notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

Governing Board 

Meeting 

Agenda 

and 

Meeting Information 

August 30, 2011 

9:00 a.m. 

Tampa Service Office 

7601 U.S. Hwy. 301 North • Tampa, Florida 

(813) 985-7481 1-800-836-0797

An Equal 

Opportunity 

Employer 

MEETING NOTICE 

2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 

(352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) 

TDD only 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) 

On the Internet at: WaterMatters.org 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This nondiscrimination 

policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, including access to and participation in the District's programs and activities. 

Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District's Human 

Resources Director at 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, FL 34604-6899; telephone (352) 796-7211, ext. 4702, or 1-800-423-1476 

(FL only), ext. 4702; TDD (FL only) 1-800-231-6103; or email to ADACoordinator@swfwmd.state.fl.us. 

AGENDA 

GOVERNING BOARD MEETING 

AUGUST 30, 2011 

9:00 a.m. 

TAMPA SERVICE OFFICE 

7601 US HIGHWAY 301 NORTH 

813-985-7481 OR 1-800-836-0797 

� All meetings are open to the public. �� 

� Viewing of the Board meeting will be available at each of the District offices 

and through the District’s web site (www.watermatters.org) -- follow directions 

to use internet streaming. 

� Public input will be taken only at the meeting location. 

� Public input for issues not listed on the published agenda will be heard shortly 

after the meeting begins. 

Unless specifically stated, scheduled items will not be heard at a time certain. 

At the discretion of the Board, items may be taken out of order to 

accommodate the needs of the Board and the public. 

The meeting will recess for lunch at a time to be announced. 

The current Governing Board agenda and minutes of previous meetings 

are on the District's web site: www.WaterMatters.org 

9:00 A.M. CONVENE PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 

1. Call to Order 

2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation 

3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda 

4. Ceremony to Honor Basin Board Members for Their Service 

5. Employee Recognition 

6. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda 

Bartow Service Office 

170 Century Boulevard 

Bartow, Florida 33830-7700 

(863) 534-1448 or 1-800-492-7862 (FL only) 

Sarasota Service Office 

6750 Fruitville Road 

Sarasota, Florida 34240-9711 

(941) 377-3722 or 1-800-320-3503 (FL only) 

Tampa Service Office 

7601 US Highway 301 North 

Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 

(813) 985-7481 or 1-800-836-0797 (FL only)

SWFWMD GOVERNING BOARD AGENDA -2- AUGUST 30, 2011 

CONSENT AGENDA (TAB B) 

All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and action will be taken by one motion, 

second of the motion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Board member, that item(s) will 

be deleted from the Consent Agenda and moved to the appropriate Committee or Report for consideration. 

Regulation Committee 

7. Authorize Initiation of Rulemaking and Approve Amendments to Chapters 40D-1, 40D-2, 40D-3, 

40D-4, 40D-40 and 40D-400, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Permit Application Forms 

to Reduce the Number of Copies of Permit Applications and Supporting Documents Required to be 

Submitted 

8. Approve Amendments to Conservation Easements from Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. and 

Sumter Landings Community Development District to Address U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Requirements 

9. Approve Amendment to Well Construction Permitting Agreement between SWFWMD and 

Marion County Health Department and Authorize Amendments to Rule 40D-1.002, F.A.C., 

to Incorporate Amendment by Reference 

10. Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 – Consider Current and Projected Conditions 

11. Individual Water Use Permits Deferred to the Governing Board 

Resource Management Committee 

12. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Center Ridge Watershed 

in Citrus County to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

13. FARMS – Sun Bulb Company, Inc. (H609) – DeSoto County 

Finance & Administration Committee 

14. Budget Transfer Report 

15. Prior Year Board Encumbrances 

16. Brooksville Building 4 Restoration Costs – Transfer from Contingencies 

17. Information Resources Department 

a. Fiscal Year 2011 Encumbrances 

(1) Multi-Year Funded Projects 

(2) Residual FY2011 Computer Sinking Fund 

b. Prior Fiscal Year Encumbrances 

c. Fiscal Year 2012 Sinking Fund Transfers 

(1) Planned Upgrade and Expansion of Network Servers 

(2) Planned Replacement of Personal Computers 

18. Request Deferral of Information Technology Analysis and Review 

General Counsel’s Report 

19. Consent Order – WUP No. 20002842.007 - Citrus County Board of County Commissioners (Sugar 

Mill Woods Service Area) – Citrus County 

Executive Director’s Report 

20. Annual Calendar of Fiscal Year 2012 Meeting Dates 

21. Approve Governing Board Minutes 

a. June 28, 2011 Finance and Administration Committee Meeting 

b. July 26, 2011 Monthly Meeting 

c. August 2, 2011 Special Meeting 

OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (TAB C) 

Discussion Items – None 

Submit & File Reports – None 

Routine Reports 

22. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 

23. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 

24. Speakers Bureau 

25. Significant Activities


REGULATION COMMITTEE (TAB D) 

Discussion Items 

26. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 

27. Denials Referred to the Governing Board 



28. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities 

29. Overpumpage Report 

30. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications 

31. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff 

32. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB E) 



34. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

35. Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project – Construction Management Services (H014, W014, SC54) 

36. Basin Activities 

a. Pasco County – Southeast Regional Reclaimed Water Loop (H041) 

b. Weeki Wachee State Park and Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs State Wildlife Park Water 

Quality Improvement Project 

37. Surplus Lands Assessment Program Update 



38. Florida Forever Funding 

39. Minimum Flows and Levels 

40. Structure Operations 

41. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization 

42. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects 

FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (TAB F) 



44. Executive Director Recruitment 

45. General Services Department 

a. Brooksville Building 5 – Solar Photovoltaic System Update 

b. Bartow Service Office – Renovation Update 

46. Approve Resolution Committing Fund Balance in Compliance with Board Policy 130-9 

47. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Update 

a. McGregor-Smith Property Budget Request 

b. Review of Changes Since July 26, 2011 

�� 

TIME CERTAIN –3:00P.M. 

48. Total Compensation (Salary & Benefits) Study – Final Report from Evergreen Solutions 

�� 

Submit & File Reports 

49. Office of Inspector General 

a. Security Certification Update Report – Fiscal Year 2009 Human Resource Information 

System Security Audit 

b. Regulation Division – Water Management Information System AGMOD Audit 


50. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register and Contingency Reserves 

51. Monthly Financial Statements 

52. Management Services Significant Activities


GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT (TAB G) 





54. Litigation Report 

55. Rulemaking Update 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (TAB H) 

56. Executive Director’s Report 

a. Workload and Staffing Recommendations – Implementation Plan Update 

b. September 28, 2010 Governing Board Workshop Summary – Final Report 

c. Other 

CHAIR’S REPORT (TAB I) 

57. Chair’s Report 

a. Liaison Reports 

b. Other 

�� RECESS PUBLIC HEARING � � � 

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

� Governing Board Meetings and Hearings Schedule: 

Tentative Budget Hearing – Tampa ......................................................... September 13, 2011 

Meeting – Brooksville ............................................................................... September 27, 2011 

Meeting – Tampa ..................................................................................... October 25, 2011 

Meeting – Tampa ...................................................................................... November 29, 2011 

Meeting – Haines City ............................................................................... December 20, 2011 

� Joint Meeting of All Advisory Committees – Tampa .................................. September 23, 2011 

ADJOURNMENT 

The Governing Board may take action on any matter on the printed agenda including such items listed as reports, 

discussions, or program presentations. The Governing Board may make changes to the printed agenda only for 

good cause as determined by the Chair, and stated in the record. 

If a party decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at a hearing or 

these meetings, that party will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that party may need to 

ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon 

which the appeal is to be based. 

If you wish to address the Board concerning any item listed on the agenda or an issue that does not appear on the 

agenda, please fill out a speaker's card at the reception desk in the lobby and give it to the recording secretary. 

Your card will be provided to the Chair who will call on you at the appropriate time during the meeting. When 

addressing the Board, please step to the podium, adjust the microphone for your comfort, and state your name for 

the record. Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. In appropriate circumstances, the Chair may 

grant exceptions to the three-minute limit. 

The Board will accept and consider written comments from any person if those comments are submitted to the 

District at Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899. The 

comments should identify the number of the item on the agenda and the date of the meeting. Any written 

comments received after the Board meeting will be retained in the file as a public record.

GOVERNING BOARD OFFICERS,COMMITTEES 

AND LIAISONS 

Effective June 2011 

OFFICERS 

Chair H. Paul Senft 

Vice Chair Hugh M. Gramling 

Secretary Douglas B. Tharp 

Treasurer Albert G. Joerger 

The full Board serves as the members for each committee. 

REGULATION COMMITTEE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 

Bryan K. Beswick, Chair Hugh M. Gramling, Chair 

Todd Pressman, Vice Chair Neil Combee, Vice Chair 

Judith C. Whitehead, Second Vice Chair Ronald E. Oakley, Second Vice Chair 

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 

COMMITTEE 

OUTREACH AND PLANNING 

COMMITTEE 

Albert G. Joerger, Chair* Jeffrey M. Adams, Chair 

Douglas B. Tharp, Vice Chair Jennifer E. Closshey, Vice Chair 

Carlos Beruff, Second Vice Chair Michael A. Babb, Second Vice Chair 

*Board policy requires the Governing Board treasurer 

to chair the Finance and Administration Committee. 

STANDING COMMITTEE LIAISONS 

Agricultural Advisory Committee Hugh M. Gramling 

Environmental Advisory Committee Judith C. Whitehead 

Green Industry Advisory Committee Douglas B. Tharp 

Industrial Supply Advisory Committee Jennifer E. Closshey 

Public Supply Advisory Committee Carlos Beruff 

Well Drillers Advisory Committee Ronald E. Oakley 

Note: Governing Board to consider merging advisory committees where appropriate. 

OTHER LIAISONS 

Governing Board Diversity Coordinator Carlos Beruff 

Environmental Stewardship Vacant 

Strategic Planning Initiative Jennifer E. Closshey 

Central Florida Water Initiative (formerly CFCA) H. Paul Senft 

Workload & Staffing Analysis 

Salary & Benefits Analysis 

Douglas B. Tharp 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Policy Board Bryan K. Beswick 

Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Albert G. Joerger 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Hugh M. Gramling 

Todd Pressman, Primary 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 

Jeffrey M. Adams, Alternate 

7/26/2011

Governing Board Meeting 

August 30, 2011 

9:00 a.m. 

�� CONVENE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD � � � 

AND PUBLIC HEARING 

PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 

1. Call to Order ......................................................................................................................... 2 

2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation ................................................................................... 2 

3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda ............................................................................................. 2 

4. Ceremony to Honor Basin Board Members for Their Service ............................................. 2 

5. Employee Recognition ......................................................................................................... 3 

6. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda .............................................. 4


August 30, 2011 


Items 1 - 4 

The Board Chair calls the meeting to order. The Board Secretary confirms that a quorum is 

present. The Board Chair then opens the public hearing. 

Anyone wishing to address the Governing Board concerning any item listed on the agenda or 

any item that does not appear on the agenda should fill out and submit a speaker's card. 

Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker, and, when appropriate, exceptions to 

the three-minute limit may be granted by the Chair. Several individuals wishing to speak on 

the same issue/topic should designate a spokesperson. 


The Board Chair leads the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 

Mr. Bilenky offers the invocation. 


According to Section 120.525(2), Florida Statutes, additions to the published agenda will only 

be made for "good cause" as determined by the "person designated to preside." The items 

that have been added to the agenda were received by the District after publication of the 

regular agenda. The Board was provided with the information filed and the District staff's 

analyses of these matters. Staff has determined that action must be taken on these items 

prior to the next Board meeting. 

Therefore, it is the District staff's recommendation that good cause has been demonstrated 

and should be considered during the Governing Board's meeting. 

Staff Recommendation: 

Approve the recommended additions and deletions to the published agenda. 

Presenter: �� 


The Board will present former Basin Board members with plaques to honor their service to the 

citizens of the District. 

Presenter: Paul Senft, Chair 

�


August 30, 2011 

Employee Recognition 

Item 5 

The District's employees are its most valuable resource. We are pleased and proud that the 

average tenure of all employees at the District is 12 years and that we are able to retain such 

remarkable talent. Each year, many District employees reach significant longevity milestones in 

their service to the District and many reach momentous milestones, which make them eligible 

for retirement. The District as a whole, as well as each employee’s department, acknowledges 

and celebrates these milestones/retirements and the tremendous individual contributions they 

represent to the achievement of the District’s mission. 

This item provides the Board with the opportunity to personally recognize and thank our 

dedicated employees who have reached five-year increments in service to the District and those 

employees who have completed at least 30 years of employment in the Florida Retirement 

System and are retiring from the District. Nine employees have achieved longevity milestones 

for the period of August 1-31, 2011, and one retiree. 

There will be no employee recognitions presented at this Board meeting. 

MILESTONE 

Employee Recognition – Service/Retirement 

EMPLOYEE 

NAME 

TITLE DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE 

LOCATION 

Retirement Grady Vance Aquatic Plant Mgt Supervisor Operations Brooksville 

30 Years None for this meeting. 



15 Years 

Amissa Smith 

Allen Yarbrough 

Administrative Assistant 2 

Graphics Illustrator 

Office of General Counsel Brooksville 

Communications Brooksville 

10 Years Chris Zitzow Senior Field Technician Sarasota Regulation Sarasota 

Sarah Condran Staff Hydrologist Sarasota Regulation Sarasota 

April Davis GIS Analyst 3 Operations Brooksville 

5 Years David Epler 

Information Technology 

Technical Writer/Trainer 

Information Resources Brooksville 

Jon Kramer Professional Engineer Resource Projects Sarasota 

Jeff Taylor Field Technician Operations Sarasota 


This item is presented for the Board’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: William S. Bilenky, Interim Executive Director 

�


August 30, 2011 

Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda 

At this time, the Board will hear public input for issues not listed on the published agenda. 

� 

Item 6


August 30, 2011 

CONSENT AGENDA 

All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and action will be taken by one motion, 

second of the motion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Board member, that item(s) 

will be deleted from the Consent Agenda and moved to the appropriate Committee or Report for consideration. 


7. Authorize Initiation of Rulemaking and Approve Amendments to Chapters 40D-1, 

40D-2, 40D-3, 40D-4, 40D-40 and 40D-400, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), 

and Permit Application Forms to Reduce the Number of Copies of Permit 

Applications and Supporting Documents Required to be Submitted .................................... 2 

8. Approve Amendments to Conservation Easements from Villages of Lake Sumter, 

Inc. and Sumter Landings Community Development District to Address U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Requirements ........................................................................................ 105 

9. Approve Amendment to Well Construction Permitting Agreement between 

SWFWMD and Marion County Health Department and Authorize Amendments 

to Rule 40D-1.002, F.A.C., to Incorporate Amendment by Reference .................................. 130 

10. Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 – Consider Current and Projected 

Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 136 

11. Individual Water Use Permits Deferred to the Governing Board ........................................... 137 


12. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Center 

Ridge Watershed in Citrus County to the Federal Emergency Management Agency .......... 138 

13. FARMS – Sun Bulb Company, Inc. (H609) – DeSoto County ............................................... 140 


14. Budget Transfer Report ......................................................................................................... 142 

15. Prior Year Board Encumbrances ........................................................................................... 144 

16. Brooksville Building 4 Restoration Costs – Transfer from Contingencies ............................. 145 

17. Information Resources Department 

a. Fiscal Year 2011 Encumbrances 

(1) Multi-Year Funded Projects ....................................................................................... 146 

(2) Residual FY2011 Computer Sinking Fund ................................................................ 148 

b. Prior Fiscal Year Encumbrances ..................................................................................... 149 

c. Fiscal Year 2012 Sinking Fund Transfers 

(1) Planned Upgrade and Expansion of Network Servers .............................................. 151 

(2) Planned Replacement of Personal Computers ......................................................... 152 

18. Request Deferral of Information Technology Analysis and Review ....................................... 153 


19. Consent Order – WUP No. 20002842.007 - Citrus County Board of County 

Commissioners (Sugar Mill Woods Service Area) – Citrus County ...................................... 155 


20. Annual Calendar of Fiscal Year 2012 Meeting Dates ............................................................ 157 


a. June 28, 2011 Finance and Administration Committee Meeting .................................... 166 

b. July 26, 2011 Monthly Meeting ......................................................................................... 168 

c. August 2, 2011 Special Meeting ...................................................................................... 185

Consent Agenda 

August 30, 2011 


Item 7 

Initiate and Approve Rulemaking to Amend Chapters 40D-1, 40D-2, 40D-3, 40D-4, 40D-40 

and 40D-400, Florida Administrative Code, and Permit Application Forms, to Reduce the 

Number of Copies of Permit Applications and Supporting Documents Required to be 

Submitted 

The purpose of this item is to reduce the number of copies of permit applications and supporting 

documents that must be submitted by applicants and permittees, thereby reducing the public's 

submittal costs. 

As the District's electronic permitting process is now fully implemented, Staff requires fewer 

paper copies of submission materials. Accordingly, non-substantive revisions are proposed to 

all District rules which specify a certain number of applications and/or forms, to reduce the 

number of paper copies required to be submitted. 

Staff seeks approval of the specific rule amendments and permit application forms necessary to 

adopt and incorporate the revisions into District rules. Copies of the forms showing the 

revisions to be made and the proposed rule amendments are included as exhibits in the 

Governing Board packet. A Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs has not been prepared, 

as this rulemaking is not expected to result in any direct or indirect cost increases for small 

business or small governments or increased regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 within one 

year of implementation. Ratification by the legislature also is not necessary for this rulemaking. 

Upon Governing Board approval of these amendments and forms, District staff will proceed with 

the public rulemaking process without further Governing Board action unless substantive 

comments are received or substantive changes are proposed, in which case this matter will be 

brought back to the Governing Board for further consideration. 

Staff Recommendation: See Exhibits 

Approve the revised permit application forms and authorize the initiation of rulemaking to amend 

Rule Chapters 40D-1, 40D-2, 40D-3, 40D-4, 40D-40 and 40D-400, Florida Administrative Code. 

Presenters: Bree M. Gathers, Office of General Counsel 

Karen A. Lloyd, Assistant General Counsel 

2

CHAPTER 40D-1 

PROCEDURAL 

40D-1.6051 Timeframe for Providing Requested Information for Permit Applications and Denial of 

Incomplete Applications. 

(1) No change. 

(a) The applicant shall include with each submittal of information in support of a pending permit application an 

Applicant Transmittal Form, Form No. LEG-R.046.010 (086/1109), which form is incorporated herein by reference 

and can be obtained from the District’s website at www.WwaterMmatters.org or from District offices. The applicant 

shall specify on the Applicant Transmittal Form the application number for which the information or material is 

being submitted and the contents of the submittal and shall state whether the accompanying submittal completes the 

applicant’s response to the District’s request for additional or clarifying information. District staff shall proceed to 

process the permit application upon receipt of the applicant’s information and statement that the submittal completes 

the applicant’s response, upon receipt of the applicant’s written request that the District proceed to process the 

application or, if no statement and additional information is received, upon the conclusion of the 90-day response 

period. 

(b)-(c) No change. 


Rulemaking Authority 120.54(5), 373.044, 373.113, 373.118, 373.4135, 373.4136, 373.414 FS. Law Implemented 

120.54(5), 120.60, 373.079(4)(a)1., 373.083(5), 373.084, 373.085, 373.116, 373.118, 373.119, 373.171, 373.229, 

373.2295, 373.308, 373.309, 373.323, 373.413, 373.4136, 373.414, 373.416, 373.418, 373.426 FS. History–New 7- 

2-98, Formerly 40D-1.1020, Amended 9-1-09, 9-5-10, ________. 

40D-1.659 Forms and Instructions. 

The following forms and instructions have been approved by the Governing Board and are incorporated by 

reference into this chapter or into a specific District rule as indicated. Copies of these forms may be obtained from 

the District offices or the District’s website at www.WwaterMmatters.org. 

(1) GROUND WATER 

3

(a)-(v) No change 

(w) SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA GROUND WATER REPLACEMENT CREDIT 

APPLICATION, FORM NO. LEG-R.011.021 (084/1109), incorporated by reference in paragraph 40D- 

2.101(6)(b)(c), F.A.C. 

(x) PUBLIC SUPPLY WELL INFORMATION AND CLASSIFICATION FORM, FORM NO. LEG- 

R.015.021 (084/1109), incorporated by reference in paragraph 40D-3.101(2)(b), F.A.C. 

(y)-(ff) No change. 

(gg) WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION – MINING AND DEWATERING MATERIALS OTHER THAN 

PHOSPHATE, FORM NO. LEG-R.048.010 (08/1109), 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 40D-2.101(2)(d), 

F.A.C. 

(hh)-(kk) No change 

(ll) DOVER/PLANT CITY WATER USE CAUTION AREA SUPPLEMENTAL FORM – FORM NO. LEG- 

R.050.010 (0812/110), incorporated by reference in subsection 40D-2.101(7), F.A.C. 

(mm) No change. 

(2) SURFACE WATER 

(a) JOINT APPLICATION FOR: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT/AUTHORIZATION TO USE 

STATE OWNED SUBMERGED LANDS/FEDERAL DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT, FORM 547.27/ERP 

(086/1110), incorporated by reference in paragraph 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

(b) No change. 

(c) PETITION FOR A FORMAL DETERMINATION OF THE LANDWARD EXTENT OF WETLANDS 

AND SURFACE WATERS, FORM 547.27/FJDS (084/1109), incorporated by reference in paragraph 40D- 

4.042(2)(a), F.A.C. 

(d) NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSTRUCT A MINOR SILVICULTURAL SURFACE WATER 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PURSUANT TO RULE 40D-400.500, F.A.C., FORM 547.27/NOI (084/1109), 

incorporated by reference in subsection 40D-400.500(3), F.A.C. 

(e) PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SITE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT, FORM 547.27/SCA (084/1109), 

incorporated by reference in subsection 40D-40.044(1), F.A.C. 

(f)-(k) 

4

(l) GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT (ERP) APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION 

RELATED TO OUTPARCEL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PERMITTED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 

PROJECTS, FORM NO. LEG-R.001.021 (084/1109), incorporated by reference in subparagraph 40D-4.331(2)(a)2., 

F.A.C. 

(m) ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT MODIFICATION SHORT FORM, FORM NO. LEG- 

R.013.021 (084/1109), incorporated by reference in paragraph 40D-4.331(2)(b), F.A.C. 

(n) No change. 

(3) OTHER 

(a)-(c) No change. 

(d) APPLICANT TRANSMITTAL FORM, FORM NO. LEG-R.046.010 (086/1109), incorporated by 

referenced in paragraph 40D-1.6051(1)(a), F.A.C. 

(e) No change. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171, 373.337 FS. Law Implemented 373.083, 373.116, 

373.206, 373.207, 373.209, 373.216, 373.219, 373.229, 373.239, 373.306, 373.308, 373.309, 373.313, 373.323, 

373.324, 373.413, 373.414, 373.416, 373.419, 373.421, 373.705, 373.707, 668.50 FS. History–New 12-31-74, 

Amended 10-24-76, Formerly 16J-0.40, 40D-1.901, 40D-1.1901, Amended 12-22-94, 5-10-95, 10-19-95, 5-26-96, 

7-23-96, 2-16-99, 7-12-99, 7-15-99, 12-2-99, 5-31-00, 9-3-00, 10-26-00, 6-26-01, 11-4-01, 6-12-02, 8-25-02, 2-26- 

03, 9-14-03, 9-30-04, 2-1-05, 6-5-05, 10-19-05(1) and (2), 10-19-05(5), 10-19-05(20), 2-6-07, 9-27-07, 11-11-07, 

11-25-07, 1-8-08, 4-7-08, 5-12-08, 5-20-08, 8-19-08, 12-30-08, 3-26-09, 7-1-09, 8-30-09, 9-1-09, 10-26-09, 1-27- 

10, 4-12-10, 4-27-10, 9-5-10, 9-12-10, 12-7-10, 1-16-11, 6-16-11, __________. 

5

CHAPTER 40D-2 

WATER USE PERMITS 

40D-2.091 Publications Incorporated By Reference. 

(1) The following publications are hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter, and are available from 

the District’s website at www.WaterMatters.org or from the District upon request: 

(a) Water Use Information Manual Part B, Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications (also referred 

to as the WUP Basis of Review) ([effective date of rule]) 6-16-11. 



Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.118, 373.171, FS. Law Implemented 373.036, 373.0363, 373.042, 

373.0421, 373.079(4)(a), 373.083(5), 373.116, 373.117, 373.1175, 373.118, 373.149, 373.171, 373.185, 373.216, 

373.217, 373.219, 373.223, 373.227, 373.228, 373.229, 373.236, 373.239, 373.243, 373.250, 373.705, 373.709, 

373.715, FS. History – New 10-1-89, Amended 11-15-90, 2-10-93, 3-30-93, 7-29-93, 4-11-94, 7-15-98, 7-28-98, 7- 

22-99, 12-2-99, 8-3-00, 9-3-00, 4-18-01, 4-14-02, 9-26-02, 1-1-03, 2-1-05, 10-19-05, 1-1-07, 8-23-07, 10-1-07, 10- 

22-07, 11-25-07, 12-24-07, 2-13-08, 2-18-08, 4-7-08, 5-12-08, 7-20-08, 9-10-08, 12-30-08, 1-20-09, 3-26-09, 7-1- 

09, 8-30-09, 10-26-09, 11-2-09, 1-27-10, 4-27-10, 5-26-10, 6-10-10, 6-30-10, 6-16-11 , ____ . 

Water Use Permit Information 

Part B 

WUP Basis of Review 

Within Chapter 1.0 of the WUP Basis of Review, Section 1.4, the following paragraphs shall be amended as 

follows: 

1.4.1 SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA APPLICATION FORMS. 

All Permit Applicants in the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) shall submit the “Supplemental 

Form–Southern Water Use Caution Area,” Form No. LEG-R.007.02 (04/09), incorporated by reference in 

subsection 40D-2.101(6), F.A.C., in addition to the appropriate application and supplemental form(s) described in 

Section 1.4, above. Permit Applicants in the SWUCA shall also submit the following application and supplemental 

forms as appropriate for their situation and intended water use type as described in Chapters 3 and 4 of Part B of the 

6

Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, of the Water Use Permit Information Manual and incorporated 

by reference in Rule 40D-2.101, F.A.C.: 

1. No Change. 

2. “Southern Water Use Caution Area Ground Water Replacement Credit Application,” Form No. LEG- 

R.011.021 (084/1109). 

All SWUCA application forms may be obtained from the District’s website at www.WwaterMmatters.org or 

from any District Service Office. 

New 11-25-07, Revised 5-12-08, 7-1-09, 8-30-09, 1-27-10, 4-27-10, _________. 

1.4.2 DOVER/PLANT CITY WATER USE CAUTION AREA APPLICATION FORMS. 

All permit applicants in the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (Dover/Plant City WUCA) shall submit 

the “Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Supplemental Form” –Form No. LEG-R.050.010 (0812/1110) 

incorporated herein by reference in subsection 40D-2.101(7), F.A.C., in addition to the appropriate application and 

supplemental form(s) described in Section 1.4, above. Applicants in the Dover/Plant City WUCA shall also submit 

the “Net Benefit Supplemental Form Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area” – Form No. LEG-R.051.00, 

(12/10), incorporated herein by reference in subsection 40D-2.101(7), F.A.C., as appropriate for the intended water 

use as described in Chapters 3, 4 and 7 of the WUP Basis of Review described in 40D-2.091, F.A.C. All application 

and supplemental information forms may be obtained from the District’s website at www.WaterMatters.org or from 

District offices. 

New 6-16-11, __________. 

Within Chapter 3.0 of the WUP Basis of Review, Section 3.6, the following paragraph shall be amended as 

follows: 

3.0 REASONABLE WATER NEEDS 

3.6 PUBLIC SUPPLY-APPLICANT CONSIDERATIONS. 

CALCULATION OF PROJECTED PERMITTED QUANTITIES. 

3. Calculation of Annual Average Daily Quantities 

Low Persons Per Household Adjustment To Functional Population. 

If the permanent resident persons-per-household (PERMPPH) (as calculated in Part D of the Water Use Permit 

Information Manual Basis of Review) for an existing service area or the projected persons per household (pph) for a 

7

new service area is less than 2.01 pph, the projected FP may be adjusted upward to reflect a pph of 2.01 if a 

projected compliance per capita rate of 150 gpd or less cannot otherwise be achieved. The following adjustments 

may not be applied to non-residential populations such as tourists or net commuters. Documentation of the 

adjustment is required. The permittee shall submit two sets of required population estimation spreadsheets A-I, set 

forth in Part D of the Water Use Permit Information Manual, as applicable, with one set to document FP using 

PERMPPH, census year seasonal households and (SEASPPH), and the other set to document FP using 2.01 instead 

of PERMPPH and SEASPPH. 

1.-2. No change. 

New 1-20-09, Amended _________. 

ANNUAL REPORTS. 

PERMITTEE REQUIREMENTS 

By October 1 of each year, Public Supply permittees shall submit to the District the following, current as of 

October 1: 

water. 

1. Description of the current water rate structure (rate ordinance or tariff sheet) for potable and non-potable 

2. Description of the current customer billing and meter reading practices and any proposed changes to these 

practices. 

Two identical copies of the documentation shall be included if submitted in hard copy. “Identical copy” in this 

instance means, for example, that when the original is in color, then all copies shall also be printed in color. 

New 4-27-10, Amended __________. 

Public Supply Annual Report For Permits For 100,000 gpd Or Greater. 

The Public Supply Annual Report for permits for 100,000 gpd or greater shall be submitted annually by April 1 

and shall consist of the following components described in A.-G., below. Permittees that have interconnected 

service areas shall provide the information for the entirety of the interconnected system even if the water supply for 

the system is provided from multiple permits or is imported. Two identical copies of the Annual Report and two 

identical copies of all required supporting documentation shall be included if submitted in hard copy. “Identical 

copy” in this instance means, for example, that when the original is in color, then all copies shall also be printed in 

color. 

8

New 4-27-10, Amended__________. 

Public Supply Water Use Annual Report For Permits Less than 100,000 gpd. 

All public supply permittees with a permit for less than 100,000 gpd shall submit the following information, as 

previously defined in the section entitled “PER CAPITA DAILY WATER USE”, using the form Public Supply 

Annual Report General Water Use Permit For Less Than 100,000 GPD Annual Average Quantities, Form No. LEG- 

R.047.00 (07/09) incorporated by reference in subsection 40D-2.091(2), F.A.C., covering the preceding calendar 

year. Two identical copies of the Report and two identical copies of all required supporting documentation shall be 

included if submitted in hard copy. This report is due no later than April 1. “Identical copy” in this instance means, 

for example, that when the original is in color, then all copies shall also be printed in color. 


New 4-27-10, Amended__________. 

SWFWMD Annual Reclaimed Water Supplier Report. 

Permittees that have a wastewater treatment facility with an annual average design capacity for 100,000 gpd or 

more shall submit the SWFWMD Annual Reclaimed Water Supplier Report, described in Section 3.1 above under 

the subheading Reclaimed Water Suppliers for a fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) on or before April 1 of the 

following year. A map depicting the area of reclaimed water service that includes any areas projected to be added 

within the next year, shall be submitted with this report. Public supply utility permittees without a withdrawal point 

as of April 27, 2010, within the SWUCA, or within the NTB WUCA, as it existed prior to October 1, 2007, shall 

have until April 1, 2009, to begin submitting these annual reports. Two identical copies of the SWFWMD Annual 

Reclaimed Water Supplier Report and two identical copies of all required supporting documentation shall be 

included if submitted in hard copy. “Identical copy” in this instance means, for example, that when the original is in 

color, then all copies shall also be printed in color. 

New 4-27-10, Amended ___________. 

DOCUMENTATION OF PER CAPITA DAILY WATER USE CALCULATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL 

REPORT. 

Those quantities included in the calculation of unadjusted gross, adjusted gross and compliance per capita daily 

water use described above shall be documented and reported as set forth below by the permittee for the reporting 

period included in its permit. 

9

WD (Withdrawals) – Documentation shall consist of pumpage records in annual average gpd as metered at the 

well head(s), wellfield departure point, surface water intake facility, stormwater facility or reclaimed water lines. 

The pumpage records shall be totalized for a total withdrawal quantity for the reporting period. 

IM (Imported Water ) – Documentation shall consist of a summary report of the water purchased or otherwise 

obtained in bulk from another utility for potable use in the service area in annual average gpd, and the supplier's 

WUP number(s), or consumptive use permit number if the supplier is in another water management district. 

Quantities shall be determined at the departure point from the supplier's service area. Irrigation water imported into 

the service area from another utility must be documented separately according to the use type (for example, 

commercial, residential, recreational/aesthetic). 

EX (Exported Water) – Documentation shall consist of annual average gpd transferred in bulk quantities to 

another utility, and the recipients's WUP number(s), or consumptive use permit number if the recipient is in another 

water management district. Quantities shall be determined at the departure point from the exporting permittee's 

service area. Water supplied to wholesale public supply customers that are not required to obtain a Wholesale 

Public Supply Water Use Permit that are included in this category shall be identified by customer name and 

quantity. 

TL (Treatment Losses) – Documentation shall consist of the annual average gpd lost in routine treatment for 

potability. Examples of treatment losses types are desalination reject, membrane cleaning and sand filtration 

backwash. Treatment losses are calculated as raw water into the plant minus treated water out of the plant. In 

addition, no more than 1% of treated water volume delivered to the distribution system for flushing distribution lines 

for potability may be deducted. Treated water volume delivered to the distribution system includes water from 

withdrawals plus imports, minus exports, minus treatment losses. Treatment loss and line flushing quantities shall 

be separately calculated and documented. 

FP (Functional Population) – Documentation of the calculation of FPs shall include Worksheets A through I 

(given in Appendix C of Part D of the Water Use Permit Information Manual), as applicable, and supporting 

documentation for survey data used in accordance with Part D. Permittees adjusting FP based on lowpph shall 

submit two sets of required population estimation spreadsheets A through I, set forth in Part D. of the Water Use 

Permit Information Manual, as applicable, one set to document FP using PERMPPH and the other set to document 

the FP using 2.01. Served dwelling unit counts shall be calculated by adding the number of units served in January 

10

and December and dividing by two (2) for a reporting period of a calendar year. Those permittees that choose not 

to, prior to being required to, report a FP pursuant Part D of the Water Use Permit Information Manual as provided 

in the subsection below titled "Service Area Functional Population Estimates-For Current Year, Year of Interest And 

Annual Reports" shall document in the Annual Report the method and data used to calculate the population served 

within the permittee's service area that is reported in the Annual Report. The data and methodology for calculating 

the FP numbers supplied in the Annual Report shall be included with the Annual Report. 

SU (Significant Uses) – Whether or not a Single Significant Use described in A. below is deducted, all must be 

reported with documentation of quantities provided, identity of the recipient, and identification of the type of use (A 

through E below). For SU that are deducted, the documentation shall include as follows: 

A.-E. No change. 

New 1-20-09, Amended__________. 

Within Chapter 6.0 of the WUP Basis of Review, Section 6.2, the following paragraphs shall be amended: 

6.0 PERMIT CONDITIONS 

6.2 SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES. 

1. No change. 

2. Submitting Reports. 

Condition: Unless otherwise indicated, three copies of Eeach report are required by the permit and shall be 

provided to the Director, Resource Regulation Department, by the permittee. 

Discussion: This condition is used whenever reports, other than data, are required in a permit. This condition 

includes annual or quarterly reports, description of monitoring and mitigation plans, plans to reduce off-site 

discharge, investigation of reuse, investigation of complaints, water quality control and assurance program, and 

sampling and analysis procedures. 


ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING. 

21. Environmental Monitoring. 

Condition: 

a.-b. No change. 

11

c. Three copies of Tthe report shall be submitted to the District by ____________ covering the preceding 

monitoring period. 

Discussion: This condition is used when extensive environmental monitoring is required, such as when 

withdrawals potentially impact wetlands. If the withdrawals are from District-controlled lands, extra copies of the 

report are requested for use by non-regulatory District staff. 

22. No change. 

23. Mapping Requirements. 

Condition: The permittee shall obtain aerial 1" = 2,000' scale, color infrared photography of the area of 

withdrawals and adjacent 1-mile surrounding area. The photography shall be taken semi-annually, in May and 

September, and three copies shall be delivered to the District within 90 days. 

Discussion: This condition is used when potentially impacted wetland areas exist within the cone of depression 

of the permittee's withdrawals and when long-term environmental monitoring will be aided by aerial photography. 

The scale and frequency of mapping required may be changed, as appropriate. 


New 2-13-08, Amended ____________. 

40D-2.101 Content of Application. 



(a) No change. 


(c) No change. 

(d) Mining and Dewatering WUP. 

Application for a new or renewal of an existing WUP for mining and dewatering uses other than phosphate mining 

shall be made using the Water Use Permit Application – Mining and Dewatering Materials Other Than Phosphate, 

Form No. LEG-R.048.010 (08/1109). The application shall be categorized as an application for an individual or 

general WUP based upon the combined annual average daily water demand as provided in subsection 40D-2.041(2), 

F.A.C. Application for a new or renewal of a WUP for phosphate mining shall be made using the individual or 

12

general WUP application form and the Water Use Permit Application Supplemental Form – Mining or Dewatering, 

Form No. LEG-R.032.00 (3/09) incorporated herein by reference. 

(3)-(5) No change. 

(6) Southern Water Use Caution Area Application Forms. 

In addition to the permit application and information forms identified in subsections (1)-(5) above, all applicants for 

permits in the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) shall submit the “Supplemental Form – Southern Water 

Use Caution Area,” Form No. LEG-R.007.02 (4/09) incorporated herein by reference. Applicants in the SWUCA 

shall also submit the following application and supplemental forms as appropriate for the intended water use type as 

described in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Water Use Permit Information Manual, Part B “Basis of Review.” All SWUCA 

application and supplemental information forms may be obtained from the District’s website at 

www.WaterMatters.org or from District offices: 


(b) Southern Water Use Caution Area Ground Water Replacement Credit Application, Form No. LEG- 

R.011.021 (084/1109) 

(7) Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Application Forms – In addition to the permit application and 

information forms identified in subsections (1)-(6) above, all applicants for permits in the Dover/Plant City Water 

Use Caution Area shall submit the “Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Supplemental Form” – Form No. 

LEG-R.050.010 (0812/1110) http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-00286, incorporated herein by 

reference. Applicants in the Dover/Plant City WUCA shall also submit the “Net Benefit Supplemental Form 

Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area” – Form No. LEG-R.051.00, (12/10) 

http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-00287, incorporated herein by reference, as appropriate for 

the intended water use as described in Chapters 3, 4 and 7 of the WUP Basis of Review described in 40D-2.091, 

F.A.C. All application and supplemental information forms may be obtained from the District’s website at 

www.WaterMatters.org or from District offices. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.0363, 373.116, 373.117, 373.1175, 373.216, 

373.229, 373.236, 403.0877 FS. History–Readopted 10-5-74, Amended 10-24-76, 1-6-82, 2-14-82, Formerly 16J-2.06, Amended 

10-1-89, 10-23-89, 2-10-93, 7-15-99, 1-1-03, 1-1-07, 11-25-07, 9-10-08, 7-1-09, 8-30-09, 10-26-09, 1-27-10, 4-27-10, 6-16-11, 

___________. 

13


(1) No change 

CHAPTER 40D-3 

REGULATION OF WELLS 

(2) A permit applicant seeking to drill a public supply well shall submit: 


(b) A completed “Public Supply Well Information and Classification Form,” Form No. LEG-R.015.021 (084/1109), 

incorporated herein by reference; and 

(c) Two Four sets of site plans, scaled drawings or legal plats with sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with 

well set back requirements in section 62-532.400, F.A.C. and location requirements in section 62-555.312, F.A.C. signed, 

sealed and dated by a licensed professional engineer. Applicants for permits on existing projects may submit pre-existing site 

plans or detailed legal plats. 


Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171, 373.309, 373.337 FS. Law Implemented 373.109, 373.308, 373.309, 

373.313, 373.316 FS. History–Readopted 10-5-74, Formerly 16J-3.07, Amended 7-1-90, 9-30-91, 12-31-92, 4-11-94, 10-19- 

95, 2-26-07, 8-19-08, 8-30-09, 9-12-10, ______. 

14

CHAPTER 40D-4 

INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS 

40D-4.042 Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters. 


(2) To petition for a formal determination, the petitioner must submit to the District the following: 

(a) One original and two Five copies of a Petition for a Formal Determination of the Landward Extent of 

Wetlands and Surface Waters, Form No. 547.27/FJDS (084/1109) which is incorporated herein by reference, 

including copies of all items required by that form. This form can be obtained from the District’s website at 

www.WwaterMmatters.org or from District offices. 



Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.421(2) FS. Law Implemented 373.421(2) FS. History–New 10-3-95, 

Amended 7-2-98, 2-14-00, 5-28-00, 7-29-02, 2-27-03, 8-30-09, 12-21-09, _________. 

40D-4.091 Publications, Forms and Agreements Incorporated by Reference. 

The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference and are applicable to this chapter and 

Chapters 40D-40 and 40D-400, F.A.C.: 

(1) Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual Part B, Basis of Review, Environmental Resource 

Permit Applications within the Southwest Florida Water Management District, [effective date] December 8, 2010. 

This document is available from the District’s website at www.WwaterMmatters.org or from the District upon 

request. 

(2) through (6) No change. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.046, 373.113, 373.171, 373.414 FS. Law Implemented 373.0361, 373.079(4)(a), 373.083(5), 

373.114, 373.171, 373.403, 373.413, 373.4135, 373.4136, 373.414, 373.4144, 373.416, 373.429, 373.441 FS. History–New 4-2- 

87, Amended 3-1-88, 9-11-88, 10-1-88, 4-1-91, 11-16-92, 1-30-94, 10-3-95, 12-26-95, 5-26-96, 7-23-96, 4-17-97, 4-12-98, 7-2- 

98, 12-3-98, 7-28-99, 8-3-00, 9-20-00, 6-12-01, 10-11-01, 2-27-02, 7-29-02, 3-26-03, 7-22-03, 8-3-03, 3-11-04, 6-7-04, 2-1-05, 

15

6-30-05, 10-19-05, 2-8-06, 5-2-06, 7-1-07, 9-25-07(1), 9-25-07(4), 11-26-07, 5-12-08, 5-20-08, 6-22-08, 5-12-09, 5-17-09, 8-30- 

09, 11-2-09, 11-3-09, 12-9-09, 9-5-10, 12-8-10, ___________. 

Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Part B 

ERP Basis of Review 

Within Chapter 2.0 of the ERP Basis of Review, Section 2.8.4, the following paragraph shall be amended as 

follows: 

2.8.4 

CHAPTER TWO – ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA 

a. A complete construction surface water management plan for the project must be submitted with the permit 

application or prior to beginning construction. 

1. No change. 

2. One original and two Five (5) copies of the completed plan shall be submitted to the District for review. 

Submittal of the completed plan shall occur no later than the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for an 

FDEP/NPDES Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activities that Disturb Five or More 

Acres of Land 1 

, or the federal equivalent thereof should the DEP no longer issue such generic permits. 

b.-e. No change. 

Footnote: No change. 

Within Chapter 3.0 of the ERP Basis of Review, the following paragraphs shall be amended as follows: 

3.4.1 Procedure. 

CHAPTER THREE – ENVIRONMENTAL 

To petition for a formal determination, the petitioner must submit to the District the following: 

a. one original and two five copies of the Petition for Formal Determination of the Landward Extent of 

Wetlands and Surface Waters, Form 547.27/FJDS (084/1109) as incorporated in paragraph 40D-4.042(2)(a), F.A.C., 

including two copies of all items required by the form, and 

b. No change 

16

Amended 8-30-09, __________. 

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 one original and 

two five copies of the survey, along with one original and two five copies of the survey depicted on aerial 

photographs, to the District to complete the petition. 

b. No change. 


3. Following any verification and adjustment as required in subsection 3.4.3, the petitioner shall submit one 

original and two 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. 

4. No change. 

Within Appendix 7 of the ERP Basis of Review, the following paragraphs shall be amended as follows: 

7.1.1 Procedure. 

APPENDIX 7 

SITE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT PERMITTING 

To apply for a site conditions assessment permit, the applicant shall submit to the District the following: 

17

a. One original and two Five copies of the Permit Application for Site Conditions Assessment as identified in 

Rule 40D-1.659, F.A.C., including copies of all items and information required for assessment and evaluation by the 

District of the existing site conditions, and 

b. No change. 

7.1.2 Types of Site Conditions Boundary Documentation. 

An applicant can request a site conditions assessment permit based upon boundary documentation consisting of 

either a certified survey, an approximate delineation, or combinations thereof, as described below. All surveying 

and mapping shall be conducted under the responsible supervision of professional surveyor and mapper registered in 

the State of Florida. 

a. The survey of the extent of wetlands and other surface waters or other site condition boundaries shall be 

certified as meeting the minimum technical standards contained in Chapter 61G17-6, F.A.C., by a surveyor licensed 

pursuant to Chapter 472, F.S. An applicant proposing a certified survey delineation shall have a survey performed 

of the verified boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters and other required or requested site conditions, and 

shall have the surveyor or surveyor's representative accompany the District representative during the delineation 

verification described in subsection 7.1.3. The certified survey shall also contain a legal description of, and acreage 

contained within, the boundaries of the property (contiguous wetlands and project area) for which the permit is 

being requested. The boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters or other site conditions shall be witnesses to 

the property boundaries, and shall be capable of being mathematically reproduced from the survey. The applicant 

shall submit one original and two five line drawing copies of the certified survey, along with one original and two 

five copies of the survey depicted on aerial photographs, to the District to complete the application. All vertical 

boundaries of site conditions shall be referenced to elevations that are witnessed to and on a site bench mark 

established as part of the survey and shown thereon, and referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). 

The horizontal or topographic extent of vertical boundaries shall be shown on the certified survey in the manner 

defined in Chapter 61G17-6, F.A.C. 

b. No change. 


4. Following any verification and adjustment as required in subsection 7.1.3, the applicant shall submit one 

original and two five copies of the following items, as applicable, to complete the site conditions boundaries 

18

documentation: the certified survey; a hand drawn boundary delineation map on a rectified aerial photograph; the 

geo-referenced image map of the delineations and aerial photograph with the delineations thereon; or the GPS 

depiction of the delineations either on an aerial photograph or as a line drawing to constitute a boundary map. 


(1) Applications for Environmental Resource Permits required by this chapter shall be filed with the District in 

accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 40D-1, F.A.C. The application shall consist of all of 

the following: 


(b) An original and two Five copies of the Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization 

to Use State Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit, Form No. 547.27/ERP (086/1110), 

incorporated herein by reference, with applicable supplements, sections A through K, copies of which can be 

obtained from the District’s website at www.WwaterMmatters.org or from the District offices. 

(c) An original and two Five copies of drawings, calculations, environmental and construction information, and 

engineering details sufficient to define the nature, scope, intent and functioning of the work proposed. 

(d)-(e) No change. 


Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.042, 373.413 FS. History–Readopted 

10-5-74, Amended 12-31-74, 6-7-78, Formerly 16J-4.06(1), (2), Amended 10-1-84, 3-1-88, 10-3-95, 10-16-96, 12- 

16-97, 2-27-03, 9-10-08, 8-30-09, 9-5-10, _________. 

40D-4.331 Modification of Permits. 

An application for modification of an Environmental Resource Permit shall be processed in accordance with this 

rule, unless the permit is revoked or expired. 


(2) Applications to modify a construction permit shall be made by formal or Short Form modification: 

(a) Formal modifications. 

1. No change. 

19

2. A request for modification involving construction within an outparcel of a permitted commercial or industrial 

development should be made using the General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Application for Modification 

Related to Outparcel Construction Within Permitted Commercial/Industrial Projects, Form No. LEG-R.001.021 

(084/1109), incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the form can be obtained from the District’s website at 

www.WwaterMmatters.org or from the District offices. 

3. No change. 

(b) Except for projects identified in paragraph (2)(a), applications to modify a permit may be made by submittal 

of an “Environmental Resource Permit Modification Short Form”, Form No. LEG-R.013.021 (084/1109) 

incorporated herein by reference, a copy of which can be obtained from the District’s website at 

www.WwaterMmatters.org or from District offices, provided the requested modification does not: 

1. -6. No change. 


Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.413, 373.416(1), 373.429 FS. 

History–Readopted 10-5-74, Formerly 16J-4.13, Amended 10-1-84, 3-1-88, 10-1-88, 6-29-93, 10-3-95, 7-23-96, 2- 

1-05, 2-6-07, 12-24-07, 1-8-08, 5-12-08, 8-30-09, ________. 

20

CHAPTER 40D-40 

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS 

40D-40.044 General Permit for Site Conditions Assessment. 

(1) This general permit identifies and documents the boundaries of certain existing topographic and 

environmental site conditions within the applicant’s project area that are measurably associated with waters, as 

described in the application. To obtain a site conditions assessment permit, an applicant must submit an original and 

two five complete copies of a Permit Application for Site Conditions Assessment, Form 547.27/SCA (084/1109), 

which form is incorporated herein by reference, and all requested supporting information. Copies of the form can be 

obtained from the District’s website at www.WwaterMmatters.org or at District offices. 


Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.118 FS. Law Implemented 373.413, 373.414, 373.416, 373.419 FS. 

History–New 7-23-96, Amended 9-26-02, 8-30-09, ________. 

40D-40.302 Conditions for Issuance of General Permits. 

In order to qualify for a general permit for construction and operation under this chapter, the applicant must 

provide reasonable assurance that the surface water management system meets all conditions of subsection 40D- 

40.302(1), F.A.C., all thresholds in subsection 40D-40.302(2), F.A.C., and all applicable additional conditions of 

subsections 40D-40.302(3) and 40D-40.302(4), F.A.C. To obtain a general site conditions assessment permit under 

this chapter, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that all conditions of subsection 40D-40.302(5), 

F.A.C., are met. To obtain a permit for construction of incidental site activities under this chapter, the applicant must 

provide reasonable assurance that all conditions of subsections 40D-40.302(1) and 40D-40.302(6), F.A.C., are met. 


(6) Additional Conditions for an Incidental Site Activities Permit. 

Notwithstanding the threshold conditions of subsection (2), a permit shall be authorized for incidental site 

activities that are conducted in connection with a surface water management system proposed in an individual 

environmental resource permit application provided: 

(a)-(b) No change. 

(c) The application is complete. 

21

1. For the purposes of this requirement, an application is complete when the applicant has submitted the 

information required by Form 547.27/ERP (084/1109), including Section J, and all additional information timely 

requested by District staff, all required notice of the application’s receipt has been given and all review periods are 

concluded, and a letter of completeness has been issued by the District. 

2. No change. 

(d)-(j) No change. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.118 FS. Law Implemented 373.079(4)(a), 373.083(5), 373.413, 

373.414, 373.416, 373.419 FS. History–New 10-1-84, Amended 3-1-88, 5-10-88, 9-13-88, 10-3-95, 7-23-96, 7-16- 

02, 9-26-02, 8-3-03, 2-19-04, 2-1-05, 11-2-09, _________. 

22

CHAPTER 40D-400 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS 

40D-400.500 General Permit for Construction, Operation, Maintenance, Alteration, 

Abandonment or Removal of Minor Silvicultural Surface Water Management Systems. 

(1) –(2) No change. 

(3) The Application shall include the information contained in the Application Procedure for a 

Noticed General Permit for a Minor Silvicultural Surface Water Management System and Notice of Intent 

to Construct a Minor Silvicultural Surface Water Management System Pursuant to Rule 40D-400.500, 

F.A.C., Form 547.27/NOI (084/1109), which document is incorporated herein by reference and can be 

obtained from the District’s website at www.WwaterMmatters.org or from District offices. 

(4) –(6) No change. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.118 FS. Law Implemented 373.413, 373.414, 373.416, 

373.419 FS. History–New 10-3-95, Amended 5-4-05, 8-30-09, _________. 

23

FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

2379 BROAD STREET, BROOKSVILLE, FL 34604-6899 

(352) 796-7211 OR FLORIDA WATS 1 (800) 423-1476 

ACOE Application # _____________________________ DEP/WMD Application #____________________________ 

Date Received _________________________________ Date Received ___________________________________ 

Proposed Project Latitude ______° ______'______" Fee Received $___________________________________ 

Proposed Project Longitude ______°______'______" Fee Receipt #_____________________________________ 

SECTION A 

PART 1: 

Are any of the activities described in this application proposed to occur in, on or over wetlands or other 

surface waters? � yes � no 

Is this application being filed by or on behalf of an entity eligible for a fee reduction? � yes � no 

PART 2: 

A. Type of Environmental Resource Permit requested (check at least one) 

� Noticed General - include information requested in Section B. 

� Standard General (single family dwelling) - include information requested in Sections C and D. 

� Standard General (all other projects) - include information requested in Sections C and E. 

� Standard General (minor systems) - include information requested in Sections C and H. 

� Standard General (borrow pits) - include information requested in Sections C and I. 

� Individual (single family dwelling) - include information requested in Sections C and D. 

� Individual (all other projects) - include information requested in Sections C and E. 

� Individual (borrow pits) - include information requested in Sections C and I. 

� Conceptual - include information requested in Sections C and E. 

� Mitigation Bank (construction) - include information requested in Section C and F. 

(If the proposed mitigation bank involves the construction of a surface water management system 

requiring another permit listed above, check the appropriate box and submit the information 

requested by the applicable section.) 

� Mitigation Bank (conceptual) - include information requested in Section C and F. 

B. Type of activity for which you are applying (check at least one) 

� Construction or operation of a new system, including dredging or filling in, on or over wetlands and 

other surface waters. (If reapplying for an expired, denied or withdrawn permit/application, please 

provide previous permit #____________________.) 

� Alteration or operation of an existing system which was not previously permitted by SWFWMD or 

DEP. 

� Modification of a system previously permitted by SWFWMD or DEP. Provide previous permit 

#____________________ and check applicable modification type. 

� Alteration of a system � Extension of permit duration � Abandonment of a system 

� Construction of additional phases of a system � Removal of a system 

C. Are you requesting authorization to use State owned Submerged Lands? �� yes � no 

If yes, include the information requested in Section G. 

D. For activities in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters, check type of federal dredge 

and fill permit requested: 

� Individual � Programmatic General � General � Nationwide � Not applicable 

E. Are you claiming to qualify for an exemption? � yes � no 

If yes, provide rule number if known: _________________. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (086/1110) Section A - Page 1 of 5 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

24

PART 3: 

A. Owner(s) of Land B. Applicant (if other than owner) 

NAME NAME 

COMPANY AND TITLE COMPANY AND TITLE 

ADDRESS ADDRESS 

CITY, STATE, ZIP CITY, STATE, ZIP 

TELEPHONE ( ) 

FAX ( ) 

C. Agent Authorized to Secure Permit (if an agent 

is used) 

NAME NAME 

TELEPHONE ( ) 

FAX ( ) 

D. Consultant (if different from agent) 

COMPANY AND TITLE COMPANY AND TITLE 

ADDRESS ADDRESS 

CITY, STATE, ZIP CITY, STATE, ZIP 

TELEPHONE ( ) 

FAX ( ) 

TELEPHONE ( ) 

FAX ( ) 

PART 4: Project Information 

A. Name of project, including phase if applicable:___________________________________________ 

B. Is this application for part of a multi-phase project? � yes � no 

C. Total applicant-owned area contiguous to the project:___________ acres 

D. Total project area for which a permit is sought:__________ acres 

E. Total impervious and semi-impervious area for which a permit is sought:_________ acres 

F. Total area (metric equivalent for federally funded projects) of work in, on or over wetlands or 

other surface waters: _____acres or _____square feet (_____hectares or _____square meters) 

G. Total number of new boat slips proposed:__________ 


25

PART 5: Project Location (use additional sheets, if needed) 

County(ies) ________________________________________________________________________ 

Section(s) ________________________ Township _______________ Range _________________ 

Section(s) ________________________ Township _______________ Range _________________ 

Land Grant name, if applicable ______________________________________________________ 

Tax Parcel Identification Number ____________________________________________________ 

Street address, road, or other location ___________________________________________________ 

City, ZIP Code, if applicable ___________________________________________________________ 

PART 6: Identity of Applicants 

Is the permit applicant one of the following (please check if applicable): 

_____ Florida corporation 

_____ Florida limited liability company 

_____ Florida limited partnership 

_____ Florida general partnership 

_____ Foreign corporation/partnership 

_____ Trust 

If so, please include with application documentation of status of applicant to legally operate in the 

State of Florida (e.g., copy of last corporate annual report submitted to the Florida Department of 

State). 

PART 7: Describe in General Terms the Proposed Project, System or Activity: 


26

PART 8: 

A. If there have been any pre-application meetings for the proposed project, with regulatory staff, 

please list the date(s), location(s), and names of key staff and project representatives. 

Date(s) Location(s) Names 

____________ ________________________ ________________________________________ 

____________ ________________________ ________________________________________ 

____________ ________________________ ________________________________________ 

____________ ________________________ ________________________________________ 

B. If this project has been previously reviewed through the FDOT Efficient Transportation 

Decision Making (ETDM) process, provide the ETDM project review number(s) assigned by 

FDOT: 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

C. Please identify by number any MSSW/WRM (dredge & fill)/ERP/ACOE permits or 

applications pending, issued or denied and any related enforcement actions at the 

proposed project site. 

Agency Date Number/ Type Action Taken 

__________________ __________ _______________________ ____________________ 

__________________ __________ _______________________ ____________________ 

__________________ __________ _______________________ ____________________ 

__________________ __________ _______________________ ____________________ 

D. Note: The following information is required for projects proposed to occur in, on or over 

wetlands that need a federal dredge and fill permit and/or authorization to use state owned 

submerged lands. Please provide the names, addresses and ZIP codes of property owners 

whose property directly adjoins the project (excluding applicant) and/or is located within a 500 

foot radius of the project boundary (for proprietary authorizations, if any). Please provide a 

drawing identifying each owner and adjoining property lines. (Use additional sheets, if 

needed). 

1. _____________________________ 2. _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

3. _____________________________ 4. _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

5. _____________________________ 6. _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 

_____________________________ _________________________________ 


27

PART 9: 

A. By signing this application form, I am applying, or I am applying on behalf of the owner or applicant, for the permit 

and/or proprietary authorizations identified above, according to the supporting data and other incidental information 

filed with this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and represent that such 

information is true complete and accurate. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation 

in the application is a violation of Section 373.430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. I understand this is an 

application and not a permit and work prior to approval is a violation. I understand that this application and any permit 

or proprietary authorization issued pursuant thereto, does not relieve me of any obligation for obtaining any other 

required federal, state, water management district or local permit prior to commencement of construction. I agree, or I 

agree on behalf of the owner or applicant, to operate and maintain the permitted system unless the permitting agency 

authorizes transfer of the permit to a responsible operation entity. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Typed/Printed Name of Owner, Applicant or Agent Corporate Title, if applicable 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Signature of Owner, Applicant or Agent Date 

B. AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE FOLLOWING IS COMPLETED: 

I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf, or on behalf of my corporation, as the agent in the 

processing of this application for the permit and/or proprietary authorization indicated above; and to furnish, on request, 

supplemental information in support of the application. In addition, I authorize the above-listed agent to bind me, or my 

corporation, to perform any requirement which may be necessary to procure the permit or authorization indicated above. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Typed/Printed Name of Owner, Applicant or Agent Corporate Title, if applicable 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Signature of Owner or Applicant Date 

C. PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE 

FOLLOWING: 

I either own the property described in this application or I have legal authority to allow access to the property, and I consent, after 

receiving prior notification, to any site visit on the property by agents or personnel from the Department of Environmental 

Protection, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the review 

and inspection of the proposed project specified in this application. I authorize these agents or personnel to enter the property as 

many times as may be necessary to make such review and inspection. Further, I agree to provide entry to the project site for such 

agents or personnel to monitor authorized work if a permit is granted. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Typed/Printed Name Corporate Title, if applicable 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 

D. I certify that the engineering features of this surface water management system have been designed by me or under 

my responsible charge and in my professional opinion conform with sound engineering principles and all applicable 

rules and specifications. I further agree that I or my engineering firm will furnish the applicant/ permittee with a set of 

guidelines and schedules for maintenance and operation of the surface water management system. 

By: ______________________________________ _________________________________________ 

Signature of Engineer of Record Name (please type) FL P.E. No. 

� AFFIX SEAL � _________________________________________ 

Company Name 

Date: _____________________________ _________________________________________ 

Company Address 

Phone: ( ) _________________________________________ 

City, State, ZIP 


28





SECTION B 

INFORMATION FOR NOTICED 

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS 

To qualify for a Noticed General Permit (NGP) for specific activities, the project must strictly comply with all of 

the terms, conditions, requirements, limitations and restrictions applicable to the NGP applied for. You should 

carefully review the District or Department of Environmental Protection rule sections pertaining to the NGP for 

which you are applying to ensure that your project meets the requirements of that NGP and provide the 

information requested below. 

A. Are you applying for an NGP under DEP rule Chapter 62-341.448, F.A.C., "General Permit to 

Counties and Municipalities to Pave Existing County or Municipally Owned and Maintained Roads, 

Including the Repair and Replacement of Bridges that are Part of the Roadway"? � yes � no 

B. If no, provide the District rule section number of the NGP for which you are applying: 

_____________________. 

C. Indicate the project boundaries on a USGS quadrangle map, reduced or enlarged as necessary to 

legibly show the entire project. If not shown on the quadrangle map, provide a location map that 

shows a north arrow, a graphic scale, Section(s), Township(s), and Range(s), and detail sufficient to 

allow a person unfamiliar with the project site to find it. 

D. A legible site plan showing the following features, as applicable: 

1) property boundaries and dimensions 

2) name and location of any adjoining public streets or roads 

3) location, dimensions (and use if not apparent) of all existing structures 

4) locations and dimensions of all proposed works 

5) label all impervious, semi-impervious and pervious areas and indicate their 

surface area 

6) indicate the direction of drainage relative to the proposed improvements 

7) permanent and temporary erosion, sedimentation and turbidity controls 

8) boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters identifying open water areas 

9) boundaries, area and volumes of all temporary and permanent earthwork including 

pre and post-construction grades 

E. Wetland or aquatic habitat descriptions. 

F. Construction methods and schedule. 

G. Additional information that would show that you qualify for the NGP, addressing all the parameters, 

thresholds and conditions listed. Errors and omissions will be identified within 30 days by the 

processing agency. 

H. Any calculations and drawings that require certification pursuant to Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, 

must be signed and sealed by an appropriate professional. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section B - Page 1 of 1 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

29





SECTION C 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION 

This information is required in addition to that required in other sections of the application. Please submit five 

copies of this notice of receipt of application and all attachments. PLEASE SUBMIT ALL INFORMATION ON 

8 1/2" BY 11" PAPER. 

Project Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

County: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Owner: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Applicant: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Applicant Address:_________________________________________________________________________ 

1. Indicate the project boundaries on a USGS quadrangle map, reduced or enlarged as necessary to 

legibly show the entire project. If not shown on the quadrangle map, provide a location map that 

shows a north arrow, a graphic scale, section(s), township(s), and range(s), and detail sufficient to 

allow a person unfamiliar with the site to find it. 

2. Provide the names of all wetland or other surface waters that would be dredged, filled, impounded, 

diverted, drained or would receive discharge (either directly or indirectly), or would otherwise be 

impacted by the proposed activity, and specify if they are in an Outstanding Florida Water or Aquatic 

Preserve: 

3. Attach a depiction (plan and section views), which clearly shows the works or other facilities proposed 

to be constructed. The depiction must use a scale sufficient to show the location and type of works. 

4. Briefly describe the proposed project (such as "construct a deck with boat shelter," "replace two 

existing culverts," "construct surface water management system to serve 150 acre residential 

development"): 

5. Specify the acreage of wetlands or other surface waters, if any, that are proposed to be disturbed, 

filled, excavated, or otherwise impacted by the proposed activity: 

6. Provide a brief statement describing any proposed mitigation for impacts to wetlands and other 

surface waters: 

FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 

Application Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Application Number: ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Office where the application can be inspected: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

NOTE TO NOTICE RECIPIENT: The information in this notice has been submitted by the applicant and has not been verified by the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. It may be subject to change prior to final agency action. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section C - Page 1 of 1 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

30





SECTION D 

INFORMATION FOR STANDARD GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESOURCE PERMITS FOR PROJECTS RELATED TO A SINGLE FAMILY 

DWELLING UNIT 

Complete this section only if your project does not qualify for an exemption or noticed general permit. The 

information requested below is for projects related to an individual, single family dwelling unit, duplex or 

quadraplex which are not part of a larger common plan of development proposed by the applicant. 

PLEASE SUBMIT ALL INFORMATION ON 8 1/2 by 11" PAPER. 

A. Site Information 

1. Directions: provide written directions to the property. 

2. Location of work: indicate how the project will be marked on-site. For example: "the center 

line of the road is flagged," "a string running between stakes identifies the bulkhead location," 

etc. 

B. Drawings 

Drawings should be of sufficient detail to clearly show the existing conditions of the site, and the 

extent, type, and location of the proposed activities. The drawings should clearly show wetlands or 

other surface waters to be temporarily or permanently impacted. Any wetland areas proposed to be 

created, enhanced, restored, preserved, or which will remain undisturbed should be identified. 

1. Plan View: The plan view should show the work as viewed from above. A survey of the 

project site is a useful starting point for preparing plan views of the project. Drawings should 

include: 

a. Applicant name, property lines, north arrow, graphic scale or dimensions of the 

proposed work on each drawing sheet. 

b. Representative land elevations (spot elevations or contour lines) referred to National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), such as those used on the U.S.G.S. contour 

maps. 

c. Limits of wetlands, other surface waters and open water areas in the vicinity of the 

proposed work. Describe how the wetland limits were determined. If there has ever 

been a jurisdictional declaratory statement, a formal wetland determination, a formal 

determination, validated informal determination, or a revalidated jurisdictional 

determination, provide the identifying number. 

d. All proposed work, including dredging, filling or structures. Where applicable, 

differentiate between work in open water, marshes, swamps, tidal flats and uplands. 

e. Show selected water depths in and adjacent to the project site. For dock projects, 

show water depths at all mooring areas. Water depths should be determined at 

approximate mean low water (MLW) or normal pool. Indicate the tidal range (the 

difference between mean high water (MHW) and MLW) if the project is in a tidal 

waterbody. 

f. Label all existing structures, such as docks, bulkheads, riprap, or buildings, in 

wetlands or other surface waters at or adjacent to the proposed activity. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section D - Page 1 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

31

g. If dredging or dewatering is involved, show the location of proposed spoil or 

dewatering sites. Include any levees, control structures or other methods for 

retaining or detaining return water. Also include locations of discharge sites where 

appropriate. (A Water Use Permit may be required for dewatering.) 

h. For piling supported structures over wetlands or other surface waters show the entire 

structure and indicate the location of any aquatic vegetation in the vicinity of the 

proposed structure. 

i. Show distance between the most waterward point of the proposed facility and the 

nearest edge of any navigation channel, where appropriate. If the project is on a 

waterway that has a federally maintained channel, a survey may be required to 

establish the distance from the waterward points of the structure to the near edge of 

the federal channel. Also indicate the width of the navigation channel. 

j. Clearly show the locations of all corresponding cross-sectional or profile views on the 

plan view drawings. 

2. Cross-section and profile views: The cross-section view should show a "cut-away" view of 

the project, while the profile view should show a side view (as if cut lengthwise). Drawings 

should include: 

a. Applicant name, graphic horizontal and vertical scales or dimensions of the proposed 

work on each drawing sheet. 

b. Show approximate mean or seasonal high and low water elevations referenced to 

NGVD. 

C. Project Details 

1. Describe the activity that is proposed and construction techniques and sequencing, including 

equipment to be used and methods for moving the equipment to and from the site. 

2. For projects that involve any dredging or excavation, describe the method of excavation, the 

type of material to be excavated, and the disposal location for the excavated material. 

Please state whether spoil is to be placed (either temporarily or permanently) in a wetland or 

other surface water. Indicate the duration of any temporary fill in wetlands or other surface 

waters. 

3. For fill projects, describe the source and type of fill material to be used. For activities that 

involve the installation of riprap, describe the source, type and size of the rocks, concrete, or 

other material to be used for the riprap, and how these materials are to be placed. State 

whether the rocks will be underlain with filter cloth. 

4. The acreage of excavation and fill, differentiating between temporary and permanent work. 

5. Methods for controlling turbidity (muddy water caused by erosion or work in the water). 

6. Methods for stabilizing any slopes that will be created or disturbed during construction, 

including times expected to elapse before stabilization is performed. Describe both 

temporary and permanent stabilization methods such as staked hay bales, temporary grass 

seed, and permanent sod. 

7. If pilings or a seawall are to be installed, state whether pilings and seawall slabs are to be 

installed by jetting or driving. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section D - Page 2 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

32





SECTION E 

INFORMATION FOR STANDARD GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL (INCLUDING 

CONCEPTUAL) ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS FOR PROJECTS NOT 

RELATED TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT 

The information requested below is for projects requiring either a standard general or individual environmental 

resource permit (ERP) not related to an individual, single family dwelling unit, duplex or quadruplex. Certain 

categories of information requested may not be applicable to all applications. In addition the level of detail 

required will vary depending on the nature and location of the site and the activity proposed. Conceptual 

approvals generally do not require the same level of detail as a construction permit. However, providing more 

detail will reduce the need for additional information being requested at a later date. Please submit all 

information on paper no larger than 24" x 36". 


1. Provide a map(s) of the project area and vicinity delineating USDA/NRCS (a.k.a. SCS) soil types. 

2. Provide recent aerials, legible for photo interpretation with a scale of 1" = 400 ft, or more detailed, 

with project boundaries delineated on the aerial. 

3. Identify the seasonal high water or mean high tide elevation and normal pool or mean low tide 

elevation for each on-site wetland or surface water, including receiving waters into which runoff will 

be discharged. Include date, datum, and method used to determine these elevations. 

4. Identify the wet season high water table at appropriate locations on the project site. Include date, 

datum, and method used to determine these elevations. 

B. Environmental Considerations 

1. Provide results of any wildlife surveys that have been conducted on the site and any comments 

pertaining to the project from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W). 

2. Provide a description of how water quantity, quality, hydroperiod, and habitat will be maintained in 

on-site wetlands and other surface waters that will be preserved or remain undisturbed. 

3. Provide a narrative of any proposed mitigation plans, including purpose, maintenance, monitoring, 

and construction sequence and techniques, and estimated costs. 

4. Describe how boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters were determined. If there has been a 

jurisdictional declaratory statement, a formal wetland determination, a formal determination, a 

validated informal determination, or a revalidated jurisdictional determination, provide the identifying 

number. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section E - Page 1 of 5 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

33

5. Summarize impacts to wetlands and other surface waters: 

a. For all projects with wetlands or other surface waters on site, complete Tables 1, 2 and 3, as 

applicable; 

b. For docking facilities or other structures constructed over wetlands or other surface waters, 

complete Table 4; 

c. For shoreline stabilization projects, complete Table 5. 

C. Plans 

Provide clear, detailed plans for the proposed system which include specifications, plan, cross-section 

and profile views of the proposed project. The plans must be signed and sealed by an appropriate 

registered professional as required by law. These plans should show or include the following, as 

applicable: 

1. Project and total land area boundaries, including distances and orientation from roads or other 

landmarks. 

2. Existing land use, land cover, and on-site natural communities, including wetlands, other surface 

waters, aquatic communities, and uplands (acreage and percentages). Use the USF&W Service's 

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States for wetlands or other 

surface waters on the project site. Assign each wetland or other surface water a unique 

identification number which is consistent in all exhibits. 

3. Existing topography extending at least 100 feet off site and includes adjacent wetlands and other 

surface waters. All topography shall include the location and a description of known benchmarks, 

referenced to NGVD. For systems waterward of mean high water (MHW) or seasonal high water, 

show water depths at mean low water (MLW) in tidal areas or normal pool in non-tidal areas. For 

docking facilities show the location, depths and access to the nearest navigational channel. 

4. Floodplain boundary and approximate flooding elevations if the project is in the known floodplain of 

a stream or other water course. Identify the 100-year flood elevation and floodplain boundary of 

any lake, stream or other watercourse located on or adjacent to the site. 

5. Boundaries of wetlands and other surface waters within the project area. Distinguish those 

wetlands and other surface waters that have been delineated by any binding wetland determination. 

6. Proposed land use, land cover and natural communities, including wetlands, other surface waters, 

undisturbed uplands, aquatic communities, impervious and semi-impervious surfaces, and water 

management areas (acreage and percentages). Use the same classification system and 

identification number used in C.2. above. 

7. Proposed impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. 

8. Locations of buffer zones abutting wetlands. 

9. Pre and post-development drainage patterns and basin boundaries. Show the direction of flow, 

including any off-site runoff being routed through or around the system and connections between 

wetlands and other surface waters. 

10. Location of all water management areas with details of size, side slopes and design water depths. 

11. Location and details of all water control structures, control elevations, any seasonal water level 

regulation schedules and the location and description of benchmarks (minimum of one benchmark 

per structure). 


34

12. Location, dimensions and elevations of all proposed structures, including docks, seawalls, utility 

lines, roads and buildings. 

13. Location, size and design capacity of the internal water management facilities. 

14. Existing and proposed rights-of-way and easements for the system, including all on-site and off-site 

areas to be reserved for water management purposes. 

15. Receiving waters or surface water management systems into which runoff from the developed site 

will be discharged. 

16. Location and details of the erosion, sediment and turbidity control measures to be implemented 

during each phase of construction and all permanent control measures to be implemented in 

post-development conditions. 

17. Location, grading, design water levels and planting details of all mitigation areas. 

18. Site grading details, including perimeter grades. 

19. Temporary and permanent disposal sites for any excavated material. 

20. Details of the dewatering plan including: delineation of areas to be dewatered, location(s) of 

dewatering facilities and discharge. 

21. For marina facilities, location of any sewage pumpout facilities, fueling facilities, boat repair/ 

maintenance facilities, and fish cleaning stations. 

22. Location and description of any existing off-site features, such as structures, buildings, wetlands, 

other surface waters, stormwater ponds, which might be affected by or affect the proposed 

construction or development. 

23. Master development plan for phased projects. 

D. Construction Schedule and Techniques 

Provide a construction schedule and a description of construction techniques, sequencing and 

equipment. This information should specifically include the following: 

1. Method for installing any pilings, seawall slabs or riprap. 

2. Schedule of implementation of a temporary or permanent erosion and turbidity control measures. 

3. Method and type of material to be excavated for work in wetlands or other surface waters. 

4. Source and type of fill material to be used for work in wetlands and other surface waters. 

5. Dewatering plan, including: duration of dewatering; the methods for containing the discharge; 

methods of isolating dewatering areas; and time dewatering structures will be in place. A Water 

Use Permit may be required for dewatering. 

6. Methods for transporting equipment and materials to and from the work site. If barges are required 

for access, provide the low water depths and draft of the fully loaded barge. 

7. Demolition plan for any existing structures to be removed. 

8. Provide the name and address of the person who will construct the proposed project. 

9. Identify the schedule and party responsible for completing construction monitoring, record drawings, 

and as-built certifications for the project. 


35

E. Drainage Information 

1. Provide pre-development and post-development drainage calculations, signed and sealed by an 

appropriate registered professional, as follows: 

a. Runoff characteristics, including area, runoff curve number or runoff coefficient, and time of 

concentration for each drainage basin; 

b. Seasonal high water table elevations including aerial extent and magnitude of any proposed 

water table drawdown; 

c. Normal, wet season and design storm elevations of receiving waters; 

d. Design storms used including rainfall depth, duration, frequency and distribution; 

e. Runoff hydrograph(s) for each drainage basin, for all required design storm event(s); 

f. Stage-storage computations for any area such as a reservoir, closed basin, detention area, or 

channel used in storage routing; 

g. Stage-discharge computations for any storage areas at a selected control point, such as 

control structure or natural restriction; 

h. Flood routings through on-site conveyance and storage areas; 

i. Water surface profiles in the primary drainage system for each required design storm 

event(s); 

j. Runoff peak rates and volumes discharged from the system for each required design storm 

event(s); 

k. Tail water history and justification (time and elevation); 

l. Pump specifications and operating curves for range of possible operating conditions (if used 

in system). 

2. Provide the results of any percolation tests, where appropriate, and soil borings that are 

representative of the actual site conditions. 

3. Provide the acreage and percentage of the total project, of the following: 

a. impervious and semi-impervious surfaces, excluding wetlands; 

b. pervious surfaces (green areas not including wetlands); 

c. lakes, canals, retention areas, other open water areas; 

d. wetlands. 

4. Provide an engineering analysis of floodplain storage and conveyance (if applicable), including: 

a. Hydraulic calculations for all proposed traversing works; 

b. Backwater water surface profiles showing upstream impact of traversing works; 

c. Location and volume of encroachment within regulated floodplain(s); 

d. Plan for compensating floodplain storage, if necessary, and calculations required for 

determining minimum building and road flood elevations. 

5. Provide an analysis of the water quality treatment system including: 

a. A description of the proposed stormwater treatment methodology that addresses the type of 

treatment, pollution abatement volumes and recovery analysis; 

b. Construction plans and calculations that address stage-storage and design elevations, which 

demonstrate compliance with the appropriate water quality treatment criteria. 

6. Provide a description of the engineering methodology, assumptions and references for the 

parameters listed above, and a copy of all such computations, engineering plans and specifications 

used to analyze the system. If a computer program is used for the analysis, provide the name of 

the program, a description of the program, input and output data, two diskette copies, if available, 

and justification for model selection. 


36

F. Operation and Maintenance and Legal Documentation 

1. Describe the overall maintenance and operation schedule for the proposed system. 

2. Identify the entity that will be responsible for operating and maintaining the system in perpetuity, if 

different than the permittee. Provide a draft document enumerating the enforceable affirmative 

obligations of the entity to properly operate and maintain the system for its expected life and 

document the entity's financial responsibility for long-term maintenance. If the proposed operation 

and maintenance entity is not a property owners association, provide proof of the existence of an 

entity, or the future acceptance of the system by an entity, which will operate and maintain the 

system. If a property owners association is the proposed operation and maintenance entity, 

provide copies of the articles of incorporation for the association and copies of the declaration, 

restrictive covenants, deed restrictions or other operational documents that assign responsibility for 

the operation and maintenance of the system. Provide information ensuring the continued 

adequate access to the system for maintenance purposes. Before transfer of the system to the 

operating entity will be approved, the permittee must document that the transferee will be bound by 

all terms and conditions of the permit. 

3. Provide copies of all proposed conservation easements, stormwater management system 

easements, property owners association documents and plats for the property containing the 

proposed system. 

4. Indicate how water and waste water service will be supplied. Letters of commitment from off-site 

suppliers must be included. 

5. Provide a copy of the boundary survey and/or legal description and acreage of the total land area of 

contiguous property owned/controlled by the applicant, including the project site. 

6. Provide a copy of the deed or other evidence of ownership, or in the case of an applicant, 

evidence of an easement or other documents evidencing authorization to perform the 

proposed work. 

G. Water Use 

1. Will the surface water system be used for water supply, including landscape irrigation, recreation, 

etc.? 

2. If a Water Use Permit has been issued for the project, state the permit number. 

3. If a Water Use Permit has not been issued for the project, indicate if a permit will be required and 

when the application will be submitted. 

4. Indicate how any existing wells located within the project site will be utilized or abandoned. 


37

38 

TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER SUMMARY 

WL & SW 

ID 

PROJECT 

TOTALS: 

Comments: 

WL & SW 

TYPE 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) 

WL & SW 

SIZE 

WL & SW 

NOT 

IMPACTED 

WL & SW 

TYPE 

TEMPORARY 

WL & SW 

IMPACTS 

IMPACT 

SIZE 

IMPACT 

TYPE 

WL & SW 

TYPE 

Note: 

WL=Wetland SW=Other Surface Water ID=Identification number, letter, etc. 

Wetland Type: from an established wetland classification system 

Impact Type: D=dredge; F=fill; H=change hydrology; S=shading; C=clearing; O=other 

Multiple entries per cell not allowed, except in the "Mitigation ID" column. If more than one impact is proposed in a given area, indicate the final impact. 

PERMANENT 

WL & SW 

IMPACTS 

IMPACT 

SIZE 

IMPACT 

TYPE 

MITIGATION 

AREA ID

39 

TABLE TWO: PROJECT ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY 

MITIGATION 

AREA ID 

PROJECT 

TOTALS 

COMMENTS: 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) 

CREATION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT WETLAND 

PRESERVE 

AREA TARGET 

TYPE 

AREA TARGET 

TYPE 

AREA TARGET 

TYPE 

NOTE: 

Target Type or Type=target or existing habitat type from an established wetland classification system or land use classification for non-wetland mitigation. 

Multiple entries per cell not allowed. 

UPLAND 

PRESERVE 

OTHER 

AREA TYPE AREA TYPE AREA TARGET 

TYPE

40 

TABLE THREE: PROJECT OFF-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY 

MITIGATION 

AREA ID 

PROJECT 

TOTALS 

COMMENTS: 

CREATION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT WETLAND 

PRESERVE 

AREA TARGET 

TYPE 

AREA TARGET 

TYPE 

AREA TARGET 

TYPE 

UPLAND 

PRESERVE 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

OTHER 

AREA TYPE AREA TYPE AREA TARGET 

TYPE 

Target Type=target or existing habitat type from an established wetland classification system or land use classification for non-wetland mitigation 

NOTE: Multiple entries per cell not allowed

41 

TABLE FOUR: SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES OVER WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS 

STRUCTURES TYPE OF 

WORK * 

FOR EACH 

DOCK 

OR PIER 

PLEASE 

COMPLETE: 

FOR EACH 

FINGER PIER 

PLEASE 

COMPLETE: 

FOR EACH 

OTHER 

WATER 

STRUCTURE 

PLEASE 

COMPLETE 

TOTAL: 

* Type of Work: N=new; R=replaced; O=other; RR=removed; A=altered/modified 

LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT TOTAL AREA PROPOSED 

SLIPS 

EXISTING 

SLIPS 

Primary use of proposed structures: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Will the docking facility provide: 

Live aboard slips? If yes provide number: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Fueling facilities? If yes provide number: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Sewage pumpout facilities? If yes provide number: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Other Supplies or Services? If yes specify: __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Type of materials for decking and pilings (e.g. CCA, pressure treated wood, plastic, concrete) 

Pilings: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Decking: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Deck plank spacing: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Number of boats, grouped by length, type and draft, expected to use the facility: ________________________________________________________________ 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C.

42 

TABLE FIVE: SUMMARY OF SHORELINE STABILIZATION 

STABILIZATION LINEAR FEET 

NEW 

VERTICAL 

SEAWALL: 

SEAWALL AND 

RIPRAP: 

RIPRAP: 

RIPRAP AND 

VEGETATION: 

OTHER TYPE: 

SIZE OF RIPRAP: 

TYPE OF RIPRAP: 

LINEAR FEET 

REPLACED 

LINEAR FEET 

REMOVED 

SLOPE 

H: V: 

WIDTH AT THE 

TOE 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C.





SECTION F: 

INFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUAL (INCLUDING CONCEPTUAL) ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESOURCE PERMITS FOR MITIGATION BANKS 

The information requested below is for a mitigation bank project (construction permit or conceptual approval). Certain 

categories of information requested may not be applicable to all applications. In addition, the level of detail required will 

vary depending on the nature and location of the site and the activity proposed. If the proposed mitigation bank involves 

the construction of a surface water management system provide the information requested by the applicable section as 

well as that requested below. 

A. General Site Conditions 

1. A map, at regional scale, of the mitigation bank in relation to the regional watershed and proposed mitigation 

service area. 

2. A vicinity map showing the mitigation bank in relation to adjacent lands and off-site areas of ecological or 

hydrologic significance which could affect the long term viability or ecological value of the bank. 

3. A recent aerial photo of the mitigation bank (no photocopies) identifying boundaries of the project area. 

4. A highway map showing points of access to the mitigation bank for site inspection. 

5. A legal description of the proposed mitigation bank. 

6. A description and assessment of current site conditions including: 

a. a soils map of the mitigation bank site; 

b. a topographic map of the mitigation bank site and adjacent hydrologic contributing and receiving areas; 

c. a hydrologic features map of the mitigation bank and adjacent hydrologic contributing and receiving 

areas; 

d. current hydrologic conditions in the mitigation bank site; 

e. a vegetation map of the mitigation bank site; 

f. ecological benefits currently provided to the regional watershed by the mitigation bank site; 

g. 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; 

h. a disclosure statement of any material fact which may affect the contemplated use of the property; 

i. a Phase I environmental audit of the property (not required for conceptual approval). 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section F - Page 1 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

43

B. Mitigation Bank Information 

1. A description of the ecological significance of the proposed mitigation bank to the regional watershed in which 

it is located. 

2. A mitigation plan describing the actions proposed to establish, construct, operate, manage and maintain the 

mitigation bank including: 

a. construction-level drawings detailing proposed topographic alterations and all structural components 

associated with proposed activities 

b. proposed construction activities, including a detailed schedule for implementation 

c. the proposed vegetation planting scheme and detailed schedule for implementation measures to be 

implemented during and after construction to avoid adverse impacts related to proposed activities; 

d. 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; 

e. a proposed monitoring plan to demonstrate mitigation success. 

3. An assessment of improvement or changes in ecological value anticipated as a result of proposed mitigation 

actions including: 

a. a description of anticipated site conditions in the mitigation bank after the mitigation plan is successfully 

implemented; 

b. a comparison of current fish and wildlife habitat to expected habitat after the mitigation plan is successfully 

implemented; and 

c. a description of the expected ecological benefits to the regional watershed 

4. Evidence of sufficient legal or equitable interest in the property which is to become the mitigation bank to 

meet the requirements of the Basis of Review (not required for conceptual approval). 

5. Draft documentation of financial responsibility meeting the requirements of the Basis of Review (not required 

for conceptual approval). 

6. Any engineering calculations and/or computer modeling (such as hydrograph or staging) needed to assess 

the effects of the project on the hydrologic characteristics of the mitigation bank site and upstream and 

downstream areas. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section F - Page 2 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

44





SECTION G 

APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE STATE OWNED 

SUBMERGED LANDS 

Part I: Sovereign Submerged Lands title (ownership) information: Please read and answer the applicable 

questions listed below: 

A. I have a sovereign submerged lands title check from the Division of State Lands which indicates that the 

proposed project is NOT ON sovereign submerged lands (please attach a copy of the title determination 

to the application). yes ____ no ____ 

If you answered "yes" to question A and you have attached a copy of the Division of State Lands 

title check to this application, you do not have to answer any other questions under Part I, II or III. 

B. I have a sovereign submerged lands title check from the Division of State Lands which indicates that the 

proposed project is ON sovereign submerged lands (please attach a copy of the title determination to 

the application). yes ____ no ____ 

If you answered "yes" to question B please provide the information requested in Part II and III. 

Your application will be deemed incomplete until the requested information is submitted. 

C. I am not sure if the proposed project is on sovereign submerged lands. Please check here �. 

If you have checked this box, department staff will request that the Division of State Lands 

conduct a title check. If the title check indicates that the proposed project or portions of the 

project are located on sovereign submerged lands, you will be required to submit the information 

requested in Part II and III. The application will be deemed incomplete until the requested 

information is submitted. 

D. I am not sure if the proposed project is on sovereign submerged lands and I DO NOT WISH to contest 

the department's findings. Please check here �. 

If you have checked this box refer to Part II and III and provide the requested information. The 

application will be deemed incomplete until the requested information is submitted. 

E. It is my position that the proposed project is NOT on sovereign submerged lands. Please check 

here �. 

If you have evidence that indicates that the proposed project is not on sovereign submerged 

lands, please attach the documentation to the application. If the Division of State Lands title 

check indicates that your proposed project or portion of your proposed project is on sovereign 

submerged lands, you will be required to provide the information requested in Part II and III. 

F. If you wish to contest the findings of the title determination conducted by the Division of State Lands, 

please contact the Department of Environmental Protection's General Counsel office. Your application 

will be deemed incomplete until either the information requested in Part II and III is submitted or a legal 

ruling indicates that the proposed project is not on sovereign submerged lands. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section G - Page 1 of 4 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

45

Part II: If you were referred to this section by Part I, please provide this additional information. Please note 

that if your proposed project is on sovereign submerged lands and the below requested information is not 

provided, your application will be considered incomplete. 

A. Provide evidence of title to the subject riparian upland property in the form of a recorded deed, title 

insurance, legal opinion of title or a long-term lease which specifically includes riparian rights. Evidence 

submitted must demonstrate that the applicant has sufficient title interest in the riparian upland property. 

B. Provide a detailed statement describing the existing and proposed upland uses and activities. For 

commercial uses, indicate the specific type of activity, such as marina, ship repair, dry storage 

(including the number of storage spaces), commercial fishing/seafood processing, fish camp, hotel, 

motel, resort, restaurant, office complex, manufacturing operation, etc. 

For rental operations, such as trailer or recreational vehicle parks and apartment complexes, indicate 

the number of wet slip units/spaces available for rent or lease and describe operational details (e.g., are 

spaces rented on a month to month basis or through annual leases). 

For multi-family residential developments, such as condominiums, town homes or subdivisions, provide 

the number of living units/ lots and indicate whether or not the common property (including the riparian 

upland property) is or will be under the control of a homeowners association. 

For projects sponsored by a local government, indicate whether or not the facilities will be open to the 

general public. Provide a breakdown of any fees that will be assessed and indicate whether or not such 

fees will generate revenue or will simply cover costs associated with maintaining the facilities. 

C. Provide a detailed statement describing the existing and proposed activities located on or over the 

sovereign submerged lands at the project site. This statement must include a description of docks and 

piers, types of vessels (e.g., commercial fishing, liveaboards, cruise ships, tour boats), length and draft 

of vessels, sewage pumpout facilities, fueling facilities, boat hoists, boat ramps, travel lifts, railways, and 

any other structures or activities existing or proposed to be located waterward of the mean high water 

line/ordinary high water line. If slips are existing and/or proposed, please indicate the number of 

powerboat slips and sailboat slips and the percentage of those slips available to the general public on a 

"first come, first served" basis. This statement must include a description of channels, borrow sites, 

bridges, groins, jetties, pipelines or other utility crossings, and any other structures or activities existing 

or proposed to be located waterward of the mean high water line/ordinary high water line. For shoreline 

stabilization activities, this statement must include a description of seawalls, bulkheads, riprap, filling 

activities and any other structures or activities existing or proposed to be located along the shoreline. 

Where applicable descriptions should include estimates of volumes (cubic yards) of material to be 

dredged and/or filled. 

D. Provide the linear footage of shoreline at the mean high water line/ordinary high water line owned by the 

applicant which borders sovereign submerged lands. 

E. Provide a recent aerial photo of the area. A scale of 1" = 200' is preferred. Photos are generally 

available at minimal cost from your local government property appraiser's office or from district Department 

of Transportation offices. Indicate on the photo the specific location of your property/ project site. 


46

Part III: Proprietary Project Descriptions. Please check the most applicable activity, which applies to your 

project(s): 

Leases Activity Description 

_________ Commercial marinas (renting wet slips), including condominiums, etc., if 50% or more of their 

wet slips are available to the general public 

_________ Public/local governments 

_________ Yacht clubs/country clubs (when a membership is required) 

_________ Multi-family/but upland revenue generating (housing developments, trailer parks, apartments) 

_________ Condominiums (requires upland ownership) 

_________ Commercial uplands activity (temporary docking and/or fishing pier associated with upland 

revenue generating activities (i.e., restaurants, hotels, motels) for use of the customer at no 

charge) 

_________ Miscellaneous commercial upland enterprises where there is a charge associated with the use of 

the overwater structure (charter boats, tour boats, fishing piers) 

_________ Ship building/boat repair service facilities 

_________ Commercial fishing related (off loading, seafood processing) 

_________ Private single-family residential docking facilities; town home docking facilities; subdivision 

docking facilities (upland lots privately owned) 

Public Easements & Use Agreements 

_________ Miscellaneous public easements and use agreements 

_________ Bridge right-of-way (DOT, local government) 

_________ Breakwater or groin 

_________ Subaqueous utility cable (television, telephone, electrical) 

_________ Subaqueous outfall or intake 

_________ Subaqueous utility water/sewer 

_________ Overhead utility w/support structure on sovereign submerged lands 

_________ Disposal site for dredged material 

_________ Pipeline (gas) 

_________ Borrow site 

Private Easements 

_________ Miscellaneous private easements 

_________ Bridge right-of-way 

_________ Breakwater or groin 

_________ Subaqueous utility cable (television, telephone, electrical) 

_________ Subaqueous uutfall or intake 

_________ Subaqueous utility water/sewer 

_________ Overhead utility crossing 

_________ Disposal site for dredged material 

_________ Pipeline (gas) 

Consents of Use 

_________ Aerial utility crossing w/no support structures on sovereign submerged lands 

_________ Private dock 

_________ Public dock 

_________ Multi-family dock 

_________ Fishing pier (private or multi-family) 

_________ Private boat ramp 

_________ Seawall 


47

_________ Dredge 

_________ Maintenance dredge 

_________ Navigation aids/markers 

_________ Artificial reef 

_________ Riprap 

_________ Public boat ramp 

_________ Public fishing pier 

_________ Repair/replace existing public fishing pier 

_________ Repair/replace existing private dock 

_________ Repair/replace existing public dock 

_________ Repair/replace existing multi-family dock 

_________ Repair/replace existing fishing pier (private or multi-family) 

_________ Repair/replace existing private boat ramp 

_________ Repair/replace existing seawall, revetments or bulkheads 

_________ Repair/replace/modify structures/activities within an existing lease, easement, Management 

agreement or Use agreement area or repair/replace existing grandfathered structures 

_________ Repair/replace existing public boat ramp 

Miscellaneous 

_________ Biscayne Bay letters of consistency/Inconsistency w/258.397, F.S. 

_________ Management agreements - submerged lands 

_________ Reclamation 

_________ Purchase of filled, formerly submerged lands 

_________ Purchase of reclaimed lake bottoms 

_________ Treasure salvage 

_________ Insect control structures/swales 

_________ Miscellaneous projects which do not fall within the activity codes listed above 


48





SECTION H 

INFORMATION FOR GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS 

FOR MINOR SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS 

To obtain a General Permit for a Minor Surface Water Management System, the project must meet all of the 

requirements of Section A, Part 1 OR one of the requirements of Section A, Part 2 and both of the requirements of 

Section A, Part 3. Indicate which thresholds apply to your project and submit the information requested in Section 

B. 

A. Project Thresholds 

Part 1. 

___ The total land area does not equal or exceed 10 acres; 

___ The area of impervious and semi-impervious surface will not equal or exceed two acres; 

___ Any activities to be conducted in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters will consist of less than 

100 square feet of dredging or filling; 

___ The activities will not utilize pumps for stormwater management; 

___ The activities will not utilize storm drainage facilities larger than one 24 inch diameter pipe or its 

hydraulic equivalent; 

___ Discharges from the site will meet State water quality standards, and the surface water management 

system will meet the applicable technical criteria for stormwater management in the Basis of Review; 

___ The proposed building floors will be above the 100-year flood elevations; 

___ The surface water management system can be effectively operated and maintained, and; 

___ The proposed activities will not cause significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively. 

Part 2. 

___ 40D-4.051(3) - NORMAL AND NECESSARY FARMING AND FORESTRY 

___ 40D-40.301(2) - MINOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 

Part 3. 

___ Discharges from the site will meet State water quality standards, and the surface water management 

system will meet the applicable technical criteria for stormwater management in the Basis of Review 

described in Rule 40D-4.091(1), and 

___ The surface water management system can be effectively operated and maintained. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section H - Page 1 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

49

B. Technical and Legal Information 

1. Provide a copy of the boundary survey and/or a legal description and acreage of the total land area 

of contiguous property owned or controlled by the applicant, including the project site. 

2. Provide recent aerials, legible for photo interpretation with a scale of 1" = 400' or more detailed, with 

total land, project area and any on-site wetlands delineated. 

3. Provide a detailed topographic map (with contours) of the site and adjacent hydrologically related 

area. The location and description of bench marks (minimum of one per major water control 

structure) should be included. 

4. Describe the location, size (in acres) and type of any on-site wetlands or other surface waters. 

5. Provide the project site development plan and acreage of the total area of impervious and semiimpervious 

surface. 

6. Provide the surface water management system design plans, calculations and reports signed and 

sealed by a Florida Registered Professional Engineer, as required by law. 

7. Provide construction drawings signed and sealed by the design engineer showing the location and 

details of the surface water management system including but not limited to any preserved wetlands, 

lakes, culverts, pipes, under drains, exfiltration trenches, discharge structures, pumps and related 

facilities such as paving, grading and erosion or sediment control measures to be employed. 

8. Indicate type of water quality treatment system used: 

____ Man-made wet detention ____ Off-line retention (dry pond) 

____ On-line effluent filtration (side bank or ____ Off-line underground exfiltration system 

under drain filters) 

____ On-line retention (dry pond) ____ Wet detention utilizing natural wetlands 

____ Other (explain) 

9. If a Water Use Permit has been issued for the project, state the permit number ________________. 


11. Provide a letter or other current evidence of potential acceptance by the operation and maintenance 

entity, if the entity is to be a public body such as a city or drainage district. If the entity is a 

homeowners or other association, final draft documents verifying either the present or imminent 

existence of such an organization and its ability to accept operation and maintenance responsibility 

are required. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section H - Page 2 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

50





SECTION I 

INFORMATION FOR STANDARD GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS FOR MINING MATERIALS 

OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE (BORROW PITS) 

The information requested below is for a mine requiring an Environmental Resource Permit. The information 

listed represents the level of information that is usually required to evaluate an application. Information 

required for a specific project will vary depending on the nature and location of the site and the activity 

proposed. 


1. Provide a recent aerial photograph, with a scale of 1" equal to 400' or more detailed, depicting the 

mine area with mine boundaries delineated. Photocopies are not acceptable. 

2. Provide a topographic map of the site and hydrologically related areas. Include the location and 

description of benchmarks. Provide a minimum of one benchmark per major water control 

structure or, if the project has no water control structures, a minimum of one benchmark. 

3. Provide a hydrologic features map identifying contributing watershed boundaries, down gradient 

lands (if the proposed surface water system will alter off-site discharge), existing runoff patterns 

and land use for off-site contributing areas. 

4. Provide elevations of the seasonal high water table and wetland water levels in areas potentially 

affected by the proposed mining or related activities. Information should include existing water 

levels, design water levels during mining, and expected water levels after mining is completed. 

5. Identify the 100-year floodplain of any stream or other watercourse. Identify the 100-year 

floodplain of any lake or wetland not entirely on the property owned or leased by the mining 

operation. Include 100-year floodplain limits and elevations and identify the placement of 

overburden or product within the 100-year floodplain. Provide details of the statistical and 

mathematical models used to determine flood elevations. 

6. Describe vegetative cover in all areas where mining or related activities are proposed. In upland 

areas this description need only be of sufficient detail to determine runoff characteristics. 

7. Identify all wetland areas potentially affected by proposed mining or related activities. Each 

wetland should be characterized by size, predominant vegetation and use by threatened or 

endangered species. 

8. Provide percolation tests, if percolation or exfiltration systems are proposed. Percolation tests 

shall be representative of design conditions. Permeability tests will be required where necessary 

to accurately model design conditions for retention systems. 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section I - Page 1 of 3 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

51

B. Plans 

1. Provide location of waterbodies used for water quality, water quantity and environmental 

functions. Include details of size, side slopes, elevations and depths, including plan details for 

floodplain encroachment compensation. Include details on any tailings or other impoundments, 

including the operating ranges. Identify proposed wetland impact areas, areas proposed as 

compensation for wetland impacts and any remaining wetlands that will remain undisturbed. 

2. Provide locations and details of all major water control structures, or points of discharge, including 

dams on impoundments. Control elevations must be included along with any seasonal water 

level regulation schedules. 

3. Provide the locations of roads along with their proposed elevations. 

4. Identify drainage basin boundaries on aerial maps and plans for both the period of mining 

activities and the post-mining condition. Indicate whether mining activities or post-mining 

topography will alter the drainage area contributing to hydrologically related waterbodies or will 

otherwise affect drainage to these bodies. 

5. Provide rights-of-way and easement locations for the drainage system including all areas to be 

reserved for water management purposes. (This item is generally only needed for portions of the 

system that rely on off-site lands for the surface water management system.) 

6. Provide the location and description of any nearby existing off-site features, such as structures, 

buildings, wetlands, other surface waters, stormwater ponds, which might be affected by the 

proposed mining activities. The names and addresses of the owners of such facilities should also 

be submitted. 

7. Provide construction drawings signed and sealed by the design engineer showing the paving, 

grading, and drainage details of the project. Perimeter site grading should be included. 

8. Provide a complete description of measures to be implemented during the period of mining 

activities for the purpose of mitigating adverse water quality and quantity impacts off-site. The 

description shall include construction best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to 

control erosion and sediment transport during and after the period of mining activities. BMPs 

that prevent the transport of sediments from uplands to wetlands, lakes and streams include 

earthen berms, hay bales and temporary swales. BMPs that prevent sediment transport in 

channels or other watercourses or waterbodies include siltation fences and floating siltation 

booms. 

C. Drainage Information 

1. Provide details of design storms used, including depth, duration and distribution. Refer to the 

Basis of Review for design storm criteria. 

2. Provide stage-storage computations for the project and stage-discharge computations for each 

outfall structure. 

3. Provide information and calculations concerning the effect of off-site inflows on the water 

management system. 

4. Provide the acreage and percentage of the total project, of the following: 

a. impervious and semi-impervious surfaces (excluding waterbodies); 

b. pervious surfaces (green areas); 

c. lakes, canals, retention areas, etc.; 

d. wetlands; 

e. impoundments. 

5. Provide runoff calculations signed and sealed by the design engineer showing pre and 

post-development discharges, elevations, and volumes retained and/or detained during 

applicable storm events. Include the hydrologic parameters and modeling input and output data. 

Mathematical computations may be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will 

not significantly alter net storage from the project area for events up to the required design storm 

nor cause adverse effects due to the floodplain encroachment up to the 100-year event. 


52

D. Operation and Maintenance and Legal Documentation 

1. Provide a copy of the boundary survey and/or a legal description and acreage of the total land 

area of contiguous property owned/ controlled by the applicant, including the project site. Also 

provide a legal description and acreage of the project area required to construct, operate and 

maintain the proposed system, if different from the total land area. Provide a boundary survey or 

legal description of all areas planned for future mining. 

2. Indicate how water and wastewater service will be supplied. Letters of intended commitment 

from off-site suppliers must be included. 

3. Provide documentation of legal and physical availability of the receiving water system to receive 

project discharge, if such is not evident. 

4. Identify the entity to be responsible for operation and maintenance of the Surface Water 

Management System upon completion of construction. 

5. Provide a letter or other evidence of potential acceptance by the operation and maintenance 

entity, if the entity is to be a public body such as a city or drainage district. If the entity is a 

homeowners or other association, documents verifying either the present or imminent existence 

of such an organization and its ability to accept operation and maintenance responsibility are 

required before construction . 

E. Water Use 


2. If there are existing Water Use Permits within the mine area, provide the permit number(s). 

3. If Water Use Permits have not been issued for the project, indicate if a permit will be required and 

when the application will be submitted. 


53





SECTION J 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 

FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT INCIDENTAL SITE ACTIVITIES 

As defined in Chapter 40D-40, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), “Incidental Site Activities” means the 

following activities in uplands that are conducted as part of the construction of a system proposed in an 

environmental resource permit application: land clearing, grading, excavation of borrow areas for on-site 

grading, road and building subgrade construction (excluding foundation construction), unpaved access road 

construction, utility installation, fence installation, construction trailer installation, construction surface water 

management, erosion and sediment control measures and similar preliminary activities. To request general 

permit authorization to conduct incidental site activities, please provide the following information with the 

individual construction permit application for the project. 

1. Applicant/Property Owner's Name: 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Applicant/Authorized Agent’s Name (if applicable): 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Applicant Mailing Address: 

Street ______________________________________________________________________________ 

City _______________________________________State ZIP __________________ 

Phone (______) ______________________ 

4. MSSW or Environmental Resource Individual Permit Application Number, if available: 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

5. Date of Application (per #4.): ____________________________________________________________ 

6. MSSW or Environmental Resource Permit Number (for Modifications): 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Project Name: 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section J - Page 1 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

54

SECTION J (contd) 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 

FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT INCIDENTAL SITE ACTIVITIES 

8. Project Location: ______________________________________________________________________ 

City ________________________________________ County ________________________________ 

Section(s) ___________________; Township(s) ___________________; Range(s) ______________ 

Section(s) ___________________; Township(s) ___________________; Range(s) ______________ 

9. Briefly describe the incidental site activities work requested to be authorized by this application: 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

10. Describe the reasons for the incidental site activities authorization being requested: 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

11. Planned Beginning Date: ___________________________________ 

Anticipated Completion Date: ________________________________ 

12. Please provide five (5) copies of the following information: 

a. A complete description of the incidental site activities proposed, including the location, extent and 

alignment of the proposed construction. Provide construction level details and information. In the 

space below, provide the location and identification of the referenced information as shown on the 

drawings required for the individual Environmental Resource Permit Application. Provide separate 

drawings and information needed for the final approved construction drawings depicting the 

authorized incidental site activities. 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

b. A construction surface water management plan for compliance with the requirements of Section 2.8 

of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District. In the space below, provide the location and identification of the 

referenced information as shown on the drawings required for the individual Environmental Resource 

Permit Application. Provide separate drawings and information needed for the final approved 

construction drawings depicting the authorized incidental site activities. 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

FORM 547.27/ERP (084/1109) Section J - Page 2 of 2 RULE 40D-4.101(1)(b), F.A.C. 

55


2379 BROAD STREET 

BROOKSVILLE, FLORIDA 34604-6899 

(352) 796-7211 or 1 –800-423-1476 (FL only) 

TDD only: 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) 

DOVER/PLANT CITY WATER USE CAUTION AREA 

SUPPLEMENTAL FORM 

Other than applicants to renew their water use permit (WUP) with no changes, or applicants for partial or full transfer of a 

WUP, this form must be completed by any water use permit (WUP) applicant that has at least one withdrawal point 

located in the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (Dover/Plant City WUCA), pursuant to Rule 40D-2.801(3)(d)1. 

and 3. Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Submit an original two copies of this form with one two copy copies of all 

attachments for a total of three complete sets if submitting in hardcopy. 

A portion of the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) is also in the Dover/Plant City WUCA, and in this portion, 

the requirements of the Dover/Plant City WUCA are in addition to those of the SWUCA. 

The information required on this form is requested in accordance with 

Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rules 40D-2.091, 40D-2.101 and 40D-2.301, F.A.C. 

Answer all questions. If a question is not applicable to your situation, enter N/A. If more space is needed, attach additional 

sheets and refer to the application question number. Provide documentation and references where appropriate. 

Guidance and information to assist the applicant in the completion of this form are shown in italics. 

Complete the appropriate WUP Application Form (Small General, General, Individual, or Mining and Dewatering 

Materials Other Than Phosphate), and the Small General WUP Application Use Type Attachments or General and 

Individual WUP Application Use Type Supplemental Forms before completing this form in order to determine demand. 

There are five Use Type categories: (1) Agriculture, (2) Public Supply, (3) Mining or Dewatering (phosphates), (4) 

Industrial or Commercial, and (5) Recreation or Aesthetic. 

Applicant: _________________________________________________ _______________________________________ 

(Same as shown on WUP application) 

WUP Number : ________________________________________________ 

(If this application is to renew or modify an existing WUP) 

PART I. SELF-RELOCATION 

Self-Relocation: This is a process that allows new or increased frost/freeze protection (FFP) withdrawals in the 

Dover/Plant City WUCA without becoming categorized as “New Quantities” (explained in PART III). A permittee can 

move all or a portion of their permitted FFP quantities to a new location or locations owned or controlled by the same 

permittee, provided withdrawal of the FFP quantities at the new location(s) meets all permitting rule criteria, and the net 

impacts to the Minimum Aquifer Protection Zone of the Dover/Plant City WUCA are not increased. There cannot be a 

change in ownership, control, Use Type category or an increase in quantities. Any change in Use Type category or 

increase in frost/freeze protection quantities becomes New Quantities and is not a Self-Relocation. 

1. Is this application for Self-Relocation? � Yes � No 

2. If Yes, what is the WUP Number of the originating permit? __________________________ 

LEG-R.050.010 (0812/1110) Page 1 of 5 40D-1.101(7), F.A.C. 

56

DOVER/PLANT CITY WUCA SUPPLEMENTAL FORM 

An application for self-relocation involves the originating WUP and a new or modified WUP at the new site. Because of 

this relationship, if this application is approved, the originating WUP will be modified by the District to reflect the selfrelocation 

at the same time this WUP is issued. As such, this application is deemed to include a request to modify the 

originating WUP if the Self-Relocation is authorized. Do you agree? �� Yes � No 

For applications for Self-Relocation, answer the questions in Part II with respect to the originating WUP and with respect 

to the self-relocation site in Part III. 

Because of the existing frost/freeze protection impacts to the water resources in the Dover/Plant City WUCA, the historic 

reasonable-beneficial frost/freeze water use for all applicants is closely evaluated by the District. 

SECTION A – EXCLUSION 

Skip to PART III, NEW QUANTITIES if any of the following apply: 

� This is an application for less than 100,000 gpd demand (including groundwater, non-alternative water supply surface 

water, and alternative water supplies) on an average annual basis. 

� This is an application for a new WUP. 

SECTION B – HISTORICAL USE OF PERMITTED QUANTITIES 

Historic acreage that was protected from cold damage by use of pumping groundwater. 

The District will use the historic acreage under cultivation to evaluate historical frost/freeze protection use. 

� If there is additional information that the applicant wants to submit to show historic frost/freeze use, check here and 

include the information in an attachment. 

� Attached 

PART II. DEMONSTRATION OF HISTORIC REASONABLE WATER NEEDS 

PART III. NEW QUANTITIES 

"New Quantities" in the Dover/Plant City WUCA refers to frost/freeze protection (FFP) quantities. New Quantities 

means water that is not currently authorized to be withdrawn by the applicant or not currently authorized to be used for 

the intended use by the applicant. This includes applications to modify existing permits to increase FFP quantities, 

applications to change the Permit Use Type category (affecting only the modified portion), and applications for an initial 

permit for FFP quantities. A modification to change crops or plants grown under an Agricultural Permit or to change a 

withdrawal location or Use Type category that is authorized by the terms of the permit or site certification at the time of 

issuance, is not a change in Permit Use Type category, provided that the frost/freeze protection quantities do not increase. 

This section is designed to assist the applicant to recognize if any quantities on this application are considered New 

Quantities in the Dover/Plant City WUCA. 

SECTION A – EXCLUSIONS 

1. Pre-mining Use Type Category - When land is mined and the land will be returned to the Use Type category 

operation authorized under the Water Use Permit that existed prior to mining, such activity does not constitute a 

change in Use Type category. Quantities for the returned Use Type will be considered relevant to those that were 

previously permitted for that Use Type. 

Is this water use permit application to return to the previously permitted Use Type Category for quantities equal to or 

less than those previously permitted for the Use Type? 

� Yes - Skip to PART III, IMPACTS TO THE MINIMUM AQUIFER LEVEL PROTECTION ZONE. 

� No - Continue to SECTION B 


57


2. Re-permitting Previously Unused Quantities - Previously unused permitted quantities are not considered New 

Quantities on a renewal permit. 

Are the only quantities on the application those that were previously permitted for the same Use Type? 

� Yes - Skip to PARTIII, IMPACTS TO THE MINIMUM AQUIFER LEVEL PROTECTION ZONE 

� No - Continue to SECTION B 

3. Application for a straight renewal – For the purposes of this form, if all of the following situations pertain to this 

application, the application is considered a straight renewal and does not include New Quantities. 

a. There will be no change in water use withdrawal location(s), 

b. There will be no increase in water quantities per Use Type category, and 

c. There will be no increase in maximum daily withdrawal quantities for frost/freeze protection (FFP) of crops or 

aquaculture. 

� Yes, all the above conditions pertain to this application. Skip to PART III, IMPACTS TO THE MINIMUM 

AQUIFER LEVEL PROTECTION ZONE 

� No. Continue to SECTION B. 

SECTION B – CALCULATION OF NEW QUANTITIES 

Completion of this section requires that the application form and pertinent Use Type category Supplemental Form(s) be 

completed in order for the applicant to have calculated proposed cold protection (FFP) quantities for all proposed Use 

Type categories. 

1. Sum the proposed FFP quantities for all uses from the “Water Use Permit Application Supplemental Form - 

Agriculture” or the “Small General Water Use Permit Application - Agriculture Attachment” 

Proposed Total FFP Quantities: __________________ gpd 

2. Enter the Existing Total FFP Quantities on the permit being modified: _________________ gpd (Enter zero if this is 

an application for a new WUP.) 

3. Subtract No. 2 from No. 1: ________________ gpd. A positive value are New Quantities. 

If proposed FFP quantities are greater than existing FFP quantities, an impact assessment to the Minimum Aquifer Level 

Protection Zone is required, and the applicant must proceed to PART III below. If there are no New Quantities, the 

applicant is finished with this form. 

PART III. IMPACTS TO THE MINIMUM AQUIFER LEVEL PROTECTION ZONE 

See Chapter 4, Section 4.3 C. of the Basis of Review. 

MINIMUM AQUIFER LEVEL PROTECTION ZONE 

A Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone has been established within the Dover/Plant City WUCA that is based on 

the 30 ft. drawdown contour for the January 2010 frost/ freeze event. This area is shown on the map attached to this form. 

A map depicting the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone boundary in detail is available online from the District 

Mapping and GIS Section. The ArcView shapefile is also available for download under GIS Data. 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT TO THE MINIMUM AQUIFER LEVEL PROTECTION ZONE 

1. A groundwater flow model must be provided that shows the impacts caused by New Quantities on the Minimum 

Aquifer Level Protection Zone based on a frost/freeze design event having five stress periods: initially 21 hours of 

irrigation, followed consecutively by 6 hours of non-irrigation, 13 hours of irrigation, 11 hours of non-irrigation and 

by 14 hours of irrigation. 

� Attached 


58


2. The maximum predicted drawdown impact at the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone contour is __________ 

feet NGVD at the end of stress period 5. 

3. Predicted FFP impacts that exceed 0.0 foot drawdown at the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone will not be 

permitted. If the predicted drawdown exceeds 0.0 foot, at the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone, the applicant 

may choose to implement alternative FFP methods or provide one or more of the Net Benefit options listed in the next 

PART IV below in order to mitigate the predicted impacts. 

NET BENEFIT - New Quantities 

PART IV. NET BENEFIT 

Where New Quantities are proposed for FFP that impact the Minimum Aquifer Level Protection Zone (as described in 

Part III), the applicant must undertake an activity that results in a net 20% reduction in impact on the Zone. This net 

reduction in impact is termed a Net Benefit. The types of activities that can be used to provide a Net Benefit are described 

in the "Net Benefit Supplemental Form - Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area” (Form No. LEG-R.051.00 (12/10)). 

Where a Net Benefit is needed, this form must be completed and attached to the application. Note that if a Net Benefit is 

needed, it must be accomplished prior to the withdrawal of the New Quantities that would otherwise have impacted the 

Zone. Check the appropriate box below and provide the attachment if needed. 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� Net Benefit Supplemental Form – Dover/Plant City WUCA (Form LEG-R.051.00 (12/10) attached. 

� N/A – Impacts are not predicted. 

� 

� 

� 


59 

�


� 


60 

�

PETITION FOR A FORMAL DETERMINATION 

OF THE LANDWARD EXTENT OF 

WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS 

CHAPTER 373.421, FLORIDA STATUTES (F.S.) 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA 

WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

2379 BROAD STREET ! BROOKSVILLE, FL 34604-6899 


FOR AGENCY USE 

Number:____________________________________________ Date Received:____________________________________ 

Fee Received:_______________________________________ Fee Receipt Number:_______________________________ 

Please Type or Print. Read all instructions. Submit an original and two five copies of the completed application and 

supporting information. 

OWNER 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________ 

PETITIONER: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________ 

AGENT: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________ 

INDIVIDUAL WHO ESTABLISHED THE WETLAND LINE: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________ 

FORM 547.27/FJDS (084/1109) Rule 40D-4.042(2)(a), F.A.C. 

Page 1 of 3 

61

Project Name: _________________________________________________________________________________ 

Project Size: _________________________________________________________________________________ 

Section(s): ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Section(s): ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

County(ies): __________________________________________________________________________________ 

Land Grant Name, if applicable: _________________________________________________________________ 

Describe past and present land use activities within the boundaries of the property for which a determination is 

sought: 

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

If petition boundaries include any areas for which permits, applications, declaratory statements or Consent 

Orders have been received, list name, file number, type of activity and provide a copy of all pertinent documents: 

DEP: __________________________________________________________________________________ 

WMD: _________________________________________________________________________________ 

ACOE: ________________________________________________________________________________ 

OTHER: _______________________________________________________________________________ 

Have you ever had a pre-application conference with Agency staff?____YES ____NO 

If Yes: Agency:___________ Date:_________ Purpose:______________________ 

Have any Agency Staff previously visited the site?____YES ____NO 


Name and phone number of the representative who will accompany Agency Staff during the site inspection: 

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

How will property boundaries be identified for site inspection? ______________________________________ 

(Property boundaries must be clearly marked prior to site inspections.) 

U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle Map Name: _____________________________________________________ 

(Please provide an original with the property boundaries depicted.) 

USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Page Numbers: _________________________________________________________ 

(Please provide a copy with the property boundaries depicted.) 

Aerial Photograph (s) Date and Scale: ____________________________________________________________ 

(Please provide photographs with a scale of 1"=200' or more detailed which accurately reflect the current site conditions. Boundaries, major roads 

and north bearing should be shown.) 

FORM 547.27/FJDS (084/1109) Page 2 of 3 Rule 40D-4.042(2)(a), F.A.C. 

62

Attach documentation showing petitioner's legal or equitable interest in the property, or if petitioner has the 

power of eminent domain, please indicate, on attached sheets, by what authority petitioner has such power. 

Attach a legal description of the property for which this determination is sought. 

In order for your petition to be deemed complete, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) 

must receive an original and two five copies of the verified delineation either in the form of certified surveys, 

depiction on rectified aerial photographs, geo-referenced images, or GPS depiction on aerial photographs of the 

surveyed delineation. 

I understand that I have to provide any additional information that may be necessary to complete this petition. I 

am familiar with the information contained in this petition and to the best of my knowledge and belief, such 

information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to petition for a formal 

wetland determination in accordance with Section 373.421, F.S. or am acting as the duly authorized agent of a 

person with such authority. I understand that to knowingly making any false statement or representation in this 

petition is a violation of Chapter 373.430, F.S. 

Typed/ Printed Name of Petitioner or Agent Corporate Title, if applicable 

Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date 

AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE FOLLOWING IS COMPLETED: 

I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this 

petition for formal wetland determination and to furnish, on request, supplemental information in support of the 

petition. I am familiar with the information contained in this petition and to the best of my knowledge and belief 

such information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to petition for a 

formal wetland determination in accordance with section 373.421, F.S. I understand that knowingly making any 

false statement or representation in this petition is a violation of Chapter 373.430, F.S. 

Typed/ Printed Name of Petitioner Corporate Title, if applicable 

Signature of Petitioner Date 

PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 

I either own the property described in this petition or I have legal authority to allow access to the property, and I 

consent to a formal determination being made on the property as described in section 40D-4.042, F.A.C. I 

authorize representatives or personnel from the SWFWMD, after prior notification, to enter the property as many 

times as may be necessary to make the wetland determination and I will provide access throughout the property 

sufficient to perform the determination. I will attach to this petition documentation demonstrating that I am the 

owner of the property or that I have legal authority to allow access to the property. 

Typed/ Printed Name Corporate Title, if applicable 

Signature Date 

FORM 547.27/FJDS(08/1194) Page 3 of 3 Rule 40D-4.042(2)(a) 40D-1.659, F.A.C. 

63

APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR 

A NOTICED GENERAL PERMIT FOR 

A MINOR SILVICULTURAL 

SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM� 

� 



2379 BROAD STREET ! BROOKSVILLE, FL 34604-6899 


� 

The land owner or other authorized agent can use the following application procedure for an activity 

that qualifies for a noticed general permit for a minor silvicultural surface water management system, 

as described in Section 40D-400.500, F.A.C. 

1. Submit the completed original and TWO FOUR copies of a "Notice of Intent to Construct a 

Minor Silvicultural Surface Water Management System," together with an original and two five 

complete sets of noticed general permit application information and a permit processing fee, to the 

local District service office. 

2. The District staff may visit the site to determine if additional information and documentation are 

needed to identify the proposed activity and assure ERP permitting compliance. 

3. If the District does not notify the Applicant otherwise after receipt of the application, the 

application will be considered sufficient, and the Applicant may conduct the activity authorized by 

the noticed general permit. 

4. If more information is needed, the land owner or other authorized agent will be notified that the 

system does not qualify for a noticed general permit, and the Applicant may respond by providing 

additional information and/or by revising the work plans. 

NOTE: The Following list of minor silvicultural 

surface water management systems described in 

Section 40D-400.500, F.A.C., may qualify for a 

noticed general permit. (A copy of Chapter 40D- 

400, F.A.C., is available from the District.) 

of either side of a culvert. The road must be designed 

with culvert inlets positioned at or below natural grade 

of the bed of the stream or other watercourse to prevent 

the permanent impoundment of water, and to provide 

an overflow area or areas which will prevent erosion 

and adverse effects to water levels upstream and 

downstream of the road. 

A. A permanent culverted fill road with a road 

surface of 28 feet or less in width placed in or crossing 

a stream or other watercourse of less than ten (10) 

cubic feet per second average discharge at the location 

of the work or with a drainage area upstream of the 

work of less than ten (10) square miles. The design of 

the work must allow for conveyance of normal flows 

and for overtopping during large storm events, and any 

fill placed in wetlands associated with the stream or 

other watercourse must be less than one-half (2) acre in 

area. Under this paragraph, the fill material shall be no 

more than twenty-four (24) inches above culvert 

structures. The fill material on the road approaches 

shall be no more than twenty-four (24) inches above 

grade, except within an area of one hundred (100) feet 

B. A temporary culverted fill road or a temporary 

bridge up to 50 feet long, with a road surface of 28 feet 

or less in width placed in or crossing a stream or other 

watercourse of less than ten (10) cubic feet per second 

average discharge at the location of the work or a 

drainage area upstream of the work of less than ten (10) 

square miles. The design of the work must allow for 

conveyance of existing flow during the period of 

installation and use and any fill placed in wetlands 

associated with the stream or other watercourse must be 

less than one-half (2) acre in area. The work must be 

designed only to facilitate the temporary movement of 

equipment and must be removed immediately after the 

operation for which the crossing was needed is 

FORM 547.27/NOI (084/1109) Page 1 of 3 40D-400.500(3), F.A.C 

64

complete or within thirty (30) months of the filing of 

the Application, whichever is sooner. 

C. A permanent bridge up to 100 feet in length and 

28 feet or less in width supported on pilings or trestles, 

placed in or crossing a stream or other watercourse of 

less than ten (10) cubic feet per second average 

discharge at the location of the work or with a drainage 

area upstream of the work of less than ten (10) square 

miles. The design of the work and associated approach 

roads, if any, must allow for conveyance of normal 

flows and for overtopping during large storm events 

and any fill placed in wetlands associated with the 

stream or other watercourse must be less than one-half 

(2) acre in area. The height limitation for fill on the 

bridge approach roads shall be a maximum of 

twenty-four (24) inches above natural grade. 

D. A permanent culverted fill road or bridge with a 

road surface of 28 feet or less in width, placed in or 

crossing a wetland or other impoundment, excluding 

reservoirs created by dams, where less than one half (2) 

acre of fill is placed in the wetland or other 

impoundment. Such crossings must be located in a 

manner which minimizes the area of wetlands being 

filled. 

E. Temporary stream channel diversions necessary to 

complete the works described in paragraphs A., B., or 

C. above, provided that the area used for the temporary 

diversion is restored to its previous contours and 

elevations. 

F. Clearing and snagging in a stream or other 

watercourse within fifty (50) feet of the center line of a 

culverted fill road or a bridge described in paragraphs 

A., B., or C. above, necessary to construct said work. 

G. A permanent low water, hard surfaced crossing in 

a stream, other watercourse, wetland or other 

impoundment consisting of the placement of rock or 

similar material no more than twelve (12) inches higher 

than the bed of the stream, other watercourse or 

impoundment. Such crossings must be designed only 

to facilitate the movement of equipment by creating a 

stable foundation in shallow streams, other 

watercourses, wetlands or other impoundments. 

Temporary low water, hard surfaced crossings may be 

constructed using logs, but must be removed 

immediately following the completion of the 

silvicultural operation or within thirty (30) months of 

the filing of the Application in subsection (3), 

whichever is sooner. 

H. Upland field ditches of a temporary nature to 

facilitate only harvesting, site preparation, and planting, 

with a maximum cross-sectional area of eighteen (18) 

square feet spaced no closer than six hundred and sixty 

(660) feet from any other parallel ditch. After seedling 

establishment, the ditches shall be allowed to 

revegetate naturally. The permittee will not be required 

to fill field ditches after seedling establishment. 

I. Above grade, unpaved, upland silvicultural roads 

with an average road surface width of twenty-eight (28) 

feet within a construction corridor up to fifty (50) feet 

in width. These roads must also incorporate sufficient 

culverts at grade to prevent alteration of natural sheet 

flow and may have associated borrow ditches. Road 

ditches shall be constructed only to obtain road 

material for the associated road and to provide only 

enough storage to maintain a dry road surface. Such 

road ditches must not provide drainage to the tract 

adjoining the road, other than to provide drainage of 

the road surface and minor, incidental drainage of 

abutting lands. These road ditches may be connected 

to other roadside ditches that were constructed pursuant 

to this section but must not connect directly or 

indirectly to any works on-site or off-site which are 

designed or constructed to provide drainage or 

conveyance or which would result in drainage or 

conveyance. Road ditches must be separated from 

wetlands and other surface waters by a buffer strip of 

indigenous ground cover and a water turnout prior to 

said buffer strip. However, road ditches may discharge 

directly to a wetland when the slope of the uplands 

within 1000 feet of the edge of the wetland is equal to 

or less than two (2) percent, provided the ditch does not 

result in drainage of the wetland and provided that the 

ditch does not create a hydrologic connection between 

two or more wetlands. The width of the buffer strip 

shall be no less than 35 feet, or 50 feet when located 

adjacent to an Outstanding Florida Water, an 

Outstanding National Resource Water, or Class I 

waters. 

J. Upland borrow areas needed to obtain fill material 

for crossings authorized by this noticed general permit 

of streams, other watercourses, wetlands and other 

impoundments. These upland borrow areas must not 

provide drainage and must not be hydrologically 

connected to roadside ditches or field ditches. 


65

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSTRUCT A MINOR SILVICULTURAL 

SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 40D-400.500, F.A.C. 

1. When completed, please deliver the original and TWO FOUR copies of this Notice of Intent and other related information to the 

local District Regulation Service Office; or send by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested to: Southwest Florida Water 

Management District, Regulation Performance Management Department, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 

2. This notice if for: [ ] Construction and Operation [ ] Alteration and Operation 

[ ] Removal [ ] Abandonment [ ] Maintenance 

3. Name of Land Owner: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Agent/Contact (if applicable): ________________________________________________________________________ 

Address: _________________________________________ City, State, Zip Code: __________________________________ 

Telephone: ____________________________________ FAX: _______________________________________________ 

4. Only the minor silvicultural systems set forth in ss. 40D-400.500(4)(a)-(j), F.A.C., may qualify for a noticed general permit. 

Descriptions of those minor systems are listed A.- J. on the reverse side hereof. Please read the descriptions, then CIRCLE below 

the letter or letters to identify the minor system that most accurately describes the proposed project work. 

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. 

Provide the name, description, sizes and dimensions of the proposed system (attach construction drawings, etc. as needed): 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Approximate Beginning and Ending Dates of Construction: _____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________ 

5. Location of Proposed System: Attach a copy of the USGS Topo Quad Map and a copy of the County Appraiser's most recent 

aerial photomap of the site, or other recent aerial photomap, with the location of the project clearly marked and boundaries 

outlined. 

Location Sketch 

U.S.G.S. Topo Quad Map Name: 

_________________________________________ 

County(ies): ______________________________ 

Tax Parcel(s) ID#(s): _______________________ 

Section(s): _______________________________ 

Township(s): _____________________________ 

Range(s): ________________________________ 

Water Course/Water Body Most Affected: 

_________________________________________ 

Upstream watershed area (square miles) if a stream or other watercourse crossings pursuant to ss. 40D-400.500(4)(a), (b) or (c), 

F.A.C., is proposed: ______________________________________________________________________________ 

6. Please list any related permit application numbers: _______________________________________________________ 

7. I have full knowledge of and will comply with the requirements of Chapter 40D-400, F.A.C. I understand that this noticed 

general permit is available only under limited circumstances as set forth in Chapters 40D-400 and 40D-4, F.A.C., and that 

permittees are required to comply with all general conditions and performance standards listed in Section 40D-400.215 and 

Subsections 40D-400.500(4), (5) and (6), F.A.C. A District permit does not relieve a permittee from obtaining necessary 

approvals of any unit of local, state, or federal government. 

___________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 

Printed Name of Land Owner Signing Printed Name of Authorized Agent Signing (if applicable) 

___________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ 

Signature of Land Owner or Authorized Agent* Date 

* Signature by a person other than the land owner is also certification that the person is officially authorized by the owner to act as the land owner's agent for the 

purpose of procuring the permit. 


66

PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SITE CONDITIONS 

ASSESSMENT� 



2379 BROAD STREET BROOKSVILLE, FL 34604-6899 

(352) 796-7211 OR FLORIDA WATS 1(800) 423-1476 

FOR AGENCY USE 

Number:____________________________________________ Date Received:____________________________________ 

Fee Received:_______________________________________ Fee Receipt Number:______________________________ 

Please Type or Print, Read all Instructions, then submit one original and two five copies of the 

completed application and supporting information. 

OWNER: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________ 

AGENT: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: _________________________________________________________________________ 

INDIVIDUAL WHO ESTABLISHED THE SITE CONDITIONS BOUNDARIES: 

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ 

Firm and Title: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone: ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

FORM 547.27/SCA (084/1109) �� 

67

Project Name:_________________________________________________________________________________ 

� 

Project Size:� �� 

� 

Section(s): �� 

� 

Section(s): __�� 

� 

County(ies): __�� 

� 

Describe past and present land use activities within the boundaries of the property for which a site conditions 

assessment permit is sought:� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

If the application=s total land area includes any areas for which permits, applications, declaratory statements or 

Consent Orders are currently in effect, list name, file number, type of activity and provide a copy of all pertinent 

documents: 

� 

� 

DEP: _�� 

WMD: ______________________________________________________________________________________ 

ACOE:�� 

OTHER: ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Have you ever had a pre-application conference with Agency staff? ____YES ____NO 


Have any Agency Staff previously visited the site?____YES ____NO 


Name and phone number of the representative(s) who will accompany Agency Staff during the site inspection: 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

�� 

How will site conditions boundaries be identified for site inspection?____________________________________ 

�� 

� 

U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle Map Name: ____________________________________________________ 

(Please provide an original with the property boundaries depicted.) 

USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Page Numbers: ________________________________________________________ 

�� 

Aerial Photograph (s) Date and Scale: ______________________________________________________ 

(Please provide photographs with a scale of 1"=200' or more detailed which accurately reflect the current site conditions. Boundaries, major roads 

and north bearing should be shown.) 

�� 

68

SUPPORTING INFORMATION NEEDED TO APPLY FOR A SITE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT PERMIT:� 

� 

As a minimum, all site conditions assessment permits must address the landward boundaries of wetlands 

and other surface waters; the level and landward boundary of the 100 year floodplain; the boundaries of 

seasonal high water levels at selected locations; and existing watershed boundaries. Additional site condition 

boundaries may be requested by the petitioner, which will be specifically evaluated for permitting by the 

District.� 

� 

A. Please CHECK BELOW to indicate the existing site condition boundaries for which a Site Conditions 

Assessment Permit application is being submitted, and any additional boundaries being requested.� 

� 

1. |__| The minimum boundary locations on the property, including the landward extent of wetlands 

and other surface waters; the level and landward extent of the 100 year floodplain; seasonal 

high water levels at selected locations; and existing watershed delineations. 

2. |__| Additional boundary locations, which delineate existing topographic or environmental site 

conditions within the applicant=s project area that are measurably associated with waters, such 

as: the level and landward extent of other floodplains and seasonal or periodic water; special 

watershed delineations; and other limits that are defined by water levels, surface contours or 

other physical characteristics and affect the management and storage of surface waters. PLEASE 

DESCRIBE BELOW THE ADDITIONAL SITE CONDITION BOUNDARIES BEING REQUESTED (REFER TO 

ADDITIONAL PAGES OR OTHER ATTACHMENTS IF NEEDED). 

(a) __________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

(b) __________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

B. The Permit Applicant shall provide the following information to the extent and level of detail needed to 

accurately identify the existing Site Condition Boundaries identified in A. above: 

1. Map drawings, aerial photogrammetric maps, photos, topographic and boundary surveys, geo-referenced 

images, hydrological data and other document information showing: 

(a) the total land area and its location, shown on a USGS 1:24000 quad map; 

(b) the total project area and topographically, environmentally or hydrologically related areas; 

(c) the on-site demarcation and location of any on-site wetlands or other surface waters, and other 

site conditions referenced in the application, and any connections to off-site wetlands and waters; 

(d) the location, site details and other evidence of all topographic, environmental and hydrologic 

conditions of the existing surface waters or system being addressed by the application; and 

(e) topographic and hydrological data needed to determine connections between water bodies and 

to verify water levels, floodplains and other site conditions, including but not limited to data on rainfall, 

duration and volume of water flow, ground and surface water levels, soils information and the location of 

natural or man-made water courses on or abutting the site, such as culvert locations, materials, invert 

elevations and sizes. 

2. The applicant may be asked to provide other information that will reasonably assure accurate and 

sufficient identification and evidence to verify the existing site condition boundaries required by the permit and 

any additional boundaries requested by the application. Such other information will be required as is 

reasonably necessary for the District to assess and verify the existing site condition boundaries and decide 

whether the application adequately qualifies to receive a Site Conditions Assessment Permit. 

� 

� 

�� 

69

C. Attach a legal description of the property for which this site conditions assessment permit is sought. 

D. In order for the application to be deemed complete, the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFWMD) must receive three five copies of the verified boundary documents, either in the form of certified 

surveys, depiction on rectified aerial photographs, geo-referenced images, or GPS depiction on aerial 

photographs of the surveyed delineations. 

� 

CERTIFICATION BY THE APPLICANT: 

I understand that I will have to provide any additional information that may be necessary to complete this 

application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and to the best of my knowledge 

and belief, such information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to 

apply for a site conditions assessment permit in accordance with Florida Laws, or I am acting as the duly 

authorized agent of the land owner or other person with such authority. I understand that to knowingly 

making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Chapter 373.430, F.S. 

Typed/ Printed Name of Applicant Owner or Agent Corporate Title, if applicable 

Signature of Applicant Owner or Agent Date 

AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE FOLLOWING IS COMPLETED: 

I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of 

this application for a site conditions assessment permit and to furnish, on request, supplemental information 

in support of the petition. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and to the best of my 

knowledge and belief such information is true, complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the 

authority to apply for a site conditions assessment permit in accordance with Florida Laws. I understand that 

knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Chapter 373.430, 

F.S. 

Typed/ Printed Name of Owner/Applicant Corporate Title, if applicable 

Signature of Owner/Applicant Date 

PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 

I either own the property described in this application, or I have legal authority to allow access to the property; 

and I consent to a site conditions assessment permit and associated boundary determinations being made on 

the property as described in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, F.A.C. I authorize representatives or personnel from 

the SWFWMD, after prior notification, to enter the property as often as may be necessary to make surveys and 

inspections to conduct site conditions assessment, and I will provide access throughout the property 

sufficient to perform the permitting verification. I will attach to this application documentation demonstrating 

that I am the owner of the property or that I have legal authority to allow access to the property. 

Typed/ Printed Name Corporate Title, if applicable 

Signature Date� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

�� 

70


GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT (ERP) APPLICATION FOR 

MODIFICATION RELATED TO OUTPARCEL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PERMITTED 

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� 

* Attach a signed letter of authorization from the owner, except for corporate officers. 

�� 

71


2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34604-6899 (352) 796-7211 1-800-423-1476 (FL only); 

Suncom 628-4150 TDD only: 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us 

SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA 

GROUND WATER REPLACEMENT CREDIT APPLICATION 

In addition to the WUP application form and any required supplemental forms, submit an original two copies of 

this form with one two copy copies of all attachments for a total of three complete sets. 

The information required on this form is requested in accordance with 

Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rules 40D-2.091, 40D-2.101 and 40D-2.301, F.A.C. 

Please answer all questions and enclose all attachments. If a question is not applicable, enter N/A. If more space is 

needed, attach additional sheets and reference the form Part, Section and Number. 

Guidance and information to assist the applicant in the completion of this form are shown in italics. 

Quantities referred to in this Form are standard annual average daily quantities. These are total gallons permitted or 

pumped (as appropriate for the context), in a calendar year divided by 365. All quantities should be shown in gallons per 

day (gpd). 

PART I. REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUND WATER REPLACEMENT CREDIT 

Please see Chapter 4, Section 4.3 B of the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications. 

SECTION A – PREREQUISITES 

1. A Ground Water Replacement Credit (GWRC) can only be used as a Net Benefit for impacts to the same Minimum 

Flow or Level (MFL) impacted by proposed withdrawal of the New Quantities. 

2. The Alternative Water Supply (AWS) must not have been redirected from another user who then had to reinstate 

groundwater withdrawals. However, if the AWS was redirected, and the applicant can demonstrate that the 

redirection had a cumulative effect of providing a greater reduction in ground water withdrawals and contributed more 

to the recovery of the MFL than if it had not been redirected, the AWS delivery can qualify. If this is the case, submit 

substantive documentation as described. 

� N/A � Documentation attached. 

3. Both the provider and receiver must hold current Water Use Permits. 

4. If a GWRC is to be used upon issuance to obtain New Quantities, the WUP application for the New Quantities must 

be submitted simultaneously with this GWRC application. 

SECTION B – APPLICANTS (Both the provider and receiver of AWS are applicants.) 

AWS Provider: ______________________________________________________WUP No.:_______________ 

(Same as shown on WUP or on WUP Application) 

AWS Receiver: ______________________________________________________WUP No.: ______________ 

(Same as shown on WUP or on WUP Application) 

Impacted MFL: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

LEG-R.011.021 (084/1109) Page 1 of 5 40D-2.101(6)(b) (c), F.A.C. 

72

Southern Water Use Caution Area Ground Water Replacement Credit Application Page 2 of 5 

SECTION C – CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN PROVIDER AND RECEIVER 

Attach a copy of the contract or agreement between the provider and receiver that specifies terms regarding annual 

average and monthly gallons per day quantities of AWS to be delivered and whether the delivery is interruptible. 

� Attached 

PART II. HISTORIC AWS USE AND WATER USE REVIEW 

The District will use the meter readings and pumpage data currently in the District's regulatory database to evaluate the 

receiver’s historic water use and AWS use for SECTIONS A and B below. It is strongly advised that the applicants 

review and validate this data. Upon request, District historic meter readings and pumpage data are available. 

� I have reviewed the meter reading and pumpage data in the District regulatory database and agree to have the 

District utilize it as is in the evaluation of historical use for this application. 

� I have reviewed the meter reading and pumpage data in the District regulatory database, and propose edits. The 

edited data is provided on a CD in electronic format compatible with Excel. An explanation for each edit is provided 

on the CD. 

SECTION A – AWS QUANTITIES SUPPLIED 

Complete the table below with information about total quantities of AWS delivered or to be delivered which are to be 

applied toward the GWRC. If delivery began prior to January 1, 2000, average the quantities delivered for three of the 

highest-delivery years in the period from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1999. If delivery began after January 1, 

2000, average the quantities delivered for three of the highest-delivery years in the most recent six year period. If this 

application is for a GWRC based on proposed delivery of AWS, please note that the GWRC will not be available for use 

until the receiver receives the AWS and uses it in quantities specified below to offset ground water withdrawals. 

Type of AWS Provided* 

Quantities** 

Provided 

Documentation 

Type*** 

Year 

(specify which three years) 

Date of First Delivery 

(mo/yr) 

* Reclaimed water, captured excess stormwater, industrial waste water, mining/dewatering discharge water, etc. 

** Quantities for the three years must be compiled per month in an electronic file compatible with the Excel spreadsheet 

program and submitted electronically. 

*** The receiver must have submitted meter readings for received reclaimed water in a timely manner, if submission of 

such data was required as a condition of the receiver's WUP. Note, all WUPs in the SWUCA were modified on 

January 1, 2003 to add a special condition requiring all known receivers of reclaimed water to meter the reclaimed 

water received and submit the meter readings monthly. All other WUPs were modified to add a special condition 

requiring the permittee to submit an application to modify their WUP when they received reclaimed water to meter it 

and to reflect the decreased use of ground water or surface water. 

AWS received prior to metering must be documented by receipts or bills that specify quantities received. 

SECTION B – ACTUAL GROUND WATER USE 

1. Historic Reasonable-Beneficial Ground Water Use: Only actual, historic ground water withdrawals made for 

reasonable-beneficial use by the receiver that are or are to be offset by the delivery of AWS are eligible to be used to 

calculate the GWRC amount. The District will review the receiver’s pumpage with respect to the receiver’s permitted 

water use. 

2. Non-Meter Documentation: If meter readings are not available for documentation of actual use, and the lack of 

these meter readings was not due to noncompliance with respect to submittal of pumpage and/or meter readings on 

the part of the receiver, the applicants can submit substantive documentation (farming records and sales, aerial 

LEG-R.011.021 (084/1109) 40D-2.101(6)(b)(c), F.A.C. 

73


photographs, purchases of equipment associated with water use, etc.) that quantifies actual water use for the 

appropriate period. 

3. Caveats: Do not include pumpage quantities that exceeded the permitted annual average quantities for any 

calendar year. For such cases, use the permitted annual average quantity. Do not include quantities pumped under 

a WUP that expired. If a receiver’s WUP expired, only the pumpage submitted under the new WUP that was issued 

qualifies. 

PART III. ELIGIBLE OFFSET AND GWRC AMOUNTS 

SECTION A – CALCULATION OF THE ELIGIBLE OFFSET 

The eligible offset is the reduced ground water withdrawals made by the receiver due to the receipt of AWS. To calculate 

the eligible offset quantity, the applicants are to use pumpage or meter readings that were submitted as required by 

conditions on the WUP. 

1. Sum the total gpd ground water pumped during the receiver's three highest-use calendar years during the six 

consecutive years prior to use of AWS and the three highest-use calendar years during the consecutive six years 

following delivery of AWS. The three years for each period do not have to be consecutive. 

a. For offsets that occurred prior to January 1, 2000 but within the receiver’s current permit term, the applicable six 

years of actual use to analyze are January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1999. 

b. For offsets that occurred prior to January 1, 2000 during a previous permit term of the receiver’s WUP, the 

applicable six years of actual use to analyze are the six years previous to the delivery of the AWS that reduced 

ground water withdrawals. 

c. For offsets that began after January 1, 2000, the applicable six years of use are the six years previous to the 

delivery of the AWS that reduced ground water withdrawals. 

2. Divide the sum of the three highest-use years pumpage by three. 

3. Subtract the post-AWS delivery pumpage from the pre-AWS delivery pumpage. The eligible amount is the difference 

between the pre- and post- AWS delivery pumpage up to the amount of AWS delivered. 

From your calculations, complete the table below. 

Date of First 

Delivery 

(Month/Year) 

Six Year Period 

Pre-AWS Delivery 

(From / To Year) 

Three Highest-Use 

Years Pumpage �� 3 

(gpd) 

Six Year Period 

Post-AWS Delivery 

(From / To Year) 

Three Highest-Use 

Years Pumpage � 

3 (gpd) 

Eligible Offset 

(gpd) 

4. Proposed Offset: For receivers who do not yet have a post-AWS pumpage history, use the same methodology 

described above to calculate the actual use prior to delivery of the AWS and provide the proposed reduction in 

pumpage due to anticipated use of AWS. Note, the receiver’s WUP must be conditioned to meter and report the 

AWS received as well as that actually used. If the anticipated reduction in pumpage does not occur, the GWRC will 

be reduced accordingly. 

SECTION B – PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE OFFSET FOR GWRC AMOUNT 

The percentage of the eligible offset that can be claimed for a GWRC depends upon when the date of first delivery of 

AWS began. 

1. First Delivery Prior to January 1, 2000 – If the delivery of AWS began before January 1, 2000, the GWRC is equal 

to 50% of the eligible amount as described in SECTION A.3, above. 

2. First Delivery After January 1, 2000 – If the delivery of AWS began after January 1, 2000, the GWRC is equal to 

90% of the eligible amount as described in SECTION A.3., above. 

LEG-R.011.021 (084/1109) 40D-2.101(6)(b)(c), F.A.C. 

74


3. Prorated Percentage – If the amount of AWS delivered for reasonable-beneficial use was consistently increased 

after January 1, 2000 from that which was delivered to the same receiver for beneficial use before January 1, 2000, 

the GWRC amount can be prorated where it is 50% of the pre-January 1, 2000 eligible amount, and is 90% of the 

additional post-January 1, 2000 eligible amount. 

4. Takeover of AWS delivery after January 1, 2000 – If a previous AWS provider stopped delivery to this receiver, 

and a subsequent provider began AWS delivery before January 1, 2000, the subsequent provider and receiver can 

prorate the pre- and post- January 2000 amount as described above. If the new provider began delivery after 

January 1, 2000, the entire GWRC amount is calculated at 90% of the eligible amount. 

Pre-January 2000 

Eligible Offset (gpd) 

50% of Amount 

(gpd) 

Post-January 2000 Additional 

Eligible Amount (gpd) 

90% of Amount 

(gpd) GWRC (gpd) 

SECTION C – DISPOSITION OF GWRC 

Indicate the annual average quantity in gpd of the GWRC calculated above that is to be applied for an immediate Net 

Benefit and how much is to be held on reserve for future Net Benefit. 

Provider: ___________________ gpd applied; ___________________ gpd on reserve. 

Receiver: ___________________ gpd applied; ___________________ gpd on reserve. 

PART IV. APPLICANTS' SIGNATURES 

Signatures of both applicants (provider and receiver) are required. 

Provider: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate, and that I have legal authority to undertake 

the activities described herein and execute this application. 

_____________________________________________________________________ ___________________ 

(Applicant/Owner Signature* / Authorized Agent **) (Date) 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

(Print Name) 

* If there are multiple co-applicants, documentation must be included that gives this applicant authority to act on this 

application on their behalf. 

** An Authorized Agent must include signed documentation of authority to sign and submit this application. 

Receiver: I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate, and that I have the legal authority to 

undertake the activities described herein and execute this application. 

Further, as part of this application, I request that the District modify WUP No. ________________ to put groundwater 

quantities equal to the total GWRC on standby as follows: 

� Effective on the same date that this permit is issued. 

� Effective the date of AWS delivery in the annual average quantity stated in this application. 

� A signed document is attached that specifies quantities by well(s) (District ID Number and Owner ID Number) and 

quantities by use that are to be put on standby for AWS. 

____________________________________________________________________ ___________________ 

(Permittee* / Authorized Agent ** Signature) (Date) 

____________________________________________________________________ 

(Print Name) 

* If there are multiple Permittees, documentation must be included that gives the Permittee who signs this application 

authority to act on this application on their behalf. 

** An Authorized Agent must include signed documentation of authority to sign and submit this application. 

LEG-R.011.021 (084/1109) 40D-2.101(6)(b)(c), F.A.C. 

75


BUSINESS ENTITY AS APPLICANTS – If the person(s) signing this application are representatives of a business, 

check the type of business entity below that applies, indicate the person’s position with the business entity and include 

documentation of the status of the business entity to legally operate in the State of Florida (e.g., copy of the last 

corporate annual report submitted to the Florida Department of State). 

PROVIDER BUSINESS TYPE: 

� Florida Corporation � Florida General Partnership � Florida Limited Liability Corporation 

� Florida Limited Partnership � Foreign Corporation/Partnership � Trust 

� Other _____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Signer’s Position: ______________________________________________________________________________ 

� Status document attached 

RECEIVER BUSINESS TYPE: 

� Florida Corporation � Florida General Partnership � Florida Limited Liability Corporation 


� Other _____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Signer’s Position: ______________________________________________________________________________ 

� Status document attached 

List of Attachments 

Agreement or contract between provider and receiver � Attached 

Pumpage or metering data for AWS � Attached � Provided by the District � N/A 

Pumpage or metering data for historical water use � Attached � Provided by the District � N/A 

Other historical water use documentation � Attached � N/A 

Receiver’s attachment for modification of their WUP � Attached 

Documentation of status to legally operate in Florida � Attached � N/A 

Signature authority documents � Attached � N/A 

The District does not discriminate based on disability. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in 

the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District for accommodation at the telephone numbers listed on the 

first page of this application. 

LEG-R.011.021 (084/1109) 40D-2.101(6)(b)(c), F.A.C. 

76


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT (ERP) MODIFICATION SHORT FORM 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� � 

� � 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� � � �� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� � � � �� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� � � �� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� � � � �� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� 

� � � �� 

* Attach a signed letter of authorization from the owner, except for corporate officers. 

Form LEG-R.013.021 (084/1109) Page 1 of 1 Rule 40D-4.331(2)(b), F.A.C.� 

77


�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

� �� 

Do Not Write Below This Line - For Official Use Only 

************************************************************************************************************* 

�� 

� 

� � � � � � � � � � � � 

�� 

78

IMPORTANT REMINDERS 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

� �� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

(850) 413-6900 

DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

************************************************************************************************************* 

�� 

� 

� �� 

� �� 

� 

�� 

� � � �� 

�� 

� � � �� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

�� 

79

Bartow Regulation Dept. Brooksville Regulation Dept. Sarasota Regulation Dept. Tampa Regulation Dept. 

170 Century Boulevard 2379 Broad Street 6750 Fruitville Road 7601 Highway 301 North 

Bartow, FL 33830-7700 Brooksville, FL 34604-6899 Sarasota, FL 34240-9711 Tampa, FL 33637-6759 

(863) 534-1448 (352) 796-7211 (941) 377-3722 (813) 985-7481 

1-800-492-7862 (FL only) 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) 1-800-320-3503 (FL only) 1-800-836-0797 (FL only) 

APPLICANT TRANSMITTAL FORM 

FOR SUBMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

If this transmittal is regarding an ERP application, sSubmit an original plus two copies of this form and of all 

documents, drawings, cross sections, maps or other material submitted with this form to the District Regulation 

Department reviewing the application. If this transmittal is regarding a WUP application, submit an original of 

this form and one copy of all other documents submitted with this form to the District Regulation Department 

reviewing the application. Submittals made through the District’s e-permitting system at 

www.WwaterMmatters.org do not require additional copies and will automatically be routed to the appropriate 

District Regulation Department. 

A. Application No. ______________ Type of Application (check one): � ERP � WUP 

� Other:____________ 

Applicant Name: _____________________________________________ 

Project Name: _______________________________________________ 

District Permit Reviewer(s): __________________________________________________________________ 

Resource Regulation Department: � Bartow � Brooksville � Sarasota � Tampa 

B. Type of Submittal (check one): � Response to RAI dated ____/____/______ 

C. Information or Documents Included in this Submittal: 

1.___________________________________________________ 

2.___________________________________________________ 

3.___________________________________________________ 

4.___________________________________________________ 

5.___________________________________________________ 

� Response to Clarification Request dated ____/____/______ 

� Self-submitted (Not in response to a District request for information) 

6._________________________________________________ 

7._________________________________________________ 

8._________________________________________________ 

9._________________________________________________ 

10. _____________________________________ 

D. Does the accompanying submittal complete your response to the District’s request(s) for information 

concerning this application? 

� Yes. Please resume review of my application. 

� No. I have additional information to submit before my response is complete. 

Note: If “Yes” is checked, a subsequent submittal of information in support of this application may result in the application being 

deemed amended and the time clocks for agency review starting anew. If “No” is checked or neither block is checked, staff may 

await completion of the allowable 90-day time period for applicants to submit additional information before proceeding to 

process the application. 

Applicant/Agent Signature: ________________________________________ 

Applicant/Agent Name: ________________________________________Date of Submittal: ____/____/_______ 

LEG-R.046.010 (086/1109) Page 1 of 1 40D-1.6051(1), F.A.C 

80

2379 BROAD STREET 

BROOKSVILLE, FLORIDA 34604-6899 

(352) 796-7211 or 1 –800-423-1476 (FL only) 

TDD only: 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) 

WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION 

MINING AND DEWATERING MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE 

THIS APPLICATION FORM IS A STAND-ALONE FORM FOR MINING AND DEWATERING WATER USE FOR NON- 

PHOSPHATE MATERIALS ONLY. NO OTHER APPLICATION FORM IS REQUIRED UNLESS THIS PERMIT 

LOCATION IS IN THE SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA*. THIS INFORMATION IS REQUESTED IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH RULES 40D-2.101 AND 40D-2.301, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. 

* Applicants in the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) submitting this application in hard copy must also 

attach the SWUCA Supplemental Form (Form LEG-R.007.02 (04/09).) 

Answer all questions. If a question is not applicable to the operation that is the subject of this application, enter N/A. If 

more space is needed to answer a question, attach additional sheets and refer to the application page and question 

number. Check attachment boxes if an attachment is included with this application. If there are other activities on this 

property for which water is required (such as agricultural or irrigation for reclamation of mined lands), submit an 

appropriate supplemental form for that water use activity. Minor water uses typically associated with all water use 

types (minor irrigation of the office compound lawn, potable/sanitary use for employees, and fire suppression) are 

included on this form. 

If submitting in hard copy, Ssubmit an original plus two copies of the application, and one copy of all documents, 

drawings, cross sections, maps, etc. If documents include color-coding as part of the explanation, then the copies 

must be in color also. 

PART I. ADMINSTRATIVE INFORMATION 

A. APPLICANT: The applicant must be a landowner for the property covered by this application. If there are multiple 

landowners, all must be listed as co-applicants and the same administrative information must be listed for all 

applicants on an attachment. If the property is owned by a business entity, list the business entity as the applicant. 

The permit will be issued in the names of all persons or entities as listed on the deed for the property. If the 

applicant wants to include the name of any lessees, they may also be listed. All correspondence will be addressed 

to all applicants listed here with copies to all designated contacts or consultants. This application must be signed 

by all applicants. 

Name: _____________________________________________________ Telephone: ( ____ ) ____ -________ 

Address: ___________________________________________________ Cell Phone: ( ____ ) ____ -________ 

City, State, ZIP: ______________________________________________ Email: ________________________ 

Project Name: ___________________________________ County(ies): _______________________________ 

List Section-Township-Range(s): _______________________________________________________________ 

Address of Mining or Dewatering site: ____________________________________________________________ 

� Attachments for co-applicants are included. 

B. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): � New � Renewal � Modification 

� If this is an application for water use on property for which the water use permit was allowed to expire, check 

here and indicate the former permit number. __________________________ 

C. WATER USE PERMIT (WUP) NUMBER: __________________________ (renewals or modifications only) 

D. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: � A new mining or dewatering operation 

� An expansion of an existing mining or dewatering operation 

LEG-R.048.010 (08/1109) Page 1 of 24 40D-2.101(2)(d), F.A.C 

81

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS I & II 

� Existing mining or dewatering operation that is not expanding 

E. MATERIALS MINED: � Limestone � Sand/Gravel � Shell � Peat � Other (describe): ________________ 

F. PERMIT TERM: If this is an application for a modification, the existing permit term typically will apply. If this is an 

application for a new permit or for renewal of an existing permit, please check the permit term requested: 

� 6 years � 10 years If a permit term greater than 10 years is requested, attach an explanation for the need. 

G. CONSULTANT: This is a person who may be employed to assist the applicant with their application. If there is a 

designated consultant for the District to contact regarding this application, please provide their name, address, 

telephone number and email address below. A copy of all correspondence with the applicant will be copied to the 

consultant until such time as the permit is issued. An applicant can have both a consultant and a contact (see 

immediately below), and they can be the same or different persons. 

� Not applicable. There is no consultant. 



City, State, ZIP: _____________________________________________ Email: ________________________ 

Company: __________________________________________________ 

H. CONTACT: This is a person other than the permittee who handles all correspondence including compliance 

correspondence on behalf of the permittee after the permit is issued. If you wish to designate a person for the 

District to contact regarding the application and permit, please provide contact information below. A copy of all 

correspondence with the contact will be copied to the permittee. 

� Not applicable. The applicant is the contact. 



City, State, ZIP: ______________________________________________ Email: ________________________ 

Company: __________________________________________________ 

PART II. PROPERTY CONTROL 

A. NEW AND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS: Provide documentation of ownership or legal control of the property (control that 

is other than direct ownership). � Attached 

B. THE PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS PERMIT IS: 

� Owned by the applicant. 

� Legally controlled by the applicant, excluding a lease (this pertains to legal control, such as estate trustees). 

Acreage owned and/or controlled: _________________________ 

C. LEASED PROPERTY: If a lease is pertinent to this application, indicate the following: 

� Applicant is the lessor. If a lessee of the applicant/owner's property is to be a co-applicant, provide either a copy 

of the lease or a letter describing the lease arrangement and duration. 

� Attached � Not Applicable 

� Applicant is the lessee. This applies when the applicant is leasing property on which water is to be used from 

the applicant’s withdrawal facilities for the applicant’s use. 

Indicate the number of acres under lease: _________________ 

Provide either a copy of the lease or a letter describing the lease arrangement and duration. 

� Attached � Not applicable 


82

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS II & III 

D. SERVICED PROPERTY: This applies to land for which the applicant will provide water for another property owner’s 

use. The applicant does not have a lease on this property, there is no water use permit for the property, and there 

are no withdrawal facilities on the property. The water use will be included on this permit. 

Indicate the number of acres serviced: ___________ 

Provide a copy of the service agreement describing the service arrangement and duration. 


NOTE: When a lessee is listed as a co-applicant, permits will not be issued for a period longer than the lease 

unless the lease is renewable. If renewable, the applicants will be required to provide a copy of the renewed lease 

at the appropriate time. All property owners and lessees must sign this application. 

A. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT 

PART III. RELATED PERMITTING/APPROVALS 

Check the situation that applies to the operation that is the subject of this application: 

� This mining or dewatering activity is exempt from the requirement to obtain a surface water management 

permit. Provide documentation showing the exemption status of the mine(s) to be included in this WUP. 

� Attached 

� A surface management water permit (Management and Storage of Surface Water [MSSW] or Environmental 

Resource Permit [ERP]) exists for the activity for which this application is submitted. 

MSSW/ERP No.: _______________________ 

� A surface water management permit already exists (MSSW/ERP No. ________________), but needs to be 

modified to include the proposed activity. 

� An application for modification was submitted on ______________ (mm/dd/yyyy), and was deemed complete 

for approval on ________________ (mm/dd/yyyy) 

� An application for modification has not been submitted. Note: A WUP will not be issued for 

mining/dewatering activity until an ERP has been issued or an application for one is deemed complete for 

approval. 

� A surface water management permit does not exist for the activity for which this application is submitted. 

� An application was submitted on ______________ (mm/dd/yyyy), and it was deemed complete for approval on 

____________ (mm/dd/yyyy). 

� An application is not submitted. It will be submitted __________________________ 

Note: If an ERP is required, a WUP will not be issued for mining/dewatering activity until an ERP has been 

issued or an application for one is deemed complete for approval. 

B. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER (IWW) PERMIT 

Has an IWW permit been issued for the area covered by this application for sorting and grading activities? 

� Yes IWW Permit No.: ___________________________________ 

� No, the application was submitted ____________________________ 

� No, there will be no sorting and grading on-site. 

C. FACILITATING AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (FARMS) PROJECT 

Will the mine become an alternative water supply source under a District FARMS project? 

� Yes FARMS Application or Project No.: ________________________________ 

� No 

D. NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection) 

Will there be off-site discharge from this site due to the proposed activities? 

� Yes NPDES Permit No(s): ________________________ 

� Yes, the application was submitted ____________________________ 

� No; there will not be off-site discharge of water. 


83

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS IV & V 

PART IV. GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION 

A. PROSPECT MAP AND REPORT: Submit a geologic and hydrologic report and plan-view map showing locations of soil 

borings, test cores, drill cuttings, and geophysical analyses that provide information on overburden thickness and 

disposition, depth and thickness of the material to be mined, water table elevations and other pertinent aquifer 

water elevations for the wet and dry season. In the geological report, include the geologic descriptions of the soil 

borings, test cores and drill cuttings as well as the interpreted geophysical analyses. If a geological study was 

done on the material to be mined, include a copy. Reference all elevations, levels and depths to National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). New mining/dewatering applications are to use North American Vertical Datum 

of 1988 (NAVD88). Show the datum reference on all maps and all data collection sites on an aerial photographic 

map. 

B. MINING OPERATIONS MAP: Submit a plan-view map of the existing and proposed mining plans for the duration of 

this permit. Show all components of the mining operation including any pre-mitigation measures, such as 

hydraulic recharge/intercept ditches, setback distances, etc. Provide length, depth and width information for all 

proposed mines and pre-mitigation constructions. Show the locations of the cross sections required below, clearly 

labeled (e.g., A-A’; B-B’. etc.). Indicate any off-site water bodies that are receiving discharge from this site and 

label it with the water body name. 

C. CROSS SECTIONS: Provide a minimum of two perpendicularly transecting cross sections (preferably north-south 

and east-west) that encompass the entire mine pit for each area to be mined. Each cross section must show (1) 

pre-mining land surface elevations, (2) depth of overburden, (3) depth of material to be mined, (4) wet and dry 

season pre-mining water table or aquifer water level elevations, and (5) maximum depth to be dewatered, if 

dewatering will occur. If dewatering will occur in successive stages, provide two transecting cross sections for 

each stage. Cross sections must also be provided that transect any existing or proposed hydraulic 

recharge/intercept ditches and include both the ditch and the associated mine pit. Depict the cone of influence on 

the water table or aquifer level at maximum dewatered depth of the mine pit relative to the location and depth of 

the ditch. The mine pit and hydraulic recharge/intercept ditches must be shown at scaled proposed distances from 

each other. Reference each cross section to the map required above. Reference all elevations, levels and depths 

to NGVD29 or NAVD88 per the Prospect Map and Report. 

PART V. WITHDRAWAL POINT INFORMATION 

Note: This part pertains to sources of water required for a use, not dewatering wells or surface water withdrawal points 

to be used to dewater overburden or matrix. Those will be addressed in a later parts of the application. 

A. GROUNDWATER WELLS 

List all wells that are greater than 2 inches in outside diameter that are on the property. All wells must be included 

in the table below, whether active or inactive (capped, standby) and whether existing or proposed. Provide an 

identification number (Owner ID number) for the wells, and complete the column below with requested information. 

All depths are feet below land surface. 

� Not Applicable. Groundwater wells are not used or to be used as a source of water at this project. Skip to 

Section B (page 6) 

District ID No. 

Assigned by District if 

included on existing WUP; 

if not, leave blank. 

Status 

Owner ID No. Owner ID No. Owner ID No. 

#____________________ #____________________ #____________________ 

#____________________ #____________________ #____________________ 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Plugged 

� Capped 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Plugged 

� Capped 

(Withdrawal Table Continued) 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Plugged 

� Capped 


84

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART V 

Owner ID / District ID ____________/___________ ____________/___________ ____________/___________ 

Function 

Aquifer 

Aquifer/aquifer system 

from which water is 

withdrawn. For recharge 

wells, system where water 

is injected. 

� Augmentation 

� Recharge of Mine Cell 

� Materials Processing 

� Cleaning/Maintenance 

� Mitigation of Dewatering Impacts 

� Fire Suppression 

� Other: __________________ 

� Surficial Aquifer System 

� Intermediate Aquifer System 

� Intermediate and Upper Floridan 

Aquifer Systems 

� Upper Floridan Aquifer System 







� Other: __________________ 












� Other: __________________ 






Pump Capacity gpm gpm gpm 

Mainline Diameter inches inches inches 

Metered � Yes � No � Yes � No � Yes � No 

� Analog totalizing flow meter � Analog totalizing flow meter � Analog totalizing flow meter 

Meter Type 

� Digital totalizing flow meter � Digital totalizing flow meter � Digital totalizing flow meter 

(if currently metered) Data units if other than gallons: Data units if other than gallons: Data units if other than gallons: 

Meter serial number (if 

currently metered) 

Well Construction 

Permit Number. (If not 

known, write UNK) 

Construction Date 

____________________ 

____________________ 

____________________ 

Completion date for 

__________________ 

__________________ 

__________________ 

operation or anticipated 

completion date. 

Casing Diameter 

(mm/yyyy) 

(mm/yyyy) 

(mm/yyyy) 

(outer at land surface) 

Total Depth* 

Casing Depth* 

Liner Top Depth* 

Liner Bottom Depth* 

Pump Bowl Depth* 

Annual Average 

inches inches inches 

Quantity gpd gpd gpd 

Peak Month Quantity 

Full Standby** 

Partial Standby*** 

gpd gpd gpd 

� Yes � No � Yes � No � Yes � No 

� Yes � No 

Routine Annual Average Quantities: 

________________________ gpd 

SB Annual Average Quantities: 

________________________gpd 

* For proposed wells, indicate proposed design depths. 



________________________ gpd 


________________________gpd 

**Well not to be used unless another withdrawal point or off-site alternative water supply source becomes unavailable 



________________________ gpd 


________________________gpd 

***Well routinely used but on standby if another withdrawal point or off-site alternative water supply source becomes unavailable. 


85


B. 

1. Describe the future use of all capped wells. If there are multiple wells that are or are to be in capped status, 

reference the Owner ID numbers: 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. List any wells (District ID number or Owner ID number) for which a caliper or video log has been created but 

has not been previously submitted to the District. 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Submit a copy of the log and check the type that applies: � Video � Caliper � Not applicable 

SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWAL POINTS USED TO PROVIDE WATER 

List and provide information for all surface water withdrawal points from a surface water body (pond, pit, lake, or 

other impoundment, stream, river or canal) that are used to provide water for a use where the outside diameter of 

the withdrawal pipe or the sum of the outside diameters of the withdrawal pipes is 4 inches or greater. Include 

existing, inactive (those where the pump and pipe assembly still exist but are not used) and proposed surface 

water withdrawal points. 

� Not Applicable. There are no surface water withdrawal points used to provide water at this project. Skip to 

Section C (page 7). 

Information for withdrawals from recirculation or settling ponds is in the Alternative Water Supply Section. 

Information regarding surface water withdrawal points used for dewatering purposes is in PART IV, Mining 

Operations and Methods. 


(if existing) 

Name/Number of 

Water Body or 

Settling/ 

Recirculation Pond 

Source Type 

Water Body Type 


� Natural 

� Created - Lined 

� Created - Unlined 

� Borrow Pit � Pond /Lake 

� Reservoir � Canal 

� River/Stream 

� Natural 



� Borrow Pit � Pond /Lake 



� Natural 



� Borrow Pit � Pond/Lake 



Acreage (Put “N/A” if 

flowing water body.) acres acres acres 

Status 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

Intake Diameter 

� Dismantled 



Outside diameter of pipe inches inches inches 


(Surface Water Withdrawal Points Continued) 


86


Owner ID / District ID ____________/___________ ____________/___________ ____________/___________ 

Function 


(installation into water 

body) 

Pump Capacity 






� Repump 


� Other: __________________ 

________________ 

(mm/yyyy) 






� Repump 


� Other: __________________ 

________________ 

(mm/yyyy) 






� Repump 


� Other: __________________ 

________________ 

(mm/yyyy) 

gpm gpm gpm 

Currently Meter � Yes � No � Yes � No � Yes � No 

Meter Type 

(if currently metered) 

� Analog totalizing flow meter 

� Digital totalizing flow meter 

Data units if other than gallons: 

_________________________ 




________________________ ___ 




___________________________ 

Meter Serial Number 

(if currently metered) 




gpd gpd gpd 

Standby � Full � Partial � No � Full � Partial � No � Full � Partial � No 

Standby Annual 

Average Quantities 

(leave blank if this 

withdrawal point is not on 

Full or Partial standby) gpd gpd gpd 

C. ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY (AWS) 

“Alternative water supply” (AWS) describes water that has been reclaimed after one or more public supply, 

municipal, industrial, commercial or agricultural uses; the downstream augmentation of water bodies with 

reclaimed water; storm water; or any other water supply source that is designated as non-traditional for a water 

supply planning region in the applicable regional water supply plan. Other alternative water supplies are: 

saltwater; brackish surface water or brackish ground water; surface water captured predominately during wetweather 

flows; sources made available through the addition of new storage capacity for surface or ground water. 

Inclusion of reclaimed water and seawater in this definition does not alter the exemption from water use 

permitting for these sources (see the Water Use Permit Information Manual, Part B, Basis of Review, Section 

1.2). 

� Not applicable. Use of an alternative water supply is not anticipated during the term of this permit. 

If you checked “not applicable,” attach a report on your investigation of the feasibility of using alternative water 

supply to reduce withdrawals from the resource. If the report states that use of an alternative water supply was 

found to be infeasible, the reason must be fully documented. Infeasibility can include unavailability or that it is cost 

prohibitive. 

� AWS Feasibility Report attached. Skip to PART VI MINING OPERATIONS AND METHODS (page 10) 


87


1. AWS Supplier: If you received AWS or will receive AWS during the upcoming or remaining permit term from 

an offsite supplier, please provide the information below for the supplier. If the supplier has a water use permit 

(WUP), provide the WUP number. Submit a copy of the contract or agreement between you and the supplier 

that shows contract amounts and cost per 1,000 gallons. 

� N/A AWS is Self-Supplied only. Skip to “Number 2, AWS Facilities”. 

Name:_________________________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ______________________________________________________________________________ 

City/State/Zip: __________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone ( ) ___________________Email: ____________________WUP No. _____________________ 

(if the supplier has one) 

� Contract Attached 

2. 

Name:__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ 

City/State/Zip: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone ( ) ___________________Email: ____________________WUP No. _____________________ 

(if the supplier has one) 

� Contract Attached 

Attach the same information for additional suppliers. � Attached 

AWS Facilities: Complete the table below and on the next page with information on the type of AWS and 

facilities used. All of these are listed as withdrawal points on the permit. Include AWS types even if a water 

use permit is not required for its use. 

a. Inflow: A line that brings offsite AWS onto the property. 

b. Repump: The withdrawal point used to pump AWS that is derived offsite from a containment facility (pond, 

lake, etc.) if such a containment facility is used. Note: If there is repump of AWS, there is an inflow and 

both the augmentation source (the inflow line onto the property) and the repump facility must be listed. 

However, if the AWS source is self-supplied, only the repump facility must be listed. 

c. Self-supplied: The place where self-generated AWS leaves the site of origin or storage for its use. It is 

neither inflow nor repump but will be indicated as self-supplied AWS source in the table below. 

AWS Facilities Table 



Status 

Type 

� Existing � Standby 

� Proposed � Dismantled 

� Inflow � Repump 

� Self-Supplied 









Pump Capacity 

gpm gpm gpm 

Currently Metered � Yes � No � Yes � No � Yes � No 

Meter Type (if 

� Analog totalizing flow meter � Analog totalizing flow meter � Analog totalizing flow meter 


Meter Owner 

Applicant or supplier. 

Meter Serial 

Number (if currently 

metered) 


(AWS Facilities Table continued) 


88


Owner ID/District ID ____________/_____________ ____________/_____________ ____________/_____________ 

Function 

Reason for the water 

Alternative Water 

Supply Type 

Facility Type 

(Inflow and repump 

only) 

� Augmentation to Containment 

Facility 



� Slurry Makeup 




� Other: __________________ 

� Wastewater treatment (WWT) 

� Captured storm water in 

catchment/basin * 

� Industrial waste water 

� Settling pond at a dewatering 

project 

� Industrial process byproduct 

� Brackish ground water 

� Brackish surface water 

Inflow (off-site supplier): 

� WWT facility – pressurized pipe 

� WWT facility – unpressurized pipe 

� Other than WWT facility source 

Repump: 

� From a lined holding pond 

� From an unlined holding pond 


Facility 







� Other: __________________ 






project 





� WWT facility – pressurized 

� WWT facility – not pressurized 


Repump: 

� Lined holding pond 

� Unlined holding pond 


Facility 







� Other: __________________ 






project 





� WWT facility – pressurized 

� WWT facility – not pressurized 


Repump: 

� Lined holding pond 

� Unlined holding pond 

Mainline Diameter 

Inflow facilities: Outer 

pipe diameter 

delivering AWS 

Repump facilities: 

Outside diameter of 

withdrawal pipe. 

Expected Annual 

_______________________inches _____________________ inches _____________________ inches 

Average Quantity** 

Expected Minimum 

Monthly Delivery 

Minimum 

quantity/month per 

gpd gpd gpd 

contract or agreement. 

Number of Months 

Availability 

Number of months/year 

supply is likely be 

available. 

Expected 

Maximum Daily 

gpd gpd gpd 

Quantity 

Date Available 

First month/year of 

gpd gpd gpd 

service expected or 

month/year when 

existing service began. 

___________________ (mm/yyyy) __________________ (mm/yyyy) __________________ (mm/yyyy) 

** Provide the calculations and documentation for the amount of storm water to be counted toward AWS use per 

catchment. Include documentation that the capture of this amount of stormwater runoff does not adversely impact 

the watershed, environment, existing legal users and off-site land use. 

** If anticipated quantities are for less than 12 months per year, prorate the annual average accordingly. 

3. Metered Use: If an existing AWS facility is not metered, on an attachment explain how quantities 

delivered/created are measured. 


89

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS V & VI 

� Attached 

4. Stormwater: If any part of the AWS claimed is stormwater captured for use on-site, provide the name and 

Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation License number for the individual who calculated 

the stormwater quantities that are captured. 

� Not applicable 

_____________________________________________________ _____________________________ 

Print Name FDBPR License No. 

PART VI. MINING OPERATIONS AND METHODS 

Describe the mining and dewatering plans for the expected duration of mining up to 10 years. If more than one type of 

material mined was checked on page 1, indicate the geologic formation for each dewatering withdrawal point. 

A. SITE PREPARATION/OVERBURDEN REMOVAL 

1. Is dewatering proposed in advance of mining? � Yes � No Skip to “B. MINING METHOD.” 

2. If “yes,” indicate dewatering purpose (check all that apply): � Site preparation � Overburden removal 

3. Dewatering Well Information: Provide information on dewatering wells in the tables below. Show the 

duration in number of months that the well will be required for its dewatering activity. Indicate the geologic 

formation (Ft. Thompson, Caloosahatchee, Tamiami, Hawthorn-Bone Valley, Hawthorn-Arcadia, Arcadia, 

Tampa, Nocatee, Suwannee LS, Ocala LS, Avon Park) that is to be dewatered or removed. If there are 

multiple mining phases, indicate the mine phase pertinent to the well. Indicate the proposed disposition of a 

well after dewatering (capped, plugged, removed). Reference each dewatering source to the map required in 

PART IV, Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation, above. If a section of the table does not apply, denote with 

“N/A.” Depths should be below land surface. 

Reference pertinent information to the map required in PART IV, Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation, above. 



� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

Casing Diameter inches inches inches 

Total Depth (ft. bls) 

Casing Depth (ft. bls) 

Pump Capacity 

gpm gpm gpm 



Meter Type (if currently � Analog totalizing flow meter � Analog totalizing flow meter � Analog totalizing flow meter 

metered) 

Meter Serial No. (if 





Peak Month Quantity gpd gpd gpd 

Maximum Daily Quantity 

Geologic Formation 

Dewatered 

Mine Phase 

gpd gpd gpd 

Duration of Use _____ (mm/yy) – _____ (mm/yy) _____ (mm/yy) – _____ (mm/yy) _____ (mm/yy) – _____ (mm/yy) 

Future Disposition � Cap � Removed � Plug � Cap � Removed � Plug � Cap � Removed � Plug 

4. Metered Use: If an existing dewatering withdrawal point is not metered, or a proposed withdrawal point is not 

to be metered, attach an explanation of how dewatering quantities are measured. 

� Attached 


90

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART VI 

B. MINING METHOD (Choose at least one mining method) 

1. Open Pit Mining With Dewatering: If the mining method is open pit mining with dewatering, answer 

questions below. 

� Not applicable. Skip to “Number 2. Dredge/Wet Mining”. 

a. Provide information on the surface water withdrawal points (pumps and withdrawal pipe) for each mine pit 

dewatering site in the table below. Indicate the material mined and geologic formation (Ft. Thompson, 

Caloosahatchee, Tamiami, Hawthorn-Bone Valley, Hawthorn-Arcadia, Arcadia, Tampa, Nocatee, 

Suwannee LS, Ocala LS, Avon Park) that is to be dewatered for mining. If there will be multiple 

dewatering withdrawal points operational at one time, provide information for each of them separately. If 

any surface water withdrawal point is to be moved to new dewatering locations as needed, only input the 

information once. The mining plan will show its subsequent locations 


. 


(if existing) 

Status 

Intake Diameter (outer) 


(mm/yyyy) 

Pump Capacity 

Mine Cell Reference to 

Map 

Duration of Dewatering 

Material Mined 

(Limestone, Sand/Gravel, 

Shell, Peat, etc.) 

Geologic Formation 

Dewatered (Indicate all 

that apply. See list above) 



From________________(mm/yy) 

To _________________ (mm/yy) 






gpm gpm gpm 

From________________(mm/yy) 

To _________________ (mm/yy) 

From________________(mm/yy) 

To _________________ (mm/yy) 


Meter Type (if currently 

metered) 







Meter Serial No. (if 


Mainline Outside 

Diameter 





Maximum Daily 

gpd gpd gpd 

Quantity (If any) gpd gpd gpd 

b. If an existing dewatering withdrawal point is not metered, or a proposed withdrawal point is not to be 

metered, attach an explanation of how dewatering quantities are measured. 

� Attached 

c. Attach a detailed dewatering plan for the mining activities. The plan must include a description of the 

dewatering quantities anticipated through time on a monthly, annual, or other appropriate basis, for each 

mine cell proposed to be dewatered within the permit duration. If mining activity is to occur in phases, 

reference each phase with a tentative “begin” date. Reference each withdrawal point for dewatering using 


91

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART VI 

the map in PART IV, Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation. For each dewatered cell, indicate the maximum 

dewatered level and the expected length of time that the pit will be held at all levels of dewatering. 

� Attached 

2. Dredge/Wet Mining: If the mining method is dredge/wet mining, answer questions below. 

� Not Applicable. Skip to “Number 3. Dry Mining.” 

a. Provide information on any wells or surface water withdrawal points that will be used to initially charge the 

mine pit or will be used to keep the mine pit charged with water to float the dredge. If more than one pit is 

to be created, indicate the order of use in “Mine Phase.” Indicate the proposed disposition of a well after 

dewatering (cap or plug). 

District ID No. Owner ID No. 

Duration of Use 

(mm/yy to mm/yy) 

Mine Phase 

Future Disposition of 

Charge Withdrawal 

� Cap � Plug 

� Removed � Dismantle 







b. Attach a detailed dredge/wet mining plan describing the process for each mine cell. The plan must include, 

at a minimum, a description of how quantities are derived to fill a dredge pit and the estimated duration of 

the initial charging of the pit, if required. If the mining operation is to occur in phases, please give tentative 

dates for each phase. 

� Attached 

Note: Applicant is required to provide reasonable assurance that the water used to charge the pit does not 

impact any off-site land use, existing legal withdrawal of water, or environmental features. See PART X, 

Impact Assessment. Reference pertinent information to the map required in PART IV, Geologic and 

Hydrologic Evaluation. 

3. Dry Mining: If dry mining is proposed for which water is required, attach a dry mining plan describing in detail 

the water needs associated with the process. Reference pertinent information to the map required in 

PART IV, Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation. 

� Attached 


4. Combination of the three mining processes listed above: If multiple mining methods are to be utilized, 

attach a detailed mining plan that addresses each process for each mine cell as appropriate as described 

above. 

� Attached 



92

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART VII 

PART VII. WATER ROUTING 

Describe how water from dewatering activities or from ground or surface water withdrawal points is to be used and 

transferred on site. 

� Not Applicable. There is no routing of water onsite. Skip to PART VIII ADDITIONAL WATER DEMAND 

A. WATER ROUTING DIAGRAM 

Submit a plan-view diagram showing how water will be routed among the mine cells, recirculation ponds, settling 

ponds, hydraulic recharge/intercept ditches, recharge wells, dewatering wells, off-site discharge sites, etc., as well 

as to and from any on-site processing facilities. Include any water table drainage systems, existing or proposed. 

Major components shown on the diagram must be referenced to the map locations required in PART XV, Maps, or 

the water routing diagram can be drawn onto the ortho-photographic map required. 

� Attached 

B. OFF-SITE DISCHARGE POINTS 

Complete the table below with information on all permitted off-site discharge points. Reference the discharge point 

number to the map required in PART IV, Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation, above. 

� Not applicable; there will be no off-site discharge of water. 

Discharge Point 

No. 

NPDES Permit No. 

C. HYDRAULIC RECHARGE/INTERCEPT DITCHES 

Daily Volume 

Discharge (gpd) 

� Not applicable; no hydraulic recharge/intercept ditches are proposed. 

Source of Discharge Receiving Water Body 

Provide detailed information describing the construction details of each hydraulic recharge/intercept ditch to 

prevent adverse impacts associated with dewatering as shown on the map required in PART IV, Geologic and 

Hydrologic Evaluation, above. Include the length, width, and depth of the recharge/intercept ditch, the geology of 

the matrix on each side and below the ditch, the source of water, and how the water level in each hydraulic 

recharge/intercept ditch will be maintained and monitored. The operation information must include monitoring and 

maintenance information to ensure the effectiveness of the hydraulic barrier. 

� Attached 

D. RECIRCULATION AND SETTLING PONDS 

A recirculation pond is a settling pond that provides a source of water (Alternative Water Supply), and so it has or 

will have a surface water withdrawal point. If the water in a settling pond is not reused, it will not have a surface 

water withdrawal point, but it may have a discharge point. 

Provide information of all existing and proposed recirculation and settling ponds in the table on the next page. 

Quantities required are annual averages in gallons per day. Reference each pond identification number to the 

map required in Maps Section, PART XIV, and complete information for that pond in the column below the 

identification number. Provide the date for the initial flow to the pond and the date at which the pond will be 

abandoned with respect to mining operations. Recirculation ponds, as a source of Alternative Water Supply 

(AWS), will have surface water withdrawal points that require an Owner ID Number. (Note, these should have 

been listed in the Alternative Water Supply section.) Either pond type may have a discharge point. 

� Not applicable; there are no existing or proposed recirculation or settling ponds. Skip to PART VIII. 


93

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS VII & VIII 

Existing or Proposed 

Pond 

Owner ID Number 

District ID Number (if 

existing) 

Pond Type 

Recirculation and Settling Pond Table 

Pond Identification 

(reference to map) 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

� Recirculation 

� Settling 

� Existing 

� Proposed 



� Existing 

� Proposed 


� Settling 

� Existing 

� Proposed 



� Existing 

� Proposed 


� Settling 

� Existing 

� Proposed 



� Existing 

� Proposed 


� Settling 

� Existing 

� Proposed 

Pond Acreage 

Depth of Pond 

(below land surface) feet feet feet feet 

Input Quantity 

Input Source* 

� Treatment Facility 

� Mine Pit 

gpd gpd gpd gpd 


� Mine Pit 


� Mine Pit 


� Mine Pit 

Estimated Infiltration 

Rate from water table** 

Estimated Evaporative 


Losses 

Quantity Withdrawn for 

Reuse 


(recirculation ponds only) gpd gpd gpd gpd 

Quantities Discharged 

Input Initiation Date 

(mm/yy) 

Termination Date (mm/yy) 


* Where does the water that flows into the pond originate (mine pit, refining facilities, etc.) 

** The infiltration rate is the rate at which ground water flows into the pond. 

PART VIII. ADDITIONAL WATER DEMAND 

Compile all documentation of quantities, water balances and mining and dewatering water demand 

information into one document and attach it to this application form. Quantities and withdrawal points used 

for some of this information has been asked earlier in the application and will not be repeated here. 

Additional water demand not requested earlier is addressed here. 

A. PRODUCT INFORMATION 

1. Provide the estimated U.S. tons of product to be removed from the site each year. ______________ 

2. Provide the percentage by weight of the water entrained with the product leaving the site: __________ % 

3. Provide the quantities of water lost from the site due to product entrainment: 

Annual Average _________________ gpd Peak Month (gpd) ___________________ gpd 

4. Attach the appropriate references and calculations with conversion to gallons per day. 

� Included in attachment 


94

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART VIII 

B. MINING ACTIVITIES WATER DEMAND 

Provide both a water balance table and water balance diagram for existing and proposed annual average and 

peak month water demands. The table and diagram must show all water sources (ground water from wells, 

ground water from water table dewatering or drainage, surface water, rainfall, recycled water, etc.), the amount of 

water entering and leaving each step in the process (uses, slurry creation, etc.), and all water losses (evaporation, 

product moisture, product entrainment, waste material water entrainment, steam losses, other processing water 

losses, sorting and grading, off-site discharge, recycling, etc.). Major water balance components may be 

constructed separately; however, links between components must be shown. Provide the percentage of 

unaccounted water losses for existing operations (total system throughout minus all accounted and in-plant uses). 

Show in the water balance where the unaccounted losses may be occurring. Include appropriate calculations to 

support the water balance tables or diagrams. (Quantities and withdrawal point identification for those quantities 

were made earlier in the application.) 

� Tables and diagrams included in attachment 

C. PLANT/FACILITIES WATER DEMAND 

� Not applicable. There are no plants or facilities that need water associated with this project. 

Provide both water balance tables and water balance diagrams on annual average and peak month 

processing/refining/water demands for each existing and proposed plant/facility. All quantities must be in units of 

gallons per day, and the total of all sources must equal the total of all losses. Include appropriate calculations to 

support the water balance tables or diagrams. (Quantities and withdrawal point identification for those quantities 

were made earlier in the application.) 

� Tables and diagrams included in attachment 

D. RECLAMATION WATER DEMAND 

� Not applicable. Reclamation will not take place within the permit term or it will not require additional water 

demand. 

If reclamation is to begin during the term of this permit, irrigation needs for plant and landscape establishment will 

require a separate application (for Recreation/Aesthetic water use). For non-irrigation water needs, describe and 

quantify those associated with the proposed reclamation activities. Include appropriate calculations on a 

spreadsheet or other electronic format to support the reclamation water demand. 

District ID No. Owner ID No. Annual Average (gpd) Peak Month (gpd) 

� Calculations included in attachment 

Subtotal: 

E. CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH MINING OR DEWATERING 

� Not applicable. Water is not needed for construction. 

If water is needed for construction associated with mining or dewatering, complete the table below: 


Subtotal: 

Provide documentation of the annual average and peak month water demand. 

� Documentation included in attachment 


95

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART VIII 

F. FIRE FLOW (SUPPRESSION AND TESTING) 

� Not applicable. Fire protection is provided by a public supply utility. 

If fire protection is provided from an on-site water source, provide the quantities needed including quantities 

required to test and maintain the system. 

Peak month = is for a single fire in a single month. 

District ID No. User ID No. Annual Average (gpd) Peak Month (gpd) 

� Documentation included in attachment 

Subtotal: 

G. LAWN/LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION 

� Not applicable. Irrigation water is not provided from withdrawal facilities on this property. 

If water is used to irrigate 5 acres or less of lawn and landscape around the office or facilities, complete the table 

below. If more acreage is irrigated, you must apply for a separate Recreation or Aesthetic Water Use Permit. 

District ID 

No. 

User ID 

No. 

Acres 

Irrigation 

Method 

Was AGMOD 

Used 



Subtotal: 

� AGMOD printout or other calculation of quantities included in attachment. 

H. POTABLE/SANITARY REQUIREMENTS 

� Not applicable; potable/sanitary requirements are provided by a public supply utility. 

Annual 

Average (gpd) 

If water is provided for the potable/sanitary needs of employees, complete the table below. 

Shift 

Number 

1 

2 

3 

District ID 

No. 

Owner ID No. 

Employees and 

Visitors/Shift 

Workdays/ 

Week 

Subtotal: 


(gpd) 

Peak Month 

(gpd) 

I. MISCELLANEOUS USE 

If water is needed for washing and maintenance of equipment and facilities, air conditioning, cooling, etc., 

complete the table below. (Washing of mined product is part of the material processing water needs). 

� Not applicable. No other water uses are requested 

Peak Month 

(gpd) 


Subtotal: 


96

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS VIII & IX 

J. AUGMENTATION FOR MITIGATION 

� Not applicable. Augmentation for mitigation does not occur and is not planned. 

If water quantities are required to provide mitigation of impacts to wetlands, off-site land use, lakes, streams, etc., 

provide the information in the table below. The water source could be an aquifer, settling pond, etc. 

District ID No. Owner ID No. Water Source 

Subtotal: 


(gpd) 

Peak Month (gpd) 

TOTAL OTHER MINING AND DEWATERING WATER DEMAND: Annual Average (gpd) Peak Month (gpd) 

IX. MONITOR SITES 

___________________ ____________________ 

If there are monitor sites, including any withdrawal points that are used also for monitoring purposes, complete the 

next table using the codes from the list below. 

If there are neither existing nor proposed monitor sites, check here � and skip to PART X. 

MONITOR TYPES 

Code Description Remarks 

DM Discharge meter Measures discharge through a pipe 

EM Effluent meter Discharge from a treatment plant or meter at a reuse customer's site 

EP Evaporation pan Evaporation usually associated with a surface water body 

ES Environmental monitor site Usually a wetland, lake, riverine environment, or estuary 

F Flume Narrows flow and measures height in flume for discharge rate 

FM Flow meter Measures flow in stream or river or site discharge, not from a withdrawal point. 

MW Monitor well Monitors ground water 

PM Piezometer Water table monitor 

RG Rain gauge Rainfall 

SG Staff gauge Flow rate or surface water body level indicator 

SS Sample site Sample site at surface (land, lake, stream, spring, estuary, etc.) 

TM Thermometer Temperature measurement 

WR Weir Flow rate or water level indicator 

MONITOR USES 


AL Aquifer levels Water levels in wells 

DF Discharge flow From a site or facility 

EA Environmental monitoring Water inflow to an augmented environmental site 

HB Hydraulic Barrier Limit function to piezometer and staff guage 

LL Surface water body water level Lake, pond, reservoir, riverine impoundment 

MP Mine pit water levels Dewatering level in feet, NGVD or NAVD 

RF Rainfall Local precipitation in inches 

S Salinity Salinity of a surface water body 

SA Salt water wedge Tidal function in an estuary 

SF Stream flow Canal, stream, river 

SI Aquifer Saline Water Interface Monitor well placed at the saline water interface in an aquifer 

SW Aquifer Saline Water Intrusion Monitor well inland of saline water interface 


97

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS IX & X 

MONITOR USES (continued) 


TA Temperature of air As stated 

TB Water turbidity As stated 

TW Temperature of Water Temperature of ground or surface water 

U Contamination Plume Monitors location and concentration of contaminant plume in aquifer 

WF Wetland function Measurement of the functional health of a wetland 

WL Wetland water level Surface water level in a wetland 

WQ Water quality Surface or ground water quality samples 

RE Retention pond Levels in retention ponds, usually associated with augmentation 


Owner 

(if other than applicant) 

Monitor Type 

Monitor Use 

Frequency* 

Owner ID No. Owner ID No. Owner ID No. Owner ID No. Owner ID No. 

* Hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually, bi-annually (every other year), other (specify). 

PART X. IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

All applicants for a water use permit must provide reasonable assurance that their water use will not cause 

adverse impacts to existing legal users, to the water resources or to offsite land use. The reasonable 

assurance is provided via the Impact Assessment. 

� Not applicable. The impact analysis that was done for the previous revision of this permit suffices as a complete 

and current assessment of impacts to existing legal users, to the water resources or to offsite land use caused by 

the activity described in this application. 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES 

Submit analyses and detailed documentation of the impacts predicted by the proposed mining and/or dewatering 

activities, including water withdrawals for any uses listed, water losses due to water entrainment with product, change 

in storage resulting from mining or dredge pit creation, and increased evaporation losses with respect to existing legal 

water users, off-site land uses, and environmental features (such as wetlands and other surface water features, 

whether natural or man-made). If the mining operation is dredge/wet mining, include an analysis of the impacts of 

pumping ground water to initially charge the pit. If Alternative Water Supplies (AWS) provide water that would 

otherwise be withdrawn from the resource, analyze the impacts assuming lack of AWS. The applicant is required to 

provide reasonable assurance that the mining or dewatering activity does not adversely impact any off-site land uses, 

existing legal withdrawals of water or environmental features. 

The analysis must portray impacts caused by maximum water use and dewatering depths of each mine cell without 

mitigation efforts (such as hydraulic recharge ditches or recharge wells) as well as with mitigation efforts. Analyses 

and documentation provided to support this application must be signed and sealed by a qualified professional as 

specified in PART XVI, Professional Certification. Label and reference all elevations, water levels, and depths to either 

National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 or North American Vertical Datum 1988 as appropriate. 

A. GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL 

� Not applicable. A groundwater flow model was not utilized in impact analyses. Skip to Section B. 

If a groundwater flow model is used to predict drawdown impacts, the model must be run to simulate the maximum 

dewatered level to quasi-steady state or for the duration of dewatering each cell, whichever is less. If the 

dewatering will occur in stages, multiple models may be run to simulate the progression of dewatering through 

time. If mitigation efforts are proposed, a second model run must portray the effect of mitigation efforts to preserve 

the water table. Models provided to the District may utilize the MODFLOW 2000 (or current) groundwater flow 


98

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS XI , XII & XIII 

model code developed by the United States Geological Survey (Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and 

McDonald, M.G., 2000) or a combination of integration with an accepted surface water flow model and MODFLOW 

groundwater flow model. Any models to be provided in support of a WUP application must be fully adaptable and 

functional for use with Ground Water Vistas software. If there is intent to use the District's calibrated model, it is 

recommended that the user schedule a pre-application meeting with the District to go over modeling procedures. 

All inputs and outputs to all packages and components of the models must be provided, and all parameters chosen 

must be documented and supported. Provide an overlay on the map required in PART XIV, Maps, indicating 

predicted water table elevations resulting from dewatering without mitigation at appropriate contour intervals to 

clearly delineate the extent of dewatering drawdown. If mitigation is proposed, provide an additional overlay 

demonstrating the modeled effect of the proposed mitigation efforts. The model files must be submitted in 

electronic format and in hard copy. 

� Attached 

B. OTHER DRAWDOWN ASSESSMENT METHODS 

� Not applicable. This method was not utilized in an impact analyses. 

If a drawdown impact assessment other than a groundwater flow model is submitted, describe the methodology, 

document that it is appropriate for the use intended, and provide input and output information and/or calculations 

used within the methodology, along with the results. Demonstrate that the calculations and the methodology used 

are supported by the hydro-geological regime. The drawdown assessment must clearly delineate drawdown 

impacts caused by maximum dewatering depths of each mine cell without mitigation efforts, in addition to with 

mitigation efforts such as water table recharge ditches. The drawdown assessment must be submitted in electronic 

format and in hard copy. 

� Attached 

PART XI. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

If the analysis in PART X, Impact Assessments, above, identifies potential impacts to wetlands, lakes, springs, 

streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other environmental features, then the applicant must submit an Environmental 

Management Plan (EMP). The EMP must describe the pre-mining or pre-dewatering conditions within the systems to 

be protected, describe protection measures that will be used to prevent adverse impacts, monitor the effectiveness of 

the protection measures, set thresholds for mitigation actions, and describe the mitigation actions to be taken if 

impacts occur. All elevations, levels and depths must be relative to NGVD 1929 or to NAVD 1988 as appropriate. The 

datum used must be clearly identified in the report and labeled on diagrams and maps. 

Does the impact analysis, conducted prior to the addition of any protection measures, predict any potential 

impacts to wetlands or other environmental features? � Yes � No Skip to PART XII. 

If “yes,” submit the following in an EMP: 

A. BASELINE ASSESSMENT 

The baseline assessment must be conducted for a sufficient duration and frequency prior to the initiation of mining, 

dewatering, or groundwater withdrawals to present a thorough characterization of the normal hydrology of those 

systems. The baseline assessment must consist of: 

1. Identification and initial assessment of current hydrologic and vegetative conditions of all on-site 

environmental features that are not permitted to be impacted and are predicted to be hydrologically impacted if 

protection measures fail. Furthermore, all off-site environmental features that are predicted to be hydrologically 

impacted if protection measures fail must also be identified and have separate assessments documenting their 

current hydrologic and vegetative conditions. The assessments must be both quantitative and qualitative 

(using photographs and description). 

2. Identification and initial assessment of a variety of non-impacted reference environmental features with which 

to compare each potentially impacted environmental feature during mining or dewatering activities. 

3. Identification of pre-mining and pre-dewatering water table levels and wetland water levels including normal 

hydro-period fluctuations. 

B. PROTECTION MEASURES 


99

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS XI , XII & XIII 

All predicted adverse impacts to environmental features must be avoided. The EMP must fully describe the 

protection measures that are designed to prevent predicted adverse impacts to environmental features. The onsite 

and off-site environmental features that are to be preserved and the associated protection measure must be 

identified and an explanation given for each concerning how and why the protection measure(s) will work as 

designed. Each protection measure must be depicted on the map required in PART IV, Geologic and Hydrologic 

Evaluation, above. The permittee must put all protection measures into effect prior to mining/dewatering or prior to 

pumpage from wells, if applicable. 

C. MONITORING PLAN 

The monitoring plan must describe in detail the baseline assessment, as well as the monitoring location, timing, 

and reporting periods for the long-term assessment. A long-term monitoring plan including the sampling protocol, 

must be designed to provide surface water levels, surficial aquifer water levels, and potentiometric surface for both 

the protected and reference environmental features. The monitoring plan must also include a wetland assessment 

protocol sufficient to provide long-term information on the wetland plant community of each potentially impacted 

wetland or surface water. 

D. MITIGATION THRESHOLDS 

The EMP must establish a hydrologic impact detection protocol to provide metrics for comparing the hydrology of 

potentially impacted wetlands and streams to the hydrology of reference environmental features. It must describe 

site-specific thresholds or triggers that will alert the permittee and the District that the protection measure(s) 

appear to be insufficient, and will initiate implementation of mitigation actions. 

E. MITIGATION ACTIONS 

The EMP must describe sequential and progressive actions that will be taken to quickly correct unexpected 

hydrologic impacts to preserved environmental features. The description of the actions to be taken in the mitigation 

plan must detail what these activities are, what they are meant to accomplish, and how they are to be monitored 

for success. The EMP must also contain a statement that if water levels in environmental features cannot be 

maintained while mining and/or dewatering actions are underway, then the permittee shall immediately cease 

mining and/or dewatering. 

� Attached 

PART XII. SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA 

If at least one withdrawal point is located in the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA), the entire permit is 

considered to be in the SWUCA. If this is the case it is required that the SWUCA Supplemental Form be included with 

this application. Within the SWUCA supplemental form, the applicant will be directed to add other supplemental forms 

if they are required. 

� Attached 

PART XIII. WATER CONSERVATION 

Submit a water conservation plan that insures efficiency of use and provides for increasing efficiency of use by 

implementing environmentally, technically and economically feasible water conservation measures. The plan shall 

include water conservation practices and utilization of water conserving technologies applicable to all components of 

demand and loss including recycling, reuse, and utilization of water-efficient irrigation practices on drought-tolerant 

landscaping. An implementation schedule shall be included for each water conservation measure anticipated, and 

progress reports shall be required based upon the implementation schedule. 

In addition to the requirements for new applicants , above, the water conservation plan for renewal or modification of a 

mining or dewatering water use permit shall describe and quantify where and when water savings have been 

achieved by existing practices and identify where, when and how much water savings can be reasonably achieved by 

incorporating proposed water conservation measures. An implementation schedule shall be included for each 

proposed conservation measure, and progress reports shall be required based upon the implementation schedule. 

� Attached 


100

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART XIV 

A. MINE PROJECT SITE MAPS 

PART XIV. MAPS 

Submit a recent digital ortho-photographic map or maps of the entire project that delineates or plots the features 

listed below. The ortho-photographic maps on the District’s geographic information system (GIS) may be utilized. 

If the District’s ortho-photographic maps are not used, then the minimum scale for the hardcopy map submitted 

must be 1 inch = 2,000 feet. Road names must be clearly shown. Label all items in the list below. 

1. Applicant property boundary. 

2. If this application includes non-contiguous owned or leased parcels, or if the parcel(s) to be serviced are a 

distance from the withdrawal point locations, provide separate large-scale maps (those that enlarge the area) 

of each parcel in addition to a smaller-scale (those that show a larger area) map that includes all parcels. 

3. Ponds, pits, lakes, streams, canals, rivers or any surface water body that is to be used as a water source. If a 

surface water source is to be constructed, outline its proposed footprint on the map. 

4. Interconnected withdrawal points such as augmentation-repump systems. 

5. Label each surface water withdrawal point location with the District ID No. or the Owner ID No. for 

identification. 

6. Indicate the boundaries of each mine pit and mine cell, referenced to the cross sections required in PART IV, 

Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation. If the mining/dewatering will be done in phases, indicate the relative 

progression of mine pit areas to be dewatered/mined for the permit duration term. Label them numerically or 

by anticipated month/year. 

7. Identify the location of each cross section and label them for reference to the cross sections required in PART 

IV, Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation. 

8. Identify the existing and proposed dewatering withdrawal location for each mine cell referenced to the table 

required in PART VI, Mining Operations and Methods. 

9. Identify existing or proposed pumps used to route water on-site and label them to reference information 

required in the water routing diagram. 

10. Indicate any existing or proposed surface drainage ditches intended to lower the water table. 

11. Identify and label each existing and proposed ground water well with the District ID No. (if one exists), Owner 

ID No. and its proposed use, using the symbols delineated below: 

a. Recharge well(s) used to mitigate environmental and water resource related drawdown impacts as RC 

b. Dewatering well(s) as C 

c. Augmentation well(s) for floating a dredge as AU 

d. Standby well(s) as SB 

e. Capped well(s) as CA 

f. Plugged well(s) as PL 

g. Existing wells to be plugged and abandoned as mining progresses as TP 

h. Charge wells to fill a mine pit with water to float a dredge as CH 

12. Recirculation and/or Settling Ponds – Indicate existing and proposed recirculation and/or settling ponds, 

labeled for reference to PART VII, Water Routing. 

13. Hydraulic recharge ditches – Identify the location of existing and proposed hydraulic recharge ditches, labeled 

to reference to the cross sections required in PART IV, Geologic and Hydrologic Evaluation. 

14. Off-site discharge points – Indicated locations of existing and proposed off-site discharge points, including 

dredge-line discharges and settling pond discharges, labeled to reference to the information required in PART 

VII, Water Routing. 

15. On-site Environmental – Delineate all on-site wetlands and surface waters and indicate the type using the 

symbols delineated below: 

a. Environmental features to be preserved under an ERP or DRI permit as ERP-P 

b. Environmental features to be mined as M 

c. Environmental features to be reclaimed under a DEP Reclamation Plan as DEP-R 

d. Environmental features to be created under an ERP mitigation plan as ERP-C 

e. Environmental features that are located on-site but outside the ERP project area and that are not to be 

mined as N-M 


101

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PARTS XIV, XV & XVI 

16. Off-site Environmental – Delineate all off-site wetlands and other surface waters, whether natural or manmade, 

within the 0.1 foot drawdown contour or where drawdown exceeds 0.1 foot in the water table, as 

predicted by the impact analyses required in PART X, Impact Assessments. 

17. Off-site Land Use – Identify and label all land uses adjacent to the property to be mined or dewatered (e.g., 

residential, citrus grove, etc.) that falls within the 0.1 foot drawdown contour or where drawdown exceeds 0.1 

foot in the water table, as predicted by the impact analyses required in PART X, Impact Assessments. 

18. Out Parcels – Identify the name, address and telephone number for owners of out-parcel land that is inside the 

project area. 

19. Monitoring Sites – Delineate all existing and proposed monitoring locations according to Owner ID No. and 

indicate types using the abbreviations given PART IX, Monitor Sites: 

� Mine project site maps attached 

B. FACILITY MAP 

If the mined materials are processed and part of the water demand included in this application is involved in the 

processing, submit a map of the processing facilities. Show all withdrawal points associated with the processing, 

incoming slurry lines, discharges to settling or recirculation ponds or off-site, and water storage facilities. Include 

any withdrawal points used for potable/sanitary use, landscape irrigation, or fire flow. 

� Facility map attached 

PART XV. PERMIT TYPE 

For fee and permit duration aspects, this permit will be classified as a General Water Use Permit Type if the total water 

demand is less than 500,000 gpd on an annual average basis. It will be classified as an Individual Water Use Permit 

Type if the total water demand is 500,000 gpd or more on an annual average basis. 

A. GENERAL WATER USE PERMIT � Check here if your total annual average demand is less than 500,000 gpd. The 

permit processing fee is that of a General Water Use Permit. 

New permit: $250 Renewal: $185 Modification: $75 

B. INDIVIDUAL WATER USE PERMIT � Check here if your total annual average demand is 500,000 gpd or more. The 

permit processing fee is that of an Individual Water Use Permit. 

New permit: $1,000 Renewal: $750 Modification: $300 

PART XVI. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION 

Any geologic or hydrogeologic documents and reports submitted in connection with this permit application must be 

dated, signed and sealed by a qualified professional who has the expertise and training to make geological and 

hydrogeological interpretations pursuant to Chapters 492 and/or 471 Florida Statutes (F.S.). 

I hereby certify that I am a qualified professional pursuant to � 492 F.S. or � 471 F.S. (check one) to make geological 

and hydrogeological interpretations for this water use permit application. 

_______________________________________________ __________________ ________________ 

Name License No. Date 

_______________________________________________ 

Print Name 


102

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION PART XVIII 

PART XVII. APPLICANT/OWNER CERTIFICATION 

All owners of the property described in this application are included as co-applicants of this permit. Please attach their 

signatures to a document that attests that they are aware of this application and agree to its content, or that they have 

empowered the signer below with authority to act on this application on their behalf. 


BUSINESS ENTITY AS APPLICANTS 

If the permit applicant is a business entity, indicate the type of business entity below and provide the name and title of 

the person signing on behalf of the business entity. Attach documentation of the status of the business entity to legally 

operate in the State of Florida, such as a copy of the last corporate annual report submitted to the Florida Department 

of State or a Certificate of Status issued by Florida Department of State. 

� Florida Corporation � Florida General Partnership � Florida Limited Liability Company 


� Other: ___________________________________________________________________________________ 

I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate and that I have legal authority to undertake 

the activities described herein and execute this application. 

_______________________________________________ _________________________________ 

Applicant signature/Consultant or Contact signature* Date 

_______________________________________________ 

Name and title if signing as business entity applicant* 

* If this application is being submitted by a consultant or contact, a signed document from the landowner(s) must be attached giving 

authority to sign and submit this application. 


103

MINING AND DEWATERING OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN PHOSPHATE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION 

Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Applicants for water use and environmental resource permits may submit their applications to any District Permitting 

Office; however, it is recommended to submit them to the Permitting Office within the Service Region where their 

property is located. All activities concerning these permits will be conducted at these Permitting Offices. Applications 

for well construction permits may also be submitted to any Permitting Office; however, applications for well 

construction permits in Marion, Sarasota and Manatee Counties are evaluated and issued locally by county agencies. 

Resource Regulation Service Regions Resource Regulation Permitting Offices 

Brooksville Regulation Department 

Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion, Pasco, Sumter 

counties. 

2379 Broad Street 

Brooksville, FL 34604-6899 

(352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) 

Fax: (352) 540-6027; Suncom: 628-4150 

Tampa Regulation Department 

Hillsborough, Pinellas counties. 

7601 U.S. Hwy. 301 

Tampa, FL 33637-6759 

(813) 985-7481 or 1-800-836-0797 (FL only) 

Fax: (813) 987-6747; Suncom: 587-2070 

Bartow Regulation Department 

Hardee, Highland, Polk counties. 

170 Century Boulevard 

Bartow, FL 33830-7700 

(863) 534-1448 or 1-800-492-7862 (FL only) 

Fax: (863) 534-7058; Suncom: 572-6200 

Sarasota Regulation Department 

Charlotte, DeSoto, Manatee, Sarasota counties. 

6750 Fruitville Road 

Sarasota, FL 34240-9711 

(941) 377-3722 or 1-800-320-3503 (FL only) 

Fax: (941) 373-7660; Suncom: 531-6900 

TDD: 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) for hearing 

assistance for all locations. 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This nondiscrimination 

policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, including access to and participation in the District's programs and activities. 

Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District's 

Human Resources Director, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899; telephone (352) 796-7211, ext. 4702 or 1-800- 

423-1476 (FL only), ext. 4702; TDD (FL only) 1-800-231-6103; or email to ADACoordinator@swfwmd.state.fl.us. 


104


August 30, 2011 


Item 8 

Approve Amendments to Conservation Easements from Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. and 

Sumter Landings Community Development District to Address U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Requirements 

The District previously received two Perpetual Conservation Easements from Sumter Landing 

Community Development District and Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. as mitigation through 

Environmental Resource Permit No. 4302343023491.006 issued to Villages of Lake Sumter, 

Inc. on March 28, 2006. The permittee now also requires a permit from the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers, (USACOE) in connection with their District permit. This USACOE permit 

requires that the USACOE be afforded certain rights pursuant to the terms of the conservation 

easements, principally third party enforcement rights and the right to comment on any proposed 

modification of the easement. The District has agreed to accommodate these USACOE permit 

requirements and, to provide the USACOE these rights, the conservation easements previously 

conveyed to the District must be amended. The permit requires ongoing monitoring and 

maintenance of the mitigation until the specified mitigation success criteria are achieved, and 

the amendments do not diminish the District's title insurance coverage for the conservation 

easements. District staff has reviewed the documentation provided and the executed amended 

conservation easements and recommends their approval and acceptance. 

Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit 

Approve and accept the Amendments to Conservation Easements for Sumter Landing 

Community Landing District and Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. 

Presenter: Bree M. Gathers, Office of General Counsel 

Karen A. Lloyd, Assistant General Counsel 

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129


August 30, 2011 


Item 9 

Approve Amendment to Well Construction Permitting Agreement Between SWFWMD and 

Marion County Health Department and Authorize Amendments to Rule 40D-1.002, Florida 

Administrative Code, to Incorporate Amendment by Reference 

Since 2006, the District has delegated authority to Marion County Health Department (MCHD) 

to administer the water well construction permitting program on behalf of the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District in that portion of Marion County situated within this District. A 

similar delegation agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District allows the 

MCHD to administer the water well construction regulatory program in the remaining areas of 

the County. The MCHD and District staff desire to continue the delegation of water well 

construction regulation to MCHD and have prepared for Governing Board consideration and 

approval an Amendment to Well Construction Permitting Agreement Between SWFWMD and 

MCHD that will continue delegation for five more years ending October 1, 2016. A copy of the 

proposed Amendment as well as amendments to 40D-1.002, F.A.C., to incorporate the 

Amendment by reference, are contained in the Board packet. District staff anticipates receiving 

a signed Amendment before the Governing Board meeting. 

The proposed Amendment extends the current delegation agreement for five years, with minor 

changes, and may be extended upon terms mutually acceptable to both parties. Changes 

clarify that data entry into the District’s Water Management Information System (WMIS) will be 

done on a daily basis, while document scanning may be accomplished as needed and 

submitted monthly to the District. Provisions that required any fee increases to be approved by 

the District’s Well Drillers Advisory Committee are eliminated. The Amendment continues the 

current fees for well construction permitting and clarifies that any fee increases, if proposed, will 

require approval by the Marion County Board of County Commissioners. 

If approved and upon receipt of a fully executed Amendment, District staff will proceed with 

rulemaking to adopt and incorporate the Amendment by reference into Rule 40D-1.002, F.A.C., 

without further Governing Board action. This includes submittal of rule amendments to the 

Governor’s Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform for approval. A Statement of 

Estimated Regulatory Costs is not required as this rulemaking is not expected to result in any 

direct or indirect cost increases for small business or small governments or increased regulatory 

costs in excess of $200,000 within one year of implementation. Ratification by the legislature 

also is not necessary for this rulemaking. If substantive public comment is received or changes 

proposed during the rulemaking process, staff will bring this matter back to the Governing Board 

for further consideration. The rulemaking process is depicted below, with the current step 

highlighted. 

130


Item 9 

Approve the Amendment to Well Construction Permitting Agreement Between SWFWMD and 

Marion County Health Department Effective October 1, 2011, approve amendments to Rule 

40D-1.002, F.A.C., and authorize staff to proceed with rulemaking to incorporate the 

Amendment into Rule 40D-1.002, F.A.C., by reference. 

Presenters: Tony Gilboy, Well Construction Program Manager, Brooksville Regulation 

Marti Moore, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel 

131

Exhibit A 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 40D-1.002, Florida Administrative Code, to Incorporate 

Amendment by Reference 

40D-1.002 Delegation of Authority. 

(1) and (2) No changes. 

(3) The Governing Board hereby incorporates by reference the following documents: 

(a) Well Construction Permitting Agreement Between the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District and Manatee County, effective June 1, 2010. 

(b) Well Construction Permitting Agreement Between the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District and Sarasota County effective June 1, 2010. 

(c) Well Construction Permitting Agreement Between the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District and Marion County Health Department, effective October 1, 2009, and Amendment, effective 

October 1, 2011. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.103, 373.113, 373.118, 373.171, 373.219, 373.309 FS. Law Implemented 

253.002, 373.083, 373.103, 373.149, 373.171, 373.175, 373.219, 373.223, 373.224, 373.226, 373.246, 373.308, 

373.309, 373.427 FS. History–New 3-1-84, Amended 3-10-96, 7-22-99, 12-2-99, 9-26-02, 7-20-04, 10-19-05, 5-21- 

06, 7-13-06, 12-24-07, 5-12-08, 12-7-09, 7-22-10, 12-7-10, ________. 

132

Exhibit B 

AMENDMENT TO WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND 

MARION COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2011 

THIS AMENDMENT is made by and between the SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as the “District,” and MARION COUNTY 

HEALTH DEPARTMENT, hereinafter referred to as the “MCHD,” effective October 1, 2011. 

WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and MCHD entered into the WELL CONSTRUCTION 

PERMITTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND MARION COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT effective October 

1, 2009, hereinafter the “Agreement,” for the administration and enforcement of rules and 

regulations governing water wells as set forth in Part III, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and 

Chapters 40D-3, 62-524, 62-531, 62-532 and 62-555, Florida Administrative Code; and 

WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and MCHD desire to modify the Agreement to extend its 

duration for five (5) years, set forth applicable well construction permitting fees and make minor 

amendments to clarify responsibilities under the Agreement; 

THEREFORE, based upon the mutual consideration contained in this Amendment, the 

parties hereby agree to the following: 

1. Provisions of Paragraphs 9 through 13 concerning the entry of data into 

WMIS and scanning of documents shall be interpreted to mean that data will 

be entered into WMIS on a daily basis, and the originals of documents will be 

scanned into WMIS and submitted to the DISTRICT on a monthly basis. 

2. Paragraph 19 is amended to read as follows: 

19. MCHD will have the authority to charge and retain well construction 

permit fees, in accordance with Section 373.109 and 373.309, F.S., and at a 

minimum in accordance with Rule 40D-1.607, F.A.C. It is the intention of the 

parties that MCHD will operate the program in an efficient and cost effective 

manner. In the event any fees proposed to be assessed by MCHD will 

exceed the fees currently charged by MCHD as set forth in Exhibit A attached 

to the Amendment effective October 1, 2011 and incorporated herein, MCHD 

must obtain the DISTRICT’s concurrence of such fees. At the written request 

of the DISTRICT, MCHD will prepare and provide to the DISTRICT a program 

financial audit justifying the proposed fee or increase. Any new or increased 

fee must be approved by the Marion County Board of County 

Commissioners. 

3. Paragraph 27 is amended to read as follows: 

27. Unless terminated by either the DISTRICT or MCHD upon ninety (90) 

days prior written notice, this Agreement will continue in effect until October 

1, 2016, and may be extended upon terms mutually acceptable to both 

parties. 

133

4. The Exhibit A attached to this Amendment, which sets forth applicable well 

construction permitting fees, shall be the Exhibit A referenced in the 

Agreement. 

5. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in existence, 

are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed, and shall remain binding upon 

the parties. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the day 

and year as indicated below. 

Approved as to Legal Form and 

Content 

_____________________________ 

Attorney 

Attest:_________________________ 

Douglas B. Tharp, Secretary 

Filed this ______ day of 

_________________ 2011. 

_________________________ 

Deputy Agency Clerk 

ATTEST: 

______________________________ (Seal) 

2 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER 

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

By:____________________________ 

H. Paul Senft, Jr., Chair 

Date:__________________________ 

(Seal) 

MARION COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

__________________________________ 

Nathan Grossman, M.D. 

MCHD Director 

Date:_____________________________ 

134

135


August 30, 2011 


Item 10 

Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 – Consider Current and Projected Conditions 

The Governing Board approved Water Shortage Order No. SWF 2010-022 (a Modified Phase I 

or Moderate Water Shortage declaration) during its November 16, 2010 meeting. This Order 

was originally scheduled to expire at the end of July; however, the Governing Board extended 

the expiration date to the end of October during its July 28, 2011 meeting, with the 

understanding that the decision would be revisited each month. 

Staff continues to monitor hydrologic conditions and other pertinent factors, including the status 

of key public supply water systems, in accordance with the District’s Water Shortage Plan 

(Chapter 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code). If staff determines that it would be prudent for 

the Governing Board to implement a more or less stringent set of restrictions in any portion of 

the District this month, a summary of then-current information will be provided as part of the 

Water Shortage Order that staff would prepare for the Board’s consideration. 


Maintain the current Water Shortage Order unless staff presents an alternative recommendation 

at the Governing Board meeting. 

Presenter: Lois Ann Sorensen, M.B.A., Demand Management Program Manager 

136


August 30, 2011 


Individual Water Use Permits Referred to the Governing Board 

Item 11 

In July 2010, the District Governing issued District Order No. SWF 2010-011 to continue 

delegation of all Individual WUPs to staff and to allow the Executive Director to refer 

applications to the Governing Board for agency action which, in his discretion would be 

appropriate for the Board’s consideration. At the September 2010 Governing Board meeting, 

the Board approved the following parameters to guide what Individual WUP applications should 

be referred to the Board for action: 

• All new Individual Water Use Permits 

• Renewals and formal modifications of WUPs of 10 MGD or greater demand 

• Renewals and modifications involving increases or use changes greater than 100,000 gpd or 

10 percent, whichever is less 

• Permits involving environmental augmentation 


If any Individual WUPs are referred to the Board, these will be presented at the meeting under 

this agenda item. A summary and draft permit will be made available prior to the Board 

meeting, preferably in the Board’s meeting packet. 

Presenter: Richard S. Owen, AICP, Deputy Executive Director, Resource Regulation 

137


August 30, 2011 


Item 12 

Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Center Ridge 

Watershed in Citrus County to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Purpose 

Request the Board’s authorization to submit the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

(FIRMs) for the Center Ridge watershed in Citrus County to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). The one-day and seven-day rainfall events were used for the 

Center Ridge watershed. The 2004 and 2006 topographic information were utilized in the 

watershed. The watershed models and floodplain information have gone through the District’s 

process, including internal review and external peer review by experienced licensed 

professional engineers. Preliminary floodplain information was presented for review and 

comment during a public workshop held at the Lecanto Government Building on August 31, 

2010. The preliminary floodplain information is ready to be formatted to meet FEMA’s mapping 

specifications and submitted to FEMA. Following submittal of the preliminary FIRMs, FEMA will 

conduct their own technical review, take public input, and allow for a 90-day appeals period 

during the adoption process. Depending on public input, the FEMA process can take one to two 

years. 

Background/History 

The District initiated a partnership with FEMA to modernize FIRMs as part of its Watershed 

Management Program (WMP). Flood protection and floodplain information has been a priority 

at the District since the inception of the organization and that priority was renewed following the 

El Niño weather event in 1997-1998. In addition to studies conducted by the District (primarily 

through the Basin Boards) and others, information on floodplains (elevations) is available 

through the FEMA FIRMs. However, many of the existing maps do not accurately represent the 

flood-prone areas because either the initial studies were technically limited, or the maps are 

outdated due to significant land use changes since completion. To improve the floodplain 

information, develop regional scale flood routing models for alternative analysis, and improve 

local government's understanding of their flood protection level of service, the District reached 

out to local governments and initiated the WMP in the late 1990s. 

The District recognized a potential funding partner in FEMA as they had mutual goals to 

improve the existing FIRMs to better identify risks of flooding within the District. The District and 

FEMA executed a Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Memorandum of Agreement on 

September 14, 2001, to formalize the relationship. As a CTP, the District is eligible for federal 

funds to act as FEMA's partner in modernization of the FIRMs. Federal funds have allowed the 

District and local governments to accomplish significantly more than would have otherwise been 

possible. To date, the District has received approximately $12 million in federal funds from 

FEMA for countywide map modernization projects in Pasco, Sarasota, Hernando, Marion, Polk, 

Hardee, DeSoto, Citrus, Sumter, Levy, and Highlands counties. FEMA also includes federal 

funding for the Map Modernization Management Support (MMMS) program to ensure MMMS 

partners can support the map modernization effort through activities that do not directly result in 

production of new or revised flood hazard maps. The District received $953,860 in fiscal years 

2004 through 2010 for the MMMS program. 

In October 2007, staff provided a report to the Governing Board outlining staff’s technical and 

procedural approach for development and professional oversight of watershed models. Since 

March 2008, staff provides the Board an update on the status of the District’s WMP and FEMA 

Map Modernization, including an update on the progress and activities associated with these 

138

Item 12 

issues. Since November 2008, the Governing Board has authorized staff to submit preliminary 

FIRMs to FEMA for 17 watersheds in Hernando County, four watersheds in Pasco County, one 

watershed in Sarasota County, one watershed in Polk County, one watershed in Citrus County, 

two watersheds in DeSoto County, five watersheds in Hardee County, and one watershed in 

Manatee County. Center Ridge is the second watershed in Citrus County to be presented to the 

Board. 

The floodplain information for the watersheds was prepared by the District’s consultants 

(Engineering Firm of Record) and reviewed by District and County staff, and then by the 

District’s independent peer review consultant (see table below). The District’s Environmental 

Resource Permitting (ERP) Advisory Group members (consultant and development community) 

were invited to attend the presentations of the floodplain information to the peer review 

consultant; and provided opportunities to review and comment on the watershed model and 

floodplain information. On August 31, 2010, a public workshop was held for the public to review 

and comment on the floodplain information. The floodplain information was also made available 

through the District’s website. For this watershed, 1,577 parcels were impacted; 1,195 letters 

were sent to residents notifying them of the public workshop; 36 residents attended the 

workshop; and 21 property owners contacted District staff by phone or email. 

WATERSHED ENGINEERING FIRM OF RECORD PEER REVIEW 

Center Ridge 


Dyer, Riddle, Mills and 

Precourt, Inc. 

MACTEC Engineering 

and Consulting, Inc. 

Authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the Center Ridge watershed in Citrus County 

to FEMA. 

Presenter: Mark A. Hammond, P.E., Director, Resource Projects Department 

139


August 30, 2011 


Item 13 

FARMS – Sun Bulb Company, Inc. (H609) – DeSoto County 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to request approval for a Facilitating Agricultural Resource 

Management Systems (FARMS) project with Sun Bulb Company, Inc. and to reimburse FARMS 

eligible costs for the Sun Bulb Company, Inc. project up to a not-to-exceed limit of $28,740 (50 

percent of total project costs). Of this amount, the Governing Board is requested to fund 

$7,185, the Peace River Basin Board is requested to fund $7,185, and State Appropriations 

budgeted in the Peace River Basin Board are requested to fund $14,370. Total project costs 

are estimated at $57,480. 

Project Proposal 

FARMS Program staff received a project proposal from Sun Bulb Company, Inc., for their 

9.5-acre orchid nursery, including 2.3 acres of container nursery production area, located 3 

miles east of Arcadia in central DeSoto County, within the Southern Water Use Caution Area 

(SWUCA). The property drains into the Peace River. This project will reduce groundwater use 

by eliminating the irrigation needed to flush/leach salts accumulating in potted growth media as 

a result of irrigating with high conductivity groundwater. Conductivity of well water at this 

nursery will be reduced from approximately 1090 uS/cm to approximately 40 uS/cm following 

treatment with a reverse osmosis unit. Current water use at the nursery is 18,755 gallons per 

day (gpd) to irrigate 2.3 acres of orchids. There is no reported pumpage, as the permitted 

quantity is less than 100,000 gpd, which is the threshold for reporting pumpage in the SWUCA. 

The primary goal of the project is to reduce the withdrawal of groundwater through the 

construction and operation of a reverse osmosis system. The reduction in groundwater use will 

benefit the Upper Floridan aquifer system by reducing Upper Floridan aquifer withdrawals. 

FARMS project components consist of a reverse osmosis unit, storage tank and 

repressurization system. 

Benefits/Costs 

The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs for supplemental irrigation and qualifies for 

a 50 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program since it is expected to 

offset the use of groundwater by less than 50 percent. Water quality benefits are not expected 

as a result of this project due to the limited amount of irrigation water runoff expected from a 

greenhouse container nursery. Using an estimated 40 percent savings of permitted quantities 

for daily irrigation, or 7,690 gpd, yields a daily cost of $3.18 per thousand gallons of 

groundwater reduced over the proposed eight-year contract term, and $1.41 per thousand 

gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the guidelines for 

the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for container nursery 

production. FARMS reimbursement will be 50 percent from State Appropriations (West Central 

Florida Water Restoration Action Plan), and 25 percent each between the Peace River Basin 

Board and the Governing Board. 


(1) Approve the Sun Bulb Company, Inc. project (H609) for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement of $28,740 with $21,555 provided by the Peace River Basin Board ($14,370 

provided by State Appropriations), and $7,185 provided by the Governing Board; 

(2) Authorize the transfer of $21,555 from fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin Board FARMS 

funds and $7,185 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H609 Sun 

Bulb Company, Inc. project fund; 

(3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreement. 

Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Director, Resource Data and Restoration Department 

140

") 661 

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 

Miles 

NW NW JERRY JERRY TER TER 

0 0.02 0.04 0.08 

Miles 

Location Map 

Sun Bulb 

FARMS Project - (H609) 

NW NW JERRY JERRY TER TER 

$+ 

$+ 

NW MURPHY ST 

NW BROWNVILLE ST 

NW BROWNVILLE ST 

141 

SW OAK HILL AVE 

SW OAK HILL AVE 

Legend 

$+ 

μ 

Project Area 

^_ 

Reverse Osmosis Unit 

DeSoto County 

JLB 04/15/2011 

2010 Aerial 

2009 NAVTEQ


August 30, 2011 

Finance and Administration Committee 

Budget Transfer Report 

Item 14 

Purpose 

Request approval of the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers made during the 

month of July 2011. 

Background 

In accordance with Board Policy No. 130-8, all transfers approved by the Basins, Executive 

Director and Finance Director under delegated authority are regularly presented to the Finance 

and Administration Committee for approval on the Consent Agenda at the next scheduled 

meeting. The exhibit for this item reflects all such transfers executed since the date of the last 

report for the Committee's approval. 


Request approval of the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers for July 2011. 

Presenter: Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Director, Finance Department 

142

143 

Item 

No. 

--- TRANSFERRED FROM --- 

--- TRANSFERRED TO --- 

Department / Department / 

Expenditure Category Expenditure Category 


Budget Transfer Report 

July 2011 

Reason For Transfer 

Executive Director Approved 

General Fund: 

1 5Resource Projects 7Land Resources Transfer of funds originally budgeted for survey support for riverine Minimum Flows and Levels $ 48,000 

3113 Surveying Services 3113 Surveying Services 

(MFLs) establishment such as Charlie and Horse Creek MFLs. Funds for additional survey 

support for riverine MFLs are not needed at this time. Funds were needed for survey support 

for establishment of lake MFLs. 

2 0Office of General Counsel 0Planning Transfer of funds originally budgeted for outside legal services. Expenditures were less than 

17,500 

3102 Legal Services 3111 Consultant Services 

anticipated. Funds were needed for a risk analysis used to develop a revised land acquisition 

strategy for the Annutteliga Hammock project. 

Total Executive Director Approved $ 65,500 

Finance Director Approved 

1 1Finance 0Information Resources Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate department and project code for enhancement of $ 100,000 

3421 Software 3421 Software 

the payroll processing software. 

2 4Strategic Program Office 5Resource Projects Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate department and project code for construction 

50,000 

3431 Contracted Construction 3431 Contracted Construction 

related to the Bahia Beach Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Mitigation project. 

3 3Resource Data & Restoration 3Resource Data & Restoration Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate project code for the general Facilitating 

23,250 

8107 Grant - Agriculture 8107 Grant - Agriculture 

Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) budget appropriation to be allocated in 

future to FARMS projects. 

Total Finance Director Approved $ 173,250 

Total Transfers for Governing Board Approval $ 238,750 

This report identifies transfers made during the month that did not require advance Governing Board approval. These transfers have been approved by either the Executive Director or Finance Director consistent with Board Policy 130-8, and 

are presented for Governing Board approval on the consent agenda. Executive Director approved transfers are made for a purpose other than the original budget intent, but are limited to individual transfer amounts of $50,000 or less. Finance 

Director approved transfers are accounting type transfers with no change to the original budget intent. 

Transfer 

Amount


August 30, 2011 


Prior Year Board Encumbrances 

Item 15 

Purpose 

Request approval to roll prior year board designated encumbrances into Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 

budget associated with Governing Board and Basin funds for the projects listed below. 

Projects 

1. Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project (H008/S054) 

This project is being funded by the Governing Board, Alafia River, Peace River, and 

Manasota Basins. The Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project is part of the 

proposed strategy for achieving minimum flows and levels recovery for the upper Peace 

River established by the District. The goal of the Lake Level Modification Project is to store 

water by raising the control elevation of the existing outflow structure on Lake Hancock and 

to slowly release the water during the dry season to help meet the minimum flow 

requirements in the upper Peace River between Bartow and Zolfo Springs. The project is in 

the final stages of design and permitting with construction to begin and be completed in 

FY2012. The prior year Board Designated encumbered funds total $4,267,610 split between 

the Governing Board, Alafia River Basin, Peace River Basin and the Manasota Basin. 

ENCUMBRANCE GENERAL 010 ALAFIA 011 PEACE 020 MANASOTA 021 TOTALS 

08C00000110 $375,000.00 $93,750.00 $187,500.00 $93,750.00 $750,000.00 

09C00000121 $224,121.00 $49,561.00 $125,000.00 $49,560.00 $448,242.00 

10C00000112 $1,488,685.00 $372,170.50 $744,342.00 $372,170.50 $2,977,368.00 

H008 Total $2,087,806.00 $515,481.50 $1,056,842.00 $515,480.50 $4,175,610.00 

08C00000110 $92,000.00 $92,000.00 

S054 Total $92,000.00 $92,000.00 

2. Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement Project (B027) 

This project is being funded by the Hillsborough River Basin. The project will assist with 

water level recovery in the Northern Tampa Bay Area. Rocky Creek flows through Pretty 

Lake into Lake Armistead, and then toward Tampa Bay. During wet periods when there are 

excess flows out of Pretty Lake, a portion of the excess flows can be diverted into Horse 

Lake and eventually into lakes Raleigh and Rogers. The project will enable the District to 

divert excess water to lakes with chronically low levels due to groundwater pumping. The 

project is in the design and permitting stage with construction expected to begin in FY2012. 

