00-002524
Michael L. Guttmann vs.
Adr Of Pensacola And Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, February 1, 2002.
Recommended Order on Friday, February 1, 2002.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8MICHAEL L. GUTTMANN, )
12)
13Petitioner, )
15)
16vs. ) Case No. 00 - 2524
23)
24DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )
28PROTECTION and ADR OF )
33PENSACOLA, INC., )
36)
37Respondents. )
39______________________________)
40RECOMMENDED ORDER ON REMAND
44Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the
53Division of Administrative Hearings on October 23, 2001, by
62video teleconference by its assigned Administr ative Law Judge,
71Donald R. Alexander.
74APPEARANCES
75For Petitioner: Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire
81314 South Baylen Street, Suite 201
87Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 5949
92For Respondent: Charles T. Collette, Esquire
98(Department) Lucinda R. Roberts, Esquire
103Department of Environmental Protection
1073900 Commonwealth Boulevard
110Mail Station 35
113Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
118For Respondent: David A. Sapp, Esquire
124(ADR) 1017 North 12th Avenue
129Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 3306
134STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
138The issue is whether ADR of Pensacola, Inc.'s proposed
147mitigation measures offset the a dverse impacts of a dock project
158on the public interest criteria in Section 403.918(2)(a)2., 4.,
1675., and 7., Florida Statutes (1991).
173PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
175This matter began on May 15, 2000, when Respondent,
184Department of Environmental Protection, issued its Consolidated
191Notice of Intent to Issue Wetland Resource Permit and Sovereign
201Submerged Lands Authorization to Respondent, ADR of Pensacola,
209Inc. The permit and authorization allow the construction of a
21930 - slip docking facility on Big Lagoon in Escambi a County,
231Florida.
232After a challenge to the proposed agency action was filed
242by Petitioner, Michael L. Guttmann, hearings were conducted on
251November 30 and December 13, 2000. In a Recommended Order
261entered on February 28, 2001, the undersigned recommend ed that
271the application be denied on the ground that the proposed
281project was contrary to the public interest within the meaning
291of Section 403.918(2)(a)2., 4., 5., and 7., Florida Statutes
300(1991).
301On April 13, 2001, the Department of Environmental
309Prote ction entered its Order of Remand and requested that
319further proceedings be held to allow the applicant "an
328opportunity to propose mitigation measures acceptable to DEP to
337offset the adverse impacts of the dock project on the public
348interest criteria." By Order dated April 20, 2001, the case was
359reopened for that limited purpose. The matter was then
368temporarily abated pending an appeal of the Order of Remand by
379Petitioner. That appeal was later dismissed for lack of
388jurisdiction. Guttmann v. Dep't of En vir. Prot. and ADR of
399Pensacola, Inc. , 787 So. 2d. 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
409By Notice of Hearing dated August 1, 2001, a hearing was
420scheduled by video teleconference on October 23, 2001, with the
430parties participating in Pensacola and Tallahassee, Flori da.
438At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of
446Dr. Kenneth L. Heck, Jr., a marine biologist and ecologist who
457was accepted as an expert, and James Veal, an architect who
468resides near the project site. Also, he offered Petitioner's
477Exhibits 1 and 2, which were received in evidence. Respondent,
487ADR of Pensacola, Inc., presented the testimony of Terrence C.
497Bosso, an environmental consultant who was accepted as an
506expert, and Dr. Joe A. Edminsten, an environmental consultant
515who was accepted as an expert. Also, Respondent offered
524Respondent's Exhibits 1 - 3, 6, and 8, which were received in
536evidence. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection,
542presented the testimony of Larry O'Donnell, environmental
549manager for permitting for the Pensac ola District Office, who
559was accepted as an expert. Finally, the undersigned took
568official recognition of Section 403.918, Florida Statutes
575(1991), which governs this proceeding, and Part III, Chapter 62 -
586312, Florida Administrative Code, which contains mi tigation
594standards for projects in Escambia County, Florida.
601A Transcript of the hearing (two volumes) was filed on
611December 6, 2001. By agreement of the parties, the time for
622filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was
632extended to January 15, 2002. The same were timely filed by the
644parties, and they have been considered by the undersigned in the
655preparation of this Recommended Order.
660FINDINGS OF FACT
663Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of
673fact are determined:
676a. Ba ckground
6791. This matter is on remand from Respondent, Department of
689Enviromental Protection (DEP), for further proceedings to allow
697Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc. (applicant), "an opportunity
705to propose mitigation measures acceptable to DEP to offset
714adverse impacts of the dock project on the public interest
724criteria [in Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991)]."
