Title: Florida Administrative Weekly
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000733/00001
 Material Information
Title: Florida Administrative Weekly
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 12. No. 1, January 2, 1987
General Note: Box 7, Folder 2 ( Vail Conference 1987 - 1987 ), Item 9
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000733
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





Florida Administrative Weekly Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2,1987
r MP


TIME AND DATE: 10:00 am., January 26, 1987
PLACE: Room 342, 1311 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-2500
THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE
PROPOSED REPEAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
STATEMENT IS: Perri M. King, Office of the General
Counsel, Department of Corrections, 1311 Winewood
Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE REPEALS
ARE:
33-17.001 Definitions.
Specific Authority 20.315, 944.09. 945.21. 944.485 FS. Law Implemented 944.485 FS.
History-New 6-1-79, Formerly 17.01, R led
33-17.002 Assessment Procedure.
Specific Authority 20.315, 944.09, 944.485 FS. Law Implemented 944.486 FS. History-
New 51-79. Formerly 17.02, Repealed
33-17.003 Forms.
Specific Authority 20.815, 944.09 946.21. 944.486 FS. Law Implemented 944.485 FS.
History-New -1-79, Formerly 3317.03 Reealed
NAME OF PERSON ORIGINATING PROPOSED RULE:
Bill Thurber
NAME OF SUPERVISOR OR PERSON WHO APPROVED
THE PROPOSED RULE: David D. Bachman
DATE PROPOSED RULE APPROVED: October 26,1986

31. WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
Southwest Florida Water Management District
RULE TITLES: RULE NOS.:
Publications Incorporated by Reference 40D-4.091
Conditions for Issuance of Permits 40D-4.301
PURPOSE, EFFECT AND SUMMARY: The purpose of this
proposed rulemaking is to address Chapter 86-186, Laws of
Florida, which created section 373.414, F.S., regarding isolated
wetlands. That law required certain water management
districts to incorporate within their surface water management
permitting program criteria for review of fish and wildlife and
their habitat, protection of threatened and endangered species,
and consideration of offsite and cumulative impacts for
isolated wetlands. The effect of this rulemaking is to establish
more specific permitting criteria for the review of isolated
wetlands which the District currently regulates pursuant to
Chapter 373, F.S., and rules 40D-4 and 40D-40, F.A.C., the
comprehensive surface water management permit program.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: 120.54(8), 373.044,373.113,
373.171, 373.414, 403.812, F.S.
LAW IMPLEMENTED: 120.54(8), 120.60, 373.403, 373.413,
373.414, 373.416, 373.426, 373.429, F.S.
SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF THE RULE: The proposed Isolated Wetlands
Rule is designed to provide surface water management system
permit applicants with a document that addresses the
Southwest Florida Water Management District's intent and
performance criteria used in evaluating potential impacts to
faih and wildlife habitat in isolated wetlands. The District is
ik the process of writing a basis of review criteria manual for
surface water management *yitem k ai UttoM; this Permit
-,; .1


