17-001456
Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc.; Peter Van Roekens; Diane Erne; And Jeanne Ezcurra vs.
Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 8, 2018.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 8, 2018.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8THE SIESTA KEY ASSOCIATION OF
13SARASOTA, INC., AND MICHAEL S.
18HOLDERNESS,
19Petitioners,
20vs.
21Case No. 17 - 1449
26CITY OF SARASOTA; U.S. ARMY
31CORPS OF ENGINEERS; DEPARTMENT
35OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; AND
39BOARD OF T RUSTEES OF THE
45INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND,
49Respondents,
50and
51LIDO KEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
55INC.,
56Intervenor.
57_______________________________/
58SAVE OUR SIESTA SANDS 2, INC. ;
64PETER VAN ROEKENS; AND DIANE
69ERNE ,
70Petitioners,
71Case No. 17 - 1456
76vs.
77DEP ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
81PROTECTION,
82Respondent,
83and
84LIDO KEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
88INC.,
89Intervenor.
90_______________________________/
91RECOMMENDED ORDER
93The final hearing in these consolidated cases was held on
103December 12 through 15, 2017, in Sarasota, Florida, and on
113December 18, 2017, by video teleconference in Sarasota and
122Tallahassee, before Bram D.E. Canter, an Administrative Law
130Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).
138APPEARANCES
139For Petitioners Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc.,
147and Michael S. Holderness:
151D. Kent Safriet, Esquire
155Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire
159Adam F. Blalock, Esquire
163Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.
168119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300
174Tallahassee, Florida 32301
177For Petitioners Save our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter v an
188Roekens, and Diane Erne:
192Martha M. Collins, Esquire
196Collins Law Group
1991110 N orth Florida Avenue
204Tampa, Florida 33602
207For Respondent City of Sarasota:
212John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire
217401 East Olas B oulevard , Suite 1000
224Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
228For Respondent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
235E. Chris Lambert, Esquire
239Brittany Berger, Esquire
242Brooks W. Moore, Esquire
246United States Army Corps of Engineers
252701 San Marco Boulevard
256Jacksonville, Florida 32207
259For Respondents Florida Department of Environmental
265Protection and Board of Trustees of the In ternal Improvement
275Trust Fund:
277Kirk Sanders White, Esquire
281Department of Environmental Protection
285Mail Station 35
2883900 Commonwealth Boulevard
291Tallahas see, Florida 32399 - 3000
297For Intervenors Lido Key Residents Association:
303Kevin Hennessy, Esquire
306Deborah Getzoff, Esquire
309Richard Green Esquire
312Lewis, Longman, and Walke r, P.A.
318101 Riverfront Blvd., Suite 620
323Bradenton, Florida 34205
326STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
330The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is
340whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ÐCorpsÑ) and the City
351of Sarasota (ÐCityÑ) (sometimes referred to as Ðthe ApplicantsÑ)
360are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public
369easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization
376(referred to collectively as Ðthe PermitÑ) from the Department
385of Environment al Protection (ÐDEPÑ) and the Trustees of the
395Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota
405Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of
418Lido Key.
420PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
422On December 22, 2016, DEP gave notice of its intent to
433issue the Permit to the City and Corps. The Permit would
444authorize a 15 - year joint coastal permit for beach nourishment,
455grant a Letter of Consent to use sovereign submerged lands for
466the proposed beach fill placement area, and grant a public
476easement to use sovereign submerged lands for three proposed
485borrow areas and for two groins.
491Siesta Key Associa tion of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S.
500Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton (ÐSKAÑ); and
510Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens, Dian e Erne,
522and Jeanne Ezcurra (ÐSOSS2Ñ) filed petitions challenging the
530Permit. The two cases were consolidated. Lido Key Residents
539Association, Inc. (ÐLKRAÑ) was granted leave to intervene in
548support of the Permit.
552Florida Wildlife Federation filed a petit ion for hearing to
562challenge the Permit, but later filed a notice of voluntary
572dismissal of the petition and it was dismissed before the final
583hearing.
584At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony
592of Catherine Luckner; Michael Holderness; Pete r v an Roekens;
602Diane Erne; Jennifer Peterson, Ph.D.; Ellen Edwards, Ph.D.;
610Todd Walton, Jr., Ph.D., accepted as an expert in coastal
620engineering; Mark Luther, Ph.D., accepted as an expert in
629coastal marine science; R. Grant Gilmore, Ph.D., accepted as an
639e xpert in marine ecology and marine fisheries; and Robert Young,
650Ph.D., accepted as an expert in coastal geology. SKA
659Exhibits 7, 11, 12, 27, 33, 35, 36, 37 - 1 through 37 - 7, and
67548 through 51 were admitted into evidence. SOSS2 Exhibits 69,
68571, 77, 79, and 83 were admitted into evidence.
694The City presented the testimony of Alexandrea Davis - Shaw,
704P.E., and Michelle Pfeiffer, P.E. City Exhibits 3, 5, and 6
715were admitted into evidence.
719The Corps presented the testimony of Aubree Hershorin,
727Ph.D., accepted as a n expert in biology; and Jason A. Engle,
739P.E., accepted as an expert in coastal engineering. Corps
748Exhibits 76, 79E and 79H were admitted into evidence.
757DEP presented the testimony of Robert Brantly, P.E.,
765accepted as an expert in coastal engineering; and Ellen Edwards,
775Ph.D. DEP Exhibits 1 and 17A were admitted into evidence.
785LKRA presented the testimony of Mark S. Fonseca, Ph.D.,
794accepted as an expert in marine ecology and seagrass
803restoration. LKRA Exhibit 20 was admitted into evidence.
811The Transcript of the final hearing was filed with DOAH.
821The parties submitted proposed recommended orders, which were
829considered in preparing this Recommended Order. All references
837to the Florida Statutes are to the 2017 codification.
846FINDING S OF FACT
850The Parties
8521. Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida
861Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business
871in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1 , 425 members
880and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta
891Key Ós beach and waters. A substantial number of its members
902have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent
913waters.
9142. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and
923property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial
932interests in the protection of his property and the use of the
944beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters.
9513. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida
962Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business
972in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 me mbers and was
983formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A
992substantial number of its members have substantial interests in
1001the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters.
10124. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are
1021residents a nd property owners on Siesta Key. They have
1031substantial interests in the protection of their properties and
1040the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters.
10515. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated
1059municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co - applicant for the
1071Permit.
10726. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for
1081the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first
1091authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps
1101has conducted periodic maintenance, inl et dredging, surveys, and
1110bypassing to protect Lido KeyÓs shoreline. The Corps is a
1120co - applicant for the Permit.
11267. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power
1136and duty to protect FloridaÓs air and water resources and to
1147administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and
1157403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in
1165Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which
1175pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the
1184coastal zone and in surface waters o f the state. DEP acts as
1197staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
1208Fund.
12098. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida
1218Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its
1228principal place of business in Sarasota . The organization
1237represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A
1248substantial number of its members have substantial interests in
1257the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters.
1268The Project Area
12719. Lido Key is a 2.6 - mile - long, manm ade barrier island
1285constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and
1296within the City of Sarasota.
130110. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel
1312that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key.
131911. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb
1331shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural
1342barrier island.
1344Sediment Transport
134612. In the project area, sand generally drifts along the
1356various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift
1367to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but
1378the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called
1390Ðdowndrift.Ñ
139113. Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago,
1399they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key.
140914. For decades, the shorelin e of Lido Key has been
1420eroding. Since 1964, the Cor ps has periodically dredged
1429New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has
1441also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These
1450renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid
1457erosion of the shoreline.
146115. A 2.4 - mile - long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key
1475has been designated by DEP as Ðcritically eroded.Ñ
148316. The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and
1494now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (ÐcyÑ) of sand .
1508The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment
1519projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key
1532and Longboat Key.
153517. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor
1547in the southward migration of the main ebb chann el of Big
1559Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key.
156918. Most of the west - facing shoreline at Siesta Key has
1581experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a
1590Florida beach. It was named the best (Ð#1Ñ) beach in the Unite d
1603States by ÐDr. Beach,Ñ Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017.
1615The Project
161719. The federally - authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm
1627Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a
1638supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. Howeve r,
1647the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting.
1659The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the
1669renourishment of Lido Key and is named ÐLido Key Beach
1679Renourishment and Groins.Ñ
168220. The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to
1693determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to
1705renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental
1714feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big
1723Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The
1732app lication for the Permit was a response to this study.
174321. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three
1753dredge Ðcuts.Ñ Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C
1766extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass.
1777Cut C generally fo llows an existing Ðflood marginal channel.Ñ
178722. The sand from the cuts would be placed along the
1798central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach
1810Ðtemplate.Ñ The design width of the renourished beach would be
182080 feet. The initial placement wou ld be wider than 80 feet to
1833account for erosion.
183623. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The
1847ApplicantsÓ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on
1859Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be
1868dredged from one or more of th e three designated cuts about
1880every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would
1892probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy.
190224. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed
1911the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the th ree cuts.
192625. One of DEPÓs witness es testified that the Permit
1936authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The
1948record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not
1958model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the
1970e bb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the
1981record to support an authorization to remove more than
19901.3 million cy of sand.
199526. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is
20071.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of th e
2019cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions
2030to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as
2042to provide a margin to account for less - than - perfect dredging
2055operations.
205627. Therefore, it is found that the Permit author izes up
2067to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated
2079borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in
2090this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the
2100proposed project are based on this finding.
210728. The Permit al so authorizes the construction of two
2117rubble mound groins at the south ern end of Lido Key to stabilize
2130the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events.
2139The groins are designed to be semi - permeable so that they ÐleakÑ
2152sand.
215329. There are no s eagrasses in the renourishment area and
2164mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge
2174cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct
2183impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts,
2193the Applicants propose to cr eate 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat.
2204The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at
2214Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County , about
222216 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass.
222930. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the
2237Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding
2244protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees.
225131. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the
2260effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications
2268if the project does not meet performance expectations.
2276Project Engineering
227832. The CorpsÓ engineering analysis involved three
2285elements: evaluating the historical context and the human
2293influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget,
2302and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion
2311trends near the project site.
231633. A principal objective of the engineering design for
2325the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid
2335adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to
2342Siesta Key.
234434. The Cor ps developed a sediment budget for the Ðno
2355actionÑ and post - project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool
2367used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a
2377geographic study area.
238035. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based
2390on sound s cience and they are reliable for the purposes for
2402which they were used.
240636. The post - project sediment budget shows there would be
2417minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key.
242737. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to
2436support their t heory of adverse impact to Siesta Key.
244638. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the
2455Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida
2465registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a
2473Florida professional engineerÓs cer tification for engineering
2480work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of
2491Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal
2499engineers.
2500Ebb Shoal Equilibrium
250339. PetitionersÓ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula
2511to estimate e bb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an
2523ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account
2534bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related
2542factors.
254340. In an article entitled ÐUse of Outer Bars of Inlets as
2555Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,Ñ Dr. Walton calculated
2564the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb
2575shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand.
258541. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about
259623 million cy of sand, which is well in ex cess of its probable
2610equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed
2620from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb
2633shoal volume.
263542. Dr. WaltonÓs study of the use of ebb shoals as sand
2647sources for renourishment projects su pports the efficacy of the
2657proposed project.
2659Modeling Morphological Trends
266243. The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment
2671transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System,
2679Version 4 (ÐCMSÑ) to analyze the probable effects of the
2689propos ed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to
2699represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps
2710to analyze a number of coastal projects.
271744. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate
2727for analyzing this project because it is a two - dimensional model
2739that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and
2750waves. However, a two - dimensional model is appropriate for a
2761shallow and well - mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass.
2771Dr. WaltonÓs lack of experience with the CMS mo del and with any
2784three - dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of
2794his testimony on this point.
279945. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not
2808properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves
2814adjustments to a model so that its pre dictions are in line with
2827known conditions. Verification is the test of a modelÓs ability
2837to predict a different set of known conditions.
284546. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model,
2854the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents
2863collected in 2006. The model showed a 90 - percent correlation
2874with water surface elevation and 87 - percent correlation to
2884velocity.
288547. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a
289495 - percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion
2903is no t generally accepted in the modeling community.
291248. Model verification , as described by Dr. Walton , is
2921generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always
2931practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field
2942data is not always available or practical to produce for a
2953verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea
2965floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model.
297449. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to
2986accept and consider sediment transport m odeling results that
2995have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton.
