The Issue Whether proposed rules promulgated by the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) has proposed rules requiring use of bycatch reduction devices (BRD.) The proposed rules are applicable where trawling for shrimp is permitted in specified Florida waters within the Gulf of Mexico. The notice of proposed rulemaking was published in Volume 23, Number 30, Florida Administrative Weekly, July 25, 1997. The Petitioners have challenged the proposed rules, specifically the provisions prohibiting possession of an otter trawl (a type of trawling net) that is rigged for fishing aboard any vessel without having a required BRD installed. All parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. The federal government requires BRDs in the Florida waters not impacted by the proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. The federal rules are intended to protect red snapper in the Gulf and weakfish and Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic Ocean. The MFC rules are intended to offer broader protection than federal rules, and are intended to protect the Gulf ecosystem rather than specific species of organisms. Shrimp trawls operating in the Gulf of Mexico harvest approximately 2.4 pounds of non-shrimp species for every pound of shrimp harvested. The MFC goal is to reduce the level of bycatch harvested by 50 percent. The proposed rules do not cover the “Big Bend grass beds” where trawling for shrimp is already prohibited. The proposed rules do not cover Florida’s northeast coast where other BRD rules are in effect. The Petitioners challenge the same provision in three separate rules. Proposed Rule 46-31.010(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the Northwest Region, no person harvesting shrimp as a food shrimp producer shall operate or fish any otter trawl, or possess any otter trawl that is rigged for fishing aboard any vessel, which otter trawl does not have a bycatch reduction device (BRD) installed therein meeting the requirements of Rule 46-31.045. (emphasis supplied) Proposed Rule 46-31.012(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides: In the Southwest Region, no person harvesting shrimp as a food shrimp producer shall operate or fish any otter trawl, or possess any otter trawl that is rigged for fishing aboard any vessel, which otter trawl does not have a bycatch reduction device (BRD) installed therein meeting the requirements of Rule 46-31.045. (emphasis supplied) Proposed Rule 46-31.013(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: In all waters of the Southeast Region outside nearshore and inshore Florida waters, no person harvesting shrimp as a food shrimp producer shall operate or fish any otter trawl, or possess any otter trawl that is rigged for fishing aboard any vessel, which otter trawl does not have a bycatch reduction device (BRD) installed therein meeting the requirements of Rule 46-31.045. (emphasis supplied) On a shrimping boat, “otter trawl” nets are suspended from the ends of “outriggers” attached to the sides of the boat. When in use, the nets are dropped from the outriggers into the water. Once in the water, the nets are dragged along behind the boat, collecting shrimp and other marine species. The non-shrimp marine species collected are referred to as the “bycatch.” The phrase “rigged for fishing” means that the nets are shackled to the outriggers and are in a condition ready to fish, but are not yet in the water or being dragged along the bottom of the water. Nets attached to the outriggers of a shrimping boat and ready to be dropped into the water are rigged for fishing. Nets lying on the deck of the boat which are not attached to the outriggers are not rigged for fishing. It takes no more than a few minutes to attach the nets to the outriggers. The phrase being challenged in the proposed rules essentially prohibits a shrimp boat operator from suspending the nets above the water prior to dropping the nets into the water without having the BRD installed in the nets. Although there is no credible evidence indicating the reason shrimp boats leave the docks with nets in a position rigged for fishing, many apparently do so. There is no credible evidence suggesting any reason nets would be suspended from the outriggers other than in anticipation of initiation of shrimp harvest activity. There is no credible evidence that any impact would result from requiring that non-BRD equipped nets remain unrigged for fishing until outside of waters affected by the proposed rule. Use of the BRDs results in a substantial reduction of bycatch. There is no evidence that use of the BRDs results in any reduction in shrimp harvest. The evidence establishes that the reduction in bycatch will contribute towards the preservation of renewable marine fishery resources and will benefit the continuing health of the resources. There is no evidence that the proposed rules are unfair or inequitable to any persons including shrimp boat operators. The Petitioners assert that because the penalty for violations of the rules may eventually result in incarceration, the cited phrase creates a criminal presumption that a shrimp boat operator with non-BRD equipped nets is presumed to be fishing without a BRD. The evidence fails to support the assertion. There is no presumption being created by the proposed rule. The challenged rules are gear specifications for shrimp trawls, and are clearly within the realm of the MFC's rulemaking authority. The cited phrase does not prohibit the mere possession of a net without a BRD installed. The cited phrase prohibits suspension of a net from an outrigger without having a BRD installed in the net. There is no reason, other than in anticipation of immediately dropping the net into the water, that a trawl net must be suspended from an outrigger. The Petitioners assert that the rule would impact shrimp boat operators who are passing through Florida waters traveling to waters outside the areas impacted by the proposed rules. There is no evidence that the proposed rules would interfere with fishing operations. In the example of boat operators fishing outside Florida waters and using non-BRD equipped nets, compliance with the rule requires only that the nets remain unrigged for fishing while passing through Florida waters. The Petitioners assert that there are instances due to emergency, weather or otherwise, that may result in a shrimp boat operator working waters outside those covered by the proposed rules, raising non-BRD equipped nets and moving through into Florida jurisdictional waters. In such an event, the Petitioners assert that an operator could be subject to application of the rule even though the non-BRD equipped nets, still rigged for fishing, were not used in Florida waters. The Florida Marine Patrol will be responsible for enforcement of the proposed rules. Obviously, a Marine Patrol officer’s judgment will be required to determine the existence of an emergency and whether any official action is appropriate. A shrimp boat officer cited for violation of the proposed rules is entitled to challenge the application of the rule.
The Issue The issue for resolution in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) should approve Petitioner's construction of a dock on Lake Kissimmee in Polk County, Florida. Such approval would require the grant of an after-the-fact permit.
Findings Of Fact Earl W. Thomas, the Petitioner, owns approximately 15.5 acres on the western shore of Lake Kissimmee near Lake Wales, in Polk County, Florida. On March 15, 1984, Petitioner filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a 3,160 square foot dock at his property on Lake Kissimmee. The dock is described in drawings attached to the application as 550 feet long with a 60 foot "T" segment at the end. The application form is styled, "Joint Application, Department of the Army/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for Activities in Waters of the State of Florida". The activity described in the application is "proposed pier for mooring private boat -- no fuel pumps or toilet facilities to be constructed on pier". (Petitioner's exhibit #5) Thomas received a letter dated March 28, 1984 from the Army Corps of Engineers acknowledging the application and granting General Permit SAJ-20. The letter authorized construction but provided that it did not obviate the need for any other required federal, state or local permits. A form letter from the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) dated April 26, 1984, informed Thomas that a letter of consent from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund would be required. A form letter from DER dated May 10, 1984 acknowledged receipt of the application and stated that evaluation of the project would be delayed until receipt of DNR consent. The DNR letter of consent was issued on June 28, 1984, signed by Ted Forsgren, Chief, Bureau of State Lands Management, and referencing the use of approximately 2,366 square feet of state-owned submerged land for a private docking facility. The letter states, "Please consider this the authority sought under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, to pursue this project." (Petitioner's exhibit #9) Thomas commenced construction, and the dock was completed by July 28, 1984. As completed, the dock is approximately 480 feet long, with a 24 foot "T" cross at the end. During construction, in a letter dated July 24, 1984, to the DER Tampa office, Ed Moyer, then Fishery Biologist with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission stated, "Our office is opposed to the issuance of a permit to construct a 600' [sic] dock on the west shore of Lake Kissimmee. " (Respondent's exhibit #2) Basis for the opposition was that the structure would obstruct boat traffic along a navigable path parallel to Mr. Thomas' shoreline. In a letter dated September 17, 1984, signed by James W. MacFarland, Director, Division of State Lands, DNR informed Thomas that it was rescinding its prior consent due to receipt of additional information from DER and conversations with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The letter also states "...It appears that the information represented to us did not actually represent your proposed activity or address the severe navigational problems caused by your construction of a facility approximately 600 feet [sic] in length. ..." (Petitioner's exhibit #10) On September 18, 1984, DER issued its Intent to Deny Thomas' application. This document provides, in pertinent part: * * * On October 14, 1984 [sic] Bill Ackerman, Field Inspector for Polk County, inspected the proposed pier site and the adjacent lake. Approximately 200' waterward from the west shore of the lake is a 20' wide approximately 4' deep navigation channel which is used by area boaters during sudden winds from the east as a safe haven path which protects them from the chop of the open lake. Based on his personal experiences and site inspection on this lake and the opinion and the recommenda- tion of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the agency has come to the conclu- sion that the proposed dock will both obstruct and hinder navigation in this natural lake channel, contrary to the provision of Chapter 253.123, F.S. In addition, the proposed dock's obstruction of the existing channel will cause boaters to prop dredge a new access channel around the dock, causing substantial wetland losses, resuspension of nutrient laden bottom sedi- ments and turbidity. * * * [Petitioner's exhibit #11] In response to this notice, Petitioner requested a formal hearing. Nothing in the record of this proceeding explains the inconsistency in the dates in the notice of intent to deny. The notice itself was issued on September 18, 1984 and the October 14, 1984, reference is clearly in error. The permit file of the DER includes a form dated 6/11/84, styled "Permit Application Appraisal", referencing an on-site inspection by Bill Ackerman on 10/14/82. [Respondent's exhibit #3] This form appraisal describes the project as a 600' long private dock, with a 48 square foot "T" at the end, and 2400 square feet of over-water surface area. The appraisal references a fence that Thomas built allegedly on state submerged lands in the lake, and a dispute with DNR over that fence. The appraisal also describes a boat path about 200' from shore and parallel to the shore within the grassy weeds, providing a safe passage for small boats caught in the lake in sudden storms or high waves. The appraisal recommends denial of the permit for navigation reasons, but recommends that the permit could be approved if the fence were removed and the length of the dock were reduced. The inspector and apparent author of the appraisal report, Bill Ackerman, died several years ago. No witness could explain the source of the various references to a 600' dock, since the application was for a 550' long dock, including the width of the "T" cross, and the dock that was built was 480' long. The appraisal report is the only evidence from DER's file of that agency's review of the project, and it is evident that the site visit was conducted approximately 1 1/2 years prior to the application in issue, perhaps related to the fence, which is not at issue in this proceeding. However, Edwin Moyer, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff person who wrote the July 1984 opposition letter, testified and confirmed that the boat trail described in the appraisal did exist in 1984. This trail, called a "kicker trail", was not a dredged path, but rather was created like many others by the operation of boat propellors through the weeds and grasses along the shore of the lake. If unused, these trails disappear, and new ones are created. At the Thomas site, Lake Kissimmee is approximately 5 miles wide. Small boats need the trails as the vegetation protects them from high waves. Thomas' dock intersected the kicker trail described in the DER appraisal report and by Edwin Moyer. New trails, however, now exist beyond the end of Thomas' dock and still within the dense vegetation which extends some 360 feet waterward from the end of the dock. An "outside" trail runs parallel to the shoreline, approximately 350 feet beyond the dock, and is used by small to medium motorboats. An "inside" trail is located about 60 feet beyond the end of the dock and is used exclusively by airboaters, who can run in just inches of water and who experience severe handling problems in deep water or heavy waves. Airboats don't require trails, as they can travel on top of the vegetation. Regular motorboats, such as bass boats and jon-boats, require more water. The water depth at the end of Thomas' dock fluctuates from about one to five feet deep; not including the approximate 1.5 feet of muck on top of the sand at the lake bottom at the Thomas site. The water elevation in Lake Kissimmee is controlled by the South Florida Water Management District, with a regulated high of 52.5 ft. NGVD to a regulated low of 49.0 ft. NGVD, with an even lower 48.5 ft. NGVD every three years. At the time of hearing, the water level was 50.3 ft. NGVD, or approximately 2.4 ft. deep at the end of Thomas' dock, not including the depth of the muck. Even if the Thomas dock did not exist, regular motor boats would have trouble navigating closer to shore, due to the shallowness of the water. Moreover, there are stumps and posts closer to shore, which present a greater danger to boaters, including seasoned airboaters, than Thomas' dock which is fully visible and which includes a light at the end which remains lit, with reflectors along the edges. Airboats running close to the shore have to veer out into deeper water as they approach the Thomas site, to avoid the dock. This is a nuisance, according to Garrett Whatley, an airboat operator who races on Saturday evenings. But the greater nuisance, as he concedes, are the posts and steel pipes in the water near the shore which are not marked and which can crack up a boat. In bypassing the dock, these obstructions are also avoided. Some Lake Kissimmee boaters consider Thomas' dock a navigational aid. The west side of the lake is not developed and the dock provides a prominent landmark, particularly for snail fishermen and other night boaters. The Gleasons and the Gilberts are neighbors of Earl Thomas. They each have 200 ft. docks which have been permitted by DER. The Gleasons have a 24 ft. pontoon boat which they moor at the end of a 70 ft. catwalk extending from the end of their dock. Even then, the water is only about 12 inches deep and they have to pole the boat out to avoid plowing into the muck on the lake bottom. The vegetation line at Thomas' site is thicker and farther out than at the Gleason's. George Gilbert also has a pontoon boat which he has to pole to access his dock. He has a kicker trail at the end of his dock, but the water is too shallow to use it. DER has granted him a permit to extend his dock another 100 feet. DER considers 300 feet a reasonable length for docks in the area and the agency tries to keep them a uniform length for navigational purposes. Removal of all or a portion of Thomas' dock can be accomplished without water quality damage so long as the removal is closely controlled. The pilings would have to be enclosed with a screen to limit turbidity during the removal process. Even if the act of removal could be controlled, the turbidity caused by boats interacting with the sediment closer to shore would be a recurring problem without the dock as it now exists. A shorter dock would necessitate the use of catwalks or other temporary access to boats unable to navigate the shallow water. Those boats moored away from the dock would still be an obstruction, and if unlit, would be less visible to night fishermen than the existing structure. The Thomas dock, as it now exists, is not a navigational hazard. Its removal would be more damaging than to permit it to remain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department issue its final order granting Petitioner's application for the dock as it now exists. That is, the application for a 550 foot dock should be deemed amended to provide for a 480 foot dock, as built. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4164 The following constitute specific rulings on findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings of Fact Proposed by Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 7. 10.-14. Adopted in paragraph 17. 15.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 16 and 20. Findings of Fact Proposed by Respondent Adopted in paragraph 2, except that the dock was to be 550 feet long. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 16 and 20. 6.-9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16, by implication. Adopted in paragraph 18. 14. Rejected as unnecessary. 15.-16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18. Adopted in paragraph 16. 19. Adopted in paragraph 18. 20. Rejected as unnecessary. 21. Adopted in paragraph 22. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlyn Harper, Esquire P.O. Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Respondent's wholesale and retail dealer's licenses should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for two convictions of Possession of Undersized Crawfish Tails, as alleged.