Information Manual will be a rule under Chapter 40D-4,
Florida Administrative Code. The threshold size and review
criteria for evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife habitat in
isolated wetlands will be an appendix to the Permit
Information Manual
It has been the District's policy, through the Surface Water
Management Section, to consider the impacts from the
construction -and alteration of surface water management
systems in wetlands of any size. The Isolated Wetlands Rule
specifies a 0.60 acre threshold size for reviewing impacts to
fish and wildlife. Based on data from areas within the District
with field-verified wetland delineations, 0.81 percent of the
isolated wetlands in the District are under 0.50 acre in size.
The District will.continue to review for potential water
quantity and quality impacts within all isolated wetlands,
including those less than 0.6 acre in size. Because it is already
the District's policy to review surface water management
system permit applications for impacts to isolated wetlands,
additional employees will not be required. However, the rule
assessment information which the applicant must submit will
require review by a qualified biologist for the District. The
District may find it necessary to improve its pay scale in order
to recruit and retain qualified biologists.
The Isolated Wetlands Rule contains provisions for both rigid
and flexible design criteria which enable the permit applicant
to select the method of compensation for impacted wetlands.
This flexibility reduces the limitations on site planning that
would otherwise result if the District adopted a strict policy
on mitigation. If the applicant selects the rigid design method
and the impacted wetland is 5.0 acres or larger, the costs to
the applicant include the time delay associated with
demonstrating successful mitigation. Under both the rigid and
flexible design criteria, the applicant will incur costs as a result
of supplying assessment information, which will require field
inspection by qualified professionals (i.e., soil scientist,
biologist, engineer).
The general public will benefit by the protection of the wetland
and water resources of the District; wetlands provide water
quality enhancement, aquifer recharge, flood protection, and
wildlife habitat. The costs to the general public result from
the conflict between urban land uses and natural systems;
isolated wetlands provide breeding ground for mosquitoes. The
proposed Isolated Wetlands Rule may positively affect the
employment of biologists due to informational requirements
imposed on permit applicants. Competition in the open market
will not be significantly affected. Small. business may be
positively affected by the rule; the demand for the services
of consulting firms and native plant nurseries within the
District boundary may increase.
A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION WILL BE HELD
AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW:
TIME AND DATE: 3:00 p.m., February 3, 1987
PLACE: District Headquarters, 2379 Broad Street,
Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712
A PUBLIC WORKSHOP (PREVIOUSLY NOTICED) WILL
BE HELD AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE SHOWN
BELOW:
TIME AND DATE: 3:00 p.m., Januar7 1987 -. ...
S* :. -;,.,-'.'t .' *" / ,; '
i ,% S t' ,'i :.


V..-




'r
C
k..
I
i.


Florida Administrativ


7-


PLACE: District Headquarters, 2379 Broad Street,
Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712
THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE
PROPOSED RULE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
STATEMENT IS: A. Patricia Allen, Attorney, Southwest
Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street,
Brooksville, Florida 33512-9712

THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULES ARE:

40D-4.091 Publications Incorporated by Reference.
(Reserved)
(1) The following documents are hereby published by
reference and incorporated into this Chapter.
(a) "Southwest Florida Water Management District
Permit Information Manual, 1987."
eAutbukm a mo au i4 771.a4014s, on403 s. F. Lar Isrnatod
1S2.sM 3AD4 37L413% 3asI, m3A1, V&420 re. mFWry-Nae .
40D-4.301 Conditions for Issuance of Permits.
(2(k)1. Isolated wetlands shall be protected as provided
in Appendix 4 of the "Southwest Florida Water Management
District Permit Information Manual, 1987,"
adoptedby reference in 40D-4.091(lMa). Other wWetlands and
other environmentally sensitive areas shall be protected by
balancing the following factor:
s peAi*nIurt. aa044.r.V .11.37.14 8a.171a, 7.414 rA. Lraw liM.Atsd 37.04
87a.408, 73.418, 37ra414. s.41 8as.4 na IM Iny--wdopted 10+74. Ammded
141-74, 67-78. 10.144, 4, Previouy nu lmbd IJ-4.0(3M(4).US).(5, Amended

To assure that the public is adequately advised of the proposed
permit criteria, the content of Appendix 4 of the District's
Permit Information Manual is provided below:

BASIS OF REVIEW FOR SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS WITHIN
THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
APPENDIX 4
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF ISOLATED
WETLANDS IMPACTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION The intent of the District is to
implement the legislative policy of Section 373.016(2), Florida
Statutes, which addresses the management of water and
related land resources, including isolated wetlands and their
associated fish and wildlife functions and values.
Chapter 86186, Laws of Florida, creating Section
378.414, Florida Statutes, requires that .certain. Water
Management Districts establish permitting criteria governing
isolated wetlands including a threshold size for isolated
wetlands below which impacts to fish and wildlife habitat will
not be considered. This Appendix addresses that statute. The
issues of water quantity and quality in relation to isolated
wetlands ae addressed in other parts of Chapter 40D-4, F.A.C.
Individual and cumulative losses of small isolated
wetlands may cause significant adverse impacts to fish and
wildlife on a local or regional level. Protection of existing
isolated wetlands by incorporation into surface water
management systems is the preferred alternative to
destruction and mitigation or other forms of compensation