300650. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS
3016model, or Ðtest of model skill,Ñ as an evaluation of how well
3029the CMS modelÓs sediment transport predictions (morpho logical
3037changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (Ð LIDAR Ñ) data
3048collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the
3057patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of
3067focus.
306851. PetitionersÓ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that , over
3076the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed
3084substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies
3092between the modelÓs predictions and the LIDAR data make the
3102modelÓs predictions unreliable.
310552. Modeling sediment transport is a relat ively new tool
3115for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment
3124project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted,
3131and carried out for decades without the use of sediment
3141transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add
3150inform ation to the decision - making process. The modeling does
3161not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys,
3170and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without
3178modeling to make permit decisions.
318353. Sediment transport is a complex proce ss involving many
3193highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where
3202all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has
3213not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with
3224precision the topography of the sea floor at thousand s of LIDAR
3236points.
323754. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal
3247engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and
3255erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the
3265modelÓs accurate replication of known features of the Big
3274Saraso ta Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels
3286and the bypassing bars.
329055. The CMS modelÓs ability to predict morphological
3298trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected
3308impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb
3317shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport
3325pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of
3335the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and
3346renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts.
335356. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport
3360pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment
3370transport to Siesta Key. PetitionersÓ hypothesis is not
3378supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more
3387persuasiv e evidence indicates that sediment transport to
3395downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be
3405increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would
3415reenter the sediment transport pathways.
342057. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the
3429southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota
3439Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior
3448shoreline of north Siesta Key.
3453Wave Energy
345558. Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would
3463result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the
3473diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer
3484against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or
3494calculations to support this assertion.
349959. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small
3508percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would
3519remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key.
352660. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota
3535Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially
3545reduced by the ebb shoal. The predict ed increase in wave energy
3557that would occur as a result of the project could increase the
3569choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the
3578potential for wave - related erosion.
358461. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no
3592calculations of thei r own to support their allegation that the
3603project would significantly increase the potential for damage to
3612property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave
3622energy. To the extent that PetitionersÓ expert coastal engineer
3631opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to
3641rebut the ApplicantsÓ prima facie case on the subject of wave
3652energy.
3653Groins
365462. Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would
3663adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins
3673would capture san d that would otherwise drift south and benefit
3684Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows
3693the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand ÐstreamÑ
3704waterward of the renourished beach.
370963. The historic use of groins to capture downd rift
3719resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the
3728use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to
3737stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift
3745is an accepted practice in coastal engineering.
375264. The proposed g roins would not obstruct longshore
3761sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with
3769downdrift to Siesta Key.
3773Public Interest - General
377765. Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide
3785reasonable assurance that state water quality standar ds will not
3795be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity
3804is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the
3814proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an
3822Outstanding Florida Water (ÐOFWÑ), the applicant must provide
3830reaso nable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly
3840in the public interest.
384466. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions
3853of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the
3864Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed projec t is clearly
3874in the public interest.
387867. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the
3888public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider
3896and balance seven factors:
39001. Whether the activity will adversely
3906affect the public health, safe ty, or welfare
3914or the property of others;
39192. Whether the activity will adversely
3925affect the conservation of fish and
3931wildlife, including endangered or threatened
3936species, or their habitats;
39403. Whether the activity will adversely
3946affect navigation or th e flow of water or
3955cause harmful erosion or shoaling;
39604. Whether the activity will adversely
3966affect the fishing or recreational values or
3973marine productivity in the vicinity of the
3980activity;
39815. Whether the activity will be of a
3989temporary or permanent n ature;
39946. Whether the activity will adversely
4000affect or will enhance significant
4005historical and archaeological resources
4009under the provisions of section 267.061; and
40167. The current condition and relative value
4023of functions being performed by areas
4029affe cted by the proposed activity.
403568. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the
4045public interest because it would improve public safety by
4054providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm
4063damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and
4072provide beach - related recreational opportunities; and it would
4081create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts.
4089Public Interest - Safety
409369. Petitioners contend that the proposed project would
4101adversely affect public health, saf ety, welfare , or the property
4111of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially
4120reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found
4131above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this
4141contention.
4142Public Interest - Con servation of Fish and Wildlife
415170. Petitioners contend that the proposed project would
4159adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife,
4167including endangered or threatened species. The Permit
4174application materials provided evidence that the propose d
4182project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary
4191effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients,
4198turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was
4206sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not
4217adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because,
4226if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows
4235that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife.
424671. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the
4256burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that
4266adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not
4277enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish
4286species were not adequately addressed in the application
4294materials.
429572. With the excepti on of Dr. GilmoreÓs field
4304investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners
4311conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their
4323allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife.
433173. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout wer e
4340spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not
4350common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the
4359conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April
4368through September.
437074. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and
4381W ildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
4390Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware
4399that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout,
4410or considered this fact when commenting on the project.
441975. The spott ed seatrout is not a threatened or endangered
4430species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse
4440impacts to non - listed fish species, as well as recreational
4451fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would
4460destroy a spotted seatrou t spawning area, that is a strong
4471negative in the balancing of public interest factors.
447976. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse
4488impacts to spotted seatrout spawning.
449377. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by
4504post - larval s potted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass
4515nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are
4525depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation
4534at the Perico Rookery Sea grass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles
4545away, would not off set a loss of this refuge function because it
4558is not suitable as a refuge for post - larval spotted seatrout.
457078. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during
4579the same months as turtle nesting season , and DEP argued that
4590the turtle protection cond itions in the Permit to limit lighting
4601and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts
4610to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is
4619also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning
4628area and adjacent seagrass es.
463379. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area
4643where dredge C ut B is located. If C ut B were dredged during the
4658spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning
4668site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not
4677dis rupt or destroy the spawning site requires that C ut B not be
4691dredged during the spawning season.
469680. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post -
4707larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1, 2 00 feet of C ut C.
4722Reasonable assurance that the propose d project would not disrupt
4732or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern
47421, 2 00 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season.
475681. In summary, the proposed project would adversely
4764affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unle ss dredging was
4775restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as
4783described above.
4785Public Interest Î Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion
479482. Petitioners contend that the proposed project would
4802adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, an d would cause
4813harmful erosion to Siesta Key , but P etitioners conducted no
4823studies or calculations to support th is assertion. T he
4833preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts
4843would occur.
4845Public Interest Î Recreational Values
485083. Petit ioners contend that the proposed project would
4859adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of
4867harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found
4877above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would
4887adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational
4895fish species, unless dredging w as restricted during the spawning
4905season.
4906Public Interest - Value of Functions
491284. Petitioners contend that the proposed project would
4920adversely affect the current condition and re lative value of
4930functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed
4939project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As
4948found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project
4958would not adversely affect the coastal system. Howeve r, it
4968would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge
4977functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was
4986restricted during the spawning season.
4991Mitigation
499285. If a balancing of the public interest factors in
5002section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed
5011project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b)
5020provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the
5030adverse impacts.
503286. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation
5040Basin is withi n the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not
5054fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the
5065proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of
5075spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions.
508187. The mitigation for the loss o f spotted seatrout
5091spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are
5101avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as
5110described above.
5112Design Modifications
511488. Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not
5122evaluate the alterna tive of taking sand from offshore borrow
5132areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise.
5140Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the
5149Applicants were not required to address design modifications
5157other than alternative locations for t aking sand from the ebb
5168shoal and Big Sarasota Pass.
5173Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program
518089. Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review
5189the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone
5198Management Program (ÐFCZMPÑ), bec ause DEP failed to obtain an
5208affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed
5216project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive
5224Plan.
522590. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that
5235coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by
5243numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the
5253practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment
5264by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency.
527591. With respect to this particular project, the Stat e
5285Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit
5294application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
5302(ÐSWFRPCÑ) for comments regarding consistency with local
5309government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments.
531692. In a let ter dated June 26, 2015, the State
5327Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that Ðat this stage, the
5337proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].Ñ
534593. In a written Ðpeer reviewÑ of the proposed project
5355produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in
5363October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was
5373made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive
5381Plan.
538294. Sarasota County sen t a letter to DEP, dated August 24,
53942016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an
5404Environmental Impact Statement (ÐEISÑ) for the project.
5411Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the
5423proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota
5433County C omprehensive P lan.
543895. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be
5447inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota C ounty
5457Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the
5465proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that
5473Sarasota County believes the proposed project is in consistent
5482with this particular policy or any other policy of its
5492comprehensive plan.
5494CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
5497Jurisdiction
549896. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
5508matter of this proceeding. See §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), Fla.
5517Stat.
551897. This is a de novo proceeding under section 120.57. It
5529is intended to formulate final agency action, not to review
5539action taken earlier and preliminarily. See § 120.57(1)(k),
5547Fla. Stat.; McDonald v. DepÓt of Banking and Finance , 346 So.
55582d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DC A 1977).
5566Standing
556798. Parties to a chapter 120 proceeding include persons
5576whose substantial interests will be affected by the proposed
5585agency action. § 120.52(13), Fla. Stat. The standing of
5594Petitioners and Intervenor was not challenged. The record sho ws
5604the substantial interests of Petitioners and Intervenor could be
5613affected by the proposed Permit. Therefore, Petitioners and
5621Intervenor have standing under chapter 120.
562799. In addition, Petitioner and Intervenor associations
5634have standing under sectio n 403.412, Florida Statutes, as non -
5645profit organizations formed for the purpose of environmental
5653protection, with at least 25 members residing within Sarasota
5662County.
5663Burden and Standard of Proof
5668100. The procedure outlined in section 120.569(2)(p)
5675appli es to proceedings arising under chapter 373, Florida
5684Statutes. Section 120.569(2)(p) applies to this proceeding
5691because it arises under section 373.427, which provides for
5700concurrent review of activities that require an environmental
5708resource permit, a co astal construction permit, and proprietary
5717authorization from the Board of Trustees.
5723101. Under Section 120.569(2)(p), a permit applicant must
5731present a prima facie case of its entitlement to the permit,
5742which can be accomplished by submitting into eviden ce the permit
5753application, agency staff report, and related materials. The
5761City and the Corps satisfied their prima facie case for
5771entitlement to the Permit.
5775102. After the prima facie case has been met, a petitioner
5786challenging the issuance of a permit has the burden of ultimate
5797persuasion to show that the applicant has not provided
5806reasonable assurance that it will meet applicable permit
5814requirements. Reasonable assurance means Ða substantial
5820likelihood that the project will be successfully implemented .Ñ
5829Metro. Dade Cty. v. Coscan Fla., Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla.
58423d DCA 1992). It does not mean absolute guarantees.
5851103. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the
5861evidence. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.
5866104. Petitioners demonstrated by a prepon derance of the
5875evidence that the City and Corps have not provided reasonable
5885assurance that the project meets applicable criteria because the
5894proposed project would cause avoidable adverse impacts to the
5903conservation of the spotted seatrout. The Applicant s can
5912provide reasonable assurance if the proposed Permit is modified
5921to restrict dredging during the spotted seatrout spawning
5929season.
5930Project Engineering
5932105. Rule 62B - 41.005(3) requires DEP to consider the
5942following:
5943(a) Adequate engineering data conc erning
5949the existing coastal system, including
5954topography, bathymetry; wave and current
5959data; coastal processes, conditions and
5964morphological trends;
5966(b) Design features of the proposed
5972structures or activities; and
5976(c) Such other specific information or
5982calculations as are necessary for the
5988evaluation of the application.
5992DEP had adequate data to make its initial decision to issue the
6004Permit.
600510 6 . Rule 62B - 41.007 requires that all coastal
6016construction be sited and designed so as to minimize any
6026expect ed adverse impact to the coastal system, marine turtles
6036and adjacent property and structures. The term Ðcoastal systemÑ
6045is defined to exclude fish and wildlife. See Fla. Admin. Code
6056R. 62B - 41.002(9). The preponderance of the evidence shows the
6067Applicant sÓ compliance with rule 62B - 41.007.
607510 7 . Rule 62B - 41.005(5) prohibits structures that will
6086interfere with natural/offshore movements of sediment unless a
6094net positive benefit to the coastal system can reasonably be
6104expected and mitigation is provided. Th e preponderance of the
6114evidences shows the ApplicantsÓ compliance with this rule.
612210 8 . The application for the Permit and the additional
6133evidence provided at the final hearing included sufficient
6141technical information and analysis, including the modelling of
6149morphological trends, to support the DEPÓs determination that
6157the proposed project complies with all applicable criteria for
6166approval except for the various criteria related to adverse
6175impacts to fish and wildlife, because of the adverse impacts to
6186spo tted sea trout.
6190Cumulative Impact s
6193109. Section 10.2.8 of the ApplicantÓs Handbook, Volume 1,
6202requires consideration of whether this proposed project, in
6210conjunction with past, present, and future activities , would
6218amount to unacceptable cumulative impact s to surface water
6227functions in the basin. The proposed projects Ó adverse impacts
6237to the conservation of fish and wildlife, together with proposed
6247f uture impacts, would be unacceptable. However, the cumulative
6256impacts would be acceptable if the Permit we re modified to
6267r estrict dredging operations as recommended.
6273Licensed Florida Engineer
62761 10 . Petitioners contend that the Applicants failed to
6286comply with rule 62B - 41.007(4), which requires the design plans
6297and specifications, studies, and other coastal pro cess analyses
6306submitted as part of the permit application to be certified by a
6318professional engineer registered in the State of Florida.
632611 1 . DEPÓs practice not to impose this requirement on
6337Corps engineers is consistent with an advisory legal opinion
6346iss ued by the Florida Attorney General, which concluded that the
6357Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits
6365Florida from requiring by statute or rule that a Corps engineer
6376be licensed in Florida in order to secure a permit from DEP.
6388See Op. AttÓy Gen. Fla. 94 - 61 (1994).
6397Public Interest
639911 2 . The proposed project provides several public
6408benefits. However, considering and balancing the seven public
6416interest factors in section 373.414(1), the proposed project is
6425not clearly in the public inter est because it causes
6435unreasonable and avoidable adverse impacts to the conservation
6443of fish and wildlife, marine productivity, fishing recreation,
6451and the relative value of functions being performed by areas
6461affected. For the same reasons, the proposed p roject does not
6472comply with the public interest requirement of Florida
6480Administrative Code chapter 18 - 21 for acti viti es that requir e
6493approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund .
6504113. The proposed project would satisfy the public
6512intere st requirements of section 373.414(1) and chapter 18 - 21 if
6524the Permit were modified to restrict dredging operations during
6533the spotted seatrout spawning season.
6538Mitigation
653911 4 . Section 373.414(1)(b) requires DEP to consider
6548measures proposed by an applica nt to mitigate the adverse
6558impacts that may be caused by a proposed project. The
6568mitigation measures proposed by the Applicants do not fully
6577offset the impacts because the measures do not replace the loss
6588of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions.
6595Consideration of Design Modifications
659911 5 . Section 10.2.1 of the ApplicantÓs Handbook requires
6609an applicant to consider the practicability of design
6617modifications that could eliminate or reduce impacts to the
6626area, but does not require consideration of p rojects
6635significantly different in type of function. Because the
6643objective of this project was to use the ebb shoal as a long -
6657term sand source for renourishing Lido Key, the ApplicantsÓ
6666analysis was properly confined to considering different parts of
6675the ebb shoal for making dredge cuts.
6682Financial Assurances
668411 6 . Petitioners complain that the City and Corps have
6695offered no financial assurance that the proposed project will
6704perform as designed. However, there is no statute or rule
6714requirement for federal entities or local governments to provide
6723DEP with financial assurance to obtain a joint coastal permit.
6733Coastal Zone Consistency
673611 7 . The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (ÐCZMAÑ)
6746requires federal activities that are in or affect the coastal
6756zone to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
6766Ðthe enforceable policies of approved State management
6773programs.Ñ 16 U.S.C. £ 1456(c)(1)(A).
677811 8 . In furtherance of the CZMA, Florida has adopted a CZM
6791Program to be administered by DEP. See Part II, ch . 380, Fl a.
6805Stat. DEP is responsible for making consistency determinations
6813pursuant to the CZMA.
681711 9 . Section 373.428 provides that Ðthe final agency
6827action on a permit application shall constitute the stateÓs
6836determination as to whether the activity is consistent with the
6846federally approved Florida Coastal Zone Management Program.Ñ
6853Through its Notice of Intent to issue the Permit, DEP signaled
6864its determination that the Permit is consistent with the CZM
6874Program. See § 373.428, Fla. Stat. However, like DEPÓs
6883determination regarding any other regulatory criterion, DEPÓs
6890consistency determination is subject to de novo review in this
6900proceeding.
69011 20 . The Florida State Clearinghouse coordinates the
6910dissemination of coastal permit applications for comment
6917r egarding consistency with the enforceable policies of the
6926FCZMP. An agency that submits a determination of inconsistency
6935is an indispensable party to an administrative proceeding on the
6945issue. Id.
694712 1 . Among the enforceable policies of the FCZMP is
6958chap ter 163, Florida Statutes, which requires all development
6967undertaken by governmental agencies to be consistent with the
6976local governmentÓs comprehensive plan. £ 163.3194(1)(a), Fla.
6983Stat. For comment on the consistency of this proposed project
6993with chapt er 163, the State Clearinghouse sent a copy of the
7005permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
7013Council (ÐSWFRPCÑ). Under Florida Administrative Code R ule
702129I - 5.003(1)(a), SWFRPC is responsible for reviewing a proposed
7031project for Ðconsis tency with adopted regional and local goals,
7041objectives and policies.Ñ SWFRPC coordinates its review with
7049affected local governments. Fla. Admin. Code R. 29I - 4.004(3).
705912 2 . SWFRPC provided no comments to DEP regarding the
7070Permit, which DEP treated as a determination of consistency.
7079Whether this consistency determination is sufficient or correct
7087under chapter 163 is irrelevant. Even an affirmative
7095consistency comment from a local government to the State
7104Clearinghouse does not settle the question of whet her a project
7115is consistent with the local governmentÓs comprehensive plan
7123under chapter 163. A consistency comment is similar to a permit
7134applicantÓs demonstration that it owns or controls land, which
7143cann ot open a permit proceeding to dispute d issues re garding
7155land title, nor result in a legally binding determination of
7165land title. In this permit proceeding, the requirement for
7174consistency with the FCZMP was satisfied when Respondents showed
7183that the established commenting procedure was followed and no
7192inconsistency comment was received by DEP.
7198RECOMMENDATION
7199Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
7209Law, it is RECOMMENDED that
72141. DEP issue a f inal o rder approving the proposed agency
7226actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modi fied to
7238prohibit dredging operations in C ut B and the most eastern
72491, 2 00 feet of C ut C during April through September . If this
7264modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed
7274agency actions be DENIED ; and
72792. The joint coastal permit be mod ified to clarify that it
7291authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand.
7302DONE AND ENTERED this 8 th day of May , 2018 , in Tallahassee,
7314Leon County, Florida.
7317S
7318BRAM D. E. CANTER
7322Administrative Law Judge
7325Division of Administrative Hearings
7329The DeSoto Building
73321230 Apalachee Parkway
7335Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
7340(850) 488 - 9675
7344Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
7350www.doah.state.fl.us
7351Filed with the Clerk of the
7357Division of Administrative Hearings
7361this 8 th day of May , 2018 .
7369COPIES FURNISHED:
7371Kirk Sanders White, Esquire
7375Florida Department of Environmental Protection
7380Mail Station 35
73833900 Commonwealth Boulevard
7386Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
7391(eServed)
7392D. Kent Safriet, Esquire
7396Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.
7401Post Office Box 6526
7405T allahassee, Florida 32314
7409(eServed)
7410Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire
7414City of Sarasota
7417Room 100A
74191565 1st Street
7422Sarasota, Florida 34236
7425John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire
7430Gray Robinson, P.A.
7433Suite 1000
7435401 East Las Olas Boulevard
7440Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3 3301
7445(eServed)
7446Eric P. Summa
7449U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7454Post Office Box 4970
7458Jacksonville, Florida 32232
7461Martha Collins, Esquire
7464Collins Law Group
74671110 North Florida Avenue
7471Tampa, Florida 33602
7474(eServed)
7475Thomas W. Reese, Esquire
74792951 61st Avenue Sou th
7484St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 - 4539
7490(eServed)
7491Richard Green, Esquire
7494Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
7499Suite 501 - S
7503100 Second Avenue South
7507St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
7511(eServed)
7512Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire
7516Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
7521Suite 501 - S
7525100 Se cond Avenue South
7530St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
7534(eServed)
7535E. Christopher Lambert, Esquire
7539United States Army Corps of Engineers
7545701 San Marco Boulevard
7549Jacksonville, Florida 32207
7552(eServed)
7553L ea Crandall, Agency Clerk
7558Department of Environmental Pr otection
7563Douglas Building, Mail Station 35
75683900 Commonwealth Boulevard
7571Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
7576(eServed)
7577Noah Valenstein, Secretary
7580Department of Environmental Protection
7584Douglas Building
75863900 Commonwealth Boulevard
7589Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 30 00
7595(eServed)
7596Robert A. Williams, General Counsel
7601Department of Environmental Protection
7605Legal Department, Suite 1051 - J
7611Douglas Building, Mail Station 35
76163900 Commonwealth Boulevard
7619Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
7624(eServed)
7625NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT E XCEPTIONS
7632All parties have the right to submit written exceptions
7641within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any
7652exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the
7662agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 06/18/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioners', the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness, and Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., and Peter Van Roekens and Diane Erne's, Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/18/2018
- Proceedings: United States Army Corps of Engineers' Response in Opposition to Petitioners Amended Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/18/2018
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's Response to Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/18/2018
- Proceedings: Respondnet, City of Sarasota and Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Assiciation, Inc.'s Joint Response to Petitioners' Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/18/2018
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc., Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/18/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioners', the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness, and Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., and Peter Van Roekens and Diane Erne's, Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/08/2018
- Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held December 12 through 15 and 18, 2017). CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/08/2018
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/11/2018
- Proceedings: City of Sarasota's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/11/2018
- Proceedings: Respondent United States Army Corps of Engineers' Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/11/2018
- Proceedings: Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order of Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/11/2018
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's Supplement to Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/04/2018
- Proceedings: Respondents' City of Sarasota's, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's and Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s Joint Motion to Strike Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2018
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's Proposed Recommended Order (DUPLICATE) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2018
- Proceedings: Respondent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2018
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2018
- Proceedings: Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc. and Michael S. Holderness and Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc and Peter Van Roekens and Diane Erne's, Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/02/2018
- Proceedings: Joint Proposed Recommended Order of Respondent the City of Sarasota and Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/15/2017
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for December 18 and 19, 2017; 9:30 a.m.; Sarasota and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Hearing Location).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners' Joint Response to Joint Motion of the Respondents' and Intervenor for Prehearing Conference filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/04/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness' Second Amended Exhibit Disclosure List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/04/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness' Amended Exhibit Disclosure List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/01/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Second Amended Disclosure of Potential Expert Witnesses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/01/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Dr. Stephen Meyer) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/22/2017
- Proceedings: Save our Siesta Sands 2, Inc.'s Peter Van Roekens' and Diane Erne's Exhibit Disclosure List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/22/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s Exhibit List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/22/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness' Amended Exhibit Disclosure List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/22/2017
- Proceedings: Respondents' State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees' Exhibit List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/20/2017
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 12 through 15, 18, and 19, 2017; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL; amended as to Hearing Location).