Findings Of Fact I. MGB Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of Florida, owns and operates a seafood dealership known as Gulfstream Seafood at 5300 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida. It holds Retail Seafood Dealer's License No. RC-W3246 and wholesale Seafood Dealer's License No. WD2239 issued by DNR for the 1985-86 license year. (DNR Ex. 1,2) George M. Michael is the president and chief executive officer of MGB. In connection with MGB's application for issuance or renewal of its current seafood dealer's licenses, Mr. Michael executed a required affidavit from the individual responsible for the day-to-day management of the business. By the terms of the affidavit, he pledged himself "to the faithful observance of all . . . laws . . . regulating the . . . possession of fish, seafood, and other saltwater products (DNR Ex.2) On October 21, 1985, following a plea of no contest, the County Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, adjudicated MGB d/b/a Gulfstream Seafood guilty of two counts of Possession of Undersized Crawfish Tails, a violation of Section 370.14, Florida Statutes. MGB was fined $500, in addition to a $20 surcharge and a $25 fine for contempt of court. (DNR Ex.3; Tr.21-22) II. One of these counts alleged that on March 29, 1985, MGB d/b/a Gulfstream Seafood, unlawfully possessed crawfish tails which measured less than five and a half inches lengthwise from the point of separation along the center of the entire tail until the rearmost extremity is reached, contrary to Section 370.14(2), Florida Statutes. Facts Underlying this Violation. On March 29, 1985, Officer Francis Crowley accompanied by another officer of the Florida Marine Patrol entered the premises of Gulfstream Seafood and observed undersized crawfish on pallets in the production area. They were not refrigerated and had not yet been processed. Mr. Michael, who was present, tried to divert Officer Crowley's attention while another individual attempted to wheel the crawfish out the back door. The two officers separated the legal-sized crawfish from the undersized crawfish and weighed each category. There were 254 pounds of undersized crawfish, i.e., crawfish with tails measuring less than five and a half inches lengthwise from the point of separation along the center of the entire tail to the foremost extremity. The number of undersized crawfish involved is unknown. Officer Crowley issued a citation to Mr. Micheal and donated the undersized crawfish to a children's home in Fort Pierce. III. The other count of which MGB was found guilty alleged that on May 17, 1985, MGB again unlawfully possessed 3undersized crawfish in violation of Section 370.14(2), Florida Statutes. The circumstances surrounding this violation including the weight or number of undersized crawfish involved, have not been shown. IV. MGB has 165 employees, a payroll of $127,000 a month, and processes between 10,000 and 15,000 crawfish per month. A suspension of its seafood dealers' license for a month or more would adversely impact its operations. Customers would most likely obtain seafood from other dealers and it would be difficult for MGB to recoup the lost business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing; it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges, and administrative complaint filed against MGB; be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Since 1915, the Leisey family has owned or controlled some 710 acres adjacent to Little Cockroach Bay in Hillsborough County. Leisey Shellpit, Inc. now proposes to develop some 55 acres of that property, which has in the past been utilized for row crops, citrus, timbering and mining. The proposed development is to include an 870-boat marina, of which approximately half would be dry storage, located on a 16-acre lake adjacent to the waters of Little Cockroach Bay. The 16-acre lake was created through shell mining operations, and other lakes are to be part of the total project. Leisey proposes to widen and deepen existing mosquito ditches and existing canals or channels to provide access from the proposed marina to Cockroach Bay and the open waters of Tampa Bay. Adjacent to the marina lake, the proposed development also includes a flushing channel, a 250-seat restaurant, a 24-unit resort hotel or motel, a museum, fueling facilities with upland gas storage, an 8-boat ramp launching area, a convenience store, a boat repair facility, a dockmaster's office and 688 parking spaces. The total development further includes a 114-unit apartment complex and 23 single-family residential lots on other lakes nearby the marina lake, a stormwater and agricultural runoff system and a sewage treatment plant. Leisey proposes to widen and convert an existing mosquito ditch between the marina lake and Little Cockroach Bay to a flushing channel in order to accomplish a tidal flushing action in the marina lake. In order to provide access for boats, Leisey proposes to widen and dredge two parallel existing mosquito ditches running southwesterly from the marina lake and an existing channel running east-west along Cockroach Bay Road and extending into the Cockroach Bay channel. These access channels will be dredged to provide a 50- foot wide bottom in most areas with a minus 6 N.O.S. elevation for the bottom of the channels. In areas which do not need dredging, there exists a gentle slope of 6:1. Where excavation is to occur, there will be a 3:1 slope. The total amount of dredging contemplated is 175,000 cubic feet. The majority of the spoil material will be pumped through a polyethelene pipe to the marina lake until that lake is contoured to desired elevations. Secondary spoil sites for any surplus materials are available in lakes owned or controlled by the Leisey family. Depending upon economic and environmental considerations, Leisey intends to use a combination of dredging methods, including suction dredging, dragline dredging, and use of a cutter head dredge. In order to control turbidity, petitioner will utilize earth barricades, silt screens and double silt screens depending upon the type of dredging performed in various locations. The shellpit which is proposed to become the marina lake is not a state water at this time. It will become a state water at the time it is connected to other state waters by the proposed access channels and flushing channel. It would be classified as a Class III water body. The Cockroach Bay Channel which Leisey proposes to widen and dredge has not been dredged in the past. The applicant was unable to predict the extent to which future maintenance dredging would be required if it is widened and deepened to provide access to the proposed marina. The water body areas adjacent to the proposed marina, particularly Cockroach Bay, are presently classified by the Department of Natural Resources as approved for shellfish harvesting, and have been so classified since at least 1975. However, since December 10, 1984, the area has been temporarily closed for shellfish, oyster, clam and mussel harvesting. When a marina is constructed, it is the policy of the Department of Natural Resources to reclassify the area within the marina proper as prohibited for shellfish harvesting and to establish a buffer zone outward from the marina which also would be prohibited for the harvesting of shellfish. The size of the buffer zone is dependent upon the quality, design, hydrography and usage of the marina. The DNR considers a worst-case scenario in terms of potential biological contamination when establishing the size of the buffer zone. In the case of the potential marina, the size of the buffer zone would be hundreds, thousands of yards. It is the policy of the DER to deny a request for a variance if the proposed project would result in DNR closing an area previously approved for shellfish harvesting. Waters approved for shellfish harvesting are classified by DER as Class II waters. Aquatic preserves are designated by the State for the preservation or enhancement of the biological, aesthetic and scientific values of those areas. The boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve are described by statute in Section 258.391, Florida Statutes, and such description also defines the boundaries of the Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) classification of the DER. Due to cost considerations, the applicant did not perform a mean high water line survey to demonstrate the proper boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and the corresponding OFW boundaries. The statutory legal description of the Aquatic Preserve was derived from a lease given to the State by the Tampa Port Authority, to which the submerged lands in Hillsborough County had previously been dedicated. That description continuously makes reference to mean high water lines in Tampa Bay and the Little Manatee River. The applicant's professional land surveyor was of the opinion that the waters easterly of the islands offshore the proposed marina, including Little Cockroach Bay, are not a part of the Aquatic Preserve, and thus are not a part of the OFW designation. It was this witness's opinion that the only portion of the project to occur within the Aquatic Preserve is approximately 600 feet of the existing Cockroach Bay Channel to be dredged as an access channel. The DER's expert witness was of the opinion that the statutory legal description does include the waters of Little Cockroach Bay. The intervenors presented testimony that, at the time the description of the Preserve was developed, the Tampa Port Authority did not consider Little Cockroach Bay as a separate water body and intended it to be part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. The Preserve has been managed by the DNR as including the area of Little Cockroach Bay. The proposed marina lake is designed to be four feet deep at its edges and six feet deep In the central portion. An existing mosquito ditch is to be widened to provide a source of new water from Little Cockroach Bay on the incoming tide. At the conclusion of the flood tide, a computer-controlled gate will close, forcing water to exit through the access channels during the ebb tide. A flow directing wall will be installed for the purpose of promoting adequate water exchange in all portions of the marina. Petitioner's plans for the operation of the marina include a prohibition against live-aboards and a `no-head" policy. Fueling at the upland fuel pumps will be encouraged by a price differential. The upland fuel storage tanks are to be protected by barriers and earthen berms. The water side fueling facility is to be protected by a containment boom. In the event of a fuel spill, it is contemplated that the entire marina can be sealed off from outside waters by closing the flushing gates and by closing a turbidity curtain across the access channel. It is contemplated that a dockmaster or assistant will be on-site at the marina to ensure compliance with all rules and to handle any emergencies that may arise. In order to determine the viability of a given basin for use as a marina, it is appropriate to consider the flushing time or residence time -- the time necessary for water in a given system to exchange with waters in adjacent areas outside the system. In marinas that are tidally Influenced, flushing will, in large part, be a function of the tidal forcing. Utilizing a one-dimensional computer model, and assuming that no mixing occurs when water from the flushing channel enters the basin, the applicant predicts that the flushing or residence time of the basin will be approximately 4.2 days assuming a low tide, 5.6 days assuming a mid-tide volume, and 6.6 days assuming a high tide. If one were to assume a completely mixed system, the flushing time would be 8.6 days assuming a low tide, 11.4 days assuming a mid-tide volume, and 14 days assuming a high tide. Over a period of time, the tide level in the proposed basin will actually be represented by the range between high tide and low tide. Rather than assuming a low tide condition, it would be more accurate to use a tidally averaged or mid-tide volume of water. A no-mixing assumption does not take into account dead-water zones within a water basin. In reality, a marina would have some dead zones through the existence of the obstacle effect of objects such as boat hulls. Also, in this proposed marina, the area behind the deflection wall or flow directing wall would be outside the direct flow path and, thus, "dead" water. A one-dimensional model is typically utilized to predict the flushing times of narrow rivers or canals, as it represents tidal flow in only one direction in a straight line. A more appropriate model to utilize in a circular boat marina is a two-dimensional model. The tidal flushing of water bodies whose flow patterns are non-linear are more appropriately predicted by use of a two-dimensional model. The applicant failed to produce competent substantial evidence that the anti-fouling paints used on boats, as well as oils and greases typically produced by boats, would not violate Class III water quality standards in the marina lake and the access channels. It was also not demonstrated that Class III water standards for collform bacteria would be met. These factors are particularly important due to the potential for back flow which could cause marina waters to run back through the flushing canal into Little Cockroach Bay. Also, extreme weather events can force large volumes of water with high concentrations of contaminants out into Tampa Bay. While petitioner's water quality witnesses took samples and reviewed some of the available data base for the area dating back to 1950, the ambient water quality of Cockroach Bay for the period March 1, 1978, to March 1, 1979, was not established. The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission did have monitoring stations in the vicinity of this project during 1978 and 1979. Also, while the petitioner's experts did consider the effects of dredging during construction, the effects of turbidity from future boat traffic were not established. There are currently existing water quality violations with respect to dissolved oxygen in the Class II and Class III waters associated with the proposed project. The more accelerated export of detridal material, as well as the introduction of oils and greases from boats, will cause increased DO violations. The resuspension of fine materials and sediments resulting from dredging and boat traffic in the channels could further lower oxygen demands. The widening and dredging of the access channels proposed by the petitioner will result in the immediate removal of approximately 0.3 acres of seagrasses and about 3.09 acres of mangroves. Most of the seagrass impacts would occur at the western mouth of the Cockroach Bay access channel. Many of the mangroves to be removed are mature, healthy fifteen to twenty- foot trees. Secondary losses of seagrasses and mangroves can be expected from the turbulance and erosion caused by wakes and from propeller damages associated with greatly increased boat traffic in the area. Petitioner proposes to mitigate these secondary losses by providing