Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as those facts stipulated to by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., is a not-for- profit incorporated association of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, employing approximately 14,000 employees, and including 450 corporate and individual members. The executive offices of Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. are located at 312 East Georgia Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1791. The members of Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., either catch, process, transport or sell Spanish mackerel and Spanish mackerel constitutes a major part of their business and livelihood. Petitioner, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., is a not-for-profit incorporated association of 2,000 commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, with its headquarters at P. O. Box 740, Melbourne, Florida 32901. Petitioner, Harry H. Bell & Sons, Inc., is a fish processor and sales company employing about 210 employees, located at 756-28th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33712. A large percentage of the fish processed by Harry H. Bell & Sons, Inc., are Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, Bayside Shellfish, Inc., is a fish processor and fish seller, located at P.O. Box 176, Apalachicola, Florida 32320. This petitioner also obtains a substantial amount of its business through the processing and sale of Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, Inlet Fisheries, Inc., is a corporation with its headquarters at P. O. Box 3604, Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450, which unloads and ships fish, and, in particular, Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, J. O. Guthrie, Inc., is a fish processor located at P.O. Box 895, Ruskin, Florida 33570. This petitioner processes fish, including Spanish mackerel, which makes up a high percentage of its fish processing. Petitioner, C. & W. Fish Co., Inc., is a company which unloads and ships fresh fish, located at P.O. Box 1356, Port Salerno, Florida 33492. This petitioner earns its living from the loading and shipping of fresh fish including Spanish mackerel. Petitioner, City Fish Company, Inc., also unloads and ships fish and is located at 3880 Gulf View Avenue, Marathon, Florida 33050. Intervenor, Florida Conservation Association, located at 402 West College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, is an affiliate of the Coastal Conservation Association, a non-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Texas. Effective November 28, 1985, the Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) adopted rules relating to the commercial harvesting of Spanish mackerel on the East Coast of Florida. As pertinent to this proceeding, those rules prohibited the harvesting of Spanish mackerel by power-assisted gill netting in Dade and Palm Beach Counties, and imposed a 3 and one half-inch mesh size minimum for the monofilament portion of gill nets used to take Spanish mackerel from the remainder of the East Coast of Florida until March 15, 1990. After that date, the entire net was to have a minimum mesh size of 3 and one half inch stretched mesh. These net size requirements were applicable to all gill nets used on the East Coast to harvest Spanish mackerel during the period from November 15th to March 15th. The existing rule allows the harvest of Spanish mackerel as an incidental by-catch of other lawfully targeted species, so long as the combined weight does not exceed 15 percent of the total weight of the lawfully harvested species. The challenged proposed amendments to the MFC's Spanish mackerel rules continue the Palm Beach and Dade Counties gill net closures; establish gill net minimum sizes for three different regions of Florida; closes the weekend harvesting of Spanish mackerel by use of any nets; establishes set seasons for operators of vessels greater than 40 feet in length using power- assisted gill nets, said seasons subject to being shortened if the total regional commercial catch is projected to reach a specified poundage; and imposes a limit on the number of Spanish mackerel which recreational fishermen may possess per day. More specifically, the challenged proposed rules impose the following net size requirements on the harvesting of Spanish mackerel for the three regions of Florida. For the East Coast, defined as those state waters north of the Dade-Monroe County line, the period of the 3 and one half inch mesh size for the monofilament portion of gill nets is shortened to October 1, 1988, with the required minimum size being increased to 3 5/8- inches thereafter until October 1, 1990, whereupon all portions of gill nets are to be 3 5/5 inches stretched mesh. For the Southwest Coast, defined as state waters between the Taylor-Dixie County line and the Dade-Monroe County line, the minimum monofilament portion mesh size is 3 3/8 inches until October 1, 1988, increasing to 3 5/8 thereafter until October 1, 1990, whereupon the entire net is to have a minimum mesh size of 3 5/8 inches stretched mesh. The corresponding requirement for the Northwest Coast, defined as state waters west of the Taylor-Dixie County line, is 3 inches until October 1, 1988, increasing to 3 5/8 inches thereafter. Except for the 15 percent by-catch allowance provided in the existing rule, harvesting Spanish mackerel by use of any net is prohibited in all three regions on weekends, defined as commencing at sunset on Friday and ending at sunset on the following Sunday. Identical commercial fishing seasons for the use of power-assisted gill net gear by vessels greater than 40 feet in length are set for all three regions of Florida. That season opens on December 15 of each year and closes on November 1 of the following year. For other forms of commercial harvesting of Spanish mackerel, the season is year-round, or defined as from December 15 through December 14 of the following year. However, the proposed rule, Rule 46- 23.004, provides a mechanism for shortening the seasons in each region for all forms of commercial fishing (except for the various by-catch allowances) when the total harvest for each region reaches a specified number of pounds. For the larger vessels using power-assisted gill nets, the seasons for the East Coast, Southwest Coast and Northwest Coast close prior to November 1st if the total regional commercial harvest is projected to reach, respectively, 1,670,400 pounds, 1,350,900 pounds and 354,600 pounds. For commercial fishermen using other types of gear, the year-round season will close when the total regional commercial harvest in the season reaches, before December 14, 1,856,000 pounds (East Coast), 1,501,000 pounds (Southwest Coast) and 394,000 pounds (Northwest Coast). In addition to the 15 percent by-catch allowance previously mentioned, the proposed rule also excepts from the required season closures Spanish mackerel harvested as an incidental by-catch of other lawfully targeted species so long as the total weight of mackerel does not exceed 500 pounds, as well as those harvested with a net size greater than 4 inches stretched mesh used to lawfully harvest another target species. When the specified poundages which trigger the closing of the seasons are projected to be reached, the proposed rule provides for the giving of notice by the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources in the manner provided in Section 120.52(15)(d), Florida Statutes. Proposed Rule 46-23.005 sets forth a bag limit for recreational fishermen which applies during all times of the year. That limit is four Spanish mackerel per person per day. Because of evidence indicating that the abundance of Spanish mackerel in Florida is declining, the MFC began considering that fishery as a subject of possible regulation in March of 1984. Stock assessments were performed and updated, federal studies and mackerel fishery management plans were considered, various workshops and meetings were held, and numerous management option papers and alternatives were considered. Many of the witnesses in the instant rule- challenge proceeding appeared before, testified or otherwise provided input to the MFC during the rule promulgation process. In considering the proposed regulations, the MFC had before it evidence that commercial and recreational landings of Spanish mackerel had substantially decreased since the 1970's and that seasonal and areal compression had occurred in this fishery. While it could not be concluded with certainty whether the resource was experiencing recruitment overfishing or growth overfishing, the MFC determined that the resource was being overfished to the extent that a reduction in effort and an increase in the size of the fish caught was necessary to protect, conserve and recover the resource. While single year or seasonal commercial and recreational landing statistics may not be entirely accurate due to under-reporting, they are reliable indicators of trends and can be utilized to indicate abundance. Likewise, declining commercial landing statistics can be indicative of a decline in the effort directed toward harvesting and/or market conditions. In approximately 1977, there were over 120 large roller rig boats in the Spanish mackerel fishery. At the present time, there are approximately 41 large roller rig vessels utilized to commercially harvest Spanish mackerel. The size of fish desired in the market has changed somewhat, with a declining demand for the smaller fish. While the price of Spanish mackerel per pound has remained relatively stable over the past ten or more years, its price in relationship to other species of fish and shellfish has declined. The above factors, as well as the voluntary use of larger mesh size nets and the recent closure of Palm Beach and Dade Counties, may provide some rationale for the decline in commercial landing statistics since the 1970's. However, given the evidence concerning a decline in recreational landings, seasonal and areal compressions, and the increased capacity of large power-assisted gill netting vessels, it was not unreasonable for the MFC to conclude that the decline in commercial landings is indicative of a decline in abundance resulting from overfishing. The conceptual goal of the proposed rules is to return the Spanish mackerel fishery to the condition in which it was in the early 1970's. In order to accomplish this goal, the MFC determined to effect an approximate 45 percent reduction in efforts devoted to harvesting and to effect an increase in the size of the fish harvested for commercial purposes. The minimum gear size proposed is directed toward the desired fish size, and the reduction in effort goal is to be accomplished through continued closures of certain areas, weekend closures, and the establishment of commercial seasons, commercial season catch limits and recreational bag limits. Gill mesh nets are highly selective for a specific size of fish. A 1/8 inch difference in gill net mesh size makes a significant amount of difference in the size of the fish caught. The large nets utilized for Spanish mackerel harvesting can cost up to $20,000.00, with the monofilament portion of the net costing between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00. Due to destruction by sharks and normal wear and tear, the life expectancy of the monofilament portion of a gill net is between 1/2 to 3 seasons. The initial minimum mesh sizes proposed in the challenged rules for the monofilament portion of gill nets are reflective of the sizes currently being utilized in the industry in each of the three regions specified in the rule. No conclusive scientific data exists on a statewide basis as to the size of fish that will be captured using a 3 5/8 inch gill net mesh size. The MFC does intend to gather more data concerning gill net mesh size selectivity, and that is one of the reasons the proposed rule delays imposition of the 3 5/8 inch requirement until October of 1988. The evidence does demonstrate that Spanish mackerel in the Northwest Coast region or Panhandle area tend to be longer and thinner with less yield per fish than those found in the East Coast or Southwest Coast areas. There is insufficient evidence to conclude, however, that the Gulf Spanish mackerel stock and the Atlantic Spanish mackerel stock constitute two separate populations. Due to the seasonal migration of the Spanish mackerel in a southerly and northerly direction along the East Coast of Florida, it is impossible to determine the precise impact on effort reduction of the closure of Palm Beach and Dade Counties. The MFC heard evidence from commercial fishermen that the impact from closing those areas could result in a reduction in catch of at least 30 percent. The MFC's calculation of a lower percentage was not unreasonable given the large capacity of the power-assisted gill net industry and the potential for harvesting Spanish mackerel while en route to or from these closed counties. The proposed season catch limits for commercial fishermen are intended to provide a backup to the other effort reduction measures in the proposed rules. It is intended that if the commercial seasons for larger power-assisted rigs, the weekend closures, the increased net sizes, and the areal closures do not significantly reduce the actual landings of Spanish mackerel in Florida, then the season for all commercial fishing can be shortened to effectuate such a result. The quota for each region constitutes a fixed cap on commercial landings per season. Consequently, if abundance does increase, there is no automatic mechanism in the proposed rule for increasing season catch limits. This, of course, will result in the unreliability of landing statistics alone as an indicator of stock abundance. Because the proposed rule contains no restrictions upon the number of recreational fishermen who may enter the fishery, no season for recreational fishing and no limit upon the number of fish caught, as opposed to possessed, by recreational fishermen, the rule could cause some reallocation of the Spanish mackerel fishery from the commercial sector to the recreational sector. In recent years, the commercial sector has maintained at least a 75 percent share of the Spanish mackerel resource. Within the commercial sector, there is no domestic substitute for Spanish mackerel.
