13-004254 Thomas G. Mosher And Matthew Schwartz vs. Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P., And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 3, 2014.


View Dockets  
Summary: A balancing of three factors in section 377.241 supports issurance of permit to drill an exploratory oil well in Collier County.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8THOMAS G. MOSHER AND MATTHEW

13SCHWARTZ,

14Petitioners,

15and

16PRESERVE OUR PARADISE, INC.,

20Intervenor,

21vs. Case Nos. 13 - 4254

2713 - 4920

30DAN A. HUGHES COMPANY, L.P., AND

36DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

39PROTECTION,

40Resp ondents.

42_______________________________/

43RECOMMENDED ORDER

45T his matter was heard before the Division of Administrative

55Hearings (DOAH) by its assigned Administrative Law Judge, D . R.

66Alexander, on Februar y 25 - 2 7 , 201 4 , in Fort Myers, Florida.

80APPEARANCES

81For Petitioner : Ralf G. Brookes , Esquire

88( Mosher and Ralf Brookes Attorney

94Intervenor ) Suite 107

981217 East Cape Coral Parkway

103Cape Coral , F lorida 33904 - 9604

110For Petitioner : Matthew R . Schwartz, pro se

119( Schwartz ) Post Office Box 460234

126Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33346 - 0234

132For Respondent: Timothy M. Riley, Esquire

138(Dan A. Hughes) H. French B rown , IV, Esquire

147H opping, Green & Sams, P.A.

153Post Office Box 6526

157Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

162For Respondent: Jeffrey Brown, Esquire

167(Department) D e partment of Environme ntal Protection

175Mail Stop 35

1783900 Commonwealth Boulevard

181Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

186STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

190The issue is whether to approve an application by

199Respondent, Dan R. Hughe s Company, L.P. (applicant or Hughes) ,

209for an oil well drilling permit authorizing the drilling of an

220exploratory oil well in Collier County, Florida.

227PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

229On September 20, 2013, the D epartment of Environmental

238Protection (Department) issu ed Oil & Gas Well Drilling Permit No.

2491353H authorizing Hughes to drill an exploratory oil well in the

260Camp Keais Strand Agricultural Development (Camp Keais) in

268Collier County. Petitioner Thomas G. Mosher (Mosher) and

276Intervenor Preserve Our Paradise, In c. (Preserve) , timely filed

285their Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing & Verified

293Motion to Intervene challenging the proposed agency action. The

302matter was referred by the Department to DOAH to conduct a formal

314hearing and was assigned Case No. 13 - 4254 . After the initial

327pleading was dismissed , a First Amended Petition for

335Administrative Hearing & Verified Motion to Intervene was filed.

344On November 15, 2013, Petitioner Matthew Schwartz

351(Schwartz) , with the assistance of unnamed counsel, filed his

360Second Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing with the

368Department challenging the same agency action . 1 His filing was

379referred to DOAH, assigned Case No. 13 - 4920, and consolidated

390with the Mosher/Preserve case.

394Shortly before the final hearing, Pe titioners and Intervenor

403were authorized to file amended p etitions , which added an

413allegation that the application was not reviewed by the Big

423Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee ( Committee ) pursuant to

432section 37 7 .42(2) , Florida Statutes (2013) . 2

441Based o n the foregoing ruling, a t the beginning of the

453hearing, argument was heard on the Department 's request to

463bifurcate the proceeding , allow the Committee to conduct a

472meeting at a later date, and if appropriate, allow the parties to

484supplement the record wi th exhibits or testimony relative to the

495Committee's recommendation. The request was granted, and

502Committee meeting s were convened on March 11 and 31 , 2014. At

514the second meeting, by a majority v ote, the five - member Committee

527recommended that the applica tion be denied. On April 14, 2014, a

539one and one - half page memorandum was issued memorializing that

550decision. That memorandum has been received in evidence as Joint

560Exhibit 1. After reviewing the Committee's recommendation, the

568Department advised that i ts original proposed agency action would

578not be modified . Accordingly, except for the admission of the

589committee report, n o further supplementation of the record was

599determined to be appropriate.

603The disposition of numerous pre - and post - hearing discove ry

615and procedural issues is found on the case docket sheet. In the

627spirit of cooperation, four separate pre - hearing unilateral

636statements were filed by the parties.

642A t the final hearing, Mosher testified on his own behalf and

654Mosher/Preserve jointly prese nted the testimony of Don ald Loritz,

664Preserve 's registered agent and director ; Gab or H. Tischler, an

675Emergency Management Specialist for the Florida Catholic

682Conference and Catholic Charities of Florida and accepted as an

692expert; Dr. Ronald E. Bishop, a ce rtified Chemical Hygiene

702Officer and accepted as an expert; and Paul Rubin, a

712hydrogeologist with Hydroquest, an environmental consulting firm,

719and accepted as an expert. Mosher Exhibit 3 was received in

730evidence. Schwartz testified on his own behalf and Schwartz

739Exhibits 1 0, 11, 13, 14 - 18, 2 0 - 23, 27, 29, 31, 35, 42, 48, 51,

75855 - 59, 66 - 73, 82, 85, 87, 89, 90 - 92, 97, 98 , 101, 102, 104 - 114,

778118, 119, 122, 129 , 132, 134, and 139 were admitted in evidence.

790Hughes presented the testimony of J. Henry "Hank" Kre mers, C hief

802O perating O fficer/ V ice - P resident of L and and accepted as an

818expert ; Jeffr e y R. Il seng, Operations Manager and accepted as an

831expert ; Kenneth C. Passarella, P resident and P rincipal E cologist

842o f Pasarella & Associates, Inc. , and accepted as an ex pert;

854William R. Cox, S enior E cologist with Passarella & Associates,

865Inc., and accepted as an expert; James M. Kerr, Jr., Senior

876Principal Geologist with Stantec, Inc., and accepted as an

885expert; and Dr. John Walker, S enior A ssociate and S enior P roject

899M an ager with Stantec, Inc. , and accepted as an expert. Hughes

911Exhibits 1 - 3, 5 - 13, 16, 19 - 25, 27, and 28 were admitted in

928evidence. The Department presented the testimony of Ste phen M.

938Spencer, a registered professional geologist and accepted as an

947expert; a nd Dr. Owete Owete, a professional engineer and accepted

958as an expert. Department Exhibits 1 0, 1 5 - 18, 23, 25, and 27 were

974admitted in evidence. Joint Exhibit 1 was also received.

983Finally, Mosher's request to take official recognition of two

992reports issu ed by the United States Environmental Protection

1001Agency in October 1993 and June 2003 was granted . (These items

1013were pre - marked as Preserve Exhibits 10 and 41).

1023A four - volume T ranscript of the hearing has been prepared .

1036Each party filed a P roposed R ecomm ended O rder, which ha s been

1051considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

1059FINDINGS OF FACT

1062A. The Parties

10651. Mosher resides on a three - acre lot at 4695 26th Avenue

1078Southeast, Naples, Florida . His residence is around 2,500 feet

1089west of the p roposed wellsite , but Mosher says that the eastern

1101edge of his lot "might be 2,000 feet " from the drilling site. He

1115has not, however, measured t he actual distance to confirm this

1126assertion .

