The Issue Whether respondent should grant petitioner's application for a variance, after the fact, from Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In early 1981, petitioner White began putting in pilings on Lot 3, Block 6 of Chippewa Subdivision on the north shore of Choctawhatchee Bay in Walton County. The waters of Choctawhatchee Bay are Class II and the Department of Natural Resources has approved them for shellfishing. With a gas powered pump, petitioner jetted in two rows 40 feet long and ten feet apart of five pilings each and also built a bulkhead paralleling the rows of pilings and ten feet landward of them. On this foundation, he constructed a floor, including a porch floor cantilevered ten feet out waterward of the watermost row of pilings. Work had progressed through most, if not all, uprights on the first floor when the project came to the attention of state and federal environmental authorities, courtesy of a neighbor with whom petitioner had quarrelled (after the neighbor cut down trees on petitioner's property, to improve his view of the Bay). Construction has been at a standstill since. The bulkhead stands against the face of a bluff 20 feet high that is eroding not only as a result of wave action but also because of the deteriorating effect of groundwater in the area. Erosion is occurring at the rate of two feet or more annually. (Testimony of Kerr) There has been no appreciable scouring in front of the bulkhead or the pilings because old tires have been placed in an arc in front of the structure as a sort of revetment. The tires interrupt littoral movement of sand and exacerbate erosion downshore. Although waves can break against the base of the bluff itself, the approximate mean high water line at the time of the hearing was two to three feet landward of the first row of pilings. An area behind the first row of pilings is regularly and periodically inundated. When the pilings were originally placed, the approximate mean high water line was waterward of the pilings. NAVIGATION At high tide water underneath the house and even under the porch is only a few inches deep. Any boat tall enough to hit the porch would draw enough to run aground before getting that far. Ongoing erosion might result in deeper water at some point in the indeterminate future. VEGETATION In the beach area at the base of the bluff, including the project site at the time construction began, giant reed (phragmites communis) and salt meadow cord grass (spartina patens) are the predominant plant species. In full sunlight giant reeds grow as tall as eight feet and spartina patens gets as high as two or three feet. On top of the bluff are sand pine, slash pine, longleaf pine, magnolia, live oak, scrub oak, yaupon, ilex and other upland species. A few upland plants have fallen down from the top of the bluff and taken root at the base of the bluff, but they are a decided minority. There was little vegetation, mainly dewberries, under the half finished house at the time of hearing. According to the uncontroverted evidence, the United States Army had been on maneuvers in the vicinity and some of the approximately 29,000 men involved had selected the area underneath petitioner's structure as their bivouac, trampling the giant reeds and spartina patens underfoot. The giant reeds are rhizomatic and will inevitably reestablish themselves. The structure is high enough above the beach that enough sunlight will reach the ground for spartina patens to grow again, as well. Because of the shadow cast by the structure, however, the mass of the vegetation in the immediate area will be somewhat less than if the sun's rays were wholly unobstructed. These plants provide a habitat for fish, crabs and birds. They are food for microorganisms and larger forms of life alike. Their own food includes nitrogen, phosphorous, potash and carbon, all of which they tend to remove from water running off into the Bay, averting eutrophication. They also take up heavy metals, oils and greases which are washed down from State Road 20 just north of the site. OTHER STRUCTURES, PERMITS About two miles east of petitioner's lot are a house and a bar built on pilings pretty much in the same fashion as the house petitioner has started. They have been there at least since 1970. The Department of Environmental Regulation never issued any permit for their construction. The Department of Environmental Regulation has never permitted the building of a residence, part of which extended over navigable waters. The Department of Natural Resources has issued no permit in connection with petitioner's property or otherwise authorized the use of sovereignty lands or air space above such lands. WASTE DISPOSAL Petitioner had originally planned to install a septic tank on the state right of way, waterward of State Road 20, to receive both sewerage and other wastewater ("grey water"). The DOT had in fact issued a use permit to petitioner authorizing the installation, but DOT only considers highway safety in issuing such permits, and has since revoked the permit it issued to petitioner, pending his obtaining a septic tank permit from the local health department. Percolation tests, which are required before the local health department acts, have not been done. At the hearing, petitioner altered and supplemented his proposal for disposing of waste: He proposed to install a special composting toilet and, instead of a septic tank, a holding tank with a gauge that would indicate the level of grey water in the tank. HARDSHIP Petitioner owns no real estate other than the lot on which he began building this house. He now shares living quarters with his daughter and his widowed mother, who sleeps in the living room. His mother likes to paint, particularly sunsets. He started this project with the intention of building a place for her to live. Petitioner spent time and money on this project in the belief that the county building permit he obtained fully authorized him to do so. He had spoken to a man who built a similar house who said as much. If he is not allowed to use this structure, he will get no benefit from the time and money he has expended in constructing it to this point.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for variance. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 9th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: George Ralph Miller, Esquire Post Office Box 687 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Miami Yacht Divers, Inc., is entitled to reimbursement for cleanup costs.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering claims against the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund. Petitioner is a company located in Dade County, Florida, which performs commercial diving operations. Such operations include oil pollution containment and clean-up. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Dan Delmonico was the principal officer or owner for the Petitioner who supervised the operations of the company. In April of 1993, Mr. Delmonico discovered a fuel discharge next door to the premises of Defender Yacht, Inc., a company located on the Miami River in Dade County, Florida. The source of the discharge was an abandoned sunken vessel. This derelict vessel had no markings from which its ownership could be determined. Upon discovering the vessel, Mr. Delmonico did not contact local, state, or federal authorities to advise them of the discharge. Instead, Mr. Delmonico contacted several colleagues whose help he enlisted to assist him to clean up the discharge. In this regard, Mr. Delmonico procured the services of a diver and a crane company to remove the vessel from the water. Additionally, Mr. Delmonico utilized a boom and oil absorbent clean-up pads to remove the discharged fuel from the water. In total, Mr. Delmonico maintains it took four work days to complete the removal of the discharge and the salvage of the derelict vessel. At no time during this period did Mr. Delmonico contact local, state, or federal authorities to advise them of the foregoing activities. No official from any governmental entity supervised or approved the clean-up operation or salvage activity which is in dispute. After the fact Petitioner filed a reimbursement claim with the United States Coast Guard. Such claim was denied. Upon receipt of such denial, Petitioner filed the claim which is at issue in the instant case. In connection with this claim with Respondent, Petitioner submitted all forms previously tendered to the Coast Guard including the standard claim form, labor receipts, rental receipts, supply receipts, trailer and storage receipts, cash expenses, a job summary, and photographs. On or about September 20, 1996, Respondent issued a letter denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement for expenses associated with the above-described salvage and clean-up activities. The grounds for the denial were the Petitioner's failure to obtain prior approval for the activities and the absence of "good cause" for the waiver of prior approval. Additionally, the Respondent maintained that Petitioner had failed to provide evidence that a pollutant discharge existed and that the removal of the vessel was necessary to abate and remove the discharge. It is undisputed by Petitioner that prior approval for the clean-up activities was not obtained. Petitioner timely disputed the denial and was afforded a point of entry to challenge such decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathelyn M. Jacques Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 N. Paul San Filippo, Esquire Seidensticker & San Filippo Parkway Financial Center 2150 Goodlette Road, Suite 305 Naples, Florida 34102
Findings Of Fact Max and Anne Makowsky (Respondents Makowsky) are the owners of real property located at Lot 5, Block 35, Venetian Shores Subdivision, Plantation Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Respondents Makowsky's property is located in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On November 20, 1992, Monroe County, Florida (Respondent County) issued a building permit, Building Permit No. 9230008125, to Respondents Makowsky. The permit authorized Respondents Makowsky to construct and place on their property a boat ramp which measures six feet by thirty feet. Petitioner received a copy of the Building Permit from Respondent County on November 24, 1992. Submerged lands adjacent to Respondents Makowsky's property are owned by the State of Florida. The boundary between the State's submerged lands and Respondents Makowsky's property is the mean high water line. Twenty feet of the proposed boat ramp would extend below the mean high water line. The twenty feet would lie over submerged lands. Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code, contains Respondent County's Land Development Regulations. Section 9.5-345(m) contains the environmental design criteria applicable to submerged lands in Respondent County. Section 9.5-345(m) provides in pertinent part: All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: * * * * No structure shall be located on sub- merged land which is vegetated with sea grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities; No docking facility shall be developed at any site unless a minimum channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water z depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists. In the permit application, Respondents Makowsky provide that the intended use for the ramp is to launch a windsurfer and a small inflatable boat or dinghy. Respondents Makowsky's dinghy has a motor with a shaft which extends two and one-half feet below the boat's water line. As the proposed boat ramp would allow access to the water via watercraft, the term "docking" facility," as used in Section 9.5-345(m), is applicable to Respondents Makowsky's proposed ramp. The submerged land adjacent to Respondents Makowsky's property is very shallow and heavily populated by sea grass, i.e. turtle grass. The turtle grass areas serve as nursery grounds and provide food and shelter for juvenile fish and invertebrates. These habitat values increase when coupled with the mangrove fringe (the roots of mangroves) located along the area. The mangrove roots also provide food and shelter for the juvenile fish and invertebrates. The turtle grass would be adversely impacted by the ramp itself if the proposed ramp was approved and constructed. The structure itself would shade out the needed sunlight to the grasses underneath the boat ramp, causing those grasses to die. Also, the use of the ramp to dock small boats would adversely impact the turtle grass. The bottom of the submerged land is a very loose, calcarious substrate. Launching a boat would cause the sand to "kick up" (lift up). When the sand comes down, it would settle on the turtle grass and smother it because there would be no way for the turtle grass to clean itself. Further, using a motorized boat, as Respondents Makwosky's, would cause "prop dredging" to occur, harming the turtle grass. In "prop dredging," the motor's propeller would destroy the grasses directly by tearing them up or destroy the grasses over a period of time through siltation after churning up the sand from the substrate. The mean low water depth, i. e., the average mean low tide, at the terminal end of the proposed ramp is less than four feet. In the permit application, the depth at the end of the ramp is indicated to be zero feet mean low water. Petitioner estimates the water depth at low tide as between one foot and two feet. The proposed ramp site is not located at a channel of twenty (20) feet in width where a mean low water depth of at least minus four (4) feet exists. Respondents Makowsky have boat access through a boat basin approximately 320 feet to the southwest of their property. The boat basin is located in their Subdivision. A slip in the boat basin is assigned to Respondents Makowsky and they are entitled to use it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order DENYING Monroe County Permit No. 9230008125. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1317DRI Petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 - 13 have been adopted in substance, although not verbatim, in this recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Bob Bradley, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of The Governor 1601 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory C. Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office 209 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie Gehres Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Marathon Regional Service Center Suite 212 2796 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 Max and Anne Makowsky 1900 Glades Road, Suite 245 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 James T. Hendrick, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33041-1117 Bob Herman, Director of Growth Management Monroe County Regional Service Center 2798 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050-2227
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
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Petitioner's (Mrs. R. C. Horton) amended petition filed by her son, Charles H. Horton, which petition opposes the proposed permit/certification that the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, intends to issue to the Consolidated City of Jacksonville. Particularly, this concerns the Permit/ Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida. The placard number is 01496. The Petitioner in this cause, Mrs. R. C. Horton, resides at 7357 Goodnow Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, on property which is adjacent to the project site in issue. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida which has, among other duties, the consideration of permits which involve maintenance dredging. The authority for this activity on the part of Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, is found in Chapter 253 and/or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The second Respondent in this cause is the Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch. The Consolidated City of Jacksonville is a municipality in Duval County, Florida. The proposal in dispute is that request to excavate approximately 9700 cubic yards of material at the site by realignment of 600 feet of canal; widening 250 feet and cleaning and shaping 100 feet of drainage way in the location of Section 56, Township 3 South, Range 27 East, on Eagle Branch, a channelized drainage way in Duval County, Florida. The stated purpose of this work is to prevent an encroachment of the branch onto private property in the area of the 600-foot realignment. An additional purpose is to promote better drainage. The Petitioner's challenge to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulations intent to grant the permit was premised primarily on the testimony of Charles Horton and certain photographic slides which he presented in the course of that Hearing. It is Mr. Horton's position that if the work as applied for were completed, there would be erosion to the property of Mrs. R. C. Horton and a problem with siltation at the mouth of the Eagle Branch where it flows into Pottsburg Creek. In the mind of Charles Horton, this theory is supported by the opinion that clearing out and widening will increase the velocity of the water flowing out of the Eagle Branch, thereby promoting advanced erosion, and by the past when the Eagle Branch channelized in the early fifties and there was a problem with siltation and erosion, to the extent that maintenance dredging was necessary in the 1960's. (Moreover, Charles Horton was concerned about the cost considerations involved in the project; however, he was advised by the undersigned that the purpose of the hearing sub judice was not to question the cost, but to consider the effect of the project on water quality and biological resources as contemplated by Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code.) The petitioner did not offer engineering studies or other forms of data which would support the opinion of Mr. Horton. In defense of the project, the Respondent, Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch, offered testimony from George R. Knecht, a civil engineer. Mr. Knecht has had experience in this type project over a period of the last 7-1/2 years. He stated in testimony that the aims of the project were to take the creek bed away from private property on the north side of the city maintenance yard by process of realignment, and to clean out the Eagle Branch, thereby decreasing the velocity of the water flowing through that branch in the area of the maintenance yard. (The maintenance yard may be seen on the Respondent, Consolidated City of Jacksonville's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into Evidence.) It was to these ends that the City of Jacksonville submitted its proposals for permit, which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, received the application and made an application appraisal, which may be found as Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. In the process of conducting the appraisal, a biological study was done and other steps were taken to discern the effect of the project on water quality in the area which includes a flood plain at the mouth of the Eagle Branch, which flows into Pottsburg Creek. Among the things that were required as conditions to the granting of the permit were the placing of turbidity curtains at the mouth of the branch during the course of the entire construction; monitoring the turbidity daily on the downstream side of the turbidity curtain during the dredging operation; containing the dredging through the swamp flood plain in the existing channel to avoid destruction of trees of the flood plain, and placing the spoil from the flood plain on the existing berm or removing it to uplands. (These conditions, and a statement of intent to grant the permit, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence.) The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, also received comments from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and those comments may be found in the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The intent to grant the permit incorporates the protections suggested by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The testimony on the approach of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation to the request for permit was offered by Jeremy Tyler and Dave Scott, employees of the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Upon consideration of the testimony offered, it is concluded that water quality and biological resources will not be unreasonably affected, and that it would be in keeping with requirements of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17, Florida Administrative Code, to allow the granting of Permit/Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida.
Recommendation It is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue Permit/Certification No. 16-31-0756-2E, Duval County, Florida, for the benefit of Consolidated City of Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles H. Horton, Esquire 757 Goodnow Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Carole Joy Barice, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Brown, Esquire Assistant Counsel 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a commercial fisher 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 at 7:39 am 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, both for vessels. 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 "maximum allowed." He did not otherwise fill in the blanks as to types or yardage of nets. After checking a data base maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent found that Petitioner held three saltwater- product licenses. Respondent thus processed Petitioner's application as though he had three licenses, not two. By letter dated August 8, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was eligible "to receive compensation for 18 nets" and set an appointment for him to turn in the nets on September 14, 1995. A few days prior to September 14, a representative of Respondent telephoned Petitioner and told him that the net buy-back appointment was canceled and Respondent had shut down the program temporarily in order to make changes. The problem was that Respondent had 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 canceled Petitioner's appointment and suspended payment on outstanding vouchers 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 fisher 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 fishers who filed applications. 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 a small percentage 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 that reflected the absence of a significant number of the most expensive seine nets. 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 not be affected by a significant number of seines. Respondent began receiving nets in early August, 1995. Through the first three weeks of August, Respondent purchased seine nets at the relatively low rate that it had anticipated. After this point, 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 paid a fisher entitled to sell six 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 much greater than the figures that Respondent had used in calculating the potential encumbrance on the Account. From the fishers' 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 began turning in seine nets in large numbers, so that Respondent was purchasing nearly all seine nets. Before long, Respondent was purchasing nothing but seines. 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 the program and developed new criteria to apply to all persons not yet paid for their 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. Petitioner's application lists no seine nets. But his application put Respondent on notice that Petitioner sought to sell as many nets, as at high a value, as the law would permit. This would mean seine nets. And based on his possession of three licenses, this would mean 18 seine nets, given Petitioner's earnings during the relevant period. 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 these nets were turned in during what became the third phase of the Net Buy-Buyback Program. After canceling Petitioner's net buy-back appointment, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter, setting another net buy-back appointment for October 2. The letter states that Respondent would purchase a total of 18 nets, but none could be a seine net. 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 fishermen 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.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order directing payment from the Account to Petitioner of the difference between the amount he has already received and the amount he would have received had all 18 of the nets that he delivered to Respondent been valued as seine nets. ENTERED on October 4, 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 4, 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 Charles L. Wilson, pro se 9210 West Robson Tampa, Florida 33615 Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This case involves a challenge by petitioners, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., Seafood Consumers and Producers Association, Inc., Glen Black, Ronald E. Black, Henry Crane, Dewey Destin, Cecil Lane, Denise Leek, Gerald Pack, Harold Raffield, Richard Van Munster, D. W. Wilson, Tim Adams, Johnnie Clopton, Geoffery Cox, Mike Davis, Ronnie Day, Tim Dixon, Bob Gill, Tim Gerz, Tim Goodrich, and Mark Taylor (petitioners), to the validity of certain changes to forty-seven rules proposed by respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC or agency). According to paragraphs 5 through 27 of their amended petition, which are not contested, petitioners are incorporated associations of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, as well as individual commercial fishermen, fish and bait dealers, owners of seafood unloading facilities, processors, packers and producers, all of whom are substantially affected by the proposed rules. As such, they have standing to bring this action. The changes being proposed by the MFC affect various rules in Chapters 46-3, 46-4, 46-23, 46-24, 46-36, 46-37, 46-39, 46-42 and 46-43, Florida Administrative Code. The rule changes were proposed as a result of the adoption by the electorate on November 8, 1994, of Article X, Section 16 to the State Constitution. That section generally (a) prohibits the use of gill or entangling nets to take marine animals, and (b) places limitations on other nets in nearshore and inshore Florida waters. The amendment becomes effective July 1, 1995. On December 30, 1994, the agency published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly (FAW) of its intent to adopt new rules, amend certain rules, and repeal all or portions of other existing rules. Claiming that these changes were invalid on a variety of statutory grounds, petitioners filed a petition to invalidate proposed rules on January 20, 1995. On March 3, 1995, a notice of changes to proposed rules was published in the FAW advising that, "based on written comment and public testimony" given at public hearings, further changes, albeit minor, were being made to rules 46- 3.008, 46-3.029, 46-4-001, 46-4.002, 46-4.004, 46-4.005, 46-23.003, 46-36.002, 46-37.002, 46-37.006, 46-39.002, 46-42.007, and 46-43.005. By virtue of these changes, petitioners were authorized to file an amended petition which contains essentially the same contentions as were previously pled. They include allegations that the rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because (a) the MFC failed to materially follow the applicable rulemaking procedures in Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide them a copy of the Economic Impact Statement (EIS) on each of the rules at least 14 days prior to the public hearing, (b) the MFC failed to materially follow the procedures in Rule 46-1.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, by not allowing public testimony at the final rule adoption hearing, (c) the proposed rules have no foundation in statutory law but rather are derived from the Florida Constitution and thus exceed the MFC's delegated legislative authority, (d) the proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious because they are based on law enforcement considerations and lack scientific certainty, (e) the rules conflict with the law implemented, and (f) as to twelve of the rules, the MFC failed to materially follow an applicable rulemaking procedure in Rule 46- 1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that, before amending or repealing any rule derived from local laws, a public hearing be held in each affected county. In conjunction with their claims that the rules exceed the agency's rulemaking authority or are arbitrary and capricious because of law enforcement considerations, petitioners have rarely cited the specific language in the rules that they wish to be invalidated. Rather, they suggest that the entire rule is invalid. Therefore, the undersigned has been forced to undertake the tedious and difficult task of attempting to identify the allegedly offensive language in each of the challenged rules. Where the offending language cannot be readily identified, or speculation is required to identify that language, the contention has been rejected. The Rules and Their Genesis As noted above, on November 8, 1994, the electorate adopted Article X, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution. The new section, which is entitled "Limiting Marine Net Fishing," has a stated purpose of "enact(ing) limitations on marine net fishing in Florida waters to protect saltwater finfish, shellfish, and other marine animals from unnecessary killing, overfishing, and waste." More specifically, subsection (b) of section 16 provides as follows: (b) For the purpose of catching or taking any saltwater finfish, shellfish, or other marine animals in Florida Waters: No gill nets or other entangling nets shall be used in any Florida waters; and In addition to the prohibition set forth in 1., no other type of net containing more than 500 square feet of mesh area shall be used in nearshore and inshore Florida waters. Additionally, no more than two such nets, which shall not be connected, shall be used from any vessel, and no person not on a vessel shall use more than one such net in nearshore and inshore Florida waters. Paragraphs 1.- 5. of subsection (c) go on to define the terms "gill net," "mesh area," "coastline," "Florida waters" and "nearshore and inshore Florida waters," while subsection (d) exempts from the application of the provision the "use of nets for scientific research or governmental purposes." Subsection (f) provides that "implementing legislation is not required for enforcing any violations hereof," and that "nothing in this section prohibits the establishment by law or pursuant to law of more restrictions on the use of nets for the purpose of catching or taking any saltwater finfish, shellfish, or other marine animals." Consistent with subsection (f), the legislature has not enacted any implementing legislation for the purpose of enforcing the new amendment. Also, the MFC has cited a proposed effective date for the rules of July 1, 1995, which coincides with the effective date of the new amendment. In the notice published in the FAW, the MFC stated that "the constitutional provision effectively changes the direction of marine fisheries regulation in the state." In general terms, the MFC proposed the numerous changes, additions and repeal of rules to conform the rules "to this new direction," to remove the provisions that were obsolete or in conflict with the new constitutional provision, and to enhance its ability to enforce the new amendment. According to the MFC's executive director, the constitututional amendment "will have a very significant impact on the historical means and methods of commercial, . . . recreational and subsistence fishing in Florida." As specific authority for making every change, the MFC cites Subsection 370.027(2), Florida Statutes, which grants the MFC "exclusive rulemaking authority (in ten areas) relating to marine life," including gear specifications, prohibited gear, closed areas and seasons. As to the rules in chapter 46-3, the MFC also cites as rulemaking authority Section 2, Chapter 83- 134, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84-121, Laws of Florida. For those rules being modified in chapter 46-4, the MFC additionally relies upon the new constitutional amendment. For the affected rules in chapter 46-23, the agency further identifies as its authority for rulemaking Subsection 370.01(20), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the MFC to include within the term "restricted species" such species of saltwater products as the MFC deems necessary. As the law implemented for all rule changes, the MFC cites Sections 370.025 and 370.027, Florida Statutes. The former statute generally authorizes the MFC to adopt rules to further the state policy of managing and preserving renewable marine fishery resources while the latter statute delegates to the MFC "full rulemaking authority over marine life." The MFC further cites the Florida Constitution as the law implemented for rules in chapter 46-4, and for chapter 46-3 it cites Chapters 83-134 and 84-121, Laws of Florida. In broad terms, the rule chapters in issue cover a wide range of subject matter within the MFC's regulatory jurisdiction over marine fisheries resources, including local laws which have been reenacted as rules governing marine fishing in all or parts of thirteen counties (chapter 46-3), gear specifications and prohibited gear (chapter 46-4), and regulations pertaining to the harvest of spanish mackerel (chapter 46-23), spiny lobster (crawfish) and slipper lobster (chapter 46-24), blackdrum (chapter 46-36), spotted seatrout (chapter 46-37), marine life (chapter 46-42), and bluefish (chapter 46-43). The constitutional amendment does not prohibit the possession of gill or entangling nets. Rather, it prohibits the use of such nets in Florida waters. Thus, it is still permissible for Florida fishermen to use this gear in federal waters which lie outside of Florida waters. In addition, the amendment prohibits the use of any type of net "containing more than 500 square feet of mesh area . . . in nearshore and inshore Florida waters" but contains no limitations for nets below that threshold size. Within the context of petitioners' objections, it is noted that the proposed rule amendments fall into two broad categories: those which delete obsolete or conflicting language in order to conform existing rules to the new amendment, and those which add more restrictive measures than are contained in the new amendment. While petitioners contend that all of the proposed rules are invalid, their principal attack is directed at the more restrictive amendments. For example, the latter group of rules prohibits (a) the possession of a gill net in state waters, (b) the possession of a gill or entangling net aboard a vessel in state waters at the same time a cast net is on the same vessel, (c) the use of two nets from the same vessel in nearshore and inshore waters, (d) the use of purse seine nets under 500 square feet, (e) the use of a bailer net in Volusia County, (f) the use of a trawl for any purpose other than the harvest of shrimp, and (g) the use of purse seines of any size in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. None of these activities is prohibited by the new constitutional amendment. Do the Rules Exceed the MFC's Rulemaking Authority? Petitioners contend that all of the proposed rules "have as their exclusive foundation the adoption by referendum of Art. X, Sec. 16 of the Constitution of the State of Florida," and thus they "have no foundation in the criteria established by Ch. 370.025 et seq. for the adoption of rules by the (MFC)." As a consequence, petitioners essentially contend that the MFC has exceeded its delegated legislative authority by relying upon a constitutional provision, rather than statutory law, as the source of authority for its rulemaking. At the same time, they contend that the MFC exceeded its rulemaking authority by adopting a number of rules, all containing more restrictive measures than are found in the constitutional amendment, based solely on law enforcement considerations, rather than on its statutory charge of managing and preserving renewable marine fisheries resources. Similarly, they contend that the more restrictive rules are arbitrary and capricious because they are based on law enforcement considerations. This contention, however, is dealt with in a separate part of this order. As noted earlier, the MFC cites Subsection 370.027(2), Florida Statutes, as the source of its rulemaking authority for each of the rules. That subsection vests in the MFC "exclusive rulemaking authority (in ten areas) relating to marine life," including gear specifications, prohibited gear, closed areas and seasons. For rules in chapter 46-4, the MFC has cited the new constitutional provision as an additional source of authority. Finally, as to the rules in chapter 46-3, the MFC also relies on Section 2 of Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84-121, Laws of Authority. All of the rule changes generally pertain to the areas of gear specifications, prohibited gear, closed areas and seasons, each of which is within the "exclusive rulemaking authority" of the MFC. In this broad sense, they are derived from MFC's statutory authority under Subsection 370.027(2), Florida Statutes, and thus they arguably fall within the scope of the organic law. Petitioners contend, however, that the MFC exceeded its rulemaking authority by making law enforcement considerations a basis, at least in part, for adopting the more restrictive rules. Petitioners assert that there in nothing in Chapter 370, Florida Statutes, which allows the MFC to take into account law enforcement issues when engaging in rulemaking. In this regard, respondent concedes through testimony, as corroborated by documentation received in evidence, that the more restrictive rules were crafted for the sole purpose of "facilitat(ing) the most cost effective and efficient enforcement on the prohibition of use (of prohibited gear)." In other words, while the new amendment did not require these more restrictive terms, the MFC nonetheless proposed the rule changes in order to make the Florida Marine Patrol's (FMP) job of enforcing the ban on prohibited gear less "costly" and more "efficient." One of the statutes relied upon by the MFC as the source of its rulemaking authority is Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. Among other things, subsection (1) thereof provides that "(a)ll administrative and enforcement responsibilities which are unaffected by the specific provisions of this act continue to be the responsibility of the department (of environmental protection)," of which the FMP is a part. Although Section 370.028, Florida Statutes, provides that "any law enforcement officer certified pursuant to s. 943.13" shall have the responsibility of enforcing the rules of the MFC, it is clear that the FMP has the primary responsibility of enforcing the new restrictions imposed by the constitutional amendment. The principal statutory charge of the MFC is to manage and preserve renewable marine fisheries resources. The MFC has no specific statutory authority to enact rules solely for the purpose of allowing more "cost- efficient, effective" enforcement of its regulations by another agency, and its executive director readily acknowledges that the agency has no role in enforcing its regulations from a law enforcement perspective. The purpose of the constitutional amendment is to protect marine animals from "unnecessary killing, overfishing and waste." By its own terms, then, the intent of the amendment is to preserve and protect Florida's existing and future fishing stocks. The amendment should achieve its goal, for the record shows that, once the amendment becomes effective, there should be a significant reduction in fishing mortality, with a concomitant rise in fishing stocks. Under Section 370.025, Florida Statutes, the MFC is charged with a similar responsibility of managing and preserving marine fishery resources. The evidence clearly shows that the more restrictive rules will have no meaningful effect on fishing mortality. That is to say, this category of rules has been proposed, not to further the MFC's charge of managing and preserving marine fisheries resources, but rather for the sole purpose of assisting another agency (the FMP) in enforcing the ban on the use of gill or entangling nets in Florida waters, and the use of certain nets in nearshore and inshore waters. As such, the more restrictive rules have no foundation in statutory law, and they exceed the MFC's rulemaking authority. For this reason, the following proposed rules or parts thereof are deemed to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority: the last sentence in 46-3.008(3)(c)3.; 46-3.028(3); 46-3.029(3); 46- 3.031(3); 46-3.032(3)(a); 46-3.034(3); 46-3.035(3); 46-3.037(3); 46-3.038(3); 46-4.001(1)(b); the sentence in 46-4.001(1)(c)3. which reads as follows: "(t)he exceptions provided in this paragraph are not available to a person aboard any vessel on which is also possessed a cast net"; the word "trawl" in 46- 4.001(2)(e); 46-4.001(2)(c)5.; 46-4.001(3); 46-4.004; 46-4.005(2)(a)3.; 46- 23.002(2); the first sentence in 46-23.003; 46-24.007(5); 46-37.002(2); 46- 37.006(2) and (3); 46-39.002(3); and 46-42.007(1)(b) and (c). Because the record supports a finding that the changes to rules 46-4.007, 46-4.015, 46- 4.017, 46-36.002, 46-39.011, 46-39.012, and 46-43.005 do not impose more restrictive conditions than are found in the new amendment, and are derived from appropriate statutory law, the contention that they exceed the MFC's rulemaking authority is deemed to be without merit. Are the Rules Arbitrary and Capricious? In their amended petition, petitioners also contend that all of the rules affected by these changes are arbitrary and capricious. In this vein, they contend that the rules "are not grounded in logic and reason and are not supported by appropriate scientific certainty." They also claim that where the MFC has exceeded the mandate of the constitution, the rules are arbitrary and capricious in the sense they are not grounded on a rational or logical basis since they stem from MFC's desire to ease the FMP's job in enforcing the new amendment rather than its desire to further the goal of managing and preserving the marine fishery stocks in Florida. The record on which the MFC based its changes was derived in part from public hearings conducted in three locations around the state. At those hearings, it heard comment from its staff, numerous affected persons, including those who oppose and support the proposed rules, as well as FMP representatives who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the new law. In addition, during the rulemaking process, MFC and FMP staffers consulted with the State of Texas, which has a similar ban on the use of entangling net gear, to gain an insight on any enforcement problems which that state experienced. Thereafter, the MFC staff prepared an analysis of the public comment, together with their own recommendations, which were considered by the MFC prior to its final decision. Copies of the staff reports and analyses have been made a part of this record. The more restrictive rules and law enforcement considerations Before adopting any rule, the MFC says it always consults with, and obtains advice from, the FMP regarding enforcement implications. Thus, in crafting its more restrictive rules, the MFC relied wholly upon the recommendation of the FMP, which has the responsibility of enforcing the law. The FMP in turn relied upon the experience of the State of Texas, which first imposed a statutory ban on the use of nets in 1988, and later imposed a statutory ban on the possession of nets in order to provide more effective enforcement. Based on advice from the FMP that, without more restrictive measures, it would experience the same problems as did Texas, the MFC decided that a ban on the possession of nets would be necessary in order to permit a more efficient enforcement of the new amendment. Indeed, it did so even though the FMP's chief law enforcement officer acknowledged that the FMP can enforce the new constitutional amendment without the MFC adopting any new rules. Except for this advice from the FMP during the rulemaking process, there is no other basis in fact or logic to support the broad and sweeping revisions. Therefore, while the more restrictive rules are designed to ease the job of law enforcement officials, and thus in that respect they have some logical and rational basis from a law enforcement perspective, they nonetheless have no correlation to the MFC's task of managing and preserving marine fisheries resources. Given this lack of a factual and logical predicate, the following proposed rules or parts thereof are deemed to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority: the last sentence in 46-3.008(3)(c)3.; 46-3.028(3); 46-3.029(3); 46-3.031(3); 46-3.032(3)(a); 46-3.034(3); 46-3.035(3); 46-3.037(3); 46-3.038(3); 46- 4.001(1)(b); the sentence in 46-4.001(1)(c)3. which reads as follows: "(t)he exceptions provided in this paragraph are not available to a person aboard any vessel on which is also possessed a cast net"; the word "trawl" in 46- 4.001(2)(e); 46-4.001(2)(c)5.; 46-4.001(3); 46-4.004; 46-4.005(2)(a)3.; 46- 23.002(2); the first sentence in 46-23.003; 46-24.007(5); 46-37.002(2); 46- 37.006(2) and (3); 46-39.002(3); and 46-42.007(1)(b) and (c). Because the record supports a finding that the changes to rules 46-4.007, 46-4.015, 46- 4.017, 46-36.002, 46-39.011, 46-39.012, and 46-43.005 do not impose more restrictive conditions than are found in the new amendment, the contention that they are arbitrary and capricious on account of law enforcement considerations is deemed to be without merit. The other rules Petitioners also contend that the rules are arbitrary and capricious because they "are not grounded in logic and reason and are not supported by appropriate scientific certainty." Each of the affected chapters will be discussed separately. Chapter 46-3 Chapter 46-3 contains provisions governing fishing in Lee, Volusia, Collier, Duval, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Hernando, Manatee, Martin, Pinellas, Sarasota, Walton and Brevard Counties. When the MFC was statutorily created as a part of the Department of Natural Resouces (DNR) in 1983, there were numerous local laws in existence having special application to these counties. The law which created the MFC directed that these local laws be repealed and reenacted as DNR rules. Some of these were codified in chapter 46-3. As changes to organic law occur, the MFC must logically amend these "local" rules to conform them to statewide requirements. According to the notice published in the FAW, the "purpose of these rule amendments (in chapter 46-3) is to conform the Marine Fisheries Commission's rules readopting portions of various special acts (local laws) to this new direction by deleting numerous local netting regulations and amending other provisions relating to gear still allowed by the constitutional provision." The notice added that "the effect of this rulemaking will be to eliminate many obsolete local rules and implement the constitutional provision's uniform regulatory regime." Affected by the proposed changes are rules 46-3.002, 46-3.008, 46- 3.025, 46-3.027, 46-3.028, 46-3.029, 46-3.031, 46-3.032, 46-3.034, 46-3.035, 46- 3.037, and 46-4.038. Each of these rules contains requirements unique to a particular county or waterbody within a county. They include seasonal restrictions on the use of nets other than cast nets and bait seines (Caloosahatchee River in Lee County, rule 46-3.002); restrictions on the use of gill nets (Volusia County, rule 46-3.008); minimum mesh size for gill nets and other gear (Lee, Collier and Duval Counties, rules 46-3.025 and 46-3.027); minimum mesh size for gill or trammel nets, a special management regime for purse seine harvest of menhaden in inside waters, and a minimum length for seines (Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties, rule 46-3.028); minimum mesh sizes for gill or trammel nets and maximum lengths for nets (Hernando County, rule 46- 3.029); restrictions on net fishing and a minimum gill net mesh size (Manatee River and Terra Ceia Bay in Manatee County, rule 46-3.031); restrictions on allowable nets and traps for inside waters (Martin County, rule 46-3.032); minimum mesh size for gill and trammel nets (Pinellas County, rule 46-3.034); miminum mesh size for gill and trammel nets (Sarasota County, rule 46-3.035); minimum seine length (Walton County, rule 46-3.037); and restrictions on the use of nets and seines (Brevard County, rule 46-3.038). All of the rules in chapter 46-3 have been amended in some respect to delete language made obsolete by the constitutional amendment. More specifically, the existing rules provide an array of requirements relative to the use of gill or entangling nets in the various counties which are clearly at odds with the amendment. Wherever this language appears, or where other obsolete local rules are present, they have been deleted since the use of such gear will no longer be allowed anywhere in the state after July 1, 1995. On this basis alone, and to the extent the changes do nothing more than delete obsolete or conflicting language, it is found that the changes in rules 46- 3.002, 46-3.008, 46-3.025, 46-3.027, 46-3.028, 46-3.029, 46-3.031, 46-3.032, 46- 3.034, 46-3.035, 46-3.037 and 46-4.038 have a factual and logical basis and are not arbitrary and capricious. Chapter 46-4 This chapter is entitled "Gear Specifications and Prohibited Gear." As stated in the FAW, the purpose of the changes is "to implement new prohibitions and specifications to enhance enforcement of the (constitutional) amendment, and provide guidance to Florida citizens in complying with the requirements of the new provision." In new rule 46-4.001, the FMC prescribes new limitations on marine net fishing. More specifically, it prohibits the use of any gill or entangling net to harvest any marine species in state waters, prohibits possession of nets on the waters of the state except for those persons who have a legitimate need for legal harvest elsewhere, prohibits the use of any net in nearshore or inshore Florida waters to harvest marine species other than certain equipment of specified dimension, prohibits the use of any purse seine in nearshore and inshore Florida waters, and provides an exception for nets fished pursuant to a special activities license issued for public or scientific purposes. Rule 46-4.002, which contains gear definitions, provides new or amended definitions of the terms "entangling net," "gill net," and "mesh area," and repeals the definition of an "airboat." At the same time, rule 46-4.0025, which contains other definitions, provides new or amended definitions for the terms "coastline," "Florida waters," "harvest," and "nearshore and inshore Florida waters." According to the FAW, these changes make the definitions "consistent" with the new constitutional amendment. In proposed rule 46-4.004, as later modified in the notice of changes to proposed rules, the MFC expands the scope of the rule banning the use of certain gear with power to include nearshore and inshore waters. As to rule 46-4.005, it is unclear from the record whether the changes regarding the issuance of a special activities license first proposed in paragraph (2)(a)3. were later eliminated by the notice of changes to proposed rules. Assuming they were not, the revisions to the remaining part of the rule simply substitute the word "governmental" for "public" and redesignate the Department of Natural Resources as the Department of Environmental Protection. The MFC has also proposed to repeal rules 46-4.006, 46-4.007(1)and (3), 46-4.008(1)-(4), 46-4.0081, 46-4.0085, 46-4.015(1), 46-4.016, and 46- 4.017(1) and (5). The MFC says these changes are required in order to eliminate obsolete language, some of which is derived from special laws. Finally, the minor changes in rules 46-4.013 and 46-4.014 prohibit the use of spotter planes in harvesting Spanish mackerel and prescribe gear specifications for using purse seines in certain waters of Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties, respectively. These changes have been made in order to conform the rules to what the MFC perceives to be existing law. Where the above revisions simply delete obsolete or conflicting language, or make other changes which are not more restrictive in nature, as described in finding of fact 24, there is a sufficient record basis to support a finding that the amendments are grounded in fact and logic and are thus not arbitrary and capricious. Chapter 46-23 This chapter governs the harvest of fishing for Spanish mackerel. By the rule changes, the MFC proposes to prohibit the commercial harvest of this species of fish in state waters by gill nets after July 1, 1995, and to allow only hook and line gear to be thereafter used. Specific changes have been made to rules 46-23.001, 46-23.002, 46- 23.003 and 46-23.004 to eliminate all reference to gill nets, and to describe other restricted activities relating to this species. To the extent these changes do not create more restrictions than are found in the new amendment, as more specifically described in finding of fact 24, they conform to the new law and will ease the fishing pressure exerted on Spanish mackerel. Because the changes in chapter 46-23 enhance the state policy of preserving marine fishery resources, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that they are arbitrary and capricious. Chapter 46-24 Chapter 46-24 governs the harvest of Spiny Lobster (Crawfish) and Slipper Lobster. The only rule affected by the changes is rule 46-24.007, which has been amended to specify the maximum size of bully nets and hoop nets used in the spiny lobster fishery. More specifically, the changes in subsection (5) of the rule limit bully nets to a diameter no larger than 3 feet while hoop nets are limited to a diameter no larger than 10 feet. Because the only change has been previously found to be arbitrary and capricious, the additional argument that the rule lacks "scientific certainty" need not be addressed. Chapter 46-36 This chapter, which relates to Black Drum, is amended in one respect by changing language in rule 46-36.002(2) to delete reference to nets and seines in the definition of the term "commercial harvest." Because the change is necessary to conform the rule with the new amendment, and there will be no appreciable change in the number of fish that can be caught, there is a sufficient factual predicate to support the change. Chapter 46-37 This chapter specifies regulations pertaining to the harvest of spotted seatrout. Only two rules are affected, those being rules 46-37.002 and 46-37.006. According to the FAW, the effect of the changes will be to "clearly indicate that hook and line gear is the only allowable gear for the harvest of spotted seatrout and that spotted seatrout harvest in excess of recreational bag limits will be considered commercial harvest after (the constitutional amendment) become(s) effective July 1, 1995." The only change in rule 46-37.002 is found in section (2), which defines the term "harvest for commercial purposes." There, the MFC has proposed to delete reference to the use of nets. In addition, sections (2) and (3) of rule 46-37.006 have been amended to delete all gill and trammel net mesh size requirements. Since both changes exceed the constitutional mandate and are based solely on law enforcement considerations, and have already been determined to be arbitrary, it is unnecessary to address petitioners' remaining contentions. Chapter 46-39 Chapter 46-39 governs the harvest of mullet, which has traditionally been a gill net fishery. All or parts of rules 46-39.002, 46-39.0035, 46- 39.005, 46-39.006, 46-39.007, 46-39.008, 46-39.009, 46-39.010, 46-39.011 and 46- 30.012 have been amended or repealed to conform these rules to the new amendment. More specifically, the species will now be available to a limited extent only through the use of cast nets, and thus all provisions pertaining to gill net specifications, spotter planes, daily vessel limits, and weekend closures and other closed seasons have been deleted. To the extent these rules do not exceed the constitutional mandate, as previously discussed, they are based on facts and logic and are not arbitrary or capricious. Chapter 46-42 This chapter pertains to the broad subject of "Marine Life." As stated in the FAW, the purpose of the single rule amendment is to "specify the maximum size of barrier nets and drop nets used to harvest tropical fish." Rule 46-42.007 provides gear specifications for the harvest of tropical fish. Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) have been amended to establish a maximum length for barrier nets of 60 feet, with a maximum depth of 8 feet, and a maximum dimension of 12 feet for drop nets. Because these changes have been previously found to be arbitrary and capricious by virtue of being based solely on law enforcement considerations, it is unnecessary to determine if they are arbritrary and capricious for other reasons. Chapter 46-43 The final chapter being amended governs the bluefish harvest and changes one rule "to provide gear specifications to apply to the commercial harvest of bluefish in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters adjacent to east coast Florida waters in the Atlantic Ocean, in accordance with the Fishery Management Plan for the Bluefish Fishery . . . as implemented through federal rules." Specifically, subsection (2) of rule 46-43.005 has been amended to delete references to current statewide gear rules and provide new net gear requirements applicable to commercial bluefish harvest in federal waters adjacent to Florida east coast waters, including tending requirements, net marking specifications, maximum net length and minimum mesh size, and soak requirements. The new language also allows only one net to be fished at a time from a single vessel, but allows possession of a maximum of two nets, including the one being fished. Finally, the term "net" is defined to exclude purse seines. These changes apply only to the bluefish fishery in adjacent federal waters which are subject to Florida rulemaking by virtue of an interstate compact. The proposed changes have been approved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, are necessary in order for Florida to meet its state quota under the compact, and have a basis in fact and logic. Accordingly, the rule changes are not found to be arbitrary or capricious. Do the Rules Conflict with the Law Implemented? Petitioners further allege that the proposed rules conflict with the law implemented. More specifically, they have alleged that the proposed rules do not conform with the criteria established in Section 370.025, Florida Statutes, one of the two statutes relied upon by the MFC as the law implemented for all rules. Subsection (1) of the law declares that the state policy of managing and preserving its renewable marine fishery resources shall be 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. Subsection (2) requires that all rules adopted by the MFC relating to saltwater fisheries 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, sociologi-cal, 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 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. Incon- sistencies 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. To show conformity with the above standards, the MFC staff prepared a document entitled "Adherence to Commission Standards" for each of the affected chapters. These documents, which are a part of the rule file, are found in respondent's exhibit 1 received in evidence, and they were considered by the MFC as a part of the rulemaking process. They provide an analysis on how the proposed rules comply with the standards enumerated in subsection 370.025(2), to the extent such standards are applicable. This analysis was not credibly contradicted at hearing. In their proposed order, petitioners focus principally on the rules in chapter 46-4, which relate to gear standards and specifications, and contend these rules are illustrative of the fact that none of the rules are consistent with the statutory standards. As to whether the changes in all of the chapters are consistent with the criteria in Subsection 370.025(1), Florida Statutes, the rule changes were based on oral and written comments from laypersons, law enforcement personnel and experts and thus were based on the best available information. In addition, many of the changes were necessary by virtue of the constitutional amendment, and to this extent, they protect and enhance the marine environment for the benefit of all present and future generations. Accordingly, they are found to be consistent with the criteria in Subsection 370.025(1), Florida Statutes. As to whether the changes in chapter 46-4 are consistent with the standards in Subsection 370.025(2), Florida Statutes, the MFC's analysis indicates they "reduce fishing mortality on most inshore finfish species" and do not "jeopardize the health or abundance of inshore finfish stocks" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], eliminate obsolete provisions and "allow for alternative gear fisheries to develop after the new constitutional provision becomes effective" [paragraph (c)], "complement and affect the provisions of already developed management plans" and "maintain consistency" [paragraph (f)], "apply equally to all persons" [paragraph (g)], and "are consistent as possible with federal management plans" [paragraph (g)]. The standards in paragraphs (d) and (e) do not apply. Given these considerations, it is found that the rule changes in chapter 46-4 are consistent with the criteria and standards in Subsection 370.025(2), Florida Statutes. In a similar vein, the rule changes in chapter 46-23 "affect a reduction in fishing mortality on Spanish mackerel in state