The Issue Whether Respondent, The MG Herring Group, Inc. (MG Herring), was an employer of Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as Manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as Manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group) operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager, and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 11th day of May, 2018.
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 Whether the amendments respondent proposes to Rules 46- 22.001, 46-22.002 and 46-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, and the new rules it proposes, 46- through 46-22.007, or any of them, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, within the meaning of Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, (1985)?
Findings Of Fact Comprised largely of commercial fishermen, the petitioners are organizations which represent commercial fishing interests, including not only commercial fishermen, but also fish houses, fish processors, and at least one restaurateur. The parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to bring this rule challenge. The intervenor, Florida Conservation Association (FCA), is an organization to which recreational fishermen and "a number of people ... involved in the sports fishing industry" (T VIII. 7), including fishing guides, marina owners, bait and tackle dealers, tackle manufacturers, and "motels that ... cater to a fishing clientele," (T.VIII. 8) belong. According to the intervenor's executive director, "one of the primary goals of the organization ... has been to work towards gamefish status for redfish, which would be basically what we have been trying to do with the rule, for game fish status." (T.VIII 6.) Respondent Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) is charged by statute with regulating fishing in the salt waters of the state, which extend nine nautical miles from shore. (T.I.29) The rules and rule amendments the MFC has proposed for redfish were published on July 11, 1986, in Volume 12, No. 28 of the Florida Administrative Weekly on pages 2595, 2596 and 2597. They read, as follows: * 46-22.001 Purpose, Intent and Repeal of Other Laws. The purpose and intent of this chapter are to protect, manage, conserve and replenish Florida's depleted red drum (redfish) resource, species <<Sciaenops ocellata,>> which has suffered extreme declines in abundance in recent years and which is now overfished throughout the state. This chapter will <<implement measures designed to reduce fishing pressure on this species; including>> [[initially impose]] minimum and maximum size limits, <<bag limits, closed season, and prohibition of sale,>> for [[harvestable]] redfish <<harvested from state waters,>> [[to provide interim protection for the resource while a comprehensive management scheme is being formulated for later promulgation in this chapter.]] Accordingly, it is the intent of this chapter to repeal and replace those portions of section 370.11(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes dealing with redfish. This chapter is not intended, and shall not be construed, to repeal any other portion of section 370.11(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes; any other subdivision of section 370.11, Florida Statutes; or any other general or local law directly or indirectly relating to or providing protection for the redfish resource. * * * 46-22.002 Definitions "Harvest" means the catching or taking of a fish by any means whatsoever, followed by a reduction of such fish to possession. <<"Harvest" also includes the intentional killing of a fish, whether or not it is subsequently reduced to possession.>> Fish that are caught but immediately returned to the water free, alive and unharmed are not harvested. In addition, temporary possession of a fish for the purpose of measuring it to determine compliance with the minimum or maximum size requirements of this chapter shall not constitute harvesting such fish, provided that it is measured immediately after taking, and immediately returned to the water free, alive and unharmed if undersize or oversize. <<"Land," when used in connection with the harvest of a fish, means the physical act of bringing the harvested fish ashore.>> (3)(2) "Person" means any natural person, firm, entity or corporation. (4)(3) "Red drum" or "redfish" means any fish of the species <<Sciaenops Ocellata,>> or any part thereof. <<"Native redfish" means any redfish harvested from the territorial waters of the State of Florida.>> (5)(4) "Total length" means the length of a fish as measured from the tip of the snout to the tip of the tail. (6) <<"Vessel" means and includes every description of water craft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, including nondisplacement craft and any aircraft designed to maneuver on water.>> 46-22.003 Size Limits. No person shall harvest in or from the [[following designated]] waters of the State of Florida at any time, or unnecessarily destroy, any redfish of total length less than <<18 inches.>> [[that set forth as follows:]] [[(a) In the Northwest region as hereinafter defined, redfish of total length less than 16 inches. In the remainder of the state, redfish of total length less than 18 inches.]] [[For purposes of this subsection, the tern "Northwest region" shall mean and include all state waters along the Gulf of Mexico north and west of a straight line drawn from Bowlegs Point in Dixie County, southwesterly through marker 16, and continuing to the outer limit of state waters.]] [[No person shall harvest in or from the waters of the state of Florida at any time, or unnecessarily destroy, any redfish of total length greater than 32 inches, except that one (1) redfish larger than this maximum size limit may be harvested per person per day. No person shall possess at any time more than one redfish larger than 32 inches in total length, harvested from state waters.]] <<(2)(a) No person shall harvest in or from the waters of the State of Florida at any time, or unnecessarily destroy, more than one (1) redfish per day of total length greater than 32 inches.>> (b) <<No person shall possess more than one (1) redfish of total length greater than 32 inches, harvested from waters of the State of Florida.>> [[(3) It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, buy, sell, exchange or attempt to buy, sell or exchange any redfish harvested in violation of this chapter.]] * * * <<46-22.004 Prohibition on Sale and Commercial Harvest of Native Redfish. It is unlawful for any person to: Buy, sell exchange or attempt to buy, sell or exchange any native redfish. Harvest, possess or transport, for purposes of sale or with intent to sell, any native redfish. The prohibitions contained in subsection (1) of this section do not apply to non-native redfish that have entered the State of Florida in interstate commerce. However, the burden shall be upon the person possessing such redfish for sale or exchange to show, by appropriate receipt(s), bill(s) of sale, or bill(s) of lading, that such redfish originated from a point outside the waters of the State of Florida, and entered the state in interstate commerce. It is unlawful for any wholesale or retail seafood dealer or restaurant to possess, buy, sell, or store any native redfish, or permit any native redfish to be possessed, bought, sold or stored on, in, or about the premises or vehicles where such wholesale or retail seafood business or restaurant is carried on or conducted; provided, however, that native red fish which have been lawfully harvested may be kept on the premises of a restaurant for the limited purpose of preparing such red fish for consumption by the person who harvested them, so long as such redfish are packaged or on strings with tags bearing the name and address of the owner clearly written thereon. When any person buys, sells, possesses or transports non-native redfish under circumstances requiring documentation under this section, failure to maintain such documentation, or to promptly produce same at the request of any duly authorized law enforcement or conservation officer, shall constitute a separate offense under this chapter and shall also constitute prima facie evidence that such red fish were harvested from Florida waters and are being transported and/or possessed for purposes of sale.>> <<46-22.005 Season, Bag and Possession Limits. (1) During the months of March and April, the harvest of redfish in or from state waters or possession of native redfish is prohibited. Possession of redfish by any person aboard a vessel fishing in state waters during such months constitutes prima facie evidence that such redfish were harvested out-of-season in state waters. (2)(a) Except as provided in subsection (1), all persons are subject to a bag limit of five (5) native redfish per person, per day, and a possession limit of five (5) native redfish per person. Only one (1) native red fish larger than 32 inches total length may be harvested per person, per day, and no more than one (1) such redfish may be possessed by any person at any time. Possession of redfish in excess of the applicable bag or possession limit by any person aboard a vessel fishing in state waters constitutes prima facie evidence that such red fish were harvested from state waters. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the harvest of native red fish from any area during any time, or the use of any gear where same is otherwise prohibited by law.>> * * * <<46-22.006 Other Prohibitions. The harvest of any redfish in or from state waters by or with the use of any treble hook in conjunction with live or dead natural bait is prohibited. Gigging, spearing or snagging (snatch hooking) of redfish in or from state waters is prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, buy, sell, exchange or attempt to buy, sell or exchange any redfish harvested in violation of this chapter. When any provision of this chapter is violated by a person aboard a vessel, the operator of that vessel, if different from such person, shall be deemed to have assisted and participated in the violation and such assistance and participation shall constitute a separate offense under this chapter. All redfish harvested from Florida waters shall be landed in a whole condition. The possession, while on state waters, of redfish that have been deheaded, sliced, divided, filleted, ground, skinned, scaled or deboned is prohibited. Mere evisceration or "gutting" of redfish, or mere removal of gills from redfish, before landing is not prohibited. Preparation of red fish for immediate consumption on board the vessel from which the fish were caught is not prohibited.>> <<46-22.007 Severability. If any provision of this rule chapter, or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid; the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this rule chapter are declared severable.>> Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1 (Added language underscored, de- leted language struck through) * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The proposed rules and rule amendments under challenge are designed to replace the initial redfish rules, which took effect September 12, 1985, and remain in force. Since before the current rules' adoption, statutory provisions have imposed a statewide 12-inch minimum size limit for redfish, Section 370.11(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes (1985), and forbidden the use of purse seines. Section 370.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985). Youth and Age The redfish, also known as red drum and, to ichthyologists, as Sciaenops ocellatus, has a life span of 25 to 35 years. The adult redfish or "bull reds" swim offshore in deep water ordinarily, but not always, in schools. They are commonly found with schools of blue runner and little tunny. Respondent's Exhibit No. 29, 2-1. Schools of adult redfish are not found in inshore waters. But adults do approach the mouths of estuaries to spawn in the fall, mostly in September. Eggs borne by incoming tides and newly hatched, microscopic redfish larvae swimming inland make their way through the passes and well up into the bays and bayous along Florida's coasts, often all the way into fresh water, where rivers empty into the estuaries. By April of the following year, some redfish spawned in September have attained a length of 12 inches. By the following September, all redfish spawned a year earlier have reached 12 inches in length. A redfish gains one to five pounds a year. (T.I.31) When they are 18 to 26 inches long, they weigh from 3 to 6 pounds. On average, an 18 inch redfish is about a year and a half old. Juvenile redfish also swim in schools, often with sea trout, mullet and catfish. Once a redfish reaches three or four pounds, man is one of the few creatures in the estuaries big enough to eat it. (T. I. 45) But scientists put the mortality rate for juvenile redfish at 30 percent. (T.58) Only when they are about 4 1/2 years old do redfish leave the juvenile population's estuarine habitat for the blue waters the adult population inhabits. On average they then weigh 12 to 14 pounds and have obtained a length of 29 to 30 inches. Tagging studies and age frequency data suggest that as few as two percent of redfish recruits, or perhaps only a tenth of that number, survive long enough to escape the estuary. (T.I.63) For at least the last ten years, the escapement rate has been on this order of magnitude, and the escapement rate may have been dropping during this period. (T.I.67) The size distribution of redfish taken offshore reflects significantly lower numbers of spawners escaping during the last 20-some years than previously. Spawning redfish tend to return to the point on the coast where they themselves were spawned, but this is by no means a hard and fast rule: "Drift", also called diffusion or filtration, is known to occur. Redfish range throughout the Gulf of Mexico and are found in the Atlantic Ocean as far north as New Jersey. Because redfish caught offshore are taken with purse seines, they cannot legally be landed in Florida. They are mostly brought ashore in Louisiana and mostly caught in that part of the Gulf. Juvenile redfish in the Florida Keys are not believed to swim back and forth between the Gulf and the Atlantic, but adult redfish may. Blackened Redfish Commercial fishing offshore requires a six-figure investment in boat and equipment and a crew of several men. Until relatively recently, the big offshore operations largely ignored redfish, in favor of fish that could be sold at higher prices. But a dramatic increase in the demand for redfish has provided the economic incentive to make redfish an important target of the offshore fishery since 1982 or 1983. (The redfish's new-found popularity has been attributed to a New Orleans chef, who made famous a dish called "blackened redfish.") For whatever reason, massive catches of red fish offshore have depleted the adult stock of redfish in the last four or five years by as much as half, by some estimates. Before 1983, catches averaged less than 100,000 pounds a year. In the first half of 1986, some 7,000,000 pounds of redfish were taken in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. In other species, declines in the number of spawners have precipitated collapses of fisheries. The pattern has been, however, that declines in spawning populations have initially caused increases, rather than decreases, in juvenile populations. In the case of the yellow croaker, for example, the juvenile population initially increased ashe adult population dwindled. Only after 80 percent or more of the spawning stock was wiped out did a dramatic drop in the juvenile population ensue, spelling the end of the fishery. Whether the juvenile redfish stock has diminished in consequence of the decline of the spawner population is not clear. According to anecdotal evidence from Steinhatchee, the redfish catch there has increased over the last five years. The evidence did not establish whether fishermen's efforts to catch juvenile redfish at Steinhatchee or elsewhere in shallow state waters have changed significantly in recent years. Steinhatchee fishermen report large schools of two to four pound redfish beginning in October. Such reports are often unreliable evidence of general conditions, however. Trends in catch data are evidence of population trends, but they require careful interpretation. For one thing, experts generally believe the commercial catch to be under-reported and the recreational catch to be overestimated. (T.I.48-9) Constant catches in response to increasing effort may reflect a decline in population. Even increasing catches are not incompatible with population decline, considered in conjunction with other factors. The most recent catch data from Charlotte Harbor suggest smaller catches last year and the year before than in immediately prior years, during which the trend was generally up. But last year's statistics particularly are subject to revision and should be treated as preliminary only. To some extent, moreover, last year's change from a 12-inch to an 18-inch minimum size limit in Charlotte Harbor would account for any decrease in catch. The Charlotte Harbor redfish catch reported for 1984 is comparable to catches reported in the mid 1950s, 1964, and 1969, and exceeds the redfish catches reported in 1967, 1966, and certain earlier years. In short, the Charlotte Harbor data since 1983 neither confirm the previous upward trend nor establish any change in trend. Catch statistics with regard to the state as a whole are similarly inconclusive. In 1979, fishermen caught 3,177,590 pounds of redfish in Florida waiters. The total catch fell by more than a third to 1,917,005 pounds in 1980, and climbed to 3,160,122 pounds in 1981, about the level of two years before, even excluding recreational catches in January and February. In 1982, the total catch increased some two and a half times to 8,977,274 pounds, although MFC's executive director suspects that the recreational catch estimates, and, therefore, the totals for 1982 are inflated. The total redfish catch fell to 5,738,260 pounds in 1983, then rose to 6,375,250 pounds in 1984. Table 5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. These catches do not include adult redfish in any significant numbers. (T. I.33) Fish Scaling MFC staff used a computer model developed by one of the commissioners, William W. Fox, Jr., to predict the effects regulatory changes would have on the escapement rate. This computer model, the generalized exploited population simulator (GXPOPS), has been used to predict the population dynamics of such diverse species as pandalic shrimp, with its "protandric hermaphroditic life history strategy," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, p. 38, and grouper, a "protogynic hermaphroditic population." Id. Redfish have distinct genders and differ from grouper and shrimp in other important attributes. Computer models are the only tools available for predicting population changes in response to regulatory changes, however; and, as far as the evidence showed, no other computer model has been more closely tailored to redfish or would be any more likely to predict the effects of regulatory changes on redfish populations more accurately than GXPOPS. Various GXPOPS generated tables are in evidence displaying data stated in millions of pounds of redfish, or in millions of fish, but nobody knows how many redfish are in the sea, so that a principal use of the numbers is as ratios; more than one scale has been used, and not all the tables are directly comparable. The MFC considered what biological or resource objective to set in terms of a proportional increase in the rate of escapement. The greater the fraction of juvenile recruits that survive long enough to escape the estuaries, the more rapidly the diminished spawning stock could be replenished offshore. Although there is some confusion on the point, it is not an unfair characterization to say that the MFC adopted a 50-fold increase in the escapement rate as its biological goal for redfish. If, as may be the case, the present escapement rate is only 0.2 percent, a 50-fold increase would only bring the escapement rate to half the level advocated by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. If, as may also be the case, a dramatic decrease in the number of recruits is either imminent or already in progress, even a 50-fold increase in the rate of escapement may not increase the number of spawners leaving the estuaries to the levels needed to preserve the redfishery. The evidence falls far short of showing that the MFC has set the escapement rate goal too high. On the contrary, the evidence established that the MFC set the escapement rate goal so low that attaining the goal will not guarantee the continued viability of the redfish fishery. If, as respondent's executive director testified, it is like driving toward a cliff in the fog, the wisest thing might be to stop the car till the fog clears. Means To An End Once a biological or resource goal has been set, the question becomes how to reach the goal. The MFC considered two options that the GXPOPS model predicted would meet its resource goal without closing down the commercial fishery: a five-month closed season together with a 17 inch minimum size limit; and a six-month closed season together with a 16-inch minimum size limit, There are numerous other approaches that would not involve conferring gamefish status on the redfish. Exhibit 1 to Dr. Fox's deposition; Dr. Austin's testimony. It may be that prohibiting redfishing for three, instead of only for two months would have permitted continuation of the commercial fishery. (T.XI. 52-4) In regulated fisheries throughout the world "there is a fairly clear hierarchy," (T.X. 72), among types of regulations. Minimum-size limits, then closed seasons, then catch restrictions (bag limits for recreational fishermen and quotas for commercial fishermen) are preferred, in that order, both because within each category the magnitude of change necessary to accomplish the same result increases in descending order; and because the complexity of assumptions that must be made to predict the effect of the regulation increases for each category in descending order. In the present case, for example, an increase of three inches in the minimum size limit applicable in peninsular territorial waters, from 18 to 21 inches, would be a less drastic change than leaving the minimum size limit at 18 inches and closing state waters to the taking of redfish for five months, although either change would accomplish approximately the same increase in the escapement rate. The only assumptions that underlie minimum size restrictions concern age size correlations and the "mortality that occurs when fish have to be released [because they are too small], which is relatively well known in this fishery." (T.X. 74) Predicting the effect of closed seasons requires more complex assumptions about seasonal abundance of the fish, the likelihood that fishermen's efforts A to catch the species will drift into the open season, and the chances that scofflaws will shorten the closed season de facto. In general, a prohibition against possession is more readily enforcible than a prohibition against disposition. It is a simple matter to count the number or to measure the size of fish a person has in his possession. Proving an intent to sell is more difficult. Other Management Plans On July 20, 1986, the United States Secretary of Commerce closed the federal conservation zone, which is the area more than nine and less than 200 nautical miles out from shore, to the taking of redfish. The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC) has recommended that the original ban, which was to have been effective only through September 23, 1986, be extended for another 90 days pending adoption of regulations prescribing a permanent ban. The GMFMC has also recommended that the Gulf states adopt regulations that would allow at least a fifth of redfish recruits to escape the estuaries. As of January 1984, Alabama prohibited the taking of red fish smaller than 14 inches and the taking of more than two redfish larger than 36 inches, placed geographic and temporal restrictions on the use of nets, limited recreational catch to 25 fish per day and imposed a possession limit of 50 on recreational fishermen. Respondent's Exhibit No. 29, 7-16 and 17. Alabama forbids the sale of native redfish. Alabama Administrative Code Section 220-3- 12. As of January 1984, Mississippi placed gear restrictions on fishermen taking redfish, prohibited the taking of redfish in certain places (including Redfish Bayou!) and of a size less than 14 inches, limited to two per day the number of redfish exceeding 30 inches in length, limited recreational catch to 10 redfish per day, imposed a possession limit of 30 redfish, closed state waters to commercial fishing from September 15th to November 15th, and authorized closing of the commercial fishery for the remainder of any year in which landing reports indicate 200,000 pounds have been taken. Respondent's Exhibit 29,7-14,15. As of January 1984, Louisiana closed certain areas to commercial fishing, disallowed the use of certain gear by commercial fishermen in certain other areas, and imposed gear restrictions on all fishermen. Recreational fishermen were limited to two redfish per day more than 36 inches in length but were subject to no minimum size limit. Recreational fishermen were entitled to take no more than 50 spotted sea trout and redfish combined per day, and subject to a 100-fish possession limit. Commercial fishermen were subject to a 16-inch minimum size limit but to no maximum size limit. Effective August 30, 1986, counsel advise, recreational fishermen are permitted to keep no more than two red fish greater than 30 inches in length and possession of redfish on board a vessel carrying a purse seine is illegal, citing Act. No. 613, 387, 611, 660. As of July 1984, commercial fishing for redfish had been outlawed in Texas, although licensed fish importers may, and do, sell redfish from Mexico and other states. No redfish less than 16 inches long or greater than 30 inches in length could be taken. The weekend use (1:00 p.m. Friday to 1:00 p.m. Sunday) of nets and trot lines was forbidden. As of September 4, 1986, the minimum size limit was 18 inches, and hook and line was the only lawful way to take redfish. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, pp. 78A. At the time Texas dilettantized its redfishery, commercial fishermen were taking most of the catch. Fishermen must use either fishing poles or a single "sail line" which is a "special trotline[] with one end on shore, pier or jetty, and with the other end attached to a wind-powered device or sail and attended at all times." Respondent's Exhibit No. 29, 7-7. Florida Fisheries Fishing gear and methods in Charlotte Harbor, the principal site for commercial redfishing in Florida, have been constant for some time. Since the 1950s fishermen have used synthetic, instead of natural, fibers for their nets. In December, January and February, cold fronts in Charlotte Harbor seem to "concentrate the fish" into schools that experienced fishermen can spot. There is also a "night fishery" in the summer months, when redfish are taken at first light or "dawn pink." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, p 31. Ninety percent of the red fish commercial fishermen catch in Charlotte Harbor are taken with trammel nets, deployed from flat-bottomed shallow draft boats 19 to 24 feet long, with beams of five to eight feet. Although "pole skiffs" are sometimes used in very shallow water (four inches or less), the boats are mostly powered by outboard motors, mounted forward in wells. In Steinhatchee, the fishermen call these boats "bird dogs." Even the largest of them can be handled by a single fisherman, and can be built with materials that cost less than $3,000. None could be safely taken very far off shore. Undersize or other undesirable fish taken in trammel nets can be returned to the water alive. Ordinarily trammel nets consist of two outer "walls" of larger mesh flanking a central, finer mesh curtain or "bunt." When the fishermen encircle the fish, the three components of the net stand vertically in the water; the lines along the upper edges of each bunt are kept on the surface by floats, while the weighted lines along the bottom edges fall to the bottom. Fish swimming through an opening in one wall and into the small- mesh bunt push the finer netting through openings in the other wall, which creates a pouch or pocket in which the fish remains ensnared, when the fisherman hauls in the trammel net. Gill nets, which are also sometimes used, consist of a single swatch with mesh calibrated to stop fish of a certain size. Smaller fish swim through while larger fish are repelled. Fish taken by gill nets die from injuries they sustain when they become lodged in an opening in the net. In Steinhatchee almost half the red fish sold to the fish houses are caught by hook and line fishermen who have salt water products licenses, which can be bought for $25 and authorize the holder to sell his catch. In Charlotte Harbor, the "bucket brigade" as they are there called makes a contribution, although a less significant one, to the commercial catch. Hook and line fishermen have the advantage, an important one in the Steinhatchee fishery, of being able to take their boats up the river into fresh water. Eighty percent of redfish are caught from boats. Making a Payday Commercial fishermen take only an eighth to a quarter of the redfish caught in Florida state waters. As far as the evidence showed, not a single commercial fisherman in Florida depends exclusively on the sale of juvenile redfish for his income. Redfish comprise less than one percent of the food fin fish commercial fishermen catch in Florida waters. Almost all of the approximately 1800 commercial fishermen in Florida who catch redfish in state waters depend on the sale of other fish for most of their income. At a given time, certain species are available and certain species are not; and the prices they fetch vary. Mullet may bring as little as $.25 a pound while pompano can go for as much as $3.10 per pound. Commercial fishermen in Charlotte Harbor, whose annual income averages $11,334 after expenses, take mullet, sea trout, pompano, mackerel, jacks and sand bream as well as redfish. Not every fisherman targets each of these fish, but the overwhelming majority do seek mullet, which they call their "bread and butter" fish. Even for those fishermen whose equipment and skills enable them to pursue several species, the different species are not readily interchangeable. Rather than offering each load of fish they catch to the highest bidder, commercial fishermen like the individual petitioners who testified in the present case, ordinarily sell their catch to a single fish house, year after year. This practice offers some protection against seasonal market fluctuations. When roe mullet begin to run in the fall, demand for these and other fish exceeds the supply. But, during the summer months, the fish house operators will not buy mullet from fishermen with whom they have not already established a relationship. Because supply greatly exceeds demand in summertime and because freezer space is limited, fish house operators impose quotas even on fishermen with whom they have longstanding relationships. The fish houses do not sell all of the catch locally. About half leaves Florida. Exporters drive refrigerated semi-trailers to the fish houses where they buy fish by the 100-pound box for resale out of state. Georgia, their nearest destination, is several hundred miles from Charlotte Harbor, the principal site of redfishing in Florida waters. Except during the roe mullet run, these drivers call ahead to inquire of the fish houses how many "fancy fish" they have, "fancy fish" meaning redfish or sea trout. If a fish house has no redfish or sea trout on hand, the drivers may pass it by altogether or, at best, buy only a few boxes of mullet. Explicitly or otherwise, fish houses with redfish to sell may condition their sale on the buyer's taking, along with each box of redfish, four to ten boxes of mullet, depending on market conditions. Fishing For Fun According to those who have studied the question most carefully, including Dr. Holland, who testified at hearing, the attractiveness of recreational fishing trips depends less than might be expected on the hope of catching any fish at all, much less one of a particular species, when several are available. Very few recreational fishermen "limit the goals of their fishing experience to catching fish. The majority are more interested in perceiving freedom, escaping from responsibilities, and enjoying an outdoor natural environment." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, p. 137. Things like "being exposed to polluted surroundings... ruin[] a fishing trip more than not catching a fish. These conclusions are based on answers given by a sample of fishing association members who actively fish (an average of 31 days a year)." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, p. 136. As Mr. Raulerson explained with reference to tourists who fish in Florida's salt waters, the prospect of catching a fish may be less significant than the prospect of being out on the water in weather much warmer than what the tourist has left behind; and sighting a porpoise can be the principal benefit tourists derive from a fishing trip. For most recreational anglers, keeping a fish to eat is even less important than catching it. The only one of the intervenor's witnesses who testified on the point, Richard A. Shapley, a Tallahassee resident and an IBM employee who goes fishing every weekend, characterized himself as "more of a sports fisherman than a fish eater," (T.VII p. 16) and candidly admitted that he would not be particularly bothered by having to release all the redfish he caught. Currently, only 7.6 percent of sports fishermen catch more than five redfish per trip. Their catch amounts to eleven percent of the recreational catch, which has accounted for three quarters to seven eighths of all the redfish harvested in Florida waters. Almost five percent (4.975 percent) of marine sport fishermen in Florida caught (but did not necessarily seek) or sought (but did not necessarily catch) redfish, according to the most reliable statistics available for the period 1979 to 1984. An economist employed by the Sport Fishing Institute (SFI), whose "programs serve the long-term interests of the sport fishing industry, which provides the base of ... [SFI's] financial support," Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, p. 1, offered the opinion that up "to $121,416,000 in [1985] retail marine sport fishing expenditures can be attributed to redfish." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, p. 11. Marine sport fishing is without doubt an important source of income for many Floridians, and retail marine sport fishing expenditures figure significantly in the state's economy, but the SFI estimate of retail expenditures attributable to redfish is a very substantial overstatement. To obtain the figure of $121,416,000, SFI's economist used a study that attributed to fishing not only all sums expended on fishing trips, but also all food and lodging expenditures for the whole of each day on which a tourist did any fishing; then assumed that catching or seeking redfish was the sole motivation for 4.975 percent of the fishing trips sportsmen made in Florida's salt waters. Neither of these assumptions bears up under scrutiny. Even on the assumption, which the evidence showed to be contrary to fact, that all fishing trips arise wholly from a desire to catch fish, the use of the 4.975 percent factor was not justified. At least for purposes of the present case, retail expenditures made by fishermen who had no desire or intention to catch redfish can hardly be said to be attributable to the availability of redfish. In addition, the number of recreational fishing trips taken by anglers in pursuit of redfish should, at the very least, be reduced to allow for trips on which the hope of taking other species was the dominant purpose. End of An Era If the proposed rule changes take effect, commercial fishing for redfish in Florida waters will come to an end. The effects on commercial fishermen would be overwhelmingly adverse. The one possible silver lining is that the loss of redfish as a commercial species would make mullet so much harder to sell that marginal commercial fishermen would look for other work, leaving more fish for the more skilled full-time commercial fishermen. Red fish sell for about eighty cents per pound ex-vessel. At least one fish house has had recent offers of $1.45 or $1.50 per pound for redfish. The economic impact statement puts the secondary wholesale value of redfish at 2.8 times the ex-vessel price. Grocery stores, seafood markets and restaurants sell redfish at retail. On the assumption that the retailers could substitute imported redfish for native redfish, if commercial fishing is banned by the proposed rule, the economic impact statement ignores retail losses and predicts a "total annual longterm commercial loss ... [of] approximately $4.733 million in income [which] could force some fishermen and fish houses that rely primarily on redfish out of business." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5, p. 2. The economic impact statement's analysis assumed a loss of commercial catch of only 961,646 pounds, the 1982-1984 average. On the same assumption, an economist analyzing the problem from the perspective of sport fishermen, predicted the total economic impact of closing the commercial fishery would be $6,494,629 annually, taking retail sales into account and using certain multipliers. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, pp.9 and 10. Neither of these calculations takes into account the economic value of redfish as leverage in mullet sales, although the economic impact statement does mention that "having no redfish to sell will hurt the mullet sales." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5, p. 21 Fewer, Fatter Fish for Frying If the proposed rules take effect and the fishery does not collapse, the escapement rate will increase by a factor of 58.43 and, except for the fish that escape, the recreational fishermen will have available not only the fish now caught by commercial fishermen, but also all of the predicted increase in the weight of the redfish catch. The present recreational catch, estimated at 2.1 million pounds, before the new minimum size regulations took effect on September 12, 1985, would grow to 5.65 million pounds at equilibrium three or four years out. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, p. 10, All of this increase would be attributable to an increase in the average size of the fish caught, because, over the same period, the number of fish caught by recreational anglers would fall from 1,190,000 to 1,030,000. Id. The precise effects these changes would have on the recreational fishing industry are not clear. The two-month closed season would have an adverse affect, since some 7.4 percent of recreational fishing trips on which redfish are caught or sought now occur in March or April. On the other hand, there would be more redfish, they would weigh more on average, and they would be more likely to be caught not only during the ten months they could lawfully be taken, but also during the two months when the law would require fishermen to release them, if caught. The proposed rule would make it more likely that unskilled fishermen who would not otherwise have caught a redfish will catch redfish, and that those who would otherwise have caught less than five will be more likely to catch as many as five. T.X. Skilled fishermen might be discouraged by the proposed five fish bag limit. Increased abundance would presumably be irrelevant to the 7.6 percent of recreational anglers now catching more than the proposed bag limit of five. They may, indeed, be lured to Alabama where the bag limit is 25, or to some other site. The effects a change in the availability of redfish might have on recreational fishing were the subject of much testimony at the hearing. The economic impact statement assumed a response elasticity for non-residents" of 0.1203, i.e., that an increase of eight percent in pounds of redfish available would cause an increase of approximately one percent of the number of fishing trips on which redfish were caught or sought. The 0.1203 figure is "Green's coefficient," and was used by Green to correlate changes in numbers of fishing trips taken by non-residents already in Florida with changes in multi-species catch (in pounds) per trip, not with changes in the total number of pounds of a particular species available to be caught. As far as the evidence showed, moreover, the weight of fish in Green's study was a good proxy for numbers of fish. In the present case, the increase in weight would occur despite a reduction in the number of fish caught and kept. Despite all the problems, however, Green's coefficient is a much more satisfactory measure of elasticity than any other offered at hearing. The economic impact statement summed up the situation fairly by saying with respect to recreational fishing, "little is known of the effects of being able to harvest less of one species of fish, especially in saltwater where a multitude of species are available as substitutes." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, p. 3. The converse is also true, although fishermen "tend to go to the spot where... [they] think... [they] can catch the most fish." But the proposed rules would decrease, not increase, the numbers of redfish that recreational fishermen could take. (T.V. 148) Studies in evidence show that increased availability of fish attract fishermen to the site of the increase. Even if it is assumed that bigger fish attract fishermen just as greater numbers of fish do, it does not follow that the total number of fishing trips occurring everywhere increases, rather than that fishing has fallen off at alternate sites within the fisherman's geographical range. (T.V. 147-148) For many tourists the geographical range will be determined by factors unrelated to fishing. Tourists, including tourists who eventually go fishing in salt water here, come to Florida for many different reasons. Perhaps the children want to go to Disneyworld. Whether a fishing trip is among their recreational pursuits once they arrive depends on how attractive a fishing trip seems in relation to other recreational possibilities. This depends, in turn, on a host of other factors, including, for example, relative cost. The cost of a fishing trip is five times more important than the availability of fish, as a variable determining whether the fishing trip will be taken. Even anglers choosing a Florida vacation in order to go fishing will not necessarily take the availability of redfish into account. Enforcement Considerations Size restrictions are more easily enforced against commercial fishermen than against recreational fishermen, because almost the entire commercial catch moves through licensed, frequently inspected fish houses, while the low numbers of marine patrol officers make enforcement of such regulations against recreational fishermen a haphazard affair. The so-called night fishery for redfish during summer months occurs at first light. Even if fish are taken while it is dark, they must, with few exceptions, move through easily monitored channels if they are to be distributed commercially. Closed seasons create the possibility of erosion when they begin, by fishermen jumping the gun, and when they end, by fishermen persisting unlawfully. Redfish can be frozen, which makes it difficult to determine just when they were caught. Under the proposed rule, however, frozen redfish can be imported, so the possibility of passing off native red fish as imports would exist, just as, in a mixed fishery with a closed season, the possibility of passing off redfish taken out of season as having been taken lawfully would exist. There is also the possibility, if bag limits apply to recreational, but not to commercial, fishermen that recreational fishermen will buy salt water products licenses to escape the bag limits. Such a strategy would appeal to recreational anglers who successfully fish for redfish now. Data from other, similar fisheries suggest that successful anglers' catch goes up proportionally much less than marginal or unsuccessful fishermen's catch in response to increased abundance. Recreational vs. Commercial Economic analyses of intergroup reallocations assume that the marginal utility of income is the same in each group. Since this is unlikely to be the case, such analyses are of limited importance. The accepted way to compare economic benefits attributable to commercially caught redfish and those attributable to redfish caught recreationally is to sum the producer's surplus and the consumer's surplus for the commercial catch and to do the same calculation for the recreational catch, and then compare the two. But there was virtual unanimity that adequate data do not exist to make these calculations. This makes the expenditures approach to valuation of red fish taken recreationally one of the few possibilities for quantifying their economic importance. But in a very real way, this approach is all wrong. Attributing fishermen's food and lodging costs to redfish they catch is analogous to allocating to each redfish sold in a restaurant the entire price of the meal, the babysitter's wages, and costs incurred for transportation to the restaurant. An increase in the price of gasoline results in an increase in the value assigned to redfish taken by recreational fishermen, although higher gasoline prices actually make fishing trips and the fish they might yield less attractive. Dr. Austin offered the most interesting approach, an approach which it is instructive to apply to the numbers Mr. Davis supplied on the last day of hearing. Dr. Austin's technique requires identifying the increase in recreational catch attributable to closing the commercial fishery. A close approximation is possible. The proposed rules would close down the commercial fishery by two overlapping devices: the bag limit and the ban on sale. Mr. Davis supplied the GXPOPS predictions of equilibrium effects for the "18 inch option," which differs from the proposed rules in that it has no bag limits does not forbid the sale of native redfish, and has no closed season. According to Mr. Davis, respondent's executive director, recreational fishermen would take 3,950,000 pounds and commercial fishermen would take 1,112,000 pounds of redfish at equilibrium, with the 18 inch option, assuming the fishery did not collapse. At equilibrium under the proposed rules, again assuming the fishery did not collapse, the total annual catch (which would all be recreational) is predicted to amount to 5,650,000 pounds. At equilibrium, the recreational catch with the proposed rules in place would exceed the recreational catch under the 18 inch option by 1,700,000 pounds 1/ (5,650,000 minus 3,950,000 equals 1,700,000). There would be no commercial catch under the proposed rules, but the 18 inch option would result in annual commercial catches of 1,112,000 pounds, at equilibrium. With the methodology developed at page four of the economic impact statement, Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5, it is possible to predict a 5.2 percent increase in recreational trips, or an increase of 14,641 fishing trips annually attributable to choosing the proposed rule over the 18 inch option. (283,078)(.1203)(1,700,000 divided by 3,950,000). If the proposed rules are adopted, the commercial sector's loss, at equilibrium, of 1,112,000 pounds a year may be said to have made possible the increase in recreational trips. Dividing the number of pounds lost by the number of trips gained yields the number of pounds of catch commercial fishermen would have to forego, in order to induce each additional recreational trip. Dividing 1,112,000 by 14,641 yields 76 pounds of commercial catch foregone for each recreational trip induced. The economic impact statement values each recreational trip at $53, citing Bell's study. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, p. 7. This compares with the retail price of 76 pounds of redfish - at $2.70 per pound - of $205.20. Another way to view the economic consequences of reallocation from the commercial to the recreational sector is to compare the relative costs of production, and efficiencies of distribution. Commercial fishermen produce redfish at an approximate cost of $.50 per pound, then introduce them into marketing channels, where they become available to all segments of the population. In contrast, SFI's economist acknowledged that it costs recreational fishermen somewhere between $19.94 and $31.37 per pound to harvest redfish, which is then available only to the sportsman and his circle of acquaintance. In short, the evidence did not establish an economic justification for closing down the commercial fishery and reallocating most of the fish that would have been taken commercially to the recreational sector. Neither the economic impact statement nor its author, who testified at hearing, claimed a net economic benefit would flow from a reallocation of redfish from the commercial to the recreational fishery. The issue of reallocation is, at bottom, a political question. Let Them Eat Mullet Although some people, like Mr. Shapley, may not be particularly interested in eating redfish, redfish is believed by many to be desirable as food. This includes people who do not own boats or go fishing. If native redfish becomes unavailable to Florida consumers, who would otherwise have eaten it, they will have to substitute frozen, imported redfish, or another species of fish or some other source of protein.