Okay, I'd like to call to order the November 6th meeting of the Jacksonville Waterways Commission Task Force Regulation for Vessel Speeds in the Fort George River meeting. It is 11.03 on November 6th. We'll start with a roll call starting to my left, and we'll work around over to Mr. Suber. Scott Thomas, Waterways Commission. Matt Jones, Waterways Commission. Brian Burkett, Parks Department. Jim Suber, Waterways Coordinator. All right, thank you all for coming, and we'll go ahead and start it off with the pledge. All right, now we've got the good stuff out of the way. Let's get to work. We're going to start off with Stephen Kidd from the Kingsley Plantation. He's got a pretty good presentation that he's got put together to kind of show us a portion of what's going on out there. Thank you, Matt. I wanted to offer this up for consideration. We have been witnessing a lot of damage and unsafe conditions out there, and I think this will be illustrative of that. So as you can see from the photo, this is the number of boats there on the sandbar, and I think there's a number of about 16 en route to the sandbars or leaving. And they travel very near to our floating dock and site because that's where the channel is. So we've been experiencing a lot of unsafe conditions with the dock and quite a bit of shoreline erosion. This is a map that we made showing that channel. You can see right there where our dock is is where the beach profile lowers, and then it raises up on the other side for that existing sandbar where it's covered in salt marsh. But boaters coming in and out, they have a very narrow area right there, and a lot of them are coming in on full plane and taking off on full plane, and there's just very little room for them to work, so our fear is of a boat collision in that area. This is footage taken from one of our rangers. The boat's coming in on sandbars, and the boat weight that results from those on our floating dock. We have had visitors that were out there on the dock that weren't prepared for this and have fallen and been injured. This is just a regular weekend day of people headed out there. So we think if we could have a no-wake zone established before people get to the dock into this narrow channel, that would make things a lot safer out there. So this is a view looking east from the existing seawall. You notice that tree stump there. Our facility chief that recently retired, he cut that tree down and was standing on solid ground there. So that's how much uplands shoreline we've lost in the last five years. We are currently underway with a project to build a new seawall in front of this one and extend it to the east 100 meters, 100 yards to the east, to protect the site of Kingsley Plantation, which is listed on the National Register and one of our most highly visited sites in the park. You can start to see some of the underpinnings and the tiebacks, dead men are becoming exposed. So our plan, and currently underway, we're going to be going out to bed. There's a multimillion dollar project to replace that existing seawall and extend it further to the east. We've collected a lot of information on this to support our decision and get this funding. And we put out wave sensors that measure wave typically. Without boat wake in that area, you just have two tides a day that come in gently and go out gently. So a lot of the oyster beds that we have had in that area, they're our first line of defense to boat wake. They have gone away. And that protects all the spartina behind those. And once those oysters are gone, the spartina starts to get eaten away. And that's what's holding on to all our what we call elevation capital, our high sand. And that's what's causing a lot of this damage out there. We planted living shorelines, oyster, working with UNF to place oyster modules out there that the little baby oysters in the river can attach to and grow. And we've had some success with that. But it's just the daily occurrences of these compounded by tropical storms and hurricanes that come in there and really just knock out those things. So that's giving you an idea of the number of boat wakes per hour. You know, you have 100 boats coming in. That's 100 boat wakes that we're experiencing in that area. So we're going to have to do something to protect our property and our investment. So we're extending this seawall. But we think that the no wake zone would go a long way into keeping us from having to replace that prematurely. Thank you for that presentation, definitely. We have, since the last meeting, shifted over to at least aiming for a slow speed minimum wake, which will certainly be a benefit as well, because any kind of signage out there to help will help. As of right now, there's none. So we have kind of shifted away from the no wake to a slow speed minimum. Even talking with law enforcement, there's not that much of a difference. It's anything that we put out there is going to slow things down. And that's the ultimate goal in keeping people safe is kind of slowing the vessels down. I think if we do that, the byproduct of that for you is going to be safety as well for the visitors on the dock, but certainly help protect the other stuff. New seawall and everything, oyster beds, everything that you mentioned. Well, the number of people that are out there and accidents have happened and people have come in with injuries to our