waters" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], allow the species to "continue to be available to commercial harvesters in state waters with hook-and-line and cast net gear" [paragraph (c)], conduct the management of the species "on the unit stock" [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery management plan [paragraph (f)], "apply equally to all persons" [paragraph (g)], and are "consistent as possible with federal management plans" [paragraph (h)]. The standard in paragraph (e) does not apply. As such, the changes are consistent with the statutory criteria. With respect to the changes in chapter 46-37, they "affect a reduction in fishing mortality on spotted seatrout in state waters" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], allow the species to "continue to be available to commercial and recreational fishers with hook-and-line gear" [paragraph (c)], conduct "the managment of spotted seatrout . . . on the unit stock" [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery managment plan [paragraph (f)], "apply equally to all persons seeking to harvest spotted seatrout" [paragraph (g)], and are not "inconsistent with recommended management plans initiated by the interstate commissions" [paragraph (h)]. The standard in paragraph (e) does not apply. On this basis, the rule changes are found to consistent with the standards. As to the consistency of the changes in chapter 46-39, they "affect a substantial reduction in fishing mortality on mullet in state waters" [paragraph (a)], "implement and aid enforcement of the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], make "available to harvesters with cast net, and to a much lesser extent, hook-and-line gear" and "aid in the development of alternative gear fisheries for mullet" [paragraph (c)], continue to conduct the management of mullet on the unit stock [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery management plan [paragraph (f)], and "apply to anyone attemting to harvest mullet" [paragraph (g)]. The standards in paragraphs (e) and (h) do not apply. Accordingly, the rule changes are found to be consistent with the statutory standards. The revisions in chapter 46-43 "will not change the substantial conservation measures heretofore in place" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], "continue the current regulatory regime in place in the bluefish management plan" [paragraph (c)], allow the management of Atlantic bluefish to be continued to be conducted on the basis of the U. S. Atlantic coast unit stock" [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery management plan [paragraph (f)], "continue the regulatory regime currently in place and allow a fair and equitable distribution of the available bluefish harvest among commercial and recreational fishers" [paragraph (g)], and "are consistent with federal management plans" [paragraph (h)]. The standard in paragraph (e) does not apply. Again, it is found that the rule changes are consistent with the statutory standards. G. Were Procedural Requirements Met in Adopting the Rules? Petitioners complain that the MFC materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in three respects. First, it is alleged that the MFC failed to provide petitioners with a timely draft of the EIS prepared for each of the rule changes. Second, petitioners contend that the MFC erred by refusing to take public comment at the final adoption meeting in violation of Rule 46- 1.004(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, petitioners argue that the MFC amended or repealed rules derived from local laws without holding a mandatory meeting in each affected county. These contentions will be considered separately below. Was the EIS submitted on a timely basis? The Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., and Seafood Consumers and Producers Association, Inc. are organizations representing at least one hundred persons. Under Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, an agency must prepare an EIS if within 14 days after the publication of the notice provided pursuant to paragraph (1)(c) or, if no notice of rule development is provided, within 21 days after the notice required by paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), a written request is filed with the appropriate agency by . . . an organization representing at least 100 persons. The same statute goes on to provide in part that: If an economic impact statement is prepared pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), at least 14 days prior to any public hearing on a proposed rule held pursuant to subsection (3), the agency shall make a draft copy of the economic impact statement available to any person who requests a copy of the statement. On January 20, 1995, or just four days before the first public hearing, petitioners filed with the MFC a written request for preparation of an EIS on each of the proposed rules. They also asked that they be provided with a copy of a draft of the statement. Notwithstanding this request, the hearing on the proposed rules was held on January 24-26, 1995, as previously scheduled. The official record of the rulemaking proceedings was closed on February 9, 1995. On the same day, petitioners were provided with a draft EIS. There is no evidence as to how petitioners were prejudiced in the conduct of this proceeding by virtue of not receiving a copy of the EIS prior to the public hearings. Indeed, petitioners never made the MFC aware of any specific concerns regarding the EIS, and they made no claim that the EIS itself is deficient. Therefore, even if an error in procedure occurred, it was harmless and did not impair the fairness of the proceeding. Did the MFC improperly refuse to hear public comment? Rule 46-1.004(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that during a MFC rulemaking hearing any person present shall be heard on any issue under consideration, subject to control by the presiding officer of irrelevant, repetitious or unduly extended comment. The rules under consideration here were revised and approved for adoption at a MFC meeting held on February 16, 1995. It is undisputed that no public comment was permitted at that meeting. Prior to the final adoption meeting, the MFC conducted public hearings on the proposed rules in Lee, Orange and Leon Counties. The MFC general counsel was appointed as a hearing officer to conduct those meetings, and at least one commissioner attended each meeting. Members of the public who attended the meetings were allowed to offer both written and oral comment on the rules. The meetings were not transcribed, but they were videotaped in order to preserve the record. After the meetings were completed, the MFC general counsel prepared a summary of the public comment and a staff recommendation for use by the MFC at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 1995. Since three public hearings had already been conducted, including one in Tallahassee, the MFC opted to dispense with public comment at the February 16 meeting and to deliberate and vote on the proposed rule changes. It is undisputed that, prior to voting on the changes, the commissioners who had not attended the public hearings did not watch the videotaped record. Instead, they relied upon the summary of comments prepared by their staff. Even if the MFC's decision to dispense with public comment was in violation of rule 46-1.004(4)(b), there is no evidence as to how petitioners were prejudiced. This is especially true since a public hearing had already been held in Tallahassee less than a month earlier, at which time public comment was invited. Therefore, if an error in procedure occurred, it was not material, and it did not impair the fairness of the proceeding. Were hearings required in each affected county? Each of the twelve affected rules in chapter 46-3 is derived from local laws identified in Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84-121, Laws of Florida. Although these rules affect Lee, Volusia, Collier, Duval, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Hernando, Manatee, Martin, Pinellas, Sarasota, Walton and Brevard Counties, a public hearing was held only in Lee County. Rule 46-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part as follows: (5) Before adopting any rule amending or repealing any rule derived from local laws identified in Section 2(5)(a), (b), or (c) of Ch. 83-134, Laws of Florida, . . . the Commission or, at the direction of the Commission, one or more Commissioners or staff members shall hold a public hearing. When acting on rules derived from such local laws, a hearing shall be held in the county or counties affected. (emphasis added) This rule tracks language in Section 2(5)(d) of Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, which requires the MFC to "hold a hearing in the affected county or counties" before amending or repealing any rules derived from local law. Petitioners contend that the foregoing rule and law were violated since a hearing was held in only one of the thirteen affected counties. As noted earlier, when the MFC was created by Chapter 83-134 as a part of the DNR, numerous local laws were in effect regulating fishing practices on a county by county basis. Section 2(5)(a) of Chapter 83-134 provided as follows: Effective upon the appointment of the commission, the following local laws pertaining to saltwater fishing, to the extent they relate to those areas specified in subsection (2), shall be repealed and shall continue as rules of the department: Chapter 83-134 was amended by Chapter 84-120, Laws of Florida, which, among other things, repealed additional local laws but provided that they continue in effect as DNR rules. It is a commonly recognized fact that in 1993 the DNR was abolished through a merger with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Respondent takes the position that when the DNR was merged with the DEP, the DNR rules were repealed and readopted as MFC rules, and thus the present rules found in chapter 46-3 are no longer "derived from local laws." As a consequence, the MFC contends that a public hearing in each affected county is not required. The history notes to the challenged rules reflect that they were amended at various times in 1992, or before the merger of DNR and DEP occurred. No amendments have occurred since that time. Whether the 1992 changes constitute the readoption that the MFC relies upon is not