- PDF:
- Date: 11/13/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Amended Disclosure of Potential Expert Witnesses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/24/2017
- Proceedings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Joinder Regarding Joint Motion Regarding Application of Section 120.569(2)(p), Florida Statutes as the Burden of Proof at Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/24/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Joint Motion of the Respondents' and Intervenor regarding Application of Section 120.569(2)(p), Florida Statutes as the Burden of Proof at Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/23/2017
- Proceedings: Joint Motion of the Respondents and Intervenor Regarding Application of Section 120.569(2)(p), Florida Statutes as the Burden of Proof at Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/17/2017
- Proceedings: Order (FWF's motion is Granted and the second amended petition filed with the motion is accepted).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/13/2017
- Proceedings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response in Opposition to Florida Wildlife Federation's Motion for Approval to File Second Amended Petition for Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/13/2017
- Proceedings: Joint Response of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Board of Trustees', City of Sarasota and Lido Key Residents' Association In Opposition to Florida Wildlife Federation's Motion for Approval to File Second Amended Petition For Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/06/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Motion for Approval to File the Attached Second Amended Petition for Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/16/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 12 through 15, 18, and 19, 2017; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/04/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness' Exhibit Disclosure List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/03/2017
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by August 18, 2017).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/03/2017
- Proceedings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Notice of Substitution of Counsel (EC Lambert for CT Pino) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/02/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s Exhibit List filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/02/2017
- Proceedings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response in Opposition to Florida Wildlife Federation's Second Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/31/2017
- Proceedings: Joint Response of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, City of Sarasota and Lido Key Residents' Association in Opposition to Florida Wildlife Federation's Second Motion for Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/31/2017
- Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Dr. Robert Young) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/28/2017
- Proceedings: FWF's Corrected Notice of Filing the Corps Responses to FWF's Requests for Admission Nos. 21-24 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/27/2017
- Proceedings: FWF's Notice of Filing the Corps Responses to FWF's Requests for Admission Nos. 21-24 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/25/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Second Motion for Recommended Order of Dismissal filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/24/2017
- Proceedings: City of Sarasota and Lido Key Residents Association, Inc. First Amended Joint Supplemental Witness Disclosure filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/24/2017
- Proceedings: Lido Key Residents Association, Inc. Supplemental Witness Disclosure filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/18/2017
- Proceedings: City's Notice of Service of Responses to Siesta Key Association, Inc. and Michael Holderness' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/18/2017
- Proceedings: City's Responses to Siesta Key Association, Inc. and Michael Holderness's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/18/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. R. Grant Gilmore filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/18/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Mark E. Luther filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/17/2017
- Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Deposition of Manley K. Fuller, III as Corporate Representative for Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. (date correction) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/17/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition of Manley K. Fuller, III as Corporate Representative for Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/13/2017
- Proceedings: Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Disclosure of Rebuttal Witnesses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/13/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Disclosure Potential Expert Witnesses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/13/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness' Initial Witness Disclosure filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/13/2017
- Proceedings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Final Disclosure of Witnesses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/13/2017
- Proceedings: Save our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens, and Diane Erne Witness Disclosure filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Serving Response Petitioners' Florida Wildlife Federation, Second Set of Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 17-001455).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Serving Response Petitioners, the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Serving Response to Petitioners, the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/12/2017
- Proceedings: Second Corrected (to include exhibit) Joint Response of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, City of Sarasota and Lido Key Residents' Association in Opposition to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Corrected Joint Response of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, City of Sarasota and Lido Key Residents' Association in Opposition to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Joint Response of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, City of Sarasota and Lido Key Residents' Association in Opposition to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's, Diane Erne, Notice of Serving Verified Answers to Respondent's, Department of Environmental Protection, First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's, Peter Van Roekens, Notice of Serving Verified Answers to Respondent's, Department of Environmental Protection, First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's, Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Notice of Serving Verified Answers to Respondent's, Department of Environmental Protection, First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's, Diane Erne, Response to Department of Environmental Protection, First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's, Peter Van Roekens, Response to Department of Environmental Protection, First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/10/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's, Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Response to Department of Environmental Protection, First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/07/2017
- Proceedings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response in Opposition for Florida Wildlife Federation's First Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/07/2017
- Proceedings: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Responses to Petitioners, The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's First Request For Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/07/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's Notice of Serving Response to Petitioners, The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc. and Michael S. Holderness's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/07/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Serving Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's Second Set of Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/07/2017
- Proceedings: Michael Holderness' Response to Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/07/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc.'s, Response to the Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/07/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness', Notice of Serving Verified Answers to Respondent's, Florida Department of Environmental Protection's, First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/06/2017
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 22 through 25 and 28 through 31, 2017; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL; amended as to final hearing location).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/06/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Dismissal of Jeanne Ezcurra (filed in Case No. 17-001456).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/06/2017
- Proceedings: Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Florida Wildlife Federation's Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/05/2017
- Proceedings: Order (changing style of case due to voluntary dismissal of parties).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/05/2017
- Proceedings: The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., and Michael S. Holderness' Supplemental Response to Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s, First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/03/2017
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc. Corporate Representative/Catherine Luckner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/03/2017
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc.'s Corporate Representative filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Dismissal of William A. Bortz and David N. Patton filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's First Motion for Summary Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Dr. Robert Young) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition of Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc.'s Corporate Representative filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition of the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc. Corporate Representative/Catherine Luckner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Todd Walton filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Robert Young filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/13/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service the FWF's Supplemental Responses to Department of Environmental Regulation's Interrogatory Nos. 3-16 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/09/2017
- Proceedings: FWF's Second Set of Requests for Admission and Interrogatories to the FDEP filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service the FWF's Amended Responses to Department of Environmental Regulation's Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Jeanne Ezcurra filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Diane Erne filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Peter Van Roekens filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Jeanne Ezcurra filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Diane Erne filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Peter Van Roekens filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Save Our Sands 2 Inc.filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: FWF's Second Set of Requests for Admission and Interrogatories to the Corps filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner David N. Patton filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner William A. Bortz filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Michael S. Holderness filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, David N. Patton filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, William A. Bortz filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Michael S. Holderness filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s Answer to Petitioners, Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz and David N. Patton's, First Set of Interrogatories file
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners, The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's First Request for Production of Documents to the City of Sarasota filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners, The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to the City of Sarasota filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners, The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N.Patton's First Request for Production of Documents to the Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners, The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to the Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's First Request for Production of Documents to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N.Patton's First Set of Interrogatories to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/06/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s, Notice to Withdraw It's Motion to Compel Better Answers to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/31/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners, the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's Response in Opposition to Lido Key Resident's Association, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/31/2017
- Proceedings: Objections and Responses to Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federation's First Request for Production of Documents (filed in Case No. 17-001455).