11282. Preserve is a Florida non - profit corporation whose

1138purpose is to educate the public on issues affecting the

1148preservation and protection of the environment, particularly the

1156environment of s outh and s outhwest Florida. It was formed in

1168response to Hughes' intention to drill for oil in the area. The

1180corporation is no t a membership organization ; rather, it has

1190a round 25 non - member , active volunteers, six member directors ,

1201and an unknown number of donors . Excluding Mosher, the other

1212member directors live between three and ten miles away from the

1223proposed wellsite . The record does not show where the 25

1234volunteers reside. T he corporate representative testified that

1242f our directors , including Mosher, regularly use the Florida

1251Panther National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) to observe wildlife and

1260habitat . However, the public a ccess point to the Refuge appears

1272to be at least several miles from the wellsite. Based upon a n

1285email survey, h e stated that a "substantial number [around 36] of

1297donors and volunteers utilize the panther refuge , " but he was

1307unaware of when, or how often, this occurred. About every six

1318weeks, meetings are conducted at Mosher's home, w hich are

1328attended by some, but not all, of the directors and volunteers.

13393. Schwartz 's primary residence is in Lake Worth (Palm

1349Beach County) where he serves as the unpaid ex ecutive director of

1361the South Florida Wildlands Association. 3 He sometimes provides

1370paid tours in the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp and has led

"1382numerous" free hikes into panther habitat to look for signs of

1393panthers. These hikes are limited to the hi king trails in the

1405southeast corner of the Refuge , which is the only area that can

1417be accessed by the public. He represented himself as an advocate

1428for the protection of wildlife habitat in the greater Everglades,

1438with a particular interest in the Flori da panther.

14474. Hughes is a Texas limited partnership engaged in the

1457business of oil and gas exploration, which is registered to do

1468business in the State of Florida. Hughes has applied for a

1479permit to drill an exploratory well for oil in Collier County.

1490If the well is commercially viable, Hughes must apply for an

1501operating permit at a later time.

15075 . The Department has jurisdiction to issue permits for the

1518drilling and exploring for , or production of , oil under p art I,

1530c hapter 377. Pursuant to that autho rity, the Department reviewed

1541the oil and gas well drilling permit application.

1549B. The Application and Project

15546. After the application was deemed complete by the

1563Department , it was distributed for comment to a number of local,

1574state, and federal agencie s. While some commented on the

1584application, no agency had any unresolved concerns at the end of

1595the application process. Hughes met all rule requirements for

1604performance bonds or securities, and it provided all information

1613required by rule.

16167. The propo sed site is located on the southeast corner of

1628an active farm field in the Big Cypress Swamp watershed , just

1639north of a speedway now used as a test track . Surface holes for

1653oil wells are commonly located on farm land, and farm fields are

1665compatible with o il wells. Based upon a mineral lease between

1676Hughes and the owner of the land, Collier Land Holdings, Ltd.,

1687Hughes has the right to locate and drill the well at the proposed

1700surface hole location.

17038. The Refuge was established by Congress in 1989 to

1713prot ect the Florida panther and its habitat and is located

1724approximately 20 miles east of Naples. Around 98 percent of the

1735Refuge is closed to any public activity. The project is

1745consistent with the comprehensive conservation plan for the

1753Refuge prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

1763(USFWS), in that the plan recommends "slant drilling" off of the

1774Refuge.

17759. Although Mosher and Preserve a rgue that the drill hole

1786should be moved further east into wetlands , and Schwartz contends

1796that it shou ld be moved further west away from the Refuge, the

1809proposed location of the drill ing pad and project site is

1820reasonable with respect to the nature, appearance, and location

1829of the proposed drilling site. Likewise, the location is

1838reasonable with respect t o the type, nature, and extent of

1849Hughes' ownership.

185110 . The proposed activity can be st be characterized as a

"1863resource play," where an operator drills toward a known

1872resource. This is distinguished from a wildcat operation, where

1881the operator is drillin g in an unproven area. Hughes proposes to

1893target the rubble zone (i.e., the lower zone) within the lower

1904Sunniland formation , a geologic formation thousands of feet below

1913the ground surface that runs through southwest Florida . Hughes

1923will first drill a v ertical pilot hole and then drill

1934horizontally from the hole bottom in a southeast direction toward

1944a formerly drilled oil well known as the Tribal Well. In order

1956to increase the probability of locating commercially available

1964petroleum, Hughes plans to pr oceed from west to east in order to

1977arrive at a perpendicular direction of existing limestone

1985fractures as the drilling approaches the Tribal Well. When that

1995well was drilled vertically into the rubble zone in the 1970s,

2006oil rose to the ground surface. T hus, the indicated presence of

2018oil is sufficient to warrant and justif y the exploration for oil

2030at this location.

203311 . The proposed depth of the pilot hole is 13,900 feet

2046measured depth (MD/13,900 feet true vertical depth (TVD) ) , which

2057will allow assessmen t of the u pper Sunniland, l ower Sunniland,

2069and Pumpkin Bay Formation s . If the evaluation determines that

2080the well will likely be commercially productive, Hughes will

2089comp l ete a 4,100 - foot horizontal leg in the l ower Sunniland

2104rubble zone with a landing de pth at 12,500 feet MD/12,064 TVD and

2119a total depth of 16,600 feet MD/12,064 feet TVD.

21301 2 . The footprint for the drilling pad will be 225 feet by

2144295 feet, or 2.6 acres, with a two - foot earthen berm around the

2158perimeter of the operating area to contain all water on the site.

2170A secondary containment area within the perimeter of the site

2180will be covered by high - density polyethylene to contain and

2191collect any accidental spills. A drilling rig, generators, and

2200other drilling equipment will be on the pad durin g drilling

2211operations. A maximum of 20 persons will be at the site , and

2223then only for one day of operations. At all other times, Hughes

2235anticipates there will be a five - person drill crew plus support

2247personnel on site. After drilling, Hughes will remove its

2256equipment.

22571 3 . Once the access road is built and the equipment put in

2271place, t he drilling activities will take place 24 hours per day,

2283seven days per week, and will be completed in approximately 60 to

229570 days. The on - site diesel generators will run simultaneously

230624 hours per day while drilling is taking place. The pad will be

2319illuminated at night with lights on the drilling derrick and

2329throughout the pad. Construction of the drilling pad will

2338require trucking around 12,000 to 14,000 cubic yards of fill to

2351the drilling location. Additional traffic for bringing in fill,

2360piping, and related equipment will occur, but the exact amount of

2371traffic is unknown.

23741 4 . The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)

2384previously approved an environmental resource permit (ERP) to

2392allow the construction and operation of a surface water

2401management system on Camp Keais. The United States Army Corps of

2412Engineers (USACE) also permitted the same system under the Clean

2422Water Act. The latter permit require s mitig ation for wetlands

2433and Florida panther habitat compensation. Based on the proposed

2442wellsite, the SFWMD modified the ERP to allow a culvert and

2453access to the proposed wellsite. In addition to the oil drilling

2464permit application, Hughes has applied for two water

2472well drilling permits from the SFWMD, and an injection well

2482drilling permit.

2484C. Petitioners and Intervenor's Objections

248915. The challengers have raised a number of objections that

2499they assert require denial of the application. Conflicting

2507testim ony was presented on the se issues , which has been resolved

2519in Respondents' favor as being the more credible and persuasive

2529testimony .

2531a. Mosher and Preserve

25351 6 . Mo sher and Preserve raise two broad objections. First,

2547they contend that hydrogen sulfide ga s (H2S) is likely to be

2559encountered in the drilling of the proposed well. They further

2569contend that the H2S contingency plan submitted by Hughes is not

2580sufficient to evacuate the public in the event of an incident

2591where H2S is uncontrollably released unde r pressure. Second,

2600they contend that the Committee did not review the application

2610under the process contemplated by section 377.42(2). Except for

2619these two objections, they agree that no other issues remain.

