07-000293
Andrew Marshall vs.
City Of Miami And Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, July 26, 2007.
Recommended Order on Thursday, July 26, 2007.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8ANDREW MARSHALL, )
11)
12Petitioner, )
14)
15vs. ) Case No. 07-0293
20)
21CITY OF MIAMI and DEPARTMENT )
27OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )
31)
32Respondents. )
34_______________________________ )
36RECOMMENDED ORDER
38Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the
47Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned
54Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on May 22, 2007,
64in Miami, Florida.
67APPEARANCES
68For Petitioner: Andrew Marshall, pro se
74Post Office Box 330561
78Miami, Florida 33233-0561
81For Respondent: Kevin R. Jones, Esquire
87(City) City Attorney's Office
91444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 945
97Miami, Florida 33120-1910
100For Respondent: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire
106(Department) Department of Environmental Protection
1113900 Commonwealth Boulevard
114Mail Station 35
117Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
120ISSUE
121The issue is whether the City of Miami (City) should be
132issued Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and
139Letter of Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands Permit No.
1490217762-002-EI (Permit) for the Dinner Key Managed Mooring Field
158in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve in Miami, Florida.
167BACKGROUND
168This matter began on May 27, 2005, when Respondent,
177Department of Environmental Protection (Department), issued a
184notice advising the City that its application for an ERP and
195consent to use sovereign submerged lands to develop a managed
205mooring field in the Dinner Key Marina had been approved. The
216proposed issuance of that Permit was challenged by a third party
227in OGC Case No. 05-1497, and a final permit document was
238eventually issued on May 26, 2006.
244Because the Department had not given personal written
252notice of its action to Petitioner, Andrew Marshall, in 2006 it
263agreed to allow Mr. Marshall to file a petition to contest the
275issuance of the Permit. After two filings were apparently
284dismissed without prejudice, on October 23, 2006, Petitioner
292filed a thirty-two page Second Amended Petition (Amended
300Petition) with the Department challenging the issuance of the
309Permit on several grounds. The matter was forwarded by the
319Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings on
327January 17, 2007, with a request that an administrative law
337judge be assigned to conduct a hearing.
344By Notice of Hearing dated January 24, 2007, the matter was
355scheduled for final hearing on May 22-24, 2007, in Miami,
365Florida. However, the hearing was completed on May 22, 2007.
375Numerous discovery and procedural disputes arose during the
383course of this proceeding and the resolution of those disputes
393is found in various preliminary Orders issued by the
402undersigned.
403On May 21, 2007, or one day prior to the final hearing,
415Petitioner filed a paper styled "Motion for Order Revoking FDEP
425Permit and to Stay Proceedings until Procedurally Mandated
433Public Hearings are Held." In addition, at the final hearing,
443Petitioner filed papers styled as "Objection to Hearing" and
"452Objection to Order Denying Motion for Continuance and Motion
461for Reconsideration" (Motions). Based on the written and oral
470arguments from the parties at the hearing, the Motions were
480denied.
481At the outset of the final hearing, the undersigned granted
491the Department's Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike certain
499allegations in the Amended Petition. By doing so, the only
509issue remaining to be adjudicated is whether the City's project
519on sovereign submerged lands satisfies the criterion in Florida
528Administrative Code Rule 18-18.006(3)(b)(ii), which requires
534that in order to use sovereign submerged lands in the Biscayne
545Bay Aquatic Preserve held by the Board of Trustees of the
556Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board), an applicant must
564affirmatively demonstrate that the use, and the project planned
573in conjunction with the use, are in the public interest. No
584other relevant issues were raised in Petitioner's pleading.
592Prior to the taking of evidence, Petitioner excused himself
601from further participation in the hearing and left the room.
611The City presented the testimony of Stephen Bogner, City Marinas
621Manager; Andrew M. Nicholson, a professional engineer and
629professional land surveyor and accepted as an expert; and
638Geoffrey C. Lane, a marine biologist and accepted as an expert.
649Also, it offered City Exhibits 1 through 12, which were received
660in evidence. The Department offered Department Exhibits 1-31
668and 33, which were received in evidence.
675On May 29, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion to Disqualify
685(Motion) and on June 1, 2007, an unsworn "Certification of Good
696Faith" regarding his Motion. The Motion is hereby denied. See ,
706e.g. , Platman v. State , 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1658 (Fla. 5th DCA,
718July 6, 2007)(motion for disqualification must be timely filed
727and signed under oath or accompanied by a separate affidavit).
737The Transcript of the hearing was filed on June 28, 2007.
748Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were jointly
758filed by Respondents on July 9, 2007, and they have been
769considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. No
778papers were filed by Petitioner.
783FINDINGS OF FACT
786Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the
795following findings of fact are made:
801A. The Parties
8041. Petitioner resides at the Dinner Key Anchorage, Coconut
813Grove, Florida. He has filed an Amended Petition challenging
822the issuance of the Permit. However, he presented no evidence
832at hearing to support the allegations in his Amended Petition or
843to demonstrate how his substantial environmental interests are
851affected by the Department's action. Therefore, he lacks
859standing to bring this action.
8642. The Department is the state agency with regulatory
873jurisdiction over the disputed activities. The Department has
881proposed to authorize the construction of a managed mooring
890field in, on, and over surface waters in the Biscayne Bay
901Aquatic Preserve in Miami. (A mooring field uses anchoring
910devices that are embedded into the bay bottom and used to secure
922boats in the subject area.) The City will operate and manage
933the mooring field in accordance with a management plan attached
943to and incorporated in the proposed Permit.
9503. The City is the applicant for the Permit. It owns and
962operates three municipal marinas including the Dinner Key Marina
971in Coconut Grove. The City proposes to create a managed mooring
982field in the waters off Dinner Key Marina. Those waters are
993part of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, a legislatively-
1002created aquatic preserve which is to "be preserved in an
1012essentially natural condition." See § 258.397(1), Fla. Stat.
1020(2006).
1021B. Background
10234. In the waters off Dinner Key Marina, there is an
1034unregulated, unmanaged anchorage area. (Unlike a mooring area,
1042in an anchorage area vessel owners drop their own anchoring
1052devices, such as I-beams, steel beams, cement blocks, engine
1061blocks, and other similar devices down to the bay bottom to
1072secure their vessels.) In 1994, the City sought the assistance
1082of the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource
1090Management (DERM) to examine the effects of the Dinner Key
1100Anchorage on City waters and to determine the feasibility of
1110creating a managed mooring field in the area.
11185. The historical use of the unregulated, unmanaged
1126anchorage area by vessel owners created issues for the City.
1136The City's concerns included diminished water quality from
1144illegal vessel discharges of waste and a chronic problem with
1154derelict vessels. Also, they included the improper use of
1163anchors and ad hoc anchoring systems that damaged the seagrass
1173and other submerged resources of the bay bottom. In addition,
1183during Hurricane Wilma in 2005, there were two recorded deaths
1193of anchorage vessel owners who elected to stay on their vessels
1204and which utilized unsafe anchoring systems.
12106. DERM conducted a biological assessment of the City-
1219owned bay bottom adjacent to the Dinner Key Marina on
1229December 7, 1994, and January 11, 1995. The assessment had
1239three purposes: (1) to identify specific areas which are best
1249suited for a designated mooring facility; (2) to identify
1258environmentally sensitive areas where anchoring or mooring
1265should be prohibited or discouraged; and (3) to identify the
1275location of submerged and/or derelict vessels.
12817. DERM identified five main mooring areas and made
1290recommendations as to future designation and use. Three of
1299those areas are the subject of the City's Permit application.
1309The "shallow south anchorage" (identified as the vessel
1317exclusion area or Area 5 in the Permit) had a water depth
1329ranging from one to four feet. Seagrass was dense throughout
1339the area but anchor lines, chains, and debris had created some
1350barren areas. The debris included vessel hulls, engine blocks,
1359outboard motors, and other items comprising the ad hoc anchoring
1369systems. Based on the shallow water depth and the presence of a
1381diverse benthic community providing considerable habitat value,
1388DERM recommended that no vessels moor or anchor in the "shallow
1399south anchorage."
14018. The "deep south anchorage" (identified as Project Area
14104 in the Permit) lay between the south channel leading into the
1422Dinner Key Marina and vessel exclusion Area 5. Water depth
1432ranged from eight to ten feet. Moderate to sparse seagrass beds
1443were observed in this area. DERM recommended this area as a
1454potential overflow mooring area if the "east anchorage" did not
1464provide sufficient mooring space.
14689. The "east anchorage (identified as Project Area 3 in
1478the Permit) was located between the main and south channels
1488leading into the Dinner Key Marina. DERM recommended this area
1498as the principal mooring facility based on the existing water
1508depth and presence of minimal benthic resources.
151510. DERM's submerged and/or derelict vessels survey
1522counted twenty to forty wrecked and derelict vessels sunk in the
1533waters within the assessment area. DERM also observed that the
1543existing debris and anchoring systems drag across the bay bottom
1553and destroy existing seagrass beds. DERM warned the City that
1563it was liable for adverse impacts to submerged resources of the
1574City-owned bottom lands.
157711. In 2000, the City sought the assistance of the
1587Department to help create a Technical Assistance Team (TAT).
1596The purpose of the TAT was to examine the Dinner Key anchorage
1608area, gather information from various experts, conduct public
1616meetings, and make recommendations to the City concerning
1624creating a managed mooring and anchoring facility. The TAT
1633consisted of volunteers from the Department, the United States
1642Coast Guard, the City's Marine Patrol, the Florida Fish and
1652Wildlife Conservation Commission, assorted marine industry
1658professionals, and the boating public, including several vessel
1666owners from the Dinner Key anchorage.
167212. The TAT volunteer group studied the current and future
1682anchorage situation. The group convened public meetings at City
1691Hall located at Dinner Key Marina for one year beginning in
1702June 2001. The TAT then submitted a Final Report to the City
1714Manager and the City's Waterfront Advisory Board in June 2002.
172413. The Final Report consisted of extensive findings and
1733recommendations regarding the creation of Managed Anchorage and
1741Mooring Fields in the Dinner Key Marina area. That document has
1752been received in evidence as City Exhibit 3 and Department
1762Exhibit 29. The Final Report identified the physical features,
1771shoreline activities, benthic resources, and historic and
1778existing uses of the Dinner Key Marina harbor area. It also
1789identified and described five potential mooring fields which
1797were approximately the same five identified by DERM in 1995. In
1808terms of physical characteristics, benthic resources, and
1815existing uses, the areas were largely unchanged since the 1995
1825DERM assessment.
182714. The Final Report identified several management
1834concerns for the Dinner Key study area that needed to be
1845addressed by the City. These included lack of full-service
1854boatyard facilities in the area; inadequate dinghy access to
1863uplands; inadequate use by boaters in the area of available
1873sewage pump out facilities at the Dinner Key Marina;
1882unauthorized repair of vessels on site; and upland stormwater
1891runoff. Other concerns included submerged debris and ad hoc
1900anchor systems which caused adverse impacts to valuable benthic
1909resources. Also, unsecured anchoring systems presented serious
1916safety concerns even during mild storm events. Accordingly, the
1925Final Report concluded that penetrating anchor systems would
1933provide the highest vessel security and minimize benthic
1941disturbances.
194215. The Final Report also concluded that approximately ten
1951percent of the vessels surveyed were abandoned or neglected and
1961presented a significant navigational and public safety concern.
1969To remedy that situation, since 2003 the City has spent
1979$345,000.00 removing over two hundred and forty damaged and
1989derelict vessels from City waters. Approximately ninety percent
1997were removed from the Dinner Key area.
200416. Based on the TAT's report and recommendations, the
2013City proceeded with the design and permitting of managed mooring
2023fields in the Dinner Key Marina area.
2030C. The Proposed Permit
203417. In contrast to an area of random or voluntary mooring,
2045a managed mooring field will have an engineered anchor and buoy
2056system at each designated mooring. The City's proposed design
2065is an auger anchor that is screwed into the bay bottom to a
2078depth of fifteen feet or more. A synthetic line with shock
2089absorbers vertically connects to a buoy so that there is no
2100horizontal chain dragging across the submerged resources of the
2109bay bottom.
211118. The City's application proposes a managed mooring
2119field that will accommodate two hundred twenty-five vessels in
2128Phase I identified as Areas 3 and 4 on sheet 1 of 27 of the
2143Permit drawings. The mooring field will accommodate vessels
2151ranging from twenty-five to one hundred and ten feet in length.
2162Areas 1 and 2 are not proposed to be used for mooring as a part
2177of this project and Area 5 is a vessel exclusion area due to the
2191depths and resources that are present. Only Area 5 contains
2201sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board. Sheet 1 of 7 of
2213the Permit drawings shows that the southeast border of the City-
2224owned submerged lands run through Area 5, such that only
2234eighteen regulatory buoys will be installed on sovereign
2242submerged lands. If Areas 3 and 4 reach capacity and future
2253mooring is proposed in Area 6, then a new application must be
2265submitted to the Department for permitting of Phase II. The
2275Permit does not authorize mooring in Area 6.