The prior year board designated encumbered funds (Encumbrance #10C00000100) are 

$483,197. 


Approve prior year Board designated encumbrance amounts indicated for the above projects to 

roll into FY2012 budget. 

Presenter: Bruce C. Wirth, P.E., Deputy Executive Director, Resource Management Division 

144


August 30, 2011 


Brooksville Building 4 Restoration Costs – Transfer from Contingencies 

Item 16 

To request a budget transfer from the District General Fund fiscal year (FY) 2011 contingency 

funds to pay restoration expenses associated with the Brooksville Building Four water damage 

claim that will be reimbursed by insurance. 

Background 

Two separate insurance claims have been filed as a result of the July 3, 2011 water damage to 

the District’s Building 4 in Brooksville. The first claim, filed against a property insurance policy 

with the Arch Insurance Company, carries a $5,000 deductible. The second claim, filed against 

an Inland Marine policy covering Electronic Data Property with Chubb Insurance, carries a 

$2,500 deductible. Both policies also carry a sublimit for Extra Expenses (expenditures over 

and above normal operating expenses) associated with a valid claim. 

As of the preparation of this recap, approximately $900,000 has been incurred in FY2011 on 

purchase orders, p-card transactions, requisitions for supplies, repairs and restoration efforts 

and estimates received but not yet placed into the financial system. It is fully anticipated that the 

insurance carriers will reimburse the District for these incurred amounts. Prior to receipt of 

insurance funds, providers will need to be paid from current budget lines that did not anticipate 

these expenses. Staff is requesting authorization to transfer budgeted funds from the annual 

contingency appropriation for these expenditures. 

Recommendation: 

Approve the transfer of funds from the District’s General Fund FY2011 Reserves for 

Contingencies to pay claims expenses associated with the Building 4 water damage claim. 

Presenter: Lucy Petruccelli, Risk Manager, Humans Resources & Risk Management Dept. 

145


August 30, 2011 


Information Resources Department 

Fiscal Year 2011 Encumbrances – Multi-Year Funded Projects 

Item 17.a.(1) 

Purpose 

This request is to encumber funds for projects funded over multiple years for purchase and 

implementation in FY2012. These encumbrances include: Enterprise Reporting System 

Expansion and Payroll System Enhancement for a total amount not to exceed $230,000 of 

FY2011 funds. These projects were included in the Information Resources Department (IRD) 

June 2011 presentation to the Governing Board and the IRD Five-Year Technology Plan, 

FY2012-2016. 


To achieve a level investment stream, the District funds projects over multiple years and 

purchases when required. The projects shown below were funded in FY2011 with 

implementation as needed in FY2012. 

� Enterprise Reporting System Expansion: The District’s reporting system is currently 

supporting the financial, human resources and laboratory systems users. It was planned to 

migrate all reporting to the enterprise reporting system in FY2011 to improve performance of 

transactional systems such as the Water Management Information System (WMIS) by 

offloading the report processing. Given the other in-process performance enhancements, new 

metrics need to be obtained to ascertain if it is still beneficial to invest in the enterprise 

reporting system expansion and the required report redesign. These performance 

enhancements should be in place mid-FY2012 and a decision can be made regarding the 

Enterprise Reporting System expansion after that time. Expanding the reporting system prior 

to the need will incur additional, unnecessary software maintenance costs. Funds are needed 

for the “just-in-time” expansion of the Reporting System to meet the needs of the District’s 

user community. Funds ($130,000) budgeted in FY2011 should be encumbered for the 

FY2012 Enterprise Reporting System Expansion. 

� Payroll System Enhancement: The District’s payroll system uses older client-server 

technology and it is anticipated that the vendor will provide an updated web-enabled version 

within the next two years. This enhanced Payroll and Human Resources System is budgeted 

over a multi-year period in FY2011 and FY2012, respectively, for implementation in FY2012. 

FY2011 Funds ($100,000) should be encumbered for the anticipated software implementation 

in FY2012 for a total planned budgeted investment for the Human Resources and Payroll 

System of $250,000. 


Funding projects over multiple years improves IRD's planning and creates a more level 

investment pattern. Prior year funds must be encumbered to ensure the plan is well executed 

and all funds are available when needed in the implementation year. Purchasing software prior 

to when needed incurs additional, unnecessary software maintenance charges. 

Impact If Not Funded: 

In order to complete the projects as budgeted in multiple years, the FY2011 funds must be 

encumbered for the project's use in FY2012. Without those funds, the project will not be 

properly funded and IRD will not be able to meet the project goals as described in the IRD Five- 

Year Technology Plan. 

146


Item 17.a.(1) 

Approve encumbering funds in an amount not to exceed $230,000 in FY2011 for the purchase 

of multi-year funded systems to be implemented in FY2012. 

Presenter: Maureen McNiff, Interim Director, Information Resources Department 

147


August 30, 2011 



Fiscal Year 2011 Encumbrances – Residual FY2011 Computer Sinking Fund 

Item 17.a.(2) 

Purpose 

This request is to encumber FY2011 funds remaining in the Computer Renewal and 

Replacement Sinking Fund in an amount not to exceed $204,000 for use in FY2012. This plan 

is consistent with the IRD Five Year Technology Plan, FY2012-2016 presented at the June 

2011 Governing Board Meeting. 


Since its establishment in 1993, the Computer Renewal and Replacement Sinking Fund has 

provided the District with a dependable funding source for planning multi-year information 

technology investments while maintaining a level annual technology investment. Governing 

Board approval is requested to encumber and re-appropriate residual FY2011 funds in the 

reserve account as part of the FY2012 budget. The anticipated encumbrance of $204,000 in 

remaining FY2011 funds for use in FY2012 was included as part of the IRD Strategic 

Investments in the referenced IRD Five-Year Technology Plan. 


The Sinking Fund provides the required technology infrastructure for all District strategic 

systems and supporting software including the Water Management Information System (WMIS), 

Project Information Management System (PIMS), ADVANTAGE Financial, etc. Major emphasis 

in FY2012 and beyond are on the continued expansion of our storage in support of many 

strategic systems including WMIS, Enterprise Content Management (ECM), Geographic 

Information System (GIS), etc and associated business continuity efforts to ensure a 

recoverable and consistently available computing environment. Additionally we will continue to 

refresh our network servers to ensure an appropriate operating environment is available for 

strategic systems. 

Impact if Not Funded 

The staff will not be able to implement the IRD Five-Year Technology Plan and build the 

required technology infrastructure with business continuity to support WMIS and the other 

strategic projects. Additionally, the District would neither realize the incremental or long-term 

process improvements nor achieve the return on investment identified in the IRD Five-Year 

Technology Plan. 


Approve encumbering funds in an amount not to exceed $204,000 remaining in the Computer 

Renewal and Replacement Sinking Fund reserve account for use in FY2012. 


148


August 30, 2011 


Information Resources Department – Prior Fiscal Year Encumbrances 

Item 17.b. 

Purpose 

This request is to extend the current board encumbrances for purchase and implementation in 

FY2012. These encumbrances include: Domino Development Conversion ($60,000), Kronos 

Upgrade and Support Services ($15,000), Enterprise Reporting Non-Production System 

Expansion ($43,000), Service Management Software Expansion ($21,400), Workflow Software 

Replacement ($35,000), Enterprise Asset Management ($193,850), Regulatory Imaging Project 

($30,000) and Business Continuity Project ($81,100) for a total amount not to exceed $479,350 

of prior year funds. These projects were included in the Information Resources Department 

(IRD) June 2011 presentation to the Governing Board and the IRD Five-Year Technology Plan, 

FY2012-2016. 


To achieve a level investment stream, the District funds projects over multiple years and 

purchases when required. The projects shown below were funded in prior fiscal years with 

implementation as needed through FY2012. 

• Domino Development Conversion: IRD is in the final year of the multi-year Domino 

Decommissioning and requires funds to be available to complete the project. (PO 

#08C0000121 - $60,000) 

• Kronos Upgrade and Support Services: IRD upgrades commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 

software on a regular basis to remain supported by the vendor. IRD anticipates a Kronos 

upgrade in FY2012 and requires the ability to obtain vendor support to assist in the upgrade. 

(PO #09C0000115 - $15,000) 

• Enterprise Reporting Non-Production System Expansion: The Enterprise Reporting System 

had a planned upgrade in FY2011 to include both production and non-production systems. 

The non-production system upgrade was funded though this budget item. Due to other 

performance improvement initiatives, this upgrade was postponed until after new metrics can 

be obtained to ascertain if it is still beneficial to invest in the enterprise reporting system 

expansion and the required report redesign. Expanding the reporting system prior to the need 

will incur additional, unnecessary software maintenance costs. Funds are needed for the “justin-time” 

expansion of the Reporting System to meet the needs of the District’s user 

community. (PO #07C0000115 - $43,000) 

• Service Management Software Expansion: IRD is requires contractual services to expand the 

functionality of the Service Management Software. This is a multiyear project to configure the 

system modules and the IRD requires expert support from the vendor. (PO #08C0000118 - 

$21,400) 

• Workflow Software Replacement: The District is in process of migrating away from the current 

Oracle IPM system to Opentext’s Vignette products. In addition to an enterprise content 

management and imaging system, the District must also acquire a Workflow product for full 

functionality. (PO #10C0000118 - $35,000) 

• Enterprise Asset Management: The Enterprise Asset Management project was to provide a 

single system that would be the repository for all District asset tracking. This system would 

interface with others including the ADVANTAGE Financial system for fixed assets, Fleet 

Maintenance for vehicles and Service Management software for IT assets. (PO #08C0000117 

- $193,850) 

• Regulatory Imaging Project: In support of the Water Management Information System (WMIS) 

project, the District had specific funding for use for hardware, software and services related to 

149

Item 17.b. 

imaging. This funding is required to implement software upgrades and purchase required 

hardware. (PO #05CON000166 - $30,000) 

• Business Continuity Project: The District has a multi-year contract for the annual 

enhancement of the Information Technology Availability Plan. The existing board 

encumbrance funds the future years of the multi-year contract. (PO #10CO000116 - $81,100) 


Funding projects over multiple years improves IRD's planning and creates a more level 

investment pattern. Prior year funds must be encumbered to ensure the plan is well executed 

and all funds are available when needed in the implementation year. Purchasing software prior 

to when needed incurs additional, unnecessary software maintenance charges. 

Impact If Not Funded: 

In order to complete the projects as budgeted in multiple years, the prior year funds must 

continue to be encumbered for the project's use in FY2012. Without those funds, the project will 

not be properly funded and IRD will not be able to meet the project goals as described in the 

IRD Five-Year Technology Plan. 


Approve extending current Board encumbrances to FY2012 in an amount not to exceed 

$479,350 in prior year funds for the purchase of a multi-year funded systems to be implemented 

in FY2012. 


150


August 30, 2011 



Item 17.c.(1) 

Fiscal Year 2012 Sinking Fund Transfers – Planned Upgrade and Expansion of Network 

Servers 

Purpose 

Request the Governing Board transfer $150,000 of FY2012 funds from the Computer Sinking 

Fund to the Information Resources Department (IRD) operational accounts. This transfer is 

required to continue the planned upgrade and expansion of the District's network infrastructure 

and associated system software through replacement of older, obsolete network servers and 

ancillary equipment using the Computer Renewal and Replacement Sinking Fund in FY2012 

contingent on approval of the FY2012 budget. This plan is consistent with the IRD Five-Year 

Technology Plan, FY2012-2016 presented at the June 2011 Governing Board Meeting. 


Given the modular design of the existing network, capacity to satisfy new application 

requirements can be forecast and added as incremental upgrades. For example the Water 

Management Information System, Project Information Management System, and Enterprise 

Content Management System are bandwidth intensive applications, which, because of their 

importance to the organization, require high availability and fault tolerance. These upgrades of 

core infrastructure servers including those supporting VMWare, Citrix and Symantec Backup 

systems are designed to provide the integrated and resilient supporting platform for these and 

other strategic systems. 


The required upgrades for the network servers are to replace technology servers that are over 

five years old. These older servers can no longer provide the processing power required to run 

the newer applications and services required by the District. Upgrades to the District Network 

have been planned as part of the referenced IRD Five-Year Technology Plan. The total 

Computer Sinking Fund capital investment for FY2012 server upgrades is forecast at $150,000. 

These funds must be transferred to Information Resources accounts to be expended. 

Impact if Not Funded 

Without the server upgrades, projects requiring increased processing power cannot be 

adequately supported. Server failure will be more frequent and parts for repair will not be readily 

available. 


Governing Board approve transfer of FY2012 funds from the Computer Renewal and 

Replacement Sinking Fund account to IRD operational accounts for the planned FY2012 

purchase of network upgrades and expansion equipment from the State of Florida Contract at a 

cost not to exceed $150,000, contingent on final Board approval of the FY2012 Annual Service 

Budget. 

Presenters: Maureen McNiff, Interim Director, Information Resources Department 

Jim Lewis, Manager, Enterprise Infrastructure Section 

151


August 30, 2011 



Item 17.c.(2) 

Fiscal Year 2012 Sinking Fund Transfers – Planned Replacement of Personal Computers 

Purpose 

Request the Governing Board transfer $25,000 of FY2012 funds from the Computer Sinking 

Fund to the Information Resources Department (IRD) operational accounts to continue the 

planned replacement of approximately 20 personal computers and notebook computers 

contingent upon approval of the fiscal year 2012 budget. This plan is consistent with the IRD 

Five Year Technology Plan, FY2012-2016 presented at the June 2011 Governing Board 

Meeting. 


The District's personal computer (PC) inventory has been put in service and replaced over time 

as software requirements dictated. As a result, approximately 25 percent of the active personal 

computer including notebook computer inventory is five or more years old in any given year. 

Sinking fund personal computer expenditures are in addition to the Department’s budgeted 

personal computers. Three-four years is now the expected maximum useful life span of 

mainstream personal computer technology. However, the District is very conservatively 

replacing computers due to the current economic environment. 

Of special concern are the computers that cannot effectively operate the Windows 7 operating 

system. Their current operating system is no longer “mainstream” support for Microsoft and the 

machines must continue to be replaced in the coming years. Keeping unsupported machines in 

service would result in problems with hardware component standardization, peripheral and 

software compatibility, system security, and productivity. These systems are below the 

recommended capacity levels for operating software such as the current Microsoft line of 

applications software, Geographic Information System and imaging/workflow software. The 

District is currently migrating to Microsoft’s current personal computer software and older 

computers do not support it. 


To ensure timely replacement of personal computers, the Finance and Administration 

Committee established a supplementary replacement schedule in 1995 as part of the Computer 

Renewal and Replacement Sinking Fund strategy. This strategy was based on maintaining a 

business investment in personal computers that keep the District in the Gartner "B" type 

organization profile. The planned investment is $25,000 reflective of conservative replacement 

due to the current economic environment. 

Impact If Not Funded 

The planned replacement schedule would be disrupted. The current Microsoft family of 

operating system, software productivity and development tools, Geographic Information System 

and imaging/workflow software could not be used effectively. 


Approve transfer of FY2012 funds from the Computer Renewal and Replacement Sinking Fund 

account to the FY2012 IRD operational accounts for execution of the planned supplemental 

purchase of replacement personal computers and related software at a cost not to exceed 

$25,000, contingent on final Board approval of the FY2012 Annual Service Budget. 


152


August 30, 2011 


Request Deferral of Information Technology Analysis and Review 

Item 18 

Purpose 

This request is to approve deferral of the Technology Review by an external information 

technology management and advisory services organization as recommended in the 

Organization, Workload and Staffing Analysis, July 2011 performed by North Highland until a 

new Information Resources Department (IRD) Director is appointed. 


During the September 2010 Governing Board workshop, the Board instructed staff to pursue a 

staffing analysis with an external management consultant. North Highland was awarded that 

engagement and developed an Organization, Workload and Staffing Analysis presented at the 

June 2011 Governing Board Workshop. A recommendation from that analysis was for the IRD 

to pursue an information technology analysis and review via an external information technology 

management and advisory services organization. 

Staff has developed a draft Statement of Work (SOW) to accompany a Request for Quote 

(RFQ) for an information technology analysis and review that would address all five areas 

outlined in the North Highland findings. Some of the IRD findings in the North Highland report 

had previously been identified by the internal Procurement audit conducted by the District’s 

Office of Inspector General and are already being addressed by actions within IRD. Therefore, 

staff alternatively has drafted a SOW for a high level review of the five areas identified in the 

North Highland’s findings. The RFQ can be provided to external information technology 

management and advisory services organizations to provide proposals to the District with either 

SOW. 


As recommended in the Governing Board requested Organization, Workload and Staffing 

Analysis, July 2011 performed by North Highland, the information technology analysis and 

review will address: the District’s applications and application architecture, IRD organization and 

staffing, infrastructure, data and the IT policies, procedures and Project Management Office 

(PMO). Recommendations for improvements will be made where applicable. The cost of the 

information technology analysis and review is not to exceed $75,000 for the high level review or 

$150,000 for the detailed review of five areas. 

Impact if Not Funded: 

The Information Resources Department would not immediately implement the Governing Board 

approved Organization, Workload and Staffing Analysis recommendation for an external 

Information Technology Analysis and Review. 

Board Options: 

(1) Take no action and permit new IRD Director to develop a plan for remediation of remaining 

deficiencies not in process as a result of the IT Procurement Audit action plan of April 2011. 

(2) Approve a Request for Quotes for a high level information technology analysis and review of 

the five areas as recommended in the Organization, Workload and Staffing Analysis, July 

2011 by North Highland for $75,000. 

(3) Approve a Request for Quotes for a detailed information technology analysis and review the 

five areas as recommended in the Organization, Workload and Staffing Analysis, July 2011 

by North Highland for $150,000. 

153

Item 18 

(4) If option 2 or 3 is selected, authorize staff to evaluate responsive consultant proposals and 

enter into an agreement with selected vendor for the analysis. 

(5) Authorize the transfer of amount from (2) or (3) above from General Fund Contingency 

Reserves to fund the information technology analysis and review. 


Option (1) -- Take no action at this time and permit new IRD Director to develop a plan for 

remediation of remaining findings not in process as a result of the IT Procurement Audit action 

plan of April 2011. 

Presenters: Kurt Fritsch, Interim Deputy Executive Director, Management Services Division 

Maureen McNiff, Interim Information Resources Department Director 

154


August 30, 2011 


Item 19 

Consent Order – WUP No. 20002842.007 - Citrus County Board of County Commissioners 

(Sugar Mill Woods Service Area) – Citrus County 

On May 28, 2008, the District and the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners (the 

County) entered into a Consent Order to resolve long-standing non-compliance by previous 

permittees with the conditions of Water Use Permits number 20009791.005 (the Sugar Mill 

Woods Permit) and 20002842.006 (the Citrus Springs/Pine Ridge Permit). 

The original Consent Order required the County to bring its water use within the annual average 

quantities for both the Sugar Mill Woods and Citrus Springs/Pine Ridge Permits by 

December 31, 2008 (the Compliance Date). In the event that the County did not achieve 

compliance by the Compliance Date, a penalty would be calculated using the overpumpage 

formula for the period beginning February 2007 through December 2008. 

Pumpage data submitted by the County indicated that both the Sugar Mill Woods Permit and 

the Citrus Springs/Pine Ridge Permits were in compliance as of the Compliance Date. 

However, due to irregularities with the collection of meter reading data by the County and the 

District, it came to the District’s attention in May 2009 that the County had not reduced their 

withdrawals for the Sugar Mill Woods service area to below the quantities authorized by the 

Sugar Mill Woods Permit by the Compliance Date. 

After correspondence between the District and the County, District staff met with staff from 

Citrus County on September 10, 2009 to discuss strategies the County could employ to achieve 

compliance with the Sugar Mill Woods Permit. The calculation of a penalty pursuant to the 

terms of the original consent order was discussed, as well as the possibility of using expenses 

for the implementation of additional conservation programs as a credit against the penalty 

amount, as has been allowed for other governmental public utilities. Additional meetings were 

held between District staff and County staff on November 10, 2009, December 22, 2009, 

January 19, 2010 and February 5, 2010 to further discuss compliance, conservation methods 

and possible offsets to the proposed penalty. 

On June 11, 2010, a proposed Consent Order was sent to the County which assessed a penalty 

of $239,977 for overpumpage of the Sugar Mill Woods Permit for February 2007 through 

December 2008 and $2,000 in District costs. On September 22, 2010, the County proposed 

offsetting the proposed penalty by spending an equivalent sum on conservation programs 

aimed at reducing water use in the Sugar Mill Woods service area. After multiple discussions 

between the District and the County, a revised proposed Consent Order was sent to the County 

that assessed a penalty of $239,977, but provided that the County could use a sum equal to the 

penalty amount to hire five full-time staffers to serve as a resource conservation group. Hours 

spent by the resource conservation group performing the following tasks directed at the Sugar 

Mill Woods service area would be eligible for a dollar for dollar offset of the proposed fine: 

a. Regularly patrolling the Sugar Mill Woods service area to identify those residents violating 

the County’s outdoor watering restrictions, 

b. Issuing written warnings or citations to those residents found to be violating the County’s 

outdoor watering restrictions, 

c. Being present and testifying as a witness during any hearing to defend a contested warning 

or citation issued by or on behalf of that patroller, and 

d. Performing administrative duties directly associated with patrol and enforcement efforts. 

155

Item 19 

The consent order also requires the County to provide a monthly report to the District outlining 

the hours spent and conservation efforts undertaken by the resource conservation group in the 

Sugar Mill Woods service area. 

The Consent Order has been approved by Citrus County, and the District anticipates receiving 

the signed Consent Order from the County prior to the Governing Board meeting. 


Approve the proposed Consent Order and authorize the initiation of litigation against Citrus 

County to obtain compliance with the Consent Order. 

Presenter: Carrie N. Felice, Staff Attorney 

156


August 30, 2011 


Annual Calendar of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Board Meeting Dates 

Item 20 

The District is required to follow Florida Statute Chapter 189 concerning meeting notices. The 

Statute requires that the District submit an annual meeting calendar to all the Clerks of Court in the 

District by September 15 of each year. The Statute further requires that if a meeting date, time or 

location changes after the annual calendar has been sent to the Clerks of Court, the District or Basin 

is required to purchase a legal advertisement in area newspapers to notice the change from the 

originally published calendar. 

Highlights of the proposed calendar include the following: 

� Governing Board Meetings and Public Hearings 

� Advisory Committee and Permitting Advisory Group Meetings 

� Task Force Meetings 

� Public Meetings for Pending Permits 


Approve the FY2012 annual Board meeting calendar. 

Presenter: Lou Kavouras, Deputy Executive Director, Outreach, Planning, Boards Services 

& Ombudsman 

157


ANNUAL MEETING CALENDAR 

October 2011 – September 2012 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 

October 2011 

3 4 5 6 7 

HCTF 3:30 pm (DH) Public Meeting for 

Pending Permit 

Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

10 11 12 13 14 

CCTF 2 pm (LGB) WDAC 1:30 pm (TSO) 

17 18 19 20 21 

Citrus/Hernando 

Waterways Restoration 

Council Mtg 3 pm (DH) 

24 25 26 27 28 


9 am (TSO) 


November 2011 

31 1 2 3 4 

Public Meeting for 


Applications 

9am (TSO) 

7 8 9 10 11 

IAC 9 am (TSO) ERPAG 10 am (TSO) 

HOLIDAY 

PSAC 1 pm (TSO) WUPAG 2 pm (TSO) 

Office Closed/ 

Veteran's Day 

14 15 16 17 18 

21 22 23 24 25 

HOLIDAY 


Thanksgiving 

HOLIDAY 

Office Closed 

28 29 30 December 1 2 


9 am (TSO) 

Key to Committees, Groups, Meeting Locations and DRAFT 

other abbreviations is at the end of this document. 8/04/2011 

Page 1 of 7 

158

SWFWMD Annual Meeting Calendar 

October 2011 – September 2012 (continued) 

HOLIDAY 

Office Closed 


December 2011 

5 6 7 8 9 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

Joint AAC/GIAC 

9 am (TSO) 

12 13 14 15 16 

19 20 21 22 23 


9 am (LEBH) 

HOLIDAY 

Office Closed 

26 27 28 29 30 


January 2012 

HOLIDAY 


New Year’s Day 

EAC 1:30 pm (TSO) 

CCTF 2 pm (TBD) 

2 3 4 5 6 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

HCTF 3:30 pm (DH) 

9 10 11 12 13 

WDAC 1:30 pm (TSO) 

16 17 18 19 20 

HOLIDAY 


Dr. M. L. King, Jr., Day 

23 24 25 26 27 

30 31 February 1 2 3 


9 am (DH) 



Page 2 of 7 

159




February 2012 

6 7 8 9 10 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

13 14 15 16 17 

IAC 9 am (TSO) 

PSAC 1 pm (TSO) 

20 21 22 23 24 

27 28 29 March 1 2 


9 am (DH) 


March 2012 

5 6 7 8 9 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

12 13 14 15 16 

CCTF 2 pm (LGB) Joint AAC/GIAC 

9 am (TSO) 

19 20 21 22 23 

26 27 28 29 30 

Governing Board ERPAG 10 am (TSO) 

9 am (SSO) 

WUPAG 2 pm (TSO) 



Page 3 of 7 

160




April 2012 

2 3 4 5 6 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

9 10 11 12 13 

EAC 1:30 pm (TSO) WDAC 1:30 pm (TSO) 

16 17 18 19 20 

23 24 25 26 27 


9 am (DH) 


May 2012 

HCTF 3:30 pm 

(SCEC) 

April 30 1 2 3 4 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

7 8 9 10 11 



14 15 16 17 18 

CCTF 2 pm (LGB) 

HOLIDAY 


Memorial Day 

21 22 23 24 25 


9 am (DH) 

28 29 30 31 June 1 



Page 4 of 7 

161




June 2012 

4 5 6 7 8 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

11 12 13 14 15 


9 am (TSO) 

18 19 20 21 22 

25 26 27 28 29 


9 am (TVSC) 


July 2012 

2 3 4 5 6 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

HOLIDAY 


Independence Day 

9 10 11 12 13 

EAC 1:30 pm (TSO) 

CCTF 2 pm (TBD) 

WDAC 1:30 pm (TSO) 

16 17 18 19 20 

23 24 25 

ERPAG 10 am (TSO) 

WUPAG 2 pm (TSO) 

26 27 

30 31 August 1 2 3 


9 am (DH) 



Page 5 of 7 

162




August 2012 

6 7 8 9 10 



Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

13 14 15 16 17 



20 21 22 23 24 

27 28 29 30 31 


9 am (DH) 


September 2012 

HOLIDAY 


Labor Day 

3 4 5 6 7 

HCTF 3:30 pm (SCEC) Public Meeting for 


Applications 

9 am (TSO) 

10 11 12 13 14 

CCTF 2 pm (TBD) Governing Board 

Tentative Budget 

Hearing 

5:01 pm (TSO) 


9 am (TSO) 

17 18 19 20 21 

24 25 26 27 28 


9 am (TSO) 


Final Budget Hearing 

5:01 pm (TSO) 



Page 6 of 7 

163



Key to Committees, Discussion Groups and Task Forces 

Meetings are held at the Tampa Service Office (TSO) unless otherwise stated. 

Advisory Committees: Advisory Groups: 

AAC - Agricultural ERPAG - Environmental Resource Permitting 

EAC - Environmental WUPAG - Water Use Permitting 

GIAC - Green Industry 

IAC - Industrial Task Forces: 

PSAC - Public Supply CCTF - Citrus County 

WDAC - Well Drillers HCTF - Hernando County 

Key to SWFWMD Office Locations 

BSO - Bartow Service Office 170 Century Boulevard, Bartow 33830-7700 

DH - District Headquarters 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville 34604-6899 

SSO - Sarasota Service Office 6750 Fruitville Road, Sarasota 34240-9711 

TSO - Tampa Service Office 7601 US Highway 301 North, Tampa 33637-6759 

Key to Other Meeting Locations 

LEBH - Lake Eva Banquet Hall 799 Johns Avenue, Haines City 33844 

LGB - Lecanto Government Building 3600 West Sovereign Path, Lecanto 34461-7727 

SCEC Springs Coast Environmental Center 9170 Cortez Boulevard, Weeki Wachee 34613 

TVSC - The Villages Savannah Center 1545 Buena Vista Boulevard, The Villages 32162 

Key to Abbreviations 

Mtg - Meeting 

TBD - To Be Determined 

W/S - Workshop 

Page 7 of 7 

164 

DRAFT 

8/04/2011


August 30, 2011 


Approve Governing Board Minutes 

a. June 28, 2011 Finance and Administration Committee Meeting 

b. July 26, 2011 Monthly Meeting 

c. August 2, 2011 Special Meeting 


Approve the minutes as presented. 


165 

Item 21

MINUTES OF THE MEETING 

GOVERNING BOARD 

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 


BROOKSVILLE,FLORIDA JUNE 28, 2011 

The Governing Board Finance and Administration Committee of the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District (SWFWMD) met at 8:35 a.m. on June 28, 2011, at the District’s 

headquarters in Brooksville. The following persons were present: 

Board Members Present 

Douglas B. Tharp, Vice Chair 

Carlos Beruff, Second Vice Chair 

Michael A. Babb, Member Designate 

Bryan K. Beswick, Member 

Jennifer E. Closshey, Member 

Neil Combee, Member 

Hugh Gramling, Member 

H. Paul Senft, Member 

Judith C. Whitehead, Member 

Staff Members 

William S. Bilenky, Interim Executive Director 

Lou Kavouras, Deputy Executive Director 

Elaine M. Kuligofski, Director, Human Resources 

and Risk Management Department 

Board Member(s) Absent 

Albert G. Joerger, Chair 

Jeffrey M. Adams, Member 

Todd Pressman, Member 

A list of others present who signed the attendance roster is filed in the permanent records of the 

District. Approved minutes from previous meetings can be found on the District's Web site 

(www.WaterMatters.org). 

1. Call to Order and Roll Call 

Board Chair Senft called the meeting to order. He then introduced the newly appointed 

Board Member Michael A. Babb who will be sworn in at the Board’s July meeting. 

Board Chair Senft then relinquished the gavel to Committee Vice Chair Tharp who called 

the Committee meeting to order. He noted that it has been a pleasure to work with the 

North Highland Consulting Company. 

2. Workload and Staffing Analysis – Report by North Highland Consulting Company 

Ms. Jan Sullivan, Project Manager and Quality Assurance Specialist, introduced other 

members of the North Highland Consultant Company (NHCC) team present: Ms. Janet 

Hecht, Human Resources Specialist; Ms. Kelly Shafer, local executive from the Tampa 

Bay Area; and Ms. Linda Ferrone, local executive from the Orlando office. The purpose of 

this item is for NHCC to provide the Governing Board with the final written report on the 

Workload and Staffing Analysis. 

Ms. Sullivan said the agenda for this presentation is to present the project objectives, 

methodology, findings and recommendations, and high-level roadmap. She said the 

purpose of this study is to provide the Board with an objective view of the business and 

workload/staffing requirements; perform a detailed and unbiased organizational 

assessment that serves as the basis for complete and integrated workforce capacity 

planning; and present data, findings, and recommendations that (1) enable leadership to 

set organizational priorities; (2) foster the requisite organizational capabilities to implement 

the initiatives and imperatives outlined in the 2012–2016 Strategic Plan; and (3) enhance 

efficiencies, eliminate redundancies, cut waste, and reduce costs while sustaining 

high-quality water management services. 

166

Minutes of the Meeting – SWFWMD Governing June 28, 2011 

Board Finance and Administration Committee Page 2 of 2 

In response to questions about communicating this report to staff, Committee Vice Chair 

Tharp said the final report will be posted to the District’s website following this meeting 

which will be available as an audio recording. Ms. Sullivan said the NHCC project team 

will meet with Mr. Bilenky tomorrow morning and the executive management team in the 

afternoon. She said then the project team will present the report to senior staff at its 

meeting the following day. Ms. Sullivan said there will be optional sessions with division 

deputies to review department-level employee survey results. 

Ms. Sullivan said NHCC conducted a comprehensive organizational assessment that can 

serve as the basis for complete and integrated workforce capacity planning. She said the 

NHCC project team reviewed documentary data, met with District staff to collect 

information, and conducted various surveys and focus groups to gather data and perform 

the workload/staffing analysis. 

The NHCC project team provided a high level summary, and led a discussion of the 

findings and recommendations. The Board had the opportunity to ask questions of the 

project team. 

3. Adjournment 

Committee Vice Chair Tharp adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m. 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This 

nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, including access to and participation in the District's 

programs and activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act 

should contact the District's Human Resources Director, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899; telephone 

(352) 796-7211, ext. 4702 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only), ext. 4702; TDD (FL only) 1-800-231-6103; or email to 

ADACoordinator@swfwmd.state.fl.us. 

167

MINUTES OF THE MEETING 



TAMPA,FLORIDA JULY 26, 2011 

The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) met for 

its regular meeting at 9:00 a.m. on July 26, 2011, at the District’s Tampa Service Office. The 

following persons were present: 


H. Paul Senft, Chair 

Hugh Gramling, Vice Chair 


Albert G. Joerger, Treasurer 


Carlos Beruff, Member 






Jennifer E. Closshey, Member (participating via phone) 


District. This meeting was available for viewing through internet streaming. Approved minutes 

from previous meetings can be found on the District's Web site (www.WaterMatters.org). 

PUBLIC HEARING (Video A – 00:00) 

Staff Members 

William S. Bilenky, Interim Executive Director 

Lou Kavouras, Deputy Executive Director 

Richard S. Owen, Deputy Executive Director 

Bruce C. Wirth, Deputy Executive Director 

Kurt P. Fritsch, Acting Deputy Executive Director 

Karen West, Deputy General Counsel 

Board’s Administrative Support 

LuAnne Stout, Administrative Coordinator 

Phyllis Young, Sr. Administrative Assistant 


Chair Senft called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing. Mr. Tharp noted a 

quorum was present. 


Chair Senft led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 

Mr. Bilenky offered the invocation. 

Public Hearing 

Chair Senft introduced each member of the Governing Board. He noted that the Board’s 

meeting was recorded for broadcast on government access channels, and public input was only 

taken during the meeting onsite. 

Chair Senft stated that anyone wishing to address the Governing Board concerning any item 

listed on the agenda or any item that does not appear on the agenda should fill out and submit a 

speaker's card. To assure that all participants have an opportunity to speak, a member of the 

public may submit a speaker’s card to comment on agenda items only during today's meeting. 

If the speaker wishes to address the Board on an issue not on today's agenda, a speaker’s card 

may be submitted for comment during "Public Input." Chair Senft stated that comments would 

be limited to three minutes per speaker, and, when appropriate, exceptions to the three-minute 

limit may be granted by the Chair. He also requested that several individuals wishing to speak 

on the same issue/topic designate a spokesperson. 

168

Minutes of the Meeting July 26, 2011 

SWFWMD Governing Board Page 2 of 17 


Mr. Bilenky noted that one item is added to today’s agenda: 

REGULATION COMMITTEE 

The following item is added: 

� Approval of Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services Regarding Binding Determination of Exemptions Under 

Subsection 373.406(2), Florida Statutes 

Chair Senft noted for the record that the agenda was accepted as amended. 

4. Oath of Office for Newly Appointed Board Member 

Ms. Kavouras administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Board Member 

Michael A. Babb who was appointed by Governor Scott to a term beginning June 23, 2011 

and ending March 1, 2015. Chair Senft noted that Mr. Babb will serve as the Outreach 

and Planning Committee’s Second Vice Chair. (Track 1 – 00:00/07:10, Video A – 07:00) 

5. Ceremony to Honor Maritza Rovira-Forino for Her Service on the Governing Board 

Chair Senft said Ms. Rovira-Forino was appointed to the Governing Board in March 2006 

and served through August 2010. Mr. Gramling presented her with a plaque and a 

resolution honoring her service and leadership. He noted that she was recently named the 

Hispanic Woman of the Year for Tampa Bay. Ms. Rovira-Forino said it has been an honor 

to serve on this Board and to serve as an advocate for the citizens of Florida. (Track 1 – 

07:10/14:45) 

6. Ceremony to Honor Ronald E. Oakley for His Service on the Governing Board 

Chair Senft said Mr. Oakley was appointed to the Governing Board in June 2007 and 

served through June 2011. Mr. Tharp presented him with a plaque and a resolution 

honoring his service. Mr. Oakley expressed his gratitude and thanks to Board members 

and staff for this honor. He charged Board members to meet the District’s employees and 

visit the region’s lands to truly appreciate what this District does for its citizens. 

Chair Senft expressed his appreciation for Mr. Oakley’s leadership and friendship. 

(Track 1 – 14:45/30:12) 

7. Ceremony to Honor David L. Moore for His Service as the District’s Executive 

Director 

Chair Senft said Mr. Moore was appointed as Executive Director in March 2003 and he 

continued in that position until June 2011. He was presented with a resolution honoring 

his service. Mr. Moore expressed his thanks to Board members and staff for this honor. 

He said staff has a passion for their work and have made many accomplishments for the 

District. (Track 1 – 30:12/34:50) 


Mr. Gramling honored Ms. Cheryl Johnson and Mr. Steve Bissonnette for their service on 

the Alafia River Basin Board. 

Mr. Gramling honored Mr. George Burt for his service on the Hillsborough River Basin 

Board. 

Mr. Pressman honored Messrs. Terry England and Housh Ghovaee for their service on 

the Pinellas-Anclote River Basin Board. 

Mr. Combee expressed his appreciation to Mr. Moore, Mr. Oakley and Ms. Rovira-Forino. 

He then honored Ms. Pat Crisman and Mr. Fred Trippensee for their service on the Peace 

River Basin Board. 

169



Mr. Tharp honored Dr. Burt Eno and Mr. Al Grubman for their service on the 

Withlacoochee River Basin Board. Dr. Eno expressed his appreciation of the District’s 

staff, and concerns for the future water resources of the state and his region, especially 

the Rainbow River. He said he is also concerned about the elimination of the Basin 

Boards resulting in no local representation. Mr. Grubman thanked Messrs. Oakley and 

Moore for their support. (Track 1 – 00:34:50/01:02:55) 

9. Employee Recognition (Video A – 01:03:10) 

Mr. Bilenky recognized staff members who have achieved milestones of 20 years or 

greater for the period of June 1, 2011 to July 31, 2011. (Track 1 – 01:02:55/01:24:53) 

MILESTONE EMPLOYEE TITLE DEPARTMENT LOCATION 

30 Years Paul Hites Sr Heavy Equipment Operator Operations Tampa 

25 Years Daryl Flatt Senior Professional Engineer Sarasota Regulation Sarasota 

20 Years 

Hank Higginbotham Senior Professional Engineer Tampa Regulation Tampa 

Jack Moore Senior Professional Engineer Tampa Regulation Tampa 

Robert Parker Field Technician Resource Data & Restoration Sarasota 

Jesse Watson Senior Field Technician Bartow Regulation Bartow 

This item was presented for the Board's information, and no action was required. 

Following each presentation, Governing Board members and honorees posed for photographs. 

10. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda (Video A – 01:24:30) 

Chair Senft noted that there were several requests to speak. 

Mr. Alan Jones will be offered the opportunity to speak if there is any discussion on 

Consent Agenda Item 13. 

Ms. Eileen Hart, resident of Odessa, said she has concerns regarding the elimination of 

the Basin Boards and asked the Board questions to address her concerns. At Chair 

Senft’s direction, Mr. Bilenky said staff is working on a process to begin in next year’s 

budget preparation for alternatives to allow local participation, such as committees or 

groups of Governing Board members from local areas to act in the capacities as the Basin 

Boards did. Chair Senft noted that Board members value the input received from citizens. 

Ms. Linda Martin, wife of former Basin Board Member Charles Martin and a resident of the 

Keystone-Odessa area, said lake levels and ponds are close to returning to their former 

levels. She reiterated the concerns expressed by Ms. Hart, and noted that her husband 

felt his main responsibility and duty was to bring back information to the local citizens so 

they could provide input. Mr. Pressman said one of the great successes has been the 

reduction of pumping and great advances at protecting the public. 

Ms. Gail Parsons, former Basin Board member and resident of Odessa, said it is with 

great consternation that the Governing Board thought in their wisdom to do away with the 

Basin Boards. She said the Basin Boards were the local citizens’ advocate which is now 

missing. She asked for the Governing Board to consider a reconstitution into perhaps 

three Basin Boards because committees do not provide the same advocacy. 

She requested personal notice when such matters are considered. Chair Senft said 

Ms. Kavouras will create a list to ensure notice is sent. 

Dr. Burt Eno, former Withlacoochee River Basin Board, said he already had his say 

earlier. 

170



Ms. Janet Doughtery was no longer in attendance due to time constraints. (Track 2 – 

00:00/12:49) 

CONSENT AGENDA (Video A – 01:37:20) 


11. Conveyance of Land to Polk County – Old Florida Plantation, SWF Parcel No. 

20-502-111S 

Staff recommended that, subject to concurrence by the Department of Environmental 

Protection, to (1) concur that SWF Parcel No. 20-502-111S is not necessary for District 

projects; (2) accept the appraisal; (3) execute a Right-of-Way Agreement with Polk 

County; and (4) execute instruments necessary for the conveyance of right-of-way. 

12. Appraisal and Purchase/Sale Agreement – Regional Observation and Monitor Well 

Program (ROMP), SWF Parcel No 20-020-120 

Staff recommended that, subject to concurrence by the Department of Environmental 

Protection, to (1) accept the appraisal; and (2) approve the Purchase/Sale Agreement. 

13. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems – Jones Potato Farm, Inc., 

Phase 1 – Manatee County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Jones Potato Farm, Inc. Phase 1 project for a notto-exceed 

project reimbursement of $700,000 with $350,000 provided by the Manasota 

Basin Board and $350,000 provided by the Governing Board; (2) authorize the transfer of 

$350,000 from fund 021 H017 Manasota Basin Board FARMS funds and $350,000 from 

fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to 010 H640, Jones Potato Farm project 

fund; and (3) authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreement. 


14. Budget Transfer Report 

Staff recommended to approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers 

for June 2011. 

15. Board Encumbrances 

Staff recommended to approve the encumbrance amounts indicated for the following 

projects: 

(a) Lower Hillsborough River Recovery Strategy - Morris Bridge Sink Diversion Project 

(H402) – The amount remaining unencumbered and requested to be encumbered 

without a contract for construction is $386,740 in General Fund (Fund 10) and 

$1,813,260 Hillsborough River Basin. 

(b) Flatford Swamp Hydrologic Restoration (H089) – The FY2011 amount remaining for 

encumbrance without a contract is $2,741,000, from the Fund 10. 

(c) Three Sisters Springs Wetland Treatment Project (W471) – The FY2011 amount 

remaining in the Coastal Rivers Basin unencumbered is $245,619. 

(d) Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) (H017) – The 

following FY2011 FARMS monies remain in Fund 10 and the basins and are 

requested to be encumbered for projects in FY2012 and not yet allocated to specific 

projects: Fund 10 - $504,545, Hillsborough - $709,430, Peace - $357,945 and 

Manasota - $47,567. 

16. Information Resources Department – Key Government Finance Capital Lease 

Staff recommended to authorize a transfer of $195,163 from the existing Information 

Resources Department hardware and software maintenance accounts to the capital lease 

accounts with the intent to prepay the Key Government Finance capital lease for the 

acquisition of network core infrastructure equipment. 


17. Initiation of Litigation – ERP No. 49009200.011 - Dollar Golf, Inc. and the Trails at 

Rivard Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (The Trails at Rivard Phase VI) – Hernando 

County 

Staff recommended to authorize the initiation of litigation against the Trails at Rivard 

Homeowners’ Association, Inc. and Dollar Golf, Inc. and any other appropriate parties to 

obtain compliance, to recover an administrative fine/civil penalty for the violations, and to 

recover District enforcement costs, court costs and attorney’s fees. 

171





a. June 17, 2011 Special Meeting 

b. June 28, 2011 Monthly Meeting 

Staff recommended to approve the minutes. 

Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by Mr. Tharp, to approve the Consent Agenda as 

presented. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Senft noted that Mr. Jones did not need an 

opportunity to speak since Item 13 was approved. (Track 3 – 00:00/00:35) 

Chair Senft relinquished the gavel to Regulation Committee Chair Beswick who called the 

Committee meeting to order. 

REGULATION COMMITTEE (Video A – 01:37:55) 


19. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

Mr. Granville Kinsman said, although June marks the start of the official four-month rainy 

season, rainfall during the month mainly consisted of widely scattered showers, resulting 

in generally drier-than-average conditions. Storms that developed during the month were 

generally stationary, of short duration and delivered modest amounts of rainfall to localized 

areas. The provisional District-wide 12-month rainfall accumulation shows a deficit of 

approximately 7.64 inches below the long-term average. The 24-month and 36-month 

cumulative rainfall deficits worsened during June, ending the month approximately 6.60 

and 11.77 inches, respectively, below the historic average. Climate forecasts continue to 

indicate above-normal rainfall for the rainy season, based on a predicted above-average 

Hurricane Season and conditions in the Pacific Ocean that have transitioned from La Nina 

to ENSO-neutral conditions. (Track 3 – 00:35/10:22) 

This item was presented for the Committee’s information, and no action was required. 

20. Water Shortage Order 2010-022 – Consider Current and Projected Conditions 

Ms. Lois Sorensen, Demand Management Program Manager, Tampa Regulation, said the 

current Water Shortage Order is scheduled to expire July 31, 2011. She provided a 

summary of the continuing resource and supply monitoring for the Board’s consideration. 

She presented three options: (1) let the current Order expire; (2) extend the current Order 

to October 31, 2011, and revisit the Board’s decision each month; or (3) enter into a new 

Order. 

Staff recommended to extend the current Water Shortage Order through October 31, 

2011, and to revisit the Board’s decision each month. Following consideration, 

Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by Mr. Pressman, to approve the staff 

recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (Track 4 – 00:00/08:33) 

At this time, the item added to the Regulation Committee Discussion Items was considered. 

Approval of Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services Regarding Binding Determination of Exemptions under Subsection 

373.406(2), Florida Statutes 

Ms. Marti Moore, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, said the District currently has a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(DACS) for a nonbinding determination concerning whether an activity qualifies for the 

agricultural exemption set forth in Subsection 373.406(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.). Since 

passage of the new legislation, staffs from DACS and the water management districts have met 

to discuss and draft a revised MOA that meets the new statutory requirements for binding 

determinations. A new MOA has been drafted, and staff anticipates receiving a final MOA, to be 

172



executed by the Commissioner of Agriculture and circulated in counterparts for execution by 

each water management district executive director. A copy of the final draft MOA was provided 

to the Board members prior to the meeting. 

Staff recommended to approve the MOA with DACS regarding Binding Determination of 

Exemptions under Subsection 373.406(2), F.S.; to authorize the Interim Executive Director to 

execute the MOA; and to approve rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-4.0195 to incorporate the 

MOA by reference should it become necessary to do so. Following consideration, 

Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by Mr. Beruff, to approve the staff recommendation as 

presented. Motion carried unanimously. (Track 4 – 08:33/08:52, Track 5 – 00:00/03:17) 

21. Denials Referred to the Governing Board – None 



The following items were provided for the Committee’s information, and no action was required. 

22. Public Supply Production Report 

• Mr. Owen asked for Board direction regarding the monthly report. Mr. Gramling 

requested the entire report be available on the District’s website. Following 

consideration, Mr. Tharp moved, seconded by Mr. Gramling, to consolidate the 

Districtwide Public Utilities Report with the previous and current years, to report 

quarterly to the Board, and to provide the entire report on the District’s web site. 

Motion carried unanimously. (Track 6 – 00:00/04:30) 

23. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities 

24. Overpumpage Report 

25. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications 

26. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff 

27. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives 

Chair Senft noted that Ms. Closshey asked to be contacted so she can participate via 

teleconference for Items 36 and 47. There were no objections to altering the order of 

consideration. 

Board members expressed their appreciation to Mr. Bilenky for the manner in which he handled 

the circumstances regarding the July 3 water damage to Brooksville Building 4. 

Resource Regulation Committee Chair Beswick adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Resource Management Committee Chair Gramling who called the 

Committee meeting to order. (Track 6 – 04:30/08:06) 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Video A – 02:08:00) 


36. Basin Activity – Plant City - Sydney Road Reclaimed Water Project (L816) 

Mr. Mark A. Hammond, Director, Resource Projects Department, said Plant City is 

requesting an amendment to the existing agreement to upsize the Sydney Road reclaimed 

water line and extend both internal and completion timelines. The City is also requesting 

expansion of the project scope to include a reclaimed water line along Park Road on the 

east side of the City. The funding agreement amount will need to be increased for the 

upsize and expansion; however, no additional funds are requested at this time. The Alafia 

River Basin budgeted a total of $1,382,285 through fiscal year 2011. An additional 

$603,630 was approved in Water Protection Sustainability Trust Funds and the 

Department of Environmental Protection provided $200,000 to the City. 

(Ms. Closshey connected via teleconference.) 

173



The funding agreement amount will need to be increased by $1,005,000 ($130,000 to 

upsize line and $875,000 to add new line) from $1,985,915 to $2,990,915 for the project 

expansion, and will be contingent upon the Governing Board’s approval to transfer up to 

$130,000, if needed following receipt of bid, from Hillsborough River Basin’s existing 

Water Supply and Resource Development reserves and budgeting $875,000 for the 

project in fiscal year 2013, subject to approval of the annual budget approval process. 

Combining both lines into one project, the Sydney Road and Park Road, would provide an 

offset of 0.4 mgd with an estimated cost benefit of $3.57 per thousand gallons saved. 

Mr. Greg Horwedel, City of Plant City Manager, provided information regarding this project 

and its funding. He noted his appreciation of the diligent work being done by District staff. 

Staff recommended to (1) approve amending the existing agreement to (a) adjust timeline 

and requirements for obtaining 50 percent of the proposed project offsets; (b) upsize the 

Sydney Road pipeline to 24-inch diameter; (c) include the 18-inch reclaimed water line 

along Park Road; (d) extend the contract termination date to December 31, 2014; and 

(e) increase District’s contribution by up to $1,005,000 from $1,985,915 to $2,990,915; 

and (2) authorize staff to negotiate the amendment with Plant City and authorize the 

Interim Executive Director to execute the amendment. 

Following consideration, Mr. Beruff moved, seconded by Ms. Whitehead, to approve 

the staff recommendation with no additional extensions allowed. Motion carried 

unanimously with Ms. Closshey casting her affirmative vote over the phone. 

Resource Management Committee Chair Gramling recessed the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger who called the 


FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (Video A – 02:35:35) 



Chair Senft noted that Board members had provided their short list of candidates to 

Ms. Kuligofski. 

Ms. Elaine M. Kuligofski, Director, Human Resources & Risk Management Department, 

provided a status report on the recruitment process. At the June meeting, the Board 

requested for North Highland Consulting Company (NHCC) to provide competency 

models, skill sets and behavioral sets that the Board may want to focus on for the 

Executive Director position. 

Ms. Jan Sullivan, representing NHCC, reviewed the competency models, position 

responsibilities, proficiency levels and possible questions for the Executive Director. She 

provided Board members with a copy of her presentation. (Track 8 – 00:00/31:00) 

Chair Senft said the Board will determine the short list of candidates to be interviewed 

from the 19 candidates chosen from the 51 applicants. Discussion ensued. Chair Senft 

provided the Board with copies of SFWMD’s new organization chart. Mr. Rathke briefly 

reviewed the timetable for senate confirmation of the selected Executive Director. 

The Board consensus was to short list the top seven candidates and to send each a list of 

questions via email today for written responses by noon on July 29. 

174



Following discussion, Mr. Adams moved that the interviews occur on August 2, 2011 

and then narrowing the candidate list for final interviews on August 29, 2011, 

followed by the final decision for the Executive Director. Ms. Closshey seconded 

the motion via teleconference. (Track 8 – 00:31:00/01:02:30) 

Discussion ensued; the August 29 meeting start time will be determined by the number of 

candidates to be interviewed. At the Board’s request, Ms. Kuligofski reiterated the 

recruitment process schedule. Motion carried with Committee Chair Joerger 

abstaining. (Track 8 – 01:02:30/01:09:20) 

Ms. Closshey ended her participation via phone. Committee Chair Joerger recessed the 

meeting to provide a lunch break and reconvened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Track 8 – 

01:09:20/01:12:13, Video A – 03:46:42/Video B – 00:00) 

Discussion continued regarding Item 47, Executive Director Recruitment. Ms. Kuligofski 

requested the Board finalize a pre-interview questionnaire to be administered to the shortlisted 

candidates and a list of in-person interview questions. 

Following consideration, Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by Ms. Whitehead, to 

approve the list of pre-interview questions. Motion carried with Committee Chair 

Joerger abstaining. (Track 9 – 00:00/01:55) 

Following discussion, Mr. Tharp moved, seconded by Mr. Beruff, to approve the list of 

five questions for the in-person interview scheduled for August 2. Motion carried 

with Committee Chair Joerger abstaining. (Track 9 – 01:55/09:40) 

Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger recessed the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams who called the 

Committee meeting to order. Chair Senft noted that the order of consideration returned to the 

published agenda. (Track 9 – 09:40/10:00) 

OUTREACH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE (Video B – 10:40) 

Discussion Item 

28. 2010 Regional Water Supply Plan Approval 

Mr. Roy Mazur, Director, Planning Department, said the Regional Water Supply Plan 

(RWSP) is required by statute every five years for areas where 20-year demand is 

anticipated to overcome available supplies. The RWSP is a “catalogue” of demand 

projections, potential sources, potential projects to develop sources and potential funding 

sources for the projects. The District’s northern six counties are included for the first time 

not because demand is anticipated to exceed supply but to prevent that occurrence from 

happening. The RWSP lists conservation and reclaimed water projects which will assist in 

extending the groundwater supply in the Northern Planning Region and throughout the 

District. 

Mr. Mazur presented staff’s evaluation of the growth management changes, the population 

projection differences and the analysis which lead to staff’s recommendation. Staff has 

determined the impact of growth management legislation to be minimal and the population 

projections, while different in some areas, are not significantly different enough to alter the 

overall conclusion that there is enough water supplies until at least 2030. The overall 

conclusion of the RWSP is while the northern Tampa Bay and southern portion of the 

District remain in a water use caution area, water supply should meet demand for all 

categories of use until at least 2030. 

175



Mr. Mazur said the Board has two options: (1) approve the Plan for staff to notify local 

governments and initiate a Community Planning Sheet program; or (2) direct staff to 

update the Plan through review/redo of all numbers and “re-shop” the Plan to 

stakeholders. 

Staff recommended to approve the 2010 Regional Water Supply Plan. Following 

consideration, Mr. Joerger moved, seconded by Mr. Combee, to approve the staff 

recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. The Board expressed its appreciation 

for an outstanding report. (Track 10 – 00:00/19:20) 

Submit & File Report 

The following item was submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action was required. 

29. FY2011 Public Service Advertising Campaign Review 



30. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 

31. Development of Regional Impact Reviews 

32. Speakers Bureau 

33. Significant Activities 

Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Resource Management Committee Chair Gramling who called the 


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Video B – 30:40) 


34. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion – None 

35. Request to Waive the Cooperative Funding Agreement Condition Regarding 

Property Rights for the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

Regional Integrated Loop System Phase 1A and Phase 2 Interconnect Projects 

(H069, H051) 

Mr. Brian Armstrong Water Supply & Resource Development Manager, Resource Projects 

Department, said the projects are currently under construction, and a total of $1,048,539 in 

eligible District funding is currently on hold until a few remaining parcels are acquired. The 

Regional Integrated Loop System is a series of pipelines to regionally transfer and deliver 

water from existing and future alternative supplies to demand centers in the Peace River 

Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority’s (PRMRWSA’s) four-county region. 

On June 15, 2011, the Authority submitted a letter to the Executive Director requesting to 

waive the condition that all property rights must be obtained prior to any reimbursement for 

the two projects. The letter states that the Authority would not request funds for 

construction of pipeline segments where property acquisitions are not yet finalized. The 

Authority has stated that project construction was expedited to maintain contractual 

timelines and to meet scheduled future deliveries of water supply. The Authority is 

authorized to exercise eminent domain power if necessary to acquire the remaining 

properties to complete the projects, but has chosen to exercise good stewardship to the 

community by patiently negotiating the sale transfer of the parcels. Waiving the funding 

agreement condition that all property rights must be obtained before any payment is made 

will not change the cost of the projects. This action will allow the District to release a total 

of $1,048,539 in funds encumbered in prior years for two critical infrastructure projects that 

are currently under construction. The payments will assist with the Authority’s ongoing 

expenses. 

176



Staff recommended to approve the request by the Authority to waive the condition in the 

cooperative funding agreements for the PRMRWSA Regional Integrated Loop System 

Phase 1A Interconnect Project (H069) and the PRMRWSA Regional Integrated Loop 

System Phase 2 Interconnect Project (H051) stating that all property rights must be 

obtained prior to reimbursement for any cost under the agreement. Following 

consideration, Mr. Beruff moved, seconded by Mr. Combee, to approve the staff 

recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (Track 12 – 00:00/05:20) 

36. Basin Activity – Plant City - Sydney Road Reclaimed Water Project (L816) 

This item was heard earlier in the meeting. 




37. Florida Forever Funding 

38. Minimum Flows and Levels 

39. Structure Operations 

40. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map 

Modernization 

41. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects (Video B – 37:00) 

• In response to Mr. Gramling’s question, Mr. Eric Sutton, Director, Land Resources 

Department, provided an update on the hunting issue and the public meeting scheduled 

for July 29 at 3:30 p.m. in Plant City. 

Resource Management Committee Chair Gramling adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger who reconvened 

the Committee meeting. (Track 12 – 05:20/10:05) 

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (Video B – 40:48) 



43. Request to Withdraw Bid Without Penalty – Lucas Marine Construction, LLC – 

Request for Bid 11-02, Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification P-11 Structure Project 

Ms. Mary Beth McNeil, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, said the purpose of 

this item is for the Board’s consideration of a request by Lucas Marine Construction, LLC 

to allow Lucas Marine to withdraw its bid without penalty, in connection with Request for 

Bid (RFB) 1102, Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification P-11 Structure Project. She 

provided a brief overview of this matter. 

On June 2, 2011, the District opened bids received in response to RFB 1102, Lake 

Hancock Lake Level Modification P-11 Structure Project. The project involves 

demolishing the existing P-11 outfall structure and constructing a new outfall structure 

comprised of two large motorized lift gates for flood control and two smaller motorized 

drop gates for meeting minimum flows and levels. Lucas Marine submitted the lowest bid 

of $4,629,500 which represented a bid of $4,129,500 with a $500,000 contingency 

allocation. As required by the RFB, Lucas Marine provided the District a bid bond in the 

amount of $231,475 which represented five percent of the amount Lucas Marine bid. 

Under the terms of the bid bond, if Lucas Marine withdraws its bid within 90 days after the 

bid opening date or fails to enter into a written contract with the District within ten days 

from the date of the Notice of Intended Decision, the bid bond amount is payable to the 

District. 

177



On June 21, 2011, the District posted its Notice of Intent to Award naming Lucas Marine 

as the vendor awarded the bid. The Notice of Intent to Award was subject to legal 

challenge for a period of 72 hours from posting. The District received no legal challenges 

and the award became final. On June 30, 2011, Lucas Marine notified the District that 

Lucas Marine was withdrawing its bid because they were concerned that they had 

“underestimated the earthwork portion of the project.” On July 8, 2011, the District 

received a request by Lucas Marine to allow it to withdraw its bid without penalty. 

Ms. McNeil said the options available to the District in response to Lucas Marine’s request 

to withdraw its bid without penalty are as follows: 

(1) Allow Lucas Marine to withdraw its bid without penalty including the return of its bid 

bond. 

(2) Deny Lucas Marine’s request to withdraw its bid without penalty and proceed to 

demand payment of the bid bond from the surety if Lucas Marine does not pay the 

District directly. 

(3) Allow Lucas Marine to withdraw its bid with a partial forfeiture of the bid bond in an 

amount to be determined by the Governing Board. 

Ms. McNeil said it is District legal staff’s opinion that Lucas Marine is not legally entitled to 

withdraw its bid without the forfeiture of its bid bond. 

Staff recommended to deny Lucas Marine’s request to withdraw its bid without penalty as 

set forth as option (2) above. Following consideration, Mr. Beruff moved, seconded by 

Mr. Adams, to approve the staff recommendation. (Track 13 – 00:00/09:05) 

Ms. Lyzza Heffernan, representing Lucas Marine Construction, provided information 

regarding the company and stated its position. 

Discussion ensued. Motion carried with Chair Joerger abstaining and Mr. Combee 

voting in opposition. (Track 13 – 09:05/23:20, Video B – 01:04:00) 

44. Budget Transfer – Lake Hancock Outfall Structure P-11 Replacement 

Mr. Mark A. Hammond, Director, Resource Projects Department, said the Lake Hancock 

Outfall Structure P-11 replacement is needed to implement the Lake Hancock Lake Level 

Modification Project to raise the lake level to help meet the minimum flows for the upper 

Peace River. The next lowest bid is CenState Contractors with a bid of $5,281,000 plus a 

$500,000 contingency allocation, which exceeds the $5 million budgeted for the Outfall 

Structure P-11 Replacement. The contingency allocation would be reduced so that the 

contract with the next lowest bidder would not exceed $5.5 million. 

Staff recommended the Board transfer $500,000 from the Lake Hancock Lake Level 

Modification Project (H008) funds to the Outfall Structure P-11 Replacement (H009) to 

provide a budget of $5.5 million. 

Discussion ensued. Mr. Malcolm Wilson, Manager, Purchasing Section, said staff will 

contact Lucas Marine within five working days to ask what course of action the company 

will be taking. 

Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by Ms. Whitehead, to approve the staff 

recommendation. Motion carried with Chair Joerger abstaining. (Track 13 – 

23:20/30:41) 

45. Liquidation of Encumbrances and Transfer to Reserves (Video B – 1:11:27) 

Mr. Fritsch discussed certain projects previously presented to the Governing Board as 

“delayed – cause for concern” or “project implementation reserve.” Since the June 

Governing Board presentation, staff has concluded that two of the concerned projects and 

the one project in the project implementation reserve should be discontinued and the 

178



budgeted dollars should be placed in an appropriate basin or district reserve account. The 

three projects are: 

• H403 Restoration – Tampa Bay-McKay Bay Segment Brackish Environment Restoration 

Using Reclaimed Water (Hillsborough River $2,850,000 and General Fund $500,000) 

• W205 Restoration – Water Quality – Old Tampa Bay Restoration (Hillsborough River 

Basin $4,500,000 and Pinellas-Anclote River Basin $4,500,000) 

• W202 Restoration – Water Quality – Old Tampa Bay Lake Tarpon Redirect Flow 

(Hillsborough River $250,000 and Pinellas-Anclote River $250,000) 

Staff recommended to approve the liquidation of the encumbrances for the projects listed 

above and authorize staff to restrict or commit the available dollars to the appropriate 

reserve accounts based on the source of funding pending future Board action. Following 

discussion, Mr. Beruff moved, seconded by Mr. Adams, to approve the staff 

recommendation. (Track 14 – 00:00/18:55) 

Discussion ensued. Motion carried with Chair Joerger abstaining. 

Chair Joerger said the message to the other 18 projects is that the Board wants to know 

whether the project is moving forward or, if not, then participation by the District will end. 

(Track 14 – 18:55/24:11) 

46. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Update (Video B – 01:36:00) 

Mr. Fritsch provided an overview of items to be considered including Board member 

requests and various projects in follow-up to the June Governing Board meeting. 

Cooperators were invited to address the Governing Board regarding any FY2012 

Cooperative Funding requests, particularly those requests that are not currently included 

in the budget for funding. 

Mr. Fritsch noted that the objective is to achieve consensus by the Board on several 

issues related to the budget in preparation for the first budget hearing. The District's 

FY2012 budget will be adopted in September following two public Truth in Millage budget 

hearings. The first hearing is scheduled for 5:01 p.m. at the Tampa Service Office on 

September 13, 2011. The Executive Office of the Governor will review and approve the 

budgets of all five water management districts before the second and final public hearing. 

The second and final hearing is scheduled for 5:01 p.m. at the Tampa Service Office on 

September 27, 2011, following the monthly Governing Board meeting. (Track 15 – 

00:00/04:50) 

a. Medium-Ranked Basin Projects – Alafia River and Peace River Basins 

Mr. Fritsch noted that, in June, the Governing Board agreed to fund through only the 

high-ranked projects for those Basins not having adequate existing Basin funds. The 

result was that the medium-ranked Basin projects in the Alafia River and Peace River 

Basin projects were not approved at the June 28, 2011 meeting; and those projects 

removed from the proposed FY2012 budget are: 

Alafia River Basin 

• Stormwater Improvement/Flood Protection – Mulberry Watershed (N299) – $56,250 

• Conservation – Home Depot Rainwater Harvesting and Commercial Reuse (N397) – 

$39,000 

Peace River Basin 

• Planning – Charlotte County Reclaimed Water Master Plan (N347) – $100,000 

• Study – Fort Meade Stormwater Utility Study (N362) – $37,500 

• Conservation – Home Depot Rainwater Harvesting and Commercial Reuse (N397) – 

$91,000 

179



Committee Chair Joerger noted that there are several speaker cards for this item. 

Mr. Combee said this is an example of how this process will work post-Basin Boards. 

Mr. Jeff Spence, Polk County Parks and Natural Resources Director, spoke in support 

of the Mulberry Watershed project. 

Mr. Frank Comparetto, representing the City of Mulberry, provided information 

regarding the Mulberry Watershed project. Mr. Alan Rayl of Rayl Engineering provided 

details of the project. 

Discussion ensued. Committee Chair Joerger noted there is another speaker card. 

(Track 15 – 04:50/29:54) 

Mr. Marcello Ranelli, representing the City of North Port, said he submitted a speaker 

card to address Water Structure 101 next to the North Port Water Plant project, but it is 

not listed for consideration so he may be here in error. (Track 15 – 29:54/30:35) 

Mr. Wirth noted that last month the Board decided not to fund these medium-ranked 

projects. He said this is the process to allow local cooperators to address the Board to 

continue funding their projects. 

Following discussion, Mr. Combee moved, seconded Ms. Whitehead, to approve 

funding the following medium-ranked project: Stormwater Improvement/Flood 

Protection – Mulberry Watershed (N299) – $56,250. (Track 15 – 30:35/33:30) 

Discussion enused regarding process for considering projects in the future. 

Motion carried with Messrs. Adams, Joerger and Tharp voting against and Chair 


Mr. Senft moved, seconded by Mr. Combee, to approve funding the following 

medium-ranked project: Study – Fort Meade Stormwater Utility Study (N362) – 

$37,500. Mr. Bilenky said the motion failed due to the lack of a majority vote. 

(Track 15 – 42:23/44:49) 

b. Capital Improvement Projects (Video B – 02:20:00) 

Mr. Fritsch said the Board members had requested additional review of the following 

proposed FY2012 capital improvement projects: 

(1) Districtwide Parking Lot Repair and Resurfacing (C164) – No paving projects are 

planned for FY2012. Paving of overflow parking lot at Sarasota Service Office is 

planned for FY2013. 

(2) Districtwide Carpet Replacement (C143) – Replacement of carpet in Brooksville 

Building #2 planned for FY2012. 

(3) Districtwide Security Upgrade Project (C185) – Installation of security cameras for 

equipment parking lots at Sarasota Service Office planned for FY2012. 

(4) Flying Eagle Youth Center (SB06) – Renovations of existing facilities in support of 

an environmental education/recreation youth center currently operating on 

District-owned Flying Eagle Preserve. 

Mr. Fritsch said the first item regarding parking lot repair and resurfacing is removed 

from the budget since no funds were included. He said the third item regarding a 

security upgrade is recommended for removal from the budget since it has been 

determined to no longer be needed. 

Mr. Pressman moved, seconded by Mr. Tharp, to remove (3) Districtwide 

Security Upgrade Project (C185) from the budget. Motion carried with Chair 


180



Mr. Fritsch said that the second item regarding carpet replacement raised concerns 

about pricing. Committee Chair Joerger noted that there is a state contract for carpet 

so that the District can benefit from the state’s purchasing power. Mr. Beruff relayed 

his experience with using a state contract versus bidding it out. He said it was more 

efficient to bid out the project. 

Following discussion, Mr. Beruff moved, seconded by Mr. Gramling, to bid out the 

Districtwide Carpet Replacement (C143), accept the funding amount for the 

budget, and utilize the state contract unless the bid amount is lower. Motion 

carried with Chair Joerger abstaining. (Track 16 – 01:36/07:35) 

Mr. Beruff suggested the Board hold a discussion on how the budget gives providers a 

target price which may inflate project costs. Chair Senft said he has requested a list of 

items be developed for future Board workshops and this topic should be included. 

(Track 16 – 07:35/12:40, Video B – 02:33:13) 

Mr. Fritsch said the last project on the list is the Flying Eagle Youth Center which is 

budgeted for this year. Mr. Eric Sutton, Director, Land Resources Department, 

provided a brief overview of the project. 

Discussion ensued. Mr. Beruff expressed his two concerns: how does this project tie 

into the core mission and, if for education, why not budgeted through education and 

outreach. 

Chair Senft moved for the record that this project be considered core mission. 

Mr. Tharp seconded the motion. 

Discussion ensued regarding definition of core mission. Mr. Bilenky noted that core 

mission is not defined in statutes. He said, as long as the District is within statutory 

authority and carrying out duties consistent with supervisory authority (Governor’s 

Office and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)), those activities are core 

mission. Mr. Bilenky said the Board sets the policy on what it considers priorities to 

fund, and those priorities become core mission with direction from supervisory 

authority. (Track 16 – 12:40/46:27) 

Discussion ensued regarding the project and public access to the property. 

Chair Senft withdrew his motion and Mr. Tharp withdrew his second. Committee 

Chair Joerger recognized the two speakers for this item. (Track 16 – 46:27/51:55) 

Mr. Al Grubman, former Withlacoochee River Basin Board member and resident of 

Citrus County, said the Board has the responsibility to be stewards for Florida land 

under the District’s authority and spoke in support of funding this project using the 

taxes paid by the citizens of the Basin. 

Dr. Burt Eno, former Withlacoochee River Basin Board member and resident of Marion 

County, said he supports this project and the mission of education and environmental 

protection. 

Committee Chair Joerger said that this matter may be resolved during approval of the 

District’s proposed millage. (Track 16 – 51:55/56:15, Video B – 03:17:00) 

c. Governing Board, Basin Works, Initiatives and Cooperative Funding 

Mr. Fritsch noted that Board members have requested additional review of various 

programs. Mr. Hammond reviewed the Pasco County Light Detection and Ranging 

(LiDAR) project to address the questions raised by Board members as follows: can 

environmental resource permits provide topographical information, is that cost effective 

181



and how often does data require updating. Mr. Beruff said his point is that once LiDAR 

is complete, then information just needs to be updated as a permit is renewed. 

Mr. Wirth addressed the Minimum Flows and Levels (MFL) information request. He 

reviewed the program components requiring completion over the next four years when 

the program ends. (Track 16 – 56:15/56:57, Track 17 – 00:00/13:05) 

In response to Mr. Beruff’s question about the Flying Eagle Youth Center, Committee Chair 

Joerger said no motion was made so the item continues in the budget. He noted that any 

management plan for the Center will need Board approval and the Governor has line-item veto 

authority. (Track 17 – 13:05/14:13, Video 03:30:33) 

d. Adoption of Proposed District Millage Rate (Video – 30:31:35) 

Mr. Fritsch reviewed the updated budget charts. The FY2012 budget has been 

prepared based on a total maximum levy of $107,766,957 pursuant to Section 

373.503(4)(b), Florida Statutes, which was amended by the Florida Legislature during 

the 2011 session through Senate Bill 2142 and established the maximum levy for 

FY2012 at $107,766,957. The actual amount budgeted is $103,449,973, which 

represents 96 percent of the maximum levy based on the historical collection rate. 

The proposed millage rate in order to generate this ad valorem revenue is 0.3928 mill. 

This is based on the July 1 Certifications of Taxable Value received from the 16-county 

Property Appraisers. 

Staff recommended to approve Resolution No. 11-09, Adoption of Proposed District 

Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2012. Following consideration, Mr. Tharp moved, 

seconded by Mr. Gramling, to approve the staff recommendation to adopt a 

proposed millage of .3928 mill. Motion carried with Chair Joerger abstaining. 

(Track 18 – 00:00/02:45, Video B – 03:34:30) 

In response to Mr. Beruff’s question, Mr. Fritsch said the Bartow Service Office 

renovation is in the budget and already fully funded. He noted that next month the 

Bartow office and Brooksville Building 5 roof will be presented for final consideration by 

the Board. Discussion ensued regarding changes to the retirement system, salaries 

and benefits, deferred compensation and leave payout. Mr. Combee requested 

information about annual leave payouts to senior staff. Mr. Fritsch continued by 

providing a brief overview of the discussions with the Governor’s Office including inschool 

education and staffing levels. (Track 18 – 02:45/23:00) 

Committee Chair Joerger expressed his appreciation to staff for meeting these 

objectives. 


This item was heard earlier in the meeting. 


The following items were submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action was 

required. 

48. Fiscal Year 2011 Third Quarter Financial Report 

49. Total Compensation (Salary & Benefits) Review Status 


a. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Fiscal Year 2011 

Security Audit 

b. Human Resources Information System (HRIS) Security Certification Update 



51. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Reserves 

52. Management Services Significant Activities 

182



Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Chair Senft. (Track 18 – 23:00/25:51, Video B – 03:57:32) 

GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT (Video C – 00:00) 



54. Certification of Election of Exemption from Rule Reviews Required by Section 

120.745, Florida Statutes 

Ms. Karen West, Deputy General Counsel, said Chapter 2011-225, Laws of Florida 

(HB 993/HB 7239), effective June 24, 2011, has amended the agency rulemaking 

provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The 

amendments establish additional rule review provisions in line with Governor Scott’s 

recent executive orders directing agencies to conduct rule reviews. Section 120.745(9), 

F.S., of the new law further provides that an agency is exempt from the enhanced rule 

review and compliance economic review if it has cooperated or cooperates with the Office 

of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) in a review of the agency’s rules 

in a manner consistent with Executive Order 11-01; if the agency or OFARR identifies 

each data collection rule and each revenue rule; and if the information developed thereby 

becomes publicly available on the agency website by December 1, 2011. Such agencies 

are also exempt from the biennial review required in section 120.74(2), F.S., for the year 

2011. This exemption does not apply unless the agency head certifies in writing to JAPC, 

on or before October 1, 2011, that the agency has chosen such exemption and has 

cooperated with OFARR in undertaking the review required by Executive Order 11-01. 

All of the water management districts voluntarily complied with the mandates of Executive 

Orders 11-01 and 11-72 and submitted their rule reviews to OFARR as directed. The 

District thus qualifies for the exemption available pursuant to Section 120.745(9), F.S. 

Staff has coordinated with the appropriate staff at the other water management districts 

and the Department of Environmental Protection, and all are planning on recommending 

that their agencies execute and submit the required certification of exemption status to 

JAPC before October 1, 2011. 

Staff recommended to authorize the Governing Board Chair to execute a certification of 

election of exemption from the rule review provisions of Section 120.745, F.S., as required 

by Section 120.745(9), F.S. Following consideration, Mr. Gramling moved, seconded by 

Mr. Adams, to approve the staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. 

(Track 19 – 00:00/03:33) 




55. Litigation Report 

56. Rulemaking Update 

(Track 19 – 03:33/03:38) 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Video C – 03:45) 

57. Executive Director’s Report 

a. Brooksville Building 4 Update 

Mr. Lloyd A. Roberts, Director, General Services Department, provided an update of 

activities occurring in Building 4 in response to the water damage which occurred on 

183



July 3, 2011. Board members viewed a slide presentation of damage to the offices. 

Ms. Lucy Petruccelli, Risk Manager, briefly reviewed the District’s insurance coverage. 

Mr. Bilenky expressed his appreciation for staff who worked over the holiday to assist 

in moving equipment and setting up alternate offices for staff. 

Chair Senft suggested the District’s insurance coverage be included for information purposes at 

a future Board workshop. (Track 20 – 00:00/24:00) 

b. Workload and Staffing Analysis – Implementation Update (Video C – 28:00) 

Ms. Elaine M. Kuligofski, Director, Human Resources & Risk Management 

Department, provided a status report of the implementation plan. Discussion ensued 

regarding the technology review of the District’s information technology program. 

(Track 20 – 24:00/32:05) 

This item was presented for the Board’s information, and no action was required. 

c. Revisions to District’s Organization Chart 

Ms. Elaine M. Kuligofski, Director, Human Resources & Risk Management 

Department, provided an update on initial changes to the District’s overall organization 

chart based upon the North Highland Consulting Company Report on District Workload 

and Staffing. One of those recommendations was to redesign the organizational 

structure with clear integration strategies. As an initial step, North Highland 

recommended reinstating the position of Assistant Executive Director to serve as a 

chief operating officer in conjunction with the Executive Director. (Track 20 – 

32:05/33:50) 


d. Other – None 

CHAIR'S REPORT (Video C – 37:55) 

58. Chair’s Report 

• Chair Senft said the Board needs to establish a date for receipt of the salary and wage 

study presentation. The Board consensus was for the final report to be delivered to the 

members as soon as available and presentation occur at the Board’s August 30, 2011 

meeting. (Track 20 – 33:50/37:00) 

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Senft adjourned the meeting 

at 6:13 p.m. (Track 20 – 37:00/37:33, Video C – 41:10) 







184

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING 



TAMPA,FLORIDA AUGUST 2, 2011 

The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) met for 

a special meeting at 8:47 a.m. on August 2, 2011, at the District’s Tampa Service Office. The 

following persons were present: 


H. Paul Senft, Chair 

Hugh Gramling, Vice Chair 


Albert G. Joerger, Treasurer 

Carlos Beruff, Member 


Jennifer E. Closshey, Member 






Staff Members 

Karen West, Deputy General Counsel 

Elaine Kuligofski, Director, Human Resources 

& Risk Management 

Audra Owens-Powell, Manager, Human Resources 

LuAnne Stout, Administrative Coordinator, 

Boards & Executive Services 

Randy Emberg, Video Production Engineer, 

Information Resources 


District. Approved minutes from previous meetings can be found on the District's Web site 

(www.WaterMatters.org). 

The Board members and staff met the first three candidates at 8:00 a.m. for an informal time of 

coffee and refreshments. 

Call to Order and Roll Call 

Chair Senft called the meeting to order and requested a roll call. Ms. Stout called the roll and 

noted a quorum was present. Chair Senft offered an invocation and led the Pledge of 

Allegiance. 

Opening Remarks 

Chair Senft noted that this is a noticed, public meeting of the Governing Board. He said the 

public is welcome to observe; however, the Board does not anticipate taking public comment 

during this meeting. Chair Senft said the purpose of this meeting is for the Governing Board to 

interview and evaluate six candidates who have submitted application materials for the position 

of Executive Director. He read for the record the following statement: 

“The Southwest Florida Water Management District is an independent, regional local 

government responsible for water resource management in a 16-county, Southwest 

Florida region. The District’s Executive Director performs as the Chief Executive Officer 

of the District in carrying out its mission. This position reports directly to the Governing 

Board and includes daily direction and operating responsibility for District staffing, $280 

million (Fiscal Year 2011) budget and all organization assets. The Executive Director 

functions as the principal agent of the 13-member, Governor-appointed Governing Board 

in recommending and implementing policies the Board adopts to fully effect its charge as 

prescribed by the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, as amended (Florida Statutes 

Chapter 373) and other applicable Florida Statutes, federal statutes and the Governor 

and Legislature or their representatives. The Executive Director is appointed by and 

185

Minutes of the Special Meeting August 2, 2011 


serves at the pleasure of the Governing Board. Applicants are subject to a background 

check. The appointment of the Executive Director is subject to approval by the Governor 

and confirmation by the Florida Senate upon employment, in accordance with 

373.079(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Executive Director designate must be confirmed or 

reconfirmed by the Senate during the second regular session of the Legislature following 

a gubernatorial election.” 

Chair Senft said today the Board will interview six candidates for the position. Based upon 

these interviews, the Board will short-list those six to a smaller number who will receive a 

second interview on August 29, 2011, at another publicly noticed meeting, toward the goal of 

being able to make a selection to fill this critical position at the August 30, 2011 Governing 

Board Meeting. The candidates to be interviewed are, in this order, Joe Manous, David 

Chardavoyne, Blake Guillory, Richard Owen, Bruce Wirth and Lou Kavouras. 

Chair Senft noted that, as each interview begins, he will read the following statement for each 

candidate: 

“You have applied for the position of Executive Director and are here at the request of the 

Governing Board to be interviewed. We are looking for a person who can demonstrate 

exceptional leadership skill in guiding the District through the challenges facing us today 

and into the future. Beyond the basic requirements and managerial function of the 

position, this will include demonstrating professional maturity, a self-motivating drive for 

personal growth and an aptitude for visionary leadership; developing, influencing and 

guiding a high performance team of professionals and to promote innovation and 

collaboration in support of a common mission; inspiring organization-wide improvements 

in culture and operational performance, productivity, cost control, customer service and 

overall organizational efficiency and effectiveness; and influencing and facilitating the 

organization’s long-term strategic direction and success. Our process today will be in a 

panel interview format. Board members will ask a series of questions that will be asked 

of all candidates, in an effort to assess which candidate provides the best match to our 

overall Department and District needs. Board members may ask additional, follow-up 

questions based upon the answers you provide. We are on a tight time schedule today 

and have allocated forty-five minutes for each interview, with some opportunity 

for additional discussion if time allows. Please govern yourself accordingly when 

responding to questions. Following your interview, if there is time you will have an 

opportunity to ask any questions you may have. After all interviews are completed 

today, the Board anticipates narrowing the applicant pool further and bringing one or 

more candidates back for a second round of interviews on August 29, 2011. If at any 

time you would like us to repeat a question or you need clarification, please let us know. 

Do you have any questions before we begin our interview?” 

Chair Senft said five questions will be asked of all candidates and follow-up questions may be 

asked by individual Board members as time allows. The five questions to be asked are: 

1. What steps would you personally take to assure that District rules, processes and 

procedures were well-aligned with its mission and effective in meeting operational and 

customer needs? 

2. Describe a time when you had to be very careful in communicating delicate information in 

your role as an organizational leader. What was the possible risk involved and how did you 

go about it? 

3. Please describe your philosophy with regards to the role of the Governing Board in day-today 

management of the District and the role of the Executive Director in helping set and 

implement the direction and priorities of the Board. 

4. The District is known for making hard decisions, such as in implementing rules for the 

Southern Water Use Caution area and resolving water resource issues in the Northern 

Tampa Bay area. This, of itself, creates controversy. Describe how you would make 

186



decisions necessary to protect the region’s water resources while balancing those decisions 

to minimize adverse reactions and impacts. 

5. As you develop a strategic vision for your organization, what are the key criteria that you 

focus on? 

Interview: Joe Manous (Track 2) 

Following the interview, the meeting recessed to provide a break and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. 

Interview: David Chardavoyne (Track 3) 

Following the interview, the meeting recessed to provide a break and reconvened at 11:07 a.m. 

Interview: Blake Guillory (Track 4) 

Following the interview, the meeting recessed at 12:07 p.m. to provide a lunch break with the 

next three candidates. Chair Senft reconvened the meeting at 12:45 p.m. 

Board Discussion: Other Board Administration Matters (Track 5) 

At this time, Ms. Kuligofski presented to the Board a performance-based separation incentive 

program. She said the purpose for a separation incentive program is to provide a tool for the 

Executive Director to make more effective use of human capital, an agreement that provides for 

continued employment through a date certain, participants with incentive benefits through the 

time of separation from District employment, and for effective levels of service or require 

redirection of remaining staffing and work priorities. Ms. Kuligofski said the reasons for offering 

a separation incentive is to align the budget by reducing salary costs and staff levels, 

supplement the District’s staffing reduction plan, and benefit both the District and the employee. 

She noted that staff participation will be based upon District need; employee performance basis; 

and balancing of workload or other adjustments needed by division, departments or function. 

Ms. Kuligofski reviewed the statutory severance provision under Section 215.425, Florida 

Statutes. She presented the separation incentive options and the purpose for a separation 

agreement. 

Ms. Kuligofski said staff is recommending the Board approve allowing the Executive Director, in 

consultation with the Governing Board Chair, to implement the Performance-Based Separation 

Incentive Program and to encumber funds in the FY2011 budget to accomplish this program. 

Following discussion, Mr. Tharp moved, seconded by Mr. Gramling, to approve the staff 

recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. 

Mr. Beruff asked the Board reconsider the budget request for the McGregor-Smith/Flying Eagle 

Youth Center. Following discussion, the Board requested this item be placed on the August 30, 

2011, meeting agenda for consideration. 

The Board meeting recessed to provide a brief break and reconvened at 1:31 p.m. 

Interview: Richard Owen (Track 6) 

Following the interview, the meeting recessed to provide a break and reconvened at 2:13 p.m. 

Interview: Bruce Wirth (Track 7) 

Chair Senft left the meeting at 2:34 p.m. and relinquished the gavel to Vice Chair Gramling. 


Interview: Lou Kavouras (Track 8) 

187




Board Discussion: Further Short-Listing of Candidates (Track 9) 

Vice Chair Gramling asked each Board member to provide the names of their top three 

candidates. Following a brief break for the results to be tallied, Ms. Closshey moved, 

seconded by Mr. Beruff, to narrow the list to the top two candidates for a second 

interview on August 29, 2011. Discussion ensued. 

Ms. Closshey amended her motion to include sending the two candidates’ names, in 

alpha order, to the Governor’s Office and Department of Environmental Protection 

Secretary for acceptance and request a response by August 29, 2011. Mr. Beruff 

seconded the amended motion. 

The motion carried with Mr. Tharp voting in opposition. 

The Board consensus was to begin the August 29 meeting at 2 p.m. 

Board Discussion: Additional Interview Questions (Track 10) 

Vice Chair Gramling led a discussion of the questions for the second interview. Discussion 

ensued. Following consideration, Mr. Joerger moved, seconded by Mr. Babb, to approve 

the questions as amended and adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 

Adjournment 

Meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. 







188


August 30, 2011 

OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE 

Discussion Items – None 



22. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report ..................................... 2 

23. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report .............................................................. 8 

24. Speakers Bureau ............................................................................................................... 12 

25. Significant Activities ........................................................................................................... 14

Outreach and Planning Committee 

August 30, 2011 

Routine Report 

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report 

Item 22 

Purpose 

This report is provided for the Committee’s information and shows District activity in the review 

of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Amendments. Staff updates the report 

monthly. 


The District provides technical and policy information on water resources and water resource 

management to local governments as they prepare amendments to their local government 

comprehensive plans. This information encompasses all aspects of water resource 

management, including water supply, flood protection, water quality and natural systems, and is 

intended to support sound land use decisions. A number of statutory provisions direct the 

District in the provision of this assistance, particularly Section 373.0391, Florida Statutes (F.S.), 

Technical Assistance to Local Governments. As a part of the District's efforts to ensure that 

appropriate water resource information and policy direction is reflected in local government 

comprehensive plans, the District conducts reviews of local government proposed plan 

amendments. The state land planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), 

administers this review process. Comments submitted by the District typically become a part of 

DCA's "objections, recommendations, and comments" report to the local government. In 

addition, the District will often perform informal reviews of draft plan updates working directly 

with local governments. 


The benefits of the District's local government technical assistance program are to ensure local 

government elected officials has sound water resource technical and policy information as they 

amend their local government comprehensive plans. This helps to ensure local plans are 

compatible with the District's plans, programs and statutory direction. Costs for this program 

primarily include staff time and are budgeted in Fund 10 (Governing Board). 


This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Roy A. Mazur, P.E., AICP, Director, Planning Department 

2

3 

Local Government 

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report As of July 31, 2011 

Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP 

Avon Park 10-IER EAR-based 9/7/2010 9/9/2010 No water-related issues of concern. 

Bradenton 11-1 Regular 1/6/2011 1/28/2011 Two plan amendments. 

Bronson EAR EAR 1/13/2011 2/15/2011 Review of proposed EAR, provided comments on watershed 

modeling, LID, water shortage enforcement & water conservation 

practices; FDCA request for review of adopted EAR received 

04/05/2011, comments sent 05/03/2011 reiterating previous 

recommendations. 

Charlotte 10-2 Regular 7/15/2010 8/19/2010 2 text, 1 FLUM amendments, additional comments sent 11/19. 

Charlotte 11-1 Regular 3/2/2011 3/22/2011 2 FLUM amendments. 

Charlotte County EAR EAR 12/2/2010 1/7/2011 EAR Checklist and comments. 

Citrus 10-1 Regular 7/14/2010 8/18/2010 Review of proposed Rural Activity Center; District comments 

provided on surface water management, LID and water 

conservation. 

City of Anna Maria 11-1 Regular 12/7/2010 1/6/2011 Amendment proposed changes to conservation category. 

Commented on storm surge and flooding concerns and encouraged 

the implementation of strategies for management of coastal 

resources. 

City of Plant City 11-1 Regular 12/16/2010 1/12/2011 Two map and two text amendments. 

City of Sarasota 10CIE1 CIE 12/6/2010 No comments required. 

City of Temple Terrace 11-1 Regular 12/7/2010 1/4/2011 Transmittal of 5 proposed plan amendments. 

Clearwater 10-2AR AR 8/16/2010 9/16/2010 Alternative Review - Future Land Use Map (Clearwater Christian 

College) and Transit Oriented Development (TOD). 

Clearwater 11-1ESR AR 5/23/2011 6/23/2011 

Dade City 11-1 Regular 12/30/2010 2/2/2011 Proposed FLUM change. 56.5 acres. RES-6 and GC to ROR. West of 

US 301. Drains to Tank Lake. Adopted amendment received on 

4/21/11. NOI on 6/2/11.

4 


Davenport 10RWSP1 WSFWP 9/1/2010 10/15/2010 Comments included appropriate water supply level of service 

standard, the City's location within the CFCA but outside the 

SWUCA, and lack of specifics on planned future water supply 

sources. 

Dundee 11CIE1 CIE 3/10/2011 4/1/2011 Annual update to Town's Capital Improvement Schedule. 

Eagle Lake 11-1ER EAR-based 1/6/2011 2/3/2011 Text and map amendments; minor comments. 

Eagle Lake 11CIE1 CIE 3/10/2011 4/4/2011 Annual Update to City's Capital Improvement Schedule. 

Frostproof 10-2ER Regular 8/10/2010 9/1/2010 No major issues. 

Frostproof 10-CIE1 CIE 1/25/2011 1/26/2011 No comments. 

Haines City 10-2 WSFWP 8/24/2010 9/27/2010 Water Supply Work Plan generally good, population projections 

higher than District's. 

Hardee 10-2ER EAR-based 7/7/2010 8/2/2010 Population projections inconsistent with major changes to future 

land use map. 

Highland Park 10-1ER EAR-based 8/13/2010 9/21/2010 Minor comments on population and water conservation. 

Highlands County 11-CIE1 CIE 1/27/2011 1/27/2011 No comments. 

Hillcrest Heights 11-1ER EAR-based 7/21/2011 EAR-based amendments. No 10YWSFWP adopted. 

Hillsborough 10-2 Regular 8/2/2010 8/1/2010 Comments addressed Delaney Creek and FEMA 100-year flood 

prone areas. 

Hillsborough 11-1 Regular 3/15/2011 4/12/2011 Proposed plan amendments. DCA decided not to review on 4/18/11. 

Holmes Beach 11-1 Regular 5/25/2011 6/10/2011 Material includes 4 plan amendments. No substantive issues 

identified. 

Indian Rocks Beach 11-1AR AR 2/18/2011 3/9/2011 City of Indian Rocks Beach CPA #11-1 Capital Improvement 

Element Update. 

Kenneth City 11-1AR AR 2/22/2011 3/17/2011 The City of Kenneth City is proposing to amend the Future Land 

Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 

Lake Alfred 10-CIE1 CIE 3/10/2011 4/7/2011 Annual update to City's capital improvement schedule. 

Lake Hamilton 11-1ER EAR-based 5/2/2011 EAR-based - FLUM and text amendments and CIP annual update. 

Lake Wales 11-1 Regular 4/13/2011 5/12/2011 Future Land Use Map Amendments. 

Lakeland 11-1CPA Regular 4/29/2011 Certified community, no comment.

5 


Lakeland 11-1CPA Regular 5/2/2011 5/25/2011 Materials include 3 proposed plan amendments. 

Largo 10-1AR AR 7/26/2010 8/25/2010 Alternative Review. 

Largo 11-1AR AR 4/21/2011 5/19/2011 The City is updating several elements of the Comprehensive Plan to 

create Multimodal Activity Centers. 

Largo 11-2ESR ESR 7/7/2011 The City of Largo proposes to amend their comprehensive plan by 

updating 4 school facilities maps. 

Levy 10-1 Regular 8/5/2010 8/20/2010 Proposed small commercial FLUM change; DCA issued PRD 

09/02/10 to not review. 

Levy 11-1 Regular 3/18/2011 4/21/2011 Proposed change to FLUM from Commercial to Urban Low Density 

Residential for a 14 acre site; no District comments required. 

Longboat Key 10CIE1 CIE 11/29/2010 No comments required. 

Longboat Key 11-1 Regular 12/6/2010 1/7/2011 FLUM amendment to increase open and rec space. 

Longboat Key 11-2 Regular 3/24/2011 4/6/2011 FLUM and text amendments. 

Manatee 11-1 Regular 5/25/2011 6/20/2011 Material includes map/text amendments for coastal planning areas. 

Response letter complimented Manatee on its coastal planning. 

Marion 10-1 Regular 8/5/2010 9/3/2010 Change in mix of uses on vested non-DRI On Top of the World 

lands; ORC Report received 10/04/10, no objections; NOI received 

12/16/10. 

Marion 10-2ER EAR-based 8/18/2010 9/21/2010 Various EAR-based changes to Comp Plan and FLUM; District 

comments provided related to water supply planning, water 

conservation, watershed management and potential impacts of 

proposed land uses on water resources; NOI received 04/15/2011. 

Mulberry 10CIE2 CIE 1/25/2011 1/26/2011 No Comments. 

Mulberry 10RWSP1 WSFWP 7/13/2010 8/24/2010 Issues included water supply level of service standard, demand 

projections, and quantifying water conservation. 

North Port CIE 11/29/2010 

Ocala EAR EAR 2/11/2011 3/15/2011 Preliminary City-identified issues of economic development, 

mobility/community connectivity, and water use and conservation; 

District comments provided on water supply planning and water 

conservation.

6 


Oldsmar 10-2AR AR 8/31/2010 9/28/2010 Alternative Review - Future Land Use Map depicting the proposed 

Multimodal Facility Transportation Overlay. 

Pasco 10D3 DRI 9/23/2010 10/8/2010 Proposed FLUM RES-6 to PD (Beacon Woods DRI). 

Pasco 11-1 Regular 4/7/2011 4/21/2011 Proposed FLUM change for the Pasco County Government Complex 

from ROR to Public/Semi-Public. Category 1 wetlands on site are 

protected. 

Pinellas County 10-2AR AR 7/12/2010 8/6/2010 

Pinellas County 11-1AR AR 12/16/2010 1/14/2011 Future Land Use Map and Quality Communities Element change. 

Pinellas Park 10-1AR AR 7/16/2010 8/20/2010 

Polk County 11-1 Regular 3/3/2011 4/1/2011 

Punta Gorda EAR EAR 5/9/2011 6/3/2011 

Sarasota 10-2 Regular 7/16/2010 8/18/2010 Seven amendments in package. 

Sarasota 10-2A CIE 10/4/2010 

Sebring 10-2ER EAR-based 7/7/2010 8/4/2010 Comments included policy on deed restrictions not allowing Florida 

Friendly landscaping. 

Seminole 11-1AR AR 1/21/2011 2/17/2011 Revise 59.79 acres of the City of Seminole’s Future Land Use Map 

from Residential Medium, Water/Drainage Feature and Commercial 

General to Residential/Office/Retail. 

Seminole 11-2ER EAR-based 4/22/2011 5/19/2011 The City of Seminole proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report 

(EAR) and Growth Management Legislation based amendments. 

St. Petersburg 10-2AR AR 7/29/2010 8/26/2010 Alternative Review - Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay. 

St. Petersburg 11-1AR AR 4/25/2011 5/10/2011 The City is updating text in several elements of their Comp Plan. 

St. Petersburg 11-1ESR ESR 6/17/2011 7/17/2011 This comprehensive plan amendment proposes to update the Future 

Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map. 

Sumter 10-1 Regular 7/23/2010 9/2/2010 Agricultural to Industrial for 2,866 acres; ORC received 09/27/10, 

several environmental and transportation related objections cited; 

FDCA requested District review of adopted amendment, comments 

sent 12/09/10; NOI received 12/23/10. 

Sumter 10-CIE1 CIE 11/10/2010 Annual update of Capital Improvements Element.

7 


Sumter EAR EAR 9/7/2010 10/4/2010 Population projections exceed RWSP; need for enhanced wetlands 

protection. DCA request for review of adopted EAR received 

11/30/2010; comments sent 12/20/2010. 

Tampa 10-2AR AR 8/16/2010 9/15/2010 Material included 7 plan amendments. No substantive comments. 

Tarpon Springs 11-1AR AR 10/27/2010 11/23/2010 Proposing to designate approximately 248 acres on the FLUM as a 

Community Redevelopment District. 

Wauchula 11-1ER EAR-based 2/2/2011 3/7/2011 Text and FLUM amendments. No comments. 

Wildwood EAR EAR 3/21/2011 4/15/2011 Limited proposed changes due to the recently adopted 2035 

Wildwood Comprehensive Plan; recognizes need for incorporation 

of recent joint planning agreement with Sumter County and water 

supply planning. 

Winter Haven 11-1ER EAR-based 5/16/2011 EAR-based amendments. 

Yankeetown EAR EAR 9/10/2010 11/8/2010 District comments provided as part of EAR review related to 

watershed management, water supply planning, water conservation 

and water quality monitoring. 

Zolfo Springs 10-CIE1 CIE 1/25/2011 1/26/2011 No comments. 

AR Alternative 

CIE Capital Improvement Element 

DRI Development of Regional Impact 

EAR Evaluation and Appraisal Report 

PSFE Public School Facilities Element 

Remedial NOI-Not In Compliance 

WSFWP Water Supply Facilities Work Plan


August 30, 2011 


Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 

Item 23 

Purpose 

This report is provided for the Committee's information and shows District activity in the review 

of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). Staff updates the report monthly. 


The District participates in the review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) pursuant to 

Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. DRI's are large-scale development projects that exceed 

statutorily specified thresholds such that the project is assumed to have potential impacts that 

transcend multiple local government jurisdictions. The District is one of several agencies that 

are required to participate in the review process, which is administered by the regional planning 

councils. The District has also entered into memoranda of agreement with the Central Florida, 

Southwest Florida, Tampa Bay and Withlacoochee regional planning councils to more 

specifically outline the District's DRI review responsibilities. The District provides water 

resource management technical and policy information to the regional planning councils and 

local governments to assist them in making well-informed growth management decisions. 


The benefits of the District's DRI review program are to ensure regional planning councils and 

local government elected officials have sound water resource technical and policy information 

as they consider large scale development proposals. This helps to ensure these developments 

are compatible with the District's plans, programs and statutory directives. Costs for this 

program primarily include staff time and are budgeted in Fund 10 (Governing Board). 



Presenter: Roy A. Mazur, P.E., AICP, Director, Planning Department 

8

9 

DRI Activity Report As of July 31, 2011 

Project DRI Location DRI App Type Date Assigned Date Completed Description 

Bayonet Point Shopping Mall Pasco NOPC 5/1/2009 11/2/2009 Mixed Use. Add 3.96 acres, establish land use 

equivalency matrix, exchange for 500 residential 

units. 

Bexley Ranch Pasco NOPC 1/5/2009 Mixed Use. Extension request, Transportation 

analysis changes. 

Big Bend Transfer Co. Sulfur Handling 

Facility 

CF Industries South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD - 1st 

Sufficiency 

Hillsborough NOPC 5/11/2009 6/9/2009 Industrial. Proposes combining several DRIs, 

extend construction date and revise concept 

development plan. 

5/20/2011 7,513 acre addition to existing phosphate mine. 

CF South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD 8/20/2010 4/14/2011 Additional land to be added to CF Industries' 

existing South Pasture Phosphate Mine in Hardee 

County. 7,513 acres. 

Equity Southbend Hillsborough NOPC 4/27/2010 5/19/2011 Mixed Use. Proposal includes the addition of land 

for surface water management, build-out 

extension and changes to the location of office 

development. 

Four Corners Mine (aka G&D Farms) Manatee County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

Heron Creek North Port NOPC - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

Lake Hutto Hillsborough 

County 


County 


County 

NOPC - 3rd 

Sufficiency 

NOPC - 1st 

Sufficiency 

NOPC - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

2/2/2011 3/3/2011 Application review. 

3/11/2010 8/5/2010 Mixed Use. Conversion matrix changes - housing 

trade offs - no comments. Formerly Marsh Creek. 

2nd suff - conversion matrix changes - housing 

trade offs. 

7/22/2011 

11/10/2010 12/7/2010 

4/7/2011 4/21/2011 NOPC 

Long Lake Ranch Pasco NOPC 8/15/2008 10/20/2008 Mixed Use. Changes land uses, phasing schedule, 

and project area by 85 acres. Comments sent on 

8/28/08 and 10/20/08.

10 


Mosaic Fertilizer Hillsborough County 

Mines 

Hillsborough NOPC 9/25/2009 10/20/2009 Mining. Proposes addition of 77 acres to existing 

DRI. 

Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate (DRI 273) Manatee County ADA 2/9/2011 3/10/2011 Initial review of material, processing for submittal 

to review team. Application proposes to reclassify 

705 acres within the existing mine to 

"approved for mining." 

Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate Creek Mine Manatee County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate Extension (DRI 

272) 

Mosaic Riverview Phosphogypsum Stack 

Expansion 

7/15/2011 8/3/2011 

Manatee County ADA 2/9/2011 3/10/2011 Initial review of material, processing for submittal 

to review team. Application proposes the 

addition of 661 acres to existing mine. 

Hillsborough NOPC 10/14/2009 10/29/2009 Mining. Proposes construction of a process-water 

loading station and transport of process water to 

Polk County facility. 

Murdock Center Charlotte NOPC 9/9/2008 10/21/2008 Mixed Use. 

Old Florida Plantation Bartow NOPC 6/14/2010 6/14/2010 District Project/Not Reviewed. 

Ona Mine Hardee Pre App 10/16/2009 Phosphate Mining. 20,676 acres. Re-submittal of 

previous DRI in Hardee County. Next major 

project for Mosaic. Still no application submittal 

as of 4-6-11. 

Paddock Park Ocala Abandonment 8/13/2010 9/2/2010 Abandonment of substantially completed 

commercial/office/residential mixed use project. 

272 acres. 

Palmer Ranch Isles of Sarasota Phase 3 Sarasota County NOPC 7/11/2011 Increment XVII NOPC to add 38.4 acres with no 

increase in density. 

Parrish Lakes Manatee County Final DRI 

Review 

Parrish Lakes Manatee County ADA - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

2/28/2011 3/22/2011 Final Recommended Comments for 

development - Mixed Use - 1,155 acres. Proposes 

3300 residential units, 400,000 sf of retail and 

office and a mixed-use town center. 

1/7/2011 2/8/2011 Initial examination of submittal. 

Payne Creek Hardee ADA 10/15/2008 12/4/2008 Mixed Use. 1,204 acres. Project still active but no 

recent activity.

11 


Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - Initial 

Review 

Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

12/29/2010 1/21/2011 Conducting ADA review. 

7/11/2011 Packet incomplete; waiting for additional 

materials. This was the first review of materials 

on file to date. 

Southbend Hillsborough NOPC 5/4/2010 6/1/2011 Mixed use. 

Tampa Bay Center Hillsborough NOPC 5/13/2010 6/9/2011 Commercial. 

The Villages of Sumter Sumter NOPC 9/12/2010 1/5/2010 Mixed Use. 13,489 acres. Reduction in retail and 

office uses; increase in residential based on land 

use matrix exchange. 

The Villages of Wildwood Sumter NOPC 9/15/2010 10/8/2010 Mixed Use. 13,477 acres. Addition of 4.71 acres to 

Town Center. 

Villages Lakewood Ranch South Sarasota ADA 11/10/2008 5/18/2009 Mixed Use. 2,156 acres. Villages type 

development under Sarasota 2050 overlay, 2nd 

sufficiency. Comments sent on 12/9/08 and 

5/18/09. 

Villages of Wildwood - 3rd NOPC Sumter County NOPC 5/3/2011 Several proposed changes to Map H and Map H-1 

regarding land use types and intensities. 

ADA Application for Development Approval 

DRI Development of Regional Impact 

NOPC Notice of Proposed Change 

Pre-App Pre-Application Meeting 

SD Substantial Deviation


��, 2011 


Speakers Bureau 

Item 24 

Purpose 

This report is provided for the Committee's information and shows District staff participation in 

the outreach performed by the Speakers' Bureau program. 

Background 

The District has had a Speaker’s Bureau Program since the early 1970s. For the past 20 years, 

the Program has been administered by the Community and Legislative Affairs Department 

(CLA) or the Communications Department. Currently, the program is managed by Susan 

Kessel of the CLA Department. The Speakers Bureau coordinates staff experts and generalists 

to speak or make presentations to interested community or business groups, or to address 

professional, governmental or technical groups on a variety of issues. The types of groups and 

organizations requesting a speaker is varied: civic organizations (Rotary, Kiwanis, Sertoma, 

etc.), chambers of commerce, colleges and high schools, and associations (homeowners, 

engineering, realtors, developers, etc.). Every request in the past two years has been honored. 

Over the past several years, staff has developed a library of PowerPoint presentations to go 

along with our popular Water 101 video. State-of-the-art audio-visual equipment is available in 

all of the service offices to accommodate presentations in those areas. 

The following table summarizes the Speakers' Bureau activities for the past three months. 

Organization Topic Aud Speaker Dept 

APRIL 2011 

The Villages Newcomers Orientation Water Conservation 80 Doug Tharp GOV 

North Citrus Civic Association Groundwater Issues 15 Ron Basso PRJ 

AWWA Florida Section Water Resource Management 75 Richard Owen EXE 

Beacon Pointe HOA Conservation Easements 30 Bonnie Irving REG 

TBARTA Land Use Working Group Permitting 25 Roy Mazur PLN 

UF IFAS Field Day BMP’s Cattle Operations 60 Ron Oakley GOV 

Stevens Elementary School Citrus Growing and Role of WMD 150 Ron Oakley GOV 

The Villages Sink Holes 80 Dave Arnold REG 

Wellington Democrats Sink Holes 40 Dave Arnold REG 

Bartow Mayor’s Youth Council Lake Hancock 20 Danny Kushmer CLA 

Brookside Middle School Water and Engineering 300 Andy DiLorenzo REG 

Hernando Bch South Property Owners Northern District Water Issues 20 Mikel Renner PLN 

Atwater Elementary School Conservation/Hydrologic Cycle 140 Mary Torrusio COM 

Take Sons and Daughters to Work Water and the Future 100 Dave Moore EXE 

Pier Aquarium Science Festival Watersheds and Water Quality 600 Dave DeWitt RDR 

Pier Aquarium Science Festival Watersheds and Water Quality 600 Pat Williams FIN 

NOAA 

MAY 2011 

Lost River Preserve Dedication 75 Jim Selvey BBD 


Lakeland South Rotary District 101 30 Danny Kushmer CLA 

Plant City Env Education Program Small Acreage Farm&Ranch W/S 40 Vicki Mooney REG 

Platform Art of Polk County Lake Hancock 50 Danny Kushmer CLA 

Tara Elementary School Water Conservation 100 Leigh Rogers REG 

FL Golf Course Superintendents 

Assn – Suncoast Chapter 

Water Use Permitting 50 Owen Thornberry REG 

12

Item 24 

Organization Topic Aud Speaker Dept 

River Retreats Improvement 

Association 

Withlacoochee River/ 

Lake Panasoffkee 

35 Philip Rhinesmith PRJ 

Carlstrom Center at DeSoto Duel 

Diagnosed Correctional Facility 

Scientific Notation and Water 

Management 

60 Matthew Miller REG 

Garden Montessori School 

JUNE 2010 

Water Conservation 42 Ilka Chestnut HRD 


Stevens Elementary School Water Conservation 60 Ron Oakley GOV 

Florida Cattlemen’s Association 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria/ 

Permitting/Water Use 

100 Richard Owen REG 

MOSI Science Camp Water Conservation 8 Lois Sorensen REG 

New Heights Elementary School Hydrologic Cycle 35 Jason Mickel PLN 

Tampa Bay Assn of Environmental 

Professionals/ASCE 

Tampa Bay Models 94 Lizanne Garcia SWM 

Hernando County Water World 

JULY 2011 

Watershed Management 100 Gene Altman PRJ 


FL Env Network – Summer School Central Florida Water Initiative 100 Richard Owen EXE 

FL Assn Plumbing, Heating and 

Cooling Contractors 

Florida Water Star 101 40 Susan Douglas COM 

Pasco Girls Academy Water Conservation 30 Cori Cuttler CLA 

Hernando Green Party Water Conservation 25 Cara Martin CLA 

Key to Organization Abbreviations Key to Department Abbreviations 

Assn - Association CLA - Community & Legislative Affairs 

AWRA - American Water Resources Association COM - Communications 

AWWA - American Water Works Association EXE - Executive 

C of C - Chamber of Commerce OPS - Operations 

Comm - Commission PLN - Planning 

Comte - Committee PRJ - Resource Projects 

DAR - Daughters of the American Revolution RDR - Resource Data & Restoration 

FFG - Florida Fruit Growers REG - Regulation 

IFAS - Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences RPM - Regulation Performance Management 

HOA - Homeowners Association SWM - Surface Water Improvement & Mgt. 

Mgt - Management 

PHCC - Pasco-Hernando Community College Other Abbreviations 

UF - University of Florida Aud - Audience 

USF - University of South Florida GOV - Governing Board 

RWSA - Regional Water Supply Authority 

W/S - Workshop 


The benefit of the Speakers' Bureau program is the ongoing education of the public and 

community leaders regarding water resource management. The program provides an 

opportunity for interaction among the public and District staff knowledgeable in all areas of the 

District's statutory responsibilities and it provides a mechanism for communication of District 

priorities and concerns. Additionally, the program is utilized as a tool to influence behavior 

change in the areas of water conservation and to ensure support for the District's legislative 

initiatives. 



Presenter: David Rathke, Director, Community and Legislative Affairs Department 

13


August 30, 2011 


Significant Activities 

Item 25 

Water Conservation Activities 

The District promotes water conservation and protection year-round using a variety of methods 

including public service advertising, news media outreach, the District’s website, special events, 

utility bill stuffers, outreach to existing partners and social media efforts such as the online 

WaterMatters.org Newsletter, Facebook and Twitter. New Activities Since Last Meeting — 

Watch the Weather, Wait to Water: Staff launched the District’s annual summer campaign, 

which encourages residents to watch the weather and turn off their irrigation systems during the 

summer months of June, July, August and September if their lawns have received enough water 

from rainfall. The campaign is being promoted through the District’s website, a tip card, social 

media posts, a news release and an article and web banner provided to cooperators. The 

“Watch the Weather, Wait to Water” webpage features a rain barrel quiz. Anyone who answers 

the question correctly can register for a chance to win one of four free rain barrels. College 

Conservation Program: The “Every Drop Counts” pilot water conservation education program 

was conducted during the spring semester at the Tampa campus of the University of South 

Florida. A college student conservation team was established and helped run the program. 

Various outreach activities took place including team participation at special events, guerrilla 

marketing tactics, social media messaging, a student video contest and pre- and post-program 

surveys to gauge school population awareness and behavior. The “Every Drop Counts” program 

is now complete. Post-program survey results are being compiled and the final report is due in 

August. Staff is meeting with USF administration and the student team to discuss opportunities 

to continue and enhance water conservation education efforts at the university. 

Research 

The Communications Department uses research to enhance education program design, plan 

communications strategies and evaluate programs. Focus groups have been used in the 

development of campaigns, for example, and public opinion surveys have been used to 

evaluate these campaigns. A database of the District’s social research is available at 

WaterMatters.org/SocialResearch/. New Activities Since Last Meeting — (1) A final version of 

the fertilizer public service advertising campaign report was supplied on July 29. Analysis of the 

results confirmed that 40 percent of respondents recalled at least one of the campaign 

messages unaided, compared to last year’s “Skip a Week” campaign’s 22 percent unaided 

recall. (2) The District will partner with the Citrus County Utilities Department to conduct a 

community-based social marketing project to impact the amount of potable water used outdoors 

by residents of three homeowners association communities in the Sugarmill Woods 

development. The project will be part of a larger ongoing District effort to reduce water use in 

Citrus County communities that have high water use. Communications Department staff will 

coordinate the education outreach in cooperation with the Resource Projects, Community & 

Legislative Affairs and Regulation departments. Focus groups will be used to gather information 

for program design. On July 22, District staff met with Kerr & Downs Research to discuss the 

focus group plan and timelines for this project. 

Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program (Water CHAMP SM ) and Water Program for 

Restaurant Outreach (Water PRO SM ) 

Water CHAMP SM promotes water conservation in hotels and motels by encouraging guests to 

use their towels and linens more than once during their stay. Participating hotels and motels 

receive program materials free of charge. In 2008, the Districtwide five-year water audit 

confirmed Water CHAMP participants saved an average of 17 gallons of water per occupied 

room per day. Based on these audit findings, the cost benefit for the program, using the total 

cost amortized over five years, is $0.47 per thousand gallons of water saved. Water PRO SM 

14

Item 25 

educates both restaurateurs and guests through free materials such as table tents, children’s 

coloring sheets, coasters and self-audit checklists. “We serve water only upon request” buttons 

are also available for wait staff. The program is being promoted through one-on-one visits with 

restaurant managers, partnerships with utility companies, networking at industry meetings and 

direct mail. New Activities Since Last Meeting — (1) Water CHAMP currently has 456 

participants, or 49 percent of all hotels and motels in the District. Of the 474 hotels/motels within 

the District with 50 or more rooms, 70 percent are Water CHAMP properties. (2) Water PRO 

has 283 restaurants in the District participating. (3) Meteorologist Leigh Spann with WFLA-TV 

Ch 8 did a story on Water PRO at a participating restaurant, Beachwood BBQ & Burger located 

at the Postcard Inn on the Beach in St. Petersburg. The hotel is also a member of Water 

CHAMP. (4) Water CHAMP and a link to WaterCHAMP.org were added to the American Hotel & 

Lodging Association’s Green Initiatives by State webpage. 

Florida Water Star SM (FWS) Certification Program 

FWS is a voluntary certification program for builders that encourages water efficiency in 

appliances, plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems and landscapes, as well as water quality 

benefits from best management practices (BMPs) in landscapes. The program includes 

certifications for new homes, existing homes, commercial properties and communities. This is 

the program’s third year in the District; the first house was certified March 25, 2009. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting — Agreements: Builders who intend to incorporate FWS criteria 

in current or future projects sign nonbinding participation agreements with the District. To date, 

26 agreements have been signed, representing approximately 527 homes and three 

commercial properties. Certifications: As of July 29, this District has certified 108 properties. 

Events: Approximately 40 people attended a program overview presentation by the FWS 

coordinator at the annual meeting of the Florida Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling 

Contractors on July 22 in Orlando. The presentation received excellent evaluations, and the 

program coordinator has since been asked to provide the seminar in other venues. 

Florida-Friendly Landscaping 

Recognizing the potential of water conservation and water quality protection through promotion 

of Florida-Friendly Landscaping (FFL) practices, the District began partnering with the 

University of Florida in FY2001 to support FFL education. Education on landscaping BMPs is 

provided to homeowners; students; builders, landscape and irrigation professionals; property 

managers; and members and boards of community owners associations (COAs) and 

homeowners associations (HOAs) in 11 counties. New Activities Since Last Meeting — 

Marion County: As a result of new programming geared to homeowners association residents, 

62 Florida-friendly yard evaluations were completed in the third quarter. Sarasota County: Staff 

conducted five “Irrigation 101” presentations and 40 evaluations for the new Homeowner 

Irrigation Evaluation program. These programs address capping irrigation heads, calibrating 

irrigation distribution, setting and making seasonal adjustments to an irrigation system and 

installing micro-irrigation components to landscape beds. Hernando County: In the past three 

months, interest in adding FFL principles and maintenance practices to association landscape 

guidelines has increased. The FFL coordinator worked with eight different communities to revise 

their guidelines, and five additional communities are expected to revise their guidelines soon. 

The FFL coordinator also provided presentations and information to 164 homeowners 

association board members and community liaisons during this time. 

Watershed/Water Quality Education 

The District’s watershed education efforts focus on water quality, stormwater runoff, water 

conservation and natural systems. Through these efforts, the District encourages specific 

behaviors such as reducing fertilizer and pesticide use, maintaining septic systems, conserving 

water, disposing of trash appropriately and picking up and properly disposing of pet waste. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting — (1) Planning for the annual Springs Awareness Week 

continues. This series of events will occur Sept. 16–24 in Citrus and Marion counties. New this 

year will be a Springs Neighborhood Challenge scheduled for Sept. 21. In addition to learning 

about the issues our valuable springs are facing and what is being done to protect them, 

participants will have the opportunity to compete in Jeopardy-style water trivia games for prizes. 

A boat tour of the Rainbow and Withlacoochee rivers will highlight the science behind these 

15

Item 25 

beautiful natural systems. A complete list of events can be found at WaterMatters.org/springs. 

(2) In FY2011, through the Peace River Watershed Education Program, the Charlotte Harbor 

Environmental Center has completed 32 hiking trips on District properties, including Deep Creek 

Preserve and Prairie/Shell Creek Preserve. These hikes have educated 204 participants about 

the value of land preservation and restoration, natural buffers and pollution prevention, flood 

control and plant and animal diversity. Based on participants’ pre- and posttest results, the 

average knowledge gain was 42 percent, and 94 percent of participants reported they plan to 

return to the property. 

Community Education Grant Program 

The Community Education Grant (CEG) program is in its fourteenth year and is funded through 

Initiatives for Public Education (P268). The CEG program provides reimbursement up to $5,000 

per project for individuals, service groups, community associations and others to implement a 

water resources education project. Projects take place between March and July each year. Final 

reports are due from grant recipients on Aug. 31, 2011. New Activities Since Last Meeting — 

(1) The Conservation of the Gulf Coast’s “All About Water Conservation and Protection Open 

House,” held on July 16 in Osprey, included 150 attendees who participated in nature tours and 

workshops about water conservation and watershed protection. (2) On June 28 and July 13, the 

Citrus County Extension’s “Get Out and Explore Citrus Waters” events involved 180 attendees 

who participated in guided boat and hiking tours, aquatic plant workshops and presentations 

about preserving and protecting water resources. (3) Tampa Bay Beautification’s July 5 cleanup 

event included 22 volunteers who removed more than 700 pounds of debris from waterways. (4) 

On June 2, Manatee County’s Mill Creek VII Homeowners Association hosted a seminar that 

educated 55 residents about the benefits of aquatic plants and water quality BMPs. (5) In June, 

the Polk County Extension hosted three workshops, educating a total of 116 participants about 

rain barrels and Florida-friendly landscapes. (6) During March through July, Keep Hillsborough 

County Beautiful’s 11,388 volunteers removed 79,896 pounds of debris at 220 cleanup events. 

Additional water resources education was provided at 17 special events and 23 presentations, 

directly reaching 20,336 residents. (7) The FY2012 CEG program is being promoted through a 

postcard mailing and on the District’s Facebook page and website. Applications are available on 

the District's website and are due Aug. 19, 2011. 

Youth Education 

Nearly half the students and teachers in the District are reached through the Youth Water 

Resources Education program in a typical year. The program offers Splash! school grants, field 

trip programs, educational resources for students and educators, and teacher training to county 

school districts, charter schools, private schools, homeschool groups and nonformal educators. 

Several types of teacher training workshops are coordinated by staff throughout the District’s 16 

counties: Project WET (Water Education for Teachers), The Great Water Odyssey SM and 

Healthy Water, Healthy People. Kindergarten through twelfth-grade educators attending 

workshops receive curricula as well as District materials. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting — Education: (1) On July 14, Youth Education staff met at the District’s Flying Eagle 

Preserve for the first Flying Eagle Preserve Youth Education Center Advisory Committee 

meeting, which included representatives from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Boy Scouts of America and Wildlife Federation of Florida. (2) The 

Communications Department’s INROADS student intern presented water cycle and water 

conservation information to 25 students and adults at Glazer Children’s Museum in Tampa on 

July 14. (3) Staff presented information about the District and educational resources for students 

and teachers as part of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Pinellas County 

Science on the Gulf workshop at Weedon Island Preserve on July 21 and 22. (4) On July 27, 

staff from the Youth Education Section, the Water Quality Monitoring Program and the 

Hydrologic Data Section took part in the Florida State University’s Integrating STEM (Science, 

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) workshop for 40 Citrus County middle school 

science and math teachers. Staff presented information about the District, educational 

resources for students and teachers, water quality research and how teachers can use WMIS 

for educational purposes. Splash! School Grants: This grant program provides teachers with 

funding to enhance student knowledge of freshwater resources issues. There were 204 grants 

completed for the 2010–2011 school year. Splash! school grant applications for the 2011–2012 

16

Item 25 

school year are online at WaterMatters.org/schoolgrants/ and are due Sept. 2, 2011. Teacher 

Training: (1) On July 13, a Project WET workshop was held in conjunction with the Marion 

County School District for 17 elementary teachers at the Silver River Museum at Silver River 

State Park in Ocala. Teachers learned about groundwater, the Floridan aquifer system, water 

supply, water conservation and the water cycle. (2) A Project WET workshop is being planned 

for approximately 50 teachers on August 17 at Nature’s Classroom in Thonotosassa. (3) This 

fiscal year, 226 classroom teachers and 64 preservice teachers have been trained through 12 

workshops. School District Coordination: The District will provide funding through 14 school 

districts to implement grade-level field trip programs, Envirothons, curriculum review committees 

and other school district water education projects for K–12 students and educators for the 

2011–2012 school year. Staff is working with school district personnel from the following 

counties to finalize school year 2011–12 scopes of work: Charlotte, Citrus, Hardee, Hernando, 

Highlands, Hillsborough, Levy, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota and Sumter. 

Publications: Approximately 531,850 youth education publications have been distributed during 

fiscal year 2011. More than 373,300 youth materials have been distributed this calendar year. 

Strategic Communications Planning 

The Media & Outreach Section works with staff from various departments to plan outreach 

efforts related to projects and programs that directly impact residents. This is done by analyzing 

any communications challenges that may exist and creating plans to address those challenges. 

Media & Outreach staff assist with the planning, execution and evaluation of these efforts. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting — (1) Staff continues to work with the Land Use & Protection 

Section of the Land Resources Department to assist with communication to residents regarding 

the District’s current hunting evaluation. Staff created a webpage for the evaluation as well as a 

frequently asked questions document. Staff also assisted with the planning and writing of 

multiple communication pieces to inform residents of location changes for the July hunting 

evaluation public meeting. These included emails, webpage updates and social media posts. (2) 

Staff continues to work with members of the Ecologic Evaluation Section of the Resource 

Projects Department to plan a series of public workshops for residents and other key 

stakeholders in the Springs Coast MFLs development process. Staff assisted with the planning, 

preparation and execution of the June and July workshops. Staff also developed a webpage for 

the program and a frequently asked questions document for distribution to residents. Staff 

continues to update the webpage with new information and assist with the planning of the third 

workshop. (3) In anticipation of the Bartow Service Office renovation and temporary relocation, 

staff is working with the General Services and Regulation departments to plan effective 

communication methods. Planned outreach includes the creation of an internal working team 

and a variety of communication tools, including talking points, letter templates, signage and 

email templates for both internal and external stakeholders. (4) Staff has completed work with 

the Performance Management Section of the Regulation Department to develop consistent 

communications tools to promote the use of ePermitting. This included consolidating and 

redesigning the Permits and Rules and ePermitting webpages, which launched on July 18, as 

well as creating new brochures and event displays. All of these outreach materials are branded 

with a new design specifically for ePermitting. In addition, staff assisted with the development of 

a user survey to determine permit holders’ opinions and attitudes toward the ePermitting system 

and to identify what incentives might increase use. (5) Staff continues to assist the Land 

Resources Department with messaging for kiosks on District lands. A series of seven posters 

describing the District’s mission and its land management goals and techniques are being 

developed. Once complete, they will be on display at the entrances to all District-owned and 

managed lands. (6) Staff worked with the Land Management Section of the Land Resources 

Department to develop a communications tool for replying to resident questions regarding the 

District’s hog management program. Staff created a form reply letter with customized responses 

for land managers to use when replying to resident questions. (7) Staff worked with the 

Environmental Section of the Resource Projects Department to create a communications tool to 

update residents on the current health of Lake Panasoffkeee. A biweekly update document was 

created in an easy-to-understand format. The document will be distributed every other week to 

interested residents, media and community leaders. (8) The Media and Outreach Section has 

been offering communications planning assistance to departments for two years. Staff recently 

17

Item 25 

created and distributed an evaluation survey to gauge the success of previous planning efforts 

and received constructive feedback regarding possible process improvements. 

Visual Communications — Web 

Web team members design and develop website content and code. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting — New web content includes ePermitting & Rules site development, redesign and 

launch; Cliptrac development, redesign and launch (now includes news video clips); 2012 

budget presentation development and launch; intranet microsites for Salary & Benefit Review 

and Workload & Staffing Analysis; 2011–2012 Splash! School Grants; and FY2012 Community 

Education Grants. Web Trends: Site traffic for June was 63,450 unique visitors, with 188,001 

pages viewed, down one-third from June 2010. Major sections visited on the site were: 

Recreation (27,715 page views, up 26% from June 2010); Conservation (18,728 page views, 

down 10% from June 2010); and Permits (15,578 page views, up 4% from June 2010). Pages 

showing significant increases in traffic were: ePermitting (3,596 page views, up 82% from June 

2010 due to content reorganization); Green Swamp Wilderness Preserve (1,834 page views, up 

225% from June 2010 due to hunting evaluation activities); and Publications (612 page views, 

up 47% from June 2010). 

Surplus Lands Assessment 

In March 2011 the Governing Board instructed Staff to conduct an assessment of District owned 

lands with the goal of identifying lands which could be surplused. Since the March meeting, 

LND and PLN staff have created a project scope and timeline. Staff has also conducted 

meetings with District subject matter experts to identify review criteria to identify potential 

surplus candidates. Staff has met with representatives from the Suwannee River Water 

Management District who have a land surplus program currently functioning. New Activities 

Since Last Meeting – Staff has developed a draft GIS model that selects parcels which contain 

the hydrologic criteria initially identified by project subject matter experts. The model is currently 

being tested for functionality and accuracy. 

Regional Water Supply Plan Community Planning Technical Assistance 

The adoption of the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) by the Governing Board activates a 

statutory requirement for all counties and municipalities to develop a 10-Year Water Supply 

Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) and adopt the Work Plan into their Comprehensive Plan within 

18 months (24 months for counties split by two water management districts). The intent of 

RWSP Community Technical Assistance Program is to assist counties and municipalities in 

producing their Work Plans by providing the required data in a concise format which can be 

transcribed into the Work Plan. Communities are not obligated by statute or rule to use these 

data; however, the pages reflect the data SWFWMD staff will use to evaluate the Work Plans 

when submitted. Staff, along with partners from the regional planning councils, will be 

facilitating workshops throughout the District to further assist local government planners’ use of 

the data to complete their Work Plans. 

Regional Planning Council Update 

� Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council - The Council did not meet in July; the next meeting is 

August 8. 

� Central Florida Regional Planning Council - The Council did not meet in July; the next meeting 

is August 10. 

� Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (July 21, 2011) - The only significant business 

was the election of new officers: Chair – Karson Turner, Hendry County Commissioner; Vice 

Chair – Teresa Heitmann, Naples Councilwoman; Secretary – Tom Jones, Sarasota County 

Commissioner; Treasurer – Bob Mulhere, Governor Appointee. The Council also appointed 

an Interim Executive Director – Liz Donley, currently SWFRPC General Counsel. 

� Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council (July 21, 2011) - Mr. Michael Moehlman, Executive 

Director, provided the Board with an overview of the proposed 2011/2012 WRPC budget. 

Mr. Moehlman noted that this budget represents a nearly 40 percent reduction over the 

current 2010/2011 budget; the salary category bearing the largest cuts on the expenditures 

side of the budget at slightly over $400,000. Mr. Moehlman indicated that staff will continue to 

seek opportunities to enhance the Council’s revenue stream through contract work, likely in 

18

Item 25 

the areas of hazardous materials response planning, emergency management planning 

and/or economic development. Mr. David Connolly, Senior Planner, provided an overview of 

a grant received from the Economic Development Administration (EDA). Mr. Connolly noted 

the grant will allow the Council to assist their member local governments with regional 

economic development planning. The grant includes a matching requirement specifically; the 

EDA will provide 50 percent ($189,000 of the total $378,000 grant) of the funding, with the 

remainder to be funded by the Council out of its local government dues collections. 

Local Government Outreach 

As part of the District’s community and legislative affairs program, the Community and 

Legislative Affairs (CLA) Department is responsible for (1) developing effective relationships 

with local elected and public officials and their staff, (2) serving as the District’s day-to-day 

liaison with local officials, (3) facilitating coordination of District programs to assist local 

government entities, (4) promoting the mission of the District and (5) helping to develop and 

foster sound public policy on water resource related issues. To meet these responsibilities, CLA 

has developed long-standing programs and tactics, including but not limited to, project tours, the 

e-Resource newsletter, e-mail alerts and one-on-one meetings. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: 

� Staff attended the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Board meeting. 

The Board approved their FY2012 Budget of $51,548,460. The vote was 3-1. Commissioner 

Starr, representing, the Charlotte County Commission, voted against the budget because of 

debt service coverage for rate stabilization reduction and also cited the fact that the Authority 

had not shown the FRS reduction for employees in their budget. The Board also heard 

updates on the various regional pipelines currently under construction and a water supply 

condition update. June 2011 “used production capacity” was about 71 MGD, leaving 

approximately 31 MGD of capacity unused. The Authority did not draw from the Peace River 

during the month of June, but has been able to withdraw about 80 MGD in July because of 

recent rainfall. Jim Guida from Progressive Water Resources gave a presentation on the 

recent Water Alliance Meeting. Alliance representatives (utilities from cities and counties in the 

Authority’s service area) were asked to vote on water supply, interconnection and 

collaborative issues. When asked when their community would need to develop new water 

supplies above current capacity, 23% replied between 1-10 years and 38% answered 

between 11 to 20 years. The majority of the Alliance members agreed on interconnectivity, 

sharing of resources, the pursuit of funding for water resource projects, and that an integrated 

regional management plan for water supply sources supporting use of “right water at the right 

time” should be developed. 

� Staff provided assistance to USF Polytechnic in connection with their “Exhibition of 

Excellence” summer camp hosted with Polk County Schools for middle school students. The 

projects students take on are in the areas of environment, business and education and 

culminate in “Team” projects which are judged by local business leaders. CLA staff judged the 

environmental section of the projects where eight teams designed, built and provided a public 

service announcement for an environmental system such as wetlands, uplands and 

combinations. 

� Staff met with Hillsborough County Commissioner Sandy Murman and provided her with an 

update on the District’s Budget, the possible changes to the Cooperative Funding Initiative 

(CFI) program and the executive director search. Commissioner Murman was appreciative of 

the information and planned to follow up with county staff so that they would all be on the 

same page for future applications. Also discussed was the upcoming proposed amendment 

to the County Land Development Code related to tail water recovery ponds. Staff explained 

that the District participated in the drafting of the proposal to simplify the permitting process for 

tail water recovery ponds and supports the changes recommended by county staff. 

� At the request of Commissioner Ted Schrader, CLA and Planning (PLN) staff met with James 

Guedry, CEO of the Dade City Business Center and Jeff Knox, the Vice President. The 

Center’s water use permit is up for renewal and they are concerned about keeping their 

current quantities. Future tenant leases would be based on the availability of ground water at 

the site. It was recommended that they and their consultant come in for a pre-application 

meeting. 

19

Item 25 

� Staff met with Pasco County Commissioner Ted Schrader and provided him with an update on 

the District’s budget, the possible changes to the CFI Program and the executive director 

search. He was appreciative of the information provided and expressed concerns regarding 

the loss of the Basin Boards. He is also concerned that the Pasco Governing Board seat 

remains unfilled during this critical time at the District. 

� CLA, PLN and Resource Projects (PRJ) staff participated in the East Pasco Water Coalition 

meeting. The agenda included an update on the joint Toilet Rebate CFI project and 

discussions related to reports due to both the District and FDEP. The City of Zephyrhills 

reported the Toilet Rebate program was going well with around 50 rebates redeemed. As yet, 

Dade City is not experiencing as high a level of interest. 

� Staff attended the Barrier Islands Government Council meeting. Pinellas County Office of 

Emergency Management gave a Hurricane Preparedness update and reminded the group 

that the county and cities will be using a new software program this year. They also 

encouraged each city to select a mainland location to be an alternate city hall in case damage 

to the beaches was significant enough to keep them off the island for an extended amount of 

time. During the beach re-nourishment update, it was announced that the Army Corp is in 

review to allow the Sand Key re-nourishment project to begin this fall instead of requiring the 

contractor, who will be selected this fall, to wait until April 2012. 

� Staff followed up on an article published by The Bradenton Herald which stated that the 

Manatee County Commission would be approving a change order for the Bennett Park 

project, but that “more time is needed for the new county regional park because of delays 

caused by the Southwest Florida Water Management District permit modification.” In the 

Commission’s background material, similar statements were made about “delays caused by 

SWFWMD permit modification.” Staff coordinated with Sarasota Regulation staff to find out 

how long it took to issue the permit modification and found that the modification application 

was submitted to the District on May 19 th and issued on June 15 th . Staff then contacted staff at 

Manatee County and expressed concern about the “perception” that the District had caused 

delays in this project. Staff was assured that Manatee County staff did not have any issues 

with the District and did not understand why the material characterized it in that way. A memo 

was written by Cindy Turner, Director, Parks & Recreation Department, to clarify that the 

District had not caused any delays or problems for the project. The memo was copied to the 

Board of County Commissioners and other senior county officials. The text of the memo is as 

follows: 

“On July 26, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners approved Change Order #3 on the 

Consent Agenda for the Bennett Park/Design Build Construction Services/Phase 1. The 

agenda requested 63 additional calendar days, due to the construction schedule. It also 

indicated that part of the delay was caused by Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFWMD) permit modification, which was not the case. Please accept our sincere apology 

as any such delays were not the result of SWFWMD. We would like to take this opportunity to 

thank the Southwest Florida Water Management District for all of your support and 

cooperation with this project and many others.” 

� Staff spoke with public works staff at the City of North Port in regard to their inquiry about 

project N266 – a flood protection/control structure project. They wanted to make sure it was 

included in the draft FY2012 Budget. It was explained that the project is in the draft budget, 

and that between the June and July Board meetings the District was able to make 

adjustments allowing for the funding of medium-ranked projects in the former Manasota Basin. 

� Staff attended a public meeting hosted by the District for the implementation of best 

management practices for the Lake Wailes project at Lake Wales Administration building. 

Staff, the consultant and several city staffers welcomed citizens and a reporter from The News 

Chief. There was an extensive question and answer session. At the conclusion of the 

meeting, the project was well received by the members of the public that attended. 

� Staff attended the Tampa Bay Water Board meeting held to approve a resolution modifying 

the conditions for the termination of Swaption (Swap Option) Agreements. The Board voted to 

raise the termination fee cap from $45 million to $65 million. Staff explained that was 

necessary to complete the termination by close of business on 7/19/11, and the rate payer 

would not be impacted. 

� Staff attended the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) meeting. The 

Board approved 2012 conservation grants to local governments totaling $130,000. 

20

Item 25 

Allocations include Hernando County receiving $43,500, Citrus County $41,500, Marion 

County $39,000 and the City of Belleview $6,000. Peter Hubbell, with Water Resource 

Associates, updated the Board on the regional framework of the Authority. He discussed 

recent meetings with local governments to investigate the best ways to optimize available 

groundwater. Mr. Hubbell outlined various sub-regional collaborations the Authority has been 

facilitating which are being investigated to determine if these collaborations fit into the 

framework of the Authority’s future plans. Current discussions include: the City of Wildwood 

and the Villages for Lower Floridan water quantities, Marion County and the City of Ocala for 

NE and NW Marion County wellfields, Marion County and the City of Belleview for connection 

of their water utilities and Citrus County for expansion plans for the Charles A. Black facility. 

The board approved cancellation of the August meeting, with the next meeting scheduled for 

September 21, 2011 in Ocala. 

� Staff met with St. Petersburg City Councilmember and Tampa Bay Water Board Member Karl 

Nurse. Staff reviewed with him the new cap on the millage the District can collect and how 

that will impact future budgets, the status of the City of St. Petersburg’s FY12 CFI projects, the 

merger of the Basins Boards, and the schedule for the selection of a new Executive Director. 

Also discussed were concerns he had about Tampa Bay Water data collection requirements 

and the cost of running the desal facility when there are other available supplies. The 

Councilman also voiced his support for District conservation education outreach programs and 

for toilet replacement programs. 

� Staff met with Guy Maxcy, DeSoto County interim administrator and Bart Arrington, county 

engineer. Staff briefed the participants on the status of the FEMA mapping project in DeSoto 

County, water issues and the changes at the District. Discussion also included the county’s 

involvement with the Water Supply Authority and opportunities to provide more water to the 

City of Arcadia. Mr. Maxcy is applying for the permanent county administrator job and, if hired, 

he would like to meet on a regular basis with District staff. 

� District Staff participated in Tampa Bay Water’s Conservation Coordination Consortium 

Meeting. REG staff provided an update on the status of the District’s Phase One Water 

Shortage Order and the options being presented to the Board. Staff from member 

governments had many questions about current issues at the District. 

� CLA and Sarasota REG staff met with City of Sarasota staff. The city is looking at their 

stormwater requirements and trying to determine if they are redundant with District 

requirements. It was suggested they talk to staff in the Strategic Program Office as well, to 

find out how the District will be moving forward with redevelopment permitting procedures. 

� CLA and PRJ staff met with John Power, Pasco County Solid Waste Manager and Jason 

Gorrie with the Covanta Energy at Pasco’s Waste-to-Energy facility to discuss a potential 

reclaimed water CFI project. Mr. Power and Mr. Gorrie provided an overview of the current, 

limited, reclaimed water use at the facility and explained that cooling tower use could be 

increased if reclaimed water quality issues could be addressed. Currently the facility must 

blend reclaimed water with groundwater from an onsite well, due to high phosphorus levels in 

Pasco reclaimed water. They are interested in pursuing a CFI project that would provide 

additional treatment to the reclaimed water. They may also be interested in using the 

additionally treated reclaimed water for their boiler. 

� Staff attended the Hernando County’s BOCC Workshop to monitor a discussion regarding 

Hernando County retaining its membership in the WRWSA. Hernando County Utility Director 

Joe Stapf provided the board with information on the Authority’s assistance in future water 

supply planning and conservation grant money that helps fund Hernando County’s 

conservation program. WRWSA Executive Director Jack Sullivan discussed Marion County’s 

decision to pull out of the Authority back in the 1990s and then rejoin again in 2008. 

Commissioners John Druzbick and Jim Adkins supported Hernando County remaining as a 

member of the WRWSA. Commissioner Wayne Dukes said that he is not supportive of 

retaining membership and feels that the county can find grant dollars through other sources. 

Commissioner David Russell stated that he was not supportive of all the layers of planning 

that seemed to be duplicative. He was willing, however, to stay in the Authority for at least the 

next year. Commissioner Jeff Stabins was not in attendance. Related item follows. 

� Staff attended the Hernando County BOCC meeting. Commissioner Dukes made the motion 

to remove Hernando County from membership in the Withlacoochee River Water Supply 

21

Item 25 

Authority (WRWSA). Commissioner Stabins seconded the motion. Commissioners Russell, 

Adkins and Druzbick voted against the motion. The motion failed to pass by a vote of 2-3. 

� Staff is monitoring a concern of Polk County staff that as the District moves forward with lake 

level modification on Lake Hancock, public access to the lake will be eliminated. Currently, an 

improvised boat ramp exists on the northern end of the lake. This boat ramp, called Buzzards 

Beach, is the only public access ramp on the lake. It is used by the public as well as local 

commercial fisherman and alligator hunters during the season. Once the P-11 structure is 

modified and Lake Hancock is raised 1 ½ feet, Buzzards Beach will no longer be accessible. 

County staff is in favor of placing a public access ramp to the lake and would like it to be on 

District property. They would like the District to consider where a public boat ramp could be 

located on District land. 

� CLA and PRJ staff attended a meeting of the Water Policy Advisory Committee to the Polk 

County BOCC. Staff presented the completed feasibility study on the Karst features in the 

Upper Peace River. Several committee members expressed a lack of support for moving 

forward with this project even though it is currently just a study. The District would only 

consider moving forward should the Lake Hancock/Lake Level Modification plan fail to achieve 

minimum flow for the Upper Peace. Roger Griffiths, Vice Chair and Executive Director for the 

Lakes Region Lakes Management District (LRLMD) presented a resolution regarding the 

transfer of ownership of P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 from the District to LRLMD. He explained how 

he had met with many of the communities affected by these structures and most have signed 

a resolution of support. He is now taking this matter to the Cities of Lake Alfred and Winter 

Haven for additional resolutions. A motion was made to support taking the resolution to the 

BOCC only after these two cities have expressed their support and the resolution is reviewed 

by the county attorney. During discussion staff asked if the communities affected have agreed 

to be annexed into the LRLMD. They have not. Staff questioned how they would be 

represented. Mr. Griffiths explained that if they were to come to the LRLMD commission 

meetings in mass their voice would be heard. Staff asked how much additional money would 

be needed to manage the structures, and what would be the source of this funding. 

Mr. Griffiths said no additional money would be needed. He stated that if the District wanted 

to offer additional money the LRLMD would not turn it down. Staff asked that since the 

LRLMD is proposing to take ownership of the structures, as well as any of the surrounding 

property and easements owned and controlled by the District, how much is the LRLMD 

proposing to pay the District. Mr. Griffiths responded by saying they did not intend to pay. 

Staff challenged several statements made by Mr. Griffiths regarding District operation of the 

structures, as well as the statement that the District’s desire is to “drain Polk County to ensure 

water is available for the coast”. The committee passed the resolution as amended. 

� Staff attended the Charlotte County Agricultural and Natural Resources Advisory Committee 

meeting and was asked to provide an update to the committee regarding District changes 

based on the last legislative session. Discussion included the elimination of the Basin Boards, 

the budget and impacts on cooperative funding and the search for an executive director. The 

committee requested a presentation on any specific changes to the FARMs program that 

could occur based on new budget constraints. CLA staff will provide the committee with that 

information. The committee also has several questions regarding HB 421 (agricultural 

exemptions). They will be asking a representative from the Florida Department of Agricultural 

and Consumer Services, Agricultural Water Policy group to attend a future meeting to discuss 

how this legislation will impact the agricultural community. 

� CLA staff was interviewed by ABC 7/Sarasota, along with Senator Detert and former County 

Commissioner Shannon Staub. Discussion included the elimination of the Basin Boards, 

budget cuts and how these actions will impact local communities. Assurances were made 

that, despite the reductions in our budget, the District will continue to seek local input on 

projects when funding decisions are made and priorities are set. 

� CLA and SWIM staff provided a land tour of Clam Bayou to senior staff of the Florida League 

of Cities. The attendees were impressed with the project. They were particularly 

complementary of the collaboration between Gulfport, St. Pete and the District, and the 

size/scope of the project for the money being spent. 

� CLA and PLN staff attended the quarterly coordination meeting between Marion County, 

Cities of Belleview and Ocala, SJRWMD and SWFWMD. David Hornsby from SJRWMD 

announced that their water supply plan continues to be on hold until executive staff moves the 

22

Item 25 

plan forward, but they are continuing to move forward with setting MFLs. Kraig McClain, from 

SJRWMD, reviewed the district’s proposed budget, stating that they are eliminating over 100 

positions to be able to continue to offer cost share dollars. Projected dollar amounts include: 

3.7 million for conservation projects, 10 million for water quality and 10 million for MFLs, 

totaling approximately 24 million for cost share projects. Mr. Hornsby discussed the success 

of a test well in the Lower Floridan that the city of Ocala pursued. The test has proved a viable 

source of alternative water supplies for Ocala. Staff from Ocala stated that they have capped 

the well and will use it in the future, if needed. Marion County Utilities Director Flip Mellinger 

will be holding a workshop for the Marion County BOCC to discuss future county-wide water 

supply planning. He expects to discuss a proposed reservoir project located at an old muck 

farm. The land is currently owned by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

and they have expectations to use the property as a bird sanctuary. The property is 

3,200 acres and Mr. Mellinger has recently met with WRWSA Executive Director Jack Sullivan 

to discuss the possibility of a regional reservoir at this property. Another option is an 

interconnection to the city of Belleview’s water supply. Mr. Mellinger stated that the county is 

still investigating the “food and beverage” industry for economic development and they are 

investigating areas where there are water use permits that are not being utilized and where 

there are no plans to use their permitted water quantities. SJRWMD discussed their water 

conservation linear programming tool to help utilities meet conservation goals. SJRWMD 

does not plan to look at water use at a per capita level but evaluate water by monthly 

customer water use. Mr. Mellinger expressed that Marion County prefers to be given a per 

capita goal and that drilling down to individual customer use becomes too “big brother.” 

Marion County also discussed that the county is currently in negotiations with DEP to take 

over the administrative side of the basin working groups for the TMDL program. 

� CLA and REG staff attended a meeting with Citrus County, FDOT and FDEP regarding the 

“Boschert Parcel.” The Boschert Parcel is owned by Citrus County and was purchased for a 

wetland treatment system as part of their watershed management plan cooperatively funded 

by the District. The parcel contains a series of drainage culverts that run into a mosquito canal 

that flows into the head waters of the Homosassa River. This property is located behind a 

shopping mall that contains a dry cleaning business. The dry-cleaners had a contamination 

spill that FDEP is currently overseeing. Also, FDOT has a planned Drainage Retention Area 

(DRA) on the parcel to receive stormwater runoff from the proposed widening of US 19. 

Citrus County’s goal for the meeting was to get all the parties together to discuss how the 

various planned uses for the property can be coordinated to accomplish the goals of all the 

agencies. The meeting concluded with the next steps needed to go forward, with Citrus 

County’s proposal that FDOT will have to agree to reconfigure the DRA. FDOT staff agreed to 

take the proposal into consideration. 

� CLA and REG staff met with Pasco County Commissioner Pat Mulieri to provide an update on 

repeated concerns raised by a constituent regarding the construction of a wetland mitigation 

site at the Wal-Mart on County Line Road. The constituent is also very upset about wetlands 

impacted by the construction of the FGT natural gas pipeline in the same area, which was 

permitted by FDEP. Brooksville REG, the Commissioner and Pasco County have repeatedly 

met with the constituent. The Commissioner was very appreciative of District Staff making the 

effort to work with both the constituent and with the consultant to see that the mitigation area 

is properly completed 

Legislation and Policy 

CLA acts as the District’s day-to-day representatives before the Florida Legislature and U.S. 

Congress. This includes educating officials and staff regarding the mission of the District, 

providing information on issues and legislation, and coordinating our legislative program with 

other state and federal agencies. The department recommends, develops and executes the 

District’s legislative program based on Governing Board and executive staff direction. Staff 

works with executive, legal and other departments to develop and manage internal District 

legislative procedures and policies. 


� Staff continues to monitor and provide information to the Office of the Governor, the 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Legislature regarding the District's 

proposed 2012 budget. 

23

Item 25 

� Staff continues to communicate and coordinate on a regular basis with the Office of the 

Governor, Legislators, FDEP and other Districts. 

� Staff continues to communicate with legislators and staff regarding District activities about 

which they have a particular interest. 

� Staff is conducting summer meetings and tours of District projects with legislators and staff. 

� Staff re-submitted two remaining legislative requests from last session to DEP for review and 

is in the planning process for the next legislative session. These are the watering restrictions 

for split counties and well pump depth regulation. 

� Staff coordinated and attended meetings in Tallahassee to present the 2012 tentative budget. 

Included in the meetings were staff from the Office of the Governor, Department of 

Environmental Protection, House and Senate Budget Committees and other substantive 

committees. These meetings offered the District an opportunity to outline the major 

components of the budget including significant budget reductions. The reductions follow the 

direction of the Governor and Legislature, specifically the tentative budget complies with the 

provisions of SB 2142 and incorporates a reduction of expenses, lower taxes, and a plan for 

the expenditure of reserves. 

� CLA partnered with Resource Data and Restoration (RDR), Operations (OPS) PRJ, SWIM, 

and Polk County to conduct a tour of Circle B Bar Preserve, Lake Hancock, P-11 and the Old 

Florida Plantation property. In attendance were aides from Representatives Seth McKeel, Kelli 

Stargel, Ben Albritton, Mayor Gow Fields (City of Lakeland) and Congressman Dennis Ross. 

The tour featured the Nature Discovery Center, a tram ride through the wetland treatment 

area, airboat tour of Lake Hancock, overview of the project at P-11 and a land tour of Old 

Florida Plantation. Everyone expressed their appreciation for the tour and the opportunity to 

gain a better understanding of the District’s programs and projects. 

� Staff organized a tour of Lake Panasoffkee for Rep. Marlene O’Toole and Paul Runk, 

legislative assistant to Sen. Tom Hays. District Governing Board Secretary Doug Tharp also 

attended. 

� Staff attended the Manatee County Chamber Legislative Committee which met to discuss the 

Chamber’s 2012 Legislative priorities. Staff was asked to chair the Water Task Force. The 

Chamber Board will need to approve the legislative platform by September due to an early 

legislative session starting in January. The committee approved the following draft platform for 

the Growth and Water Management section of the Chamber’s overall platform : 

� Support a careful review of the role of regional planning councils and streamline the 

Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process to eliminate costly (time and expense) 

duplicity in the regulatory process and allow Florida to regain its competitive edge in 

attracting large scale economic development and job creation opportunities. 

� Support legislative delegation of Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting and enforcement 

responsibilities to the State of Florida. 

� Maintain Florida’s Water Management Districts which allow local governance and provide 

assistance to local businesses and government in responsibly balancing sustainable 

development and water resource interests. 

If this platform is approved by the Chamber Board, it will be shared with the Manatee County 

Legislative Delegation, and others, in Tallahassee next session. 

Community Outreach 

In addition to acting as the District’s liaison to local government, CLA is responsible for the 

primary “grassroots and grasstops” outreach to local community organization and groups. 

These include the agricultural community, environmental groups, business associations and 

others. These relationships provide a pivotal component of the District’s legislative program and 

allow for opportunities to communicate the District’s mission, policies and the goals. 


� Staff attended the second Springs Coast MFL Public Workshop. Approximately 50 people 

attended, including Rep. Jimmie Smith and former Rep. Ron Schultz. Discussions included 

sea level rise, basics of water use permitting and groundwater modeling. A lengthy discussion 

included the topic of averaging rainfall data and not putting enough emphasis on extreme 

events, such as drought conditions. It was suggested by members of the public that topics for 

discussion should include Outstanding Florida Waters and water conservation. 

24

Item 25 

� Staff attended the Gamble Creek Watershed FEMA Preliminary Flood Map public meeting. 

There was a fairly small turnout for this meeting in the Gamble Creek Watershed in Manatee 

County. Manatee County staff were on hand to answer questions as well. 

� CLA, Communications (COM) and Land (LND) staff attended the Land Use Stakeholders 

Hunting Working Group Public Meeting. Approximately 270 members of the public 

attended the meeting that took place at the Trinkle Center in Plant City. Also attending was 

Ann Bell, legislative aide to Senator Dockery. The District provided a forum to voice an opinion 

on land use (including hunting) for several properties. Just over 60 people addressed the 

group publicly with about 75% of those opposing the additional hunting. Those that did not 

speak had the opportunity to provide a comment card or go to 

www.watermatters.org/huntcomment to submit their views. The meeting began at 3:30 p.m. 

and each speaker was given two minutes. It ended promptly at 6:00 p.m. Governing Board 

Vice-Chair Hugh Gramling conducted the meeting and Member Neil Combee also attended. 



Presenter: Lou Kavouras, Deputy Executive Director, Outreach, Planning, Board Services 

& Ombudsman 

SEPTEMBER 2011 

Special Events 

SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2011 

Event Title: 37 th Annual Pioneer Florida Days 

Date: September 3 

Time: 9 a.m.–6 p.m. 

Location: Pioneer Florida Museum and Village, 15602 Pioneer Museum Rd., Dade City 

Sponsoring Organization: Pioneer Florida Museum and Village 

Attendees: General public 

Event Description: Event includes community exhibitors, traditional craft demonstrations and 

an exhibition of the Paso Fino horses. The District will staff a booth to provide water resources 

information to participants. 

District Contact Information 

Melissa Gulvin, (352) 796-7211, ext. 4782; Melissa.Gulvin@WaterMatters.org 

Event Title: Estuary Wading Trip 


Time: 9 a.m. 

Location: Cedar Point Park, 2300 Placida Rd., Englewood 

Sponsoring Organizations: District, Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center 


Event Description: Educational wading trip into the Charlotte Harbor watershed will 

demonstrate the importance of good water resource management in maintaining healthy 

estuarine systems. For information, contact Monica Dorken at the Charlotte Harbor 

Environmental Center at (941) 475-0769 or chec@sunline.net. 


Virginia Sternberger, (352) 796-7211, ext. 4753; Virginia.Sternberger@WaterMatters.org 

Event Title: Multicultural Festival and Community Outreach 


Time: 6–9 p.m. 

Location: Lake Mirror Park, Massachusetts Avenue, Lakeland 

Sponsoring Organization: University of South Florida Polytechnic 

25

Item 25 


Event Description: This event allows businesses and community organizations an opportunity 

to educate guests and showcase their services to the general public. The District will staff a 

booth to provide water resources information to participants. 


Melissa Gulvin, (352) 796-7211, ext. 4782; Melissa.Gulvin@WaterMatters.org 

Event Title: Springs Awareness Week 

Dates: September 16–24 

Time: Various 

Location: Citrus and Marion counties 

Sponsoring Organizations: District, Citrus 20/20, various 


Event Description: Springs Awareness Week will occur September 16–24. Residents can 

participate in a variety of activities, including cleanups, festivals, workshops, and walking, boat 

and kayak tours, that promote protection of Citrus County and Marion County springs and 

springsheds. 



Listing of Events During Springs Awareness Week 

� Friday, Sept. 16. Doors open at 6 p.m. — Citrus 20/20 Inc. Fundraiser Dinner, Conference 

Center, Central Florida College, Citrus Campus, Lecanto. Dinner at 7 p.m. followed by a game 

of Environmental Jeopardy with local organizations competing! Come early to bid on silent 

auction items. For ticket information, call (352) 201-0149. Cost: $35. 

� Saturday, Sept. 17. Sunrise–11:30 a.m. — Citrus County’s Adopt-A-Shore, International 

Coastal Cleanup Volunteer Event. Groups and organizations are encouraged to volunteer and 

adopt a portion of shoreline or waterway. For more information, call Bill Garvin at (352) 628- 

4685 or visit info@Garvinphotos.com or call Citrus County Aquatic Service at (352) 527-7620. 

FREE volunteer appreciation cookouts at noon. East side: Lake Henderson Beach, sponsored 

by Apopka Marine. West side: American Pro Dive Center, sponsored by American Pro Dive 

Center. 

� Saturday, Sept. 17. 9 a.m.–2 p.m. — Crystal River Preserve State Park Adopt-A-Shore Day. 

Visit environmental booths by local clubs and organizations promoting ways to conserve, 

preserve and protect Citrus County’s waters. At 7 p.m., come and enjoy watching the films 

Living Waters and River’s Journey in the Redfish Revue Theatre. Popcorn and cold drinks 

included. For information, call (352) 563-0450. FREE. 

� Monday, Sept. 19. Tours at 8 and 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. — Kayaking With Aardvark’s Florida 

Kayak Co. These beginning paddler tours depart from the county boat ramp at Pirates Cove in 

Ozello and include litter pickup. Learn more about saltwater marsh habitat as you paddle 

through St. Martin Marsh. For information and registration, call (352) 795-5650 or visit 

http://floridakayakcompany.com/SOWW.html. Cost: $10 — to be used to promote 

conservation. 

� Monday, Sept. 19. Event at 3 p.m. — Getting to Know Citrus County’s Aquatic Treasures. 

Citrus County Extension will host a workshop on some of Citrus County’s finest waters: 

Crystal, Homosassa, Chassahowitzka and Withlacoochee rivers. Methods of preserving and 

protecting these water bodies will be highlighted in the presentation. To register, call 

(352) 527-5700. FREE. 

� Monday, Sept. 19. Tour at 9 a.m. — Muck About at Fort Cooper State Park. Enjoy a guided 

walk through a native sandhill community. The Sandhill Loop Trail winds its way up to an 

elevation of 82 feet. Learn how plants and animals survive in this dry landscape. For 

information and registration, call (352) 726-0315. Capacity: 15 persons. FREE. 

� Monday, Sept. 19. Tours at 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. — Crystal River Preserve State Park 

Heritage Eco-Tour. The tour guide will discuss various ways Pre-Columbian Indians might 

have used the marine resources available along the river, with an interpretation of plants and 

animals viewed. For information and registration, call (352) 795-3817 or (352) 563-0450. 

Capacity: 24 persons each tour. Cost: $10 adults, $8 kids (6 and under, FREE). 

26

Item 25 

� Monday, Sept. 19. Tour at 9 a.m. — FDS Recycling Academy. Come tour the facility and learn 

more about recycling. Upon completion, each participant will receive a diploma and will have 

learned how recycling helps keep Citrus County waterways clean! For information and 

registration, call (352) 527-4281. Capacity: 20 persons. FREE. 

� Tuesday, Sept. 20. Tours at 9:30 and 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. — Homosassa River Boat Tours. 

Enjoy an interpretive tour of the beautiful Homosassa River aboard the Miss Riverside, 

departing from the Riverside Resort in Homosassa. For information and registration, call 

(352) 628-2474 or 1-800-442-2040 or visit www.riversideresorts.com. Capacity: 40 persons 

each tour. FREE. 

� Tuesday, Sept. 20. Tours at 11 a.m., and 1 and 2 p.m. — Crystal River Preserve State Park 

Eagle Nest Boat Tours. Join the Friends of Crystal River State Park for an interpretive tour of 

the waters of the Crystal River. Catch a glimpse of our national bird as well as many other 

species of animals and plants. For information and registration, call (352) 563-0450. Capacity: 

24 persons each tour. Cost: $5. FREE movies in the Redfish Revue Theatre from 9 a.m.– 

5 p.m. 

� Tuesday, Sept. 20. Tour at 10 a.m. — Newcomers’ Guided Tour and Water Workshop at Ellie 

Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park. Starts at park’s west entrance on Fishbowl 

Drive. Tour designed to inform new residents to Citrus County about the spring system and 

related water issues. Tickets only available through your realtor. For information and 


� Tuesday, Sept. 20. Event starts at 6 p.m. — High School Environmental Jeopardy Game 

Competition. Citrus County Resource Center, W. Marc Knighton Ct., Lecanto. Local high 

school teams will compete, testing their environmental knowledge. Public invited. For more 

information, call Amy Duncan at Citrus County Extension (352) 527-5700. FREE. 

� Tuesday, Sept. 20. Tour at 9 a.m. — FDS Recycling Academy. Come tour the facility and 

learn more about recycling. Upon completion, each participant will receive a diploma and will 

have learned how recycling helps keep Citrus County waterways clean! For information and 


� Wednesday, Sept. 21. Tours at 8 and 9 a.m. — Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge. Enjoy 

a staff-guided pontoon boat tour of the refuge islands in Kings Bay. For information and 

registration, call (352) 563-2088. Capacity: 30 persons each tour. FREE. 

� Wednesday, Sept. 21. Event starts at 9 a.m. — Springs Neighborhood Challenge. Dr. Robert 

Knight of the Howard T. Odum Springs Institute will present information on ways homeowners 

can help improve the health of local springs. A tour of the Withlacoochee and Rainbow rivers 

will be provided. Presentation at Rainbow River Club House, 12350 San Jose Blvd., 

Dunnellon. Sponsored by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. For information 

and registration, call (386) 462-1003 or email eknight@floridaspringsinstitute.org. Space is 

limited. FREE. 

� Wednesday, Sept. 21. Tours at 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. — Crystal River Preserve State Park 

Heritage Eco-Tour. A tour guide will discuss various ways the Pre-Columbian Indians might 



Capacity: 24 persons each tour. Cost: $10 adults, $8 kids (6 and under, FREE). 

� Wednesday, Sept. 21. Tour at 9 a.m. — Muck About at Fort Cooper State Park. Enjoy a 

guided walk along the Fort Site Trail to Lake Holathlikaha. Learn about the importance of this 

land and water during the Second Seminole War. For information and registration, call 

(352) 726-0315. Capacity: 15 persons. FREE. 

� Thursday, Sept. 22. Tours at 9 and 11 a.m.; 1 and 2 p.m. — Crystal River Preserve State Park 

Eagle Nest Boat Tours. Join the Friends of Crystal River State Park for an interpretive tour of 

the waters of the Crystal River. Catch a glimpse of our national bird as well as many other 

species of animal and plants. For information and registration, call (352) 563-0450. Capacity: 

24 persons each tour. Cost: $5. FREE movies in the Redfish Revue Theatre from 9 a.m.– 

5 p.m. 

� Thursday, Sept. 22. Event starts at 9 a.m. — Landscape Challenge. Teams of landscape 

professionals will compete in a circuit of challenges testing their knowledge of Florida-friendly 

fertilizing and how to protect local springs. The winning team will be awarded the title of 

“Ruling Water Champion.” Event will begin at Armstrong Homes, 7821 North Florida Ave., 

Citrus Springs. Sponsored by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. For more 

27

Item 25 

information, call Merry Mott, Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association, at 

(407) 295-7994. 

� Thursday, Sept. 22. Tour at 10 a.m. — Newcomers’ Guided Tour and Water Workshop at Ellie 

Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park. Starts at park’s west entrance on Fishbowl 

Drive. Tour designed to inform new residents to Citrus County about the spring system and 

related water issues. Tickets only available through your realtor. For information and 


� Friday, Sept. 23. Tours at 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. — Crystal River Preserve State Park 

Heritage Eco-Tour. A tour guide will discuss various ways the Pre-Columbian Indians might 



Capacity: 24 persons each tour. Cost: $10 for adults, $8 kids (6 and under, FREE). 

� Friday, Sept. 23. Tour at 8 a.m. — Kayaking With a Crystal River Kayak Company. Launch 

from 1420 SE U.S. Hwy. 19, Crystal River, and paddle on to Three Sisters Springs. For 

information and registration, call (352) 795-2255. Capacity: 10 persons. FREE. Kayaks 

available for Adopt-A-Shore cleanup on Sept. 17 at the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge. 

� Friday, Sept. 23. Tour at 9 a.m. — Muck About at Fort Cooper State Park. Grab your boots 

and come to the wetter side of life on this ranger-guided hike around the shoreline and marsh 

of Lake Holathlikaha. For information and registration, call (352) 726-0315. Capacity: 

15 persons. FREE. 

� Saturday, Sept. 24. Tour 8 a.m.–1 p.m. — Muck About at Flying Eagle Preserve. This guided 

walk at the McGregor Smith Scout Reservation brings participants up close and hands-on with 

water, marches, wetlands and forests and many of the plants and animals that live there. 

Participants will leave with the understanding of what they can do to conserve and protect 

Citrus County waters. For more information and registration, call (352) 726-0315. Capacity: 

15 persons. FREE. 

� Saturday, Sept. 24. Tours at 8:30, 10 and 11:30 a.m.; 1 and 2:30 p.m. — Crystal River Taxi 

Eco-Tour. Launch from historic Port Hotel & Marina, 1619 SE Paradise Circle, Crystal River. 

Travel Green Florida, Scenic Kings Bay Cruise. For information and registration, call 

(352) 212-3196. Capacity: 40 persons. Cost: $5. 

� Saturday, Sept. 24. Event from 1–9 p.m. — Sunset Festival. Come celebrate the end of Save 

Our Waters Week at the Port Hotel & Marina’s Crystal River Ale House, 1610 SE Paradise 

Circle, Crystal River. Enjoy food and drink specials, along with music, an auction, door prizes 

and more. Visit eco-booths and vendors. Promoted by Life Pirates LLC. For vendor 

participation or general information, call (352) 422-7910. FREE. 

� Saturday, Sept. 24. 10 a.m.–4 p.m. — 10th Annual Marion County Springs Festival. Celebrate 

and learn about all of Marion County’s beautiful springs at the Silver River State Park. This 

fun, family-oriented festival will feature guest speakers, educational booths, vendors, carriage 

tours, boat tours and music. For information and contest registrations, visit 

www.SpringsFest.org. For more information, contact Deborah Wilson at (352) 236-7148. 

OCTOBER 2011 

Event Title: Estuary Wading Trips 

Date: October 12 

Time: 9 a.m. 

Location: Englewood 

Sponsoring Organizations: Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center, District 

Attendees: General Public 

Event Description: Educational wading trips into the Charlotte Harbor watershed will 

demonstrate the importance of good water resource management in maintaining healthy 

estuarine systems. 



28


August 30, 2011 

REGULATION COMMITTEE 



27. Denial(s) Referred to the Governing Board ......................................................................... 2 



28. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities ..................................................................... 3 

29. Overpumpage Report .......................................................................................................... 4 

30. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications ........................................................... 6 

31. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff ............................................................................ 7 

32. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives Report ............................................................. 9


August 30, 2011 


Denials Referred to the Governing Board 

Item 27 

District Rule 40D-1.6051, Florida Administrative Code, provides that if District staff intends to 

deny a permit application for incompleteness, the applicant will be advised of the opportunity to 

request referral to the Governing Board for final action. 

Under these circumstances, if an applicant or petitioner requests their application or petition be 

referred to the Governing Board for final action, that application or petition will appear under this 

agenda item for consideration. As these items will be presented at the request of an outside 

party, specific information may not be available until just prior to the Governing Board meeting. 


If any denials are requested to be referred to the Governing Board, these will be presented at 

the meeting. 

Presenter: Richard S. Owen, Deputy Executive Director, Resource Regulation 

2

3 

Quan�ty 

million gallons per day 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA 

TOTAL AND FLORIDAN AQUIFER PERMITTED 

ANNUAL AVERAGE QUANTITIES AND 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE 

GROUNDWATER QUANTITIES USED 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Year 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

August 2011 Governing Board Mee�ng 

Es�mated Groundwater Use for: 

Agriculture 

Public Supply 

Total Permi�ed Annual Average Quan��es 

Industrial/Commercial 

Mining/Dewatering 

Permi�ed Annual Average Floridan Quan��es 

Total Es�mated Groundwater Use 

Recrea�on/Aesthe�c

�� 

�� 

4 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

5

6 

E-Permitting Performance Metrics 

August 2011 

PERMIT 

Well Construction Permits 

Public on-line use for applications and 

completion report submission 

Water Use Permits 

Public on-line use for applications 

Environmental Resource Permits 

Public on-line use for applications 

JUNE 

2011 

90% 

(712) 

24% 

(29) 

13% 

(27) 

JULY 

2011 

86% 

(549) 

24% 

(24) 

12% 

(27) 

SIX MONTH 

AVERAGE 

89% 

(4,370) 

27% 

(218) 

11% 

(157) 

ONE YEAR 

AVERAGE 

88% 

(6,921) 

28% 

(353) 

8% 

(210) 

GOAL: Reach online utilization of 80% for each category by October 1, 2013. This will be based 

on the annual average.

7 

PERMIT 

NUMBER 

49020053.002 

43040487.000 

49026736.001 

43027030.043 

43023491.115 

43023491.065 

PROJECT 

NAME 

Plant City – Midtown 

Stormwater Master 

Plan 

30 th Street and 

Hillsborough Avenue 

Drainage 

Improvements 

Epperson Ranch – 

Ph 1 

Wiregrass – Parcel 

M11 

Villages of Sumter – 

Evans Prairie Golf 

Course Master 

Grading 

Villages of Sumter – 

District 9 & 10 

Modification 

INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: ERPS 

COUNTY DESCRIPTION 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

ACRES 

WETLAND 

ACRES 

WETLAND 

ACRES 

IMPACTED 

WETLAND 

MITIGATION 

ACRES 

Hillsborough Commercial 94.32 0.14 0.00 0.00 

Hillsborough 

Pasco 

Pasco 

Sumter 

Sumter 

Proposed new stormwater 

collection system to alleviate 

flooding in the vicinity of 30 th 

Street and Hillsborough Avenue 

Conceptual approval of specific 

design concepts for a new surface 

water management system 

serving a future mixed use 

development 

Construction of a new surface 

water management system to 

serve a 122.44 acre commercial 

development 

Modification of a surface water 

management system to serve a 

325.8 acre semi-public project 

Modification of a surface water 

management system to serve a 

3,481.80-acre residential project 

14.32 11.73 6.23 0.00 

862.05 182.27 63.59 26.15 

122.44 30.52 1.45 35.60 

325.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 

3,481.80 494.74 0.00 0.00 

Wetland Mitigation Acres may be zero or less than Wetland Acres Impacted for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons 

are: impacted wetlands require no mitigation by rule (e.g., upland cut manmade ditches, etc.); quality of the impacted wetlands 

is less than the quality of proposed mitigation; or mitigation is provided through a different permit or a mitigation bank.

8 

PERMIT 

NUMBER 

PERMITTEE NAME / 

PROJECT NAME 

20004679.006 Lake Letta Grove Highlands 

20011219.003 

Rolling Meadow 

Groves Limited 

INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: WUPS 

COUNTY DESCRIPTION USE TYPE 

Polk 

Individual modification to add 

a well on 1, 193 acres of 

citrus 

Individual Renewal for 468 

acres of citrus 

PREVIOUS 

PERMITTED 

QUANTITY 

NEW 

PERMITTED 

QUANTITY 

DURATION 

(YEARS) 

Agricultural 1,593,100 1,593,100 6 

Agricultural 536,000 565,200 6


August 30, 2011 


Item 32 

Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives Report 

This report provides information regarding significant activities within the Resource Regulation 

Division. Recent activity within each of the District's major permitting programs is provided, 

followed by information regarding other significant activities. 

TYPE OF PERMIT DEPARTMENTS AVERAGES 

ENV RES PERMITS ISSUED –JUN 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES –JUN 11 

Water Use Inspection (Includes Well Tag 

Installations) 

BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

General Minor System 3 6 5 14 28 26 25 

Noticed General 0 0 4 0 4 6 7 

General 9 17 8 17 51 65 68 

Individual 0 1 3 4 8 6 5 

Exemption 8 7 11 15 41 55 50 

Formal Wetland Determination 0 5 5 0 10 4 4 

ERP Conceptual 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 

ERP Site Condition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Letter Modification 4 5 10 13 32 33 27 

TOTALS 24 41 47 63 175 196 187 

ENV RES ACRES PERMITTED –JUN 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

General Minor System 3.61 8.86 12.35 16.37 41.19 N/A N/A 

Noticed General 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.00 1.34 N/A N/A 

Generals 49.59 294.96 98.29 122.13 564.97 N/A N/A 

Individual 0.00 292.81 230.86 342.36 866.03 N/A N/A 

Exemption 39.62 27.39 76.73 19.48 163.22 N/A N/A 

Formal Wetland Determination 0.00 1,437.09 2,142.53 0.00 3,579.62 N/A N/A 

ERP Conceptual 0.00 0.00 998.05 0.00 998.05 N/A N/A 

ERP Site Condition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 

TOTALS 92.82 2,061.11 3,560.15 500.34 6,214.42 

WATER USE PERMITS ISSUED –JUN 11 BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Small General 29 9 7 6 51 51 46 

General 6 3 1 2 12 21 18 

Individual 1 0 2 2 6 6 5 

Letter Modification 5 11 5 1 22 16 12 

WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED – 

JUN 11 

TOTALS 41 23 15 11 90 94 81 

BAR BVLLE SAR TPA 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Well Construction 118 166 40 239 563 531 481 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

2 14 11 6 33 75 57 

ERP/WUP Permit Condition Violation 8 9 2 21 40 48 40 

ERP/WUP Expired/Expiring 19 11 21 72 123 96 77 

ERP/WUP Permit Ownership Trnsfr 3 8 20 17 48 49 51 

ERPs Re-certification Received 72 116 96 160 444 480 469 

ERP/WUP Complnts Invstgtd 8 15 8 13 44 63 76 

ERP Construction Inspection 257 378 195 255 1,085 871 883 

ERP As-Built Activities 56 32 38 43 169 186 184 

ERP Transfer to Operation 29 35 29 71 164 142 145 

Well Abandonments/Grouting 6 9 0 20 35 46 49 

Well Construction Inspection 24 23 7 52 106 92 91 

TOTALS 484 650 

9 

427 730 2,291 2,148 2,122

AGRICULTURAL GROUND &SURFACE WATER MGT 

PROJECT DESIGNS (AGSWM) – JUN 11 

MONTHLY 

TOTALS 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Item 32 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Ordinary Farming 2 1 2 

Temporary Farming 0 1 0 

Permanent Farming 4 3 3 

TOTALS 6 5 5 

� Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) (FKA Central Florida Coordination Area Rules 

Development and Implementation [CFCA]) – The District continues to coordinate with the 

St. John's River and South Florida Water Management Districts on the assessment of 

groundwater sustainability and development of water supply solutions, including regulations, 

for the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA). The first phase of regulations was 

approved by all three Governing Boards at their December 2007 meetings. Major components 

of the Phase I rules include establishing 2013 demands as the limit on new groundwater 

withdrawals and a 20-year permit incentive for utilities agreeing to develop alternative water 

supplies to meet demands beyond 2013. The rules also contain a sunset provision, requiring 

the Districts to re-evaluate this determination of groundwater availability by 2012 and to either 

reaffirm this determination or adopt new rules which could either lower or increase the 

available groundwater in the region. Within the SWFWMD, these rules only apply in the 

portion of Polk County outside the SWUCA, and in Lake County. On February 25, 2011, the 

three water management district’s met with stakeholders to discuss a collaborative process 

with more, direct stakeholder involvement. The group agreed the process will focus on 

committing to a single model solution, creating a definition of environmental impact/harm, 

agreement on the baseline reference condition and a basis of review for all technical 

decisions. The group also agreed to the formation of a Technical Work Group reporting to an 

Executive Steering Committee. The name Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) has been 

accepted by all stakeholders. The web site for the initiative has been transitioned to 

CFWIwater.com and will be managed by the St John’s River Water Management Districts’ 

staff. All five technical teams have met and drawn a consensus on their goals and objectives. 

The Steering Committee has approved a modified work plan document. The technical team 

goals and objectives along with the new work plan document will be available on the new 

cfwiwater.com web site. The CFWIwater.com web site is up and totally functional. The data 

and documents produced in the old CFCA initiative will remain available for stakeholder 

review on the new web site. The five technical teams are working steadily and collaborating 

frequently on common issues. At the July 8 Steering Committee meeting a presentation was 

received on water supply demand projections for the region and the addition of another 

technical group to create a common methodology for demand projections was discussed. The 

group also heard presentations on issues effecting state Sunshine Rules and how the 

Steering Committee needs to proceed to be in compliance. The Legal Technical Group 

presented their findings on the consumptive use permitting, alternative water supply (AWS) 

compliance dates; indicating the permits with AWS conditions could be modified with a letter 

of revision. The Steering Committee also indicated staff should begin planning for an open 

public meeting in the fall. New activities since last meeting: The CFWI Technical Oversight 

Team met on August 9 th to prepare and discuss items to be consideration by the Steering 

Committee at their August 25 meeting. Major items in the Oversight Team meeting were a 

final draft of the CFWI scope of work document was finished and includes the addition of 

completion dates for key components of the scope of work, and draft language for key 

components of the Groundwater Availability Team effort. The document will be sent to 

Steering Group members prior to their August 25 th meeting for final acceptance. The concept 

of a “baseline” condition for the CFWI effort was discussed. It was determined that the 

Technical Oversight Team will be responsible for development of this concept/issue with 

respect to the various CFWI team efforts, and will present findings and recommendations to 

the Steering Group. 

� Reclaimed Water Policy Workgroup – During the 2008 legislative session, a number of 

reuse issues prompted proposed legislation. The proposals raised several areas of concern 

regarding the respective roles of local governments, utilities and the water management 

10

Item 32 

districts related to reclaimed water. In lieu of legislation, the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) agreed to review emerging reclaimed water issues, 

particularly those related to the regulation of reuse under the consumptive use permitting 

program. Since that time, representatives of the five water management districts, local 

governments, utilities and DEP have formed a Reclaimed Water Policy Workgroup that meets 

approximately monthly to discuss impediments, conflicts and concerns, and to develop 

incentives, policy clarifications and legislation regarding local government, utilities and water 

management district programs to optimize the use reclaimed water. New activities since 

last meeting: During the Workgroup meeting on July 22, 2011, the Workgroup discussed 

issues and developed a draft policy paper regarding considerations the water management 

districts would use in evaluating the use of other water sources to supplement reclaimed water 

systems during times of low reclaimed water flow. The next meeting of the Workgroup is 

September 1, 2011. It is anticipated that the Workgroup will finalize the supplementation 

paper and begin a discussion of the DEP and WMD reclaimed water feasibility analysis 

requirements in order to develop a consistent and unified feasibility process for the DEP and 

water management district permitting programs. 

� Establishment of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nutrients – Under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) Section 303, states are required to establish water quality standards, which 

define the amounts of pollutants (in either numeric or narrative form) that waters can contain 

without impairment of their designated beneficial uses. Florida currently uses a narrative 

nutrient standard to guide the management and protection of its waters. In July 2008, the 

Florida Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in an attempt to compel the prompt adoption of numeric nutrient criteria in 

Florida. EPA signed a consent decree (subsequently revised) which obligates them to adopt 

final numeric nutrient standards for Florida’s fresh water lakes and streams by 

November 2010, and estuaries and coastal systems by August 2012. EPA published draft 

fresh water numeric nutrient criteria in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010. District staff 

submitted formal written comments to EPA on April 26, 2010. District comments have also 

been posted on the District’s website. EPA received over 22,000 comments on the proposed 

rule. The final rule for lakes and flowing waters was published in the Federal Register on 

December 6, 2010. The rule takes effect 15 months after publication except for the Site- 

Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) provision, which was effective starting March 2011. EPA 

held several meetings of their Science Advisory Board (SAB) to discuss its draft report on the 

development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, and 

southern canals. Due to extensive public concerns regarding the cost of implementation, EPA 

agreed to task the National Academy of Sciences with an independent review of the estimated 

cost of compliance with the new water quality standards. The committee will issue their final 

report in late February 2012. On April 22, 2011, the FDEP filed a petition requesting the EPA 

withdraw its January 2009 determination that numeric criteria are necessary in Florida and 

restore to the state its responsibility for the control of excess nutrients. In a June 13, 2011 

response, EPA did not grant or deny the petition. EPA noted they will repeal the existing 

federally promulgated freshwater numeric criteria if FDEP adopts and EPA approves of 

protective criteria. EPA also noted they will not propose or promulgate criteria for any as yet 

unaddressed waters (estuarine, coastal, south Florida canals) if FDEP adopts legally effective 

criteria under Florida law. EPA stated they would seek an extension to the deadlines in the 

consent decree so that Florida can continue to focus on completing its own rulemaking 

provided FDEP has made substantial progress toward adoption of approvable standards. As 

a result of the EPA response, FDEP is pursuing rule development of criteria for fresh water 

lakes, springs and streams. In June and July 2011, FDEP held public meetings on potential 

revisions to Chapters 62-302 and 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, regarding nutrient 

standards. The existing narrative criteria would continue to apply to all water bodies; however 

numeric interpretations would be applied based on the scientific information available. The 

narrative will be implemented using a systematic structure that numerically interprets the 

narrative nutrient criteria for each water body in a hierarchical manner giving preference to site 

specific analyses. FDEP intends to submit rule language for Environmental Regulation 

Commission adoption in January 2012 and legislative ratification in the 2012 session. New 

activities since last meeting: U.S. Representative Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala, headed a 

11

Item 32 

congressional hearing in his capacity as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations entitled “EPA’s Takeover of 

Florida’s Nutrient Water Quality Standard Setting: Impact on Communities and Job Creation”. 

On August 5, 2011, the 11 th Circuit Court dismissed Florida Water Environment Association’s 

and South Florida Water Management District’s appeal of the Consent Decree on 

jurisdictional grounds, finding that the appellants had not demonstrated that a case or 

controversy existed. 

� Watershed Model Review and Maintenance – This is an information item regarding 

Resource Regulation’s role in an inter-divisional initiative to enhance and support the District’s 

Watershed Management Program and associated Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Map Modernization, including the District’s role in the FEMA process. Resource 

Regulation is providing assistance to the Resource Projects Division in several ways, 

including the review of watershed models prior to submittal to FEMA, the maintenance of the 

GIS Geodatabase which will be the platform for future watershed models, and maintenance of 

final watershed models. Six full time engineering positions were transferred from Resource 

Regulation to Resource Projects in February 2011 to assist in this initiative. The number of 

transferred positions was determined using the District’s Resource Regulation Staffing Model. 

For the remainder of this year, Resource Regulation staff will continue to support the 

watershed initiative by continuing to review assigned watershed studies. New Activities 

since last meeting: Currently, 80 watersheds have been assigned to staff (19 completed, 

9 assigned, 4 in review and 2 reviews that have been suspended). 

� Conserve Florida Statewide Public Supply Water Conservation Initiative – Conserve 

Florida is the name of the collaborative effort to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 373.227, 

Florida Statutes to develop comprehensive water conservation program for public suppliers 

that provides them with utility-specific options. Tampa Regulation (Demand Management), 

Strategic Program Office (Water Use Permitting), and Office of the General Counsel staffs 

have been involved in this initiative since its inception because there are many potential 

regulatory implications. Executive and Resource Projects (Conservation and Utility Outreach) 

staffs have also been involved, as appropriate. The main product of this initiative to date is 

two versions of a tool for utilities to use when developing or updating their water conservation 

plans; one version is a web-based computer application called “The Guide” and the other is a 

spreadsheet referred to as “EZ Guide” (both versions identify recommended and optional 

elements to include in a water conservation plan based on the utility's size, mix of customers, 

existing efforts, etc). The workgroup also helps Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) staff provide oversight of the Conserve Florida Clearinghouse (currently 

hosted by the University of Florida (UF), under contract from DEP, to provide technical 

support for both versions of the water conservation planning guide, an on-line water 

conservation library, and other core services). The District's financial contribution to the 

Clearinghouse in Fiscal Year 2011 is $75,000. Conserve Florida is in the process of 

transitioning from an informal collaborative effort to a more deliberate organizational 

structure. While the restructuring is in progress, the Clearinghouse is continuing to follow its 

FY2011 scope of work, including two items of interest to the District: (1) identification of 

Hillsborough County Water Resource Services as a case study participant to work on how to 

use the EZ Guide as part of a Water Use Permitting application process and (2) improvements 

to the storage capacity and user interface features of the on-line water conservation library. 

FDEP has organized the Conserve Florida Steering Committee (part of the more deliberate 

organization structure to be used, from this point forward), which held its first teleconference 

on April 11, 2011 to discuss the draft scope of work and associated budget for the next 

contract period with UF. The Steering Committee recently used an ad-hoc team from its 

Technical Advisory Group (including two District staff members) to develop a two-year budget 

and associated scope of work for July 2011 – June 2013 which were both incorporated into 

DEP’s new two-year contract with UF. This budget uses only current-year funds ($325,000 

total), and the scope focuses those funds on keeping basic Clearinghouse services available 

while also making targeted fixes and adding priority functions to the EZ Guide so that more 

public suppliers will use it for permitting, compliance and supply planning processes. New 

activities since last meeting: Tampa Regulation staff received delivery and is in the process 

12

Item 32 

of reviewing the final report for the 2011 contract year and several contract-specified work 

products. 

� Water Shortage Plan – Rulemaking Update – The Southwest Florida Water Management 

District's Water Shortage Plan (Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C.) was adopted in 1984 and updated in 

2006 to reflect experience with the 1999-2001 droughts. Similarly, the Governing Board 

approved initiation of rulemaking during its meeting on September 29, 2009 in order to refine 

the plan to reflect additional experience exercising various provisions during the 2007-2010 

droughts. The Governing Board approved the proposed amendments, including changes 

based on last-minute input from the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

and other interested parties, during its October 26, 2010 meeting. However, publication for 

adoption and other final rulemaking steps needed to formally implement the Board-approved 

amendments have been postponed since that time, so that staff can complete additional data 

collection and analysis that is necessary to update the SERC in accordance with new 

provisions of Section 120.541(1), F.S. (enacted as a result of HB 1565 from the Florida 

Legislature’s 2010 session). Preliminary analysis indicated that the costs associated with four 

specific categories of Board-approved amendments (strengthening utility reporting 

requirements, strengthening utility messaging requirements, adding a new requirement for 

properties to test lawn and landscape irrigation systems which would need to be enforced, 

and clarifying the District’s expectations regarding local enforcement) would each be 

substantial enough to trigger additional legislative review (another provision of HB1565), 

which would delay completion of the rulemaking process until the summer of 2012. Staff 

presented the preliminary findings to the advisory committees, then used committee feedback 

and several sensitivity scenarios (determination of costs and benefits associated with differing 

levels of effort associated with each of the four categories of requirements listed above) to 

identify conceptual modifications to the Board-approved amendments which would retain the 

most critical requirements while reducing the regulatory costs below the legislative review 

threshold. New activities since last meeting: The conceptual modifications went through 

internal review and are scheduled for discussion at the joint advisory committee meeting on 

September 23, 2011. Modified amendment language and associated cost data will then be 

prepared for the Board’s consideration as early as October. 

� Water Restriction Hotline – Tampa Regulation staff continues to maintain a toll-free 

telephone number (1-800-848-0499) and e-mail address (water.restrictions@ 

watermatters.org) that citizens and local officials can use to ask questions, report possible 

violations, and request information about water shortage restrictions, year-round water 

conservation measures and associated local government ordinances. New activities since 

last meeting: The hotline answered 319 calls and responded to 134 e-mails during the fiveweek 

period that ended July 29, 2011. Hotline activity also resulted in 15 first-time violation 

letters being sent to property owners or managers, but only one repeat-violation situation 

required referral to a local enforcement agency for investigation. Nine variances (requests for 

a special watering schedule that abides by the basic intent of year-round water conservation 

measures and any applicable water shortage restrictions) were also approved or otherwise 

resolved during that time period. 


This item is provided for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Richard S. Owen, AICP, Deputy Executive Director, Resource Regulation 

13


August 30, 2011 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 



34. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report ................................................................................. 2 

35. Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project – Construction Management 

Services (H014, W014, SC54) .......................................................................................... 4 

(Strategic Plan: Water Quality – Maintenance & Improvement) 

36. Basin Activities 

a. Pasco County – Southeast Regional Reclaimed Water Loop (H041) ........................ 6 

(Strategic Plan: Water Supply – Reclaimed Water) 

b. Weeki Wachee State Park and Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs State 

Wildlife Park Water Quality Improvement Project ....................................................... 8 

(Strategic Plan: Water Quality – Maintenance & Improvement) 

37. Surplus Lands Assessment Program Update .................................................................... 9 

(Strategic Plan: Natural Systems – Conservation & Restoration) 



38. Florida Forever Funding ..................................................................................................... 10 

39. Minimum Flows and Levels ............................................................................................... 14 

40. Structure Operations ......................................................................................................... 18 

41. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency 

Management Agency Map Modernization ......................................................................... 32 

42. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects ....................................... 35


August 30, 2011 


Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

Item 34 

This routine report provides information on the general state of the District's hydrologic 

conditions, by comparing rainfall, surface water, and groundwater levels for the current month to 

comparable data from the historical record. The data shown are typically considered final, fully 

verified monthly values, but occasionally, due to timing of publication, some data are identified 

as "provisional," meaning that the values shown are best estimates based on incomplete data. 

The information presented below is a summary of data presented in much greater detail in the 

Hydrologic Conditions Report published the week before the Governing Board meeting, which 

also includes an updated provisional summary of hydrologic conditions as of the date of 

publication. It is available at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/waterres/hydro/hydro.htm. 

Rainfall 

Rainfall totals for July were within the normal range in all three regions of the District. The 

normal range is defined as rainfall totals that fall on or between the 25 th to 75 th percentiles 

derived from the historical data for each month. 

• The northern region received an average of 7.52 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 

37 th percentile 

• The central region received an average of 7.56 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 

41 st percentile. 

• The southern region recorded an average of 7.84 inches of rain, equivalent to the 

47 th percentile. 

• District-wide, average rainfall was 7.65 inches, equivalent to the 39 th percentile. 

Streamflow 

July streamflow data indicates regional streamflow increased in all three regions of the District, 

compared to the previous month. However, streamflow conditions ended the month belownormal 

in all regions, based on flow conditions in regional index rivers. Normal streamflow is 

defined as falling on or between the 25 th and 75 th percentiles. 

• The monthly average streamflow in the Withlacoochee River near Holder in the northern 

region was in the 5 th percentile. 

• The monthly average streamflow measured in the Hillsborough River near Zephyrhills in the 

central region was in the 21 st percentile. 

• The monthly average streamflow measured in the Peace River at Arcadia in the southern 

region was in the 17 th percentile. 

Groundwater Levels 

July groundwater data indicate levels in the Floridan/Intermediate aquifer increased in all three 

regions of the District, compared to last month. Groundwater levels ended the month belownormal 

in the northern and southern regions, while they remained within the normal range in the 

central region. Normal groundwater levels are defined as those falling on or between the 25 th 

and 75 th percentiles. 

• The average groundwater level in the northern counties was in the 22 nd percentile. 

• The average groundwater level in the central counties was in the 39 th percentile. 

• The average groundwater level in the southern counties was in the 19 th percentile. 

2

Item 34 

Lake Levels 

Water-level data for July indicates average lake levels increased in all regions of the District. 

The Northern, Polk Uplands, and Lake Wales Ridge regions ended the month below the base of 

the annual normal range, while the Tampa Bay region ended the month slightly above the base 

of the annual normal range. Normal lake levels are generally considered to be levels that fall 

between the minimum low management level and the minimum flood level. 

• Average levels in the Northern region increased 0.30 foot and were 4.25 feet below the base 

of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Tampa Bay region increased 0.59 foot and were 0.15 foot above 

the base of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Polk Uplands region increased 0.28 foot and were 1.75 feet below 

the base of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Lake Wales Ridge region increased 0.68 foot and were 4.57 feet 

below the base of the annual normal range. 

Issues of Significance 

July completes the second month of the four-month annual wet season (June through 

September) and monthly rainfall totals were within the normal range, although slightly below the 

historic monthly average, for all regions of the District. Rainfall was generally uniform throughout 

the District and associated with sea breeze and convective rainstorm activity, with most 

hydrologic indicators showing improvement. The District-wide 12-month cumulative rainfall 

deficit improved in July, ending the month at 6.16 inches below the long-term average, while the 

24-month and 36-month deficits worsened, ending the month approximately 7.29 and 

13.9 inches, respectively, below the historic average. 

NOAA climate forecasts continue to indicate above-normal rainfall for the rainy season, based 

on a predicted above-average Hurricane Season and current ENSO-neutral conditions in the 

Pacific Ocean. Below-average rainfall during the wet season (June-September) will worsen 

existing low-normal to below-normal hydrologic conditions. The probability is rising for a return 

to La Niña conditions during the winter and spring months. That would result in drier-thannormal 

conditions during those months. 

Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-September. Staff will continue to closely 

monitor conditions in accordance with the District's updated Water Shortage Plan, including any 

necessary supplemental analysis of pertinent data. 



Presenter: Granville Kinsman, Manager, Hydrologic Data Section 

3


August 30, 2011 


Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project – Construction Management Services 

(H014, W014, SC54) 

Item 35 

Purpose 

Recommend Governing Board approval to amend the consultant agreement with Parsons 

Water & Infrastructure, Inc. (Parsons) to add a total of $880,000 for construction engineering 

and inspection (CEI) services for the Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project (Project). Funds 

for this task are available in the existing project budget. 


The Lake Hancock projects are critical in the District’s strategies for meeting minimum flows in 

the Upper Peace River and improving water quality in the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor, an 

estuary of national significance. The goal of the Project is to improve water quality discharging 

from Lake Hancock through Saddle Creek to the Peace River. Water quality treatment of 

discharges from Lake Hancock has been identified as the most cost effective means of reducing 

nitrogen loads into the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor. 

The Project includes the construction of a 1,008-acre treatment wetland system on land owned 

by the District at the south shore of the lake. The Project Request for Bid (RFB) was advertised 

on January 21, 2011. Nine bids were received on April 6, 2011. The low bid of $20,128,700 

was submitted by PCL Construction, Inc. (PCL). District staff is finalizing the construction 

contract with PCL and anticipates issuing the Notice to Proceed in September 2011. The RFB 

required contractors to hold their bid for 180 days, corresponding to a required commencement 

date of October 6, 2011. 

At the October 26, 2010 Governing Board meeting, staff provided the Board an overview of the 

construction bid process. Consistent with the Board’s direction, staff indicated that the 

consultant’s budget for CEI services would be negotiated after bids were received based on the 

awarded construction contract total. In the event negotiations were unsuccessful, District staff 

offered an option to procure construction inspection services through a third party consultant. In 

either case, the existing design consultant will perform engineer-of-record services. 


A scope and budget for both engineer-of-record and inspection services of $880,000 over a 

two-year period has been negotiated with Parsons. This budget represents 4.86 percent of the 

construction bid without contingency ($18,128,700). CEI services include review of over 

150 submittals and shop drawings that must be submitted by the contractor to ensure 

compliance with the plans and specifications. In addition, the design engineer will provide 

responses to requests for information and will perform specific inspection, such as structural 

and electrical components, as well as, limited site work inspection, test result review, equipment 

commissioning, completion certification and record drawing preparation. District staff will be 

supplementing site inspection. Inspection of pump station facilities, piping, concrete structures, 

and slurry wall construction by the design engineering team will protect the District’s 

$20,128,700 investment in project construction. The overall project budget is as follows: 

4

Item 35 

FUNDING SOURCE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING REMAINING TOTAL 

Florida Forever $ 9,079,039 $ 4,356,407 -- $ 13,435,446 

WRAP 1,000,000 -- -- 1,000,000 

Ecosystem Trust Fund 1,750,000 -- -- 1,750,000 

WPSTF 325,000 -- -- 325,000 

Governing Board 1,867,006 -- -- 1,867,006 

Peace River Basin Board 937,576 -- -- 937,576 

SWIM - WMLTF 650,152 -- -- 650,152 

Save Our Rivers - WMLTF 4,034,927 -- $ 3,713,010 7,747,937 

EPA Special Appropriation* 485,000 -- -- 485,000 

TOTAL $ 20,128,700 $ 4,356,407 $ 3,713,010 $ 28,198,117 

*Note: The District was notified on July 20, 2011 that the EPA Special Appropriations 

budgeted in EPA fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2008 totaling $1,729,500 were placed 

on hold by EPA. If released by EPA, funds will be used to offset remaining Save Our 

Rivers – WMLTF. 


Approve the amendment with Parsons Water and Infrastructure, Inc. to add $880,000 for 

construction management services for a total contract amount of $4,356,407. All funds are from 

Florida Forever funding. 

Presenter: Eric DeHaven, P.G., Director, Resource Data & Restoration Department 

5


August 30, 2011 


Item 36.a. 

Basin Activity – Pasco County - Southeast Regional Reclaimed Water Loop (H041) 

Purpose 

To request the Governing Board approve a request from Pasco County to increase the District’s 

funding share for the Pasco County Southeast Regional Reclaimed Water Loop by $723,094 

from $545,297 to $1,268,391 and extend the completion timeline. 


In October 2006, the District entered into an agreement with Pasco County for the design and 

construction of a reclaimed water transmission main to complete the transmission system 

looped interconnection between Pasco County's Southeast Wastewater Treatment Facility 

(WWTF) and Wesley Center WWTF. The project will connect an existing reclaimed water 

transmission main on State Road 54 with the Southeast WWTF and will allow the County to 

more effectively move reclaimed water to their storage and demand centers. The Governing 

Board and Alafia River, Hillsborough River, Coastal Rivers, Pinellas-Anclote River, and 

Withlacoochee River basins budgeted funds in fiscal year 2006 for this project. 

In 2004, Pasco County originally estimated the cost of this project at $1,330,000 for 3.5 miles of 

24-inch diameter pipe which is the basis for the District’s current funding commitment. The initial 

estimate was low as it did not consider potential route revisions tunneling requirements or 

increases in pipe diameter needed to address updated hydraulic capacity. During the design 

phase, the route was changed to avoid future conflicts with the Department of Transportation’s 

planned widening of State Road 54 and facilitate the County’s property easement acquisition for 

the pipeline. In addition, the revised design includes a need for directional bores/tunnels in 

several locations not anticipated when the original project cost estimate was formulated. These 

directional bores allow the pipeline to cross underneath wetland areas and roadways without 

disturbing the ecosystem or traffic during pipeline construction. Also during design, portions of 

the pipeline’s diameter were modified to accommodate revised service commitments and to 

adjust for needed hydraulic capacity. Consequently, the overall length of the pipeline increased 

by approximately one mile and some sections were upsized from 24-inch to either 30- or 36inch. 

These changes contributed to the cost of the project increasing from $1,330,000 to 

$2,852,308 that is supported by a competitively bid construction contract that the County 

awarded on April 20, 2011. In May 2011, Pasco County sent a letter requesting the District to 

consider additional funding assistance. District staff has evaluated the revised cost and finds it 

to be consistent on a unit cost basis with similar pipeline projects completed over the past two 

years. 

The project’s status is currently identified as “delayed and moving forward.” The County issued 

a notice-to-proceed for construction in April 2011 and project construction is scheduled to be 

complete by May 2012. 

The Governing Board and all project-related basins, with the exception of the Alafia River Basin, 

have unallocated reserve funds available for this cost increase. Staff recommends the District 

fund the increase share proportionate to the original agreement from the Governing Board’s and 

Basins’ unallocated reserves, except for the Alafia River Basin’s share. No additional funding 

would come from the Alafia River Basin since it does not have any remaining unallocated 

reserves. Pasco County will assume the costs to cover the increased share that the Alafia River 

Basin is not able to fund and any additional costs to complete the project. 

6

Item 36.a. 


This transmission main interconnect project will allow the County to better utilize their reclaimed 

water in the southeastern portions of the County. This includes use of wet-weather storage 

reservoirs being constructed in Pasco County for use during the dry periods when demands 

may exceed supply. If the Board approves this request, the District’s funding would increase by 

$723,094 from $545,297 to $1,268,391 as reflected in the table below. 

FUNDING SOURCE FUND EXISTING FUNDING PROPOSED FUNDING AMOUNT OF INCREASE 

Governing Board 010 $272,650 $653,227 $380,577 

Alafia River 011 $27,265 $27,265 Funds not available 

Hillsborough River 013 $103,606 $248,225 $144,619 

Coastal Rivers 015 $21,812 $52,258 $30,446 

Pinellas-Anclote River 016 $117,238 $280,885 $163,647 

Withlacoochee River 019 $2,726 $6,531 $3,805 

District Total $545,297 $1,268,391 $723,094 

WPSTF 010 $239,405 $239,405 - - - 

Pasco County Total $545,298 $1,344,512 $799,214 

Project Total $1,330,000 $2,852,308 $1,522,308 


(1) Approve the request from Pasco County to increase funding for the Southeast Regional 

Reclaimed Water Loop project; 

(2) Approve the transfer of $723,094 from available unallocated reserves in the Governing 

Board, Hillsborough River Basin, Coastal Rivers Basin, Pinellas-Anclote River Basin, and 

Withlacoochee River Basin for increased construction costs; and 

(3) Authorize staff to negotiate a second amendment to the agreement with Pasco County for a 

total of $2,852,308 with the District’s share not to exceed $1,268,391 and to extend the 

contract termination date to September 30, 2012; and authorize the Interim Executive 

Director to sign the amendment. 


7


August 30, 2011 


Item 36.b. 

Basin Activity – Weeki Wachee Springs State Park and Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs 

Wildlife State Park Water Quality Improvement Project 

Purpose 

To request the Governing Board approve funding to evaluate and prioritize surface water quality 

improvement projects at the Weeki Wachee Springs State Park and the Ellie Schiller 

Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park in response to a request made by the Coastal Rivers 

Basin Board. 


As a result of population growth and land use changes, nutrient levels in Weeki Wachee Springs 

and Homosassa Springs have been increasing for the past several decades. Untreated 

stormwater has been identified as a source of nutrient loading and sediment contribution to 

those systems. Both springs have been identified as impaired by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection due to abundant algae caused by excess nitrogen. 

In recent years the Coastal Rivers Basin Board funded two Weeki Wachee and one Homosassa 

springs/river restoration projects. The Weeki Wachee Springs Stormwater project (SB16) 

involved treating stormwater runoff that previously flowed directly into the headspring and upper 

reaches of the river. The Weeki Wachee Sediment Removal and Revegetation project (SC16) 

involved the removal of accumulated sediments in the headspring area and revegetation with 

native plants. The cooperatively funded Homosassa Springs Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 

project (L336) entailed removal of accumulated organic sediments from the spring run within the 

Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park, the Blue Waters area of the Homosassa 

River, and Mitten Cove. 

In April 2011, the Coastal Rivers Basin Board requested staff evaluate options to further 

address water quality issues in the springs. District staff met with Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection staff to discuss potential restoration and stormwater retrofit projects 

associated with the Weeki Wachee and Homosassa state parks. An alternatives analysis is 

needed to evaluate the potential cost and benefits of the stormwater retrofit options. The 

Coastal Rivers Basin Board has unallocated reserve funds that could be used for this request. 


The implementation of stormwater retrofit projects would reduce the amount of pollutants 

entering the headsprings of the parks. The cost of the alternatives analysis is estimated at 

$50,000. 


(1) Approve the transfer of $50,000 from the available unallocated reserves in the Coastal 

Rivers Basin Board to the Weeki Wachee Springs State Park and Ellie Schiller Homosassa 

Springs Wildlife State Park Water Quality Improvement project; and 

(2) Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement for $50,000 for consultant services for the project, 

and authorize the Interim Executive Director to sign the agreement. 


8


August 30, 2011 


Surplus Lands Assessment Program Update 

Item 37 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to update the Governing Board on the District’s Surplus Lands 

Assessment Program. 

Background 

During the Strategic Plan discussion on natural systems at the March 29, 2011 Governing 

Board meeting, the Governing Board passed a motion directing staff to review all 430,000 acres 

of District-owned land interests with the goal of identifying candidate parcels which could be 

surplused. Since the March meeting, the Land Resources and Planning Departments have 

created a project scope and timeline, and have met with District subject matter experts to 

establish review criteria to identify potential surplus candidates. In addition, staff has met with 

representatives from the Suwannee River Water Management District to learn more about their 

surplus lands program which has been functioning since 2009. 

Staff’s presentation will characterize the program underway at the Suwannee River Water 

Management District and discuss the proposed approach for the program currently under 

development here at the District. 


This item is presented for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Roy Mazur P.E., AICP, Director, Planning Department 

9


August 30, 2011 


Florida Forever Funding 

Purpose 

No Board action is required. This item is submitted for information purposes only. 

Item 38 


Attached for the Board’s use and information is the monthly funding status report for the Florida 

Forever program. The projects have been categorized as acquisitions or projects for: 

restoration; capital improvements for restoration; water resource development; and 

preservation. In addition to Florida Forever funding, staff continues to explore all funding 

opportunities. 



Presenter: �� 

10

11 


Florida Forever Status 

Parcel/Project Funds Available Category Estimated Cost 

Florida Forever Funds Available -- Inception to Date $ 254,202,651 

8/10/2011 Page 1 of 3 

Fee 

Acres 

LTF 

Acres Comments 

Includes Water Management Lands Trust Fund, P2000 Trust Fund, 

Hillsborough Basin Funds and FDOT mitigation funds 

Completed Acquisitions 

Panasoffkee/Outlet Tract - Gibbons (19-441-105) Preservation $ 74,758 10 Closed 01/18/2001 

Annutteliga Hammock (mega parcels) Preservation 205,744 38 Closed between 08/09/2001 and 02/09/2005 - 23 parcels 

Weekiwachee Preserve - Wooley (15-773-168) Preservation 869,732 65 Closed 10/04/2001 

Weekiwachee Preserve - Jones (15-773-121) Preservation 317,785 54 Closed 10/12/2001 

Weekiwachee Preserve - Leahon (15-773-180) Preservation 42,933 49 Closed 03/13/2002 

RV Griffin Reserve - Longino (21-599-102C) Preservation 1,188,231 3,802 Closed 07/18/2002 - used P2000 & Florida Forever funds 

Annutteliga Hammock - Strait (15-228-1204) Preservation 179,200 32 Closed 07/22/2002 

Green Swamp - Distefano (10-200-1242) Preservation 

Restoration - 

1,125 3 Closed 08/09/2002 

Tampa Bay - Furtick (21-728-121) 

land acq 830,000 127 Closed 12/30/2002 

Prairie/Shell Creek - Burchers (20-649-105) Preservation 254,016 108 Closed 01/16/2003 

Prairie/Shell Creek - Leonard (20-649-104) Preservation 85,036 40 Closed 01/16/2003 

Alafia River Corridor - Fish Hawk (11-709-131) Preservation 4,800,000 899 Closed 02/06/2003 - used P2000 & Florida Forever funds 

Myakka River - Eagle Ridge (21-708-126) Preservation 

Water resource 

1,670,269 997 Closed 02/07/2003 

Lake Pretty - Robinson (14-009-108) 

Weekiwachee Preserve - GMB Investments (15-773dev 

- land acq 60,000 3 Closed 03/27/2003 

183) Preservation 

Restoration - 

422,000 56 Closed 05/28/2003 - used WMLTF funds 

Tampa Bay - Kushmer (11-728-108) 

land acq 

Restoration - 

82,500 16 Closed 07/18/2003 

Tampa Bay - Pine Island (21-728-118) 

land acq 

Restoration - 

450,000 86 Closed 08/09/2003 

Lake Panasoffkee - Beville (19-528-135) 

land acq 1,840,000 525 Closed 09/18/2003 - used WMLTF funds 

Lake Panasoffkee - Beville (19-528-135C) Preservation 4,160,000 5,553 Closed 09/18/2003 - used WMLTF funds 

Annutteliga Hammock - 1029 Land Trust (15-228-1207) Preservation 1,087,200 288 Closed 09/24/2003 

Pasco 1 - Connerton (15-704-102) Preservation 


9,792,677 2,981 507 Closed 09/29/2003 

Lake Hancock - Old Florida Plantation (20-502-101) 

dev - land acq 

Restoration - 

30,500,000 3,535 Closed 11/21/2003 

Tampa Bay - TECO (11-728-110) 

land acq 

Restoration - 

1,713,572 2,347 Closed 12/11/2003 

Tampa Bay - Huber (21-728-105) 

Panasoffkee/Outlet Tract - Lake Panasoffkee Water 

land acq 3,287,657 102 Closed 12/18/2003 

Assoc. (19-441-107) Preservation 57,000 6 Closed 08/18/2004 

Annutteliga Hammock - Kalathakis (15-228-1268) Preservation 90,000 16 Closed 09/23/2004 

Green Swamp - Davis (10-200-1238) 

Lake Manatee Lower Watershed - Strickland (21-601- 

Preservation 10,500 25 Closed 10/13/2004 

111C) Preservation 

Restoration - 

225,180 25 Closed 11/16/2004 

Tampa Bay - Shell Pit (11-728-109) 


Flying Eagle - Boy Scouts (19-334-133) Preservation 13,500,000 5,484 Closed 12/14/2004 

Governing 

Bd Date

12 



Fee LTF 

Parcel/Project Funds Available Category Estimated Cost Acres Acres Comments 

Green Swamp - Beck (10-200-1246) Preservation 


11,250 15 Closed 12/14/2004 - used P2000 funds 

Lake Hancock - Griffin (20-503-105) 

Weekiwachee Preserve - Suncoast Seabird Sancturary 

dev - land acq 4,900,000 213 Closed 12/30/2004 

(15-773-128) Preservation 625,139 309 Closed 12/30/2004 

Annutteliga Hammock - Rush (15-228-1280) Preservation 278,480 40 Closed 02/09/2005 

Lower Peace River Corridor - McLeod (20-695-101) 

Green Swamp West - Little Everglades Ranch (19-410- 

Preservation 309,550 62 Closed 02/09/2005 

120C) Preservation 3,784,550 1,792 Closed 02/11/2005 

Myakka River - LOR, Inc. (21-708-125) Preservation 7,999,807 3,319 Closed 03/18/2005 - used WMLTF & Florida Forever funds 

Green Swamp - Jones (10-200-1251) Preservation 2,200 3 Closed 05/31/2005 

Green Swamp - Glass (10-200-1254) Preservation 


200,000 20 Closed 06/01/2005 

Lake Hancock - Coscia and Nguyn (20-503-102) 


Green Swamp East - Crowell (10-200-1237) Preservation 2,500 4 Closed 2/16/2006 

Green Swamp East - Overstreet (10-200-1145) Preservation 24,101,645 5,067 Closed 5/31/2006 - used WMLTF & Florida Forever funds 

Flying Eagle - Keough (19-334-137) Preservation 


25,535 20 Closed 10/12/2006 

Lake Hancock - Kent (20-503-122) 


Green Swamp - Raulerson (10-200-1258) Preservation 400,000 20 Closed 04/13/2007 

Annutteliga Hamock - O'Brien (15-228-1288) Preservation 87,000 3 Closed 07/13/2007 

Annutteliga Hamock - Tyte (15-228-1287) Preservation 


570,000 30 Closed 07/13/2007 

Lake Hancock - Powell (20-503-152) 

dev - land acq 30,000 2 Closed 07/26/2007 

Lower Hillsborough FDA - Guerard (13-300-110) Preservation 1,750,000 70 Closed 09/06/2007 

Green Swamp West - Barnes (19-410-123C) Preservation 1,125,000 300 Closed 10/30/2007 

Gum Slough - King/Phebus (19-193-195) Preservation 94,500 35 Closed 11/25/2007 

Myakkahatchee Creek - Carlton (21-694-102 and 103C) Preservation 


19,746,592 4,744 7,626 Closed 12/20/2007 - used Florida Forever & FDOT mitigation funds 

Lake Hancock - Hampton (20-503-103) 

dev - land acq 37,175,000 2,036 Closed 4/30/2008 

Annutteliga Hammock - Hadley (15-228-1290) Preservation 90,211 5 Closed 6/26/2008 

Lower Manatee River Floodway - Green (21-602-110) Preservation 987,915 43 Closed 7/31/2008 

Myakka Prairie - Harrison (21-199-109C) Preservation 818,730 663 Closed 9/11/2008 

Green Swamp - Vegso (10-200-1005) Preservation 2,500 3 Closed 9/30/2008 

Weekiwachee Preserve - Aripeka Heights (15-773-143) Preservation 2,175,000 210 Closed 10/8/2008 

Annutteliga Hammock - Koblis (15-228-1294) Preservation 95,000 5 Closed 10/15/2008 

Annutteliga Hammock - Reid (15-228-1296) Preservation 119,723 6 Closed 11/14/2008 

Annutteliga Hammock DeGolden (15-228-258) Preservation 444,999 40 Closed 11/25/2008 

Annutteliga Hammock - Both (15-228-1293) Preservation 11,057 6 Closed 12/23/2008 

Annutteliga Hammock - O'Ryan (15-228-1295) Preservation 

Restoration - 

263,550 13 Closed 12/23/2008 

Crooked Lake - Stuart (20-697-101) 

land acq 

Restoration - 

5,367,292 3,508 Closed 12/30/2008 

Crooked Lake - Britt (20-697-102) 


Upper Hillsborough - Schaper (10-400-167) Preservation 570,000 33 Closed 7/10/2009 

8/10/2011 Page 2 of 3 

Governing 

Bd Date

13 



Fee LTF 

Parcel/Project Funds Available Category Estimated Cost Acres Acres Comments 

Annutteliga Hammock (6 mega-parcels) Preservation 157,195 14 Closed 11/2009 

Myakka Prairie - Hullinger (21-199-110C) Preservation 500,000 588 Closed 11/4/2009 

Myakka Prairie - Carithers (21-199-106C) Preservation 204,500 233 Closed 2/18/2010 

Myakka Prairie - Chapman (21-199-107C) Preservation 162,500 185 Closed 2/18/2010 

Annutteliga Hammock (2 mega-parcels) Preservation 59,335 5 Closed 3/25/2010 

Myakka Conservation Area - Walton (21-599-105C) Preservation 

Restoration - 

12,610,523 3,760 Closed 7/15/2010 

Three Sisters Springs (15-347-123) 

land acq 1,278,000 57 Closed 7/28/2010 

Myakka Conservation Area - Longino (21-599-106C) Preservation 13,103,100 3,981 Closed 8/19/10 

Annutteliga Hammock (2 mega-parcels) 60,845 7 Closed 8/31/10 

Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement - Crabb and Geiger 


RE Corp (14-009-113 and 114) 

dev - land acq 453,000 2 Closed 4/15/2011 - used Hillsborough River Basin Funds 

Lake Panasoffkee - Netishen (19-528-148) Preservation 4,000 1 Closed 5/10/2011 

Halpata Tastanaki Preserve - Cannon (19-733-117) Preservation 276,650 40 Closed 8/8/2011 

Subtotal Completed Parcels/Projects $ 230,326,610 39,086 29,015 

Subtotal Funds Available $ 23,876,041 

Parcels/Projects Approved By Board (Funds 

Encumbered within DEP Trust Fund) 

Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement - Hillsborough Co 

School Bd (14-009-104P) 

8/10/2011 Page 3 of 3 

Governing 

Bd Date 


dev - land acq 5,500 1 Anticipate closing by September 30 Apr-11 

Myakka Prairie - Horton (21-199-108C) Preservation 557,500 1,236 Anticpate closing by September 15 Apr-11 

South Saddle Creek Restoration and Water Quality 

Treatment Project 

capital 

improvement $ 10,240,108 N/A N/A Funds encumbered 

Subtotal Parcels/Projects Approved By Board $ 10,803,108 - 1,237 

Subtotal Funds Available $ 13,072,933 

Ongoing Acquisitions/Projects 

None at this time 

Subtotal Ongoing Acquisitions/Projects $ - - - 

Grand Total $ 13,072,933 

$ 241,129,718 39,086 30,252 

Note that ongoing acquisition/project totals exceed current funding. As a result, several project have been placed on hold.


August 30, 2011 


Minimum Flows and Levels 

Item 39 

District staff continues to work on various phases of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) 

development for water bodies on the District's MFLs priority list. Attached for the Board's use 

and information is the current Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule – Water 

Body Timelines report that identifies the status of each water body in regard to our five phase 

process of MFL establishment. 



Presenter: Martin H. Kelly, Ph.D., Minimum Flows and Levels Program Director, 

Resource Projects Department 

14

Board Adopted 2011 Priority List 

Schedule and Timeline 

Exhibit A 

RIVERS, SPRINGS and ESTUARIES 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 

Data Collection Data Analysis Rpt to Board / Peer Review Recovery Rule Adoption 

& Internal Draft MFL Report Strategy 

2010 

Chassahowitzka River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

Homosassa River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

Lower Myakka River System completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

Middle and Upper Withlacoochee River System completed completed completed NN Dec 2010 

2011 

Brooker Creek completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Crystal River System & Kings Bay Springs completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Gum Springs Group completed completed Feb 2011 / May 2011 TBD Jun 2011 

Lower Withlacoochee River System completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Little Manatee River System completed Apr 2011 May 2011/ Aug 2011 TBD Oct 2011 

Manatee River System completed Apr 2011 May 2011/ Aug 2011 TBD Oct 2011 

Pithlachascotee River System completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

Rainbow River and Springs completed Mar 2011 Apr 2011/ Jul 2011 TBD Aug 2011 

Shell Creek Estuary completed completed completed Recovery Nov 2011 

Upper Peace River 

"Middle" and "High" Minimum Flows 

completed May 2011 Jul 2011 / Oct 2011 TBD Nov 2011 

2012 

Charlie Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2012 May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

Horse Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2012 May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

North Prong Alafia River Jan 2012 May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

South Prong Alafia River Jan 2012 May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

2013 

Prairie Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 

Shell Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 

2014 

Cypress Creek Jan 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014/ Oct 2014 TBD Nov 2014 

Bullfrog Creek Jan 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014/ Oct 2014 TBD Nov 2014 

2015 

Lower Peace River Jan 2015 May 2015 Jul 2015/ Oct 2015 TBD Nov 2015 

At the Board's direction, staff have added projected dates on which: we expect to have internal draft reports complete, presentation of draft to Board, 

report of peer review to Board, and return for rule establishment. 

* NN = not needed TBD = to be determined 

** Waterbodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Established to Date list when 

the priority list is updated each year. 

15 

Updated August 2, 2011



Exhibit A 

Timeline with waterbodies ordered according to Board Approved 2011 Priority List 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2015 

LAKES 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 

Data Collection Data Analysis Peer Review Recovery Rule Adoption 

& Draft MFL Report Strategy 

Polk County Lakes 

Crystal (near Lake Wales) completed completed NA NN* completed 

North Lake Wales completed completed NA NN completed 

Hillsborough County Lakes 

Carroll June 2011 Aug 2011 NA TBD * Dec 2011 

Hooker June 2011 Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Raleigh completed Aug 2011 completed completed Dec 2011 

Rogers completed Aug 2011 completed completed Dec 2011 

Starvation completed Aug 2011 completed completed Dec 2011 

Wimauma completed completed NA TBD Jun 2011 

Marion County Lakes 

Bonable completed Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Little Bonable completed Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Tiger completed Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Polk County Lake 

Lowery June 2011 Aug 2011 NA TBD Dec 2011 

Hancock completed completed NA completed Jun 2011 

Hillsborough County Lakes 

Hanna June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Keene June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Kell June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Polk County Lakes 

Amoret June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Aurora June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Bonnet June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Easy June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Effie June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Little Aurora June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Josephine June 2012 Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Hernando County Lakes 

Tooke June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Whitehurst June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Highland County Lakes 

Damon June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Pioneer June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Pythias June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Viola June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 


Trout June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 


Eva June 2014 Aug 2014 NA TBD Dec 2014 

* NN = not needed TBD = to be determined 

** Waterbodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Established Updated August to Date 2, list 2011 when 

the priority list is updated each year. 

16



Exhibit A 

Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted 

� Alafia River (upper freshwater segment) 

� Alafia River Estuary (includes Lithia and Buckhorn Springs) 

� Anclote River (estuarine and freshwater segments) 

� Braden River (freshwater segment) 

� Citrus County Lakes – Ft. Cooper, Tsala Apopka – Floral City, Inverness and Hernando Pools 

� Dona Bay/Shakett Creek System 

� Hernando County Lakes – Hunters, Lindsey, Mountain, Neff, Spring and Weekiwachee Prairie 

� Highland County Lakes – Angelo, Anoka, Denton, Jackson, Little Lake Jackson, June-in-Winter, 

Letta, Lotela, Placid, Tulane, and Verona 

� Hillsborough County Lakes – Alice, Allen, Barbara, Bird, Brant, Calm, Charles, Church, Crenshaw, 

Crescent, Crystal, Cypress, Dan, Deer, Dosson, Echo, Ellen, Fairy [Maurine], Garden, Halfmoon, 

Harvey, Helen, Hobbs, Horse, Jackson, Juanita, Little Moon, Merrywater, Mound, Platt, Pretty, 

Rainbow, Reinheimer, Round, Saddleback, Sapphire, Stemper, Strawberry, Sunset, Sunshine, 

Taylor and Virginia. 

� Hillsborough River (lower segment) 

� Hillsborough River – upper segment (including Crystal Springs) 

� Levy County Lake – Marion 

� Peace River (middle segment) 

� Peace River (three upper segments – "low" minimum flows) 

� Lower Peace River 

� Northern Tampa Bay –41 Wetland sites 

� Northern Tampa Bay – 7 Wells – Floridan Aquifer/Saltwater Intrusion 

� Pasco County Lakes – Bell, Big Fish, Bird, Buddy, Camp, Clear, Green, Hancock, Iola, 

Jessamine, King, King [East], Linda, Middle, Moon, Padgett, Parker aka Ann, Pasadena, Pasco, 

Pierce, unnamed #22 aka Loyce 

� Polk County Lakes – Annie, Bonnie, Clinch, Crooked, Dinner, Eagle, Lee, Mabel, McLeod, Parker, 

Starr, Venus, and Wales 

� Myakka River (upper freshwater segment) 

� Sulphur Springs (Hillsborough County) 

� Sumter County Lakes – Big Gant, Black, Deaton, Miona, Okahumpka and Panasoffkee 

� SWUCA – Floridan Aquifer 

� Tampa Bypass Canal 

� Weekiwachee River System and Springs (includes Weeki Wachee, Jenkins Creek, Salt, Little 

Weeki Wachee and Mud River springs) 

17 

Updated August 2, 2011


August 30, 2011 


Structure Operations 

Item 40 

July completes the second month of the four-month annual wet season (June through 

September) and monthly rainfall totals were within the normal range, although slightly below the 

historic monthly average, for all regions of the District. Rainfall was generally uniform 

throughout the District and associated with sea breeze and convective rainstorm activity, with 

most hydrologic indicators showing improvement. The District-wide 12-month cumulative 

rainfall deficit improved in July, ending the month at 6.16 inches below the long-term average, 

while the 24-month and 36-month deficits worsened, ending the month approximately 7.29 and 

13.9 inches, respectively, below the historic average. 

NOAA climate forecasts continue to indicate above-normal rainfall for the rainy season, based 

on a predicted above-average Hurricane Season and current ENSO-neutral conditions in the 

Pacific Ocean. Below-average rainfall during the wet season (June-September) will worsen 

existing low-normal to below-normal hydrologic conditions. The probability is rising for a return 

to La Niña conditions during the winter and spring months. That would result in drier-thannormal 

conditions during those months. 

Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-September. Staff will continue to closely 

monitor conditions in accordance with the District's updated Water Shortage Plan, including any 

necessary supplemental analysis of pertinent data. 

Rainfall 

Rainfall totals for July were within the normal range in all three regions of the District. The 

normal range is defined as rainfall totals that fall on or between the 25 th to 75 th percentiles 

derived from the historical data for each month. 

• The northern region received an average of 7.52 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 

37 th percentile 

• The central region received an average of 7.56 inches of rainfall, equivalent to the 

41 st percentile. 

• The southern region recorded an average of 7.84 inches of rain, equivalent to the 

47 th percentile. 

• District-wide, average rainfall was 7.65 inches, equivalent to the 39 th percentile. 

A summary of the operations made in July is as follows: 

• Inglis Water Control Structures: The Inglis Bypass Spillway was operated during the month of 

July in order to maintain water levels in Lake Rousseau and provide flow to the lower 

Withlacoochee River. The average monthly water level for Lake Rousseau was 27.62' NGVD. 

The recommended maintenance level for the reservoir is 27.50’ NGVD. 

• Withlacoochee River Basin: On the Tsala Apopka Chain of Lakes during the month of July, 

Leslie Heifner, Moccasin Slough, and Golf Course Structures were operated to allow river 

water into the Floral City and Inverness Pools. All other structures in the basin remained 

closed. During July, the Wysong-Coogler Water Conservation Structure main gate was fully 

inflated to 39.00’ NGVD aiding in the regulation of the Lake Panasoffkee water elevation. The 

low flow gate was inflated to 36.40’ NGVD providing minimum flow requirements to the 

Withlacoochee River downstream of the structure. The average monthly water level for Lake 

Panasoffkee was 38.22’ NGVD. 

18

Item 40 

• Alafia River Basin: During the month of July all gates were closed as the Medard Reservoir 

continues the replenishment process. The average monthly water level for the reservoir is 

58.02’ NGVD. Refilling of the Medard Reservoir (60.00’ NGVD) is a gradual process 

dependent on continuing rainfall. 

• Hillsborough River Basin: Structures A and G, Pretty, Armistead, Ellen-Lipsey, Island Ford 

and Flint Creek were operated during the month of July to assist in maintaining recommended 

maintenance levels. Structures S-160 and S-162 on the Tampa Bypass Canal were operated 

to assist in maintaining the recommended maintenance level in the Lower and Middle Pools. 

The average monthly water level for Lake Thonotosassa was 36.02' NGVD compared to the 

recommended maintenance level of 36.50' NGVD. 

• Pinellas-Anclote River Basin: Structure S-551 and the Sawgrass Structure were operated 

during the month of July. A water level of 3.00’ NGVD was maintained on Lake Sawgrass in 

order to facilitate the Lake Sawgrass Restoration Project. The average monthly water level for 

Lake Tarpon was 3.12’ NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 3.20' 

NGVD. 

• Peace River Basin: There were no structures operated during the month of July. The average 

monthly water level for Lake June-in-Winter was 73.23' NGVD compared to the recommended 

maintenance level of 74.50’ NGVD. 

• Green Swamp Basin: There were no structures operated during the month of July. The 

average monthly water level for Lake Gibson was 142.22' NGVD. The recommended 

maintenance level for the lake is 143.00’ NGVD. 



Presenter: David Crane, Manager, Structure Operations Section 

19

STRUCTURE 

STRUCTURE OPERATIONS SECTION HYDROLOGIC REPORT 

August 8, 2011 

ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF 

LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE STRUCTURE LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE 

FLINT CREEK 36.07 Gate 1 Open 0.20' FLORAL CITY POOL 38.86 

HIGH LEVEL 37.00 -0.93 Gate 2 Open 0.20' HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 41.80 -2.94 Leslie Heifner Fully Open 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.50 -0.43 All drop gates: 36.00' MSL HIGH MIN LEVEL 41.20 -2.34 Floral City Fully Open 

LOW LEVEL 34.50 1.57 invert 32.9' MIN LAKE LEVEL 39.80 -0.94 Golf Course Golf Course All Gates Closed 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 39.60 -0.74 invert 38.0' Moccasin Slough Open 

KELL 65.25 

HIGH LEVEL 66.00 -0.75 Open (No Boards) INVERNESS POOL 37.08 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 65.50 -0.25 HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 40.30 -3.22 Brogden Bridge Closed 

LOW LEVEL 63.50 1.75 invert 64.66' HIGH MIN LEVEL 40.10 -3.02 Brogden Bridge Brogden Culvert Closed 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 38.70 -1.62 invert 34.25' Bryant Slough gates Closed 

KEENE 61.27 Keene 1: Closed 6" Of Board LOW GUIDE LEVEL 37.80 -0.72 

HIGH LEVEL 63.00 -1.73 Keene 2: Open 6" Of Board 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 62.50 -1.23 1-invert 61.6' Keene 3: Open (No Boards) HERNANDO POOL (S353) 35.54 

LOW LEVEL 60.50 0.77 2-invert 61.6' Sherry's Brook: 18" Of Board HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 39.00 -3.46 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 38.70 -3.16 S-353 Van Ness Closed 

STEMPER 59.63 MIN LAKE LEVEL 37.30 -1.76 invert 36.5' S-353 Gates Closed 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 61.20 -1.57 Open 8" Of Tapered Board LOW GUIDE LEVEL 35.90 -0.36 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 60.80 -1.17 Two Mile Prairie (max) 35.00 -11.72 23.28 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 59.40 0.23 invert 60.25' 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 59.10 0.53 LESLIE HEIFNER 38.91 Upstream (RIVER level) 

UPSTREAM 40.04 38.87 Downstream (POOL level) 

HANNA 60.30 DOWNSTREAM 40.03 0.01 Gate Fully Open 

HIGH LEVEL 62.50 -2.20 18" Of Board Installed invert 35.0' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 61.75 -1.45 

LOW LEVEL 59.50 0.80 invert 60.28' WYSONG-COOGLER 

UPSTREAM 39.50 -2.10 37.40 Main Gate At 39.10' 

CYPRESS CREEK Flood Stage DOWNSTREAM 35.99 Low Flow Gate at 35.90 

WORTHINGTON GARDENS 8.00 -3.65 4.35 Drop Gate Open 3.0'. 116 USGS cfs flow 

INGLIS 27.61 

SAWGRASS LAKE HIGH LEVEL 28.00 -0.39 By-pass Gates Open 1.50' 

HIGH LEVEL 5.00 -2.27 2.73 Gate 1 Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 27.50 0.11 Main Gates Closed 

LOW LEVEL 3.80 -1.07 Gate 2 Open 3.17' LOW LEVEL 26.50 1.11 invert 11.3' 457 Total Bypass cfs flow 

Gate 3 Open 0.50' 

TARPON (S551) 3.29 LAKE BRADLEY 

HIGH LEVEL 3.80 -0.51 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 42.50 -4.26 38.24 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 3.20 0.09 Main Gates 1,2,3,4 open 1.00' Gate Fully Closed 

LOW LEVEL 2.20 1.09 Drop Gates 1,2,3,4 Open 3.20' LAKE CONSUELLA 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.50 -6.18 35.32 

ANNE PARKER 47.57 All Logs in Closed 

HIGH LEVEL 48.75 -1.18 36" of Board Installed MEDARD RESERVOIR 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 48.25 -0.68 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 60.00 -0.90 59.10 Gate Fully Closed 

LOW LEVEL 45.75 1.82 invert 46.40' 

HANCOCK (P11) 98.10 Gauge at structure 

WHITE TROUT 34.91 HIGH LEVEL 99.00 -0.90 98.11 Gauge on lake 

HIGH LEVEL 36.50 -1.59 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 98.50 -0.40 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.00 -1.09 18" of Board Installed LOW LEVEL 96.00 2.10 invert 91.7' Gates Closed 

LOW LEVEL 34.00 0.91 invert 32.94' HENRY (P5) 124.48 

HIGH LEVEL 126.50 -2.02 LRLMD 

KEYSTONE 41.70 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 126.00 -1.52 

HIGH LEVEL 42.00 -0.30 Gate 1 Closed LOW LEVEL 124.00 0.48 invert 122.0' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.75 -0.05 Gate 2 Closed 

LOW LEVEL 39.75 1.95 invert 37.2' SMART (P6) 125.58 

HIGH LEVEL 128.75 -3.17 LRLMD 

CRESCENT 42.10 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 128.50 -2.92 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 41.90 0.20 Gate Open 0.60' LOW LEVEL 126.50 -0.92 invert 127.2' 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 41.30 0.80 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 40.30 1.80 invert 38.5' FANNIE (P7) 119.98 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 39.80 2.30 HIGH LEVEL 125.75 -5.77 LRLMD 


ISLAND FORD 40.96 LOW LEVEL 123.50 -3.52 invert 119.5' 

HIGH LEVEL 41.50 -0.54 All Gates Open 0.30' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.00 -0.04 invert 35.0' HAMILTON (P8) 118.85 

LOW LEVEL 39.00 1.96 crest 41.25' HIGH LEVEL 121.50 -2.65 LRLMD 


PRETTY 44.52 LOW LEVEL 119.00 -0.15 invert 113.0' 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 44.30 0.22 Lift Gate Closed 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 43.90 0.62 Drop 1&4 Open 1.20' LENA (P1) 133.65 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 42.50 2.02 invert 38.0' HIGH LEVEL 137.00 -3.35 Gates closed 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 42.20 2.32 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 136.75 -3.10 

LOW MANAGEMENT 134.50 -0.85 invert 134.47' 

MAGDALENE 48.83 Lake gauge 

HIGH LEVEL 50.00 -1.17 48.91 Structure gauge JUNE-IN-WINTER (G90) 72.92 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 49.50 -0.67 HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 74.70 -1.78 Gates Closed 

LOW MANAGEMENT 47.50 1.33 invert 45.6' Gates Closed HIGH MIN LEVEL 74.50 -1.58 Overflow at 75.00' MSL 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 74.00 -1.08 invert 65.37' 

BAY 45.38 LOW GUIDE LEVEL 73.20 -0.28 

HIGH LEVEL 46.75 -1.37 Gates Closed ARIETTA (P3) 139.01 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 46.00 -0.62 HIGH LEVEL 144.00 -4.99 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 44.00 1.38 invert 44.0' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 142.50 -3.49 

LOW LEVEL 141.00 -1.99 invert 137.4' 

ELLEN-LIPSEY 40.55 Structure Gauge 

HIGH LEVEL 41.50 -0.95 40.55 Lake Gauge GIBSON 142.15 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.00 -0.45 Both Gate Closed HIGH LEVEL 143.50 -1.35 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 39.00 1.55 invert 37.6' Drops: At 41.00' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 143.00 -0.85 Stop log bays at 142.64' crest 

Low Level 141.50 0.65 invert 141.4' 

CARROLL 34.63 

HIGH LEVEL 37.00 -2.37 24" of Board Installed PARKER 129.62 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.50 -1.87 HIGH LEVEL 131.00 -1.38 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 34.50 0.13 invert 34.17' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 130.75 -1.13 

LOW LEVEL 128.75 0.87 invert 129.15' 

ARMISTEAD 41.54 

HIGH LEVEL 44.00 -2.46 Gate Open 1.55' PEACE RIVER Flood Stage 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 43.00 -1.46 BARTOW 8.00 -4.00 4.00 

LOW LEVEL 40.50 1.04 ZOLFO SPRINGS 16.00 -9.85 6.15 

ARCADIA 11.00 -8.32 2.68 

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER Flood Stage 

MORRIS BRIDGE 32.00 -6.69 25.31 S-155 is open LITTLE MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage 

FOWLER 29.00 -6.27 22.73 WIMAUMA 11.00 -7.10 3.90 

WITHLACOOCHEE R. Flood Stage ALAFIA RIVER Flood Stage 

TRILBY 61.27 -6.07 55.20 LITHIA 13.00 -9.12 3.88 

CROOM 47.94 -6.08 41.86 

HIGHWAY. 48 38.93 MYAKKA RIVER Flood Stage 

LAKE PANASOFFKEE 40.70 -2.51 38.19 MYAKKA STATE PARK 7.00 -3.02 3.98 

HOLDER 35.52 -7.52 28.00 

MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage 

ANCLOTE RIVER Flood Stage MYAKKA HEAD 11.00 -7.84 3.16 

ELFERS 20.00 -9.95 10.05 

20

ISLAND FORD 

KEYSTONE 

CRESCENT 

´ 

TARPON 

PINELLAS 

#* 

LEVY 

#* 

#* 

ROUSSEAU 

ANN-PARKER 

#* 

#* #* 

#* 

PRETTY 

ARMISTEAD 

SAWGRASS 

CITRUS 

#* #*#* 

#* #* 

#* 

#* #* 

HERNANDO POOL 

#* 

INVERNESS POOL 

CONSUELLA 

HERNANDO 

PASCO 

#* 

BRADLEY 

KELL 

HANNA 

KEENE 

STEMPER 

FLORAL CITY POOL 

#* 

#* #* 

#* 

MARION 

LESLIE HEIFNER 

THONOTOSASSA 

MAGDALENE 

BAY 

ELLEN-LIPSEY 

CARROLL 

WHITE TROUT #* 

MEDARD 

SARASOTA 

HILLSBOROUGH 

MANATEE 

SUMTER 

21 

LOWERY 

GIBSON ARIETTA (P-3) #* HAINES 

#* #* #* #* HENRY (P-5) 

PARKER#* 

#* #* #* SMART (P-6) 

LENA (P-1) #* FANNIE (P-7) 

POLK 

HAMILTON (P-8) 

#* 

LAKE 

HANCOCK (P-11) 

HARDEE 

DESOTO 

District 

Structure 

Sites 

ORANGE 

VOLUSIA 

OSCEOLA 

HIGHLANDS 

#* 

FLAGLER 

SEMINOLE 

JUNE-IN-WINTER (G-90)

22 

Water Surface Elevation 


145.00 

144.50 

144.00 

143.50 

143.00 

142.50 

142.00 

141.50 

141.00 

140.50 

140.00 

Lake Gibson 

Daily Average Values 

Lake Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

Lake Thonotosassa 



Lake Surface Area = 480 Acres 

Low Slab = 144.81' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 100.00' 

Lake Gauge Datum = 135.00 MSL 

SCADA Device Number 2427 


Low Slab = 39.0' 

Flint Creek Gauge Datum = 32.16 

SCADA Device #6807 


5.50 

5.00 

4.50 

4.00 

3.50 

3.00 

2.50 

2.00 

1.50 

1.00 

0.50 

Lake Tarpon, S-551 




49.50 

49.00 

48.50 

48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

Lake Anne Parker 



Lake Surface Area =2,534 

SCADA Device # 6491 


Low Slab = 40.09' 

SCADA Device Number: 8491

23 



63.50 

63.00 

62.50 

62.00 

61.50 

61.00 

60.50 

60.00 

59.50 

59.00 

58.50 

58.00 

57.50 

57.00 

56.50 

56.00 

55.50 

55.00 

Lake Hanna 



67.50 

67.00 

66 66.50 50 

66.00 

65.50 

65.00 

64.50 

64.00 

63.50 

63.00 

62.50 

62.00 

61.50 

Lake Kell 


Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 63.68' 



Low Slab = 68.09' 


Lake Gauge Datum = 54.45' MSL 



64.00 

63.50 

63.00 

62.50 

62.00 

61.50 

61.00 

60.50 

60.00 

59.50 

59.00 

58.50 

58.00 

57.50 

57.00 

56.50 

56.00 

Lake Keene 



63.00 

62.50 

62.00 62.00 

61.50 61.50 

61.00 

60.50 

60.00 

59.50 

59.00 

58.50 

58.00 

57.50 

57.00 

56.50 

56.00 

55.50 

55.00 

54.50 

54.00 

53.50 

53.00 

Lake Stemper 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 



Lake Surface Area = 58.32 Acres 

Low Slab = 63.70 


SCADA Device # 2067

24 



48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

Bay Lake 


Lake Level Low Level Max. Desireable High Level 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

Crescent CrescentLake Lake 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 

Lake Surface area = 37 Acres 

Low Slab = 47.80' 

Structure Gauge Datum = Direct Read 

Lake auge Datum = Direct Read 

SCADA Device Number = 1647 


Low Slab = 44.63' 


Lake Gauge Datum = Direct Read 




38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

30.50 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

Lake Carroll 



Lake Island Ford 


WSE Low Level Max Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 39.50' 




Low Slab = 42.64 


SCADA Device number = 1621 

L

25 


Water Surface Elevation tion 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

Lake Keystone 



51.00 

50.50 

50.00 

49.50 

49 49.00 00 

48.50 

48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

Lake Magdalene 


Structure Level Lake Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 43.53' 




Low Slab = 51.80' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 45.52 




42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

Lakes Ellen and Lipsey 


Lipsey WSE Lake Ellen Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45 45.00 00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

Lake Pretty 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 42.35' 



(Pretty, Rock, Josephine combined) 

Low Slab = 47.10' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 40.00'

26 

Water Surface Elevationn 


38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

29.50 

29.00 

28.50 

28 28.00 00 

27.50 

27.00 

26.50 

26.00 

25.50 

25.00 

24.50 

Lake White Trout 



Lake Rousseau 




Low Slab = 39.41' 




Structure Gauge Datum = 10.00 



132.00 

131.50 

131.00 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

Lake Lowery 



Water Surface Elevation ion 

144.50 

144.00 

143.50 

143.00 

142 142.50 50 

142.00 

141.50 

141.00 

140.50 

140.00 

139.50 

139.00 

138.50 

138.00 

137.50 

Lake Arietta (P-3) 




Low Slab = 131.61 



Lake Gauge Datum = 100.00' 

SCADA Device Number 7431

27 



40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

Hernando Pool 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min. Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

Leslie Heifner 


Upstream Level Downsream Level 


Low Slab = 40.47' 




Low Slab = 47.80' 

SCADA Device #6767 & #6766 


Water Surface Elevation ion 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

Inverness Pool 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min. Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

30.50 

30.00 

Floral City Pool 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min.Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 42.54' 




Low Slab = 44.10' 



SCADA #2007

28 

Water Surface Elevation on 


128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

122.50 

122.00 

121.50 

121.00 

120.50 

120.00 

119.50 

119.00 

Lake Fannie (P-7) 



103.00 

102.50 

102.00 

101.50 

101.00 

100.50 100 50 

100.00 

99.50 

99.00 

98.50 

98.00 

97.50 

97.00 

96.50 

96.00 

95.50 

95.00 

94.50 

Lake Hancock (P-11) 


Gauge at Structure Lake Level Low Level Max Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 127.60' 



Lake Surface Area = 4,541 Acres 




124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

122.50 

122.00 

121.50 

121.00 

120.50 

120.00 

119.50 

119.00 

118.50 

118.00 

117.50 

117.00 

116.50 


128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126 126.00 00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

122.50 

122.00 

121.50 

121.00 

Lake Hamilton (P-8) 



Lake Henry (P-5) 







Structure Gauge Datum = 100.00' MSL 

S.R. Gauge Datum = 120.00' MSL 


29 



138.00 

137.50 

137.00 

136.50 

136.00 

135.50 

135.00 

134.50 

134.00 

133.50 

133.00 

132.50 

132.00 

133.00 

132.50 

132.00 

131.50 

131.00 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

Lake Lena (P-1) 



Lake Parker 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High MinLv. & High Guide Lv. 


Lake Gauge Datum = 132.12 






Water Surface Elevationn 

77.00 

76.50 

76.00 

75.50 

75.00 

74.50 

74.00 

73.50 

73.00 

72.50 

72.00 

Lake June-in-Winter (G-90) 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128 128.50 50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 

Lake Smart (P-6) 






SCADA Device Number=6136 


Low Slab = 131.43' 

Lake Gauge Datum = 120.00' MSL

30 



9.00 

8.50 

8.00 

7.50 

7.00 

6.50 

6.00 

5.50 

5.00 

4.50 

4.00 

3.50 

3.00 

2.50 

2.00 

1.50 

Lake Level Low Level High Level 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

Sawgrass Lake 


Lake Haines 




Low Slab = N/A 




Low Slab = 131.61' 




Water Surface Elevation ation 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

Lake Armistead 



63.5 

63.0 

62.5 

62.0 

61.5 

61.0 

60.5 

60 60.0 0 

59.5 

59.0 

58.5 

58.0 

57.5 

57.0 

56.5 

56.0 

55.5 

55.0 

54.5 

54.0 

53.5 

Medard 


Water Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 45.72' 



31 


43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

31.50 

31.00 

Lake Consuella 

Weekly Average Values 

Water Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 47.80' 


eypad 


43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

Lake Bradley 

Weekly Average Values 



Low Slab = 44.38'


August 30, 2011 


Item 41 

Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map 

Modernization Status Report 

District staff continues to work on various steps of the District’s Watershed Management 

Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization. Attached for the 

Board’s information is the current schedule that identifies the status of each watershed for the 

topographic information, watershed evaluation, watershed management plan, and Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The list also indicates whether the updated FIRMs will be a 

redelineation of the existing FIRMs or based on a detailed study. 




32

Topographic 

Information 

Watershed 

Model Public Meetings 

Present to 

Board 

Submit 

Preliminary 

DFIRMs to 

FEMA 

Year 

2009 

County 

�� 


Blue Sink complete complete complete complete complete 

Bystre Lake complete complete complete complete complete 

Centralia complete complete complete complete complete 

Chassahowitzka River complete complete complete complete complete 

Croom complete complete complete complete complete 

Little Withlacoochee complete complete complete complete complete 

Lizzie Hart Sink complete complete complete complete complete 

McKethan complete complete complete complete complete 

Oman Quarry/Indian Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

Powell complete complete complete complete complete 

Spring Hill Lakes/Aripeka complete complete complete complete complete 

Toachodka complete complete complete complete complete 

Tooke complete complete complete complete complete 

Weeki Wachee Prairie complete complete complete complete complete 

Willow Sink complete complete complete complete complete 

Wiscon complete complete complete complete complete 

Eastern Hernando complete complete complete complete complete 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Anclote - E. of Suncoast complete complete complete complete complete 

Cypress Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

East Pasco complete complete complete complete complete 

Trout Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

Island Of Venice complete complete complete Sep 2011 Dec 2011 

Whitaker Bayou complete complete complete Sep 2011 Dec 2011 

Hudson Bayou complete complete complete complete Dec 2011 

Roberts Bay complete complete complete Sep 2011 Dec 2011 

Alligator Creek complete complete complete Sep 2011 Dec 2011 

Big Slough - Northport complete complete Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Feb 2012 

Note: FEMA will start their formal appeals period for adoption after the District submits the preliminary DFIRMS to FEMA. 

33

Topographic 

Information 


Model Public Meetings 

Present to 

Board 

Submit 

Preliminary 

DFIRMs to 

FEMA 

Year 

2010 

County 

�� 


Upper Peace River complete complete Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 

Christina complete complete complete complete Jan 2012 

Peace CreekCanal complete complete Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 

Polk City complete complete Sep 2011 Nov 2011 Jan 2012 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

Thornton Branch complete complete complete complete Sep 2011 

Deep Creek Gully complete complete complete complete Sep 2011 

Buzzards Roost Run complete complete complete complete Aug 2011 

City of Wauchula complete complete complete complete Aug 2011 

Horse Creek complete complete complete complete Aug 2011 

Alligator Branch complete complete complete complete Aug 2011 

Thompson Branch complete complete complete complete Aug 2011 

Limited Detailed Studies complete complete Sep 2011 Nov 2011 Jan 2012 

East Citrus complete Sep 2011 Dec 2011 Feb 2012 Mar 2012 

Crystal River complete complete complete complete Jan 2012 

Tsala Apopka complete complete Aug 2011 Oct 2011 Jan 2012 

Cardinal Lane complete complete Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 

Homosassa River complete Sep 2011 Feb 2012 Apr 2012 May 2012 

Center Ridge complete complete complete Aug 2011 Jan 2012 

Buffalo Canal/Frog Creek complete complete completed complete complete 

Note: FEMA will start their formal appeals period for adoption after the District submits the preliminary DFIRMS to FEMA. 

34


August 30, 2011 


Item 42 

Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects 

This report provides information on significant Resource Management projects and programs in 

which the Governing Board is participating in funding. The report provides a brief description 

and status of significant activities associated with the project that have recently occurred or are 

about to happen. For greater detail, refer to the Project Information Management System 

(PIMS) write-ups or request information directly from the project manager identified with the 

project. 

Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project 

This project is being implemented as part of the adopted Southern Water Use Caution Area 

(SWUCA) Recovery Plan for restoring minimum flows in the upper Peace River. The project 

began in 2002 with preliminary feasibility and development of a scope of work to raise the water 

level in the lake. The District received the conceptual environmental resource permit (CERP) for 

the project from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in June 2007 with an 

operating level of up to 100 feet (currently the District operates the P-11 structure at an 

elevation of 98.7 feet). In response, the Governing Board in September 2007 authorized the 

project to go forward with final design, permitting, and construction; adopted the Resolution 

Authorizing Proceedings in Eminent Domain, including a Declaration of Taking; amended the 

2007 Update to the Florida Forever Work Plan to include all lands identified as necessary for the 

project, designating $41 million in Florida Forever Trust Funds; and designated and 

encumbered $79 million in General Fund Water Supply and Resource Development Reserves 

for the project. Seventy-three parcels were identified as necessary to acquire in fee (40 parcels) 

or a lesser interest (33 easement parcels). At the September 2007 meeting, the Governing 

Board instructed staff to exhaust all negotiations prior to filing eminent domain proceedings. All 

property owners have been contacted and offers made. On June 12, 2009, DEP approved the 

District’s request to extend the CERP commence construction deadline to June 14, 2011. In 

September 2010, the District received eight bids for construction of the new P-11 structure. The 

District decided to reject all bids and issue a new request for bid based upon ambiguities in the 

bid documents. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The District awarded the construction of 

the new P-11 water control structure to the lowest responsive bidder, Lucas Marine LLC on 

June 20, 2011. Lucas Marine withdrew their bid on July 6, 2011. The District is currently 

evaluating the next lowest bidder. The District’s consultant, Amec-BCI, Inc., and District staff 

attended an onsite pre-application meeting with DEP staff on July 6, 2011, for the mitigation 

projects on the Coscia and Old Florida Plantation tracts. Amec-BCI submitted the application 

package for the SR540 at Jacque Lee Lane mitigation project to the Florida Department of 

Transportation on August 1, 2011. Acquisition Status: Of the 73 parcels necessary for the 

project, 69 parcels (8,419 acres including 35 homes) have been acquired. The remaining 

acquisitions include a total of four parcels (120 acres) comprised of partial easement 

acquisitions. District staff has made offers on all acquisitions necessary for the project. 

Currently, all remaining acquisitions are being handled through the District's special counsel 

who has proceeded with offers made in accordance with Florida Statutes. The District’s special 

counsel has initiated legal proceedings on the remaining easement parcels. Legal action related 

to the easement parcels is proceeding. The District’s special counsel and staff continue to 

evaluate opportunities for settlement that would avoid litigation. Recent mediations related to the 

valuation of the Weflen and Shea properties (fee acquisitions) were unsuccessful. In order to 

prepare for those portions of the Old Florida Plantation Development of Regional Impact (DRI) 

not needed for its projects, the District is proceeding with its application for a Notice of Proposed 

Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment through the City of Bartow, Central Florida 

Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs. The changes to the 

DRI will allow the proposed development to accommodate the District’s Lake Hancock 

35

Item 42 

minimum flows and levels (MFL) and land use projects. Project Managers: 

Scott Letasi/Michael Peck/Steve Blaschka 

Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project 

At the February 2006 Governing Board meeting, the Board approved the staff recommendation 

to adopt a 27 percent nitrogen load reduction goal and to utilize wetlands as the primary 

treatment component. The selection of wetlands as the treatment option was based on a 

comprehensive consultant investigation into alternative treatment technologies. All 

environmental permits have been received for the project. Following the receipt of bids on 

April 6, 2011, the apparent low bidder (PCL Construction, Inc.) was determined to be responsive 

and responsible. The low bid of $20,128,170 is within budget and below the engineer’s 

estimate. Staff advertised notice of award of the bid to PCL Construction, Inc., on April 21. On 

May 5, PCL Construction, Inc., filed a formal written protest of the award. After approval at the 

May Governing Board, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearing. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: With regard to the bid protest, the low bid contractor withdrew 

its protest and agreed to perform the work. District staff proceeded to finalize the construction 

contract and to negotiate the consultant scope and budget for construction engineering and 

inspection (CEI) services. The consultant amendment will be presented at the August 

Governing Board meeting. In order to be within the 180-day requirement for bids to be honored, 

construction must commence by October 6, 2011. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

informed the District that all Special Appropriations allocated in EPA’s fiscal year (FY) 2008 and 

earlier were placed on hold. Staff will resubmit the application for the FY2009 funds, totaling 

$485,000. If EPA makes the earlier appropriated funds available, a revised application will be 

submitted. EPA funds will offset District Save Our Rivers (Water Management Lands Trust 

Fund) funding. Project Manager: Janie Hagberg 

Watershed Management Program/Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization 

The District initiated a partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to 

modernize Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as part of its Watershed Management Program 

(WMP). Flood protection and floodplain information has been a priority at the District since the 

inception of the organization, and that priority was renewed following the El Niño weather event 

in 1997-1998. In addition to studies conducted by the District and others, information on 

floodplains (elevations) is available through the FEMA FIRMs. However, many of the existing 

maps do not accurately represent the flood-prone areas, either because the initial studies were 

technically limited or the maps are outdated due to significant land use changes since 

completion. Accurate floodplain information is vital to local government planning and zoning, 

and to the District’s regulatory program and the land owners. To improve the floodplain 

information, develop regional scale flood routing models for alternative analysis, and improve 

local governments’ understanding of their flood protection level of service, the District reached 

out to local governments and initiated the WMP in the late 1990s. Additionally, the District and 

FEMA executed a Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Memorandum of Agreement on 

September 14, 2001, to formalize the relationship and to improve the existing FIRMs to better 

identify risks of flooding within the District. As a CTP, the District is eligible for federal funds to 

act as FEMA's partner in modernization of the FIRMs. Federal funds have allowed the District 

and local governments to accomplish significantly more than would have otherwise been 

possible. To date, the District has received $12.1 million in federal funds from FEMA for 

countywide map modernization projects for Pasco, Sarasota, Hernando, Marion, Polk, Hardee, 

DeSoto, Citrus, and Sumter, Levy, and Highlands counties. The Map Modernization Program 

also includes federal funding for management support. FEMA began FIRM updates for 

Hillsborough and Marion counties before the District became a CTP. FEMA issued its letter of 

determination finalizing the FIRMs for Hillsborough and Marion counties, and the FIRMs 

became effective on August 28, 2008. New Activities Since Last Meeting: Hernando County: 

The FEMA FIRM “90-Day Appeal and Protest Period,” in which objections to information shown 

on the digital map or in the accompanying Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may be reported, 

commenced with the second notice in local papers on December 3, 2010. Appeals and protests 

are submitted through the communities, then to the District, and finally to FEMA for final 

consideration. The appeal and protest period ended on March 2, 2011. There were five protests 

submitted, two of which were valid and have been addressed. Commencement of the six-month 

36

Item 42 

federal compliance period for the flood prevention ordinances started on August 2, 2011. Pasco 

County: The countywide preliminary maps and FIS reports have been submitted to FEMA for 

post-preliminary processing. Sarasota County: Intensive analysis continues for the Island of 

Venice, Roberts Bay, Alligator Creek, and Big Slough watershed model updates and for seven 

certified watershed models provided by Sarasota County. Polk County: Work continues in the 

county; Peace Creek, Polk City and Upper Peace River�� 

being reviewed and refined. Hardee County: The Alligator Branch, Buzzard’s Roost, Thompson 

Branch, City of Wauchula, and Horse Creek watersheds have been incorporated into the 

Hardee County FIRMs. The District and communities are currently reviewing panels of the draft 

FIRM maps. DeSoto County: Thornton Branch was approved by the Governing Board at the 

June meeting. Detailed studies for Deep Creek and Thornton Branch are being incorporated 

into the FIRMs for DeSoto County. Sumter County: A scoping meeting was conducted on 

December 8, 2010. Representatives from the County, each of the cities, and interested parties 

attended. Project approach and federal requirements were discussed and documented in the 

scoping report submitted to FEMA in February. A stakeholder advisory meeting was held on 

March 28, 2011. Citrus County: Watershed models are being developed by consultants; Crystal 

River was already approved by the Board and provided to the FIRM mapping consultant; Center 

Ridge is scheduled to be presented to the Governing Board in August and several other 

watersheds are being reviewed by District staff. Data from the Cardinal Lane watershed was 

presented to the peer reviewer July 14. Levy County: Post-preliminary processing continues and 

notification of approval of the Levy County base flood elevation was published in the Federal 

Register on December 29, 2010. Notifications were published in the local newspaper on 

February 17 and 24. The “90-Day Appeal and Protest Period” was completed on May 25, 2011. 

Marion County: Modernized FIRMs were adopted in August 2008. The County and District are 

updating the watershed models to account for infiltration in deep sandy soils. Gum Swamp, Big 

Jones Creek, Flemington, Hog Prairie, Northwest Ocala, Blichton, Cotton Plant 1, Martel, 

SR 200, Cotton Plant 2, and Cotton Plant 3 watersheds are in the peer review and public 

meeting process. The floodplain results from these watersheds may be used to update the 

FIRMs by the County and FEMA. The Withlacoochee River, Withlacoochee Region, and 

Withlacoochee River 2 watersheds were approved by the Governing Board in December. 

Manatee County: Buffalo Canal/Frog Creek has been approved by the Board and has been 

provided to the FIRM mapping consultant. FEMA will manage the production of the FIRMs and 

the map adoption process. An open house was held for the Gamble Creek watershed on 

July 19 at Gene Witt Elementary School. Highlands County: The District’s consultant is 

coordinating with the South Florida Water Management District, FEMA, and the County to 

discuss preliminary maps. Project Manager: Gordon McClung 

Myakka River Watershed Initiative and Flatford Swamp Hydrologic Restoration 

The Myakka River Watershed Initiative (MRWI) is a comprehensive project that will illustrate the 

effects of land use conversions and alterations and evaluate best management practices for 

environmental restoration alternatives. A primary focus of the initiative is the Flatford Swamp 

area. The overall objective of this initiative is to restore historic water quantity regimes, improve 

water quality, natural system, and reduce floodplain impacts in the watershed in ways that can 

also provide a benefit to water supplies in the SWUCA. In February 2006, the Governing Board 

allocated $500,000 to hire a consultant team to perform elements of the WMP and for the 

collection of topographic information in eastern Manatee County using light detection and 

ranging (LiDAR) mapping technologies. Several outreach meetings were held to solicit 

stakeholder input and gather data. A water budget model comparing existing and historic 

conditions within Flatford Swamp was developed to determine the amount of excess water that 

could be captured for a beneficial use. This information was provided to the Peace River 

Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) for use in its latest water supply master 

plan. Several preliminary scenarios for removal of excess water from the swamp have been 

evaluated and presented. The Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the development of 

a scope of work for a feasibility study to determine Mosaic’s potential uses for excess water 

from Flatford Swamp received Governing Board approval at the November 16, 2010, meeting. 

The revenue agreement with Mosaic was executed and the District will act as the lead party in 

the feasibility study. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The District is developing the 

consultant contract for the feasibility study with Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. The Watershed 

37

Item 42 

Management Plan work orders covering hydraulic modeling and investigation of best 

management practices to address issues in target areas such as the Blackburn Canal were 

executed to start the final element in the MRWI. Acquisition of digital infrared aerial airborne 

imagery has been completed. This data will be used to map vegetation in the project area using 

a vegetation classification system developed by the District. Soil biogeochemical sample 

collection has also been completed and analysis of the samples has commenced. Project 

Managers: Lisann Morris/Mary Szafraniec 

Tampa Bay Water 

� System Configuration II Project: The Governing Board approved the agreement with Tampa 

Bay Water (TBW) for the System Configuration II project at its February 2007 meeting; the 

cooperative agreement was executed May 1, 2007. The project, when completed in 

December 2011, is expected to provide up to 25 million gallons per day (mgd) of alternative 

water to the regional system. The estimated total project cost is $247,694,339 with the District 

committing to half of eligible costs of $232 million, which is $116 million. The project seeks to 

increase TBW's overall system capacity by drawing more water from the Hillsborough River 

during high flows via the Tampa Bypass Canal (TBC), in combination with increasing the 

allowable percentage of withdrawals from the TBC. The project components are primarily 

associated with improvements to the regional systems treatment, transmission, and storage 

infrastructure. Specifically, this project includes six surface water pumping projects and four 

system interconnects that will allow TBW to deliver the new alternative water supply to its 

member governments. The Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) Expansion, TBC Pump 

Station Expansion, TBW Regional High Service Pump Station Expansion, SWTP Repump 

Station Expansion, South Central Hillsborough Intertie Booster Pumping Station, and Offstream 

Reservoir Pump Station are all project components that contribute to the downstream 

enhancements. The South Central Hillsborough Infrastructure Project (SCHIP) Phases IB 

and II, Northwest Hillsborough Pipeline, Morris Bridge Booster Station Expansion, and 

Cypress Creek Pump Station Expansion are part of the system interconnects. New Activities 

Since Last Meeting: The project is currently on schedule, with construction completion 

expected by December 31, 2011. The SCHIP Phases IB and II, Morris Bridge Booster Station 

Expansion, Surface Water Treatment Plant Expansion, and TBC Pump Station Expansion are 

complete. The remaining six components are under construction. Project Manager: 

Alison Ramoy 

� Surface Water Expansion Project: This is a four-year feasibility study to determine the 

availability of surface water withdrawals from surface water supply sources (including the 

Alafia River and Bullfrog Creek), evaluate expanding TBW’s reservoir, and perform cost 

analyses. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The project is currently on schedule. Ongoing 

activities include performing additional modeling runs and assessments of water supply 

expansion options, as well as cost analyses. The next status meeting is planned for 

September. Project Manager: Sandie Will 

Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

� Regional Integrated Loop System Project: The Integrated Loop System Feasibility and 

Routing Study recommended four main phases to interconnect the water supply and 

distribution systems of Authority members and non-member customers. Phases 1 and 1A 

connect the Peace River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to the City of Punta Gorda’s Shell 

Creek WTP. Phase 1 would extend the Authority’s existing transmission line in DeSoto 

County along US 17 southward. Design was completed in 2007, but the project has been 

indefinitely postponed in favor of constructing Phase 1A. Phase 1A will provide additional 

service to developed portions of Charlotte County near I-75. The project includes 

approximately 12 miles of pipeline with a capacity of 6 mgd and a subaqueous crossing of the 

Peace River. A cooperative funding agreement between the District and Authority for Phase 

1A was executed in September 2008. Design was completed in October 2009. A construction 

contract was awarded to Garney Companies in August 2010. Construction commenced in 

March 2011 and is scheduled for completion by June 2012. Total cost is estimated at 

$19,015,000 with the District providing up to $12,007,500, which includes $5 million in West- 

Central Florida Water Restoration Action Plan funding. The Phase 2 interconnect will run from 

the Peace River WTP to a connection with the City of North Port near Serris Boulevard. 

38

Item 42 

Future sub-phases may extend to the City’s WTP, then branch westward to the Englewood 

Water District and northward to establish a rotational link with the Carlton WTP. The first 

seven-mile, 42-inch diameter segment is being developed by the Authority to deliver the City’s 

allocated share from the Peace River WTP. The City and the Authority executed an Interlocal 

Agreement to develop Phase 2 in June 2009. The cooperative funding agreement for Phase 2 

was executed in May 2010. The construction contract was awarded in May 2011. The total 

project cost provided in the funding agreement is $15,400,000. The District’s share of eligible 

costs is $7,783,015 and includes $166,031 in Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Funds 

(WPSTF). Phases 3 and 4 will eventually interconnect the Carlton WTP to water supply 

systems in Manatee County. Preliminary engineering for Phase 3 was completed in 

March 2008. The first portion of this pipeline, Phase 3A, will extend the Authority’s existing 

regional transmission line that currently terminates at the Carlton WTP. Phase 3A will provide 

an additional water delivery point to Sarasota County and create a potential intertie to the City 

of Venice. This project includes 8.5 miles of 48-inch diameter pipeline with a design capacity 

of 37 mgd and includes a subaqueous crossing of the Myakka River. The cooperative funding 

agreement for Phase 3A was executed in November 2008. Construction commenced in 

February 2010 and is scheduled for completion in March 2012. The total project cost is 

estimated to be $31,879,240. The District’s share of eligible costs is $13,825,135 and includes 

$166,031 in WPSTF. The future expansion of Phase 3B northward will join long-term 

components of Phase 4 in Manatee County and will connect to the surface water treatment 

facility on Lake Manatee and a WTP on University Parkway. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting: Phase 1A construction continues along multiple portions of the pipeline route and 

pumping station. The remaining 100 linear foot easement on the northern end of project was 

obtained by transfer from Charlotte County to the Authority. The subaqueous crossing of the 

Peace River is scheduled to begin in August 2011. The Phase 2 construction easement in 

North Port remains under negotiation. The pipe installation schedule has been modified to 

work around the remaining easement parcel. Phase 3A construction is nearing substantial 

completion. Operational tests are underway to calibrate control systems and examine 

pressure changes on Sarasota County’s distribution system. Project Manager: John Ferguson 

� Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Arsenic Research 

This project is investigating methods for controlling the mobilization of arsenic occurring during 

aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) activities. Beginning in 2008, the District initiated a pilot 

project with the City of Bradenton for the design, permitting, and construction of a 

degasification system to remove dissolved oxygen (DO) from water prior to injection and 

storage in the aquifer. The project is co-funded by the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District, South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management 

District, the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, and the City of 

Bradenton. The pilot project is being performed at the City of Bradenton's ASR site and is 

capable of processing water at 700 gallons per minute with 99.96 percent removal of DO. 

Construction of the degasification system was completed in June 2008 at a cost of $700,000. 

Preliminary operation cost is estimated at approximately 10 cents per thousand gallons. The 

first attempt at running a full cycle test with deoxygenated water began on December 2, 2008. 

The system, however, was shut down on December 17, 2008, due to equipment failure. 

Repairs to the degasification system were made in January 2009 and the test was restarted in 

August 2009. The recharge portion of the test was completed in May 2010 with an optimal 

storage volume of 160 million gallons (mg) of treated water having been injected, exceeding 

the minimum goal of 140 mg. Recovery of the stored water started on September 7, 2010. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: The 160 mg cycle test with pre-treated water was 

successfully completed on February 23, 2011, and all the recovered water was well within the 

drinking water standard of 10 ug/l. The results received to date clearly show the pre-treatment 

process of removing dissolved oxygen does control arsenic mobilization. The City is preparing 

a final report documenting the pre-treatment system performance and a DEP operating permit 

application for submittal. The summary report is the only outstanding deliverable remaining on 

the pre-treatment pilot project. The City is now operating the system 100 percent with their 

own staff and started recharge for the next 160 mg cycle in June, with recovery beginning next 

March. The District will remain involved with the project until December 2011 under the 

original ASR contract which covers the cycle testing and permitting portion of the project. 

Project Manager: Don Ellison 

39

Item 42 

Lower Hillsborough River MFL Recovery Strategy – Implementation 

At the August 2007 meeting, the Governing Board established the minimum flow for the lower 

Hillsborough River (LHR). As required by statute, if the actual flow of a water course is below 

the proposed minimum flow or is projected to fall below the proposed minimum flow over the 

next 20 years, a "recovery strategy" must be developed as part of the minimum flow 

development process. In the case of the LHR, a recovery strategy was needed. The proposed 

recovery strategy was approved by the Governing Board at the August 2007 meeting. The 

recovery strategy includes a number of projects to divert water from various sources to help 

meet the minimum flow. Projects that are planned under the recovery strategy include 

diversions of water from Sulphur Springs, Blue Sink, the TBC, and Morris Bridge Sink. Pursuant 

to the recovery strategy, 75 percent of the 11 cubic feet per second (cfs) (8.2 cfs or 5.3 mgd) 

transferred to the reservoir from the TBC is being pumped to the base of the dam. This amount 

of fresh water, in combination with 10 cfs supplied from Sulphur Springs to the base of the dam 

by the City of Tampa (COT), indicates an actual minimum flow of 18.2 cfs (11.8 mgd) or 70-to- 

80 percent of the adopted minimum flow is now being supplied to the LHR, depending on 

season. A COT request for a variance to deadlines for completion of recovery strategy projects 

was approved at the June 2011 Governing Board meeting. The deadlines for project completion 

were extended as follows: Lower Weir – December 1, 2011; Upper Weir and Pump House – 

October 1, 2012; Blue Sink Project – December 31, 2013. New Activities Since Last Meeting: 

For the permanent pump station at Morris Bridge Sink, staff scheduled pre-application meetings 

with permitting agencies and prepared the Request for Bid in July. Due to improved hydrologic 

conditions in the upper Hillsborough River beginning in July, both the COT and the District 

ceased diversions from Sulphur Springs and the TBC. Project Managers: Marty Kelly/ 

David Crane/Jennette Seachrist 

TECO’s Southwest Polk Power Station Interconnects to Lakeland and Polk County 

� Reuse Project: This project, consisting of transmission pipelines and a deep injection well, 

will provide reclaimed water from several domestic wastewater treatment facilities to Tampa 

Electric Company’s (TECO) power facility in southwest Polk County. TECO will be expanding 

the power generation capacity at its Polk Power Station with the addition of Unit 6. Phase I of 

the project will provide approximately 6 mgd of reclaimed water from the City of Lakeland and 

Polk County for the first TECO expansion. Additional quantities are also available from the 

City of Mulberry. Phase I of the project was expected to use 6 mgd of reclaimed water by 

2013. Due to the economic downturn and reduced demands, TECO has delayed the addition 

of Unit 6. However, TECO intends to replace, to the greatest extent possible, existing 

groundwater uses with reclaimed water before the expansion is complete, as required by the 

cooperative funding agreement. While the reclaimed water infrastructure and deep injection 

well are still expected to be complete by 2013, the project will not use the full 6 mgd until 

Unit 6 is operational. In order to utilize the reclaimed water, additional treatment is necessary, 

consisting of filtering and possible reverse osmosis to reduce dissolved solids to an 

acceptable level. The reverse osmosis reject water (concentrate by-product) will be mixed with 

other facility discharge water and pumped to one of two proposed deep injection wells for final 

disposal. While the wells are being drilled as part of this project, only one will be eligible for 

cooperative funding. Phase I is estimated to cost $72,686,800 which includes the portion of 

the project that will provide TECO with reclaimed water from the City of Mulberry. Plans for 

Phase II, originally estimated to be underway by 2012, have also been delayed. Initial 

estimates indicate that 6 mgd of reclaimed water will be needed for TECO's second phase of 

expansion, although the source has not been identified. New Activities Since Last Meeting: 

Drilling at the new site commenced on May 3, 2010; and the injection well has been drilled to 

8,000 feet. Associated drilling activities are anticipated to continue through August. The 

12.25-inch pilot hole at the monitor well has been back-plugged. The pilot hole is being 

reamed to 26-inches in preparation for installation of the 16-inch diameter casing. Preliminary 

engineering activities have been completed, and TECO received the final mass balance from 

AECOM. District staff processed the third request for reimbursement from TECO. TECO 

entered into an agreement with AECOM for pipeline and pump station engineering. The 

Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement between TECO and Mulberry has been finalized and is 

awaiting execution. TECO also anticipates entering into a separate Reclaimed Water Supply 

Agreement with Polk County by October. Project Manager: Alison Ramoy 

40

Item 42 

� Aquifer Recharge Projects: In 2009, the District funded a study (H076) as part of the 

Regional Reclaimed Water Partnership Initiative to assess the feasibility of using highly 

treated reclaimed water to recharge the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) in the southern 

Hillsborough and Polk County areas. Findings from the study indicate that it is possible to 

develop direct and indirect aquifer recharge projects to improve UFA water levels and provide 

opportunities for additional groundwater withdrawals. The costs associated with developing 

these projects were found to be comparable to costs of other planned alternative water supply 

projects. Since completing the study, several local governments have expressed interest in 

assessing the applicability of aquifer recharge in their areas. District staff is working with these 

entities to develop and implement project plans to assess the site specific feasibilities of 

implementing aquifer recharge projects to address their individual needs. Prior to initiating 

work, District staff also reviews project tasks to avoid as much duplicative efforts as possible 

between cooperators. 

� Currently-Funded Aquifer Recharge Projects – FY2010/2011 Cooperative Funding 

� City of Clearwater - Groundwater Replenishment Project 

This is an indirect potable reuse desktop feasibility study and pilot testing project to evaluate 

the viability of using 3 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water to increase water levels within 

the northeast portion of the City and provide possible future water supplies at their existing 

wellfield. The feasibility study was completed in May 2011. The results showed that water 

level improvements from direct recharge into the brackish zone of the UFA can potentially 

provide additional water supplies to the City and that water treatment requirements could be 

met with current available technologies. The study also showed that preliminary cost 

estimates for the full-scale facility would be $4.07 per thousand gallons. Therefore, the City 

will move forward with pilot testing to confirm the findings. The pilot testing program includes 

permitting, installing a recharge well and associated monitor wells, evaluating aquifer 

characteristics, testing water treatment and recharge, and conducting public outreach. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: The agreement to perform pilot testing was signed in July. 

It is anticipated that District staff will attend a kick-off meeting in September to discuss the 

project approach and goals. Project Manager: Sandie Will 

� City of Winter Haven - Reclaimed Water for Recharge Feasibility Study 

This is a desktop feasibility study to evaluate using 4 mgd of highly treated excess reclaimed 

water for indirect aquifer recharge to benefit water levels in the area. New Activities Since 

Last Meeting: District staff attended the project kick-off meeting with the City and their 

consultant in July to discuss the project approach and goals. The City will provide monthly 

updates to the District and set up quarterly meetings to discuss the progress. The next 

meeting is anticipated to be in November. Project Manager: Sandie Will 

� Pasco County - Reclaimed Water Natural Systems Treatment and Restoration Project 

This was an eight-month desktop feasibility study to assess using 10 mgd of highly treated 

reclaimed water to indirectly recharge the UFA via constructed wetlands and/or rapid 

infiltration basins (RIB) in the Crews Lake and central Pasco areas. The preliminary 

feasibility study was completed in January and showed that indirect aquifer recharge is a 

viable option for Pasco County. The Phase II feasibility study will include a screening 

analysis for potential rapid infiltration basin locations, as well as cost analyses refinements. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: The scope of work for the Phase II feasibility study 

was finalized in June. It is anticipated that the agreement will be signed and work will 

commence by the end of August. Project Manager: Mike Hancock 

� Polk County - Groundwater Recharge Investigation 

This is an indirect aquifer recharge desktop feasibility study and pilot testing project to 

evaluate improvements to UFA water levels from applying varying quantities of reclaimed 

water flows into existing RIB systems in the County's Northeast Regional Utilities Service 

Area. Sites being evaluated include the Northeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility 

and Polo Davenport. Tasks include performing a site characterization, installing monitoring 

wells, performing aquifer and RIB characterization activities, and conducting recharge 

testing for one year. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The agreement was approved 

and signed in July. It is anticipated that District staff will attend a kick-off meeting with the 

County and their consultant in September. Project Manager: Sandie Will 

41

Item 42 

� South Hillsborough County Aquifer Recharge Program (SHARP) 

This is a direct aquifer recharge pilot project to evaluate directly recharging the non-potable 

zone of the UFA with up to 2 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water at the County’s Big Bend 

facility near Apollo Beach in southern Hillsborough County. The pilot testing program 

includes permitting, installing a recharge well and associated monitor wells, assessing 

aquifer characteristics, performing recharge testing, evaluating water level improvements, 

migration of the recharge water and metals mobilization, and conducting public outreach. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: The agreement was approved and signed in July. It is 

anticipated that District staff will attend a kick-off meeting with the County and their 

consultant in September. Project Manager: Sandie Will 

Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Flow Meter and Automatic Meter Reading 

Equipment Implementation Program 

At the June 2011 Governing Board meeting, the Board reviewed the Dover/Plant City Water 

Use Caution Area (DPCWUCA) Flow Meter and Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Equipment 

Implementation Program (program) and authorized staff to encumber $1,394,980 from FY2011 

into FY2012 to implement the program. The program administration will be guided by a District 

Procedure. The program is being implemented as a result of several groundwater drawdown 

events related to frost/freeze protection of agricultural commodities in the Dover/Plant City area. 

In January 2010, this area experienced a record number of well failures (760) related to 

groundwater drawdown associated with irrigation used for crop frost/freeze protection. The 

magnitude of the 2010 frost/freeze event brought into focus the need to further enhance the 

collection of hydrogeological data, including water use information, to better understand and 

manage the relationship between pumping and groundwater drawdown. As part of the District’s 

response to these events, a series of Stakeholder and Technical Work Group meetings were 

held to develop management strategies. Potential management strategies were also discussed 

by the Governing Board at several Board meetings in spring 2010. At the June 2010 Governing 

Board meeting, the Board directed staff to proceed with the establishment of the DPCWUCA 

and a recovery strategy that included the expansion of data collection activities through the 

installation of flow meters and AMR equipment. The Board also authorized the use of $50,000 in 

contingency funds to begin AMR implementation. At the December 2010 Governing Board 

meeting the Board adopted a minimum aquifer level in the DPCWUCA (Rule 40D-8.626, Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.)), as well as a recovery strategy (Rule 40D-80.075, F.A.C.) that 

incorporated flow meters and AMR installations to reduce resource impacts from future 

frost/freeze pumping events. The rules went into effect on June 16, 2011. Meter information in 

the Dover/Plant City area will be used by the District to: (1) improve the allocation of well 

mitigation responsibilities among permit holders, (2) allow District staff to better identify permit 

compliance issues resulting from pumping during frost/freeze events, (3) improve the modeling 

of impacts resulting from pumping during frost/freeze events, (4) allow the monitoring of 

performance and track the progress of management actions implemented, and (5) provide for 

the overall assessment of the recovery strategy goal of reducing frost/freeze protection 

quantities by 20 percent in ten years. It is estimated that 626 flow meters and 961 AMR devices 

will need to be installed within the 256-square mile DPCWUCA. Total costs of the program are 

estimated to be $5.5 million for flow meter and AMR equipment installation with approximately 

$300,000 required annually to support the program. The implementation schedule is to 

complete all flow meter installations within three years (September 2014) and AMR installations 

within five years (September 2016). New Activities Since Last Meeting: Staff contacted the 

twenty-one permittees identified to initiate flow meter installations as a trial to test program 

procedures. Installations began in early August 2011. Staff is routing the Request for Proposal 

to obtain a qualified consultant to install AMR equipment. AMR installations should begin by 

November 2011. Project Manager: Paul Yosler 

Land Resources 

In July 2011, a Frog Listening Network presentation was held at the New River Library in 

Zephyrhills. Following the presentation, staff conducted a night hike to identify frog and toad 

calls at the Upper Hillsborough Preserve. 

42

Item 42 

Fire Activity 

A shift to summertime rain patterns has significantly decreased likelihood of wildfires on District 

lands. During FY2011, 12 fires totaling 1,313 acres have occurred on District lands. District staff 

has conducted nearly 16,000 acres of prescribed burns on District lands since October 1, 2010, 

and continued rains have made conditions favorable toward reaching our expected FY2011 goal 

of 30,000 acres. 


This item is presented for the Board’s information; no action is required. 

Presenter: Bruce C. Wirth, Deputy Executive Director, Resource Management 

43


August 30, 2011 

FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 



44. Executive Director Recruitment ......................................................................................... 2 

45. General Services Department 

(Strategic Plan: Mission Support) 

a. Brooksville Building 5 – Solar Photovoltaic System Update ........................................ 3 

b. Bartow Service Office – Renovation Update ............................................................... 4 

46. Approve Resolution Committing Fund Balance in Compliance 

with Board Policy 130-9 ..................................................................................................... 6 


47. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Update ........................................................................................ 9 



b. Review of Changes Since July 26, 2011 

�� 

TIME CERTAIN –3:00 P.M. 

48. Total Compensation (Salary & Benefits) Study – Final Report from 

Evergreen Solutions ........................................................................................................... 13 


�� 



a. Security Certification Update Report – Fiscal Year 2009 Human Resource 

Information System Security Audit............................................................................... 14 

b. Regulation Division – Water Management Information System AGMOD Audit ......... 20 


50. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Reserves Report .................... 23 

51. Monthly Financial Statements ............................................................................................ 28 

52. Management Services Significant Activities ...................................................................... 33


August 30, 2011 


Executive Director Recruitment 

Item 44 

Purpose/Background 

This agenda item is to allow for further discussion or action by the Governing Board as may be 

needed to move the Executive Director recruitment process forward. 

Status 

On June 17, 2011, the Governing Board initiated recruitment for a new Executive Director. At 

the Governing Board meeting on July 26, 2011, the Board determined a short list of candidates 

to be interviewed and subsequently conducted in-person interviews of six candidates on 

August 2, 2011. The Board selected two candidates to receive a second, in-person interview on 

August 29, 2011. 

A final decision on selection is anticipated at the August 30, 2011 Governing Board Meeting. 

Recommendation: 

To be provided by the Governing Board at its monthly meeting. 

Presenter: Elaine M. Kuligofski, Director, Human Resources & Risk Management Department 

2


August 30, 2011 


General Services Department 

Brooksville Building 5 – Photovoltaic System Update 

Item 45.a. 

Purpose 

Staff will request confirmation or redirection of an approved Capital Improvement Project: 

Brooksville Building 5 – Photovoltaic System. 

Background 

During the “Governor’s Climate Change Summit,” Governor Crist urged environmental agencies 

and Water Management District’s to explore potential investments in alternative energy options. 

The District’s Executive Director, David Moore, requested that staff pursue and evaluate cost 

effective Photovoltaic Cell technology options for the District. Staff identified this option as the 

best option at the time. A solar photovoltaic (PV) system is a series of panels or laminate, 

mounted on the roof of a building, which converts sunlight directly into electricity with no moving 

parts, no fuel, and no pollution. The identified product adheres directly to the roof without 

penetrations and is approved for roofing manufacturer warranties. It is flexible and lightweight, 

weighing only one pound per square foot, compared to five pounds per square foot for a 

traditional solar system. 

The flat roof on Brooksville's Building 5 was selected as the first site because it will allow the 

most efficient system to be installed. The proposed system is a 78KW system that is hurricane 

resistant and is Miami-Dade Building Code Approved with a Notice of Acceptance (NOA). The 

cost for the proposed system is $367,867 with a 25-year warranty period. The PV system will 

initially reduce the District’s electric bill by approximately $15,000 per year and provide a 

payback period of approximately 17 years. Staff was unable to identify Federal grant funding at 

the time of this project; however, funding may be available in the future. 

Discussion 

Staff has identified potential options for the Board to consider at this time. The three options 

identified are as follows: 

1. Proceed with the project 

2. Pursue grant funding, and if successful, re-bid the project with updated specifications 

3. Cancel the project and take no further action 


Staff recommends option 2 or option 3. 

� If option 2 is selected, staff further recommends extending the existing encumbrance of funds 

until 09/30/2012. 

� If option 3 is selected, staff further recommends liquidating the existing encumbrance and 

transferring the funds to the District’s short term projects reserve. 

Presenter: Lloyd A. Roberts, Director, General Services Department 

3


August 30, 2011 


General Services Department 

Bartow Service Office – Renovation Update 

Item 45.b. 

Purpose 

This is an action item. Staff will request the Board confirm or reconsider the working 

assumption of long-term ownership of the Bartow campus. Based on different assumptions, 

staff will present options in consideration of major renovations to the facility. 

Background 

Building 1 was built in 1991 to accommodate growth at the Bartow Service Office and houses 

staff from the Bartow Regulation, Land Resources, General Services and Community & 

Legislative Affairs Departments. Building 1 has approximately 25,000 square feet, of which 

5,000 square feet was originally planned to be occupied by the Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP). The DEP ultimately chose not to occupy the space, nor did the District 

expand its workforce. Over the years, the District considered leasing the unoccupied space; 

however, the lease option was not pursued so not to compete with the local private sector. 

The existing 50-ton and 10-ton air conditioning systems are the original equipment that were 

installed when the building was built and are at the end of their efficient operating lifecycle. 

A new 60-ton chilled water system is being considered to replace the existing two units. Over 

the years, the building has had ongoing problems with humidity and cooling. A January 27, 2009 

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) engineering study found significant issues with 

the capacity of the system, condensate routing, poorly controlled humidity in the occupied 

spaces, size and location of the mechanical mezzanine and lined ductwork. The study also 

identified problems with the existing attic insulation. The study recommended a total 

replacement of the HVAC system as well as the attic insulation. Accordingly, this activity 

constitutes a major renovation. 

The U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) guidelines for design, products and construction practices, in 

compliance with Section 255.2575, Florida Statutes, Energy-Efficient and Sustainable Buildings, 

may apply. This project, if undertaken, includes the temporary relocation of staff and the 

removal of the ceiling to perform this work. While this project is underway, the lighting, carpet, 

floor tile, ceiling, fire alarm system, and modular furniture will be replaced. The fire alarm system 

is required to be replaced to meet current building code. 

Discussion 

Nine bids were received on August 4, 2011. The bids ranged from $1,560,000 to $1,777,820. 

The current budget for the total project is $2,358,000. Some of the additional tasks for this 

project include modular furniture replacement, staff relocation, carpeting, and IRD cabling. 

At the June meeting, the Board questioned whether long-term ownership and renovating 

Building 1 was the best option considering the current economic environment. As a result, staff 

has compiled a ten-year cost analysis comparing three options. The analysis considers the 

Fair Market Value of the premises to be $1.5 million dollars. The property has a high land to 

building ratio and because the original design for the facility was to be a campus, the facilities 

were not located with an anticipation of subdividing the parcel. This has narrowed the 

marketability of the property to a limited use. 

4

Item 45.b. 

Option 1: Assumes the District will continue long-term ownership of the existing Bartow 

campus. 

Option 2: Assumes the District will lease and use available space for the Bartow staff and sell 

the Bartow campus. 

Option 3: Bartow staff to continue to remain at the Bartow Service Office, in its current 

condition, with the Facilities and Construction Services Section providing the 

necessary preventative maintenance and repairs as needed. This is the process 

staff is currently using and would only require the Board to cancel the Bartow 

Service Office Renovation Project. 


Renovation of BSO Lease Option 

Option 1 Option 2 

Annual 10-Year Annual 10-Year Annual 10-Year 

Utilities $54,800 $548,000 $7,500 $75,000 $68,500 $685,000 

Janitorial 40,700 407,000 5,000 50,000 40,700 407,000 

Maint & Repairs 27,500 275,000 5,000 50,000 37,000 370,000 

Salaries 70,000 700,000 - - 70,000 700,000 

Insurance 14,000 140,000 2,500 25,000 14,000 140,000 

Security 62,000 620,000 25,000 250,000 62,000 620,000 

Lease - - 306,000 3,060,000 - - 

Mortgage - - - - - - 

West Wing Rental (85,000) (850,000) - - (85,000) (850,000) 

Annual Cost Subtotal $184,000 $351,000 $207,200 

Lk Hancock Renovation - - $75,000 $75,000 - - 

Vacated Bldg. Maint. - - 30,000 30,000 - - 

Campus Sale Price - - (1,500,000) (1,500,000) - - 

Capital Improvement $1,560,000 $1,560,000 - - - - 

Temporary Relocation 200,000 200,000 - - - - 

10-Year Cost Total $3,600,000 $2,115,000 $2,072,000 

The Board confirm or reconsider the assumption of long-term ownership of the Bartow campus. 

If long-term ownership is confirmed, staff recommends Option 1 or Option 3. If not, staff 

recommends Option 2, which includes selling the Bartow campus and leasing office space for 

the Bartow staff. 

Presenter: Lloyd A. Roberts, Director, General Services Department 

5 

Status Quo 

Option 3


August 30, 2011 


Adopt Resolution Committing Fund Balance in Compliance with Board Policy 130-9 

Item 46 

Purpose 

Request that the Governing Board adopt Resolution 11-15 setting forth Governing Board 

commitments in accordance with Board Policy 130-9, Fund Balance. 

Background 

At the July 26, 2011 Governing Board meeting, Board Policy 130-9, Fund Balance, was adopted 

in compliance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 54. The 

policy defines fund balance classifications by type, including non-spendable, restricted, 

committed, assigned and unassigned. Non-spendable fund balance includes items “not in 

spendable form” such as inventory and prepaid items. Restricted fund balance represents items 

which are restricted by law or regulations such as the balances in the former Basins. 

Committed fund balance can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to formal action by the 

Governing Board (i.e., a formal Resolution). Assigned fund balances were established within 

Board Policy 130-9 for Millage Stabilization (Short-Term Projects) and Workers’ Compensation 

Claims. Unassigned fund balance is a residual classification for any funds not classified to the 

previous classifications. 

The purpose of this request is to establish fund balance commitments for Long-Term Projects at 

$50 million, Economic Stabilization at $20 million, and Workers’ Compensation Claims at 

$692,000. 


Adopt Resolution No. 11-15, Committing Fund Balance in Compliance with Board Policy 130-9 

for Long-Term Projects, Economic Stabilization, and Workers’ Compensation Claims. 

Presenter: Daryl F. Pokrana, Director, Finance Department 

6


RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 

COMMITTING FUND BALANCE 

IN COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD POLICY 130-9 

WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

has approved Board Policy 130-9, Fund Balance, with an effective date of June 28, 2011; and 

WHEREAS, Board Policy 130-9, Fund Balance, dictates that a portion of fund balance 

will be committed to fund Long-Term Projects associated with future water supply and water 

resource development and other long-term District core mission projects approved by the 

Governing Board; and 


will be committed for Economic Stabilization for the purpose of maintaining sufficient working 

capital for a two-month period, with the minimum amount set at $20 million; and 


will be committed to fund Workers’ Compensation Claims for the purpose of ensuring adequate 

funding for workers’ compensation claims that are either open or are incurred but not reported. 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District: 

1. That $50 million of the District’s fund balance be committed to fund Long-Term 

Projects. 

2. That $20 million of the District’s fund balance be committed for Economic 

Stabilization for the purpose of maintaining sufficient working capital for a two-month 

period. 

3. That $692,000 of the District’s fund balance be committed to fund Workers’ 

Compensation Claims. The amount will be adjusted biennially based on an 

independent actuarial study. 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of August, 2011, by the Governing Board of 

the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 

Attest: 


By: 

______________________________ 


DRAFT 

7 

H. Paul Senft, Jr., Chair

STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH 

CERTIFICATE AS TO RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 

We, the undersigned, hereby certify that we are, Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District, organized and existing under and by virtue of 

the Laws of the State of Florida, and having its office and place of business at 2379 Broad 

Street, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, and that, on the 30 th day of August, 2011, at a 

duly called and properly held meeting of the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District, at 7601 Highway 301 North, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, at 

which meeting a majority of the members of the Governing Board were present, the resolution, 

which is attached hereto and which this certificate is a part thereof, was adopted and 

incorporated in the minutes of that meeting. 

Dated at Tampa, Florida, this 30 th day of August, 2011. 

Attest: 

______________________________ 


STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH 



By: _________________________________ 

H. Paul Senft, Jr., Chair 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30 th day of August, 2011, by 

H. Paul Senft, Jr., and Douglas B. Tharp, Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the Governing 

Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a public corporation, on behalf of 

the corporation. They are personally known to me. 

WITNESS my hand and official seal on this 30 th day of August, 2011. 

__________________________ 

Notary Public 

State of Florida at Large 

My Commission Expires: 

8


August 30, 2011 


Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Budget Update 


b. Changes to Budget Since July 26, 2011 

Item 47 

Purpose 

Staff will provide the Governing Board an update on the fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget 

development process, including discussion of a revised budget request for the McGregor-Smith 

Property and an overview of the proposed changes since the last budget update on July 26, 

2011, and upcoming activities. 

Background 

At the July 26 Governing Board meeting, staff provided a FY2012 budget update including an 

overview of various projects in follow-up to the June presentation of the Recommended Annual 

Service Budget to the Governing Board. The Governing Board reviewed the five mediumranked 

Basin projects that had not been approved for funding in June for those Basins not 

having adequate existing Basin funds. Following discussion, the Governing Board approved 

funding the medium-ranked Peace River Basin project – Fort Meade Stormwater Utility Study 

(N362) for $37,500. The Governing Board also discussed the proposed capital Improvement 

projects. Following discussion, the Governing Board adopted a proposed FY2012 District 

millage rate of 0.3928 mill. The proposed FY2012 millage rate was certified to the county 

property appraisers on August 2. The proposed millage rate will be used for the Truth in Millage 

(TRIM) Notices of Proposed Property Taxes to all District taxpayers. 

On August 1, the Standard Format Tentative Budget was submitted to the Governor, the 

President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Legislative Budget 

Commission, the Secretary of the Department on Environmental Protection (DEP), and the 

governing body of each county in which the district has jurisdiction or derives any funds for the 

operations of the district. The tentative budget was also posted on the District’s website. The 

report reflected the budget as approved by the Governing Board on July 26. 

McGregor-Smith Property Budget Request 

Staff will present a revised budget request for the McGregor-Smith property (formerly 

referenced as Flying Eagle Youth Center) consistent with the letter dated August 9, 2011 from 

H. Paul Senft, Governing Board Chair, to Herschel T. Vinyard, Secretary of DEP, and attached 

as an exhibit to this item. The budget request is being revised to request the funds necessary to 

make minimum repairs for public safety and to maintain the structural integrity of improvements, 

rather than major renovations to the facilities. 

Changes to Budget Since July 26, 2011 

Staff will review any proposed budget changes since the July 26, 2011 meeting, as well as any 

guidance from the Executive Office of the Governor, DEP or the Legislature. 

The Legislative Budget Commission has scheduled a meeting on September 7, 2011 to review 

the water management districts’ tentative budgets as submitted on August 1, 2011. 

9

Item 47 

The District's FY2012 budget will be adopted in September following two public TRIM budget 

hearings. The first hearing is scheduled for 5:01 p.m. at the Tampa Service Office 

on September 13, 2011. Written disapproval of any portion of the budget must be received from 

the Executive Office of the Governor or the Legislative Budget Commission at least 

five business days prior to the final budget adoption hearing. The second and final hearing is 

scheduled for 5:01 p.m. at the Tampa Service Office on September 27, 2011. 


Approve the changes to the FY2012 proposed budget as presented on August 30, 2011. 

Presenter: Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Director, Finance Department 

10


August 30, 2011 


Item 48 

Total Compensation (Salary & Benefits) Study – Final Report by Evergreen Solutions 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to provide the Governing Board with a final report on the Total 

Compensation (Salary and Benefits) analysis performed by Evergreen Solutions, LLC. 

Background 

During the February 29, 2011 Governing Board meeting, the Board approved Evergreen 

Solutions LLC to perform a total compensation (salary and benefits) review. Staff provided 

requested information to Evergreen Solutions in preparation for performing this review. In April 

Evergreen Solutions conducted employee focus groups at all service offices for its study and 

provided a status update to the Governing Board at the April 26, 2011 Board meeting. 

Evergreen Solutions identified and developed a comprehensive list of survey targets (both 

public and private sector) for conducting a successful external labor market assessment which 

includes a market salary survey and a market benefit survey. 

Beginning in May and extending through June, these targets were contacted to seek their data 

for comparison to the District’s pay plan and benefits. In June they worked on finalizing the data 

collection and began their analysis. In July the Evergreen project team worked on concluding 

their analysis, developing strategic positioning recommendations and drafting the final report. 

The final report was delivered to the Board at the beginning of August 2011. 

Evergreen Solutions will make a presentation of the final report to the Governing Board on the 

Total Compensation (Salary & Benefits) Review it performed and lead a discussion of the 

findings and recommendations. The Board will also have opportunity to ask questions of the 

Evergreen project team. 


Accept the report on District Total Compensation (Salary & Benefits) provided by Evergreen 

Solutions. 

Presenters: Evergreen Solutions 

13


August 30, 2011 


Office of General Counsel 

Item 49.a. 

Security Certification Update Report: FY 2009 Human Resource Information System 

(HRIS) Security Audit 

In accordance with Governing Board Policy 140-1, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports 

to the Governing Board on the status of corrective actions taken usually within six months after 

an audit report of the District is published. Because of the comprehensive and extensive nature 

of the action plan generated from this audit with 63 remediation and improvement tasks 

identified, OIG continues to monitor the implementation and progress made in achieving 

security certification. 

In the original audit, completed in August 2009, staff determined that: 

1. The application did not meet best practice certification criteria in 16 of the audit findings and 

therefore could NOT be security certified. Detailed information on the findings 

(CONFIDENTIAL) along with solution tasks were provided by the contractor and 

incorporated into a remediation action plan by OIG. 

Since the last HRIS Security Certification Update to the Governing Board on July 26, 2011, 

following risk remediation & certification status was reported by IRD and validated by OIG: 

1. Of the sixty-three (63) original remediation and improvement tasks identified, twenty-two 

(22/35%) have been fixed. (Chart #1) 

2. Of the eight (8) HIGH RISK vulnerabilities found that should be fixed for pure security 

reasons, seven (7/88%) have been fixed. (Chart #2) 

3. Of the sixteen (16) vulnerabilities found that are required to be fixed for security certification 

based on best-practices, five (5/31%) have been fixed. (Chart #3) 

4. HRIS is NOT security certified nor is it envisaged for the near-term (≤ 6 months). 

Chart #1: 2009 HRIS ∑ Security Risk Findings (63) 

65% 

14 

35% 

Fixed 

Not Fixed

Chart #2: HRIS HIGH RISK Findings - Status 

13% 

87% 

Chart #3: ∑ Findings RQD Fixed for Certification (16) 

67% 

Item 49.a. 

Fixed 

Not Fixed 

5. Senior management has been fully briefed on the impact, exploitability and accessibility 

levels required to affect the threat profile of any known residual risks. Furthermore, senior 

management accepts responsibility for monitoring, managing any reporting any security risk 

events or risk status changes pertaining to the unmitigated vulnerabilities known to exist 

within the HRIS application. Senior management has also committed to persevere in 

remediating known risks or replacing HRIS. (Enclosure (1) Pertains) 

6. Accordingly, and in view of aforementioned risk acceptance documentation, OIG favorably 

endorses the recommendation to have Management Services assume responsibility for 

monthly reporting to the Board through established Routine Reports mechanism. OIG will 

continue to monitor and validate HRIS remediation and certification status reports submitted. 

(Enclosure (2) Pertains) 

15 

33 % 

Fixed 

Not Fixed


This item is presented for the Committee’s information only, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Robert R. Dunne, Acting Inspector General 

16 

Item 49.a.


August 30, 2011 


Office of General Counsel 

Item 49.b. 

Regulation Division – Water Management Information System (WMIS) AGMOD Audit 

The Governing Board authorized the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct the WMIS 

AGMOD Audit as part of the Fiscal Year 2011 Audit Plan. 

Purpose 

This audit was to provide Governing Board and Executive Management reasonable 

assurance that a statistically valid test was performed to ensure WMIS AGMOD (.net) and 

prior versions of AGMOD (2000) would produce identical results when the same real permit 

scenario data was entered into both applications. 

Background 

While Florida typically receives generous amounts of rainfall, the timing and non-uniform 

distribution of this rainfall is often not adequate to meet the needs of water use crop 

demands for optimal yields. In order to generate the yield necessary for successful 

production, supplemental irrigation is often required to meet those demands. 

AGMOD is the main tool used by the District’s water use permit (WUP) reviewers for 

allocating agricultural and recreational supplemental irrigation quantities. As demonstrated 

by the pie charts below, this is the largest segment of the District’s entire WUP population. 

AGMOD is a computer program used to calculate crop establishment, cold protection, 

supplemental irrigation, and other water uses like system maintenance. Water use permit 

reviewers enter various site and project specific characteristics including, but not limited to, 

soil type, crop type, acres requiring irrigation, geographic location, and irrigation system 

specifications. Those inputs are entered into AGMOD, which calculates a recommended 

total for a supplemental allocation for permitting purposes. In addition, AGMOD is used for 

non-regulatory planning purposes by District conservation staff which enables them to 

complete their critical work on long range water use estimation / planning. AGMOD was first 

developed in 1988-89, as part of the Water Use Permitting rule revision effort at that time. It 

has since been modified and updated as new information became available and new rule 

requirements came into being, such as the Water Use Caution Areas. The irrigation 

information utilized by the program was widely shared and accepted by the regulated 

community. 

When the District converted from mainframe operations and moved regulatory operations to 

new WMIS technology, AGMOD 2000 had to be rewritten. For multiple reasons, including 

potential legal consequences, the District needed to ensure that the rewritten AGMOD (.net) 

would produce the same results as AGMOD 2000, when tested in real world scenarios. 

Regulation Division Management accepted the following levels of AGMOD model variances. 

� Individual Permits – less than or equal to 1% output variation between AGMOD 2000 and 

AGMOD.net. 

� General Permits - less than or equal to 3% output variation between AGMOD 2000 and 

AGMOD.net. 

� Small General Permits - less than or equal to 5% output variation between AGMOD 2000 

and AGMOD.net. 

20

23% 

404 Individual Permits 

By Predominant Use 

7% 

10% 

Methodology 

Item 49.b. 

� Base data 

o Base data was compiled from a WMIS download that consisted of all active water use 

permits (WUPs) as of November 16, 2010. 

o The base permit population consisted of 6,633 active WUPs. 

� Determine sampling method / size 

o Applying a Confidence Level of 95% with a Confidence Interval of ±4, it was determined 

that a sample size of 551 permits would be required for a valid test population. 

o Anticipating there may be duplicate numbers, the test sample size was increased to 569, 

thereby providing over a 95% confidence level that our sample was representative of the 

entire population. 

o The test population of 569 WUPs included: 

� 546 (96%) which are permitted for Agricultural use and the remaining 23 (4%) for Golf 

Course Irrigation (Recreation / Aesthetic). 

� 29 (5%) Individuals, 113 (20%) Generals, and 427 (75%) Small Generals. 

Findings 

1% 

57% 

AG Rec PS IC MD 

1,475 General Permits 


9% 

3% 1% 

5% 

6,421 Small General Permits 


� Overall 

o With the exception of the two special cause variations cited below, no statistical 

difference was found incident to testing the remaining 567 permits in AGMOD 2000 and 

AGMOD.net. 

� Special Cause Variations 

o Output results between AGMOD 2000 and AGMOD.net always produce a discrepancy in 

“Annual Average Gallons Per Day” (GPD) when “Citrus” is the “Crop Type” and 

“St. Augustine” is the “Soil Type.” 

� OIG provided a list of active permits (20) with these parameters to the Agricultural 

Regulation Program team members who will work with Information Resources 

Department (IRD) staff to research and analyze this particular combination of crop and 

soil, and correct it, if possible, in AGMOD.net. 

82% 

AG Rec PS IC MD 

21 

11% 

3% 1% 

6% 

79% 

AG Rec PS IC MD

Item 49.b. 

o Output results between AGMOD 2000 and AGMOD.net always produce a discrepancy in 

“Annual Average GPD” when “Field Nursery” is the “Crop Type” and “Potting Soil” is the 

“Soil Type.” 

� Although these are recognized as impossible real world combinations of nursery 

layouts and growing soils, OIG provided a list of active permits (5) where these 

parameters were found in AGMOD to the Agricultural Regulation Program team 

members who will work with IRD staff to correct these occurrences in AGMOD.net. 

� Detailed information on the above findings, along with recommendations, were provided to 

Resource Regulation and IRD, and incorporated into a detailed remediation action plan by 

OIG. 

Under District Governing Board Policy 140-1, the Office of Inspector General will conduct a 

follow-up audit to determine whether aforementioned remediation activities were 

implemented. The office will deliver a six-month progress report to the Governing Board in 

March, 2012. 


This item is submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Julie D. Pickard, Associate Auditor, Office of Inspector General 

Acknowledgments 

The Office of Inspector General thanks the following District staff members for their 

assistance in performing this audit: 

Richard Owen Danielle Sailler Desiree Williams Jeff Whealton 

Paul O’Neil Kristy Peterson John Ramirez Brian Starford 

Ken Weber Earl Rich Vaughn Boyer Time Parkerson 

Sommer Hess Paul Kornowski Ross Morton Elijah Balser 

Deanna Naugler Carol Daleo Mark Luchte Brianna Shrimplin 

22


August 30, 2011 


Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Reserves 

Purpose 

Presentation of the Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Reserves. 

Item 50 

Background 

In accordance with Board Policy 130-3, District Investment Policy, a monthly report on 

investments shall be provided to the Governing Board. Attached is a copy of the Treasurer's 

Report as of July 31, 2011, which reflects total cash and investments at a market value of 

$681,386,237. 

As reflected on the July 31, 2011, Treasurer's Report, the investment portfolio had 

$158.9 million or 23 percent invested with the State Board of Administration (SBA) of which 

$152.1 million is invested in the Florida PRIME (formerly the Local Government Investment 

Pool) and $6.8 million in the Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (Fund B). The District has 

received $272 thousand of Pool A interest earnings during the ten months of fiscal year (FY) 

2011. Fund B is not distributing interest earnings. The District is managing its short-term and 

daily liquidity needs through the use of the Florida PRIME and the Federated Government 

Obligations #5 money market fund. Consistent with Board Policy 130-3, the maximum percent 

of the portfolio that will be invested in any one money market fund is 25 percent. 

Fund B consists of assets that had defaulted on a payment, paid more slowly than expected, or 

had any significant credit and liquidity risk. Fund B cash holdings are being distributed to 

participants as they become available monthly from maturities, sales and received income. The 

investment objective for Fund B is to maximize the present value of distributions. At July 31, 

2011, the District's investment in Fund B was $6.8 million, down from the initial investment of 

$40.7 million. The market value of the Fund B investments is estimated at $5.4 million or 

approximately 79 percent of cost, reflecting $1.4 million at risk. District staff is not aware of any 

plans by the SBA to liquidate Fund B investments below cost. 

On August 4, 2011, the SBA released another $121 thousand from Fund B. Therefore, 

subsequent to July 31, 2011, the balance of $6.8 million has been reduced by $.1 million, 

leaving the District's balance in Fund B at $6.7 million, which further reduces the $1.4 million at 

risk. 

Staff will continue to monitor the SBA activities to determine how this will impact the District's 

current investment in the SBA Florida PRIME, and affect the District's investment strategy going 

forward. 

During the ten months ended July 31, 2011, the District collected $161.3 million in ad valorem 

taxes, which is 100.2 percent of the annual budget. This compares favorably with 100.3 percent 

in FY2010 and 99.8 percent in FY2009, for collections during this same period. 

In accordance with Board Policy 130-1, Disbursement of Funds, all general checks written 

during a period shall be reported to the Governing Board at its next regular meeting. The 

Payment Register listing disbursements since last month's report is available upon request. The 

Payment Register includes checks and electronic funds transfers (EFTs). 

23

The FY2011 Contingency Reserves Report (District only) follows: 

ORIGINAL BUDGET AMOUNT: $5,000,000 

Less Approved Transfers 

Item 50 

Date of 

Board Action 

Workload & Staffing Analysis 247,594 January 25, 2011 

District Total Compensation (Salary and Benefits) Review 32,000 February 22, 2011 

Flying Eagle Youth Conservation Center – Flying Eagle 

Preserve 

BALANCE: $4,700,406 

20,000 April 26, 2011 


These items are presented for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 


24


TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BOARD 

July 31, 2011 

AGENCY SECURITIES 

EFFECTIVE 

CUSIP INTEREST CALLABLE/ PURCHASE MATURITY DURATION (YRS) DAYS TO PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER RATE BULLET DATE DATE OF SECURITY MATURITY COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 

31331jns8 1.75 Callable 05,21,2010 05,21,2013 3.00 660 $10,000,000 $10,040,800 $34,028 

31331kgd6 1.43 Callable 04,07,2011 03,28,2014 2.98 971 19,970,000 20,120,400 93,958 

31331knt3 1.08 Callable 06,13,2011 06,13,2014 3.00 1048 20,000,000 20,009,400 28,800 

31331kpn4 1.05 Callable 06,27,2011 06,27,2014 3.00 1062 20,000,000 19,994,400 19,833 

31331kqr4 1.10 Callable 07,07,2011 07,07,2014 3.00 1072 20,000,000 19,982,400 14,667 

TOTAL FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 

$89,970,000 $90,147,400 $191,286 13.19 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 

313372wd2 1.31 Callable 03,23,2011 12,23,2013 2.76 876 $20,000,000 $20,069,600 $27,656 

313373fl1 1.57 Callable 04,28,2011 04,28,2014 3.00 1002 20,000,000 20,060,000 81,117 

313373h54 1.50 Bullet 04,15,2011 05,15,2014 3.08 1019 20,000,000 20,423,800 63,333 

313374cn8 1.00 Callable 06,27,2011 06,27,2014 3.00 1062 20,000,000 20,014,000 18,889 

313374cq1 1.00 Callable 06,30,2011 06,30,2014 3.00 1065 20,000,000 20,038,400 17,222 

3133746n5 1.13 Callable 06,30,2011 06,30,2014 3.00 1065 7,775,000 7,782,620 7,532 

313374rp7 1.00 Bullet 07,18,2011 07,18,2014 3.00 1083 20,000,000 20,132,800 7,222 

TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 

$127,775,000 $128,521,220 $222,971 18.74 

25 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION 

3134g17l2 1.35 Callable 03,23,2011 09,23,2013 2.51 785 $20,000,000 $20,024,000 $96,000 

3134g13c6 1.00 Callable 02,25,2011 02,25,2014 3.00 940 20,000,000 20,006,400 86,667 

3134g13d4 1.00 Callable 02,25,2011 02,25,2014 3.00 940 20,000,000 20,019,600 86,667 

3134g14k7 1.75 Callable 03,07,2011 03,07,2014 3.00 950 20,000,000 20,024,200 140,000 

3134g2dp4 1.59 Callable 04,18,2011 04,18,2014 3.00 992 20,000,000 20,137,400 90,983 

TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION 

$100,000,000 $100,211,600 $500,317 14.66 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

3136fpkd8 1.10 Callable 09,30,2010 09,30,2013 3.00 792 $18,000,000 $18,015,480 $66,550 

31398a4s8 1.05 Callable 12,08,2010 10,22,2013 2.87 814 20,000,000 20,183,600 57,750 

3136frcu5 1.63 Callable 03,21,2011 03,21,2014 3.00 964 20,000,000 20,028,200 117,361 

3135g0bg7 1.55 Callable 04,18,2011 04,18,2014 3.00 992 19,970,000 20,139,600 85,833 

3136frta1 0.63 Callable 06,30,2011 06,30,2014 3.00 1065 20,000,000 19,989,400 10,764 

TOTAL FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

$97,970,000 $98,356,280 $338,258 14.37 

TOTAL AGENCY SECURITIES $415,715,000 $417,236,500 $1,252,832 60.96

26 



July 31, 2011 

CASH EQUIVALENTS 

EFFECTIVE 

CUSIP INTEREST PURCHASE MATURITY DURATION (YRS) DAYS TO PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER RATE DATE DATE OF SECURITY MATURITY COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

UNITED STATES TREASURY BILLS 

9127952a8 0.04 05,31,2011 08,25,2011 0.24 25 $19,998,089 $19,998,089 $1,378 

9127952f7 0.15 03,29,2011 09,22,2011 0.48 53 19,985,250 19,985,250 10,417 

9127953u3 0.09 05,31,2011 11,25,2011 0.49 117 19,991,100 19,991,100 3,100 

9127952t7 0.09 06,17,2011 12,15,2011 0.50 137 19,990,950 19,990,950 2,250 

TOTAL UNITED STATES TREASURY BILL 

$79,965,389 $79,965,389 $17,145 11.73 

STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) & OTHER INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS 

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT 

EFFECTIVE 

INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION 

RATE COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION 

Florida PRIME (Formerly Local Government Investment Pool) 

271413 SBA General Investments 

0.21 $103,570,479 $103,570,479 

271411 SBA Workers' Compensation 

0.21 1,418,118 $1,418,118 

271414 SBA Land Resources 

0.21 7,336,556 $7,336,556 

271415 SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) 

0.21 8,319,949 $8,319,949 

271416 SBA Advanced State Funding (FDOT) 

0.21 13,519,547 $13,519,547 

271417 SBA Advanced State Funding (WRAP) 

0.21 12,650,456 $12,650,456 

271418 SBA Advanced State Funding (WPSTF AWS) 0.21 5,279,697 $5,279,697 

$152,094,802 $152,094,802 

Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (1) 

271413 SBA General Investments 

0.00 $6,227,899 $4,918,172 

271415 SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) 

0.00 616,484 486,837 

$6,844,383 $5,405,009 

TOTAL STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) ACCOUNTS 

$158,939,185 $157,499,811 23.30 

(1) Fund B commingles investments from participants in a portfolio of securities with the objective to maximize the present value of distributions to participants, to the extent reasonable and 

prudent, net of fees. This objective emphasizes both the timeliness and extent of the recovery of participants' original principal. This is according to Investment Policy Guidelines, Local 

Government Investment Fund B, Part III. Investment Objective (effective 12/21/07). The District is not receiving interest earnings distributions from the SBA-Fund B accounts.

27 



July 31, 2011 

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT 

EFFECTIVE 

INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION 

RATE COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

FEDERATED GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS FUND / INSTITUTIONAL 0.01 27,355,260 27,355,260 4.01 

Weighted average yield on portfolio at July 31, 2011 is 0.82%. 

TOTAL INVESTMENTS 

CASH, SUNTRUST DEMAND ACCOUNT (2) 

TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

EQUITY - CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

DISTRICT AND BASINS 

District General Fund 317,457,369 46.60% 

Alafia River Basin 19,635,978 2.88% 

Hillsborough River Basin 88 88,333,533 333 533 12 12.97% 97% 

Coastal Rivers Basin 15,153,683 2.22% 

Pinellas-Anclote River Basin 129,804,522 19.05% 

Withlacoochee River Basin 14,042,264 2.06% 

Peace River Basin 30,385,644 4.46% 

Manasota Basin 48,989,809 7.19% 

FDOT Mitigation Program 12,527,488 1.84% 

Florida Forever Fund 4,973,821 0.73% 

TOTAL EQUITY IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

$681,304,111 100.00% 

$681,974,834 $682,056,960 100.00 

(670,723) (670,723) 

$681,304,111 $681,386,237 

(2) Excess funds from the District's SunTrust Bank Demand Account are transferred to the District's money market accounts daily. This may result in a negative book balance. However, a 

positive bank balance is maintained at all times.


August 30, 2011 


Monthly Financial Statements 

Purpose 

Presentation of the July 31, 2011, monthly financial statement. 

Item 51 

Background 

Senate Bill 2096, amending Sections 11.45 and 215.985, Florida Statutes, relating to state 

financial information with certain financial transparency requirements was approved by the 

Governor on May 26, 2011 to take effect July 1, 2011. In addition, Senate Bill 2142, amending 

Section 373.536, F.S., requiring each water management district to submit a monthly financial 

statement to its governing board and to post such statement to its website by September 1, 

2011, was also approved by the Governor on May 26, 2011, to take effect upon becoming a 

law. In accordance with these requirements, the District is submitting its “Statement of Sources 

and Uses of Funds for the Ten Months Ended July 31, 2011” to be posted to the District’s 

website following presentation to the Governing Board. 




28

Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds 

For the Ten Months Ended July 31, 2011 

The attached “Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds” report is provided for your review. 

This report provides a summarized snapshot of high level District financial activity of revenue 

by Sources and expenditure summaries (Uses) by program. This unaudited financial 

statement is provided as of July 31, 2011, with 83.3 percent of the fiscal year completed. 

This unaudited financial statement compares revenues received and encumbrances/ 

expenditures made against the District’s fiscal year (FY) 2011 available budget of 

$838.3 million. Encumbrances represent orders for goods and services which have 

not yet been received. 

Revenue (Sources) Status: 

Overall, as of July 31, 2011, with 83.3 percent of the fiscal year completed, 88 percent 

(including fund balance) of the District’s budgeted revenue has been collected. 

Through July 31, 2011 the District collected $161.3 million in ad valorem tax revenue which 

represents just over 100 percent of the budget. 

Intergovernmental Revenues are recognized at the time related expenditures are incurred. 

For FY2011, through the period ended July 31, 2011, $16.5 million in revenues have been 

collected, representing 14 percent of the budget. From year to year, the budgeted amount 

of intergovernmental revenue compared to the collected amount can fluctuate for various 

reasons; projects can be in the planning stages and have not incurred a significant amount 

of expenditures, and anticipated projects get canceled (i.e., a land acquisition, cooperative 

funding projects, etc.) 

The FY2011 interest earnings budget was based on a 0.75 percent rate of return. The 

District’s investment portfolio was generating 0.82 percent at July 31, 2011. Due to the 

higher than budgeted interest rate (for the first ten months of the fiscal year) and varying 

cash balances related to project timing, interest earnings on invested funds is 106 percent 

of the budget. The District historically budgets investment earnings conservatively. 

License and Permit Fees consists of revenue from water use permits, environmental 

resource permits, water well construction permits, and water well construction licenses. 

Revenue collected is 92 percent of budget as of July 31, 2011, with two months remaining. 

As of July 31, 2011, other revenue collected is 141 percent of budget. Each year, items 

that fall within the “Other” revenue category are budgeted conservatively due to the 

uncertainty of the amounts to be collected. For example, revenues from timber sales can 

vary year to year. In addition, unanticipated revenues can be collected, such as the 

prorated share of revenue from Blue Cross Blue Shield that was not included in the budget. 

Fund Balance represents funds carried over from prior years that are allocated for 

expenditures, or are reserved or designated to fund outstanding encumbrances or board 

designations that were re-appropriated for expenditure in FY2011. 

29


For the Ten Months Ended July 31, 2011 2 

Expenditure (Uses) Status: 

Overall, as of July 31, 2011, with 83.3 percent of the fiscal year completed, the District has 

obligated 83 percent of its total budget. This indicates that most major projects are in 

progress and will be accomplished, and that funds are encumbered for long-term projects 

associated with future water supply, water resource development and other long-term District 

core mission projects. 

Summary of Expenditures by Program 

This unaudited financial statement illustrates the effort to date for each of the District’s 

program areas that are set forth in Section 373.536(5)(d)4, Florida Statutes. Provided below is 

a discussion of the primary uses of funds by program. 

The Water Resources Planning and Monitoring Program includes all water 

management planning, including water supply planning, development of minimum flows 

and levels, and other water resource planning; research, data collection, analysis, and 

monitoring; and technical assistance (including local and regional plan and program 

review). Of the $77.9 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 

83 percent (33 percent expended and 50 percent encumbered). 

The Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works Program includes the development 

and construction of all capital projects (except for those contained within the Operation 

and Maintenance of Lands and Works Program), including water resource development 

projects/water supply development assistance, water control projects, and support and 

administrative facilities construction; land acquisition; and the restoration of lands and 

water bodies. Of the $640.2 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 


Of the $640.2 million budgeted, $197.1 million represents reserves for future water 

resource development, land acquisition, and flood protection projects. 

In addition, there have been land acquisitions, water resource development, and other 

District projects that have been budgeted this year that have either been canceled or are 

at the initial stage and have not incurred significant expenditures as of July 31, 2011. 

The Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works Program includes all operation 

and maintenance of facilities, flood control and water supply structures, lands, and other 

works authorized by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Of the $28.7 million budgeted for this 

program, the District has obligated 64 percent (41 percent expended and 23 percent 

encumbered). 

The Regulation Program includes water use permitting, water well construction permitting, 

water well contractor licensing, environmental resource and surface water management 

permitting, permit administration and enforcement, and any delegated regulatory program. 

Of the $20.7 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 75 percent 

(67 percent expended and 8 percent encumbered). 

30


For the Ten Months Ended July 31, 2011 3 

The Outreach Program includes all environmental education activities, such as water 

conservation campaigns and water resources education; public information activities; 

all lobbying activities relating to local, regional, state, and federal governmental affairs; 

and all public relations activities, including public service announcements and advertising 

in any media. Of the $8.6 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 


The Management and Administration Program includes all governing board support; 

executive support; management information systems; unrestricted reserves for 

contingencies; and general counsel, ombudsman, human resources, finance, audit, 

risk management, and administrative services. Of the $62.3 million budgeted for this 

program, the District has obligated 65 percent (54 percent expended and 11 percent 

encumbered). 

Of the $62.3 million budgeted, $10.5 million represents reserves for contingencies that 

have not been expended or encumbered as of July 31, 2011. 

In addition, the District has made reductions in contractual services and staffing levels as of 

July 31, 2011. 

Based on the financial activities for the first ten months of the fiscal year, as of July 31, 2011, 

the financial condition of the District is positive and budget variances are generally favorable. 

There are no reported or identified major trends, conditions or variances that warrant additional 

management attention. We will continue to monitor and report on all financial activities 

throughout FY2011 as a means to ensure the District’s continued financial success. 

31

32 

Southwest�Florida�Water�Management�District 

Statement�of�Sources�and�Uses�of�Funds 

For�the�Ten�Months�Ended�July�31,�2011 

(Unaudited) 

Actuals Variance 

Available Through (under)/Over Actuals�As�A 

Budget 07/31/2011 Budget %�of�Budget 

Sources 

Ad�Valorem�Property�Taxes $� 160,880,206 $� 161,253,753 $�� 373,547 100% 

Intergovernmental�Revenues �� 120,430,599 �� 16,537,567 ��(103,893,032) 14% 

Interest�on�Invested�Funds ��4,630,000 ��4,917,645 ��287,645 106% 

License�and�Permit�Fees ��1,700,000 �� 1,567,974 �� (132,026) 

92% 

Other ��1,211,273 ��1,709,105 ��497,832 141% 

Fund�Balance �� 549,489,892 �� 549,489,892 �� 100% 

Total�Sources $� 838,341,970 $� 735,475,936 $� (102,866,034) 

88% 

Available 

Budget Expenditures Encumbrances� 1 

Available %Expended %Obligated� 2 

Uses 

Water�Resources�Planning�and�Monitoring ��77,932,556 ��25,637,934 �� 38,755,864 �� 13,538,758 33% 83% 

Acquisition,�Restoration�and�Public�Works �� 640,195,917 ��56,357,375 ��490,693,899 �� 93,144,643 

9% 85% 

Operation�and�Maintenance�of�Lands�and�Works ��28,665,500 ��11,784,268 �� 6,570,405 �� 10,310,827 41% 64% 

Regulation ��20,692,575 ��13,781,481 �� 1,651,769 �� 5,259,325 67% 75% 

Outreach ��8,566,338 ��3,727,077 �� 3,303,959 �� 1,535,302 44% 82% 

Management�and�Administration ��62,289,084 ��33,915,055 �� 6,826,844 �� 21,547,185 54% 65% 

Total�Uses �� 838,341,970 �� 145,203,190 ��547,802,740 �145,336,040 17% 83% 

1 

�Encumbrances�represent�unexpended�balances�of�open�purchase�orders�and�contracts. 

2 

�Represents�the�sum�of�expenditures�and�encumbrances�as�a�percentage�of�the�annual�budget. 

This�unaudited�financial�statement�is�prepared�as�of�July�31,�2011,�and�covers�the�interim�period�since�the�most�recent�audited�financial�statements 

and�is�for�the�sole�purpose�of�management.


August 30, 2011 


Management Services Significant Activities 

Item 52 

Water Management Information System (WMIS) 

The vision for WMIS, as defined in the Governing Board approved 2005 Vision Statement and 

included in the IRD 2006-2010 Five-Year Technology Plan, is that it will enable the District's 

major resource management and planning activities by storing and retrieving all Scientific and 

Regulatory data as well as providing critical operational support to the District’s Water Use 

Permitting (WUP), Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP), Well Construction Permitting 

(WCP), and all regulatory compliance programs. Specifically, it will (1) provide for the entry, 

maintenance, analysis, and presentation of the District’s scientific and regulatory data; (2) be 

easy to use, robust, nimble, and enable appropriate decision-making through the consistent 

application of the District’s scientific, regulatory, and business processes: (3) reach the 

Executive performance goal for WMIS is to achieve at least 80% applicant online utilization for 

each permit type and 99% utilization by staff for processing and review by 2013 or earlier.(4) be 

a component of the District’s Strategic Information Systems architecture and (5) facilitate and 

allow for comprehensive demonstration of the District’s accomplishment of its mission and 

accountability for its performance in meeting its areas of responsibility. 

History: Because WMIS was planned to be developed over an extended period using the 

Rational Unified Process, components of the system have been developed and released in 

sequence. The most recent major release since the inception of WMIS was version 2.2 released 

in June 2011 includes: 

� Upgrading the Stellent document management and workflow program to reduce the incidence 

of document and workflow issues and the time taken for maintenance and support 

� Reprogramming of WMIS functionality to use the upgraded version of the Stellent document 

management and workflow program 

� Moving WMIS document images to a new storage location and configuration to improve the 

allocation of storage memory for documents uploaded into WMIS 

� Changes and fixes to the permitting and compliance modules of WMIS as requested by the 

Regulation Department staff 

Current Status: WMIS 2.2 was released to production on June 27, incorporating the changes 

and improvements described above. . Performance status indicators of the completed releases 

are now being reported by the Regulatory Department. The WMIS Resource Data migration to 

the Oracle Real Application Cluster (RAC) environment was completed on July 30. Oracle RAC 

provides the option for scaling databases beyond the capability of a single server thereby 

improving reliability and recoverability. The full benefits of this technology will be realized once 

all WMIS databases and applications are moved to the RAC. Next Major Milestones: New 

milestones for WMIS have been developed based on internal user feedback and at the request 

of Project Sponsors. As a result, there are two major releases scheduled for the balance of 

FY2011. Version 2.2.1 is planned for September and will include splitting WMIS into 

components that will reside on multiple servers to enhance the speed and reliability of the 

system, along with the tasks necessary to decommission the Lotus Notes program. This 

initiative is well under way and on track to meet its scheduled release date of September 23. 

Version 2.2.2 is scheduled for February 2012 and will focus on moving WMIS to a 64-bit server 

operating system, which will increase the speed and reliability of the program. 

Enterprise Content Management (ECM) 

ECM provides for the centralized management of all content and allows quick access to the 

information in a structured manner. It is critical to the District's business continuity that this 

information is safe, secured and easily retrievable on demand. The Information Resources 

Department (IRD) and Records Management share in this task of managing the District's critical 

33

Item 52 

information in this environment. Due to requirements listed in Florida Administrative Code 

(FAC) 1B-26.003, storage for electronic records is also a major concern addressed with an ECM 

infrastructure. The District has already implemented some components of content management 

such as imaging and workflow processing in the Water Management Information System 

(WMIS). South Florida and St. Johns Water Management Districts are in like stages of their 

ECM implementations. A Master Service Agreement was signed with Iknow, LLC for ECM 

services on December 31, 2008 and task orders were being created from this agreement to 

implement this project. Based on recommendations by Legal and Contracts, the District 

terminated the contract with IKnow, LLC effective September 7, 2010 based on poor 

performance and improper subcontractor management. A new ECM contractor, Acuity was 

hired on September 22, 2010. As seen in next two sections, Acuity has done an excellent job 

ensuring all project timelines are met. Current Status: The email integration components have 

been delivered, tested and are available for use. District departmental staff have identified 

District projects and have incorporated them into ECM. IRD staff is coordinating required user 

training on a department by department basis. The first phase of the taxonomy implementation 

began December 1, 2010 and was delivered on time and within budget. District staff are 

coordinating the testing, documentation and deployment of the taxonomy Phase 1 tools. Phase 

2 of the taxonomy implementation has begun and is anticipated to be completed by November 

2011. The Finance Accounts Payable process improvement began in February 2011 and is 

currently in User Acceptance Testing. The production deployment is dependent upon user 

acceptance testing. The migration of the current physical records management application, 

Fixed Records Management (FRM), began January 10, 2011 and is currently in User 

Acceptance Testing. The production deployment is dependent upon user acceptance testing. 

The Contract process improvement project began in late April 2011 and is anticipated to be 

completed in November 2011. Next Major Milestones: Staff will focus on the second phase of 

taxonomy along with Finance and Contracts process improvements. Phase two of the 

taxonomy includes Records and Document Management integration. 

Project Information Management System/Cooperative Funding Initiative (PIMS/CFI) 

The PIMS project was started in FY 2006 as a replacement for a limited function project 

management system written in Domino/Lotus Notes. The earlier project management solution 

was a critical resource used by the Governing Board and Basin Boards to evaluate the progress 

of existing projects. The PIMS solution provides an easier to use process for project definition, 

automates the integration with the financial systems and provides integration with other district 

applications including the WMIS, the Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) 

program and document management. It is designed to reduce the administrative effort to 

maintain the information, improve the accuracy of the information and provide more flexibility in 

how the information is reported. It also includes Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) online 

access. Current Status: This system is in production. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

performed a planned security audit on the PIMS application. Based on the results of this audit, 

a security certification was recommended. Achieving this certification required that the 

application be modified. Ninety percent of these changes were completed as part of the 

October 15, 2010 release and the remaining changes were implemented on February 3, 2011 

as planned. IRD completed pre-certification testing on February 4, 2011. The security audit 

was completed with official certification issued on May 27, 2011. PIMS is the first District 

developed application to receive a security certification. PIMS v2.14 release was completed on 

May19, 2011. It included a web service supporting the online display of District projects and 

budget information. CFI v2.12 was also released on May 19, 2011. This CFI release included 

enhancements and a database move to the Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) 

environment resulting in improved database performance. PIMS v2.15 was released to 

production on July 27, 2011 including the PIMS database move to the Oracle RAC. Work 

continues on the Reuse and Conservation requirements and performance tuning. Next Major 

Milestones: The Reuse and Conservation component implementation is planned for 

September 2011. Following the direction of the PITT, other top priority enhancements are being 

evaluated to determine the required level of effort and return on investment with development 

scheduled to start in October 2011. 

34

Item 52 

Human Resources Information System (HRIS) 

The purpose of HRIS is to integrate current and planned payroll and human resource software 

and processes into a usable decision support system. As originally identified in the Information 

Resources Department Five-Year Technology Plan, FY2008–FY2012, the District purchased 

the NuView System in August 2007 via a Request for Proposal (RFP) to replace the existing 

application, Hewitt CYBORG Human Resource and Payroll system, which was removed from 

the IBM Mainframe on September 30, 2009. The HRIS consists of the NuView Human 

Resources (HR) software, the CORT payroll software and Interface Utility (IU) which connects 

them. Current Status: NuView version 4.12, CORT version 8.2 and IU version 2 are the 

current HRIS production systems for the District. The District installed CORT version 8.2 in 

December 2010 as planned. Next Major Milestones: Based on a NuView recommendation 

and a joint NuView and District analysis, this is the current status of the NuView version 4.12 to 

version 4.14 upgrade and the associated software maintenance schedule: 

� January 2011 – NuView started integrating and testing version 4.14 at their test facility 

� February 2011 to August 2011 – NuView Version 4.14 was tested by the District on NuView’s 

equipment before moving it in-house for final testing. The final in-house testing began July 12. 

This testing includes Open Enrollment, Active Directory integration and full system regression 

testing. Staff will develop the implementation schedule at the end of the testing phase. Now 

that the original implementation date has passed, other tasks are competing for the same 

resources. These competing tasks include: 

� Workload Staffing & Analysis 

� Salary & Benefits Study 

� Workforce Planning Study 

� Open Enrollment 

� Year End Processing 

� Silkroad Greenlight training solution 

� NeoGov E-Recruiting solution 

Based on a thorough review of the HRIS status, the HRIS Sponsors recommended to Executive 

Staff that NuView’s recruitment, performance management and learning management modules 

not be implemented at the District. Executive Staff approved this approach. The performance 

management module replacement has been put on hold. Based on recommendations within 

the North Highlands study, HR and IRD will be looking at implementing a competency based 

system in time for the 2012 review process. The recruitment and learning management 

modules will be acquired from the commercial market. Using this approach will allow the District 

to use existing NuView module implementation and upgrade funds for the acquisition and 

implementation of the new modules. No new funding will be required. This approach will also 

help ensure that all Lotus Notes applications are removed from the District’s portfolio by 

December 2011 as planned. Review of recruitment and learning management solutions has 

now concluded. NeoGov has been selected for our E-Recruiting solution. SilkRoad has been 

selected for our Learning Management software. Both of these solutions are Software as a 

Service (Saas) or ‘cloud’ offerings. Staff is currently working on the contracts and expects to 

begin implementation in August 2011. Due to NuView’s consistent inability to deliver a quality 

product, we have begun exploring alternative HRIS/Payroll applications. Our focus is based on 

vendors offering their software as a service (SaaS). A meeting with Gartner is scheduled for 

later this month to research the industry players in the HRIS/Payroll Software as a Service 

(SaaS) space. 

Unified Communication Process Improvement 

As first identified in the IRD Five-Year Technology Plan, Fiscal Year 2009-2013, the District has 

the need for Unified Communications (UC) to improve staff communication during significant 

storm events, field operations, and daily work. UC includes, but is not limited to, voice, video, 

data and two-way radio frequency (RF) communications. According to the IRD Technology 

Plan, the major milestones are communications support consolidation in fiscal year 2008-2009 

(completed), Networking Infrastructure and telecommunications upgrades in fiscal year 

2009-2010 (completed), Voice over IP (VoIP) in fiscal year 2010-2011 (to be completed August 

2011), Unified Messaging in fiscal year 2012-2013 and UC in fiscal year 2013-2014. Changes 

in the timeline are due to staffing and budgetary reductions. This project includes implementing 

this process improvement effort by focusing on the interoperability of various communications 

35

Item 52 

technologies and their phased implementation from fiscal year 2009-2010 through fiscal year 

2013-2014. The integration of the District’s radio and wireless technology previously scheduled 

for fiscal year 2012-2013 will be deferred until further notice based upon fiscal and resource 

constraints. Once the remaining project milestones are completed, the infrastructure must be 

maintained and the technology refreshed to meet current and future operational requirements. 

The goals of this project are to: 

� Create a common understanding of communications interoperability at the District to all 

business units throughout the organization. 

� Integrate existing and future communications systems 

� Establish a process for the acquisition, implementation, ongoing support, and maintenance of 

this communications infrastructure. 

� Facilitate training to enhance the efforts of a unified communications strategy. 

� Ensure close coordination between Finance, Information Resources, Land Resources, 

Operations and General Services during all phases of the Unified Communications project. 

Current Status: Phase one has been closed out. We have begun Phase II and are currently 

deploying the phones throughout the District. Brooksville was completed in May. Tampa was 

competed in June. Sarasota was completed in July. Bartow installation was postponed until 

mid-August due to the issues associated with Building Four in Brooksville. IRD and GSD 

personnel continue to test the remote management of the generators supporting the radio 

towers. Testing is anticipated to be finalized and completed by the end of FY2011. The 2011 

and 2012 scheduled initiatives were re-evaluated and rescheduled due to the postponement of 

the Exchange 2010 upgrade, personnel turnover and projected budget reductions. Next Major 

Milestones: Deployment of VoIP (Phase Two) to District staff will be completed by the fourth 

quarter of FY2011. 

Employee Turnover 

Employee turnover is widely viewed as a key indicator of an employer's ability to attract and 

retain the critical talent required to carry out the mission and strategic priorities of the enterprise. 

As a public sector employer, the District has historically achieved turnover relatively low 

compared to the private sector and, generally, to other public sector organizations in its 

geographic area. This continues to be the situation with the economic downturn of the past 

several months producing a further dampening effect on our turnover experience. 

14.0% 

12.0% 

10.0% 

8.0% 

6.0% 

4.0% 

2.0% 

0.0% 

7.7% 

5.0% 

0.4% 

Turnover Percent per Fiscal Year 

9.2% 

6.2% 

0.4% 

11.4% 

9.0% 

6.3% 

3.7% 

0.3% 0.7% 

6.9% 

3.4% 

5.8% 

2.6% 

0.7% 0.7% 

7.4% 

2.2% 

2.0% 

4.0% 

0.2% 

2.3% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% 2.6% 

6.8% 

FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 

Projected 

Retirement (includes death) Involuntary (disciplinary, disability) 

Voluntary Total 

36

Item 52 

Current Status: 

� For the first ten months in FY2011, employee turnover (regular, board-authorized positions) 

was 5.7% (3.3% voluntary, 2.2% retirement and 0.2% involuntary) compared to 6.6% for the 

same time period in FY2010. 

� Retirements account for 38% of the separations. 

� The number of vacant positions as of July 31, 2011 was 10. There were 24 positions 

eliminated during the month of July. Of the 10 still vacant, one position is on-hold and will not 

be filled at this time. 

Human Resources staff will continue to track and report to management on turnover trends to 

ensure that we are prepared to respond to any unusual trends that may occur in the future. 

Financial Systems 

The Financial Information Technology team is responsible for supporting the District’s software 

applications critical to the District’s financial operations. These software applications currently 

include the ADVANTAGE Financial software, the Performance Budgeting (PB) software and the 

Business Objects reporting solution, as well as other internally developed applications. The 

Payroll Section coordinates with Human Resources and Information Resources staff to ensure 

continuous support to meet mission critical payroll data processing requirements. The primary 

software applications used to meet these requirements are the NuView Payroll system and the 

Kronos Workforce Central system. Current Status: Financial Systems staff has completed 

work on streamlining interfaces to eliminate data entry for Finance staff. Both Financial 

Systems and Payroll staff have begun a review of critical fiscal year end processes to ensure 

that all financial software systems will be appropriately configured and tested in support of 

financial policies and procedures. Payroll staff will continue to participate in the Human 

Resources Information System (HRIS) project throughout calendar year 2011 to support the 

HRIS upgrade activities. Next Major Milestones: Progress continues to be made in 

negotiations for the upgrades of the ADVANTAGE Financial system and the PB system, 

including conversion from the Oracle database to the Microsoft SQL server database. Formal 

system configuration discussions are expected to commence in September upon execution of 

the agreement with the software vendor. 

Bartow Building 1 – Renovation 

Building 1 was built in 1991 to accommodate growth at the Bartow Service Office; and houses 

the Bartow Regulation Department as well as the Land Management, Facilities and 

Construction Services, and Resource Conservation Sections. The existing 60-ton air 

conditioning system is the original system that was installed when the building was built and is 

nearing the end of its efficient operating lifecycle. Over the years, the building has had ongoing 

problems with humidity and cooling. A January 27, 2009 heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) engineering study found significant issues with the capacity of the system, 

condensate routing, poorly controlled humidity in the occupied spaces, and size and location of 

the mechanical mezzanine and the lined ductwork. The study also identified problems with the 

existing attic insulation. The study recommended a total replacement of the HVAC system as 

well as the attic insulation. The U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) guidelines for design, products and 

construction practices will be used wherever possible and economically viable. This project will 

involve the temporary relocation of staff and the removal of the ceiling to perform this work. 

While this project is underway, the break room will be updated; the lighting, carpet, floor tile, 

ceiling, fire alarm system and furniture will be reused or replaced as necessary. The fire alarm 

system is required to be replaced to meet current building code. 

� August 2010 – Staff met with Anston-Greenlees, Inc. to review the project’s scope of work, to 

do a walkthrough of the building, and to provide it with the as-built building plans. Following 

the meeting, Anston-Greenlees, Inc. met with its project team, and developed and submitted 

its proposal for the Architectural/Engineering work. 

� September 2010 – Staff reviewed the Anston-Greenlees, Inc. revised proposal; agreement 

was reached and a contract was drafted. The contract amount ($194,750) is under the 

budgeted amount ($200,000). 

37

Item 52 

� October 2010 – Contract Agreement with Anston-Greenlees, Inc. was reviewed and signed off 

on by the Executive staff. 

� November 2010- Kickoff meeting held with AGI. Plan being developed for staff relocation 

during the renovation. 

� December 2010 – AGI presented the District with the preliminary design. The District met with 

AGI, provided comments and directed AGI to proceed with design. 

� January 2011 – AGI submitted the 50% design plans. Staff reviewed the plans and met with 

AGI to provide comments. 

� February 2011 - AGI is incorporating staff’s comments into the Design Documents. District 

staff is reviewing the temporary office space options for the Bartow staff. 

� March 2011 – Staff reviewed the 75% Design Documents and provided comments to AGI. 

Staff toured the vacant Polk County Sherriff’s office in downtown Bartow. This is a possible 

temporary office space to relocate the BSO staff to during the construction phase of the 

project. 

� April 2011 – Staff received the 100% Design Documents and review is underway. Staff again 

visited the Polk County Sherriff's office for a more detailed review of the space. This included 

a meeting with their IT personnel. 

� May 2011 – The final construction plans and specs are in-house. Staff has finalized plans for 

the temporary office space. 

� June 2011 – The construction project was advertised via RFB and a pre bid meeting was held. 

� July 2011 – Bid due date changed to August 4, 2011. 

� August 2011 – Nine Bids for construction were received and are being evaluated. 

Current Status: Lease for temporary office space at the Lawrence Crow building in Bartow is in 

place. Bids for construction are being evaluated. Next Major Milestone: RFB review and 

contract award. Currently, the Project schedule is anticipated as follows: Construction Contract 

Award – August 2011, Staff Relocation – August thru September 2011, and Construction – 

September 2011 thru June 2012. 



Presenter: Kurt P. Fritsch, Acting Deputy Executive Director, Management Services 

38


August 30, 2011 

GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT 





54. Litigation Report ................................................................................................................. 2 

55. Rulemaking Update ........................................................................................................... 13

2 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LITIGATION REPORT 

August 2011 

(Changes in status since last month are in boldface type) 

STYLE/CASE NO. COURT/JUDGE ATTORNEY DESCRIPTION STATUS (current as of 08/11/11) 

Pinellas County v. 

SWFWMD 

SWFWMD v. 

Robert Barfield/ 

Case No. 10-CA- 

020317 

SWFWMD v. 

Robert Barfield 

SWFWMD v. 

Fatemah 

Corporation 

SWFWMD v. 

Peter Geraci and 

Sheila Geraci 

SWFWMD v. Holt, 

Tony 

SWFWMD v. 

Howard, Waylon 

SWFWMD v. 

Howard, Waylon 

13 th Judicial Circuit 

Hillsborough 

County/R. Foster 

DELEGATED ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MATTERS 

A. Vining Request for extension of time 

for ten (10) days to file an initial 

pleading challenging SWFWMD 

Final Agency Action-Individual 

WUP No. 20020142.000 

ENFORCEMENT CASES 

(Including Administrative Complaints) 

A. Vining Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement 

A. Vining Administrative Complaint and 

Order 


Order 

A. Brennan Administrative Complaint and 

Order 


Order 


Order 


Order 

1 

7/13/11 – Request for Extension of Time served. 7/20/11 – 

Withdrawal of Request for Extension of Time served. 7/30/22 – 

Request for Extension of Time withdrawn. 

10/4/10 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement filed. 10/19/10 

Respondent served. 10/24/10 – Letter to Clerk of Court captioned 

Answer served. 

2/21/11 – Respondent served. 3/28/11 – Administrative Complaint 

and Order No. SWF 11-004 entered. 

10/18/10 – Respondent served. 11/1/10 – Respondent’s Answer to 

Administrative Complaint and Request for Administrative Hearing 

and Referral to Mediation served. 

3/17/11 – Respondent Sheila Geraci served. 4/13/11 – Respondent 

Peter Geraci served. 4/22/11 – Respondents’ Motion for Extension 

of Time to Respond to the Administrative Complaint and Order 

served. 5/4/11 – Respondent’s Answer to Administrative Complaint 

and Order and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served. 

5/5/11 – Order Granting Request for Extension of Time as to Peter 

Geraci and Denying Request for Extension of Time as to Sheila 

Geraci entered. 5/12/11 – Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice as 

to Peter Geraci entered. 5/19/11 – Amended Answer to Administrative 

Complaint and Order and Petition for Formal Administrative 

Hearing served. 5/25/11 – Final Order of Dismissal as to Sheila 

Geraci entered. 5/27/11 – Notice of Entry of Final Order entered. 


and Order No. SWF 11-003 entered. 

5/27/10 – Return of Non-Service. 9/14/10 – Respondent served. 

10/21/10 – Order No. SWF 2010-019 entered. 10/28/10 – 

Suspension of License letter served. 


and Order No. SWF 11-008 entered.


SWFWMD v. The 

Kell Group, Ltd./ 

Case No. 

09CA007932 Div. 

K 

SWFWMD v. 

McClendon, J.C., 

Jr./Case 

No.0811837CI13 

SWFWMD v. 

Milmack, 

Inc./Case No. 53- 

2011-CA-000910- 

0000-00 

3 

SWFWMD v. 

Wendy B. 

Mozdzer/Case No. 

53-2011-CA- 

001131-0000-00 

SWFWMD v. 

Shant Hotels, 

LLC/Case No. 53- 

2008-CA- 

0010708-0000-00 

13 th Judicial Circuit, 

Hillsborough 

County/W. Levens 


Pinellas 

County/Rondolino 


Polk County/M. 

Raiden 


Polk County/ 

McCarthy 

10th Judicial Circuit, 

Polk County/D. 

Prince 


Enforcement 


Enforcement of ACO SWF07- 

056 

A. Brennan Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement of ACO SWF 

2010-018 


Enforcement 


Enforcement of ACO No. SWF 

08-029 

2 

3/27/09 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement filed. 4/2/09 – 

Defendants served. 8/19/09 – Answer to Complaint and Third-Party 

Complaint served. 1/22/10 – Third Party Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss Third Party Complaint served. 3/29/10 – Order Granting 

Third Party Defendant’s Sazam, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate and Set 

Aside Clerk’s Default entered. 4/1/10 – Order Granting in Part Third 

Party Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Third Party Complaint entered. 

4/5/10 – Order Sending Parties to Mediation entered. 5/7/10 – 

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Third Party 

Complaint. 7/22/10 – Order Granting Motion to Withdraw of 

Defendant’s Attorney entered. 

8/12/08 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement filed. 8/18/08 – 

Complaint and Petition for Enforcement served. 8/29/08 – 

Response served. 9/16/08 – Motion for Default by the Court 

served. 11/26/08 – Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default by 

the Court entered. 12/23/09 – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment served. 12/30/09 – Notice of Hearing served. 1/28/11 – 

Summary Judgment entered. 

2/28/11 – Complaint filed. 3/7/11 – Defendant served. 3/22/11 – 

Notice of Filing of Return of Service served. 3/23/11 – Answer, 

Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for Trial by Jury served. 4/8/11 

– Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Extension of Time 

served. 4/14/11 – Notice of Hearing (set for 5/20/11) served. 

5/12/11 – Verified Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and 

Demand for Trial by Jury served. 5/17/11 – Notice of Cancellation 

of Hearing served. 

3/14/11 – Complaint filed. 3/24/11 – Complaint served. 4/25/11 – 

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed. 5/12/11 – 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses served. 6/3/11 – 

Notice of Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative 

Defenses for July 6, 2011 served. 7/20/11 - Notice of Hearing on 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses for October 

14, 2011 served. 

11/5/08 - Complaint filed. 11/17/08 - Defendant served. 1/5/09 - 

Motion for Default filed. 2/2/09 - Motion for Default by the Court 

served; Notice of Hearing (on Motion for Default - set for 3/3/09) 

served. 3/6/09 - Default by the Court entered. 2/1/11 – Motion for 

Final Judgment After Default served. 3/3/11 – Notice of Telephonic 

Hearing on Motion for Final Judgment After Default served. 

4/8/11 – Notice of Hearing on Motion for Final Judgment After 

Default (set for 5/13/11) served. 5/18/11 – Final Judgment After 

Default entered.

4 


SWFWMD v. 

Vikings, LLC/10- 

10588 

SWFWMD v. 

Zerep Enterprises, 

Inc./Case No. 10- 

CA-011085 

Branch Banking 

and Trust Co v. 

Krueger, Joseph 

M., et al./Case No. 

2010 CA 001200 

Division of 

Administrative 

Hearings/D.R. 

Alexander 


Hillsborough 

County/J.D. Arnold 


Sumter County 

C. Felice Administrative Complaint and 

Order 


Enforcement 

MISCELLANEOUS 

J. Ward Foreclosure complaint against 

Joseph M. Krueger, Joanne 

Suggs Krueger, et al., against 

whom the District has a judgment 

with regard to an enforcement 

action 

3 

11/9/10 - Administrative Complaint served on Registered Agent for 

Vikings, LLC. 11/23/10 – Respondent’s Request for Extension of 

Time to File Request for Hearing served. 11/30/10 – Respondent’s 

Request for Administrative Hearing served. 12/9/10 - Referred to 

DOAH. 12/14/10 - Initial Order entered. 12/22/10 - Notice of 

Hearing (set for 2/16/11 in Brooksville) served. 2/2/11 - Joint 

Motion to Abate served. 2/3/11 - Order Canceling Hearing and 

Placing Case in Abeyance entered. 4/8/11 - Joint Status Report 

served. 4/12/11 - Notice of Hearing (set for 6/2/11) served. 5/2/11 

- Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery served. 5/13/11 – 

SWFWMD’s Witness and Exhibit List served. 5/18/11 – 

Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Respondent’s Pleading for Failure to 

Obey Discovery Order and for Dismissal or Entry of Default 

Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Stay served. 5/25/11 – 

Order (Respondent’s answers to interrogatories due 5/27/11; 

6/2/11 hearing cancelled – rescheduled to 6/27/11; prehearing 

stipulation due 6/23/11) entered. 5/24/11 – Vikings, LLC’s Witness 

and Exhibit List served. 5/25/11 – Order (Respondent shall file 

answers to First Set of Interrogatories by 5/27/11; cancelling final 

hearing on 6/2/11 and rescheduling it for 6/27/11; prehearing 

stipulation shall be filed by 6/23/11; notify court if resolved prior to 

hearing) entered. 5/27/11 - Respondent’s Response to 

Interrogatories served. 6/8/11 – Motion for Leave to Amend 

Petition served. 6/13/11 – Notice of Hearing (set for 6/27/11). 

6/17/11 – Order (granting Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and 

Amended Administrative Complaint and Order attached is deemed 

to be filed) entered. 6/23/11 – Joint Notice of Resolution and 

Request to Relinquish Jurisdiction served. 6/27/11 – Order 

Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File entered. 7/12/11 – 

Order No. SWF 2011-015 – Amended Administrative 

Complaint and Order entered. 

5/27/10 – Complaint and Petition for Enforcement served. 9/20/10 

– Motion for Default served. 9/22/10 – Order granting Motion for 

Default entered. 7/1/11 – Notice of Appearance on behalf of 

Zerep served. 8/4/11 – Order Scheduling Status Conference in 

re: Zerep Enterprises Case No. 8:11-bk-14028-CPM United 

States Bankruptcy Court entered. 

10/8/10 - Summons, Complaint and Notice of Lis Pendens served. 

10/26/10 - Answer of Defendant, SWFWMD, served.

5 


Maguire, Raymer 

F., III and 

Charlotte E., M.D., 

as Trustees of the 

Raymer F. 

Maguire Trust v. 

SWFWMD, et 

al./Case No. 10- 

609 GCS 


Highlands County/A. 

Cowden 

J. Ward Suit seeking declaratory judgment 

re tax certificates 

4 

11/3/10 - Summons and Amended Complaint served. 11/22/10 - 

SWFWMD's Answer to Amended Complaint served. 12/7/10 - 

Sun 'N Lake's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Tax Collector's 

Crossclaim served. 1/14/11 - Defendant (Highlands County) Tax 

Collector's Motion to Sever and to Stay served. 1/17/11 - 

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' 

Motions to Dismiss served. 1/18/11 - (Sun 'N Lake of Sebring 

Improvement District's) Memorandum of Law (in support of its 

Motion to Dismiss) served. 1/20/11 - (Highlands County) Tax 

Collector's Amended Notice of Authority served. 1/31/11 - Order 

Denying Defendant's, Highlands County Tax Collector and 

Highlands County School Board by Joinder, Motion to Sever and 

Stay, and Defendants' Highlands County, Florida, Florida 

Department of Revenue and SWFWMD, Ore Tenus Motion for 

Joinder in Tax Collector's Motion to Sever and Stay as Moot 

entered; Order Granting Defendant's, Sun 'N' Lake of Sebring 

Improvement District, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended 

Complaint; and Denying Defendant's, Highlands County School 

Board, Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Defendant's, Highlands 

County Tax Collector, Motion to Dismiss Count I as Moot entered. 

2/18/11 - Second Amended Complaint served. 3/9/11 - Sun 'N 

Lake of Sebring Improvement District's Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint served. 3/10/11 - 

SWFWMD's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and; 

Defendant Department of Revenue's Motion for More Definite 

Statement or in the Alternative Motion to Dismiss the Second 

Amended Complaint served. 3/15/11 - Notice of Compliance with 

Section 86.091, F.S., served. 3/23/11 - Notice of Hearing (on all 

pending motions filed by defendants in response to the Second 

Amended Complaint - set for 6/9/11) served. 6/2/11 – Plaintiff’s 

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to 

Dismiss; Tax Collector’s Memorandum in Support of Motions for 

Clarification, Dismissal and Abatement; Memorandum of Law on 

Defendant Highlands County, Florida’s Motion to Dismiss; and 

Defendant Department of Revenue’s Notice of Joinder with Tax 

Collector’s Memorandum in Support of Motions for Clarification, 

Dismissal and Abatement served. 6/3/11 – Sun ‘N Lake 

Improvement District’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion 

to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint served. 6/6/11 – 

SWFWMD’s Motion for Leave to Appear for June 9 Hearing by 

Telephone served. 6/7/11 – Order Granting Defendant 

SWFWMD’s Motion for Leave to Appear for June 9 Hearing By 

Telephone entered. Awaiting Court Order.

6 


Mudd, Marcia, et 

al. v. SWFWMD, et 

al./Case No. 

2006CA-001537- 

0000 


Polk County/D. 

Prince 

D. Scott/J. 

Ward 

Complaint for Inverse 

Condemnation and Continuing 

Trespass 

5 

11/3/08 - Summons and Second Amended Complaint for Inverse 

Condemnation and Continuing Trespass served. 12/4/08 - 

Defendant, SWFWMD’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Abate 

and/or Motion for a More Definite Statement served. 2/1/10 - Third 

Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation served. 2/9/10 - 

Order Granting FDEPs Amended Motion to Dismiss and 

SWFWMD's Motion to Dismiss, with Leave to Amend entered. 

2/11/10 - Polk County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third 

Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation served. 2/22/10 - 

Defendant SWFWMD's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation 

served. 2/26/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Motion for Final 

Summary Judgment served. 4/22/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's 

Notice of Serving Proposal for Settlement/Offer of Judgment to 

Plaintiff(s) (to each Plaintiff individually) served. 5/13/10 - 

Defendant SWFWMD's Memorandum of Law in Support of its 

Motion for Final Summary Judgment served. 5/18/10 - Motion for 

Leave to Amend Third Amended Complaint (with Fourth 

Amended Complaint for Inverse Condemnation attached) served; 

Defendant SWFWMD's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 

Motion for Continuance of Summary Judgment Hearing served; 

Defendant SWFWMD's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 

Motion for Leave to Amend served; Defendant SWFWMD's 

Objection to, and Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs' Notice of Hearing 

served. 5/21/10 - Order (granting Plaintiffs' Motion for 

Continuance (therefore, District's Motion for Summary Final 

Judgment was not heard) entered. 6/9/10 - Defendant 

SWFWMD's Second Notice of Filing Summary Judgment 

Evidence served. 6/11/10 - Answer and Affirmative Defenses of 

Defendant, City of Lake Wales, to Plaintiffs' Third Amended 

Complaint served. 9/27/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint 

served. 10/4/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Notice of Hearing (on its 

Motion for Final Summary Judgment set for 11/16/10) served. 

10/25/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Notice of Filing Additional 

Summary Judgment Evidence served. 11/10/10 - Defendant 

SWFWMD's Amended Third Notice of Filing Additional Summary 

Judgment Evidence served. 11/12/10 - (Plaintiffs') Notice of Filing 

served. 11/13/10 - Defendant SWFWMD's Amended Memorandum 

of Law in Support its Motion for Final Summary Judgment 

served. 11/30/10 - Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment 

entered. 12/1/10 - Order Granting Motion for Leave to Amend 

Third Amended Complaint entered. 3/18/11 - Notice of Mediation 

Conference (scheduled for 5/31/11) entered. 6/14/11 – Notice

7 


SWFWMD v. King, 

M. Lewis, Hancock 

Lake Ranch, et al./ 

Case No. 2011CA- 

000665-111P-00 


Polk County/S. 

Selph 

R. Neill, Jr./ 

J. Pepper 

Petition in Eminent Domain 

(Parcel No. 20-503-111-P) 

6 

That Case Is At Issue and Request for Trial Date on Taking 

Hearing served. 6/17/11 – Answer and Affirmative Defenses of 

Defendant, City of Lake Wales, to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended 

Complaint served. 7/1/11 – SWFWMD’s Notice of Serving 

Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Expert Witness 

Interrogatories served; and Notice of Service of Answers to 

Plaintiffs’ First Set of Expert Witness Interrogatories to 

Defendant, City of Lake Wales served. 7/21/11 – Order Setting 

Pretrial Conference (1/31/12), Non-Jury Trial (2/13/12 (4 days)) 

and Directing Mediation entered. 7/22/11 – Plaintiffs’ Reply to 

Affirmative Defenses of Defendant City of Lake Wales served. 

7/30/11 – Defendant SWFWMD’s Notice of Trial Date Conflict / 

Notice of Unavailability served. 

2/10/11 – Application for Docketing and Assignment of Case; and 

Civil Cover Sheet filed. 3/28/11 – Petition in Eminent Domain; 

Declaration of Taking and Estimate of Value in Connection With 

Parcel No. 20-503-111-P; Notice of Lis Pendens; Petitioner’s 

Witness and Exhibit List; Petitioner’s First Request for Production to 

Defendants M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC; and 

Notice of Serving First Interrogatories to Defendants M. Lewis King 

and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC served. 4/13/11 –Waiver of Service 

and Acceptance of Process of Defendants M. Lewis King and 

Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC served. 4/15/11 – Notice of Filing 

Waiver of Service and Acceptance of Process, Together with 

Original Summonses served. 5/2/11 – Order Setting Pre-Order 

Taking Case Management Conference (for 5/31/11) entered. 5/5/11 

– M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC’s Answer to 

Petitioner served. 5/16/11 – Petitioner’s Reply to Defendants 

Affirmative Defenses served. 6/7/11 – Order Rescheduling Pre- 

Order of Taking Case Management Conference and Order of 

Taking Hearing entered. Pre-Order of Taking Case Management 

Conference is set for 7/5/11. Order of Taking hearing is set for 

7/19/11. 6/15/11 – Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition in Eminent 

Domain; and Notice of Hearing served. 6/29/11 – M. Lewis King 

and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC’s Notice of Adoption of Objection to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Petition in Eminent Domain served. 

7/18/11 – Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition 

in Eminent Domain entered. 8/4/11 – Lewis King and Hancock 

Lake Ranch, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition in 

Eminent Domain served.

8 


SWFWMD v. Lake 

Hancock Partners, 

LLLP, f/k/a Lake 

Hancock Property, 

(a/k/a Rogers 

Trust) etc., et 

al./Case No. 

2011CA-001160- 

118P-00 and 

2011CA-001160- 

108P-00 

SWFWMD v. 

Quintana-Alcocer, 

Elia, et al./Case 

No. 53-2010-CA- 

05262 

SWFWMD v. 

Satterfield, 

Margrette 

Kennedy, et al./ 

Case No. 2010CA- 

009204-123P-00 



Selph 



Selph 



Selph 


J. Pepper 


J. Pepper 


J. Pepper 


(Parcel Nos. 20-503-118-P and 

20-503-108P) 


(Parcel No. 20-503-177-P) 


(Parcel 20-503-123-P) 

7 

3/15/11 - Application for Docketing and Assignment of Case; and 

Civil Cover Sheet filed. 4/14/11 – Eminent Domain Order of Taking 

Hearing Order entered. Pre-Order of Taking Case Management 

Conference scheduled for 5/31/11. 5/2/11 – Petition in Eminent 

Domain; Declaration of Taking and Estimate of Value in Connection 

With Parcel Nos. 20-503-118P and 108P; Notice of Lis Pendens; 

Petitioner’s Witness and Exhibit List; Petitioner’s First Request for 

Production to Defendants Lake Hancock Partners, LLLP, OW 

Hancock, LLLP, and RB Hancock, LLLP; and Notice of Serving 

First Interrogatories to Defendants Lake Hancock Partners, LLLP, 

OW Hancock, LLLP, and RB Hancock, LLLP served. 6/6/11 – 

Answer to Petition in Eminent Domain; Defendants’ Response to 

Petitioner’s Request to Produce; Notice of Serving Answers To 

First interrogatories Propounded by Petitioner; and Defendants’ 

Motion to Allow Withdrawal of Funds served. 6/7/11 – Order 

Rescheduling Pre-Order of Taking Case Management Conference 

and Order of Taking Hearing entered. Pre-Order of Taking Case 

Management Conference is set for 7/5/11. Order of Taking hearing 

is set for 7/19/11. 6/15/11 – Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition in 

Eminent Domain; and Notice of Hearing served. 7/18/11 – Order 

Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition in Eminent 

Domain entered. 8/1/11 – Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

Amended Petition in Eminent Domain served. 

6/14/10 - Application for Docketing and Assignment of Case filed. 

7/6/10 – Petition in Eminent Domain; Declaration of Taking and 

Estimate of Value in Connection with Parcel No. 20-503-177-P; 

Notice of Lis Pendens; and Petitioner’s Witness and Exhibit List 

served. 8/4/10 – (Quintana-Alcocer’s) Answer; and Waiver of 

Service and Acceptance of Process of Defendant Elia Quintana- 

Alcocer served. 8/20/10 – Petitioner’s Reply served. 9/9/10 – 

Motion to Consolidate for Purposes of Order of Taking Hearing; and 

Notice of Hearing. Hearing scheduled for 9/14/10. 09/27/10 – 

Amended Eminent Domain Order of Taking Hearing Order entered. 

Pre-Order of Taking Case Management scheduled for 11/22/10. 

11/2/10 – Stipulated Order of Taking As To Parcel 177-P entered. 

11/5/10 – Notice of Cancellation of Pre-Order of Taking Case 

Management Conference and Order of Taking Hearing served. 

11/29/10 – Application for Docketing and Assignment of Case filed. 

12/13/10 – Eminent Domain Order of Taking Hearing Order 

entered. Pre-Order of Taking Case Management Conference set 

for 3/22/11; and Order of Taking Hearing set for 4/5/11. 12/17/10 – 

Petition in Eminent Domain; Declaration of Taking and Estimate of 

Value in Connection with Parcel No. 20-503-123-P; Notice of Lis

9 


SWFWMD v 

Stanton, William 

H., Jr. and Brandy 

Lee, et al/Case 

No. 2010CA- 

004509-209P-00 


Polk County/S. L. 

Selph 


J. Pepper 


(Parcel Nos. 20-503-209-P and 

20-503-210-P 

8 

Pendens; Petitioner’s Witness and Exhibit List served. 2/3/11 – 

Answer to Petition in Eminent Domain and Affirmative Defenses 

served. 5/3/11 – Order of Taking entered. 6/20/11 – Disclaimer of 

Interest (of Defendant Smith) served. 7/13/11 – Motion for Default 

served. 7/18/11 – Motion for Default entered. 

5/13/10 - Civil Cover Sheet and Application for Docketing and 

Assignment of Case filed. 7/6/10 – Petition in Eminent Domain; 

Declaration of Taking and Estimate of Value in Connection with 

Parcel Nos. 20-503-209-P and 20-503-210-P; and Notice of Lis 

Pendens served. 7/23/10 – Waiver of Service and Acceptance of 

Process of Defendants William H. Stanton and Brandy Lee 

Stanton served. 8/10/10 – (Stantons’) Answer and Claim for Full 

Compensation; and (Stantons’) Request for Hearing served. 

8/20/10 – Petitioner’s Reply and Motion to Strike Referenced 

Affirmative Defenses and Any Associated Denial of Defendants 

Stanton served. 9/9/10 –Notice of Hearing served. Hearing 

scheduled for 9/14/10. 9/27/10 – Amended Eminent Domain 

Order of Taking Hearing Order entered. Hearing scheduled for 

11/22/10. 10/1/10 – Stipulated Order of Taking As To Parcels 

209-P and 210-P entered. 11/9/10 – Notice for Trial served. 

1/3/11 – Order Setting Pretrial Conference, Jury Trial and 

Discovery Deadline (Eminent Domain Cases) entered. Pretrial 

Conference set for 3/23/11; and Jury Trial set for 5 days to begin 

on 4/11/11. 2/25/11 - Petitioner’s Offer of Judgment and Proposal 

for Settlement to Defendants, William H. Stanton and Brandy Lee 

Stanton served. 3/29/11 – Order on Respondents’ Agreed Motion 

to Continue Pretrial Conference and Trial entered. Pretrial 

Conference scheduled for 4/26/11 and Trial scheduled to begin 

on 5/23/11. 4/14/11 – Defendants’ Motion in Limine and 

Incorporated Memorandum of Law to Preclude Valuation and 

Other Testimony Based On or Suggesting That the Easement’s 

Impact Will Be Lessened By the Acts and Uses of the District; and 

Defendants’ Motion in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of 

Law to Exclude Testimony of David Carter, P.E. served. 4/21/11 – 

Petitioner’s First Motion in Limine And/Or to Strike entered; and 

Notice of Hearing served. Hearing on First Motion scheduled for 

5/12/11. 5/5/11 – Defendants’ Motion in Limine Concerning 

Defendants’ Purchase of the Subject Property; and Amended 

Notice of Hearing served. Hearing on Defendants’ 3 Motions in 

Limine set for 5/12/11. 5/19/11 – Order Denying Respondents’ 

Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of David Carter, P.E.; 

Order Granting Respondents’ Motion in Limine Concerning 

Respondents’ Purchase of the Subject Property entered; and

10 


Davis, Alfred J. 

and Cindy v. 

SWFWMD, et 


15513-D 

Davis, Alfred J. 

and Cindy v. 

SWFWMD, et 


11137-D 

U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the 11th 

Circuit 

U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the 11th 

Circuit 

APPEALS 

J. Ward Appeal of Orders entered in U.S. 

District Court of the Middle 

District of Florida, Tampa Division 

J. Ward Appeal of Orders entered in U.S. 

District Court of the Middle 

District of FL, Tampa Div. - Lower 

Tribunal Case No. 8:09-cv-1070- 

T17 TBM 

9 

Notices of Filing Deposition Transcripts served. 5/23/11 – Order 

Granting In Part and Denying In Part Respondents’ Motion in 

Limine to Preclude Valuation and Other Testimony Based on or 

Suggesting That the Easement’s Impact Will Be Lessened by the 

Acts and Uses of the District; and Order on Petitioner’s First 

Motion in Limine And/Or to Strike entered. 5/27/11 – Verdict 

entered. 6/6/11 – Motion for New Trial and For Remittitur served. 

6/7/11 – Final Judgment As To Parcels 209 and 210 entered. 

6/9/11 – Notice of Hearing (set for 7/6/11) served. 7/5/11 – 

Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial 

and for Remittitur served. 7/7/11 – Respondents’ Motion to 

Tax Costs served. 7/8/11 – Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion 

for New Trial and for Remittitur entered. 7/11/11 – Petitioner’s 

Second Request for Production to Defendants Stanton 

served. 7/21/11 – Defendants William H. Stanton, Jr. and 

Brandy Lee Stanton’s Response to Petitioner’s Second 

Request for Production to Defendant Stanton served. 7/26/11 

– Petitioner’s Third Request for Production to Defendants 

Stanton served. 8/4/11 – Defendants William H. Stanton, Jr. 

and Brandy Lee Stanton’s Response to Petitioner’s Third 

Request for Production to Defendants Stanton served. 

11/24/10 - Notice of Appeal served. 12/15/10 - Appellants' 

Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure 

Statement served. 1/10/11 - Initial Brief of Appellants served. 2/7/11 

- Answer Brief of Appellee City of St. Petersburg, FL; and 

Certificate of Interested Persons served. 03/08/11 - Reply Brief of 

Appellants served. 3/21/11 - Defendant-Appellee City of St. 

Petersburg's Response to Jurisdictional Question and Incorporated 

Memorandum of Law served; Appellee's Certificate of Interested 

Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement served. 3/22/11 - 

Appellants' Response to Jurisdictional Question served. 6/2/11 – 

Appellee David L. Moore’s Certificate of Interested Persons; and 

Appearance of Counsel served. 6/24/11 – Certificate of Readiness 

of Record on Appeal served. 

3/9/11 - Notice of Appeal served. 3/14/11 - Amended Notice of 

Appeal served. 3/28/11 - Appellants' Certificate of Interested 

Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement served; (Appellants') 

Civil Appeal Statement and Appearance of Counsel Form filed. 

3/31/11 - Appellee's (City of St. Petersburg) Certificate of Interested 

Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement served; (City of St. 

Petersburg's) Appearance of Counsel Form filed. 5/25/11 – Initial

11 


Hames, Cedar and 

Nora H. Scholin v. 

SWFWMD, et 

al./2D11-1817 

Ross, Henry v. City 

of Tarpon Springs 

and SWFWMD 

SWFWMD v. 

Shea, Raymond & 

Mary Lou, et 

al./Case No. 2D11- 

1642 

Second District 

Court of Appeal 





D. Graziano/ 

J. Ward 

J. Ward/J. 

Pepper/R. 

Neill, Jr. 

Appeal of Final Judgment 

entered in Manatee County 

Circuit Court Case No. 2007 CA 

001649 

Appeal of Final Order No. SWF 

11-011 entered by SWFWMD in 

DOAH Case No. 10-10214 dated 

May 25, 2011. 

Appeal of Orders entered in the 

10th Judicial Circuit in and for 

Polk County, Florida - Lower 

Tribunal Case No. 53-2009-CA- 

008352 related the Parcel No. 

20-503-129 

10 

Brief of Appellants; and Initial Brief of Appellants (with accompanying 

appendix) served. 6/21/11 – Answer Brief of Appellee City 

of St. Petersburg, FL and Appendix for Answer Brief of Appellee 

City of St. Petersburg, FL served. 6/22/11 – Answer Brief of 

Appellee David L. Moore, Executive Director, SWFWMD served. 

6/24/11 – Certificate of Readiness of Record on Appeal served. 

7/6/11 – Reply Brief of Appellants served. 

4/5/11 – Notice of Appeal of Final Judgment served. 4/12/11 – 

Notice of Filing served. 4/14/11 – Acknowledgment of New Case 

entered; and Notice of Filing served. 4/15/11 – Notice of Cross- 

Appeal served. 4/21/11 – Notice of Related Case served. 4/25/11 - 

Amended Designation to the Reporter served. 4/29/11 - Court 

Reporter's Acknowledgment served. 5/27/11 – (Court Reporter’s) 

Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Transcript served. 

5/31/11 – Plaintiffs’ Notice of Agreement to Court Reporter’s Motion 

for Extension of Time to File Appeal Transcript; and (Appellant/ 

Cross-Appellee’s) Unopposed Motion to Extend Time for Serving 

Initial Brief served. 6/2/11 – (Appellants/ Cross-Appellees’) Notice 

of Filing (Court Reporter’s Motion For Extension of Time to File 

Appeal Transcript and Plaintiff’s Notice of Agreement to Court 

Reporter’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Transcript) 

served. 6/3/11 – (Appellants/ Cross-Appellees’) Notice of Filing 

(letter from Bush Graziano advising they have no objection to Court 

Reporter’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Transcript) 

served; Order (granting court reporter’s motion for extension of time 

to file transcript until 30 days from date of order) entered. 6/7/11 – 

Order (granting Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file initial 

brief – due by 8/1/11) entered. 7/26/11 – Unopposed Motion to 

Extend Time for Serving Initial Brief served. 7/28/11 – Order 

(granting Appellant’s motion for extension of time; initial brief 

shall be served within 30 days of the date of Order). 7/29/11 – 

Index to Record on Appeal served. 

6/20/11 – Notice of Appeal served. 8/4/11 – Index to Record on 

Appeal served. 8/8/11 – Pending Related Case served. 8/11/11 

– Record on Appeal served. 

3/28/11 - Notice of Appeal filed. 4/1/11 - Notice of Cross-Appeal 

served; Acknowledgment of New Case. 4/4/11 - Amended Notice of 

Cross-Appeal served. 4/6/11 – Notice of Filing Transcript of 

Proceedings; and Directions to Clerk (regarding Shea) served. 

5/11/11 – Motion to Tax Appellate Fees and Costs served. 5/31/11 

– Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to 

Serve Initial Brief served. 6/2/11 – Service of Copy of Original Index

12 


CONSENT ORDERS 

VIOLATOR BOARD POLICY ATTORNEY VIOLATIONS STATUS 

11 

served. 6/3/11 – Order (Appellant’s motion for extension of time is 

granted, initial brief shall be served by 6/27/11) entered. 6/27/11 – 

Appellant’s Initial Brief served. 7/15/11 - (Shea’s) Unopposed 

Motion for Extension of Time (to file Answer Brief) served. 

7/18/11 - Order (granting Motion for Extension of Time – 

Answer Brief shall be served by 8/22/11) entered. 

Howard, Waylon 160-1 A. Vining Well construction 7/13/11 – signed by Violator 

7/18/11 – signed by Interim Executive Director 

Pruitt, Earl W. 160-1 A. Vining Well construction 7/14/11 – signed by Violator 

7/19/11 – signed by Interim Executive Director

RULE 

RULEMAKING UPDATE 

AUGUST 30, 2011 

PROPOSED RULES &AMENDMENTS 

INITIATION 

DATE 

NA = NOT APPLICABLE;TBD=TO BE DETERMINED 

NEXT 

SCHEDULED 

ACTION 

BOARD 

PROJECTED/ 

APPROVED DATE 

1. 40D-21 - Refine water shortage plan 

based on recent shortages 

Sep 2009 TBD Sep 2010 

2. 40D-9.290 and 40D-9.320 – Use of Dec 2010 Effective Approx. Jan. 2011 

Alcoholic Beverages on District Lands 

Prohibited, and conflicting rules 

Sep 2011 

3. 40D-1, 40D-2, 40D-3, 40D-4, 40D-40 and 

possibly 40D-400 – Amend District rules 

to address number of copies of 

applications, application support 

documents to be submitted. 

Aug 2011 TBD Aug 2011 

4. Initiate Rulemaking as Mandated by 

Section 373.250(3)(c) and (d), Florida 

Statutes, To Address Certain Reuse 

Feasibility Requirements for Water Use 

Permit Applications and Reuse Providers 

June 2011 Approve TBD 

5. 40D-2 – Minor amendments to Dover 

TBD Initiate and TBD 

rules for clarification and to change 

mitigation report deadline 

Approve 

6. 40D-2.302 Upper Peace River/Lake Sep 2011 Initiate and Sep 2011 

Hancock reservation 

Approve 

7. 40D-2.302 Lake Pretty reservation TBD Initiate and 

Approve 

TBD 

8. 40D-2.801 Revise description of SWUCA TBD Initiate and Sep 2011 

boundary to clarify that the SJRWMD 

transfer area is not included 

Approve 

9. 40D-1.002 Adopt amendment to Marion Aug 2011 Initiate and Aug 2011 

County Delegation Agreement 

Approve 

13


August 30, 2011 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 

a. Workload and Staffing Recommendations – Implementation Plan Update 

Item 56 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to provide the Governing Board with the initial staff 

implementation plan based upon recommendations made in the Workload and Staffing 

Analysis performed by North Highland Consulting Company. 

Background 

During the January 27, 2011 Governing Board Ad Hoc meeting, the Board approved North 

Highland Consulting Company to perform a workload and staffing analysis. Between 

February to June 2011, the North Highland project team collected information and 

conducted various surveys and focus groups to gather data and perform the workload and 

staffing analysis. At the June 28, 2011 Governing Board meeting, North Highland provided 

a final, oral summary report to the Board on the Workload and Staffing Analysis it 

performed. 

The Board requested staff to present a plan for implementation of the report 

recommendations at the August 30, 2011 Board meeting. At the July 2011 Board meeting, 

staff indicated the implementation plan would include staff recommendations for either 

accepting, rejecting or modifying the report and initial implementation planning steps based 

upon whether the recommendation was “quick fix,” foundational (short to mid-term 

implementation) or developmental (longer-term and dependent on foundational items) in 

nature. 

This presentation will provide initial feedback from staff about current and future 

implementation recommendations and anticipated time frames. 



Presenter: Elaine M. Kuligofski, Director, Human Resources & Risk Management Dept. 

b. September 28, 2010 Governing Board Workshop Summary – Final Report 

The Governing Board met in a workshop session on September 28, 2010, following its 

regular meeting in Brooksville. During the workshop, the Board discussed goals, policies 

and key positions; allocation of the Proposed FY 2011 Budget by strategic initiatives; 

project/program evaluation, selection and decision making process, as well as other topics 

which are summarized on the table that follows as an exhibit to this item. Staff has been 

providing monthly status reports to keep the Board apprised on the progress of each issue. 

All of the issues raised at the workshop have been addressed and are either complete or will 

remain in ongoing status until further direction is given by the Board. 




c. Other

1 Board desires more discussion on the 

District’s Areas of Responsibility (AORs) 

other than water supply. 

GOVERNING BOARD WORKSHOP SUMMARY 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 

(Final Report as of August 30, 2011) 

ISSUE PROPOSED ACTION STATUS 

2 Board wants the Governing Board budget to 

be developed more consistent with how 

Basin Board budgets are developed - staff 

to show Board allocation of budget by 

strategic initiative 

3 Board wants staff to enhance the District's 

Strategic Plan with additional Board input 

(alternative project analysis) to further 

budget development and Board's 

understanding/ monitoring of strategic 

initiatives. 

Staff to address this through working with the Chair 

and Committee Chairs to place more discussions on 

the Board agenda on topics other than water 

supply. 

Staff to provide a series of presentations to the 

Board relative to the Governing Board initiatives 

over the next six months. These presentations 

would explain the current year’s budget and 

ongoing projects by major initiatives (i.e., 

regulation, natural system restoration, reclaim water 

initiatives, data collection, etc.). The FY 2012 

budget would build upon these presentations. 

Staff intends to prepare a series of Board 

presentations as we develop next year’s Plan and 

Budget that better ties the Strategic Plan with the 

Budget. 

Page 1 of 4 

Ongoing. 

FARMS Program – 10/26/10 

IFAS Program – 11/16/10 

SWIM Program – 11/16/10 

FDOT Mitigation – 11/16/10 

Education Programs – 12/14/10 

Aquatic Plant Management – 12/14/10 

Reclaimed Water Program – 1/25/11 

Utility Outreach Program – 1/25/11 

Water Quality Monitoring Program – 1/25/11 

Watershed Management Program – 2/22/11 

Flood Control – 2/22/11 

Emergency Response – 2/22/11 

MFL Program – 3/29/11 

Land Acquisition & Management – 3/29/11 

Data Collection – 3/29/11 

Natural Systems Restoration – 3/29/11 

Springs Initiative – 4/26/11 

QWIP and Well Back-plugging – 4/26/11 

Well Construction Program – 4/26/11 

Completed. Board budget presentations to 

explain budget by initiatives and projects (similar 

to the Basin Board budgets) are planned for the 

spring in conjunction with the Strategic Planning 

update process. Detailed budget presentations 

were provided in May, June and July. The GB 

adopted proposed millage rate on 7/26/11. 

Ongoing. Concept for Plan update presented 

11/16/10. The Outreach & Planning Committee 

and the GB Strategic Initiative liaison will work 

with staff to develop the update to next year’s 

Plan. Strategic Plan work session with the 

Committee held 1/11/11 to review District slogan, 

vision, mission statements and to give staff 

overall District direction. Second work session 

held 2/10/11 to review Flood Protection AOR. The 

Board instructed staff to hold the remaining AOR 

discussions with the full Board in conjunction with 

their regular monthly meetings. Natural Systems 

AOR presented to the GB on 3/29/11. Draft Flood


Protection AOR write-up provided to GB for review 

on 3/29/11. Water Quality AOR presented to GB 

on 4/26/11. North Highland report recommended 

the GB engage in strategic planning effort. 

Awaiting selection of ED before finalizing 

4 Staff to propose an assortment of future 

alternative supplies for Board's 

consideration but work with local and 

regional governments in preparing options. 

5 Board wants staff to emphasize regionalism 

in terms of water supply; some interest in a 

second reservoir in TBW-Polk area; the 

Board wants staff to evaluate potential uses 

for surplus water supplies; there was 

interest in the staff bringing options to the 

Board to expedite the recovery of the 

SWUCA. 

6 Board wants staff to develop a variable 

matching funds matrix for inland versus 

coastal counties or different project types 

for the Board's consideration. Also, staff 

needs to bring to the Board options for 

helping cash strapped partners. 

7 Board asked that legal provide a 

presentation to the Board on the District's 

statutory authority to provide loans. 

8 Board directed staff to develop a draft RFB 

for staffing analysis for 

Board consideration. Also, there was some 

interest that the Human Resources 

Department have employees with staffing 

analysis expertise. 

Staff needs to do a series of presentations to the 

Board on the findings of the draft Regional Water 

Supply Plan (RWSP). The information the Board 

appears to be seeking is the essence of the RWSP. 

These presentations will be divided into the north, 

central and southern areas of the District and are 

planned for the January through April Governing 

Board meetings under the Planning and Outreach 

Committee agenda. 

Staff needs to keep these Board priority issues in 

mind as we bring forward the presentations 

discussed in the previous issue. 

Staff needs to develop a Board presentation 

discussing what we currently do and options for 

potential changes. The presentation should be 

given to the Board sometime in the December to 

March timeframe under the Finance and 

Administration Committee agenda. 

Legal staff has already prepared the opinion and 

plans to present this issue to the Board under the 

General Council’s Report at their November 

meeting. 

The Chair has asked that the officers of the Finance 

and Administration Committee work with staff to put 

together a draft RFB for the Board’s consideration at 

its October meeting under the Finance and 

Administration Committee agenda. 

Page 2 of 4 

approach. 

Completed. Board approved postponing approval 

of RWSP at 1/25/11 meeting so that updated data 

and anticipated changes to growth management 

legislation can be evaluated. In July staff reported 

that updated data and legislative changes have no 

significant effect on the outcome of the RWSP. 

GB approved RWSP 7/26/11. 

Ongoing. The District has agreed to participate 

in meetings with TBW and Polk County to try to 

reach an agreement for regional cooperation in 

the development of water supplies to meet 

growing demands. A meeting among Polk County, 

TBW and the District took place May 26 th . The 

next meeting is scheduled for mid-July. Staff is 

also working with Polk County and the SFWMD to 

develop a lower Floridan aquifer wellfield in SE 

Polk County that can serve the water supply 

needs of eastern Polk County. The District also 

continues to coordinate with the SF and SJR 

WMDs and utility stakeholders in the Central 

Florida Water Initiative for regional water supply 

solutions. 

Ongoing. Developing Finance & Administration 

Committee presentation for the GB’s consideration 

following the Legislative session. Staff is 

developing future project funding options and 

process for GB consideration. 

Completed. Presentation provided 11/16/10. No 

further direction was provided. 

Completed. Staffing Analysis RFP approved 

10/26/10. Proposed Salary& Benefits RFP voted 

down 11/16/10. Board voted to explore moving 

forward with other WMDs in December. Board 

approved moving forward on its own salary and 

benefits study at the 1/25/11 meeting. Board to


review proposals 2/22/11. Ad Hoc committee 

heard presentations and the Board selected 

consultant to conduct the salary & benefits study 

on 2/25/11. Progress reports on both studies 

provided to GB on 4/26/11 and 5/24/11. 

Evergreen (salary & benefits) update provided 

6/28/11. North Highland Consultants (workload & 

staffing) to meet with FIN Committee 6/28/11 to 

review final report. North Highland report 

accepted by GB 6/28/2011. Staff directed to 

develop an implementation strategy for GB 

consideration. Evergreen report presented to GB 

9 There was some interest on the potential 

impacts of EPA's proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria (NNC) standards. 

10 Board asked staff to provide options to the 

Board to better address stormwater 

management in blighted redevelopment 

areas. 

11 There was some interest expressed for the 

use of ad valorem for less than fee 

acquisitions primarily on agricultural lands 

that provide functional habitat. 

12 There was some interest expressed for the 

District to create a coastal springs initiative. 

Staff plans to give the Board a presentation in 

December or January under the Resource 

Management Committee agenda after they 

complete a thorough evaluation of the proposed 

rules EPA plans to publish in mid-November. 

Staff is currently working on this issue and plan to 

place on the Regulation Committee agenda in 

December or January. 

Consider having staff investigate this issue and 

place on an upcoming Resource Management 

Committee agenda to further discuss. The 

presentation should be given to the Board sometime 

in the December to March timeframe. 


place on an upcoming Resource Management 

Committee agenda to further discuss. The 

presentation should be given to the Board sometime 

in December - March timeframe. 

Page 3 of 4 

8/30/11. 

Ongoing. Staff provided a brief summary on 

11/16/10 and a Board presentation on 12/14/10. 

Staff will continue to monitor rulemaking and legal 

challenges to better determine impacts to the 

District. The EPA sent a letter to the FDEP dated 

June 13, 2011 in which EPA indicated they would 

be willing to repeal and/or extend deadlines with 

the intent to repeal their promulgated NNC for 

both freshwater and estuarine systems if FDEP 

can develop and adopt standards acceptable to 

the EPA by January 2012. EPA’s freshwater 

systems criteria was set to take effect March 2012 

and the estuarine waters, August 2012. The 

District will continue to monitor progress and 

provide scientific input where appropriate. 

Ongoing. Staff discussed options for legislative 

change 11/16/10. Monitor during session. Senate 

and House Bills are consistent and advancing 

through committees. The bills died before being 

heard on the Senate floor. Regulation staff 

addressing on a case-by-case basis through 

Statutory exemption provisions. 

Ongoing. Direction has been received to pursue 

no land purchases without prior approval by DEP 

6/16/11. 

Ongoing. Staff anticipates incorporating springs 

protection into the 2013 update to the Strategic 

Plan. Springs Initiative overview presented to the 

GB 4/26/11 as part of the Strategic Plan update. 

Awaiting selection of ED before finalizing 

approach.

13 There was some interest in further 

addressing per capita reductions in the 

northern District through incentive based 

funding. 


14 There was some interest in delaying for one 

year an employee’s eligibility to be a 

member of FRS. 

15 Board wants to recognize employees who 

submit cost saving suggestions ("SHINE" 

program as an example). 

16 Interest appeared low relative to 

consolidation of Basin Boards. 

(LK/D:Workshops) 

Staff to ensure that our Utility Outreach staff let 

local governments know, especially in the northern 

areas of the District, that our Board looks favorably 

on funding projects to address reduction of per 

capita water use such as rebates, education, 

reclaimed water projects, etc. 


place on an upcoming Finance and Administration 

Committee agenda to further discuss. 

Employees that participate in the Employee 

Suggestion Program (ESP) will be recognized during 

the monthly employee recognition section of the 

agenda. 

Page 4 of 4 

Ongoing. Utility outreach efforts continue in the 

northern areas of the District. 

Completed. Analysis provided to the GB 

12/14/10 found the delay would not benefit our 

agency. 

Completed. Employees were recognized at 

November GB meeting. Periodic recognitions will 

continue. 

Recommend no additional action at this time. Completed. GB took final action to merge all 

basins and consolidate them into the District on 

5/24/11.


August 30, 2011 

CHAIR’S REPORT 

a. Liaison Reports 

b. Other 

Presenter: Paul Senft, Chair 

Item 57

notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?