Title: Wetlands of Seminole County: Technical Report 41
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000732/00001
 Material Information
Title: Wetlands of Seminole County: Technical Report 41
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Center for Wetlands University of Florida
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Wetlands of Seminole County: Technical Report 41, January 1983
General Note: Box 7, Folder 2 ( Vail Conference 1987 - 1987 ), Item 8
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000732
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text






A WETLANDS STUDY OF SEMINOLE COUNTY


Identification, Evaluation, and Preparation of
Development Standards and Guidelines





M. T. Brown and E. M. Starnes



with



C. Diamond, B. Dunn, P. McKay, M. Noonan,
S. Schreiber, J. Sendzimir, S. Thompson,
and B. Tighe


Technical Report 41
January 1983


Center for Wetlands
University of Florida


_ _~____~___~ _1_~__II______





































I











. !
ii
i


U;














iI
I


Large (>50 acres)
Medium (10-50 acres)
Small (0.5-9 acres)


3 points
2 points
1 point


B. Connectedness. The extent of connection to major wetland or
aquatic systems is a factor that must be considered. The more
extensive the connection, the greater potential for contribu-
tions to food chains, water quality enhancement, and flood pro-
tection. With less extensive connections the wetland community
does not play as an important role in these functions. The con-
nection may be determined by ground survey, aerial photos, or
USGS maps. Values shall be attributed to wetlands based on the
following table of values.

Major connection (i.e., flowing water system or floodplain
wetland forest) 3 points
Minor connection (i.e., runoff wetland where waters flow
through or during times of heavy rainfall tend to be
areas of relatively low velocity flows) 2 points
Isolated (i.e., cypress domes or some shallow marshes and
bayheads) 1 point

C. Landscape Diversity. Landscape diversity (edge effect)-The
diversity of the surrounding landscape plays an important role
in determining the value of any particular wetland. The greater
diversity of communities that surround a given wetland commun-
ity, the greater the potential for utilization of the community


Appendix A and described in Article IV of this ordinance: Deep
Marsh, Mixed Hardwood Swamp, Cypress Dome, Bayhead, Hydric Ham-
mock, Shallow Marsh, and Wet Prairie. Every wetland community
must be classified in one or more of these categories for each
proposed development. The Division of Environmental Services
shall be responsible for verifying these classifications, and
for incorporating comments on review to the Development Review
Committee. The Development Review Committee shall inform the
applicant as to compliance and verification of wetland type.

11.3.4 Evaluation for Significance.

All applications for a wetlands development permit shall be evaluated by
the Division of Environmental Services. This evaluation and assignment of
values shall be based upon the following criteria:

A. Size. The size of a wetland is important. While the values
associated with a particular type of community on a unit area
basis may be relatively low, when total area is taken into
account the contribution of large wetlands of low value may be
higher than small wetlands of high value. For example, contri-
butions to food chains by very productive wetlands is high on a
unit area basis. But a large area of a less productive wetland
may contribute substantially to food chains even though the unit
area productivity is lower. Values shall be attributed to wet-
lands based on the following table of values.


Undisturbed
Somewhat altered
Completely altered


3 points
2 points
1 point


E. Intactness. The condition of the wetland community is of impor-
tance. Some wetlands have had extensive alterations in water
flow characteristics, vegetation, drainage, fire, etc. With
such alteration, functions may be impaired and thus values
lower. The ranking is based on the degree of alteration of the
wetlands structures and functions, and may be determined by
ground survey and in some cases from aerial photos. Examples of
somewhat altered conditions include berming around wetlands
(that will effect surface water flows), and adjacent drainage
channels that do not effect surface water inflow or outflow, but
do effect groundwater levels. Somewhat altered also includes
selective harvesting of timber. Examples of major alteration
include drainage channels cut through the wetland so as to alter
hydroperiod and flow characteristics, clear-cutting of vegeta-
tion, major fire damage, and harvesting of peat. Values shall
be attributed to wetlands based on the following table of
values.


by wildlife. For example, a Cypress Dome surrounded by Pine
Platwoods is considered as embedded in one community; a shallow
marsh that borders a Pine Flatwood and a Bayhead is considered
to be embedded in two other communities; and a Hydric Hammock
that borders a Mixed Hardwood Swamp, a Mesic Hammock and a Pine
Flatwood is considered to be embedded in greater than two other
communities. The ranking is determined using either a ground
survey or aerial photographs to ascertain the type and numbers
of different communities that surround the wetland in question.
Values shall be attributed to wetlands based on the following
table of values.

Embedded in greater than two other communities with clear
transitions 3 points
Embedded in two other communities 2 points
Embedded in one other community 1 point

D. Quality of Surrounding Landscape. The overall quality or degree
of alteration of the surrounding landscape is important since a
particular wetland community may have higher potential for wild-
life habitat, water quality enhancement, flood protection, etc.,
depending on the condition of the surroundings. The ranking is
hsed on highest values associated with least altered surround-
ing landscape and may be determined using ground survey or aeri-
al photographs. A completely altered landscape is cleared of
natural vegetation and has been converted to some use such *as
agriculture or urban development. A somewhat modified condition
is altered to a lesser degree and may include drainage facili-
ties and/or converted to silvicultural activities or may be par-
tially cleared of understory vegetation. Values shall be
attributed to wetlands based on the following table of values.