because of the uncertainty of current mitigation technology
to re-create the various functions and values of isolated
wetlands.
2.0 DEFINITIONS The terms defined in this section are
intended to help the applicant understand the intent of the
language used throughout this Appendix.
2.1 ISOLATED WETLAND Any wetland as defined
pursuant to Chapter 40D-4, F.A.C., which is not hydrologically
connected to Waters of the State and is not within the
Department of Environmental Regulation jurisdiction for
purposes of regulation of dredging and filling.
2.2 COMPENSATION Measures provided to offset
adverse impacts to wetlands, including one or more of the
following
(a) Mitigation;
(b) Inclusion of upland areas, beyond any required
buffer zones, to maintain upland/wetland habitat diversity;
(c) Establishment of vegetated littoral zones in on-site
open waterbodies;
(d) Protection of exempt wetlands;
(e) Restoration of wetlands that have been previously
impacted;
(f) Compensation on off-site lands; and
(g) Other reasonable measures, such as providing unlike
wetland habitat.
2.3 MITIGATION Replacement of a wetland, type for
type, to restore those specific physical and functional
characteristics which will be lost as a result of the proposed
activity.
2.4 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The total land, in acres,
under one permit and under common ownership or control,
which is served by a common surface water management
system.
2.5 BUFFER ZONE An area adjacent to an isolated
wetland which protects wetland function and minimizes
adverse impacts of upland development on wetland function.
3.0 WETLANDS EXEMPT FROM FISH AND WILDLIFE
REVIEW Isolated wetlands less than 0.5 acres in size
regardless of property boundaries are exempt from review for
impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats. This exemption
does not apply if:
(a) A wetland is used by, or can reasonably be expected
to be used by, endangered or threatened species designated
in Section 581.185, F.S.; Rules 39-27.03 and 29-27.04, F.A.C.;
or 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12; or
(b) The total acreage of isolated wetlands exceeds 30%
of the acreage of a development project greater than 40 acres;
or
(c) A wetland is located in an area of critical state
concern designated pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S.; or
(d) Two or more wetlands regardless of property
boundaries have a combined area greater than 0.5 acre and
are connected by standing or flowing surface water during
average wet season high water levels. This connection can be
established by water elevation indicators such as lichens,
adventitious roots, water stains, soil profiles, aerial
photographs or other acceptable measures.
4.0 REVIEW PROCEDURES
,4.1 EFFECTIVE DATE This Appendix will apply to all


Weekly~ Vol 13, No. 1,January 2, 198?


B
i;









Florida Administrative Weekly Vol 13 o ,Jnu ,18


pending and new applications which have not been issued
letters of completeness on the effective date of this Appendix.
4.2 CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Applications which
propose to impact isolated wetlands may be approved in
concept with a Letter of Conceptual Approval.
4.3 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Detailed
proposals must be submitted as part of the application for
conceptual approval or as part of the application for a Surface
Water Management Construction and Operation Permit and
shall include:
(a) A description of the type and function of the wetland
being impacted, which shall include area, vegetative
community and hydrologic regime.
(b) A list of all plant and animal species listed as
endangered or threatened which use, or can reasonably be
expected to use, the area. The applicant will also supply an
evaluation of the probable significance of the area to the listed
species. Endangered or threatened species are identified in
Section 581.185 F.S., and rules 39-27.03 and 39-27.04 F.A.C.,
and 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12.
(c) A statement of:
1. alternatives considered instead of wetland impacts
and
2. reasons the wetlands cannot be incorporated into the
project surface water management system or project design.
(d) Additional information as required to evaluate site
specific conditions or unique project designs.
4.4 APPROVAL OF OPERATION PHASE The approval
of the operation phase of a project which impacts isolated
wetlands shall not become effective pursuant to Rule
40D-4.381(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, (Limiting
Conditions) until required compensation is provided and has
met the success criteria established under Section 8.0.
5.0 WETLAND PERMITTING CRITERIA Protection of
wetlands, Le., incorporation of wetland into the surface water
management system, is preferred because of the uncertainty
of current mitigation technology to restore or create the
various functions and values of isolated wetlands. Wetland
destruction and compensation shall be considered only when
the applicant has demonstrated that:
(a) there are no reasonable development alternatives to
adverse wetland impacts for the particular site;
(b) compensation measures can be successful; and
(c) the protection of endangered and threatened species
is reasonably assured. Subsections 5.1 and 5.2 set forth
options that allow the applicant to select either the rigid or
flexible wetland design criteria.
5.1 RIGID DESIGN CRITERIA Under this option, the
applicant must mitigate for the loss of each non-exempt
isolated wetland that is to be impacted by the development
project. Only mitigation is allowed as compensation. This
option leaves to the applicant the determination of which
wetlands, with the exception of those identified in Section
5.2.4, can be impacted. The applicant must adhere to the
following specific criteria:
(a) Mitigation of wetlands shall be at the following
ratios:


