welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Kenneth Brian Hayman
Kenneth Brian Hayman
Kenneth Brian Hayman
Visitors: 47
0
Bar #94250(FL)     License for 28 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Kenneth Brian Hayman? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

17-003684RP  BASF CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 26, 2017
The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-304.305(5) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.DEP failed to prove that the proposed rule, which would establish a Total Maximum Daily Load for nutrients in Lake Talquin, was not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
11-006137RP  FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC.; SIERRA CLUB, INC.; CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.; ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.; AND ST. JOHNS RIVERKEEPER, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 01, 2011
The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(47)(b) of the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department"), referred to as the "narrative nutrient rule," is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and whether certain proposed rules of the Department, which amend Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-302, entitled “Surface Water Quality Standards” and 62-303, entitled “Identification of Impaired Surface Waters,” are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.Petitioners failed to prove the DEP's narrative nutrient rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. DEP proved the proposed changes to chapters 62-302 & 62-303 were not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
12-000157RP  FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC.; SIERRA CLUB, INC.; CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.; ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.; AND ST. JOHNS RIVERKEEPER, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 12, 2012
Petitioners failed to prove the DEP's narrative nutrient rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. DEP proved the proposed changes to chapters 62-302 & 62-303 were not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
19-000647  SILVER SPRINGS ALLIANCE, INC., AND RAINBOW RIVER CONSERVATION, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
The issues to be determined in this matter are: (1) whether the five separate orders issued by the Secretary of DEP on June 29, 2018, adopting five basin management action plans (BMAPs) for the Suwannee River, the Volusia Blue Spring, the Silver Springs-Rainbow Spring Group, the Santa Fe River, and the Wekiwa Spring-Rock Springs, comply with the provisions of section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act, sections 373.801 through 373.813, Florida Statutes (the Act); and (2) whether Petitioners demonstrated that their substantial interests were affected and, therefore, have standing.The preponderance of the evidence established that the five BMAPs were valid because they were designed to achieve the TMDLs, as required by sections 373.807 and 403.067, and did implement the provisions of those laws.
19-000644  SIERRA CLUB vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
The issues to be determined in this matter are: (1) whether the five separate orders issued by the Secretary of DEP on June 29, 2018, adopting five basin management action plans (BMAPs) for the Suwannee River, the Volusia Blue Spring, the Silver Springs-Rainbow Spring Group, the Santa Fe River, and the Wekiwa Spring-Rock Springs, comply with the provisions of section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act, sections 373.801 through 373.813, Florida Statutes (the Act); and (2) whether Petitioners demonstrated that their substantial interests were affected and, therefore, have standing.The preponderance of the evidence established that the five BMAPs were valid because they were designed to achieve the TMDLs, as required by sections 373.807 and 403.067, and did implement the provisions of those laws.
19-000645  THOMAS GREENALGH vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
The issues to be determined in this matter are: (1) whether the five separate orders issued by the Secretary of DEP on June 29, 2018, adopting five basin management action plans (BMAPs) for the Suwannee River, the Volusia Blue Spring, the Silver Springs-Rainbow Spring Group, the Santa Fe River, and the Wekiwa Spring-Rock Springs, comply with the provisions of section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act, sections 373.801 through 373.813, Florida Statutes (the Act); and (2) whether Petitioners demonstrated that their substantial interests were affected and, therefore, have standing.The preponderance of the evidence established that the five BMAPs were valid because they were designed to achieve the TMDLs, as required by sections 373.807 and 403.067, and did implement the provisions of those laws.
19-000646  SAVE THE MANATEE CLUB, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
The issues to be determined in this matter are: (1) whether the five separate orders issued by the Secretary of DEP on June 29, 2018, adopting five basin management action plans (BMAPs) for the Suwannee River, the Volusia Blue Spring, the Silver Springs-Rainbow Spring Group, the Santa Fe River, and the Wekiwa Spring-Rock Springs, comply with the provisions of section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act, sections 373.801 through 373.813, Florida Statutes (the Act); and (2) whether Petitioners demonstrated that their substantial interests were affected and, therefore, have standing.The preponderance of the evidence established that the five BMAPs were valid because they were designed to achieve the TMDLs, as required by sections 373.807 and 403.067, and did implement the provisions of those laws.
19-000648  OUR SANTA FE RIVER, INC.; ICHETUCKNEE ALLIANCE, INC.; GINNIE SPRINGS OUTDOORS, LLC; AND JIM TATUM vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
The issues to be determined in this matter are: (1) whether the five separate orders issued by the Secretary of DEP on June 29, 2018, adopting five basin management action plans (BMAPs) for the Suwannee River, the Volusia Blue Spring, the Silver Springs-Rainbow Spring Group, the Santa Fe River, and the Wekiwa Spring-Rock Springs, comply with the provisions of section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act, sections 373.801 through 373.813, Florida Statutes (the Act); and (2) whether Petitioners demonstrated that their substantial interests were affected and, therefore, have standing.The preponderance of the evidence established that the five BMAPs were valid because they were designed to achieve the TMDLs, as required by sections 373.807 and 403.067, and did implement the provisions of those laws.
19-000649  PAUL STILL vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
The issues to be determined in this matter are: (1) whether the five separate orders issued by the Secretary of DEP on June 29, 2018, adopting five basin management action plans (BMAPs) for the Suwannee River, the Volusia Blue Spring, the Silver Springs-Rainbow Spring Group, the Santa Fe River, and the Wekiwa Spring-Rock Springs, comply with the provisions of section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act, sections 373.801 through 373.813, Florida Statutes (the Act); and (2) whether Petitioners demonstrated that their substantial interests were affected and, therefore, have standing.The preponderance of the evidence established that the five BMAPs were valid because they were designed to achieve the TMDLs, as required by sections 373.807 and 403.067, and did implement the provisions of those laws.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer