway & 21-25 feet 26-30 feet Up to 500 feet Port Authority of Nassau County)

Port of Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County) 21-25 feet 21-25 feet Up to 500 feet

Port of 16-20 feet 31-35 feet +500 feet

Port of Pensacola (, 11-15 feet 31-35 feet +500 feet Department of City of Pensacola)

Port of Port St. Joe (Port St. Joe Port 21-25 feet 31-35 feet Up to 500 feet Authority)

Port of St. Pete (City of St. Pete) 21-25 feet 31-35 feet Up to 500 feet Port Citrus: Florida’s Newest Statutory Port

 “A publicly run Port Citrus could provide an opportunity for Citrus County to join with other Gulf of Mexico ports to create a conveyor belt for barges carrying containers filled with goods as they make there way towards the East Coasts.”

 “If we can pull this sucker off we’re looking at prosperity”

 Citrus County Chronicle, Feb. 22, 2011

A Few of Florida’s “Other” Ports

Florida’s Forgotten Ports Anchorage Depth if Cargo Pier/Along-side Vessel Length Capacity Applicable Berthing Depth Carrabelle n/a 11-17 feet Small; Narrow channel restrictions Hernando n/a Less than 4 feet Small; Narrow channel restrictions

Ponce Inlet (sport port) Offshore 10-53 feet to sea n/a Small; Narrow channel buoy restrictions

San Carlos Island n/a n/a Small; Narrow channel restrictions

St. Augustine Approximately 8 feet at n/a Small; Narrow channel City Harbor restrictions

Apalachicola Harbor 6-10 feet 0-5 feet Up to 500 feet

Port of Boca Grande 21-25 feet 31-35 feet +500 feet Waterfronts Florida Partnership Program

 Selected coastal communities receive technical and financial assistance  Vision Plans  Goals  Retain Recreational & Commercial and Industrial Viability  Maintain Navigability -Dredging  Retain Waterfront-Dependent Land Uses – Regulatory Incentives & Criteria

Incentives and Regulatory Streamlining

 Allow non-statutory ports access to statutory incentives (matching funds), technical support and streamlined permitting (port conceptual permit), based on:  Creation of a spatially explicit land use “policy shell” (e.g. special district or overlay district), and  Development of a port (or working waterfront) master plan  Perhaps with a proviso that land use can not be changed for the duration of the port conceptual permit

Deep Water Access Planning Options

 Explicit Maritime Industrial and Commercial Land Use and Zoning Categories (the “policy shell”)  St. Augustine “marine industrial” future land use category  Policy goal to “maintain the historic marine industry within the City”  Explicitly lists boat manufacturing, storage and marine related commercial uses” as allowable uses  City of Miami Waterfront Industrial District  Explicitly precludes residential development, and other non- water dependent uses

Planning Options

 Create a Deep Water Dependency Test

 Analogy to water dependency generally  Land uses – including maritime land uses – would be limited to those that are compatible with specified boat draft  E.g. Port of Baltimore – 18 ft. district

Planning Options

 Land Use Compromise

 Portland, Maine Historic Waterfront  Allowed non-maritime uses to encroach but required that the first floor be left for traditional maritime uses  Further reduced to 55% due to the lack of demand for maritime uses Cautionary Tales

 Litigation…Sometimes you just have to sue the b….

 Recent Working Waterfront Land Use Litigation

 Mayport Cruise Terminal  Ponce Inlet Sport Port  Port of the Miami River