2629See TR., Vol. I, p. 33.

26351 7 . Within the pe troleum industry, drilling operators

2645create H2S plans when there is reason to believe that the

2656operator may encounter H2S while drilling. This practice is

2665codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C - 27.001(7), which

2675requires a contingency plan only w hen H2S is "likely" to be

2687encountered while drilling . The plan must "meet generally

2696accepted industry standards and practices , " and it must contain

2705measures "for notifying authorities and evacuating civilians in

2713the event of an accident." Id. See also r ule 62C - 26.003(3),

2726which requires a contingency plan "if appropriate." The plan is

2736prepared for two main users: the personnel working at the

2746drilling site ; and local emergency management officials, who must

2755plan and train for the implementation of emerge ncy activities.

27651 8 . The parties agree that the "generally accepted industry

2776standards and practices" for the oil and natural gas industry are

2787found in the operating standards and recommended practices

2795adopted by The American Petroleum Institute (API) , a t rade

2805association for the oil and natural gas industry . Recommended

2815Practice 49 (API 49) is th e generally accepted industry standard

2826for oil and gas drilling operations likely to encounter H2S and

2837was relied upon by all parties throughout the hearing. The

2847standard includes guidance on personnel protection measures,

2854personnel training, personnel protection equipment, and community

2861contingency planning. API 49 recommends the use of a community

2871warning and protection plan when atmospheric H2S exposures beyon d

2881the well site could exceed potentially harmful exposure levels

2890and could affect the general public.

28961 9 . Mosher/Preserve's expert opined that H2S might be

2906encountered at levels as high as 21 percent (210,000 parts per

2918million (ppm)) in s outhwest Florida , and that "it's quite likely"

2929H2S would be encountered at the proposed wellsite. At the same

2940time, h owever, he agreed with the assessment of Respondents'

2950experts that the likelihood of encountering H2S at this site was

2961merely "possible," "sporadic," and "unlikely," and that there was

"2970zero" potential of a severe H2S release under high pressure.

298020 . Florida has two major oil producing areas: the

2990Sunniland Trend in southwest Florida and the Smackover formation

2999near Jay, Florida, in the northwest part of the st ate. Unlike

3011the Smackover formation which has higher temperatures and

3019pressures and a high concentration of H2S, the Sunniland Trend

3029has normal temperatures and pressures and a s poradic presence of

3040H2S. Less than two percent of wells in s outhwest F lorida have

3053been reported to contain H2S, and those reports relate to

3063production wells where bacteria (biological contamination) w as

3071likely introduced into the formation during production. Of over

3080300 oil wells drilled in southwest Florida, only six were

3090reported to have encountered H2S. Notably, the Tribal W ell ,

3100located 1.5 miles to the southeast of the proposed site ,

3110encountered relatively low pressure during drilling and had no

3119H2S, and another well located 12 miles to the north likewise had

3131no high pr essure or H2S. It is unlikely that Hughes will

3143encounter high pressure or H2S if it drills at the proposed site.

31552 1 . Even though it is unlikely that high pressure or H2S

3168will be encountered during the drilling of this proposed well,

3178Hughes still submitte d an H2S contingency plan as part of the

3190drilling application. The Department determined the plan

3197provided an effective design to detect, evaluate, and control any

3207hazardous release of H2S. In response to public concerns, in

3217January 2014 Hughes revised i ts plan to provide more protections .

3229The revised plan exceeds the guidance provided in API 49.

32392 2 . The revised plan clarifies and adds multiple

3249protections, including implementing the plan at a vertical depth

3258of 9,000 feet, which is 2,700 feet before the zone that Mosher

3272claims could contain H2S; clarifying that an H2S alarm

3281notification at 15 ppm would result in an instant well shut - in

3294(i.e. , closure of the well ) to prevent the escape of H2S;

3306instituting a reverse 911 call system to allow local officials to

3317notify the public by telephone of any incident; creating an air

3328dispersion model to understand the likelihood of public exposure;

3337and adding H2S scavengers to the drilling mud.

33452 3 . Adding H2S scavengers in the mud is a protective

3357measure. Specificall y, the zinc oxide scavengers will react with

3367H2S to create benign zinc sulfide and water. Even if H2S is

3379present in the formation, the H2S scavengers will neutralize the

3389H2S before it could reach the surface. The H2S scavengers will

3400effectively eliminate the likelihood of H2S escaping from the

3409well during drilling operations.

34132 4 . The drilling plan requires the Trinity C formation

3424(which Hughes estimated will begin at a depth of around 11,850

3436feet) to be cemented off and sealed once drilled. This formati on

3448will not be encountered in the first 15 or 20 days of drilling.

3461Once encountered, the formation will be exposed for only four to

3472six days. Even if H2S were encountered during this short exposed

3483duration, all of the protections included in the revised plan

3493would be in place, including overbalanced drilling mud, H2S

3502scavengers, blowout preventers, H2S monitors, and alarms.

35092 5 . When wells are drilled, there are numerous personnel

3520monitoring the drilling fluid, or mud, which is designed not only

3531to carry cuttings to the surface, but more importantly to act as

3543a barrier to keep fluids or gasses in the geologic formation.

3554The mud is weighted with additives to combat reservoir pressures.

3564Drill operators want the same amount of mud pumped into the hole

3576as th e amount flowing back up. If more fluid is flowing back up,

3590then the mud is not heavy enough to hold back the fluids or

3603gasses encountered. If this imbalance occurs, the well is shut -

3614in immediately and the mud weight is adjusted. A shut - in can be

3628accomp lished in just a few seconds. Anything in a shut - in well

3642will stay in the well. Hughes' normal drilling plan is to

3653slightly overbalance the mud weight. This ensures that nothing

3662unintentionally escapes from the reservoir.

36672 6 . Mosher and Preserve conten d that if H2S is encountered,

3680dangerous concentrations of H2S would leave the wellsite. In

3689response to this type of concern, a s part of the revised plan,

3702Hughes conducted an air dispersion model using the methodology

3711provided by API 49. The API 49 model is a Gaussian model with

3724default values reflecting the worst - case exposures. The peer -

3735reviewed and conservative model calculated by Dr. Walker looked

3744at H2S concentrations of 10, 15, and 100 ppm. At the extreme

3756case, a 100 - ppm release at the well would b e reduced below 10 ppm

3772within about 20 feet from the well and further reduced to one ppm

3785within 60 feet from the well. Although H2S is unlikely to escape

3797the well, 100 ppm was selected as a precautionary level because

3808this level is an immediate danger to human life and health.

3819Reaching 100 ppm is highly unlikely because at an instantaneous

3829reading of 15 ppm, the well is immediately shut - in.

38402 7 . The air dispersion model results demonstrate that

3850atmospheric H2S exposures beyond the wellsite could not excee d

3860potentially harmful exposure levels nor could exposures affect

3868the general public. Thus, even though the plan includes a

3878community warning and protection provision, it is not required

3887under API 49.

38902 8 . In an abundance of caution, however, the plan prov ides

3903for a public notification zone of 2,000 feet in case of an H2S

3917release . This zone is two orders of magnitude beyond the 20 -

3930foot, 10 ppm distance dispersion of H2S based on the modeled

3941worse case release and exceeds any required notification zones in

3951other states. The notification boundary is conservative, as

3959compared with industry standards. While Mosher's expert

3966recommended more stringent standards tha n API 49 , he knew of no

3978contingency plan for an oil drilling permit in the United States

3989that inc luded his recommended standards.