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 21, 1984, respondent, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), gave notice to approximately seventy-five qualified vendors that it would receive sealed bids on the following project: BID No. DNR 73-84/85-Furnish all labor and equipment necessary to maintain the youth Camp Swimming Pool at Wekiva Springs State Park, Apopka, Florida (Orange County) to comply with all state and county requirements. The bids were to be filed no later than 2:30 p.m., Thursday, October 11, 1984. At that time the sealed bids would be opened. All prospective bidders received an Invitation to Bid which contained sixteen general conditions, a contract for services, five specifications, and other pertinent general information. Of some significance was general condition five which required that "any questions concerning conditions and specifications . . . be directed in writing to (DNR) for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening." Also contained in the general information section was an admonition that it was the vendor's "responsibility . . . to raise any questions prior to bid opening concerning the specifications or bidding procedures as written," and that the interpretation of the agency would prevail. Petitioner, Shea Pool and Home Services, Inc., acknowledged that it read these provisions prior to submitting a bid. Only three bids were submitted by qualified vendors. The lowest bidder was All American Pool-N-Patio, Inc., which submitted a bid of $254 per month to perform the requested services. The next lowest bidder was Ariza Pool Service and Renovations, Inc. with a bid of $378 per month. Petitioner submitted the highest bid with an offer to provide the services for $475 per month. After checking the references of the lowest bidder, DNR gave notice of its intention to award the contract to l1 American Pool-N-Patio, Inc. on October 15, 1984. Thereafter, petitioner filed a protest on October 17, 1984, which triggered this proceeding. This was followed by a formal protest filed on October 26, 1984, which set out in greater detail the basis for its challenge. Petitioner contends various specifications in the Invitation to Bid are "defective" or "wasteful." Primarily, it asserts that the contract calls for excessive cleaning during the winter months when a pool is not normally used-- however, the pool is subject to being used on short notice year-round and therefore the all-inclusive cleaning provision is required. It also contends that a number of provisions are "vague" and that this hindered its efforts to properly prepare its bid. But petitioner made no effort to clarify any "ambiguities" before its bid was prepared even though such was required by the terms of the Invitation to Bid. Moreover, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that the questioned specifications and conditions were sufficiently clear to allow all bidders to formulate a competitive bid. These include specifications relative to the vendor's liability, enforcement of the contract by the park manager, and the construction of an equipment room on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent award DNR 73-84/85 to All American Pool-N- Patio, Inc., and that petitioner's protest be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Shea 102 Camphor Tree Lane Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Suite 1003, Douglas Bldg. 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32303
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 Whether or not on or about April 14, 1977, the Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, and/or its agent, servant or employee, Tammy O'Brien, aka Rachelle O'Connors, on the Respondent's licensed premises, did knowingly perform, or participate in an obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent show, exhibition, or performance by a live person before an audience, contrary to s. 847.011(4), F.S., thereby establishing a violation on the part of the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about April 14, 1977, the Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, and/or its agent, servant or employee, James Balough, on its licensed premises, did knowingly allow or permit Tammy O'Brien, aka Rachelle O'Connors, to knowingly perform, or participate in an obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent show, exhibition, or performance by a live person before an audience, contrary to 847.011(4), F.S., thereby establishing a violation on the part of the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about February 25, 1977, the Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, failed to manage and maintain control of all business conducted on its licensed premises, by allowing Vernon Wilmer, Jr. and/or James Balough to be responsible for expenses relating to the operation and maintenance of the business, liable for any outstanding obligations arising out of the operation of the business, responsible for equipment of the business and whereby that contract did not contemplate the relationship of principal and agent between the licensee and employee, contrary to Rule 7A-3.17, F.A.C., thereby establishing a violation on the part of the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about May 25, 1977, the Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, and/or its agent, servant or employee, employed by salary or on a contractual basis to entertain, perform or work upon the licensed premises, to wit: Mary Elizabeth Antone did beg or solicit a customer or patron, to wit: Beverage Sgt. Jack Wallace on the Respondent's licensed premises to purchase a beverage, alcoholic or otherwise, for the Respondent or its agent, servant, employee or entertainer, contrary to s. 562.131(1), F.S., thereby establishing a violation on the part of the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about May 25, 1977, the Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, and/or its agent, servant or employee, employed by salary or on a contractual basis to entertain, perform or work upon the licensed premises, to wit: Glenda Antone Brown, did beg or solicit a customer or patron, to wit: Deputy Tony Mulqueen, on its licensed premises, to purchase a beverage, alcoholic or otherwise, for the Respondent, or its agent, servant or employee or entertainer, contrary to s. 562.131(1) F.S., thereby establishing a violation on the part of the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about April 19, 1977, the Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., licensed under the beverage laws, failed to maintain on its licensed premises copies of invoices for the purchases of beer or wine for a period of three years contrary to Rule 7A-4.45, F.A.C., thereby establishing a violation on the part of the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S. There was found in the notice to show cause counts six and seven; these counts were withdrawn from consideration at the commencement of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., is the holder of license no. 15-388, held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. This license is held to do business at a premises located at 281-B, A1A, South Patrick, Satellite Beach, Florida. On April 13, 1977, beverage agents Perry L. Lyle and James Boutherin went to the licensed premises at around 11:30 P.M. They sat at a cocktail table in front of the stage located in the licensed premises, and ordered drinks. At approximately 12:30 A.M., April 14, 1977, a female employee/entertainer of the licensee, one Tammy O'Brien whose stage name is Rachelle O'Connors, conducted a performance on the stage. The performance was a type of "striptease". In the course of the "striptease" act this dancer approached one of the customers, a Mr. David R. Johnson, and removed his eye glasses with her hands. She then took the folded eye glasses and stretched out the g-string that she was wearing and inserted the glasses into the genital area and made a stroking motion, simulating sexual activity, by means of the eye glasses. She then returned to Johnson and tilted his head back and inserted the glasses into his mouth. After this episode with Johnson, she continued to dance, until a second male subject appeared from the audience and while Ms. O'Brien had her legs spread apart the second male customer pushed his face near her genital area. There was no touching of his face to her genital area. She then took her hands and rubbed them in her pubic area and placed her fingers in the mouth of the second male patron. She was subsequently arrested for these activities. During the course of this performance, a man was working behind the bar directing the waitresses and handing out glasses and bottles of alcoholic beverages. This man was James Balough. Balough indicated to the beverage agents that he was in charge of the licensed premises and was in partnership agreement with the Golden Dolphin, under the terms of a management contract with the Golden Dolphin. This arrangement was a joint venture with another individual whose name is Vernon Wilmer. Balough was also arrested for allowing the dance to occur. In the course of the hearing David R. Johnson testified and his testimony established that on other occasions female dancers in the licensed premises had taken glasses from male customers and inserted them into the dancer's genital area. In fact, this had occurred to him before the episode with Ms. O'Brien. These other dancers spoken of were entertainers of the licensee. One other fact that was established by Johnson's testimony was that the glasses returned to him had a peculiar odor which was not there when he had had the glasses removed from his face. None of the listed corporate officers of the licensee were on the premises on April 13 and 14, 1977, at the time of the activities by Tammy O'Brien. The two principal officers are Mary Seidman, President and Milton Seidman, Vice President. On April 19, 1977, the two beverage officers returned to the licensed premises to make further investigation. They requested Milton Seidman to produce the beer and wine invoices on purchases for the licensed premises. These invoices were not available on the licensed premises, and no permission had been given for the invoices to be kept in any other location. The subject invoices were subsequently produced on April 27, 1977. During the course of the investigation of April 19, 1977, a managerial agreement between the Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., a Florida corporation, and James Balough and Vernon W. Wilmer, Jr., was produced. This managerial agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence. Article one of that managerial agreement states that the Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., continues as the sole owner of the business. It further states that effective March 1, 1977, that the managers, Vernon W. Wilmer, Jr. and James Balough, have the right to enter upon and operate the business as managers subject to the provisions of the agreement. The agreement also states that the business will be operated under the name "Golden Dolphin Show Bar". The managers, under the terms, agree to construct at their cost a stage facility and to open a bank account with a balance of $500, for the operation of the business. Another provision establishes that the parties agree that the nature of the business to be operated by the manager is beer, wine, with entertainment and serving of food, where permitted. It contains a provision that the owner and manager agree that all expenses incurred related to the operation and maintenance of the business shall be the responsibility of the manager. Finally, in compensation for the performance of managerial duties, the manager is entitled to 50 percent of the net proceeds after all obligations arising out of said business shall have been satisfied, and the owner shall receive the remaining 50 percent. In connection with the managerial agreement an account was opened in the American Bank of Merit Island, Florida. This account was for Golden Dolphin Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Golden Dolphin Show Bar. The amount of the initial deposit was $500 and it allowed for the signatories, Milton Seidman and James Balough to withdraw money from the account. Although, it was pointed out at the hearing that the authority for opening the account and allowing James Balough to sign checks was not properly executed in terms of the authority of the corporation Golden Dolphin Enterprises, Inc.; nonetheless, the money was placed in the account and the two signatories were allowed to withdraw money or write checks. The testimony did not point out that James Balough had ever written a check on this account and on June 24, 1977, the signature cards were changed to allow only Milton Seidman and Mary Seidman to write checks. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence, contains the attempted resolution of the board of directors spoken of and the signature card for the account in question. The account was opened February 25, 1977. On May 25, 1977, beverage agent Jack Wallace and officer Tony Mulqueen of the Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff's Office, went to the licensed premises. They entered at around 9:30 P.M. and took a seat at one of the tables in the lounge area. They then ordered a beer and watched the show. The entertainment was as described before in the April 13 and 14, 1977 visits of the other officers. At the conclusion of their routine, two female dancers, employees of the Respondent, came to the table where the officers were seated. These two dancers were not summoned by the officers. The dancers were Mary Elizabeth Antone and Glenda Antone Brown. A conversation ensued and the two women asked the officers if they would buy the women a bottle of champagne. Specifically, Mary Elizabeth Antone said "What are you drinking that terrible old beer for, why not buy us a bottle of champagne". She then stated that the price of the bottle of champagne was $20. She motioned for a waitress and placed the order. The waitress went to the bar area and talked to a man behind the bar who was identified as Peter Wilder, the bartender. After this conversation the waitress returned bringing two buckets and two bottles of champagne and four glasses. One bottle was for agent Wallace and Mary Elizabeth Antone and the second bottle was for Glenda Antone Brown and officer Tony Mulqueen. The sequence of the other bottle being ordered for Glenda Antone Brown and Tony Mulqueen was based upon the request by Brown that a drink be purchased and her additional statement "I'm very thirsty after performing and it was very hot back stage", followed by a comment "you should stop drinking that beer and drink champagne". After which Glenda Antone Brown requested that Mulqueen purchase a bottle of champagne for them, meaning Mulqueen and Brown. Brown then motioned the cocktail waitress over and the waitress stated that the price of champagne was $20 a bottle. At this point the bottle of champagne that was ordered was brought over with the bottle being provided for Mary Elizabeth Antone and officer Wallace. The four individuals sat at the table for approximately 45 minutes after the two bottles of champagne had been brought to the table. Then officer Mulqueen and Glenda Antone Brown left the table, at which point Mary Elizabeth Antone requested agent Wallace to buy two more bottles of champagne and the waitress was summoned and brought two more sealed bottles of champagne in addition to the original two. At this point officer Mulqueen and other law enforcement officers entered the licensed premises and the girls were arrested for soliciting drinks from patrons. (The bottles and buckets are part of composite exhibit number 5 by the Petitioner which were admitted into evidence. This exhibit is being maintained in the evidence vault of the district headquarters of the Petitioner located in Orlando, Florida.) One of the other individuals in the bar area during the course of the investigation of May 25, 1977, was Lenny Stewart, an employee of the Respondent. Stewart had been talking to the waitress who was bringing the champagne bottles to the table where officers Wallace and Mulqueen were seated. When Stewart was approached by officer Tom Fair of the Brevard Sheriff's Office, he provided some tally sheets which the Petitioner claims reflect the number of drinks solicited by employees. When the purchases were being made the bartender was marking in the books; however, officer Fair could not see what names were being credited. Nonetheless, at the conclusion of the episode, when the alleged tally sheets were seized there were entries in the book pertaining to the names Darlene and Tiffany, which corresponded respectively as aliases for Mary Elizabeth Antone and Glenda Antone Brown. These were marks which showed what appeared to be the number 1, then a $20 entry by the 1. These indications are found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 7, admitted into evidence. Milton Seidman, the Vice President of the licensee corporation indicated that the tally sheets were kept as a check on inventory, to avoid theft on the part of his employees. The Petitioner introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit number 3 admitted into evidence, a sworn written statement from one Dennis Harold Hampton who claimed through his statement and other oral representations to officers Doyle and Mulqueen, to have been a former employee at the Golden Dolphin Number Two. In addition, the Petitioner through this statement attempts to establish the knowledge of the ownership, particularly Milton Seidman about the activities of the women in the bar soliciting drinks from patrons, to the extent that Milton Seidman condoned this activity. Moreover, through the written statement the Petitioner seeks to describe a system of keeping tally on the number of drinks sold. There is another statement by Donna Debra Tipton which is Petitioner's Exhibit number 6, admitted into evidence, which is an effort at establishing Milton Seidman's knowledge of the solicitation of drinks by employees in the licensed premises and the technique of recording this on a tally sheet. The undersigned did not have sufficient opportunity to review in detail these two written statements submitted at the hearing. The post-hearing analysis of the statements shows them to be efforts at establishing material issues of fact in the counts pertaining to the alleged solicitation by the two female employees, which took place on May 25, 1977, as opposed to serving as corroboration of already established material issues of fact. Therefore, the attempts at describing the alleged knowledge of the licensee of solicitation of drinks by employees found in the written statements is rejected and may not be used to establish material issues of fact which have not been presented by competent evidence because the statements constitute unacceptable hearsay. Even without the benefit of the statements of Dennis Harold Hampton and Donna Debra Tipton, it is clear that Mary Elizabeth Antone and Glenda Antone Brown did beg or solicit the customer or patron, on the licensed premises, to purchase a beverage, alcoholic or otherwise, for the benefit or those employees and entertainers, which is contrary to s. 562.131(1), F.S. However, the Petitioner has failed to show through competent evidence that the violations of the employees placed the licensee in jeopardy under the penalty provisions found in 561.29, F.S. There was no competent evidence which showed that the licensee was culpable based upon any willful intent, negligence or lack of due diligence. See Trader Jon, Inc. v State Beverage Department, 119 So.2d 735 (1st DCA 1960). Additionally, to penalize the licensee under s. 561.29, F.S., there must be a showing of more than an isolated incident as is the case here. See Taylor vs. State Beverage Department, 194 So.2d 321 (2d DCA, 1967). The facts of the testimony in this cause do show that on April 14, 1977, in the licensed premises Tammy O'Brien, aka Rachelle O'Connors, did knowingly perform or participate in an obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent show, exhibition, or performance by a live person before an audience, contrary to s. 847.011(4), F.S. In view of the facts of that performance of the employee, it has been shown that the licensee is culpable for the acts of its employee committing violation of s. 847.011(4), F.S., due to negligence and lack of due diligence. Therefore, the licensee is subject to the penalties of s. 561.29, F.S. Moreover, the facts of the events in the performance of Tammy O'Brien on April 14, 1977, established that James Balough, the agent/manager of the licensee, did not knowingly allow or permit Tammy O'Brien, aka Rachelle O'Connors to knowingly perform or participate in an obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent show, exhibit, or performance by a live person before an audience, contrary to 847.011(4), F.S. This violation on the part of James Balough makes the licensee culpable by its negligence or lack of due diligence, and causes the licensee to be subject to the penalties found in s. 561.29, F.S. Discussion has already been entered into on the question of the management and control of the licensed premises pertaining to the surrender of control and management of the licensed premises from the licensee to Vernon Wilmer, Jr., and/or James Balough. Other information on this question may be found in the corroborative statement offered by Dennis Harold Hampton which is Petitioner's Exhibit 3, admitted into evidence. In his sworn statement Hampton speaks of Jim, meaning James Balough, having a 25 percent interest in the licensed premises at one point. This corroborative information taken in view of the testimony already offered, in particular, the managerial agreement and the bank account activity, establishes that the licensee failed to manage and maintain control of all business conducted on its premises, by allowing Vernon Wilmer, Jr. and/or James Balough to be responsible for expenses relating to the operations and maintenance of the business, liable for any outstanding obligations arising out of the operation of the business, and responsible for the equipment of the business. In addition, the contract did not contemplate the relationship of principal and agent between a licensee and employee. This position was contrary to Administrative Rule 7A-3.17, F.A.C. At the time the inspection was made on April 19, 1977, it was shown that the sales tickets or invoices for delivery of malt beverages and wines to the licensee were not available. This unavailability established a violation of Rule 7A-4.45, F.A.C., thereby violating s. 561.29, F.S.
Recommendation In view of the violations which have been established in this case, it is recommended that the license no. 15-388, held by the Respondent, Golden Dolphin Number Two, Inc., be suspended for a period of 45 days. DONE A ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Lawrence M. Litus, Esquire 231 East New Haven Melbourne, Florida 32901