The Issue The issue presented in DOAH Case No. 93-3290RX is whether Rule 46-3.028, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and the issue presented in DOAH Case No. 93-5549RP is whether the proposed amendment to that Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Menhaden are a species of herring. They are tightly-schooling fish which travel at the water surface. Menhaden are generally harvested as bait or for industrial products. Menhaden are planktivorous, or plankton-eating, fish which thrive in highly eutrophic aquatic environments. Portions of the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties become highly eutrophic during the summer months. Each summer menhaden congregate in the highly eutrophic areas of the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, resulting in overcrowding and consequent suffocation of large numbers of fish. These summer fish kill in certain regions of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties are considered a nuisance and a public health problem. To alleviate the problem, the Department of Environmental Protection has issued Special Activities Licenses to permit purse seining of menhaden in these regions during the summer months. Petitioner Blanchard is a commercial fisherman and owner of a fish net business. He has fished in the local waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties for many years. In 1978, the Legislature enacted Chapter 78-501 and Chapter 78-502, Laws of Florida, which prohibited fishing in the salt-waters of Escambia or Santa Rosa Counties with a net having a mesh of less than 2 5/8 inches stretched. After the effective date of those special laws, Petitioner Blanchard continued his fishing operations by using a purse seine net with a mesh of 2 5/8 inches. After the creation of the Marine Fisheries Commission in 1983, the Commission held hearings in various locations in the State of Florida where citizens could come and discuss local laws which they wanted changed or not. Such generic local public hearings were held in Escambia County and in Santa Rosa County in August of 1987 and in November of 1989. No evidence was offered that changes to Chapters 78-501 and 78-502 were discussed at those meetings or that any notice that such changes would be discussed was published. During 1991, the Commission engaged in rulemaking to promulgate a statewide rule regulating net sizes and meshes and types of fishing gear. During the final public hearing in August of 1992 held in St. Augustine, Florida, the Commission changed its proposed statewide gear rule which had proposed to ban all seine nets, determining instead that it would prohibit purse seining but would allow haul seining and beach seining. The statewide gear rule, which went into effect, prohibited the use of purse seine nets in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. No evidence was offered as to the notices issued or the steps engaged in during that rulemaking process. At the time that the Commission passed its statewide gear rule prohibiting the use of purse seine nets in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, it was aware that it was repealing Chapters 78-501 and 78-502, Laws of Florida, which had become rules of the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Chapters 83-134 and 84-121, Laws of Florida. At the time that it adopted the statewide rule, however, the Commission believed that purse seine netting was already banned in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties and believed, therefore, that it was making no change to the local fishing regulations in those counties. At the time, the Commission did not know that a small scale menhaden purse seining fishery existed in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. The Commission's reading of the unambiguous language of Chapters 78- 501 and 78-502 was clearly erroneous. The Commission had not intended to ban an existing menhaden purse seine fishery in those waters. Petitioner Blanchard filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court in Escambia County over the repeal of the allowance of purse seine nets with a minimum mesh of 2 5/8 inches and the ban on purse seine nets in those local waters. That litigation was dismissed due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner Blanchard then filed the challenge to the existing rule which is the subject of this proceeding. In an attempt to resolve the issues raised in Petitioner Blanchard's rule challenge, the Commission proposed to amend Section (3) of Rule 46-3.028, Florida Administrative Code, to correct its unintended ban of an ongoing menhaden purse seine fishery by permitting instead a limited harvest of menhaden using purse seines in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Under the proposed rule, which is also the subject of this proceeding, menhaden may be harvested in specified areas of the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties landward of the Colregs Demarcation Line with the use of a purse seine net only from a vessel with a documented length of less than 40 feet and with a purse seine net no longer than 400 yards. The proposed rule further provides that no harvesting of menhaden with a purse seine shall occur during any weekend or on any state holiday, limits any incidental bycatch to 2 percent by weight of all fish in possession of the harvester, and requires that any fish for which the Commission has established a bag limit shall be released free, alive, and unharmed. The proposed rule also includes a two-stage quota and an established fishing season for the commercial harvest of menhaden in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties which opens on June 1st of each year and closes on May 31st of the following year unless it is closed earlier in accordance with quota limits. The summer quota allows a commercial harvest of menhaden in those Counties' waters of 1,000,000 pounds during the period from June 1st to October 31st of each year. If that quantity is not netted, the season is closed on November 1st by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection and not reopened until the following June 1st. The winter season offers a quota of an additional 2,000,000 pounds. If the total commercial harvest of menhaden in those counties reaches 3,000,000 pounds (the 1,000,000 pounds during the summer plus the 2,000,000 pounds during the winter) before May 31st, the menhaden season for the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties shall be closed on the date that the harvest is projected to reach that amount and shall not reopen until the following June 1st. The Commission began the rulemaking procedures for the proposed amendment to Section (3) of Rule 46-3.028, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner Florida Conservation Association (hereinafter "FCA") filed its challenge to the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, the Commission makes a specific finding that the harvest of menhaden through the use of purse seine nets in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties during the summer months serves the public purpose of avoiding the nuisance and public health problems associated with the menhaden die-offs. The Commission also specifically finds that harvesting menhaden with purse seines will not adversely affect the long-term abundance of menhaden in the area so long as appropriate restrictions on seasonal and total annual harvest are adopted. Menhaden bring a low economic return in the marketplace. During the summer months when demand is low, commercial fishermen are paid approximately $.05 per pound for menhaden. The price increases slightly during the winter months when there is a demand for menhaden, for example, in Louisiana where it is used as bait for crawfish traps and crab traps. That demand is primarily served by large commercial operations using large vessels and long nets to harvest menhaden in the Gulf of Mexico, not in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Similarly, the fish reduction industry (the processing of fish such as menhaden to make fish meal and to extract fish oils for industrial purposes) is primarily served by large commercial operations harvesting menhaden in the Gulf of Mexico. There is a Marine Fisheries Information System maintained by the Florida Marine Research Institute of the Department of Environmental Protection. Licensed wholesale seafood dealers fill out trip tickets reporting the type of fish, amount of fish caught, and the county where the fish are landed, whenever those dealers purchase fish from licensed fishermen. The Department receives approximately 30,000 trip tickets per month from its approximately 700 licensed wholesale seafood dealers in the State of Florida. The data from those trip tickets is entered into a computer, and the resulting statistics are relied upon by the State of Florida and by the federal government to make fishery management decisions. It can take as long as six months for the data to become part of the computer data base and as long as two years for all of the data to be edited and considered to be in final form. Because of that time lag, the Florida Marine Research Institute has implemented procedures for fish which are subject to quotas. For those fish, employees of the Institute do not wait to receive trip tickets from the dealers; rather, they commence telephone contact with the dealers who historically deal in that type of fish, maintaining telephone contact on a daily basis if necessary when it is projected that the harvest quota may be reached. Although menhaden are both a bait fish and an industrial fish, they are required to be coded on the trip tickets specifically as menhaden and not under the general category of industrial fish. Reporting on the trip tickets the name of the county where the fish were landed is mandatory although reporting the area fished, i.e., where the fish are actually caught, is optional. Although there is some evidence that menhaden caught in Tampa Bay were sometimes landed there and then transported by truck along the interstate highway system to fish houses and processing plants in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, there is no evidence that menhaden caught in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties have been transported by boat and landed outside of those counties. Further, there is no likelihood that such will be done under the limited boat and net size required under the proposed rule. There is no evidence that it is economically feasible for such small boats to travel through Escambia Bay and into the Gulf of Mexico to other counties or states to avoid reporting their menhaden harvest. Although it would be better for the Department's trip tickets to report the area where the fish were caught, it is likely that menhaden harvested by boats under 40 feet in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties will be landed in those counties and, therefore, captured by the Department's information gathering system, as it is currently operated. The menhaden team of the National Marine Fisheries Service, in cooperation with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, has calculated the maximum sustainable yield for Gulf of Mexico menhaden at 1.75 billion pounds. The maximum sustainable yield is the amount of fish that can be harvested annually without depleting the population of that fish. The 1993 menhaden harvest from the entire Gulf of Mexico was 1.19 billion pounds. The National Marine Fisheries Service performs annual stock assessments of Gulf menhaden. Its current assessment is that menhaden are not being overfished in the Gulf of Mexico. The federal government considers Gulf of Mexico menhaden as a single stock for management purposes. There are no indications that there is a biological problem in the Gulf-wide menhaden fishery. The Gulf stock of menhaden has been increasing in numbers since 1960. The proposed rule provides for a managed fishery for menhaden in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties by allowing a limited harvest. The 1,000,000 pound quota for the summer portion of the fishing season is consistent with the volume of menhaden harvested in the inside waters of those Counties at the behest of those local governments and pursuant to the Department's Special Activities Licenses issued to reduce the fish die-offs in those areas, plus the volume of dead menhaden which the local governments haul to the landfill yearly. The overall 3,000,000 pound annual harvest quota was determined by calculating the peak landings for that area which had been approximately 2.1 to 2.2 million pounds yearly, plus the approximate 640,000 pounds of dead menhaden hauled away. Therefore, the summer quota of 1,000,000 pounds, plus the winter quota of 2,000,000 pounds, comprising the annual quota of 3,000,000 pounds, is a reasonable sustainable harvest. The proposed rule will serve a public purpose by helping to alleviate the summer menhaden kills in the upper bayous in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties and will not adversely affect the menhaden population for the Gulf of Mexico. Until 1988, there was an active menhaden fishery in Tampa Bay. Suddenly, there was a dramatic decline or collapse of the Tampa Bay menhaden fishery. There still exists a lively debate on whether the disappearance of menhaden from Tampa Bay was caused by over-fishing and/or the 1988 massive acid spill into the Alafia River by the Gardinier Corporation and/or improved water quality in Tampa Bay and/or whether the disappearance of menhaden in Tampa Bay was caused by a shift in the range of where menhaden are found. There are dissimilarities between Tampa Bay and Escambia Bay. Tampa Bay was on the edge of the range for menhaden, while Escambia Bay is in the middle of the range of the menhaden population. Spotter planes were used in Tampa Bay to locate the schools of menhaden, but spotter planes have not been used to locate menhaden in Escambia Bay. Moreover, there were no regulations in place for the menhaden fishery in Tampa Bay. The proposed rule would limit and control the menhaden harvest in Escambia Bay at a time when the population is plentiful and a decline is not expected. The proposed rule with its two-phase quota has been developed by the Commission in a conscious attempt to avoid what happened in Tampa Bay. The quota prevents the dramatic increase in menhaden harvests which occurred in Tampa Bay and provides that if the summer quota is not met, which would signal a decline in the population, the fishery is automatically closed. Although menhaden have been harvested by large "motherships" in the Gulf of Mexico, mothership operations have not been conducted in Escambia Bay or the other waters in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Even with mothership operations, fish are removed from the nets and loaded directly onto the mothership. They are not caught by small boats, loaded onto those small boats, then off loaded from the small boats onto the mothership. Motherships would also be prohibited in those waters since the proposed rule limits the size of vessels to under 40 feet. The Commission does not have a mandate to ban commercial fishing in the State of Florida. Rather, its mandate is to allow reasonable means and quantities of harvest, which the proposed rule does but which the total ban under the existing regulation does not. The proposed rule also allows for a reasonable management of resources, while the existing rule does not. The proposed rule is based upon the best information available to the Commission at this time. On the other hand, the ban contained in the existing rule was enacted in the absence of data showing the need for a ban. Prior to passage of the existing ban, no studies were done, no data was gathered, and there was no finding as to any problem with the menhaden fishery in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Commission) should renew Respondent's permit to possess captive wildlife.
Findings Of Fact Operating under the name of South Florida Reptile Exchange, Respondent, Alvin Weinberg, has been permitted since 1978 by the Commission to possess captive wildlife. On September 2, 1992, the Commission issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to deny renewal of Respondent's permit for violations of minimum pen specifications and unsanitary and inhumane conditions at his facility. Under Rule 39-5.004, Florida Administrative Code, the Commission may revoke or deny renewal of any license or permit if the licensee or permittee is convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a violation of Chapter 372, Florida Statutes, or of the rules of the Commission. On June 16, 1992, Respondent's facility was inspected by Lt. Charles Dennis and Lt. John West. In the course of that inspection, they found a number of unsanitary and inhumane conditions. Specifically, most of the water bowls for the animals were empty. There were dead animals, maggots and an accumulation of fecal matter in many cages. Up to 150 turtles were kept in one pit that measured only 5' X 5'. Many reptiles had not been fed properly. For instance, one Monitor lizard was so emaciated that the inspectors were surprised it was still alive. The conditions found at Respondent's facility on June 16, 1992, were the worst seen in the 17 years experience of Lt. Dennis. Respondent was issued two criminal citations on the basis of these observations, for violations of a Commission rule relating to sanitation requirements and the humane treatment of captive wildlife, Rule 39-6.0023(5), Florida Administrative Code. These citations resulted in a criminal conviction of Respondent in St. Lucie County Court, Cases 92-1754MM and 92-1755MM. Respondent was previously issued a criminal citation in July of 1991 for violation of a Commission rule relating to sanitation requirements and humane treatment of wildlife at his facility. This citation also had resulted in a criminal conviction in St. Lucie County Court, Case 91-1345MM. Before these criminal proceedings, Respondent had received warning citations from inspectors for violations of Commission rules relating to sanitation and the humane treatment of animals. During the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent's facility was inspected again on January 6, 1993. Some conditions at the facility had improved, but there were still deficiencies related to sanitation and the humane treatment of the animals. Respondent has consistently been below the industry standard with respect to sanitary conditions and the humane treatment of wildlife kept at his facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's application to renew his permit to possess captive wildlife be DENIED by Final Order of the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 8th day of March 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Knight III Assistant General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Mr. Alvin H. Weinberg South Florida Reptile Exchange 20510 Glades Cutoff Road Port St. Lucie, Florida 34987 Colonel Robert M. Brantly Executive Director Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 James Antista, General Counsel Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Environmental Protection was the state agency responsible for the regulation of certain activities conducted on and in the coastal waters of this state. Respondent was a commercial crab fisherman operating out of Tarpon Springs, Florida. In the operation of his business, Respondent, James Ikey House, places and maintains several thousand wooden crab traps in the waters off western- central Florida for the purpose of catching stone crabs. He, or someone in his employ, builds his traps on his premises. Late in the afternoon on September 2, 1993, Marine Patrol Officer Umberto Navarro, while on duty as a land patrol from Tarpon Springs to St. Petersburg Beach, on Roosevelt Boulevard in Tarpon Springs, saw a stack of greenish colored crab traps on a lot beside the street. The greenish color of the traps he saw that day made him wonder what they had been dipped into for preservation. Navarro's family has been in the commercial fishing business for years and some are competitors of the Respondent in the Tarpon Springs area. He contends this has nothing whatever to do with his investigation, however. He has worked with fishermen all his life and before becoming a Marine Patrol officer, he built thousands of crab traps similar to those he saw that day and dipped them in motor oil as a preservative. Navarro saw a young boy on Respondent's premises dipping bundles of slats into a vat containing a dark liquid. The slats were 2 to 3 feet long and were tied with string, and based on his experience in the business, and the fact that a lot of the prepared and stacked traps were the same color as the wood being dipped, Navarro concluded that they were going to be made into crab traps. He asked the lad to whom the traps belonged and subsequently found out they were owned by the Respondent. When Respondent came to the site where Navarro was talking to the boy and the boy's father, Respondent's grandson and son respectively, Navarro, after identifying himself as a Marine Patrol officer, asked Respondent if the traps were his. In response, Respondent asked, "What's it to you?" Navarro then asked Respondent what the substance being used was and explained why he asked. He advised Respondent that it was unlawful to dip crab traps, or the material to be made into traps, in any substance made from petroleum. Respondent asked to see where that was in the law and Navarro showed him the statutory provision included in a book of relevant laws and rules carried by all Marine Patrol officers. Even when this was shown to Respondent, he remained hostile and uncooperative, though he ultimately stated he was using mineral oil and copper as a dip. Only when Navarro said he would take a sample of the substance did Respondent admit the dip contained a petroleum product, and he said he guessed that he was in violation of the law along with the other million people who dipped traps. Officer Navarro went over to where the dip substance was being used and asked if Respondent had any cans from which it had come around for him to look at. Respondent refused to show Navarro any cans, so as a result, even though he did not have a search warrant to do so, Navarro started to take a sample for further identification. With that, Respondent told Navarro to get off his property. Nonetheless, Officer Navarro took two samples of the substance using a piece of what appeared to him to be abandoned water hose he saw lying on the ground. One was taken from the vat in which the slats were being dipped, and the other was taken from a 55 gallon drum of the substance nearby. He did so because he saw what he considered to be a crime being committed in front of him and he wanted to preserve a sample of the substance being used. Navarro gave Respondent a receipt for the samples and the hose. He did not take any of the traps. He also took photographs of the scene including the dip process, the stacked traps, and the surrounding locale. Respondent objected to the pictures being taken. The substance was subsequently released to Mr. Rossbach of the Department's Emergency Response office who had the samples analyzed by an independent accredited laboratory. In determining what tests to run on the substance, Mr. Rossbach and the laboratory official considered its appearance and its odor, and based on that, the laboratory personnel suggested what tests should be done. Mr. Rossbach got prices for those tests and, before approving their completion, took the samples back to his office, secured a purchase order for the tests, and then took the samples back to the lab for analysis. The report of the tests done on these samples indicated the substance contained a significant amount of copper and mineral spirits, a petroleum product. The total cost of the investigation into this incident by the Department, including the laboratory analysis which was priced at $855.00, came to $1156.26. This figure also includes the mileage for the patrol car, the cost of sample jars, a proration of the salaries of the Marine Patrol and Department personnel involved, photography costs, and clerical expenses. In addition, the Department proposes to assess a fine of $500.00. In this regard, the Department has authority to assess a fine of up to $10,000 per day for pollution violations proscribed by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. In 1990, the Florida Legislature revised Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, to provide that after 1990, no traps may be impregnated with a petroleum based solution. After 1995, no traps which have been impregnated with a petroleum based solution may be used in the waters of this State. The statute was drafted this way to allow those fishermen who had traps already impregnated at the time the statute was passed to use them until they wore out or for a reasonable time prior to the effective date of the prohibition against their use. Captain House categorically denies having dipped any of the traps Navarro saw stacked, or any of the traps he has used since 1989, in mineral spirits though before the law was changed he used to do so. He has been a commercial fisherman for 50 years, and while he formerly dipped his traps to preserve the wood and keep worms out, he no longer does so because of the cost of the chemicals and the labor to do it. He now uses commercially treated lumber to fabricate the traps which, though more expensive to buy, is cheaper for his purposes than the cost of regular wood plus the treatment process. The vat which Mr. Navarro saw contains a green liquid which is made up of mineral spirits and a copper wood preservative. Respondent claims he uses the wood which is dipped into the vat for a variety of purposes and, on occasion, gives it to others. He also lets others use his vat to dip their wood. The dipping is done to protect the wood against rot and he uses it in boat building and in the construction and maintenance of two houses he owns in Tarpon Springs. He claims not to have used it for crab traps, however. Respondent claims Officer Navarro's inquiry into his operation is the result of commercial competition. There is no evidence of this however. Respondent also claims that from his inquiry of a Ms. Moegling of the same laboratory which conducted the analysis for the Department, he was advised that it would take between 5 and 7 days to test for suspected petroleum products, and that the test would cost $150.00. The report of analysis done by the lab reflects a comprehensive testing for numerous chemicals. Respondent took a sample of his dip to another laboratory, Personal Services Industries, Inc., in Clearwater on May 18, 1994, where he paid $115.00 for an analysis of the substance. There was no evidence as to what the result of this analysis was, however, or what tests were completed. In light of the fact that the statute and rule prohibit dipping in petroleum based products, a less comprehensive test than that run here would have sufficed. Though there is no direct evidence of the cost of such a test, other than theestimate by PSI, Inc. of $115.00, and the cite of a fee of $150.00 to Respondent by a representative of V.O.C. Analytical Laboratories, Inc., it would seem reasonable that such a test could be done for less than $855.00. Using the cited alternative costs as a guide, the sum of $150.00 appears reasonable. Respondent also presented several receipts for the purchase of lumber which he claims was pressure treated lumber to be used for the construction of his crab traps. Again, the documents do not indicate that the lumber is pressure treated, and as with the results of the independent analysis, the only evidence of Respondent's claims is his own testimony. Respondent also introduced three affidavits from individuals who claim to be aware of Respondent's activity from witnessing his conduct for anywhere from three to twelve years. Each of these individuals claims to have seen Respondent build many crab traps, but none has ever seen him dip the traps in or spray them with chemicals. The statements are hearsay and the similarity of the language of these affidavits leads to the conclusion they were prepared in advance by Respondent or his representative and submitted to the affiant for signature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner pay a fine of $500.00 and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $451.26. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 23rd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted but not relevant to any issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not proven. & 24. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's post hearing submittal did not constitute Proposed Findings of Fact, but more an analysis of and argument on the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Maureen M. Malvern, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Brad D. Hicks Qualified Personal Representative percent House 514 Island Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 James Ikey house 514 Island Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following facts are found: At all time material to these proceedings, Respondent DiFalco, was employed by Sears Termite and Pest Control (Sears) of Tallahassee, Florida, a licensee as defined in Section 482.021(12), Florida Statues. Although Respondent was an employee of a licensee, Sears, there was no evidence that Respondent was a "certified operator", or an "identification cardholder" or a "special identification cardholder" as defined by Section 482.021(5)(9), Florida Statutes, and Section 482.151, Florida Statutes, respectively. On or about May 31, 1988, Respondent, representing Sears and responding to a request by Dixie Lee Mims (Mims), inspected the residential property of Mims and represented to Mims that her home was infested with subterranean termites and powder post beetles and that control treatment was needed. Subsequently, though Sears, Respondent entered into a contract, number 96232, with Mims for the control of termites at a cost of $875.00 to be paid through Mims' Sears charge account. Respondent advised Mims that the cost for control of the beetles was included in the contract even though such control was omitted in the contract. Subsequent inspection of the Mims' home by an independent pest control firm and by Petitioner's entomologist revealed no visible signs of present or recent infestation of termites or beetles. Roger White, Manager, Sears, based on an additional inspection by Sears worked out a settlement with Mims whereby Mims would be given $500 credit on her Sears charge account and retain her contract with Sears.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the fcregong Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony T. DiFalco Route 5, Box 215, #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Pearce, Esquire District 2 Legal Office 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, 32303-4082 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed food service violations, and, if so, whether disciplinary action should be taken. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent did commit violations and should be subject to the fine described herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Respondent was licensed as a public food establishment in the State of Florida by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Department). Respondent's business address is 8084 North Davis Highway, No. A1, Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner's witness, Inspector Crowley, is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation safety specialist in Panama City Beach, Florida. He has worked for the Department for 12 years and has prior experience in the United States Air Force for 26 years, during which he also preformed public health inspections at food and lodging facilities. Inspector Crowley engages in continuing education on a regular basis and performs approximately 800 inspections a year. "Critical violations" are those that are likely to result in food-borne illness or environmental degradation. "Non-critical violations" are minor issues that are not classified as critical violations. Inspection reports are electronically prepared on a Personal Data Assistant by the inspector. On July 14, 2009, Inspector Crowley performed a routine food service inspection of Respondent at its location on North Davis Highway in Pensacola. During the inspection, Inspector Crowley prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations he encountered during the inspection. On that same date, Inspector Crowley notified Respondent about the violations. Respondent's owner signed the inspection report. Also, Inspector Crowley made the owner aware that each violation noted during the inspection must be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. On December 14, 2009, Inspector Crowley performed a routine food service inspection of Respondent. During the inspection, Inspector Crowley prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that some of the violations noted on the July 14, 2009, inspection report had not been corrected. On that date, Inspector Crowley notified Respondent of the violations and the fact that he was recommending an administrative complaint. Respondent's owner signed the inspection report. The most serious violation was observed at both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. Inspector Crowley observed the handwash sink being used for purposes other than handwashing. This is a critical violation because handwashing is the best way to prevent food-borne illness within a public food service establishment. Mr. Wong testified that during both inspections a brush used for cleaning the sink had been left inside the handwash sink. Inspector Crowley observed the next most serious violation during the December 14 inspection, misrepresentation of food products. Imitation crab was advertised as genuine crab meat, and escolar was advertised as white tuna. This constitutes a critical violation because patrons could unknowingly ingest foods causing an allergic reaction or illness. The misrepresentation of food items had been corrected at the time of hearing. Mr. Wong admitted that the escolar labeling had been incorrect, but that the crab labeling was only a handwritten note to the chefs in the area where they work both with soft-shelled crabs (real crab) and imitation crab used in sushi products. The patrons are not served imitation crab when the dish calls for real crab or real crab when the dish calls for imitation crab. Regardless of the corrective actions taken, the Department's policy is to immediately issue an administrative complaint when a misrepresentation violation is noted. The next most serious violation noted by Inspector Crowley occurred during both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. He observed the use of a grooved and pitted cutting board that was no longer cleanable. This constitutes a violation because dirt and food remain in the grooves even after the cutting board has been washed, allowing bacteria to grow, which can lead to future contamination of food products. Respondent was unable to remove the cutting board after the July 14 inspection because it was part of the counter where food preparation occurs. Mr. Wong testified that it is used only as a table since the July 14 inspection, not as a cutting board. He admitted that bacteria on the board could be transferred to the underside of food-bearing plates placed on it. The next most serious violation was observed by Inspector Crowley at both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. He observed a buildup of grease on the surface of equipment that does not come into contact with food. This constitutes a violation of cleanliness standards which can ultimately lead to food-borne illness. Inattention while cleaning led to the buildup of grease on equipment surfaces.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a penalty in the amount of $500 for the critical violation concerning the mislabeling of the escolar; $500 for the critical violation of using the handwashing sink for purposes other than handwashing; $150 for the non-critical violation of continuing to use the grooved and pitted cutting board; and $150 for the non-critical violation of allowing grease to accumulate on non- food contact surfaces. The total fine in the amount of $1,300 shall be paid to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants within 30 days of the entry of its final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 18th day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Christopher Wong Teriyaki Cafe Sushi and Grill 8084 North Davis Highway, Suite A1 Pensacola, Florida 32514 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional compensation for fishing nets that he sold to the State of Florida under the Net Buy-Back Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a commercial fishers who is an affected person under the Florida Net Ban, which is set forth in the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 16. Section 370.0805(5), Florida Statutes, which became effective on July 1, 1995, establishes the Net Buy-Back Program. The program enables eligible persons previously engaged in the commercial fishing industry to sell fishing nets to the State of Florida. The Legislature appropriated $20 million to the Seafood Workers Economic Assistance Account (the Account) to fund the payments authorized in Section 370.0805, as well as agency expenses in administering the program. Section 370.0805(3)(b) directs Respondent to purchase nets "according to the availability of funds on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the date of receipt of each completed application." By Net Buy-Back Application signed on July 5, 1995, and filed with Respondent on the same day, Petitioner applied to sell nets to the State of Florida. His application form is completely filled out and shows two saltwater-product license numbers, one for an individual and one for a vessel. The application form calls for the applicant to list the "TOTAL NUMBER OF YARDS OF EACH NET TYPE THAT YOU INTEND TO SELL." The form lists five categories of nets: gill (49 meshes or less); gill (50 meshes or more); beach, purse, seine; trawl; and trammel. The former gill net is a shallow-water gill net. The latter gill net is a deepwater gill net. Petitioner listed on his application 800 yards of shallow-water gill nets, 4600 yards of deepwater gill nets, two trawls, and 600 yards of trammel nets. After checking a data base maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent found only one of Petitioner's two listed saltwater-product licenses. Respondent thus processed Petitioner's application as though he had only one license. By letter dated August 8, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was eligible "to receive compensation for 8 nets" and set an appointment for him to turn in the nets on September 6, 1995. On September 6, 1995, Petitioner appeared at the appointed site with nets to sell to the State of Florida. He delivered 4800 yards of seine nets, for which he received a voucher for $27,998.40. Prior to paying the voucher, Respondent discovered that the Account might be exhausted before Respondent had paid for all of the nets that fishers might lawfully seek to sell to the State. Respondent thus dishonored Petitioner's voucher, as well as the vouchers held by numerous other fishers, while Respondent considered changes in its administration of the program. The purpose of the Net Buy-Back Program, as provided by Section 370.0805(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was to allow, "[a]ll commercial saltwater products licensees and persons holding a resident commercial fishing license" to apply to Respondent "to receive economic assistance to compensate them for nets rendered illegal or useless by the constitutional limitation on marine net fishing." The emphasis was on economic assistance. Section 370.0805(5)(a) authorizes Respondent to make payments only "in nonnegotiable amounts not intended to reflect the actual value of the nets." Section 370.0805(5)(a) assigns payment amounts of $3500 for beach, purse, or seine nets of at least 600 yards in length; $500 for trawls and shallow-water gill nets of at least 600 yards in length; and $1000 for trammel nets of at least 600 yards in length and deepwater gill nets of at least 600 yards in length. Section 370.0805(5)(a) states that, except for trawls, nets of less than 600 yards in length shall be "valued proportionately." Section 370.0805(5)(c) limits the number of nets that a commercial fishers could sell, based on his annual earnings from the sale of eligible saltwater products. The limits range from four nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average from $2500 to $4999 in earnings, to ten nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average more than $30,000. Respondent relied on another data base from the Department of Environmental Protection to determine the average yearly earnings of applicants. The Department of Environmental Protection maintains records of each licensee's trip tickets, which disclose earnings. The only other limit in the statute as to the type and number of nets to be purchased is that, under Section 370.0805(5)(d), "[n]o licensee may be paid for more than two. . . trawls." Respondent reviewed the applications that it received from the initial 951 fishers who filed applications. This was a large majority of the 1104 fishers who would eventually sell their nets to the State under the Net Buy-Back Program. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the funds in the Account would be sufficient to cover the nets that the State was to be purchasing. Respondent found from the applications that seine nets represented only about five percent of the nets that fishers intended to sell to the State. Relying on this information, Respondent calculated the potential encumbrance of $6.5 million on the Account, based on an average payment of $1000 per net. Applications contained few seine nets because commercial fishers initially resisted selling their best nets to the State of Florida. The Net Buy-Back Program provided for payment of only $3500 per seine net, even though many seine nets were worth $10,000. And commercial fishers were optimistic at first that their legal challenges to the constitutional amendment would succeed. Applying liberal eligibility criteria, such as calculating the number of nets that each applicant could sell based on the number of licenses that he held, Respondent raised its estimate of the potential encumbrance to $8.775 million. But in recalculating the potential encumbrance on the Account, Respondent still assumed that the average payment per net would be $1000. Respondent began receiving nets on August 3, 1995. Through the first three weeks of August, Respondent purchased seine nets in roughly the same five-percent mix that it had used in calculating the potential encumbrances on the Account. After this point, however, fishers started turning in much larger numbers of seine nets than they had listed in their applications. During this first phase of the program, Respondent paid fishers for whatever types of nets they presented at their net buy-back appointment. Respondent would pay a fishers entitled to sell eight nets for seine nets if he turned in seine nets, even though he had listed only gill nets on his application. This policy jeopardized the solvency of the Account because the payments to fishers turning in all seine nets were 3.5 times greater than the figures that Respondent had used in calculating the potential encumbrance on the Account. From the fishers's perspective, the program acquired an element of chance, as applicants with earlier appointment times-which did not necessarily correspond with earlier-filed applications-netted fine catches of economic assistance at the expense of their counterparts, upon whom destiny had bestowed later appointment times. By late August, the applicants, less sanguine about their litigation prospects (as the fishers suggest) and more inventive in recasting old gill nets as seine nets (as Respondent suggests), began turning in seine nets in large numbers, so that Respondent was purchasing nearly all seine nets. Eventually, the cumulative effect of this trend raised the total mix of seines purchased from five percent, during the first three weeks, to sixty percent. After a brief period of trying to stay the course, Respondent decided on September 6, 1995, that it had to take action or else the Account would be exhausted before the State had purchased all of the nets listed on the applications. Respondent immediately suspended further payments on issued vouchers and applied new criteria to persons holding unpaid vouchers, as well as to applicants who had not yet received vouchers. This action stopped payment on all vouchers issued from around August 28 through September 6. At the time that it stopped payment on outstanding vouchers, Respondent had approved the purchase of nets from about 750 fishers. About 450 of these applicants received their money prior to the suspension of payments, leaving about 300 applicants, including Petitioner, holding worthless vouchers. However, a large number of the 450 applicants who were actually paid for their nets prior to September 6 sold a relatively large percentage of gill nets rather than seine nets. As of September 6 (retroactive to August 28), Respondent began the second phase of the Net Buy-Back Program. In this phase, Respondent paid for seine nets, but only up to the greater of the number of seines shown on the application or the number of seines based on past use of seines. Respondent determined the latter figure from the trip tickets, which also contained information as to types of catch, from which Respondent could infer the type of net used. As in the first phase, Respondent continued to insist the fishers turn in seines if they were being paid for seines. The 300 fishers holding dishonored vouchers filed a class action suit. Petitioner's voucher for his first eight nets was covered in this legal action and is not the subject of this case. Petitioner received slightly more than $10,000 on his claim for about $28,000. In the meantime, Respondent discovered that Petitioner in fact held two licenses, as he had represented on his application. By letter dated October 5, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had reconsidered his application and determined that he had the right to sell 16 nets, not eight nets, but none could be a seine net. Respondent issued Petitioner a new voucher for these additional eight nets. This voucher is in the amount of $7996.80 for 4800 yards of deepwater gill net. On October 13, 1995, Petitioner turned in eight nets and received his money. Petitioner's application lists no seine nets. His application, as noted above, lists one and one-third shallow- water gill nets (i.e., 800 yards), eight deepwater gill nets, two trawls, and one trammel net. Petitioner claimed that he turned in seine nets. If turned in during the first or second phase of the program, Respondent would have treated these nets as seine nets. But it is Petitioner's unique fortune to have been intimately involved with all three phases of the Net Buy-Back Program. Evidently dissatisfied with the effects of the restrictions introduced by the second phase of the program, Respondent added a third phase by promulgating an emergency rule defining "seine nets," effective October 2, 1995. This third phase, which did not change Respondent's policy of paying for the greater number of seines as shown on the application or the trip tickets, restricted the kinds of nets that fishers could turn in as seine nets. Rule 38BER95-1 provides that, for the purpose of "the implementation of the Net Buy-Back Program" described in Section 370.0805(5): "Gill net" means a wall of netting suspended vertically in the water, with floats across the upper margin and weights along the bottom margin which captures fish by entangling them in the meshes, usually by the gills. Any net offered for the net buy- back program that consists of at least fifty- one percent (51 percent) gill net, shall be considered a gill net. "Seine" means a small-meshed net suspended vertically in the water, with floats along the top margin and weights along the bottom margin, which encloses and concentrates fish, and does not entangle them in the meshes. No net offered for the net buy-back program shall be considered a seine if the wings are composed of entangling mesh. * * * THIS RULE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Effective Date: October 2, 1995 Under the emergency rule, Respondent's nets were not seines, but were gill nets because they were at least 51 percent, by area, gill net. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent estimates that the Account balance is about $300,000 with about 160 contested claims remaining to be resolved.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order dismissing the petition for additional payment from the Account. ENTERED on October 3rd, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 3rd, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Secretary Douglas L. Jamerson Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 John Wayde Campbell 1103 67th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209 Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's shellfish processing plant certification license (license) for a period of seven (7) working days based upon alleged violations of Chapter 62R-7, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In accordance with Section 370.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62R-7, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner has regulatory authority relating to the sanitary practices for catching, handling, relaying, depuration, packaging, preserving, and storing of shellfish products. Pursuant to that authority, Petitioner licenses shellfish processing plants that operate in Florida. In accordance with those provisions, Respondent has been licensed to operate a shellfish processing plant in Apalachicola, Florida. At times relevant to this inquiry, Respondent conducted its business pursuant to the license. Chapter 62R-7, Florida Administrative Code, grants Petitioner the authority to make unannounced inspections of Respondent's plant while the plant is being operated, as frequently as necessary, to assure that adequate operational and sanitary conditions are maintained. As a means to control Respondent's conduct observed during those inspections, Chapter 62R-7, Florida Administrative Code, grants authority to Petitioner, in certain instances, to suspend or revoke Respondent's license. Petitioner performed an inspection of Respondent's plant on December 5, 1996. The inspection was held by Robert William Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins is a Shellfish Processing Plant Inspector for Petitioner. He is also a Sanitation and Safety Specialist for Petitioner. He had been certified to conduct the inspection. To assist Mr. Jenkins in performing his inspection, Respondent has prepared DEP Forms 34-001 and 34-002. The latter form is a continuation of the former form. This compilation is referred to as the "DEP Processing Plant Inspection Form." In pertinent part, it identifies the nature of any alleged deficiencies found in the inspection under a column referred to as "Item Number." It has a column referred to as "Remarks." The "Remarks" part of the form contemplates that the inspector will record his or her observations in summary fashion. There is a third column entitled "Correction Date." This column refers to dates that have been identified for the plant owner to correct deficiencies found in the inspection. Use of the forms in the conduct of inspections has been incorporated by reference in Rule 62R-7.007(3), Florida Administrative Code. To further assist Mr. Jenkins in performing his inspection, Respondent provided him with DEP Form 34-003. This form is referred to as the "DEP Shellfish Processing Plant Inspection Form" as well. Its purpose is different from that related to DEP Forms 34-001 and 34-002. DEP Form 34-003 identifies the "Area" being inspected in one column. It has another column referred to as "Item Description". In general terms this column corresponds to more discrete places or activities that are observed during the inspection. There is a column on this form which is referred to as "Code". The code relates to alleged deficiencies of two types. One type is a "Key" item deficiency. The second code refers to an "Other" item deficiency. In the event that deficiencies are found DEP Form 34-003 contemplates that the area, item description, and code be identified by checking a box in the right column related to the finding. This form is also incorporated by reference in Rule 62-7.007(3), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, in performing his inspection Mr. Jenkins used a diary to record his observations. The sequence for using the materials available to him was to first place his observations in the diary. The diary served to assist Mr. Jenkins in preparing the "Remarks" section to DEP Forms 34-001 and 34-002. Preparation of DEP Form 34-003 assisted Mr. Jenkins in identifying the "Item Number" alleged to have constituted a deficiency in preparing DEP Forms 34-001 and 34-002. The item number reflected information translated from DEP Form 34-003 in the columns for "Item Description" and "Code." The "Correction Date" column within DEP Forms 34-001 and 34.002, as prepared, was the product of a discussion between Mr. Jenkins and Respondent's management, in which the management determined the date it committed to correct the alleged deficiencies found. During the inspection Mr. Jenkins recorded on DEP Form 34-001, in the "Remarks" section, "shellstock being shucked muddy." He identified this finding as an "Item Number" 27, "Key" deficiency. Item 27 from DEP Form 34-003 is in the "Area" described as "Shellfish handling and storage." Under the "Item Description" related to DEP Form 34-003, it states, "Shellstock clean." DEP Form 34-003 further refers to this Item 27 as a "Key" deficiency. There was no determination between Mr. Jenkins and Respondent's management concerning the date upon which this alleged deficiency was to be corrected. Mr. Jenkins observed persons shucking shellstock at Respondent's plant that he described in his hearing testimony as "extremely muddy." He found that the shellstock had excessive mud on it. Mr. Jenkins believes that you cannot shuck muddy shellstock in a sanitary manner. His opinion on that subject is credited. Mr. Jenkins' observations concerning the shucking operations were in association with the normal operation of Respondent's plant. The oysters being shucked were placed in one-gallon, stainless steel buckets. From there the oysters were delivered to the skimmer room. The product was then rinsed, packed in ice, and placed in reusable, properly labeled, five- gallon containers. Notwithstanding the fact that the oysters were rinsed after being shucked, while the oysters were being shucked, the shellstock was extremely muddy and, as Mr. Jenkins established, the oysters could not be shucked in a sanitary manner under those original conditions before rinsing and packing. During his inspection Mr. Jenkins recorded in the "Remarks" section of DEP Form 34-001 that "walls and ceiling in shucking room dirty with flaking paint." By resort to DEP Form 34-003, Mr. Jenkins labeled this condition as an "Other" Item 6 deficiency. DEP Form 34-003 under the "Area" column refers to the "Plant interior." Within that form under "Item Description" it is stated "Walls, Ceilings, attached equipment: Smooth, light colored, clean, good repair". The date upon which management agreed to correct the problem as reflected in the "Correction Date" column to DEP Form 34-001 was December 14, 1996. In the "Remarks" section of DEP Form 34-001, Mr. Jenkins recorded that he had observed in his inspection that "outside shellstock cooler had no grate over floor drain." By resort to DEP Form 34-003, Mr. Jenkins described the "Area" involved in this observation as "Vectors." By using that form, he referred to the "Item Description" as "Insects, Rodents, Vermin, Other Animals: excluded, controlled." The "Code" within that form referred to this "Item Description" as a "Key" item seven (7) deficiency. As reflected in DEP Form 34-001, management committed to correct this problem on December 5, 1996. In the "Remarks" section to DEP Form 34-001, Mr. Jenkins noted that "3-bags of shellstock with 8-mile harvest area." By resort to DEP Form 34-003, the "Area" in which this alleged deficiency was found was described "Shellfish handling and storage." The "Item Description" was referred to as "Shellstock properly identified." In accordance with the "Code" in DEP Form 34-003, this was described and recorded as a "Key" item 25 deficiency. Management committed to correct this condition on December 5, 1996.1 At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. Jenkins provided Respondent's managers with copies of the completed DEP Forms 34-001, 34-002, and 34-003. At the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. Jenkins discussed the alleged deficiencies or violations with Annie Mae Wilson and Paul Wilson. He told them that he had shown "Little Paul" each violation and asked the other Wilsons if they desired to see those violations. They responded that it was not necessary. Later Mr. Jenkins prepared, and on December 9, 1996, signed, an "Establishment Inspection Report." This written report was not provided to Respondent but would have been provided if Respondent requested a copy. In a portion of the report referred to as "Objectionable Conditions or Practices," it is stated: Louisiana shellstock being shucked was extremely muddy. 62R-7.016(1). DEP form 34-003 Item 27 Key * * * 3. Areas of the walls and ceiling in the shucking room were observed dirty and flaking paint. 62R-7.013(1c). DEP form 34-003 Item 6 Other. * * * The outside shellstock cooler had no grate over the floor drain. 62R-7.013(1f). DEP form 34-003 Item 25 Key. Three bags of shellstock were not properly identified. Tag had 8 mile for harvest area, lacking the 4-digit location code. 62R-7.014(1). DEP form 34-003 Item 25 Key. At hearing Mr. Jenkins corrected the reference to the shellstock shucking citation from 62R-7.016(1) to 62R-7.016(3). On January 6, 1997, Petitioner reinspected Respondent's plant. That inspection was conducted by Nancy L. Horton who was employed in a position comparable to that occupied by Mr. Horton. In conducting her inspection, Ms. Horton followed procedures that were similar to those employed by Mr. Jenkins in his inspection. Mr. Horton completed DEP Forms 34-001, 34-002, and 34-003 and provided copies to Respondent's management on the date the inspection was conducted. Ms. Horton was familiar with Mr. Jenkins' findings made on December 5, 1996, during his inspection and the subsequent Establishment Inspection Report which he had rendered before conducting her own inspection. In the follow-up phase of her inspection, she intended to determine if the problems discovered by Mr. Jenkins on December 5, 1996, had been corrected. Ms. Horton observed and noted on DEP Form 34-001 in the "Remarks" section that: 2 bags of shellstock w/out legal area 12 bags " " " " " All bags listed as "drybar" for harvest area. 62R-7016(1). Under the "Item Number" column related to that form Ms. Horton stated "25-K Repeated Violation." That entry on the form was in reference to findings from DEP Form 34-003 in which the "Area" was listed as "Shellfish Handling and Storage" and the "Item Description" stated "Shellstock properly identified" with the "Code" being checked as a "Key" item 25 deficiency. The completed DEP Form 34-001 indicated that this problem would be corrected on January 6, 1997. Mr. Wilson blamed this problem on the harvesters. He told Ms. Horton the shellstock harvesters could not read. Ms. Horton responded that this was a "Repeated violation." She suggested that Mr. Wilson show the harvesters how to fill the tags out correctly. She also told Mr. Wilson that once the bags were in his cooler they became his responsibility. "Drybar" is a colloquial name for an oyster bar located near St. Vincent's Island. When Ms. Horton performed her inspection, she understood the meaning of the colloquial reference. During her inspection, Ms. Horton observed and noted under the "Remarks" section to DEP Form 34-002 "Muddy shellstock being shucked. 62R-7.016(3)." Based upon the use of DEP Form 34- 003, Ms. Horton reported on DEP Form 34-002 that this was an "Item Number" 27-K. The reference to 27-K refers to information from DEP Form 34-003 in the "Area" for "Shellfish handling and storage." The "Item Description" was "Shellstock clean" and the "Code" was a "Key" item 27 deficiency. Again this was referred to as a "Repeated violation." A correction date under the column for establishing that date was not established. In her testimony related to her findings concerning the shellstock, she identified that the shellstock came from Texas. She said that she found a lot of mud had been splattered "everywhere" in the area of the shucking operation. She identified that a container of shucked product was sitting where she was inspecting. Specifically, she identified that mud that was being splashed covered the walls and the employees who where shucking the shellstock. There was also mud on the shellstock that had not been shucked. In relation to the problem with muddy shellstock being shucked, Mr. Wilson told Ms. Horton that he did not know how to correct this violation. Ms. Horton responded to Mr. Wilson that he might consider washing the oysters through his oyster washer before shucking them. Based upon her observations, Ms. Horton noted in the "Remarks" section to DEP Form 34-002 that "Outside cooler w/out floor cover 62R-7.015(5)." On that same form she noted that the "Item Number" was "7-Key." That reference was taken from the completion of DEP Form 34-003 in the "Area" described as "Vectors," the "Item Description" related to "Insects, Rodents, Vermin, Other Animals: Excluded, controlled." The "Code" on that form was for a "Key" Item 7 deficiency. This item was identified in the completed DEP Form 34-002 as a "Repeated violation." In association with this item, Mr. Wilson went into the shucking room and came out with a grate and covered the drain hole. Ms. Horton pointed out that the cover did not fit the drain hole and would get knocked off. Mr. Wilson told her that all covers get knocked off. Ms. Horton told Mr. Wilson that the cover was bigger than the drain hole and did not fit tight. Nonetheless, the completed DEP Form 34-002 indicates under the section for "Correction Date" that the problem was "corrected." In her inspection, Ms. Horton observed and noted in the "Remarks" section to DEP Form 34-002 that "walls & ceiling in shucking room dirty. 62R-7.013(1)(c)." On that form under "Item Number" she identified this as "6-0." That information was taken from the preparation of DEP Form 34-003 under "Area" as "Plant Interior." From DEP Form 34-003 the "Item Description" was "Walls, Ceilings, Attached Equipment; smooth, light colored, clean, good repair." The "Code" from DEP Form 34-003 was "Other" Item 6 deficiency. The "Correction Date" that was established on DEP Form 34-002 was January 9, 1997. This item was also identified on DEP Form 34-002 as a "Repeat violation." In response to the findings concerning the walls and ceiling, Mr. Wilson indicated that he would clean the walls and ceiling in the shucking room. In an Establishment Inspection Report rendered on January 8, 1997, Ms. Horton recorded "Objectionable Conditions or Practices," to the effect that: Ten bags of local shellstock were not properly identified. Dry Bar was listed as the legal harvest area. Repeated violation 62R-7.016(1) DEP 34-003 Item # 25-Key. 62R-7.010(3-c) Texas shellstock being shucked was extremely muddy. Repeated violation 62R-7.016(3) DEP 34-003 Item # 27-Key. The walls and ceiling in the shucking room was [sic] dirty with dried mud from previous operations. 62R-7.013(1-c) DEP 34-003 Item #6-Other. Repeated violation * * * 12. One floor drain in the shellstock cooler was not covered. 62R-7.015(e) DEP 34-003 Item #7-Key Repeated violation This report was not provided to Respondent. It was available upon request from Respondent. The hearing record does not reveal that a request was made, nor did the record reveal a request from Respondent to obtain Mr. Jenkins Establishment Inspection Report. Following Ms. Horton's inspection, Petitioner charged Respondent with license violations through a complaint letter dated January 13, 1997. In pertinent part that complaint letter stated: Inspection of your facility, Wilson & Son Seafood Inc., Fl 179-SP, was conducted on January 6, 1997. Observations revealed eight "key" item deficiencies and four "other" item deficiencies. Repeat "key" observations included ten bags of local shellstock not properly identified (62R-7.010 (3)c and 62R- 7.016(1)), Texas shellstock being shucked was extremely muddy (62R-7.016(3)), and one floor drain in the shellstock cooler was not covered (62R-7.015(5)c. In addition the "other" item deficiency of walls and ceiling in the shucking room dirty with dried mud from previous operations (62R-7.033(1)c), was also a repeated violation noted during the previous inspection of December 5, 1996. Due to the repeat nature of these violations, this is notification of the intent to suspend your firm's shellfish certification license for a period of seven working days beginning on February 15, 1997 at 8:00 AM EST. . . .
