Title: Letter: Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District Appendix 7 Isolated Wetlands/Laws of Florida Ch 86-186 (Enclosed)
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000728/00001
 Material Information
Title: Letter: Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District Appendix 7 Isolated Wetlands/Laws of Florida Ch 86-186 (Enclosed)
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: SFWMD
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Letter: Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District Appendix 7 Isolated Wetlands/Laws of Florida Ch 86-186 (Enclosed) January 2, 1987
General Note: Box 7, Folder 2 ( Vail Conference 1987 - 1987 ), Item 4
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000728
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text


South Florida


Water Management District


John R. Wodraska, Executive Diredfor
d roffiT C Creet Deputy Execut r


Post Office Box 24680 3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Telephone (305) 686-8800
Florida WATS Line 1-800-432-2045


January 2, 1987


n^jlj A/9^-
Ale 'f o-,- "

1/4.
^a/^n0^^2


dp^ ^fi


Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed is a copy of the proposed "Appendix 7 Isolated Wetlands" staff will
recommend for adoption by the District Governing Board. The public hearing has
been continued to January 8, 1987, 2:00 p.m. at the District's West Palm Beach
offices.

Comments or questions prior to the hearing should be directed to Sarah Nall,
Chuck Padera, or Terrie Miller at the above address and phone number. Your
participation in the District's rulemaking process to date is appreciated.
Sincerely,


Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Director
Resource Control Department


RAR/tm
Enclosure


William E. Sadowski
Chairman Miami


John F. Flanigan
Vice Chairman North Palm Beach


Stanley W. Hole J. Neil Gallagher N
Naples St. Cloud


SKathleen Shea Abrams timer E. Powers
Miami Shores Indiantown


Nancy H. Roen Oscar M. Corbin, Jr
Plantation Ft. Myers


Tifr C Cre euyEeuieDrco


Nathaniel P. Reed
Hobe Sound










DRAFT
12-30-86

BASIS OF REVIEW FOR
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
WITHIN THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
APPENDIX 7
ISOLATED WETLANDS
1.0 Introduction

An objective of the District expressed by the legislative policy of Section
373.016(2), Florida Statutes, is to manage and protect water related resources of the
south Florida region, including isolated wetlands and their associated fish and
wildlife functions and values. The loss of single isolated wetlands may cause
localized adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats. Cumulative
impacts from the loss of many such wetlands could cause significant adverse impacts
on a broader basis to water quality, hydrologic function and fish and wildlife
habitat. The protection of isolated wetland functions is necessary for the protection
of wetland associated fish and wildlife.

Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (1986), directs water management districts
to establish specific permitting criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their
habitats, protection of threatened and endangered species, and consideration of
cumulative and off-site impacts in isolated wetlands. This Appendix to the Basis of
Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications addresses isolated
wetlands and the requirement of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (1986). It applies
to all proposed systems for projects with isolated wetlands.
Isolated wetlands vary in type and function, so the permit application for a
project which contains them shall include site specific information. The applicant
must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system, including protection
or mitigation/compensation plans, complies with the District's isolated wetland
objectives. The applicant may provide such reasonable assurance in many cases by
meeting the specific design criteria in Section 5.1 below. Other project designs will
be considered pursuant to Section 5.2 below. Because of the uncertain ability of
current mitigation technology to restore or create the various functions and values
of isolated wetlands, protection and incorporation of existing isolated wetlands in
surface water management systems are preferred alternatives to destruction and
mitigation or compensation.