39952 9 . Mosher's expert testified that based on his review of

4007literature, the lowest observable adverse effect from H2S was at

4017concentrations of 2.1 ppm. Based on a worst case scenario

4027release of 100 ppm of H2S, the gas woul d disperse to a

4040concentration of 2.1 ppm in less than 40 feet from the well. The

4053property boundary abutting the neighborhood to the west is over

4063800 feet from the well.

406830 . API 49 expressly provides that wellsite personnel

4077should be provided protection devices if concentrations of H2S

4086exceed 10 ppm for an eight - hour time - weighted average. The

4099revised plan requires wellsite personnel to don a self - contained

4110breathing apparatus if the monitors encounter an instantaneous

4118reading of 10 ppm H2S. Instantane ous readings are more

4128protective of human health than the time - weighted averages

4138proposed by Mosher's expert. Using an instantaneous trigger is

4147another area where the revised plan exceeds the recommendation of

4157API 49.

41593 1 . The greater weight of evidence d emonstrates that the

4171H2S contingency plan meets or exceeds guidance of API 49. The

4182revised plan requires hands - on training for public officials and

4193fire/rescue staff before reaching the depth of 9,000 feet. The

4204revised plan further requires hands - on trai ning and drills

4215related to the procedures for use, and location of, all self -

4227contained breathing apparatus and evacuation procedures. The

4234plan is a complete and accurate contingency plan that will assist

4245operators and local emergency management in the unl ikely event of

4256an H2S escape. It exceeds the degree of caution typically

4266employed in industry standards.

42703 2 . Mosher and Preserve contend that the plan fails to

4282include specific instructions and training for nearby residents

4290in the event of an emergency . However, emergency plans are

4301designed for use by operators at the facility and the local

4312emergency management officials rather than nearby residents.

4319Thus, the Department did not require the applicant to provide

4329specific instructions for those residents.

43343 3 . Mosher and Preserve also contend that the plan fails to

4347adequately describe the evacuation routes in the event of an

4357emergency. However, evacuation routes and the potential closure

4365of roads are normally in the domain of local governments , as the

4377o perator and Department have no control over this action .

43883 4 . Mosher and Preserve contend that the plan d oes not

4401include complete and accurate information for all property owners

4410in the area . This is understandable since some property owners

4421either fail ed to respond to inquiries by Hughes when it assembled

4433the information for the plan or were reluctant to provide any

4444personal information. Recognizing this problem, the Department

4451reviewed the website of the Collier County property appraiser to

4461complete t he information. To the extent information on certain

4471parcels may not be co mplete, Hughes can update th at aspect of th e

4486plan on an on - going basis before operations begin . If a permit

4500is issued, t he Department will continue to coordinate with

4510Collier Count y and other local emergency management officials for

4520the purpose of planning to implement the contingency plan.

45293 5 . Based on the foregoing, the evidence establishes that

4540the probability of a dangerous release of H2S beyond the wellsite

4551is highly remote and speculative in nature. The revised

4560contingency plan is consistent with industry standards and

4568satisfies the requirements of the rule.

4574b. Schwartz

45763 6 . Like Mosher and Preserve, Schwartz agreed that except

4587for the concerns expressed in his amended pl eading, no other

4598issues remain. Schwartz first contends that Hughes did not

4607demonstrate sufficient efforts to select a proposed location for

4616drilling to minimize impacts as required by rule 62C - 30.005.

4627Subparagraph (2)(b)1. requires that drilling sites b e located "to

4637minimize impacts on the vegetation and wildlife, including rare

4646and endangered species, and the surface water resources." In

4655particular, Schwar t z is concerned about the potential impact on

4666the Florida panther , an endangered species .

46733 7 . Hug hes selected the proposed site primarily because of

4685its proximity to the Tribal W ell, which had a significant show of

4698oil. In order to increase the chances for commercial production,

4708the horizontal segment of the well needs to be perpendicular to

4719the natu ral fractures in the limestone. In this location, Hughes

4730must drill horizontally from west to east in the direction of the

4742Tribal W ell.

47453 8 . Hughes was unable to locate the well on the automotive

4758test track directly south of the agricultural field and we st of

4770the Tribal W ell because of objections by Harley - Davidson, then

4782the owner of the track. A second proposed location just east of

4794the test track was considered but Harley - Davidson would not grant

4806access from the track to the upland sites on th e adjacen t

4819location. A third option was to construct a lengthy access road

4830from the north to one of the upland sites just east of the test

4844track. However, this alternative would have resulted in

4852significant impacts to wetlands and native vegetation.

48593 9 . The prop osed site offer s the least amount of

4872environmental impact. It is 1.5 miles from the Tribal W ell. It

4884has no federal or jurisdictional wetlands on the site, and

4894groundwater modeling submitted with an application for a water

4903use permit demonstrated that the proposed use of water will not

4914adversely affect surrounding wetlands.

491840 . The proposed access road and drilling pad will not

4929impact any cypress - mixed forest swamps, hardwood hammocks,

4938mangrove forests, archeological sites, or native ceremonial

4945grounds. Nor will they adversely affect known red - cockaded

4955woodpecker colonies, rookeries, alligator holes, research sites,

4962or pine uplands.

49654 1 . The evidence establishes that Hughes chose a site that

4977minimized environmental impacts.

49804 2 . Schwartz also contends t hat the wellsite activities

4991will directly decrease the recovery chances of the Florida

5000panther. According to Schwartz, this decrease will occur because

5009the activities involve creating an access road, truck traffic,

5018noise, lights, and vibrations. He also asserts that the proposed

5028wellsite will result in a small amount of direct habitat loss

5039when the cattle field is converted to a drilling pad .

50504 3 . The USFWS has developed a panther scientific habitat

5061assessment methodology. It relies upon peer - reviewed st udies

5071that found that panthers will select land cover types while

5081avoiding others. The methodology ranks the value of land cover

5091types from zero to ten based on the potential for panther

5102selection.

51034 4 . Applying the USFWS' scoring to the proposed wellsite ,

5114an improved pasture area has a value of 5.2, which means the land

5127cover is neither actively selected nor avoided by panthers. The

5137areas to the south and east of the proposed wellsite are forested

5149wetlands and forested uplands, which have substantially h igher

5158values that range from 9.2 to 9.5. If converted to an open water

5171reservoir under the Camp Ke a is ERP, the site value would be zero,

5185the land cover type most avoided by panthers. The underlying

5195USACE permit specifically required panther habitat com pensation.

52034 5 . Hughes ' expert established that the proposed site

5214minimizes impacts on wildlife by avoiding habitat selected by

5223panthers such as wetlands, forested uplands, saw palmetto

5231thickets, fresh water marshes, prairies, and native habitats.

5239Based o n a dozen visits to the site for the purpose of conducting

5253vegetation mapping and wildlife surveys, the expert concluded

5261there are no panthers currently known to be living, breeding, or

5272denning on the site.

52764 6 . A home range for a panther is the area provi ding

5290shelter, water, food, and the chance for breeding. The typical

5300home range for a male panther is 209 square miles, and female

5312home ranges average around 113 square miles. The evidence

5321establishes the proposed drilling activity will not interfere

5329with the panthers' use of the site. Approval of the permit will

5341not remove or push any panthers out of their home range.