Recommendation Upon consideration of the fact found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which dismisses the complaint letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Buntins and the Stovalls should receive an after-the-fact coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit to allow a sand-filled HESCO Basket System constructed in the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis in 2005 and that is now primarily a vegetated dune to remain as a permanent structure in Walton County?
Findings Of Fact Sea Turtle Nesting Habitat on a Hurricane-battered Coast Along the northernmost reaches of the Gulf of Mexico, roughly in the center of the Florida Panhandle coast, the beaches and shores of Walton County have been subject to the many vicissitudes of coastal climate over the years. So have marine turtles, several species of which have relied through the ages on Florida beaches and shores, including those in Walton County for nesting habitat. Survivors of shifting circumstances brought by weather, sea turtles are now imperiled by exposure to man-made dangers. Anthropogenic turtle hazards on populated beaches are numerous and, without educational efforts of the Department and the Commission, not likely to be recognized by beach-goers interested in the enjoyment of surf and sun. Folding beach chairs and canopies, board walks designed to protect the dune system, and other seemingly-harmless by- products of human beach activity, even holes dug by children building sand castles, can contribute to sea turtle injury and cause sea turtle fatality. While sea turtles in recent times have made their way across the Walton County beach toward their nests through obstacles set up by human beings and hatchlings have scurried toward the sea through these same impediments, owners of beachfront property have had to contend with powerful tropical storms, particularly in the relatively recent past. Especially damaging to property along the Walton County Coastline have been three hurricanes that hit in the span of a decade: Opal in 1995, Ivan in 2004 and Dennis in 2005. The intense storm surge of Hurricane Opal destroyed much of the dune system along the stretch of Seagrove Beach in Walton County that is the subject of the aerial photography introduced into evidence in this case. Ivan, which made landfall just west of Gulf Shores, Alabama, as a Category 3 Hurricane on September 16, 2004, caused heavy damage to the Walton County coastline and areas west. Of the three, though, the damage done by Dennis is the sine qua non of this proceeding brought by Petitioners to preserve and protect their property. The Stovall and Buntin Property When Hurricane Dennis hit, the Stovalls had owned the property located at 711 Eastern Lake Road, Santa Rosa Beach, Walton County, for some time. Purchased by both Mr. and Mrs. Stovall and in both their names at the time the petition was filed, by the time of hearing, the property had been transferred into Mrs. Stovall's name only. The Stovalls bought the lot around 1997 give or take a year. "[T]he house itself is about 11 years old," tr. 17, built in 1998 or thereabouts. Seaward of the CCCL established on December 29, 1982, construction of the house required a CCCL permit from the Department. In the words of Mr. Stovall, the permitting process required "hundreds of hoops to jump through." Tr. 18. The lot had been in foreclosure and the permit was obtained through the services of a reputable architectural firm. The house, therefore, was designed and constructed to survive a major hurricane, a requirement of the permit. The house was built on pilings sturdy enough to support the house in the event of a major hurricane. High enough to allow the bottom floor of the house to be above storm surge, the pilings' height and house elevation also allowed ample parking for vehicles beneath the house. At the time the Stovall house was built, despite the damage done by Opal, there remained a good natural dune system seaward of the house, one that was "beautiful . . . wonderful," tr. 19, in the words of Mr. Stovall. After the house was constructed, Mrs. Stovall took particular pleasure in the dune system and worked to preserve and cultivate sea oats in its support. She also was thrilled by the presence of two turtle nests not long after the purchase of the lot, one nest found in 1998 and the other discovered on July 22, 1999. After the discoveries, Sharon Maxwell, the County- authorized "local turtle coordinator," tr. 295, and "the only person in the County permitted to touch . . . turtles," tr. 296 was contacted. Ms. Maxwell measured the nests from points related to the Stovall house. They were at least 20 feet seaward of the toe of the most seaward dune. Because the nests were on a busy stretch of the beach, protective measures were implemented. Among the protective measures were actions by Mrs. Stovall. In addition to working with the local turtle coordinator, Mrs. Stovall became involved in circulation of information to neighbors about sea turtle conservation. She was part of an effort to encourage the information to be placed in rental units in the neighborhood. The information recommended turning out lights on the beach that interfered with turtle nesting, "brought out the importance of a single . . . beach chair [that] can misdirect and kill over hundreds of endangered hatchlings . . . [and] umbrellas . . . left overnight [that] can interfere with nesting." Tr. 293. She called local government commissioners and attended commission meetings where she advocated beach removal of items hazardous to sea turtles, their nests and their offspring. Her efforts have extended off-shore as well. As a scuba diver, she learned how to respect sea turtles and their marine habitat and "encouraged others to stay away and not harass the turtles, which many divers do." Tr. 195. The Buntin property, located at 701 Eastern Lake Drive, is adjacent to the Stovall property on the east side. Owned by the Buntins since 1990, the house on the lot was built in 1991 or early 1992. Like the Stovall house, the Buntin house is seaward of the CCCL and built to withstand the forces of major tropical storms. The Buntins, similar to the Stovalls, care about the beaches and shores of Walton County and particularly the beach adjacent to their property. Their intent with regard to the coastal environment is to protect it. There have been times over the past two decades when the Buntins greatly enjoyed their property. Their relationship to it, however, has changed. As Mr. Buntin put it at hearing, "[I]t's a situation we put ourselves in [but] I wish we didn't have any beach property. And I imagine there's a lot of other folks that wish that, too,. . ." Tr. 54. A major factor in Mr. Buntin's change-of-attitude is damage done by Hurricane Dennis. Hurricane Dennis Hurricane Dennis made landfall near Navarre Beach not far west of the Stovall and Buntin Properties on July 10, 2005, having struck the tip of peninsular Florida the day before. Classified according to the Saffir-Simpson Scale as a Category 4 Hurricane at moments in its journey through the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, it came ashore in the northern Gulf as a Category 3 hurricane. Some of the worst damage it caused was along the panhandle coast. One of its damaging effects was enormous erosion of the beaches and shores along the coastline where the Stovall and Buntin property is located. That stretch of beach remains classified as a "critically eroding beach." After the storm, there was nothing left of the dunes seaward of the Stovall and Buntin houses. The Stovall house, itself, was not structurally damaged; there was not "a crack in the Sheetrock. The house stood solid." Tr. 30. It had lost its bottom deck and the deck on its western side but true to the CCCL permitting criteria, the house, perched on pilings about the storm surge, had also withstood the Category 3 force winds of the hurricane. Dennis had caused more damage to the property, however, than just the loss of a few decks. It had eroded the beach as far up as landward of the Stovall's house. At hearing, Mr. Stovall described his first view of the property post-Dennis: [T]he water was lapping back . . . behind the house. And if anybody walked up to where it was, it would just cave in. I fully believed that if that storm would've gone on another two hours, it would have been in the man's house behind me[.] . . . [W]e had no access to the front door and one of the neighbors down the street brought in a ladder . . . It would have taken a 20 or 21-foot ladder to have gotten up to [the] first deck level . . . . Tr. 25. Without a ladder, the house was not accessible. Most pertinent to the Stovall's persistence in bringing this proceeding, there was nowhere to park their vehicles. The parking area under the house had been scoured out. The Buntin property likewise suffered the impact of the hurricane's scour. Mr. Buntin was contacted by a neighbor and told that the scouring under his house was so bad that the air-conditioners midway between the seaward and landward sides of the house were "hanging over a 20-foot drop-off." Tr. 45. Mr. Buntin did not give the report much credibility at first but, to his dismay, found it true when he visited the property shortly after the storm. Just as in the case of the Stovall property, a car could not be parked under the house in the space that had served as the parking area prior to Dennis. Half of a car could be parked under the house but the rest of the sand- based parking area was gone. In its place was a steep embankment that "dropped off 20 feet." Tr. 46. A Serious Parking Problem Eastern Lake Road runs roughly east-west just north of the Stovall and Buntin properties. The roadbed lies in a roadway and utility easement. Because of the easement, property owners along the roadway are not allowed to use it for permanent parking. The restriction includes the entire right-of-way that extends beyond the roadbed. As a combination of the easement and the parking restriction, under-story parking is the only permanent parking place that can serve the properties. Aware that their properties were seaward of the CCCL, the Stovalls and Buntins sought guidance as to how to re- establish parking for their beach front property. They turned both to local government and to DEP. DEP's Emergency Order On the same day that Hurricane Dennis hit South Florida (the day before it made landfall on the panhandle coast), the Department issued an Emergency Final Order (the "Emergency Final Order." Styled, In re: EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION FOR REPAIRS, REPLACEMENT, RESTORATION AND CERTAIN OTHER MEASURES MADE NECESSARY BY HURRICANE DENNIS and dated July 9, 2005, the Emergency Final Order followed a declaration by Governor Jeb Bush of a state-wide emergency. By State of Florida Executive Order No. 05- 139, the Governor declared that a state of emergency exists throughout the State of Florida, based upon the serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare posed by the Hurricane. Department Exhibit 9, paragraph 2., at 1. The Department's Emergency Order, therefore, had state-wide application and applied to Walton County even though Dennis had not yet come ashore onto the panhandle coast. The Final Emergency Order made the following findings: The Department finds that the Hurricane has created a state of emergency threatening the public health, safety, welfare and property throughout the Emergency Area. As a result of the emergency, immediate action by Florida's citizens and government is necessary to repair, replace, and restore structures, equipment, surface water management systems, works, and operations damaged by the Hurricane. The Department finds that an emergency authorization is required to address the need for immediate action because the normal procedures for obtaining the necessary authorizations would not result in sufficiently timely action to address the emergency. The Department finds that immediate, strict compliance with the provisions of the statutes, rules, or orders noted within this Order would prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency, and that the actions authorized under this order are narrowly tailored to address the immediate need for action and are procedurally fair under the circumstances. Department Exhibit 9, at 2. With regard to "Coastal Construction Control Line Activities," Section 3., of the order was clear. It did not "authorize the construction of structures that did not exist prior to the emergency . . . ." Id. at 17. The Final Emergency Order contained a provision, however, that may have related directly to the predicament of the Stovalls and the Buntins. Paragraph 3.b., entitled "Activities Requiring Local Authorization," opens with an introductory statement with regard to certain activities and then lists those activities as follows: Local governments are authorized to issue permits in lieu of Department permits to private and public property owners for the activities listed below. * * * (4) Return of sand to the beach dune system which has been deposited upland by the Hurricanes. Id. (emphasis added). The activity of returning sand to the beach dune system is subject to a section of the Final Emergency Order dedicated to "General Conditions." Id. at paragraph 4., pp. 20- In addition to the requirement that the activities "be performed using appropriate best management practices" id. at 20, in accord with the Florida Land Development Manual, the General Conditions section contained explicit provisions with regard to sea turtles: The nature, timing, and sequence of construction activities authorized under this Order shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide protection to, and so as to not disturb . . . listed species and their habitat, including threatened or endangered sea turtles If activities under C.3 of this Order occur during the marine turtle nesting season (March 1 through October 31 in Brevard and Broward County, May 1 in all other coastal counties), such activities must be coordinated with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Imperiled Species Management Section to ensure that all activities comply with state and federal requirements for the protection of seat turtles, their nests, hatchlings, and nesting habitat. Nothing in this order authorizes the taking, attempted taking, pursuing, harassing, capturing or killing of any species (or the nests or eggs of any species) listed under Rule 68A-27 of the Florida Administrative Code or under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Id. at 21-22. Under Section D., "GENERAL PROVISIONS," of the Emergency Final Order, the order cautioned, "[u]nder no circumstances shall anything contained in this Order be construed to authorize