Findings Of Fact Background On July 7, 1989, respondent, Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), duly noticed proposed rule 46-31.002 in volume 15, number 27, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice also advised all interested persons that a public hearing would be held on August 3, 1989, before the Commission on the proposed rule. On August 3-4, 1989, the Commission held a public hearing at which time it considered the proposed rule. During the course of this hearing, the Commission approved the proposed rule with certain changes. These changes, as well as the complete rule text, were duly noticed in volume 15, number 35, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 1, 1989. Petitioner, Concerned Shrimpers of America, Inc., Florida Chapter, by petition filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 28, 1989, timely challenged the proposed rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioner and Intervenors Petitioner has, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, standing to contest the validity of the proposed rule. Intervenor, Center for Marine Conservation, Inc., is, pursuant to stipulation of the parties: ... a non profit environmental protection and education organization incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia and authorized to do business in Florida. It has in excess of 7,000 members throughout the state. Its major purpose is the protection of marine wildlife for this and future generations, including sea turtles, for the benefit of the species, the corporation and its members... Members of the organization observe, study and photograph sea turtles for educational and recreational purposes and their demise or decline from the failure to require the use of TED's will severely hamper and diminish these activities to their detriment. The organization and its members are further concerned with the total marine ecosystem that could be severely damaged should top order predators such as the sea turtle become extinct or their populations be severely diminished.... Intervenor, Florida Audubon Society, is, pursuant to stipulation of the parties: ... a non profit Florida corporation with over 35,000 members within the state whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife, including the marine environment and sea turtles, for the benefit of the organization and its members. The members of the organization observe, study and photograph sea turtles for educational and recreational purposes and their demise or decline from the failure to require the use of TED's will severely hamper and diminish these activities to their detriment. The organization and its members are further concerned with the total marine ecosystem that could be severely damaged should top order predators such as the sea turtle become extinct or their populations be severely diminished.... Intervenor, Greenpeace-U.S.A., is, pursuant to stipulation of the parties: ...headquartered in Washington, D.C., [and] is the United States office of Greenpeace, an international environmental organization with offices in over twenty countries and approximately two and one-half million supporters worldwide. Greenpeace- U.S.A has more than one million supporters in this country, including over 60,000 who live in the State of Florida. Greenpeace- U.S.A. has two offices in Florida, located in Ft. Lauderdale and Jacksonville Beach.... On behalf of its members and threatened and endangered species, Greenpeace-U.S.A. places special emphasis on the preservation of marine species and the marine environment and has worked extensively for the protection of threatened and endangered marine animals. The sea turtle campaign is one of the principal campaigns of the organization.... For the past five years, Greenpeace-U.S.A. has operated the Beach Patrol Project. The Project seeks to maintain protected nesting areas for threatened and endangered sea turtles in the coastal areas of the southern United States. Based in the Jacksonville Beach office, the Project places approximately 250 Greenpeace-U.S.A. volunteers on Florida beaches every year. The Beach Patrol Project has also contributed to the conservation effort in its documentation and identification of species of sea turtles which have been stranded and washed ashore.... Intervenor, Florida League of Anglers, Inc., is a party of unknown capacity, origin, or interest. No evidence was presented on its behalf to demonstrate that its substantial interests would be affected by the proposed rule. The proposed rule The proposed rule at issue in this case prohibits the use of any trawl (net) in state waters that does not have a qualified turtle excluder device (TED) installed therein, as well as the possession aboard any vessel in state waters of a trawl rigged for fishing that does not have a qualified TED installed in it. Excepted from the rule, under specified conditions, are test nets, roller frame trawls, trawls used for experimentation purposes authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and trawls operated on the inside waters of the state. The purpose of the proposed rule is to protect sea turtles from extinction, primarily the endangered Kemp's ridley turtle, by reducing the incidental catch and mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawls. 1/ Currently, five species of sea turtles occur in state waters. These species are the Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas); Atlantic hawksbill turtle (Erelmochelys imbricata imbricata); Atlanta ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), also known as the Kemp's ridley; Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); and Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Persuasive proof demonstrates that the incidental catch and drowning of sea turtles by shrimp trawls is a significant source of mortality for the species, and that absent the elimination of that mortality factor the green turtle, hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley turtle, leatherback turtle, and loggerhead turtle are threatened with extinction. 2/ Use of the TEDs mandated by the proposed rule will substantially reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles by shrimp trawls, and thereby eliminate shrimp trawls as a significant source of mortality for the species. Currently, the proposed rule permits the use of any one of six TEDs approved by the NMFS, which have demonstrated a turtle exclusion rate of at least 97 percent. The rule also permits the use of any TED that may subsequently be approved by the NMFS as demonstrating a turtle exclusion rate of at least 97 percent. 3/ The rule challenge In challenging the proposed rule, petitioner does not question the need for the rule to protect the sea turtles from extinction, nor the effectiveness of the TED to eliminate a significant threat to the survival of the species. Rather, petitioner contends that: (1) the Commission exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, which will be discussed in the conclusions of law, infra; (2) that the Commission materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in section 120.54 by failing to notify the Small and Minority Business Advocate, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, and the Division of Economic Development of the Department of Commerce at least 21 days prior to the public hearing on the proposed rule, as well as by failing to prepare an adequate economic impact statement; and, (3) that the proposed rule contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented because the Commission failed to consider the "best information available" concerning the sociological implications of the proposed rule on shrimp fisherman, and because the proposed rule is inconsistent with the federal regulations regarding the mandatory use of TEDs. Notice regrading the impact of the proposed rule on small business Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes, mandates that where, as here, the proposed rule will affect small business, that "the agency shall send written notice of such rule to the Small and Minority Business Advocate, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, and the Division of Economic Development of the Department of Commerce not less than 21 days prior to the intended action." Here, the proof demonstrates that the Commission held its public hearing on the proposed rule, and approved it, on August 3-4, 1989, but that it did not provide written notice to the previously mentioned agencies until July 21, 1989, a date less than 21 days before the public hearing. While the Commission failed to accord the named agencies with the minimum 21-day notice mandated by section 120.54(3)(b), the proof fails to demonstrate that such failure constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rule making procedures. Here, the agencies never objected to the inadequacy of the notice; the agencies have never requested an opportunity to present evidence and argument or to offer alternatives regarding the impact of the proposed rule on small business; and there was no showing that the Commission's failure to accord the agencies the full 21-day notice impaired their ability to, or influenced their decision not to, participate in the rule making process. In sum, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Commission's failure to accord 21 days notice to the named agencies resulted in any incorrectness or unfairness in the proposed adoption of the rule. The economic impact statement Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the Commission prepared an economic impact statement for the proposed rule. The economic impact statement was prepared by Robert Palmer, the Commission's economic analyst, an expert in economics. Petitioner challenges the adequacy of the economic impact statement (EIS) prepared for the proposed rule by contesting its accuracy in some respects, its failure in other respects to address the costs to the agency for implementation of the proposed rule, and its failure to address the cost and economic benefit to persons directly affected by the proposed rule. Here, while it is arguable that the Commission's EIS could have been more thorough in some respects, the proof fails to demonstrate any material error that impaired the fairness of the rule making proceeding or the correctness of the Commission's decision to approve the proposed rule. Rather, the proof demonstrates that where errors or omissions occurred in the EIS that the Commission was supplied with the correct information at the public hearing, their impact was of de minimis import, or the costs and benefits were speculative or incapable of estimation. Compliance with statutory standards Pertinent to this case, Section 370.027(1), Florida Statutes, contemplates that the Commission will, in exercising its rule making authority, apply the policy and standards set forth in Section 370.025, Florida Statutes. In this regard, section 370.025 provides: The Legislature hereby declares the policy of the state to be management and preservation of its renewable marine fishery resources, based upon the best available information, emphasizing protection and enhancement of the marine and estuarine environment in such a manner as to provide for optimum sustained benefits and use to all the people of this state for present and future generations. All rules relating to saltwater fisheries adopted by the department pursuant to this chapter or adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission and approved by the Governor and Cabinet as head of the department shall be consistent with the following standards: The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state. Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best information available, including biological, sociological, economic, and other information deemed relevant by the commission. Conservation and management measures shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis. When possible and practicable, stocks of fish shall be managed as a biological unit. Conservation and management measures shall assure proper quality control of marine resources that enter commerce. State marine fishery management plans shall be developed to implement management of important marine fishery resources. Conservation and management decisions shall be fair and equitable to all the people of this state and carried out in such a manner that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. Federal fishery management plans and fishery management plans of other states or interstate commissions should be considered when developing state marine fishery management plans. Inconsistencies should be avoided unless it is determined that it is in the best interest of the fisheries or residents of this state to be inconsistent. (Emphasis added). Petitioner's final challenge to the validity of the proposed rule is its contention that the Commission's action in approving the proposed rule contravenes the provisions of section 370.025 because the Commission failed to consider the "best information available" concerning the sociological implications of the proposed rule on shrimp fishermen, and because the proposed rule is inconsistent with the federal regulations regarding the mandatory use of TEDs. Petitioner's contentions are not persuasive. First, with regard to petitioner's contention that the proposed rule contravenes section 370.025(2)(h) because it is inconsistent with the federal regulation regarding the mandatory use of TEDs, the proof demonstrates that, due to the presence of sea turtles in state waters all year round, mandating the use of TEDs at only particular times of the year along certain areas of the coast, as the federal regulations do, would not achieve the Commission's preservation goal, and therefore would not be in the best interest of the sea turtles or residents of the state. Therefore, the Commission's action was not inconsistent with section 370.025(2)(h) Second, with regard to petitioner's contention that the proposed rule contravenes section 370.025(2)(b) because it failed to consider the best sociological information available, section 370.025(2)(a) is informative since it mandates that any rule of the Commission be consistent, before all else, with the following standard: The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state. Faced with persuasive proof that the incidental catch and drowning of sea turtles by shrimp trawls was a significant source of mortality for the species, and that absent the elimination of that mortality factor the species inhabiting state waters were threatened with extinction, the Commission reasonably concluded that it had two options to protect the sea turtles: to prohibit shrimp trawling in state waters or mandate the use of TEDs and permit shrimp trawling to continue. 4/ Such being the options, very little, if any, sociological information was necessary to support the Commission's conclusions that the mandatory use of TEDs, as opposed to a prohibition on shrimp trawling in state waters, would be the least disruptive management measure to the sociological structure of the shrimp fishing community. While almost irrelevant to the instant case, the proof does, however, demonstrate that the Commission had before it the pertinent sociological information it needed to appreciate the impact of the proposed rule on the shrimp fishery community. Such information included an appreciation of the fact that the shrimping community constitutes a societal segment, or self-contained entity, that is in large measure divorced from society in general; that unique familial relationships exist within the shrimp fishing community; that the mandatory use of TEDs had led to a feeling of uncertainty among shrimp fishermen concerning the continued survival of the industry; and that should shrimp fishermen experience significant losses as a consequence of the mandated use of TEDs that they may be forced from the shrimp fishing business, and their community and family relationships disrupted. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission's action was consistent with section 370.025(2) (b).
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Facts admitted by all parties The water quality standards contained in Rule 17-3.111, Florida Administrative Code will not be violated by this project. There are no aquatic macrophytes located in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is located within 500 feet of the incorporated municipality of Horseshoe Beach, Florida. The proposed project is located within Class II waters of the State not approved for shellfish harvesting. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect or will not enhance significant historical or acheological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. The rest of the findings The Applicant, Dixie County, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock which would expand the existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach. In accordance with the revised plans dated October 23, 1986, the proposed facility would consist of a pier 6 feet wide and 120 feet long designed to accommodate six boat slips, each 30 feet wide and 40 feet long. The boundaries of the boat slips will be demarcated by pilings set 10 feet apart. Four of the boat slips would be primarily for the use of commercial fishing boats and commercial shrimping boats. The other two boat slips (the two slips closest to the land) would be reserved for the exclusive use of recreational and other small vessels. By adding a catwalk 3 or 4 feet wide down the middle of the two slips reserved for recreational vessels, the usefulness of those slips to recreational vessels would be greatly enhanced and the narrowness of the resulting slips would preclude their use by large vessels. Adding the two catwalks would be a minor addition to the proposed project which would greatly enhance the usefulness of the project and at the same time avoid the possibility that large vessels in the two slips closest to the land would impede ingress and egress at the nearby boat lift, boat fueling facility, and boat ramp. Adding a reasonable number of permanent trash or garbage containers would also enhance the usefulness of the proposed project and minimize the possibility of improper disposal of trash and garbage which is generated by the normal use of a dock by fishermen and boaters. The proposed project site is located in the Gulf of Mexico at Horseshoe Beach, Florida, and would extend into the waters of the Gulf, which is a tidally influenced water body adjacent to Dixie County, Florida. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward, except where basins and channels have been dredged. The Horseshoe Beach area is relatively unpolluted. The existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach is used primarily by recreational vessels, but there is also extensive commercial fishing and Shrimping boat activity in the area. The project is located at the mouth of a canal with direct access to the Gulf. Several commercial fishhouses operate from the canal bank, which generates extensive commercial boat traffic past the proposed project site. Large numbers of commercial shrimp boats presently dock along the canal that ends near the proposed project site. The proposed project requires no dredging. The only filling required by the proposed project is the placement of pilings into the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Even though the plans do not specify whether concrete or wooden pilings will be used, this lack of specificity in the plans is irrelevant. Regardless of what types of pilings are used on this project, the filling activity will not violate the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17- 3.051(1), Florida Administrative Code. The placement of the pilings will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the proposed project will not adversely affect any property interests of the Petitioners within the scope of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Gulf bottom in the area of the proposed project has already been disturbed. The presently existing suspension of particulate material in the water column, a natural occurrence in the area of the project, results in low visibility which means that seagrass beds and other marine vegetation, which provide shelter and detrital deposits for fish and other marine resources, will not grow. Coast Guard regulations prohibit commercial fishing vessels from depositing materials into the water within three miles of the coast line. Commercial fishing vessels must prominently display a sticker reciting that regulation and it is the practice of commercial fishing vessels operating in the vicinity of Horseshoe Beach to comply with this Coast Guard no discharge requirement by cleaning nets and scrubbing decks outside the three mile limit. It is not the practice of Commercial fishing vessels to deliberately discharge diesel fuel, fish parts or other material into the water while docked. Further, the limited number of commercial fishing vessels which could dock at the proposed facility at the same time cannot reasonably be expected to create discharges in amounts creating a nuisance, posing any danger to the public health safety or welfare, or violating the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17-3.051(1), Florida Statutes. Although small amounts of diesel fuel can become mixed with bilge water and be discharged by automatic bilge pumps while commercial fishing vessels are docked, there is no evidence that this would be in amounts Sufficient to create a nuisance or violate water quality criteria. To the contrary, notwithstanding a large amount of commercial boat traffic past the proposed site and notwithstanding the fact that large numbers of shrimp boats dock up the canal from the proposed site, the water in the area of the proposed site has remained relatively unpolluted. The proposed project will not affect the normal wind and wave action in the area of the proposed project. Such wind and wave action presently results in free exchange between the waters of the open Gulf and the waters near the shore. This free exchange of waters means that any pollutant discharges in the area of the proposed project will be diluted and rapidly dispersed into the Gulf of Mexico. There will be no measurable difference in the wind and wave action, or in the water exchange, after the proposed project is built. No harmful shoaling or erosion is expected to result from construction of the proposed project. Any docking structure extending out into the Gulf of Mexico will obviously have some effect on navigation in the area of the dock, but there is no evidence that the proposed dock will present a hazard to navigation or any significant interference with customary navigation patterns. The distance between the nearest channel marker and the waterward end of the proposed project is more than 200 feet. The angle of the proposed dock and its Spatial relation to the main Horseshoe Beach turning basin cause no impediment to navigation. The placement of Coast Guard Safety lights on the dock would minimize any potential for impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order in this case granting the permit applied for by Dixie County. It is also recommended that the permit be made subject to the following additional conditions: That one or more Coast Guard safety lights be placed on the proposed expansion to the dock; That catwalks be added down the middle of the two most landward of the proposed boat slips; and That a reasonable number of trash or garbage receptacles be permanently located on the proposed expansion to the dock to minimize the possibility of trash and garbage being thrown overboard. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1448 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. The paragraph numbers referred to below are references to the paragraph numbers in the parties' respective proposed recommended orders. Ruling on findings proposed by the Petitioners: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: First sentence is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than a proposed finding of fact. Second and third sentences are rejected as repetitious Paragraph 5: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 6: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 8: Entire paragraph is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 9: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; construction of the dock may be expected to bring about some changes in the nature of the boat traffic in the immediate area, but nothing of the nature or magnitude suggested by these proposed findings. Paragraph 10: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence is accepted in part and rejected in part. Rejected portion is irrelevant. Third sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Fourth Sentence is accepted. Fifth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as repetitious Sixth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on findings Proposed by the Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of opposing party's contentions and not proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence accepted in part and rejected in part; rejected portion concerns riparian rights, which are irrelevant to whether this permit should be issued. Paragraph 14: Entire paragraph rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick M. Bryant, Esquire Moore, Williams & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Doyle Thomas, Esquire County Attorney Post Office Box 339 Cross City, Florida 32628 Ann Cowles-Fewox, Legal Intern Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Karen Brodeen, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
