Florida Wetland Misclassification
Defense & Protection Field Manual

Who Is the Respondent? — Plain-English Rule

Do not identify the respondent by guessing who owns the land. Read the Notice of Violation. Find the exact name printed as the violator, cited party, responsible person, respondent, owner, corporation, limited liability company, trust, or other entity against whom Miami-Dade is proceeding. That name is the starting point.

Why this distinction matters

• Notice: The record must show who Miami-Dade actually accused.
• Service: The record must show how notice was served and when the applicable deadline began.
• Responsibility: Miami-Dade must connect the named respondent to the exact legal duty or prohibited act charged.
• Property/title exposure: Separately identify any owner duty, property compliance or restoration requirement, lien authority, penalty, or other remedy asserted against the parcel. Respondent identity does not answer that separate question.
• Due process: A separate person or entity whose own liability or rights are being adjudicated must receive the notice and opportunity to be heard required by the governing procedure.
• Hearing preparation: The respondent must know whether the County's theory is based on ownership, possession, operation, personal conduct, responsibility for another actor, or another stated legal basis.
• Circuit Court review: If the Hearing Officer rules against the respondent, the administrative record should show who was named, who was served, what legal theory Miami-Dade used, what proof supported that theory, what objection was made, and what ruling followed.

Notice of Violation — Evidence-to-Element Worksheet

Use one row for every separate allegation. The point is to identify exactly what Miami-Dade must prove and where the proof is—or is not—in the hearing record.

Three Steps Ahead — Hearing Worksheet

For each important issue, do not stop at what Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) is doing today. Write down what you must do now, what ruling you need, and what the Circuit Court must later be able to see in the administrative record.

Day-One Certiorari File — Folder Index

Create this folder structure when the first Notice of Violation arrives. The petition comes later; the record needed to support it begins now.

LOCAL — Miami-Dade County Home-Rule / Code of Ordinances

Chapter 24, Code of Ordinances of Miami-Dade County — Environmental Protection. A Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management wetland Notice of Violation ordinarily begins as a local Miami-Dade County enforcement case. Chapter 24 supplies the County environmental prohibition, permit requirement, Director authority, remedy, or other local substantive rule that DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) claims was violated.

Chapter 8CC, Code of Ordinances of Miami-Dade County — Code Enforcement. When an alleged Chapter 24 violation is prosecuted through the County civil-violation system, Chapter 8CC supplies the local citation, County Hearing Officer, hearing, penalty, and review procedure. Chapter 8CC does not become Chapter 120 merely because the environmental dispute also involves a Florida statute or Florida administrative rule.

Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) — Miami-Dade County quasi-judicial board. The Environmental Quality Control Board is a County board operating under Chapter 24 authority. It hears qualifying requests for variances, extensions of time, modifications and other authorized applications, and qualifying appeals from actions or decisions of a Director. It is not the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.

STATE — Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code

Chapter 373, Florida Statutes — Water Resources. Florida's statewide wetland and water-resource statutory framework enters the analysis through Chapter 373. A local Chapter 24 case may rely on definitions, concepts, or technical standards rooted in Chapter 373 without turning the County case into a state Environmental Resource Permitting enforcement case.

Rule Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code — Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters. This is the statewide Florida wetland-delineation methodology when applicable. It is a state administrative rule, not a Miami-Dade ordinance and not Chapter 120. A Florida administrative rule may supply the technical methodology relevant to a local Chapter 24 allegation without converting a Chapter 8CC Hearing Officer proceeding into a Chapter 120 / Florida Division of Administrative Hearings proceeding.

Chapter 120, Florida Statutes — Florida Administrative Procedure Act. Chapter 120 governs Florida state administrative proceedings when the Florida Administrative Procedure Act actually applies. The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings is a state administrative tribunal. A Miami-Dade County Chapter 8CC Hearing Officer is not a Florida Division of Administrative Hearings Administrative Law Judge.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITTING — Separate State Authority

Environmental Resource Permitting is a separate Florida state regulatory program. It is administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida's water management districts, including the South Florida Water Management District. Miami-Dade County may exercise state Environmental Resource Permitting authority only to the extent a valid current delegation or other legal instrument actually authorizes the County to exercise that particular power.

Do not assume Environmental Resource Permitting authority from Chapter 24. Miami-Dade County's ability to enforce its own Chapter 24 ordinance, or to use Rule Chapter 62-340 as a technical methodology, does not by itself establish that DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) possesses general state Environmental Resource Permitting enforcement authority. Whenever DERM invokes Environmental Resource Permitting law, criteria, compliance requirements, or enforcement powers, require production of the specific current delegation agreement or other legal instrument covering the exact activity, resource, geographic area, remedy, and enforcement power at issue.

Current delegation check. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's current Environmental Resource Permitting local-program delegation page lists a Miami-Dade sovereignty submerged lands delegation, while general Environmental Resource Permitting delegation agreements are listed for other counties. That is a reason to demand the actual current instrument rather than assume that Miami-Dade has general Environmental Resource Permitting authority.

IF DERM REFERS OR EMAILS THE MATTER TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) may transmit an alleged condition or activity to the South Florida Water Management District, which separately administers state Environmental Resource Permitting responsibilities within its jurisdiction. A South Florida Water Management District inquiry or enforcement action is a separate state regulatory process. It does not retroactively create Environmental Resource Permitting authority in Miami-Dade County and should not be merged with the original local Chapter 24 Notice of Violation.

Regulatory consequences are not proof of motive. A referral can create substantial additional procedural and regulatory burdens for a respondent. If emails, testimony, timing, internal communications, or a documented pattern show that a referral was being used for an improper purpose rather than to invoke an independently supported state responsibility, preserve that evidence and argument. Do not state intimidation or improper motive as a proven fact unless the record supports it.

WHAT MAKES LAND A LEGAL WETLAND? — MIAMI-DADE / FLORIDA / FEDERAL

Do not ask only, “Is this land wet?” Ask which legal system is being applied. Florida/Miami-Dade wetland status and federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction are different questions.

Current federal status verified September 4, 2026: EPA's July 27, 2026 status page states that the 2023 rule is not operative in 26 states, including Florida under the current injunction landscape, and the agencies use the pre-2015 regulatory regime consistent with Sackett until further notice. Always re-check before relying on the federal column.

What Is a Wetland? — The Law Must Identify the Definition Before the Map, Inspector, or Agency Conclusion Means Anything

Wetland Map Hierarchy — Which Maps Exist, Who Owns Them, What They Can Prove & Which One Controls When They Conflict

There is no fixed number of wetland-related maps. Local, state, and federal agencies maintain dozens of layers. For defense work, organize them into the ten practical classes below. The critical distinction is between a screening/inventory map and an agency determination made under the law that actually governs the disputed question.

Which Map Is Superior? — The Answer Depends on the Legal Question

When Maps Conflict — 12-Step Wetland Map Conflict Protocol

1. Freeze every version. Save the exact map image, map-service layer, metadata page, export date, legend, scale, and web address used by each agency.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Online maps and agency layers can change without notice. Freezing the exact version, legend, scale, metadata, and retrieval date preserves the map the government or respondent actually relied upon at the relevant time.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: A fixed copy of every map or data layer used in the case is preserved before online systems or agency layers change. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Before requesting anything else, capture each map in a form that cannot silently change: export or screen-capture the layer at a stated zoom and scale, save the metadata page, legend, service URL, and the exact date and time of capture, and store read-only copies offline. Do not rely on a live map service or a link that may re-render later. Log every captured version with its source and capture date so the frozen copy can be authenticated against the government's own later production.

2. Identify the producer. Name the agency, division, office, contractor, analyst, and — where available — the person who created or interpreted the map.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: A map's meaning depends on who produced or interpreted it. This item identifies the agency, office, contractor, analyst, or other source so methodology, purpose, and testimony can be tied to an accountable producer rather than to an anonymous colored polygon.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The map is tied to the agency, office, person, or vendor that produced it. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: For each map, record the producing agency, division, office, contractor, analyst, and—where available—the individual who created or interpreted it, and request the work order, task assignment, or contract behind it through Chapter 119. Identify who can authenticate the map and explain its method at the hearing; a layer no witness can support is weaker than one tied to a named, qualified author. Keep the producer information with the frozen copy from the preservation step.

3. Identify what the polygon means. “Wetland,” “wetland area of concern,” “hydric soil,” “two-mile buffer,” “500-foot buffer,” “habitat,” “flood zone,” and “formal determination application” are legally different things.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Different map polygons represent different legal and scientific concepts. This item prevents a screening buffer, habitat polygon, hydric-soil unit, flood zone, or formal determination application from being mislabeled simply as 'wetland.'

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The meaning of each polygon, line, buffer, or symbol is established from the map's own documentation. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Pull the map's own legend, data dictionary, or metadata definition for the exact symbol at issue and quote it verbatim into the record, keeping “wetland,” “wetland area of concern,” “hydric soil,” “buffer,” “habitat,” “flood zone,” and “determination application” distinct. State the precise proposition the polygon actually supports and object to any use of it as though it decided regulatory wetland status. Preserve the definition, the objection, and any ruling together.

4. Overlay the exact parcel and charged location. Use the folio, legal description, property survey, and Global Positioning System coordinates of the alleged work. A forty-acre parcel cannot be proven wetland by a polygon touching one corner.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: A map can touch one part of a large parcel while the charged activity occurred somewhere else. This item requires the exact parcel boundary and charged location to be overlaid so geography is tested at the place the County actually alleges the violation occurred.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The exact charged location is compared with the mapped feature rather than relying on a parcel-level impression. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Overlay the folio, legal description, survey, and GPS coordinates of the charged activity onto the frozen map at a stated scale, and measure where the alleged act actually sits relative to the mapped feature. Enter the overlay as an exhibit showing north arrow, scale, parcel boundary, and charged-activity point, and object if a polygon touching one corner of a large parcel is offered as proof for the specific charged location. Preserve the overlay, its inputs, and any ruling.

5. Identify the map's source data. Aerial imagery date, soil survey, basin boundary, buffer rule, field verification, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) elevation, hydrology record, or prior agency determination.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: The reliability and legal significance of a map depend on its underlying data. This item identifies the imagery date, soil survey, buffer rule, field verification, elevation, hydrology, or prior determination from which the map was built.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The respondent learns which imagery, soils, survey, database, or other information generated the map. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: For each layer, identify the underlying source—aerial imagery and its date, soil survey, basin boundary, buffer rule, LiDAR, hydrology record, field verification, or a prior determination—and request that source directly rather than accepting the finished polygon. Test whether the source data actually supports the mapped conclusion for this parcel on the relevant date. Preserve the source identification, the request, and the response so any gap between the map and its data is in the record.

6. Read the disclaimer. Put the map publisher's own limitation into the hearing record. Miami-Dade says its Wetland Areas of Concern map is an approximate guide and not a regulatory jurisdiction map. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service says the National Wetlands Inventory is not a regulatory-jurisdiction determination. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission says Cooperative Land Cover is not appropriate for legal/regulatory/cadastral use.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Map publishers often state limitations on regulatory use, scale, accuracy, or jurisdiction. This item puts those limitations into the hearing record so a screening or planning map is not given legal effect the publisher itself disclaims.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The map's official limitations become part of the evidentiary analysis. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Locate the publisher's own limitation—for example, that Miami-Dade's Wetland Areas of Concern map is approximate and not a regulatory jurisdiction map, or that the National Wetlands Inventory is not regulatory—and read the exact language into the record with its source. Use it to fix the outer limit of what the map can prove and object to any use beyond that limit. Preserve the disclaimer text, its citation, and the objection and ruling.

7. Identify the legal question. Is the controversy Miami-Dade Chapter 24 wetland status, Florida Environmental Resource Permitting, federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, federal agricultural conservation compliance, flood risk, or merely habitat planning?
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: The 'best' map depends on the legal question being answered. This item first identifies whether the dispute is local wetland status, state permitting, federal jurisdiction, agricultural compliance, flood risk, or habitat planning so the correct type of determination is evaluated.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: Each map is evaluated against the legal question actually being decided—Florida wetland boundary, federal jurisdiction, agricultural compliance, flood risk, soils, or another issue. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: State on the record which legal question the map is being offered to decide—Chapter 24 wetland status, Florida ERP, federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction, agricultural conservation compliance, flood risk, or habitat planning—and require the County to match each map to the question it actually answers. Object when a map built for one purpose is used to decide a different one. Preserve the stated question, the objection, and the ruling for each disputed map.

8. Demand the operative determination. If the government says a formal determination exists, demand the signed final agency action, approved survey, legal description, boundary coordinates, acreage, field sheets, and expiration date — not merely a Geographic Information System polygon.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: A formal agency determination is materially different from a Geographic Information System layer. This item requires the signed action, approved survey, coordinates, acreage, field support, and validity period when the government claims a formal determination controls.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The respondent identifies whether a formal, current, parcel-specific determination exists and distinguishes it from preliminary or screening information. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: If the County claims a formal determination exists, demand the signed final agency action, approved survey, legal description, boundary coordinates, acreage, field sheets, and expiration date, and compare that document against the GIS polygon actually shown. Establish on the record whether a current, parcel-specific determination exists or whether screening information is being presented as a determination. Preserve the request, whatever is produced, and any ruling on the difference.

9. Demand the field foundation. Identify every sample point, vegetation observation, soil profile, hydrology indicator, photograph, delineation flag, coordinate, field form, and person who performed/reviewed the determination.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: A wetland boundary should be traceable to actual field observations and qualified people. This item requires the sample points, vegetation, soils, hydrology, photographs, flags, forms, coordinates, and personnel underlying the line.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

   When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

   What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

   RESULT / RESULTS: Any mapped wetland boundary offered as regulatory proof is connected to the field observations, sample points, survey information, and qualified personnel that created it. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Require the County to connect any mapped wetland boundary to its field foundation—every sample point, vegetation observation, soil profile, hydrology indicator, photograph, delineation flag, coordinate, field form, and the qualified person who performed and reviewed the work—and identify precisely what is missing. Object where a boundary is offered as regulatory proof without the field record the governing methodology requires. Preserve the demand, the production or its absence, the objection, and the ruling.

10. Compare dates. A map made after enforcement began cannot silently become the factual predicate that supposedly existed on the date of the alleged violation. Preserve creation date, revision date, imagery date, inspection date, and enforcement date.
    ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

    Why this is in the manual: Dates determine whether a map or technical product could actually have supported the decision when enforcement began. This item prevents a later-created or later-revised map from being silently treated as contemporaneous evidence.

    WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

    Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

    When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

    What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

    RESULT / RESULTS: Map dates are compared with inspection dates, alleged violation dates, land-use changes, hydrologic events, and later agency revisions. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Line up the map's creation date, revision date, and imagery date against the inspection date, the alleged violation date, later land-use changes, and any agency revision, and put that timeline in the record. Object if a map made after enforcement began is used as the factual predicate for conditions on the violation date. Preserve the date comparison, the supporting metadata, the objection, and the ruling.

11. Build a contradiction exhibit. Put conflicting government maps side-by-side with the same parcel boundary, north arrow, scale, charged-activity point, source, date, and disclaimer.
    ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

    Why this is in the manual: Conflicting maps are easier to understand when shown on the same parcel, scale, orientation, and charged location. This item turns an abstract contradiction into a hearing exhibit the decision-maker and reviewing court can compare directly.

    WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

    Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

    When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

    What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

    RESULT / RESULTS: Conflicting maps and determinations are organized into a single exhibit showing agency, date, purpose, disclaimer, parcel result, and legal significance. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Assemble the conflicting maps into one exhibit using a single parcel boundary, north arrow, scale, and charged-activity point, labeling each with its agency, date, purpose, source, and disclaimer so the conflict is visible at a glance. Offer it to show that the government's own layers do not agree about the charged location. Preserve the exhibit, its underlying maps, and the ruling on its admission.

12. Request an express ruling. Ask the Hearing Officer to identify what evidence establishes the wetland boundary notwithstanding the conflicting maps and preserve the answer, objection, proffer, and ruling for review.
    ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

    Why this is in the manual: A map conflict matters on review only if the Hearing Officer is asked to resolve what evidence actually establishes the boundary. This item requests an express ruling and preserves the answer, objection, proffer, and supporting evidence for later review.

    WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

    Who it concerns: The respondent, the County witness or map producer, and the Hearing Officer who must decide what evidence establishes the disputed wetland boundary.

    When it matters: At the hearing after the map conflict and its limitations have been placed into the record and before the decision is final.

    What must be preserved: Keep the conflicting maps, parcel overlay, disclaimers, field foundation, exact request for a ruling, the Hearing Officer's answer, objection if necessary, proffer, and recording or transcript citation.

    RESULT / RESULTS: The Hearing Officer is asked to decide what evidentiary or legal weight the disputed map will receive. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Ask the Hearing Officer to state, on the record, what evidence establishes the wetland boundary despite the conflicting maps, and to rule on the weight each disputed map receives. If the answer is a screening layer rather than a parcel-specific delineation, say so precisely and object. Preserve the question, the answer, the objection, any proffer, and the ruling for review.

Miami-Dade Wetland Areas of Concern — Exact Layer, Exact Categories, Exact Limitation

Exact product: Miami-Dade County's Wetland Areas of Concern layer. Historic County Geographic Information System metadata identifies the feature class as MDC.WetLandAOC (Miami-Dade County Wetland Areas of Concern feature-class identifier), describes its purpose as flagging properties that may contain wetlands, and says Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management created the data from the soils layer. The current County map service identifies three polygon types:

• 1Basins & 2-mile buffer. Being in the buffer does not mean the parcel itself was delineated as wetland.
  ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

  Why this is in the manual: The Miami-Dade Wetland Areas of Concern basin layer includes a two-mile buffer used for screening. This item prevents proximity to that buffer from being stated as though the parcel itself received a parcel-specific wetland delineation.

  WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

  Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

  When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

  What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

  RESULT / RESULTS: The County's basin-and-buffer layer is treated as a screening signal rather than as proof that the exact charged location is a legal wetland. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Treat the basin-and-2-mile-buffer layer as a screening signal only, and require a parcel-specific delineation for the charged location rather than the parcel's mere presence inside the buffer. Record the buffer's stated screening purpose and the distance from its source feature to the charged point. Preserve the layer, its purpose, the objection, and the ruling.

• 2Depressional Soils & 500-foot buffer. A proximity buffer around mapped depressional soils is a screening signal, not a parcel wetland boundary.
  ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

  Why this is in the manual: The depressional-soils category uses a 500-foot proximity buffer. This item explains why the buffer can identify an area for further review but cannot by itself establish the wetland boundary at the charged location.

  WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

  Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

  When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

  What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

  RESULT / RESULTS: A mapped depressional-soil buffer remains evidence of proximity, not a substitute for parcel-specific wetland proof. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Establish on the record that a 500-foot buffer around mapped depressional soils shows proximity, not a wetland boundary at the charged point, and require parcel-specific proof under the governing methodology. Measure and record the actual distance from the charged activity to the mapped soils. Preserve the layer, the distance, the objection, and the ruling.

• 3Hydric Soils & 500-foot buffer. A proximity buffer around mapped hydric soils is not proof that the charged point has a hydric soil profile or meets the governing wetland methodology.
  ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

  Why this is in the manual: The hydric-soils category also uses a 500-foot proximity buffer. This item prevents a regional soil-screening signal from being substituted for parcel-specific soil observations and the governing wetland delineation methodology.

  WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

  Who it concerns: The respondent, the agency or contractor that produced the map, the person who interpreted it, any surveyor or qualified technical expert, and the Hearing Officer if map evidence is disputed.

  When it matters: As soon as a map or Geographic Information System layer is cited and before it is treated as proof of parcel-specific wetland status or boundary.

  What must be preserved: Keep the exact map version, producer, layer name, legend, scale, metadata, source data, retrieval and imagery dates, disclaimer, parcel overlay, charged-location coordinates, any formal determination, field foundation, contradiction exhibit, objection, and ruling.

  RESULT / RESULTS: A mapped hydric-soil buffer does not automatically prove that the charged point contains a qualifying hydric soil profile or satisfies Florida's wetland methodology. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Require proof of a qualifying hydric soil profile at the charged point itself—a soil pit, described profile, or equivalent field evidence—rather than a 500-foot buffer around mapped hydric soils, and record the distance between the mapped soils and the charged location. Object to treating the buffer as satisfaction of Florida's wetland methodology. Preserve the field demand, the response, the objection, and the ruling.

Demand: the exact layer version; the polygon category covering the parcel; underlying soils polygon; basin polygon; buffer distance; metadata; export date; parcel printout; person who generated it; and an admission whether the County is using the map merely to screen the parcel or trying to use it as substantive proof.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory — What It Means When It Agrees or Disagrees with Miami-Dade

The National Wetlands Inventory is a federal biological wetland/deepwater habitat inventory. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service expressly states that its data use a biological definition, may not match federal regulatory wetland boundaries, may not reflect changes after the mapping date, and should not be interpreted as establishing the presence, absence, or extent of wetlands regulated under federal, state, Tribal, or local law.

“An Inspector Called It Wetland” — Identify the Citing Inspector, the Delineator, the Reviewer & the Decision-Maker Separately

Never allow the record to collapse four different roles into “the inspector.” Identify the full name, badge/employee number, title, division, employer, inspection date/time, qualifications, Rule Chapter 62-340 training, role in the field work, and the person who approved the conclusion.

Known sample in the Field Manual: the sample citation numbered 2025-B286251 identifies Elizabeth McKiernan, Badge #808A as the citing inspector. That does not establish that she personally performed the wetland delineation. In an actual case, identify the real person occupying each role and do not attribute technical work to the citing inspector without evidence.

How the Government Must Prove Ground That Appears Upland Is Legally Wetland

A. If present conditions can be evaluated normally

• VVegetation: identify plant species, vegetative stratum, location, status/treatment, dominance or vegetative-index analysis where applicable, photographs, date, season, and the person who made the identification.
• SSoils: identify the exact soil sample point, profile/boring, depth, color and diagnostic features, any hydric-soil indicator, photograph, disturbed-soil condition, date, and analyst. A regional soil polygon is context, not a substitute for the claimed field foundation.
• HHydrology: identify the hydrologic indicator relied upon, observation date/location, saturation or water measurements, frequency/duration reasoning, rainfall history, groundwater/canal stages, drainage, pumps, water-control structures, and whether the observed condition represents normal circumstances.

B. If vegetation or soils were altered so the ordinary boundary cannot be reliably delineated

Rule 62-340.300(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides an altered-site pathway. When its prerequisites are met — including the specified soil/substrate condition and an agency determination that the ordinary methodology cannot reliably delineate the boundary because vegetation or soils were altered — the agency uses the most reliable available information with reasonable scientific judgment to determine where the ordinary methodology would have placed the wetland/upland boundary. The rule identifies examples such as aerial photographs, remaining vegetation, authoritative site-specific documents, and topographic consistencies.

Demand the reconstruction: What alteration? Who caused it? When? What part of vegetation or soils became unreliable? Which hydric-soil/riverwash evidence satisfies the threshold? Which historical aerial? What imagery date? Which authoritative site-specific document? Which topographic relationship? Where would the boundary have been, with coordinates? Who performed the reconstruction? What competing historical evidence was considered?

C. If lawful or permit-exempt activity permanently changed hydrology

Rule 62-340.300(3)(b) contains an important limitation. The altered-site reconstruction provision does not apply in the described circumstances where qualifying permitted activity or activity that did not require a permit altered hydrology so that, under normal circumstances, the area no longer inundates or saturates with the frequency and duration needed to meet the wetland definition. That makes the history and legality of drainage, farming, roads, ditches, water-control works, and government projects potentially decisive.

D. If the government claims an unauthorized alteration destroyed the indicators

Rule 62-340.300(3)(c) allows evidence to be used when an activity violating the cited regulatory requirements disturbed vegetation or soils. The government still must prove the factual predicate: what activity occurred, when, where, why it was unlawful, what indicators it destroyed, and what reliable evidence reconstructs the boundary. Do not concede illegality merely because the agency invokes the altered-site provision.

No More Vague Wetland Claims — Exact Detail Required for Every Common Government Statement

Build the Wetland Proof Table — One Row for Every Claim

For every wetland allegation, build a table in the case file with these columns and do not allow any row to remain generic:

Rule 62-340, F.A.C. (Florida Administrative Code) — Identify the Applicable Delineation Pathway

Do not assume that every Florida wetland determination requires the same conjunctive three-factor showing. First identify the applicable Rule 62-340.300 pathway. Where vegetation, soils, and hydrology are relevant under that pathway, demand parcel-specific documentation at the actual locations relied upon by the agency:

• ▸Vegetation: Species and vegetation community documented at identified field points, with the stratum, indicator/status treatment, dominance calculation, prevalence analysis, or other vegetation analysis the agency actually used under the applicable Rule 62-340.400/.450 pathway explained and reproducible; include dates, locations, photographs, and field sheets
• ▸Soils: Parcel-specific soil/substrate observations actually relied upon under the applicable Rule 62-340 pathway — profiles or borings, depths, colors/descriptions, photographs, field sheets, and the basis for any hydric-soil or altered-soil conclusion. Regional soil mapping may provide context but does not substitute for the site-specific foundation the agency says supports its decision
• ▸Hydrology: Hydrology evidence actually relied upon under the applicable Rule 62-340.500/.550 analysis, including dates, observation locations, water/saturation measurements or indicators, duration/frequency reasoning, rainfall and water-level context, and any managed-water or altered-hydrology analysis. The Corps 1987 Manual indicators belong to the separate federal methodology and should not be imported as the Florida rule.

Army Corps 1987 Manual + Atlantic & Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement

The 1987 Corps Manual and the Atlantic & Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement are federal delineation tools for the federal wetlands / §404 analysis when that federal methodology is actually implicated. They are not the controlling statewide methodology for a Miami-Dade Chapter 24 case merely because the parcel is in Florida; F.A.C. (Florida Administrative Code) Chapter 62-340 supplies Florida's statewide wetland delineation methodology. Use Corps materials for federal analysis, or as clearly labeled corroborative technical material, without allowing them to replace the Rule 62-340 pathway that governs the Florida/local determination.

Cross-examination when the federal Corps methodology actually applies: Did you establish the required sample plots? Did you conduct the relevant field soil investigation? Did you document climatic conditions and hydrology indicators under the applicable federal manual/supplement? Each answer should be tied to the federal methodology actually invoked — not imported automatically into a County Rule 62-340 case.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) Web Soil Survey & Prior Converted Cropland

Free independent federal soil data at websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. For historically drained agricultural land, determine whether the current federal prior-converted-cropland provisions and the parcel's facts support a formal agency determination. A qualifying federal prior-converted-cropland determination can materially affect federal CWA (Clean Water Act) jurisdiction, but it does not by itself decide Florida or Miami-Dade wetland authority. Verify the current federal rule and agency determination before relying on it.

Public Data Sources for Technical and Evidentiary Review

• ▸SFWMD DBHYDRO (South Florida Water Management District hydrologic database) (dbhydro.sfwmd.gov): Canal stage, rainfall, and water-level records that can be compared with parcel observations to test timing, duration, and possible managed-water influence. A correlation can support a managed-hydrology inference when the spatial, temporal, and hydraulic relationship is established; the graph alone does not prove causation or wetland status.
• ▸LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Topographic Data (USGS (United States Geological Survey) 3DEP (3D Elevation Program) / FGDL (Florida Geographic Data Library)): Elevation and terrain data useful for testing drainage paths, low areas, berms, canals, and engineered features. Resolution and vertical accuracy vary by dataset; use LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) with surveys, field elevations, and hydrologic records rather than treating it alone as proof of wetland status or water source.
• ▸NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Climate Data Online (ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web): Daily precipitation records. Use them to test whether observed wetness followed ordinary rainfall, a storm event, or managed water conditions. In a federal Corps analysis, climatic-condition requirements belong to the applicable federal manual/supplement; in a Florida/local case, use NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) as corroborative hydrologic evidence within the governing Rule 62-340 pathway.
• ▸USGS (United States Geological Survey) Earth Explorer (earthexplorer.usgs.gov): Historical aerial imagery useful for documenting farming, clearing, drainage, structures, vegetation patterns, and land-management history. Aerials can corroborate or impeach a claimed baseline, but image interpretation and date/resolution limits must be addressed and the imagery does not itself replace the governing wetland methodology.
• ▸FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) Maps (msc.fema.gov): Flood-zone mapping provides flood-risk context, not a wetland delineation. Use it only as corroborative background and do not treat Zone X—or any other flood-zone designation—as proving or disproving wetland status.
• ▸Miami-Dade County GIS (geographic information system) & Property Appraiser: Historical aerials, permit records, assessment history, and infrastructure maps can document chronology, government records, and valuation context. A tax assessment change is not by itself proof of a taking, causation, or compensable loss; pair property-rights arguments with the governing legal test and appropriate valuation evidence.

Chapter 24 + Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code — Substantive Rule versus Hearing Procedure

A Chapter 24 citation does not automatically identify the tribunal. When a listed Chapter 24 violation is enforced through Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code, the environmental Code provision supplies the substantive allegation while Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code supplies the local administrative-hearing machinery. The named violator may request a hearing before a County Hearing Officer under § 8CC-5, Miami-Dade County Code. Treat the citation, the enforced Code section, and the hearing notice as separate sources that must be read together.

Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code Hearing Request — Preserve the Right to Contest

Under § 8CC-5, Miami-Dade County Code, the written request for an administrative hearing must be filed within the time limit stated in the specific Code section being enforced or no later than 20 calendar days after service of the notice, whichever is earlier. A failure to request the hearing within the prescribed period is treated as a waiver of the administrative hearing. Do not substitute a generic Chapter 120 deadline for the deadline that actually governs the citation.

EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board) — Director Appeals, Variances, Extensions & Other Chapter 24 Matters

The EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board) is not a DOAH (Florida Division of Administrative Hearings) tribunal. Miami-Dade describes it as a quasi-judicial body that hears specified Chapter 24 applications and appeals. An aggrieved person appealing a qualifying action or decision of a Director must follow the Chapter 24 / EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board) filing requirements; Miami-Dade states that a Director appeal may be filed within 15 days from the action or decision. Confirm that the matter is actually one the EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board) is authorized to hear before relying on that route.

Evidence, Objections, Proffers & Record Preservation

Preserve the issues needed for later review in the tribunal actually hearing the case. Tender written threshold objections before substantive testimony when appropriate; object to unsupported methodology, undisclosed evidence, hearsay or foundation defects as applicable; request rulings; and if evidence is excluded, make a clear proffer or otherwise preserve what the excluded material would have shown. The goal is not merely to argue at the hearing — it is to create a reviewable record of the issue, evidence, objection, ruling, and resulting prejudice.

Final Order & Local Judicial Review

Section 8CC-8, Miami-Dade County Code provides that the named violator or the County may seek review of a Hearing Officer's final order in the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County in accordance with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure governing review of administrative action. This is a different route from Chapter 120 §120.68 review of state agency action. Treat rendition and the certiorari deadline as an emergency item: the applicable first-tier certiorari period is ordinarily short and commonly 30 days from rendition, so verify the current rule, the rendition date, and any authorized tolling motion immediately. Obtain the final order and hearing recording, preserve the record/appendix, and do not wait for a public-records request or later scientific study if the review clock is already running.

Chapter 119 Records Request — Build the Full Government File and Put Material Nonproduction on the Hearing Record

Florida's Public Records Law can be used to seek nonexempt government records related to the parcel or enforcement matter — including relevant emails, messages, meeting notes, calendar entries, inter-agency correspondence, reports, photographs, drafts, and supervisor communications. The request itself does not extend or replace the deadline for a Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code hearing request, an EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board) appeal, or any other required filing. But when requested records are material to understanding or rebutting the County's case, preserve the request, proof of receipt, responses, omissions, late production, and resulting prejudice; tender or proffer those materials at the hearing; request a continuance, exclusion/limitation, additional preparation time, or other authorized cure as appropriate; and obtain an express ruling so the issue exists in the administrative record for certiorari review.

Recommended Order versus Final Order — The Critical Distinction

In a qualifying §120.57(1) proceeding, the presiding officer submits a Recommended Order containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition. The agency then enters the Final Order. Section 120.57 limits how the agency may reject or modify findings of fact and conclusions of law, and it requires explicit rulings on properly presented exceptions. Preserve specific record citations to every disputed departure.

Stay / Supersedeas — Match the Request to the Procedural Posture

Section 120.68 addresses stays and supersedeas in the judicial-review context and permits an agency to grant a stay on appropriate terms. The correct request, tribunal, standard, and timing depend on the action being reviewed and the applicable appellate rules. Identify that authority before filing rather than treating a stay as a one-size-fits-all motion.

Standing — Who Can Participate as a Formal Party

Under §120.569(1), a person whose substantial interests are determined by an agency may be entitled to a proceeding under Chapter 120, subject to the governing statute, agency action, and standing requirements. In qualifying proceedings, formal party status can carry rights to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, file exceptions where authorized, and seek review. Establish the basis for standing in the petition rather than assuming that community interest alone is sufficient.

Expert Testimony — Credentials, Methodology & Record Foundation

Retain experts whose qualifications match the disputed issue — for example, wetland delineation, soils, hydrology, engineering, or historical water management. Require a written methodology and parcel-specific foundation that addresses the agency's actual evidence. The objective is to create a competent competing record, preserve methodology objections, and identify why the agency evidence should be given less weight or rejected under the governing evidentiary standard.

Alternative Chapter 120 Pathways — Declaratory Statement, Variance / Waiver & Mediation

Chapter 120 contains procedures beyond a formal disputed-fact hearing, including declaratory statements, variances or waivers, and mediation in circumstances authorized by statute. These paths have different prerequisites and consequences. They should be evaluated only after confirming that Chapter 120 actually governs the matter and that using an alternative path will not sacrifice a separate hearing or review deadline.

• ▸§120.565 Declaratory Statement: A mechanism for obtaining an agency statement concerning the applicability of a statutory provision, rule, or order to the petitioner's particular circumstances, subject to the statute and agency rules.
• ▸§120.542 Variance or Waiver: A statutory mechanism for seeking a variance or waiver from an agency rule when the statutory criteria are met. It is not a substitute for disputing whether the rule or agency authority applies in the first place.
• ▸§120.573 Mediation: A voluntary resolution mechanism where authorized and agreed. Before relying on mediation, determine what happens to every independent petition, hearing, enforcement, and review deadline.

Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)

Loper Bright overruled Chevron deference for federal statutory interpretation: federal courts independently determine a statute's meaning and do not defer merely because a federal agency advances an expansive reading of its own authority. Use it for a genuine federal-law question. Do not present it as an automatic rule governing a Miami-Dade Chapter 24 hearing; for Florida statutory and rule interpretation, Article V, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution provides the direct no-deference principle.

SEC (United States Securities and Exchange Commission) versus Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024)

Jarkesy held that the Seventh Amendment required a jury when the SEC (United States Securities and Exchange Commission) sought civil penalties for securities-fraud claims analogous to common-law fraud. Its direct application to a Miami-Dade land-use or code-enforcement hearing is uncertain. Use it, if at all, as carefully framed supporting authority for a preserved constitutional argument rather than as a categorical rule invalidating local administrative fact-finding.

Major Questions Doctrine

The major-questions doctrine addresses regulatory action of extraordinary economic or political significance and requires clear legislative authorization for that kind of sweeping agency power. Its direct application to a single local permit, citation, or parcel-level enforcement case is unlikely. Use it only as a carefully preserved supporting argument when the government's theory truly depends on an unusually broad assertion of federal regulatory power.

Florida-Specific Takings & Property Rights Cases

• ▸Koontz versus St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013): Florida-origin exactions case. When government conditions permit approval—or denies a permit because an applicant refuses a demanded property/monetary exaction—evaluate the Nollan/Dolan nexus and rough-proportionality framework as applicable to the actual demand. Do not apply it where there is no qualifying exaction.
• ▸Penn Central Transportation Co. versus New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978): Three-factor regulatory takings test: economic impact, investment-backed expectations, and character of government action. Requires before/after property valuation evidence.
• ▸Lucas versus South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992): A regulation that eliminates all economically beneficial or productive use can trigger the Lucas categorical rule, subject to the parcel-as-a-whole inquiry and background principles of state property/nuisance law. Document remaining uses and value rather than assuming a severe restriction automatically equals a total taking.
• ▸Stop the Beach Renourishment versus Florida DEP (Department of Environmental Protection), 560 U.S. 702 (2010): The case arose from Florida beach-renourishment/littoral-rights law. The Court unanimously found no taking on the facts, while the proposed “judicial takings” theory did not command a majority rule. Use the case cautiously for property-rights analysis; do not cite it as a categorical rule that any state-law redefinition automatically requires compensation.
• ▸Executive Order 12630: Executive Order 12630 directs federal executive-branch agencies to consider takings implications of federal actions. It does not bind Miami-Dade County merely because a County wetland case exists. Use it only when a federal agency/action is actually implicated, and keep it separate from Fifth Amendment, Florida constitutional, and state statutory property-rights remedies.

Chapter 373, F.S. (Florida Statutes) — State Environmental Authority

Chapter 373 can supply substantive state environmental authority, definitions, permitting requirements, and remedies. Where Rule 62-340 is incorporated or otherwise applicable, require the agency to identify the actual delineation pathway and the parcel-specific evidence supporting it. The existence of a Chapter 373 or Florida-rule issue does not by itself determine whether the hearing belongs in Chapter 120, Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code, or another forum.

Chapter 120, F.S. (Florida Statutes) — Florida APA (Administrative Procedure Act) Procedures — State Procedure Only

Florida's Administrative Procedure Act supplies procedural rights in qualifying state administrative proceedings. Confirm that Chapter 120 actually governs the agency action before relying on DOAH (Florida Division of Administrative Hearings), a Recommended Order, written exceptions, or §120.68 judicial review. Core tools in the appropriate Chapter 120 proceeding can include:

• ▸Notice identifying the proposed or taken agency action and the available procedure for contesting it
• ▸A petition or hearing request filed within the deadline stated in the notice and governing law — do not assume a universal 21-day deadline
• ▸Opportunity, where authorized, to present evidence, cross-examine, rebut, object, and preserve disputed issues in the administrative record
• ▸In a qualifying §120.57(1) proceeding, written exceptions to the Recommended Order within the 15-day period provided by §120.57(1)(k)
• ▸Judicial review of qualifying final state agency action under §120.68, subject to the applicable Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

Bert Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act — §70.001, F.S. (Florida Statutes)

A separate Florida property-rights remedy that may apply when governmental action inordinately burdens qualifying real property. It is not a substitute for contesting the underlying citation, permit decision, or administrative order, and its notice, ripeness, limitations, and settlement procedures must be evaluated independently.

• ▸Separate analysis: Evaluate whether the governmental action and property interest satisfy the statute rather than assuming every wetland restriction creates a claim
• ▸Record value: The administrative record, valuation evidence, permit history, and documented burdens can become important evidence in a later property-rights analysis
• ▸Timing: Evaluate the statute's current notice and limitations requirements independently from any Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code, EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board), or Chapter 120 deadline

Florida Sunshine Law & Public Records — Chapters 286 & 119

Use the statutes according to their actual elements. Chapter 119 can be used to seek nonexempt public records such as relevant emails, messages, reports, photographs, meeting notes, calendar entries, and inter-agency correspondence. Chapter 286 addresses public-meeting requirements in circumstances covered by the Sunshine Law. These statutes can expose evidence and process problems, but they do not replace the deadline for the underlying hearing or appeal.

Additional Florida Statutory Tools

• ▸Rule 62-345, F.A.C. (Florida Administrative Code) (UMAM (Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method)): Use when functional assessment or mitigation scoring is actually part of the agency action. UMAM (Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method) is not itself the wetland-jurisdiction test
• ▸§373.4136, F.S. (Florida Statutes): Mitigation-banking authority relevant when mitigation banking is actually part of the permit or regulatory posture
• ▸§373.617, F.S. (Florida Statutes): Evaluate only where its statutory prerequisites and the relevant water-management-district action are present
• ▸§70.51, F.S. (Florida Statutes): A separate land-use and environmental dispute-resolution process that may be available for qualifying disputes; confirm eligibility and timing before relying on it

Garcia versus United States, Case Number 01-801-CIV-Moore (S.D. Fla. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida))

Federal litigation in the U.S. (United States) District Court for the Southern District of Florida addressing federal actions, flood-protection operations, and claimed property impacts in the Las Palmas / 8.5 SMA (Square Mile Area) area. The litigation record can provide historical filings, project descriptions, maps, and other factual material, but the district-court judgment was vacated and should not be cited as binding precedent or as a controlling wetland-status determination. Use admissible underlying materials for the specific facts they establish.

Public Law 101-229 & Public Law 108-7

Congressional legislation concerning flood-protection measures and water-management modifications in the Las Palmas / 8.5 SMA (Square Mile Area) area can provide important historical and engineered-hydrology context. Introduce the statutory text and legislative history alongside admissible project and Garcia materials, but do not convert that history into a categorical legal finding that every parcel is non-wetland. Use it to test the natural-baseline assumption and to require the agency to account for government-managed hydrology in its parcel-specific proof.

Engineered Canal & Flood-Control Hydrology

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) and USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) canal operations, levee management, pump discharges, and restoration-project operations can affect Las Palmas water conditions. When the source, duration, or recurrence of water is material under the applicable Rule 62-340 pathway, require the agency to address whether the observation reflects natural conditions, managed conditions, unusual events, or a combination. Use DBHYDRO (South Florida Water Management District hydrologic database) canal-stage/rainfall records, pump logs, operational records, and parcel-specific timing to test—not assume—whether parcel conditions correspond to managed water rather than rainfall or long-term natural hydrology.

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) Modified Waters / Seepage Control

Where Las Palmas parcels are affected by modified-water or seepage-control infrastructure, obtain the actual project maps, design memoranda, operational schedules, and logs that apply to the parcel and time period. Those records can test whether observed hydrology is partly engineered or managed; they do not, standing alone, establish that the parcel is non-wetland or that all ecological function is artificial.

CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report RS21331

A Congressional Research Service report providing public institutional documentation of the Modified Waters project, the 8.5 SMA (Square Mile Area) controversy, and the flood-protection setting. Useful for briefing elected officials, media engagement, and contextual record-building. Not itself a controlling legal authority — use as corroboration alongside the legal authorities above.

For Any Florida Wetland Enforcement Action — Identify the Governing Authority and Procedure First

1. 0Identify the government, authority, forum, notice, and deadline: Determine whether the matter is Miami-Dade Chapter 24 / Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code, EQCB (Environmental Quality Control Board), a state Chapter 120 proceeding, a federal §404/WOTUS (Waters of the United States) matter, or a combination of separate legal systems. Do not borrow another forum's deadline or procedure.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: The first procedural error in many wetland cases is using the wrong forum's deadline or remedy. This item identifies the government, authority, forum, notice, and controlling deadline before any science or merits strategy is chosen.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The respondent knows which government is acting, under what law, in which forum, and under which deadline before making substantive decisions. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Before making any substantive move, fix the five anchors in writing—which government is acting, under exactly what law, in which forum, under what notice, and by what deadline—and let every later decision follow from them. Preserve this one-page case-frame and update it if the County shifts any anchor.

2. 1Control entry, searches, statements, and evidence creation: Do not voluntarily consent to entry into or search of a house, apartment, dwelling, office, locked structure, vehicle, or container merely because DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) wants to inspect the land. Ask whether access is voluntary or compulsory and require the exact authority and scope claimed. Open fields, public-vantage observations, and valid compulsory process raise different rules; preserve objections and document the asserted authority and scope.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Entry, consent, and statements can create evidence before the respondent understands the case. This item provides an immediate operating rule for government contact while preserving the distinction between voluntary cooperation and any separate compulsory authority.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The respondent avoids creating unnecessary evidence through voluntary access or statements while preserving proof of every request for entry and every asserted legal authority. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: For every request for access, identify the requester, exact location, purpose, and requested scope before entry occurs. If access is voluntary, state consent or refusal expressly and limit any consent to the stated area and purpose. If compulsory authority is claimed, obtain or photograph the process or authority relied upon, compare it with the place actually entered, preserve any objection, and document what was observed, photographed, measured, sampled, or removed. The record should show the source and scope of authority—not an ambiguous assumption of consent.

3. 2Identify the exact charged activity and substantive authority: Pin down what conduct is alleged, what Code section, statute, rule, permit condition, or order is being enforced, and what element the government must prove.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: The County must prove a particular prohibited act under a particular law, not merely that the parcel has wetland characteristics. This item identifies the charged conduct and substantive authority so every later defense addresses the actual elements of the case.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The case is reduced to the actual prohibited act and the exact legal provision allegedly violated. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Reduce the case to one sentence—the exact act charged, against whom, where and when, under which specific provision—and make the County commit to it so the dispute cannot drift. Preserve the stated charge and note any later change to the act or the authority relied on.

4. 3Test agricultural status, exemptions, and preemption where applicable: Establish the actual farm use, agricultural history, permits, classifications, and statutory protections before volunteering evidence that could repair the government's case.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Agricultural status can change the applicability of state exemptions, anti-duplication rules, preemption provisions, and available remedies. This item requires those facts to be established early rather than after the respondent has already assumed the general permitting framework applies.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: Any qualifying agricultural protection is identified early enough to narrow or alter the local regulatory dispute before unnecessary technical concessions are made. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Screen the case early for any agricultural classification, exemption, or preemption that could narrow or remove the local dispute before technical wetland issues are litigated, and raise the strongest as a threshold matter. Preserve the protections identified and the facts supporting each.

5. 4Identify the wetland methodology actually being used: Require the agency to identify the applicable Rule 62-340.300 pathway and the parcel-specific evidence supporting it. Do not assume that every pathway requires the same three-factor checklist.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Rule Chapter 62-340 contains different delineation pathways. This item requires the agency to identify the pathway actually used so the respondent does not challenge an inaccurate universal test or supply evidence for a pathway the County never relied upon.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The County must state the exact methodology and pathway supporting the alleged wetland boundary. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Require the County to state, up front, the exact wetland definition and Rule 62-340 pathway its boundary rests on, so the rest of the technical fight is measured against a fixed method rather than a moving one. Preserve the methodology the County commits to and any objection where it is unstated or changed.

6. 5Build the counter-record: Use the evidence that fits the disputed issue — historical aerials, parcel history, permits, NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) soil information, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), DBHYDRO (South Florida Water Management District hydrologic database), precipitation records, photographs, drainage and canal records, surveys, and qualified expert analysis. Separate natural hydrology from managed or engineered water where the facts support that distinction.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: The respondent needs evidence that answers the County's specific factual theory. This item builds a parcel-specific counter-record from historical, hydrologic, agricultural, mapping, survey, and other sources instead of relying on general disagreement with the agency.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: Independent maps, aerials, hydrology records, agricultural documents, witnesses, and qualified analysis are organized into a coherent respondent record. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Assemble your independent evidence—maps, aerials, hydrology and drainage records, agricultural documents, witnesses, and qualified analysis—into one organized counter-record indexed to the County's specific claims, rather than a loose collection. Preserve the counter-record index tying each item to the point it answers.

7. 6Demand and preserve the government's evidence: Use public-records requests, discovery or disclosure procedures available in the actual forum, written objections, cross-examination, authentication and foundation challenges, and requests for rulings. If evidence is excluded, make a proffer or otherwise preserve what it would have shown.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: The government's evidence must be obtained, examined, and preserved in the administrative record if it is to be meaningfully challenged. This item combines public records, available disclosure procedures, foundation objections, cross-examination, and rulings into one evidence-preservation step.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: The County's evidence is obtained, identified, and tied to the witness and methodology supporting it, while missing or late material is documented. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Obtain the County's evidence early, tie each item to the witness and method that supports it, and document anything missing or late as its own point, so you are testing a known record rather than reacting at the hearing. Preserve the obtained evidence, the source of each item, and a missing/late log.

8. 7Separate federal jurisdiction from state and local regulation: If federal §404/WOTUS (Waters of the United States) authority is claimed, analyze the current federal jurisdictional standard, program authority, Corps methodology, and any applicable agricultural exclusion. A federal jurisdictional defense does not automatically eliminate separate Florida or Miami-Dade authority.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction is separate from Florida and Miami-Dade wetland regulation. This item prevents a federal jurisdictional defense from being treated as though it automatically eliminates independent state or local authority.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: Federal jurisdiction is tested independently from Florida and Miami-Dade regulation. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Keep the federal analysis in a separate column from Florida and Miami-Dade authority. Identify the federal agency, current jurisdictional standard, program authority, regulated feature, connection or nexus required by the governing federal rule or case law, and the parcel-specific facts relied upon. Challenge any missing federal jurisdictional element through the correct federal procedure, but separately identify what state or local authority remains. Preserve the evidence and ruling for each governmental layer without using success or failure in one system as a substitute for analysis of another.

9. 8Use qualified experts strategically: Match the expert to the issue — wetland delineation, soils, hydrology, engineering, agriculture, valuation, or historical water management — and require a methodology that directly addresses the government's evidence and the governing legal pathway.
   ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

   Why this is in the manual: Different experts answer different questions. This item matches wetland, soils, hydrology, engineering, agriculture, valuation, or historical-water-management expertise to the disputed issue and requires the expert's method to answer the government's actual theory.

   WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

   Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer, representative, records professional, expert, or witness responsible for the particular step; the relevant agency and decision-maker must be identified rather than assumed.

   When it matters: Use this checklist from the first government contact through the administrative hearing and, if necessary, immediately after the final order for the correct review procedure.

   What must be preserved: Keep the source-of-law documents, Notice of Violation and service proof, parcel and charged-location evidence, agricultural and technical records, public-records history, objections, exhibits, rulings, hearing recording or transcript, final order, rendition date, and every filing needed for the actual review route.

   RESULT / RESULTS: Expert work addresses a defined disputed issue and produces testimony or analysis tied to the governing legal and technical standard. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Aim each expert at a single defined disputed issue and require the work product to speak to the governing legal and technical standard for that issue, rather than a general opinion, so the testimony lands where the case is actually contested. Preserve the defined question and the standard each expert addresses.

10. 9Preserve the review record: Make the objection, identify the legal basis, tender the supporting evidence, obtain a ruling when possible, preserve excluded evidence, and maintain the transcript and exhibits. In a qualifying §120.57(1) case, use the statutory exceptions procedure; do not invent an exceptions procedure for Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code.
    ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

    Why this is in the manual: Circuit Court review depends heavily on the administrative record. This item requires the objection, legal basis, supporting exhibit, ruling, proffer, transcript, and exhibit status to be preserved when the issue arises so the reviewing court can later see exactly what happened.

    WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

    Who it concerns: The respondent and any lawyer or representative responsible for preserving an issue for later Circuit Court or other authorized review; the Hearing Officer matters because the Hearing Officer makes the evidentiary and procedural decisions during the administrative hearing.

    When it matters: Whenever the issue arises during the administrative case, not for the first time after an adverse final order.

    What must be preserved: Keep the exact objection, legal basis, supporting evidence, exhibit or proffer, requested relief, Hearing Officer's ruling or deferral, recording or transcript citation, and final order treatment of the issue.

    RESULT / RESULTS: Every material objection, exhibit, proffer, request, and ruling needed for judicial review is visible in the administrative record. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Make sure every material objection, exhibit, proffer, request, and ruling is on the record as it happens, because a reviewing court sees only what the administrative record contains. Preserve a running review-record index listing each item and where it appears.

11. 10Use the correct review procedure and parallel remedies: A Chapter 8CC, Miami-Dade County Code Hearing Officer final order follows the local review route in § 8CC-8, Miami-Dade County Code; qualifying state agency action follows Chapter 120 / §120.68; federal issues follow their own route. Separately evaluate Bert Harris, takings, declaratory, bankruptcy, entity-protection, or other downstream remedies only where their independent prerequisites are satisfied.
    ISSUE DETAILS — WHY IT MATTERS · RECORD · NEXT MOVE

    Why this is in the manual: The route after a final order depends on the forum, and parallel property or financial remedies have separate prerequisites. This item prevents Chapter 8CC certiorari, Chapter 120 judicial review, federal procedures, and independent remedies from being blended into one nonexistent appeal process.

    WHO / WHEN / WHAT TO PRESERVE

    Who it concerns: The respondent and the lawyer or representative responsible for identifying the correct review route; separate counsel or professionals may be involved in independent property, bankruptcy, or financial remedies.

    When it matters: Immediately after identifying the forum and again after the final order, when the correct review procedure and any separate remedy deadlines must be calculated independently.

    What must be preserved: Keep the final order and rendition date, the governing review rule or statute, proof of timely filing, the administrative record, and separate files showing the prerequisites and deadlines for any independent parallel remedy.

    RESULT / RESULTS: The respondent uses the review route and any separate remedies that actually apply without confusing their deadlines, standards, or purposes. DECISION / NEXT MOVE: Map the correct review route and any separate remedies—certiorari, and any distinct takings or statutory claim—with each one's own deadline, standard, and forum, so they are pursued in parallel without blurring their requirements. Preserve a remedies map showing each route's deadline, standard, and forum.

Immediate Operational Packet — From Receipt Through Hearing Day

• ▸At receipt — open the certiorari file immediately: if the Notice of Violation is posted at the gate, photograph it in place before removal and photograph the gate/posting location, signs, and surrounding access conditions; if mailed, preserve the envelope, postmark, certified-mail material, and every page; preserve email headers if electronic; identify witnesses and save available surveillance footage; record the exact date/time received or discovered. Scan everything and start the live certiorari issue table the same day. Immediately calendar every response/hearing/compliance date without assuming that a Public Records Request or informal contact extends it.
• ▸Communicate deliberately: avoid casual substantive admissions. When communication is necessary, identify the case, preserve objections, ask for authority/evidence/procedure in writing, and keep proof of delivery. A demand letter or public-records request builds the file; it does not automatically compel a continuance, stay enforcement, or preserve a separate appeal deadline.
• ▸Build the hearing binder: notice/service documents; forum/deadline sheet; written threshold objections and motions; Respondent’s Exhibit 1; public-records requests/responses; authority/delegation materials; Rule 62-340 versions/field materials; respondent exhibits; witness/cross-examination sheets; objection/ruling log; and a post-hearing/deadline page. Maintain an exhibit index and proof showing what was delivered and when.
• ▸Build the certiorari petition architecture before hearing day: maintain headings for due process, essential requirements of law, and competent substantial evidence; under each heading list the supporting event, exhibit, objection, ruling, proffer, and expected recording/transcript citation. This is preparation, not premature filing. The petition is filed only after a reviewable order is rendered, but the record citations should already have a place waiting for them.
• ▸Bring a working set plus service copies. Respondent’s Exhibit 1 itself instructs the respondent to bring three copies—one for the Hearing Officer, one for the County representative, and one for the respondent—while recognizing that actual hearing practice controls how exhibits are marked, received, or retained. Use the forum’s current procedures for the rest of the exhibit set.
• ▸When the case is called: promptly request an opportunity to tender the written statement and state ripe threshold objections before merits testimony; if the Hearing Officer uses another sequence, comply with the ruling, preserve the timing objection if material, and raise each evidentiary objection when its ground becomes apparent. Ask for a ruling rather than assuming the phrase “preserved for certiorari” alone is enough.
• ▸If the matter is criminal rather than administrative: stop using this administrative-hearing procedure as the operative roadmap. A criminal citation or prosecution invokes different rights, rules, counsel considerations, and deadlines.

Additional Steps for Las Palmas

• ▸Use P.L. (Public Law) 101-229, project records, and the Garcia litigation history as historical and engineered-hydrology evidence; do not present the vacated Garcia judgment as binding precedent deciding Miami-Dade wetland jurisdiction
• ▸Add SFWMD DBHYDRO (South Florida Water Management District hydrologic database) canal-stage comparisons where they support a factual relationship between parcel water and managed canal operations
• ▸Add Modified Waters, seepage-control, drainage, road, and flood-control records that document the engineered water-management history of the area
• ▸Require the government's hydrology evidence to address, on the record, how managed or engineered water was distinguished from natural site conditions and how that distinction affects the specific Rule 62-340 pathway being asserted

11A — No Voluntary Entry / Control Consent

11B — Warrants, Court Orders & Claimed Inspection Authority

11C — Document the Inspection

11D — Require the Government To Identify Its Authority

11E — Access Does Not Prove Wetland Status

11F — Require Rule 62-340 Proof (Do Not Supply It Yourself)

11G — Get Your Own Evidence / Expert (Early)

11H — Build the Administrative Record Now

11I — Due Process / Object / Request a Ruling

11J — Competent Substantial Evidence

11K — Entity / Bankruptcy Protection and Limitations