channel markers, speed limit signs and "no wake" signs in the channel. With respect to the immediate losses, petitioner proposes to replace the 0.3 acres of seagrasses with 0.3 acres of new plantings in the proposed flushing canal. It is suggested that the marina will naturally be vegetated by seagrasses. Petitioner also offers as mitigation for the loss of seagrasses in the dredged access channels the fact that over one acre of hard substrate in the form of pilings and seawalls will be constructed at the marina. It is suggested that this acre would become colonized by sessile attached animals, such as barnacles and oysters, and by red algae, and that this assemblage would become a source of primary productivity and provide a filtering benefit similar in function to grass beds. With respect to mangrove mitigation, petitioner intends to plant six-foot high mangrove trees along the perimeter of the proposed marina lake and along portions of the access channel, and to scrape down an area near the north lake to provide suitable elevations for mangroves and higher marsh vegetation. In total, petitioner plans to replace the 3.09 acres of lost mangroves with 4.25 acres of replanted mangroves. Approximately 80% of the seagrasses in Tampa Bay have been destroyed by development. A significant fraction of the remaining seagrasses are located in the Cockroach Bay area. Seagrass mitigation is highly experimental. No successful seagrass mitigation has occurred in Tampa Bay. The success of replanting seagrasses in the proposed flushing canal is particularly suspect due to scouring, flushing velocities and the potential for poor water quality in the event of a reverse flow from the marina into the flushing channel. The increased salinity in the marina lake could adversely affect seagrasses located there. Propeller cuts are already apparent in Cockroach Bay, as boaters cross the seagrass meadows in order to reach prime fishing areas. An increased amount of boat traffic in the area could be expected to exacerbate such occurences. While mangrove replantings have achieved more success, the areas to be destroyed are mature large systems which provide a considerable detridal feeding base for the animals associated with them, as well as cover for animals, fish and invertebrates that utilize those areas. Many of the types of animals and fish that utilize mangrove areas, as well as seagrass areas, are attached organisms that do not migrate. Mangroves require a stable substrate. The remaining mangrove system in the access channels could change with increased boat traffic, especially in those areas where the slopes are to be reduced to 3:1. The DER does not yet have a promulgated rule regarding mitigation. Its present policy is to evaluate mitigation plans on a case-by-case, site- specific basis. No specific ratio between the impacted area and the mitigated area is required. Instead, it is the policy of DER to analyze various factors, such as the present condition of the area being dredged or filled in terms of the age of the vegetation and the functions being served; proximity of the area to special areas such as Class II waters or an OFW; proximity between the areas impacted and the area planned for mitigation; and past examples of success of the mitigation proposed. DER considers mitigation in relationship to the public interest review standards, and does not consider mitigation when reviewing water quality standards. It is the present policy of the DER to either avoid adverse impacts to healthy seagrasses or to require a lot of" mitigation for those areas which will be lost if the project proceeds. This policy is due to the lack of demonstrated success in replanting or recreating new seagrass communities. While the planting and growing of mangroves has been more successful, it is the policy of the DER to recognize that there is a time lag between the planting and successful growing. When a large, healthy mangrove system is being destroyed and replaced by younger, smaller trees, DER generally requires more than a one- to-one ratio in mitigation. It is the policy of DER to consider the creation of a barnacle habitat as mitigation only when the dredging or filling project itself impacts that type of habitat. Petitioner conducted studies which led to the conclusion that the construction and operation of the proposed project would not reduce the biological integrity or diversity by more than 25 percent. However, given the removal of seagrass meadows and the adverse effects from greatly increased numbers of boats in the area, the applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the biointegrity standards could be met. Manatees have been sited in Cockroach Bay and the Cockroach Bay boat channel. Due to its seagrasses and shallow waters, Cockroach Bay is one of the most important nursery areas for fish in Tampa Bay. Many wildlife species of special concern have been sited at or near the project site. These include the mangrove terrapin, the mangrove coocou, the brown pelican, the American alligator, the little blue heron, the snowy egret and the tri-colored heron. It is the policy of the DER, when considering the impact of a project upon fish and wildlife, to utilize all federal and state lists of endangered and threatened species. It is highly likely that increased boat traffic and human activity in the area will affect such wildlife. Several locations along the proposed north/south and east/west access channels could pose serious navigational difficulties due to restricted visibility. Given the potential number and sizes of boats in the access channels, manuevering problems can be expected, particularly during weekends. A boater must make a right angle turn where the north/south channel meets the east/west channel. A boat of 25 to 35 feet in length would have difficulty making such a turn in a fifty foot channel at speeds which would not produce a wake. If the vessel suffered engine failure or encountered other traffic at this turn, a hazardous navigational situation could arise. It would take a vessel approximately 20 to 30 minutes to travel at a safe speed from the marina to the mouth of the channel. It is common to observe boaters impatient to get into open waters or return home at the end of the day and navigating at speeds beyond that which is posted or in excess of that which is prudent or safe. Although not part of the application for variance or the instant permit application, petitioner offered evidence of its proposed stormwater management plan, sewage treatment plan, and agricultural runoff treatment plan. These plans are still conceptual in nature and would be the subject of future permitting requirements. Petitioner projects that these implemented plans will actually improve the water quality in the area of the project site. A porous concrete product is to be utilized for parking spaces and throughout the development except immediately adjacent to the marina. This product allows stormwater to pass through it and go into the groundwater, and it is designed to retain and break down oils and greases. Reversed sloping around the marina lake and access channels are to be used to prevent any direct discharge of stormwater. Flow is to be directed away from the marina through grasssed swales into retention ponds and into other isolated lakes. An advanced wastewater treatment plant, with a hyacinth treatment lake, is planned to provide sewage treatment for both this development and the surrounding communities, with an ultimate capacity of 250,000 gallons per day. The treated effluent, after going through the treatment lake will be directed into a rapid exfiltration trench to sheet flow into the mangroves. Petitioner also plans to redirect existing agricultural runoff, identified as being a present source of pollution to water in the area, so that it would go into several lakes and ultimately exit through rapid exfiltration trench sheet flow into the mangroves. In 1983, one of the greatest paleontological finds in this country occurred in one of the mine pits on the Leisey property. Over two hundred and fifty thousand specimens were obtained. Petitioner has entered into an agreement with the Florida State Museum whereby a museum will be constructed near the proposed marina, and displays from the paleontological discovery and other archeological exhibits from the Leisey property will be shown in an educational format. Petitioner has offered to dedicate the museum to the State. Should petitioner receive all permits required for construction of its proposed marina development, the Leisey family has offered to dedicate approximately 54 acres of mangrove lands near Little Cockroach Bay to the Tampa Port Authority or other appropriate entity for preservation purposes. There does appear to be a shortage of available marina spaces in Tampa Bay. However, there is a pending application before DER for an expansion of an existing marina in the vicinity, and other sites along the Bay would be of lesser conflict with existing seagrasses and mangrove systems. If petitioner's marina facility were constructed and operated as proposed, it would serve as a port of refuge to boaters during storms. Petitioner also proposes to reserve two of the eight boat ramp spaces for public safety and environmental agency personnel so that boats can be quickly launched and retrieved in emergency situations. The provision of an eight- space boat ramp and the 432 wet slips and 438-boat dry storage will increase public access to the off-shore waters. The proximity of the Tampa Ship Channel results in direct access to the Gulf of Mexico, and recreational activity will be enhanced by the project. In this proceeding, the burden to demonstrate that the proposed marina project complies with all applicable statutes, rules and policies of the DER and to provide reasonable assurances that the State's water quality standards will not be violated rests with the applicant, Leisey Shellpit, Inc. Due to the location of the proposed project, that burden is heavy and somewhat complicated. Surface waters in Florida are classified according to their present and future most beneficial uses, and water quality criteria have been developed to maintain the minimum conditions necessary to assure the suitability of the water for the designated uses. Section 403.061(10), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-3.081, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, certain waters, due to their exceptional recreational or ecological significance, have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), with the intent that they be afforded the highest degree of protection. Section 403.061(27), Florida Statutes. A designation of a water body as an OFW is a determination that the environmental, social and economic benefits of the special protection outweigh the environmental, social and economic costs. Rule 17-3.041(:2)(f), Florida Administrative Code. The waters within and adjacent to the proposed project in this proceeding include OFW entitled to the highest protection, Class II waters with the designated use of "shellfish propagation or harvesting," and Class III waters with the designated use of "recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife." Rule 17-3.081, Florida Administrative Code. As such, this project is subject to numerous statutory and regulatory requirements. The waters adjacent to the proposed marina, access channels and flushing channels are Class II waters. As such, Rule 17-4.28(8), Florida Administrative Code, governs requests to dredge and fill in those areas. That rule provides as follows: "(8)(a) The department recognizes the special value and importance of Class II waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish. Therefore, it shall be the department's policy to deny applications for permits or certifications for dredging or filling activities in Class II waters, except where the applicant has submitted a plan of procedure which will adequately protect the project area and areas in the vicinity of the project from significant damage. The department shall not issue a permit for dredging or filling directly in areas approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. Provided, however, that the staff of the department may issue permits or certifications for maintenance dredging of existing navigational channels, for the construction of coastal protection structures and for the installation of transmission and distribution lines for carrying potable water, electricity or communication cables in rights-of-way previously used for such lines. (b) The department shall also deny applications for permits or certifications for dredging and/or filling activities in any class of waters where the proximity of such activities to Class II waters would be expected to have an impact on the Class II waters, and where reasonable assurance has not been provided that the activities will not result in violations of the applicable provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, in the Class II waters. Petitioner does not dispute that the waters are Class II waters. In spite of the fact that a variance from the rule was requested, petitioner contends that the prohibition against dredging in areas "approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources" is not applicable here because the area is now temporarily closed to shellfish harvesting. In the alternative, petitioner contends that even if these waters are "approved" for shellfish harvesting, it is entitled to a permit to "maintenance dredge an existing navigational channel." This latter contention is without merit. There was no evidence that the access channels proposed to be widened and deepened had been previously dredged. Indeed, the evidence was to the contrary. Consequently, the proposed activity cannot be categorized as "maintenance dredging." Moreover, neither the proposed north/south access channel nor the proposed flushing channel are "existing navigational channels." Petitioner's argument with regard to a distinction between an area "approved" and an area "temporarily closed" to shellfish harvesting is initially logically appealing. However, the argument fails to recognize the purpose of the Class II designated use -- shellfish propagation or harvesting, as well as the DER policy to deny a request for a variance when a project would result in the permanent loss of an area for shellfish harvesting. It was undisputed that DNR establishes buffer zones around marinas within which shellfish harvesting is prohibited, and that the size of the buffer zone is dependent, in part, upon the size of the marina. The area "buffered" would be permanently, as opposed to temporarily, closed for shellfish harvesting. The DER's policy to deny permits or variance requests when the project would result in the permanent closure of a significant area for shellfish harvesting is supported by the remainder of Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), as well as by the purpose for the Class II designation. Thus, under the facts of this case, it is concluded that the prohibition against dredging and filling in areas "approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources," as set forth In Rule 17- 4.28(8)(a), is applicable and that petitioner has failed to demonstrate entitlement to a variance from that prohibition. Even if petitioner were entitled to a variance, it has not provided reasonable assurances that the short and long term effects of the proposed activities will not violate water quality standards and public interest requirements so as to be entitled to a dredge and fill permit. As noted above, Outstanding Florida Waters are entitled to the highest degree of protection. An applicant for a permit to conduct activities which significantly degrade or are within such waters is required to affirmatively demonstrate that the activity meets the criteria set forth In Rule 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Among those criteria are that the activities be "clearly in the public interest and that the "existing ambient water quality," within the OFW not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity. "Existing ambient water quality" is defined in Rule 17-4.242(1)(d) as the water quality which could reasonably be expected (based upon the best scientific information available) to have existed for the year prior to the OFW designation. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve was designated as an OFW on March 1, 1979. Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the appropriate year for determining the "existing ambient water quality" of that OFW is from March 1, 1978, through March 1, 1979. Petitioner admits that at least 600 feet of the proposed east/west access channel is within the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. Since a mean high water survey was not conducted by the petitioner, or otherwise presented in this proceeding, the undersigned is unable to render a conclusion regarding the precise boundaries of the Aquatic Preserve or the coextensive OFW designation. It is persuasive that the DNR has managed the Preserve as though Little Cockroach Bay were included within it and that the Tampa Port Authority, from whom the lease to the State was derived, has not recognized Little Cockroach Bay as a separate water body. In any event, at least a portion of the proposed activity will be conducted within an OPW, and petitioner has failed to establish the ambient water quality of those waters for the relevant time period. As a result, petitioner has failed to meet its burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the proposed activity will not lower the quality of that water. While the petitioner did present evidence regarding the current condition of the waters and some historical data was reviewed, there was no affirmative demonstration of the quality of water which existed between March 1, 1978, and March 1, 1979. It simply was not established that petitioner relied upon the best scientific evidence available in its attempt to demonstrate that "existing ambient water quality" would not be lowered by the proposed activity. The operation of an 870-slip marina, along the public boat ramps, will generate a large amount of pollutants. Constant and heavy boat traffic within the marina lake and going in and cut of the area on a daily basis can be expected to continuously resuspend contaminants and pollutants. Given these factors, it was particularly incumbent upon the petitioner to make accurate predictions regarding flushing times, and to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated as a result of the proposed activity. The use of a one-dimensional model, along with the assumptions of no mixing and low tide conditions within the basin, does not provide adequate or accurate predictions with respect to the flushing or residence time of the proposed marina lake. The use of these flushing model computations to make water quality predictions for the lake and channels undermines those predictions. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards, particularly with regard to dissolved oxygen, for Class II and III waters will not be violated on a short and long term basis. Without such assurances, and also considering the loss of healthy seagrasses and mangroves which will result from both dredging and continued boat traffic in the area, the proposed project Is not permittable. As stated In Rule 17- 3.011(5), Florida Administrative Code: Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. When an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because the existing water quality does not meet standards, mitigation measures which cause net Improvement of the water quality may be considered. Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In mitigation, the petitioner has offered its plans for stormwater management, agricultural run-off and sewage treatment to demonstrate that water quality conditions will be improved by the overall development contemplated. Without a reasonably accurate prediction of the extent to which the proposed project and related activities will cause or contribute to existing DO violations, as well as other violations, in the subject waters, It is impossible to determine whether these mitigation measures will cause a net Improvement of the water quality in the area. In addition, the plans for the proposed stormwater management, agricultural runoff and sewage treatment systems were conceptual in nature. Until more detailed plans are developed, it is impossible to determine whether future permit applications for those projects would be acceptable. The petitioner's mitigation plans for the removal of seagrasses and mangroves is likewise unacceptable. Attempts to replant seagrasses, especially in Tampa Bay, have not been successful and are in an experimental stage. Petitioner's proposed 1:1 mitigation ratio is not appropriate for seagrasses due to the possible failure of its attempts, the proposed location of the replantings, and the expectation of secondary losses from boat traffic, erosion and potential future maintenance dredging. While the replanting of mangroves have a past record of success, a larger than 1:1 ratio would be appropriate to account for the difference in functions between a healthy system of large trees and the replanting of smaller trees, to account for the secondary losses which may be expected from greatly increased boat traffic and to account for the difference in locations between the trees to be removed and the trees to be replanted. An applicant must also provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project is "not contrary to the public Interest" or, in the case of the presence of Outstanding Florida Waters, that the project will be "clearly in the public interest." In making public interest determinations, the Legislature has set forth seven criteria to be considered and balanced, and has allowed applicants to offer measures to mitigate adverse effects. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. The seven factors are: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. In order to demonstrate that its Mangrove Bay Marina proposal is not contrary to and is clearly in the public interest, petitioner offers its mitigation plans previously discussed with regard to seagrasses, mangroves, stormwater, agricultural runoff and sewage treatment. It is contended that these features of the total project, along with the provision of a secure and well-policed facility, will have a beneficial effect upon public health, safety and welfare and will conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. It is also urged that its well- marked and maintained channels will Improve navigation and not contribute to harmful shoaling or erosion and will provide for an adequate flow of water. Safe mooring, boat storage and public boat ramps will enhance fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity will not be adversely affected, according to the applicant. Finally, the petitioner offers its museum with educational programs to demonstrate enhancement to significant historical and archaeological resources. There can be no doubt that the applicant has attempted to develop a proposal which will satisfy environmental, as well as social, concerns. It is also true that the marina project would satisfy the need for additional boat slips In the Tampa Bay area. The prime problem is the location of the proposed project. The Cockroach Bay and Little Cockroach Bay areas are relatively undisturbed by development. The area is Important as a research area and as a nursery area for juvenile fish and shellfish. The designation of waters adjacent to and within the proposed project site as Outstanding Florida Waters and Class II waters establishes their importance and govern the manner in which activities therein are to be evaluated. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project complies with water quality criteria and public Interest considerations applicable to these wetlands. The long and short term adverse environmental impacts upon water quality, seagrasses and mangroves are sufficient to justify a denial of the permit application. Those considerations, coupled with the disruption of wildlife habitat, the hazardous design of the marina channels, the destruction of a highly productive aquatic system without appropriate mitigation, and the potential of harming manatees, far outweigh any positive benefits of the project. The paleontology museum, while serving a laudable educational function, will not serve as mitigation for any estuarine loss and the historical and archaeological resources to be considered under Section 403.918(2)(a)6, Florida Statutes, refer to historic properties representing more than 10,000 years of human presence. In short, while the project may provide some advantages with regard to recreation and public safety, its adverse effects upon fish, wildlife, harmful erosion and shoaling, marine productivity and the present condition and value of the functions being performed in the area are contrary to the public interest. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any overriding public interest that would outweigh these considerations. As a final matter, it was stipulated that Manasota-88, Inc., the Florida Audubon Society, Eagle Audubon Society and Tampa Audubon Society had standing to participate as intervenors in this proceeding. Petitioner's motion in opposition to the intervention status of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council was initially denied, subject to that organization presenting proof of its standing at the hearing. The Council failed to produce such proof, and its petition to intervene is accordingly denied.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the requests of Leisey Shellpit, Inc. for a variance and a permit and certification to construct and operate the Mangrove Bay Marina and attendant access and flushing channels be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 11th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0568, 86-0569 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner Leisey: 6, last two sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 7, last two sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 8, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 9, last sentence Rejected; the evidence. demonstrates that the words "temporarily closed" should be substituted for "not approved." 11, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 14, last sentence Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 18, last sentence Rejected; not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 19, last two sentences Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 20, last sentence Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 21, last three sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence as to "existing ambient water quality. 23, last three sentences Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 24, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 25, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 28, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 30 - 33 Accepted, with a recognition that the plans are conceptual in nature, and not detailed as required for permitting purposes. 35, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 43, third sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. Respondent, DER: 2 Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. 16, first sentence Rejected as to the words "will occur," as opposed to "could occur." 70 Rejected; insufficient evidence was adduced to render a finding regarding the precise OFW boundaries. 76 Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. 85 Rejected as to the specifics of the permitability of other sites, as not established by competent, substantial evidence. 94, last sentence Rejected as speculative. 96 Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 99 Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial. 102 Rejected, as speculative. 113 Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Intervenor Manasota-88: This party's post-hearing submittal contains mixed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed factual findings are generally accepted and have been addressed in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire Robert, Egan & Routa, P.A. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Robert S. Tucker, Esquire Linda M. Hallas, Esquire 9455 Koger Blvd., Suite 209 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 M. Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed, for an alleged violation of Section 562.12, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 561.29(1) Florida Statutes, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by Petitioner. The hearing was originally scheduled for December 8, 1977, but respondent filed a motion for continuance which was granted by the Hearing Officer and the hearing was rescheduled for January 18, 1978. At the hearing, respondent moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Notice of Hearing issued on November 21, 1977, by the Hearing Officer was defective in that it did not adequately describe the petitioner's Notice to Show Cause or attach it to the Notice of Hearing. The motion was denied upon a determination that respondent had adequately been placed on notice as to the nature of the offense charged and due to the fact that the Notice to Show Cause had been sent by certified mail to respondent and that the receipt thereof on August 13, 1977, by an authorized agent of respondent was not contested. Further, respondent's motion for continuance indicates that her counsel was aware of the subject matter of the charges. Additionally, if such had not been the case, respondent had sufficient opportunity during the period in which the case had been continued to seek amplification or clarification of the issues involved in the case as set forth in the Notice of Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jennie E. Harrell, d/b/a W. D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle, 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida, holds license Number 30-82, Series 1 COP, issued by petitioner which permits the sale of beer for consumption on the premises. The license was in effect during August, 1976. (Petitioner's Exhibit l) An occupational license for 1975-76 issued by the City of Quincy, Florida, Number 394, was issued to the Lake Talquin Fish Market, 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida, on October 15, 1975, to engage in the occupation of merchant. A similar license in the same name at the same address, Number 395, and issued on the same date, authorized the licensee to engage in the occupation or business of retail sale of gasoline. City occupational license 1976-77, Number 298 ,issued by the City of Quincy to Lake Talquin Fish Market at 517 South Roberts Street, to engage in the business or occupation of merchant, was issued on September 30, 1976. The Lake Talquin Fish Market is located at 517 South Roberts Street. The official records show that the license was issued to Jenny Harrell of 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida, and that the 1975-76 license Number 394 was issued in the same name. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 10, supplemented by Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) On August 15, 1976, at approximately 10:55 a.m., State Beverage Officers Gary Sams and Fred Miller met with a reliable informant, one Guy Williams, in the vicinity of respondent's licensed premises at 515 South Roberts Street, Quincy, Florida. After searching Williams for any money or alcoholic beverages on his person, Sams gave him $7.20 and instructed him to attempt to purchase whiskey at respondent's place of business, W. D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle. The officers observed Williams drive to the building in question, but could not see his subsequent actions. He returned approximately fifteen to twenty minutes later with a partially filled one-half pint bottle of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey. Williams had entered respondent's premises and asked a woman behind the counter if he could purchase a half-pint of whiskey. She told him he would have to go next door. He thereupon entered the adjacent premises, Lake Talquin Fish Market, and ordered a half-hint of Seagram's Seven Crown whiskey from a man there. The man went in the back of the store and returned with a sealed one-half pint bottle labeled Seagram's Seven Crown. Williams paid $2.50 for the bottle, took a drink from it, and found that it was, indeed, whiskey. The bottle was thereafter labeled for identification by the beverage officers and placed in the evidence room of petitioner's Tallahassee office. However, it was destroyed by petitioner prior to the hearing. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Williams) On August 22, 1976, the two beverage agents again met with Williams at the same location at approximately 9:30 a.m. Following the same procedures as before, Sams gave Williams $4.00 and instructed him to go to respondent's state- licensed premises to attempt to purchase liquor. The same sequence of events as on August 15th occurred, involving a woman at W. D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle, and a man at the Lake Talquin Fish Market. This time the purchase was for a one-half pint sealed bottle of Seagram's Golden Dry Gin for which Williams paid $2.50. Again, he drank out of the bottle and verified that it was gin. This bottle was turned over to the beverage agents who verified that it was gin by its smell, and it was tagged and placed in petitioner's evidence room in Tallahassee. It, too, was destroyed by petitioner prior to the hearing. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Williams) On August 23, 1976, criminal complaints were filed by petitioner's representatives against respondent and others, and, on August 24, a search warrant was issued authorizing a search of the premises of the Lake Talquin Fish Market at 517 South Roberts Street, and warrants were issued for the arrest of respondent and the individuals who had allegedly sold the alcoholic beverages to Williams. At approximately 5:15 p.m. on August 28, Agent Miller, together with local police officers, served the search warrant on one Isaac Ford at the Lake Talquin Fish Market. A search of the premises failed to reveal the presence of alcoholic beverages. The agents observed a well-worn path leading approximately 15 or 20 feet to an adjacent condemned frame house, and also an electric wire running from the store to the house. Further, they discovered a light switch in the store which controlled a light in the northeast room of the house. They observed a quantity of liquor and wine bottles on the floor of that room. It was noted that the house was secured by a padlock. Upon Inquiry, Ford stated that he did not have the key to the lock. The agents then asked respondent, who was at her place of business, if she had the key. She answered in the negative. When asked if the whiskey that had been observed in the house belonged to her, she said that it did not, but that she owned the house and wanted the whiskey off the premises. The agents thereupon forced entry into the house and seized 265 bottles of alcoholic beverages found inside. The bottles were sealed and strips indicating that tax had been paid were on the bottles. Sixteen of the bottles were assorted brands of wine; the remainder were liquor. (Testimony of Sams, Miller, Fader, Petitioner's Exhibits 5-13)
Recommendation That a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 be imposed against Jennie E. Harrell, d/b/a D. Harrell Fish Bait and Tackle, License Number 30-82, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(h) and (4),F.S., for violation of Section 562.12(1), F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Francis Bayley,. Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Jack A. Harnett, Esquire Post Office Box 706 Quincy, Florida 32351 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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 the amendments respondent proposes to Rules 46- 22.001, 46-22.002 and 46-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, and the new rules it proposes, 46- through 46-22.007, or any of them, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, within the meaning of Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, (1985)?
Findings Of Fact Comprised largely of commercial fishermen, the petitioners are organizations which represent commercial fishing interests, including not only commercial fishermen, but also fish houses, fish processors, and at least one restaurateur. The parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to bring this rule challenge. The intervenor, Florida Conservation Association (FCA), is an organization to which recreational fishermen and "a number of people ... involved in the sports fishing industry" (T VIII. 7), including fishing guides, marina owners, bait and tackle dealers, tackle manufacturers, and "motels that ... cater to a fishing clientele," (T.VIII. 8) belong. According to the intervenor's executive director, "one of the primary goals of the organization ... has been to work towards gamefish status for redfish, which would be basically what we have been trying to do with the rule, for game fish status." (T.VIII 6.) Respondent Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) is charged by statute with regulating fishing in the salt waters of the state, which extend nine nautical miles from shore. (T.I.29) The rules and rule amendments the MFC has proposed for redfish were published on July 11, 1986, in Volume 12, No. 28 of the Florida Administrative Weekly on pages 2595, 2596 and 2597. They read, as follows: * 46-22.001 Purpose, Intent and Repeal of Other Laws. The purpose and intent of this chapter are to protect, manage, conserve and replenish Florida's depleted red drum (redfish) resource, species <<Sciaenops ocellata,>> which has suffered extreme declines in abundance in recent years and which is now overfished throughout the state. This chapter will <<implement measures designed to reduce fishing pressure on this species; including>> [[initially impose]] minimum and maximum size limits, <<bag limits, closed season, and prohibition of sale,>> for [[harvestable]] redfish <<harvested from state waters,>> [[to provide interim protection for the resource while a comprehensive management scheme is being formulated for later promulgation in this chapter.]] Accordingly, it is the intent of this chapter to repeal and replace those portions of section 370.11(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes dealing with redfish. This chapter is not intended, and shall not be construed, to repeal any other portion of section 370.11(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes; any other subdivision of section 370.11, Florida Statutes; or any other general or local law directly or indirectly relating to or providing protection for the redfish resource. * * * 46-22.002 Definitions "Harvest" means the catching or taking of a fish by any means whatsoever, followed by a reduction of such fish to possession. <<"Harvest" also includes the intentional killing of a fish, whether or not it is subsequently reduced to possession.>> Fish that are caught but immediately returned to the water free, alive and unharmed are not harvested. In addition, temporary possession of a fish for the purpose of measuring it to determine compliance with the minimum or maximum size requirements of this chapter shall not constitute harvesting such fish, provided that it is measured immediately after taking, and immediately returned to the water free, alive and unharmed if undersize or oversize. <<"Land," when used in connection with the harvest of a fish, means the physical act of bringing the harvested fish ashore.>> (3)(2) "Person" means any natural person, firm, entity or corporation. (4)(3) "Red drum" or "redfish" means any fish of the species <<Sciaenops Ocellata,>> or any part thereof. <<"Native redfish" means any redfish harvested from the territorial waters of the State of Florida.>> (5)(4) "Total length" means the length of a fish as measured from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail. (6) <<"Vessel" means and includes every description of water craft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, including nondisplacement craft and any aircraft designed to maneuver on water.>> 46-22.003 Size Limits. No person shall harvest in or from the [[following designated]] waters of the State of Florida at any time, or unnecessarily destroy, any redfish of total length less than <<18 inches.>> [[that set forth as follows:]] [[(a) In the Northwest region as hereinafter defined, redfish of total length less than 16 inches. In the remainder of the state, redfish of total length less than 18 inches.]] [[For purposes of this subsection, the tern "Northwest region" shall mean and include all state waters along the Gulf of Mexico north and west of a straight line drawn from Bowlegs Point in Dixie County, southwesterly through marker 16, and continuing to the outer limit of state waters.]] [[No person shall harvest in or from the waters of the state of Florida at any time, or unnecessarily destroy, any redfish of total length greater than 32 inches, except that one (1) redfish larger than this maximum size limit may be harvested per person per day. No person shall possess at any time more than one redfish larger than 32 inches in total length, harvested from state waters.]] <<(2)(a) No person shall harvest in or from the waters of the State of Florida at any time, or unnecessarily destroy, more than one (1) redfish per day of total length greater than 32 inches.>> (b) <<No person shall possess more than one (1) redfish of total length greater than 32 inches, harvested from waters of the State of Florida.>> [[(3) It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, buy, sell, exchange or attempt to buy, sell or exchange any redfish harvested in violation of this chapter.]] * * * <<46-22.004 Prohibition on Sale and Commercial Harvest of Native Redfish. It is unlawful for any person to: Buy, sell exchange or attempt to buy, sell or exchange any native redfish. Harvest, possess or transport, for purposes of sale or with intent to sell, any native redfish. The prohibitions contained in subsection (1) of this section do not apply to non-native redfish that have entered the State of Florida in interstate commerce. However, the burden shall be upon the person possessing such redfish for sale or exchange to show, by appropriate receipt(s), bill(s) of sale, or bill(s) of lading, that such redfish originated from a point outside the waters of the State of Florida, and entered the state in interstate commerce. It is unlawful for any wholesale or retail seafood dealer or restaurant to possess, buy, sell, or store any native redfish, or permit any native redfish to be possessed, bought, sold or stored on, in, or about the premises or vehicles where such wholesale or retail seafood business or restaurant is carried on or conducted; provided, however, that native red fish which have been lawfully harvested may be kept on the premises of a restaurant for the limited purpose of preparing such red fish for consumption by the person who harvested them, so long as such redfish are packaged or on strings with tags bearing the name and address of the owner clearly written thereon. When any person buys, sells, possesses or transports non-native redfish under circumstances requiring documentation under this section, failure to maintain such documentation, or to promptly produce same at the request of any duly authorized law enforcement or conservation officer, shall constitute a separate offense under this chapter and shall also constitute prima facie evidence that such red fish were harvested from Florida waters and are being transported and/or possessed for purposes of sale.>> <<46-22.005 Season, Bag and Possession Limits. (1) During the months of March and April, the harvest of redfish in or from state waters or possession of native redfish is prohibited. Possession of redfish by any person aboard a vessel fishing in state waters during such months constitutes prima facie evidence that such redfish were harvested out-of-season in state waters. (2)(a) Except as provided in subsection (1), all persons are subject to a bag limit of five (5) native redfish per person, per day, and a possession limit of five (5) native redfish per person. Only one (1) native red fish larger than 32 inches total length may be harvested per person, per day, and no more than one (1) such redfish may be possessed by any person at any time. Possession of redfish in excess of the applicable bag or possession limit by any person aboard a vessel fishing in state waters constitutes prima facie evidence that such red fish were harvested from state waters. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the harvest of native red fish from any area during any time, or the use of any gear where same is otherwise prohibited by law.>> * * * <<46-22.006 Other Prohibitions. The harvest of any redfish in or from state waters by or with the use of any treble hook in conjunction with live or dead natural bait is prohibited. Gigging, spearing or snagging (snatch hooking) of redfish in or from state waters is prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, buy, sell, exchange or attempt to buy, sell or exchange any redfish harvested in violation of this chapter. When any provision of this chapter is violated by a person aboard a vessel, the operator of that vessel, if different from such person, shall be deemed to have assisted and participated in the violation and such assistance and participation shall constitute a separate offense under this chapter. All redfish harvested from Florida waters shall be landed in a whole condition. The possession, while on state waters, of redfish that have been deheaded, sliced, divided, filleted, ground, skinned, scaled or deboned is prohibited. Mere evisceration or "gutting" of redfish, or mere removal of gills from redfish, before landing is not prohibited. Preparation of red fish for immediate consumption on board the vessel from which the fish were caught is not prohibited.>> <<46-22.007 Severability. If any provision of this rule chapter, or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid; the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this rule chapter are declared severable.>> Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1 (Added language underscored, de- leted language struck through) * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The proposed rules and rule amendments under challenge are designed to replace the initial redfish rules, which took effect September 12, 1985, and remain in force. Since before the current rules' adoption, statutory provisions have imposed a statewide 12-inch minimum size limit for redfish, Section 370.11(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes (1985), and forbidden the use of purse seines. Section 370.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985). Youth and Age The redfish, also known as red drum and, to ichthyologists, as Sciaenops ocellatus, has a life span of 25 to 35 years. The adult redfish or "bull reds" swim offshore in deep water ordinarily, but not always, in schools. They are commonly found with schools of blue runner and little tunny. Respondent's Exhibit No. 29, 2-1. Schools of adult redfish are not found in inshore waters. But adults do approach the mouths of estuaries to spawn in the fall, mostly in September. Eggs borne by incoming tides and newly hatched, microscopic redfish larvae swimming inland make their way through the passes and well up into the bays and bayous along Florida's coasts, often all the way into fresh water, where rivers empty into the estuaries. By April of the following year, some redfish spawned in September have attained a length of 12 inches. By the following September, all redfish spawned a year earlier have reached 12 inches in length. A redfish gains one to five pounds a year. (T.I.31) When they are 18 to 26 inches long, they weigh from 3 to 6 pounds. On average, an 18 inch redfish is about a year and a half old. Juvenile redfish also swim in schools, often with sea trout, mullet and catfish. Once a redfish reaches three or four pounds, man is one of the few creatures in the estuaries big enough to eat it. (T. I. 45) But scientists put the mortality rate for juvenile redfish at 30 percent. (T.58) Only when they are about 4 1/2 years old do redfish leave the juvenile population's estuarine habitat for the blue waters the adult population inhabits. On average they then weigh 12 to 14 pounds and have obtained a length of 29 to 30 inches. Tagging studies and age frequency data suggest that as few as two percent of redfish recruits, or perhaps only a tenth of that number, survive long enough to escape the estuary. (T.I.63) For at least the last ten years, the escapement rate has been on this order of magnitude, and the escapement rate may have been dropping during this period. (T.I.67) The size distribution of redfish taken offshore reflects significantly lower numbers of spawners escaping during the last 20-some years than previously. Spawning redfish tend to return to the point on the coast where they themselves were spawned, but this is by no means a hard and fast rule: "Drift", also called diffusion or filtration, is known to occur. Redfish range throughout the Gulf of Mexico and are found in the Atlantic Ocean as far north as New Jersey. Because redfish caught offshore are taken with purse seines, they cannot legally be landed in Florida. They are mostly brought ashore in Louisiana and mostly caught in that part of the Gulf. Juvenile redfish in the Florida Keys are not believed to swim back and forth between the Gulf and the Atlantic, but adult redfish may. Blackened Redfish Commercial fishing offshore requires a six-figure investment in boat and equipment and a crew of several men. Until relatively recently, the big offshore operations largely ignored redfish, in favor of fish that could be sold at higher prices. But a dramatic increase in the demand for redfish has provided the economic incentive to make redfish an important target of the offshore fishery since 1982 or 1983. (The redfish's new-found popularity has been attributed to a New Orleans chef, who made famous a dish called "blackened redfish.") For whatever reason, massive catches of red fish offshore have depleted the adult stock of redfish in the last four or five years by as much as half, by some estimates. Before 1983, catches averaged less than 100,000 pounds a year. In the first half of 1986, some 7,000,000 pounds of redfish were taken in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. In other species, declines in the number of spawners have precipitated collapses of fisheries. The pattern has been, however, that declines in spawning populations have initially caused increases, rather than decreases, in juvenile populations. In the case of the yellow croaker, for example, the juvenile population initially increased ashe adult population dwindled. Only after 80 percent or more of the spawning stock was wiped out did a dramatic drop in the juvenile population ensue, spelling the end of the fishery. Whether the juvenile redfish stock has diminished in consequence of the decline of the spawner population is not clear. According to anecdotal evidence from Steinhatchee, the redfish catch there has increased over the last five years. The evidence did not establish whether fishermen's efforts to catch juvenile redfish at Steinhatchee or elsewhere in shallow state waters have changed significantly in recent years. Steinhatchee fishermen report large schools of two to four pound redfish beginning in October. Such reports are often unreliable evidence of general conditions, however. Trends in catch data are evidence of population trends, but they require careful interpretation. For one thing, experts generally believe the commercial catch to be under-reported and the recreational catch to be overestimated. (T.I.48-9) Constant catches in response to increasing effort may reflect a decline in population. Even increasing catches are not incompatible with population decline, considered in conjunction with other factors. The most recent catch data from Charlotte Harbor suggest smaller catches last year and the year before than in immediately prior years, during which the trend was generally up. But last year's statistics particularly are subject to revision and should be treated as preliminary only. To some extent, moreover, last year's change from a 12-inch to an 18-inch minimum size limit in Charlotte Harbor would account for any decrease in catch. The Charlotte Harbor redfish catch reported for 1984 is comparable to catches reported in the mid 1950s, 1964, and 1969, and exceeds the redfish catches reported in 1967, 1966, and certain earlier years. In short, the Charlotte Harbor data since 1983 neither confirm the previous upward trend nor establish any change in trend. Catch statistics with regard to the state as a whole are similarly inconclusive. In 1979, fishermen caught 3,177,590 pounds of redfish in Florida waiters. The total catch fell by more than a third to 1,917,005 pounds in 1980, and climbed to 3,160,122 pounds in 1981, about the level of two years before, even excluding recreational catches in January and February. In 1982, the total catch increased some two and a half times to 8,977,274 pounds, although MFC's executive director suspects that the recreational catch estimates, and, therefore, the totals for 1982 are inflated. The total redfish catch fell to 5,738,260 pounds in 1983, then rose to 6,375,250 pounds in 1984. Table 5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. These catches do not include adult redfish in any significant numbers. (T. I.33) Fish Scaling MFC staff used a computer model developed by one of the commissioners, William W. Fox, Jr., to predict the effects regulatory changes would have on the escapement rate. This computer model, the generalized exploited population simulator (GXPOPS), has been used to predict the population dynamics of such diverse species as pandalic shrimp, with its "protandric hermaphroditic life history strategy," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, p. 38, and grouper, a "protogynic hermaphroditic population." Id. Redfish have distinct genders and differ from grouper and shrimp in other important attributes. Computer models are the only tools available for predicting population changes in response to regulatory changes, however; and, as far as the evidence showed, no other computer model has been more closely tailored to redfish or would be any more likely to predict the effects of regulatory changes on redfish populations more accurately than GXPOPS. Various GXPOPS generated tables are in evidence displaying data stated in millions of pounds of redfish, or in millions of fish, but nobody knows how many redfish are in the sea, so that a principal use of the numbers is as ratios; more than one scale has been used, and not all the tables are directly comparable. The MFC considered what biological or resource objective to set in terms of a proportional increase in the rate of escapement. The greater the fraction of juvenile recruits that survive long enough to escape the estuaries, the more rapidly the diminished spawning stock could be replenished offshore. Although there is some confusion on the point, it is not an unfair characterization to say that the MFC adopted a 50-fold increase in the escapement rate as its biological goal for redfish. If, as may be the case, the present escapement rate is only 0.2 percent, a 50-fold increase would only bring the escapement rate to half the level advocated by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. If, as may also be the case, a dramatic decrease in the number of recruits is either imminent or already in progress, even a 50-fold increase in the rate of escapement may not increase the number of spawners leaving the estuaries to the levels needed to preserve the redfishery. The evidence falls far short of showing that the MFC has set the escapement rate goal too high. On the contrary, the evidence established that the MFC set the escapement rate goal so low that attaining the goal will not guarantee the continued viability of the redfish fishery. If, as respondent's executive director testified, it is like driving toward a cliff in the fog, the wisest thing might be to stop the car till the fog clears. Means To An End Once a biological or resource goal has been set, the question becomes how to reach the goal. The MFC considered two options that the GXPOPS model predicted would meet its resource goal without closing down the commercial fishery: a five-month closed season together with a 17 inch minimum size limit; and a six-month closed season together with a 16-inch minimum size limit, There are numerous other approaches that would not involve conferring gamefish status on the redfish. Exhibit 1 to Dr. Fox's deposition; Dr. Austin's testimony. It may be that prohibiting redfishing for three, instead of only for two months would have permitted continuation of the commercial fishery. (T.XI. 52-4) In regulated fisheries throughout the world "there is a fairly clear hierarchy," (T.X. 72), among types of regulations. Minimum-size limits, then closed seasons, then catch restrictions (bag limits for recreational fishermen and quotas for commercial fishermen) are preferred, in that order, both because within each category the magnitude of change necessary to accomplish the same result increases in descending order; and because the complexity of assumptions that must be made to predict the effect of the regulation increases for each category in descending order. In the present case, for example, an increase of three inches in the minimum size limit applicable in peninsular territorial waters, from 18 to 21 inches, would be a less drastic change than leaving the minimum size limit at 18 inches and closing state waters to the taking of redfish for five months, although either change would accomplish approximately the same increase in the escapement rate. The only assumptions that underlie minimum size restrictions concern age size correlations and the "mortality that occurs when fish have to be released [because they are too small], which is relatively well known in this fishery." (T.X. 74) Predicting the effect of closed seasons requires more complex assumptions about seasonal abundance of the fish, the likelihood that fishermen's efforts A to catch the species will drift into the open season, and the chances that scofflaws will shorten the closed season de facto. In general, a prohibition against possession is more readily enforcible than a prohibition against disposition. It is a simple matter to count the number or to measure the size of fish a person has in his possession. Proving an intent to sell is more difficult. Other Management Plans On July 20, 1986, the United States Secretary of Commerce closed the federal conservation zone, which is the area more than nine and less than 200 nautical miles out from shore, to the taking of redfish. The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC) has recommended that the original ban, which was to have been effective only through September 23, 1986, be extended for another 90 days pending adoption of regulations prescribing a permanent ban. The GMFMC has also recommended that the Gulf states adopt regulations that would allow at least a fifth of redfish recruits to escape the estuaries. As of January 1984, Alabama prohibited the taking of red fish smaller than 14 inches and the taking of more than two redfish larger than 36 inches, placed geographic and temporal restrictions on the use of nets, limited recreational catch to 25 fish per day and imposed a possession limit of 50 on recreational fishermen. Respondent's Exhibit No. 29, 7-16 and 17. Alabama forbids the sale of native redfish. Alabama Administrative Code Section 220-3- 12. As of January 1984, Mississippi placed gear restrictions on fishermen taking redfish, prohibited the taking of redfish in certain places (including Redfish Bayou!) and of a size less than 14 inches, limited to two per day the number of redfish exceeding 30 inches in length, limited recreational catch to 10 redfish per day, imposed a possession limit of 30 redfish, closed state waters to commercial fishing from September 15th to November 15th, and authorized closing of the commercial fishery for the remainder of any year in which landing reports indicate 200,000 pounds have been taken. Respondent's Exhibit 29,7-14,15. As of January 1984, Louisiana closed certain areas to commercial fishing, disallowed the use of certain gear by commercial fishermen in certain other areas, and imposed gear restrictions on all fishermen. Recreational fishermen were limited to two redfish per day more than 36 inches in length but were subject to no minimum size limit. Recreational fishermen were entitled to take no more than 50 spotted sea trout and redfish combined per day, and subject to a 100-fish possession limit. Commercial fishermen were subject to a 16-inch minimum size limit but to no maximum size limit. Effective August 30, 1986, counsel advise, recreational fishermen are permitted to keep no more than two red fish greater than 30 inches in length and possession of redfish on board a vessel carrying a purse seine is illegal, citing Act. No. 613, 387, 611, 660. As of July 1984, commercial fishing for redfish had been outlawed in Texas, although licensed fish importers may, and do, sell redfish from Mexico and other states. No redfish less than 16 inches long or greater than 30 inches in length could be taken. The weekend use (1:00 p.m. Friday to 1:00 p.m. Sunday) of nets and trot lines was forbidden. As of September 4, 1986, the minimum size limit was 18 inches, and hook and line was the only lawful way to take redfish. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, pp. 78A. At the time Texas dilettantized its redfishery, commercial fishermen were taking most of the catch. Fishermen must use either fishing poles or a single "sail line" which is a "special trotline[] with one end on shore, pier or jetty, and with the other end attached to a wind-powered device or sail and attended at all times." Respondent's Exhibit No. 29, 7-7. Florida Fisheries Fishing gear and methods in Charlotte Harbor, the principal site for commercial redfishing in Florida, have been constant for some time. Since the 1950s fishermen have used synthetic, instead of natural, fibers for their nets. In December, January and February, cold fronts in Charlotte Harbor seem to "concentrate the fish" into schools that experienced fishermen can spot. There is also a "night fishery" in the summer months, when redfish are taken at first light or "dawn pink." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, p 31. Ninety percent of the red fish commercial fishermen catch in Charlotte Harbor are taken with trammel nets, deployed from flat-bottomed shallow draft boats 19 to 24 feet long, with beams of five to eight feet. Although "pole skiffs" are sometimes used in very shallow water (four inches or less), the boats are mostly powered by outboard motors, mounted forward in wells. In Steinhatchee, the fishermen call these boats "bird dogs." Even the largest of them can be handled by a single fisherman, and can be built with materials that cost less than $3,000. None could be safely taken very far off shore. Undersize or other undesirable fish taken in trammel nets can be returned to the water alive. Ordinarily trammel nets consist of two outer "walls" of larger mesh flanking a central, finer mesh curtain or "bunt." When the fishermen encircle the fish, the three components of the net stand vertically in the water; the lines along the upper edges of each bunt are kept on the surface by floats, while the weighted lines along the bottom edges fall to the bottom. Fish swimming through an opening in one wall and into the small- mesh bunt push the finer netting through openings in the other wall, which creates a pouch or pocket in which the fish remains ensnared, when the fisherman hauls in the trammel net. Gill nets, which are also sometimes used, consist of a single swatch with mesh calibrated to stop fish of a certain size. Smaller fish swim through while larger fish are repelled. Fish taken by gill nets die from injuries they sustain when they become lodged in an opening in the net. In Steinhatchee almost half the red fish sold to the fish houses are caught by hook and line fishermen who have salt water products licenses, which can be bought for $25 and authorize the holder to sell his catch. In Charlotte Harbor, the "bucket brigade" as they are there called makes a contribution, although a less significant one, to the commercial catch. Hook and line fishermen have the advantage, an important one in the Steinhatchee fishery, of being able to take their boats up the river into fresh water. Eighty percent of redfish are caught from boats. Making a Payday Commercial fishermen take only an eighth to a quarter of the redfish caught in Florida state waters. As far as the evidence showed, not a single commercial fisherman in Florida depends exclusively on the sale of juvenile redfish for his income. Redfish comprise less than one percent of the food fin fish commercial fishermen catch in Florida waters. Almost all of the approximately 1800 commercial fishermen in Florida who catch redfish in state waters depend on the sale of other fish for most of their income. At a given time, certain species are available and certain species are not; and the prices they fetch vary. Mullet may bring as little as $.25 a pound while pompano can go for as much as $3.10 per pound. Commercial fishermen in Charlotte Harbor, whose annual income averages $11,334 after expenses, take mullet, sea trout, pompano, mackerel, jacks and sand bream as well as redfish. Not every fisherman targets each of these fish, but the overwhelming majority do seek mullet, which they call their "bread and butter" fish. Even for those fishermen whose equipment and skills enable them to pursue several species, the different species are not readily interchangeable. Rather than offering each load of fish they catch to the highest bidder, commercial fishermen like the individual petitioners who testified in the present case, ordinarily sell their catch to a single fish house, year after year. This practice offers some protection against seasonal market fluctuations. When roe mullet begin to run in the fall, demand for these and other fish exceeds the supply. But, during the summer months, the fish house operators will not buy mullet from fishermen with whom they have not already established a relationship. Because supply greatly exceeds demand in summertime and because freezer space is limited, fish house operators impose quotas even on fishermen with whom they have longstanding relationships. The fish houses do not sell all of the catch locally. About half leaves Florida. Exporters drive refrigerated semi-trailers to the fish houses where they buy fish by the 100-pound box for resale out of state. Georgia, their nearest destination, is several hundred miles from Charlotte Harbor, the principal site of redfishing in Florida waters. Except during the roe mullet run, these drivers call ahead to inquire of the fish houses how many "fancy fish" they have, "fancy fish" meaning redfish or sea trout. If a fish house has no redfish or sea trout on hand, the drivers may pass it by altogether or, at best, buy only a few boxes of mullet. Explicitly or otherwise, fish houses with redfish to sell may condition their sale on the buyer's taking, along with each box of redfish, four to ten boxes of mullet, depending on market conditions. Fishing For Fun According to those who have studied the question most carefully, including Dr. Holland, who testified at hearing, the attractiveness of recreational fishing trips depends less than might be expected on the hope of catching any fish at all, much less one of a particular species, when several are available. Very few recreational fishermen "limit the goals of their fishing experience to catching fish. The majority are more interested in perceiving freedom, escaping from responsibilities, and enjoying an outdoor natural environment." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, p. 137. Things like "being exposed to polluted surroundings... ruin[] a fishing trip more than not catching a fish. These conclusions are based on answers given by a sample of fishing association members who actively fish (an average of 31 days a year)." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, p. 136. As Mr. Raulerson explained with reference to tourists who fish in Florida's salt waters, the prospect of catching a fish may be less significant than the prospect of being out on the water in weather much warmer than what the tourist has left behind; and sighting a porpoise can be the principal benefit tourists derive from a fishing trip. For most recreational anglers, keeping a fish to eat is even less important than catching it. The only one of the intervenor's witnesses who testified on the point, Richard A. Shapley, a Tallahassee resident and an IBM employee who goes fishing every weekend, characterized himself as "more of a sports fisherman than a fish eater," (T.VII p. 16) and candidly admitted that he would not be particularly bothered by having to release all the redfish he caught. Currently, only 7.6 percent of sports fishermen catch more than five redfish per trip. Their catch amounts to eleven percent of the recreational catch, which has accounted for three quarters to seven eighths of all the redfish harvested in Florida waters. Almost five percent (4.975 percent) of marine sport fishermen in Florida caught (but did not necessarily seek) or sought (but did not necessarily catch) redfish, according to the most reliable statistics available for the period 1979 to 1984. An economist employed by the Sport Fishing Institute (SFI), whose "programs serve the long-term interests of the sport fishing industry, which provides the base of ... [SFI's] financial support," Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, p. 1, offered the opinion that up "to $121,416,000 in [1985] retail marine sport fishing expenditures can be attributed to redfish." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, p. 11. Marine sport fishing is without doubt an important source of income for many Floridians, and retail marine sport fishing expenditures figure significantly in the state's economy, but the SFI estimate of retail expenditures attributable to redfish is a very substantial overstatement. To obtain the figure of $121,416,000, SFI's economist used a study that attributed to fishing not only all sums expended on fishing trips, but also all food and lodging expenditures for the whole of each day on which a tourist did any fishing; then assumed that catching or seeking redfish was the sole motivation for 4.975 percent of the fishing trips sportsmen made in Florida's salt waters. Neither of these assumptions bears up under scrutiny. Even on the assumption, which the evidence showed to be contrary to fact, that all fishing trips arise wholly from a desire to catch fish, the use of the 4.975 percent factor was not justified. At least for purposes of the present case, retail expenditures made by fishermen who had no desire or intention to catch redfish can hardly be said to be attributable to the availability of redfish. In addition, the number of recreational fishing trips taken by anglers in pursuit of redfish should, at the very least, be reduced to allow for trips on which the hope of taking other species was the dominant purpose. End of An Era If the proposed rule changes take effect, commercial fishing for redfish in Florida waters will come to an end. The effects on commercial fishermen would be overwhelmingly adverse. The one possible silver lining is that the loss of redfish as a commercial species would make mullet so much harder to sell that marginal commercial fishermen would look for other work, leaving more fish for the more skilled full-time commercial fishermen. Red fish sell for about eighty cents per pound ex-vessel. At least one fish house has had recent offers of $1.45 or $1.50 per pound for redfish. The economic impact statement puts the secondary wholesale value of redfish at 2.8 times the ex-vessel price. Grocery stores, seafood markets and restaurants sell redfish at retail. On the assumption that the retailers could substitute imported redfish for native redfish, if commercial fishing is banned by the proposed rule, the economic impact statement ignores retail losses and predicts a "total annual longterm commercial loss ... [of] approximately $4.733 million in income [which] could force some fishermen and fish houses that rely primarily on redfish out of business." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5, p. 2. The economic impact statement's analysis assumed a loss of commercial catch of only 961,646 pounds, the 1982-1984 average. On the same assumption, an economist analyzing the problem from the perspective of sport fishermen, predicted the total economic impact of closing the commercial fishery would be $6,494,629 annually, taking retail sales into account and using certain multipliers. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, pp.9 and 10. Neither of these calculations takes into account the economic value of redfish as leverage in mullet sales, although the economic impact statement does mention that "having no redfish to sell will hurt the mullet sales." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5, p. 21 Fewer, Fatter Fish for Frying If the proposed rules take effect and the fishery does not collapse, the escapement rate will increase by a factor of 58.43 and, except for the fish that escape, the recreational fishermen will have available not only the fish now caught by commercial fishermen, but also all of the predicted increase in the weight of the redfish catch. The present recreational catch, estimated at 2.1 million pounds, before the new minimum size regulations took effect on September 12, 1985, would grow to 5.65 million pounds at equilibrium three or four years out. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, p. 10, All of this increase would be attributable to an increase in the average size of the fish caught, because, over the same period, the number of fish caught by recreational anglers would fall from 1,190,000 to 1,030,000. Id. The precise effects these changes would have on the recreational fishing industry are not clear. The two-month closed season would have an adverse affect, since some 7.4 percent of recreational fishing trips on which redfish are caught or sought now occur in March or April. On the other hand, there would be more redfish, they would weigh more on average, and they would be more likely to be caught not only during the ten months they could lawfully be taken, but also during the two months when the law would require fishermen to release them, if caught. The proposed rule would make it more likely that unskilled fishermen who would not otherwise have caught a redfish will catch redfish, and that those who would otherwise have caught less than five will be more likely to catch as many as five. T.X. Skilled fishermen might be discouraged by the proposed five fish bag limit. Increased abundance would presumably be irrelevant to the 7.6 percent of recreational anglers now catching more than the proposed bag limit of five. They may, indeed, be lured to Alabama where the bag limit is 25, or to some other site. The effects a change in the availability of redfish might have on recreational fishing were the subject of much testimony at the hearing. The economic impact statement assumed a response elasticity for non-residents" of 0.1203, i.e., that an increase of eight percent in pounds of redfish available would cause an increase of approximately one percent of the number of fishing trips on which redfish were caught or sought. The 0.1203 figure is "Green's coefficient," and was used by Green to correlate changes in numbers of fishing trips taken by non-residents already in Florida with changes in multi-species catch (in pounds) per trip, not with changes in the total number of pounds of a particular species available to be caught. As far as the evidence showed, moreover, the weight of fish in Green's study was a good proxy for numbers of fish. In the present case, the increase in weight would occur despite a reduction in the number of fish caught and kept. Despite all the problems, however, Green's coefficient is a much more satisfactory measure of elasticity than any other offered at hearing. The economic impact statement summed up the situation fairly by saying with respect to recreational fishing, "little is known of the effects of being able to harvest less of one species of fish, especially in saltwater where a multitude of species are available as substitutes." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, p. 3. The converse is also true, although fishermen "tend to go to the spot where... [they] think... [they] can catch the most fish." But the proposed rules would decrease, not increase, the numbers of redfish that recreational fishermen could take. (T.V. 148) Studies in evidence show that increased availability of fish attract fishermen to the site of the increase. Even if it is assumed that bigger fish attract fishermen just as greater numbers of fish do, it does not follow that the total number of fishing trips occurring everywhere increases, rather than that fishing has fallen off at alternate sites within the fisherman's geographical range. (T.V. 147-148) For many tourists the geographical range will be determined by factors unrelated to fishing. Tourists, including tourists who eventually go fishing in salt water here, come to Florida for many different reasons. Perhaps the children want to go to Disneyworld. Whether a fishing trip is among their recreational pursuits once they arrive depends on how attractive a fishing trip seems in relation to other recreational possibilities. This depends, in turn, on a host of other factors, including, for example, relative cost. The cost of a fishing trip is five times more important than the availability of fish, as a variable determining whether the fishing trip will be taken. Even anglers choosing a Florida vacation in order to go fishing will not necessarily take the availability of redfish into account. Enforcement Considerations Size restrictions are more easily enforced against commercial fishermen than against recreational fishermen, because almost the entire commercial catch moves through licensed, frequently inspected fish houses, while the low numbers of marine patrol officers make enforcement of such regulations against recreational fishermen a haphazard affair. The so-called night fishery for redfish during summer months occurs at first light. Even if fish are taken while it is dark, they must, with few exceptions, move through easily monitored channels if they are to be distributed commercially. Closed seasons create the possibility of erosion when they begin, by fishermen jumping the gun, and when they end, by fishermen persisting unlawfully. Redfish can be frozen, which makes it difficult to determine just when they were caught. Under the proposed rule, however, frozen redfish can be imported, so the possibility of passing off native red fish as imports would exist, just as, in a mixed fishery with a closed season, the possibility of passing off redfish taken out of season as having been taken lawfully would exist. There is also the possibility, if bag limits apply to recreational, but not to commercial, fishermen that recreational fishermen will buy salt water products licenses to escape the bag limits. Such a strategy would appeal to recreational anglers who successfully fish for redfish now. Data from other, similar fisheries suggest that successful anglers' catch goes up proportionally much less than marginal or unsuccessful fishermen's catch in response to increased abundance. Recreational vs. Commercial Economic analyses of intergroup reallocations assume that the marginal utility of income is the same in each group. Since this is unlikely to be the case, such analyses are of limited importance. The accepted way to compare economic benefits attributable to commercially caught redfish and those attributable to redfish caught recreationally is to sum the producer's surplus and the consumer's surplus for the commercial catch and to do the same calculation for the recreational catch, and then compare the two. But there was virtual unanimity that adequate data do not exist to make these calculations. This makes the expenditures approach to valuation of red fish taken recreationally one of the few possibilities for quantifying their economic importance. But in a very real way, this approach is all wrong. Attributing fishermen's food and lodging costs to redfish they catch is analogous to allocating to each redfish sold in a restaurant the entire price of the meal, the babysitter's wages, and costs incurred for transportation to the restaurant. An increase in the price of gasoline results in an increase in the value assigned to redfish taken by recreational fishermen, although higher gasoline prices actually make fishing trips and the fish they might yield less attractive. Dr. Austin offered the most interesting approach, an approach which it is instructive to apply to the numbers Mr. Davis supplied on the last day of hearing. Dr. Austin's technique requires identifying the increase in recreational catch attributable to closing the commercial fishery. A close approximation is possible. The proposed rules would close down the commercial fishery by two overlapping devices: the bag limit and the ban on sale. Mr. Davis supplied the GXPOPS predictions of equilibrium effects for the "18 inch option," which differs from the proposed rules in that it has no bag limits does not forbid the sale of native redfish, and has no closed season. According to Mr. Davis, respondent's executive director, recreational fishermen would take 3,950,000 pounds and commercial fishermen would take 1,112,000 pounds of redfish at equilibrium, with the 18 inch option, assuming the fishery did not collapse. At equilibrium under the proposed rules, again assuming the fishery did not collapse, the total annual catch (which would all be recreational) is predicted to amount to 5,650,000 pounds. At equilibrium, the recreational catch with the proposed rules in place would exceed the recreational catch under the 18 inch option by 1,700,000 pounds 1/ (5,650,000 minus 3,950,000 equals 1,700,000). There would be no commercial catch under the proposed rules, but the 18 inch option would result in annual commercial catches of 1,112,000 pounds, at equilibrium. With the methodology developed at page four of the economic impact statement, Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5, it is possible to predict a 5.2 percent increase in recreational trips, or an increase of 14,641 fishing trips annually attributable to choosing the proposed rule over the 18 inch option. (283,078)(.1203)(1,700,000 divided by 3,950,000). If the proposed rules are adopted, the commercial sector's loss, at equilibrium, of 1,112,000 pounds a year may be said to have made possible the increase in recreational trips. Dividing the number of pounds lost by the number of trips gained yields the number of pounds of catch commercial fishermen would have to forego, in order to induce each additional recreational trip. Dividing 1,112,000 by 14,641 yields 76 pounds of commercial catch foregone for each recreational trip induced. The economic impact statement values each recreational trip at $53, citing Bell's study. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, p. 7. This compares with the retail price of 76 pounds of redfish - at $2.70 per pound - of $205.20. Another way to view the economic consequences of reallocation from the commercial to the recreational sector is to compare the relative costs of production, and efficiencies of distribution. Commercial fishermen produce redfish at an approximate cost of $.50 per pound, then introduce them into marketing channels, where they become available to all segments of the population. In contrast, SFI's economist acknowledged that it costs recreational fishermen somewhere between $19.94 and $31.37 per pound to harvest redfish, which is then available only to the sportsman and his circle of acquaintance. In short, the evidence did not establish an economic justification for closing down the commercial fishery and reallocating most of the fish that would have been taken commercially to the recreational sector. Neither the economic impact statement nor its author, who testified at hearing, claimed a net economic benefit would flow from a reallocation of redfish from the commercial to the recreational fishery. The issue of reallocation is, at bottom, a political question. Let Them Eat Mullet Although some people, like Mr. Shapley, may not be particularly interested in eating redfish, redfish is believed by many to be desirable as food. This includes people who do not own boats or go fishing. If native redfish becomes unavailable to Florida consumers, who would otherwise have eaten it, they will have to substitute frozen, imported redfish, or another species of fish or some other source of protein.