53524 7 . Hughes' expert opined that the four male panthers,

5363which historically traversed the area within a mile of the

5373proposed wellsite, woul d only likely move through the area every

538415 or 20 months or longer. The temporary nature of the drilling

5396activities means the panthers may not even be near the location

5407during that time. If a panther is near the location and

5418frightened by any activities , it will avoid the area, but will

5429eventually return. Based on the large home range of the panther,

5440the temporary activities will not increase the likelihood of

5449intraspecies aggression or decrease panther survivability.

54554 8 . The more persuasive evidence i s that panthers are

5467adaptable. They are habituated to the drilling operations in

5476southwest Florida based on over a hundred thousand telemetry data

5486points taken near 93 oil wells in the primary zone. Panthers are

5498not threatened by the presence of humans. In fact, they live and

5510den in and around residential communities and active agricultural

5519operations.

55204 9 . Panthers need prey, water, and shelter. The drilling

5531activities will not adversely affect prey availability or impact

5540water resources. The proposed wellsite's location within a

5548disturbed agricultural field will not impact the panther's

5556ability to shelter.

555950 . During the permit review process, the Department

5568requested input from the USFWS, the Florida Fish and Wildlife

5578Conservation Commission ( FFWCC) , and other interested parties

5586regarding the proposed drilling permit. No formal comments were

5595offered by the USFWS, and its biologist for conservation planning

5605indicated informally that the surface impacts from an oil well

5615are "very minor." Likewise, th e FFWCC offered no formal comments

5626on the application.

56295 1 . The evidence supports a finding that the proposed

5640permit activities will not affect the panther's use of, or travel

5651to and from, the Refuge. The activities will not affect the

5662panthers' availabil ity of prey or increase panther competition

5671for food or home range territory. The drilling will not

5681adversely affect the panther's breeding, survivability, or the

5689recovery of the species.

56935 2 . The only other threatened or endangered species found

5704in the v icinity of the proposed site was an eastern indigo snake,

5717which was located two and one - half miles away and would not

5730travel to the proposed wellsite, as its home range is up to a

5743maximum of 450 acres.

57475 3 . Schwartz further contends that section 377.242 re quires

5758that the permit be denied because the proposed wellsite is within

5769one mile from the seaward (western) boundary of the Refuge. The

5780Refuge is located entirely inland and does not have a seaward

5791boundary, as contemplated by section 377.242(1)(a)3. Th erefore,

5799no drilling will be located within one mile of the seaward

5810boundary of any state, local, or federal park, aquatic preserve,

5820or wildlife preserve. This is consistent with the Department's

5829routine and long - standing interpretation of the statute.

5838D . Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee

58455 4 . Petitioners and Intervenor initially contend ed that the

5856permit should be denied because a meeting of the Committee was

5867n ever convened pursuant to section 377.42. The Committee,

5876however, met on March 11 and 31, 2 014. Although a majority of

5889the Committee voted to recommend that the Department deny the

5899permit on various grounds, the recommendation of the Committee is

5909not binding on the Department , and after consideration, was

5918rejected . In their Proposed Recommende d Orders, the opponents

5928now contend that the permit should be denied because the

5938Comm ittee did not meet before the Department issued its proposed

5949agency action. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law,

5960this contention is rejected.

5964CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

5967E. Standing

59695 5 . Respondents have not stipulate d to the facts necessary

5981to establish standing for the challengers . On this issue, the

5992record shows that the opponents' substantial interests could

6000reasonably be expected to be affected by the issuance of a

6011permit. See, e.g. , St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. v. St. Johns

6021River Water Mgmt. Dist. , 52 So. 3d 1051, 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA

60332011). Therefore, they have standing to challenge the permit.

6042F. Burden of Proof

604656. The general rule is that, absent a statuto ry directive,

6057the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of

6069the issue. Therefore , Hughes has the burden of proving by a

6080preponderance of the evidence th at under the general permitting

6090criteria in section 377.241, the Department should i ssue a

6100permit.

6101G. Statutory Criteria

61045 7 . The Department issues permits under chapter 377 to

6115persons with a lawful right to drill. See § 377.241, Fla. Stat.

6127When enacted by the Legislature in 1961, t he overall purpose of

6139the statute was to institute a permit process in order to protect

6151landowners from undue burdens from mineral leases. See Fla.

6160Wildlife Fed., Inc. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. , Case Nos. 96 - 4222

6173and 96 - 5038, 1998 Fla. ENV LEXIS 136 at *10 (Fla. DOAH April 8,

61881998; Fla. DEP May 22, 1998). However, this case does not

6199concern a dispute between Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., the legal

6209interests of the fee simple owner of the property, and Hughes,

6220the mineral rights owner.

622458. The statutory criteria for issuance of a permit for oil

6235exploration are found in section 377.241 . The statute reads in

6246relevant part as follows:

6250The [Department], in the exercise of its

6257authority to issue permits as hereinafter

6263provided, shall give consideration to and be

6270guided by the following criteria:

6275(1) T he natu re, character and location of

6284the lands involved; whether rural, such as

6291farms, groves, or ranches, or urban property

6298vacant or presently developed for residential

6304or business purposes or are in such a

6312location or of such a nature as to make such

6322improveme nts and developments a probability

6328in the near future.

6332(2) The nature, type and extent of ownership

6340of the applicant, including such matters as

6347the length of time the applicant has owned

6355the rights claimed without having performed

6361any of the exploratory operations so granted

6368or authorized.

6370(3) The proven or indicated likelihood of

6377the presence of oil, gas or related minerals

6385in such quantities as to warrant the

6392exploration and extraction of such products

6398on a commercially profitable basis.

64035 9 . The three criteria do not constitute a pass - fail

6416checklist for an applicant or require a determination that the y

6427have been met ; rather , they are guidelines for balancing

6436interests. The statute should be interpreted as calling for a

6446weighing process where each criterion is evaluated and then

6455weighed against the other factors. Id. at *9. This approach was

6466approved by the court in Coastal Petroleum Company v. Florida

6476Wildlife Federation, Inc. , 766 So. 2d 226, 228 (Fla. 1st DCA

64871999).

648860. Although not defined, t he term "lands involved" in

6498subsection (1) includes some area beyond the immediate footprint

6507of the drilling pad that would be potentially impacted by

6517pollution. Fla. Wildlife Fed. at *14. Besides balancing the

6526interests of the property owner and Hughes , t his means that

6537potential risks to nearby off - site owners , such as Mosher, or

6549potentially sensitive environmental lands , like the Refuge, must

6557also be considered . Within t his broad statutory charge , several

6568rules cited by the opponents come into play . First, r ule 62C -

658230.005(2)(b)4. requires that applicants for drilling permits

6589within the Big Cypress watershed make "every effort" to locate

6599their projects in areas covered by grazing, farming, or cleared

6609lands. Rule 62C - 27.001(7) requires that if H2S is l ikely to be

6623encountered during the drilling operations, a contingency plan

6631th a t comports with API 49 must be filed. Finally, rule 62C -

664530.005(1)(a) requires that the drilling activity not cause any

"6654permanent adverse impact on the water resources and sheet flow

6664of the area, or on the vegetation or the wildlife of the area,

6677with special emphasis on rare and endangered species."

668561. Subsections (2) and (3) address the interest s of the

6696owner of the mineral rights. More specifically, subsection (2)

6705directs th e Department to consider the "nature, type and extent

6716of ownership of the applicant , " a consideration not in dispute ,

6726as Hughes has legally - secured mineral rights on the parcel.

6737Subsection (3) requires the Department to consider whether the

6746target of expl oration is likely to provide commercially - viable

6757oil production. In other words, is there evidence to show a

6768proven or indicated likelihood of the presence of oil, or simply

6779mere speculation that oil exists.

67846 2 . The greater weight of evidence shows that the permit

6796requires the drilling pad to be located in the most

6806environmentally sensible location. The evidence also

6812demonstrates that the project will not harm any Florida panther

6822habitat or the Florida panther as a species. With respect to the

6834potentia l human risks of a H2S release, Mosher and Preserve were

6846unable to present any persuasive evidence that would support the

6856theory that the permitted operations would cause a discharge of

6866H2S to any off - site locations at any dangerous concentrations,

6877even in a worst case scenario. As to subsection (2), there is no

6890dispute that Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. , has leased the mineral

6900rights on the property to Hughes with the understanding that an

6911exploratory well will be drilled. Finally, subsection (3)

6919requires that there is a reasonable indicated likelihood, rather

6928than a guarantee, that the site is commercially viable. B ased on

6940earlier drilling results at the nearby Tribal Well, t here is a

6952reasonable indicated likelihood that the site will be

6960commercially prod uctive.

69636 3 . Given the above considerations, there are no

6973countervailing factors that would outweigh the interests of the

6982applicant in pursuing its mineral rights. The refore, a balancing

6992of the three factors supports the issuance of the permit.

7002H. The Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee

70096 4 . Section 377.42 creates a five - member Committee and

7021describes its duties. The relevant portion of the statute read s

7032as follows:

7034(2) The Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee

7041is hereby created in the Department of

7048Environmental Protection. The Big Cypress

7053Swamp Advisory Committee shall be appointed

7059by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary

7068of [the Department of] Environmental

7073Protection. To ensure compliance with all

7079requirements for obtaining a permit to

7085expl ore for hydrocarbons in the Big Cypress

7093Swamp area, each application for such permit

7100shall be reviewed by the Big Cypress Swamp

7108Advisory Committee. The committee shall have

7114no final authority on approval or denial of

7122permits but shall make recommendations to the

7129department . The committee shall meet at the

7137call of the chair to evaluate a pending

7145application for a permit to drill in the Big

7154Cypress watershed and may make other

7160evaluations requested by the department. The

7166membership of the committee shall b e as

7174follows:

7175(a) The State Geologist, who shall serve as

7183chair.

7184(b) A representative from the oil industry.

7191(c) A representative from an organized

7197conservation group.

7199(d) A botanist.

7202(e) A hydrologist.

7205(3) The committee shall administer this

7211secti on pursuant to the laws of the state,

7220and the rules and orders of the department

7228which apply generally to oil and gas. If

7236site - specific conditions require, the

7242committee may recommend that additional

7247procedures, safeguards, or conditions which

7252are necessa ry to protect the integrity of the

7261Big Cypress area be required as a condition

7269to the issuance of a permit to drill and

7278produce. (Emphasis added . )

72836 5. The opponents contend that the statute contemplates

7292that a meeting be conducted before the Department makes its

7302preliminary determination on the merits of the application. They

7311assert that they were prejudiced because the new information ,

7320witnesses , and recommendations generated by the Committee were

7328not available for them to use during the de novo hearin g. As

7341noted earlier, the Committee did not meet until aft er the

7352proposed agency action was issued and a de novo hearing

7362conducted .

736466 . The purpose of a Committee meeting is not to gather

7376information to assist third parties who challenge permit s ;

7385rather , the Committee convenes meeting s to evaluate "pending

7394application [s] for a permit to drill in the Big Cypress

7405watershed " and , as appropriate, to submit non - binding

7414recommendation s to the Department. T he se recommendations may be

7425accepted or rejected by th e Department. While the convening of a

7437meeting early on the process would promote the most efficient use

7448of resources and a speedier determination of the case , t he

7459requirements of the statute were satisfied when the Committee met

7469in March 2014 to evaluate Hughes' pending application and then

7479submitted its recommendation to the Department.

74856 7 . Notably, the only statutory criteria by which the

7496Department shall consider issuing permits under chapter 377 are

7505found in section 377.241. None of the operative criteria require

7515the Department to consider an evaluation that may be proffered by

7526the Committee. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the timing

7535of the Committee me e t ing is a procedural oversight , it is

7548irrelevant to the substantive criteria the Depar tment is bound to

7559follow within the four corners of section 377.241.

75676 8 . Finally, while unnecessary to a disposition of this

7578case, the Committee recommendations appear to be beyond the

7587jurisdiction of the Department or inconsistent with long - standing

7597Dep artment precedent. For example, concerns over truck traffic

7606are typically addressed by local land use authorities, and there

7616is no rule or statute mandating the preparation of a spill plan

7628for an exploratory well. Likewise, the Department does not

7637requir e an absolute assurance or guarantee on the part of a

7649permit applicant, as suggested by the Committee majority . See,

7659e.g. , Putnam Cnty. Envtl. Council v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. , Case

7670No. 01 - 2442, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 197 (Fla. DOAH July 23, 2002;

7684Fla. DEP A ug. 6, 2002).

7690I. Setback Requirement

76936 9 . Schwartz contends that because the drilling pad is

7704within one mile from the seaward ( western ) boundary of the

7716Refuge, the permit violates section 377.242(1)(a)3. That

7723provision reads as follows:

7727No structure in tended for the drilling for,

7735or production of, oil, gas, or other

7742petroleum products may be permitted or

7748constructed within 1 mile of the seaward

7755boundary of any state, local, or federal park

7763or aquatic or wildlife preserve or on the

7771surface of a freshwate r lake, river, or

7779stream.

77807 0 . Under the Department's long - standing, routine

7790interpretation of the statute, t he Refuge is located entirely

7800inland and therefore has no seaward boundary. H owever, Schwartz

7810argues that the boundary closest to the ocean sho uld be deemed a

7823seaward boundary. Were this interpretation accepted, it would

7831lead to an absurd result. See, e.g. , Louzon v. State , 78 So. 3d

7844678, 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)(a statute should not be construed so

7856as to achieve an absurd result). The Departme nt's interpretation

7866of the statute i s far more reasonable than the one advocated by

7879Schwartz, a nd the contention that the project violates the

7889setback requirement is rejected.

7893RECOMMENDATION

7894Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7904Law, i t is

7908RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order issuing

7917Permit No. 1353H, without further modification s .

7925DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June , 201 4 , in Tallahassee,

7937Leon County, Florida.

7940S

7941D. R. ALEXANDER

7944Admini strative Law Judge

7948Division of Administrative Hearings

7952The DeSoto Building

79551230 Apalachee Parkway

7958Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

7963(850) 488 - 9675

7967Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

7973www.doah.state.fl.us

7974Filed with the Clerk of the

7980Division of Administrative Hearing s

7985this 3rd day of June , 2014.

7991ENDNOTE S

79931 Although Schwartz represented himself at hearing, all papers

8002filed by him in this proceeding, including his Proposed

8011Recommended Order, have been prepared by unnamed counsel.

80192 Both Mosher (before hiring couns el in October 2013) and

8030Schwartz (through one of his attorneys) knew well before the

8040proposed agency action was issued in September 2013 that a meeting

8051of the Committee had not been convened. However, they did not

8062raise the issue until shortly before the final hearing in late

8073February 2014.

80753 On May 27, 2014, or three months after the final hearing,

8087Schwartz filed a Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding

8096Location of Residence (Motion), together with an affidavit. The

8105Motion is opposed by Responden ts. The Motion represents that

8115while Schwartz continues to receive mail at a post office box in

8127Fort Lauderdale, he no longer resides in Lake Worth and has moved

8139to Estero in southern Lee County. The Motion further represents

8149that its purpose is "to assi st the appellate court(s) should an

8161issue arise regarding the appropriate venue for any appeal that

8171may be filed by one or more of the parties." If the appellate

8184court requires assistance regarding the appropriate venue, the

8192matter may be presented to the court. The Motion is denied.

8203COPIES FURNISHED:

8205Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

8209D epartment of Environmental Protection

8214Mail Station 35

82173900 Commonwealth Boulevard

8220Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

8225Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire

8229Ralf Brookes Attorney

82321217 East Ca pe Coral Parkway, Suite 107

8240Cape Coral, Florida 33904 - 9604

8246Matthew R. Schwart z

8250Post Office Box 460234

8254Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33346 - 0234

8260Jeffrey Brown, Esquire

8263Department of Environmental Protection

8267Mail Station 35

82703900 Commonwealth Boulevard

8273Tallahas see, Florida 32399 - 3000

8279Timothy M. Riley , Esquire

8283Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

8288Post Office Box 6526

8292Tallahassee, Florida 323 14 - 6526

8298Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

8303Department of Environmental Protection

8307Mail Station 35

83103900 Commonwealth Boulevard

8313Ta llahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

8319Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel

8324Department of Environmental Protection

8328Mail Station 35

83313900 Commonwealth Boulevard

8334Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

8339NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8345A ll parties have the right to sub mit written exceptions within

835715 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

8369this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

8380render a final order in this matter.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2014
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Stipulated Withdrawal of Application filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2014
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response to Matthew Schwartz's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/27/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response to Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2014
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from Kim Buceri regarding exploration well filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held February 25 through 27, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Request.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Notice of Filing and Renewed Request for Status Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing and Renewed Request for Status Conference.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz' Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Location of Residence (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent, Florida Department of Environmental Protection's) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: Corrected Thomas Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: Thomas Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2014
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Request.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Corrected Certificate of Service (for Joint Notice of Filing and Request for Status Conference; filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Petitoner Matthew Schwartz, Thomas Mosher, and Intervenor Preserve our Paradise's Joint Notice of Filing and Request for Status Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/05/2014
Proceedings: Joint Notice of Filing and Request for Status Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Notice of Joinder (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2014
Proceedings: Second Order on Procedural Issues.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Refiled Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Motion to Cross Examine Mr. Jonathan D. Arthur (DEP, FGS) Regarding New Exhibit Dated April 14, 2014 New Admitted into Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Response to April 28, 2014, Order on Pending Procedural Issues filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Withdrawal of Motion and Corrected Motion to Cross Examine John Arthur (filed in Case No.: 13-1263) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Withdrawal of Motion and Corrected Motion to Cross Examine John Arthur filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2014
Proceedings: Corrected Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Motion to Cross Examine Mr. Jonathan D. Arthur (DEP, FGS) Regarding New Exhibit Dated April 14, 2014 Newly Admitted into Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Response to April 28, 2014, Order of Pending Procedural Issues (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Notice of Joinder (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Motion to Cross Examine Mr. Jonathan D. Arthur (DEP, FGS) Regarding New Exhibit Dated April 14, 2014 Newly Admitted into Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Affidavit of Certification of Records filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Introduce into Evidence the March 31 BCSAC Meeting Videotape as Downloaded by Collier County onto Digital Video Disks (with CD's) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2014
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from Susan Foster regarding corrected volumes filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2014
Proceedings: Order on Pending Procedural Issues.
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Post-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Thomas Mosher, and Intervenor, Preserve our Paradise, Inc.'s: (1) Amended Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, Supplement the Record and File Revised Exhibits Regarding Past Violations; (2) Amended Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and File Revised Exhibits Regarding Past Violations; and (3) Amended Motion to Open Birfucated Hearing Regarding (1) Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee Recommedations and (2) Past Violations, filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Thomas Mosher, and Intervenor, Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s, Amended Motion Joining Schwartz's Motion RE: Consent Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's, Motion to Introduce into Evidence the 8 April 2014 Consent Order Between the Department and Hughes Together with the Department's 18 April 2014 Statement Regarding Same filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Thomas Mosher, and Intervenor, Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s, Amended Motion Joining Schwartz's Motion RE: the Videotape of the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Response in Opposition to the Department's Motion in Limine (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Motion to Open Bifurcated Hearing Regarding (1) Big Cypress Advisory Committee Recommendations and (2) Past Violations filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Amended Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc's Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, Supplement the Record and File Revised Exhibits Regarding Past Violations filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Amended Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and File Revised Exhibits Regarding Past Violations filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Amended Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Motion to Open Bifurcated Hearing Regarding (1) Big Cypress Advisory Committee Recommendations and (2) Past Violations filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Amended Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc's Motion Joining Petitioner Schwartz's Motion RE: Videotape of BCSAC Meeting filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Amended Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Motion Joining Schwartz Motion RE: Consent Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc's Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, Supplement the Record and File Revised Exhibits Regarding Past Violations filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc's Motion Joining Petitioner Schwartz's Motion RE: Videotape of BCSAC Meeting filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc's Motion Joining Schwartz Motion RE: Consent Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc's Response to DEP's Motion in Limine Regarding Advisory Committee filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Introduce into Evidence the April 8, 2014, Consent ORder Between the Department and Hughes Together with the Department's April 18, 2014, Statement from DEP Regarding Consent Order with the Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P. (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's, Motion to Introduce into Evidence the March 31 BCSAC Meeting Videotape filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/21/2014
Proceedings: Order on Motion to Enter Exhibits into Evidence.
PDF:
Date: 04/21/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Introduce into Evidence the March 31 BCSAC Meeting Videotape as Downloaded by Collier County onto Digital Video Disks (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2014
Proceedings: Motion in Limine Regarding Advisory Committee filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Status Conference (status conference set for April 25, 2014; 2:30 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2014
Proceedings: Department's Status Report and Request for Status Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Status Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Notice of Unavailability filed.
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (taken on February 27, 2014; not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (taken on February 25, 2014; not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volumes I and II (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2014
Proceedings: Department's Second Notice of Meeting and of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/20/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Notice of Filing (memorandum of Dr. Jon Arthur, public notice, Email between Matthew Schwartz and the Department, and Naples Daily News Article) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/20/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartzs Notice of Filing (Memorandum of Dr. Jon Arthur, Public Notice, eMail string between Matthew Shwartz and the Department, and the Naples Daily News article (filed in Case No. 13-004920)).
PDF:
Date: 03/20/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartzs Notice of Filing (Memorandum of Dr. Jon Arthur, Public Notice, eMail string between Matthew Shwartz and the Department, and the Naples Daily News article (filed in Case No. 13-004920)).
PDF:
Date: 03/19/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response in Opposition to Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Enter (Proposed) Exhibits into Evidence (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 03/19/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response in Opposition to Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Enter (Proposed) Exhibits into Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's, Motion to Enter Exhibits Into Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2014
Proceedings: Department's Status Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion in Limine.
PDF:
Date: 03/13/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Motion in Limine Re: Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Enter Exhibits into Evidence (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion in Limine RE: Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2014
Proceedings: Order on Motion for Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Our Paradise, Inc Motion in Limine RE: Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Enter Exhibits into Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Enter Exhibits Into Evidence (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 03/05/2014
Proceedings: Mosher Notice of Filing-Certified DEP Documents (Mosher Exhibit 13) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2014
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Meeting and of Filing filed.
Date: 02/25/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Unilateral Prehearing Stipulation of Petitioner Matthew Schwartz (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's, First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner Mosher and Intervenor's Preserve Our Paradises' Motion to Preserve Right to Cross-examination Under Section 377.42 filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Defer Cross-examination of Respondents' Witnesses and to Defer Providing Direct Testimony Pending the Department's Compliance with its Section 377.42 Statutory Obligation to Provide the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee the Opportunity to Elevaluate and Comment on the Permit Application filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Defer Cross-examination of Respondents' Witnesses and to Defer Providing Direct Testimony Pending the Department's Compliance with its Section 377.42 Statutory Obligation to Provide the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee the Opportunity to Elevaluate and Comment on the Permit Application (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserves' Motion to Preserve Right to Cross-examination Under Section 377.42 (Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P. Unilateral Prehearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: DEP's Unilateral Pre-hearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Response in Opposition to the Department's Motion to Bifurcate Hearing and Renewed Motion to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance Pending Completion of the Section 377.42 Advisory Committee Review (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Response to DEP Motion to Bifurcate filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's, Motion for a Bifurcated Hearing and for Extension of (Proposed) Exhibit and Witness Disclosure Deadlines filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserves' Unilateral Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Motion for a Bifurcated Hearing and for Extension of (Proposed) Exhibit and Witness Disclosure Deadlines filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion.
PDF:
Date: 02/21/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Response in Opposition to the Department's Motion for an Extension of Time to Update its Witness and (Proposed) Exhibit List (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2014
Proceedings: Department's Motion for Extension of Time to Update (Proposed) Exhibit and Witness Lists filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's, Motion to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/19/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Motion to Hold Proceeding in Abeyance Pending the Department's Compliance with its Section 377.42 Statutory Obligation to Refer the Application to the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee for its Review and Recommendations (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Second Order on Procedural Issues.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preseve's Witness and Exhibit Lists Amended Mosher Exhibits 78-82 filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing: Additional Exhibits List Florida Statute 377.42 filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Voluntary Withdrawal of Reply to Hughes Response to Mosher and Preserve's Motion to Amend filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: (Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's) Third Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: (Proposed) Second Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Verified Motion to Intervene filed.
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Witness and Exhibit Lists filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Motion to Strike Petitioner Thomas G. Mosher, and Intervenor Preserve Our Paradise's, Reply to Respondent's Motion in Opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Amend Petition to Include Statutory Compliance Issue filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing Ron Bishop's Expert Witness Report (Corrected Citations) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Exhibit List (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Amended Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing: Ron Bishop's Expert Witness Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing - Gabe Tischler Affidavit in Support of Reasonable Expert Witness Fee filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher Notice of Filing - Revised Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing - Gabe Tischler Expert Witness Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing - Ron Bishop Expert Witness Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing - Gabe Tischler Expert Witness Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Reply to Hughes Response to Motion to Amend filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filng - Paul Rubin Expert Witness Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preseve's Notice of Filing - Corrected Exhibit Lists filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing - Exhibit Lists filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/17/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Notice of Filing - Paul Rubin Affidavit in Support of Reasonable Expert Witness Fee filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Notice of Filing- Ron Bishop Affidavit in Support of Reasonable Expert Witness Fee with Ron Bishop C.V. filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve Notice of Filing- Ron Bishop Affidavit in Support of Reasonable Expert Witness Fee filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Second Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Gabe Tischler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Updated Rule 28-106.204(3) Certification (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Status Conference (set for February 17, 2014; 11:00 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Petition (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Thomas G. Mosher's, & Intervenor, Preserve Our Paradis, Inc.'s Motion to Amend Petition to Include Statutory Compliance Issue filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Response in Opposition to Petitioner, Thomas G. Mosher's, & Intervenor, Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Expert Witness Deposition Reasonable Fee and Time for Payment and Motio for Protective Order Regarding Exclusion of the Testimony of Ron Bishop, Paul Rubin, and Gabe Tischler filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2014
Proceedings: Mosher and Preserve's Motion to Amend Petition to Include Statutory Compliance Issue filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Gabe Tischler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Gabe Tischler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2014
Proceedings: Motion for Protective Order Regarding Expert Witness Deposition Reasonable Fee for Deposition Time & Time for Payment of Fee filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Responent Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2014
Proceedings: Respondent Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s Notice of Telephonic Depositions Duces Tecum (of Ronald E. Bishop and Paul A. Rubin) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Response to Respondent, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Response to Respondent, State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's Notice Regarding Documents Prepared with the Assistance of Counsel (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Response to Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s First Set of Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner Matthew Schwartz's Witness Disclosure (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2014
Proceedings: Response to Request for Production by Respondent Matthew Schwartz filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (H. French Brown, IV) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/28/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L. P.'s, Response to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2014
Proceedings: Expert Witness Disclosures and Amended Responses to Discovery filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2014
Proceedings: Expert Witness Disclosures and Amended Responses to Discovery filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/21/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, First Amended Expert Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for February 25 through 28, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Myers, FL; amended as to hearing room location).
PDF:
Date: 01/16/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for February 25 through 28, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Myers, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/16/2014
Proceedings: Order on Procedural Matters.
Date: 01/15/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Expert Witness List (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Expert Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2014
Proceedings: Amended Order Consolidating Cases.
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2014
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production to Petitioner, Matthew Schwartz (filed in Case No. 13-004920).
PDF:
Date: 01/08/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, First Interrogatories to Petitioner Matthew Schwartz filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/07/2014
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 13-4254 and 13-4920)).
PDF:
Date: 01/06/2014
Proceedings: Order on Motion to Deny or Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 12/27/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing- DEP Documents Showing Presence of Hydrogen Sulfide Gas in Oil filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/27/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respones to Discovery filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2013
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel (Jeffrey Brown) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner Thomas Mosher & Intervenor Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.'s Response to Hughes' Second Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Verification filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (Jeffrey Brown) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Motion to Deny or Dismiss Petitioner, Thomas G. Mosher's, Petition for Administrative Hearing, & Proposed Intervenor, Preserve Our Paradise, Inc., Verified Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2013
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Notice of Filing Applicant's Hydrogen Sulfide Contingency Plan filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/20/2013
Proceedings: First Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing & Verified Motion to Intervene (motion to intervene filed by Preserve Our Paradise, Inc.) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Thomas G. Mosher filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Department of Environmental Protection's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production to Petitioner, Thomas G. Mosher filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Preserve Our Paradise filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s First Interrogatories to Petitioner/Intervenor Preserve Our Paradise filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Thomas G. Mosher filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/27/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s First Interrogatories to Petitioner Thomas G. Mosher filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for February 18, 19 and 21, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Myers and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2013
Proceedings: Petitioner and Intervenor's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.'s, Renewed Motion to Deny or Dismiss Petitioner, Thomas G. Mosher's, Petition for Administrative Hearing, & Proposed Intervenor, Preserve Our Paradise, Inc., Verified Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2013
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Final Order Oil and Gas Well Drilling Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Respondent, Dan A. Hughes Compnay, L.P.'s Motion that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, Deny or Dismiss Petitioner, Thomas G. Mosher's, Petition for Administrative Hearing and Proposed Intervenor, Preserve Our Paradise, Inc., Verified Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Verified Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2013
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
10/31/2013
Date Assignment:
11/04/2013
Last Docket Entry:
07/17/2014
Location:
Forest Corners, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Other
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):