- PDF:
- Date: 05/30/2017
- Proceedings: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Responses to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/30/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/24/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/22/2017
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Amended Agency Action filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/18/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's Notice of Filing Non-redline Version of Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings Notice of Filing Non-Redline Version of Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/09/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Supplemental Response to Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s Request No. 1 for Production of Document filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/08/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Petitioners' The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S.Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/08/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A.Bortz, and David N. Patton's First Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/04/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners' Save our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens, Diane Erne, and Jeanne Ezcurra, Amended Response to Intervenors' Lido Key Resident's Association, Inc, First Request for Production Number 2 (filed in Case No. 17-001456).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/27/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/24/2017
- Proceedings: Plaintiffs', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz and David N. Patton's Response to Lido Key Resident's Association, Inc.'s, First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/24/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz and David N. Patton's, Notice of Serving Verified Answers to Intervenor, Lido Key Resident's Association, Inc.'s, First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/24/2017
- Proceedings: FLorida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of Responses to Lido Key Residents Association, Inc. Interrogatories and Requests for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/24/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens, Diane Erne and Jeanne Ezcurra, Response to Intervenors', Lido Key Resident's Association, Inc., First Request for Production (filed in Case No. 17-001456).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/24/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioners', Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens, Diane Erne and Jeanne Ezcurra, Notice of Serving Verified Answers to Intervenors', Lido Key Resident's Association, Inc., First Set of Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 17-001456).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/18/2017
- Proceedings: City's Notice of Service of Responses to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Set of Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 17-001455).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/18/2017
- Proceedings: City of Sarasota's Responses to Florida Wildlife Federation's First Set of Requests for Admissions (filed in Case No. 17-001455).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/18/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Notice of Service of Responses to Department of Environmental Regulation's Interrogatories Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/17/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of Answers to First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Florida Wildlife Federation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/14/2017
- Proceedings: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Florida Wildlife Federation's Request For Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/14/2017
- Proceedings: Objections and Responses to Petitioner Florida Wildlife Federation's First Set of Discovery Requests to Respondent, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (filed in Case No. 17-001455).
- PDF:
- Date: 04/10/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Wildlife Federation's Response in Opposition to Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/07/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees' Motion to Strike Portions of Florida Wildlife Federation's Petition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/04/2017
- Proceedings: Response of Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association, Inc. to Petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/03/2017
- Proceedings: Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton's Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/28/2017
- Proceedings: Save our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens', Diane Erne's, and Jeanne Ezcurra's Response to Order to Show Cause (filed in Case No. 17-001456).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/27/2017
- Proceedings: Response of Intervener Lido Key Residents Association to Order to Show Cause filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/27/2017
- Proceedings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Response to the March 22, 2017 Motion to Show Cause filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/27/2017
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc. ("SKA"), Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz and David N. Patton's Response to Order to Show Cause filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s First Request for Production Directed to Florida Wildlife Federation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s First Request for Production Directed to Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens, Diane Erne and Jeanne Ezcurra filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2017
- Proceedings: Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s First Request for Production Directed to the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz, and David N. Patton filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Florida Wildlife Federation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners', Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc., Peter Van Roekens, Diane Erne and Jeanne Ezcurra filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Intervenor, Lido Key Residents Association, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners', The Siesta Key Association of Sarasota, Inc., Michael S. Holderness, William A. Bortz and David N. Patton filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/24/2017
- Proceedings: City of Sarasota's Response in Opposition to Siesta Keys Association Inc., Michael S. Holderness; William A. Bortz; and David N. Patton's Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance and the Administrative Law Judge's Order to Show Cause filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/23/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees' Response to the Order to Show Cause filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/21/2017
- Proceedings: Response of Intervener Lido Key Residents Association to Supplemental Response to Inital Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/21/2017
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 22 through 25 and 28 through 31, 2017; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/21/2017
- Proceedings: (Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees) Supplemental Response to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 03/21/2017
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/20/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Florida Wildlife Federation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/17/2017
- Proceedings: FWF's First Set of Discovery Requests to Each of the Respondents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/17/2017
- Proceedings: (Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees) Response to Initial Order and Motion for Status Conference filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/17/2017
- Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Trustees' Response to the Siesta Key Association of Sarasota Inc.'s Motion to Hold Case In Abeyance filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/15/2017
- Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 17-1449, 17-1455, and 17-1456)).
Case Information
- Judge:
- BRAM D. E. CANTER
- Date Filed:
- 03/09/2017
- Date Assignment:
- 03/10/2017
- Last Docket Entry:
- 06/18/2018
- Location:
- Sarasota, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Counsels
-
Brittany McInnis Berger, Assistant District Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 232-1737 -
Adam F. Blalock, Esquire
Hopping Green & Sams
119 S. Monroe St., Suite 300
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 425-2272 -
Martha Collins, Esquire
Collins Law Group
1110 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 273-9166 -
Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire
City of Sarasota
Room 100A
1565 1st Street
Sarasota, FL 34236 -
James B. Fussell, Assistant General Counsel
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
MS-35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 452-2248 -
Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire
Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.
Suite 620
101 Riverfront Boulevard
Bradenton, FL 34205
(941) 708-4040 -
Richard Green, Esquire
Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
Suite 620
101 Riverfront Boulevard
Bradenton, FL 34205
(941) 708-4040 -
Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire
Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
Suite 620
101 Riverfront Boulevard
Bradenton, FL 34205
(941) 708-4040 -
John R. Herin, Esquire
Gray Robinson, P.A.
Suite 1000
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 761-7500 -
Aubree G. Hershorin, Esquire
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207 -
Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire
Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.
P.O. Box 6526
Tallahassee, FL 32314
(850) 222-7500 -
Brooks Wilkerson Moore, Esquire
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 232-1164 -
Charles Thomas Pino, Esquire
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207 -
Thomas W. Reese, Esquire
2951 61st Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 337124539
(727) 867-8228 -
D Kent Safriet, Esquire
Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.
Post Office Box 6526
Tallahassee, FL 32314
(850) 222-7500 -
Eric P. Summa
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232 -
Kirk Sanders White, Esquire
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 323993000
(850) 245-2258 -
Brittany McInnis Berger, Assistant District Counsel
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 232-1737 -
Adam F. Blalock, Esquire
119 S. Monroe St., Suite 300
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 425-2272 -
Martha Collins, Esquire
1110 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 273-9166 -
Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire
Room 100A
1565 1st Street
Sarasota, FL 34236 -
Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire
Suite 620
101 Riverfront Boulevard
Bradenton, FL 34205
(941) 708-4040 -
Richard Green, Esquire
Suite 501-S
100 Second Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727) 245-0820 -
Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire
Suite 501-S
100 Second Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727) 245-0820 -
John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire
Suite 1000
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 761-8111 -
Aubree G. Hershorin, Esquire
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207 -
Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire
Post Office Box 6526
Tallahassee, FL 32314
(850) 222-7500 -
Brooks Wilkerson Moore, Esquire
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 232-1164 -
Charles Thomas Pino, Esquire
701 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32207 -
D Kent Safriet, Esquire
Post Office Box 6526
Tallahassee, FL 32314
(850) 222-7500 -
Eric P. Summa
Post Office Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232 -
Kirk Sanders White, Esquire
Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 323993000
(850) 245-2258 -
Kirk S White, Esquire
Address of Record -
Richard P. Green, Esquire
Address of Record