228319. The project is located in Biscayne Bay, within the
2293Biscayne Bay-Card Sound Aquatic Preserve, an Outstanding Florida
2301Water, adjacent to Dinner Key Marina. The entire mooring field
2311will be managed by the City in accordance with the management
2322plan attached to the Permit. That plan has been received in
2333evidence as Department Exhibit 21. The project consists of
2342installing seventy regulatory buoys to identify the mooring
2350field as well as vessel exclusion areas as shown in sheet 7 of
23637, and installing two hundred twenty-five mooring buoys to be
2373used by all of the vessels within the managed mooring field.
2384Both the mooring buoys as well as the regulatory buoys will be
2396installed using auger anchors as shown in sheet 7 of 7 of the
2409permit drawings.
241120. Eighteen regulatory buoys will be installed on
2419sovereign submerged lands as part of the vessel exclusion area
2429(Area 5). Creation of the vessel exclusion area presents many
2439benefits to seagrass and animal resources in this area. The
2449shallow depth throughout Area 5 increases the potential for
2458adverse impacts from propeller scarring, groundings, ad hoc
2466anchoring systems, and derelict and abandoned vessels.
2473D. Petitioner's Challenge
247621. The only disputed issue remaining for adjudication is
2485whether the proposed project meets the public interest test in
2495Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-18.006(3)(b)(ii). That rule
2502is a part of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-18,
2512which governs the sale, lease, transfer, or use of Board-owned
2522submerged lands within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The
2531rule in question requires that in order to use these sovereign
2542submerged lands, the City must demonstrate that the use, and the
2553project planned in conjunction with the use, are in the public
2564interest.
256522. The foregoing rule applies in this case because a
2575portion of Area 5, the vessel exclusion area, is sovereign
2585submerged lands on which eighteen regulatory buoys will be
2594installed. Based upon the evidence found above, the record
2603supports a finding that the use of those lands, and the project
2615planned by the City with this use, are in the public interest
2627and satisfy the rule.
2631CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
263423. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
2641jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 120.569 and
2650120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2006).
265424. In order to demonstrate standing to participate in
2663this proceeding, Mr. Marshall must allege and then prove at
2673final hearing that his substantial environmental interests are
2681affected by the Department's proposed action. Because
2688Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing to support a
2697determination that his substantial interests are affected by the
2706issuance of the permit, he lacks standing to participate. See ,
2716e.g. , Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental
2724Regulation et al. , 406 So. 2d 478, 482 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981).
273625. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the
2747affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. See ,
2756e.g. , Balino et al. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative
2766Services et al. , 348 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
2778Therefore, the City has the burden of proving by a preponderance
2789of the evidence that the proposed permit and consent to use land
2801should be approved.
280426. In this case, there are no relevant allegations in the
2815Amended Petition challenging the issuance of the ERP. Rather,
2824the only issue raised by the pleadings is whether the City has
2836satisfied one of the requirements for using sovereign submerged
2845lands owned by the Board. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-
285518.006(3)(b)(ii) provides as follows:
2859(b) There shall be no further use, sale,
2867lease, or transfer of interests in
2873sovereignty submerged lands unless an
2878applicant affirmatively demonstrates
2881sufficient facts to support a finding by the
2889Board that:
2891* * *
2894(ii) The use, sale, lease, or transfer of
2902interest are in the public interest; . . .
291127. The evidence supports a conclusion that the use of
2921sovereign submerged lands and the project planned in conjunction
2930with the use "are in the public interest," as required by the
2942rule. This being so, the requested permit and consent should be
2953approved.
2954RECOMMENDATION
2955Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
2965Law, it is
2968RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection
2975enter a final order issuing Consolidated Environmental Resource
2983Permit and Letter of Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands
2993No. 0217762-002-EI to the City of Miami for the Dinner Key
3004Managed Mooring Field in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve.
3013DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2007, in
3023Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
3027S
3028DONALD R. ALEXANDER
3031Administrative Law Judge
3034Division of Administrative Hearings
3038The DeSoto Building
30411230 Apalachee Parkway
3044Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
3047(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
3051Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
3055www.doah.state.fl.us
3056Filed with the Clerk of the
3062Division of Administrative Hearings
3066this 26th day of July, 2007.
3072COPIES FURNISHED:
3074Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk
3078Department of Environmental Protection
30823900 Commonwealth Boulevard
3085Mail Station 35
3088Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3091Andrew Marshall
3093Post Office Box 330561
3097Miami, Florida 33233-0561
3100Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire
3104Department of Environmental Protection
31083900 Commonwealth Boulevard
3111Mail Station 35
3114Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3117Kevin R. Jones, Esquire
3121City Attorney's Office
3124444 Southwest Second Avenue
3128Suite 945
3130Miami, Florida 33130-1910
3133Gregory M. Munson, General Counsel
3138Department of Environmental Protection
31423900 Commonwealth Boulevard
3145Mail Station 35
3148Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3151Michael W. Sole, Secretary
3155Department of Environmental Protection
31593900 Commonwealth Boulevard
3162Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
3165NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE EXCEPTIONS
3171All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
318115 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
3192to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
3203will render a final order in this matter.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 07/26/2007
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- Date: 06/28/2007
- Proceedings: DEP Hearing Exhibits Volumes 1 and 2 (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 06/28/2007
- Proceedings: Transcript filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/01/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Certification of Good Faith (Re: Motion to Disqualify Judge Alexander) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/29/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Motion to Disqualify (Administrative Hearing Judge Donald R. Alexander) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/22/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Objection to Order Denying Motion for Continuance and Motion for Reconsideration filed with judge at hearing.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/22/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Objection to Hearing filed with judge at hearing.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/22/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Response in Opposition to Respondents Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike filed with judge at hearing.
- Date: 05/22/2007
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/21/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Motion for an Order Revoking FDEP Permit and to Stay Proceedings until Procedurally Mandated Public Hearings are Held filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/17/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Objections to Respondent FDEP`s Response in Opposition to Marshall`s Motion for Continuance filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/17/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Third Request to Produce to the Florida Department of Enviromental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/17/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Second Request to Produce to the City of Miami filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/17/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to Withhold Order and Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to (FDEP`S) Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/16/2007
- Proceedings: Respondent City of Miami`s Notice of Joinder in the Department of Enviromental Protection`s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/16/2007
- Proceedings: Respondent, City of Miami`s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/15/2007
- Proceedings: Respondent DEP`s Notice of Compliance and Response to Motion to Compel to FDEP to Answer Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/14/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Motion to Compel FDEP to Answer Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/14/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Reply to "Defendant, City of Miami`s, Response to the Petitioner`s Motion to Compel" filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/14/2007
- Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Marshall`s Motion for Continuance filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/14/2007
- Proceedings: Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/08/2007
- Proceedings: DEP`s Answers to Petitioner Marshall`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/07/2007
- Proceedings: Order (City shall produce for inspection and copying within 7 days from the date of this Order the two documents described above).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/07/2007
- Proceedings: Defendant, City of Miami`s, Response to the Petitioner`s Motion to Compell filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2007
- Proceedings: Defendant, City of Miami`s, Response to the Petitioner`s Motion to Compel filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2007
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 22 through 24, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL; amended as to hearing location).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/30/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Objection to Denial of Motion to Compel and Motion, Motion for Reconsideration/Hearing, and Motion for Mandamus filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/23/2007
- Proceedings: Order (Motion to Compel the Department to produce the records described in items 1 and 3 is denied).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/12/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Response to Respondent DEP`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/12/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s First Set of Interrogatories to Florida Department of Enviromental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/12/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Response to Respondent DEP`s First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/10/2007
- Proceedings: Respondent DEP`s Response to Petitioner Marshall`s Second Request to Produce filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/09/2007
- Proceedings: Respondent DEP`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Compel filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/03/2007
- Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/03/2007
- Proceedings: Respondent DEP`s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Marshall filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Motion to Compel Respondent City to Produce filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Second Request to Produce to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Motion to Compel Respondent FDEP to Produce filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Second Request to Produce to the City of Miami filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/22/2007
- Proceedings: Respondent DEP`s Response to Petitioner`s First Request to Produce filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/24/2007
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 22 through 24, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/17/2007
- Proceedings: Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Land Authorization filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/17/2007
- Proceedings: Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- D. R. ALEXANDER
- Date Filed:
- 01/17/2007
- Date Assignment:
- 01/17/2007
- Last Docket Entry:
- 09/12/2007
- Location:
- Miami, Florida
- District:
- Southern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire
Address of Record -
Kevin R Jones, Esquire
Address of Record -
Andrew Marshall
Address of Record