apparent from the record. In any event, the rules are clearly derived from local laws, and thus they are subject to the requirements of Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, and Rule 46-1.004(4)(b) Florida Administrative Code. This finding is buttressed by the fact that in the FAW, the MFC describes its changes in chapter 46-3 as being for the purpose of conforming its rules "readopting portions of various special acts (local laws)" to the constitution. Moreover, the rules themselves contain language that the MFC intends "to readopt certain provisions of (the local law)." Even though the requirement in chapter 83-134 was not followed, there was no showing by petitioners that they were prejudiced by this error or that the fairness of the proceeding was impaired. Therefore, the error is deemed to be harmless. G. Do the Rules Conflict with the Constitution? Although petitioners' amended petition does not contain the allegation that the rules conflict with the new constitutional provision, in the main body of their proposed order they argue that eighteen rules "enlarge, modify or contravene the specific provisions of the constitution implemented." In contrast, the appendix to their proposed order cites twenty, rather than eighteen, rules which are allegedly constitutionally infirm. More specifically, petitioners complain that rules 46-3.008, 46-3.029, 46-3.032, 46-4.001, 46-4.005, 46-4.007, 46-4.015, 46-4.017, 46-23.001, 46- 23.002, 46-23.003, 46-24.007, 46-36.002, 46-37.002, 46-37.006, 46-39.002, 46- 42.007 and 46-43.005 make certain conduct unlawful even though such conduct is permissible under Section 16, Article X. By way of example, the rules make the possession (as opposed to the use) of gill or entangling nets unlawful even though the possession of such equipment is not barred by the constitutional amendment. Assuming, but not conceding, that the constitutional claim has been timely raised, Subsection (f) of Section 16, Article X provides in part that "nothing in this section prohibits the establishment by law or pursuant to law of more restrictions on the use of nets for the purpose of catching or taking any saltwater finfish, shellfish, or other marine life." (Emphasis added) Since the changes to the rules under challenge arguably relate to the "use of nets," and they have been made "pursuant to law," that is, pursuant to MFC's statutory rulemaking authority, the cited rules, even if more restrictive than the amendment, do not contravene the constitutional provision.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should provide additional compensation to Petitioner for nets turned in by Petitioner pursuant to the State of Florida’s Net Buy-Back Program, a program operated by Respondent in accordance with Section 370.0805, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a commercial fisher who was affected by Florida’s net ban, a matter of amendment of the Florida Constitution, Article X., Section 16. Florida’s Net Buy-Back Program is established by Section 370.0805, Florida Statutes. The program enables eligible persons previously engaged in the commercial fishing industry to sell fishing nets to the State of Florida. On July 5, 1995, Petitioner signed and filed with Respondent a Net Buy-Back Application, in which he indicated that he intended to sell 6,000 yards of 50 mesh gill net and 6,000 yards of beach, purse or seine net. Under provisions of Section 370.0805(5), Florida Statutes, fishers are reimbursed for deepwater gill nets of at least 600 yards at a rate of $1,000 per net. Reimbursement to fishers for seine, beach or purse nets is made at a rate of $3,500 per net. Petitioner did not communicate any intention to Respondent to sell nets other than the types and amounts contained on his application, basically 50 percent gill nets and 50 percent seine nets. Respondent’s personnel reviewed data contained in the data base of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to assist in the determination of Petitioner’s net reimbursement eligibility. Following that review, it was determined by Respondent that Petitioner was eligible to sell 24 nets. Petitioner did not contest the number of nets he was entitled to sell. On or about October 1, 1996, Petitioner was advised by letter from Respondent’s personnel that he was eligible to turn in a total of 24 nets, up to ten of which could be seine nets. Specifically, the letter stated: Based upon the application you signed and submitted and review of the trip tickets issued under your Saltwater Products License, you may turn in a total of 14,400 yards of net, up to 6,000 yards of which may be seine net. The remaining 8,400 yards must be any other type of net other than seine net. You will not be paid for any seine nets in excess of 6,000 yards. Respondent’s determination was based upon a review of the data base obtained from DEP which included trip tickets attributable to Petitioner for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. As defined in Section 370.0805(4)(c), Florida Statutes, “trip ticket” means Marine Fisheries Trip Tickets, FDEP Form #33-610, submitted to DEP for editing, compilation and entry into the Marine Fisheries Information System. Trip tickets in the information system examined by Respondent’s personnel revealed that Petitioner utilized seine nets in approximately 60 percent of the total trips recorded during the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. Testimony presented by Petitioner at the final hearing that seine net utilization by him was closer to 95 percent is not credited in the presence of the statutorily authorized data provided by Respondent’s personnel at the final hearing which establishes the 60 percent figure. Communication between Petitioner and Respondent’s personnel just prior to the date when Petitioner was scheduled to turn in his nets resulted in a correction which permitted Petitioner to turn in 14 seine nets (8,400 yards) and 10 gill nets (6,000) yards. Thereafter Petitioner received and endorsed a State of Florida Warrant in the amount of $58,893.20
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the relief requested by Petitioner.DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2021 Capital Circle SE Tallahassee, FL 32399-2189 Albert S. C. Millar, Esquire 4627 Ocean Drive Mayport, FL 32233 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle SE Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a single family residence on a lot (Lot 2) abutting Lake Buffum in Polk County, Florida. This property has a 60 foot frontage on the lake. Petitioner subsequently purchased and now owns an adjacent lot (Lot 3) with a lake front frontage of approximately 73 feet. Petitioner has placed a dock on the westerly edge of Lot 2 from which he suspends and lowers a power boat to the surface of Lake Buffum. Lot 3 is westerly of Lot 2. Lake Buffum is a class III water body which classification provides for management for recreation; and propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well- balanced population of fish and wildlife. Petitioner was cited for violation of Section 369.20, Florida Statutes, by spraying herbicide on aquatic plants without a permit. He subsequently applied for a permit to control aquatic plants in front of his property and was issued a permit allowing him to control an access corridor to his property 50 feet wide. Petitioner here seeks an access corridor 60 feet wide. When Petitioner was issued his permit, the plat showing his dock in the center of the 50 foot access corridor was attached. Petitioner desired to clear aquatic plants on the western side of his dock as there is deeper water on that side of the dock to permit access to the dock with his boat. This is due to the angle of the shore line. The plat showing the dock in the middle of the 50 foot corridor obviously caused some confusion on the part of the Petitioner as the approach to his hoist on the dock is parallel to the shoreline. Accordingly, clear water to approach the dock from the west is what Petitioner needs to dock his boat. The permit granted is for a 50 foot corridor without specifying where at right angles to the coast line the corridor should be placed. Accordingly, if desired, Petitioner could clear a corridor starting at the western side of his dock and extending 50 feet to the west. In coordination with the Florida Game, Freshwater Fish and Wildlife Service, the Respondent has adopted a general policy of granting a permit to clear aquatic plants on waterfront property with a corridor of one-half width of the lot fronting the lake but limited to 50 feet for lots of 100 feet width and greater. Since Petitioner has approximately 133 feet of shoreline, he was granted a permit to control aquatic plants in a 50 foot corridor. This general policy is not absolute, but varies with the quantity of aquatic plants on a particular lake and whether the permit is desired for the use of the general public, such as a public boat ramp provided by a county or municipality. The amount of aquatic plants most beneficial to the propagation of fish and wildlife on lakes is between 40% and 70% coverage of the lakes. On the lakes with more than 70% coverage, Respondent may grant a 100 foot corridor in which the upland property owner is issued a permit to control aquatic plants. Lake Buffum is a sparsely vegetated lake with a coverage varying between 1.8% and 4%. Although the property around the lake is sparsely developed, an extra 10 feet of aquatic plant control would have some adverse effect in this lake which is far below the average coverage. More importantly, however, is the cumulative impact of granting Petitioner a 60 foot corridor which would require the granting of similar corridors to all other applicants on Lake Buffum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dan L. Moody's petition to be granted a permit to clear a 60 foot corridor of aquatic plants below the high water line at his property on Lake Buffum be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dan D. Moody, Esquire 945 East Broadway Fort Meade, Florida 33841 Nancy L. Harvey, Esquire Nona Schaffner, Esquire 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard MS #35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Donald Duden, Acting Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard MS #10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard MS #10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