WETLAND ACRES'
TYPE IMPACTED


Forested
Non-forested


MITIGATED
ACREAGE REQUIRED

2.5


(b) For non-exempt wetlands below 5.0 acres, the
applicant must give reasonable assurance that the mitigation
will be successful as described in Section 8.0.
(c) For wetlands 5.0 acres and larger, mitigation must
be successful as defined in Section 8.0 prior to any impact to
an existing wetland.
(d) The applicant must comply with Sections 6.0 and
7.0.
5.1.1 BUFFER ZONES A buffer zone 15 feet wide is
required on all existing nonexempt or mitigated wetlands. The
vegetation within the buffer zone shall be left undisturbed
except for temporary disturbances for construction of pipes,
swales or other necessary construction.
5.2 FLEXIBLE DESIGN CRITERIA The District
encourages the applicant to consider unique and innovative
design ideas with the intent of creating a post development
functioning wetland/upland system. Under this approach, the
applicant would work closely with staff on a case-by-case basis
to discuss various compensation measures that would be
acceptable. All compensation proposals, including mitigation,
must meet the applicable requirements of Sections 7.0. and
8.0. This process may increase the pre-application time
required by the applicant to design the project, but could allow
for greater economic benefits while still meeting the District
objectives of protecting fish and wildlife habitat through a
flexible and innovative design. The applicant must
demonstrate to the District that these unique and innovative
designs are consistent with the District's intent to protect fish
and wildlife including meeting the criteria in Section 5.0.
5.2.1 REQUIRED INFORMATION The applicant is
advised to consult with the District to determine the
information necessary to assess and design compensation for
a flexible development project. The District has provided
acceptable assessment criteria in Section 6.0. The District will
also consider applicable numerical and productivity models,
when appropriate.
5.2.2 ALLOWABLE COMPENSATION The District will
consider, on a case-by-case basis, the following types of
compensation with the objective of maintaining or creating
a successful fish and wildlife habitat:
(a) Acreage credit at greater than 1 for 1 for protection
of wetlands below the exemption size in exchange for impacts
to larger wetlands that can more easily absorb the impact.
(b) Creation of wildlife corridors.
(c) Designation of additional buffer zone beyond the
required 15 foot buffer zone.
(d) Compensation on other lands. Final approval of this
type of project design rests with the District Governing Board.
(e) Development of disturbed wetlands with their loss
compensated for by mitigation at ratios less than those
required in 5.1.(a) based on the degree of disturbance and the