visitor center with bleeding head wounds. And we're not authorized by policy to really or qualified. We're not EMTs. Right. We can hand you a bandage or a rag or something. But there are literally hundreds of boats with, you know, two or three people on them. There's a lot of people out there and things happen. And people get injured and we're the nearest place. So they come to us and our staff simply aren't capable of handling that. Good. Good. Good to know. As you shouldn't have to. Right. I would like to say that we have also, since the last meeting, received a letter of support from the Department of Interior, addressed to the Commission Chair, Councilman Ramon Johnson. And it's very informative. The letter itself does have a digital link with the video that we just watched. So they're on board with us, at least on a federal level, national parks. Also, in your packets here, I did print a copy of the local ordinance review application process. And this is what is required from the FWC to issue the permit to the city of Jacksonville to put the signs up and basically have the slow speed minimum wait zone established. It's a series of boxes. I'll put this out. To keep it short, we're not even in the first box. There's a lot of work that has to occur to enter that first box. If everything's done properly, it should go pretty smoothly once we're in that first box. And that's where we're at right now, as far as the task force, collecting data, enough data to satisfy all of the Florida Administrative Code rules, as well as Florida statutes. We want to follow those to a T and meet them perfectly. So none of this has to be repeated or done. And we want to get it to the point where we can vote on it first at a Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting. If approved there, it goes to Jacksonville City Council to vote on. If approved there, then it goes to Tallahassee. So we've got some steps to do before all of this happens. And that's what we're in the middle of right now, just making sure that all of those steps are done correctly. But it's worth it. We're not wasting our time at all. As far as one thing that I know right now, and I have gotten confirmation from one of the attorneys with FWC in Tallahassee, that we can use the sandbar itself as a navigational hazard, the sandbar itself. We do have to provide some documented stuff to back that claim. But as far as the bar itself and its shifting capacities, that it would be acceptable. With that being said, once we get the documented evidence for that sandbar, we will have already met a code, a rule in Florida Administrative Code and the Florida Statutes. So we're good on that. Obviously, the more we can attach to that, the better. We'd like to do it that way, and that'll be the next phase of the task force moving forward. We do feel that it's critical we meet this by our December 1st deadline. But we'll see. We'll just see how it goes. We want to wrap things up as a task force because we're almost to the point where we've exhausted what we can collect as far as data. There's still some out there, I'm sure. It's never possible to get every single piece of data that you can collect because there's always going to be one more that you find. So I've learned. But we're getting to the point as far as the task force goes where we've got a couple more boxes to check, and then it's going to have to go to people way smarter and qualified than us. But we're not there yet. We're not there yet. We're doing everything we can to meet the December 1 deadline. It's already been extended once. We're trying not to get an ask for another extension on it. Some very minor updates have been made to our last report to bring it current for today's report. It's mostly legal stuff that I've been advised by OGC to get correct, and I'm not even sure I still have it correct. I'm not an attorney. I'm doing my best, and I'm certainly getting the support needed to help accomplish that. So right now, just recently within the past couple days, I've had a lot of focus put on the sandbar itself as being one point to use to accomplish this. And so far, that's moving in a positive direction. I did receive an email last night back from one of the attorneys in Tallahassee that was provided to me by Captain Haney at our last task force meeting. She reached back out to me last night with the thumbs up on using the sandbar with some more information with it because I was really concerned or curious if that would satisfy those rules and with the proper documentation, it does. So we're good there. We'd like to add a couple more things to it, but we also don't want to exhaust a bunch of time or more research because, as stated earlier, we've gone as far as we can go as a task force. None of us are attorneys, by the way. We're normal people, just like everybody else. So, yeah, the document's updated. The best that I can get it updated for this meeting right now, the report, excuse me. It's nowhere close to being ready to be submitted, and that's where the next couple of weeks will come into play. We're all kind of doing this, when I say all, myself, Commissioner Thomas, and Commissioner Hobson, which is not at present right now. We do have a quorum. But we're trying to do everything by the law, and it's very difficult to do that. So we're doing the best we can. It's not a fast process. I knew it wasn't going to be a fast process going in, but somebody had to start kicking the can down the road. And it's getting moved. Every week there's progress. Every day there's progress. So we haven't been stalemated. There's obstacles, but we haven't been stalemated. I would like to share last night while I was doing some research on a permit that was issued to the city of Miami. I wasn't as interested in the permit itself. I was more interested in the documents that had to be submitted for the permit's approval. And there were a lot of them. Traffic congestion or vessel congestion reports, wave height reports, a lot of stuff. But what really caught my eye, which was all funded by outside parties, by the way. Those outside studies were not paid for by the city of Miami. My goal is to do this with spending as little taxpayer dollars as possible. I said that going into it, and I'll say that going out of it. It shouldn't cost us a lot of money to keep people safe, bottom line. With that said, one of the documents loaded with the Miami application for Monument Island, no wake zone. And I'm going to read it. This is one instance of many. The victim sustained catastrophic injuries, including a severed arm and leg, a split open back, and a displaced spine. And despite the immediate response from Miami Beach Marine Patrol, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, recovery efforts took approximately two days to locate and retrieve the decedent. A man got killed that day. The last thing I ever want is for that story to end up on Action News Jax at 6 o'clock in Fort George. Because things like that can be prevented. And that's why we're all here today, is to keep that story from getting on our local news station. So, like I said, that's one instance of many. And fortunately, as of right now, Duval County doesn't have stories like that to share with the FWC, and I'd like to keep it that way. From January 24 to March 26, they had a total of 626 uniform boating citations, including 151 for speeding and designated zones, 18 for careless vessel operations. Once again, Duval County does not have that data to supply because it just does not happen. It's all about keeping people safe, and that's really how I would like to keep it. I don't want us as a city to have that data to present to keep people safe. It makes no sense. Maybe it just doesn't make sense to me, but it doesn't make sense. This is entirely for keeping people safe. With that, I'll end my talk. We can open up for some discussion. Any questions? Mr. Super, you got anything you'd like to add? Unless you need me to input anything, I can... You pretty well covered a lot there. I am curious, though, because I said that some of their data was enforcement of slow speed zones, but yet they're wanting a slow speed zone. I'm not sure how broad they were on their data collection on that particular issue. It just kind of struck my curiosity. Thank you for pointing that out. I don't want to say 100%. I think that this was for a no-vessel zone. It was based around an island that was known for high congestion of parked boats and people swimming, and I believe they were trying to obtain a permit for a no-vessel zone. Yes, and we don't want to do that. With that being said, we'll open it up to public comment. Do we have any public comment? No public comment for today. I mean, this is a short, easy, simple, sweet meeting. I just kind of wanted to update everybody where we're at. We've still got some steps to do. And if there's no other... Ryan Burkett, go right ahead. I'm sorry. No worries. It seems like, Steve, you have some data that you've collected based off your slide here with the wave action and the visitation on certain times. All that, I think, is going to be important to include into the application. I see the application as a kitchen sink application. We throw everything out there and see what sticks. Because there are certain things, per the statute, that are not justifiable reasons for them to establish a slow speed zone, like shoreline erosion, unfortunately. So they put that on the homeowner or the landowner to protect their assets. But I think we certainly have a good case, but I think we certainly have a good case that we're building here. And I think some of the data that you have and hopefully maybe continue to collect, I think, could be used in an application. Because I think the thing that's going to be the most telling story is boater safety. And I think that's something that they will listen to very strongly and I think would be supportive of. And that video, just showing the, you know, the video and your bathymetry map showing the location of the channel next to a, not just a dock, but a public dock to a National Park Service site, that's very significant. I would imagine that visitation by water, the use of your dock for legitimate uses is being discouraged by that activity, right? People are like, I'm not tying up my dock over there. I fly by that thing all the time, right? So I know the statutes do provide a slow speed, like already authorized slow speed zone authorization for a certain distance with, from bridges and public boat ramps, public docks. I don't think I've seen that in the language, but I think we can make an argument that this is essentially a public, maybe we can call it a public launch facility in a sense that you could launch a kayak from a dock. And there may be some, you know, there may be some wiggle room in that interpretation language to, you know, use the current authorization and say, we've already can establish a 500 foot zone on either side. Like, you know, that's already, already granted. So, and I think when Councilman Gay met with us last time, you know, he referred to FWC's efforts to update their statute, which hopefully when you, when you've got a, like a bridge here and a ramp here and a public dock, we'll call a launch over here and blind corner over here. If it's over a longer stretch of an area, each of those elements qualify for a certain distance of coverage. But if the gaps between them are under a certain threshold, and this is what FWC is looking at now, expanding that, that, that threshold gap distance, we can cobble all those together and make, you know, hopefully have a slow speed zone from a certain distance from your dock, you know, to the north or northwest there all the way down and past the Hector Drive Bridge, I think would be, I think, I think that might be the goal here. But anyway, I would just say, encourage you to continue to collect data and, and share that with the commission and myself, if you would, and I'll try to, you know, collect this stuff as well. Yeah, we'd be happy to share any data we have regarding wave heights, wave frequency, all of that information. Yeah. And then I'll just, for the benefit of the commission, I've also reached out to the state parks, because they're on the other side of the, of the, of the Fort George River here, and shared National Park Service's letter with them as well, and that, you know, this meeting effort is going, is underway, and they are very interested in this topic, and they've punted it up to Tallahassee for their leadership to kind of weigh in on, you know, what stance or involvement they're going to have, but they are keeping eyes on it. So, just a heads up there. Go ahead, Jim. He made the best point. Your photos are great on that, examples of congestion, and the fact that there's people out of the boats in all of that area, and all that adds up to safety concerns. And I can't see the commission or the FWC's staff not seeing those kind of photos and make some perk up and realize that there might be something here, and I think that's a good point. You may, he had some great photos, but you had some really great photos there that can be used as examples. So, everything he just said is true, though, that it's not, you know, that the congestion and the safety is the reasons that they allow these things, blind corners, pedestrians, or people in the water, a larger number of boats, but they don't, for some reason, erosion is not even considered in this particular application. So, but a great point on all that you showed there. Thank you for that. And I would like to say two things. The WAVE data. I have done research between FAC and FS, and I see that repeatedly mentioned in rules, WAVE studies, things of that nature, as one of the markers to meet. So, it's possible. Once again, I'm not an attorney, but we may be able to use some of this WAVE data from this report, because, I mean, that's an official report that y'all have. Sure. It's being collected scientifically. Right. Exactly. I don't think we're to that point, but it's nice to have that as a safety net if we need to toss it in. So, and it hit me when I saw it on the screen there. I've looked at the report, but it didn't hit me until I saw it on the screen that I've seen that mentioned in administrative code. And I believe Florida statutes, but not 100% sure on that. Second, it's also been, I've been reminded as far as zoning now, from the Alamacani hand launch ramp, which sits on the north side of the bridge, back to Huguenot Park, which is also known as Huguenot Lake. It's not a lake, but it's called Huguenot Lake. Out to the inlet to the Atlantic Ocean is a current no-wake zone. So, my original request on this was west of the Kingsley Dock, all the way down and around, out to the inlet. The portion south of the bridge to the inlet is already an established no-wake zone. So, it's there. It's not really heavily enforced, but nonetheless, it's still there. So, what we're actually asking is less in distance than I actually anticipated and would be, for lack of better terms, just a softer extension of a zone that's already there. So, we would really just be going from north of the Alamacani hand launch ramp and over to just west of the Kingsley Dock. Don't know if that'll help us any, but I know the shorter the zone is, the better they like to issue it. The thing is that particular zone doesn't even include the hand launch. It's just to the south of the launch itself. So, it's between the launch. That's another example of the need is that hand launch facility, that area. There's a lot of people there on busy weekends, which in turn leads to more kayakers, more paddle boards, and more jet skis in the area that we're really trying to focus on. So, once again, I thank everybody for showing up and everything, all the help, especially you, Stephen. You brought us good stuff, and I can't thank you enough. I think it's going to help us down the road. Absolutely. It's good to meet you. You too. Anything else to add from anybody? Okay. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132. We'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting at 1132.