Title: Part B - Basis of Review
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003933/00001
 Material Information
Title: Part B - Basis of Review
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: SWFWMD
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Part B - Basis of Review
General Note: Box 16, Folder 2 ( SWFWMD Environmental Resource Permitting Informational Manual - 1997 ), Item 3
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003933
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





Southwest Florida Water Management District


PART B
BASIS OF REVIEW


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITTING
INFORMATION MANUAL


AA


k I M


MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE OF SURFACE WATERS


APRIL 17, 1997


A-


































[BLANK]








TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART B BASIS OF REVIEW



PAGE

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ..................................... B-1
1.1 Objectives ...................................... .......... B-1
1.2 Application Review Process ............... .................. B-1
1.3 Criteria Flexibility ............................................. B-1
1.4 Simultaneous Reviews .......................................... B-2
1.5 Compliance with Laws ................. ............... B-2
1.6 Construction/Operation Criteria Applicability ........................ B-3
1.7 Explanation of Terms ...................................... ..... B-3

CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA .............................. B-8
2.1 Phased Projects ............................................... B-8
2.2 Land Use Considerations ........................................ B-9
2.3 Water and Wastewater Service .................................. B-9
2.4 W ater Management Areas ....................................... B-9
2.6 Legal Operation/Maintenance Entity Requirements ................... B-10
2.7 Statement of Completion ....................................... B-14

CHAPTER THREE ENVIRONMENTAL ................................. B-14
3.1.0 Wetlands and other surface waters ................................ B-14
3.2 Environmental Criteria ........................................ B-16
3.3 M litigation ..................................... ........... B-41
3.4 Formal Determination of the Landward Extent of Wetlands ............. B-57

CHAPTERFOUR -WATER QUANTITY .................................. B-62
4.1 General ................. ..... ..... ....... ............... B-62
4.2 Discharge ....................... ......................... B-62
4.3 Flood protection ..................................... ....... B-63
4.4 Flood plain encroachment ...................................... B-64
4.5 Minimum drainage ............................................ B-64
4.6 Overdrainage and water conservation .............................. B-64
4.7 Historic basin storage .......................................... B-65
4.8 Offsite Lands ............................................. B-65
4.9 Isolated wetlands .......... ................................... B-65

CHAPTERFIVE WATER QUALITY ........... ... .................. B-65
5.1 Projects shall be designed so that discharges ........................ B-65
5.2 Retention, detention criteria ......................... .......... B-66
5.3 Surface water treatment systems ....................... ........... B-70
5.4 Sewage treatment percolation ponds .............................. B-70
5.5 Solid W aste Facilities ...................................... B-70


-1-








5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13


Septic Tank .................................. .............. B -71
Underground Exfiltration Systems .............................. B-71
Alterations to existing public roadway projects ...................... B-71
W ater Quality Monitoring .................................... .. B-72
General conditions related to water quality monitoring ................ B-73
The reason for monitoring .................................... .. B-73
Monitoring boundaries ......................................... B-73
Future requirements ..................... ...... .............. B-73


CHAPTERSIX CONSTRUCTION ....................................... B-74
6.1 Discharge structures ........................................... B-74
6.2 Control devices/Bleed-down mechanisms for Detention Systems ......... B-75
6.3 The design of retention areas ................................... B-76
6.4 Wet Detention Areas ............. .......................... B-76
6.5 Exfiltration systems ........................... ............... B-77
6.6 Impervious areas .................. .......................... B-77
6.7 Stagnant water conditions ................................. B-77
6.8 Sedim ent sumps shall .......................................... B-77

CHAPTER SEVEN DESIGN INFORMATION .............................. B-77
7.1 Antecedent Conditions ......................................... B-77
7.2 Rainfall Volume ............................... ....... ...... B-78
7.3 Rainfall Distribution .................. ...................... B-78
7.4 Storage .................................... ............... B-78
7.5 Infiltration and Percolation .................................... B-78
7.6 Runoff ................................................... B-79
7.7 Receiving Water Stage ....................... .................. B-79
7.8 Discharge ................................... ............. B-79


APPENDICES
APP. 1

APP. 2

APP. 3
APP. 4

APP. 5


APP. 6

APP. 7


......................... ................................ B-81
STATEMENT OF INSPECTION FOR PROPER
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...................... B-82
LAND, BASINS AND WATER COURSES HAVING
SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA ........................... B-84
[RESERVED] ................ ........................ B-89
BASIS OF REVIEW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
USE OF MITIGATION BANKS ........................... B-90
LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES THAT ARE AQUATIC OR
WETLAND DEPENDENTAND THAT USE UPLAND
HABITATS FOR NESTING ORDENNING ................. B-109
DRAINAGE BASINS IN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT .................... B-112
SITE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT PERMITTING .......... B-114


-2-










BASIS OF REVIEW
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT
APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives Under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida
Statutes (F.S.) and Chapters 40D-4, 40, 45, and 400,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the District is
responsible for permitting construction and operation of
surface water management systems within its juris-
dictional boundaries. The objective of this document is
to identify the usual procedures and information used by
the District staff in permit application review. The
objective of the review is to ensure that the permit will
authorize activities or situations which are not harmful
to the water resources of the District or inconsistent
with the public interest.

1.2 Application Review Process The District issues three
types of environmental resource permits as authorized by
Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes: individual
including conceptual, standard general, and noticed
general permits.

Noticed general permits and general permits are issued by
staff, while Governing Board action is required for
individual permits.

1.2.1 Application Forms Applicants for Environmental Resource
Permits shall fill out the form entitled, "Joint
Application for Environmental Resource Permit and
Authorization to Use State Owned Submerged Lands" and
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

Engineered systems are required to have plans and
calculations signed and sealed by a Florida Professional
Engineer in accordance with Chapter 471, Florida
Statutes.

1.3 Criteria Flexibility The primary goal of the review
criteria is to meet District water resource objectives.


B 1










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

However, the criteria are designed to be flexible.
Performance criteria are used where possible. Other
methods of meeting overall objectives will be considered
depending on the magnitude of specific or cumulative
impacts.

1.4 Simultaneous Reviews Aside from purely technical
aspects, legal and institutional factors must be
considered. Because of legal time constraints for
processing permits, it is advisable for the applicant to
contact other interested agencies, organizations, and
affected citizens prior to submitting a formal
application to the District. Summaries of meetings and
copies of responses from appropriate parties should be
included in the application.

It may be in the applicant's best interest to seek
simultaneous reviews from all agencies with
jurisdiction. This provision is not intended to preclude
the submission of an application to this District prior
to receiving other necessary approvals, but the
application should contain at least a status report on
other approvals being sought, with an indication that the
surface water management portion of the project will be
approved by other pertinent jurisdictions.

Issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit by the
District does not relieve the applicant of the
responsibility to obtain all necessary federal, state,
local or special district permits or authorizations.

1.5 Compliance with Laws Activities discussed herein must
be conducted in accordance with all other applicable
laws. Of specific note are those activities covered by
laws as follows, including but not limited to:
a. Section 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, -
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fill
b. Chapter 471, F.S. Florida professional engineer
seal and signature on all engineering plans and


B 2










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

documents (subject to the exemptions of the Chapter).

1.6 Construction/Operation Criteria Applicability The
District issues permits to construct and operate proposed
surface water management activities and to operate, alter
or abandon existing systems. The criteria herein are
specifically intended to apply to those activities.

1.7 EXPLANATION OF TERMS

1.7.1 "Closed Drainage Basin" A watershed in which the runoff
does not have a surface outfall up to and including the
100-year flood level.

1.7.2 "Control Device" The element of a discharge structure
which allows the gradual release of water under
controlled conditions. This is sometimes referred to as
the bleed-down mechanism or "bleeder". Examples include
orifices, notches, weirs, and effluent filtration
systems.

1.7.3 "Control Elevation" The lowest elevation at which water
can be released through the control device. This is
sometimes referred to as the invert elevation.

1.7.4 Creation The establishment of new wetlands or surface
waters by conversion of other land forms.

1.7.5 "Detention" The delay of storm runoff prior to
discharge into receiving waters.

1.7.6 "Detention Volume" The volume of open surface storage
behind the discharge structure measured between the
overflow elevation and control elevation.

1.7.7 "Directly Connected Impervious Areas" Unless otherwise
specifically stated in the Basis, directly connected
impervious areas as considered in the calculation of
volumes for treatment systems are those impervious areas


B 3










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

hydraulically connected to the treatment system directly
or by pipes or ditches.

1.7.8 "Discharge Structure" A structural device, usually of
concrete, metal, etc., through which water is discharged
from a project to the receiving water.

1.7.9 "Drainage Basin" A subdivision of a watershed.

1.7.10 "Dredging" Excavation, by any means, in surface waters
or wetlands, Excavation also means the excavation, or
creation, of a water body which is, or is to be,
connected to surface waters or wetlands, directly or via
an excavated water body or series of water bodies.

1.7.11 "Ecological Value" The value of functions performed by
wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.
These functions include: providing habitat for wildlife,
corridors for wildlife movement, food chain support,
groundwater recharge, water storage and flow attenuation,
and water quality enhancement.

1.7.12 "Enhancement" Improving the ecological value of
wetlands, other surface waters, or uplands that have been
degraded in comparison to their historic condition.

1.7.13 "Estuary" means a semienclosed, naturally existing
coastal body of water which has a free connection with
the open sea and within which seawater is measurably
diluted with fresh water derived from riverine systems.

1.7.14 "Elevation" The height in feet above mean sea level
according to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).

1.7.15 "Existing Nesting or Denning" As used in Section 3.2.7
means an upland site is currently being used for nesting
or denning or is expected, based on reasonable scientific
judgment, to be used for such purposes based on past
nesting or denning at the site.


B 4










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

1.7.16 "Filling" The deposition, by any means, of materials in
surface waters or wetlands.

1.7.17 "Historic Basin Storage" The depression storage
available on the site in the pre-development condition.
The volume of storage is that which exists up to the
required design storm.

1.7.18 "Historic Discharge" The peak rate and/or amount of
runoff which leaves a parcel of land by gravity from an
undisturbed/existing site, or the legally allowable
discharge at the time of permit application.

1.7.19 "Hydroperiod" The duration of inundation in a wetland.

1.7.20 "Impervious" Land surfaces which do not allow, or
minimally allow, the penetration of water; examples are
buildings, non-porous concrete and asphalt pavements, and
some fine grained soils such as clays.

1.7.21 "Isolated Wetland" Any wetland without a direct
hydrologic connection by standing or flowing surface
water at seasonal high water level to a lake, stream,
estuary, or marine waters.

1.7.22 "Lagoon" A naturally existing coastal zone depression
which is below mean high water and which has permanent or
ephemeral communications with the sea, but which is
protected from the sea by some type of naturally existing
barrier.

1.7.23 "Listed Species" Those animal species which are
endangered, threatened or of special concern and are
listed in sections 39-27.003, 39-27.004, and 39-27.005,
F.A.C., and those plant species listed in 50 Code of
Federal Regulation 17.12, when such plants are found to
be located in a wetland or other surface water.

1.7.24 "Mitigation" An action or series of actions to offset
the adverse impacts that would otherwise cause a


B 5










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

regulated activity to fail to meet the criteria set forth
in 3.1.1 through 3.3.6. Mitigation usually consists of
restoration, enhancement, creation, preservation, or a
combination thereof.

1.7.25 "Mitigation Bank" means a project undertaken to provide
for the withdrawal of mitigation credits to offset
adverse impacts.

1.7.26 "Normal Water Level" The design starting water
elevation used when determining stage/storage design
computations in a retention or detention area. A
retention or detention system may have two (2) designated
"normal water levels" associated with it if the system is
designed for both water quality and water quantity.

1.7.27 "Off-line Treatment System" A system only for water
quality treatment that collects project runoff and has no
direct discharge capability other than percolation and
evaporation. A system utilizing detention with effluent
filtration is not an off-line treatment system.

1.7.28 "On-line Treatment System" A dual purpose system that
collects project runoff for both water quality and water
quantity requirements. Water quality volumes are
recovered through percolation and evaporation while water
quantity volumes are recovered through a combination of
percolation, evaporation, and surface discharge.

1.7.29 "Open Drainage Basin" Open drainage basins are all
watersheds not meeting the definition of 1.7.1 (Closed
Drainage Basin).

1.7.30 "Overflow Elevation" The design elevation of a
discharge structure at or below which water is contained
behind the structure, except for that which leaks or
bleeds out, through a control device down to the control
elevation.


B 6










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

1.7.31 "Preservation" The protection of wetlands, other
surface waters or uplands from adverse impacts by placing
a conservation easement or other comparable land use
restriction over the property or by donation of fee
simple interest in the property to an appropriate entity.

1.7.32 "Regulated Activity" The construction, alteration,
operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of a
system regulated pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S.

1.7.33 "Restoration" Converting back to a historic condition
those wetlands, surface waters, or uplands which
currently exist as a land form which differs from the
historic condition.

1.7.34 "Retention" The prevention of direct discharge of storm
runoff into receiving waters; included as examples are
systems which discharge through percolation,
exfiltration, and evaporation processes and which
generally have residence times less than 3 days.

1.7.35 "Seasonal High Water Level" The elevation to which the
ground or surface water can be expected to rise due to a
normal wet season.

1.7.36 "Seawall" A manmade wall or encroachment, except
riprap, which is made to break the force of waves and to
protect the shore from erosion.

1.7.37 "Stormwater Management System" A system which is
designed and constructed or implemented to control
discharges which are necessitated by rainfall events,
incorporating methods to collect, convey, store, absorb,
inhibit, treat, use, or reuse water to prevent or reduce
flooding, overdrainage, environmental degradation, and
water pollution or otherwise affect the quantity and
quality of discharges from the system.

1.7.38 "Surface Water Management System or System" A
stormwater management system, dam, impoundment,


B 7










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

reservoir, appurtenant work, or works, or any combination
thereof. The terms "surface water management system" or
"system" include dredged or filled areas.

1.7.39 "Water Management Areas" Areas to be utilized for the
conveyance or storage of surface water, mitigation, or
perpetual operation and maintenance purposes.

1.7.40 "Watershed" The land area which contributes to the flow
of water into a receiving.body of water.

1.7.41 "Wet Detention System" A water quality treatment system
that utilizes a design water pool in association with
water-tolerant vegetation to remove pollutants through
settling, adsorption by soils and nutrient uptake by the
vegetation. The bottom elevation of the pond must be at
least one foot below the control elevation.

CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA

2.1 Phased Projects Projects that are to be developed in
phases will normally require the submission of a master
plan of the applicant's contiguous land holdings. The
primary concerns of the District are to ensure continuity
between phases, satisfactory completion of individual
phases should the project not be completed as planned,
and protection of adjacent property owners' rights. This
includes adjacent property owners created by the sale of
incomplete phases.

An application for a conceptual permit encompassing the
total master plan should be submitted first. An
application for a construction permit for the first phase
may also be included as a part of the initial
application.

Applications for phases of a project for which no
conceptual permit has been obtained may be considered
only when the phases are totally independent of, or make
sufficient provisions for, adjacent lands.


B 8










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

2.2 Land Use Considerations The proposed land use to be
served by a surface water management system for which an
Environmental Resource Permit is requested is not
required to be consistent with the affected local
government's comprehensive plan and/or existing zoning
for the site. However, it is strongly recommended that
an applicant obtain the necessary land use approvals from
the affected local government prior to permit application
since these approvals often contain conditions which
impact the overall project design and, hence, the type of
surface water management system design which is proposed.
By obtaining these local government approvals first, the
applicant can reduce or eliminate the need for subsequent
permit modifications which may be necessary as a result
of conditions imposed by the local government.

Should these local land use approvals be obtained
subsequent to the issuance of the Environmental Resource
Permit, the applicant should be aware that a permit
modification may be necessary prior to initiation of
construction. Due to the amount of time which may be
involved in processing such a modification, the applicant
is encouraged to initiate an application for modification
as soon as possible in order to prevent construction
delays.

2.3 Water and Wastewater Service Potable water and
wastewater facilities must be identified. The applicant
for an Environmental Resource Permit must provide
information on how these services are to be provided
including the status of any existing or proposed water
use permit, if applicable. If wastewater disposal is
accomplished on-site, additional information will
normally be requested regarding separation of wastewater
and storm water systems.

2.4 Water Management Areas Such areas shall be shown on
construction plans and, when appropriate, legally
reserved for that purpose by dedication on the plat, deed
restrictions, easements etc., so that subsequent owners


B 9










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

or others may not remove such areas from their intended
use. Management areas, including maintenance easements,
shall be connected to a public road or other location
from which operation and maintenance access is legally
and physically available. Impervious areas designed for
purposes such as roads, parking lots, sidewalks, or
public access shall not be used as water management areas
if the level or duration of standing or flowing water on
these areas is a potential risk to vehicular traffic or
pedestrian use.

2.6 Legal Operation/Maintenance Entity Requirements

2.6.1 The District considers the following entities acceptable
to satisfy the condition for issuance of permits,
40D-4.301(1) (i), and limiting condition, 40D-4.381(1)(a):
a. Local governmental units including counties or
municipalities.
b. Active Chapter 298, F.S., drainage districts;
drainage districts created by special act; Chapter
190 F.S., Community Development Districts, or
Chapter 170 F.S., special assessment districts.
c. Non-profit corporations including homeowners
associations, property owners associations (see
2.6.2 ), condominium owners associations or master
associations.
d. Legally constituted communication, water, sewer,
electrical or other public utilities.
e. State or federal agencies.
f. The property owner or developer only in the
following circumstances:
(1) The property is wholly owned by the permitted
and ownership is intended to be retained.
This would apply to a farm, corporate office
or single industrial facility, for example; or
(2) The ownership of the property is retained by
the permitted and is either leased or rented
to third parties such as in shopping centers
or mobile home parks.


B 10










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

To satisfy these requirements, the permitted must provide
written documentation. If the operation and maintenance
entity is a governmental unit, prior to staff
construction approval, the permitted must supply written
proof in the appropriate form by either letter or draft
resolution outlining the terms and conditions under which
the governmental entity will accept the operation and
maintenance of all of the surface water management system
and related facilities including lakes, easements, etc.
These documents are required to be finalized prior to
issuance of the operation authorization.

2.6.2 Association Requirements

2.6.2.1 If a Homeowner or Property Owners Association or Master
Association is proposed, the applicant must submit draft
or final Articles of Incorporation for the Association,
and Declaration of Protective Covenants or Deed
Restrictions, as well as a reference map if referred to
in the documents. The permitted must furnish the
Certificate of Incorporation and the recording
information (Official Book and Page Number) for the
Declaration prior to issuance of the operation
authorization.
2.6.2.2 If a Condominium Association is proposed, the permitted
must supply draft or final Articles of Incorporation for
the Condominium Association, and Declaration of
Condominium. It will be necessary for the permitted to
forward a copy of the letter from the Department of
Business Regulation, Bureau of Condominiums, stating that
the documents are proper for filing. These documents are
required to be finalized prior to issuance of the
operation authorization.

2.6.2.3 The Association, whether a non-profit association or a
condominium association, must comply with the applicable
provisions of Florida laws, such as Chapters 617, 718, or
719, F.S.


B 11











'BDTT 1 GO0


2.6.2.4































2.6.2.5


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS


M kks d1Z PASLQIlM QP RIEW


The Articles of Incorporation must reflect that the
Association has the power to do the following:
a. Own and convey property;
b. Operate and maintain common property, specifically
the surface water management system including any
mitigation areas as permitted by the Southwest
Florida Water Management District including all
lakes, retention areas, culverts and related
appurtenances;
c. Establish rules and regulations;
d. Assess members and enforce said assessments;
e. Sue and be sued;
f. Contract for services to provide for operation and
maintenance if the Association contemplates
employing a maintenance company;
g. Require all the homeowners, lot owners, property
owners or unit owners to be members;
h. Exist in perpetuity; however, the Articles of
Incorporation must provide that if the Association
is dissolved, the property consisting of the
surface water management system shall be conveyed
to an appropriate agency of local government, and
that if not accepted, then the surface water
management system shall be dedicated to a similar
non-profit corporation; and
i. Take any other action necessary for the purposes
for which the Association is organized.
The Declaration of Protective Covenants, Deed
Restrictions or Declaration of Condominium must set forth
the following:
a. It is the responsibility of the Association to
operate and maintain the surface water management
system;
b. The surface water management system is owned by the
Association or described therein as common
property;
c. There is a method of assessing funds and collecting
the assessed funds for operation and maintenance of
the surface water management system;


B 12











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Ba.IS nW RVITRW


d. Any amendment of these documents which would affect
the surface water management system, including the
water management portions of the common areas, must
have the prior approval of the Southwest Florida
Water Management District; and
e. The Declaration of Covenants will be in effect for
at least 25 years with automatic renewal periods
thereafter.


2.6.2.6



















2.6.3


If drafts of the required documents are not submitted
with the original application, they must be submitted
prior to construction. Final documents must be submitted
before operation will be authorized. Documents may be
submitted prior to recording to allow for staff comment.
Modification of the requirements of this section can only
be based upon:
a. Intervening local government requirements of a more
stringent nature such as the requirement of a
maintenance agreement and posting of bond by the
developer.
b. A unique project requiring an alternate entity.
The alternate entity must be evaluated
independently. All necessary agreements or
easements must be documented in the file of record
before approval will be given.

Future operation and maintenance The operation and
maintenance entity is required to provide for the
inspection of the surface water management system by a
Florida registered Professional Engineer to assure that
the system is properly operated and maintained.
Inspection schedules will be specifically stated in the
permit. For those systems utilizing effluent filtration
or exfiltration, the inspections shall be performed 18
months after operation is authorized and every 18 months
thereafter. A written report of the findings of the
inspection shall be filed with the District within 30
days of the date of the inspection. The District shall
supply the form necessary for this.


B 13










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

The District may impose additional permit requirements to
insure future operation and maintenance including, but
not limited to, performance bonds or the development of
operation and maintenance plans and schedules.

2.7 Statement of Completion When a system permitted by the
District is constructed, a Florida registered
Professional Engineer or person under their responsible
supervision, direction or control must be on the
construction site as needed to certify that the system
was constructed as permitted. The owner, authorized
agent or engineer must certify that the system was
constructed as permitted and, if applicable, in
compliance with rule 40D-40.301, prior to issuance of the
operation authorization or any transfer of operation and
maintenance responsibility. The District will supply the
form necessary for this.

CHAPTER THREE ENVIRONMENTAL

3.1.0 Wetlands and other surface waters
Wetlands are important components of the water resource
because they often serve as spawning, nursery and feeding
habitats for many species of fish and wildlife, and
because they often provide important flood storage,
nutrient cycling, detrital production, recreational and
water quality functions. Other surface waters such as
lakes, ponds, reservoirs, other impoundments, streams,
rivers and estuaries also often provide such functions,
and in addition may provide flood conveyance, navigation
and water supply functions to the public. Not all
wetlands or other surface waters provide all of these
functions, nor do they provide them to the same extent.
A wide array of biological, physical and chemical factors
affect the functioning of any wetland or other surface
water community. Maintenance of water quality standards
in applicable wetlands and other surface waters is
critical to their ability to provide many of these
functions.


B 14











APRIL 1997


3.1.1


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF REVIEW


It is the intent of the Governing Board that the criteria
in subsections 3.2 through 3.3.8 be implemented in a
manner which achieves a programmatic goal and a project
permitting goal of no net loss of wetlands or other
surface water functions. This goal shall not include
projects that are exempt by statute or rule or which are
authorized by a noticed general permit. Unless exempted
by statute or rule, permits are required for the
construction, alteration, operation, maintenance,
abandonment and removal of systems so that the District
can conserve the beneficial functions of these
communities. The term "systems" includes areas of
dredging or filling, as those terms are defined in s.
373.403(13) and (14), F.S.

Environmental Conditions for Issuance
The District addresses the conservation of these
beneficial functions in the permitting process by
requiring applicants to provide reasonable assurance that
the following conditions for issuance of permits, set
forth in Sections 40D-4.301 (Conditions for Issuance) and
40D-4.302 (Additional Conditions for Issuance), F.A.C.,
are met. Applicants must provide reasonable assurance
that:
(a) a regulated activity will not adversely impact the
value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and
listed species, including aquatic and wetland
dependent species, by wetlands and other surface
waters and other water related resources of the
District. (paragraph 40D-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C.)(see
subsection 3.2.2);
(b) a regulated activity located in, on, or over
wetlands or other surface waters, will not be
contrary to the public interest, or if such an
activity significantly degrades or is located
within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the
regulated activity will be clearly in the public
interest (see subsection 3.2.3);
(c) a regulated activity will not adversely affect the
quality of receiving waters such that the water


B 15










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4,
62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C.,
including any antidegradation provisions of
Sections 62-4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62-4.242(2) and
(3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for
Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National
Resource Waters set forth in sections 62-4.242(2)
and (3), F.A.C., will be violated (paragraph 40D-
4.301(1) (e), F.A.C.);
(d) a regulated activity located in, adjacent to or in
close proximity to Class II waters or located in
waters classified by the Department as approved,
restricted, or conditionally restricted for
shellfish harvesting pursuant to chapter 16R-7,
F.A.C., will comply with the additional criteria in
subsection 3.2.5 (paragraph 40D-4.302(1)(c),
F.A.C.);
(e) the construction of vertical seawalls in estuaries
and lagoons will comply with the additional
criteria in subsection 3.2.6; (paragraph 40D-
4.302(1) (d), F.A.C.);
(f) a regulated activity will not cause adverse
secondary impacts to the water resources (paragraph
40D-4.301(1)(f), F.A.C.) (see subsection 3.2.7);
(g) a regulated activity will not cause adverse
cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface
waters, as delineated pursuant to the methodology
authorized by subsection 373.421(1), F.S.
(paragraph 40D-4.302(1) (b), F.A.C.) (see subsection
3.2.8).

3.2 Environmental Criteria
Compliance with the conditions for issuance in subsection
3.1.1 will be determined through compliance with the
criteria explained in subsections 3.2 through 3.3.8.6 of
this Handbook.

3.2.1 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts
The degree of impact to wetland and other surface water
functions caused by a proposed system, whether the impact


B 16










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

to these functions can be mitigated and the
practicability of design modifications for the site, as
well as alignment alternatives for a proposed linear
system, which could eliminate or reduce impacts to these
functions, are all factors in determining whether an
application will be approved by the District. Design
modifications to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts must
be explored as described in 3.2.1.1. Any adverse impacts
remaining after practicable design modifications have
been implemented may be offset by mitigation as described
in subsections 3.3 through 3.3.8. An applicant may
propose mitigation, or the District may suggest
mitigation, to offset the adverse impacts which would
cause the system to fail to meet the conditions for
issuance. To receive District approval, a system can not
cause a net adverse impact on wetland functions and other
surface water functions which is not offset by
mitigation.

3.2.1.1 Except as provided in 3.2.1.2, if the proposed system
will result in adverse impacts to wetland functions and
other surface water functions such that it does not meet
the requirements of sections 3.2.2 through 3.2.3.7, then
the District in determining whether to grant or deny a
permit shall consider whether the applicant has
implemented practicable design modifications to reduce or
eliminate such adverse impacts.

The term "modification" shall not be construed as
including the alternative of not implementing the system
in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a
project that is significantly different in type or
function. A proposed modification which is not
technically capable of being done, is not economically
viable, or which adversely affects public safety through
the endangerment of lives or property is not considered
"practicable." A proposed modification need not remove
all economic value of the property in order to be
considered not "practicable." Conversely, a modification
need not provide the highest and best use of the property


B 17










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

to be "practicable." In determining whether a proposed
modification is practicable, consideration shall be given
to the cost of the modification compared to the
environmental benefit it achieves.

3.2.1.2 The District will not require the applicant to implement
practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate
impacts when:
(a) the ecological value of the functions provided by
the area of wetland or other surface water to be
adversely affected is low, based on a site specific
analysis using the factors in subsection 3.2.2.3,
and the proposed mitigation will provide greater
long term ecological value than the area of wetland
or other surface water to be adversely affected, or
(b) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements
all or part of a plan that provides regional
ecological value and that provides greater long
term ecological value than the area of wetland or
other surface water to be adversely affected.

3.2.1.3 Should such mutual consideration of modification and
mitigation not result in a permittable system, the
District must deny the application. Nothing herein shall
imply that the District may not deny an application for
a permit as submitted or modified, if it fails to meet
the conditions for issuance, or that mitigation must be
accepted by the District.

3.2.2 Fish, Wildlife, Listed Species and their Habitats
Pursuant to paragraph 3.1.1(a), an applicant must provide
reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not
impact the values of wetlands, other surface waters and
other water related resources of the District, so as to
cause adverse impacts to:
(a) the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and
listed species; and
(b) the habitat of fish, wildlife and listed species.


B 18










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

In evaluating whether an applicant has provided such
reasonable assurance under subsection 3.2.2, B.O.R., the
magnitude of the effect of the regulated activity shall
be considered, and de minimis effects shall not be
considered adverse.

As part of the assessment of the impacts of regulated
activities upon fish and wildlife and their habitat, the
District will provide a copy of all notices of
application for standard general and individual permits,
including conceptual permits, which propose regulated
activities in, on or over wetlands or other surface
waters to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission for review and comment. In addition, the
District staff may solicit comments from the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission regarding other
applications to assist in the assessment of potential
impacts to wildlife and their habitats, particularly with
regard to listed wildlife species. Where proposed
activities have a potential to impact listed marine
species, the District will provide a copy of the above-
referenced types of applications to the Department of
Environmental Protection.

Generally, wildlife surveys will not be required. The
need for a wildlife survey will depend upon the
likelihood that the site is used by listed species,
considering site characteristics and the range and
habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed
system will impact that use such that the criteria in
subsection 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3 and subsection 3.2.7
will not be met. Survey methodologies employed to
inventory the site must provide reasonable assurance
regarding the presence or absence of the subject listed
species.

3.2.2.1 Compliance with subsections 3.2.2 through 3.2.3.7 and
3.2.5 through 3.3.8 will not be required for regulated
activities in isolated wetlands less than one half acre
in size, unless:


B 19












APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
RASTI OF RRVIRW


(a) the wetland is used by threatened or endangered
species, or
(b) the wetland is located in an area of critical state
concern designated pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S.,
or
(c) the wetland is connected by standing or flowing
surface water at seasonal high water level to one
or more wetlands, and the combined wetland acreage
so connected is greater than one half acre, or
(d) the District establishes that the wetland to be
impacted is, or several such wetlands to be
impacted are cumulatively, of more than minimal
value to fish and wildlife.


3.2.2.2























3.2.2.3


Alterations to livestock watering ponds that were
constructed in uplands and which are less than one acre
in area and alterations to drainage ditches that were
constructed in uplands will not be required to comply
with the provisions of subsections 3.2.2 through 3.2.2.3,
3.2.3 through 3.2.3.7 and 3.2.5 through 3.3.8, unless
those ponds or ditches provide significant habitat for
threatened or endangered species. This means that,
except in cases where those ponds or ditches provide
significant habitat for threatened or endangered species,
the only environmental criteria that will apply to those
ponds or ditches are those included in subsections
3.2.2.4, and 3.2.4 through 3.2.4.5. This provision shall
only apply to those ponds and ditches which were
constructed before a permit was required under Part IV,
Chapter 373, F.S. or were constructed pursuant to a
permit under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. This provision
does not apply to ditches constructed to divert natural
stream flow.

The assessment of impacts expected as a result of
proposed activities on the values of functions will be
based on a review of pertinent scientific literature,
ecologic and hydrologic information, and field
inspection. When assessing the value of functions that
any wetland or other surface water provides to fish,


B 20










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

wildlife, and listed species, the factors which the
District will consider include:
(a) condition this factor addresses whether the
wetland or other surface water is in a high quality
state or has been the subject of past alterations
in hydrology, water quality, or vegetative
composition. However, areas impacted by activities
in violation of a District or Department rule,
order or permit adopted or issued pursuant to
Chapter 373, or Part VIII, Chapter 403 F.S. (1984,
as amended), will be evaluated as if the activity
had not occurred.
(b) hydrologic connection this factor addresses the
nature and degree of connection which may provide
benefits to water resources through detrital
export, base flow maintenance, water quality
enhancement or the provision of nursery habitat.
(c) uniqueness this factor addresses the relative
rarity of the wetland or other surface water and
its floral and faunal components in relation to the
surrounding regional landscape.
(d) location this factor addresses the location of
the wetland or other surface water in relation to
its surroundings.
(e) fish and wildlife utilization this factor
addresses use of the wetland or other surface water
for resting, feeding, breeding, nesting or denning
by fish and wildlife, particularly those which are
listed species.

3.2.2.4 Water quantity impacts to wetlands and other surface
waters
Pursuant to paragraph 3.1.1(a), an applicant must provide
reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not
change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface
water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or
other surface water functions as follows:
(a) Whenever portions of a system, such as constructed
basins, structures, stormwater ponds, canals, and
ditches, could have the effect of reducing the


B 21










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

depth, duration or frequency of inundation or
saturation in a wetland or other surface water, the
applicant must perform an analysis of the drawdown
in water levels or diversion of water flows
resulting from such activities and provide
reasonable assurance that these drawdowns or
diversions will not adversely impact the functions
that wetlands and other surface waters provide to
fish and wildlife and listed species.
(b) Increasing the depth, duration, or frequency of
inundation through changing the rate or method of
discharge of water to wetlands or other surface
waters or by impounding water in wetlands or other
surface waters must also be addressed to prevent
adverse effects to functions that wetlands and
other surface waters provide to fish and wildlife
and listed species. Different types of wetlands
respond differently to increased depth, duration,
or frequency of inundation. Therefore, the
applicant must provide reasonable assurance that
activities that have the potential to increase
discharge or water levels will not adversely affect
the functioning of the specific wetland or other
surface water subject to the increased discharge or
water level.
(c) Whenever portions of a system could have the effect
of altering water levels in wetlands or other
surface waters, applicants shall be required to
monitor the wetland or other surface waters to
demonstrate that such alteration has not resulted
in adverse impacts, or to calibrate the system to
prevent adverse impacts. Monitoring parameters,
methods, schedules, and reporting requirements
shall be specified in permit conditions.

3.2.3 Public Interest Test
In determining whether a regulated activity located in,
on, or over surface waters or wetlands, is not contrary
to the public interest or, if such an activity
significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding


B 22











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
RBASI Oq P'RVTIEW


Florida Water, that the regulated activity is clearly in
the public interest, the District shall consider and
balance, and an applicant must address, the following
criteria:
(a) Whether the regulated activity will adversely
affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the
property of others;
(b) Whether the regulated activity will adversely
affect the conservation of fish and wildlife,
including endangered or threatened species, or
their habitats;
(c) Whether the regulated activity will adversely
affect navigation or the flow of water or cause
harmful erosion or shoaling;
(d) Whether the regulated activity will adversely
affect the fishing or recreational values or marine
productivity in the vicinity of the activity;
(e) Whether the regulated activity will be of a
temporary or permanent nature;
(f) Whether the regulated activity will adversely
affect or will enhance significant historical and
archaeological resources under the provisions of
section 267.061, F.S.; and
(g) The current condition and relative value of
functions being performed by areas affected by the
proposed regulated activity.


3.2.3.1


Public health, safety, or welfare or the property of
others
In reviewing and balancing the criterion regarding public
health, safety, welfare and the property of others in
paragraph 3.2.3(a), the District will evaluate whether
the regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands
or other surface waters will cause:
(a) an environmental hazard to public health or safety
or improvement to public health or safety with
respect to environmental issues. Each applicant
must identify potential environmental public health
or safety issues resulting from their project.
Examples of these type of issues include: mosquito


B 23










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

control; proper disposal of solid, hazardous,
domestic or industrial waste; aids to navigation;
hurricane preparedness or cleanup; environmental
remediation, enhancement or restoration; and
similar environmentally related issues. For
example, the installation of navigational aids may
improve public safety and may reduce impacts to
public resources.
(b) impacts to areas classified by the Department as
approved, conditionally approved, restricted or
conditionally restricted for shellfish harvesting.
Activities which would cause closure or a more
restrictive classification or management plan for a
shellfish harvesting area would result in a
negative factor in the public interest balance with
respect to this criterion.
(c) flooding or alleviate existing flooding on the
property of others. There is at least a neutral
factor in the public interest balance with respect
to the potential for causing or alleviating
flooding problems if the applicant meets the water
quantity criteria in Chapter Four.
(d) environmental impacts to the property of others.
For example, construction of a ditch that results
in drawdown impacts to a wetland on an adjacent
property would be an environmental impact to the
property of others. The District will not consider
impacts to property values.

3.2.3.2 Fish and wildlife and their habitats
The District's public interest review of that portion of
a proposed system in, on, or over wetlands and other
surface waters for impacts to "the conservation of fish
and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species,
or their habitats" is encompassed within the required
review of the entire system under subsection 3.2.2. An
applicant must always provide the reasonable assurances
required under subsection 3.2.2.


B 24


___










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

3.2.3.3 Navigation, water flow, erosion and shoaling
In reviewing and balancing the criterion on navigation,
erosion and shoaling in paragraph 3.2.3(c), the District
will evaluate whether the regulated activity located in,
on or over wetlands or other surface waters will:
(a) significantly impede navigability or enhance
navigability. The District will consider the
current navigational uses of the surface waters and
will not speculate on uses which may occur in the
future. Applicants proposing to construct bridges
or other traversing works must address adequate
horizontal and vertical clearance for the type of
watercraft currently navigating the surface waters.
Applicants proposing to construct docks, piers and
other works which extend into surface waters must
address the continued navigability of these waters.
An encroachment into a marked or customarily used
navigation channel is an example of a significant
impediment to navigability. Applicants proposing
temporary activities in navigable surface waters,
such as the mooring of construction barges, must
address measures for clearly marking the work as a
hazard to navigation, including nighttime lighting.
The addition of navigational aids may be beneficial
to navigation. If the applicant has been issued a
U.S. Coast Guard permit issued pursuant to 14
U.S.C. Section 81 (1993), 33 C.F.R. Section 62
(1993) for a regulated activity in, on or over
wetlands or other surface waters, submittal of this
permit with the application may assist in
addressing this criterion.
(b) cause or alleviate harmful erosion or shoaling.
Applicants proposing activities such as channel
relocation, artificial reefs, construction of
jetties, breakwaters, groins, bulkheads or beach
renourishment must address existing and expected
erosion or shoaling in the proposed design.
Compliance with erosion control best management
practices will be an important consideration in
addressing this criterion. Each permit will have a


B 25










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

general condition which requires applicants to
utilize appropriate erosion control practices and
to correct any adverse erosion or shoaling
resulting from the regulated activities.
(c) significantly impact or enhance water flow.
Applicants must address obstructions to sheet flow
by assessing the need for structures which minimize
the obstruction such as culverts or spreader swales
in fill areas. Compliance with the water quantity
criteria found in subsection 3.2.2.4 shall be an
important consideration in addressing this
criterion.

3.2.3.4 Fisheries, recreation, marine productivity
In reviewing and balancing the criterion regarding
fishing or recreational values and marine productivity in
paragraph 3.2.3(d), the District will evaluate whether
the regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or other
surface waters will cause:
(a) adverse effects to sport or commercial fisheries or
marine productivity. Examples of activities which
may adversely affect fisheries or marine
productivity are the elimination or degradation of
fish nursery habitat, change in ambient water
temperature, change in normal salinity regime,
reduction in detrital export, change in nutrient
levels or other adverse affects on populations of
native aquatic organisms.
(b) adverse effects or improvements to existing
recreational uses of a wetland or other surface
water. Wetlands and other surface waters may
provide recreational uses such as boating, fishing,
swimming, skiing, hunting and birdwatching. An
example of potential adverse effects to
recreational uses is the construction of a
traversing work, such as a road crossing a
waterway, which could impact the current use of the
waterway for waterskiing and boating.


B 26











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
RASTS OW EvUTIW


3.2.3.5 Temporary or Permanent Nature
When evaluating the other criteria in subsection 3.2.3,
the District will consider the frequency and duration of
the impacts caused by the proposed activity. Temporary
impacts will be considered less harmful than permanent
impacts of the same nature and extent.


3.2.3.6




























3.2.3.7


B 27


Historical and Archaeological Resources
In reviewing and balancing the criterion regarding
historical and archaeological resources in paragraph
3.2.3(f), the District will evaluate whether the
regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or
other surface waters will impact significant historical
or archaeological resources. The applicant must map the
location of and list the significance of any known
historical or archaeological resources that may be
affected by the regulated activity located in, on or over
wetlands or other surface waters. The District will
provide copies of all conceptual, individual and standard
general permit applications to the Division of Historical
Resources of the Department of State and solicit their
comments regarding whether the regulated activity may
adversely affect significant historical or archaeological
resources. The applicant will be required to submit an
archaeological survey performed by a qualified
professional such as one listed by the Florida Archeology
Council or the Division of Historical Resources and to
develop and implement a plan as necessary to demarcate
and to protect the significant historical and
archaeological resources if such resources are reasonably
expected to be impacted by the regulated activity.

Current condition and relative value of functions
When evaluating other criteria in subsection 3.2.3, the
District will consider the current condition and relative
value of the functions performed by wetlands and other
surface waters affected by the proposed regulated
activity. Wetlands and other surface waters which have
had their hydrology, water quality or vegetative
composition permanently impacted due to past legal










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

alterations or occurrences, such as infestation with
exotic species usually provide lower habitat value to
fish and wildlife. However, if the wetland or other
surface water is currently degraded, but is still
providing some beneficial functions, consideration will
be given to whether the regulated activity will further
reduce or eliminate those functions. The District will
also evaluate the predicted ability of the wetlands or
other surface waters to maintain their current functions
as part of the proposed system once it is developed.
Where previous impacts to a wetland or other surface
water are temporary in nature, consideration will be
given to the inherent functions of these areas, relative
to seasonal hydrologic changes, and expected vegetative
regeneration and projected habitat functions if the use
of the subject property were to remain unchanged. When
evaluating impacts to mitigation sites which have not
reached success pursuant to 3.3.6, the District shall
consider the functions that the mitigation site was
intended to offset, and any additional delay or reduction
in offsetting those functions that may be caused by
impacting the mitigation site. Previous construction or
alteration undertaken in violation of Chapter 373, F.S.,
or District rule, order or permit will not be considered
as having diminished the condition and relative value of
a wetland or other surface water.

3.2.4 Water quality
Pursuant to paragraph 3.1.1(c), an applicant must provide
reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not
violate water quality standards in areas where water
quality standards apply.

Reasonable assurance regarding water quality must be
provided both for the short term and the long term,
addressing the proposed construction, alteration,
operation, maintenance, removal and abandonment of the
system. The following requirements are in addition to
the water quality requirements found in Chapter 5.


B 28











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF REVIEW


3.2.4.1


3.2.4.2 Long term water quality considerations
The applicant must address the long term water quality
impacts of a proposed system, including:
(a) the potential of a constructed or altered water
body to violate water quality standards due to its
depth or configuration. For example, the depth of
water bodies must be designed to insure proper
mixing so that the water quality standard for
dissolved oxygen will not be violated in the lower
levels of the water body, but the depth should not
be so shallow that the bottom sediments are
frequently resuspended by boat activity. Water
bodies must be configured to prevent the creation
of debris traps or stagnant areas which could
result in violations of water quality standards.
(b) long term erosion, siltation or propeller dredging
that will cause turbidity violations.


B 29


Short term water quality considerations
The applicant must address the short term water quality
impacts of a proposed system, including:
(a) providing turbidity barriers or similar devices for
the duration of dewatering and other construction
activities in or adjacent to wetlands or other
surface waters.
(b) stabilizing newly created slopes or surfaces in or
adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to
prevent erosion and turbidity.
(c) providing proper construction access for barges,
boats and equipment to ensure that propeller
dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic does
not occur.
(d) maintaining construction equipment to ensure that
oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are
not released into wetlands or other surface waters.
(e) controlling the discharge from spoil disposal
sites.
(f) preventing any other discharge or release of
pollutants during construction or alteration that
will cause water quality standards to be violated.


BASIS OF REVIEW










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

(c) prevention of any discharge or release of
pollutants from the system that will cause water
quality standards to be violated.

3.2.4.3 Additional water quality considerations for docking
facilities
Docking facilities, due to their nature, provide
potential sources of pollutants to wetlands and other
surface waters. To provide the required reasonable
assurance that water quality standards will not be
violated, the following factors must be addressed by an
applicant proposing the construction of a new docking
facility, or the expansion of or other alteration of an
existing docking facility that has the potential to
adversely affect water quality:
(a) Hydrographic information or studies shall be
required for docking facilities of greater than ten
boat slips. Hydrographic information or studies
also may be required for docking facilities of less
than ten slips, dependent upon the site specific
features described in (b) below. In all cases, the
need for a hydrographic study, and the complexity
of the study, will be dependent upon the specific
project design and the specific features of the
project site.
(b) The purpose of the hydrographic information or
studies is to document the flushing time (the time
required to reduce the concentration of a
conservative pollutant to ten percent of its
original concentration) of the water at the docking
facility. This information is used to determine
the likelihood that the facility will accumulate
pollutants to the extent that water quality
violations will occur. Generally, a flushing time
of less than or equal to four days is the maximum
that is desirable for docking facilities. However,
the evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing
time also takes into consideration the size (number
of slips) and configuration of the proposed docking
facility; the amplitude and periodicity of the


B 30










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

tide; the geometry of the subject waterbody; the
circulation and flushing of the waterbody; the
quality of the waters at the project site; the type
and nature of the docking facility; the services
provided at the docking facility; and the number
and type of other sources of water pollution in the
area.
(c) The level and type of hydrographic information or
studies will be determined based upon an analysis
on site specific characteristics. As compared to
sites that flush in less than four days, sites
where the flushing time is greater than four days
generally will require additional, more complex
levels of hydrographic studies or information to
determine whether water quality standards can be
expected to be violated by the facility.
Generally, the degree and complexity of the
hydrographic study will be dependent upon the types
of considerations listed in 3.2.4.3.(b), including
the potential for the facility, based on its design
and location, to add pollutants to the receiving
waters. Types of information required include the
following: site-specific measurements; waterway
geometry; tidal amplitude; the periodicity of
forces that drive water movement at the site; and
water tracer studies that document specific
circulation patterns.
(d) The applicant shall document, through hydrographic
information or studies, that pollutants leaving the
site of the docking facility will be adequately
dispersed in the receiving water body so as to not
cause violations of water quality standards based
on circulation patterns and flushing
characteristics of the receiving water body.
(e) In all cases, the hydrographic studies shall be
designed to document the hydrographic
characteristics of the project site and surrounding
waters. All hydrographic studies must be based on
the factors described in (a)-(d) above. An
applicant should consult with the District prior to


B 31











A'DTT 1 QQ


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BAO I7 RTEV a


ssC- "-*L-1 J V1E .V7.3n


3.2.4.4










3.2.4.5


conducting such a study.
(f) Fueling facilities shall be located and operated so
that the potential for spills or discharges to
surface waters and wetlands is minimized.
Containment equipment and emergency response plans
must be provided to ensure that the effects of
spills are minimized.
(g) The disposal of domestic wastes from boat heads,
particularly from liveaboard vessels, must be
addressed to prevent improper disposal into
wetlands or other surface waters. A liveaboard
vessel shall be defined as a vessel docked at the
facility that is inhabited by a person or persons
for any five consecutive days or a total of ten
days within a 30 day period.
(h) The disposal of solid waste, such as garbage and
fish cleaning debris, must be addressed to prevent
disposal into wetlands or other surface waters.
(i) Pollutant leaching characteristics of materials
such as pilings and anti-fouling paints used on the
hulls of vessels must be addressed to ensure that
any pollutants that leach from the structures and
vessels will not cause violations of water quality
standards given the flushing at the site and the
type, number and concentration of the likely
sources of pollutants.

Mixing Zones
Temporary mixing zones for water quality during
construction or alteration may be requested by the
applicant. The District shall review such request
pursuant to sections 62-4.242 and 62-4.244(5), F.A.C., in
accordance with the Operating Agreement Concerning
Regulation Under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. adopted by
reference in 40D-4.091(1), F.A.C.

Where ambient water quality does not meet standards
If the site of the proposed activity currently does not
meet water quality standards, the applicant must
demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards


B 32










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

by meeting the provisions in 3.2.4.1, 3.2.4.2, and
3.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do
not meet water quality standards, the applicant must
demonstrate that the proposed activity will not
contribute to the existing violation. If the proposed
activity will contribute to the existing violation,
mitigation may be proposed as described in subsection
3.3.1.4.

3.2.5 Class II Waters; Waters approved for shellfish harvesting
The special value and importance of shellfish harvesting
waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential
sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting
and as a nursery area for fish and shell fish is
recognized by the District. In accordance with section
3.1.1(d), the.District shall:
(a) deny a permit for a regulated activity in Class II
waters which are not approved for shellfish
harvesting unless the applicant submits a plan or
proposes a procedure to protect those waters and
waters in the vicinity. The plan or procedure
shall detail the measures to be taken to prevent
significant damage to the immediate project area
and the adjacent area and shall provide reasonable
assurance that the standards for Class II waters
will not be violated;
(b) deny a permit for a regulated activity in any class
of waters where the location of the system is
adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters,
unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a
procedure which demonstrates that the regulated
activity will not have a negative effect on the
Class II waters and will not result in violations
of water quality standards in the Class II waters;
(c) deny a permit for a regulated activity that is
located directly in Class II or Class III waters
which are classified by the Department as approved,
restricted, conditionally approved or conditionally
restricted for shellfish harvesting. However, the
District may issue permits or certifications for


B 33










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

maintenance dredging of navigational channels, the
construction of shoreline protection structures,
the installation of transmission and distribution
lines for carrying potable water, electricity or
communication cables in rights-of-way previously
used for such lines, for clam and oyster culture,
and for private, single family boat docks that meet
the following criteria for installation in such
waters:
1. there shall be no more than two boats moored
at the dock;
2. no overboard discharges of trash, human or
animal waste, or fuel shall occur at the dock;
3. any non-water dependent structures, such as
gazebos or fish cleaning stations, shall be
located on the uplands;
4. prior to the mooring of any boat at the dock,
there shall be existing structures with toilet
facilities located on the uplands;
5. any proposed shelter shall not have enclosed
sides;
6. the mooring area shall be located in waters
sufficiently deep to prevent bottom scour by
boat propellers; and
7. any structures located over grassbeds shall be
designed so as to allow for the maximum light
penetration practicable.

3.2.6 Vertical seawalls
(a) The construction of vertical seawalls in estuaries
or lagoons is prohibited unless one of the
following conditions exists:
1. the proposed construction is located within a
port as defined in Section 315.02, F.S., or
Section 403.021, F.S.;
2. the proposed construction is necessary for the
creation of a marina, the vertical seawalls
are necessary to provide access to watercraft,
or the proposed construction is necessary for
public facilities. For the purpose of this


B 34


__










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

paragraph 3.2.6(a)2., necessary means
essential to the activity or the activity
would not occur at the site;
3. the proposed construction is to be located
within an existing manmade canal and the
shoreline of such canal is currently occupied
in whole or in part by vertical seawalls; or
4. the proposed construction is to be conducted
by a public utility when such utility is
acting in the performance of its obligation to
provide service to the public.
(b) When considering an application for a permit to
repair or replace an existing vertical seawall, the
District shall generally require such seawall to be
faced with riprap material, or to be replaced
entirely with riprap material unless a condition
specified in 1.-4. above exists. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to hinder any
activity previously exempt or permitted or those
activities permitted pursuant to Chapter 161, F.S.

3.2.7 Secondary Impacts
Pursuant to paragraph 3.1.1(f), an applicant must provide
reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not
cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource as
described in paragraphs (a) through (d) below.

A proposed system shall be reviewed under this criterion
by evaluating the impacts to: wetland and surface water
functions identified in subsection 3.2.2; water quality;
upland habitat for aquatic and wetland dependent listed
species; and historical and archaeological resources. De
minimis or remotely related secondary impacts will not be
considered. Applicants may propose measures such as
preservation to prevent secondary impacts. Such
preservation shall comply with the land preservation
provisions of subsection 3.3.8. If such secondary
impacts can not be prevented, the applicant may propose
mitigation measures as provided for in section 3.3
through 3.3.8.


B 35










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

This secondary impact criterion consists of the following
four parts:
(a) An applicant shall provide reasonable assurance
that the secondary impacts from construction,
alteration, and intended or reasonably expected
uses of a proposed system will not cause violations
of water quality standards or adverse impacts to
the functions of wetlands or other surface waters
as described in section 3.2.2.

Impacts such as boat traffic generated by a
proposed dock, boat ramp or dry dock facility,
which causes an increased threat of collision with
manatees; impacts to wildlife from vehicles using
proposed roads in wetlands or surface waters;
impacts to water quality associated with the use of
septic tanks or propeller dredging by boats and
wakes from boats; and impacts associated with
docking facilities as described in paragraphs
3.2.4.3(f) and (h), will be considered relative to
the specific activities proposed and the potential
for such impacts. Impacts of ground water
withdrawals to wetlands and other surface waters
that result from the use of wells permitted
pursuant to Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., shall not be
considered as secondary impacts under rules adopted
pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., since
these impacts shall be considered in the water use
permit application process.

Secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands
associated with adjacent upland activities will not
be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum
width of 15' and an average width of 25' are
provided abutting those wetlands that will remain
under the permitted design, unless additional
measures are needed for protection of wetlands used
by listed species for nesting, denning, or
critically important feeding habitat. The mere
fact that a species is listed does not imply that


B 36










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

all of its feeding habitat is critically important.
Buffers shall remain in an undisturbed condition,
except for drainage features such as spreader
swales and discharge structures, provided the
construction or use of these features does not
adversely impact wetlands. Where an applicant
elects not to utilize buffers of the above
described dimensions, buffers of different
dimensions, measures other than buffers or
information may be proposed to provide the required
reasonable assurance.

(b) An applicant shall provide reasonable assurance
that the construction, alteration, and intended or
reasonably expected uses of a proposed system will
not adversely impact the ecological value of
uplands to aquatic or wetland dependant listed
animal species for enabling existing nesting or
denning by these species, but not including:

1. areas needed for foraging; or 2. wildlife
corridors, except for those limited areas of
uplands necessary for ingress and egress to the
nest or den site from the wetland or other surface
water.

Appendix 5 identifies those aquatic and wetland
dependent listed animal species that use upland
habitats for nesting or denning.

For those aquatic and wetland dependent listed
animal species for which habitat management
guidelines have been developed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC), compliance
with these guidelines will provide reasonable
assurance that the proposed system will not
adversely impact upland habitat functions described
in paragraph (b). For those aquatic or wetland
dependent listed animal species for which habitat


B 37










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

management guidelines have not been developed or in
cases where an applicant does not propose to use
USFWS or FGFWFC habitat management guidelines, the
applicant may propose measures to mitigate adverse
impacts to upland habitat functions described in
paragraph (b) provided to aquatic or wetland
dependent listed animal species.

(c) In addition to evaluating the impacts in the area
of any dredging and filling in, on, or over
wetlands or other surface waters, and as part of
the balancing review under subsection 3.2.3, the
District will consider any other relevant
activities that are very closely linked and
causally related to any proposed dredging or
filling which will cause impacts to significant
historical and archaeological resources.

(d) An applicant shall provide reasonable assurance
that the following future activities:

1. additional phases or expansion of the proposed
system for which plans have been submitted to
the District or other governmental agencies;
and
2. on-site and off-site activities regulated
under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., or
activities described in section 403.813(2),
F.S., that are very closely linked and
causally related to the proposed system, will
not result in water quality violations or
adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands
and other surface waters as described in
section 3.2.2. As part of this review, the
District will also consider the impacts of the
intended or reasonably expected uses of the
future activities on water quality and wetland
and other surface water functions.


B 38










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

In conducting the analysis under paragraph (d)2.,
above, the District will consider those future
projects or activities which would not occur but
for the proposed system, including where the
proposed system would be considered a waste of
resources should the future project or activities
not be permitted.

Where practicable, proposed systems shall be
designed in a fashion which does not necessitate
future impacts to wetland and other surface water
functions. If future phases or project expansion
have the potential to cause adverse secondary
impacts, applicants must provide sufficient
conceptual design information to provide reasonable
assurance that these impacts can be successfully
eliminated or offset.

One way for applicants to establish that future
phases or system expansions do not have adverse
secondary impacts is for the applicant to obtain a
conceptual permit for the entire project.

3.2.8 Cumulative Impacts
Pursuant to paragraph 3.1.1(g), an applicant must provide
reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not
cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and
other surface waters within the same drainage basin as
the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. The
impact on wetlands and other surface waters shall be
reviewed by evaluating the impacts to water quality as
set forth in subsection 3.1.1(c) and by evaluating the
impacts to functions identified in subsection 3.2.2. The
drainage basins within the District are identified on
Appendix 6.

An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the
proposed system, when considered with the following
activities, will not result in unacceptable cumulative


B 39











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
UAITO ASV OFDETTVW


impacts to water quality or the functions of wetlands and
other surface waters, within the same drainage basin:
(a) projects which are existing or activities regulated
under part IV, chapter 373, which are under
construction or projects for which permits or
determinations pursuant to sections 373.421 or
403.914 have been sought.
(b) activities which are under review, approved, or
vested pursuant to section 380.06, or other
activities regulated under part IV, chapter 373,
which may reasonably be expected to be located
within wetlands or other surface waters, in the
same drainage basin, based upon the comprehensive
plans, adopted pursuant to chapter 163, of the
local governments having jurisdiction over the
activities, or applicable land use restrictions and
regulations.

Only those activities listed in paragraphs (a) and (b)
which have similar types of impacts (adverse effects) to
those which will be caused by the proposed system will be
considered. (All citations in paragraphs (a) and (b)
refer to provisions of Florida Statutes.)

The cumulative impact evaluation is conducted using an
assumption that reasonably expected future applications
with like impacts will be sought, thus necessitating
equitable distribution of acceptable impacts among future
applications.

Cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the
proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past,
present, and future activities as described in 3.2.8
would then result in a violation of state water quality
standards as set forth in subsection 3.1.1(c) or
significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or
other surface waters identified in subsection 3.2.2
within the same drainage basin when considering the basin
as a whole.


B 40


3.2.8.1


A- 1DVT- 1 a-s 0'7 ..










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

3.2.8.2 Applicants may propose measures such as preservation to
prevent cumulative impacts. Such preservation shall
comply with the land preservation provisions in
subsection 3.3.8. If unacceptable cumulative impacts are
expected to occur, the applicant may propose mitigation
measures as provided for in sections 3.3 through 3.3.8.

3.3 Mitigation
Protection of wetlands and other surface waters is
preferred to destruction and mitigation due to the
temporal loss of ecological value and uncertainty
regarding the ability to recreate certain functions
associated with these features. Mitigation will be
approved only after the applicant has complied with the
requirements of subsection 3.2.1 regarding practicable
modifications to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts.
However, any mitigation proposal submitted for review by
an applicant shall be reviewed concurrently with the
analysis of any modifications pursuant to subsection
3.2.1. This section establishes criteria to be followed
in evaluating mitigation proposals.

Mitigation as described in sections 3.3 through 3.3.8 is
required only to offset the adverse impacts to the
functions identified in sections 3.2 through 3.2.8.2
caused by regulated activities. In certain cases,
mitigation cannot offset impacts sufficiently to yield a
permittable project. Such causes often include
activities which significantly degrade Outstanding
Florida Waters, adversely impact habitat for listed
species, or adversely impact those wetlands or other
surface waters not likely to be successfully recreated.

Applicants are encouraged to consult with District staff
in pre-application conferences or during the application
process to identify appropriate mitigation options.

3.3.1 Types of Mitigation
Mitigation usually consists of restoration, enhancement,
creation, or preservation of wetlands, other surface


B 41











APRTT 1IQ97


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
B a vvT f J. T T V


waters or uplands. In some cases, a combination of
mitigation types is the best approach to offset adverse
impacts resulting from the regulated activity.


3.3.1.1













3.3.1.2





















3.3.1.3


B 42


In general, mitigation is best accomplished through
creation, restoration, enhancement, or preservation of
ecological communities similar to those being impacted.
However, when the area proposed to be impacted is
degraded, compared to its historic condition, mitigation
is best accomplished through creation, restoration,
enhancement or preservation of the ecological community
which was historically present. Mitigation involving
other ecological communities is acceptable if impacts are
offset and the applicant demonstrates that greater
improvement in ecological value will result.

In general, mitigation is best accomplished when located
on-site or in close proximity to the area being impacted.
Off-site mitigation will only be accepted if adverse
impacts are offset and the applicant demonstrates that:
(a) on-site mitigation opportunities are not expected
to have comparable long-term viability due to such
factors as unsuitable hydrologic conditions or
ecologically incompatible existing adjacent land
uses or future land uses identified in a local
comprehensive plan adopted according to Chapter
163, F.S.; or
(b) off-site mitigation would provide greater
improvement in ecological value than on-site
mitigation.
One example of a project that would be expected to meet
the criteria of paragraph (a) or (b) above is a linear
project which cannot effectively implement on-site
mitigation due to right-of-way constraints.

Mitigation through participation in a mitigation bank
shall be in accordance with Appendix 4, Establishment and
Use of Mitigation Banks.











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF RRVTEW


In instances where an applicant is unable to meet water
quality standards because existing ambient water quality
does not meet standards and the system will contribute to
this existing condition, mitigation for water quality
impacts can consist of water quality enhancement. In
these cases, the applicant must implement mitigation
measures that will cause net improvement of the water
quality in the receiving waters for those parameters
which do not meet standards. (See 373.414(1) (16), F.S.)


3.3.1.5 To offset adverse secondary impacts from regulated
activities to habitat functions that uplands provide to
listed species evaluated as provided in paragraph
3.2.7.1(b), mitigation can include the implementation of
management plans, participation in a wildlife mitigation
park established by the FGFWFC, or other measures.
Measures to offset adverse secondary impacts on wetlands
and other surface waters resulting from use of a system
can include the incorporation of culverts or bridged
crossings designed to facilitate wildlife movement,
fencing to limit access, reduced speed zones, or other
measures designed to offset the secondary impact.

3.3.1.6 Mitigation for certain mining activities shall be in
accordance with subsection 373.414(6), F.S.

3.3.1.7 Except as provided in subsection 373.414(6), F.S.,
mitigation or reclamation required or approved by other
agencies for a specific project will be acceptable to the
District to the extent that such mitigation or
reclamation fulfills the requirements of subsections 3.3
through 3.3.8.6 and offsets adverse impacts of the same
project in accordance with the criteria in subsections
3.2 through 3.2.8.2.


Innovative mitigation proposals which deviate from the
standard practices described in subsections 3.3 through
3.3.6 shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. The
donation of money is not considered to be an acceptable
method of mitigation, unless cash payments are specified


B 43


3.3.1.4


3.3.1.8


APRIL 1997 A ATR nV RrTIV









ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

for use in a District or Department of Environmental
Protection endorsed environmental, preservation
enhancement or restoration project, and the payments
initiate a project or supplement an ongoing project. The
project or portion of the project funded by the donation
of money must offset the impacts of the proposed system.

3.3.2 Mitigation Ratio Guidelines
Subsections 3.3.2 through 3.3.2.2 establish ratios for
the acreage of mitigation required compared to the
acreage which is adversely impacted by regulated
activities. Ranges of ratios are provided below for
certain specific types of mitigation, including creation,
restoration, enhancement and preservation. The
difference between the ranges of ratios provided for
mitigation types is based on the degree of improvement in
ecological value expected from each type. Creation and
restoration are assigned the lowest range of ratios as
these activities, when successfully conducted, add new
wetlands or other surface waters which provide the same
or similar functions as the areas adversely impacted.
The range of ratios established for enhancement is higher
than that for creation and restoration, as the area being
enhanced currently provides a degree of the desired
functions, and this type of mitigation serves to
increase, rather than create, those functions.
Preservation differs from the other types of mitigation
in that it does not serve to improve the existing
ecological value of an area in the short term. However,
preservation does provide benefits as it can ensure that
the values of the preserved area are protected and
maintained in the long term, particularly when these
values are not fully protected under existing regulatory
programs. Therefore, the range of ratios established for
preservation is higher than those for other types of
mitigation. These ratios are provided as guidelines for
preliminary planning purposes only. The actual ratio
needed to offset adverse impacts may be higher or lower
based on a consideration of the factors listed in
subsections 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2. For example, in


B 44











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BRASS OF REVIEW


instances where the proposed system results in only a
small loss of ecological value in the impacted area, such
as cases involving impacts to areas of low ecological
value or cases where the proposed system results in a
small reduction of ecological value of the impacted area,
then the actual mitigation ratio would normally be in the
lower end of or below the range. For other types of
mitigation, ratios will be determined based upon the
reduction in quality and relative value of the functions
of the areas adversely impacted as compared to the
expected improvement in quality and value of the
functions of the mitigation area.


Creation, Restoration and Enhancement
When considering creation, restoration and enhancement as
mitigation, the following factors will be considered to
determine whether the mitigation will offset the proposed
impacts and to determine the appropriate mitigation
ratio:
(a) The reduction in quality and relative value of the
function of the areas adversely impacted, including
the factors listed in subsection 3.2.2.3, as
compared to the proposed improvement in quality and
value of the functions of the area to be created,
restored or enhanced.
(b) Any special designation or classification of the
affected area.
(c) The presence and abundance of nuisance and exotic
plants within the area to be adversely impacted.
(d) The hydrologic condition of the area to be
adversely impacted and the degree to which it has
been altered relative to the historic condition.
(e) The length of time expected to elapse before the
functions of the area adversely impacted will be
offset.
(f) The likelihood of mitigation success.
(g) For mine reclamation activities subject to Chapter
211, F.S., Part II, whether the ratio is consistent
with the mine reclamation plan submitted pursuant
to Chapter 378, F.S.


B 45


3.3.2.1











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
RATIS OW PRVTIW


3.3.2.1.1






















3.3.2.1.2




3.3.2.2


Creation and restoration have the potential to result in
similar benefits, if they can be successfully
accomplished. Therefore, the ratio ranges given below
for these two types of mitigation are the same.
Restoration is usually preferred over creation as it
often has a greater chance of success due to soil
characteristic, hydrologic regime, landscape position or
other factors that favor re-establishment of wetland or
other surface water communities. Restoration ratios will
generally be at the lower end of the ratio ranges within
the guidelines below. The following ratio guidelines
will be used to estimate the acreage of wetland
restoration or creation required:
(a) Mangrove swamps, cypress swamps, and hardwood
swamps 2:1 to 5:1 (acres created or restored:
acres impacted).
(b) Saltwater marshes and freshwater marshes 1.5:1 to
4:1 (acres created or restored: acres impacted).

The ratio guidelines for use in the estimation of the
acreage of wetland enhancement will range from 4:1 to
20:1 (acres enhanced: acres impacted).

Preservation
(a) Preservation of important ecosystems can provide an
improved level of protection over the current
regulatory programs. The District may consider as
mitigation the preservation, by donation,
conservation easement or other comparable land use
restriction, of wetlands, other surface waters, or
uplands. Conservation easements or restrictions
must be consistent with the requirements of
subsection 3.3.8. In many cases it is not expected
that preservation alone will be sufficient to
offset adverse impacts. Preservation will most
frequently be approved in combination with other
mitigation measures.
(b) When considering preservation as mitigation, the
following factors will be considered to determine
whether the preservation parcel would offset the


B 46


A RIq QV REVIR










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

proposed impacts and to determine the appropriate
mitigation ratio.
1. The reduction in quality and relative value of
the functions of the areas adversely impacted,
including those factors listed in subsection
3.2.2.3, as compared to the quality and value
of the functions of the area to be preserved
and the additional protection provided to
these functions by the proposed preservation.
Factors used in determining this additional
level of protection include the extent and
likelihood that the land to be preserved would
be adversely impacted if it were not
preserved, considering the protection provided
by existing regulations and land use
restrictions.
2. Any special designation or classification of
the affected area.
3. The presence and abundance of nuisance and
exotic plants within the area to be adversely
impacted.
4. The ecological and hydrological relationship
between wetlands, other surface waters, and
uplands to be preserved.
5. The extent to which proposed management
activities on the area to be preserved promote
natural ecological conditions, such as natural
fire patterns.
6. The proximity of the area to be preserved to
areas of national, state, or regional
ecological significance, such as national or
state parks, Outstanding Florida Waters, and
other regionally significant ecological
resources or habitats, such as lands acquired
or to be acquired through governmental or non-
profit land acquisition programs for
environmental conservation, and whether the
areas to be preserved include corridors
between these habitats.


B 47










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

7. The extent to which the preserved area
provides habitat for fish and wildl-ife,
especially listed species.
8. Any special designation or classification of
the area to be preserved.
9. The extent of invasion of nuisance and exotic
species within the area to be preserved.
(c) Since wetlands and other surface waters are, to a
large extent, protected by existing regulations,
the ratio guideline for preservation of wetlands
and other surface waters is substantially higher
than for restoration and creation. The ratio
guideline for wetland and other surface water
preservation will be 10:1 to 60:1 (acreage wetlands
and other surface waters preserved to acreage
impacted).
(d) Uplands function as hydrologic contributing areas
to wetlands and are necessary to maintain the
ecological value of those wetlands. Many wildlife
species that are aquatic or wetland dependent spend
critical portions of their life cycles in uplands.
Because of these values, the preservation of
certain uplands may be appropriate for full or
partial mitigation of wetland impacts, and impacts
to uplands that are used by listed aquatic and
wetland dependent species as described in
subsection 3.2.7.1. The ratio guideline for upland
preservation will be 3:1 -to 20:1 (acreage of
uplands preserved to acreage impacted).

3.3.2.3 To the extent that the area to be preserved offsets
adverse impacts and otherwise meets the requirements of
this section, wetland, other surface water, or upland
habitat which is proposed to be preserved in order to
prevent secondary or cumulative impacts can be considered
as part of the mitigation plan to offset other adverse
impacts of the system.


B 48











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF REVIEW


Mitigation Proposals


3.3.3.1







3.3.3.2


B 49


3.3.3


Applicants shall provide reasonable assurance that
proposed mitigation will:
(a) offset adverse impacts due to regulated activities;
and
(b) achieve mitigation success by providing viable and
sustainable ecological and hydrological functions.

Applicants shall submit detailed plans describing
proposed construction, establishment, and management of
mitigation areas. These plans shall include the
following information, as appropriate for the type of
mitigation proposed:
(a) A soils map of the mitigation area and other soils
information pertinent to the specific mitigation
actions proposed.
(b) A topographic map of the mitigation area and
adjacent hydrologic contributing and receiving
areas.
(c) A hydrologic features map of the mitigation area
and adjacent hydrologic contributing and receiving
areas.
(d) A description of current hydrologic conditions
affecting the mitigation area.
(e) A map of vegetation communities in and around the
mitigation area.
(f) Construction drawings detailing proposed
topographic alterations and all structural
components associated with proposed activities.
(g) Proposed construction activities, including a
detailed schedule for implementation.
(h) A vegetation planting scheme if planting is
proposed, and schedule for implementation.
(i) Sources of plants and soils used in wetland
creation.
(j) Measures to be implemented during and after
construction to avoid adverse impacts related to
proposed activities.










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

(k) A management plan comprising all aspects of
operation and maintenance, including water
management practices, vegetation establishment,
exotic and nuisance species control, fire
management, and control of access.
(1) A proposed monitoring plan to demonstrate
mitigation success.
(m) A description of the activities proposed to control
exotic and nuisance species should these become
established in the mitigation area. The mitigation
proposal must include reasonable measures to assure
that these species do not invade the mitigation
area in such numbers as to affect the likelihood of
success of the project.
(n) A description of anticipated site conditions in and
around the mitigation area after the mitigation
plan is successfully implemented.
(o) A comparison of current fish and wildlife habitat
to expected habitat after the mitigation plan is
successfully implemented.
(p) For mitigation plans with projected implementation
costs in excess of $25,000.00, an itemized estimate
of the cost of implementing mitigation as set forth
in subsection 3.3.7.7.

3.3.4 Monitoring Requirements for Mitigation Areas
Applicants shall monitor the progress of mitigation areas
until success can be demonstrated as provided in section
3.3.6. Monitoring parameters, methods, schedules, and
reporting requirements will be specified in permit
conditions.

3.3.5 Protection of Mitigation Areas
Applicants shall propose and be responsible for
implementing methods which assure that mitigation areas
will not be adversely impacted by incidental encroachment
or secondary activities which might compromise mitigation
success.


B 50










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

3.3.6 Mitigation Success
Mitigation success will be measured in terms of whether
the objectives of the mitigation can be realized. The
success criteria to be included in permit conditions will
specify the minimum requirements necessary to attain a
determination of success. The mitigation shall be deemed
successful by the District when all applicable water
quality standards are met, the mitigation area has
achieved viable and sustainable ecological and
hydrological functions and the specific success criteria
contained in the permit are met. If success is not
achieved within a time frame specified within the permit,
remedial measures shall be required. Monitoring and
maintenance requirements shall remain in effect until
success is achieved.

3.3.7 Financial Responsibility for Mitigation.
As part of compliance with paragraph 40D-4.301(1) (j),
F.A.C., where an applicant proposes mitigation, the
applicant shall provide proof of financial responsibility
to:
(a) conduct the mitigation activities;
(b) conduct any necessary management of the mitigation
site;
(c) conduct monitoring of the mitigation; and
(d) conduct any necessary corrective action indicated
by the monitoring.

3.3.7.1 Applicants not subject to financial responsibility
requirements.
The following applicants shall not be subject to the
financial responsibility requirements in subsections
3.3.7 through 3.3.7.9:
(a) Applicants whose mitigation is deemed successful
pursuant to section 3.3.6 of this Handbook prior to
undertaking the construction activities authorized
under the permit issued pursuant to Rule 40D-4,
F.A.C.
(b) Applicants whose mitigation is estimated to cost
less than $25,000.00.


B 51










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
B IOF VIr% W


APRIL 1997


(c) Federal, state, county and municipal governments,
state political subdivisions and investor-owned
utilities regulated by the Public Service
Commission, and rural electric cooperatives.
(d) mitigation banks which comply with the financial
responsibility provisions of Appendix 4.

3.3.7.2 Amount of financial responsibility.
The amount of financial responsibility provided by the
applicant shall be in an amount equal to 110 percent of
the cost estimate determined pursuant to subsection
3.3.7.8 below, for each phase of the mitigation plan
submitted under the requirements of subsections 3.3
through 3.3.8.

3.3.7.3 Documentation.
The permit applicant shall provide draft documentation of
the required financial responsibility mechanism described
below with the permit application, and shall submit to
the District the executed or finalized documentation
within the time frames specified in the permit.

3.3.7.4 General Terms for Financial Responsibility Mechanisms.
In addition to the specific provisions regarding
financial responsibility mechanisms set forth in
subsection 3.3.7.6 below, the following, as they relate
to the specific mechanism proposed, shall be complied
with:
(a) The form and content of all financial
responsibility mechanisms shall be approved by the
District.
(b) The financial mechanisms shall name the District as
sole beneficiary or shall be payable to the
District. The original financial responsibility
mechanism shall be retained by the District.
(c) The financial responsibility mechanisms shall be
established with a state or national bank, savings
and loan association, or other financial
institution, licensed in this state. In the case
of letters of credit, the letter of credit must be


B 52


APRIT. 1 QW-- --M--E- v


J











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF REVIEW


issued by an entity which has authority to issue
letters of credit and whose letter of credit
operations are regulated and examined by a federal
or state agency. In the case of a surety bond, the
surety bond must be issued by a surety company
registered with the state of Florida.
(d) Prior written consent from the District shall be
obtained before withdrawing or transferring any
portion of the funds therein.
(e) The financial responsibility mechanisms shall be
effective on or prior to the date that the activity
authorized by the permit commences and shall
continue to be effective through the date of
notification of final release by the District in
accordance with subsection 3.3.7.7.2 below of this
Handbook.
(f) The financial responsibility mechanisms shall
provide that they can be revoked, terminated or
cancelled. Within 90 days of receipt by the
permitted of actual or constructive notice of
revocation, termination or cancellation of a
financial responsibility mechanism or other actual
or constructive notice of cancellation, the
permitted shall provide an alternate financial
responsibility mechanism which meets the
requirements of subsections 3.3.7 through 3.3.7.9.


If the permitted fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the permit, subsection 3.3.7 or fails to
complete the mitigation and monitoring within the
timeframes specified by the permit conditions or any
extension thereof, such failure shall be deemed a
violation of Chapter 40D-4, F.A.C., and the permit issued
thereunder. In addition to any other remedies for such
violation as the District may have, the District, upon
notice as provided in the mechanism or if none, upon
reasonable notice, may draw upon the financial mechanism.


B 53


3.3.7.5










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS


APRIL 1997


3.3.7.6


3.3.7.7 Cost estimates.
For the purposes of determining the amount of financial
responsibility that is required by this subsection, the
applicant shall submit a detailed written estimate, in
current dollars, of the total cost of conducting the
mitigation, including any maintenance activities and
monitoring activities, and the applicant shall comply
with the following:


B 54


Financial Responsibility Mechanisms.
Financial responsibility for the mitigation, monitoring
and corrective action for each phase of the project may
be established by any of the following methods, at the
discretion of the applicant.
(a) Performance bond;
(b) Irrevocable letter of credit;
(c) Trust fund agreement;
(d) Deposit of cash or cash equivalent into an escrow
account;
(e) A demonstration that the applicant meets the
financial test and corporate guarantee requirements
set forth in 40 C.F.R. Section 264.143(f)
incorporated herein by reference. Where the
referenced test is used to provide evidence of
financial resources necessary to conduct mitigation
activities the term "closure and post-closure cost
estimates" as set forth therein, shall be construed
to mean "mitigation cost estimates."
(f) Guarantee bond;
(g) Insurance certificate;
(h) A demonstration that the applicant meets the self-
bonding provisions set forth at 30 C.F.R. Section
800.23 incorporated herein by reference. Where the
referenced provisions are used to provide evidence
of financial responsibility to conduct mitigation
activities, the term "surface coal mining and
reclamation operations," as set forth therein,
shall generally be construed as meaning "mitigation
activities."


B0VTT. 1 R VIE










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF REVIEW


APRIL 1997


(a) The cost estimate for conducting the mitigation and
monitoring shall include all associated costs for
each phase thereof, including earthmoving,
planting, structure installation, maintaining and
operating any structures, controlling nuisance or
exotic species, fire management, consultant fees,
monitoring activities and reports.
(b) The applicant shall submit the estimates, together
with verifiable documentation, to the District for
approval along with the draft of the financial
responsibility mechanism.
(c) The costs shall be estimated based on a third party
performing the work and supplying materials at the
fair market value of the services and materials.
The source of any cost estimates shall be
indicated.


3.3.7.7.1


3.3.7.7.2


Partial Releases. The permitted may request the District
to release portions of the financial responsibility
mechanism as phases of the mitigation plan, such as earth
moving or other construction or activities for which cost
estimates were submitted in accordance with subsection
3.3.7.7, are successfully completed.

The request shall be in writing and include documentation
that the phase or phases have been completed and have
been paid for or will be paid for upon release of the
applicable portion of the financial responsibility
mechanism.

The District shall authorize the release of the portion
requested upon verification that the construction or
activities have been completed in accordance with the
mitigation plans.

Final Release. Within thirty (30) days of the District
determining that the mitigation is successful in
accordance with subsection 3.3.6, the District shall so
notify the permitted and shall authorize the return and
release of all funds held or give written authorization


B 55










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

to the appropriate third party for the cancellation or
termination of the financial responsibility mechanism.

3.3.7.8 Financial Responsibility Conditions.
For applicants subject to the financial responsibility of
subsections 3.3.7 through 3.3.7.9, the District will
include the following conditions on the permit.
(a) A permitted must notify the District by certified
mail of the commencement of a voluntary or
involuntary proceeding under Title XI (Bankruptcy),
U.S. Code naming the permitted as debtor within 10
business days after the commencement of the
proceeding.
(b) A permitted who fulfills the requirements of
subsections 3.3.7 through 3.3.7.9 by obtaining a
letter of credit or performance bond will be deemed
to be without the required financial assurance in
the event of bankruptcy, insolvency or suspension
or revocation of the license or charter of the
issuing institution. The permitted must
reestablish in accordance with subsections 3.3.7
through 3.3.7.9 a financial responsibility
mechanism within 60 days after such event.
(c) When transferring a permit in accordance with
section 40D-4.351, F.A.C., the new owner or person
with legal control shall submit documentation to
satisfy the financial responsibility requirements
of subsections 3.3.7 through 3.3.7.9. The prior
owner or person with legal control of the project
shall continue the financial responsibility
mechanism until the District has approved the
permit transfer and substitute financial
responsibility mechanism.

3.3.7.9 Financial Responsibility Mechanisms For Multiple
Projects.
A applicant may use a mechanism specified in subsection
3.3.7.6 above to meet the financial responsibility
requirement for multiple projects. The financial
responsibility mechanism must include a list of projects


B 56










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

and the amount of funds assured for each project. The
mechanism must be no less than the sum of the funds that
would be necessary in accordance with subsection 3.3.7.2
above, as if separate mechanisms had been established for
each project. As additional permits are issued which
require mitigation, the amount of the financial
responsibility mechanism may be increased in accordance
with subsection 3.3.7.2, above and the project added to
the list.

3.3.8 Real property conveyances.
(a) All conservation easements shall be granted in
perpetuity without encumbrances, unless such
encumbrances do not adversely affect the ecological
viability of the mitigation. All liens against the
conservation easement site shall release, be
subordinated to, or joined with the conservation
easement. All conservation easements shall, be
consistent with the Section 704.06, F.S.; however,
the District shall require further restrictions in
the conservation easement if necessary to ensure
the ecological viability of the site.
(b) All real property conveyances shall be in fee
simple and by statutory warranty deed, special
warranty deed, or other deed, without encumbrances
that adversely affect the integrity of the
preservation. The District may also accept a quit
claim deed for the purpose of clearing minor title
defects or otherwise resolving boundary questions.

3.4 Formal Determination of the Landward Extent of Wetlands
and other Surface Waters.
Pursuant to subsection 373.421(2), F.S., the Governing
Board has established a procedure by which a real
property owner, an entity that has the power of eminent
domain, or any person who has a legal or equitable
interest in real property may petition the District for
a formal determination for that property. A formal
wetland determination means the District will determine
the locations on the property of the landward extent


B 57










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

(boundaries) of the wetlands and other surface waters
delineated according to Chapter 62-340, F.A.C., as
ratified in section 373.4211, F.S.

3.4.1 Procedure
To petition for a formal determination, the petitioner
must submit to the District the following:
(a) five copies of the Petition for Formal
Determination as identified in section 40D-1.659,
F.A.C., including copies of all items required by
the form, and
(b) the appropriate non-refundable formal determination
fee pursuant to section 40D-1.607, F.A.C.

Within 30 days of receipt of a petition for a formal
determination, the District shall notify the petitioner
of any missing or insufficient information in the
petition documentation submitted which may be necessary
to complete review of the petition.

The District shall complete the determination and shall
issue a notice of intended agency action within 60 days
after the petition is deemed complete. The District shall
publish the notice of intended agency action on the
petition in a newspaper of general circulation in the
county or counties where the property is located.

Sections 120.57 and 120.59, F.S., apply to formal
determinations made pursuant to this section. Any person
whose substantial interests will be affected by the
District's proposed action on the petition may request an
administrative hearing on the proposed action pursuant to
Chapter 40D-1, F.A.C. If no request for an
administrative hearing is filed, the Executive Director
will then take final action on the petition for the
formal determination.

The Executive Director will only issue a formal
determination if the petitioner has satisfied all the
requirements of section 3.4. A person requesting a formal


B 58










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

determination may withdraw the petition without prejudice
at any point before final agency action.

3.4.2 Types of Formal Determinations
A petitioner can request a formal determination
consisting of a certified survey, an approximate
delineation, or combinations thereof, as described below.
(a) The survey of the extent of wetlands and other
surface waters shall be certified pursuant to
chapter 472, F.S., to meet the minimum technical
standards in chapter 61G17-6, F.A.C. A petitioner
seeking a certified surveyed delineation shall have
a land surveyor registered in the State of Florida
survey the verified boundaries of wetlands and
other surface waters, and shall have the surveyor
or surveyor's representative accompany the District
representative on the delineation verification
described in subsection 3.4.3. The certified
survey shall also contain a legal description of,
and acreage contained within, the boundaries of the
property for which the determination is sought.
The boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters
shall be witnessed to the property boundaries, and
shall be capable of being mathematically reproduced
from the survey. The petitioner shall submit five
copies of the survey, along with five copies of the
survey depicted on aerial photographs, to the
District to complete the petition.
(b) An approximate delineation shall consist of a
boundary produced by using global positioning
system (GPS), a boundary drawn on rectified aerial
photographs, a geo-reference image produced from a
boundary drawn on a non-rectified aerial
photograph, or any combination thereof.
1. A range of variability shall be determined for
all approximate delineations by comparing a
number of specific boundary points indicated
on the aerial photograph, or located by GPS,
to field located boundary points. The
District shall determine the number and


B 59










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

location of comparison sites using the total
linear feet of delineated boundary such that
the total number of sites reflects at least
one site for every 1000 feet of delineated
boundary. No fewer than three boundary point
comparisons shall be performed for each
approximate delineation. For GPS approximate
delineations, the petitioner shall conduct a
specific purpose survey, as defined in Chapter
61G17-6, F.A.C., to show the relationship of
field located boundary points to the GPS
located boundary points. The range of
variability shall be the greatest deviation
measured at the comparison boundary points.
An approximate delineation method cannot be
used if the range of variability is equal to
or greater than plus or minus 25 feet.
2. An aerial photograph shall serve as the basis
for an approximate delineation only when the
aerial photograph accurately depicts the
boundaries of the wetlands and other surface
waters by a clear expression of vegetative or
physical signatures as verified by
groundtruthing. If a submitted aerial
photograph does not provide an accurate
depiction, then the landward extent of
wetlands and other surface waters shall be
delineated by flagging the boundary, and the
formal determination shall be produced using
GPS or a certified survey.
3. Following any verification and. adjustment as
required in subsection 3.4.3, the petitioner
shall submit five copies of the following to
complete the petition: a hand drawn
delineation on a rectified aerial photograph;
the geo-referenced image of the delineation
and aerial photograph with the delineation; or
the GPS depiction of the delineation on an
aerial photograph.


B 60










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

4. When a subsequent permit application includes
regulated activities within 200 feet of the
landward extent of the range of variability of
an approximate delineation at a given
location, the applicant shall establish in the
field the exact boundary of the wetlands and
other surface waters at that location.

3.4.3 Locating the Surface Waters and Wetlands Boundary Line
If the property is 10 acres or greater in size, the
petitioner or his agent shall initially delineate the
boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters by either
flagging the boundary for a certified survey or GPS, or
estimating the extent of wetlands and other surface
waters on aerial photographs, prior to the District's
inspection of the site. A District representative will
then verify the location of the boundary line and
indicate to the petitioner any necessary adjustments in
the initial delineation needed to reflect an accurate
boundary. For properties less than 10 acres in size, the
petitioner is not required to approximate the
delineation.

3.4.4 Duration
The formal determination shall be binding for five years
provided physical conditions on the property do not
change so as to alter the boundaries of wetlands and
other surface waters during that period. The Governing
Board may revoke a formal determination upon a finding
that the petitioner has submitted inaccurate information
to the District.

3.4.5 Formal Determinations for Properties with an Existing
Formal Determination
A petition for a new formal determination for a property
for which a formal determination already exists shall be
eligible for a reduced fee set forth in Section 40D-
1.607, F.A.C., provided:
(a) physical conditions on the property have not
changed so as to alter the boundaries of the


B 61










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

wetlands and other surface waters during that
period; and
(b) the petition is submitted within 60 days prior to
the existing determination's expiration.

3.4.6 Nonbinding Determinations
The District may issue informal nonbinding
pre-application determinations or otherwise initiate
nonbinding determinations on its own initiative as
provided by law.

CHAPTER FOUR WATER QUANTITY

4.1 General This document refers to flood and drought frequency
impacts interchangeably with rainfall frequency. The
applicant is cautioned, however, that water resource impacts
are of interest in the permit process, and that additional
calculations may be necessary to identify other combinations
of site conditions and rainfall frequencies which might result
in impacts of the specified frequency.

4.2 Discharge Off-site discharge is limited to amounts which
will not cause adverse off-site impacts.
a. For a project or portion of a project located within an
open drainage basin, the allowable discharge is:
1. historic discharge, which is the peak rate at which
runoff leaves a parcel of land by gravity under
existing site conditions, or the legally allowable
discharge at the time of permit application; or
2. amounts determined in previous District permit
actions.
b. Unless otherwise specified, off-site discharges for the
existing and developed conditions shall be computed using
the Southwest Florida Water Management District's 24-
hour, 25-year rainfall maps and the Soil Conservation
Service's type II Florida Modified 24-hour rainfall
distribution with an antecedent moisture condition II.
c. For a project or portion of a project located within a
closed drainage basin, the required retention volume
shall be the post-development runoff volume less the pre-


B 62










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

development runoff volume computed using the Southwest
Florida Water Management District's 24-hour/l00-year
rainfall map and the Soil Conservation Services type II
Florida Modified 24-hour rainfall distribution with an
antecedent moisture condition II. The total post
development volume leaving the site shall be no more than
the total pre-development volume leaving the site for the
design 100-year storm. The rate of runoff leaving the
site shall not cause adverse off-site impacts.
Maintenance of pre-development off-site low flow may be
required in hydrologically sensitive areas.
d. When not in conflict with the objectives of recharge,
dewatering, or maintaining ground water levels, projects
serviced by a permitted or approved regional surface
water management system may discharge storm water runoff
at the rate and volume established by the agency
operating the regional storm water system. The permitted
must provide written verification from the operating
agency stating the acceptable rate and volume of storm
water runoff from the project. The District permit will,
by condition, indicate that a waiver from the District
surface water rule criteria has been granted.

4.3 Flood protection for structures should be provided as follows
(Flood elevations should be determined from the most
appropriate information available, including Federal Flood
Insurance Rate Maps):
a. Residential buildings should have the lowest floor
elevated above the 100 year flood elevation for that
site.
b. Industrial, commercial or other non-residential buildings
susceptible to flood damage should have the lowest floor
elevated above the 100 year flood elevation or be
designed and constructed so that below the 100 year flood
elevation the structure and attendant utility facilities
are watertight and capable of resisting the effects of
the regulatory flood. The design should take into
account flood velocities, duration, rate of rise,
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, the effect of
buoyancy and impacts from debris. Flood proofing


B 63










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

measures should be operable without human intervention
and without an outside source of electricity.
c. Accessory buildings may be constructed below the 100 year
flood elevation provided there is minimal potential for
significant damage by flooding.

4.4 Flood plain encroachment No net encroachment into the flood
plain, up to that encompassed by the 100-year event, which
will adversely effect either conveyance, storage, water
quality or adjacent lands will be allowed. Any required
compensating storage shall be equivalently provided between
the seasonal high water level and the 100 year flood level to
allow storage function during all lesser flood events.

4.5 Minimum drainage
Commercial and industrial projects to be subdivided for sale
are required to install a minimum drainage system as described
in a. and b. below. Projects permitted in such a manner may
require deed restrictions which notify lot or tract purchasers
of the amount of additional on-site storm water management
system necessary to provide flood attenuation and any
additional retention/detention required for water quality
purposes.
a. The required water quality system must have treatment
capacity for one inch of runoff if wet detention is used,
or one-half inch of runoff if retention, effluent
filtration or exfiltration is used, from the total
developed site and contributing offsite area.
b. A storm water collection and conveyance system must be
provided to interconnect the retention/detention system
with the project outfall, including access points to the
system available to each individual lot or tract. The
system shall be sized to limit discharge under full
build-out design conditions to the allowable discharge.
c. Exceptions to the requirements of a. and b. above can be
made, provided a conceptual permit is obtained for the
total project area.

4.6 Overdrainage and water conservation Where practicable,
systems shall be designed to:


B 64










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

1. maintain water tables at the highest practicable level;
the depth to which the water table can be lowered will be
determined based on the potential adverse impact on
recharge, the effect on water resources (quality and
quantity), and the necessity for fill and its impact on
existing natural upland vegetation; and
2. preserve site environmental values; and
3. not waste freshwater through overdrainage; and
4. not lower water tables which would adversely affect
existing legal uses; and
5. preserve site groundwater recharge characteristics; and
6. retain water on-site for use and re-use for irrigation
and other reasonable beneficial uses.

4.7 Historic basin storage Provision must be made to replace or
otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided
by the project site.

4.8 Offsite Lands Adequate provisions shall be made to allow
drainage from off-site upgradient areas to downgradient areas
without adversely altering the time, stage, volume, point or
manner of discharge or dispersion and without degrading water
quality.

4.9 Isolated wetlands owned or controlled by the applicant may be
used for flood attenuation purposes when not in conflict with
environmental or public use considerations.

CHAPTER FIVE WATER QUALITY

5.1 Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet
applicable state water quality standards.

The following design and.performance standards are established
for the purpose of determining compliance with storm water
discharge requirements. However, in certain instances a
design meeting those standards may not result in compliance
with the state water quality standards referenced above.
Unless an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that a
design will not cause or contribute to a violation of state


B 65










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

water quality standards, the District may apply more stringent
design and performance standards than are otherwise required
by this chapter.

Projects designed to the criteria found in this section shall
be presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with
the state water quality standards referenced above. The
District will consider other methods that utilize a
combination of treatment practices that will provide
equivalent treatment as compared to the systems listed in this
section. If the applicant chooses to propose a design that
does not address the specific criteria listed herein, the
applicant must provide the District with reasonable assurance
based on plans, test results and other information specific to
the design proposed that the construction, alteration or
operation of the system will not discharge, emit, or cause
pollution in contravention of the standards referenced above.

5.2 Retention, detention criteria The volume of runoff to be
treated .from a site shall be determined by the type of
treatment system, i.e., wet detention, detention with effluent
filtration, on-line treatment system, or off-line treatment
system. If off-site run-off is not prevented from combining
with on-site runoff prior to treatment, then treatment must be
provided for the combined off-site/project runoff.
a. Wet detention systems
1. A wet detention treatment system shall treat one
inch of runoff from the contributing area.
2. A manmade wet detention system shall include a
minimum of 35 percent littoral zone, concentrated
at the outfall, for biological assimilation of
pollutants. The percentage of littoral zone is
based on the ratio of vegetated littoral zone to
the surface area of the pond at the control
elevation. The littoral zone shall be no deeper
than 3.5 feet below the design overflow elevation.
The treatment volume should not cause the pond
level to rise more that 18 inches above the control
elevation. Mulching and/or planting is desirable
but not required, unless the soils in the proposed


B 66










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

littoral zone are not capable of supporting wetland
vegetation. In this case mulching will be
required. Native vegetation that becomes
established in the littoral zone must be maintained
as part of the operation permit.
3. Isolated natural wetlands can be used as a wet
detention system when not in conflict with
environmental or public use considerations.
(a) If the required treatment volume cannot be
detained within the limits of the isolated
wetland boundaries and range of natural water
levels, expansion of the wetland will be
allowed when it can be shown that the
excavation will not adversely impact the
wetland.
(b) The treatment volume cannot adversely impact
the wetland so that it fluctuates beyond the
range of natural water levels. The available
volume is determined on a case-by-case basis
through analysis of the isolated wetland to be
used.
(c) Provisions must be made to remove sediment,
oils and greases from runoff entering the
wetland. -This can be accomplished through
incorporation of sediment sumps, baffles and
dry grassed swales or a combination thereof.
Normally, a dry grassed swale system designed
for detention of the first one-fourth inch of
runoff with an overall depth of no more than 4
inches will satisfy the requirement for prior
removal of sediment, oils and greases.
4. The wet detention system's treatment volume shall
be discharged in no less than 120 hours (5 days)
with no more than one-half the total volume being
discharged within the first 60 hours (2.5 days).
5. Due to the detention time required for wet
detention systems, only that volume which drains
below the overflow elevation within 36 hours may be
counted as part of the volume required for water
quantity storage under Chapter 4.


B 67









ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

b. Detention with effluent filtration system (manmade
underdrains).
1. A detention with effluent filtration system shall
treat the runoff from the first one inch of
rainfall; or as an option for projects or project
subunits with drainage areas less than 100 acres,
the first one-half inch of runoff. In determining
the runoff from one inch of rainfall, the applicant
must provide calculations determining runoff from
the directly connected impervious areas separately
from any other contributing area.
2. Filtration systems shall have a minimum of 0.5 feet
of vertical head between the center line of the
perforated pipe and the normal water elevation or
the pond bottom of the system. The seasonal high
water level must be at least one foot below the
center line of the perforated pipe (measured from
the lowest point of the perforated pipe), or
separated by structural means from the hydraulic
contribution of the surrounding water table. The
storm water must pass through a minimum of two feet
of the filter material before entering the
perforated pipe.
3. Filtration systems shall have pore spaces large
enough to provide sufficient flow capacity so that
the permeability of the filter is equal to or
greater than the surrounding soil. The design
shall ensure that the filter medium particles do
not move. The filter material shall be of a
quality sufficient to satisfy the requirements
listed below, but these requirements are not
intended to preclude the use of multilayered
filters nor the use of materials to increase ion
exchange, precipitation or pollutant absorption
capacity of the filter. The requirements are:
(a) Washed material meeting FDOT road and bridge
specifications for silica sand and quartz
gravels, or mixtures thereof (less than 1
percent silt, clay and organic matter), unless
filter cloth is used which is suitable to


B 68










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

retain the silt, clay and organic matter
within the filter; calcium carbonate aggregate
is not an acceptable substitute;
(b) Uniformity coefficient 1.5 or greater; and
(c) Effective grain size of 0.20 to 0.55
millimeters in diameter.
4. The total detention volume shall again be available
within 36 hours.
5. The treatment volume can be counted as part of the
storage required for water quantity storage in
Chapter 4.
6. Maintenance of filter includes proper disposal of
spent filter material.
7. The design of the system must be such that the
water velocities and associated flow path through
the storage pond do not cause the accumulated
pollutants to be flushed out of the treatment pond
up to the 25-year, 24-hour design storm.
c. On-line treatment system
1. An on-line treatment system shall treat the runoff
from the first one-inch of rainfall; or as an
option for projects or project sub-units with
drainage areas less than 100 acres, the first
one-half inch of run-off. In determining the
runoff from one-inch of rainfall, the applicant
must provide calculations determining runoff from
the directly connected impervious areas separately
from any other contributing area.
2. Total treatment volume shall again be available
within 72 hours, however, only that volume which
can again be available within 36 hours may be
counted as part of the volume required for water
quantity storage under Chapter 4.
3. The design of the system must be such that the
water velocities and associated flow path through
the storage pond do not cause the accumulated
pollutants to be flushed out of the treatment pond
up to the 25-year-24-hour design storm.
d. Off-line treatment system


B 69










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

1. Off-line treatment system shall treat the runoff
from the first one-inch of rainfall; or as an
option for projects or project sub-units with
drainage areas less than 100 acres, the first one-
half inch of runoff. In determining the runoff
from one-inch of rainfall, the applicant must
provide calculations determining run-off from the
directly connected impervious areas separately from
any other contributing area.
2. Total treatment volume shall again be available
within 72 hours, however, only that volume which
can again be available within 36 hours may be
counted as part of the volume required for water
quantity storage under Chapter 4.
e. Projects discharging directly into Outstanding Florida
Waters (OFW) shall be required to provide treatment for
a volume 50 percent more than required for the selected
treatment system (wet detention, detention with effluent
filtration, on-line retention or off-line retention).
f. Off-site treatment volumes shall be the total runoff from
one-inch of rainfall over the contributing off-site area.
The runoff from the directly connected impervious
contributing areas shall be determined separately from
the runoff from the other contributing areas.

5.3 Surface water treatment systems shall not be located closer
than 100 feet from public water supply wells.

5.4 Sewage treatment percolation ponds Above ground pond dikes
shall not be located within 200 feet of water bodies or 100
feet of dry retention areas. Additional calculations by the
applicant may be necessary in unusual cases requiring
deviations from these dimensions.

5.5 Solid Waste Facilities
a. Surface water management systems for Class I and II solid
waste facilities, as defined in Chapter 62-7, F.A.C.,
shall be designed and constructed to maintain the
integrity of the landfill at all times including
construction, operation, closure and post closure.


B 70










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

Applicants should consult with District staff prior to
submittal of an application to determine the specific
requirements which will apply for a particular project.

5.6 Septic Tank Septic tank systems shall be in accordance with
Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
Chapter 10D-6, F.A.C.

5.7 Underground Exfiltration Systems
a. Systems shall be designed for the volumes specified in
Section 5.2(d) for off-line treatment systems.
b. Systems must have the capacity to retain the required
retention volume without considering discharges.
c. The seasonal high water level must be at least one foot
below the bottom of the exfiltration pipe.
d. Systems should not be proposed for projects to be
operated by entities other than single owners or entities
with full time maintenance staffs.
e. A safety factor of 2.0 or more shall be applied to the
exfiltration design to allow for geological uncertainties
by dividing the exfiltration rate by the safety factor.
f. Total system required volume shall again be available
within 72 hours.
g. Due to the maintenance requirements and life expectancy
of exfiltrations systems, the treatment volume required
in Section 5.2(d) cannot be counted as part of the
storage volumes required under Water Quantity Section
3.2.1.

5.8 Alterations to existing public roadway projects will be
required to treat a volume equal to those specified in Section
5.2 and the contributing area according to the following
options.
a. The following alterations will not require water quality
treatment when the project involves:
1. Road widening and shoulder paving which do not
create additional traffic lanes or displace
existing treatment capacity and only discharge into
Class III waters; the applicant must provide
reasonable assurance that adequate erosion and


B 71










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

turbidity control measures will be provided during
construction.
2. Intersection improvements which do not result in a
reduction in the treatment capacity of existing
vegetated swales and which discharge only to Class
III waters;
3. In-kind bridge replacements.
b. The contributing areas) to be used in calculating the
required treatment volume will be:
1. For off-line treatment systems and on-line
treatment systems, including wet-detention, which
provide storage of the treatment volume off-line
from the primary conveyance path of flood
discharges, use the area of new pavement.
2. For all other on-line treatment systems, including
wet-detention, use the entire directly connected
impervious areas contributing to the system, both
on and off-site; directly connected impervious
areas are those new and existing pavement areas
connected to the treatment systems by pavement or
pipe that contribute untreated runoff.
c. When alterations involve extreme hardship, in order to
provide direct treatment of new project area, the
District will consider proposals to satisfy the overall
public interest that shall include equivalent treatment
of alternate existing pavement areas to achieve the
required pollution abatement. For example, existing
untreated contributing areas not otherwise required to be
included for treatment may be included for treatment by
the system in lieu of direct treatment of new project
area when the pollution abatement is equivalent and
benefits the same receiving waters.
d. Existing treatment capacity being displaced by any
roadway project will require additional compensating
treatment volume. Additional volume is also required for
projects that discharge directly to OFW's. (see section
5.2(e))

5.9 Water Quality Monitoring All non-exempt surface water
management systems will be evaluated based on the ability of


B 72










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

the system to prevent degradation of receiving waters and its
ability to conform to state water quality standards.

5.10 General conditions related to water quality monitoring by
permittees.
a. If the applicant utilizes design criteria found in this
chapter, monitoring normally will not be required.
b. Monitoring may be required when the applicant proposes
design criteria not found in this chapter, and does not
have specific test data or other data to support that
state water quality standards will be met.
c. Monitoring may be required in cases where there may be a
real and immediate concern regarding degradation of
quality in the receiving waters, regardless of the
pollutant removal efficiency of the drainage system.

5.11 The reason for the monitoring requirement normally will be
stated in the staff report for each permit, along with the
monitoring schedule and the parameters of interest. Although
specifics may vary from project to project, samples will
normally be collected at discharge locations. A typical
sampling schedule will require the collection of samples once
per month during the wet season, however this may vary among
projects. Some permittees may be required to collect samples
during storm events in addition to monthly sampling. Rate of
discharge at the time of sample collection and total monthly
discharge each month for the duration of the permit may also
be required.

5.12 As a general rule, monitoring required of permittees will be
confined to points within their boundaries. If additional
sampling is needed to assess off-site impacts of the projects,
such sampling normally will be conducted by the District.

5.13 Staff reports and permits for projects not requiring
monitoring at the time of permit issuance will include a
statement that water quality monitoring may be required in the
future. This should not be construed as an indication that
the District is contemplating the implementation of a program
of intensive water quality monitoring by all permittees. If


B 73










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

water quality problems develop in specific areas, however,
permittees are hereby put on notice that they may have to
determine the quality of the water which they are discharging.

CHAPTER SIX CONSTRUCTION

6.1 Discharge structures
a. The construction design for all surface water systems
shall be adequate to meet all design criteria and
performance standards referred to in this rule and any
applicable standards or criteria required by local
governments. Provision should be made for the controlled
release of water volumes in excess of that caused by the
design storm event to insure adequate performance of the
system and its continued safe operation. Construction
designs should include adequate provisions to permit
operation and maintenance activities and to prevent
unauthorized operation of operable structures.
b. All design discharges shall be made through structural
discharge facilities. Discharge structures shall be
fixed so that discharge cannot be made below the control
elevation, except that emergency devices may be installed
with secure locking devices. Exceptions to this
requirement may be made for some agricultural systems and
mining reclamation activities.
c. Non-operable discharge structures shall not be
constructed so that they are operable.
d. Discharge structures shall include gratings for safety
and maintenance purposes. The use of trash collection
screens is desirable.
e. Discharge structures for water quality systems shall
include a "baffle" system to encourage discharge from the
center of the water column rather than the top or
bottom. Discharge structures from areas with greater
than 50 percent impervious area or from systems with
inlets in paved areas shall include a baffle, skimmer, or
other mechanism suitable for preventing oil and grease
from discharging from detention and on-line treatment
systems.
f. Direct discharges, such as through culverts, stormdrains,
weir structures, etc., will normally be allowed to
receiving waters which by virtue of their large capacity,


B 74










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

configuration, etc. are easily able to absorb
concentrated discharges. Such receiving waters might
include existing storm sewer systems and man-made
ditches, canals and lakes.
g. Indirect discharges, such as overflow and spreader
swales, are required where the receiving water or its
adjacent supporting ecosystem might be degraded by a
direct discharge. The discharge structure must discharge
into the overflow, spreader swale, etc. which in turn
releases the water to the actual receiving water.
Affected receiving waters include natural streams, lakes,
marshes, isolated wetlands and land naturally receiving
overland sheet flow.
h. Pumped systems will only be allowed for single owner or
governmental agency operation entities, unless perpetual
operation ability can be guaranteed.

6.2 Control devices/Bleed-down mechanisms for Detention Systems
a. When not in conflict with meeting the District's pre-
/post-peak discharge requirement or a more restrictive
local government discharge requirement, gravity control
devices normally shall be designed to discharge one-half
of the detention volume required by Chapter 4, within 24
hours. Devices incorporating dimensions smaller than six
square inches of cross sectional area or two inches
minimum dimension or less than 20 degrees for "V" notches
shall include a device to eliminate clogging. Such
devices include baffles, grates, pipe elbows, etc.
b. Gravity control devices for wet detention water treatment
systems as specified in Chapter 5, are required to be
designed to meet the bleed-down times specified therein.
Devices incorporating dimensions smaller than those
indicated in a. above, must include a device to eliminate
clogging. Such devices include baffles, grates, pipe
elbows, etc.
c. Wet detention systems designed for both water treatment
(quality) and attenuation of the design storm (quantity)
must incorporate the requirements of a. and b. above.


B 75










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

6.3 The design of retention areas shall incorporate consideration
of sediment removal, regular maintenance and vegetation
harvesting procedures.

6.4 Wet Detention Areas

6.4.1 Dimensional Criteria (as measured at or from the control
elevation).
a. Width Wet detention water quality treatment systems
normally shall be designed with a 100 foot minimum width
for linear areas in excess of 200 feet in length. Area
and width requirements can be waived for projects to be
operated by single owner entities, or entities with full
time maintenance staffs with a particular interest in
maintaining the area, e.g., golf courses. Further
consideration will be given to treatment areas not
meeting the above width to length ratio if it can be
shown that the design of the system will maximize
circulation by location of inflow and outflow points.
b. Depth The detention or retention area shall not be
excavated to a depth that breaches an aquitard such that
it would allow for lesser quality water to pass, either
way, between the two systems. In those geographical
areas of the District where there is not an aquitard
present, the depth of the pond shall not be excavated to
within two (2) feet of the underlying limestone which is
part of a drinking water aquifer.
c. Side slopes for purposes of public safety, enhancement
and maintenance, all retention or detention areas should
have side slopes no steeper than 4:1 (horizontal:
vertical) out to a depth of two feet below the control
elevation.
d. Side slopes steeper than 4:1 will require a six foot
chain link fence or other equivalent protection
completely surrounding the retention or detention area
for purposes of public safety.

6.4.2 Support Facility Design Criteria:
a. Perimeter maintenance and operation easements, with a
minimum width of 20 feet and slopes no steeper than 4:1


B 76










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

(horizontal: vertical), should be provided landward of
the control elevation water line. Widths less than 20
feet are allowed when it can be demonstrated that
equipment can enter and perform the necessary maintenance
for the system.

6.5 Exfiltration systems
a. Pipe diameter 12 inch minimum
b. Trench width 3 foot minimum
c. Rock in trench must be enclosed in filter material.
d. Maintenance sumps in inlets

6.6 Impervious areas runoff shall be discharged from impervious
surfaces into retention areas, or through detention devices,
filtering and cleansing devices, or subjected to some type of
Best Management Practice (BMP) prior to discharge from the
project site. For projects which include substantial paved
areas, such as shopping centers, large highway intersections
with frequent stopped traffic, and high density developments,
provisions shall be made for the removal of oil, grease and
sediment from storm water discharges.

6.7 Stagnant water conditions configurations which create
stagnant water conditions such as dead end canals are to be
avoided, regardless of the type of development.

6.8 Sediment sumps shall:
a. Remove a particle of .1 mm in diameter (approximately a
No. 100 sieve size) unless it can be shown another grain
size is more appropriate for the site.
b. Be designed for an inflow rate equal to the design peak
flow rate of the project's internal storm water system.
c. Include a maintenance schedule for sediment and
vegetation removal..

CHAPTER SEVEN DESIGN INFORMATION

7.1 Antecedent Conditions normal average wet season (AMC II).


B 77










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

7.2 Rainfall Volume The Southwest Florida Water Management
District's 24-hour, 25-year and 100-year rainfall isohyetal
maps will be used to determine rainfall amounts.

7.3 Rainfall Distribution The Soil Conservation Service Type II
Florida Modified 24-hour rainfall distribution will be used.

7.4 Storage

7.4.1 Open Surface If open surface storage is to be
considered in the review, the applicant must submit
stage-storage computations. If open surface storage plus
discharge is to be considered, the stage discharge
computations will also be submitted. Actual rather than
allowable discharges shall be used in routing.
Discharges will be based on the tail water resulting from
the normal seasonal high water elevation of the receiving
waters. For extreme events, such as the 100-year
frequency, discharge will be based on the tail water
resulting from a 100-year flood on the receiving waters.

7.5 Infiltration and Percolation

7.5.1 Ground Surface Ground surface infiltration will be
reviewed on the basis of commonly accepted procedures
such as those of Soil Conservation Service (see U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Technical Paper No. 149, "A Method for Estimating Volume
and rate of Runoff in Small Watersheds" (1973), and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Technical Release No. 55, "Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds" (1975); or Rational Method (see State of
Florida Department of Transportation, "Drainage Manual"
(1987); or standard civil engineering textbooks), unless
test data are submitted to justify other procedures.

7.5.2 Subsurface subsurface exfiltration will be reviewed
only on the basis of representative or actual test data
submitted by the applicant. Tests shall be consistent as


B 78










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

to elevation, location, soils, etc. with the system
design to which the test data will be applied.

7.6 Runoff the usual methods of computation are as follows:
a. Rainfall minus losses and storage.
b. Soil Conservation Service (see U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Soil Conservation Service, "National Engineering
Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology" -1972).
c. Rational method, for systems serving projects of less
than 10 acres total contributing area (see State of
Florida Department of Transportation, "Drainage Manual"
Volume 2A 1987; or standard civil engineering texts).
d. Others as approved by the District.

7.7 Receiving Water Stage

7.7.1 Regulated Systems design and maintained stage
elevations should be available either from the local
jurisdiction or the District. Stages for frequencies
other than the design will be estimated by the.District
upon request from the applicant.

7.7.2 Non-regulated Systems the applicant should compute
receiving water stages for such systems from the best
available data and submit the results to the District for
review and concurrence before utilizing such results in
further computations.

7.7.3 All Systems variable tailwater stages should be
considered if they have a significant influence on the
design.

7.8 Discharge

7.8.1 Allowable Discharges peak discharge, for purposes of
meeting maximum allowable discharges, may normally be
computed as the maximum average discharge over a time
period equal to the time of concentration of the
contributory area.


B 79













APRTT. 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
R&STq naW IWrYTW


[BLANK]


B 80


------- -~--










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

APPENDICES

1. Statement of Inspection for Proper Operation and Maintenance.
Form No. 25.03-15.1-9/87.

2. Lands, Basins and Water Courses having specific design
criteria.

3. [RESERVED]

4. Basis of Review for the Establishment and Use of Mitigation
Banks.

5. Listed Wildlife Species that are Aquatic or Wetland Dependent
and that use Upland Habitats for Nesting or Denning.

6. Drainage Basins in the Southwest Florida Water Management
District.

7. Site Conditions Assessment Permitting.


B 81


__












APDTT. 1 97


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
RAQTS nW RwVTRW


APPENDIX 1

STATEMENT OF INSPECTION FOR PROPER OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE


B 82


APRIL TQQ7_I ____





Statement of Inspection for Proper Operation
and Maintenance

Within 30 days after completion of the inspection for proper operation and maintenance, the
operation and maintenance entity or its authorized agent must SEND THE ORIGINAL PLUS
ONE COPY OF THIS FORM to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379
Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899. Upon receipt, the District will review this
statement and may inspect the system for compliance with the approved permit and as-built
drawings.

(1) SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INFORMATION:


Permit No.:


County:


Project Name:

Permittee:

Address:


City:


State:


Zip:


Telephone: (

(2) I hereby certify that an inspection of the above-referenced system was performed on
and further certify based on my observations that all
above-ground facilities are being operated and maintained as authorized by the Southwest
Florida Water Management District. I further state that it is my opinion based on by
observations, knowledge, experience and any other available information that the below-
ground facilities are being operated and maintained as authorized.


By:
Signature of Engineer

(Affix Seal)


Name (Please Type) Florida Registration No.


Company Name


Company Address


Phone: ( ___


Date:


B 83


Form No. 25.03-15.1-9/7










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

APPENDIX 2

LAND, BASINS AND WATER COURSES HAVING SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA


B 84











APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF REVIEW


The following lands, basins, and water courses have specific design
criteria different than that found in Part B of the Basis of
Review. It is suggested that you contact the District for a
preapplication meeting to discuss appropriate criteria.

COUNTY:


Hillsborough:
location.


See maps on following pages for approximate


1. *Delaney Creek Basin: Water quantity only.
requirements as Hillsborough County).


2. Tampa By-Pass Canal: Specific quantity limitations.
connections to canal, operation levels within canal.


(Same quantity


Existing


3. *Northwest Hillsborough Channels: A, G, and H: Water quantity
only.


B 85















DELANEY CREEK WATERSHED













wJ f,
i '*i 11.-.------ i / AVKS m


CN/OY. SIA NOFrN & ASSOCIArS. /:.
Water Resowrve and CUwit aEn p ering
FIGURE iH-2
L IL













































































B 87












---- R17E II R18E


%wo





0


00


S.CLRR


4 -


VAN DYKE ROAD -.

b lzS





Q>

0D


EHRLICH ROAD

:*1






-- ri!!iiii


..........
...........
................
................. ......... .
............. ......... ......
................
. ....... ......


..........~


HILLSBOROUGH CANAL
j-- jr--'


HILLSBOROUGH A VENUES


TATPA .
ST7JlTERW4ATIONAL
'TORT '


AM.


Lib


,


ot7a

..... .
.
; .. ... .
................


.r c.

60
.



-4


... i.i......ii......~i..i. i
.. ........... ...........
...._......_....


-~- I


TAMP


I

CHANNELS A, G &H

WATERSHEDS


B 88


C


./.


.. .


SOLD TAMPA BA

OLD TAMPA BAY


m
(a


"'


I I


,-,---------S~


-


I


I -


I-


I


-TCL -- -RR-L I


I


r~


..... ....... .


~~iiiiiiiii~iliilii. ........ir


I


"-I ------


I I- --- --


rr


F


F-4


...... ..... r


- ---












APRIL 1997


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BASIS OF REVTEW


APPENDIX 3

[RESERVED]


B 89










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

APPENDIX 4
BASIS OF REVIEW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF
MITIGATION BANKS


B 90










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

1. Intent. The Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993
directs the District to adopt rules governing the creation and use
of mitigation banks to offset adverse impacts caused by activities
regulated under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. This rule, in
addition to other rules promulgated under Part IV of Chapter 373,
F.S., is intended to meet this requirement.
The District recognizes that, in certain instances, adverse
impacts of activities regulated under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S.,
can be offset through participation in a Mitigation Bank. This
rule provides criteria for this mitigation alternative to
complement existing mitigation criteria and requirements. This
rule does not supersede any other criteria and requirements in
rules promulgated under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S.
The District intends that Mitigation Banks be used to minimize
mitigation uncertainty associated with traditional mitigation
practices and provide greater assurance of mitigation success. It
is anticipated that the consolidation of multiple mitigation
projects into larger contiguous areas will provide greater
assurance that the mitigation will yield long-term, sustainable,
regional ecological benefits. Mitigation Banks should emphasize
restoration and enhancement of degraded ecosystems and the
preservation of uplands and wetlands as intact ecosystems rather
than alteration of landscapes to create wetlands.
A mitigation bank permit authorizes the establishment,
implementation and operation of a mitigation bank, and constitutes
authorization pursuant to 40D-4, 40D-40 or 40D-400, F.A.C., as
applicable, to construct, alter, operate, maintain, abandon or
remove any surface water management system proposed as a part of
the mitigation bank. A mitigation bank conceptual approval permit
estimates the legal and financial requirements necessary for
evaluation of a mitigation bank permit application, and potential
mitigation credits to be awarded pursuant to a mitigation bank
permit. A mitigation bank conceptual approval permit does not
authorize the use or withdrawal of mitigation credits, or the
construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or
removal of any surface water management system within a mitigation
bank.
Nothing in this rule shall affect the mitigation requirements
set forth in any mitigation bank agreement or any permit issued
pursuant to Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida, or Part IV of Chapter
373, F.S., prior to the effective date of this rule. If a
permitted wishes to substantially modify a mitigation bank
previously established by agreement or permit, the permitted must
comply with this rule. This rule does not prohibit an applicant
from proposing project-specific, pre-construction mitigation, or


B 91









ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

off-site mitigation, without establishing a Mitigation Bank
pursuant to this rule.
2. Definitions. As used in this rule:
(A) "Banker" means an entity that creates, operates,
manages, and maintains a Mitigation Bank pursuant to a mitigation
bank permit.
(B) "Ecological Value" means the value of functions
performed by wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.
These functions include: providing habitat for wildlife, corridors
for wildlife movement, food chain support, groundwater recharge,
water storage and flow attenuation, and water quality enhancement.
(C) "Mitigation Service Area" means the geographic area
within which Mitigation Credits from a Mitigation Bank may be used
to offset adverse impacts of activities regulated under Part IV of
Chapter 373, F.S.
(D) "Mitigation Bank Permit" means a permit issued to a
banker to construct, operate, manage and maintain a Mitigation
Bank.
(E) Mitigation Bank" means a project undertaken to
provide for the withdrawal of mitigation credits to offset adverse
impacts.
(F) "Regional Watershed" means a watershed as delineated
in Exhibit 1.
3. Use of a Mitigation Bank.
Use of a Mitigation Bank is appropriate, desirable, and a
permittable mitigation option when the Mitigation Bank will offset
the adverse impacts of the project; and
(A) on-site mitigation opportunities are not expected to
have comparable long-term viability due to such factors as
unsuitable hydrologic conditions or ecologically incompatible
existing adjacent land uses or future land uses identified in a
local comprehensive plan adopted according to Chapter 163, F.S.; or
(B) use of the Mitigation Bank would provide greater
improvement in ecological value than on-site mitigation.
In some cases, a combination of on-site mitigation and
participation in a Mitigation Bank will be appropriate to offset
adverse impacts of a project.
4. Criteria for Establishing a Mitigation Bank. The
following criteria shall be met to establish a Mitigation Bank:
(A) The banker shall provide reasonable assurance that
the proposed Mitigation Bank will:
(1) improve ecological conditions of the regional
watershed;
(2) provide viable and sustainable ecological and
hydrological functions for the proposed mitigation service area;
(3) be effectively managed in the long term;


B 92










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

(4) not destroy areas with high ecological value;
(5) achieve mitigation success; and
(6) be adjacent to lands which will not adversely
affect the long-term viability of the bank due to unsuitable land
uses or conditions.
(B) The banker shall also provide reasonable assurance
that any surface water management system to be constructed,
altered, operated, maintained, abandoned or removed within the
Mitigation Bank area will meet the conditions of issuance of
chapters 40D-4, 40D-40, F.A.C., or the terms, conditions,
requirements, limitations and restrictions of chapter 40D-400,
F.A.C., as applicable.
(C) A Mitigation Bank may be implemented in phases if
each phase independently meets the requirements of subsection 4(A)
above.
(D) The banker shall:
(1) have sufficient legal or equitable interest in
the property to meet the requirements of section 10 of this rule;
and
(2) meet the financial responsibility requirements
of section 11 of this rule.
5. Mitigation Bank Permit Applications and Mitigation Bank
Conceptual Approval Permit Applications. Any person or entity
proposing to establish a Mitigation Bank must apply for a
Mitigation Bank Permit. An application for a Mitigation Bank
Permit shall also constitute an application for any permit required
under chapters 40D-4, 40D-40, or 40D-400, F.A.C., to construct,
alter, operate, maintain, abandon or remove any surface water
management system proposed as part of the bank. A separate
application for a permit under chapters 40D-4, 40D-40, or 40D-400,
F.A.C., to construct, alter, operate, maintain, abandon or remove
a surface water management system proposed as part of the
Mitigation Bank is not required. Mitigation Bank Permit
applications shall be processed according to Chapter 120, F.S. To
provide the District with reasonable assurance that the proposed
Mitigation Bank will meet the criteria in Appendix 4 and that any
proposed system within the Mitigation Bank will meet the applicable
criteria of chapters 40D-4, 40D-40, or 40D-400, F.A.C., each
Mitigation Bank Permit application submitted to the District shall
include the information required under chapters 40D-4, 40D-40, or
40D-400, F.A.C., as applicable, and the information specified below
as appropriate for the proposed bank:
(A) A description of the location of the proposed
Mitigation Bank which shall include:


B 93










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

(1) a map at regional scale showing the proposed
Mitigation Bank site in relation to the regional watershed and
proposed mitigation service area;
(2) a vicinity map showing the proposed Mitigation
Bank site in relation to adjacent lands and offsite areas of
ecologic or hydrologic significance which could affect the long
term viability or ecological value of the bank;
(3) an aerial photograph identifying boundaries of
the proposed Mitigation Bank site;
(4) a highway map showing points of access to the
proposed Mitigation Bank for site inspection; and
(5) a legal description of the proposed Mitigation
Bank.
(B) A description of the ecological significance of the
proposed Mitigation Bank to the regional watershed in which it is
located.
(C) A description and assessment of current conditions
at the proposed Mitigation Bank site which shall include:
(1) a soils map of the proposed Mitigation Bank
site;
(2) a topographic map of the proposed Mitigation
Bank site and adjacent hydrologic contributing and receiving areas;
(3) a hydrologic features map of the proposed
Mitigation Bank site and adjacent hydrologic contributing and
receiving areas;
(4) current hydrologic conditions in the proposed
Mitigation Bank site;
(5) a vegetation map of the proposed Mitigation
Bank site;
(6) ecological benefits currently provided to the
regional watershed by the proposed Mitigation Bank site; and
(7) adjacent lands, including existing land uses
and conditions, projected land uses according to comprehensive
plans adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S., by local governments
having jurisdiction, and any special designations or
classifications associated with adjacent lands or waters.
(D) A mitigation plan describing the actions proposed to
establish, construct, operate, manage and maintain the Mitigation
Bank which shall include:
(1) construction-level drawings detailing proposed
topographic alterations and all structural components associated
with proposed activities;
(2) proposed construction activities, including a
detailed schedule for implementation;
(3) the proposed vegetation planting scheme and
detailed schedule for implementation;


B 94










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

(4) measures to be implemented during and after
construction to avoid adverse impacts related to proposed
activities;
(5) a detailed long term management plan comprising
all aspects of operation and maintenance, including water
management practices, vegetation establishment, exotic and nuisance
species control, fire management, and control of access; and
(6) a proposed monitoring plan to demonstrate
mitigation success.
(E) An assessment of improvement or changes in
ecological value anticipated as a result of proposed mitigation
actions which shall include:
(1) a description of anticipated site conditions in
the Mitigation Bank after the mitigation plan is successfully
implemented;
(2) a comparison of current fish and wildlife
habitat to expected habitat after the mitigation plan is
successfully implemented; and
(3) a description of the expected ecological
benefits to the regional watershed.
(F) Evidence of sufficient legal or equitable interest
in the property which is to become the Mitigation Bank to meet the
requirements of section 10 of this Rule.
(G) Draft documentation of financial responsibility
meeting the requirements of section 11 of this Rule.
(H) Any additional information which may be necessary to
evaluate whether the proposed Mitigation Bank meets the criteria of
this chapter.
A person or entity who wishes to obtain an estimation of the
legal and financial requirements necessary for a mitigation bank,
information necessary for evaluation of a mitigation bank permit
application, and potential mitigation credits to be awarded
pursuant to a mitigation bank permit, may apply for a mitigation
bank conceptual approval permit. An application for a mitigation
bank conceptual approval permit shall contain the information
listed in paragraphs (A) through (H) above.
6. Establishment of Mitigation Credits.
(A) Based upon the information submitted by the
applicant, and an assessment of the proposed Mitigation Bank
pursuant to the criteria in this rule, the District will assign a
number of Mitigation Credits to the proposed Mitigation Bank, or
phases thereof.
(B) A Mitigation Credit is a unit of measure which
represents the increase in ecological value resulting from
restoration, enhancement, preservation, or creation activities.
For purposes of establishing a standard unit of measure, one


B 95










ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
APRIL 1997 BASIS OF REVIEW

Mitigation Credit is equivalent to the ecological value gained by
the successful creation of one acre of wetland. Mitigation Credits
assigned for enhancement, restoration or preservation of wetlands
or uplands will be based on the extent of improvement in ecological
value resulting from these activities relative to that obtained by
successfully creating one acre of wetland. In determining the
degree of improvement in ecological value, the following factors
will be considered:
(1) The extent to which target hydrologic regimes
can be achieved and maintained.
(2) The extent to which management activities
promote natural ecological conditions, including natural fire
patterns.
(3) The proximity of other regionally significant
ecological resources or habitats, such as lands acquired or to be
acquired through governmental or non-profit land acquisition
programs for environmental conservation, and the establishment of
corridors to those resources or habitats.
(4) The quality and quantity of wetland or upland
restoration, enhancement, preservation, or creation.
(5) The ecological and hydrological relationship
between wetlands and uplands in the Mitigation Bank.
(6) The extent to which the Mitigation Bank
provides habitat for fish and wildlife, especially habitat for
species listed as threatened, endangered or of special concern, or
provides habitats which are unique for that mitigation service
area.
(7) The extent to which the lands that are to be
preserved are already protected by existing state, local or federal
regulations or land use restrictions.
(8) The extent that lands to be preserved would be
adversely affected if they were not preserved.
(9) Any special designation or classification of
the affected waters and lands.
(C) No credit shall be available for freshwater wetland
creation until the success of the created wetlands is demonstrated.
(D) Some Mitigation Credits may be withdrawn prior to
meeting all of the performance criteria specified in the Mitigation
Bank Permit as determined by the likelihood of success. The number
of credits and schedule for release shall
be determined based upon the performance criteria for the
Mitigation Bank, and the success criteria for each mitigation
activity. A Mitigation Bank will be credited with its maximum
number of Mitigation Credits only after meeting the mitigation
success criteria specified in the permit.


B 96




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