_ -------l^~---*mralr rx-iLXu^l;rr--*-io-r n~_Y-WI-u_^-L---Y


I .



















Pristine
Somewhat altered
Major alteration


3 points
2 points'
1 point


F. Uniqueness. The, scarcity of a particular wetland within the
county and surrounding counties is of importance. Of primary
concern is the scarcity of the wetlands within regions of the
county. A survey of the area under question pertaining to
review of a potential development will reveal whether or not a
particular wetland type is scarce in that region of the county.
Values shall be attributed to wetlands based on the following
table of values.


Very Scarce
Somewhat common
Common


3 points
2 points
1 point


G. Summation and Significance. The sum of scores from A, B, C, D,
E, and F above provides the means to evaluate significance of
wetlands. The evaluation is performed by adding the values
derived in A, B, C, D, E, and F above. If the sum equals 12 to
18 points, the value of the wetland must be considered high. If
the sum is less than or equal to 8, then the value of the wet-
land must be considered low (or nominal). Compatibility in the
Use Guideline Matrix in Article IV of this ordinance may change
as a result of the scoring in the evaluation of significance.
If the wetland is evaluated as having high significance (a score
of 12 to 18), the Division of Environmental Services shall
change all compatible (C) activities in the Use Guideline Matrix
to compatible with permit (CP). If the wetland is evaluated as
having a low significance (a score of 8 or less), the Division
of Environmental Services shall change all incompatible (I)
activities in the Use Guideline Matrix to compatible with permit
(CP).

H. Endangered Species. If there is strong evidence, and such evi-
dence can be substantiated by the Division of Environmental Serv-
ices that the wetlands) and/or adjacent area within 300 feet of
the wetlands) is a habitat for endangered species then no per-
mit will be issued and all activities shall be considered incom-
patible. For the purposes of determining endangered species,
the most recent list published by the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission shall be used for animals, and the mast
recent list published by the Florida Department of Agriculture
shall be used for plants. This provision may be modified by the
Development Review Committee acting upon a recommendation of the
Division of Environmental Services.

11.3.5 Determination of Use and Compatibility with Wetlands.

The Division of Environmental Services shall determine whether the activ-
ity for which the wetlands development permit is proposed is compatible,
incompatible, or compatible with permit. In making this determination,
the Division of Environmental Services shall use the definitions of devel-


opment activities in Article IV of this ordinance as a guide and shall use
the Use Guideline Matrix in Article IV of this ordinance to determine
compatibility. This determination shall be made within seven (7) working
days and a written finding shall be attached to the application for a wet-
lands development permit. This determination is subject to the evaluation
for significance made by the Division of Environmental Services pursuant
to the provisions of subsection 11.3.4 of this ordinance.

3.6 Procedure for Permitting.

The ad Development Division acting upon determination of the Division of
Enviro mental Services shall be responsible for issuing a permit for wet-
land de lopment if a determination has been made that the proposed devel-
opment is compatible with permit; or issuing an order confirming the
determinati that the proposed development is compatible and no permit is
required; or issuing an order that the proposed development is incompat-
ible and no p it will be issued. In any of these three events, the
applicant must notified in writing as to the status of determination
made by the Land development Division.

A. Conditions Permit and Inspection.

1. Compatabiliy by Issuance of Permit. The Land Development
Division act g upon the determination of the Division of
Environmental Slrvices may issue a permit for development in
wetlands pursuan to the standards and guidelines for wetland
development in Ar cle IV of this ordinance. The standards
and guidelines for tland development shall be written and
attached to the app nation for wetland development. The
permit for wetland dev opment shall be conditioned by the
standards and guidelines prepared for the particular applica-
tion and shall form the be s of the permit.

2. Development Inspection. Deve pment in wetlands subject to
this provision shall be carrie out with strict adherence to
the conditions of the permit and all be subject to periodic
inspections performed by the Divi on of Environmental Ser-
vices. A final inspection shall be a by the Division of
Environmental Services and a deter m tion made as to the
adequacy of the development in meeting e conditions of the
permit. If all conditions have been t, the Divsion of
Environmental Services shall notify the a licant, the Land
Development Division, and the appropriate co ty agency which
is responsible for issuing a certificate of cupancy. If
conditions are not met, the Division of Envir mental Ser-
vices shall notify the applicant, the Land Devel ent Divi-
sion, and the appropriate county agency which is r ponsible
for issuing a certificate of occupancy concerning a non-
compliance(s) of the development to the conditions se forth
in the wetlands development permit. In case of non-ccli-
ance(s), the certificate of occupancy shall be withheld un1l
all conditions are met.













































RECEIVED JAN


V987




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs