Findings Of Fact SFWMD is a public corporation and local sponsor for the federally authorized Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. As part of its duties as local sponsor, SFWMD operates eight pumping stations and six other structures all of which discharge into Lake Okeechobee. On August 26, 1977, SFWMD filed an application with DER for an operating permit for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. By mutual agreement, SFWMD and DER determined that there was insufficient data available to determine whether SFWMD qualified for an operating permit, therefore, DER proposed issuing a TOP. On November 22, 1978, DER issued its notice of intent to issue a TOP to SFWMD for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. Among the conditions contained in the TOP is that the permit will be effective for thirty (30) months. Petitioners complain that Lake Okeechobee is being environmentally damaged by the drainage into Lake Okeechobee of waters from surrounding agriculture and dairy farming areas. This, say the Petitioners, is causing the eutrophication or damaging enrichment of the Lake by the addition of chemical elements above their natural levels in that environment. DER and SFWMD contend that at least thirty (30) months is required to complete the testing and observation of the Lake and to make long-range plans for reduction of drainage into Lake Okeechobee and to develop necessary management alternatives to accomplish that goal. The proposed TOP provides a temporal framework. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to present to DER a program for interim actions which will reduce nutrient loading during the time of the permit. Within 120 days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit for approval by DER a plan of study for determining the probable impacts of management alternatives for reducing the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. Within twenty-four (24) months of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit to DER an analysis of the impacts of each reasonable management alternative which will reduce the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. During two successive rainy seasons SFWMD is required to do extensive chemical testing on site. After SFWMD submits its analysis of the impacts of management alternatives, DER has six months to review the data submitted and approve a schedule for implementing a plan to reduce nutrient loadings into Lake Okeechobee. Petitioners have submitted seven (7) Proposed Findings of Fact, five of which are hereby adopted in this Recommended Order: Lake Okeechobee is in a eutrophic state and getting worse as a result of man's activities. Both state agencies charged with respon- sibility for protecting Lake Okeechobee have long recognized that the Lake is in a eutrophic state and is in need of relief. Both the DER and the SFWMD have recognized that backpumping contributes significantly to eutrophication. Since 1975, DER and SFWMD have known that backpumping is one cultural activity that should be and could be stopped or substan- tially reduced. (This proposed Finding of Fact was numbered 6 in Petitioners' pleading.) The durational provision of the TOP is linked to the addi- tional time the DER and SFWMD claim it will take to study ways to stop backpumping. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbers 5 and 7 are hereby rejected for the following reasons. First Petitioners request a finding that "the state agencies have done nothing to reduce the amount of bad water backpumped into Lake Okeechobee." In fact DER and SFWMD have proposed the TOP with its temporal frame work and requirements of interim actions for reduction of backpumping. Petitioners also propose as a finding of fact that "the TOP's durational provision as drafted is unreasonable and arbitrary in not assuring immediate reductions in backpumping and therefore, should be redrafted to require such action." Petitioners have not supported this contention with substantial, competent evidence. In fact, the TOP provides that a plan for the reduction of nutrient loading be presented within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the TOP. Furthermore, the proposed finding of fact is outside the scope of the issues framed by the pleadings. The issue is whether the thirty (30) month durational provision of the TOP should be reduced to twelve (12) months and not whether the TOP provides for immediate reductions in backpumping. The reason for the issuance of the TOP in lieu of an operating permit is to allow SFWMD time to gather data, to assess impacts and to develop management alternatives for the control of nutrient and pollutant loadings. Although some biological and chemical data already exist, much of the information requested of SFWMD under the TOP is currently unavailable. Specifically, the TOP requires that numerical nutrient limits be established for each discharge point and that specific management alternatives be developed. Currently available data on backpumping reduction does not specifically detail how much reduction is feasible nor what alternatives are soundest environmentally. Existing reports dealing with backpumping into Lake Okeechobee are not specific enough to support presently implementable management alternatives. Petitioners introduced no evidence to establish that the budgetary or manpower constraints with which SFWMD must deal would allow a reduction of the durational provision of the TOP from thirty (30) months to twelve (12) months. SFWMD's witnesses, however, established that if SFWMD were required to complete the study within one year, it would be economically impossible unless money and personnel earmarked for other important projects were tapped. Not only would the instant studies suffer a decline in quality but other equally pressing environmental studies would be jeopardized.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Norman Padgett, holds a haul seine permit, issued by the Commission, which authorizes Respondent to operate a haul seine net on Lake Okeechobee. The permit is renewable annually and is one of ten such permits issued by the Commission. The Lake Okeechobee Haul Seine Permits authorize their holders to fish by haul seine and to harvest game fish in commercial quantities, activities not legal absent such a permit. To minimize conflicts between sport fishermen and commercial haul seine permittees on Lake Okeechobee, the Commission has, by rule, prohibited seining activities in certain areas. Among the areas closed by rule to haul seining is the area south of a line that connects the northernmost point of Kreamer Island to the northernmost point of Ritta Island. That line is approximately five miles long and can be readily determined since the northernmost point of either island is visible from the other island. Also closed by rule to haul seining are those areas shoreward of a line delineated by the Commission's commercial fishing boundary buoys. The boundary line is approximately one mile lakeward of emergent aquatic vegetation. The Commission, by rule, has prohibited the use of "short" haul seines as an aid to its enforcement against haul seining in closed areas. "Sport" nets are prohibited because of the ease with which they can be deployed and retrieved. During the time period pertinent to these proceedings, the Commission's rules prohibited use of haul seine nets of less than 350 yards in length. On June 18, 1984, a crew was conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit. The crew was operating in the closed area south of the line established by the northernmost points of Kreamer and Ritta Islands and was warned by a Commission employee that use of a haul seine in that area was prohibited. On June 19, 1984, a crew was again conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit in the closed area south of the line established by the northernmost points of Kreamer and Ritta Islands. The seining operations were being conducted from one-half to one mile within the closed area. On June 20, 1984, a crew was again conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit. On this occasion the crew was operating in a closed area shoreward of a line delineated by the Commission's commercial fishing boundary buoys. The haul seine net being used measured 277 yards in length. Respondent was not on board the fishing vessels during the foregoing events. However, consistent with the Commission's rule, the crews were in possession of his permit. At hearing Respondent offered no evidence of what, if any, efforts he took to supervise or maintain control of the haul seine crews. His testimony established, however, that he was aware the haul seine net was less than 350 yards in length. By letter dated March 28, 1985, the Commission informed Respondent of its intent to revoke his Lake Okeechobee Haul Seine Permit. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-1312. By letter dated July 23, 1985, the Commission informed Respondent of its intent to deny his application for renewal of his haul seine permit, predicated on their prior decision to revoke his permit. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, assigned Case No 85-2612, and consolidated with Case No. 85-1312.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy began on July 9, 1990, when petitioners, David and Victoria Page, filed an application with the district office of respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing certain construction activities (including the erection of a seawall) on their residential lot located at 3108 Gulfwinds Circle, Hernando Beach, Florida. The property faces west on the Gulf of Mexico, a water body designated as a Class III water in the State. The application was eventually deemed to be complete on October 24, 1990. After conducting a review of the application and an on-site inspection of the property, on January 18, 1991, DER issued its notice of permit denial. The notice identified the reasons for the denial as being petitioners' failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project would be in the public interest. Also, DER cited expected adverse cumulative impacts if the application was granted. The notice provided further that if petitioners agreed to locate their seawall landward of the jurisdictional line, the project would be approved. In July 1991, petitioners amended their application to propose that the seawall be constructed even further seaward of the jurisdictional line. When efforts to resolve the case were unsuccessful, petitioners requested a formal hearing on January 17, 1992, to contest the agency's decision. Petitioners purchased their property in 1989. It lies within Unit 2 of Gulf Coast Retreats, a residential subdivision in Hernando Beach, Florida. The property is identified as lot 20 on Gulfwinds Circle and fronts the Little Pine Island Bay (Bay), which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. Access to the Gulf is provided by a channel (six feet in depth) in the Bay in front of lot 20 and which eventually runs into the Gulf several miles south of petitioners' lot. It is undisputed that in 1985 Hurricane Elena passed offshore causing erosion to lot 20 and other adjacent lots. Consequently, the upland portion of the lot is now smaller than before the hurricane. However, petitioners purchased their property in that state of condition. Lots 19 and 21 are on the south and north sides of petitioners' property and are owned by the Steins and Budricks, respectively. Both neighbors have constructed vertical concrete seawalls in front of their homes. Budrick was issued a permit to construct a seawall on December 28, 1989, while Stein constructed his without a permit. However, Stein has subsequently filed an after-the-fact permit application and was recently advised by DER that the application was complete. At hearing, a DER representative expressed the view that the Stein application will probably be approved since his wall is landward of the DER jurisdictional line. It is noted that the Stein and Budrick seawalls sit back from the original property lines because of the erosion suffered during the 1985 hurricane and correspond to the jurisdictional line established by DER on their property. Another application for a permit to construct a seawall was filed by the owner of lot 18 in March 1992. Like Stein and Budrick, that owner proposed to construct his wall on the landward side of the jurisdictional line. Petitioners, who live in Kansas, desire to construct a home on their lot. They have proposed to place one hundred cubic yards of fill (limerock) on 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands on the western end of their lot and construct a 110-foot vertical seawall up to thirty feet seaward of the jurisdictional line. Thus, there will be dredge and filling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, a class III water of the state, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of DER. By law, DER is required to establish a jurisdictional line to show the landward extent of waters of this state, including the Gulf of Mexico. Such extent is normally defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. As a general practice, using a prescribed plant or species indicator list, DER makes an on-site inspection of the property to determine what vegetation, if any, is found on the property and is subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters. In this case, the dominant vegetation found on lot 20 was paspalum distichum, a plant on the species list subject to regular and periodic inundation by the Gulf waters. Accordingly, DER observed where the vegetation ended and used that point for the placement of the jurisdictional line. As a cross check, DER also noted the rack line, which is indicative of the landward extent to which the high tides rise, and found it to correspond to the vegetation line. It should be noted that the jurisdictional line established on petitioners' property corresponds with the line drawn on lots 18, 19 and 21, and if that line is used to construct the seawall on lot 20, the seawalls on all four lots would run in a straight line. Although petitioners objected to the jurisdictional line as established by DER, they offered no credible evidence to show that it was improper or should have been placed at a different location. On January 9 and 15, 1991, Richard W. Pugh, a DER field environmental specialist, conducted an on-site inspection of the property and adjacent waters. He also was responsible for establishing the jurisdictional line. Finding numerous adverse environmental effects that would occur if the permit was granted as proposed, Pugh recommended that the application be denied. This recommendation was accepted by the deputy assistant secretary for DER's Southwest District Office and a notice of permit denial was accordingly issued. The bases for the denial were that (a) reasonable assurances had not been given by petitioners that water quality standards would be satisfied; (b) a cumulative adverse impact on the area would occur if the permit was approved, and (c) petitioners had failed to give reasonable assurances that the project was in the public interest. In order to prove entitlement to a permit, petitioners must give reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is in the public interest. In this respect, they offered no evidence to provide these assurances. This in itself supports a finding that no entitlement to a permit has been shown. Even so, the agency elected to present evidence on these issues after petitioners' case-in-chief was concluded. Findings of fact drawn from that evidence are set forth below. On April 6, 1992, a DER marine biologist, Dr. George H. Farrell, visited the site and conducted a biological evaluation of the composition of the benthic community in the intertidal and subtidal wetlands which would be impacted by the project. Based on his tests and observations, Dr. Farrell concluded that the project as proposed would have an adverse impact on marine and wildlife resources in the area. This is because the area has very good water quality, contains a high species diversity, performs an integral part in the food web, and serves a valuable nursery function for estuarine dependent juvenile fish species and a corridor function for migrating estuarine dependent fish species. This testimony was not challenged by petitioners and is hereby accepted. 1/ In granting or denying a water resource permit, DER is also required to consider certain statutory criteria found in Subsection 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Although petitioners did not address these criteria, and thus failed to give any assurances that the project is in the public interest as required by law, testimony adduced by DER established that under petitioners' proposal, there will be a permanent loss of 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands due to filling activities. These wetlands are now used by fish and wildlife habitat and will no longer be available for use. In addition, the same area is used as a nursery area by a variety of fish species. As such, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and will adversely affect the fishing values and marine productivity in the vicinity. Second, because petitioners' proposed seawall will jut out from their neighbors' walls by as much as thirty feet, and the corners of the seawall in that configuration will result in erosion or shoaling depending on whether the waters are moving north or south, the project will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Third, because the wall is being constructed of concrete and steel and is not temporary, the project will be of a permanent nature and thus have a permanent adverse impact. Finally, the ecological functions being performed in the immediate vicinity of the project are extremely important and the elimination of this zone will significantly impair those functions. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the project is not in the public interest. DER has a policy of not granting a permit if adverse cumulative impacts may be expected as a result of granting that permit. This policy is derived from a statute (s. 403.919, F.S.) requiring such impacts to be considered in the permitting process. In the case at bar, DER reasonably predicts that if it granted petitioners' application and authorized them to construct a seawall which jutted out up to thirty feet beyond their neighbors' walls, it would be obligated to grant similar permits to property owners on adjacent lots. Because petitioners' application will have an adverse impact on the water quality and is contrary to the public interest, the granting of additional permits would exacerbate those impacts. When an applicant proposes to fill (destroy) wetlands, and the applicant is unable to meet the public interest criteria set forth in subsection 403.918(2), DER shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. In this case, no mitigative measures were proposed by petitioners. At hearing, petitioners' representative asserted that in June 1991, the Cabinet (presumably sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) implemented a new "policy" which allows property owners to "recover and bulkhead" land previously lost due to avulsion and erosion. He further represented that such requests were to be filed within five years after the event (hurricane). Although petitioners were not the property owners when the event occurred, and more than five years has elapsed, in July 1991 petitioners filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reclaim and bulkhead their property and that request remained pending as of the date of hearing. A copy of the policy itself (or rule, if any, implementing the policy) was not made a part of this record. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that the granting of that application would require DER to grant a water resource permit, and DER takes the position that the request has no bearing on the issue of whether a water resource permit should be issued to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioners' application for a water resource permit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Hammock Dunes is a parcel of land located on the east coast of Florida approximately half way between Daytona Beach and St. Augustine. With the exceptions of a few small parcels separated from the main area, the area in question in this case is that bounded by Malacompra Road to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and State Road A1A to the south and west. The property is cut at several places from the west boundary, State Road A1A to the east by 16th Road, Jungle Hut Road, and the approach road to the Sheraton Hotel. All of the property at issue in this hearing is owned by either Admiral or its parent company, ITT. The natural terrain is a series of ridges and swales which contain to the west, sea oats, salt palmetto, and coastal scrub in the drier areas. The lower interior ridges contain alternating growth of the above vegetation until one gets to the immediate area of State Road A1A where, because of the fill, oak and other upland vegetation is in evidence. Ditches exist on both sides of each of the cross roads mentioned above. In addition, ditches have been dug in a generally north - south direction following the ridge and swale run of the land and there is also evidence of spoil banks in the southern portion of the property resulting from the dredging of the Florida East Coast Canal. The north/south ditches in question were dug as a part of the mosquito control program carried out over several years starting in 1953 to remove the seasonal breeding ground of salt marsh mosquitoes. In addition to these north/south control ditches, there are other ditches leading away from them which form a part of that system, and there are some permanent waters on the property, primarily at the southern end near the Sheraton Hotel and at the coquina quarry. The dominant vegetation adjacent to the ditches includes a mixture of plants including weeds, disturbance plants, and persistent vegetation. Aerial photographs taken at various times over the period of the last 40 years reflect that the vegetation includes cat tails, bunch grass, wax myrtle, cabbage palms, and salt brush. Many of these ditches are encroached by the growth surrounding them. The existence of cabbage palms serves as a tool to define the swale areas because water conditions are not suitable for these plants in the swales. The swales in question, which basically were the areas in which the drainage ditches were dug, were natural and not man made. According to Dr. Durbin C. Tabb, a consultant in environmental assessment, whose work emphasizes the location, siting, and sensitivity of aquaculture projects, vegetation in areas such as this goes through a progression of species and this progression is used in relic analysis. Dr. Tabb performed a relic analysis on the area in question and based on this, as well as an analysis and examination of extensive aerial photography done of the area, he concluded that prior to the ditching activity, the plant community in the area could be described as a "wet prairie." This is an area of virtual treeless grasses and shrubs growing in an area periodically inundated by water. The zonation of the plants caused by this periodic inundation, as determined by Dr. Tabb, is consistent with wet prairie and that condition, prior to the ditching for mosquito control purposes, was consistent with mosquito breeding. In his analysis, Dr. Tabb found that numerous plants, such as cat tails, maiden cane, pickerel weed, saw grass, spike rush, soft rush, switch grass, button bush, and coastal plain willow, all of which need a moist environment, were extant in the area. Dr. Tabb also concluded that the water in the swales was primarily fresh water. In dry periods, however, in the lower areas, some salt could be sucked up from below ground by capillary action. Another survey of the area was conducted by Jeremy Tyler, the supervisor of the dredge and fill section of the Northeast District of DER, who has performed more than 3,000 jurisdictional determinations over the past 10 years, and who performed the jurisdictional determination for the property in question here. In making his determination, Mr. Tyler looked at various maps, aerial photographs, and information supplied by Admiral Corporation and conducted at least three recent on-sight visits to the property in addition to others conducted in the past. Based on all of this information available to him, Mr. Tyler concluded that certain portions of the Hammock Dunes area were exempt from DER dredge and fill permitting requirements. His conclusions were that the canal running to the intra-coastal waterway and the waterway itself were jurisdictional. Mr. Tyler determined that at least two ditches went through the uplands portion of the area as a part of the mosquito control operation. These ditches were the one at the west side of Malacompra Road which entered into the intra-coastal waterway; another was the westernmost ditch running south into the barge canal at the southeast corner of the property. Both were exempt. The third ditch in the area, that on the most eastern side, was not cut in the mosquito control operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for exemption. On the basis of this, he concluded that DER's jurisdiction extended to the sides of the jurisdictional ditch up about half way northward on the lake in the southeast corner of the property. North of that point, the ditch was cut through a non-jurisdictional uplands area. Mr. Tyler indicated that he would normally follow each ditch up-stream, but, having been made aware of the extent of the mosquito control operation, and the relationship of that operation to the ditches, he concluded that the majority of the ditches in the area were dug during the mosquito control operation and met the criteria for exemption, and, as a result, he did not have to follow them to their source. If he had not been satisfied that the mosquito control district exemption applied, he would have gone up each and every ditch to see where jurisdiction stopped. Prior to publishing an opinion as to jurisdictional limitations, ordinarily the agency will request a legal review of the proposed determination. This was done in the instant case by agency counsel Richard Lee. However, Mr. Tyler made the ultimate determination that the exemption applied in this case. He did not examine the question of whether the ditches constituted a series of lakes connected, so as to support jurisdiction, because since he was satisfied they were dug in mosquito control operations, the exemption applied which obviated any other jurisdictional issue. Robin D. Pyne, a consulting engineer in water resources, has studied the Hammock Dunes property since 1977 when his company was hired to do a water use plan for a neighboring community. Since 1979, he has had substantial opportunity to study the water situation there. Over the years, he has specifically tried to determine if standing water existed between the swales prior to the beginning of the digging of the mosquito control ditches in 1953. In doing his analysis, he relied on historical data, site topography data collections, reports of other agencies, and the work done by other experts. Considering all this, Mr. Pyne found that the soil in the Hammock Dunes area was basically well drained beach sand. Any rainfall on this area would seep in quickly and not run off, as the sand is very porous. During periods of sustained rainfall, the water table rises into the low part of some of the swales. Once the rains stop, however, the water drains off quickly through the ditches, and before they were in place, through the underground drainage which went west to east to the ocean as well as through evaporation. Extrapolation of this theory and its application to known data revealed that prior to the beginning of the mosquito control ditch program in 1953, wet soils were found in the swale bottoms only periodically and the swale bottom water level was determined by the level of the water table in the area. Generally, the swale bottoms would not be wet under average or dry weather prior to the digging of the ditches. The several mathematical calculations made by Mr. Pyne for the period prior to the ditches revealed that generally the average water table was below the bottom of the swale and there is no standing water in the bottom of a majority of the swales. Mr. Pyne concluded that the digging of the ditches may have lowered the water table by approximately one foot overall, but this would not affect his thesis. It is accepted here over that of Mr. Frazee who testified for Petitioner, and whose testimony is discussed in Para 24, infra. Other analysis was conducted by Mr. James H. Humphrey, an aerial cartographer who analyzed photographs of the area in question taken in 1943, 1952 and 1983. The use of a stereo plotter in these analyses delineated swales, ditches, roadways and other features important to the project. Based on the technical tools and procedures available to and used by him in his analysis, Mr. Humphrey is convinced the swales he identified are accurate and using his plotter, the textures of grasses, the tones of grey on the picture, and other like considerations, he was able to determine this outline. Dr. Thomas H. Patton, a geologist with a specialty in geomorphlogy, a study of why land looks as it does, and the relationship of soils to geomorphology, performed studies on the property in question to determine if the swales contained soils indicative of inundated conditions. To determine this, he looked for certain characteristics of the soils in the area to determine if the soils had been inundated for a period of time. In doing so, he first used aerial photographs to get the lay of the land from an overview standpoint defining general trends and the general outline of the land, roads, and other impacts by man. He then took soil samples from the major, the intermediate, and the minor swales and tried to get samples from between the swales to see if there was any interconnection between them. He took samples from soil across the entire width of each swale studied. Soil samples contain and maintain within themselves indications of sustained emergence or saturation. Studying these indicia can show how long the soil was dry (above the water table or below it). If the soils were inundated for a long period, they would show a preservation of a surface decomposed organic layer reflected by a dark grey to black color. This is the primary indication. There are others such as a blue-grey/green coloring of the subsurface and a mottling or sign of reduced condition. This test has been adopted by the Department of Natural Resources and the United States Corps of Engineers. Certain horizons have been defined and identified by letter. These are: O - the top, made up of leaf litter A - the elevated layer - transfer level B - just at or above the water table (normal dark brown color), and BH - the water table level - no clay or organics According to Dr. Patton, it takes a long time for the BH level to accumulate. The process is quicker in a porous soil than a dry soil and the Hammock Dunes area has porous soil. One would not find a BH horizon, however, in a saturated or inundated soil. If the soil is saturated, even a large part of the year, there would be no BH horizon. At the Hammock Dunes site, the emergent soil has a diffused, darker upper surface. Below that comes a much cleaner, greyer sand and beneath that, the zone of accumulation. Dr. Patton's survey revealed to him that soils in the swales were not inundated throughout the year. They were inundated during periods of high rainfall, but because of the porosity of the soil, would drain quickly. On the entire property, he saw only four isolated areas that could be considered wetlands. In the majority of the area, the soils appeared to be emergent soils. Most met the typical horizon picture including a BH zone. Using a specific site as an example, Dr. Patton traced to the BH horizon starting at approximately 42 inches down. The soil started lighter on top and proceeded to get darker as one went down to the zone of accumulation. That indicated that the water table was at or near 42 inches sufficiently during the year to achieve accumulation. Had the water table been nearer the surface more of the year, that would not occur. In Dr. Patton's opinion, this situation, including the water table level, stayed just about at that point all the time for at least a couple of hundred years if not for 1,000 years. This is not to say that the water table will not move during periods of drought and over rain. It will, but those periods are relatively short and the general level of water table where the BH horizon is is just about normally at 42 inches throughout the Hammock Dunes property. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Patton compared the swales work described above with the soils found in what he considered a wetlands area just north of 16th Road to see what a real wetlands soil in this area looked like. He found the latter to be black and mucky and typically wetland. He also took samples from Bonne Terre farms, which is a drained historical wetland. In this wetland, the soil was quite organic at the surface which showed sustained inundation of the surface. He also took samples at a place where Varn Lake comes close to State Road A1A and at that point, it was determined that there had been submergence, saturation, or inundation long enough to constitute a wetlands. The organic material was at a depth which indicated there that originally the area was wetlands but he cannot say when. In general, then, if the interdunal swales had been inundated prior to the dredging operation of the mosquito control ditches, there would have been organic materials still in the bottom of these swales. The time necessary to leach it out would have been several hundred years. Since the BH horizon, with its level of organic material, was located at 42 inches, this indicated that, for the most part, the Hammock Dunes areas with their swales included were not historic wetlands. Dr. Patton agreed with Mr. Pyne that the digging of the mosquito control ditches did not materially lower the water table nor does he believe that except in the worse conditions, in the rainiest of rainy seasons, that the water table in one swale was ever connected to the water table in another. In contrast to the above, Petitioner introduced testimony by various experts and residents which contradicted that referenced above. James M. Frazee, an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District became familiar with the Hammock Dunes area in connection with a salt water intrusion problem he was working on while employed with the U.S. Geological Survey in 1978 to 1980. During that period, he entered the site at least once a month. Based on his visits at the time, he found the area in question to be a combination of relic dunes with an interdunal lake system which holds water during periods of average to high water levels. His measurements of the water depth between the ridges showed it to be anywhere from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 feet down. This was during a period when the water table was between 5 1/2 to 6 feet above mean sea level, and was a period of above normal rainfall. During the period 1965 to 1980 there was a period of less than normal rainfall during which the water table fell from the high above to approximately 6 inches above mean sea level. Mr. Frazee contends that the interdunal swales are lakes and ditches dug by the mosquito control district have drained the area. In his opinion, were it not for these ditches, the ground in the swales would be much wetter, but Mr. Frazee cannot indicate by how much. His testimony, contradicted by that of Dr. Patton and Mr. Pyne, is not considered to be consistent with the weight of the evidence. John Labie, an employee of DER specializing in water quality assurance, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area and examined it as to ditching by a review of numerous aerial photographs and surveys. In his study, he tried to determine what the area looked like originally. In addition to the documentation he reviewed, he also walked a great portion of the area, personally examining the property in question. On the basis of his inquiry, he concluded that the area was previously a wetlands which was dried out by the mosquito control ditches. He admits that his depictions of historical wetlands, on the maps utilized for demonstrative purposes at the hearing, was not based on the same degree of accuracy and sophistication as was the basis for Respondent, Admiral's expert testimony. Another evaluation was conducted by botanist Sydney T. Brinson, an employee of DER, whose job includes the preparation of jurisdictional determinations based on botanical studies. She visited the site herself and determined there are at least three connections to waters of the state and from these connections into the interior of the Hammock Dunes property. She contends then, that if there were not mosquito control exemption, at least some of the ditches would, at least partway up, be jurisdictional. It is her opinion that before the ditches were put in, based on old documentation, the area was a series of coastal dunal lakes and the lakes, as they existed, did not have much plantlife in them. Relying on the U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey maps, which refer to much of the areas as "open water," she contends that the area was a system of coastal lakes rather than marshes. Marshes contain vegetation. Lakes generally do not. It is her further opinion that the interdunal waters, as interdunal lakes, total approximately 270 acres. Not all of these are connected at the surface. She feels that all of the individual systems north of the Florida East Coast Canal are more than 10 acres in area and would have to be over 2 inches in depth because of the fact that they are reflected as open water on the USGS maps. Based on her research, she concluded that prior to the digging of the mosquito control ditches, the area was a historic wetland. This opinion is not supported by the weight of the evidence, however. Another expert in soils science, Dar Guam Cheng, visited the site on May 9, 1985, and, in addition, reviewed a 1918 soils map of the area. Back then the area consisted of hydric soils which is a wetlands soils. All types of soils found in the area in 1918 are considered hydric (wetlands) soils. Mr. Cheng, however, took no samples himself on the Hammock Dunes property. His evaluation was based solely on the 1918 map, and is not considered to be of substantial value to the determination of this issue. Burrell Miller, a 76 year old resident of Hammock Dunes since 1979, but who either lived or visited in the area since 1917, indicated that his family homesteaded the area around Malacompra Road in 1920. During the period 1917 through 1943, he recalled, there was always water storage in the Hammock Dunes area. There was, however, not always high water except in the 1926 hurricane. There is, however, fresh water generally there every time it rains and the water generally stays level with the sea level. Mr. Miller recalls that from time to time in years past, boats were needed to cross the savannah to the beach. On other occasions one could wade in water up to one's waist. As he recalls, some of the soil was wet all of the time and never dried out. Mr. Miller's testimony, however, was fragmented and capable of numerous interpretations. It is not given the same weight as the scientific evidence presented by other parties. Nonetheless, another resident, Petitioner, Gerald Schatz, started coming to the area in 1953 and settled there in 1954. Over the years, he has gone into the Hammock Dunes area quite frequently and it is his recollection that along Malacompra Road, there always seemed to be some water, at times, up to the floor board of his pickup truck. He can recall when the mosquito control ditches were started in 1953. Even before he came to the area, Mr. Schatz' father-in- law lived there and always considered it wet. He recalls hearing others also describing the area as being wetlands. During the 1926 hurricane, it was flooded and again in 1957. Before the ditches were installed, there was, to his recollection, substantial standing water. Mr. James J. Miller, state archaeologist for Florida and very familiar with the history of the area, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area from the work he did on a Development of Regional Impact for the area. Having reviewed records and historical documents relating to this specific area, going back as far as 1605, he concluded that there was no natural waterway extending across the Hammock Dunes area. His study, however, dealt with the issues of navigability of waters not its hydrographics and his study did not deal with the issue of wetlands. Nonetheless, it is clear from the above, that the area was neither open water or a water course at any time in recorded history. The overwhelming weight of the evidence clearly indicated that the Hammock Dunes property was not a historical wetlands within the framework and the intent of the statute or the rule. Admittedly, the area was inundated from time to time, especially after such periods of high rainfall as hurricanes, tropical storms, or above average rainy seasons. During those periods, the standing water which remained for a relatively short period of time was often of such magnitude as to come to the floor board of a pickup truck, or require the use of a skiff or other surface transport over the water to cross it. This clearly accounts for the memory of Mr. Miller as to him using boats to get to the beach and for the recollection of Mr. Schatz who remembered water coming to the floor boards of his truck On the whole, however the scientific evidence presented by Admiral Corporation, including such expert testimony as that of Dr. Patton, Dr. Tabb, Mr. Pyne, and other highly qualified scientists who visited the site and conducted reliable scientific evaluations of the area, all clearly lead to the inescapable conclusion that the area was for the most part and over the long run not a submerged wetland. There can be little question that the majority of the "swales" on Hammock Dunes were either the result of or enhanced by mosquito control ditching operations of the East Flagler Mosquito Control District over the period from 1953 through completion. Though these ditches ultimately connect with the intercoastal waterway or the Florida East Coast Canal, both of which are waters of the state, these connections, with the exception of the ditch west of Varn Lake which is admittedly not exempt, are obviously due to mosquito control activities of EFMCD. According to the best evidence available, the land in question was not a surface water body nor was it connected to a water of the state prior to the construction of the mosquito control ditch system. For the most part, the interdunal swales, which constantly hold water, are less than 10 acres in size and have an average depth of less than 2 feet of water in them throughout the year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that DER take final agency action adopting the preliminary determinations made by its Northeastern District of DER's permitting jurisdiction for the discharge of dredge and fill materials on Hammock Dunes as outlined in the DER Northeast District letter of August 9, 1984 to Admiral Corporation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 23rd day of December, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3604 In the preparation of this Recommended order, the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner and Respondent were thoroughly considered and evaluated. As listed below, the individual proposed findings were accepted or rejected by the undersigned as indicated: For the Petitioner: 1) accepted and incorporated in para 30 (a)-(e) accepted but not dispositive of any issue - 6) accepted except for the last sentence of para 6 which is argument rejected as contra the weight of the evidence accepted accepted but immaterial 10 - 12) accepted but not dispositive irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant accepted rejected as irrelevant (a) - (d) accepted - 23) accepted but not controlling 24 - 25) rejected as argument, finding of fact 26 (a) (1) - (4) accepted but not conclusive or definitive 26 (5) rejected as a summary of documentation and not a mapped Findings of Fact 26 (b) - (d) rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected 29 (a) - (d) rejected as argument summarization of testimony rather than Findings of Fact rejected as a summary of testimony rather than Finding of Fact accepted 32 - 36) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence and argument rather than Finding of Fact rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact 1st and 2nd paras accepted, but 3rd paragraph rejected as not the better evidence rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact 43 - 44) accepted accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted as to the severance of Varn Lake from the major canal but rejected as to contra to the weight of the evidence as to the historical connection rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted accepted that Mr. Labie made such a "finding" but the finding is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence 51 - 52) rejected as recitations of testimony and not Findings of Fact 53) rejected as far as categorization of the periodic wet areas as "lake systems" 54) accepted as a statement of Mr. Schatz's recollection accepted as a statement of the contents of a writing not dispositive of the issue 57 - 59) accepted 60) rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence For the Respondent: accepted accepted accepted except for the term "swales" which is used merely descriptively and not binding as to definition accepted accepted 5 (a) - (c) rejected as recitations of testimony rather than Findings of Fact 5 (d) - (8) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's witnesses' testimony was, in general, in disagreement with that of Respondent's witnesses. However, as stated in the Recommended Order, the weight and quality of Respondent's evidence prevailed. (o) - (q) accepted not as fact but as a recitation of the evidence presented by each witness (a) - (c) accepted - 11) accepted 12) accepted COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Ross Burnaman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Lehrman & Denker Law Offices 103 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1736 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 420 First Florida Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-555.360 of the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”), pertaining to cross-connection control for public water systems, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a natural person residing at 1805 Burlington Circle, Sun City Center, Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department is the state agency with powers and duties to protect public drinking water as set forth in the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, section 403.850, et seq., Florida Statutes (2013). Background The term “cross-connection” is defined in rule 62-550.200(26) as: any physical arrangement whereby a public water supply is connected, directly or indirectly, with any other water supply system, sewer, drain, conduit, pool, storage reservoir, plumbing fixture, or other device which contains or may contain contaminated water, sewage or other waste, or liquid of unknown or unsafe quality which may be capable of imparting contamination to the public water supply as the result of backflow. Cross-connections are prohibited unless appropriate backflow protection is provided to prevent backflow through the cross-connection into the public water system. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-550.360(1). There are three types of backflow prevention devices germane to this proceeding: Reduced Pressure Principle Assembly ("RP"), Double Check Valve Assembly ("DC"), and Dual Check Device ("DuC”). Typically, but not in every case, the water customer is responsible for the costs of installation, inspection, and maintenance of a backflow prevention device. It is undisputed that the RP is the most expensive to purchase, install, and maintain; followed by the DC; and then the DuC.2/ The RP and DC are installed above-ground, usually near a street. Test ports on these assemblies allow them to be tested to determine whether they are still functioning to prevent backflow. The DuC is usually installed underground and has no test ports. The Department asserts that this difference makes the DuC less reliable than the RP and DC. The rule states, and Petitioner did not refute, that the RP and DC offer greater backflow protection than the DuC. Petitioner has an auxiliary water system at his residence, which he uses to pump untreated water from a nearby lake to irrigate his lawn. There is no cross-connection between the plumbing system in Petitioner’s residence and his auxiliary water system. Petitioner does not have a backflow prevention device installed at his property. Hillsborough County has an ordinance that requires the installation of an RP device for residential customers who have auxiliary water systems, but the County currently has a moratorium on the enforcement of its ordinance. Petitioner is on a local committee established to investigate and advise the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners regarding cross-connection control. He believes the County is likely to modify its ordinance and allow the DuC for residential customers who have auxiliary water systems. The Department Rule The Department stated its purposes for the rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: These rules are being amended to significantly reduce the overall regulatory burden of cross-connection control requirements on community water systems (CWSs) and their residential customers by: allowing a dual check device to be used as backflow protection at or for residential service connections from CWSs to premises where there is any type of auxiliary or reclaimed water system; and (2) allowing biennial instead of annual testing of backflow preventer assemblies required at or for residential service connections from CWSs. A community water system (“CWS”) is a public water system which serves at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. See § 403.852(3), Fla. Stat. The Department requires each CWS to have a cross- connection control program, and Table 62-555.360-2 in the rule establishes the “Minimum Backflow Protection” that must be provided at or for the service connection from the CWS to various types of water customers. The minimum backflow protection specified in the table for a residential service connection with an auxiliary water system is a DuC. All references hereafter to “residential service connection” shall mean one with an auxiliary water system. There is a footnote for the DuC at the bottom of the table, which explains: A DuC may be provided only if there is no known cross-connection between the plumbing system and the auxiliary or reclaimed water system on the customer's premises. Upon discovery of any cross•connection between the plumbing system and any reclaimed water system on the customer's premises, the CWS shall ensure that the cross-connection is eliminated. Upon discovery of any cross- connection between the plumbing system and any auxiliary water system other than a reclaimed water system on the customer's premises, the CWS shall ensure that the cross-connection is eliminated or shall ensure that the backflow protection provided at or for the service connection is equal to that required at or for a non•residential service connection. The SERC As part of the rulemaking process for the proposed amendments to rule 62-555.360, the Department prepared a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost ("SERC"). Section 120.541, Florida Statutes (2013), governs the preparation of SERCs and provides that a substantially affected person may submit a “good faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative that substantially accomplishes the objectives of the law being implemented.” See § 120.541(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The parties dispute whether Petitioner challenged the SERC. In his amended petition, Petitioner states no objection to any statement in the SERC. Petitioner did not challenge the SERC. The parties dispute whether Petitioner submitted a lower cost regulatory alternative. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stated: Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. Within 21 days of the notice, the Department received Petitioner's written comments. In his comments, Petitioner cites section 120.52(8)(f), which provides that a rule is invalid if it imposes regulatory costs which could be reduced by adopting a less costly alternative. Petitioner recommends that the rule be changed to specify that the less costly DuC is the only acceptable backflow prevention device for residential service connections and “A CWS shall not impose a requirement for a more expensive type of backflow prevention valve.” The Department contends that Petitioner’s comments did not constitute a good faith lower cost regulatory alternative, citing pages 87-98 of the Transcript. Those pages contain some argument on the issue, but do not prove Petitioner did not submit a lower cost regulatory alternative. Petitioner’s timely written comments included a citation to the relevant statute and a plainly-worded proposal. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner’s comments were sufficient to constitute a lower cost regulatory alternative. Petitioner’s Objections Petitioner objects to rule 62-555.360 because (1) it specifies use of the RP and DC, which he contends are unreasonably dangerous to public health and safety; (2) it specifies the DuC for residential service connections as the “minimum” protection, which he contends allows a CWS to require the more expensive RP or DC; (3) it requires testing of backflow devices “at least biennially” (once every two years), which he believes is too frequent; (4) it makes biennial testing a “minimum” testing interval, which he contends allows a CWS to require more frequent inspection; and (5) it does not require the backflow prevention device to be attached to the CWS’s water meter where Petitioner believes it should always be located. Unreasonable Danger Petitioner contends that the RP and DC are unreasonably dangerous to public health and safety because a person could intentionally pump contaminants through a test port on one of these assemblies into a public water supply. The Department does not dispute that a person could introduce contaminants into a public water supply in this way. The flaw in Petitioner’s reasoning is his failure to see the danger in proper perspective. Department personnel and other persons with expertise in public water systems throughout the United States are well aware that there are many access points in potable water collection, treatment, and distribution systems and many methods to introduce contaminants into these systems. There are many access points other than RPs and DCs. For example, there are methods available that would allow contaminants to be pumped into a public water system from any building connected to the system that has no backflow prevention device installed. RPs and DCs are primarily designed to prevent accidental introduction of contaminants into a public water system. However, they also prevent a person from intentionally pumping contaminants into the public water system from inside a house or building, hidden from view. The danger described by Petitioner assumes that the criminal who is intentionally pumping contaminants through the RP or DC will do it while standing next to the device, in the open, near a street. It is a well-known fact officially recognized by the Administrative Law Judge that criminals prefer to conduct their criminal activities hidden from sight rather than in plain view. Therefore, a criminal planning to contaminate a public water supply is more likely to choose a means other than introducing contaminants through an RP or DC. RPs and DCs are already in wide use. There is no reported incident of intentional contamination of a public water supply by pumping contaminants through one of these devices. When these factors are taken into account, the rule’s specifications for the continued use of RPs and DCs do not create an unreasonable danger to the public health and safety. Minimum Backflow Protection Petitioner contends that Table 62-555.360-2 is invalid because it violates the Department’s duty under section 120.541 to adopt “less costly alternatives.” Petitioner asserts that by specifying the DuC as the “minimum” backflow protection required for residential service connections the rule allows a local government to require the more costly RP or DC. The Department cannot dispute that the DuC substantially accomplishes the statutory objectives. The RP and DC provide greater backflow protection than the DuC, but the Department specified the DuC for residential service connections, indicating that the lower protection provided by the DuC did not make it fall short of the statutory objectives. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the rule imposes the least costly regulatory alternative for residential service connections because it only requires the DuC. Biennial Testing Schedule Petitioner contends that section III.D. of Table 62-555.360-1 also violates the Department’s duty to adopt less costly alternatives because the rule requires “backflow assemblies” to be tested biennially, which Petitioner believes is too frequent. The term “backflow preventer assemblies” refers only to the RP and DC. See footnote 1 of Table 62-555.360-1. Section III.E. of Table 62-555.360-1 indicates that the DuC must be refurbished or replaced “at least once every 5 to 10 years.” Petitioner did not object to this requirement. The preponderance of the evidence presented shows that biennial testing is reasonable. Furthermore, it is determined in the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to object to the testing frequency specified for the RP and DC, because the rule does not require him to have an RP or DC. Location of the Backflow Preventer Petitioner objects to section III.B. of Table 62-555.360-1, which requires backflow prevention devices to be “installed as close as practical to the CWS’s meter or customer’s property line.” Petitioner contends that this is an unconstitutional interference with private property and is unreasonably dangerous because it provides a means for intentional contamination. Petitioner’s private property rights claim is based on his allegation that if he were required by Hillsborough County to have an RP and DC, the device could be placed on his private property. Petitioner did not allege or present evidence to show that placing an RP or DC on his property would deprive him of all reasonable uses of his property so as to cause a taking of his private property for a public purpose without full compensation. See Art. X, § 6(a), Fla. Const. Furthermore, it is determined in the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to raise this issue because the rule does not require him to have an RP or DC. Petitioner contends the rule should require that backflow prevention devices always be attached to the water meter because that reduces the opportunity for intentional contamination. Petitioner is not an expert in public water systems, generally, or the installation of backflow prevention devices, in particular. He is not competent to state the relevant factors and constraints associated with installation of the devices. He is not competent to express an opinion whether it is always possible or always appropriate to attach the devices directly to the water meter. Furthermore, Petitioner’s claim of unreasonable danger was refuted above.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Niagara Bottling Company, LLC (Niagara), is entitled to Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) No. 114010 issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District), which authorizes Niagara to withdraw and use 484,000 gallons per day (gpd) of groundwater to produce bottled water at a facility in Lake County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Groveland is a municipal corporation located in Lake County. Niagara is a water bottling company registered to do business in Florida. Niagara currently owns and operates six water bottling facilities in the United States, including a bottling facility in unincorporated Lake County, northwest of Groveland. Niagara currently operates one bottling line at its Groveland facility, which can be used to bottle either spring water or purified water. The District is a special taxing district created by the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, with jurisdiction over a sixteen-county area that includes Groveland and the site of Niagara’s proposed water withdrawal. The District administers a permitting program for the consumptive use of water. The Proposed Permit The top geologic layer in the region is the surficial aquifer, which starts at the ground surface and extends down about 50 feet to the Intermediate Confining Unit. Below the Intermediate Confining Unit is the Upper Floridan Aquifer, which starts at a depth of about 150 feet and extends downward to about 550 feet below the ground surface. Below the Upper Floridan Aquifer is the Middle Semi-Confining Unit, which extends down another 450 feet. Below the Middle Semi-Confining Unit is the Lower Florida Aquifer, which extends down to about 2,200 feet below sea level. Nearly all of the groundwater withdrawn for consumptive uses in central Florida comes from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Groveland’s public water supply wells, for example, withdraw water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. The proposed CUP authorizes Niagara to withdraw 484,000 gpd from the Upper Floridan Aquifer to produce bottled water. The CUP authorizes the installation of three water supply wells for the facility: a 16-inch production well, a 16-inch backup well, and a 4-inch supply well for domestic uses at Niagara’s facility. Of the 484,000 gpd that Niagara would withdraw, approximately 454,000 gpd would be treated and bottled as “purified water” and approximately 30,000 gpd would be used for cooling some of the equipment used in the bottling process. Under federal regulations, bottled water sold as purified water must meet certain maximum contaminant levels, including a total dissolved solids (TDS) level of less than 10 parts per million. By regulation, purified water is distinct from tap water and from bottled spring water. Niagara would treat the groundwater by filtration and reverse osmosis (RO), primarily to remove TDS. At a customer’s request, minerals can be added to the water to enhance taste. Also before the water is bottled, it disinfected with ozone. The RO process at the Niagara facility is projected to turn 454,000 gpd of groundwater into about 363,000 gpd of purified drinking water for bottling and 91,000 gpd of RO concentrate/wastewater. Reject water from the cooling water system would add some additional wastewater. Niagara has arranged to send its RO concentrate to the Frozen Grove Wastewater Treatment Facility to be blended and used for irrigation at the Mission Inn Golf and Tennis Resort in Howey-in-the-Hills. The City of Minneola has also agreed to take Niagara’s RO concentrate. Niagara and the District requested that the proposed CUP be modified to add the City of Minneola wastewater treatment facility as an alternative recipient for Niagara’s RO concentrate. Niagara and the District propose the following change to Condition 10 of the Technical Staff Report: Withdrawals of groundwater from Well Nos. 1 (GRS Id No 145009) and 2 (GRS Id No 145010 for commercial/industrial type use shall not be initiated until Niagara Bottling LLC and the Frozen Grove WWTF or alternatively Niagara Bottling LLC and the City of Minneola WWTF have obtained all necessary permits to create and use the blend of process waste water (R/O concentrate) and reclaimed water for irrigation, as described in Attachment 4 of the application materials submitted to the District on May 9, 2008 for the Frozen Grove WWTF and the material submitted to the District on March 4, 2009 for the City of Minneola WWTF. The permittee shall provide documentation to the District that the necessary permits have been obtained within 30 days of initiating withdrawals of groundwater for commercial/industrial type use from Well Nos. 1 (GRS Id No 145009) and 2 (GRS Id No 145010). The proposed CUP includes a conservation plan with provisions for monitoring water use, repairing leaks, conducting quality assurance inspections, using totalizing flow meters, and minimizing spillage. Niagara’s proposed CUP contains conditions for environmental monitoring. Niagara would be required to collect water level and rainfall data, and basic vegetation and soils conditions at Lake Arthur. Lake Arthur was selected for monitoring because hydrologic modeling indicated that Niagara’s greatest potential impact to the water table was near Lake Arthur. The monitoring is intended to detect any unexpected adverse environmental impacts caused by Niagara’s proposed withdrawal so that they can be addressed. The proposed permit has an expiration date of December 31, 2013. Stipulations and Withdrawn Claims Before the final hearing, Groveland withdrew a number of allegations made in its Second Amended Petition for Hearing. Groveland stated that its intent was to withdraw the claims that its substantial interests were affected by Niagara’s proposed groundwater withdrawal. Groveland no longer contends that it would be specially injured by the proposed water use. In the parties’ Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Groveland stipulated that Niagara’s proposed water use would not interfere with any legal uses of water. Groveland also stipulated that Niagara’s proposed use would not cause adverse or significant impacts to lake stages or vegetation, would not impact adjacent land uses, would not cause significant saline water intrusion, would not cause or contribute to flood damage, would not harm the quality of the water source, would not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards, would not impact minimum flows and levels established by the District, would not cause the water table or aquifer potentiometric surface to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation would be adversely and significantly affected, would not affect spring flows or water levels, and would not use water reserved by the District from consumptive use. The record evidence supports the stipulations identified above. Economic and Efficient Utilization The Upper Floridan Aquifer is capable of producing the requested amount of water. Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-2.301(4)(a) and Section 10.3(a) of the Applicant’s Handbook require that a water use be in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization. The District’s determination of economic necessity focuses on preventing “water banking,” which is securing rights to water in excess of an applicant’s actual needs, for possible future use. Niagara’s 484,000 gpd allocation is based on the peak maximum daily output of the processing equipment operating at 74 percent capacity, which is the average capacity that Niagara achieves at its bottling facilities. Groveland contends that the consumer demand for bottled water could be met by other water bottlers and, therefore, there is no need for Niagara’s proposed withdrawal. However, no statute or rule requires Niagara to demonstrate that this particular CUP is the only means to meet the consumer demand for bottled water. The District’s evaluation of need focuses on the applicant’s need for the requested volume of water. In determining whether a requested use of water is necessary, the District does not evaluate the appropriateness of the associated business or activity, but only whether the applicant can reasonably be expected to use the requested volume of water, and do so efficiently based on industry standards. The evidence presented regarding the bottled water market and Niagara’s position in the market was sufficient to demonstrate that the requested volume of water is necessary through the duration of the CUP. The 30,000 gpd that Niagara would use for its cooling system is a reasonable amount of the water for that purpose. The technology to be used at Niagara’s facility is state-of-the- art, using constant online monitoring to reduce reject water. The cooling equipment and its operation have been designed to minimize water use. RO is the industry treatment standard for production of purified bottled water. It is the most cost-efficient treatment method in terms of energy use and water consumption. The proposed RO equipment and its operational parameters are designed to optimize treatment efficiencies. The volume of RO concentrate that would be produced depends on the TDS levels in the groundwater. The estimate of 91,000 gpd of RO concentrate is conservatively high, based on the TDS levels in groundwater samples. The actual volume of RO concentrate produced by Niagara could be smaller. Groveland was critical of Niagara’s wastewater volume, contending that the conversion of 91,000 gpd of groundwater to wastewater is inefficient and contrary to the public interest. The fact that Niagara’s bottling process would produce 91,000 gpd of wastewater does not make it inefficient. Nearly every commercial and industrial water use has a wastewater component. In the context of water bottling processes and water treatment systems, Niagara’s operation is efficient. Groveland asserts that sending Niagara’s RO concentrate to the Mission Inn golf course or the City of Minneola for irrigation purposes is inefficient because a large portion of irrigation water is usually lost to evaporation and does not recharge the aquifer. This assertion fails to account for the fact that every gallon of RO concentrate used for irrigation reduces by one gallon the volume of groundwater that would otherwise be withdrawn for irrigation. Using Niagara’s wastewater for irrigation contributes to the efficiency of Niagara’s proposed use. There is typically a deficit of reclaimed water from public wastewater treatment systems in the summer when the demand for reclaimed water for irrigation and other purposes increases. Niagara’s supply of RO concentrate, however, would remain constant throughout the year. Mission Inn and Minneola would benefit if they were able to use Niagara’s RO concentrate. Niagara’s conservation plan for water use at its facility is equal to or better than the conservation plans incorporated into the CUPs that the District has issued to other beverage bottlers. Niagara’s proposed use was shown to be of such a quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization. Sources of Lower Quality Water Florida Administrative Rule 40C-2.301(4)(f) states that reclaimed water must be used if it is “readily available.” Section 10.3(g) of the Applicant’s Handbook requires that the “lowest acceptable quality water source, including reclaimed water or surface water” must be used for a consumptive use, unless the applicant demonstrates that the use of a lower quality water source is not economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. The requirement to use a lower water quality source, however, is not applicable when the water is for “direct human consumption” or human food preparation. § 10.3(g), Applicant’s Handbook. Groveland argues that the word “direct” should mean unaltered and, therefore, Niagara’s bottled water is not intended for direct human consumption because the water is treated before it is bottled. The District, however, does not interpret or apply the term “direct human consumption” to mean drinking water directly from the source without treatment. In the case of the water delivered to households and businesses by public water suppliers, which also must be treated before it is delivered, the District regulates the water as being for direct human consumption. The fact that Niagara would filter the groundwater, apply RO treatment, add acid to prevent mineral buildup in the RO equipment, and add minerals for taste if requested by customers, does not disqualify Niagara’s bottled water as being for direct human consumption. Because 454,000 gpd of Niagara’s proposed water withdrawal would be processed for direct human consumption, Niagara did not have to seek to use a source of lower water quality for that volume. The requirement to use available sources of lower quality water would apply to the 30,000 gpd that Niagara intends to use for cooling. There are technical and economic problems associated with using water of lower quality for the cooling process at the Niagara facility because higher TDS levels would damage the cooling equipment. Using water with higher TDS levels would also require greater volumes of water to achieve cooling. Niagara’s cooling system is designed to reject water when the dissolved solids reach a certain high level, and to replace the reject water with fresh water. Operating at higher dissolved solid levels would cause the system to reject water more frequently, so greater volumes of water would be needed for cooling and greater volumes of wastewater would be generated. Using surface water from the St. Johns River, which has TDS levels much higher than in the groundwater, would require twice as much water to operate Niagara’s cooling system. In addition, a 44-mile pipeline would be needed to convey water from the St. Johns River to the Groveland facility, which would involve much higher costs. Seawater has even higher TDS levels and would require desalinization and a different cooling system. Using seawater would require much greater volumes of water for treatment and cooling. Disposal of the brine concentrate generated by the treatment process would create additional costs. The use of seawater would require the construction of a 120-mile pipeline, which would involve large capital and operating costs. Groveland insists that the much higher costs associated with these sources of lower quality water are still economically feasible for Niagara based on Niagara’s projected income from its bottling operations. The District does not determine feasibility based on the balance sheet of the individual permit applicant. The District evaluates relative costs of alternative sources in the context of normal practices and expected benefits. Reliable volumes of reclaimed water to use in Niagara’s cooling system are not readily available to Niagara from domestic wastewater treatment facilities in the area. The spring water sources that Niagara is currently using are not sources of lower quality water. These sources are of equivalent quality to the groundwater that Niagara proposes to withdraw. Groveland contends that Niagara did not investigate the quality of the Lower Floridan Aquifer as a potential source of lower water quality water for Niagara’s proposed use. Groveland believes, but did not prove, that the Lower Floridan has lower quality water. Studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that the water quality of the Lower Floridan Aquifer is about the same or better quality than the quality of the water in the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Water quality data from a Lower Floridan well in the vicinity also indicates that the quality of the water in the Lower Floridan is as good as, or better than, the water quality in the Upper Floridan in this area. Withdrawals from the Lower Floridan create a risk of saline water intrusion into the fresh portion of the Lower Floridan or Upper Floridan. Niagara demonstrated that it is not technically nor economically feasible to use a source of lower quality water for its cooling water. Individual Effect on Wetlands and Lakes To identify the “zone of influence” of Niagara’s proposed withdrawal of water and to assess the individual and cumulative effects of the drawdown associated with the withdrawal, Niagara’s consulting hydrogeologist used a steady- state numerical groundwater model developed by the District, known as the East Central Florida (ECF) groundwater model. It is a steady-state model, which produces a value that represents a long-term average effect. The ECF model predicts the level of drawdown in the surficial aquifer. The model assumes that wetlands and other surface waters are directly connected to the surficial aquifer so that a given drawdown of the surficial aquifer causes the same drawdown of the water levels in wetlands and other surface waters. The ECF model is calibrated to water level data from 1995. A drawdown predicted by the model is a drawdown from 1995 water levels. The ECF model results are graphically depicted as drawdown contours that are overlaid on aerial photography. The District considers the condition and functions of the surface waters in and around the withdrawal site to determine how they might be affected by a predicted drawdown. The dominant surface waters in the area of the proposed withdrawal are sand hill lakes. There are few wetlands. In sand hill lake systems, water table levels fluctuate widely, as much as eight or ten feet. Consequently, these systems are colonized by herbaceous plants that are adapted to widely fluctuating water levels. The wetlands and lakes in the area are not currently showing signs of environmental harm as a result of existing groundwater withdrawals. Niagara’s modeling predicted that the proposed water withdrawal, by itself, would cause a maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer of 0.1 feet, except for one small area where the predicted drawdown was 0.2 feet. All the expert witnesses were in agreement that Niagara’s drawdown, by itself, is unlikely to cause environmental harm. In fact, the impacts of such a small drawdown on the physical conditions or functions of wetlands or lakes in the area would probably be impossible to detect. Cumulative Effect on Wetlands and Lakes For the analysis of cumulative impacts, the ECF model takes into account all permitted withdrawals for the year 2013, because that is the key year for the regulation of water uses in the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA), which includes the site of Niagara’s bottling facility. The CFCA is discussed in greater detail later in this Recommended Order. The ECF model predicated that the cumulative surficial aquifer drawdown within the area of influence of Niagara’s proposed withdrawal would be less than one foot except for one small area where the drawdown is predicted to be 1.1 feet. Niagara submitted an environmental assessment report, the Lotspeich report, with its permit application. The Lotspeich report concluded that no ecological harm would be caused by Niagara’s proposed withdrawal. Subsequently, Niagara’s consulting ecologist, Dr. Shirley Denton, who has extensive experience with the effects of drawdowns on wetlands and other surface waters, reevaluated the potential effects of Niagara’s proposed withdrawal. Dr. Denton visited all of the natural systems in the field. It was her opinion that the cumulative drawdown would not cause unacceptable harm to these natural systems. The District’s environmental expert agreed with Dr. Denton. In the Central Florida sand hill lakes area, a drawdown of this magnitude is not an uncommon cumulative impact from groundwater withdrawals that the District has determined to be acceptable. Groveland presented the testimony of Dr. Jay Exum who opined that the cumulative drawdown in the area of Niagara’s proposed withdrawal would adversely impact wetlands. Dr. Exum’s opinion was based on his prediction that the cumulative drawdown would result in a substantial reduction in the size of the wetlands in the area. However, his opinion about the loss of wetland acreage is not persuasive because of the unconventional methodology2/ that he used and the unreasonable assumptions upon which his opinion was based. Dr. Exum reviewed land cover maps of Lake County, calculated the size and topography of eight wetlands in the area (only one was within Niagara’s zone of influence), came up with an estimated reduction in wetland acreage for these wetlands, and then extrapolated from that number a prediction of the total area of wetlands within Niagara’s area of influence that would be lost as a result of the cumulative drawdown. Dr. Exum did not account for the fact that the wetlands and lakes in the area already reflect most of the cumulative drawdown. The cumulative drawdown predicted by the modeling is not a drawdown below today’s average water levels; it is a drawdown below 1995 levels. In addition, Dr. Exum assumed that a drawdown in the surficial aquifer of .5 foot will cause the future loss of the vegetation at the outer edges of a wetland in an amount that can be calculated simply by determining how much area .5 feet of water would occupy. That assumption would only apply in a hypothetical, unnatural situation where water levels are constant and the wetland vegetation will not survive if the water table drops .5 feet. However, the actual situation is that the water table fluctuates widely in these natural systems and the vegetation is adapted to the fluctuations. The area “formerly” occupied by the .5 feet of water could still be inundated frequently enough to sustain the vegetation. Dr. Exum’s opinion about the environmental effects that would be caused by the cumulative drawdown of the surficial aquifer was given less weight than the opinions offered by Niagara’s and the District’s ecologists because Dr. Exum has little or no prior experience with the effects of drawdowns on natural systems. Dr. Exum’s professional experience is almost entirely with the impacts associated with construction activities in or near wetlands, which would not acquaint him with the unique, long-term responses of natural systems to water table drawdowns caused by groundwater withdrawals. Dr. Denton, who has over 25 years of experience with monitoring wetlands affected by groundwater withdrawals, stated that drawdowns in the surficial aquifer do not usually cause reductions in the size of a wetlands. The more persuasive evidence in the record demonstrates that Niagara’s proposed withdrawal would not cause adverse impacts to wetlands on an individual or a cumulative basis. Niagara provided reasonable assurance that any environmental harm caused by the proposed use has been reduced to an acceptable amount. The five-year duration of the permit is reasonable and appropriate. Public Interest Section 9.3 of the Applicant’s Handbook defines “public interest” as: those rights and claims on behalf of the people in general. In examining whether an application is consistent with the public interest, the District considers whether a particular use of water is going to be beneficial or detrimental to the overall collective well-being of the people or to the water resource in the area, the District and the State. The policy and practice of the District has been to limit its public interest analysis to matters directly related to water resources and the management of those resources. Other matters, such as vehicle traffic generated by the applicant, are not considered by the District. Groveland suggests that Niagara’s proposed use, and perhaps all commercial/industrials uses, are less important and worthy than public water supply uses like its own, and should not be allowed to take water that a public water supplier might need in the future. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, all reasonable beneficial uses of water are equal under Chapter 373, except in certain contexts which are not applicable here. Commercial and industrial activities that make consumptive uses of water, when conducted in conformance with regulations established to efficiently use and protect the water resources, are generally beneficial to the collective well-being of the people. Groveland also claims that Niagara’s CUP is not in the public interest because a portion of Niagara’s bottled water will be shipped out of Florida. Although Niagara cannot project precisely the amount of bottled water that would end in the hands of consumers residing out-of-state, an estimate of 20 percent was given. For beverage bottlers or any other commercial or industrial water users that incorporate water into their products, the District deems the location of the water use to be where the water is bottled or incorporated into the products. The District does not look to where products are ultimately purchased by a retail consumer. Therefore, the District did not consider the fact that a portion of Niagara’s bottled water would be consumed outside of Florida as a factor in the District’s determination of whether the proposed water use is in the public interest. Niagara’s withdrawal is within the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA), an area covering parts of the jurisdiction of three water management districts and which includes the City of Groveland and the site of Niagara’s proposed water withdrawal. The CFCA is a highly productive area for groundwater withdrawals, but the water management districts have determined that it does not have sufficient water to serve water needs above the levels that have been allocated through the year 2013. To protect the water resources of the CFCA, rules were adopted to require public water suppliers and other water users within the CFCA to use “supplemental water supplies” to meet their increases in demand after 2013. Supplemental water supplies are identified in the CFCA rules as reclaimed water, stormwater, surface water, and seawater desalinization. Niagara is not requesting additional water above its 2013 demand and, therefore, is not subject to the restrictions imposed by the various CFCA rules. Nevertheless, the District treated Niagara’s location within the CFCA as a matter affecting the public interest. The District determined that it was inconsistent with the public interest to allow Niagara to withdraw groundwater in the CFCA unless Niagara was required to participate in the development of supplemental water supplies. Therefore, Niagara is required by “Other Condition” 14 in the District’s Technical Staff Report, to identify potential partners for the development of supplemental water supply projects, determine the viability of developing the partnerships, evaluate potential supplemental water supply projects available, and submit a comprehensive written report evaluating whether identified projects are feasible future water supply sources for Niagara. The District imposed a permit expiration date of December 31, 2013, to enable the District and Niagara to reevaluate Niagara’s ability to use a lower quality water source after that date. Groveland does not believe the conditions imposed by the District go far enough and asserts that Niagara’s water withdrawal from the CFCA is still contrary to the public interest. Niagara’s proposed withdrawal is also within a Priority Water Resource Caution Area (PWRCA) designated by the District. The District designates priority water resource caution areas as part of its water supply 20-year planning process. In the PWRCA, the District has determined that there is inadequate groundwater in the Floridan Aquifer to meet all existing and future water needs, without having unacceptable impacts on the water resources. The District stated that the designation of a priority water resource caution area is strictly a planning tool and does not preclude the issuance of permits. CUPs are commonly issued for proposed withdrawals in priority water resource caution areas in the District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order granting Consumptive Use Permit No. 114010 with the conditions specified in the Technical Staff Report and the additional condition proposed by the District and Niagara and set forth in paragraph 12, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2009.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“Commission”) is entitled to the requested minor modification of its existing Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, which would authorize the backfilling of a portion of Fisheating Creek as part of a restoration project.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating construction activities in waters of the State. The Department has also been delegated authority to process and act on applications for authorization from the Board of Trustees for activities on sovereignty submerged lands. The Commission is the state wildlife management agency. The Commission is the applicant for the minor modification at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner, Save Our Creeks, Inc., is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Lake Place, Florida. Save Our Creeks’ members are interested citizens and groups devoted to the conservation of natural resources, especially creeks and small waterways. Save Our Creeks owns property on Fisheating Creek in Glades County, approximately nine miles upstream of Cowbone Marsh. Petitioner, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. (ECOSWF), is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Sarasota, Florida. A substantial number of the members of Save Our Creeks and ECOSWF use and enjoy the waters of Fisheating Creek for a variety of purposes, including canoeing, boating, fishing, and wildlife observation. Their interests would be affected by the proposed project. Fisheating Creek and Cowbone Marsh Fisheating Creek flows from Highlands and Desoto Counties south and east through Glades County. The Creek runs in a northeastern direction through Cowbone Marsh before draining into Lake Okeechobee. The Creek contributes approximately nine percent of the flow into Lake Okeechobee. Fisheating Creek is designated as Class III waters. Cowbone Marsh is located about eight miles west of Lake Okeechobee. It is a mile and a half long and two miles wide, covering about 2,500 acres. Fisheating Creek and Cowbone Marsh are within the Fisheating Creek Wildlife Management Area. In 1929, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACOE") prepared a survey map which shows Fisheating Creek as an open water route from Lake Okeechobee through Cowbone Marsh and continuing beyond. The accuracy of the course of the Creek as it is depicted in the 1929 map is not disputed by the parties. The 1929 map does not describe the depth or width of the Creek. Some evidence about historical widths and depths was presented, but it was incomplete. There was credible evidence showing that some segments of Fisheating Creek were four to five feet deep and 20 to 30 feet wide. There was also credible evidence that other segments of the Creek were shallower and narrower. The record shows only that canoes, kayaks, and other vessels drawing twelve inches of water or less have been used on the Creek. For a number of years, much of Fisheating Creek has been choked by vegetation and “tussocks.” Tussocks are floating mats of vegetation. Carolina willow now dominates Cowbone Marsh, having replaced areas that were previously open water or covered with herbaceous marsh communities. The vegetation in the Creek made navigation difficult or impossible through Cowbone Marsh. The 1998 Judgment and 1999 Settlement Agreement In 1989, Lykes Bros., Inc., asserted ownership of Fisheating Creek and tried to prevent public access to the Creek. The Board of Trustees responded with a civil action against Lykes Bros., seeking a determination that Fisheating Creek throughout Glades County is navigable and, consequently, the title to its bottom is held by the Board of Trustees as sovereignty submerged lands. Petitioners in this administrative proceeding intervened in the circuit court case on the side of the Board of Trustees. The jury found Fisheating Creek navigable throughout Glades County and the court entered a judgment in 1998 determining that the Creek is sovereignty land held in trust by the Board of Trustees. The judgment did not include any findings about the widths and depths of Fisheating Creek. The court retained jurisdiction to determine the boundaries of the Creek, but the boundaries were never determined. The circuit court case was appealed, but in May 1999, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Lykes Bros. agreed to sell to the Board of Trustees a conservation easement on upland areas adjacent to Fisheating Creek, to be held and managed for the benefit of the public. The conservation area is known as the Fisheating Creek Expanded Corridor. The settlement agreement also called for the Board of Trustees to lease the Fisheating Creek Expanded Corridor to the Commission, who the Board of Trustees designated as the managing agency. The settlement agreement acknowledges the public's "right to boat and canoe on Fisheating Creek throughout the entire Expanded Corridor.” With respect to navigation, the settlement agreement provides: Protection of Navigation. The navigability of Fisheating Creek throughout the entire Expanded Corridor shall be maintained and enhanced through a navigation maintenance program which includes aquatic weed control and removal of fallen logs and similar obstructions. This section does not authorize dredging. The Cookie-Cutter Project In January 2009, the Commission aerially applied an herbicide to kill the vegetation along the course of the Creek. In April 2010, the Commission contracted with A & L Aquatic Weed Control (“A & L”) to “[m]echanically dismantle floating tussocks.” The Commission directed A & L to perform the project by “shredding vegetation and accumulated organic material to re-open the navigation across Cowbone Marsh.” The Commission instructed A & L to re-open a channel "approximately 2.2 miles long and 18-20 feet wide,” and to clear some areas of the Creek “as wide as 35-feet wide occasionally as necessary to turn shredding equipment during the shredding process.” The Commission did not direct A & L to dredge a deeper channel. The vessel used by A & L to perform the work is known as a “cookie-cutter.” The cookie-cutter has two cutting wheels at the front of the vessel to shred and side-cast vegetation. The cutting wheels also act as propellers to propel the cookie- cutter forward. The cookie-cutter can clear woody vegetation up to four inches in diameter. The two cutting wheels can be lowered or raised in order to cut vegetation at various depths in the water. Evidence was presented to show how the cutting wheels could be lowered two to three feet, but it was not made clear whether the cutting wheels could be lowered even more. No evidence was presented to establish how deep the cookie-cutter blades were lowered into Fisheating Creek during the work performed by A & L. No evidence was presented to establish what depth of soil the cookie-cutter was capable of dredging through if the cutting wheels cut into the Creek bottom. The cookie-cutter began on the eastern side of Cowbone Marsh and moved upstream. The parties disputed the point of beginning. Petitioners contend it was farther upstream, but the more persuasive evidence for the point of beginning was presented by the Commission. The cookie-cutter generally followed the course of Fisheating Creek as depicted on the 1929 USACOE map. However, there are three areas where the cookie-cutter deviated from the 1929 map. One deviation is about 100 feet off-line. The other two deviations are 25 to 30 feet off-line. No explanation was given for the deviations, but the cookie-cutter operator generally followed the path of dead vegetation killed by the aerial spraying of herbicide and the line may have deviated from the true course of the Creek in these three areas. During the cookie-cutter project, water levels within the Creek and Marsh fluctuated. At some point, the project was postponed due to low water conditions. A sandbag dam was placed in the channel to artificially raise the water level so the cookie-cutter could continue. In July 2010, the Department and USACOE ordered the Commission to stop the project due to its adverse environmental impacts, including the draining of Cowbone Marsh. Before the cookie-cutter stopped, it had cleared about two miles of Fisheating Creek. Where the cookie-cutter stopped there is a discernible channel continuing west, but it is shallower and narrower than the channel created by the cookie-cutter. At this terminus, the cookie-cutter was dredging a deeper and wider channel than existed naturally. Additional evidence of dredging along the Creek channel is the soil cast up on the banks, and the removal of peat soils in the bottom of the Creek and exposure of underlying mineralized soil. The cookie-cutter altered the natural conditions of the Fisheating Creek in some areas by dredging the sides and bottom of the Creek. The dredging by the cookie-cutter altered the hydrology of the Creek and Marsh. The Marsh drained rapidly to Lake Okeechobee. In addition, large quantities of soil, muck, silt, and debris disturbed by the cookie-cutter were carried downstream toward Lake Okeechobee. Some of the soil and debris settled out at the mouth of the Creek, causing shoaling. The sides of the channel in many areas is continuing to erode. The Department’s Emergency Final Order In July 2010, the Department issued an Emergency Final Order, which directed the Commission to: (a) remove the cookie- cutter and immediately stop all activities associated with the cookie-cutter; (b) place temporary emergency flow restrictors in the channel to reduce flow velocities and minimize downstream sediment transport, as well as raise the water level to minimize surface and groundwater flow from the adjacent marsh into the channel; and (c) develop a long-term remedial plan to return water levels within the Marsh to pre-impact conditions and apply to the Department for an Environmental Resource Permit to implement the plan. In August 2010, pursuant to the Emergency Final Order, the Commission constructed an aluminum weir in the Creek to decrease flow velocities, reduce erosion, and maintain the hydration of the Marsh. The weir was placed approximately half a mile downstream from where the cookie-cutter stopped. During the wet season of 2010, the aluminum weir was completely submerged. Erosion and shoaling occurred immediately downstream. The Commission determined that the weir was ineffective and removed it. The EPA Compliance Orders In March 2011, the EPA issued an Administrative Compliance Order in which it alleged the Commission had engaged in "unauthorized activities associated with the excavation and construction of a channel within Cowbone Marsh.” The Commission was ordered to construct an initial check dam in the upper reaches of the Marsh to minimize the loss of groundwater and prevent further adverse impacts. In April 2011, EPA issued a second Administrative Compliance Order, directing the Commission to construct five additional check dams. The order describes the check dams as "initial corrective measures" and states that the “final restoration plan will include measures for backfilling the unauthorized cut through Cowbone Marsh.” The Initial Permits In May 2011, the Department issued to the Commission an Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, which authorized the construction of six earthen check-dams within the portion of Fisheating Creek where the cookie-cutter had operated. The purpose of the check dams was to improve the hydrology of Cowbone Marsh and promote the accumulation of sediments within the channel to restore the natural depth and width of Fisheating Creek. The check dams were constructed using sand bags, marine plywood, coconut matting, and pressure-treated posts. The check dams have ten-foot wing walls which extend into the surrounding marsh. The wing walls are to prevent erosion around the dams and to direct water into the marsh. The installation of the check dams was completed in July 2011. Since that time, some repair efforts have been required to replace lost sandbags and to address erosion that has occurred around the check dams. The check dams have been somewhat successful in maintaining higher water levels in the Marsh. However, they have not restored natural hydrologic conditions, or prevented erosion along the channel. The Proposed Modification In June 2012, the Commission applied for a "minor modification" to the existing permits, which the Department granted. The modified permits authorize the Commission to backfill the channel cleared by the cookie-cutter with approximately 27,000 cubic yards of sand. The check dams would not be removed. The sand for the backfilling would be excavated from a "borrow" area located about a mile away. Petitioners contend that the borrow area is in wetlands, but the more persuasive evidence is that it is uplands. A 1.164-mile temporary access road would be constructed from the borrow area through uplands and wetlands to a 100-square-foot staging area adjacent to Fisheating Creek where the backfilling would begin. Wetland impacts would be minimized by constructing the temporary access road and staging area with interlocking mats. Petitioners did not show that the route or manner in which the temporary road would be constructed and used would have unacceptable adverse impacts to the environment or otherwise fail to comply with applicable criteria. The sand would be dumped into the Creek and then compacted. As the Creek was filled, the compacted sand would be used as a roadway for the trucks to transport sand to the end of the filled area to dump more sand, until the backfilling was completed. The proposed backfilling would not restore a typical stream profile, deepest in the middle and becoming more and more shallow moving toward the banks. That kind of profile can be seen in the photographs of Fisheating Creek taken before the cookie-cutter project. The proposed modification calls for filling the cut channel from "bank to bank": Final Grade: Fill must be compacted and ground surface elevations must be the same as the adjacent marsh ground surface elevations (within a tolerance of +6/-6 inches) The filled channel would be seeded and fertilized to grow native vegetation. The proposed seed mixture is mostly water grasses, but has some willow included. Compliance with Criteria Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-343.100 provides that a modification is treated as either minor or major depending on the magnitude of the changes and the potential for environmental impacts that differ from those addressed in the original permit: modification shall be considered to be minor only where the modification does not: Require a new site inspection by the Department in order to evaluate the request; or Substantially: Alter permit conditions; Increase the authorized discharge; Have substantially different or increased impacts on wetlands and other surface waters. . . ; Decrease the retention/detention specified by the original permit; Decrease any flood control elevations for roads or buildings specified by the original permit; or Increase the project area. At the final hearing, it was not shown how the modification meets the criteria for a minor modification. The proposed modification does not meet the criteria because it required new site visits, substantially alters the original permit conditions, and has a substantially different impact on wetlands. The criteria applicable to an application for a major modification were not identified, nor was it shown how the evidence presented at the final hearing satisfies the requirements for such an application. The proposed backfilling plan would not restore the natural conditions that existed in Fisheating Creek. The Commission did not show that it made a reasonable effort to determine the pre-disturbance conditions throughout the disturbed area. The proposed modification would not restore the natural depths in the Creek. The backfilling plan calls for a finished grade of plus or minus six inches above the level of the adjacent marsh. A final grade of zero to plus six inches would essentially eliminate Fisheating Creek. The maximum allowed depth of minus six inches below the level of the adjacent marsh would be shallower than the natural depths in portions of the Creek. Even the Department described the Creek was "one to two feet deep" before the cookie-cutter project. Adequate measures are not included in the permits to ensure that after backfilling and planting, the Creek would have the ordinary attributes of a creek. The proposed modification would not restore the pre- existing hydrologic conditions of the Creek. The modified Environmental Resource Permit requires strict compliance with the terms of the 1999 settlement agreement. The modification would not be consistent with the 1999 settlement agreement because the backfilling and planting would destroy the navigability of the Creek. Petitioners want to preserve the current depths of Fisheating Creek, but some of those depths are unnatural, being the result of dredging by the cookie-cutter. However, the proposed backfilling would not restore the natural depths in some parts of the Creek and would not maintain the navigability of the Creek, even for shallow draft vessels such as canoes and kayaks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department deny the requested modification to the Commission's Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Alisa A. Coe, Esquire Joshua D. Smith, Esquire Bradley I. B. Marshall, Esquire Earthjustice 111 South Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold "Bud" Viehauer, General Counsel Ryan Osborne, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Proposed Rule 46-4.0081(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, providing that, beginning January 1, 1998, no person shall fish with, set, or place in the water any seine with a mesh size larger than two inches stretched mesh, is a valid exercise of the delegated legislative authority of Respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission, and whether said rule was proposed in accordance with the statutory standards Respondent must follow pursuant to Section 375.025, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Existing rules of the MFC require that the main body of a seine net be constructed of two-inch mesh or smaller. Wings with larger mesh may be used. [Rule 46-4.0081(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code] The challenged rule amendment [Proposed Rule 46-4.0081(2)(d)] deletes the provision that allows a wing with larger mesh to be attached to a two-inch mesh seine. The unrefuted evidence is that the proposed rule amendment will reduce the "catchability rate" of a single such seine net for many types of fish and not be commercially feasible for mullet, except possibly in "roe season,"3 and that a seine net as currently permitted with larger mesh in the wings only is commercially feasible for mullet as well as other fish. "Catchability rate" is defined as "that fraction of a fish stock which is caught by a unit of fishing effort." "Roe season" is that part of the year in which there is greater schooling and movement of adult mullet, approximately two years old and eleven or more inches in length, which hopefully have already reproduced. However, legal size is not a guarantee that a fish has reproduced. See below, Finding of Fact 49. The term "stretched mesh" means that the mesh is measured by pulling it to its maximum length. A two-inch stretched mesh forms approximately a one inch square when fully open. Generally, there are two types of nets used to catch fish: those that corral the fish by concentrating them into any area small enough that they can be easily landed; and those that catch the fish by entangling them in net material. Gill nets fall into the latter category. Gill nets catch fish when a fish enters a mesh opening, finds that it is too large to pass through the mesh opening, and entangles its gills in the mesh when it attempts to back out of the net. The fish then dies due to lack of water or lack of undissolved oxygen, or it can be pulled through the net manually and released. Fish mortality from gill nets is higher in warm months. From a fish's or an environmentalist's viewpoint, pulling the fish through a net is an exercise in futility because pulling the fish through a net removes its natural slime, and without its natural slime, a fish will die soon after release. The size of fish entangled in a gill net is a function of the size of the mesh. Larger mesh nets gill larger fish, while smaller mesh nets gill smaller fish. Which small fish are gilled varies from time to time and place to place, dependent upon many factors, including but not limited to how and where the net is deployed, how rapidly it is hauled in, and which fish are targeted. To some extent, it is fair to say that all nets are gill nets, because all nets entangle some fish of some size, but this is an oversimplification. Mesh size has long been used by Florida's MFC and even by other states as a management tool for limiting the harvest of a variety of fish. "By-catch" is marine life which is not targeted by the fisher deploying the net, but which nonetheless is captured in some manner by the net. For instance, in shrimp nets, the "by- catch" of fin fish typically outnumbers the catch of shrimp (the targeted specie) by four to one. Juvenile (pre-reproductive age) fish of the targeted specie can also be "by-catch" when netted with their elders. All nets capture by-catch to some degree. Depending upon net deployment methodology, any net will also pick up "gumbo," a term employed here to delineate by- catch, undissolved algae, plant debris, and other items which do not contribute to a commercial fish crop. On November 8, 1994, Florida voters approved the adoption of Article X, Section 16, of the Florida Constitution. That amendment, which took effect July 1, 1995, prohibited the use of gill or entangling nets anywhere in state waters, and placed a 500 square foot limitation on "other nets" in nearshore and inshore Florida waters.4 Seine nets constitute "other nets" under the net ban amendment. Landings for mullet are significantly down since the amendment, from more than 16 million pounds per year to five million pounds. This has had a direct and favorable impact on the increase of the "spawning potential ratio" for mullet. "Spawning potential ratio" ("SPR") means egg production per year that is available from a fish stock. It is the ratio of a single specie's eggs available in stock that has been fished, over the eggs that would be available in unfished stock. SPRs are scientifically established for each fish specie by the MFC. The Commission considers that if the stock falls below those levels there is a real risk that the stock specie will decline abruptly to some much lower level and not be able to recover. Once the SPR rises to the targeted level, there is greater assurance of specie recovery and preservation, but there are still many reasons to manage the fishery in an optimal use of that resource. The maximum practicable stock abundance mandated by law might be at a level higher than MFC's threshold. The SPR is basically a minimum reproductive goal for fish, per specie. Some species continue to be in an overfished condition since the net ban amendment took effect. However, without taking into account the proposed two- inch mesh limitation, the SPR for mullet would reach the MFC's minimum goal of 35 percent within one to two years, even though it was originally thought such numbers might only be reached within nine years after the effective date of the constitutional amendment. Although it is important to understand that MFC's SPR goals are thresholds only, it is clear that the so-called "net ban" is beginning to have the desired environmental effect.5 Petitioners maintain that the only feasible place to fish with the proposed 500 square foot, two-inch mesh nets would be inshore where smaller mullet feed, which sets up a situation in which more juvenile fish, particularly juvenile mullet, will die before they have a chance to reproduce, and therefore more non-targeted by-catch will be wasted than would be wasted if the rule is not amended. On this theory, they also contend that the proposed rule would not permit reasonable means and quantities of harvesting of fish, particularly mullet, and is otherwise inadequate for reasons related in Sections 370.025(2)(a), (b), (c), and (g), Florida Statutes. MFC is not a constitutional agency, but Florida's Legislature has mandated its mission, in pertinent part, as: Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. Rulemaking authority with respect to marine life. -- Pursuant to the policy and standards in s. 370.025, the Marine Fisheries Commission is delegated full rulemaking authority over marine life, . . . *** Exclusive rulemaking authority in the following areas relating to marine life, with the exception of endangered species, is vested in the commission; . . . Gear specifications; Prohibited gear; *** In 1997, the Florida Legislature further provided a net ban statute, implementing the constitutional amendment, and clearly authorized its legislatively-created agency, the MFC, to promulgate rules to implement that statute and the constitutional amendment, as follows: Illegal use of nets. -- It is unlawful to take or harvest, or to attempt to take or harvest, any marine life in Florida waters with any net that is not consistent with the provisions of s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution. (2)(a) Beginning July 1, 1998, it is also unlawful to take or harvest, or to attempt to take or harvest, any marine life in Florida waters with any net, as defined in subsection (3) and all attachments to such nets, that combined are larger than 500 square feet and have not been expressly authorized for such use by rule of the Marine Fisheries Commission under s. 370.027. The use of currently legal shrimp trawls and purse seines outside nearshore and inshore Florida waters shall continue to be legal until the commission implements rules regulating those types of gear. The use of gill or entangling nets of any size is prohibited, as such nets are defined in s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution. Any net constructed wholly or partially of monofilament or multifilament material, other than a hand thrown cast net, or a handheld landing or dip net, shall be considered to be an entangling net within the prohibition of s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution unless specifically authorized by rule of the commission. Multifilament material shall not be defined to include nets constructed or braided or twisted nylon, cotton, linen twine, or polypropylene twine. This subsection shall not be construed to apply to aquaculture activities licenses issued pursuant to s. 370.26. As used in s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution and this subsection, the term "net" or "netting" must be broadly construed to include all manner or combination of mesh or webbing or any other solid or semisolid fabric or other material used to comprise a device that is used to take or harvest marine life. Upon the arrest of any person for violation of this subsection, the arresting officer shall seize the nets illegally used. Upon conviction of the offender, the arresting authority shall destroy the nets. Any person who violates this section shall be punished as provided in s. 370.092(4). The Marine Fisheries Commission is granted authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 370.025 and 370.027 implementing the prohibitions and restrictions of s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution. To these ends, the Legislature has also established purpose and standards for the MFC to follow in proposing/enacting rules: Section 370.025 Marine fisheries; policy and standards. The Legislature hereby declares the policy of the state to be management and preservation of its renewable marine fishery resources, based upon the best available information, emphasizing protection and enhancement of the marine and estuarine environment in such a manner as to provide for optimum sustained benefits and use to all the people of this state for present and future generations. All rules relating to saltwater fisheries adopted by the department pursuant to this chapter or adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission and approved by the Governor and Cabinet as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall be consistent with the following standards: The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state. Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best information available, including biological, sociological, economic, and other information deemed relevant by the commission. Conservation and management measures shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis. When possible and practicable, stocks of fish shall be managed as a biological unit. Conservation and management measures shall assure proper quality control of marine resources that enter commerce. State marine fishery management plans shall be developed to implement management of important marine fishery resources. Conservation and management decisions shall be fair and equitable to all the people of this state and carried out in such a manner that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. Federal fishery management plans and fishery management plans of other states or interstate commissions should be considered when developing state marine fishery management plans. Inconsistencies should be avoided unless it is determined that it is in the best interest of the fisheries or residents of this state to be inconsistent. The MFC was well aware of the post amendment reduced landings, increased SPRs, and fish recovery rates when it proposed the rule herein. In promulgating the rule herein, the MFC did not conduct or commission any formal economic or sociological studies on the constitutional amendment's impact on wholesale and retail seafood markets, restaurants and consumers to date or on the proposed rule's potential further impact on these elements. It did, however, consider testimony at rule hearings and written presentations on those issues by the Petitioners and others. At the formal hearing herein, Petitioners showed the same information that had been presented to the MFC, that Florida Panhandle coastal restaurant revenues typically have dropped nearly 30 percent since the constitutional amendment, and that revenues in Panhandle wholesale fish houses have typically dropped 75 percent. There is anecdotal, but statistically imprecise, evidence that the retail market for mullet has been drastically depressed and consumer prices therefor drastically increased in the Panhandle and Jacksonville areas since the amendment, that this situation creates a greater burden on low- income consumers, particularly those low-income consumers who have, for economic or ethnic reasons, traditionally made mullet a staple of their diets, and that this situation may worsen with implementation of the proposed rule if the proposed rule further drastically reduces the availability of mullet. For the reasons set out infra., further drastic reduction in the availability of mullet is not anticipated by the MFC. MFC prepared a statement of regulatory impact or estimated regulatory costs for the proposed rule as part of its 1997 rule amendment package, based on all the evidence it had gathered. Even seine nets produce some by-catch, and some of the by-catch produced by seine nets results from small fish being gilled in the mesh of the net. Admittedly, small mesh sizes result in gilled by-catch that is pre-reproductive and smaller in size. However, seine nets, other than "purse seines," which were banned before the constitutional amendment, operate by "corralling" fish with a net that functions as a wall that captures the fish by confining them inside the net without entangling any more of them than absolutely necessary. For that reason, beach seine nets and haul seine nets, for instance, have not historically been considered to be gill or entangling nets. The MFC has historically managed seine nets differently than gill nets because of the better possibility of releasing by-catch from seine nets. The MFC's Executive Director, and expert, Dr. Russell Nelson, testified that the Agency believes the constitutional amendment does not require that there be no legitimate by-catch and further, that a complete absence of by-catch would be impossible. (TR-346). One purpose of proposed Rule 46-4.0081(2)(d) is to clarify what is a "gill net" subject to the constitutional prohibition as contrasted to a "seine net," which is not prohibited. The proposed rule also should be easier to administer and enforce because the net mesh and square footage will be easily ascertainable without regard to what specie or size fish is caught. In formulating this proposed rule, the MFC decided that the allowance for small seine nets in Article X, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution implied a functional definition. Therefore, the proposed rule amendment was designed to effectively remove existing Rule 46-4.0081(1)(g)'s exception for a larger wing mesh size from the two-inch mesh size required of the seine panel, because that exception is obsolete in light of the constitutional amendment. The functional definition of "seine nets" utilized by the MFC was nets that functioned to guide, herd, gather, or corral fish, rather than gill or entangle them. This definition had been previously codified in an existing rule.6 Based upon its interpretation of the constitutional amendment, statute, and existing rule, and based upon common historical net usage, the MFC concluded that nets designed to function primarily to gill or entangle fish could not be considered to be seine nets. Petitioners are correct that between the date of the constitutional net ban and the date of formal hearing on this rule challenge, the MFC did not conduct or cause to be conducted any tests with a 500 square foot two-inch mesh seine net. However, in formulating the proposed rule, the Commission was presented with extensive comments, technical information, and post-amendment updates of earlier surveys. Prior to first publishing its proposed rule and since, the MFC has examined the historical functions of seine and gill nets. The competent, substantial, credible evidence adduced at formal hearing is substantially the same as MFC's collected data. Historically, seine nets were very large and some were even thousands of yards in area. Prior to the passage of the constitutional amendment, commercially licensed fishermen used seine nets of many sizes and meshes. Most were approximately 600 yards long. Historically, seine nets had wings on one or both sides of the main body, which was sometimes called a "panel," "bag," "pouch," or "pocket." The "wings" were the portion of the net used to herd the fish into the main body. The wings contained larger mesh size than the main body. The fish were actually captured in the main body, not the wing portion. Historically, in Florida, the mesh size of gill nets was significantly larger than the mesh size of seine nets. Gill nets historically used to catch mullet employed stretch mesh three inches or greater. Currently, the constitutional amendment, the statute, and existing rules limit seine nets to a total of 500 square feet. Existing Rule 46-4.0081(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, sought to be repealed, permits seines of a two-inch stretch mesh or less in the main body of the seine, and up to three-inch mesh in its wings. Due to the 500 square foot restriction, the MFC believes that a mesh size exception permitting three-inch mesh in seine wings is obsolete. Three-inch mesh in the wings of seine nets would gill larger, commercially viable mullet. There is no practical way to construct a seine with wings and a workable pocket since the entire seine net is now limited to a total of 500 square feet, but if the three-inch mesh continues to be permitted for the wings, fishermen will be able to construct 500 square foot seine nets that are 90 percent wing and 10 percent panel, thus converting what is technically a seine net into one which actually gills or entangles fish over 90 percent of the net's surface. Such a result would be contrary to any common historical understanding of what constitutes a "seine net," and contrary to the intent of the constitutional amendment and subsequent legislation. Agency staff advocated drafting the proposed rule more stringently so as to reduce the permissible stretched mesh size to a one- and one-half-inch size, but in formulating the proposed rule under challenge, the MFC ultimately proposed the two-inch stretched mesh rule based on its review of historical mesh sizes which were already in legal use. This decision was reasonable and may serve to lessen the impact of the rule change on commercial fishermen. Different species of fish behave differently, and the credible, competent evidence herein permits no blanket pronouncement on running patterns of juveniles and adult (reproductive) fish in every fish specie. There is direct conflict between Petitioners' and MFC's experts, most notably Messrs. Rudloe and Winner, on whether or not juvenile mullet, or fish generally, run with schools of adults. After consideration, Mr. Winner's opinion that juvenile mullet typically do not run with their elders, at least in roe season, is accepted.7 Also, the greater weight of the credible evidence is that all types of fish small enough to be entangled in a two-inch mesh would not generally be found with adult mullet. Petitioners contend they cannot determine what other types of fish are running with the adult mullet they target and cannot guarantee that some juvenile mullet and other fish would not be among the inadvertent by-catch netted when they target adult mullet. Only fifty percent of 11-inch (legal size) mullet are sexually mature, anyway. Upon the testimony of MFC's experts, Mr. Winner and Dr. Nelson, and upon testimony by various commercial fishermen, it is found that fishermen can target adult mullet based on the way adult mullet move, jump, and make wakes. It is not commercially feasible to target any illegal, juvenile fish. In 1993, MFC promulgated rules which varied mesh size for mullet and other species. These rules were intended to harvest targeted species of only appropriate age and size. Studies before the 1993 rule amendments showed that the vast preponderance of mullet taken in a two-to two-and-a- quarter-inch mesh seine were 13 inches and 95 to 98 percent were legal size. In 1993, the two-inch mesh for the seine panel/pouch was created by rule, and has remained in effect since then.8 In 1997, in formulating the proposed rule here challenged, the MFC concluded, on the basis of updated studies and testimony and presentations before it, that although the proposed rule may result in more juvenile fish being caught in the smaller mesh, or even gilled therein, the proposed rule amendment will ultimately result in fewer total fish being gilled. The MFC is prepared to accept this result because only a small proportion of juvenile mullet or other fish encountered will actually be gilled, no dangerous level of unnecessary killing or waste will occur, and the rule will enhance the overall fish population recovery effects already in progress. Even with a small increase in the number of juveniles being gilled under the proposed rule, the MFC expects landings of legal-size mullet to increase due to the recovery of fish populations in progress and due to fishermen acquiring even more skill with the 500 square foot nets, which size is still relatively new. Some commercial fishermen testified that it is the existing reduced square footage (500 square feet) factor alone which causes adult mullet to jump the net, not the proposed mesh size reduction. However, the MFC has no authority to alter this constitutional requirement. Some commercial fishermen testified that they could fish mullet commercially with the existing five hundred square foot nets as long as the nets still had three inches or larger mesh in their wings. A video tape showing several sets (strikes) or parts of sets of a net was introduced in evidence. It showed some fish jumping the net and other fish gilled in the net. It purportedly showed use of a net which would be legal under the proposed rule, but testimony to that effect was contradicted by one of the same witnesses when he gave specific dimensions of the net showing it to actually be considerably larger than the 500 square foot requirement which the MFC has no authority to alter. (TR-270) The video tape was not made in roe season. Its net's deployment in some sets was arguably unusual for this type of fishing. The number of fish gilled was low. Accordingly, although the video tape might support the theory that size of mesh is one factor in causing legal-size mullet to jump a net, it does not present credible evidence that legal-size mullet cannot be caught with a 500 square foot net which would be legal under the proposed two-inch rule or even that legal mullet can now be caught with a larger net. It certainly does not establish that the proposed rule will waste more juvenile fish than are being wasted under the existing rules. However, upon the evidence of current landings, it is found that legal-size mullet can be caught with the nets now legal. It is further found, upon the evidence as a whole including that of Dr. Nelson and Mr. Winner, that use of a single seine net which would be legal under the proposed rule, that is, one which is made of only two-inch mesh throughout its total 500 square foot surface, is not commercially feasible for fishing mullet, except possibly in roe season. Nonetheless, there are at least two ways the new net could be used commercially. It is possible for two fishermen working together to deploy two separate 500 square foot, two-inch mesh seine nets to capture and corral legal size mullet. It is possible to use two legal seine nets in the same way with a third person manning a cast net. The seine nets would be channeling, or herding, the fish, and the cast net would be gathering or dipping them out of the water. Under this type of operation, neither type of net would entangle or gill fish. According to MFC's Director Nelson, the MFC considered these two methodologies of fishing for mullet with more than one net to be both legal and commercially feasible when it proposed the challenged rule.9 Use of a single seine net which would be legal under the proposed rule is commercially feasible for catching fish other than mullet. This proposed gear rule applies equally to all unit stocks of fish and affects all fisheries, some of which are still overfished and some for which there is incomplete data to determine the status. The proposed rule compliments previously adopted fishery management plans and will help recovery of unmanaged species. The rule does not conflict with any federal management plan. The proposed rule has no relationship to quality control for fish coming to market. The proposed rule applies to everyone and provides no individual or corporation an excessive share of fishery resources.