Findings Of Fact The first of these difficulties bears primarily on my rulings on the exceptions to the findings of fact. The petitioners urge that they need not attach a transcript to support their exceptions to the findings. The petitioners' assertion is unsound as a general proposition. The law is clear that without a transcript there is no basis for overturning a hearing officer's findings. The Department cannot substitute its interpretation of the facts unless a review of the whole record shows that the findings made by the hearing officer are not supported by competent and substantial evidence. See, e.g., Tuveson v. Florida Governor's Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., 495 So.2d 790, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1987). Moreover, Rule 17-103.200(l) of the Florida Administrative Code specifically requires that ?[a]ny exception disputing a finding of fact . . . be accompanied by a complete transcript of the hearing." The Department therefore must "reject exceptions not supported by a complete transcript." Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 F.A.L.R. 467, 470-71 (Fla. DER 1988); see Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 415 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (upholding nonrule policy of the Department that exceptions not accompanied by complete transcript must be dismissed). In contrast to the facts in Chipola Basin, there is no transcript independently available to the Department to obviate the effect of the failure of the petitioners to file one. Thus, the rule against overturning findings without a transcript compels me to As for the late filing of two sets of exceptions and the propriety of the filing of the third set of exceptions, I shall rule on those legal issues in the rulings on exceptions to conclusions of law, below. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW First, I must reject two sets of the petitioners' exceptions in their entirety for untimely filing. Rule 17-103.200(I) of the Florida Administrative Code requires the rejection of any exceptions "not filed (received) in the Office of General Counsel within the 15 days" after the "the date of filing of a Recommended Order with the Clerk of DOAH," the Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing officer filed the recommended order in this proceeding with the Clerk of DOAH on August 5, 1991. August 20, 1991, was the deadline for filing exceptions. Petitioner Hobdy filed his exceptions a day later. Petitioner Winselmann also filed his exceptions a day late. The language of the rule is specific, clear, and mandatory. I therefore reject the exceptions of Hobdy and Winselmann for failure to comply with this rule. The exceptions filed by a law firm for Residents were timely but are subject to a motion filed by the Applicant to strike all of the petitioners' exceptions. The motion rests on two grounds, the lack of a transcript and the filing of three sets of exceptions (rather than two) by the petitioners. The lack of a transcript is grounds for rejecting exceptions to findings of fact, but not for striking exceptions to conclusions of law. Since the exceptions for Residents except only to conclusions of law, they cannot be struck on this first ground. As to the exceptions of Hobdy and Winselmann, this ground for the motion is moot, because their exceptions have been rejected for late filing. As for the second ground of the motion, the filing of three sets of exceptions, the Applicant has no objection to the filing of exceptions by Hobdy (for himself) or Winselmann (for Residents, the motion alleges) but does object to the additional filing of exceptions for Residents by a law firm that made no previous appearance in this proceeding. I note that Winselmann was not a separate party to this proceeding. He never filed a petition for a hearing in his own name. Instead, he was a member of Residents whom the hearing officer permitted to appear at the hearing "pro se" and who later filed a proposed recommended order noting that he and Petitioner Hobdy had appeared pro se "on behalf of the residents." Petitioner Winselmann filed his exceptions in his own name but wrote them as though representing Residents as a group, referring to "[o]ur property," "[o]ur navigational abilities," "[o]ur recreational values," and "[o]ur canal," repeatedly speaking for the residents as "we." The record does not show whether the hearing officer ever conducted the inquiry required under rule 221-6.008 to determine the adequacy of the qualifications of Winselmann to represent Petitioner Residents. The recommended order refers to Winselmann's appearance only as "pro se," as though he represented only himself. In the absence of the hearing officer's express approval of Winselmann as a qualified representative of Residents, I must conclude that, whatever his subjective intent might be, Winselmann did not legally represent Residents at the hearing or in filing the exceptions. I therefore deny the motion to strike the petitioners' exceptions. In passing, I also note that because no "attorney or other qualified representative (approved by the presiding officer)" previously represented Residents, there was no need for the law firm filing the exceptions for Residents to file a prior notice of appearance. Rule 17-103.020(5) requires such a filing only by a "successor or associated attorney or other qualified representative." Rule 17-103.020(4) makes the filing of the first pleading the notice of appearance, in effect, for the first such representative. Accordingly, I must rule on Residents' exceptions to the conclusions of law. Those exceptions focus on the issue whether the hearing officer erred by recommending an award of attorney's fees against the petitioners. Residents asserts that the hearing officer used the wrong standard in reaching that recommendation. Urging that the correct standard is participation in the proceeding "for an improper purpose," under section 120.59(6) of the Florida Statutes, Residents objects to the hearing officer's reliance on the language in section 57.105 of the Florida Statutes that makes the lack of a justiciable issue of law or fact the basis for an award of attorney's fees. Residents argues that the record evinces at most incompetent representation, rather than any improper purpose, that its members believed in good faith that the project would affect navigation, and that this question of the project's impact on navigation was a justiciable issue of fact, even if the applicable standard for an award of fees is the absence of such an issue of fact or law. Respondent Dolphins Plus has responded to this set of exceptions. The response equates the standard of frivolous participation with that of the lack of any justiciable issue of law or fact, asserts that impact on navigation was not an issue because no evidence was ever presented tending to prove such an impact, and summarizes events at the hearing, including the hearing officer's patient attempts to explain procedural rules and otherwise guide the petitioners. In the absence of a transcript, of course, such a summary of the hearing is simply outside the record before me, and I cannot consider it. The question of the appropriate standard for an award of attorney's fees under section 120.59(6) is not difficult. The statute makes such an award depend on the nonprevailing party's participation in the proceeding for an improper purpose. Section 120.59(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). The statutory definition of "improper purpose" lists four meanings, including "frivolous purpose." This phrase employs words of plain meaning, requiring no special rules of statutory construction to resolve an ambiguity. Although the entry for "frivolous" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary includes the subjective definitions "lacking in seriousness: irresponsibly self-indulgent," and "marked by unbecoming levity," the settled meaning of "frivolous" in the law is the third definition given, that "of little weight or importance." See Webster's New Colleciate Dictionary 461 (1977 ed.); Black's Law Dictionary 601 (5th ed. 1979); cf. Myers v. Hawkins, 362 So.2d 926, 930 (Fla. 1978) (to determine plain meaning of constitutional provision, court begins with dictionary definitions but ultimately chooses meaning for each "term in light of the primary purpose for which it has been adopted"). This third definition is the meaning that the court accepted for "frivolous" in Mercedes Lighting & Electrical Supply, Inc. v. State Department of General Services, 560 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), construing section 120.59(6) of the Florida Statutes. Indeed, numerous cases in Florida have used interchangably the terms "frivolous" and "lacking any justiciable issue of law or fact." See, e.q., Marexcelso Compania Naviera, S.A. v. Florida National Bank, 533 So.2d 805, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Schwartz v. W-K Partners, 530 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Thus, the hearing officer did not err by equating frivolousness with a lack of any justiciable issue of law or fact. Yet these same cases and others clarify that the frivolousness that will justify an award of fees must mark the claim from its inception. A court will not award fees against a litigant whose initial (or amended) claim was nonfrivolous, "even though at some point in the course of litigation it becomes apparent that there no longer remains any justiciable issue of law or fact." Id.; see also State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Thompson, 552 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Marexcelso, 533 So.2d at 805; Schatz v. Wenaas, 510 So.2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Thus, the crux of the issue is not solely whether the petitioners failed to present any evidence at the hearing so as to show any justiciable issue of law or fact, but whether such failure was accompanied by a failure to raise such an issue in the first place. Despite the hearing officer's "finding" here that "there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact," the question of justiciability is one of law, and the purported finding is really a conclusion of law. Under section 120.57(1)(b)10 of the Florida Statutes, I may reject or modify such a conclusion. Having reviewed the two petitions and the photographs attached to the petition for Residents, I must conclude that, however unartfully, both petitions raised at least one justiciable issue of fact, concerning the putative effect of the project on navigation, under section 403.918(2) of the Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, the petition for Residents alleges that the fence would "severely impact [the petitioner residents') use of the canal" because its removal of part of "the canal turning basin" would restrict them to using only "small boats which can turn around within the canal itself." Petition of Residents para. 3. Although it is true that "navigation" as used in section 403.918(2) "is primarily associated with the use of publicly used shipping lanes or channels," Clarke v. Melton, 12 F.A.L.R. 4946, 4952 (Fla. DER 1990), the Department does consider the impacts of small structures such as docks on the navigability of small boats, in weighing the impact on navigation of projects under section 403.918(2). See Riverside Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Adventure Construction & Canvas, Inc., 9 F.A.L.R. 6207 (Fla. DER 1987); Ryan v. Spang, 8 F.A.L.R. 4288 (Fla. DER 1986). The petition for Hobdy raises this same issue, though described only as an effect on Hobdy's own use of his boat. In addition, Hobdy's petition questions whether the housing of large mammals in the stranding pen would adversely affect water quality in the canal. These two questions are "not so free of doubt as to render [each] . . . claim frivolous," for purposes of awarding a fee. See Scott v. Durlinc, 471 So.2d 658, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA (1985). Under Schwartz and other cases cited above, the failure of Residents to support this allegation at the hearing, at least on the basis of the record before me, does not warrant an award of fees. Reinforcing this conclusion is an earlier ruling of the hearing officer that excluded evidence on this very issue. His order granting the motion to limit issues eliminated the question of impact on navigation before the hearing. His ruling therefore may have contributed to the failure of these petitioners, obviously not expert in administrative procedure, to present competent substantial evidence at the the hearing. Cf. Harbor Estates v. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 F.A.L.R. 2392 (Fla. DER 1990) (failure of hearing officer to issue subpoenas contributed to failure of petitioners to produce witnesses at hearing and undercut recommendation to award fees). At the same time, neither of the respondents ever sought to strike the petitions as being filed for an improper purpose (because allegedly lacking any justiciable issue), and the hearing officer never ordered the dismissal of either of the petitions on such basis. For "the orderly conduct of proceedings," the court in Mercedes Lichting suggested such an order "at the earliest stage at which a violation of the statute can be determined," for an award of fees under section 120.57(1)(b)5 (providing for awards of fees for filing any pleading or other paper for an improper purpose). See Mercedes Lighting 560 So.2d at 279. There is no reason not to apply the same general principle to awards under section 120.59(6). Cf. Harvey v. Trans Pac, Inc., 12 F.A.L.R. 4378, 4379 (Fla. DER 1990) (reading the two statutes together in light of this guidance from the court in Mercedes Lighting. That this matter went to hearing without such a motion or order leads me to conclude that the parties and the hearing officer at first thought that one or more of the issues raised in the petitions were justiciable. Despite the apparent ineptness of the petitioners' representation here, there is no direct evidence of improper purpose for the participation of the petitioners. The hearing officer emphasized the petitioners' failure to understand "the applicable law, the proper scope of the formal hearing, and the distinction between argument and evidence." Recommended Order at 15. Petitioners attempted to present evidence at the hearing, including the testimony of witnesses, but the hearing officer found none of the evidence relevant or material. The Florida Administrative Procedure Act liberally expands public access to agency action, taking the risk that lay representation will not always be effective. See The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So.2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1980). Although section 120.59(6) sets a limit on such access, it is far from clear that mere ignorance or ineffective representation is tantamount to participation for an improper purpose. See Harvey, 12 F.A.L.R. at 4379-80. In this context, and in the absence of direct evidence of an improper purpose, I am reluctant to make "the legal inference that would supply the connection between acts demonstrating incompetent representation by a party's lay representative and a finding of participation by that party for an improper purpose within the meaning of Section 120.59(6), Florida Statutes." See Harbor Estates, 12 F.A.L.R. at 2398. In accordance with section 120.57(1)(b)10 of the Florida Statutes, I accept the hearing officer's findings of fact in this matter, except for the conclusion of law (mislabeled a finding) that there was no justiciable issue of law or fact. For all the reasons given above, I reject that conclusion and the recommendation of an award of fees and costs to Respondent Dolphins Plus. As for the motion by Petitioner Hobdy for attorney's fees costs, on the ground that the attorney for Dolphins Plus presented a frivolous case and filed a frivolous motion for attorney's fees, Dolphins Plus is the prevailing party in these proceedings. Its case was not frivolous. Although it did not prevail in moving for fees and costs, its motion for such fees was not frivolous. The hearing officer recommended an award of such fees, and the issue merited serious consideration in this final order. The motion by Hobdy for fees is without merit. MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTARY RULINGS On two occasions, October 7 and October 8, 1991, the Department received correspondence from Petitioner Winselmann purporting to offer further argument in regard to the issues before me. These ex parte communications have been disregarded in the preparation of this Final Order, and to the extent they could be viewed as unauthorized further exceptions or responses to exceptions, they are sua sponte stricken.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order on the Merits denying Petitioners' protest of the permit and awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs in accordance with this Recommended Order. Jurisdiction over the issue of the amount of attorney's fees is retained and shall be determined in a separate formal hearing to be conducted only in the event the parties are unable to agree on the amount of attorney's fees that is reasonable. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of August, 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1991.