731The applicant proposes to construct a 442 foot x 4 foot access
743pier with seventeen 30 foot x 1.5 foot finger piers, thirteen 40
755foot x 1.5 foot finger piers, and a 74 foot x 1.5 foot terminal
769platform to form a 30 - slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, a
782Class III water in Escambia County, Florida. The application is
792opposed by Petitioner, Michael L. Guttmann, who resides within a
802mile o f the project site.
8082. In a Recommended Order entered on February 28, 2001,
818the undersigned found that "the proposed activity will adversely
827affect fish and their habitat by virtue of the applicant's
837docking 30 boats in a small area just beyond a healthy seagrass
849area" [Section 403.918(2)(a)2.]; that "the proposed activity
856will adversely affect marine productivity because the fish
864nursery habitat will decline through a further thinning out of
874the seagrass colony in Big Lagoon" [Section 403.918(2)(a)4.];
882th at "the activity is permanent in nature" [Section
891403.918(2)(a)5.]; and that "the 'current conditions' and
898'relative value' of [the] functions [of seagrass] will be
907negatively impacted if the dock is constructed" [Section
915403.918(2)(a)7.]. Based on these expected adverse impacts, the
923undersigned recommended that the application be denied on the
932ground that the project was contrary to the public interest.
9423. Because DEP had made a preliminary determination that
951the project complied with all applicable cr iteria, and its staff
962had presented evidence in support of the application at the
972hearing, DEP concluded in an Order of Remand dated April 13,
9832001, that "it would not be appropriate to enter a final order
995denying the requested permit and authorization wit hout first
1004affording ADR an administrative forum for proposing mitigation
1012measures for consideration by DEP." (Order of Remand, page 17).
1022The applicant then filed proposed mitigation measures, as later
1031amended, and these proceedings followed.
1036b. Mitigat ion measures
10404. The negative impacts which formed the basis for finding
1050that the project would be contrary to the public interest were
1061secondary in nature. That is to say, the facility itself (the
1072dock, platform, and pilings) will not cause the negative impacts
1082described in the Recommended Order. Rather, unless appropriate
1090mitigation measures are implemented, secondary impacts
1096associated with additional boat traffic would likely cause
1104increased turbidity (and a diminution of water clarity in the
1114areas wh ere seagrass currently thrives) due to wave action from
1125the boats, and the boat propellers would likely cause the
1135scarring of seagrass which grows near the shoreline. Thus, the
1145secondary impacts were found to have an adverse impact on fish
1156and habitat, th e fishing and marine productivity in the area,
1167and the current condition and relative value of functions being
1177performed by the areas.
11815. To mitigate the secondary impact of propeller scarring,
1190applicant proposes "to place [8] pilings on 20 feet centers on
1201the southernmost margins [of the project] to further deter boats
1211from accessing across and navigating in the seagrasses in the
1221vicinity of the proposed dock." In addition, the pilings will
1231have signage stating "NO BOATING BEYOND THIS POINT."
12396. The piling system will consist of four pilings placed
124920 feet apart on each side of the dock along the outer edge of
1263the seagrass bed (approximately 175 to 200 feet from the
1273shoreline) and which will parallel the shoreline. The pilings
1282(with signage) are des igned to deter boaters from entering the
1293area where the seagrass thrives and scarring the grass with
1303their boat propellers.
13067. This type of barrier (pilings with signage) has been
1316successfully used in other areas around the State to mitigate
1326concerns ab out encroachment into shallow areas by boat traffic.
1336It is designed to deter not only members of the general public,
1348but also boaters docking at the facility.
13558. Similar pilings have been placed at a project known as
1366Landfall which is located on the nort h shore of Big Lagoon
1378around a mile away. Landfall has 50 boat slips and utilizes
1389concrete piling structures to provide a visible and
1397psychological barrier for the seagrass beds. Like the
1405applicant's proposal, Landfall's dock extends a substantial
1412distan ce from the shoreline (550 feet), and boats are moored
1423beyond the seagrass beds. That marina has been in place for
1434more than a decade, and the more persuasive evidence shows that
1445the pilings have had a positive impact on the protection of
1456seagrass beds.
