Chapter 24 / 8CC
EQCB Defense Manual

1. Appearance under protest.
2. No waiver.
3. Defective notice.
4. No evidence file.
5. Same-day evidence objection.
6. Rule 62-340 demand.
7. Delegation demand.
8. Agricultural exemption preservation.
9. Mitigation / federal preservation.
10. Property-loss classification notice.
11. Motion to continue, extend time, stay, and toll deadlines.
12. Alternative motion to exclude.
13. Request specific rulings.
14. Preserve for certiorari.

1. Appearance under protest.
2. No waiver.
3. Defective notice.
4. No evidence file.
5. Same-day evidence objection.
6. Rule 62-340 demand.
7. Delegation demand.
8. Agricultural exemption preservation.
9. Mitigation / federal preservation.
10. Property-loss classification notice.
11. Motion to continue, extend time, stay, and toll deadlines.
12. Alternative motion to exclude.
13. Request specific rulings.
14. Preserve for certiorari.

1. No waiver by appearance.
2. Defective notice, service, or posting.
3. Failure to disclose evidence.
4. Same-day evidence.
5. Lack of meaningful preparation time.
6. Lack of witness list and inspection file.
7. Rule 62-340 wetland methodology.
8. Chapter 373 / Rule 62-344 delegation proof.
9. Director-order proof.
10. Agricultural classification and exemptions.
11. Mitigation-credit, restoration, acquisition, and federal 8.5 SMA implications.
12. Public-records preservation.
13. Competent substantial evidence.
14. Continuance and exclusion.
15. Specific rulings and certiorari preservation.

1. No evidence package shown: object to proceeding without inspection reports, photographs, maps, field notes, communications, exhibits, and witness materials.
2. Vague factual basis: object if the County cannot identify the exact act, omission, condition, date, and location of the alleged violation.
3. Director-order proof: if the County relies on “orders of the Director,” demand the exact Director order, date, service proof, legal authority, and the specific term allegedly violated.
4. Forum clarification: require the County to state whether this is an 8CC hearing, Chapter 24 enforcement matter, EQCB-type technical issue, Chapter 373/ERP issue, or some combination.
5. Same-day evidence: object to any document, photo, map, email, field note, or staff summary first disclosed or relied upon at the hearing.
6. Rule 62-340 methodology: if DERM uses wetland, surface-water, hydrology, fill, restoration, or environmentally sensitive area claims, demand vegetation, soils, hydrology, data forms, GPS points, boundary maps, and the delineator’s testimony.
7. Continuance prejudice: object that the ten-calendar-day continuance language cannot cure the County’s failure to disclose evidence early enough for meaningful preparation.
8. Competent substantial evidence: require every finding to be tied to admitted exhibits or testimony, not conclusions or labels.

• Name of Code Inspector who issued the notice.
• Factual description of the alleged violation.
• Date of alleged violation.
• Section of the Code allegedly violated.
• Place, date, and time of hearing.
• Right to be represented by a lawyer.
• Right to present witnesses and evidence.
• Warning that failure to attend may result in civil penalty.
• Warning that continuance requests must be received at least 10 calendar days before hearing.

• Does the notice identify the exact Code section and the exact act, omission, property condition, or Director order allegedly violated?
• Does it attach or identify the inspection report, photos, maps, lab reports, sampling data, field notes, emails, or other evidence?
• Does it state when the alleged violation occurred and whether it is continuing?
• Does it explain how the named respondent is legally responsible?
• Does it identify whether the case is an 8CC hearing, an EQCB issue, a Director-decision appeal, or a court-enforcement threat?
• Does it give enough information to prepare witnesses, expert response, cross-examination, and document objections?
• Does it warn that failure to attend may be treated as waiver/admission, and is that warning clear enough?
• Does the continuance deadline give meaningful time after evidence disclosure?

• Identify the exact Chapter 24 section allegedly violated.
• Identify whether the action is a civil violation notice, notice of assessment, order, permit denial, permit condition, Director decision, or court-enforcement threat.
• Demand the factual basis connecting the land, activity, owner/respondent, and alleged environmental condition.
• Separate Chapter 24 authority from state ERP/wetland authority, federal authority, zoning authority, and agricultural classification issues.
• Ask whether the dispute is enforcement, technical interpretation, variance, extension, or appeal from Director action.

Rule 62-340 is important because it focuses on actual field indicators, including:

1. Vegetation
2. Soils
3. Hydrology
4. Reasonable scientific judgment
5. On-site inspection or aerial interpretation combined with ground truthing

Rule 62-340.300 addresses delineation of wetlands and states that the regulating agency attempts to locate the landward extent of wetlands visually by on-site inspection, or by aerial photointerpretation combined with ground truthing.

Section 373.406 includes exemptions for certain agricultural activities, including language connected to lands classified as agricultural under §193.461 and ERP-related activities, subject to limits such as activities not being for the sole or predominant purpose of diverting surface waters or adversely impacting wetlands.

Use this framing:

Use this title:

Or shorter for navigation:

• Copy of the Director action/decision being appealed.
• Written letter of appeal identifying the action and grounds.
• Filing/surcharge fee proof.
• Owner/authorized representative proof.
• Property information, folio, maps, permits, correspondence.
• Technical exhibits, expert letters, photos, timelines, agency contradictions.

• What requirement is impossible or inappropriate to meet?
• What conditions are beyond the applicant’s control?
• What technical alternatives were evaluated?
• What economic reasonableness evidence exists?
• Will the request avoid public-health, welfare, safety, nuisance, or pollution harm?
• What compliance plan and timeline is proposed?

• Prepare a private Certiorari Blueprint before the hearing: due process, law-departure, and competent-substantial-evidence grounds.
• Create an evidence timeline showing: date created, date requested, date produced, date first used, and whether it was admitted.
• Object immediately to undisclosed evidence before testimony begins about it.
• Move for continuance if late evidence prevents meaningful review, expert response, witness preparation, or cross-examination.
• If continuance is denied, state that you are proceeding under protest.
• Ask for a specific ruling on every objection; do not let the objection disappear informally.
• Ask that excluded evidence be accepted as a proffer so the review court can see what was excluded.
• Maintain a live hearing notebook: exhibit number, whether admitted, objection made, ruling, witness statement, and transcript checkpoint.
• After the hearing, compare the order’s findings to the admitted evidence; mark unsupported, vague, overbroad, or legally incomplete findings.
• File any available rehearing, reconsideration, correction, or review step on time; do not rely on informal agency promises.

• Exact Code-section challenge: require the County to identify the precise Chapter 24 section allegedly violated, not a general environmental concern.
• Element-by-element challenge: break the alleged violation into required elements; object if the County proves only a conclusion.
• Respondent-identity challenge: require proof that the named respondent had ownership, control, responsibility, notice, or legal duty for the alleged condition.
• Property/location challenge: require parcel-specific GPS, folio, legal description, boundary, photograph location, and proof that the alleged condition occurred on the cited property.
• DERM authority challenge: require the County to identify whether it proceeds under local police power, local pollution-control authority, delegated ERP authority, proprietary sovereign-submerged-lands authority, or another source.
• Delegation-scope challenge: if DERM invokes state or federal program authority, demand the delegation agreement, memorandum, rule, permit, or statutory provision that delegates that specific function.
• Ultra vires remedy challenge: even if some violation exists, challenge remedies beyond the Code, beyond the notice, beyond the delegation, or beyond the Hearing Officer / EQCB forum.
• Duplicative-permitting challenge: if multiple agencies claim overlapping authority, demand records showing who has final authority and whether duplicative local/state/federal permitting was reconciled.

• § 373.441, F.S. delegation issue: require proof that FDEP approved delegation of the relevant ERP function to the local government, and that the delegated authority covers the property, activity, remedy, and enforcement posture.
• Rule 62-344, F.A.C. delegation issue: demand the petition for delegation, FDEP approval, delegation agreement, scope map, program limits, reporting conditions, stricter-local-standard reconciliation, and any suspension/limitation records.
• FDEP final-agency-action issue: ask whether the matter belongs before FDEP/SFWMD rather than an 8CC Hearing Officer if it is truly an ERP permitting issue.
• Local stricter-standard issue: require the County to distinguish local Chapter 24 standards from state ERP standards and prove that any stricter local standard is lawful, non-conflicting, and properly adopted.
• Exemption issue under § 373.406, F.S.: if agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, horticulture, drainage, or normal/customary practices are involved, require analysis of statutory exemptions before penalties or corrective obligations are imposed.
• Handbook / rule-incorporation issue: if DERM relies on an FDEP/SFWMD applicant handbook or technical manual, require the exact version, incorporation authority, and proof that the cited provision applies to an enforcement citation.
• State-agency contradiction: compare DERM’s position against FDEP, SFWMD, FDACS, property appraiser, NRCS, USACE, and historical records. Contradictions become evidence and cross-examination material.

• Wrong-method attack: object if DERM labels land “wetland” without applying Rule 62-340’s statewide methodology.
• Three-indicator attack: require parcel-specific proof of vegetation, soils, and hydrologic evidence of regular and periodic inundation or saturation.
• Vegetation attack: demand species list, stratum selection, dominance calculation, wetland indicator status, sample plot location, date, photographs, and reviewer qualifications.
• Soils attack: demand soil pit depth, soil profile description, hydric-soil indicators, NRCS soil series, photographs, GPS point, and explanation of fill/scraping/rock/alteration.
• Hydrology attack: demand hydrologic indicators, rainfall history, antecedent moisture, canal stage, drainage-structure influence, irrigation/flooding source, duration/frequency, and whether water is natural or engineered.
• Direct-definition attack: require the regulating agency to show it first attempted to identify wetlands by the rule definition before using fallback methodology.
• All-reliable-information attack: present aerials, historic farm records, NRCS data, photos, LiDAR, DBHYDRO, FEMA maps, testimony, surveys, and prior agency records; object if the County ignores reliable contrary information.
• OHWM mismatch attack: ordinary high-water mark, floodplain, standing water, or nuisance water is not automatically a Rule 62-340 wetland delineation.
• Temporal-condition attack: inspection during abnormal rainfall, storm event, irrigation, canal operation, or temporary ponding does not automatically establish wetland hydrology.
• Boundary attack: require flags, map, GPS coordinates, transects, data sheets, and a boundary that can be reproduced by an independent expert.

• Federal-source identification: require the County to state whether it invokes Clean Water Act § 404, § 401, NPDES, EPA oversight, USACE jurisdiction, federal wetlands guidance, federal acquisition/restoration records, or only local Chapter 24 authority.
• No implied federal delegation: local staff cannot assume USACE/EPA authority. Demand written delegation, referral, jurisdictional determination, permit condition, enforcement referral, or federal record.
• USACE jurisdictional determination attack: demand approved/preliminary JD records, delineation forms, maps, wetlands data sheets, ordinary high-water mark analysis, adjacent-waters analysis, and any federal disclaimer.
• Sackett / WOTUS framing: if federal wetland jurisdiction is invoked, require proof of current federal jurisdictional standard, connection to a covered water, and that federal law actually applies to the alleged condition.
• Prior converted cropland / agricultural history: request NRCS/FSA/USACE records on prior converted cropland, farmed wetlands, agricultural exemptions, and historical drainage/farming.
• Federal-state conflict: if state/local enforcement uses federal labels, challenge any mismatch between federal jurisdiction, state ERP rules, and local Chapter 24 remedies.
• Federal records demand: FOIA USACE, EPA, USFWS, NPS, USDA/NRCS, FSA, FEMA, USGS, NOAA, and DOI/Everglades offices for communications with DERM/FDEP/SFWMD.

• Bona fide agricultural use: build records from property appraiser, FDACS, NRCS, FSA, leases, sales, crop records, nursery records, photos, affidavits, and tax classification.
• § 193.461, F.S. agricultural classification: use it as evidence of historic/ongoing agricultural status, while separately proving actual use and practices.
• § 373.406, F.S. agricultural exemption: analyze whether the activity is normal/customary agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture, and whether the County skipped required exemption analysis.
• Bert J. Harris Act track: preserve whether enforcement inordinately burdens an existing use or vested right; keep this parallel to, not substituted for, the hearing defense.
• Takings / exaction / proportionality: preserve objection to permit conditions, mitigation-credit demands, restoration orders, or compliance costs that are unrelated, excessive, or not roughly proportional.
• Access / inspection objection: preserve objections to warrantless entry, posted notices, gate access, lack of consent, scope of inspection, and chain of custody for photographs.

• Vague notice: attack missing Code section, missing date, missing location, missing factual description, missing correction instruction, or unclear responsible party.
• Service defect: audit certified mail, posting, personal service, address, agent/trustee, green card, return records, photos of posting, and timing.
• Same-day evidence: object, move to exclude, move for continuance, state prejudice, request written ruling, and demand complete evidence file.
• Foundation attack: who created the photo/map/report, when, where, how, with what device, what chain of custody, what GPS, what method, what expertise?
• Hearsay/reliability attack: in relaxed administrative hearings, frame objections as “not competent or reliable,” not merely as courtroom hearsay.
• Cross-examination deprivation: object if the person with actual knowledge is absent and staff relies on summaries, screenshots, or unverified reports.
• Prejudice statement: always explain what late disclosure prevents: expert review, site verification, rebuttal, witness preparation, and meaningful cross-examination.
• Proffer: if evidence is excluded, request proffer into the record so a reviewing court can evaluate prejudice.

• Penalty calculation: demand legal basis, amount, calculation, date range, daily penalty start date, administrative costs, inspection costs, and statutory cap.
• Correction specificity: object to vague orders; request exact corrective action, deadline, property area, measurable completion criteria, and responsible agency sign-off.
• Ability / impossibility / permit dependency: object if correction requires permits, agency approvals, third-party work, dry season, board relief, or expert design not available by the ordered deadline.
• Continuing-penalty trap: ask the Hearing Officer to state when continuing penalties begin and what stops them.
• Lien / permit-block warning: preserve objections to penalties or liens that may block permits, licenses, certificates, approvals, or property use.
• EQCB alternative relief: if technical compliance is disputed or impractical, preserve variance, extension, modification, or Director appeal paths.

• Director-action appeal: identify the exact Director action/decision, date, service, grounds for appeal, and filing deadline.
• Technical issue transfer: argue that technical Chapter 24 interpretation, variance, extension, or modification belongs before EQCB rather than being shortcut through 8CC.
• Alternative relief without admission: request variance/extension/modification without admitting the County’s violation theory.
• Board-record package: submit narrative, chronology, exhibits, technical report, agency contradictions, public-records responses, maps, and specific requested relief.
• Prior board/order history: request all EQCB records involving the property, nearby parcels, same inspector, same legal issue, same drainage basin, and similar Chapter 24 enforcement theories.

• Ask for a specific correction deadline if liability is found.
• Object to vague correction language.
• Demand itemized costs and legal basis for each cost.
• Ask whether the violation is correctable and what exact action corrects it.
• Preserve objection to continuing penalties unless the correction standard is clear.
• Ask for mitigation evidence to be considered.

• Wetland, surface-water, restoration, environmentally sensitive land, or Chapter 24 classification.
• Loss or restriction of agricultural operation.
• Loss of property value, marketability, financing, insurance, or title clarity.
• Permit blocks, certificate restrictions, zoning consequences, or future land-use impairment.
• Penalties, continuing fines, liens, costs, corrective obligations, or restoration deadlines.
• Mitigation-credit, restoration-offset, conservation, acquisition, EEL, Everglades, or 8.5 SMA consequences.
• Future administrative, certiorari, appellate, federal, takings, due-process, or constitutional review.

• Request continuance of the hearing if evidence was not disclosed.
• Request extension of any compliance or correction deadline.
• Request stay or tolling of penalties, continuing penalties, liens, costs, permit blocks, and restoration demands.
• Request time to complete public records requests to MDC/DERM, County Attorney, FDEP, SFWMD, FDACS, USACE, EPA, USFWS, NPS, NRCS, USDA/FSA, and related agencies.
• Request time to obtain and review Rule 62-340 vegetation, soils, hydrology, GPS, boundary, photos, maps, and field notes.
• Request time to review Chapter 373 / Rule 62-344 delegation records.
• Request time to evaluate agricultural classification and exemption issues.
• Request time to investigate mitigation credits, restoration offsets, EEL, acquisition, and federal 8.5 SMA / P.L. 101-229 / Garcia records.
• Request time to order transcript, obtain exhibits, and prepare certiorari or other review if an adverse order is entered.

1. Is this property identified in any mitigation bank, mitigation-credit, conservation-credit, restoration-credit, offset, preserve, acquisition, or environmental-credit file?
2. Has DERM ever evaluated this property for mitigation potential?
3. Has Miami-Dade County ever identified this property as possible preserve, restoration, wetland, conservation, buffer, or acquisition land?
4. Has this property ever been included in an EEL, environmental land, greenway, preserve, Everglades, restoration, or acquisition discussion?
5. Has any agency, consultant, or third party discussed this property as land that could generate, support, receive, require, or affect mitigation credits?
6. Has the County ever communicated with SFWMD, FDEP, USACE, EPA, FDACS, NRCS, or any consultant about mitigation or restoration value connected to this property?
7. Is the enforcement action intended to require restoration that could later support a mitigation-credit, offset, preserve, or acquisition claim?

1. Is the property located near any mitigation bank, permitted mitigation area, conservation easement, preserve, EEL property, SFWMD project, USACE project, or Everglades-related acquisition area?
2. Has DERM reviewed any mitigation bank service-area map that includes or affects this property?
3. Has any mitigation bank used nearby land conditions, wetland classifications, hydrology, or restoration assumptions involving this area?
4. Has the County coordinated with any mitigation bank sponsor, consultant, landowner, buyer, broker, agency, or permittee regarding this area?
5. Has the County identified this property as relevant to regional wetland restoration, hydrologic reconnection, buffer creation, acquisition, or environmental compliance?

1. Can a Chapter 24 enforcement finding be used later to support restoration obligations?
2. Can restoration obligations be used later in mitigation-credit calculations?
3. Can a finding that land is wetlands or impacted wetlands affect mitigation value?
4. Can a violation finding be used by another agency in ERP, mitigation, restoration, acquisition, or offset decisions?
5. Has the County considered whether the corrective action demanded here could create environmental value usable by another public or private party?
6. Has DERM communicated with any agency about whether this enforcement matter affects mitigation-credit supply, demand, ratios, ledgers, offsets, or restoration accounting?

1. If the County is claiming wetland impact, did it perform a Rule 62-340 delineation?
2. If no Rule 62-340 delineation exists, how can the County determine wetland impact?
3. If wetland impact has not been properly delineated, how can the County determine mitigation, restoration, offset, or environmental-credit relevance?
4. Has any mitigation-credit analysis relied on a wetland boundary for this property?
5. Was that boundary established under Rule 62-340?
6. Who performed it?
7. Where are the vegetation, soils, hydrology, GPS, field notes, and boundary maps?

• Hearing Officer / Clerk / Code Enforcement hearing office, if required by the filing instructions.
• County Attorney of record, if one has appeared or is listed.
• DERM / RER enforcement contact or code inspector, if required or if they are the issuing department contact.
• Named respondent / owner / trust / authorized representative, if the filing is made by another representative.
• Any attorney or authorized representative who has filed a notice of appearance.
• Any agency or party specifically required by the notice, ordinance, hearing order, or filing instructions.

• Miami-Dade DERM / RER enforcement division.
• Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office.
• Code Enforcement / Hearing Officer staff / Clerk process contact.
• EQCB staff or board clerk, if a Director appeal, variance, extension, or technical issue is implicated.
• Property Appraiser, Planning/Zoning, Water and Sewer, Public Works, Parks, EEL Program, OCI, Mayor/Commission offices, and any department that created, received, reviewed, or relied on records.
• Any County contractor, consultant, mitigation sponsor, GIS consultant, environmental consultant, or third-party records custodian identified in agency records.

• FDEP, including ERP, wetlands, mitigation banking, delegated program, water quality, and Division of State Lands / Board of Trustees records.
• SFWMD, including ERP, surface-water management, drainage basin, Everglades / 8.5 SMA, mitigation, maps, inspections, and enforcement referrals.
• FDACS, including agricultural-use, BMP, nursery/farm, water-management, and bona fide agricultural-operation records.
• FWC, FDOT, Department of Health, Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Emergency Management, and other state bodies if their records affect classification, access, drainage, conservation, mitigation, or enforcement.
• Any regional planning council, Everglades working group, interagency task force, basin/watershed committee, or state-created records custodian.

• USACE for jurisdictional determinations, Section 404, wetlands, 8.5 SMA maps, acquisition, mitigation, and enforcement referrals.
• EPA for Clean Water Act, water quality, wetlands oversight, enforcement referrals, and communications with state/local agencies.
• USFWS for habitat, listed species, consultations, and biological records.
• NPS / Everglades National Park for 8.5 SMA, acquisition, hydrology, boundary, land-protection, and resource-management records.
• USDA NRCS and FSA for soils, agricultural, conservation, tract, aerial, and farm-use records.
• NOAA/NWS, FEMA, USGS, and Department of the Interior / Everglades restoration programs for hydrology, rainfall, flooding, mapping, and Everglades records.

• Circuit Court: use when filing a petition, notice, emergency motion, or administrative-review/certiorari matter in the circuit court. Serve the respondent agency, County Attorney, parties of record, and any required clerk or lower-tribunal recipients.
• Florida District Court of Appeal: use only when seeking review in the DCA or when rules require DCA service. Serve parties/counsel of record and required lower tribunal / clerk recipients.
• Florida Supreme Court: use only if a filing is actually made there or the rules require service there. Do not add it to ordinary county hearing filings.
• Supreme Court of the United States: use only if a petition, application, stay request, or other filing is actually made there. Do not list SCOTUS on a county administrative-hearing certificate of service.

1. Actual Certificate of Service: use only for the Hearing Officer, Clerk / Code Enforcement, MDC DERM / RER, County Attorney if attorney of record, named respondent, respondent representative, and any party or agency formally participating in that proceeding.
2. Courtesy Notice / Preservation Copy: use separately for FDEP, SFWMD, FDACS, USACE, EPA, USFWS, National Park Service, USDA / NRCS, Miami-Dade EEL Program, Miami-Dade Parks / Planning / Water departments, mitigation bank / ERP / acquisition / restoration file custodians, or other agencies with records or project involvement.
3. Federal Constitutional Preservation Matrix: list U.S. District Court, Eleventh Circuit, Florida appellate courts, Florida Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court only as future review forums or constitutional preservation references, not current service recipients unless jurisdiction is invoked by a proper filing.

1. Did DERM, RER, the County Attorney, or any County department consider the 8.5 Square Mile Area / Las Palmas federal project history in this enforcement matter?
2. Did any County employee communicate with SFWMD, USACE, FDEP, National Park Service, EPA, USFWS, NRCS, or any Everglades restoration office about this property, citation, wetland classification, restoration demand, or corrective action?
3. Is the property included in, adjacent to, or affected by any 8.5 SMA, Modified Water Deliveries, Everglades restoration, acquisition, seepage, flood-control, or mitigation project map?
4. Has the property been discussed as possible acquisition, conservation, preserve, restoration, buffer, mitigation, or hydrologic-management land?
5. Has any agency relied on this citation, Chapter 24 allegation, Director order, wetland classification, or corrective demand in any federal, state, county, mitigation, restoration, acquisition, or flood-control file?
6. If the County says this is only a local Chapter 24 case, can the County confirm under oath that no federal 8.5 SMA, P.L. 101-229, Garcia, Everglades, mitigation, restoration, acquisition, or flood-control record was reviewed, referenced, transmitted, or relied upon?

1. Authority file: Chapter 24 authority, Chapter 8CC authority, Director orders, enforcement authority, legal reviews, County Attorney analysis, and hearing authority.
2. Delegation file: Chapter 373 / ERP delegation, Rule 62-344 records, FDEP / SFWMD delegation agreements, limitations, implementation records, and scope-of-authority records.
3. Rule 62-340 file: vegetation, hydric soils, hydrology, data forms, field notes, GPS points, wetland boundary maps, photos, aerial interpretation, ground-truthing, and delineator qualifications.
4. Evidence file: all inspection reports, photographs, maps, staff notes, witness materials, exhibits, calculations, drafts, and records the County intends to rely upon at hearing.
5. Agricultural file: §193.461 agricultural classification, farm use records, NRCS records, FDACS communications, §373.406 exemption analysis, and agricultural activity review.
6. Mitigation-credit file: mitigation banks, credit ledgers, UMAM, ERP mitigation, restoration offsets, service-area maps, conservation easements, bank sponsors, consultants, permit applicants, and environmental-credit discussions.
7. Federal 8.5 SMA file: P.L. 101-229, Garcia v. United States, Modified Water Deliveries, Everglades restoration, acquisition, condemnation, seepage, flood-control, Las Palmas, USACE, NPS, EPA, USFWS, NRCS, and related federal correspondence.
8. Communications file: emails, texts, meeting notes, Teams/Zoom logs, phone logs, calendar entries, drafts, routing comments, supervisor reviews, and communications between local, state, federal, consultant, and private participants.

• Complete DERM enforcement file, citation file, complaint file, inspection file, field file, and hearing file.
• All emails, letters, memoranda, notes, drafts, text messages, Teams/Slack/chat messages, calendar entries, call logs, voicemails, meeting notes, routing slips, task assignments, and internal referrals mentioning the citation, respondent, property address, folio, parcel, trust, inspector, violation number, hearing date, or Chapter 24 issue.
• All communications between DERM, RER, the County Attorney’s Office, Code Enforcement, Clerk/Hearing Officer staff, Mayor/Commission offices, Planning/Zoning, Public Works, Parks, Water and Sewer, OCI, EEL, and any other County department.
• All photographs, videos, aerials, GIS layers, maps, screenshots, field notes, sampling records, lab reports, chain-of-custody forms, GPS points, inspection logs, property-access notes, and methodology records.
• All penalty calculations, cost calculations, administrative-fee basis, proposed orders, draft orders, settlement notes, compliance notes, and correction-deadline recommendations.
• All records showing when evidence was created, received, transmitted, uploaded, reviewed, or disclosed to respondent.

Send separate Chapter 119 requests to every agency that may have touched the property, watershed, permit history, complaint history, mapping, agriculture classification, water management, Everglades/8.5 SMA issues, mitigation, enforcement referral, or technical determination. Do not rely on one agency to search another agency's files.

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): ERP records, delegated authority records, enforcement referrals, compliance files, wetlands determinations, sovereign submerged lands records, mitigation bank records, water-quality records, inspection files, internal emails, and communications with Miami-Dade County / DERM.
• South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD): ERP records, surface-water management records, drainage basin data, canal/flood-control records, water-control structure records, Everglades/8.5 SMA records, mitigation records, inspection files, complaints, maps, GIS layers, and communications with DERM/FDEP/USACE.
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC): listed species reviews, habitat records, enforcement referrals, biological opinions/comments, site inspections, and communications about protected species, wildlife habitat, or environmental classification.
• Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS): agricultural-use records, BMP enrollment or compliance records, nursery/farm records if applicable, pest-control or agricultural water records, and communications about bona fide agricultural operations.
• Florida Department of Revenue / Property Tax Oversight: records, guidance, communications, or complaints concerning agricultural classification, tax classification, or agency reliance on property-tax status.
• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT): drainage, right-of-way, culvert, road, canal, stormwater, access, and project records affecting the property or surrounding basin.
• Florida Department of Health (FDOH): septic, well, onsite sewage, water-quality, public-health, or environmental-health records connected to the property or alleged violation.
• Florida Department of Emergency Management / Division of Emergency Management: flood, storm, disaster, drainage, hazard-mitigation, emergency-response, or resilience records affecting the property or area.
• Florida Division of State Lands / Board of Trustees records through FDEP: sovereignty lands, submerged lands, easements, land-management, acquisition, or title/interest records.
• Florida Department of Commerce / former DEO: comprehensive planning, land-use, area-of-critical-state-concern, infrastructure, or development-review records if the enforcement matter touches planning or development restrictions.
• Florida Geological Survey / FDEP programs: soils, geology, hydrology, sinkhole, groundwater, aquifer, or mapping records relevant to the alleged environmental condition.
• Other Water Management Districts if records were copied or consulted: St. Johns River WMD, Southwest Florida WMD, Suwannee River WMD, and Northwest Florida WMD, limited to communications, shared datasets, or policy guidance used by FDEP/DERM/SFWMD.
• Regional planning or intergovernmental bodies: South Florida Regional Planning Council, Everglades restoration working groups, interagency task forces, basin/watershed committees, or any intergovernmental group that exchanged records about the property, Las Palmas, 8.5 SMA, Everglades, mitigation, drainage, or land-use restrictions.

For federal agencies, use FOIA and ask for records by property address, folio, owner/respondent name, citation number, project name, geographic area, 8.5 SMA / Las Palmas, Everglades, wetlands, mitigation, enforcement referral, and communications with Miami-Dade County, DERM, FDEP, or SFWMD.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): jurisdictional determinations, wetlands records, Section 404 records, enforcement referrals, Everglades/8.5 SMA acquisition maps, project maps, real-estate maps, permit files, mitigation records, site inspections, correspondence with DERM/FDEP/SFWMD, and all records identifying whether the property is or is not federally jurisdictional.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Clean Water Act records, enforcement referrals, water-quality records, wetlands guidance, communications with USACE/FDEP/DERM, complaints, inspection records, and any records concerning delegation, oversight, or federal environmental enforcement.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): listed species, habitat, consultation, refuge/Everglades-related records, biological assessments, site comments, and communications with DERM/FDEP/SFWMD/USACE.
• National Park Service (NPS): Everglades National Park, acquisition, 8.5 SMA, hydrology, boundary, land-protection, resource-management, and project records affecting the area or property.
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): soil surveys, agricultural/wetland determinations, conservation plans, farm tract records available to the requester, hydric-soil mapping, wetland inventory communications, and records supporting agricultural classification or non-wetland use.
• USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA): farm/tract records available to the requester, aerial imagery, crop history, farm-number records, and communications relevant to continuous agricultural use.
• NOAA / National Weather Service: rainfall, storm, flooding, tide, water-level, climate, and extreme-weather data if the County relies on hydrology or flooding assumptions.
• FEMA: flood maps, flood-insurance studies, hazard-mitigation records, disaster/flood claims, elevation/floodplain records, and communications with County or state agencies.
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): groundwater, surface-water, elevation, hydrology, wetlands, mapping, gauge, and scientific data relevant to the property or basin.
• Department of the Interior / Office of Everglades Restoration Initiatives, if applicable: Everglades, land-acquisition, restoration, hydrology, or interagency coordination records.

1. Did you personally inspect the property?
2. Did you enter the property?
3. Did you have permission, consent, warrant authority, or another legal basis to enter?
4. Did you take photographs?
5. On what date and at what time were the photographs taken?
6. From what location were the photographs taken?
7. Did you create field notes?
8. Were those field notes disclosed before this hearing?
9. Did you prepare an inspection report?
10. Was the inspection report disclosed before this hearing?

11. Did you perform a Rule 62-340 wetland delineation?
12. Did you collect vegetation data?
13. Did you collect soil data?
14. Did you collect hydrology data?
15. Did you prepare Rule 62-340 data forms?
16. Did you map a wetland boundary?
17. Did you identify the exact alleged impact area relative to that boundary?
18. Did FDEP or SFWMD review or confirm the wetland determination?
19. Are you asking the Hearing Officer to accept a wetland conclusion without a complete Rule 62-340 record?

1. Does it identify the exact Code section?
2. Does it include exact factual findings?
3. Does it identify the evidence supporting each finding?
4. Does it rule on notice objections?
5. Does it rule on service or posting objections?
6. Does it rule on late evidence or same-day evidence?
7. Does it rule on continuance requests?
8. Does it address Rule 62-340 methodology if wetlands are involved?
9. Does it address delegation or Chapter 373 authority if state-law authority is implied?
10. Does it address agricultural classification or exemptions?
11. Does it itemize penalties?
12. Does it itemize costs?
13. Does it identify a clear correction deadline?
14. Does it describe exact corrective action?
15. Does it identify appeal or review rights?

1. Request a copy of the final order or written ruling.
2. Request the hearing recording.
3. Request transcript instructions and cost information.
4. Request all admitted exhibits.
5. Request all excluded or proffered exhibits.
6. Request the complete County evidence file.
7. Submit a written preservation letter for the record, audio, exhibits, rejected exhibits, proffers, and rulings.
8. Submit public-records requests to MDC/DERM, County Attorney, FDEP, SFWMD, USACE, EPA, USFWS, NPS, NRCS, FDACS, and other relevant agencies.
9. Calendar all appeal, rehearing, reconsideration, and certiorari deadlines.
10. Prepare any available motion for rehearing or reconsideration.
11. Prepare the certiorari outline while memory is fresh.

1. Hearing recording.
2. Transcript instructions.
3. All admitted exhibits.
4. All rejected exhibits.
5. All proffers.
6. Final order or written ruling.
7. Hearing Officer rulings.
8. County evidence file.
9. DERM / County Attorney communications.
10. Rule 62-340 records.
11. Mitigation / federal / acquisition records.
12. Any records showing extension, stay, tolling, correction deadline, penalty accrual, lien, or permit-block status.

• Bring a written objection sheet and read objections aloud.
• Mark every exhibit with date, source, and purpose.
• Ask whether the hearing is being recorded.
• Ask for excluded evidence to be included as proffered evidence.
• Ask for written findings on disputed authority, notice, evidence, penalty, and correction issues.
• After the order, preserve deadline for circuit-court review.