the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of any type of unauthorized or illegal structure, habitable or otherwise." Id. at 27, 28. The Emergency Final Order declared its effectiveness for 60 days following its execution on July 9, 2005, by the Secretary of the Department. Expressly set to expire on September 7, 2005, therefore, it promised in the meantime, "to act on requests for field authorizations in a timely and expeditious manner." Id. at 28. The Field Permit True to its word, the Department issued a field permit to Mr. Stovall on August 16, 2005. See Department Exhibit 10. The project is described in the field permit as repair and replacement of wooden decks and "repair/replace understructure concrete/brick paver parking area to original condition." Id. The repairs included electrical, plumbing and HVAC work and replenishment of approximately 1800 yards of sand for foundation pilings. The permit stressed, "[n]o other activity is authorized." Id. And, as part of its special conditions, the permit listed, "all construction shall comply with attached marine turtle conditions." Id. In the attempt to return the understory parking to its original condition, simply replacing sand did not work. "[I]t became pretty obvious to us as we put the sand in there," Mr. Stovall testified at hearing, "the sand was running out." Tr. 31. The Buntins were experiencing much of the same difficulties. Mr. Buntin compared the situation right after the hurricane to four years later at the hearing: There was so much confusion going on . . . we are so far after the fact now [August of 2009]. It's kind of hard to put yourself back in the position we were in at the time [summer of 2005] because there were an awful lot of questions and very few answers. You would get referred . . . this is what the regulations say. Well, you read the regulation and it is left to interpretation . . . the written word is . . . wonderful, but if you've got three people reading it, it's kind of hard to figure out exactly what it means. Now [August of 2009], after the fact . . ., we [have] answers . . . we didn't have at the time. Tr. 51 (emphasis added). Mr. Buntin knew one thing for sure: placing sand under the house would not be enough, "you've got to have some way to keep it underneath . . . because you're going to have to build a parking pad on top of it." Tr. 47. Neither an expert in CCCL regulations nor a coastal engineer, Mr. Buntin had no doubt "[y]ou can't just pile up sand and park the car on sand." Tr. 48. Mr. Buntin knew that in a coastal environment the understory parking would require a base of sand and a means of retaining the sand base under the house. The answer to the quandary was presented by Mike Jones, a contractor hired initially by the Stovalls and eventually by the Buntins, too. Mr. Jones suggested a HESCO Basket System. The HESCO Basket System In the aftermath of the storm, it was difficult to get assistance from repair companies. Mr. Stovall described the difficulty at hearing: "That was a tough job because everybody along the beach had damage, too, and getting someone to even come out there and give you a bid on it was like pulling eye teeth." Tr. 30. Eventually, through his brother, Mr. Stovall learned about Michael Alan Jones ("Mike Jones"), a general contractor licensed in Georgia. Mr. Jones agreed to look at the property. At hearing, he recalled his initial assessment of the Stovall and Buntin repair jobs: [T]here was a crater below the residences. We had to use an extension ladder to gain access to the Stovall property and we had to use some unique engineering to be able to access Mr. Buntin's property. There was no place to park. I noted on the Stovall property that . . . a paver system . . . was used for his parking area and the end of Eastern Lake Road as well, and the majority of that system was either currently . . . in the ocean or was in various stages of disrepair. It was falling apart. It was sagging one foot, 18 inches in many areas. It appeared . . . unsafe. * * * Some of . . . the pressurized [water] lines had been broken. The drain lines that lead into the septic or the county sewer were broken . . . the same on both properties. The air conditioning units were hanging by the power cables [I'd guess] 15 to 20 feet in the air, which, of course, poses a serious threat to anybody that walks . . . underneath them when the cable . . . unhook[s] itself from whatever connector or breaks. I noted at Mr. Stovall's, the whole bottom level of his deck was missing. * * * Mr. Buntin's dune walkover and much of his deck were sagging and unsafe [with] pieces missing. There was no . . . foundation on which to place a vehicle or anything for that matter underneath . . . the houses. I also noted . . . several onlookers . . . were using the area underneath the Stovalls' and Buntins' houses to access the beach, which was, in my opinion, extremely unsafe . . . [because of] falling five pound bricks and air conditioners hanging and wood falling off the side of the house. Tr. 82-83. The "crater" under the houses was not just a parking problem. Before the necessary repairs could be started, the understory had to be shored up. In the meantime, efforts were made to keep "onlookers" from using the area under the houses but they were not completely successful. Every morning that Mr. Jones visited the site at the beginning of his efforts, there was evidence left behind by people under the house the night before. Mr. Jones was of the same opinion as the Stovalls and the Buntins. For replacement of sand to work, there had to be a system for retaining the sand under the house. For several weeks, he conducted research by traveling up and down the beach discussing the issue with other contractors. Ultimately, Mr. Jones reached the conclusion that "the least invasive, most efficient . . . , environmentally friendly" system was a HESCO Basket System. HESCO Baskets HESCO Baskets are wire-framed open cell structures. One cell consists of four flat panels of wires of the same gauge. The "top" of the cell or basket is completely open as is the "bottom." Each of the four sides consist of horizontal wire rods spaced equally apart and welded to four similar-sized rods in a vertical position to form a panel of squares framed by the rods but which are mostly open space. The fours sides are bound together by a coil of wire of a gauge identical to the wire used in the rest of the structure. Attached to the sides on the inside of the cells is felt-like material that is water- permeable. Two baskets are created by joining three wire panels to an existing basket. Only seven panels, therefore, are needed to create two baskets since one of the panels is shared. Used in military applications to create revetment structures to protect aircraft and personnel and in river settings for flood control in places as diverse as Alaska and the Middle East, HESCO baskets also have commercial applications. These were investigated by Mr. Jones as he talked to other contractors in the area. Ultimately, he viewed the process of installation of HESCO baskets locally, obtained a list of installers from a HESCO basket distributor and picked Robert Klemen, an installer who worked in the area of the Stovall and Buntin properties to hire as a subcontractor under his supervision. Before installation, however, a permit was required. Under the DEP Final Emergency Order authorizing local governments to issue permits for temporary emergency protection seaward of the CCCL, separate permits for the Stovall and Buntin properties were issued by Walton County. The Walton County Permits On October 28, 2005, Billy Bearden, Building Official for Walton County, issued two building permits to Robert Klemen. The first, Permit No. SW398Dennis, (the "County Stovall Permit") was for 711 Eastern Lake Dr., the Stovall Property. The second, SW400Dennis, (the "County Buntin Permit") was for 701 Eastern Lake Dr., the Buntin Property. The County Stovall Permit gives Mr. Kleman permission for "TEMP SEAWALL STABLILIZING BASKETS." Department Exhibit 8. Similarly, the County Buntin Permit gives Mr. Kleman permission for "TEMP Stabilizing BASKETS." Each permit recited that "[t]he Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Hurricane Dennis Emergency Final Order 05-1700 is attached," and warned that "[p]ursuant to the FDEP emergency order, care must be taken for the protection of sea turtles, their nests, hatchlings and nesting habitat." Department Exhibit 8, the 7th and 15th pages of fifteen un- numbered pages. The two permits also recited the following: All temporary retaining walls (or other types of beach armoring), permitted as an emergency measure as a result of Hurricane Dennis and Katrina, must be removed within 60 days of completion or applied to be permitted through DEP as a permanent structure. * * * For ease in monitoring and control, Walton County will consider all temporary restraining walls complete no later than October 28, 2005 and therefore must be removed within (sic) 60 days of completion or by December 27, 2005, whichever is sooner (unless complete application made to DEP). Department Exhibit 8 (emphasis added.) Each permit contained a drawing of the permitted activity. The County Stovall Permit drawing depicts a system consisting of three rows of baskets, two on bottom and one on top, that runs for 70 feet seaward of the Stovall House and then in an "L-fashion" 30 feet to the west of the house. The baskets are shown to be 3 feet wide each so that the bottom row is 6 feet wide. The height of each basket is depicted as 4 feet so that the height of the structure would be 8 feet. The drawing is consistent with the representation at hearing that each basket within the vegetated dune the structure now supports is 3 feet by 3 feet by 4 feet. The drawing also shows a connection to the Buntin system to be installed to the east. The County Buntin Permit shows the same type of structure with three rows of baskets, two on bottom and one on top. The structure extends 60 feet to the east of the Stovall structure seaward of the Buntin house. Prior to construction, it was made clear to Mr. Jones that the "system needed to be as much within the footprint of the house," tr. 93, as possible. The information was communicated from both county representative who conducted inspections and DEP representatives who "were around the property during the process of doing the beach walkovers, as well as the HESCO systems . . .". Id. The HESCO Basket System was not designed to meet coastal armoring standards. Nor was it designed to minimize impacts to sea turtles. Installation Pursuant to the County permits, the Hesco Basket Container Systems were installed on the Stovall and Buntin properties over the course of several weeks. The official CCCL location of the installation is approximately 285 to 399 feet east of DEP's reference monument R-93 in Walton County with a project address of 701 and 711 Eastern Lake Road, Santa Rosa Beach. The purpose of the installation of the man-made structures, consistent with their design, is to assist the retention of sand beneath the understory parking area of the two houses. As depicted on the permit drawings, the Stovall and Buntin systems were unified into one structure, that is, connected so that the structure ran without a break seaward of the Stovall and Buntin houses. During the construction process, Mr. Jones saw and conversed with several DEP representatives who were taking pictures along the beach. Although Mr. Jones "acted firmly in the belief that there would be no problem getting a permanent permit for [the HESCO] structure," tr. 96, he was never told by any DEP representatives, either on site or in phone conversations with Department employees in Tallahassee, that the structure would be permitted permanently by the Department. He was not told that such a permit application would be denied, either, he simply "was never able to get an actual answer . . .". Id. The structure on the Buntin property was constructed as depicted on the permit drawing. There were two rows installed on the bottom and one row on top for a total height of 8 feet. The structure installed on the Stovall property, however, was more elaborate than what was shown on the permit drawing. "[T]he Stovall property has three on the bottom, then two in the middle and then one on the top stacked pyramid style." Tr. 97. Twelve feet tall, the HESCO structure installed on the Stovall property was four feet higher than specified by the County permit. The structures were covered with sand in order to "rebuild the dune," tr. 109, in other words, the HESCO Baskets were installed in such a way as to serve as the core of a restored dune feature. The purpose of the installation was to provide a means of stabilizing the sand under the houses to restore the under-story parking. The installation was complete on November 4, 2005. The sand wall installed by Mr. Jones and his crew was then plugged with sea oats that were watered in the hope that their establishment would encourage the creation of a dune. A Vegetated Dune Pictures introduced into evidence reveal that the HESCO structure installed by the Stovalls and the Buntins, the sand installed on top and around it and the planting of the sea oats has resulted in a well-vegetated dune. As Mrs. Stovall put it at hearing, "y'all have got to admits that's the prettiest set of sea oats y'all [have] ever seen in your lives." Tr. 296. By the time of hearing, the dune had been maintained for nearly four years without any more sand imported by human hands. There has occurred, however, some exposure of wires of the HESCO system. A corner of one of the baskets in front of the Stovall house was exposed at the time of hearing and a picture introduced into evidence showed exposure of the top of several baskets in 2007. Mrs. Stovall expressed a desire to add more sand and ultimately to restore the dune to its pre-Opal status which "would add five-and-a half feet and make [the dune] level with the deck." Tr. 298. No sand has been added since the installation in November of 2005, however, because of the uncertain outcome of this proceeding. The exposure to date of the HESCO Baskets is in all likelihood the result of wind. Wave action, should it reach the system and be strong enough, will cause even more exposure. In fact, the HESCO Basket dune is not likely to be able to withstand wave action from 15 and 25-year return storms and a storms of such strength could expose the entire HESCO Basket structure leaving a jumble and tangle of wires on the beach. A recent series of aerial photographs from 2004 to 2007 show that the dune position to the west of the Buntin/Stovall property is approximately 30-to-50 feet further landward. The dune created by the HESCO baskets, therefore, is more seaward and more interactive with coastal processes than the dune to the west making the HESCO basket dune less likely to survive wave action than the dunes to its west. Nonetheless, as of the time of hearing, the system has maintained its integrity since installation. After the installation, the Stovalls and the Buntins were under no illusion that they had done all that was required in the way of governmental permitting. They knew that the County permits were good for only 60 days. They knew that they needed a CCCL permit from the Department if the structure were to achieve permanent permitting status. For that, they turned to their Qualified Representative in this proceedings, Ong-In Shin. Mr. Shin duly filed a CCCL permit application. The Application and Action by DEP On June 28, 2006, the Department received two applications for permits for construction seaward of the CCCL. Both were filed by Mr. Shin. One was filed on behalf of the Stovalls, the other on behalf of the Buntins. Section 4., of the applications, which called for "[a] brief description of the proposed work, activity or construction," contains the description: "Coastal Armoring." By letter dated July 11, 2006, the Department requested additional information related to the application. Among the eight separate requests was a request for a description of the proposed activity: "Please describe the work done at the subject property for which this After-the-Fact application has been submitted." Department Exhibit 7, at 80. In the notes of the request for additional information there appears the following: Please be advised that structures to be protected must be eligible and vulnerable as per Rule 62B-33.051, F.A.C. * * * Id. at 82. DEP has been notified by the Florid (sic) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission that Hesco box structures require an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. The application was deemed incomplete a number of times and specific information was requested for it to be deemed complete. During the course of DEP's correspondence and additional submittals by Mr. Shin on behalf of the Stovalls and the Buntins, the Commission wrote to the Department on May 10, 2007, about its concern with regard to sea turtles. Based on Mr. Shin's representation that HESCO boxes are designed to collapse if subject to wave attack, Robin Trindell, Ph.D., wrote on behalf of the Commission to DEP, "Sea turtles attempting to nest or hatchlings in an area with HESCO containers could become entangled in these collapsible structures. Therefore, we do not recommend that these blocks be installed in sea turtle nesting habitat." Id. at 49. The application was deemed complete on August 30, 2007. On November 28, 2007, the Department issued a notice of denial that was received by Mr. Shin on December 4, 2007. While the HESCO Box System was found to meet applicable siting requirements, it was found to have failed to meet coastal armoring criteria related to eligibility, vulnerability, and design. Furthermore, the Department concluded that "the construction of the HESCO Box Container System does not meet the Department requirements for . . . absence of significant adverse impact to marine turtles." Id. at 9. A December 17, 2008, memorandum from Mr. Shin, received by the Department on December 24, 2007, put DEP on notice of his clients' intent to appeal the denial of the permit. The memorandum requested a 60-day extension of time to research the issues associated with the denial before beginning the "formal appeal process." Id. at 2. Mr. Shin filed the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with DEP on February 15, 2008. It initiated this proceeding at DOAH when the Department on February 29, 2008, requested assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the proceedings. The issues in this case fall under two broad categories: Coastal Armoring and impacts to marine turtles. Coastal Armoring "Armoring" is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-33.001(5): "Armoring" is a manmade structure designed to either prevent erosion of the upland property or protect eligible structures from the effects of coastal wave and current action. Armoring includes certain rigid coastal structures such as geotextile bags or tubes, seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or similar structures but it does not include jetties, groins, or other construction whose purpose is to add sand to the beach and dune system, alter the natural coast currents or stabilize the mouths of inlets. (emphasis added). There is no question that the Stovall/Buntin Hesco Basket System is a manmade structure. Its purpose is to retain the sand under the Stovall and Buntin houses. At the same time, its construction resulted in sand added to the beach and dune system. One thing is clear: the HESCO Basket System is not conventional coastal armoring. Unlike "seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, retaining walls or similar structures" listed in the rule as examples of coastal armoring, the construction of the HESCO System led to a vegetated dune. Coastal armoring is closely regulated under Chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes by the Department and its Bureau of Beaches and Shores because that chapter is "all about protection of the beach dune system." Tr. 337. Coastal armoring usually contravenes such protection. "Coastal armoring does not protect the beach dune system. It's purpose . . . is to protect upland development." Id. While the purpose of the HESCO Basket System is to protect upland development unlike typical coastal armoring, it has added not only sand to the beach but has resulted in the creation and presence of a well-vegetated dune. Prior to 1995, "coastal armoring was only authorized as a last case possibility . . . ." Tr. 337-338. And it was only authorized when approval was given at the highest level of the state executive branch of government, the Governor and Cabinet. But the law was changed in 1995 in recognition that property owners have a right to protect their property. The Coastal Armoring Rule was amended to set up eligibility, vulnerability, siting and design criteria that would strike a reasonable balance between protection of the beach dune system and a property owner's right to protect his or her property. The law was amended again in 2006 to incorporate a new technology for dune restoration: geotextile systems. HESCO Basket Systems use in coastal armoring is also a new technology when it comes to Florida's beaches and shores. Use of HESCO baskets was described at hearing as "very new", tr. 344, relative to the time of the filing of Stovall and Buntin application. If the HESCO Basket System constructed on the Stovall and Buntin properties constitutes "armoring," then it must meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.051 which govern "Coastal Armoring and Related Structures" (the "Coastal Armoring Rule"). These requirements include conditions related to "eligibility", "vulnerability", and "design," some of the bases upon which the Department's denial of the after-the- fact permit rests. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.0051(1)(a) and (2). Mr. McNeal's testimony established that the HESCO Basket System does not meet the "eligibility," "vulnerability," and "design," criteria for coastal armoring. But the Coastal Armoring Rule also encourages applicants for coastal armoring to "be aware that armoring may not be the only option for providing protection." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.0051(1). To that end, applicants for would-be armoring "are encouraged to evaluate other protection methods . . . such as dune restoration." Id. The HESCO Basket System installed by the Stovalls and Buntins follows the encouragement of the rule: it is a protection method that has resulted in dune restoration. CCCL Permit General Criteria Regardless of whether the HESCO Basket System and the vegetated dune it now supports constitutes coastal armoring, the structure on the Stovall and Buntin property must meet the General Criteria contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005 for issuance of CCCL permits. Applications for those permits must be denied "for an activity which . . . would result in a significant adverse impact . . .". Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(3)(a). Impact assessments conducted by the Department "shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on . . . marine turtles." Id. Marine Turtle Behavior Marine turtles spend most of their lives at sea often foraging hundreds of miles from their nesting habitat. Adult females migrate from feeding grounds and their foraging areas and aggregate off shore beginning in May of nesting season, generally from May through August. Off shore, the female turtles wait for nightfall to swim ashore and crawl landward in search of a spot to nest. Four species of marine turtles typically nest in Walton County: the Loggerhead, the green turtle, the Leatherback and Kemp's Ridley. Because the Loggerhead and green turtle are by far the most prevalent on Walton County beaches, the Commission focused on their specific behavior when it presented the testimony of Dr. Witherington. The mechanics of crawling differ between Loggerhead and green turtles. Loggerheads use an alternating gait while green turtles have simultaneous butterfly-style strokes. Both species drag the plastron or "belly shell" using all four flippers. Their crawls enable them to scale slopes and penetrate dune vegetation but they are not able to crawl backward. They are capable of crawling up a slope that is steeper than one to one. At a location between the recent high water mark, often observable by a wrack line (floating seaweed washed ashore) and the crest of the primary dune, the female selects a spot. The female creates a pit that she can slide her body into it. Loggerheads do so by scraping sand from the front with their front flippers and by gathering sand from beneath at the posterior to push it behind. This behavior referred to as "body pitting" tr. 474, results in a pit that the turtle eases into at a slight angle posterior end-downward at the deepest part of the pit. Green turtles have similar body-pitting behavior but it is more elaborate. "A green turtle will . . . blast the sand out in front of it, dig an enormous pit . . . two or more feet deep and create a very large mound." Tr. 475. Beneath the body pit, the turtle digs an egg chamber. For Loggerheads the depth of the egg chamber is "a little over two feet . . . say 26 inches or so," tr. 482 from the surface of the sand. For a green turtle, the depth is closer to 3 feet. On average, clutch size for a Loggerhead is 115 eggs. The range is from 70-to-170 eggs per clutch. Average clutch size for green turtles in Florida is roughly 128 with a range from 70 to 200. Turtles and the Stovall/Buntin Property Assuming no obstacles such as an exposed HESCO Basket, a sea turtle would have no trouble making its way to the crest of the HESCO Basket dune on the Stovall/Buntin property. The Stovall/Buntin dune supported by HESCO baskets is mostly vegetated with sea oats. There is Seaside Evening Primrose and some Beach Morning Glory, too. As long as the turtles are not interfered with by the HESCO baskets, a sea turtle would have no problem nesting amidst the vegetation on the Stoval/Buntin dune. Heavily eroded beaches do not discourage sea turtle nesting behaviors. But where sea turtles choose to nest on a heavily eroded beach is altered by the erosion. Dr. Witherington explained: [F]ollowing a severe erosion event, . . . [t]he beach tends to be flatter and in some cases broader and with escarpment from erosion that has occurred. And almost invariably following severe erosion events . . ., sea turtles aim for the high ground. In part, because that is the only dry sand remaining on the beach, . . . [a]nd they're choosing the safest sites on the beach to nest. Tr. 485. Thus, the erosion that has occurred on the Stovall/Buntin property is not likely to deter sea turtles from nesting there. Almost all of the area seaward of the Stovall and Buntin houses is nesting habitat, but if a sea turtle chooses to nest there, the most likely place is somewhere on the dune created by the HESCO Baskets. Threats to Sea Turtles Sea turtles encounter numerous threats, impediments and hazards when they are attempting to nest on beaches visited by human beings as much as the beaches of Walton County currently. Coastal armoring is commonly recognized as a threat to sea turtle nesting because it serves as a barrier to sea turtle nesting habitat -- precisely the opposite of the Stovall/Buntin HESCO Basket-supported dune which is an appealing place along a severely eroded beach in which to nest. Man-made debris is a threat to sea turtles. There are numerous types of debris: monofilament line is one example. Holes in the sand dug by beachgoers, beach furniture and walkways are either barriers or can cause entanglement that can lead to sea turtle injury or death. If a turtle gets up on a sea wall and falls, the fall can seriously injure the turtle or result in death. Artificial lighting is a particularly dangerous and prevalent threat. The lighting can disorient both nesting turtle and hatchlings causing them to move away from the ocean or gulf. Death can result from dehydration in the morning sun, wandering inland and falling prey to predators, or ending up on highways and being struck by cars. In addition, there are natural threats to sea turtles. A variety of predators dig into sea turtle nest for the eggs. The eggs may be swept away when the sediment around the clutch is washed away. Inundation, as well, if over too long a period can destroy the eggs. Exposed HESCO baskets are a threat to sea turtles and their hatchling in multiple ways. The ways in which they could injure or kill a turtle were described by Dr. Witherington: HESCO baskets accessible to sea turtles would act as a barrier to a sea turtle reaching an appropriate nesting habitat. An open HESCO basket . . . could act as a trap, . . . [for] turtles that might end up inside the top of the basket itself, and then there's an entanglement effect that would probably be of very little concern for HESCO baskets that were not exposed, but when they do become exposed, the entrapment effect would be much . . . larger . . . Tr. 502. Dr. Witherington also described three problems that could be posed by an exposed HESCO basket shown in a photograph taken on the Stovall property and attached to a Site Inspection Report date November 19, 2007. See Department Exhibit 16P, at 9. These were first, "the pitfall hazard," tr. 504, second, a vertical fall that the turtle might take from atop an exposed basket, and, third, entrapment. As for entrapment, Dr. Witherington opined, "it may look to many that the open HESCO baskets don't leave much opportunit[y] for the sea turtle to become entrapped, but one thing we learned is that sea turtles often make their own traps," id., when presented with situation similar to that of an exposed HESCO basket. There is another hazard to sea turtles posed by a HESCO basket if the baskets were buried beneath where a nesting turtle was digging its nest. If the turtle were to dig into the basket and strike it, it could cause the turtle to abandon the site and return to the sea. If the dune that the HESCO Baskets support were to be washed away in a storm and the basket structure were to fail, the debris left would be a "particularly pernicious tangle of wire and mesh that would very much have the potential to ensnare sea turtles." Tr. 507. A Sea Turtle Take In Dr. Witherington's opinion, HESCO baskets constitute significant habitat modification or degradation that could significantly impair the essential behavioral pattern of breeding. If HESCO baskets killed or injured a marine turtle, therefore, they would constitute a "Take," as defined by Section 373.2431(1)(c)2., Florida Statues: "'Take' means an act that actually kills or injures marine turtles, and includes significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures marine turtles by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering." "Any person . . . that illegally takes . . . any marine turtle species, or the eggs or nest of any marine turtle species . . . commits a third degree felony, punishable as provided [by law.]" § 379.2431(1)(e)5., Fla. Stat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Coastal Construction Control Line Permit applied for by the Stovalls and Buntins be issued with the conditions listed in paragraph 110, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 30th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building, Room 108 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Kelly L. Russell, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ong-In Shin Florida Coastal Development Consulting, Inc. 4654 East Highway 20 Niceville, Florida 32578 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