14589. To mitigate the turbidity (or decline in water clarity)
1468caused by wave action from the boats, the applicant proposes to
1479place "a[n] [aluminum] baffle system along the outermost slips
1488(waterward side) of the facility." The system will be installed
1498app roximately 400 feet from the shoreline where the water
1508reaches a depth of 17 feet, will be 78 - feet long, and is
1522designed to eliminate or minimize wave energy from stirring and
1532re - suspending shoreline sediment. The baffles will be 8 feet
1543wide aluminum slat s, 6 feet long, and spaced 8 feet apart to
1556allow the re - flow of water. However, the baffles will disperse
1568the wave action over a much greater area than the actual length
1580of the system. Besides dispersing the wave action from boats
1590using the dock, the sys tem will also minimize the wave action
1602created by boats traversing the main channel. Currently, no
1611such protection is afforded the shoreline from boats used by the
1622general public or other Big Lagoon residents.
162910. Once the baffle system is installed, it will become
1639colonized with sessils (barnacles and oysters), which should
1647provide a new habitat for fish in the area.
165611. The evidence shows that similar baffle systems have
1665been used in other areas of the State, especially in South
1676Florida along the Int ercoastal Waterway. There, the systems
1685have successfully minimized the wave action on shorelines which
1694are caused by the numerous boats using that waterway.
170312. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that
1712the mitigation plan, as proposed by th e applicant, will likely
1723be successful and will offset the expected adverse impacts
1732described in the Recommended Order of February 28, 2001.
1741Therefore, the applicant has given reasonable assurance that the
1750proposed mitigation measures will offset the adve rse impacts of
1760the project.
176213. Through testimony of an expert witness and argument
1771advanced in his Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends
1779that the mitigation plan is flawed and does not offset the
1790adverse impacts with any degree of reasonable ce rtainty. These
1800contentions have been carefully considered but are rejected as
1809being contrary to the more credible evidence.
1816CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
181914. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
1826jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto
1835pu rsuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes
1844(2001).
184515. As the party proposing mitigation measures, the
1853applicant bears the burden of providing reasonable assurances
1861that the measures offset the adverse impacts of the project.
1871Rule 62 - 312 .340, Florida Administrative Code.
187916. The role of an administrative law judge in determining
1889the sufficiency of mitigation measures is limited to resolving
"1898any factual disputes on mitigation." Collier Develop. Corp. v.
1907State, Dep't of Envir. Reg. , 59 2 So. 2d 1107, 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA
19211991). This is because "DEP has the exclusive final authority
1931to determine the sufficiency of the proposed seagrass
1939mitigation," and the "'findings' related to the sufficiency of
1948mitigation are essentially conclusions of l aw and not binding on
1959DEP." Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep't of Trans. et al. , 700 So.
19722d 113, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). See also 1800 Atlantic
1983Developers v. Dep't of Envir. Reg. , 552 So. 2d 946, 955 (Fla.
19951st DCA 1989)("It is the responsibility of [DEP], no t the
2007[administratative law judge], to define mitigative measures that
2015would be sufficient to offset the perceived adverse effects of
2025the dredging and filling contemplated by the project in accord
2035with the statutory criteria for determining public interest .")
204517. "Mitigation" is defined as "an action or series of
2055actions that will offset the adverse impacts on the waters of
2066the state that cause a proposed dredge and fill project to be
2078not permittable." Rule 62 - 312.310(6), Florida Administrative
2086Code. "Th e goal of the mitigation proposal shall be to offset
2098the expected adverse impacts of the project that have resulted
2108in the project being deemed unpermittable such that the
2117resulting project with mitigation is not contrary to the public
2127interest." Rule 62 - 312.330, Florida Administrative Code. In
2136considering these measures, each proposal "must be evaluated on
2145a case by case basis," including the "likelihood that the
2155mitigation will be successful." Rule 62 - 312.340, Florida
2164Administrative Code.
216618. In the R ecommended Order entered on February 28, 2001,
2177the undersigned concluded that the project was contrary to the
2187public interest because it adversely impacted the public
2195interest criteria under Section 403.918(2)(a)2., 4., 5., and 7.,
2204Florida Statutes (1991). 1 Those provisions require that the
2213Department consider and balance the following factors:
22202. Whether the activity will adversely
2226affect the conservation of fish and
2232wildlife, including endangered or threatened
2237species, or their habitats;
22414. Whether the activity will adversely
2247affect the fishing or recreational values or
2254marine productivity in the vicinity of the
2261activity;
22625. Whether the activity will be of a
2270temporary or permanent nature;
22747. The current condition and relative value
2281of functions bein g performed by areas
2288affected by the proposed activity.
229319. Rule 62 - 312.060(10), Florida Administrative Code,
2301provides that "[w]hen the Department determines that a project,
2310as submitted or modified, fails to meet the criteria in Sections
2321403.918(1) and (2)(a)1. - 7. and 403.919, F.S., the applicant may
2332propose mitigation measures to the Department as provided in
2341Chapter 62 - 312, Part III, F.A.C." The purpose of this
2352proceeding is to consider the applicant's mitigation measures.
236020. The more persuasive evi dence supports a conclusion
2369that the applicant's mitigation plan offers reasonable assurance
2377that the expected adverse effects of the project will be offset,
2388and that the project will not be contrary to the public
2399interest. Therefore, the application shou ld be approved.
240721. In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned has
2415considered Petitioner's contention that the mitigation measures
2422fail to address the effects of wave action on other areas of Big
2435Lagoon. However, the applicant only has the responsibili ty of
2445mitigating impacts in the area of the project site, and not the
2457entire 13 miles of Big Lagoon. Likewise, concerns about lifts,
2467paint leaching, future monitoring of the site, and full - time
2478pumpout station assistance have already been addressed in the
2487Recommended Order in the form of recommended conditions, and
2496they need not be incorporated into the mitigation plan, which
2506addresses only turbidity and prop scarring. Petitioner also
2514contends that no scientific studies have been conducted as to
2524the relia bility of pilings and baffles, and therefore these
2534measures are suspect. The more persuasive evidence, however,
2542reflects that these measures have been successfully used on
2551projects not only in other areas of the State, but also at a
2564similarly - sized projec t no more than a mile away. The
2576Department has had an opportunity to assess the use of pilings
2587at the latter project for more than a decade. As to this
2599contention, the statute only requires reasonable assurance, not
2607scientific certainty.
260922. Finally, as noted in the Recommended Order, it is fair
2620to infer that Petitioner's and his neighbors' primary concern is
2630the proposed construction by the applicant of a fairly large
2640condominium in an area where single - family homes are the norm.
2652Understandably, they a re opposed to such a project. This
2662proceeding, however, is concerned only with the dock, and not
2672with the wisdom of placing a condominium next to single - family
2684homes.
2685RECOMMENDATION
2686Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
2696Law, it is
2699RE COMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection
2707enter a final order approving the application of ADR of
2717Pensacola, Inc., as modified by the proposed mitigation plan.
2726DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2002, in
2736Tallahassee, Leon County, Fl orida.
2741___________________________________
2742DONALD R. ALEXANDER
2745Administrative Law Judge
2748Division of Administrative Hearings
2752The DeSoto Building
27551230 Apalachee Parkway
2758Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1550
2763(850) 488 - 9675, SUNCOM 278 - 9675
2771F ax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
2778www.doah.state.fl.us
2779Filed with the Clerk of the
2785Division of Administrative Hearings
2789this 1st day of February, 2002.
2795ENDNOTE
27961/ Because the project is located within the jurisdiction of the
2807N orthwest Florida Water Management District, even though the
2816statute has been repealed, Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida
2823Statutes (1991), continues to be the governing statutory basis
2832for the public interest criteria applicable to the project. See
2842Section 37 3.4145(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001).
2848COPIES FURNISHED:
2850Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk
2855Department of Environmental Protection
28593900 Commonwealth Boulevard
2862Mail Station 35
2865Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
2870Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire
2874314 South Baylen St reet, Suite 201
2881Pensacola, Florida 32501 - 5949
2886Charles T. Collette, Esquire
2890Department of Environmental Protection
28943900 Commonwealth Boulevard
2897Mail Station 35
2900Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
2905David A. Sapp, Esquire
29091017 North 12th Avenue
2913Pensacola, Flori da 32501 - 3306
2919Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel
2924Department of Environmental Protection
29283900 Commonwealth Boulevard
2931Mail Station 35
2934Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
2939NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
2945All parties have the right to submit written exce ptions within 15
2957days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to
2968this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will
2979render a final order in this matter.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 02/28/2002
- Proceedings: ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s, Response to Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2002
- Proceedings: Recommended Order on Remand issued (hearing held October 23, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/01/2002
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/15/2002
- Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order on Remand (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/15/2002
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 01/11/2002
- Proceedings: Transcript, Volumes I and II filed.
- Date: 12/06/2001
- Proceedings: Transcript, Volumes I and II filed.
- Date: 10/23/2001
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2001
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Request for Official Recognition (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from D. Sapp regarding Exhibit 7a and 7b, Exhibits filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2001
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Exhibits for Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc. (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/17/2001
- Proceedings: Department`s Notice of Filing of Transcript of 11/30/00 & 12/13/00 Hearing Together With the Parties` Exhibits Admitted There During filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/17/2001
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed by Petitioner.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/22/2001
- Proceedings: Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Notice of Filing Mitigation Plan (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/01/2001
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference issued (video hearing set for October 23, 2001; 9:30 a.m.; Pensacola and Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/31/2001
- Proceedings: Department Counsel`s Notice of Availability for Hearing (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/27/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from M. Guttmann regarding setting final hearing (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/26/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from D. Sapp regarding dates available for hearing (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/17/2001
- Proceedings: Order issued (the parties shall confer and advise within 15 days from the date of this Order suggested dates for rescheduling the remand hearing).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/31/2001
- Proceedings: Department`s Notice of Withdrawal of It`s Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Extension of Time (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/30/2001
- Proceedings: Department`s Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/30/2001
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Response to Interrogatories (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/21/2001
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference issued (video hearing set for June 29, 2001; 9:30 a.m.; Pensacola and Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/18/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from the District Court of Appeal filed. DCA Case No. 1D01-1890
- PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2001
- Proceedings: ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Expert Interrogatories to Michael L. Guttmann (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2001
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, ADR of Pensacola, Inc.`s Interrogatories to Michael Guttmann (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2001
- Proceedings: Motion to Shorten Time for Response to Interrogatories (filed by Respondent`s via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/28/2001
- Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held November 30 and December 13, 2000) CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/28/2001
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/31/2001
- Proceedings: Certificate of Service (Proposed Rcommended Order) filed by Petitioner.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/30/2001
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed by via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/04/2001
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Joint Motion for Objecting to Petitioner`s Request for Official Recognition filed.
- Date: 12/29/2000
- Proceedings: Transcript (Volume 1 and 2) filed.
- Date: 12/21/2000
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Exhibits #14 and #15 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/20/2000
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Joint Motion Objecting to Petitioner`s Request for Official Recognition (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 12/13/2000
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/13/2000
- Proceedings: Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/12/2000
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge D. Alexander from M. Guttmann In re: pictures relating to tomorrows hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/07/2000
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for December 13, 2000; 1:00 p.m.; Pensacola, FL).
- Date: 11/30/2000
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/29/2000
- Proceedings: Motions to Intervene (filed by B. Carroll, E. Barger, W. Peacock, G. Bixel, K. Bixel, T. Woodside, M. Keaney, B. Stewart, E. Bidwell, R. Osborn, J. Crabtree, R. Rodgiers P. and D. Theys, R. Urguhart, Mr. and Mrs. W. Thorsen, H. Weber, N. Weber, O. Jordan, C. McMann, A. Anderson, J. Brady, J. M. Brady, Brown, C. Strickland, C. Morse, R. Notz, B. Notz, J. Sasparo, G. Gaspard, Y. Kayir, G. Azab, M. Thrasher, J. Kayir, J. Keaney, I. Kellogg, G. Kellogg, G. Lowry, E. Stullken, D. Stullken, J. Pallante, J. Matthews, P. Veal, J. Veal, J. Engle, A. Engle, J. Rice, W. Hampton, C. Hobgood, A. Scott, S. Carroll, W. Johnston, A. Lowry, J. Johnston, L. Pochurek, W. and A. Hatcher, B. Kellogg, S. Smith, R. Horton, N. Scott-Mayo, D. Allbritton, D. Mason, C. Cook, B. Martin, J. Fulford III, J. Fulford, W. Hatcher, J. Sexton, G. Peacock, M. Fulford, B. Gregory, N. White, L. Gregory, and J. Brown).
- PDF:
- Date: 11/29/2000
- Proceedings: Joint Motion to Strike all Motions to Intervene (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 11/28/2000
- Proceedings: Respondents` Joint Motion in Limine Objecting to Petitioner`s Request for Judicial Notice (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 11/22/2000
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing issued. (hearing set for November 30, 2000; 10:00 a.m.; Pensacola, FL, amended as to 8).
- Date: 11/21/2000
- Proceedings: Request for Judicial Notice filed by Petitioner.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/31/2000
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for November 30, 2000; 10:30 a.m.; Pensacola, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/01/2000
- Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Issue Wetland Resource Permit Letter Form filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/20/2000
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for September 14, 2000; 10:30 a.m.; Pensacola, FL)
- Date: 06/21/2000
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 06/16/2000
- Proceedings: Agency Action filed.