Flonida Adrminstrative Weakly


Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2,19887










Florida Administrative Weekly Vol 13, No. 1, January 2, 1987
ii


remaining functional qualities. Mitigation through restoration
of other disturbed wetlands is preferred over wetland creation.
(f) Other reasonable compensation measures.
5.2.3 BUFFER ZONES A buffer zone not to exceed 15 feet
may be required on all existing or mitigated wetlands above
the size threshold. Land cover changes within the buffer zone
may be allowed as part of the system design.
5.2.4 PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED OR
THREATENED SPECIES The applicant must provide
reasonable assurance that any proposal to impact wetlands
shall protect endangered and threatened species designated
pursuant to Sections 581.185, F.S., Rules 39-27.03 and
39-27.04, F.A.C., or 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. Any
compensation proposals for wetlands containing any of these
species will be reviewed by the district on a case-by-case basis.
The District may require additional buffer zone area, wetland
protection, mitigation prior to wetland impacts, or other
measures when necessary for the protection of threatened and
endangered species.
6.0 WETLAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The
applicant must provide the information necessary to evaluate
and assess the current fish and wildlife habit of any wetland
to be impacted. This assessment will be used to determine if
the applicant is proposing reasonable assurance of
compensation, and will also be used as the basis of comparison
h for wetland compensation success criteria. It is suggested the
applicant discuss with staff the items needed for an
assessment. The following is a comprehensive list of possible
wetland assessment criteria:
(a) Number and composition of species comprising
representative components of the wetland community,
including, but not limited to, phytoplankton, periphyton,
macrophytic vegetation, invertebrates, fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals.
(b) Evidence of trends which may indicate projected
habitat functions if the subject property were to remain in its
current condition. Indicators primarily include responses by
vegetation to changes in historic water levels.
(c) Significance to local and regional landscape patterns
including ecotone quality and extent, relative abundance of
similar habitat and biota, and location of wildlife corridors.
(d) Population statistics on selected species comprising
the subject wetland. Parameters may include, but not be
limited to, density, age distribution or spatial distribution (e.g.
tree survey).
(e) Water quality and hydroperiod in the subject
wetland.
7.0 WETLAND COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS
7.1 The applicant must demonstrate that compensation is
reasonably assured. The applicant must provide the following
for projects where mitigation or other compensation is
proposed. The District may allow exceptions to these
requirements under the flexible design criteria.
7.1.1 Wetland monitoring and maintenance programs
Sl including source of plants or mulch if not supplied by a
commercial plant nursery, will be required for proposals
involving mitigation or other compensation.
7.1.2 Monitoring and maintenance requirements will normally
be established based on wetland type, size, complexity and


construction schedule. Monitoring parameters, monitoring
duration and required maintenance will be specified in the
permit conditions.
7.1.3 Unless mitigation is required prior to wetland impacts,
the permit shall delineate the mitigation or other
compensation to be completed in each phase of construction
to offset the wetlands lost by that phase.
8.0 WETLAND COMPENSATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
8.1 Mitigated wetlands or other compensation measures
involving wetland recreation will be considered successful
when the created wetland provides an equal or greater habitat
function when compared with the original wetland assessment.
Compensation is successful when the following parameters
meet or exceed those similar parameters as identified in the
initial assessment done under 5.2.1 or 6.0.
8.1.1 The number, composition, and relative abundance of
plant species in the created wetland approximate conditions
in the initial assessment of the wetland to be mitigated for
(reference wetland), or conditions specified in the permit, if
different. Exotic plant species shall not be replaced.
8.1.2 Percent vegetative coverage in all created wetlands and
percent canopy closure in created forested wetlands
approximate conditions in the reference wetland or conditions
specified in the permit, if different.
8.1.3 Percent survival of plant species in the created wetland
meets or exceeds the level specified in permit conditions.
8.1.4 Water quality in the created wetland meets or exceeds
conditions in the reference wetland or conditions specified in
the permit, if different.
8.1.5 Habitat value in the created wetland, as measured by
the number, composition and relative abundance of animal
species, approximates conditions in the reference wetland or
conditions specified in the permit, if different, and
8.1.6 Hydroperiod in the created wetland approximates
conditions in the reference wetland or conditions specified in
the permit, if different.

NAME OF PERSON ORIGINATING PROPOSED RULE:
Bruce C. Wirth, Assistant Director, Resource Regulation
Department
NAME OF SUPERVISOR OR PERSON WHO APPROVED
THE PROPOSED RULE: Richard V. McLean, Director,
Resource Regulation Department
DATE PROPOSED RULE APPROVED: December 3,1986

32. MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
RULE CHAPTER TITLE: Organization, Practice and
Procedure
RULE TITLES: RULE NOS.:
Organization 46-1.001
Notice of Commission Meetings and
Workshops; Agenda; Minutes 46-1.003
Rulemaking; Adoption Procedures 46-1.004
PURPOSE AND EFFECT: These rule amendments are
proposed for the purpose of updating the Commission's
procedural rules to include the Commission's current business
office address, conform to recent changes in Chapter 120,
Florida Statute, more specifically provide for the annual
election of the chairman and vice chairman, and provide a


I


I i~ i I




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