980 So. 2d 1096 (2008) Sylvia MARAMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. No. 2D06-3701. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. January 25, 2008. Rehearing Denied May 19, 2008. *1097 Bob Dillinger, Public Defender, and Violet M. Assaid, Assistant Public Defender, Dade City, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge. Sylvia Maraman has raised an insanity defens..

The issue is whether the City's applications for an individual stormwater permit and a noticed general environmental resource permit for Phase 1A of the proposed Hogtown Creek Greenway should be approved.Applicant demonstrated entitlement to stormwater permits to construct a greenway in City of Gainesville. Request for fees and costs denied.

Whether the Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceeding should be dismissed.Clerical error does not afford party status or point of entry to challenge year-old notice of intent to issue permit.

Whether the Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceeding should be dismissed.

The St. Johns River Water Management District (the "District") alleges in Case Number 97-4389 that Respondent, Modern, Inc. ("Modern"), excavated two ditches in wetlands without a permit, that the excavation was not exempt from a permit, and that Modern committed related acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The District proposes alternative plans for corrective action. Modern and its co-respondents ("Respondents") contend that the excavation was not required to have a permit because either it was not an activity covered by the permitting statutes or it was exempt. In addition, Respondents charge that the proposed agency action is based on an unadopted rule that does not satisfy the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.) In Case Numbers 97-4390, 97-4391, 97-4392, and 97-4393, Respondents challenge an Emergency Order issued by the District to stop the drainage of wetlands. Respondents contend that the Emergency Order is facially insufficient, that there was no emergency, and that the corrective action has worsened conditions. The issue in each of the rule challenge cases is whether an existing rule or an agency statement is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Sections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1). Case Numbers 98-0426RX and 98-1180RX challenge Rule 40C-4.041 pursuant to Section 120.56(3). Case Number 98-1182RX challenges Rule 40C-4.051 pursuant to Section 120.56(3). Case Numbers 98-0427RU and 98-1181RU challenge an agency statement pursuant to Section 120.56(1) and (4). (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules published in the Florida Administrative Code as of the date of this Recommended Order.) The parties identify approximately 57 issues in their respective Proposed Recommended Orders and Proposed Final Orders ("PROs" and "PFOs", respectively). Those issues relevant to the proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), including Section 120.57(1)(e), are addressed in this Recommended Order. The remaining issues are addressed in the Final Order issued on the same date as the date of this Recommended Order.Respondents who excavated ditches without a permit did not qualify for maintenance exemptions. Respondents must restore ditches. Emergency Order authorized weirs should not be quashed. Portions of agency statement and rule are invalid.

Whether the proposed Walden Chase development (the "Project"), is consistent with the standards and criteria for issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP") as set forth in Rules 40C-4.301 and 40C-4.302, Florida Administrative Code.Applicant`s presentment of satisfactory assurances dictates that a permit should be issued, subject to conditions.

The issues in this case are: (1) whether the Florida Department of Transportation, (DOT) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit to authorize the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve eight bridge replacements on State Road 5 in Volusia County, Florida; (2) whether the Florida Department of Transportation is entitled to a Wetland Resource Management (WRM) permit for the placement and excavation of fill material in waters of the state in connection with the replacement and widening of said bridges and their approaches; and, if so, (3) what conditions should apply.Petitioner not required to remove causeway before replacing bridges.