07-000293 Andrew Marshall vs. City Of Miami And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, July 26, 2007.


View Dockets  
Summary: City`s use of submerged lands to create a managed mooring field at Dinner Key Mariner was in the public interest; application approved.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2007
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2007
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held May 22, 2007). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 07/26/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2007
Proceedings: Respondents` Joint Proposed Recommended Order filed.
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: 06/20/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability 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: 05/18/2007
Proceedings: Respondents` Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation 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: Order Denying Motion for Continuance.
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: Petitioner Marshall`s Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner Marshall`s Motion for Continuance 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: 05/10/2007
Proceedings: Respondents` Preliminary Exhibit Lists 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 (Motion to Compel is denied).
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: Notice of Change of Assignment filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2007
Proceedings: Defendant, City of Miami`s, Response to the Petitioner`s Motion to Compell filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2007
Proceedings: Respondents` Preliminary Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Change of Assignment 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: 03/16/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Change of Assignment filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by M. Garcia).
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: 01/24/2007
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2007
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2007
Proceedings: Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Land Authorization filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Issue Permit 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.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2007
Proceedings: Second Amended Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2007
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2007
Proceedings: Initial Order.

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

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):