2.0 Glossary

2.1 Wetland--Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a
frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do or would
support, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that require saturated or
seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs,
potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats and natural ponds. [Ref:
Executive Order 11990,42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)].
2.2 Isolated wetland--Any wetland not under jurisdiction of the Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER) for the purposes of regulation of dredging and
filling., and is separated from other .wetlands, DR jusictional our--,t,-by -, an




. (


hyolUa,,y seJparate... ,Multipe individual wetlands not hus separated are

2.3 Disturbed wetland-- Wetlands as defined in Section 2.1 altered by drainage,
dredge and fill, or invasive exotic plants so that hydrologic and biological functions
are significantly diminished. A wetland or portion of a wetland with a prevalence
of exotic plant speci such as Melaleuca or Schinus, shall be resumed disturbed,- ^ a
Wetlands impact in
violation of District rules or permit conditions the aw, u he un ii u a Distct
permit shall not be considered disturbed for the purposes of this rule.

2.4 Protected wetland--Wetland areas set aside through project design,
conservation or protection easement, or other approved method, antfmanaged to
ensure continued biological and hydrologic function indicative of that wetland's
particular type.
2.5 Mai 1sh--WVetlands dominated by emergenI, heI. ba ceouu s speci.

2.- Swamp .Wet land Jdminated by Lwoody veg etati .

2.7 Buffer zone--An area adjacent to the isolated wetland which protects
wetland function and minimizes adverse impacts of upland development on
wetland function.

2.8 Mitigation--Remedying isolated wetland impacts by restoring or enhancing
affected habitat, or by creating similar habitat of equal or greater function. For
purposes of this rule, there is a presumption that similar habitat equals similar
function.

2.9 Compensation--Replacement of isolated wetlands with a mixture of
wetland/upland habitat, unique upland habitat, or other offsetting processes which
enhance fish and wildlife habitat or otherwise provide overall benefits to the
natural system.

2.10 Maintenance--As used in this Appendix, maintenance means regular upkeep
of isolated wetlands to assure goals of an approved mitigation or compensation
plan will be met. This may include a guaranteed survival rate of planted species
and/or recruited desirous wetland species, and the removal of undesirable invasion
species, such as MelaleOca and Schinus.

3.0 Size threshold
Isolated wetlands less than 0.5 acres in size will not be reviewed for impacts
Sto fish and wildlife and their habitats, and mitigation or compensation shall not be
required for their loss, unless:
a. Threatened or endangered species are present (See Section 5.0), or
b. Cumulative impacts from the loss of such wetlands reaches an excessive
level based on either:










1) the presumption that the loss of such wetlands exceeding 3 acres for
projects 100 acres or smaller in size or-2-%-3% of the project area for projects over
100 acres in size produces excessive cumulative impacts, or

2) an evaluation of the post development character of the site, based on
significance of the habitat type, abundance of similar habitat proposed for
protection within the project area, proximity to similar publicly owned and
protected fish and wildlife habitat, and other relevant factors.
4.0 Review procedures for projects which propose to impact isolated wetlands.
4.1 This Appendix will apply to all pending and new applications which are not
complete, as evidenced by a letter of completeness, on the effective date of this
Appendix. The provisions of Rule 40E-4.301 (3) (Conditions for Issuance) apply to the
evaluation of applications for construction and operation permits for projects which
have previously approved conceptual approvals or construction and operation
permits.
For conceptual approvals issued prior to the effective date of this Appendix which
have included review of impacts on wetlands, the grantee of the conceptual
approval may request a verification of this determination, or a verification that
future permit review of isolated wetland impacts is to be governed by applicable
requirements prior to the effective date of this Appendix. Request for verification
must be filed no later than September 30, 1987 and will be confirmed by the District
within 60 days of the request.

4.2 Applications which propose to impact isolated wetlands may be approved in
concept with a Letter of Conceptual Approval. Detailed proposals shall be
submitted as part of the application for conceptual approval or as part of the
application for a Surface Water Management Construction and Operation Permit
and shall include

a. A description of the type and function of the isolated wetland being
impacted, which shall include area, vegetative community and hydrologic regime.
b. A list of all plant and animal species listed as endangered, threatened
or of special concern pursuant to 50 Code of Federal Requlations, Section 17.12
Section -58I-1.1(a),(b),, ida Statute, and Rules 39-27.03 and 39-27.04, Florida
Administrative Code, which are incorporated by reference and made a part of this
rule which utilize, o can re nbly be expected to utlize, the area and an
evaluation of the probable significance of the area to the listed species.
c. A i stating 1) reasons fo- proposing to impact isated-td-2
possible altaatives to wetland impats omnidered, 3) reasons thMe wVltands cannll
be incoporated into the project surface water management Systen O product
design~ A short statement of project design alternatives considered to reduce or
eliminate impacts to isolated wetlands.
d. Additional information as required to evaluate site specific conditions
or site-specific project designs.
4.3 Applications which propose mitigation shall include a description of the
wetland corunr ity habitat to be created, restored or enhanced as a result of the
mitigation activity, and shall specifically include descriptions of:









a. area and location

b. species to be planted

c. plant density

d. source of plants or mulch if not supplied by a commercial plant nursery

e. hydrologic regime.
f. monitoring and maintenance plan

g. itemized estimate of the cost of implementing mitigation based on
relevant market conditions.
4.4 Applications which propose compensation shall include relevant information
needed to demonstrate the proposal provides the required reasonable assurances,
and may include, but is not limited to, the information listed in Section 4.3 above.

4.5 The operation phase of a project which impacts isolated wetlands shall not
become effective until the re reet of Rule 40C-4.381(2)(d), Florid
Administrative CJode, (Limitin CnJIdMIioS) Has beeu miet, specifically including the
construction or provision of required mitigation/compensation.

5.0 Review criteria Because isolated wetlands vary in type and function, each
permit application for a project that includes isolated wetlands will be reviewed
individually. The applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed
f' activity, including protection or mitigation/compensation plans, complies with the
District objective, expressed in the legislative policies of Sections 373.016(2) and
373.414, Florida Statutes, to maintain the functions of isolated wetlands, including
fish and wildlife and their habitat, and to protect endangered and threatened
species.

a. An applicant may provide reasonable assurances by 1) meeting the
criteria and quantitative values as provided in Section 5.1 below,~or2) proposing a
unique site-specific project design features appropriate for the particular site and-
envi J .
evaluate the proposal, as provided in Section 5.2 below.

b) Moved to Section 5.1.8
2)--l-abitat .. -.


eir!J0I :Iel. th~a.Je sped LIrl-y gall.~ I~* Loll.~ ~I0lL~1111. 11-M~. 1"eIMf0T i OJU I ll11.411a~ I
vrrethumdhat inclue, butar not limited*t

(a) wetland PF teltiVr
(b) ppioed mtigaionionilior o welan


species~dtring the tinfe p iceded ocuulete k.. MItat


1










b. -) Staff may consult with the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish
Commission or other knowledgeable experts when reviewing the habitat of
threatened and endangered species and considering proposals for the protection of
endangered or threatened species.
5.1 Quantitative design criteria
5.1.1 The natural functions of isolated wetlands over 0.5 acres in size,
including water quality, water quantity, and fish and wildlife habitat, shall be
maintained, as provided for in a) e) below.

(a) Mitigation or compensation for elimination of isolated wetlands
between 0.5 and 5.0 acres in size, pursuant to Section 5.1.2 below, shall be
presumed to maintain wetland functions.

(b) Because of the experimental natume of mtigatio- and the net wetland
loss inherent in compensation, There is no presumption that the function of isolated
wetlands over 5.0 acres in size can be maintained by measures other than protection
as defined in Section 2.4 above. Protection of isolated wetlands over 5.0 acres in
size shall be the preferred method of providing the required reasonable assuranceL
however, other reasonable alternatives proposed by the applicant will be
considered.

(c) In nl cas Cshall The total isolated wetlands impacted by a project
exceed amount which is inconsistent ith he District's vetland- objectives as
expressed above in Sections 1.0 and 5.0 shall not produce significant adverse
cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts will be evaluated by the same criteria
described in Section 3.0(b)(2) above.

(d) Protection of isolated wetlands or incorporation of isolated wetlands
into surface water management systems is favored over isolated wetland
destruction and mitigation or compensation. Wetland dest uctin an i a1- Ut

development alternative ,or the particular ste. Reasonable project design
alternatives to isolated wetland impacts shall be considered.

(e) Isolated wetlands less than 1.0 acre in size shall not be reviewed for
impacts to fish and wildlife and mitigation or compensation shall not be required
for their loss provided that the area of the lost isolated wetland is incorporated into
the surface water management system as open space.

5.1.2 Isolated wetland mitigation shall be implemented acres of
S wetlands createdfrestored '-rhcmzc to acres of wetlands destroyed which
provide reasonable assurance that the mitigation will be successful. The following
ratios shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance for type-for-type
mitigation:
a. Forested swamp, non-cypress dominated-----2.5:1
b. Forested swamp, cypressdominated-----------2.0:1
c. Freshwater marshes------------------------------ 1.5: 1








Ratios for mitigation with unlike habitat, including expanded littoral zones, or
t compensation shall be determined on a case-by- se basis. When type-for-type
approved mitigation or compensation is provided rior/to isolated wetland impacts,
a one-to-one ratio shall be presumed to provide such reasonable assurance.
5.1.3 Disturbed isolated wetlands may be developed and their loss
compensated for by:
a. Mitigation at ratios less than those required in 5.1.2, based on the
degree of disturbance and the remaining functional qualities. Mitigation through
restoration of other disturbed wetlands is preferred over wetland creation.
b. Preservation of unique uplands or inclusion of developable uplands
within an upland/wetland protected system. Mitigation or compensation shall not
be required for isolated wetlands which do not provide functions and values as
expressed above in Sections 1.0 and 5.0.
5.1.4 Isolated or created wetlands may be part of a surface water
management system provided the wetland's functional qualities are maintained or
improved and no adverse water quantity impacts are caused.
5.1.5 Isolated wetlands which extend off-site may be included in surface
water management systems, provided the project is consistent with other
requirements of the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit
Applications and legal drainage rightrand permit requirements are satisfied. The
cooperative use of isolated wetlands is encouraged.

5.1.6 Water tables:
a. Water tables shall not be altered such that on-site and off-site isolated
wetlands are adversely affected.
b. Minimum separation distance between protected wetlands and
canal/lake excavations shall be 200 feet, unless soil or other data shows that water
table elevations in the wetlands would not be adversely affected.
c. Control elevations shall be established which maintain or improve
pre-development hydroperiods in protected wetlands.
d. Control elevations shall be established which provide adequate
hydroperiods to promote successful creation, restoration or enhancement of
wetlands in mitigation areas.
e. Other requirements of the Basis of Review for Surface Water
Management Permit Applications shall be met.
5.1.7 Buffer zones:
a. Buffer zones shall be-provided may be required around a+1 isolated
wetlands that are to be protected or incorporated into a surface water
management system to protect wetland function and minimize adverse impacts of
uoland development on wetland function. Actual delineation o the buffer zone
may vary according to site specific conditions.,-provided -+t Buffer zones which
extends at least fifteen feet landward from the edge of the wetland in all places









6.3 Mitigation/compensation shall be completed provided for in each phase of
construction to mitigate the wetlands lost by that phase of construction as defined
by the areas included within a given construction permit.

6.4 The peni-ttee must provide easonable assurance of financial and
institutional ability to carry out tthe nit;gationicompensation, monitoring, and
maintenance tequiements. Re sonable suIrance may be provided bUy e ulf trhe
followmg:

a. A surety bound in an amount equal to 125% of the cost estimate Of tre
proposed mititionompensation, mnitr ing, and maintenance plan.
b. Performance guarantee to a local governnment as a part of a project
o IJ ut O e .t


C0 1STM CT ~l? O 01ura n 1, FJ, vicielI th quaiI Q, I N ... Llluat eJI ciLM JX '..L

C. Esh ond r Iette ofcie at ioma fianc a' nsttut


inmpravt~en~ns



Tile Pcrticor of Ilef;1a1u;l LUaate O1crpcW M-tc-e_ Po-Itch-p-)sf-
~1 mayt beIes f~ the ieqMi CmCeltS Of HWU1 P110; WIL


ma ritenane may be 4;orc~t c, thedur~atio,i of th~e permit requileirlentU.


i









and averages twenty-five feet f m the landward edge of the wetland will be
presumed to be adequate.
b. Prior to issuance of Co traction and Operation permits, buffer zones
shall be field verified and delineated the field.
c. Buffer zones may consist natuaal featue suitable fuo the p tict ular
site, -st as undisturbed uplands, ope water bodies, wildlife corridors or other
appropriate natural or structural feature appropriate for the particular site.
d. Upland areas or wildlife corridors adjacent to buffer zones may be
incorporated as compensation areas, provided they are in excess of the minimum
buffer zone and meet all other requirements for compensation areas.
5.1.8 b- In addition, all applicants must provide reasonable assurance
thttLhe proposed p, oject m1eets the -following en dargered and threatened spejie
criteria:
} The isolated wetland habitat, an isolated wetland, regardless of size or
land use, that is utilized by species of plants or animals designated as endangered or
threatened pursuant to the authority cited in Section 4.2(b) shall be protected as
described in Section 2.4 above. //
5.2 Qualitative criteria Instead of meeting the quantitative cri ria listed
above, an applicant may propose a site-specific unique prjecrt sign which
.provides reasonable assurance that the project complies with the Di rict's objective /
Ito mana e and protec- ie l d their associated i b- dwi life
n actions an -va uesia" pressed above in Sections 1.0 and 5. he applicant has
xhe burden of demonstrating such reasonable assurance. Fnal approval of unique
project design rests with the District's Governing ToadUd. '. -A
5-2-7$1 The applicant should provide the inform ion necessary to eval e
the particular proposal. The District will consider /pplicable numerical and
productivity modes-, including the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP), and information regarding the pre-and-post-development
condition of the site and its relation to the surrounding ecosystem.
5~~ 51, Innovative proposals for mitigation or compensation, including off-site
proposals and replacement with unlike habitat, will be evaluated individually based
on such factors as regional significance of the wetland type to be impacted,
expected system-wide benefits of the proposal, arrd ability to comparatively replace
lost wetland values, -anticipated post development setting of the project, and
requirements of public works programs authorized by Florida Statutes. ._-'d_
6% Project guarantee criteria
6.1 Wetland monitoring and maintenance programs will be required for
proposals involving mitigation and/or compensation.
6.2 Monitoring and maintenance requirements will normally be established
based on wetland type, size, complexity and construction schedule and will typically
range frorrmi,. ears.
.4


'1


/










5.0 Review criteria Because isolated wetlands vary in type and function, each
permit application for a project that includes isolated wetlands will be reviewed
individually. The applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed
activity, including protection or mitigation/compensation plans, complies with the
District objective, expressed in the legislative policies of Sections 373.016(2) and
373.414, Florida Statutes, to maintain the functions of isolated wetlands, including
fish and wildlife and their habitat, and to protect endangered and threatened
species.


a. An appl
criteria and quantitat
tmique site-specific p
environmental system
evaluate the proposal


b) Moved t


---- Wetnmd
endangered or threat


-*


r \






*: -& -ir


SY& ;,. -


i JU mi'J iifti w IL LJ
^ti~.f~FI-w q I c iv LI n11 LFcu CV;-.-


.I' EttliLu U!-. LA-r

-6^s t-<^ 3 /jA I- 1 ',*.'-""


\I,


UI V U LUUV1L U IIILIUL lUI ILUIIIU l II UI LU VVJ, LI lU I IIlLL5


(c) type-for-type mitigat-ion aftei the wetland impacts occ
provided the-wetland habitat type is net a imiting factor1 withinthWLe; ma 1
^; l..^ k^ ;... ^. ;.. .... JL *^ ^.L l *a ..... :^


J|J;^IC 7 .JUI 111 LI I1 LHIIF |J 11i IWV I 1 U J L'.I t IIJIn L LC CI I II LEYO LI I I. ^


b. 3) Staff may consult with the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish
Commission or other knowledgeable experts when reviewing the habitat of
threatened and endangered species and considering proposals for the protection of
endangered or threatened species.
January 7, 1987 2:14 PM /~ ,


(U- --


f~v .'





~t-Iii~
/o
/r~


--- ------------ &#-P 0%-%--


A


I I


* | II


IU ~IVCS~LIVII


*-r ,_ .. .


""P~"'


w;






5.2 Qualitative criteria Instead of meeting the quantitative criteria listed
above, an applicant may propose a site-specific unique prajet design which
Provides reasonable assurance that the project complies with the District's objective
to manage and protect isolated wetlands and their associated fish and wildlife
functions and values as expressed above in Sections 1.0 and 5.0. The applicant has
the burden of demonstrating such reasonable assurance. rin;al approval of uniue -,J:
project design rests with te Best.ct Govening Boad


5.2.y/ The applicant should provide the information necessary to evaluate
the particular proposal. The District will consider applicable nomerical and -^-r
productivity models, including the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP), and information regarding the pre-and-post-development
condition of the site and its relation to the surrounding ecosystem.


5.2. Innovative proposals for mitigation or compensation, including off-site
proposals and replacement with unlike habitat, will be evaluated individually based
on such factors as regional significance of the wetland type to be impacted,
expected system-wide benefits of the proposal, and ability to comparatively replace
lost wetland values, -anticipated post development setting of the project, and
requirements of public works programs authorized by Florida Statutes '-A .Gi .U
b he MAo'C ~ Lvc- v r"D& / -*' ^\C. 1JtL ^ -



$5 2. I- Ths Sec(,h piA;e-v1&4 aO A "
Sa Rbt^cbi nafi^'d^ p&/YkACL U3


C14,4


OAA~hJ


p










Maggie Hurchaila
CONNECTION

2.2 Add:

Multiple individual wetlands normally connected by surface flow during a wet season
with average rainfall shall be presumed to be an isolated wetland.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

4.2b Pursuant to FS581.185(a) and Rules...

ALTERNATE DESIGN

5.1.l(d) Replace stricken language.

Wetland destruction and mitigation or compensation shall be considered only when
there are no feasible po t design alternatives for the particular site.


ONE ACRE THRESHOLD


5.1.1(e) Strike entirely.









6.3 Mitigation/compensation shall be completed provided for in each phase of
construction to mitigate the wetlands lost by that phase of construction as defined
by the areas included within a given construction permit.
6.4 The pernittee must provide reasonable assurance of financial and
isitutiuonal ability to ay ut the miti ation/compensatiuo, mnituing, and

feHowi~gq
maintenancen I I I I IReasI nVIbe qiQIassuirance may be provided by one o athe

a. A surety bond in an amount equal to 125% of the cost estimate of the
Proposed itigatio/copenseation, monitoring, and maitenance plan.
b. PelIformance guaantee to a local government as a part of a project


Colstrution guarantee, provided the guantee adequately covers the project's
slated we Hand requirements.

c. Cash bond or letter of credit from a finanial institutio


d. Escr ow agreements which couldJ include money, land and


e. -Pei formlanic prior to wetland loss-

The portion of the financal guarantee propouiunat1 to -e-ch phai-e f
niitigation/compeisation may be release after the equireme ts of tat phase n-
completed, inspected and appved i writing by the Distict, povid-ed a sufficient
portion of the financial guarantee mains to ensure that mituing ad
maintenance may be carried out for the duation of the permit requilements.

























8




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

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