notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

\ 

Governing Board 

Meeting 

Agenda 

and 

Meeting Information 

October 30, 2012 

9:00 a.m. 

District Headquarters 

2379 Broad Street • Brooksville, Florida 

(352) 796-7211 • 1-800-423-1476 

Weeki Wachee River

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 

An Equal 

Opportunity 

Employer 

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 

MEETING NOTICE 

GOVERNING BOARD MEETING 

OCTOBER 30, 2012 

9:00 A.M. 

DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS 

2379 BROAD STREET (US HWY 41) 

352-796-7211 OR 1-800-423-1476 

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. 

Pursuant to Section 373.079(7), Florida Statutes, all or part of this meeting may be 

conducted by means of communications media technology in order to permit 

maximum participation of Governing Board members. 

The Governing Board may take official action at this meeting on any item appearing on this 

agenda and on any item that is added to this agenda as a result of a change to the agenda 

approved by the presiding officer of the meeting pursuant to Section 120.525, Florida Statutes. 

The order of items appearing on the agenda is subject to change during the meeting 

and is at the discretion of the presiding officer. 

Public Comment will be taken after each presentation and before any Governing Board action(s) 

except for Governing Board hearings that involve the issuance of final orders based on 

recommended Orders received from the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. 

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

The current Governing Board agenda and minutes of previous meetings 

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

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 ~ October 30, 2012 

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

1. Call to Order 

2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation 

3. Oath of Office for Newly Appointed or Reappointed Board Members 

4. Additions/Deletions to Agenda 

5. Ceremony to Honor Judith C. Whitehead for Her Service on the Governing Board 

6. Employee Recognition 

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

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 

8. Individual Water Use Permits (WUPs) Referred to the Governing Board 

a. WUP No. 20011400.025 – Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC / Integrated Water Use Permit – Polk, 

Hardee, DeSoto, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties 

b. WUP No. 20007178.006 – Development and Construction Corporation of America / Oak Run 

Development – Marion County 

Operations & Land Management Committee 

9. Conveyance of a Conservation Easement to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

for Mitigation Purposes, Polk County 

10. Acceptance of Easement Donation – Peace Creek Canal Project, SWF Parcel No. 20-696-206P 

Resource Management Committee 

11. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend 40D-8.624, Florida Administrative Code 

(F.A.C.), to Adopt Minimum and Guidance Levels for Lakes Bonable, Tiger, and Little Bonable 

in Marion County 

12. Adopt Resolution No. 12-15 for the Reallocation of Funds Appropriated by the State in 

Fiscal Years 2006 and 2008 – Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund 

13. Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update 

14. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program (H017) – 

Reallocation of State Trust Funds and Budget Transfer 

Finance & Administration Committee 

15. Budget Transfer Report 

16. Office Service Analysis 

General Counsel’s Report 

17. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board Approval 

a. Interagency Agreement between the SWFWMD and the SJRWMD to Designate the 

SWFWMD as the Agency with Regulatory Responsibility for Water Use Permitting – 

Whitehurst Cattle Company – Marion and Levy Counties 

b. Initiation of Litigation – Unauthorized Construction - James V. Risher and Carolyn Risher – 

Levy County 

c. Consent Order – Surface Water Activity - Robert J. Colvin and Mary A. Colvin – Lake County 

d. Settlement – SWFWMD v. M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC (Parcel No. 

20-503-111-P) 

e. Settlement – Mudd v. City of Lake Wales and SWFWMD (Tenth Judicial Circuit) – Polk County 

18. Rulemaking 

a. Approve Repeal of Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to be Consistent with the Changes Necessitated 

by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Guidance for Consumptive Use 

Permit Compliance Reporting Requirements and Review Memorandum 

b. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-1.608, F.A.C., to Clarify the 

Requirements for Certain Counties and Municipalities to Request a Permit Fee Reduction 

Executive Director’s Report 

19. Approve Governing Board Minutes 

a. First Public Budget Hearing – September 11, 2012 

b. Monthly Meeting – September 25, 2012 

c. Second Public Budget Hearing – September 25, 2012


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB C) 

Discussion Items 

20. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 

21. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend 40D-8.041, F.A.C., to Establish Minimum Flows 

for the Chassahowitzka and Homosassa River Systems and Accept Reports 

Submit & File Reports – None 

Routine Reports 

22. Minimum Flows and Levels 

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

24. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects 

REGULATION COMMITTEE (TAB D) 



26. Denials Referred to the Governing Board 

Submit & File Report 

27. Public Supply Report 


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 

OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB E) 



34. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

Submit & File Reports 

35. Surplus Lands Assessment Update 

36. Flying Eagle Nature Center Update 

37. Land Management Team Review Evaluations – Chassahowitzka Riverine Swamp, Jack Creek, 

Starkey Wilderness Preserve and Conner Preserve 


38. Structure Operations 

39. Significant Activities 

OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (TAB F) 

Discussion Items – None 



40. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report 

41. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 


FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (TAB G) 




44. Bartow Service Office Update 


45. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register and Contingency Funds Report 

46. Monthly Financial Statement 

47. Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year


GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT (TAB H) 




49. Environmental Resource Permit Penalties Equal to or Greater than $5,000 


50. Litigation Report 

51. Rulemaking Update 

COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS (TAB I) 

52. Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting 

53. Well Drillers Advisory Committee Meeting 

54. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Meeting 

55. Other Liaison Reports 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (TAB J) 

56. Executive Director’s Report 

a. Inspector General Policies, Procedures and Succession 

b. Other 

CHAIR’S REPORT (TAB K) 

57. Chair’s Report 

a. Approve Resolution 12-16 Commending Hugh M. Gramling for His Service on the Board 

b. Other 

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

RECESS PUBLIC HEARING 

Governing Board Meetings Schedule: 

Meeting – Haines City ............................................................................... November 27, 2012 

Meeting – Tampa ...................................................................................... December 18, 2012 

Meeting – Tampa ..................................................................................... January 29, 2013 

Meeting – Sarasota ................................................................................. February 26, 2012 

Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule: 

Industrial/Public Supply – Tampa .............................................................. November 13, 2012 

Agricultural/Green Industry – Tampa ....................................................... December 6, 2012 

Well Drillers – Tampa .............................................................................. January 9, 2013 

Environmental – Tampa ........................................................................... January 14, 2013 

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 September 2012 

Chair 

Vice Chair 

Secretary 

Treasurer 

OFFICERS 

H. Paul Senft, Jr. 

Douglas B. Tharp 

Albert G. Joerger 

Jeffrey M. Adams 

REGULATION COMMITTEE 

OPERATIONS AND LAND 

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 

OUTREACH AND PLANNING 

COMMITTEE 

Vacant, Chair Michael A. Babb, Chair Jeffrey M. Adams, Chair 

Todd Pressman, Vice Chair Randall S. Maggard, Vice Chair Jennifer E. Closshey, Vice Chair 

Carlos Beruff Albert G. Joerger Michael A. Babb 

Vacant Douglas B. Tharp Vacant 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

COMMITTEE 

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 

COMMITTEE 

SURPLUS LANDS 

SUBCOMMITTEE 

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

Michael A. Babb, Vice Chair Douglas B. Tharp, Vice Chair Vacant, Vice Chair 

Randall S. Maggard Jennifer E. Closshey Jeffrey M. Adams 

Douglas B. Tharp Albert G. Joerger Jennifer E. Closshey 

* Board policy requires the Governing 

Board Treasurer to chair the 

Finance and Administration Committee. 

Randall S. Maggard 

Douglas B. Tharp 

STANDING COMMITTEE LIAISONS 

Agricultural Advisory Committee Vacant 

Environmental Advisory Committee Michael A. Babb 

Green Industry Advisory Committee Douglas B. Tharp 

Industrial Supply Advisory Committee Randall S. Maggard 

Public Supply Advisory Committee Vacant 

Well Drillers Advisory Committee Vacant 

OTHER LIAISONS 

Governing Board Diversity Coordinator Carlos Beruff 

Strategic Planning Initiative Jennifer E. Closshey 

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

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Policy Board Vacant 

Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Albert G. Joerger 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Vacant 

Todd Pressman, Primary 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 

Jeffrey M. Adams, Alternate 

9/26/2012

Executive Summary

Executive Summary 

GOVERNING BOARD MEETING 


9:00 a.m. 

If viewing this document electronically, links are now available from the Executive Summary to the 

item’s information page. To return to the Executive Summary, click on the item number in the upper 

right-hand corner of the page. 

CONVENE PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 






6. Employee Recognition 

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

CONSENT AGENDA (TAB B) 

All m atters lis ted un der th e Cons ent A genda ar e c onsidered r outine and action wil l b e tak en b y one m otion, 

second of the m otion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Boar d member, that ite m(s) 




a. WUP No. 20011400.025 – Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC / Integrated Water Use Permit – Polk, 

Hardee, DeSoto, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties 

This is a 20- year renewal with modification to reduce total permitted quantities and com bine 

seven of Mosaic’s existing WUPs into a single Integrated WUP for the purposes of phosphate 

rock mining an d fertilizer m anufacturing. The m ining oper ations are conduc ted on 

approximately 317,000 acres of property located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area 

in Hillsborough, Polk, Hardee, Manatee, and DeSoto Counties. The total combined permitted 

Annual Average Daily quantities are reduced from approximately 99.9 million gallons per day 

(mgd) t o 69. 6 mg d, a reduction o f a pproximately 30%. Lon g-term av erage use ov er the 

20-year permit term is anticipated to be no more than 55.2 mgd. 

Staff r ecommends t he Board appr ove t he pr oposed per mit included in t he Boar d’s m eeting 

materials as an exhibit.

SWFWMD Board Meeting Executive Summary ~ 2 ~ OCTOBER 30, 2012 

b. WUP No. 20007178.006 – Development and Construction Corporation of America / Oak 

Run Development – Marion County 

This permit is a r enewal with modification for recreational/aesthetic type use. The authorized 

quantities ar e an incr ease from those pr eviously per mitted. The inc rease in t he Annual 

Average rate, from 363,000 gallons per day (gpd) to 614,300 gpd, and the Peak Month rate, 

from 862,000 gpd to 1,904,400 gpd, is due to an increase in irrigated acres of golf course and 

lawn and landscape ar eas. T he Permittee is in neg otiations with Marion Count y Ut ilities t o 

increase reclaimed water use at the site. 

Staff r ecommends t he Board appr ove t he pr oposed per mit included in t he Boar d’s m eeting 

materials as an exhibit. 


9. Conveyance of a Conservation Easement to the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection for Mitigation Purposes, Polk County 

This is a request to convey a conservation easement to the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection ( FDEP). The FDEP has ag reed to t he accept ance of t his easement as part of Polk 

County’s mitigation requirements for their expansion of the North Central Landfill. 

Staff recommends the Board authorize the Board Chair and Secr etary to execute the instrument 

necessary t o conv ey a Conser vation Easem ent t o the Flor ida Depart ment o f Env ironmental 

Protection. 

10. Acceptance of Easement Donation – Peace Creek Canal Project, SWF Parcel No. 

20-696-206P 

Staff recommends the Board accept the donation of an easement interest over 3.41 acres located 

along the Peace Creek Canal owned by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. 


11. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend 40D-8.624, Florida Administrative Code 

(F.A.C.), to Adopt Minimum and Guidance Levels for Lakes Bonable, Tiger, and Little 

Bonable in Marion County 

Based on available water level records, the proposed minimum levels for each of the three lakes 

are being met. In the event that water levels in the lake basin ar e not fluctuating in com pliance 

with the proposed minimum levels, the recovery strategies outlined in Ru le 40D-80.074, F.A.C., 

will apply. 

Staff recommends the Board: 

(1) Accept the reports entitled, “Proposed Minimum and G uidance Levels for Lakes Bonable and 

Tiger in Marion County” and “Proposed Minimum and Guidance Levels for Little Lake Bonable 

in Marion County,” dated August 30, 2012 and September 14, 2012, respectively. 

(2) Authorize staff to make any necessary clarifying or minor technical changes that may result 

from the rulemaking process and to complete report finalization. 

(3) I nitiate and appr ove r ulemaking t o am end R ule 40D-8.624, F. A.C., to delet e t he pr eviously 

adopted guidance levels and add new guidance and minimum levels for lakes Bonable, Tiger, 

and Little Bonable in Marion County. 

12. Adopt Resolution No. 12-15 for the Reallocation of Funds Appropriated by the State in 

Fiscal Years 2006 and 2008 – Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund 

Manatee’s second of four MARS 10 MG Reclai med St orage Tank p roject is an on going, multiyear 

alt ernative water supply pr oject. M ARS is a r egional r euse sy stem t hat consist s o f ov er 

21 miles o f tr ansmission lines t hat int erconnect M anatee Count y's t hree r egional w astewater 

treatment facilities, designed to distribute over 30 million gallons per day (mgd). The total cost of 

the pr oject is $5 ,000,000 wit h t he Dist rict’s s hare o f 50 pe rcent cu rrently being $2, 500,000. 

Approving the reallocation of the $637,824 in trust funds will optimize the use o f state funds and 

benefit the District and Manatee County by decreasing each party’s project funding by $318,912.



(1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-15 to reallocate a total of $637,824, with $635,752 in FY2006 trust 

funds approved for the Bradenton ASR Sy stem Including Oxygen Removal Study ($45,250), 

Lake Tarpon ASR T est Well Pr ogram ( $234,834), M orningside Ar ea Reclaim ed Water 

Transmission and Distr ibution Sy stem ( $219,620), and Haines City ’s Sout hern Ar ea 

Transmission Main Extension ($136,048); and $2,072 in FY2008 t rust funds approved for the 

Haines Cit y’s Sout hern Ar ea T ransmission Main E xtension and t ransfer t o t he on going 

Manatee’s Second of F our M ARS 10 Million G allon ( MG) Reclaim ed St orage Tank ( H093) 

project; approve the transfer of $318,912 of ad valorem funds which will be reimbursed by the 

WPSTF; 

(2) Authorize st aff t o a mend t he ag reement t o add lang uage that w ill allo w t he pr oject t o use 

those funds; and 

(3) Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to execute the amendment. 

13. Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update 

Staff presented a draft "Proposed Southwest Florida Water Management District Fiscal Year 2013 

Minimum Flo ws and L evels Pr iority List and Schedule" t o t he G overning Boar d at t he 

September 25, 2012 meet ing. Comm ent on t he dr aft p riority list was r eceived at a publ ic 

workshop held at the Tampa Service Office on October 1, 2012. 

Based on consideration of stakeholder input, no further additions to the priority list or rescheduling 

of water bodies other than those discussed at the September 2012 Board meeting are proposed. 

However, based on r eview of budgetary and staffing requirements for other priority water bodies, 

staff recommends that Myakkahatchee Creek be removed from the priority list. This water body 

was previously identified by staff for MFLs adoption in FY2016. 

Staff recommends the Board approve the Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedu le 

for submission to DEP for review and approval as required by Chapter 373, F.S. 

14. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program (H017) – 


Over t he last sev eral f iscal y ears, t he FAR MS Program has ex perienced a st eady incr ease in 

program part icipation, w ith FY2012 hav ing 44 new pr ojects and 6 am endments app roved for 

funding in t he am ount of $8 ,295,058. The F Y2013 budg et for FARMS Pr ogram pr ojects i s 

$6,000,000 in ad valorem and State Appropriation based funding. This request for the transfer of 

additional St ate Appr opriation funds int o t he FARMS Pr ogram would incr ease t he t otal FARMS 

Program project budget for FY2013 to $7,139,528. 

Staff recommends the Board approve the reallocation of $1,139,528 in State funding for the West- 

Central Flor ida Water Rest oration Act ion Plan and t he t ransfer o f t he associated ex penditure 

budget from t he Lake Hancock Lak e Level Modification pr oject ( H008) to t he FAR MS Pr ogram 

(H017) for future funding of agricultural Best Management Practices consistent with FARMS Rule 

40D-26, F.A.C. 



Staff recommends the Board approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers for 

September 2012. 

16. Office Service Analysis 

Pursuant to the Governor’s and Board’s direction, District staff is exploring opportunities to reduce 

District expenses while ensuring the delivery of effective and efficient services. Distr ict staff has 

conducted a pr eliminary r eview of opt ions for the de livery of o ffice serv ices includ ing pr inting, 

mailing, and document imaging. However, to ensure that a thorough and comprehensive analysis 

of all available options is performed, a market review of outside services by a qualified company is 

required.



(1) Conduct an analysis of current market rates for office services, including printing, mailing, and 

document imaging, through a RFP; 

(2) Perform a cost-comparison of the District’s existing office service expenses; and 

(3) Explore any cost-saving opportunities identified. 


17. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board 

Approval 

a. Interagency Agreement between the SWFWMD and the SJRWMD to Designate the 



The Whitehurst Cattle Company submitted Water Use Per mit Application No. 20005122.005 

to t he S WFWMD for property locat ed within t he j urisdictional boundar ies o f bot h t he 

SWFWMD and the SJRWMD. The majority of the property and activities subject to regulatory 

review are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SWFWMD. 

The SWFWMD has previously taken regulatory responsibility for permitting water withdrawals 

and uses of water by Whitehurst Cattle Company on the property. However, SWFWMD staff 

discovered that the assumption of regulatory responsibility was based upon a r ecord of oral 

communications bet ween S WFWMD and SJRW MD and t hat an int eragency ag reement 

designating the S WFWMD as t he w ater management dis trict w ith r egulatory r esponsibility 

over water use permitting on the property has not been executed. 

Staff Recomm ends the Board appr ove t he I nteragency Agr eement between t he Dist ricts for 

Designation o f Re gulatory Responsibilit y f or Water Use Perm itting o f the Whitehurst Cat tle 

Company in Marion and Levy Counties. 

b. Initiation of Litigation – Unauthorized Construction - James V. Risher and Carolyn 

Risher – Levy County 

On June 19, 2008, District staff drove by property located at 18291 S.E. 72nd Avenue, Inglis, 

Levy County, Florida (Property) and obser ved that approximately 1.20 acres of a p reviously 

treed upland had been cleared and covered with impervious material for the construction of a 

limerock r oadway and paved par king lot . The Pr operty is o wned b y James and Car olyn 

Risher ( Owners). The O wners had not appli ed for and the Distr ict had not issued an 

Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing these activities. 

Upon r eceipt of t he No tice of Violat ion ( NOV) and pr oposed Consen t O rder, M r. Risher 

contacted the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and proposed $3,000 in payment of penalties 

and costs, but did not want to restore the Property or apply for an ERP. 

In Apr il 2012 , the Distr ict obse rved t hat the paved par king lo t remained, but t he ar ea 

previously co vered with limerock had not been m aintained as an im pervious sur face. T he 

District estimated the paved impervious surface was approximately 0.44 acres. 

During discussions w ith O GC in July 2012, Mr. Risher indicat ed t hat he m ay r emove t he 

paved parking lot. OGC offered to resolve the matter through a proposed Consent Order that 

required r emoval of the pav ed ar ea, and ass essed r evised penalt ies and cost s totaling 

$3,000. OGC followed up w ith M r. Ris her in Aug ust 2012 and in September 2012 on 

settlement of this matter, but has not received a response. 

Staff recommends t he Board aut horize t he init iation of lit igation against James and Car olyn 

Risher and any ot her appr opriate parties to obtain com pliance, t o recover an adm inistrative 

fine/civil penalty for the violations, and to recover District enforcement costs, court costs and 

attorney’s fees.


c. Consent Order – Surface Water Activity - Robert J. Colvin and Mary A. Colvin – Lake 

County 

On July 31, 2012, this matter came before the Governing Board to authorize litigation against 

Robert and Mary Colvin (Owners) for unauthorized wetland dredging and filling in the southern 

portion o f t heir pr operty locat ed in Lak e Count y ( Property). T he G overning B oard m oved 

unanimously for the District to work with the Owners to resolve this matter and, if the matter 

could not be r esolved, to appear before the Governing Board at its October 2012 m eeting to 

authorize litigation against the Owners. 

On August 28, 2012, the District conducted a site visit at t he Owners’ Property, marked the 

areas in t he southern portion of the Property where fill would need t o be r emoved and ar eas 

where the removed fill could be placed. On September 12, 2012, the District requested the 

Owners submit a financial affidavit for the District to determine the Owners’ ability to pay the 

$60,300 in penalt ies that had been assessed f or the wetland impacts. The Dist rict received 

the Owners’ financial affidavit on September 21, 2012. 

On October 10 , 2012 , the Dist rict sent t he O wners a revised Consent Or der. The r evised 

Consent Order requires restoration to the wetland as discussed during the August 28, 2012, 

site visit, waives the penalties of $60,300 if the Owners complete the restoration requirements 

within one y ear of t he effective dat e o f t he C onsent Or der, and r equires pay ment o f the 

District’s costs totaling $2,000 within 30 days of the effective date of the Consent Order. 

Staff recommends the Board approve the Consent Order between the District and Robert and 

Mary Colvin. 

d. Settlement – SWFWMD v. M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC (Parcel No. 

20-503-111-P) 

On October 28 , 2008 , i n connect ion w ith t he L ake Hancoc k La ke Lev el M odification Pr oject 

(“Project”), the District’s Governing Board adopted a Resolut ion authorizing the use o f eminent 

domain t o acq uire an inundat ion easem ent t o est ablish t he Lak e Hancoc k outf all cont rol 

structure at an elevation of 100 NGVD (1929). On March 29, 2011, the District filed a petition in 

eminent domain to obtain an inundat ion easement over 8.5 acres of real property identified as 

Parcel 111-P, and owned by M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC (the “Property”). 

The parties attended a pre-suit mediation on August 30, 2012. As a result of the mediation, the 

parties arrived at a contingent settlement, subject to approval by the District’s Governing Board, 

whereby the District will pay the owners $170,000 for the easement. 

Staff recommends the Board approve the settlement agreement whereby the District will pay the 

owners $170,000 for the easement necessary for implementation of the Project. 

e. Settlement – Mudd v. City of Lake Wales and SWFWMD (Tenth Judicial Circuit) – 

Polk County 

This case conce rns an inv erse condemnation claim arising from flooding in 2005 o f multiple 

properties located in Polk County on a peninsul a of land t hat projects into Lake Belle. T he 

plaintiffs contend that lateral seepage into Lake Belle from high volumes of water pumped into 

the rapid infiltration basins oper ated by the City of Lake Wales may have cont ributed to the 

flooding of the plaintiffs’ properties. 

A four-day bench t rial w as scheduled for Oct ober 8 t hrough 11 , 2012. O n the m orning o f 

Friday, October 5, the Office of General Counsel was advised by the District’s outside counsel 

that the plaintiffs’ attorney proposed settling the case as to the District for $100,000. Since trial 

was set t o beg in on M onday m orning, October 8, t he Gener al Counsel consult ed w ith t he 

Executive Director and the Boar d Chair to obtain approval f or settlement pursuant to Board 

Policy 160-3, which allows such approval “if the matter requires immediate action and cannot 

be delayed to be r epresented at t he next regularly scheduled Boar d meeting.” A fter further


negotiations, t he pa rties ag reed on t he morning o f trial t o sett le for $40,000, sub ject to 

Governing Board approval. 

Staff recommends the Board approve the settlement agreement whereby the District will pay 

the plaintiffs $40,000 in exchange for being dismissed from the lawsuit. 


a. Approve Repeal of Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to be Consistent with the Changes 

Necessitated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Guidance for 

Consumptive Use Permit Compliance Reporting Requirements and Review 

Memorandum 

The Flor ida Depar tment o f Env ironmental Pr otection ( DEP) issued " Guidance for 

Consumptive Use Permit Com pliance Report ing Re quirements and Rev iew" t o t he water 

management districts (WMDs) on March 23, 2012 (Memo). The Memo provides guidance as 

it r elates t o the i mplementation o f Sect ion 373 .236(4), F .S., w hich author izes a WMD to 

require a com pliance r eport by a per mittee every t en years in or der t o maintain r easonable 

assurance that the conditions for issuance of a 2 0-year permit can continue to be met. The 

statute r equires t hat t he com pliance r eport s hould cont ain suf ficient dat a t o “ maintain 

reasonable assurance that the initial conditions for permit issuance are met.” 

District staff seeks Board appr oval t o r epeal Rule 40D- 2.322, F.A.C., to be m ore consist ent 

with Sect ion 373 .236(4), F. S., r ules o f t he ot her WMDs and t he M emo by elim inating the 

automatic reduction in perm itted quantities, the r equirement for ad ditional g roundwater 

modeling and the automatic reduction in permit duration. 

b. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-1.608, F.A.C., to Clarify the 

Requirements for Certain Counties and Municipalities to Request a Permit Fee 

Reduction 

The proposed rulemaking will amend Rule 40D -1.608, F.A.C., to clarify the r equirements for 

counties and m unicipalities to request a pe rmit fee reduction under Section 218.075, F.S. A 

permit applicant requesting a pe rmit fee reduction will be r equired to submit a c ertification of 

fiscal har dship, o r doc umentation dem onstrating the env ironmental need for a pr oposed 

project or activity at the time that an application for a permit is submitted. 

Staff r ecommends t he Board init iate and approv e r ulemaking t o am end Rule 40D -1.608, 

F.A.C., to clarify the requirements for certain counties and m unicipalities to request a per mit 

fee r eduction and t o delet e pr ovisions t hat r epeat t he r equirements cont ained in Sect ion 

218.075, F.S., and authorize staff to make any necessary clarifying or technical changes that 

may result from the rulemaking process. 



a. First Public Budget Hearing – September 11, 2012 

b. Monthly Meeting – September 25, 2012 

c. Second Public Budget Hearing – September 25, 2012 

Staff recommends approving the minutes as presented. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB C) 


20. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion


21. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend 40D-8.041, F.A.C., to Establish Minimum 

Flows for the Chassahowitzka and Homosassa River Systems and Accept Reports 

The revised, recommended minimum flows for the Chassahowitzka River System are 91 percent 

of it s na tural flow; and t he r evised, r ecommended m inimum flows f or t he Ho mosassa Riv er 

System are 97 pe rcent of its natural flow. There are currently no perm itted surf ace withdrawals 

from eit her sy stem, an d flow r eductions in e ach t hat may be asso ciated w ith gr oundwater 

withdrawals ar e m inimal ( ~1%). The Dist rict is c ommitted t o t he reevaluation of minimum flows 

that are adopted for the systems, as necessary, and staff recommends that minimum flows for the 

systems should be evaluated within ten years of their adoption. 

Upon G overning Boar d approval of t he propose d r ule lang uage, s taff will subm it not ice t o t he 

Governor’s Office o f Fis cal Account ability and Reg ulatory Ref orm (O FARR) and pr oceed w ith 

formal rulemaking without further Governing Board action. If substantive changes are necessary 

as the result of comments received from the public or reviewing entities such as O FARR or the 

Joint Adm inistrative Pr ocedures Comm ittee, this m atter w ill be br ought back to t he Governing 

Board for consideration. 

Staff recommends the Board : 

(1) Accept the r eport e ntitled, “ Recommended M inimum Flow s f or the Ch assahowitzka Riv er 

System,” dated July 15, 2012. 

(2) Initiate rulemaking and appr ove adopt ion o f am endments t o Rule 40D -8.041, Flor ida 

Administrative Code, to establish minimum flows for the Chassahowitzka River System. 

(3) Accept the report entitled, “Recommended Minimum Flows for the Homosassa River System,” 

dated July 15, 2012. 

(4) Initiate rulemaking and appr ove adopt ion o f am endments t o Rule 40D -8.041, Flor ida 

Administrative Code, to establish minimum flows for the Homosassa River System. 


from the rulemaking process. 



The following items are provided for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 


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


REGULATION COMMITTEE (TAB D) 



26. Denials Referred to the Governing Board 

If any denials are requested to be referred to the Governing Board, these will be presented at the 

meeting. 


The following item is submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

27. Public Supply Report 







32. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives


OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB E) 




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. 

This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 


The following items are submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 



37. Land Management T eam Rev iew E valuations – Chassahowit zka Ri verine S wamp, Jac k Cr eek, 

Starkey Wilderness Preserve and Conner Preserve 





OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (TAB F) 





40. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 



FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (TAB G) 





44. Bartow Service Office Update 





47. Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year 

GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT (TAB H) 


48. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion




49. Environmental Resource Permit Penalties Equal to or Greater than $5,000 


The following items are provided for the Board’s information, and no action is required. 


51. Rulemaking Update 

COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS (TAB I) 

The following items will be provided for the Board’s information at the meeting. 




55. Other Liaison Reports 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (TAB J) 


a. Inspector General Policies, Procedures and Succession 

Pursuant to Board Policy, the following options are available for consideration: 

(1) immediately appoint an Inspector General; 

(2) appoint an interim Inspector General; and 

(3) have t he posit ion r emain open dur ing the r ecruitment and selec tion o f a new I nspector 

General. 

In addition, if either option (2) or (3) is selected, the Governing Board will then decide who will 

conduct the recruitment, the Executive Director or the Governing Board. The procedures are 

substantially the same. Under either option, the Governing Board selects the new Inspector 

General by a majority vote. 

To facilitate t he decision- making pr ocess, s taff is r ecommending t hat t he Boar d should f irst 

determine whether it wants to immediately appoint an I nspector General; appoint an int erim 

Inspector G eneral; or h ave t he posit ion r emain open dur ing t he r ecruitment and select ion 

process. Consist ent w ith t he Governing Boar d’s decision last y ear r egarding the int erim 

Executive Director, i f op tion ( 2) is select ed, it is adv isable t hat t he person w ho ser ves as 

interim Inspector General is not a candidate for the position. 

b. Other 

CHAIR’S REPORT (TAB K) 

57 Chair’s Report 


Staff recommends the Board approve Resolution 12-16 for presentation to M r. Gramling at a 

future meeting. 

b. Other 

RECESS PUBLIC HEARING


ANNOUNCEMENTS 

Governing Board Meetings Schedule: 

M eeting – Haines City ............................................................................... November 27, 2012 

Meeting – Tampa ...................................................................................... December 18, 2012 

M eeting – Tampa ..................................................................................... January 29, 2013 

Meeting – Sarasota ................................................................................. February 26, 2012 

Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule: 

Industrial/Public Supply – Tampa .............................................................. November 13, 2012 

Agricultural/Green Industry – Tampa ....................................................... December 6, 2012 

Well Drillers – Tampa .............................................................................. January 9, 2013 

E nvironmental – Tampa ........................................................................... January 14, 2013 

ADJOURNMENT

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

Days Without an At-Fault Accident 503 

Total ERP Applications 

In-house: 321 

0 

Cash Balance: $589 Million 

Reserves $203M 

Encumbrances $281M 

Carryforward FY12-13 $39M 

Remaining Cash for FY11-12 Budget $66M 

Total $589M 

199 

169 

14 14 13 

Jul Aug Sep 

Average Processing Time (Days) 

ERPs Received 

ERPs Issued 

72% 

209 205 

12-month average: 

16 212 202 

Regulation 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

Permit Compliance Status 

8% 

9% 

9% 

2% 

187 175 

Total Number of Compliance Activities: 7,177 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

Active – Monitoring 

Active – One Letter Sent 

Active – Two or more Letters 

Sent 

Active – in OGC 

Closed – No OGC Action 

Required 

Monthly Dashboard 

as of September 30* 

300 

200 

400 

Revenues 

100 

474 

509 

$509 million 

(current budget) 

Total WUP Applications 

In-house: 175 

General Counsel 

13 

113 

98 

Average Processing Time (Days) 

WUPs Received 

WUPs Issued 

106 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

WMIS Online 

Applications 

100% ERP WUP WCP 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

12-Month Average 

Current 

Employee 

Turnover 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

28% .3% 

12-Month 

Average 

Current 

123 

91 97 

81 

12 11 

Jul Aug Sep 

12-month average: 

17 108 95 

250,000 

150,000 

50,000 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1.0 

0.5 

Office Space 

in Square Feet 

242,342 

June 

2011 

226,378 

Budget 

$16.5M 

$2.3M 

$0.8M 

$13.4M 

$8M 

Regulation 

Remaining 

Budget 

Encumbered 

Spent 

Budget 

2.5 $2.4M 

$0.5M 

2.0 

$0.1M 

1.5 $1.8M 

0.0 

General Counsel 

Remaining 

Budget 

Encumbered 

Spent 

$$ 

0 

Expenditures 

400 

172 

100 

300 

200 

Days Without a Lost-Time Injury 335 

Resource Management 

Total Number of Projects: 495 

Long-Term Project Budget 

Spend Down: $340.5M 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

Fleet 

1 Ton or Under 

0 

$5.9M 

$251.9M 

$82.7M 

Management Services 

Sep 

2012 

250 

200 231 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Goal FY2011 Current 

202,071 

FY11-12 Carry Forward Total Current 

Budget Encumbrance Budget 

Regulation $15.8M $0.7M $16.5M 

General Counsel $2.3M $0.1M $2.4M 

Resource Mgmt. $60.5M $321.8M $382.3M 

Chief of Staff $6.4M $2.5M $8.9M 

Operations $22.9M $5.5M $28.4M 

Mgmt. Services $46.2M $23.1M $69.3M 

Executive $1.4M $0.0M $1.4M 

Total $155.5M $353.7M $509.2M 

FY11-12 Spend Plan 

Chief of Staff 

Survey statement: Highly treated 

reclaimed water is as pure as water 

from the aquifer. 

1,536 people were surveyed in Hillsborough, 

Pasco, Pinellas and Polk counties with a 

Agree Disagree 

sampling error of +2.5 percent. 

Neutral Unsure 

WaterMatters.org website: 

Total Visitors: 12-month monthly average: 71,440 Current month: 66,168 

Unique Visitors: 12-month monthly average: 47,076 Current month: 48,485 

0 

Resource 

Management 

Remaining 

Budget 

Encumbered 

Spent 

Operations, Maintenance & Construction 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

To Be Encumbered 

Encumbered 

Spent 

28,000 

20,000 

18,100 

Public Records Requests 

12-Month 

Average 

100% 3,403 

80 

90% 

60 Closed 

40 within 

20 7 days 

0 

22.6 hours 

Median Closure 

Prescribed Fire 

Acres Burned 

FY10–11 

FY11–12 Goal 

Year to Date 

0 

Total Acres Managed: 269,462 

FY11–12 Revenue Goals 

Current 

320 

88% 

190 28 

Closed 

20 

within 

Days 

7 days 

20 

$250K 

$56K 

$6K 

60 

6 

50 

$200K 40 

4 

$5K 

30 

$39K 

20 

2 

10 

0 

0 

Timber Cattle Leases Hog Hunts 

Total Projected Goal: $373,000 

15 

10 

5 

24.5 hours 

Median Closure 

$19.05 Land Management 

$18.90 Cost Per Acre 

$12.52 

Average Exp. FY09–11 

FY12 Budget 

Year to Date 

Invoice Receipt 

to Payment 

12-Month 

Average Current 

400 

300 

200 

100 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

Budget 

$382.3M 

$30.8M 

$258.9M 

$92.6M 

Budget 

$8.9M 

$1.2M 

Remaining 

Budget 

$2.1M 

Encumbered 

$5.6M 

Spent 

0 

Chief of Staff 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Budget 

$28.4M 

$3.8M 

Remaining 

Budget 

$6.3M 

Encumbered 

$18.3M 

Spent 

Operations, 

Maintenance 

& Construction 

80 Budget 

$69.3M 

$18.7M 

60 Remaining 

Budget 

$12.3M 

40 Encumbered 

$38.3M 

Spent 

20 

*NOTE: Balances reported as of September 30, 2012, reflect preliminary results. These numbers will be adjusted to a full accrual basis, 

and reported again in the December or January packet. 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

26% 23% 

41% 

9% 

130 

104 

78 

52 

26 

0 

Oct 

2011 

Jan 

2012 

Actual 

35 

30 

25 

15 

10 

5 

0 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Apr 

2012 

$34K 

$32K 

Projected 

Cell Tower 

Lease 

Jul 

2012 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

31 

Days 

Oct 

2012 

$20K 

$18K 

Billboard 

Lease 

0 12345678 Easement 

Inspection Fees 

0 

$7K 

$7K 


Services

A. Public Hearing 

& Meeting

Governing Board Meeting 


9:00 a.m. 

CONVENE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD 

AND PUBLIC HEARING 

PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING 

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

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

3. Oath of Office for Newly Appointed or Reappointed Board Members ................................ 2 

4. Additions/Deletions to Agenda............................................................................................... 2 

5. Ceremony to Honor Judith C. Whitehead for Her Service 

on the Governing Board ....................................................................................................... 2 

6. Employee Recognition .......................................................................................................... 3 

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

Items 1 - 5 




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. 

An invocation is offered. 


The Oath of Office will be administered to Board members who have been newly appointed or 

reappointed by Governor Scott. 

Presenter: Lou Kavouras, Board and Executive Services Bureau Chief 


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 if necessary. 

Presenter: Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director 


The Board will present Ms. Whitehead with a plaque and framed resolution to honor her 

service from March 2003 to August 2012. 

Presenter: 

Paul Senft, Chair

Item 6 



Employee Recognition 

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. 

At the Governing Board meeting, presentations will be made to the Board for all Brooksville 

Service office employees who have achieved milestones of 20 years or greater and those 

retiring from the District, to specially acknowledge and commend the contributions of these 

individuals. 

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. We have six Brooksville employees that have achieved 

longevity milestones for the period of October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. 

Employees from Tampa, Bartow and Sarasota service offices who have achieved longevity 

milestones for this same time period will be included in the December Governing Board recap. 

Employee Recognition – Service/Retirement 

MILESTONE 

EMPLOYEE 

NAME 

Retirement None for this meeting. 

TITLE 

DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE 

LOCATION 

35 Years None for this meeting. 

30 Years Mark Barcelo Sr Professional Engineer Water Resources Brooksville 

25 Years 

Dave Dunnett Senior Field Technician Data Collection Brooksville 

Jim Lewis Infrastructure Architect Information Technology Brooksville 

Philip Rhinesmith Sr Environmental Scientist Natural Systems & Restoration Brooksville 



10 Years 

Denise Rossette Database Administrator Information Technology Brooksville 

Shelia Roush Senior Fiscal Assistant Finance Brooksville 



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

Presenters: 

Chief of Staff, Division Directors

Item 7 



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.

B. Consent Agenda



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) 




a. WUP No. 20011400.025 – Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC / Integrated Water Use 

Permit – Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties ............................ 3 

b. WUP No. 20007178.006 – Development and Construction Corporation 

of America / Oak Run Development – Marion County .................................................... 105 


9. Conveyance of a Conservation Easement to the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection for Mitigation Purposes, Polk County ........................................... 118 

10. Acceptance of Easement Donation – Peace Creek Canal Project, SWF Parcel 

No. 20-696-206P .................................................................................................................... 122 


11. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend 40D-8.624, Florida Administrative 

Code (F.A.C.), to Adopt Minimum and Guidance Levels for Lakes Bonable, Tiger, 

and Little Bonable in Marion County ...................................................................................... 126 

12. Adopt Resolution No. 12-15 for the Reallocation of Funds Appropriated by the State 

in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2008 – Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund ............... 129 

13. Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update ............................................ 134 

14. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) 

Program (H017) – Reallocation of State Trust Funds and Budget Transfer ......................... 138 


15. Budget Transfer Report ......................................................................................................... 140 

16. Office Service Analysis .......................................................................................................... 142 


17. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require 

Governing Board Approval 

a. Interagency Agreement between the SWFWMD and the SJRWMD to 

Designate the SWFWMD as the Agency with Regulatory Responsibility for 

Water Use Permitting – Whitehurst Cattle Company – Marion and Levy 

Counties ........................................................................................................................... 143 

b. Initiation of Litigation – Unauthorized Construction - James V. Risher and 

Carolyn Risher – Levy County ......................................................................................... 144 

c. Consent Order – Surface Water Activity - Robert J. Colvin and Mary A. Colvin – 

Lake County ..................................................................................................................... 146 

d. Settlement – SWFWMD v. M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC 

(Parcel No. 20-503-111-P) ............................................................................................... 147 

e. Settlement – Mudd v. City of Lake Wales and SWFWMD (Tenth Judicial 

Circuit) – Polk County ...................................................................................................... 148


a. Approve Repeal of Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to be Consistent with the 

Changes Necessitated by the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Guidance for Consumptive Use Permit Compliance Reporting 

Requirements and Review Memorandum ....................................................................... 161 

b. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-1.608, F.A.C., to 

Clarify the Requirements for Certain Counties and Municipalities to Request 

a Permit Fee Reduction ................................................................................................... 169 



a. First Public Budget Hearing – September 11, 2012 ........................................................ 174 

b. Monthly Meeting – September 25, 2012 .......................................................................... 179 

c. Second Public Budget Hearing – September 25, 2012 ................................................... 191 

2

This is a 20-year renewal with modification to reduce total permitted quantities and combine 

seven of Mosaic’s existing Water Use Permits (WUPs) into a single Integrated WUP for the 

purposes of phosphate rock mining and fertilizer manufacturing. The mining operations are 

conducted on approximately 317,000 acres of property located within the Southern Water Use 

Caution Area in Hillsborough, Polk, Hardee, Manatee, and DeSoto Counties. The total 

combined permitted Annual Average Daily quantities are reduced from approximately 

99.9 million gallons per day (mgd) to 69.6 mgd, a reduction of approximately 30%. The total 

combined permitted Peak Month Daily quantities are reduced from approximately 128.0 mgd to 

87.0 mgd, a reduction of approximately 32%. The Annual Average Daily quantity of 69.6 mgd is 

based upon a calculated 2-in-10 annual rainfall event of 44.5 inches/year. Long-term average 

use over the 20-year permit term is anticipated to be no more than 55.2 mgd. 

Special Conditions include those that require the Permittee to record and report monthly meter 

readings from existing and proposed withdrawal points; allow for pumpage distribution flexibility 

for withdrawals and facilities; submit annual mine plans; investigate water resource complaints; 

submit 10-year water conservation and alternative source reports; conduct feasibility studies for 

Ona and DeSoto mines for material transport water reduction; modify the permit to reflect 

incorporation of any new alternative water sources; comply with the Southern Water Use 

Caution Area recovery strategy; and implement the approved Environmental Management Plan. 

The permit application meets all Conditions for Issuance of Chapter 

Administrative Code. 

40D-2, Florida 

This WUP application was originally scheduled to be considered at the February 28, 2012 

Governing Board meeting; however, on February 23, 2012, the District received a petition for 

administrative hearing from Nichols Ranch, LLC, Mims Properties Investments, LLC, Mims 

Properties, LLC, and Mims Hammocks, LLC (Petitioners) regarding the application. The petition 

for administrative hearing was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on 

March 16, 2012. A formal administrative hearing was scheduled for February 25-28, 2013. 

Prior to the administrative hearing a settlement was reached between Mosaic and the 

Petitioners. The Petitioners then filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal at DOAH on 

September 14, 2012. On the same day, DOAH issued an order cancelling the administrative 

hearing, closing the file, and relinquishing jurisdiction over the application back to the District. 

Accordingly, the WUP application is now before the Governing Board for consideration. 


See Exhibit 

Approve the proposed permit included in the Board’s meeting materials as an exhibit. 

Presenter: 

Brian S. Starford, P.G., Assistant Director Regulation 

3

October 30, 2012 October 30, 2032 

 

The Permittee is responsible for submitting an application to renew this permit no sooner than one year 

prior to the expiration date, and no later than the end of the last business day before the expiration date, 

whether or not the Permittee receives prior notification by mail. Failure to submit a renewal application 

prior to the expiration date and continuing to withdraw water after the expiration date is a violation of 

Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40D-2, Florida Administrative Code, and may result in a 

monetary penalty and/or loss of the right to use the water. Issuance of a renewal of this permit is 

contingent upon District approval. 

 

 

Renewal 

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

13830 Circa Crossing Drive 

Lithia, Florida 33547 

 

 

 

 

 

Integrated Water Use Permit (IWUP) 

SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA 

Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, Hillsborough and Manatee 

 

 

 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 1 

69,600,000 gpd 

PEAK MONTH 2 

1. 

2. 

Annual Average: Average daily use during a one-year period, expressed in gpd. 

Peak Month: Average daily use during the highest water use month, expressed in gpd 

87,000,000 gpd 

 

 

 

This is a renewal with modification to reduce total permitted quantities and combine seven of Mosaic’s existing 

Water Use Permits (WUPs) into a single Integrated WUP (IWUP) for the purposes of phosphate rock mining and 

fertilizer manufacturing. The total combined permitted Annual Average quantities are reduced from approximately 

99.9 million gallons per day (MGD) to 69.6 MGD (a reduction of approximately 30.3 MGD, or 30%), and total 

combined permitted Peak Month daily quantities are reduced from approximately 128.0 MGD to 87.0 MGD (a 

reduction of approximately 41.0 MGD, or 32%). The Annual Average daily quantity of 69.6 MGD is based upon a 

calculated 2-in-10 annual rainfall event (44.5 inches/year). Long-term average use over the 20-year permit term 

(i.e. 20-year average use) is anticipated to be no more than 55.2 MGD. 

4

WUP No. 20011400.025 Page 2 of 19 October 30, 2012 

The existing WUPs being combined as one under this IWUP No. 20011400.025 (Mosaic Phosphates) are uses 

already included in WUP 20011400.024 (Four Corners, New Wales, Ona), and WUP Nos. 20000029.012 

(Hooker’s Prairie), 20001539.008 (Green Bay), 20002224.007 (Bartow), 20002297.012 (South Ft. Meade), 

20003195.005 (Mulberry), and 20003740.007 (Wingate Creek). These operations are conducted on 

approximately 317,000 acres of property located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area in Hillsborough, 

Polk, Hardee, Manatee and DeSoto Counties. 

Special Conditions include those that require the Permittee to record and report monthly meter readings from 

existing and proposed withdrawal points; allow for pumpage distribution flexibility for withdrawals and facilities; 

comply with well construction stipulations for proposed wells; submit caliper/video logs; install and maintain rain 

gauges; proper abandonment of wells; submit annual mine plan; install longer term monitoring wells; investigate 

water resource complaints; submit 10-year compliance, water conservation, and alternative source reports; 

conduct feasibility studies for Ona and DeSoto mines for material transport water reduction; modify the permit to 

reflect incorporation of any new alternative water sources; comply with the Southern Water Use Caution Area 

recovery strategy; comply with rolling 12-month average pumpage; cap all wells not in use; maintain a water 

conservation plan and submit status update reports; and implement the approved Environmental Management 

Plan. 

 

 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mining or Dewatering 44,600,000 55,750,000 

 

Industrial or Commercial 25,000,000 31,250,000 

1 The quantities identified in the Water Use Table for Mining or Dewatering and for Industrial or Commercial uses 

are estimates of water use between mine and concentrate facilities and are not intended to specify the authorized 

quantities for each use type. 

 

 

Mining or Dewatering - Phosphate Ore Processing 

Industrial or Commercial - Concentrate Processing 

Industrial Other Uses 

Personal Sanitary Uses 

 

 

 

 

 

Water from authorized withdrawal points are restricted to the quantities on the table attached hereto and incorporated 

herein by reference as Exhibit "C". 

 

 

 

 

5


 

 

Total water use for the individual facilities identified is restricted to the quantities given below: 1 

 

1 

 

Bartow Concentrates 5.7 7.1 

Green Bay Concentrates 3.0 3.7 

Mulberry Concentrates 1.5 1.8 

New Wales Concentrates 11.2 14.0 

Nichols Concentrates 2.5 3.1 

South Pierce Concentrates 5.9 7.3 

Four Corners Mining 20.0 25.0 

Hookers Prairie Mining 5.8 7.2 

Hopewell Mining 0.5 0.6 

Ona Mining 15.0 18.7 

DeSoto 2 Mining 10.7 13.3 

South Ft. Meade Mining 15.4 19.2 

Wingate Mining 5.8 7.3 

Individual facility limits total to greater than the total authorized quantities. However, all withdrawals must 

comply with both the specified facility limitations shown in this table and the total authorized permit 

quantities. 

 

2 

Quantities allocated for the DeSoto facility will be provided from withdrawal points located at the Ft. Green 

facility. 

 

 

 

 

 

Authorized withdrawal point locations are identified on the table attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as 

Exhibit "C". 

 

 

 

 

The Permittee shall comply with the Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 

"A". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6


 

 

1. 

All reports and data required by condition(s) of the permit shall be submitted to the District at the address 

referenced below according to the due date(s) contained in the specific condition. If the condition specifies that a 

District-supplied form is to be used, the Permittee should use that form in order for their submission to be 

acknowledged in a timely manner. The only alternative to this requirement is to use the District Permit 

Information Center (www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/permits/) to submit data, plans or reports online. There are 

instructions at the District website on how to register to set up an account to do so. If the report or data is 

received on or before the tenth day of the month following data collection, it shall be deemed as a timely 

submittal. 

All mailed reports and data are to be sent to: 

Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Water Use Permit Bureau, Tampa Service Office 

7601 US Highway 301 

Tampa, Florida 33637 

Submission of plans and reports: Unless submitted online or otherwise indicated in the special condition, the 

original and two copies of each plan and report, such as conservation plans, environmental analyses, aquifer test 

results, per capita annual reports, etc. are required. 

Submission of data: Unless otherwise indicated in the special condition, an original (no copies) is required for 

data submittals such as crop report forms, meter readings and/or pumpage, rainfall, water level 

evapotranspiration, or water quality data. 

 

2. 

The Annual Average and Peak Month daily quantities for the withdrawal points shown in the Withdrawal Point 

Quantity/Metering/Proposed Well Construction Table (Exhibit “C”) are estimates based on historic and/or 

projected distribution of pumpage, and are for water use inventory and impact analysis purposes only. The 

quantities listed for these individual sources are not intended to dictate the distribution of pumpage from permitted 

sources. The Permittee may make adjustments in pumpage distribution as necessary so long as adverse impacts 

do not result and the Permittee complies with all other conditions of this Permit. In all cases, the combined 

withdrawals from all withdrawal points contained within this permit shall not exceed the total permitted Annual 

Average daily withdrawal (69.6 MGD) or the total permitted Peak Month daily withdrawal (87.0 MGD) quantities. 

 

3. 

 

The Annual Average and Peak Month daily quantities for the facilities shown in the Facility Quantity Table are 

estimates based on historic and/or projected distribution of pumpage, and are for water use inventory and impact 

analysis purposes only. The Permittee may make adjustments in pumpage distribution among facilities up to the 

quantities shown in the Facility Quantity Table so long as adverse impacts do not result and the Permittee 

complies with all other conditions of this Permit. In all cases, the combined withdrawals from all facilities 

contained within this permit shall not exceed the total permitted Annual Average daily withdrawal (69.6 MGD) or 

the total permitted Peak Month daily withdrawal (87.0 MGD) quantities. 

 

4. 

 

 

The proposed withdrawal facilities listed in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein shall be metered 

within 90 days of completion of construction of the facilities. Meter reading and reporting, as well as meter 

accuracy checks every five years shall be in accordance with instructions in Exhibit “B”, Metering Instructions, 

attached hereto and made part of this permit. 

 

7


5. 

The existing withdrawal facilities listed in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein shall continue to be 

maintained and operated with existing, non-resettable, totalizing flow meter(s) or other measuring device(s) as 

approved by the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief. Meter reading and reporting, as well as meter accuracy checks 

every five years, shall be in accordance with instructions in Exhibit “B”. 

6. 

Any wells not in use and in which pumping equipment is not installed shall be capped or valved in a water-tight 

manner in accordance with Chapter 62-532.500(3)(a)4, F.A.C. 

7. 

If the Permittee removes a pump assembly for maintenance or replacement within the term of this permit, and 

well construction characteristics are not documented for that well, the Permittee shall geophysically (caliper) or 

video log the well. The District will not require the Permittee to remove the well assembly for the single purpose of 

logging the well. 

The geophysical or video log must clearly show the diameter and total depth of each well, and the casing depth 

and casing continuity in each well. If a video log is made of the well, it shall clearly show the WUP number, 

Permittee name, and well identification number on the tape itself. One copy of the log shall be submitted to the 

District within 30 days of the logging event. Upon sufficient notice (approximately two to three weeks), the District 

can caliper log the well(s) at no cost to the Permittee; however, the Permittee shall remove the pump assembly at 

their own cost and prior to the arrival of the District logging vehicle on location. 

Until such time as the logging is performed, the District shall continue to assess withdrawal impacts, and credit 

existing use per aquifer based on the assumption that multiple aquifers are open in the well bore. If an analysis of 

the log with respect to geology or hydrogeology is made, the report must be signed and sealed by a Professional 

Geologist / Engineer who is registered and in good standing with the Florida Department of Professional 

Regulation. 

8. 

The Permittee shall construct the proposed wells according to the surface diameter and casing depth 

specifications in the Withdrawal Point Quantity/Metering/Proposed Well Construction Table ( Exhibit "C") attached 

to and made part of this permit. The casing shall be continuous from land surface to the minimum depth stated 

and is specified to prevent the unauthorized interchange of water between different water bearing zones. If a total 

depth is listed it is an estimate, based on best available information, of the depth at which high producing zones 

are encountered. However, it is the Permittee's responsibility to have the water in the well sampled during well 

construction, before reaching the estimated total depth. Such sampling is necessary to ensure that the well does 

not encounter water quality that cannot be utilized by the Permittee, and to ensure that withdrawals from the well 

will not cause saltwater intrusion. All depths given are in feet below land surface. For Well Construction 

requirements see Exhibit "B" (Well Construction Instructions) and Exhibit "C" (Proposed Well Construction 

Specifications), attached to and made part of this permit. 

 

9. 

 

The Permittee is hereby authorized to install and operate new dewatering, sealing water, and mitigation wells 

without modification of this Water Use Permit provided that the total quantities permitted are not exceeded, and 

provided that Permittee complies with the following procedures. The Permittee shall obtain a Well Construction 

Permit (WCP) from the District prior to construction of any wells. 

8


A. 

 

The permittee is hereby authorized to construct and utilize Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) dewatering 

wells as necessary to effectively accomplish dewatering. Dewatering wells are temporary features that 

are eliminated (properly abandoned or mined through) after effective dewatering is accomplished in 

preparation for mining. Mine Activities [as that term is defined in the Environmental Management Plan 

(EMP), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “E”] associated with dewatering wells within 

the applicable Mandatory Mitigation Distance shall be undertaken as specified in the EMP. 

Dewatering wells used for direct mitigation of wetlands or direct SAS injection shall be metered. Meter 

reading and reporting shall be in accordance with instructions in Exhibit “B”, Metering Instructions. 

B. 

 

The permittee is hereby authorized to construct and utilize sealing water wells as necessary to transport 

sand tailings and matrix between the mine pit and the beneficiation plant. Consistent with Special 

Condition No. 23, and after obtaining a WCP the permittee is authorized to construct and utilize sealing 

water wells for this purpose. Proposed sealing water wells will exclusively withdraw from the Upper 

Floridan Aquifer. 

Sealing water wells shall be properly abandoned within 365 days of completion of all necessary sealing 

water activities. Should the permittee identify that a particular sealing water well may have another future 

beneficial use, and thus warrant being maintained, the Permittee shall notify the District, specify the 

reason, and request that the well not be required to be abandoned. Such wells shall be properly capped 

in a water-tight manner until such future use is needed. Prior to any reactivation the Permittee shall notify 

the District of intended use, quantity, and duration. All sealing water wells that are to be properly 

abandoned, or to be converted to inactive/capped status for future use, shall be identifed in accordance 

with the Annual Mine Plan submittal. 

C. 

As specified in the EMP, mitigation wells shall be used only in the event that the available quantity of 

“lower quality water” and/or “alternative water supplies” in the vicinity of the subject area is insufficient to 

timely accomplish the intended mitigation in an environmentally, technically, and economically feasible 

manner. In the case of direct SAS recharge mitigation wells, water will be obtained from nearby surficial 

dewatering wells where feasible. Otherwise, all mitigation wells will withdraw exclusively from the Upper 

Floridan Aquifer. 

Prior to submitting a WCP application for any mitigation well, the Permittee shall submit a written 

notification of intent to construct the well(s) to the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief. Should the District 

require more information, or desire to include pertinent stipulations with the authorization to construct the 

well(s), the District shall repond in writing to the Permittee regarding such notifications within no more 

than 20 days of receipt. Should a written response not be received from the District within the 20 day 

timeframe, the Permittee is hereby authorized to submit a WCP application to construct and utilize the 

well(s) in a manner consistent with the EMP. 

Mitigation wells shall be properly abandoned within 365 days of completion of water table mitigation 

activities. Should the permittee identify that a particular retired mitigation well may have some other future 

beneficial use, and thus warrant being maintained, the Permittee shall notify the District of this 

determination in writing. Such wells shall be properly capped in a water-tight manner until such future use 

is needed. Prior to any reactivation the Permittee shall notify the District of intended use, quantity, and 

duration. All Mitigation wells that are to be properly abandoned, or to be converted to inactive/capped 

status for future use, shall be identified in accordance with the Annual Mine Plan submittal. 

D. 

 

 

The following information shall be submitted to the Water Use Permit Bureau for each new sealing water 

and mitigation well within 60 days of construction: 

9


1. District ID No. and Permittee ID No.; 

2. Estimated annual average daily and peak month quantities; 

3. Latitude and longitude; 

4. Well(s) shall be located on a legible map which clearly identifies the well location(s). Acceptable 

maps include a GIS-generated or aerial map, United States Geological Survey quad map, or copy 

of same with a reference to the nearest property boundaries; Well completion report copy; and 

5. Pump capacity in gallons per minute. 

E. 

All sealing water and mitigation wells shall be required to have the flow monitored by a flow meter or other 

monitoring device approved by the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief. Total flow from each sealing water 

and mitigation well in use shall be recorded on a monthly basis and submitted by the 10 th day of the 

following month to the Water Use Permit Bureau (using District forms). 

 

10. 

 

The Permittee shall maintain the monitor well(s) / piezometer(s) and staff gauges listed as “Existing” in the Water 

Level Monitoring – Monitor Wells/Piezometers and Staff Gauges Table attached hereto and incorporated herein 

as Exhibit "D", measure water levels using either a continuous or manual recorder, and report them to the District 

at the frequency listed in the EMP. Water levels shall be recorded relative to the appropriate vertical datum, and 

to the maximum extent possible, recorded on a regular schedule as identified in the EMP. The readings shall be 

reported online via the WUP Portal at the District website (www.watermatters.org) or emailed to the Water Use 

Permit Bureau on or before July 15 th and November 15 th for semi-annual reports (per EMP Section 10.0), and the 

tenth day of the month following data collection for monthly reports. The frequency of recording may be modified 

by the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief as necessary to ensure the protection of the resource. 

11. 

 

Piezometers shall be properly constructed with sufficient surface casing diameter, depth, slotted casing/screen 

interval, and sand filter pack to ensure that SAS water levels can be accurately measured. Piezometer casing 

materials shall be resistant to degradation due to interaction with groundwater and shall extend at least 18 inches 

above land surface. Piezometer tips / ends are to be drilled or slotted so as to eliminate pooling in the 

piezometers, resulting in a false reading. Within 30 days of completion, piezometer locations shall be submitted 

on a location map which includes the DID numbers. A table indicating the well construction permit number, well 

diameter, total depth, and slotted interval for each well shall also be provided. 

Within 90 days of completion of the new monitor well(s) / piezometer(s) and staff gauges listed as "Proposed" in 

the Water Level Monitoring – Monitor Wells/Piezometers and Staff Gauges (Exhibit "D"), the Permittee shall 

record water levels using either a continuous or manual recorder and report them to the District. All data reported 

shall be accompanied by the appropriate vertical datum, at the frequency listed in Water Level Monitoring – 

Monitor Wells/Piezometers and Staff Gauges Table (Exhibit “D”). To the maximum extent possible, water levels 

shall be recorded on a regular schedule: same time each day, same day each week, same week each month as 

appropriate to the frequency noted. The readings shall be reported as described in Special Condition 10 above. 

The frequency of recording may be modified by the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief, as necessary to ensure the 

protection of the resource. 

 

12. 

By June 1, 2013, the Permittee shall design and install a limited network of Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) longterm 

monitoring wells at all future mine areas where a complete SAS monitoring network has not been installed. 

These long-term monitoring wells shall be strategically located so as to provide spatially limited, but 

representative SAS data to generally characterize long-term (greater than four years) seasonal water table 

fluctuation patterns and ranges within each mine area. Monitoring data obtained from this long-term monitoring 

10


network may be used in interpreting the Baseline Data Set, as defined in the EMP, or a SAS dataset of less than 

four years, if necessary. Water level data from the long-term monitoring wells shall be recorded at least monthly 

and the water level data and locations included in the Annual Report required in Section 10.0 of the EMP. 

 

13. 

By June 1, 2012, the Permittee shall install and maintain continuous recording rain gauges in the areas around 

Payne Creek, Hardee Station No. 1, South East Hillsborough No. 2, Wingate Creek No. 1, and Pine Level 002. 

These gauges are referred to as District ID No(s). 4000, 4001, 4002, 4003 and 4004 [Permittee ID No(s). RG 2, 

RG 4, RG 8, RG 38, and RG 62, respectively]. Total daily rainfall shall be recorded at these stations in inches to 

one-hundredth of an inch and submitted to the District online www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/permits/epermitting/or on 

District forms on or before the 10 th day of the month following data collection. The reporting period for these data 

shall begin on the first day of each month and end on the last day of each month. 

14. 

Prior to conducting Mine Activities that could potentially impact a well, any wells located within the area shall be 

properly abandoned (plugged) by a licensed water well contractor in accordance with Chapter 62-532.500(4), 

F.A.C., under a Well Abandonment Permit issued by the District or any local government that has been delegated 

authority to implement this program by the District. Dewatering wells shall either be mined through or properly 

abandoned. 

15. 

A. 

The Permittee shall submit an Annual Mine Plan by June 1, 2013, and every year thereafter for all areas of 

Mine Activities, as that term is defined in the EMP. The Permittee shall undertake the Mine Activities in 

accordance with the plan, and other documentation, submitted in support of this permit and as approved by 

the District. Prior to any subsequent substantive deviation from an approved mine plan, the Permittee shall 

provide a revised plan to the Water Use Permit Bureau. Substantive deviation is defined as: 

1. Change in future mining area; 

2. Change in an approved Mandatory Mitigation Distance (MMD) (as defined in the EMP); and, 

3. Addition of a preservation area or deletion/mining of a previously preserved area. 

Each plan shall include a map(s) with the following information clearly identified: 

1. Areas to be mined or dewatered within the following twelve (12) month period as well as those mined in 

the preceding 12 month period. An estimated timetable for construction and operation of each mining and 

dewatering cut/cell shall be included. 

2. The MMD to be maintained. 

3. Additions or deletions of outparcels. Additional outparcels must be labeled and the names and addresses 

of the property owners must be referenced for each outparcel. 

4. All wells within areas to be mined and their future disposition. 

5. Wetlands required to be preserved, including those wetlands created for mitigation, and any on-site 

wetlands that will not be mined. 

 

 

B. 

No earlier than six months prior to June 1, 2022, the Permittee shall submit a projected mine plan for years 11 

through 20 of the permit. Documentation shall include the following: 

1. Areas to be mined or dewatered each year including mining depths and depth of overburden and matrix; 

2. The MMD to be maintained; and 

3. Wetlands/streams required to be preserved. 

 

 

11


16. 

 

The Permittee shall implement and comply with the provisions of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), 

dated January 25, 2012, and any updates to the EMP subsequently approved by the District, throughout the 

duration of the permit. The EMP is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "E". 

 

17. 

In accordance with a Site Specific Drawdown Mitigation Plan (as that term is defined in the EMP), the Permittee 

shall install and maintain staff gauges in each water table maintenance ditch, and each shall be maintained 

throughout the duration of Mine Activities. Staff gauges shall be installed at appropriate locations along the entire 

length of the ditch to account for changes in elevation. At a minimum, staff gauges shall be installed at the 

upstream and downstream reaches of the ditch. The inverts of each reach of the ditch shall be surveyed to 

ensure that water levels in each reach of the ditch are at the appropriate elevation. The staff gauge(s) shall be 

scaled in one-tenth foot increments and shall be sized and placed so as to be clearly visible from an easily 

accessible point of land. The staff gauge(s) shall be surveyed and referenced to the appropriate vertical datum, 

and a copy of the survey indicating the datum reference shall be submitted within 30 days of District request. The 

Permittee shall maintain staff gauge locations (Latitude and Longitude) until the ditch is removed following 

approved termination of monitoring of the adjacent water table. Water levels shall be recorded weekly and the 

data shall be maintained by the Permittee for a minimum of three years, and provided upon District request. 

Where continuous recorders are utilized, the average of the 24-hour values for each day shall be calculated, and 

only the average value for each day and the time of day shall be reported (if requested) to the District. The 

frequency of recording may be modified by the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief, as necessary. 

 

18. 

The Permittee shall initiate an investigation concerning water resource complaints related to Mine Activities (as 

defined in the EMP) to determine if such impacts are causally related to the Permittee’s activities regulated under 

this permit. Complaints requiring investigation include: ground and/or surface water quality; ground or surface 

water sources, levels, flows, and existing legal uses; and offsite land uses. Instructions for the complaint handling 

and possible mitigation procedure are given in (Exhibit "B") (Water Resource Complaint Instructions). 

Compliance with the MMD does not preclude the Permittee from being required to investigate complaints and 

does not, in and of itself, provide assurance that the Permittee did not cause adverse impacts. 

19. 

The Permittee shall immediately implement the District-approved water conservation plan entitled “Water 

Conservation Plan – Mosaic Florida Facilities” included in the information submitted to the District in support of 

the application for this permit on September 20, 2011. Progress reports on the implementation of water 

conservation practices indicated as proposed in the plan as well as achievements in water savings that have been 

realized from each water conservation practice shall be submitted as described below. 

(AWCPR) 

Beginning June 1, 2013, and on an annual basis thereafter, the Permittee shall submit an AWCPR. The first 

year report shall include additional details regarding anticipated implementation dates for proposed new water 

conservation measures included in document entitled “Water Conservation Plan – Mosaic Florida Facilities” 

included as Appendix D in the information submitted to the District on September 20, 2011. The AWCPR 

shall: 

1. Report on any progress made in implementing the Permittee’s Water Conservation Plan. 

2. Propose any updates or modifications to the Permittee’s Water Conservation Plan. 

12


3. Address any other demand management or water conservation practices that are in development 

or being implemented by the Permittee. 

4. Address the Permittee’s practices to utilize recirculation water preferentially over groundwater 

withdrawals in the Permittee’s mineral and concentrates projects encompassed by this Permit. 

5. The Permittee shall, as part of its AWCPR submission, include an economic, technical, and 

environmental feasibility analysis of potential options for reducing groundwater consumption. 

These options may include: 

a. Potential alternatives to transporting matrix without the use of groundwater, or otherwise 

reducing water demands associated with transporting matrix; 

b. Potential demand management opportunities associated with reducing the consumption 

of Upper Floridan Aquifer groundwater for dilution of discharge water from Gypsum 

Stacks during closure; 

c. The use of reclaimed water as a water source. The report shall contain an analysis of 

reclaimed water sources for the area, including the relative location of these sources to 

the Permittee's property, the quantity of reclaimed water available, the quality of the 

reclaimed water, the quality of reclaimed water required by Mosaic, the costs required to 

treat or blend the available water to that quality, the projected date(s) of availability, costs 

associated with obtaining the reclaimed water, and an implementation schedule for 

reuse, if feasible. If the use of a reclaimed water source is determined to be feasible, 

within 24 months of initial receipt of reclaimed water the Permittee shall submit an 

application to modify this water use permit to include reclaimed water as a source of 

water. The modification application shall propose placing groundwater quantities on 

standby in an amount equal to the documented reliable amount of reclaimed water to be 

received. The standby groundwater quantities can be used in the event that some or all 

of the alternative source are not available 

 

 

By June 1, 2022, the Permittee shall provide a comprehensive 10-year report regarding water 

conservation initiatives implemented to date and those proposed for the forthcoming final ten years of this 

permit. The report shall provide an overview of efforts to implement enhanced water conservation and 

increased use of Alternative Water Supplies during the first ten years of this permit, and document the 

results of these efforts in reducing reliance upon the Upper Floridan Aquifer as a water source. The 

report shall assess the 10-year average water use to date and the expected average water use for the 

remaining term of the permit, in relation to the anticipated 20-year average of 55.2 MGD. 

 

20. 

No earlier than six months prior to June 1, 2022, the Permittee shall submit a compliance report. At a minimum, 

the compliance report shall contain sufficient data to maintain reasonable assurance that the initial conditions for 

permit issuance set forth in Chapter 40D-2 and the Basis of Review for Water Use Permits are met for the 

remaining duration of the permit. The compliance report shall include data relevant to the following factors, as 

developed under the conditions of this permit during the initial ten years hereof, or data otherwise available from 

reliable public sources. 

Documentation that continued use of the withdrawal quantities authorized under 

this permit will not cause quantity or quality changes that adversely impact the water resources, including both 

surface and ground waters. 

Documentation that use of the permitted withdrawal quantities is efficient and that the permittee 

is implementing reasonable and feasible water conservation measures. 

 

 

 

13


Documentation that the continued use of the withdrawal quantities 

authorized under this permit will not adversely impact existing legal withdrawals. 

 

Documentation that the continued use of the withdrawal quantities authorized 

under this permit will not adversely impact springs and surface waters, or water bodies for which minimum flows 

and levels have been established under Chapters 40D-8 and 40D-80, F.A.C. 

Documentation that the continued use of the withdrawal quantities authorized under this 

permit will not significantly induce saline water intrusion. 

Information demonstrating that the lowest quality source of water (reclaimed 

water or other alternative water source) is being used in order to reduce withdrawals from the Upper Floridan 

Aquifer. 

 

21. 

 

To the degree economically, technically, and environmentally feasible, the Permittee shall use alternative water 

supplies preferentially over groundwater in all phases of the mining operation. 

 

22. 

 

This Permit is located within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). Pursuant to Section 373.0421, 

Florida Statutes, the SWUCA is subject to a minimum flows and levels recovery strategy, which became effective 

on January 1, 2007. The Governing Board may amend the recovery strategy, including amending applicable 

water use permitting rules based on an annual assessment of water resource criteria, cumulative water 

withdrawal impacts, and on a recurring five-year evaluation of the status of the recovery strategy up to the year 

2025 as described in Chapter 40D-80, Florida Administrative Code. This Permit is subject to modification to 

comply with new rules. 

23. 

As part of its AWCPR, the Permittee shall provide two studies, subject to District approval, identifying all 

economically, technically, and environmentally feasible options Mosaic will implement in the design of the Ona 

and DeSoto mine material transport networks in such a manner as to reduce or eliminate the need for using 

sealing water wells. The report shall include: 

1. Designing the mine recirculation system and material transport network (survey line) in such a manner that 

water from the recirculation network is the sealing water source for the transport network. 

2. Using alternative water supplies (including water from Flatford Swamp) as a water source. 

3. Piping mine recirculation water from other mine facilities. 

A. The feasibility study for the Ona mine shall be submitted on June 1, 2015. 

B. The feasibility study for the DeSoto mine shall be submitted on June 1, 2020. 

24. 

 

Unless specified otherwise, time extensions to condition deadlines may be granted for good 

cause shown, upon written request to the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief, provided that 

the request is made prior to the deadline, the Permittee has demonstrated a good faith effort in meeting the 

deadline set forth in the condition, and a reasonable modified deadline is proposed by the Permittee. 

14


 

 

25. Water quality samples from the withdrawal points listed below shall be collected after pumping the withdrawal 

point at its normal rate for a pumping time specified below, or to a constant temperature, pH, and conductivity. 

The frequency of sampling per water quality parameter is listed in the table according to the withdrawal point. The 

recording and reporting shall begin according to the first sample date for existing wells and shall begin within 90 

days of completion of any proposed wells. Samples shall be collected whether or not the well is being used 

unless infeasible. If sampling is infeasible, the Permittee shall indicate the reason for not sampling on the water 

quality data form or in the space for comments in the WUP Portal for data submissions. For sampling, analysis 

and submittal requirements see Exhibit B, Water Quality Sampling Instructions, attached to and made part of this 

permit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2, 4, 12, 46 10 Sulfates,Total (Feb, May, Aug, Nov.) 

Dissolved Solids, 

Chlorides 

15


40D-2 

Exhibit "A" 

 

 

1. If any of the statements in the application and in the supporting data are found to be untrue and inaccurate, or if 

the Permittee fails to comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 40D, F.A.C., or the conditions 

set forth herein, the Governing Board shall revoke this permit in accordance with Rule 40D-2.341, F.A.C., 

following notice and hearing. 

2. This permit is issued based on information provided by the Permittee demonstrating that the use of water is 

reasonable and beneficial, consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of 

water. If, during the term of the permit, it is determined by the District that the use is not reasonable and 

beneficial, in the public interest, or does impact an existing legal use of water, the Governing Board shall modify 

this permit or shall revoke this permit following notice and hearing. 

3. The Permittee shall not deviate from any of the terms or conditions of this permit without written approval by the 

District. 

4. In the event the District declares that a Water Shortage exists pursuant to Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C., the District 

shall alter, modify, or declare inactive all or parts of this permit as necessary to address the water shortage. 

5. The District shall collect water samples from any withdrawal point listed in the permit or shall require the Permittee 

to submit water samples when the District determines there is a potential for adverse impacts to water quality. 

6. The Permittee shall provide access to an authorized District representative to enter the property at any 

reasonable time to inspect the facility and make environmental or hydrologic assessments. The Permittee shall 

either accompany District staff onto the property or make provision for access onto the property. 

7. Issuance of this permit does not exempt the Permittee from any other District permitting requirements. 

8. The Permittee shall cease or reduce surface water withdrawal as directed by the District if water levels in lakes 

fall below the applicable minimum water level established in Chapter 40D-8, F.A.C., or rates of flow in streams fall 

below the minimum levels established in Chapter 40D-8, F.A.C. 

9. The Permittee shall cease or reduce withdrawal as directed by the District if water levels in aquifers fall below the 

minimum levels established by the Governing Board. 

10. The Permittee shall practice water conservation to increase the efficiency of transport, application, and use, as 

well as to decrease waste and to minimize runoff from the property. At such time as the Governing Board adopts 

specific conservation requirements for the Permittee's water use classification, this permit shall be subject to 

those requirements upon notice and after a reasonable period for compliance. 

11. The District may establish special regulations for Water Use Caution Areas. At such time as the Governing Board 

adopts such provisions, this permit shall be subject to them upon notice and after a reasonable period for 

compliance. 

12. The Permittee shall mitigate any adverse impact to existing legal uses caused by withdrawals. When adverse 

impacts occur or are imminent, the District shall require the Permittee to mitigate the impacts. Adverse impacts 

include the following: 

16


A. A reduction in water levels which impairs the ability of the well to produce water; 

B. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, impoundments, wetlands, springs, 

streams or other watercourses; or 

C. Significant inducement of natural or manmade contaminants into a water supply or into a usable portion 

of any aquifer water body. 

13. The Permittee shall mitigate any adverse impact to environmental features or offsite land uses as a result of 

withdrawals. When adverse impacts occur or are imminent, the District shall require the Permittee to mitigate the 

impacts. Adverse impacts include: 

A. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, impoundments, wetlands, springs, 

streams or other watercourses; 

B. Sinkholes or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels; 

C. Damage to crops and other vegetation causing financial harm to the owner; and 

D. Damage to the habitat of endangered or threatened species. 

14. When necessary to analyze impacts to the water resource or existing users, the District shall require the 

Permittee to install flow metering or other measuring devices to record withdrawal quantities and submit the data 

to the District. 

15. A District identification tag shall be prominently displayed at each withdrawal point that is required by the District 

to be metered or for which withdrawal quantities are required to be reported to the District, by permanently affixing 

the tag to the withdrawal facility. 

16. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 40D-1.6105, F.A.C., persons who wish to continue the water use 

permitted herein and who have acquired ownership or legal control of permitted water withdrawal facilities or the 

land on which the facilities are located must apply to transfer the permit to themselves within 45 days of acquiring 

ownership or legal control of the water withdrawal facilities or the land. 

17. All permits issued pursuant to these Rules are contingent upon continued ownership or legal control of all 

property on which pumps, wells, diversions or other water withdrawal facilities are located. 

18. Within the Southern Water Use Caution Area, if the District determines that significant water quantity or quality 

changes, impacts to existing legal uses, or adverse environmental impacts are occurring, the Board, upon 

reasonable notice to the permittee, including a statement of facts upon which the District based its determination, 

may reconsider the quantities permitted or other conditions of the permit as appropriate to address the change or 

impact but only after an opportunity for the permittee to resolve or mitigate the change or impact or to request a 

hearing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17


 

METERING INSTRUCTIONS 

The Permittee shall meter withdrawals from surface waters and/or the ground water resources, and meter readings from 

each withdrawal facility shall be recorded on a monthly basis within the last week of the month. The meter reading(s) shall 

be reported to the Water Use Permit Bureau on or before the tenth day of the following month. The Permittee shall submit 

meter readings online using the Permit Information Center at www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/permits/epermitting/ or on Districtsupplied 

scanning forms unless another arrangement for submission of this data has been approved by the District. 

Submission of such data by any other unauthorized form or mechanism may result in loss of data and subsequent 

delinquency notifications. Call the Water Use Permit Bureau in the Tampa Office at 813-985-7481 if difficulty is 

encountered. 

The meters shall adhere to the following descriptions and shall be installed or maintained as follows: 

1. The meter(s) shall be non-resettable; totalizing flow meter(s) that have a totalizer of sufficient magnitude to retain 

total gallon data for a minimum of the three highest consecutive months permitted quantities. If other measuring 

device(s) are proposed, prior to installation, approval shall be obtained in writing from the Water Use Permit 

Bureau Chief. 

2. The Permittee shall report non-use on all metered standby withdrawal facilities on the scanning form or approved 

alternative reporting method. 

3. If a metered withdrawal facility is not used during any given month, the meter report shall be submitted to the 

District indicating the same meter reading as was submitted the previous month. 

4. The flow meter(s) or other approved device(s) shall have and maintain accuracy within five percent of the actual 

flow as installed. 

5. Meter accuracy testing requirements: 

A. For newly metered withdrawal points, the flow meter installation shall be designed for inline field access 

for meter accuracy testing. 

B. The meter shall be tested for accuracy on-site, as installed according to the Flow Meter Accuracy Test 

Instructions in this Exhibit B, every five years in the assigned month for the county, beginning from the 

date of its installation for new meters or from the date of initial issuance of this permit containing the 

metering condition with an accuracy test requirement for existing meters. 

C. The testing frequency will be decreased if the Permittee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the District 

that a longer period of time for testing is warranted. 

D. The test will be accepted by the District only if performed by a person knowledgeable in the testing 

equipment used. 

E. If the actual flow is found to be greater than 5% different from the measured flow, within 30 days, the 

Permittee shall have the meter re-calibrated, repaired, or replaced, whichever is necessary. 

Documentation of the test and a certificate of re-calibration, if applicable, shall be submitted within 30 

days of each test or re-calibration. 

6. The meter shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions for achieving accurate flow to the 

specifications above, or it shall be installed in a straight length of pipe where there is at least an upstream length 

equal to ten (10) times the outside pipe diameter and a downstream length equal to two (2) times the outside pipe 

diameter. Where there is not at least a length of ten diameters upstream available, flow straightening vanes shall 

be used in the upstream line. 

7. Broken or malfunctioning meter: 

A. If the meter or other flow measuring device malfunctions or breaks, the Permittee shall notify the District 

within 15 days of discovering the malfunction or breakage. 

B. The meter must be replaced with a repaired or new meter, subject to the same specifications given 

above, within 30 days of the discovery. 

C. If the meter is removed from the withdrawal point for any other reason, it shall be replaced with another 

meter having the same specifications given above, or the meter shall be reinstalled within 30 days of its 

removal from the withdrawal. In either event, a fully functioning meter shall not be off the withdrawal point 

for more than 60 consecutive days. 

18


8. While the meter is not functioning correctly, the Permittee shall keep track of the total amount of time the 

withdrawal point was used for each month and multiply those minutes times the pump capacity (in gallons per 

minute) for total gallons. The estimate of the number of gallons used each month during that period shall be 

submitted on District scanning forms and noted as estimated per instructions on the form. If the data is submitted 

by another approved method, the fact that it is estimated must be indicated. The reason for the necessity to 

estimate pumpage shall be reported with the estimate. 

9. In the event a new meter is installed to replace a broken meter, it and its installation shall meet the specifications 

of this condition. The permittee shall notify the District of the replacement with the first submittal of meter readings 

from the new meter. 

FLOW METER ACCURACY TEST INSTRUCTIONS 

1. - The Permittee is to schedule their accuracy test according to the following schedule: 

A. For existing metered withdrawal points, add five years to the previous test year, and make the test in the month 

assigned to your county. 

B. For withdrawal points for which metering is added for the first time, the test is to be scheduled five years from the 

issue year in the month assigned to your county. 

C. For proposed withdrawal points, the test date is five years from the completion date of the withdrawal point in the 

month assigned to your county. 

D. For the Permittee’s convenience, if there are multiple due-years for meter accuracy testing because of the timing 

of the installation and/or previous accuracy tests of meters, the Permittee can submit a request in writing to the 

Water Use Permit Bureau for one specific year to be assigned as the due date year for meter testing. Permittees 

with many meters to test may also request the tests to be grouped into one year or spread out evenly over two to 

three years. 

E. The months for accuracy testing of meters are assigned by county. The Permittee is requested but not required 

to have their testing done in the month assigned to their county. This is to have sufficient District staff available 

for assistance. 

January Hillsborough 

February Manatee, Pasco 

March Polk (for odd numbered permits)* 

April Polk (for even numbered permits)* 

May Highlands 

June Hardee, Charlotte 

July None or Special Request 

August None or Special Request 

September DeSoto, Sarasota 

October Citrus, Levy, Lake 

November Hernando, Sumter, Marion 

December Pinellas 

* The permittee may request their multiple permits be tested in the same month. 

2. : The Permittee shall test the accuracy of flow meters on permitted withdrawal points 

as follows: 

A. The equipment water temperature shall be set to 72 degrees Fahrenheit for ground water, and to the measured 

water temperature for other water sources. 

B. A minimum of two separate timed tests shall be performed for each meter. Each timed test shall consist of 

measuring flow using the test meter and the installed meter for a minimum of four minutes duration. If the two 

tests do not yield consistent results, additional tests shall be performed for a minimum of eight minutes or longer 

per test until consistent results are obtained. 

C. If the installed meter has a rate of flow, or large multiplier that does not allow for consistent results to be obtained 

with four- or eight-minute tests, the duration of the test shall be increased as necessary to obtain accurate and 

consistent results with respect to the type of flow meter installed. 

19


D. The results of two consistent tests shall be averaged, and the result will be considered the test result for the meter 

being tested. This result shall be expressed as a plus or minus percent (rounded to the nearest one-tenth percent) 

accuracy of the installed meter relative to the test meter. The percent accuracy indicates the deviation (if any), of 

the meter being tested from the test meter. 

3. The Permittees shall demonstrate that the results of the meter test(s) are accurate by 

submitting the following information within 30 days of the test: 

A. A completed Flow Meter Accuracy Verification Form, Form LEG-R.014.00 (07/08) for each flow meter tested. 

This form can be obtained from the District’s website (www.watermatters.org) under “Permits and Rules” for 

Water Use Permits. 

B. A printout of data that was input into the test equipment if the test equipment is capable of creating such a 

printout; 

C. A statement attesting that the manufacturer of the test equipment, or an entity approved or authorized by the 

manufacturer, has trained the operator to use the specific model test equipment used for testing; 

D. The date of the test equipment’s most recent calibration that demonstrates that it was calibrated within the 

previous twelve months, and the test lab's National Institute of Standards and Testing (N.I.S.T.) traceability 

reference number. 

E. A diagram showing the precise location on the pipe where the testing equipment was mounted shall be supplied 

with the form. This diagram shall also show the pump, installed meter, the configuration (with all valves, tees, 

elbows, and any other possible flow disturbing devices) that exists between the pump and the test location clearly 

noted with measurements. If flow straightening vanes are utilized, their location(s) shall also be included in the 

diagram. 

F. A picture of the test location, including the pump, installed flow meter, and the measuring device, or for sites 

where the picture does not include all of the items listed above, a picture of the test site with a notation of 

distances to these items. 

WATER QUALITY INSTRUCTIONS 

The Permittee shall perform water quality sampling, analysis and reporting as follows: 

1. The sampling method(s) from both monitor wells and surface water bodies shall be designed to collect water 

samples that are chemically representative of the zone of the aquifer or the depth or area of the water body. 

2. Water quality samples from monitor wells shall be taken after pumping the well for the minimum time specified (if 

specified) or after the water reaches a constant temperature, pH, and conductivity. 

3. The first submittal to the District shall include a copy of the laboratory’s analytical and chain of custody 

procedures. If the laboratory used by the Permittee is changed, the first submittal of data analyzed at the new 

laboratory shall include a copy of the laboratory’s analytical and chain of custody procedures. 

4. Any variance in sampling and/or analytical methods shall have prior approval of the Water Use Permit Bureau 

Chief. 

5. The Permittee's sampling procedure shall follow the handling and chain of custody procedures designated by the 

certified laboratory which will undertake the analysis. 

6. Water quality samples shall be analyzed by a laboratory certified by the Florida Department of Health utilizing the 

standards and methods applicable to the parameters analyzed and to the water use pursuant to Chapter 64E-1, 

Florida Administrative Code, “Certification of Environmental Testing Laboratories.” 

7. Analyses shall be performed according to procedures outlined in the current edition of Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water and Wastewater by the American Public Health Association-American Water Works 

Association-Water Pollution Control Federation (APHA-AWWA-WPCF) or Methods for Chemical Analyses of 

Water and Wastes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

8. Unless other reporting arrangements have been approved by the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief, reports of the 

analyses shall be submitted to the Water Use Permit Bureau, online at the District WUP Portal or mailed in 

hardcopy on or before the tenth day of the following month. The online submittal shall include a scanned upload 

of the original laboratory report. The hardcopy submittal shall be a copy of the laboratory’s analysis form. If for 

some reason, a sample cannot be taken when required, the Permittee shall indicate so and give the reason in the 

space for comments at the WUP Portal or shall submit the reason in writing on the regular due date. 

20


9. Water quality samples shall be collected based on the following timetable for the frequency listed in the special 

condition: 

10. The parameters and frequency of sampling and analysis may be modified by the District as necessary to ensure 

the protection of the resource. 

Frequency 

Weekly Same day of each week 

Quarterly 

Semi-annually 

Timetable 

Monthly Same week of each month 

Same week of 

Same week of 

WATER LEVEL INSTRUCTIONS 

The staff gauge(s) shall be surveyed according to instructions given on the District website and referenced to the 

appropriate vertical datum, and a copy of the survey indicating the datum reference shall be submitted with the first water 

level data report. The staff gauge(s) shall be scaled in one-tenth foot increments and shall be sized and placed so as to 

be clearly visible from an easily accessible point of land. Water levels shall be recorded on a frequency as indicated in 

the table provided in the special condition and reported to the Water Use Permit Bureau, online via the WUP Portal 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/permits/epermitting/ at the District website or in hardcopy on District-provided forms on or 

before the tenth day of the following month. To the maximum extent possible, water levels shall be recorded on a regular 

schedule as indicated in the recording timetable below. The frequency of recording may be modified by the Water Use 

Permit Bureau Chief as necessary to ensure the protection of the resource. 

Water Level Recording Timetable 

Frequency 

Recording Schedule 

Daily 

Same time of each day 

Weekly 

Same day of each week 

Monthly 

Same week of each month 

Quarterly 

Same week of months specified 

WATER RESOURCE COMPLAINT INSTRUCTIONS 

Instructions for water resource complaints include: 

1. Within 48 hours of a complaint received by the Permittee related to their withdrawal or use of water or dewatering 

activity, the Permittee shall notify the District and perform a preliminary investigation to determine whether the 

Permittee's Mine Activities may have caused the problem. 

2. If this preliminary assessment indicates that the Permittee may be responsible, the Permittee shall supply the 

complainant with any water necessary for health and safety purposes, such as drinking water, within 72 hours of 

complaint receipt. 

3. If the resulting investigation determines that the Permittee was not responsible for the complainant's problem, the 

Permittee shall document the reasons for this determination. 

4. If the detailed investigation confirms that the complainant's problem was caused by Mine Activities: 

A. Impacts to wells: The complainant's problem shall be fully corrected within 15 days of complaint receipt. 

Full correction shall be restoration of the complainant's well to pre-impact condition or better, including the 

aspects of pressure levels, discharge quantity, and water quality. This detailed investigation shall include, 

but not be limited to, an analysis of water levels and pumpage impacts at the time of the complainant's 

problem, well and pump characteristics including depths, capacity, pump curves, and irrigation system 

requirements. 

B. Other resource impacts: Within 20 days of complaint receipt, the Permittee shall submit to the District for 

approval a restoration plan to fully correct the complainant's problem. 

5. The Permittee shall file a report of the complaint, the findings of facts, appropriate technical data, and any 

mitigating action taken or to be taken by the Permittee, to the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief, for review and 

approval within 20 days of the receipt of any complaint. The report shall include: 

21


A. The name and address of each complainant; 

B. The date and nature of the complaint; 

C. A summary of the Permittee's investigation; 

D. A summary of the Permittee's determination, including details of any mitigation activities; and 

E. Cost of mitigation activity for each complaint. 

6. A copy of the report shall be sent to the complainant within 20 days of complaint receipt. 

WELL CONSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONS 

All wells proposed to be constructed shall be drilled and constructed as specified below and in “Exhibit C”: 

1. All well casing (including liners and/or pipe) must be sealed to the depth specified in the permit condition. 

2. The proposed well(s) shall be constructed of materials that are resistant to degradation of the casing/grout due to 

interaction with the water of lesser quality. A minimum grout thickness of two (2) inches is required on wells four 

(4) inches or more in diameter. 

3. A minimum of twenty (20) feet overlap and two (2) centralizers is required for Public Supply wells and all wells six 

(6) inches or more in diameter. 

4. Any variation from estimated, maximum or minimum total depths; maximum or minimum casing depths; well 

location or casing diameter specified in the condition requires advanced approval by the Water Use Permit 

Bureau Chief, or the Well Construction Section Manager. 

5. The Permittee is notified that a proposal to significantly change any of these well construction specifications may 

require permit modification if the District determines that such a change would result in significantly greater 

withdrawal impacts than those considered for this Permit. 

6. The finished well casing depth shall not vary from these specifications by greater than ten (10) percent unless 

advance approval is granted by the Water Use Permit Bureau Chief, or the Well Construction Section Manager. 

Authorized Signature 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

This permit, issued under the provision of Chapter 373, Florida Statues and Florida Administrative Code 

40D-2, authorizes the Permittee to withdraw the quantities outlined above, and may require various 

activities to be performed by the Permittee as described in the permit, including the Special Conditions. 

The permit does not convey to the Permittee any property rights or privileges other than those specified 

herein, nor relieve the Permittee from complying with any applicable local government, state, or federal 

law, rule, or ordinance. 

22

1 This WUP consolidates seven different WUPs into one Integrated WUP (IWUP). 

The WUP No. column identifies the former WUP No. associated with the identified withdrawal point. 

2 The "Previous ID" column identifies the former DID No. under the previous WUP for the specified withdrawal point. 

3 District ID is the withdrawal identification number under this IWUP. 

 

 

* Existing District IDs already metered withdrawals (Cond. No. 5) 

** Proposed District IDs to be metered (Cond. No. 4) 

*** Proposed wells requiring well construction stipulations (Cond. No. 8) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

 

* 

 

* 

* 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

23

* 

 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** 

*** 

24

* 

* 

 

* 

 

 

* 

* 

 

* 

 

* 

 

 

* 

 

 

 

* 

 

 

* 

 

* 

* 

 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

 

* 

 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

* 

26

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

 

* 

 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

* 

27

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

28

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

29

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

30

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

31

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

32

* 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

* 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

* 

* 

 

* 

* 

* 

* 

 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

* 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

33

* 

* 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 

* 

 

* 

 

 

* 

 

 

 

 

 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

 

 

** 

*** 

 

 

** 

*** 

 

 

** 

*** 

 

 

** 

*** 

34

EXHIBIT D 

 

ExistingMonitorWells/Piezometers 

District ID No. Permittee ID No. Type Status Aquifer System Reporting Frequency Latitude/Longitude 

2272 144 MONITOR EXISTING SURFICIAL AQUIFER Per EMP 274109.43080N0820842.74160W 











































































35


















































































36


















































































37


















































































38


















































































39


















































































40


















































































41


















































































42


















































































43
































































2087 3155 MONITOR EXISTING SURFICIAL AQUIFER Per EMP 272826.68800N0800615.55200E 


















44


















































































45


















































































46














ExistingStaffGauges 

2277 100SG STAFF GAUGE EXISTING STREAM / WETLAND Per EMP 273118.04800N0820049.86000W 

2278 101SG STAFF GAUGE EXISTING STREAM / WETLAND Per EMP 273236.49200N0820105.48400E 























2301 157TG STAFF GAUGE EXISTING STREAM / WETLAND Per EMP 274437.57200N0820719.30800W 





































47


2343 LTBridge STAFF GAUGE EXISTING STREAM / WETLAND Per EMP 273607.11720N0821240.16160W 

ProposedMonitorWells/Piezometers 

2344 3819 MONITOR PROPOSED SURFICIAL AQUIFER Per EMP 274545.68340N0815723.65140W 













































































48


















































































49


















































































50


















































































51


















































































52


















































































53


















































































54


















































































55


















































































56


















































































57


















































































58


















































































59


















































































60


















































































61


















































































62


















































































63





























 

3648 162SG STAFF GUAGE PROPOSED STREAM / WETLAND Per EMP 273323.24820N0820322.21920W 

3649 163 STAFF GUAGE PROPOSED STREAM / WETLAND Per EMP 273634.74360N0820333.47280W 


















































64


















































































65



















66

§¨¦ 

 

 

 

 

£¤ 

£¤ 

£¤ £¤ 

UV 

§¨¦ 

 

UV 

§¨¦ 

") 

UV 

UV 

£¤ 

 

0 5UV UV UV 10 20 

 

 

Miles 

£¤ 

UV 

UV 

§¨¦ 

£¤ 

§¨¦ 

£¤ 

£¤ 

£¤ UV 

") 

UV 

£¤ £¤ 

UV 

UV 

£¤ 

£¤ 

UV 

 

£¤ 

UV 

£¤ UV 

£¤ 

£¤ 

§¨¦ 

§¨¦ 

§¨¦ 

§¨¦ 

§¨¦ 

§¨¦ 

§¨¦ 

^_ 

 

WUP Boundary 

2011 Natural Color Imagery 

 

 

μ 

0 5 10 20 

UV Miles 

 

UV 

67

EXHIBIT E 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

(EMP) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

MosaicFertilizer,LLC 

WUPNo.20011400.025 

EnvironmentalManagementPlan 

January25,2012 

 

 

MosaicFertilizer,LLC–WUP20011400.025–EnvironmentalManagementPlan 

Page1 

69

Section 

Page 

3 

4 

7 

Section 1.0 – Mandatory Mitigation Distance (MMD) 7 

Section 2.0 – Guidelines for the Use of the Drawdown Mitigation Agreement (DMA) 8 

Section 3.0 – Surficial Aquifer System (SAS) Management Techniques 9 

9 

Section 4.0 – Surficial Aquifer System Monitoring Plan Requirements 9 

Section 5.0 – Qualitative/Quantitative Monitoring Requirements 10 

Section 6.0 – Ongoing Monitoring, Problem Identification and Triggers 10 

12 

Section 7.0 – Resolving Identified Internal or External Trigger Conditions 12 

Section 8.0 - Water Table Recovery 13 

Section 9.0 – Evaluating and Offsetting Unacceptable Adverse Impacts to Wetlands 14 

14 

Section 10.0 Reporting Requirements 14 

Appendix A – Drawdown Mitigation Agreement (DMA) Form 

Appendix B – Environmental Transect Monitoring (ETM) Form and Instructions 

Appendix C – Ongoing Monitoring, Problem Identification and Triggers Matrix 

Appendix D – Location Map of Established Mandatory Mitigation Distances 

Appendix E – Surficial Aquifer System Monitoring Plan and Site Specific Mitigation Plan 

Checklist 

 


Page2 

70

Mosaic submitted an application to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District) on 

June 23, 2006, to renew and consolidate the existing Water Use Permits (WUP) associated with Mosaic’s 

ongoing mining, mineral processing and fertilizer manufacturing operations. The purpose of the integrated 

WUP is to enhance regulatory compliance, resource management, conservation, and overall system 

integration and sustainability. In response to this application, the District requested additional information 

including this Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Implementation of the EMP will provide 

reasonable assurance that the District’s Water Use Permit Application Criteria and the Conditions for 

Issuance in Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., and the Water Use Permit Basis of Review incorporated therein by 

reference, are met through the duration of the WUP. The EMP provides reasonable assurance that the 

water table will be managed adjacent to and within protected environmental features so as to comply with 

the applicable performance standards set forth in Section 4.2 of the WUP Basis of Review. 

Due to significant interaction between Mosaic and District staff, numerous enhancements to the industry’s 

historical approach to water table management have been developed and implemented herein. A 

substantial number of these enhancements have already occurred in advance of this EMP, including: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investment in the installation of widespread water table monitoring networks to ensure a 

minimum of two years of pre-mining data collection at each future mine area (the EMP 

will require the collection of a baseline data set, typically four years of data). 

Hiring of a hydrogeologist to assist Mosaic’s operations personnel in the design of future 

mitigation plans. 

Detailed investigation of the overburden lithology and hydrogeologic characteristics along 

the boundary of future mining areas. 

Use of SEEP/W modeling software and data on site specific characteristics of each site 

to design appropriate ground water mitigation systems. 

Implementation of weekly perimeter inspections which focus on the operating levels, 

water quality, and condition of recharge systems across Mosaic’s active mining areas. 

Initiation of three pilot studies to investigate and demonstrate the efficacy of water table 

management approaches to be used in this EMP. 

This EMP is designed to accomplish four overall tasks: 

1. Prevention - identify the measures that will be used to prevent Adverse Impacts to 

protected environmental features, water resources, off-site land uses, and existing legal uses. 

2. Monitoring - define the pre-mining, during mining, and post-mining monitoring necessary 

to ensure that potential concerns are identified before Adverse Impacts result. 

3. Corrective Action - provide a framework and approach to undertake specified corrective 

actions to address identified problems. 

4. Reporting - define the reporting requirements. 

The following provides details on each component of the EMP. Mosaic will, to the greatest extent 

practicable, follow the procedures outlined in the EMP. Where deviations from the EMP are required due 

to unforeseen circumstances, or site specific considerations, Mosaic will work with the District to develop 

and implement alternative approaches and solutions. 

 


Page3 

71

As used with respect to this EMP, the following terms are defined as follows: 

– Activities that 

may dewater or otherwise withdraw water from the SAS such as Best Management Practices (BMP) 

construction, water table maintenance ditch construction, dewatering well operation, or secondary pit 

dewatering, 

– Impacts to protected environmental features resulting from the withdrawals 

authorized by this Integrated Water Use Permit, that are not short term impacts (e.g., one wet/dry season 

or less) and which fail to meet the environmental performance standards contained in Section 4 of the 

District’s WUP Basis of Review. 

– Minimum of four years of SAS data collected prior to any Mine Activities, as defined 

herein. Alternatives to the use of a four year baseline data collection period are addressed in section 6.0 

below. 

– Typically a four year period of monitoring, or as may otherwise be 

developed by Mosaic and the District on a site specific basis. 

– A relative term to describe the vertical distance that the elevation of the water table in the 

surficial aquifer, or the pressure head of the potentiometric surface of a confined aquifer, is lowered due 

to the removal of water from that hydrologic system. 

– An agreement between Mosaic and a property owner within 

the Mandatory Mitigation Distance, as measured outward from Mosaic’s property boundary, which 

satisfies the requirement that offsite land uses or existing legal uses are not adversely impacted, or are 

properly resolved, on such properties where no protected environmental features exist. Mosaic may seek 

to obtain a DMA on a case-by-case basis and where applicable. All executed Agreements will run with the 

land, and will be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in the county in which the property is located. 

– A permitted current use of the water resource in accordance with Rule 40D-2.041, 

F.A.C., permitting thresholds, and Rule 40D-2.051, F.A.C., exemptions. 

– The water level and duration which requires Mosaic to notify the District and initiate 

investigative measures and take corrective actions, if necessary. This trigger is reached during the dry 

season (October through May) when the measurement at specified piezometers is less than the dry 

season P95 value for a period of three consecutive weekly monitoring events. The external trigger is 

reached during the wet season (June through September) when the measurement at specified 

piezometers is less than the wet season P95 value for a period of two consecutive weekly monitoring 

events. 

– The range of water levels observed at a monitoring location(s) during the baseline 

monitoring period that reflects pre-project conditions, and which shall constitute the normal range of water 

levels for determining compliance with the performance standards outlined in Section 4.2 of the District’s 

WUP Basis of Review. As appropriate, Mosaic may augment this data with other information or analysis 

which accounts for the range of values present under current or pre-project hydrologic/climatic conditions 

so as to establish a more reliable range of historic water table levels. 


Page4 

72

– A graphical representation of SAS water level fluctuations over time, where SAS water 

levels are expressed as the elevation in feet referenced to a specified vertical datum. 

– The water level and duration which requires Mosaic to initiate investigative measures 

and take corrective actions if necessary. This trigger occurs immediately upon specified piezometer’s 

water level range dropping below the P95 elevation for the appropriate season. 

–The minimum distance between Mine Activities (as defined 

below) and a protected environmental feature or property boundary where if the minimum distance is not 

maintained, a Site Specific Drawdown Mitigation Plan is required. The MMD will be used to determine 

when the implementation of a Site Specific Drawdown Mitigation Plan is to be initiated, and defines 

distances beyond which a Site Specific Drawdown Mitigation Plan is not required. 

– Dewatering or other water use activities by Mosaic within the District’s WUP 

jurisdiction that have the potential to cause Adverse Impacts. This excludes building roads, power 

lines, and other activities unrelated to water use that do not affect water levels within the SAS, and are 

not within the District’s WUP jurisdiction. 

– To make or become less severe or intense. With respect to Water Use Permitting, 

mitigation includes the measures and actions provided to offset, lessen, rectify or prevent Adverse 

Impacts to the environment, water resources, existing land use, or legal users of the water resources. 

 

– The percentile ranking represented by the elevation of the water level in the 

SAS that is equaled or exceeded 50% of the time during the wet season, calculated from the baseline 

data set. 

–The percentile ranking represented by the elevation of the water level in the 

SAS that is equaled or exceeded 95% of the time during the appropriate season calculated from the 

baseline data set. P95 exceedance values will be determined for both the wet season (June – 

September) and dry season (October – May) at each monitoring point based on the water levels 

observed at the location during the baseline monitoring period. 

– A shallow monitoring well installed in the SAS for the purpose of monitoring water levels. 

–Include wetlands, lakes, and streams, etc., as identified in Chapter 

40D-2, F.A.C. and the District’s Water Use Permit Basis of Review that have been specifically identified 

as areas that are to be protected against Adverse Impacts from dewatering or other activities permitted by 

the District. These include areas not permitted to be mined or impacted. 

– The document which identifies the SAS monitoring locations for a 

particular mine area. The SASMP is part of the two-step pre-mining process consisting of the SAS 

Monitoring Plan and Site Specific Drawdown Mitigation Plan. 

– The removal of water from a previously mined area, typically conducted by 

setting pumps on a float in the open mine cut and pumping the water out to the mine water recirculation 

system. Secondary pit dewatering is typically used to prepare old mine cuts for the construction of a new 

clay settling area. 

– A piezometer, installed in the SAS, in areas with no imminent mining, for the 

purpose of monitoring water levels and establishing long term water level data for mining areas not 


Page5 

73

included in the current mine plan that may be used to supplement baseline monitoring data in water use 

permitting activities within the jurisdiction of the District’s WUP Program. 

– The document which proposes one or more 

techniques to prevent, offset, or otherwise mitigate for a deviation of SAS water levels from historic 

ranges due to Mine Activities for a particular mine area. The SSDMP is part of the two-step pre-mining 

process consisting of the SAS Monitoring Plan and the Site Specific Drawdown Mitigation Plan. 


Page6 

74

Background 

Depending on the characteristics of the site where phosphate matrix is to be mined, the mining process 

will usually require some form of dewatering of the SAS. Typically, pre-mining dewatering activities are 

conducted to ensure ground stability and to ensure mine cuts are sufficiently free of water to allow the 

mining equipment to operate safely and efficiently. Effective dewatering of the mining area also enables 

the operator to visually evaluate the depth and extent of the mineral reserve and maximize resource 

recovery. Dewatering activities have the potential to result in drawdown of the SAS. The extent of the 

drawdown is dependent on a number of factors including the overall depth of mining, the overburden 

thickness, the duration of the dewatered open cut, and the hydrogeologic characteristics of the 

overburden soils, including but not limited to, the absence or presence of aquicludes and/or aquitards and 

the vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the overburden soils. 

For this reason, an approach has been developed to define a Mandatory Mitigation Distance (MMD) 

(formerly referred to as the “setback” distance) for each mine site. The MMD will be used to determine 

when the implementation of a Site-Specific Drawdown Mitigation Plan (SSDMP) is required. Dewatering 

activities outside of the MMD are presumed not to cause impacts. 

Since Mine Activities encompass a broad range of hydrogeologic and other site specific characteristics, 

the MMD must be, to a certain extent, site specific. Determination of the MMD must also be conservative 

to ensure that it represents the full potential extent of SAS drawdown that could occur in the absence of 

mitigation measures. 

Methodology for Establishment 

Mosaic uses site specific field data and a detailed engineering analysis of the potential, unmitigated SAS 

drawdown at a site. A transient flow seepage analysis will be accomplished through the use of the 

computer application SEEP/W, developed by GEO-SLOPE International LTD, or other mutually agreed 

upon method to determine the maximum extent of dewatering drawdown influence in the SAS. 

The Permittee shall use a 0.5-foot and greater cumulative drawdown in the SAS from the groundwater 

model and dewatering modeling as a guide for determining when the MMD process contained within the 

EMP is to be implemented. Numerical modeling is preferred over analytical models for determining the 

estimated range of drawdowns to occur from mining and dewatering. However, as updated models and 

other techniques are made available, these shall be taken into consideration for use. 

A stratigraphic cross section will be developed adjacent to environmental features/property boundaries for 

determining the depth of overburden and matrix, and to develop stratigraphic profiles from land surface 

down to the bottom of the mineable matrix. Prospecting data is suitable for use in determining depth of 

overburden and matrix. Split spoon, continuous coring, or another generally accepted geotechnical 

investigation technique shall be the preferred methods for developing the stratigraphic profile from land 

surface to the top of the matrix. 

Once the stratigraphic profile of the surficial aquifer has been determined, field derived hydraulic 

conductivity measurements will be input in the seepage model for the differing SAS stratigraphic units and 

cast overburden (if present) in the model. The determination of the MMDs for each mine area will be 

based on the results of the approved modeling technique as set forth below or such other appropriate 


Page7 

75

techniques agreed to by Mosaic and the District. The development of more area-specific MMDs within 

each mining area may be required to account for more localized hydrogeologic conditions. At Mosaic’s 

discretion, Mosaic may conduct additional analyses specific to certain areas and present these results to 

the District for approval, which may refine the MMDs. 

Procedure 

The MMD will be used to identify when a SSDMP must be initiated. A SSDMP will be required in 

specified areas where Mine Activities take place within the MMD established for property boundaries 

and/or protected environmental features. In those cases where protected environmental features are not 

present within the MMD, Mosaic will evaluate the presence/absence of existing legal users in the SAS 

that fall within the MMD (measured outward from the property boundary) and may elect to seek a 

Drawdown Mitigation Agreement (DMA) from the adjacent landholder(s) for a specified portion of the 

adjacent property on the Mosaic Project boundary. A description of the DMA and guidelines for its use are 

detailed in Section 2.0 below. Mosaic will implement drawdown mitigation measures along all property 

boundaries unless a DMA is obtained. 

Established Mandatory Mitigation Distances 

MMDs have been established for specific mine areas. Within six months from the date of issuance of the 

integrated WUP, the Permittee shall begin implementing the established MMDs for those areas where the 

Permittee is dewatering within those distances. 

The following MMDs have been established and are located as depicted in Appendix D. 

Mine Location 

MMD (Feet) 

1. Four Corners – Lonesome 2,250 

2. Four Corners – West Hillsborough 1,675 

3. Four Corners – West Manatee 1,800 

4. Four Corners – Altman 1,355 

5. Hookers Prairie 1,580 

6. Ona 2,890 

7. South Ft. Meade 1,420 

8. Wingate – Manson Jenkins 2,790 

 

Background 

Consistent with the District's rules, Mosaic works and cooperates with adjacent property owners within the 

MMD to obtain DMAs which satisfy the requirement that offsite land uses or existing legal uses are not 

adversely impacted or are satisfactorily resolved on such adjacent properties where no protected 

environmental features exist. Mosaic will continue to exercise this option with an agreement utilizing the 

template attached hereto as Attachment A. 

Methodology 

On a case-by-case basis, and where allowable in the absence of off-site protected environmental 

features, Mosaic may seek to obtain a DMA from the property owner. All executed DMAs will run with the 

land, and will be recorded in the public record in the county where the subject property is located. Copies 

of all executed DMAs will be kept on file by Mosaic. Properties encompassed by a DMA shall be clearly 

delineated on Mosaic’s Annual Mine Plans, SASMPs, and SSDMPs, where applicable. 


Page8 

76

Procedure 

In those areas where protected environmental features are not present within a distance equivalent to the 

MMD, measured outward from the Mosaic property boundary, Mosaic will determine the presence / 

absence of existing legal users of water utilizing the SAS. Mosaic may elect to execute a DMA with the 

adjacent landholder(s) for that portion of the property boundary. If a waiver cannot be obtained, Mosaic 

will be required to implement the SAS drawdown mitigation measures outlined in this EMP. 

 

Prior to initiating Mine Activities adjacent to any protected environmental features and/or offsite property 

boundaries, Mosaic will implement a two-step pre-mining process consisting of 1) submittal of a proposed 

SASMP including site specific stratigraphic borings and cross-section profiles, and 2) submittal of a 

SSDMP, the components of which are listed in Appendix E. The design will be based upon the sitespecific 

geologic investigation and the specific mine techniques required by the Environmental Resource 

Permit or other approval (e.g., mine cut orientation, overburden back cast vs. no overburden back cast, 

etc.). This information will be used in SEEP/W, or other agreed upon model to achieve a design that 

provides reasonable assurance that SAS water levels will be managed within the range described herein. 

In cooperation with the District, Mosaic shall develop each SSDMP, which the District shall review and 

either approve or request additional information within 30 days of submittal. In the event the District does 

not provide a response within 30 days, Mosaic may proceed with implementation of the SSDMP. SSDMP 

techniques include ongoing training for appropriate staff and may consist of, but are not necessarily 

limited to, one or more of the following, used individually or in combination: 

Water table maintenance ditches 

Mine-cut orientation and timing 

Back-casting (where site conditions and/or permit conditions allow) 

Land surface/direct application (uplands) 

Underground/SAS injection 

Accelerated backfill timing 

Accelerated and/or increased flooding of mine cuts 

Direct Mitigation of Wetlands, as approved by the District 

Alternative operational or mining techniques 

 

 

Background 

A SASMP will be designed for each mine area to ensure that Mosaic has sufficient information and 

coverage to effectively define, manage and respond to Adverse Impacts to protected environmental 

features and existing legal uses. Each SASMP will include the following components: 

 

Investigation of surficial aquifer lithology prior to installation of the monitoring network 


Page9 

77

Installation of a piezometer network sufficient to detect changes in any or all layers of the SAS 

(including nested monitor wells in the presence of aquicludes) 

Collection of a baseline data set which includes at least four years of baseline SAS monitoring 

data, ending when Mine Activities occur within the MMD 

o Monthly monitoring prior to any Mine Activities within the MMD 

o Weekly monitoring when active Mine Activities begin within the MMD relative to any 

SASMP monitor well location 

 

Placement and spacing of piezometers will be dictated by landforms and protected environmental 

areas and must be at depths and locations sufficient to accurately monitor the SAS at that 

location. 

Procedure – SAS Monitoring Plan(s) 

Mosaic will propose a specific SASMP for each new mining area. Plans will be submitted to the District 

with sufficient time to ensure that the monitoring plan can be reviewed, approved, and implemented, but 

in any event no less than 30 days prior to the planned implementation of the SASMP. Areas to be mined 

where four years of baseline data is not available, may require additional monitoring network 

enhancements to fully assess and understand the site specific hydrology. These occurrences will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with the District to determine an acceptable substitute 

for the four years of baseline monitoring data and determination of historic water level ranges. For those 

areas of the monitoring network for which four years of data are not available, or the use of which is not 

otherwise appropriate, Mosaic will work with the District to evaluate the available data set for 

appropriateness of use. If it is determined that the data set is not sufficient to determine the historic 

range of water levels, then Mosaic will coordinate with the District to identify other appropriate reference 

sites to be used for comparison with the sites within the MMD area, or some other alternative method 

approved by the District. 

Networks will be monitored on a monthly basis. Monitoring frequency will be increased to weekly where 

Mine Activities begin within the MMD. Monitoring is required throughout the course of Mine Activities. 

Monitoring shall conclude when Mine Activities cease and the water levels have maintained the P50 

elevation for consecutive wet and dry seasons in a representative set of monitoring locations based upon 

reasonable scientific judgment. 

 

Background: 

Monitoring will focus on the potential of 

features and existing legal uses of water. 

Mine Activities to adversely impact protected environmental 

The SASMP is intended to assure that the performance standards are met by maintaining the historic 

range of SAS water levels during Mine Activities. 

In addition to SAS monitoring, wetland vegetative composition, soils, and other physical wetland features 

will be monitored annually. The goal of this additional monitoring is to provide an ongoing qualitative 

description of each protected wetland system to identify potential changes through the course of Mine 

Activities. This information can be used to assure the primary goal of protecting wetland functions and 

values. 


Page10 

78

A monitoring transect will be established at protected wetland areas in a portion of the wetland that is 

representative of the entire system to accurately assess the functions of each wetland system. Multiple 

transects may be established within a wetland system if warranted by site conditions and/or mine plan. 

Transects will be established as a straight line from the wetland edge to the center (deepest portion) of 

the wetland perpendicular to the wetland edge. Transect locations will be selected by Mosaic and 

presented in the SASMP for District approval. Permanent photostations and a permanent soil monitoring 

station will be established during transect setup. Permanent photostations will be established along the 

transect at distances that allow adequate photographic coverage of the transect. Photostations will be a 

maximum of 50 feet apart. The permanent soil monitoring station will be established along the transect in 

a location that has adequate soil composition to monitor potential subsidence. At each transect, the 

Environmental Transect Monitoring (ETM) form will be completed in accordance with the ETM form 

instruction sheet (Appendix B). During transect monitoring, a copy of the previous year’s ETM data will 

be taken in the field to assist in the identification of potential changes within the wetland. 

 

Background: 

Prior to commencement of Mine Activities, Mosaic will establish a baseline data set for water levels 

adjacent to and within protected environmental features. Monitoring will continue throughout Mine 

Activities. This baseline data set will be used to determine a historic range of SAS water levels for each 

protected environmental feature. The baseline data set will be used to determine the range of water level 

fluctuation that must be maintained during all Mine Activities, as well as the range to which water levels 

must be restored in the event of a disturbance related Mine Activities. 

Methodology 

Mosaic will establish a baseline data set prior to the start of any Mine Activities with the potential to 

adversely impact protected environmental features or existing legal uses. The baseline data collection 

will conclude when any Mine Activities begin within the MMD of that location. Based on the historic range 

of SAS water levels for each location and as described below, “triggers” will be established defining water 

levels at which Mosaic will initiate data review and initiate corrective actions, if necessary. Triggers shall 

reflect seasonal and other natural variations. At a minimum, triggers will be established for the wet 

season (June through September) and dry season (October through May) based on a percent 

exceedance analysis of the baseline range of water table fluctuations during that season. The trigger 

values will be based on the P95 exceedance value for the season in question. These wet/dry season and 

other natural variability triggers will be used in conjunction with a duration component, as described 

below, to determine if a hydrologic disturbance requires corrective actions and/or reporting to the District, 

as described in this EMP. 

Mosaic will collect baseline water table monitoring data at least monthly for a minimum of four years prior 

to the start of any Mine Activities. On a site specific basis, the baseline dataset will be used to calculate 

the P95 exceedance values during the wet and dry season and other natural variability, such as 

hurricanes or droughts. When Mine Activities occur within the MMD, monitoring frequency will be changed 

to weekly. 

If SAS water levels drop below the P95 values for the appropriate season, it will trigger internal and 

external notifications as follows and as depicted in the Chart in Appendix C. 


Page11 

79

A P95 exceedance value will be established for the wet season and dry season specific to each 

piezometer. Other natural variability in water levels can also be taken into consideration. An internal 

trigger will occur upon the piezometer’s water level dropping below the P95 elevation for the appropriate 

season. An internal trigger will prompt Mosaic to begin preliminary evaluation to determine if mining 

activities are responsible for the water level drop. It is understood that this internal trigger may occur 

under normal conditions for 5% of each season; however, this conservative approach to water level 

analysis will provide assurance that Mosaic will identify potential water table issues as soon as feasible. 

If Mine Activities are determined to be causing Adverse Impacts, Mosaic will begin corrective actions. 

For the wet season, an external trigger will occur at the second consecutive weekly monitoring event that 

water levels are below the P95 wet season value. For the dry season, an external trigger will occur at the 

third consecutive weekly monitoring event that water levels are below the P95 dry season value. When 

the criteria for an external trigger are met, Mosaic will implement additional data analysis to determine if 

Mine Activities are the cause. Water level data in piezometers outside of the MMD will be evaluated to 

determine if a similar data pattern is occurring. In addition, period of record rainfall data for the rain 

gauge assigned to the subject piezometer will be evaluated to determine if current rainfall patterns are 

representative of the rainfall period of record for which the P95 exceedance values were established. If 

Mine Activities are determined to be causing Adverse Impacts, Mosaic will begin corrective actions. The 

District will be notified of all external triggers and associated data analysis as described in Section 10. 

“Backstop” Trigger: 

If water levels recorded at any monitoring location drop more than 3 feet in the timeframe between 

consecutive monitoring events, this shall cause an internal trigger and the commencement of expedited 

investigative action by Mosaic. If the next weekly monitoring data is unchanged or continues to decline, 

then this would constitute an external trigger and District notification. This internal trigger is intended to 

provide early warning of potential impacts related to Mine Activities. 

Alternative Method for Establishing Baseline Data Set: 

If an approved mine plan is in place prior to implementation of this EMP, or if other changes unanticipated 

by Mosaic occur, a minimum of four years of baseline monitoring data may not be available. In those 

cases, reference monitoring sites will be identified in cooperation with the District to augment and/or 

provide an acceptable substitute to understand and assess site specific SAS historic ranges. If 

appropriate reference sites cannot be identified, other best available monitoring data, as identified in 

cooperation with the District, may be used to establish SAS historic ranges. In some instances, a 

combination of reference sites and available data may be the appropriate methodology, as approved by 

the District. 

In the event that severe weather or climatological conditions impact the SAS and therefore data collected 

during the baseline period, Mosaic and the District may agree to rely on a partial data set, or other 

available data, or conditions, to establish appropriate SAS ranges and triggers. 

 

 

 

Upon identification of conditions which exceed an internal or external trigger, Mosaic will make a 

determination of cause and, if related to Mine Activities, will implement corrective actions. Mosaic shall 


Page12 

80

implement, on a case by case basis, the corrective measures referenced herein. If Mine Activities are 

determined to be the cause of deviation from the historic water level ranges within the SAS, Mosaic shall 

expeditiously notify the District and provide a written proposal to restore the water levels to the historic 

seasonal range. Mosaic shall work in cooperation with the District to develop an effective corrective action 

plan, and the District shall have 30 days to provide input on the proposal to Mosaic. Mosaic shall have 

the discretion to implement the corrective measures it deems appropriate and necessary based on site 

specific considerations. 

If water level deviations within the SAS exceed an external trigger during construction of a BMP/water 

table maintenance ditch or other mitigative measure, Mosaic will immediately implement corrective 

measures to maintain SAS historic ranges. 

The corrective action measures include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following, in 

combination or sequence: 

Mitigation maintenance actions 

o Developing a plan for reestablishing the target water table 

o Cleaning water table maintenance ditches 

o Increasing water levels in ditches 

o Re-designing and re-constructing ditches 

Alternative mining techniques 

o Increasing spoil placement on the mine cut face (“high wall”) 

o Revising orientation of mining (parallel or perpendicular to protected area) 

o Flooding of mine cuts 

o Expediting reclamation 

o Wet (dredge) mining 

Alternative additive SAS water level disturbance prevention techniques 

o Direct SAS injection 

Direct Mitigation of Wetlands, in the form of hydration, restoration, enhancement, creation, 

preservation, or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank, or an appropriate combination 

thereof, as approved by the District 

Alternative operational or mining activities 

Modification of Mine Activities, up to and including cessation of Mine Activities in the area of 

observed adverse impact. 

All SAS corrective measures will utilize the lowest quality of water available which is environmentally, 

technically, and economically feasible for all or a portion of Mosaic’s use. 

 

 

 

In the event the SAS water levels associated with a protected environmental feature or an offsite property 

boundary exceeds an internal or external trigger, Mosaic will immediately initiate corrective actions as 

necessary to avoid impacts to those features and to recover the SAS historic range, as determined on a 

case-by-case basis. This determination will consider seasonal, climatic and other site specific conditions. 

SAS monitoring shall cease when both Mine Activities are terminated and the SAS P50 wet season water 

levels for the particular mining project or phase thereof are achieved in a representative set of monitoring 

locations for consecutive wet and dry seasons, based upon reasonable scientific judgment. 

 

 

 


Page13 

81

Unacceptable Adverse Impacts to wetlands shall be based upon SAS water levels, biological and 

ecological changes. When reasonable scientific judgment establishes that wetland functions have been 

adversely impacted, Mosaic will conduct a complete assessment of the current wetland functions. This 

assessment would include the use of information collected at appropriate wetland transects through the 

use of the ETM Form and/or prior UMAM assessments adjusted for impacts to Location and Landscape 

Support inherent in the mining process, or other approved methodology as agreed upon by Mosaic and 

the District. That assessment will be compared with the baseline data set/previous assessments to 

determine the degree and spatial extent of any adverse impact, and the appropriate wetland mitigation to 

replace or restore the lost functions, if any. Such assessments shall take seasonal impacts, such as 

hurricanes and/or droughts, into consideration. Mosaic will submit all wetland mitigation proposals and the 

accompanying functional assessments to the District for review and approval prior to implementation. 

The District shall have 30 days to either approve or provide input on the proposal to Mosaic. Upon 

District approval, Mosaic must implement the appropriate wetland mitigation to replace or restore the lost 

functions identified. 

 

 

 

Consistent with the internal and external triggers described in Section 6.0 above, monthly reporting to the 

District will commence for any areas when external triggers are exceeded. Reports will be submitted in an 

acceptable, useable format to the District within 30 days from the date of an external trigger. The monthly 

reports will include: 

1) Tabular electronic submittal of all SAS monitoring data, referencing the DID No. for each 

piezometer. 

2) Graphics for any piezometer within the MMD that materially deviated from the internal or 

external reporting threshold as described in Section 6.0 above. Graphics for the monthly 

report will include: 

a. Hydrographs on a well-by-well basis, one hydrograph per page. Hydrographs will 

include the following components: 

i. Dry season/wet season P95 value 

ii. Dry season/wet season P50 value 

iii. Ground surface elevation at well location 

iv. Water levels 

b. Map(s) depicting the following (may reference previously submitted maps if no 

change): 

i. Locations of the monitor wells 

ii. Latest report and most recent data for any nearby qualitative wetland 

assessment transects 

iii. off-site wetlands within the MMD 

3) For piezometers that exceeded the external reporting threshold as described in Section 6.0 

above, a description of the corrective measures taken to respond to the external trigger 

including: 

a. Actions taken to date and water table response (if applicable) 

b. Actions to be taken 

c. Implementation schedule 


Page14 

82

d. Proposed date of recovery 

e. Proposed water table recovery elevations 

Reporting required under 1) and 2) above associated with piezometers that deviated from the internal or 

external thresholds described in Section 6.0 will occur monthly until the piezometer water level has been 

restored to a level above the seasonally appropriate P50 value, consistent with Section 8.0 above. 

Monthly reports will recommence if an external trigger is again exceeded. 

 

Mosaic will submit a Semi-Annual Report to the District for all areas when any Mine Activities are 

conducted within the MMD. Reports will be submitted on November 15th of each year for the preceding 

June 1 through September 30 period of 4 months, and July 15th for the preceding October 1 through May 

31 period of 8 months. The Semi-Annual Report will identify all instances where the SAS water levels 

measured below the internal and external triggers in all monitored systems, and provide detailed 

evaluations as to the cause of the hydrologic disturbance, including: 

1) The mine history within the MMD of the site of the SAS water level disturbance 

2) The rainfall record at the nearest rain gage 

3) If a relationship to Mine Activities is determined, details of corrective measures taken, the 

extent of recovery in SAS water levels , and a thorough discussion of methods to be used in 

the future to prevent similar hydrologic disturbances 

 

Mosaic will submit an Annual Report to the District with the following information: 

1) Current aerial photos of all active mining/dewatering sites and all monitoring points located 

and identified on the aerials 

2) Period of record monitoring data (electronic) for all sites identified on the aerials, 

3) Summaries/analyses of the previous year’s monitoring data, Mine Activities, and weather 

The Annual Report will also identify any instances of SAS water levels measured below the internal and 

external thresholds in all monitored systems and provide detailed evaluations as to the cause of any 

Adverse Impacts that are a result of Mine Activities, including: 

4) The mine history within the MMD of the locations of Adverse Impacts to SAS water levels, if 

any. 

5) The rainfall record at the nearest rain gage. 

6) Determination and discussion as to water table level deviation from historic ranges and 

relationship to Mine Activities 

7) If causation for any documented SAS water level deviations from historic ranges are 

attributed to Mine Activities, then Mosaic must specify the corrective actions taken, the results 

of such actions, and a thorough assessment of any appropriate preventative measures to be 

taken in the future. 

8) Summaries of all functional assessments and wetland mitigation for the previous year as 

required by Section 9.0. 


Page15 

83

Annual Reports will be submitted by April 15th of each year for the preceding March 1 through February 

28 12-month period. 


Page16 

84

APPENDIX A 

DRAWDOWN MITIGATION AGREEMENT 

85

This instrument prepared by, 

and after recording return to: 

Name: E. Ward 

Address: Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

13830 Circa Crossing Drive 

Lithia, FL 33547 

(Space reserved for Clerk of Court) 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN 

________________________________ 

AND 

MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC 

REDUCING THE MINIMUM MITIGATION DISTANCE 

THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of _____________, 2011, by and between 

_________________ (“Grantor”), a ______________ (corporation/partnership/ individual/other) 

with a mailing address of ___________________________________________ 

______________________, in favor of Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (“Grantee”), a Delaware limited 

liability company with a mailing address of 13830 Circa Crossing Drive, Lithia, Florida 33547. 

THIS AGREEMENT was prepared under the supervision of ________________, 

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC. 

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property in __________ County, 

Florida (the "County"), more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a 

part hereof (the “Property”); and 

WHEREAS, Grantee owns, leases, or possesses certain mineral rights on land adjacent 

to the Property, on which Grantee is or will be conducting phosphate mining and mining-related 

activities, which may result in reductions in the water table beneath the Grantor’s Property (the 

“Activities”); and 

WHEREAS, the consumptive water use associated with the Activities are subject to the 

regulatory jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD” or 

“the District”); and 

86

WHEREAS, the District’s Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code 

(“F.A.C.”), states that in order to obtain a water use permit (“WUP”) from the District, an 

applicant must provide reasonable assurances that its water use will not adversely impact offsite 

land uses existing at the time of the application; and 

WHEREAS, the District’s Rule 40D-2.301(1)(j), F.A.C., states that in order to obtain a 

WUP from the District, an applicant must provide reasonable assurances that its water use will 

not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal; and 

WHEREAS, Grantor is aware that Grantee is authorized by the District to make 

groundwater withdrawals pursuant to WUP No. 20011400.025 which, pursuant to Section 1 of 

Exhibit E (Environmental Management Plan), requires a mandatory mitigation distance (the 

"MMD") which provides that Grantee may not conduct dewatering operations related to the 

Activities closer than the distance established for the subject area, as defined in the EMP, from 

any property line unless the Grantee takes measures to avoid an off-site drawdown in the water 

table or unless the Grantee obtains the written consent of the adjacent property owner to reduce 

the MMD; and 

WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed with Grantee to a reduction of the MMD, which may 

result in the Activities lowering the water table beneath the Property; and 

WHEREAS, Grantee has provided consideration to the Grantor for the execution of this 

Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency which is hereby acknowledged, and the parties wish to set 

forth their agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and the mutual covenants, terms, 

conditions and restrictions contained herein, and other good and valuable considerations paid by 

Grantee to Grantor, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby 

voluntarily makes these covenants to the Grantee in the nature and character and for the duration 

hereinafter set forth as follows: 

1. Recitals. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by 

reference. 

2. Reduction of the MMD. Except as otherwise provided herein, Grantor hereby consents 

to the reduction of the MMD to zero (0) feet so as to allow the Activities and pit dewatering to 

occur within zero (0) feet of the boundary line separating the Property from the lands subject to 

the Activities. This Agreement does not: (a) reduce the MMD by more than the depth of the 

Grantor’s property, or (b) apply to any wetlands, lakes, streams, or estuaries located within the 

MMD. (The District does not allow Grantor to waive drawdowns under these features). 

The Grantor expressly consents to the reduction of the MMD, as stated above, and recognizes 

that a lowering of the water table beneath the Property may occur and expressly consents to 

same. Grantor has determined that lowering of the water table under the Property will not affect 

the Grantor's, or current possessor's, use of the Property. This consent to the reduction of the 

MMD shall [terminate _________ (____) years from the date of this Agreement][be perpetual]. 

Page 2 of 6 

87

3. Notice to Tenants. Grantor acknowledges that Grantor may be required to notify any 

tenants occupying the Property that are affected by this Agreement, and Grantor agrees to 

provide any such required notices. 

4. Venue and Fees. Any lawsuit other legal action arising out of this Agreement shall be 

brought in the Circuit Court of the County. All parties to this Agreement consent to the exercise 

of personal jurisdiction by such court. With respect to such legal action, each party agrees to 

bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 

5. Recordation. Grantee may record this Agreement in the Official Records of the County 

and may re-record this Agreement or any other documentation at any time required to preserve 

the Grantee's rights hereunder. Grantee shall pay all recording costs and taxes necessary to 

record this Agreement in the public records. Grantee will hold Grantor harmless from any 

recording costs or taxes necessary to record this Agreement in the public records. 

6. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the 

parties hereto and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns and 

shall continue as a servitude to the Property until termination under Section 2 herein. 

7. Miscellaneous. 

(a) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the 

subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, representations, warranties and 

undertakings of the parties. 

(b) No representations, agreements, understanding, warranties or indemnities shall be 

inferred herefrom or deemed to exist between the parties unless expressly set forth herein or by 

separate written agreement. 

(c) The singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular. 

(d) This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Florida. 

(e) This Agreement is a covenant running with the land with respect to the Property for 

the term hereof. 

(f) This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, which may be 

combined to constitute a single instrument. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement or caused this 

Agreement to be executed in its name by partners or officers thereof duly authorized as of the 

day and year first above written. 

By: ___________________________ 

Witness as to Grantor 

___________________________ 

Print Name of Witness 

Page 3 of 6 

88

By: ___________________________ 

Witness as to Grantor 

___________________________ 


By: ________________________________ 

______________________, Grantor 

STATE OF ________________ 

COUNTY OF ______________ 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 

_____ day of ________________, 2011, by _________________________________, Grantor, 

who is personally known to me or (__) who produced ________________________ as 

identification. 

___________________________________ 

Notary Public 

My Commission Expires: 

By: ___________________________ 

Witness as to Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

___________________________ 


By: ___________________________ 

Witness as to Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

___________________________ 


By: ________________________________ 

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Grantee 

STATE OF ______________________ 

COUNTY OF ____________________ 

Page 4 of 6 

89

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 

________ day of _______________________, 2011, by _______________________________, 

as _______________ of Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Grantee, who is personally known to me or 

(___) produced ___________________ as identification. 

______________________________ 

Notary Public 


Page 5 of 6 

90

EXHIBIT A 

Legal Description of Property 

Page 6 of 6 

91

APPENDIX B 

ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSECT MONITORING FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS 

92

MOSAIC ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSECT MONITORING FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS 

Project Site: 

DEP/ACOE/SWFWMD Wetland No(s): 

Transect ID: _________________________________ 

Investigator: Date: Time: 

Photos 1 : 

Weather Conditions: __________________________ 

WETLAND AREA VEGETATION COVER TYPES – 1999 FDOT FLUCCS (Level 3) 

VEGETATION 2 

CANOPY (4” dbh) / SUBCANOPY (1-4” dbh) 3 % Composition Start Location 7 End Location 8 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Total Canopy % Cover 

SHRUB LAYER 4 - Woody Species (


Describe type of alteration and effects: 

atypical recruitment 9 

atypical age/size 10 

logging/clearcutting 

ditching/draining 

excessive mortality 11 

debris/dumping 

disease 

fire suppression 

roads/trails 

damming/flooding 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCES 

other 

spoil/fill 

adjacent cropland 

hog rooting 

pasture/grazing 

OVERALL DEGREE OF 

IMPACT 

none 

minor 

moderate 

high 

severe 

NUISANCE SPECIES 

COVER 

low (12” 

NORMAL POOL WATER DEPTH (at Deepest Point) 20 : 0-3” 3-6” 6-12” >12” 

94


Flooding Regime: Ephemeral Intermittent Seasonal Perennial 

Hydrology Connections: Isolated 21 ? Connected 22 ? Artificial 23 ? 

COMMENTS: 

NON-LISTED WILDLIFE SIGNS AND/OR OBSERVATIONS (baseline only / post impact – circle one) 

none 

direct observation 

indirect observation 

Species/Notes 24 : 

burrow 

tracks 

scat 

rubs 

nests 

calls 

other 

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES (baseline only / post impact – circle one) 

PLANTS: None present Present GPS Point ANIMALS: None present Present GPS Point 

Species 

Species 

Species 

Species 

Species 

Species 

95


This instruction sheet is to be used in conjunction with the Environmental Transect Monitoring (ETM) form 

during annual transect monitoring. 

1 – At each photostation, take a photo of the transect towards the interior of the wetland and of the soil 

monitoring station. 

2 – The vegetation section of the form is used to describe the vegetative species and percent cover along 

the transect. Vegetation is assessed by stratum (based on height and size), not by the potential form of 

the species (i.e., a tree seedling is assessed as part of the groundcover, not as part of the tree canopy). 

3 – The tree stratum includes woody vegetation that exceeds the shrub stratum size. Canopy species are 

greater than 4” diameter at breast height (dbh) and subcanopy species are between 1-4” dbh. 

4 – The shrub stratum includes woody (e.g., Cephalanthus occidentalis) and semi-woody (Ludwigia 

peruviana) species that are greater than 0.5 meter in height and less than 1” dbh. 

5 – Groundcover is all non-woody species and woody species less than 0.5 meter in height. 

6 – For the purpose of this assessment, vines are considered to be linear woody or non-woody vegetation 

that utilize the canopy, sub-canopy, or shrub strata, where they exist, for physical support. Where these 

strata are not present, vines will utilize groundcover vegetation and the forest floor as the physical 

substrate for support. 

7 – Start location refers to the distance in feet from the beginning of the transect that the plant species is 

first observed. 

8 – End Location refers to the distance in feet from the beginning of the transect that the plant species is 

last observed. 

9 – Atypical recruitment refers to the appropriateness of the tree species to the wetland type. Examples 

of atypical recruitment would be Taxodium sp. saplings in the center of a historically deep marsh or Acer 

rubrum and Quercus laurifolia saplings in the center of a cypress wetland. 

10 – Atypical age/size would be noted in a wetland where tree species appear to be relatively young. In 

most cases, this would indicate an event that cleared/destroyed the historic canopy. 

11 – Indicate if the wetland vegetation, specifically trees, exhibits mortality beyond what would be 

expected under normal conditions. 

12 – Indicate if the wetland strata appears appropriate for the wetland type. 

13 – Evidence of upland encroachment can differ according to wetland type and surrounding landscape. 

In general, this refers to the colonization of shallow portions of the wetland (e.g., transition zone) by 

upland plant species and pasture grasses and/or the colonization of deep portions of the wetland by 

upland plant species or plant species normally found in shallow portions of the wetland. 

14 – A soil monitoring station and measure of soil loss (subsidence) within all wetlands will be 

implemented as described below. The soil loss measure will include a baseline measurement taken 

within each wetland prior to inclusion within the MMD, as well as subsequent annual measurements for all 

wetlands within the MMD. Rebar (or similar material) will be installed through the muck/peat layer into 

sand or clay. An initial survey of the measuring point on the rebar will occur at the same time as 

vegetation transect establishment. The distance between the measuring point and ground surface will be 

recorded to document a baseline measurement and a photo of the soil station will be recorded. The 

distance between the measuring point and ground surface will be measured and recorded during 

subsequent annual monitoring events and will be photo-documented. If water level or vegetative data 

indicates a potential impact to the wetland, a new survey of the measuring point will be conducted for 

comparison to the baseline survey. This methodology is similar to one used by Rochow and Rhinesmith 

from the SWFWMD in 1991 (Technical Report 1991-1). 

96


15 – Determine if the moisture content of the soil is appropriate for the location within the wetland and 

current climatic conditions. 

16 – For the purpose of this assessment, soil subsidence is defined as the decrease in soil volume and 

soil structure as the result of the oxidation of the organic material in the soil. Subsidence is to be 

measured from a set elevation and degree of subsidence is defined as: 

Minimal – 0-3” 

Moderate – 3-6” 

Severe – >6” 

17 – Seepage slopes are areas which do not show signs of consistent standing water but contain soils 

that are consistently saturated with moisture flowing from the surrounding uplands (upslope). 

18 – Hydrologic indicators form in areas with consistent standing water (pooled conditions). Indicators 

develop at varying elevations due to specific inundation patterns and duration. Hydrologic indicators 

should be evaluated to determine if their current presence/absence and vertical positioning are 

appropriate for the historic conditions of the system. 

19 – At the deepest portion of the wetland, determine the depth (vertical distance) between the commonly 

accepted indicators of seasonal high water and ground surface of the wetland. 

20 – At the deepest portion of the wetland, determine the depth (vertical distance) between the commonly 

accepted indicators of normal pool and ground surface of the wetland. 

21 – For isolated systems, determine if the wetland is fully isolated or semi-isolated (e.g., normally 

functions as an isolated system, only connected during high water events). 

22 – For connected systems, describe the connection type (e.g., headwater wetland, stream). 

23 – For artificially connected systems, describe how the system is connected (e.g., ditch, culvert). 

24 – Make note of wetland dependent fauna and activities (e.g., scat, tracks, signs of amphibian 

breeding). 

97

APPENDIX C 

ONGOING MONITORING, PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND TRIGGERS MATRIX 

98

EMP ONGOING MONITORING, PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND TRIGGERS MATRIX 

 

Wet Season 

(June – Sep) 

Internal P95 1 week Review Adjacent Activities 

Review Field Practices 

Review Rainfall Data 

Review Data at Nearby Stations Outside the MMD 

External P95 2 weeks Continue investigation to determine if the level is due to mining activities, 

and if so, provide notification with action plan to District. 

99 

Provide Notification to District 

Dry Season 

(Oct – May) 

Internal P95 2 weeks Review Adjacent Activities 

Review Field Practices 

Review Rainfall Data 

Review Data at Nearby Stations Outside the MMD 

External P95 3 weeks Continue Investigation to determine if the level is due to mining activities, 

and if so, provide notification with action plan to District. 

Provide Notification to District

APPENDIX D 

LOCATION OF ESTABLISHED MANDATORY MITIGATION DISTANCES 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

APPENDIX D 

101 

LOCATION OF ESTABLISHED MANDATORY MITIGATION DISTANCES

APPENDIX E 

SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM MONITORING PLAN (SASMP) AND SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION PLAN 

(SSDMP) CHECKLIST (2-STEP PROCESS) 

102

1. Locations – Aerial Photo(s) 

a. Property boundaries 

b. Legend, scale, and north arrow 

c. Soil boring / test well locations 

d. Mining Unit / area boundaries 

e. All proposed monitor wells / piezometers and staff gages comprising the monitoring 

network, including: 

i. latitude and longitude 

ii. vertical datum 

iii. DID and User ID numbers 

2. Soil boring logs, including: 

a. Vertical scale 

b. Soil profile and description 

c. Appropriate supporting text 

3. Proposed monitor well / piezometer design specifications, including proposed depth and screen 

interval. 

 

 

1. Locations – Aerial Photo(s) 

a. Property boundaries 

b. Legend, scale, and north arrow 

c. Soil boring / test well locations 

d. Geologic and model cross section locations 

e. Mining Unit / area boundaries 

f. Mine cut locations, mining direction, and estimated mining date 

g. Preservation area boundaries within the mine area and within the permitted drawdown 

mandatory mitigation (“setback”) distance 

h. All proposed mitigation features, e.g., water table intercept (“recharge”) ditches 

i. All monitor wells / piezometers and staff gages comprising the monitoring network 

2. Proposed monitor well / piezometer design specifications (if not previously provided with 

monitoring plan) 

2. Proposed / expected dates(s) of construction of the drawdown mitigation feature(s) 

3. Proposed / expected dates of initiation and termination of dewatering within the drawdown 

mitigation distance 

4. Proposed / expected date of completion of reclamation within the drawdown mitigation distance 

5. Mitigation Method and Design 

a. Narrative / description of the proposed mitigation technique (s) 

b. Water source(s) for mitigation 

103

c. Seep/W Model Design and Results that demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed 

mitigation technique including; 

i. Cross-section drawing(s) depicting: 

1. scale (horizontal and vertical) 

2. elevations 

3. soil profile and associated aquifer parameter 

4. mitigation design drawing 

5. Flow arrows and associated quantities 

ii. Appropriate supporting text documenting all parameters and assumptions used in 

the model design, and a description of the model design and approach, signed 

and sealed by a geologist or engineer licensed in the State of Florida, pursuant to 

Chapters 492 and/or 471, Florida Statutes. If site-specific data/tests were 

performed/developed and used in the design of the model, that information shall 

be provided, explaining the use of such information. The report shall identify if 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection authorized the use of 

“castback” in this area. If not, the model shall not include castback. 

6. Geologic Map(s); 

a. Cross-sectional drawing depicting: 

i. scale (horizontal and vertical) and north arrow, 

ii. boring log location, soil classification and thickness profile 

7. Mining depth maps / aerial photos 

a. Legend, scale, and north arrow 

b. Color-coded identification: 

i. Overburden thickness 

ii. Matrix thickness 

iii. Total mining depth 

8. Historic water level range(s) (as defined in the EMP) 

a. Methodologies for determination of historic levels to be maintained 

i. Supporting documentation / data 

b. Complete / period of record water level data for the associated monitoring network 

i. Tabular / spreadsheet (electronic) 

ii. Graphical 

c. Rain gauge location(s) and data 

104

This permit is a renewal with modification for recreational/aesthetic type use. The authorized 

quantities are an increase from those previously permitted. The increase in the Annual Average 

rate, from 363,000 gallons per day (gpd) to 614,300 gpd, and the Peak Month rate, from 

862,000 gpd to 1,904,400 gpd, is due to an increase in irrigated acres of golf course and lawn 

and landscape areas. The water use quantities are based on the District's allotment calculation 

program, AGMOD. The project site is located outside of any Water Use Caution Area. The 

Permittee is utilizing reclaimed water obtained from Marion County Utilities (MCU) to meet a 

portion of the overall demands. A groundwater standby quantity of 93,800 gpd Annual Average 

is assigned to DID No. 2 for back-up to reclaimed water used to irrigate a 25.5 acre golf course 

and 11.9 acres of lawn and landscape. The Permittee is in negotiations with Marion County 

Utilities to increase reclaimed water use at the site. 

Special conditions include those that require the Permittee to continue to record and report 

monthly meter readings from existing and proposed withdrawal points, record and report 

monthly meter readings for reclaimed water received, modify the permit to reflect incorporation 

of any additional alternative sources of water, continue to maintain automated augmentation 

control devices, and implement water conservation and best management practices. 

 

The permit application meets all Rule 40D-2 Conditions for Issuance. 


See Exhibit 

Approve the proposed permit included in the Board’s meeting materials as an exhibit. 

Presenter: 

Darrin Herbst, P.G., Water Use Permit Bureau Chief, Regulation Division 

105

October 30, 2012 October 30, 2022 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

Item 9 

Consent Agenda 



Conveyance of a Conservation Easement to the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection for Mitigation Purposes, Polk County 

Purpose 

Request the Governing Board convey a conservation easement to the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP). The FDEP has agreed to the acceptance of this easement 

as part of Polk County’s mitigation requirements for their expansion of the North Central Landfill. 

A general location and project-specific map are included as exhibits to this item. 

Background/History 

In July 2006 the Governing Board entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Polk 

County related to the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project. The MOA addressed 

issues related to the District’s Project and the County’s requirement for mitigation related to the 

expansion of its North Central Landfill (NCLF). As part of the negotiations related to the MOA, 

the County conveyed a perpetual flowage and inundation easement over 631 acres adjacent to 

the NCLF and located within the Saddle Creek Floodplain to the District. The District agreed to 

assist the County in the implementation of future expansions of the County landfill to the extent 

necessary as a result of impacts attributable to the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification 

Project, and to assist the County in identifying potential wetland mitigation projects on District 

owned lands to mitigate the adverse impacts to wetlands resulting from the expansion of the 

County landfill. 

The County identified portions of the SWF Parcels 20-503-105 and 20-503-106, which are 

located along the west side of Saddle Creek and Lake Hancock respectively, as restoration and 

mitigation opportunities. Parcel 20-503-247X consists of 92.11 acres and was acquired in 2004 

as part of 198 acres (SWF Parcel 20-503-105). Parcel 20-503-246X consists of 84.57 acres 

and was acquired in 2008 as part of 127 acres (SWF Parcel 20-503-106). 

Property Description 

The property to be encumbered is along the western side of Saddle Creek and shore of 

Lake Hancock. 

Zoning 

SWF Parcel 20-503-247X is located in the City of Bartow and SWF Parcel 20-503-246X is 

within the County. Both parcels are designated for residential development. 

Summary of Appraisal and Value Comparison 

The property being conveyed was not appraised. The transaction is being made in accordance 

with the terms of the MOA. 

Benefits/Costs 

The conveyance of this conservation easement will not affect the District’s use/function of these 

lands for the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project. The County will be responsible for 

all costs related to the restoration and monitoring of the conservation easement area. 

118

9 


See Exhibits 

Authorize the Board Chair and Secretary to execute the instrument necessary to convey a 

Conservation Easement to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Presenter: 

Steven Blaschka, Manager, Real Estate Services, Operations & Land Mgt. Bureau 

119

SPIRIT LAKE RD 

 

E MAIN ST 

 

RECKER HWY 

THORNHILL RD 

K-VILLE AVE 

 

Saddle Creek 

 

 

Lake Lena Run 

WINTER 

LAKE RD 

WINTER LAKE RD 

Banana Creek 

Banana 

Lake 

CLUBHOUSE RD 

Lake Hancock 

 

SWF Parcel No. 

20-503-246X 


20-503-247X 

Phy 

 

llis Branch 

 

Saddle Creek 

SWF Parcel No. 20-503-247X 


SWFWMD Easement 

SWFWMD Fee Acquisition 

Proposed SWFWMD Easement 

Acqusition 

Proposed SWFWMD Fee Acquisition 

Peace River 

 

Peace Creek 

0 0.5 1 

Miles 

P 

Other Conservation Lands 

Other Publicly Owned Lands 

 

 

Date: 8/13/2012,Author: dgillett 

Path: K:\Mapping\Land_Acq\Projects\Lake_Hancock\Exhibits\20_503_246X_247X\LH20-503-246X_247X 120 

Exhibit 1.mxd

Lake Hancock 

121 

 

 




SWFWMD Easement 0 500 1,000 

Feet

Item 10 




Acceptance of Easement Donation – Peace Creek Canal Project, SWF Parcel No. 

20-696-206P 

Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to recommend the Governing Board accept the donation of an 

easement interest over 3.41 acres located along the Peace Creek Canal owned by New Cingular 

Wireless PCS, LLC. A general location map of the property is included in the Board packet as an 

exhibit to this item. 


The Peace Creek Canal is a privately owned canal (over 200 parcels) that was constructed in the 

early 1900s for agricultural drainage purposes. The Peace Creek Drainage District (special 

district established under Chapter 298, Florida Statutes) was the entity originally charged with 

maintenance of the canal to ensure appropriate conveyance of water. Alterations in the Peace 

Creek Canal watershed have cumulatively resulted in significant changes to the watershed’s 

hydrology and natural systems. 

On May 26, 2010, House Bill 431 was passed by the Legislature. The Bill abolished the Peace 

Creek Drainage District and transferred all assets and indebtedness, if any, to the District. The 

District has assumed the maintenance and operation responsibilities for the Peace Creek Canal. 

Previously on June 23, 2009, the Governing Board approved a plan for acquiring access rights 

necessary for the long-term maintenance of the Peace Creek Canal in Polk County. The 

Governing Board approved “The planned approach to secure permanent access rights for the 

Peace Creek Canal maintenance activities by obtaining voluntary conveyance of easement rights 

from individual property owners and through local government development orders as land 

transitions occur (and subsequent assignment of those easements to the District).” Acquisition 

was expected to occur over a 20-year period. The acquisition process is proceeding with 

requests for donations from the various governmental entities, utility companies, and private 

landowners that own property along the canal. The approved plan was determined to be the 

most cost-effective means to manage acquisition costs and obtain the perpetual access rights 

necessary to maintain the canal. 

Thus far the District has accomplished the performance of maintenance activities for the Peace 

Creek Canal mostly through the use of temporary license agreements with property owners. The 

corridor required for maintenance of the canal, including access routes, has been identified by 

project consultants. 

The donation of the easement interest by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for the maintenance 

of the Peace Creek is mutually beneficial. The easement interest in this property will provide the 

District a right to access and maintain the canal along this section of its bank. 

Property Description 

The 3.41 acre easement includes the canal channel and area along the bank together with 

ingress/egress from Crump Road that is part of a 10.88 acre property owned by New Cingular 

Wireless PCS, LLC that is used for a cellular communications tower. Access to the canal will be 

122

through an ingress/egress easement from Crump Road, a publicly maintained paved road. This 

easement along the canal and its bank will provide permanent rights for access and maintenance. 

Zoning 

The property is designated for “RL-1” use under the Polk County Future Land Use. The purpose 

of the RL-1 district is to provide areas for the low density residential needs of residents in urban 

areas with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. 

Summary of Appraisals and Value Comparisons 

An appraisal of this easement was not obtained because it is being offered as a donation. The 

parent property, of which the easement is part, is owned by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. It 

is identified by the Polk County Property Appraiser as parcel 27-28-19-000000-023030, and has a 

2012 reported just market value of $177,232. 

Donation Terms 

• The property owner has approved a Perpetual Channel Improvement and Maintenance 

Easement and will convey the interest free and clear of all encumbrances objectionable to the 


• The District will pay the documentary stamp tax and recording fees. 

Benefits/Cost 

The ability to access and maintain a corridor along the Peace Creek Canal will ensure the 

District’s ability to perform the canal maintenance necessary to reduce flooding impacts and the 

ability to respond in a timely manner to emergency flooding events. Currently, the District’s 

activities along the canal have been accomplished through temporary license agreements. The 

licenses often provide only limited access, and are subject to modification and cancelation by the 

property owners at their discretion. The acquisition of this easement is in accordance with the 

plan approved by the Governing Board for the long-term maintenance of the Peace Creek Canal 

in Polk County. 


See Exhibits 

Accept the easement donation. 

Presenter: 

Steven Blaschka, Real Estate Services Manager, Operations & Land Mgt. Bureau 

123

Subject 

Area 

Lake Hamilton 

 

 

Peace Creek Canal 

 


20-696-206P 

 

 

SWF Parcel No. 20-696-206P 


SWFWMD Easement 

0 1,000 2,000 

Feet 

124

Peace Creek 

Peace Creek 

0 150 300 

Feet 

SWF Parcel No. 20-696-206P 

125

Item 11 




Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-8.624, Florida Administrative 

Code, to Adopt Minimum and Guidance Levels for Lakes Bonable, Tiger, and Little 

Bonable in Marion County (P256) 

Purpose 

To request the Board initiate and approve rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-8.624, Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to delete the previously adopted guidance levels, add new 

guidance and minimum levels for lakes Bonable, Tiger, and Little Bonable in Marion County, 

and accept the reports entitled, “Proposed Minimum and Guidance Levels for Lakes Bonable 

and Tiger in Marion County” and “Proposed Minimum and Guidance Levels for Little Lake 

Bonable in Marion County,” dated August 30, 2012 and September 14, 2012, respectively. 


Minimum levels are water levels at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to 

the water resources of the area. Guidance levels are used to describe expected water level 

fluctuations and serve as advisory information for the District, lakeshore residents and local 

governments, or to aid in the management of water control structures. Proposed minimum and 

guidance levels for lakes Bonable, Tiger, and Little Bonable have been developed using 

previously peer-reviewed, Governing Board adopted methods. 

Technical reports outlining the development of the proposed levels were posted on the District's 

website and distributed to interested parties on September 20, 2012, with written comments 

requested by October 11, 2012. In addition, a public workshop on the proposed lake levels was 

held on September 27, 2012, in Dunnellon, and was well attended. Comments and questions 

received at the workshop were summarized and are available to the Board upon request. Most 

comments focused on the potential causes of the low water levels within the lakes. In response 

to the citizens’ concerns District staff provided detailed information about the effect of prolonged 

drought on the water levels within these three lakes, while also discussing the limited water use 

within the surrounding region. Supporting information was also provided on the geologic setting 

beneath the lakes, describing a significant thickness of clay that provides confinement and 

buffering from Floridan aquifer withdrawals. 

Based on available water level records, the proposed minimum levels for each of the three lakes 

are being met. In the event that water levels in the lake basin are not fluctuating in compliance 

with the proposed minimum levels, the recovery strategies outlined in Rule 40D-80.074, F.A.C., 

will apply. 

Staff prepared rule amendments that incorporate the proposed minimum and guidance levels 

for each of three lakes into Table 8-2 and that delete the currently adopted guidance levels for 

these three lakes from Table 8-3 in Rule 40D-8.624, F.A.C. Staff is prepared to address any 

Board concerns regarding the proposed levels or the methods used for their development. 


Adoption of minimum levels for lakes Bonable, Tiger, and Little Bonable will support the 

District's water supply planning, water use permitting, and environmental resource permitting 

programs. Adoption of the guidance levels will provide advisory information for the construction 

of lakeshore development, water dependent structures, and operation of water management 

126

of lakeshore development, water dependent structures, and operation of water management 

structures. 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 businesses 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 as it is not expected to increase certain 

legislatively identified costs in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within five years after the 

implementation of the rule. 

Upon Governing Board approval of the proposed minimum levels, staff will submit notice to the 

Governor’s Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) and proceed with 


as the result of comments received from the public or from reviewing entities such as OFARR or 

the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, this matter will be brought back to the 

Governing Board for consideration. 


See Exhibit 

(1) Accept the reports entitled, “Proposed Minimum and Guidance Levels for Lakes Bonable 

and Tiger in Marion County” and “Proposed Minimum and Guidance Levels for Little Lake 

Bonable in Marion County,” dated August 30, 2012 and September 14, 2012, respectively. 


from the rulemaking process and to complete report finalization. 

(3) Initiate and approve rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-8.624, F.A.C., to delete the previously 

adopted guidance levels and add new guidance and minimum levels for lakes Bonable, 

Tiger, and Little Bonable in Marion County. 

Presenter: 

Keith Kolasa, Senior Environmental Scientist, Water Resources Bureau 

127

EXHIBIT 

40D-8.624 Guidance and Minimum Levels for Lakes. 

(1)-(11) No change. 

(12) Levels for lakes established during or after August 7, 2000, are set forth in the following table. After the High 

Minimum Lake Level and Minimum Lake Level elevation for each lake is a designation indicating the Method used, 

as described in subsection 40D-8.624(8), F.A.C., to establish the level. Compliance with the High Minimum and 

Minimum Lake Levels is determined pursuant to paragraphs (6)(b) and (7)(b) above. Guidance Levels established 

prior to August 7, 2000, are set forth in Table 8-3 in subsection 40D-8.624(13), F.A.C., below. 

Table 8-2 Minimum and Guidance Levels Established During or After August 7, 2000. Levels are elevations, 

in feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. 

Location by County and Basin Name of Lake and 

Section, Township 

and Range 

Information 

High Guidance 

Level 

High Minimum 

Lake Level 

Minimum Lake 

Level 

(a) – (o) No change. 

Low 

Guidance 

Level 

(p) In Marion County Within 

the Withlacoochee River 

Basin RESERVED 

Bonable, Lake 

S-31, T-15, R-18 

63.6’ 62.8’ 

(CAT 3) 

58.3’ 

(CAT 3) 

50.5 

Little Bonable, 

Lake 

S-30, T-15, R-18 

58.6' 

57.8' 

(CAT 3) 

52.2' 

(CAT 3) 

45.9' 

Tiger, Lake 

S32, T15, R18 

63.6’ 62.8’ 

(CAT 3) 

58.3’ 

(CAT 3) 

50.5 

(q) – (cc) No change. 

(13) Guidance Levels established for lakes prior to August 7, 2000, are set forth in the following table: 

Table 8-3 Guidance Water Levels adopted prior to August 7, 2000 

Location of Impoundment by County and Basin High Level in Feet Above 

Mean Sea Level (msl) 

Low Level in Feet Above 

Mean Sea Level (msl) 

Extreme Low Level in Feet 

Above Mean Sea Level 

(msl) 

(a)-(o) No change. 

(p) In Marion County Within the Withlacoochee 

River Basin 

Bonable, Lake 

64.00' 61.50' 59.50' 

S31, T15, R18 

Little Bonable, Lake 

58.00' 55.50' 53.50' 

S30, T15, R18 

Tiger, Lake 

64.00' 61.50' 59.50' 

S32, T15, R18 

(q) – (cc) No change 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.036, 373.042, 373.0421, 373.086, 373.709 FS. 

History–New 6-7-78, Amended 1-22-79, 4-27-80, 10-21-80, 12-22-80, 3-23-81, 4-14-81, 6-4-81, 10-15-81, 11-23-81, 1-5-82, 3- 

11-82, 5-10-82, 7-4-82, 9-2-82, 11-8-82, 1-10-83, 4-3-83, 7-5-83, 9-5-83, 10-16-83, 12-12-83, 5-8-84, 7-8-84, 12-16-84, 2-7-85, 

5-13-85, 6-26-85, 11-3-85, 3-5-86, 6-16-86, Formerly 16J-8.678, Amended 9-7-86, 2-12-87, 9-2-87, 2-18-88, 6-27-88, 2-22-89, 

3-23-89, 9-26-89, 7-26-90, 10-30-90, 3-3-91, 9-30-91, 10-7-91, 7-26-92, 3-1-93, 5-11-94, 6-6-96, 2-23-97, 8-7-00, 1-8-04, 12-21- 

04 (13), 12-21-04 (13), 6-5-05, 5-2-06, 1-1-07, 2-12-07, 1-10-08, 2-18-08, 4-7-08, 5-20-08, 5-10-09, 4-13-11, 3-12-12, . 

128

Item 12 




Adoption of Resolution No. 12-15 for the Reallocation of Funds Appropriated by the State 

in Fiscal Years 2006 and 2008 – Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund and 

Approval of Budget Transfer 

Purpose 

Request the Board adopt Resolution No. 12-15, which reallocates a total of $637,824 of fiscal 

year (FY) 2006 and FY2008 Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund (WPSTF) dollars 

from the Bradenton Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) System Including Oxygen Removal 

Study (K114), Lake Tarpon ASR Test Well Program (K422), Morningside Area Reclaimed Water 

Transmission and Distribution System (L254), and Haines City’s Southern Area Transmission 

Main Extension (N065) to the ongoing Manatee’s Second of Four Manatee Agricultural Reuse 

Supply (MARS) 10 Million Gallon (MG) Reclaimed Storage Tank (H093) project; and approve 

the transfer of $318,912 of ad valorem funds which will be reimbursed by the WPSTF. 


In 2005, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 444, which established the WPSTF, a 

mechanism for water management districts to provide financial assistance to local entities to 

develop alternative water supplies. The WPSTF can be used to fund up to 20 percent of the 

construction component of alternative water supply projects. The legislation requires the 

Governing Board to annually approve, by resolution, the list of projects receiving funds from the 

WPSTF and to approve, by resolution, any changes to the list of projects. 

Manatee’s second of four MARS 10 MG Reclaimed Storage Tank project is an ongoing, multiyear 

alternative water supply project in the Manasota Basin. The project consists of the design 

and construction of the second of four planned 10 MG reclaimed water storage tanks in support 

of the MARS system. MARS is a regional reuse system that consists of over 21 miles of 

transmission lines that interconnect Manatee County's three regional wastewater treatment 

facilities. The MARS system supplies reclaimed water for irrigation of agricultural, residential, 

and recreational customers, thereby decreasing dependence on potable groundwater. New 

residential developments, some with golf courses, have been replacing agricultural demand and 

many are planned or under construction along the transmission route. These developments are 

potential customers of the MARS system. The MARS system is designed to distribute over 

30 million gallons per day (mgd). The District and County constructed the first 10 MG reclaimed 

water ground storage tank (H086) at the Southwest Wastewater Reclamation Facility with 

FY2010 funding. This second tank will be located at the County's Southwest Wastewater 

Reclamation Facility along with the first tank. The four planned 10 MG tanks will enable the 

County's regional reclaimed water system to better provide for the nightly peak demand events, 

without compromising pressure and water quality. 


The total cost of the project is $5,000,000 with the District’s share of 50 percent currently being 

$2,500,000. Approving the reallocation of the $637,824 in trust funds will optimize the use of 

state funds and benefit the District and Manatee County by decreasing each party’s project 

funding by $318,912; and will represent 14 percent of the estimated $4,500,000 construction 

cost. The transfer of unused trust funds to the ongoing Manatee County project ensures that the 

129

evenues from the WPSTF continue to meet the state requirements and also retains the use of 

funds within the District. 

Impact If Not Funded 

If not approved, the District will miss the opportunity to leverage state funds with cooperator 

dollars, which will increase the difficulty of raising the funds necessary to develop new water 

supplies. 


See Exhibit 

(1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-15 to reallocate a total of $637,824, with $635,752 in FY2006 trust 

funds approved for the Bradenton ASR System Including Oxygen Removal Study ($45,250), 

Lake Tarpon ASR Test Well Program ($234,834), Morningside Area Reclaimed Water 

Transmission and Distribution System ($219,620), and Haines City’s Southern Area 

Transmission Main Extension ($136,048); and $2,072 in FY2008 trust funds approved for 

the Haines City’s Southern Area Transmission Main Extension and transfer to the ongoing 

Manatee’s Second of Four MARS 10 Million Gallon (MG) Reclaimed Storage Tank (H093) 

project; approve the transfer of $318,912 of ad valorem funds which will be reimbursed by 

the WPSTF; 

(2) Authorize staff to amend the agreement to add language that will allow the project to use 

those funds; and 

(3) Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to execute the amendment. 

Presenter: 

Kenneth R. Herd, P.E., Bureau Chief, Water Resources 

130


RESOLUTION NO. 12-15 

REVISION TO THE SLATE OF PROJECTS RECEIVING 

STATE FUNDING ASSISTANCE FROM FISCAL YEARS 2006 and 2008 

FROM THE WATER PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY TRUST FUND 

WHEREAS, the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund (Trust Fund) was established in 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 to provide funding assistance for development of alternative water 

supplies; and 

WHEREAS, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) was allocated $25 

million in FY2006 and $13 million in FY2008 from the Trust Fund to use in combination with its 

approved funding to assist in funding the project construction costs of alternative water supply 

projects selected by the Governing Board; and 

WHEREAS, Section 373.707, Florida Statutes (F.S.), requires that the Governing Board 

determine the projects selected for financial assistance as part of the Trust Fund; and 

WHEREAS, after careful evaluation, District staff determined that the Manatee’s Second of Four 

MARS 10 MG Reclaimed Storage Tank (H093) project meets all of the requirements for the use 

of the Trust Funds allocated for FY2006 and FY2008, according to subsections 373.707(8)(f) 

and (g), F.S., and the criteria of the District’s Cooperative Funding Initiative; and 

WHEREAS, after careful evaluation, District staff had previously determined that the Bradenton 

ASR System Including Oxygen Removal Study (K114), Lake Tarpon ASR Test Well Program 

(K422), Morningside Area Reclaimed Water Transmission and Distribution System (L254), and 

Haines City’s Southern Area Transmission Main Extension (N065) met all of the requirements 

for the use of the Trust Funds allocated according to subsections 373.707(8)(f) and (g), F.S., 

and the criteria of the District’s Cooperative Funding Initiative; and 

WHEREAS, the Bradenton ASR System Including Oxygen Removal Study (K114) selected for 

receiving FY2006 Trust Funds, and approved by the Governing Board in its adoption of the 

Budget via District Resolution 06-15 ($101,650), has had a reduction in construction costs, 

requiring a total of $45,250 in Trust Funds to be reallocated; and 

WHEREAS, the Lake Tarpon ASR Test Well Program (K422) selected for receiving FY2006 

Trust Funds, and approved by the Governing Board via Resolution 06-15, was cancelled, 

requiring a total of $234,833.70 in Trust Funds to be reallocated; and 

WHEREAS, the Morningside Area Reclaimed Water Transmission and Distribution System 

(L254) selected for receiving FY2006 Trust Funds, and approved by the Governing Board via 

Resolution 06-15, was completed, requiring a total of $219,620.50 in Trust Funds to be 

reallocated; and 

WHEREAS, the Haines City’s Southern Area Transmission Main Extension selected for 

receiving FY2006 and FY2008 Trust Funds, and approved by the Governing Board via 

Resolutions 08-22 and 10-12, was completed, requiring a total of $138,120.22 in Trust Funds to 

be reallocated; and 

WHEREAS, the Manatee’s Second of Four MARS 10 MG Reclaimed Storage Tank project is an 

131

alternative water supply project in need of additional funding; and 

WHEREAS, reallocating the $637,824.42 in Trust Funds from the cancelled and completed 

projects will not exceed the maximum funding percentage allowable for the use of state funds 

once all District and cooperator funds are budgeted, pursuant to subsection 373.707(8)(e), F.S. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District that the $635,752.42 in FY2006 Trust Funds approved for the 

Bradenton ASR System Including Oxygen Removal Study ($45,250), Lake Tarpon ASR Test 

Well Program ($234,833.70), Morningside Area Reclaimed Water Transmission and Distribution 

System ($219,620.50), and Haines City’s Southern Area Transmission Main Extension 

($136,048.22); and the $2,072 in FY2008 Trust Funds approved for the Haines City’s Southern 

Area Transmission Main Extension shall be reallocated to the Manatee’s Second of Four MARS 

10 MG Reclaimed Storage Tank (H093) project. 

PASSED and ADOPTED this 30th day of October 2012, by the Governing Board of the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA 

WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

By: ___________________________ 

H. Paul Senft, Jr., Chair 

ATTEST: 

___________________________ 

Albert G. Joerger, Secretary 

Approved by Legal: 

_________________________ 

132

CERTIFICATE AS TO RESOLUTION NO. 12-15 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF HERNANDO 

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 30th day of October 2012, 

at a duly called and properly held hearing of the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District, at which hearing 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 hearing. 

Dated at Brooksville, Florida, this 30th day of October 2012. 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA 

WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Attest: 

By: ______________________________ 


_______________________________ 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

COUNTY OF HERNANDO 

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30th day of October 2012, by H. Paul 

Senft, Jr., and Albert G. Joerger, 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 30th day of October 2012. 

______________________________ 

Notary Public 

State of Florida at Large 


133

Item 13 




Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update 

Purpose 

To approve the Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule for submission to the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 


Pursuant to Sections 373.036(7) and 373.042(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.), the District is required 

to annually update its priority list and schedule for the establishment of minimum flows and 

levels (MFLs), submit the approved list to DEP for approval, and include the approved list in the 

District's Consolidated Annual Report. 

Staff presented a draft "Proposed Southwest Florida Water Management District Fiscal Year 

2013 (October 2012 – September 2013) Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule" 

to the Governing Board at the September 25, 2012 meeting. Comment on the draft priority list 

was received at a public workshop held at the Tampa Service Office on October 1, 2012. 

The public workshop was attended by seven stakeholders. A stakeholder suggested that MFLs 

be adopted for lakes Raleigh, Rogers and Starvation in Hillsborough County as soon as 

possible to avoid potential adverse impacts that may result from increased groundwater 

pumping from Northern Tampa Bay regional wellfields in response to planned repairs to the 

C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. Staff notes that adoption of MFLs for the three lakes is 

proposed for fiscal year (FY) 2013. A representative from Pasco County requested that Crews 

Lake in Pasco County be added to the priority list. Staff notes that Crews Lake was previously 

included on the priority list, but was removed pending delays associated with completion of 

floodplain mapping for the lake watershed. Staff expects to recommend reinstatement of the 

lake on the priority list once that work is completed. A representative from Marion County 

requested that MFLs for Rainbow River and Springs be adopted in FY2013 rather than as 

proposed in FY2014. Staff does not recommend an accelerated schedule for adoption of MFLs 

for Rainbow River and Springs, noting that data analysis for the system will continue through 

FY2013 while staff continues to work on MFLs adoption for other priority water bodies that are 

further along in the establishment process. 

Based on consideration of stakeholder input, no further additions to the priority list or 

rescheduling of water bodies other than those discussed at the September 2012 Board meeting 

are proposed. However, based on review of budgetary and staffing requirements for other 

priority water bodies, staff recommends that Myakkahatchee Creek be removed from the priority 

list. This water body was previously identified by staff for MFLs adoption in FY2016. 


The draft priority list and schedule for FY2013 includes all significant river segments and first 

magnitude spring systems within the District. It is anticipated that MFLs for all listed water 

bodies will be adopted by 2016. 


See Exhibit 

Approve the Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule for submission to DEP for 

review and approval as required by Chapter 373, F.S. 

Presenter: 

Douglas A. Leeper, Chief Environmental Scientist, Water Resources Bureau 

134


PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2013 (OCTOBER 2012 – SEPTEMBER 2013) 

MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS PRIORITY LIST AND SCHEDULE 

Priority Water Bodies with Adopted Minimum Flows and Levels 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alafia River (upper segment) 

Alafia River (lower segment) 

Anclote River (lower segment) 

Anclote River (upper segment) 

Braden River (upper segment) 

Buckhorn Springs 

Citrus County Lakes – Ft. Cooper, Tsala Apopka – Floral City, Inverness and Hernando Pools 

Crystal Springs 

Dona Bay/Shakett Creek System 

Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Minimum Aquifer Level 

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, Verona 

Hillsborough County Lakes – Alice, Allen, Barbara, Bird, Brant, Calm, Carroll, 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, Virginia, Wimauma 

Hillsborough River (lower segment) 

Hillsborough River (upper segment) 

Levy County Lake – Marion 

Lithia Springs 

Myakka River (lower segment) 

Myakka River (upper segment) 

Peace River (lower segment) 

Peace River (middle segment) 

Peace River (three upper segments – "low" minimum flows) 

Northern Tampa Bay – 41 Wetland sites 

Northern Tampa Bay – 7 Wells – Upper 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, Crystal, Dinner, Eagle, Lee, Mabel, McLeod, 

North Lake Wales, Parker, Starr, Venus, Wales 

Sulphur Springs 

Sumter County Lakes – Big Gant, Black, Deaton, Miona, Okahumpka, Panasoffkee 

Southern Water Use Caution Area – Upper Floridan aquifer 

Tampa Bypass Canal 

Weekiwachee River System and Springs (includes Weeki Wachee, Jenkins Creek, Salt, Little 

Weeki Wachee and Mud River Springs) 

October 9, 2012 Page 1 of 3 

135


Draft Proposed FY2012-2013 Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule 

Priority Water Bodies Scheduled for Minimum Flows and Levels Adoption in Fiscal 

Year 2013 

Braden River (lower segment) 

Chassahowitzka River System and Springs (includes Chassahowitzka Main, Chassahowitzka #1, 

Crab Creek, Potter, Ruth and Blind Springs) 

Gum Springs Group 

Hernando County Lakes – Tooke (S13-T22S-R17E), Whitehurst (S17-T22-R18) 

Hillsborough County Lakes – Hanna (S18-T27S-R19E), Hooker (S12-T29S-R203), Keene (S07- 

T27S-R19E), Kell (S01-T27S-R18E), Raleigh (S27-T27S-R17E), Rogers (S27-T27S-R17E), 

Starvation (S21-T27S-R18E) 

Homosassa River System and Springs (includes Halls River Springs, Southeast Fork Homosassa 

River Springs, Homosassa Main Springs, Hidden River Springs) 

Manatee River (lower segment) 

Marion County Lakes – Bonable (S31-T15S-R18E), Little Bonable (S30-T15S-R18E), Tiger (S32- 

T15S-R18E) 

Pithlachascotee River (lower segment) 

Pithlachascotee River (upper segment) 

Polk County Lake – Hancock (S08-T29S-R25E) 


Year 2014 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brooker Creek 

Crystal River System and Kings Bay Springs 

Cypress Creek 

Little Manatee River (lower segment) 

Little Manatee River (upper segment) 

Northern Tampa Bay (reevaluation of selected sites) 

Rainbow River and Springs (includes Bubbling and Waterfall Springs) 

Withlacoochee River System (lower segment) 

Withlacoochee River System (three middle/upper segments) 


Year 2015 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bullfrog Creek 

Charlie Creek 

Highland County Lakes – Damon (S03-T33-R28), Pioneer (S11-T33-R28), Pythias (S02-T33- 

R28), Viola (S14-T33-R38) 

Horse Creek 

North Prong Alafia River 

Peace River (lower segment) (reevaluation) 

Polk County Lakes – Amoret (S24-T30S-R27E), Aurora (S13-T30S-R28E), Bonnet (S14-T28S- 

R23E), Easy (S19-T30S-R28E), Effie (S03-T30S-R27E), Eva (S32-T27-R27), Josephine (S13- 

T30S-R27E), Little Aurora (S13-T30-R28E), Lowery (S14-T27S-R26E), Trout (S34-T32-R28) 

Prairie Creek 

Shell Creek (lower segment) 

Shell Creek (upper segment) 

South Prong Alafia River 


136


Draft Proposed FY2012-2013 Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule 


Year 2016 

 

Peace River (three upper segments – "intermediate" and "high" minimum flows) 

Notes 

Section-Township-Range (S-T-R) information is listed for lakes scheduled for minimum levels 

development to assist in locating individual water bodies. Similar information is provided for lakes with 

adopted minimum levels in Table 8-2, Rule 40D-8.624(12), Florida Administrative Code. 

All proposed spring and river segment minimum flows and levels will be submitted for voluntary 

scientific peer review. 


137

Item 14 




Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program (H017) – 


Purpose 

The purpose of this item is to request authorization to reallocate $1,139,528 in unused funds 

appropriated by the State for the West-Central Florida Water Resources Action Plan (WRAP) 

and to transfer the associated expenditure budget from the Lake Hancock Lake Level 

Modification project (H008) to the FARMS Program (H017) to support future FARMS Program 

projects. 


The goal of the Lake Hancock 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 proposes to increase the normal operating 

level from 98.7 feet to 100.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) by replacing the 

P-11 outfall structure. The project is in the final phase with projected completion costs lower 

than anticipated. Staff has identified $1,139,528 in unused State WRAP funds that are not 

needed to complete the project and are available for transfer to other projects, such as FARMS 

Program projects. 

Over the last several fiscal years, the FARMS Program has experienced a steady increase in 

program participation and cost-share funding. The number of projects funded by the program 

almost doubled between FY2010 (20 projects) and FY2011 (37 projects), with FY2012 having 

44 new projects and 6 amendments approved for funding in the amount of $8,295,058. The 

FY2013 budget for FARMS Program projects is $6,000,000 in ad valorem and State 

Appropriation based funding. This request for the transfer of additional State Appropriation 

funds into the FARMS Program would increase the total FARMS Program project budget for 

FY2013 to $7,139,528. These funds will advance the District’s commitment to reduce Upper 

Floridan aquifer groundwater withdrawals, improve water quality, and improve natural systems 

through the FARMS program in FY2013. 

FARMS Program projects, traditionally funded 50 percent by the Basins and 50 percent by the 

Governing Board and supplemented by State funding when available, have now transitioned to 

100 percent Governing Board funding, supplemented by State funding when available. Future 

FARMS Projects will use these State Appropriation funds as a priority over ad valorem 

Governing Board funds. 

Impact If Not Transferred 

If the WRAP funds are not transferred, the District will potentially miss the opportunity to 

leverage state funds with District dollars. The FARMS Program would be limited in its ability to 

continue cost-sharing agricultural best management practices (BMPs) aimed to offset 

groundwater quantities, improve water quality and restore natural systems in the current 2013 

fiscal year. Objectives identified in the District’s SWUCA Recovery Strategy, Regional Water 

Supply Plan, Strategic Plan, SPJC Watersheds Management Plan – Reasonable Assurance 

Documentation and Dover/Plant City WUCA Recovery Strategy would be delayed without 

sufficient program funding. 

138

Item 14 


Approve the reallocation of $1,139,528 in State funding for the West-Central Florida Water 

Restoration Action Plan and the transfer of the associated expenditure budget from the Lake 

Hancock Lake Level Modification project (H008) to the FARMS Program (H017) for future 

funding of agricultural BMPs consistent with FARMS Rule 40D-26, F.A.C. 

Presenter: 

Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Bureau Chief, Natural Systems and Restoration 

139

Item 15 




Budget Transfer Report 

Purpose 

Request approval of the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers made during the 

month of September 2012. 

Background 

In accordance with Board Policy No. 130-8, Budget Authority Transfer of Funds, all transfers 

approved by the Executive Director and Finance Bureau Chief 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. 


See Exhibit 

Approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers for September 2012. 

Presenter: 

Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Bureau Chief, Finance 

140

1 5Water Resources 6Data Collection Transfer of funds originally budgeted for consulting services associated with the $ 8,020 

3111 Consultant Services 6403 Equipment - Outside 

development of minimum levels on lakes. Expenditures were less than anticipated. 

Funds were required for the purchase of data logging equipment needed for the 

development of hydrologic models to establish minimum lakes levels for the 13 lakes 

located within the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI). 

2 6Data Collection 6Data Collection Transfer of funds originally budgeted for the purchase of data radios for upgrade of 

3,629 

6403 Equipment - Outside 6403 Equipment - Outside 

communications at data collection sites. After cost analysis, the radio communications 

efforts were ended and cellular IP was implemented District-wide as the standard for 

data communications. As a result, no data radios were purchased. Funds were 

required for the purchase of a replacement scientific-grade oil-free air compressor for 

the Laboratory's Inductivity Coupled Plasma Analyzer used for metals analysis. 

3 6Operations & Land Management 6Operations & Land Management Transfer of funds originally budgeted for emergency events. Funds were needed to 

50,000 

3111 Consultant Services 6403 Equipment - Outside 

acquire a pump for use during emergency events for the protection of public health, 

safety and welfare. 

141 

4 6Operations & Land Management 6Operations & Land Management Transfer of funds originally budgeted for structure controls technology upgrades. Funds 3,200 

3401 Other Contractual Services 6403 Equipment - Outside 

were needed to replace damaged gate sensors at Structure 551. 

 

 

 

1 3Natural Systems & Restoration 3Natural Systems & Restoration Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate expenditure category for the Stormwater $ 27,383 

3111 Consultant Services 3431 Contracted Construction Improvements - Water Quality - Frostproof - Lake Clinch project, construction phase. 

2 3Natural Systems & Restoration 3Natural Systems & Restoration Transfer of budgeted funds to the general Florida Department of Transportation 

91,000 

3431 Contracted Construction 3431 Contracted Construction (FDOT) Mitigation Program budget appropriation for allocation to future FDOT 

Mitigation Program projects. 

4 3Natural Systems & Restoration 3Natural Systems & Restoration Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate project codes for staff time associated 

14,000 

1201 Salaries 1201 Salaries 

with the Colt Creek, Mobbly Bayou Preserves, and Brooker Creek FDOT Mitigation 

projects. 

5 0Human Resources & Risk Mgmt XVarious Bureaus Transfer of budgeted funds to appropriate bureaus for the Student Intern Program. 

31,155 

1201 Salaries 1201 Salaries 

6 0Human Resources & Risk Mgmt 0Information Technology Transfer of budgeted funds to appropriate bureau for the INROADS Student Program. 

1,115 

3424 Temp Contracted Services SB Salaries & Benefits 

7 6Data Collection 6Data Collection Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate project code for the enhancement of 

88,643 

3111 Consultant Services 3111 Consultant Services 

LiDAR topographic requirements for the Watershed Management Program in the Lake 

Manatee Watershed. 

 

 

 

 

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 Bureau Chief 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 Bureau Chief approved 

transfers are accounting type transfers with no change to the original budget intent.

Item 16 




Office Service Analysis 

Purpose 

Request approval to (1) conduct an analysis of current market rates for office services through a 

Request for Proposals (RFP); (2) perform a cost-comparison of the District’s existing office 

service expenses; and (3) explore any cost-saving opportunities identified. 

Background 

Pursuant to the Governor’s and Board’s direction, District staff is exploring opportunities to 

reduce District expenses while ensuring the delivery of effective and efficient services. District 

staff has conducted a preliminary review of options for the delivery of office services including 

printing, mailing, and document imaging. However, to ensure that a thorough and 

comprehensive analysis of all available options is performed, a market review of outside 

services by a qualified company is required. 


(1) Conduct an analysis of current market rates for office services, including printing, mailing, 

and document imaging, through a RFP; 

(2) Perform a cost-comparison of the District’s existing office service expenses; and 

(3) Explore any cost-saving opportunities identified. 

Presenter: 

Earl Rich, Document Services Manager, General Services Bureau 

142

Item 17.a. 




Administrative, Enforcement, and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board Approval 

Interagency Agreement between the SWFWMD and the SJRWMD to Designate the 



The Whitehurst Cattle Company submitted Water Use Permit Application No. 20005122.005 to 

the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for property located within the 

jurisdictional boundaries of both the SWFWMD and the St. Johns River Water Management 

District (SJRWMD), collectively referred to as “the Districts.” The majority of the property and 

activities subject to regulatory review are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the 

SWFWMD. 

The SWFWMD has previously taken regulatory responsibility for permitting water withdrawals 

and uses of water by Whitehurst Cattle Company on the property. However, SWFWMD staff 

discovered that the assumption of regulatory responsibility was based upon a record of oral 

communications between SWFWMD and SJRWMD and that an interagency agreement 

designating the SWFWMD as the water management district with regulatory responsibility over 

water use permitting on the property has not been executed. 

Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, authorizes water management districts to designate, via 

interagency agreement, a single water management district as the agency having regulatory 

responsibilities for a geographic area or specific project or property when the property or project 

is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of both districts. Due to the majority of the 

property and activities being within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SWFWMD and the 

SWFWMD’s previous permitting history with the property and applicant, the Districts have 

agreed that the SWFWMD should be designated the water management district with regulatory 

responsibility for the water withdrawals and uses of water on the property. The Executive 

Director of the SJRWMD has already approved and executed the attached Interagency 

Agreement. 


See Exhibit 

Approve the Interagency Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

and the St. Johns River Water Management District for Designation of Regulatory Responsibility 

for Water Use Permitting of the Whitehurst Cattle Company in Marion and Levy Counties. 

Presenter: 

Laura Donaldson, General Counsel 

143

Item 17.b. 





Initiation of Litigation – Unauthorized Construction – James V. Risher and Carolyn 

Risher – Levy County 

On June 19, 2008, District staff drove by property located at 18291 S.E. 72nd Avenue, Inglis, 

Levy County, Florida (Property) and observed that approximately 1.20 acres of a previously 

treed upland had been cleared and covered with impervious material for the construction of a 

limerock roadway and paved parking lot. The Property is owned by James and Carolyn Risher 

(Owners). The Owners had not applied for and the District had not issued an Environmental 

Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing these activities. 

On July 1, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Unauthorized Construction to the Owners 

informing them of the unauthorized activities, the need for an ERP to be obtained, and that 

flooding may occur as a result of the unauthorized construction. The District did not receive a 

response from the Owners and sent a Second Notice of Unauthorized Construction on August 

6, 2008. 

On August 25, 2008, the District received and responded to a flooding complaint from a 

neighboring property owner. During the site visit, the District determined that flooding had 

occurred due to the Owners unauthorized construction and informed Mr. Risher in person of the 

need to apply for and acquire an ERP. 

The District did not receive an ERP application and on April 8, 2009, sent the Owners an 

Unauthorized Construction Processing Notice informing them that the matter would be referred 

to the District’s Office of General Counsel (OGC). On November 24, 2009, OGC issued a 

Notice of Violation (NOV) and proposed Consent Order to the Owners. The proposed Consent 

Order required that the Property be restored or an ERP be obtained and assessed penalties 

and costs totaling $13,000 as follows: 

• $11,000 for constructing 1.20 acres of impervious surface at $7,500 per acre 

• $2,000 the standard enforcement cost assessment for unauthorized construction 

Upon receipt of the NOV and proposed Consent Order, Mr. Risher contacted OGC and 

proposed $3,000 in payment of penalties and costs, but did not want to restore the Property or 

apply for an ERP. 

In April 2012, the District observed that the paved parking lot remained, but the area previously 

covered with limerock had not been maintained as an impervious surface. The District 

estimated the paved impervious surface was approximately 0.44 acres. 

During discussions with OGC in July 2012, Mr. Risher indicated that he may remove the paved 

parking lot. OGC offered to resolve the matter through a proposed Consent Order that required 

removal of the paved area, and assessed revised penalties and costs totaling $3,000. OGC 

followed up with Mr. Risher in August 2012 and in September 2012 on settlement of this matter, 

but has not received a response. 

144

Item 17.b. 


Authorize the initiation of litigation against James and Carolyn Risher 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. 

Presenter: 

Ronni Moore, Senior Attorney 

145

Item 17.c. 





Consent Order – Surface Water Activity - Robert J. Colvin and Mary A. Colvin – Lake 

County 

On July 31, 2012, this matter came before the Governing Board to authorize litigation against 

Robert and Mary Colvin (Owners) for unauthorized wetland dredging and filling in the southern 

portion of their property located in Lake County (Property). The Governing Board moved 

unanimously for the District to work with the Owners to resolve this matter and, if the matter 

could not be resolved, to appear before the Governing Board at its October 2012 meeting to 

authorize litigation against the Owners. 

On August 28, 2012, the District conducted a site visit at the Owners’ Property, marked the 

areas in the southern portion of the Property where fill would need to be removed and areas 

where the removed fill could be placed. On September 12, 2012, the District requested the 

Owners submit a financial affidavit for the District to determine the Owners’ ability to pay the 

$60,300 in penalties that had been assessed for the wetland impacts. The District received the 

Owners’ financial affidavit on September 21, 2012. 

On October 10, 2012, the District sent the Owners a revised Consent Order. The revised 

Consent Order requires restoration to the wetland as discussed during the August 28, 2012, site 

visit, waives the penalties of $60,300 if the Owners complete the restoration requirements within 

one year of the effective date of the Consent Order, and requires payment of the District’s costs 

totaling $2,000 within 30 days of the effective date of the Consent Order. 


Approve the Consent Order between the Southwest Florida Water Management District and 

Robert and Mary Colvin. 

Presenter: 

Ronni Moore, Senior Attorney 

146

Item 17.d. 





Settlement – SWFWMD v. M. Lewis King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC (Parcel No. 

20-503-111-P) 

On October 28, 2008, in connection with the Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project 

(“Project”), the District’s Governing Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the use of eminent 

domain to acquire an inundation easement to establish the Lake Hancock outfall control 

structure at an elevation of 100 NGVD (1929). 

On March 29, 2011, the District filed a petition in eminent domain to obtain an inundation 

easement over 8.5 acres of real property identified as Parcel 111-P, and owned by M. Lewis 

King and Hancock Lake Ranch, LLC (the “Property”). 

In July 2011, the District filed an amended petition seeking to acquire an intermittent flowage 

and inundation easement on the Property. On September 30, 2011, the trial court dismissed 

the amended petition on grounds the property rights sought to be acquired in the petition 

differed from those authorized in the Resolution. On October 25, 2011, the Governing Board 

adopted a new Resolution authorizing eminent domain to acquire the intermittent easement. 

The District served a second amended petition on October 28, 2011. On January 4, 2012, the 

court dismissed the second amended petition. In response, the District filed notice on January 

23 that it would not amend further. 

On January 9, 2012, the District sent notice to the Property owners that it intended to 

commence new eminent domain proceedings as to the Property upon completion of statutorily 

required pre-suit negotiations. The District offered $109,400 to the Property owners for the 

easement sought, while the owners made a compensation claim in excess of their $207,900 

appraisal. The District appraised the Property at $10,000 per acre with an easement impact on 

value of 25%, while the owners appraised the Property at $15,000 per acre with a 90% to 95% 

impact on value from the easement. The District’s appraiser concluded that there were 

damages to the remainder, but in an amount substantially less than the $85,400 remainder 

damages determined by the owners’ appraiser. 

The parties attended a pre-suit mediation on August 30, 2012. As a result of the mediation, the 

parties arrived at a contingent settlement, subject to approval by the District’s Governing Board, 

whereby the District will pay the owners $170,000 for the easement. 


Approve the settlement agreement whereby the District will pay the owners $170,000 for the 

easement necessary for implementation of the Project. 

Presenter: 

Joseph J. Ward, Senior Assistant General Counsel 

147

Item 17.e. 





Settlement – Mudd v. City of Lake Wales and SWFWMD (Tenth Judicial Circuit) – 

Polk County 

This case concerns an inverse condemnation claim arising from the flooding of multiple 

properties located in Polk County on a peninsula of land that projects into Lake Belle. The 

flooding occurred primarily in 2005, a year in which Lake Belle experienced record water levels 

due to rainfall well above the average annual amount for the area. Co-defendant, the City of 

Lake Wales, owns and operates rapid infiltration basins (RIBS) near Lake Belle as part of its 

reclaimed water system. The plaintiffs in this case contend that lateral seepage into Lake Belle 

from high volumes of water pumped into the RIBS may have contributed to the flooding of the 

plaintiffs’ properties. 

In 2006, the District was named as a defendant in the lawsuit because it had entered into a 

Cooperative Funding Agreement with the City whereby the District helped fund the design and 

construction of the City’s reclaimed water project. The District filed a motion to dismiss, and in 

2007 the motion to dismiss was granted. However, in 2008, the plaintiffs further amended their 

complaint and the District was rejoined as a defendant. 

A four-day bench trial was scheduled for October 8 through 11, 2012. On the morning of Friday, 

October 5, the Office of General Counsel was advised by the District’s outside counsel that the 

plaintiffs’ attorney proposed settling the case as to the District for $100,000. Since trial was set 

to begin on Monday morning, October 8, the General Counsel consulted with the Executive 

Director and the Board Chair to obtain approval for settlement pursuant to Board Policy 160-3, 

which allows such approval “if the matter requires immediate action and cannot be delayed to 

be represented at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.” After further negotiations, the 

parties agreed on the morning of trial to settle for $40,000, subject to Governing Board approval. 

While the District had a strong defense to plaintiffs’ claims, the settlement brings certainty of 

result, avoiding potentially significant liability plus plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, while also avoiding 

the costs of a four-day trial. 


Approve the settlement agreement whereby the District will pay the plaintiffs $40,000 in 

exchange for being dismissed from the lawsuit. 

Presenter: 

Joseph J. Ward, Senior Assistant General Counsel 

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

Item 18.a. 




Rulemaking 

Approve Repeal of Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to be Consistent with the Changes 

Necessitated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Guidance for 

Consumptive Use Permit Compliance Reporting Requirements and Review Memorandum 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is leading CUPcon, a statewide 

effort to improve consistency in the Consumptive/Water Use Permitting Programs implemented 

by the water management districts (WMDs). The individual water management district 

consumptive use permitting rules, while all developed under the authority of Ch. 373, F.S., are 

inconsistent among the WMDs. While some of the differences may be based on differing 

physical and natural characteristics, others are the result of development of separate rules and 

procedures developed over time. The goals of CUPcon include: (1) making the consumptive 

use permitting program less confusing for applicants; (2) treating applicants equitably statewide; 

(3) providing consistent protection of the environment; (4) streamlining the process; and 

(5) provide incentives for behavior that protects water resources, including conservation. 

In November and December 2011, the DEP met with stakeholders from the following groups: 

public water supply, agricultural water use, industrial use, recreational and small commercial 

self supply, and environmental interests. The stakeholders identified many issues that should be 

addressed to improving consistency in consumptive use permitting. Following the stakeholders 

meetings, DEP and the WMDs formed a CUPcon Core Team that will develop solutions for the 

issues identified during stakeholder meetings. Alba Mas and Darrin Herbst are representing the 

District on the core team, with Laura Donaldson serving as a member of the CUPcon legal 

group. On August 15 and 16, 2012, the DEP and District held CUPCon rulemaking workshops 

in Brooksville and Tampa, respectively. On August 21, 2012, the DEP, District, South Florida 

Water Management District and the St. Johns River Water Management District held a 

CUPCon rulemaking workshop in Kissimmee. 

On April 24, 2012, the District approved Initiation of Rule Development to Amend the District’s 

Water Use Permitting Rules in Accordance with the DEP’s Statewide Effort to Improve 

Consistency between the WMDs’ Consumptive/Water Use Permitting Programs. Due to the 

number of identified issues and varying degrees of complexity, it was anticipated that this 

rulemaking process will continue, at a minimum, through the end of this year. 

DEP issued "Guidance for Consumptive Use Permit Compliance Reporting Requirements and 

Review" to the WMDs on March 23, 2012 (Memo). The Memo provides guidance as it relates to 

the implementation of Section 373.236(4), F.S., which authorizes a WMD to require a 

compliance report by a permittee every ten years in order to maintain reasonable assurance 

that the conditions for issuance of a 20-year permit can continue to be met. The statute 

requires that the compliance report should contain sufficient data to “maintain reasonable 

assurance that the initial conditions for permit issuance are met.” The Memo provides that the 

ten year compliance report should not be treated as a new permit or permit renewal as the 

statute requires that it’s only to provide assurance that the original conditions of the permit are 

still met. Reaffirmation or rejustification based on new WMD rules is not appropriate. 

Requesting duplicative information should also be avoided. In addition, DEP recognizes that 

submitted actual demand information may be lower than the projections used when the permit 

application was issued due to water conservation, socio-economic changes, etc. The Memo 

provides that reductions of allocations during the compliance review due to a reduction in 

demand should only be considered in limited circumstances. 

161

Item 18.a. 

DEP and District staff has identified that the District’s Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., related to the 

Population and Impact Analysis and Verification of 10-year Requirements, needs to be repealed 

to become more consistent with Section 373.236(4), Florida Statutes, the other WMDs and the 

Memo. Rule 40D-3.22, F.A.C., provides that if a permittee’s reporting period demands are less 

than 90% of the projected demands used when the permit application was issued, the District 

shall reduce its allocation unless the permittee can show a legal, technical or other type of 

hardship as to why the permitted demand should not be reduced. Another provision of the rule 

requires additional groundwater modeling. Finally, the rule provides that if the permit does not 

meet the special conditions required to receive a twenty year permit in Rule 40D-2.321, F.A.C., 

the permit’s term shall automatically reduce to a shorter permit duration. 

District staff now seeks approval to repeal Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to be more consistent with 

Section 373.236(4), F.S., rules of the other WMDs and the Memo by eliminating the automatic 

reduction in permitted quantities, the requirement for additional groundwater modeling and the 

automatic reduction in permit duration. 

A copy of Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the DEP “Guidance for 

Consumptive Use Permit Compliance Reporting Requirements and Review” dated March 32, 

2012 is attached as Exhibit B. Upon Board approval of the rule amendment, District staff will 

notify the Governor’s Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) and 

proceed with rulemaking without further Governing Board action. If substantive comments are 

received from the public or reviewing entities such as OFARR or the Joint Administrative 

Procedures Committee, or if changes are needed to coordinate with any rule changes proposed 

by DEP, this matter will be brought back to the Governing Board for further consideration. The 

following chart depicts the current stage of the rulemaking process for this item. 


See Exhibits 

Approve Repeal of Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to be Consistent with the Changes Necessitated by 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Guidance for Consumptive Use Permit 

Compliance Reporting Requirements and Review Memorandum. 

Presenter: 


162

163

Exhibit A 

40D-2.322 Population and Impact Analysis and Verification of 10-year Requirements. 

(1) This Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., shall apply to new and renewal permits issued after 6-30- 

10 and permits that are substantially modified after 6-30-10. 

(2) For 20 year General and Individual Public Supply Permits, at years 10 and 15 of the 

permit the permittee shall submit an analysis and summary of the long-term trends over the 

reporting period and through the term of the permit that addresses population growth based on 

the District’s BEBR medium based GIS model or equivalent methodology, non-population based 

factors such as large industrial or other uses, other water demand, and per capita use. If the 

reporting period demands are less than 90% of the projected demands as reflected in the permit 

for that period or for the remainder of the term of the permit, the permittee shall demonstrate a 

legal, technical or other type of hardship as to why the permitted demand should not be reduced 

to an allocation based on actual demands experienced through the reporting period and demands 

projected through the remaining term of the permit. Within 90 days of a District notification to 

the permittee that the demonstration was not made, the permittee shall submit a request to 

modify the permit allocation consistent with actual and projected demands. 

(3) Where data indicate adverse impacts to environmental or other water resources, offsite 

land use or a legal existing use, non-compliance with a minimum flow or level or associated 

recovery or prevention strategy, or interference with a reservation, or where data indicate the 

impacts predicted at the time of permit issuance were underestimated to the degree that the 

previous analysis is inadequate, an updated ground-water modeling analysis and data analysis 

shall be required to address compliance with conditions for issuance. 

(4) Permits that are issued for 20 year duration based on meeting the conditions set forth in 

paragraph 40D-2.321(2)(b), (c), (d) or (e), F.A.C., within 10 years shall include a timeline of 

activities proposed to result in achieving these requirements, and progress reports. If these 

requirements are not achieved within 10 years, the permit duration shall revert to the applicable 

duration provided in Rule 40D-2.321, F.A.C., unless this reversion would result in the permit 

having expired or less than a year of remaining duration. In such cases, the permit will expire 

one year following the final determination of non-achievement and will be limited to a permitted 

quantity that equals an additional two years future demand beyond current demand, as 

determined pursuant to section 3.0 of Part B, Basis of Review, of the Water Use Permit 

Information Manual incorporated by reference in Rule 40D-2.091, F.A.C., from the point of final 

determination of non-achievement. 

Rulemaking Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 373.103, 373.171, 

373.219, 373.223, 373.227, 373.250 FS. History–New 6-30-10. Repealed -12. 

164

165

166

167

168

Item 18.b. 




Rulemaking 

Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-1.608, F.A.C., to Clarify the 

Requirements for Certain Counties and Municipalities to Request a Permit Fee Reduction 

Section 218.075, Florida Statutes (F.S.), requires the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection and the Water Management Districts to reduce or waive permit processing fees for 

counties and municipalities that meet certain population requirements and can demonstrate that 

payment of the fees would create a fiscal hardship or that a particular project or activity is 

environmentally necessary. 

The proposed rulemaking will amend Rule 40D-1.608, F.A.C., to clarify the requirements for 

counties and municipalities to request a permit fee reduction under Section 218.075, F.S. A 

permit applicant requesting a permit fee reduction will be required to submit a certification of 

fiscal hardship in accordance with Section 218.075, F.S., or documentation demonstrating the 

environmental need for a proposed project or activity at the time that an application for a permit 

is submitted. Upon submittal of the required certification of fiscal hardship or documentation 

that project or activity is environmentally necessary, the permit fee will be reduced. The 

rulemaking will also delete provisions of the Rule that repeat the requirements contained in 

Section 218.075, F.S. The proposed amendments are included as Exhibit “A.” 

Upon Governing Board approval, staff will proceed with the changes, in accordance with the 

process described on the rulemaking chart, without further Governing Board action, unless 

substantive public comment is received or substantive changes are proposed, in which case the 

matter will be brought back before the Governing Board for additional consideration. 

Staff Recommendation: See Exhibits 

Initiate and approve rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-1.608, F.A.C., to clarify the requirements 

for certain counties and municipalities to request a permit fee reduction and to delete provisions 

that repeat the requirements contained in Section 218.075, F.S., and authorize staff to make 

any necessary clarifying or technical changes that may result from the rulemaking process. 

Presenter: 


169

RULEMAKING PROCESS 

Seek Board Approval to Initiate Rulemaking (and Approve Rule Language, if available) 

Notify OFARR & Publish Notice of Rule Development 

Public Workshops Held, If Necessary 

Board Approval of Rule Language 

Notify OFARR & Publish Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Hearing, If Requested 

Board Discussion & Approval of Any Changes From Hearing, 

OFARR or JAPC; Publish Notice of Change 

File Rule With Department of State 

Rule Is Final 20 Days After Filing With Department of State 

170

Exhibit A – Proposed Rule Language 

40D-1.608 Permit Fee Reduction for Certain Counties and Municipalities. 

(1) A permit applicant requesting a permit fee reduction pursuant to Section 218.075, F.S., shall 

submit, at the time of application for a permit, documentation that the population requirements of 

the statute have been met and: 

a) Certification, as required by Section 218.075, F.S., that the cost of a permit 

processing fee constitutes a fiscal hardship; or, 

b) Documentation demonstrating the environmental need for the proposed project or 

activity. 

(2) Normally applicable permit application fees will apply when the fee is less than $100.00. 

(3) The submission of a certification pursuant to Section 218.075, F.S., and this section shall be 

a factor in determining whether the county or municipality can provide reasonable assurance of 

conditions of issuance for an environmental resource permit with required mitigation. 

(1) The following entities shall be eligible for permit fee reduction: 

(a) Counties within the District with a population of 50,000 or less; 

(b) Municipalities within the District with a population of 25,000 or less; and 

(c) Any county or municipality not included within a metropolitan statistical area. 

(2) In order for a county or municipality which is described in one of the above categories to 

qualify for a permit fee reduction, the governing body of the county or municipality must submit 

and certify that the fee reduction is necessary due to fiscal hardship. 

(3) The governing body shall certify to the District, with supporting documentation, that the fiscal 

hardship is due to at least one of the following factors: 

(a) Per capita taxable value is less than the statewide average for the current fiscal year; 

(b) Percentage of assessed property value exempt from ad valorem taxation is higher than the 

statewide average for the current fiscal year; 

171

(c) Any condition specified in Section 218.503, F.S., that determines a state of financial 

emergency; 

(d) Ad valorem operating millage rate for the current fiscal year is greater than 8 mils; or 

(e) A financial condition documented in annual financial statements at the end of the current 

fiscal year which indicates an inability to pay the permit fee during that fiscal year. 

(4) Upon receipt of the above certification, with the supporting documentation, the District shall 

review and determine the fee is reduced to $100.00 for the proposed activity. 

(5) The certification shall be submitted at the time of application for a permit pursuant to Chapter 

40D-2, 40D-4, 40D-40 or 40D-400, F.A.C. 

(6) Unless at the time of submittal of an application either the appropriate fee or a certification 

pursuant to this section is submitted, the application shall be subject to denial. 

(7) The submission of a certification pursuant to this section shall be a factor in determining 

whether the county or municipality can provide reasonable assurance of conditions of issuance 

for an environmental resource permit with required mitigation. 

Specific Authority 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171 FS. Law Implemented 218.075 FS. 

History–New 12-22-94, Amended 10-19-95, 3-31-96, 6-5-05, . 

172

a. 

b. 

c. 


See Exhibits 

Approve the minutes as presented. 

Presenter: 

Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director 

173

MINUTES OF THE MEETING 

FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TENTATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 

MILLAGE RATE AND ANNUAL SERVICE BUDGET 

AND OTHER BUSINESS MEETING 

GOVERNING BOARD 


TAMPA,FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 

The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District met at 6:00 p.m. on 

September 11, 2012, at the Tampa Service Office. The following persons were present: 

Board Members Present 

H. Paul Senft, Chair 

Douglas B. Tharp, Secretary 

Albert G. Joerger, Treasurer 

Jeffrey M. Adams, Member 

Michael A. Babb, Member 

Jennifer E. Closshey, Member 

Randall S. Maggard, Member 

Todd Pressman, Member 

Board Member(s) Absent 

Carlos Beruff, Member 

Staff Members Present 

David T. Rathke, Chief of Staff 

Laura J. Donaldson, General Counsel 

Kurt P. Fritsch, Division Director 

Mark A. Hammond, Division Director 

Michael L. Holtkamp, Division Director 

Alba E. Más, Division Director 

Daryl F. Pokrana, Director, Finance Bureau 

Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Director, Finance Bureau 

Michael B. Cacioppo, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Cathy A. Linsbeck, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Alan J. Lynch, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Recorded by: 

Randy Emberg, Video Production Engineer 

A list of others present who signed the attendance roster is filed in the permanent records of the 

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). 

1. Call to Order and Opening Comments 

Chair Senft called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing. This meeting is 

being conducted using communications media technology in order to permit maximum 

participation of Governing Board members. 

Mr. Emberg called the roll and noted a quorum was present. Mr. Rathke offered the 

innovation. Chair Senft then led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 

America. 

Chair Senft said this hearing is for the purpose of adopting a tentative millage rate and 

budget for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Sections 373.536 

and 200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended. If any member of the public would like to speak 

during this hearing, please fill out a blue card located at the desk outside the door and give 

the card to Mr. Emberg who is seated at the table in front of the dais. Members of the public 

will be called on at the appropriate time during the meeting and will be limited to three 

minutes per speaker. 

Chair Senft relinquished the gavel to Mr. Joerger, Treasurer and Chair of the Finance and 

Administration Committee. (00:00/03:20) 

174

Minutes of the Meeting September 11, 2012 

Governing Board First Public Hearing and Meeting Page 2 of 5 

2. Budget Overview 

Mr. Joerger said the purpose of this first Truth in Millage (TRIM) public hearing is to provide 

an opportunity for the public to speak and ask questions prior to the Governing Board’s 

adoption of a tentative millage rate and budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-13. A second 

public hearing will be held on September 25, 2012, prior to adoption of the final millage rate 

and budget, and also to be held at the Tampa Service Office. 

Mr. Joerger said staff has developed this budget based on current economic and taxation 

realities to ensure the long-term sustainability of the region’s water resources. The 

proposed budget is $159.5 million, which is $4.0 million more than last year’s adopted 

budget. While the overall proposed budget is higher, the recurring (or operating) portion of 

the budget has been reduced by 19 percent from $94.5 million to $76.2 million. This is a 

reduction of $18.3 million. The non-recurring or projects portion of the budget has increased 

from $61.0 million to $83.3 million, an increase of $22.3 million or 37 percent. This includes 

grants in support of the District’s Cooperative Funding Initiative, as well as funding for 

District programs such as Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) 

and Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM). The District’s efforts to reduce 

its operating costs have allowed for increasing investments in the regional community. 

Those investments will protect the water resources now and in the future, and spur the 

economy and create jobs today. 

Mr. Joerger said District staff worked closely this year with its local partners to identify critical 

projects that can be brought to construction quickly to the benefit of the local governments 

and the local and regional economies. Those same partners also helped staff identify old 

projects that may not be as appropriate in these economic times. By combining the 

operating reductions with savings from projects completed under budget or cancelled, the 

District was able to put $66.0 million into Cooperative Funding projects in this proposed 

budget. The Cooperative Funding grants will result in matching project funds of at least 

$66.0 million, for a total investment for water supply, flood protection, water quality and 

natural systems projects of over $132.0 million. This is an increase from $81.0 million 

leveraged this year. The District has done this without incurring any debt. 

Mr. Joerger said the proposed budget includes $100.5 million in ad valorem property tax 

revenue. This is based on holding the millage rate at 0.3928 mill, the same as last year. 

Since property values have declined, this millage rate is below the rolled-back rate. The 

rolled-back rate is the millage rate that would have given us the same amount of revenue as 

the current year plus taxes on new construction. By holding the millage rate constant during 

a period of declining property values, District taxpayers will pay $2.9 million less in ad 

valorem taxes than in the current year. 

Mr. Joerger noted the District has reduced its workforce by 19 percent from 764 full-time 

equivalent positions (or FTEs) for the current year to 617 FTEs for FY2012-13. This is down 

from 891 FTEs in FY2009-10. Notwithstanding these reductions, the District has maintained 

or improved its service goals as indicated through the quarterly water management district 

metrics reports published by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 

Mr. Joerger said the District has done a good job on this budget proposal, and he believes 

that its work will be well received by the DEP, the Executive Office of the Governor, and the 

Florida Legislature. There are no proposed changes to the FY2012-13 budget as last 

presented to the Governing Board on August 28, 2012, and no written comments have been 

received from the chairs of legislative committees or subcommittees due September 5. 

Mr. Joerger noted that there have been approximately 20 meetings regarding the budget 

and stated the District is operating with due caution. He requested Ms. Pilcher to proceed to 

the required portion of the hearing. (03:20/08:34) 

175



3. Public Announcement of the Name of the Taxing Authority, Rolled-Back Rate, 

Percentage Decrease, and Millage Rate to be Levied for FY2012-13 

Ms. Pilcher presented the required public announcement of the name of the taxing authority, 

the rolled-back rate, the percentage of tax decrease below the rolled-back rate, and the 

millage rate to be levied for FY2012-13, and read into the record as required for the District. 

TAXING AUTHORITY 

Southwest Florida Water 

Management District 

(08:34/09:09) 

ROLLED-BACK PERCENTAGE OF TAX DECREASE 

MILLAGE RATE 

RATE BELOW ROLLED-BACK RATE 

0.4076 -3.63% 0.3928 

4. Public Comments 

a. Letters/Resolutions Received 

Mr. Joerger noted the District has received correspondence from two taxpayers in 

response to receiving their 2012 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes. Copies of the 

letters have been provided to each Governing Board member present today. Staff will 

formally respond to these letters and will copy those responses to each Governing Board 

member later this week. Letters and resolutions received regarding the tentative millage 

rate and budget have been compiled into an Exhibit "A" to Agenda Item 4a and are 

hereby incorporated by reference into the public record of this meeting. Copies of this 

exhibit are available and are also located at District headquarters. 

Mr. Joerger said staff has received around 15 calls from taxpayers, which is comparable 

to the number received before the first hearing last year. 

b. Persons Wishing to Address the Board 

Mr. Joerger requested that anyone wishing to address the budget come forward, and 

state their name, address, and group affiliation, if any. 

Mr. Joerger noted that there were no requests to address the Board. (09:09/10:20) 

5. Adopt Tentative Fiscal Year 2012-13 Millage Rate 



ADOPTION OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 

This resolution is made a part of these minutes as if set forth in full but, for convenience, is 

filed in the permanent resolution files of the District. 

Following consideration, Ms. Closshey moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-10, Adoption 

of Tentative Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, of 0.3928 mill. Mr. Tharp 

seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. (10:20/11:27) 

6. Adopt Tentative Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget 



ADOPTION OF TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 

176





Following consideration, Mr. Tharp moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-11, Adoption of 

Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, in the amount of $159,450,185. 

Mr. Maggard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. (11:27/12:06) 

7. Announcement of Second and Final Public Hearing 

Mr. Joerger announced the second public hearing will be held on September 25, 2012, 

6:00 p.m., at the District’s Tampa Service Office. Final action on the FY2012-13 budget will 

be taken at that time. 

Chair Senft noted that starting at 6:00 p.m. allows the public an opportunity to attend after 

normal business hours. 

Mr. Joerger relinquished the gavel to Chair Senft. (12:05/14:20) 

Chair Senft closed the public hearing and opened the Board meeting to consider the following 

item. 

8. Independent Audit Services 

Mr. Fritsch said he will be presenting the auditor selected by the Board’s subcommittee who 

evaluated and ranked the ten independent auditor proposals based solely on qualifications 

to perform the District’s annual financial audit. The Board subcommittee was composed of 

Ms. Closshey, Mr. Joerger and Mr. Tharp. Mr. Fritsch said the subcommittee presented 

three proposals to the Board as eligible for consideration in order of ranking: (1) KPMG LLP, 

(2) Ernst & Young LLP, and (3) James Moore & Co., L.P. He noted that the subcommittee 

ranked the proposals based on two predominant criteria: quality and experience of staff as 

evidenced in the proposal, and the approach of the audit. 

Mr. Fritsch noted that the Board’s Chairman had previously appointed Board Member Carlos 

Beruff to conduct contract negotiations on the Board’s behalf. Following the Board’s August 

meeting, Mr. Beruff was authorized to negotiate a best price from the one or more firms and 

the outcome presented to the Board on September 11, 2012 for final selection of a firm. 

Mr. Fritsch reviewed the following table reflecting the proposed and negotiated pricing: 

RESPONDENTS 

TOTAL FOR 

FY2012 AUDIT 

W/1 FEDERAL 

AND 1 STATE 

SINGLE AUDIT 

PROPOSED PRICING 

COST FOR EACH 

ADDITIONAL 

FEDERAL 

SINGLE AUDIT 

COST FOR EACH 

ADDITIONAL 

STATE 

SINGLE AUDIT 

TOTAL FOR 

FY2012 AUDIT 

W/1 FEDERAL 

AND 1 STATE 

SINGLE AUDIT 

NEGOTIATED PRICING 

PRICE 

GUARANTEE 

ANNUAL 

PRICE 

INCREASE 

LIMITS 

ADVICE AND 

CONSULTING 

THROUGHOUT 

YEAR* 

KPMG LLP $106,000 $5,500 $4,500 $100,000 CPI Yes 

Ernst & Young 

LLP 

$129,540 $7,000 $7,000 No Change 

James Moore 

Current and Lower of 

$105,000 --- --- $95,000 subsequent CPI or 2% 

& Co., L.P. 

year per year 

Yes 

CPI – Consumer Price Index * Except if there is a large project out of the normal course of business. 

Mr. Fritsch responded to questions by the Board regarding number of hours bid and 

qualifications. He then conveyed Mr. Beruff’s comments since he was absent today. 

Mr. Fritsch said Mr. Beruff stressed three items: (1) all three are qualified since the scores 

are close and qualifications similar, (2) there would be a difference in cost if there are more 

than two single audits each year, and (3) it may be appropriate for a new firm to review the 

District’s financial services. 

177



Mr. Joerger moved to approve hiring KPMG LLP to be the District’s financial auditor. 

He said KPMG could consider changing the audit partner who provides the services. 

Ms. Closshey seconded the motion. 

Mr. Tharp said he supports the motion and the evaluation clearly shows KPMG being the 

best technically qualified. At this time with the District’s organization changes, he did not 

feel it was appropriate to change auditors and create more stress on staff. 

In response to Mr. Maggard’s question, Mr. Fritsch said KPMG has been the audit of record 

for the past 11 years. Mr. Maggard said it may be time for a new firm to audit the District. 

Ms. Closshey said it was evident to her when reviewing the proposals to rank KPMG first, 

especially in light of the number of other entities they service in a similar fashion and strong 

experience shown in providing these types of services. She said she strongly supports hiring 

KPMG. 

Chair Senft thanked the subcommittee for the time spent in evaluating each proposal and 

Mr. Beruff for his service in negotiating with each firm. 

Chair Senft called the question and the motion carried unanimously. (14:20/27:57) 

9. Adjournment 

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Senft adjourned the 

meeting. (27:57/28:39) 

The meeting was adjourned at 6:29 p.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 Bureau Chief, 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. 

178





The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) met for 

its regular meeting at 4:00 p.m. on September 25, 2012, at the District’s Tampa Service Office. 

The following persons were present: 



Douglas B. Tharp, Secretary 

Albert G. Joerger, Treasurer 

Jeffrey M. Adams, Member 


Wendy Griffin, Member 



Board Member(s) Teleconferencing 



Carlos M. Beruff, Member 

Staff Members 



Robert R. Beltran, Assistant Executive Director 






Board’s Administrative Support 

Lori Manuel, Administrative Coordinator 



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 – 00:00) 


Chair Senft called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and opened the public hearing. 

Mr. Tharp noted a quorum was present. 

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. (00:00/03:38) 

179


SWFWMD Governing Board Page 2 of 12 

3. Oath of Office for Newly Appointed or Reappointed Governing Board Members 

Ms. Lou Kavouras, Bureau Chief, Board and Executive Services, administered the Oath of 

Office to Ms. Wendy Griffin who was appointed by Governor Scott on September 6, 2012 

to represent Hillsborough County on the District’s Governing Board and serve until March 

1, 2016. (03:38/04:35, Video – 04:02) 

4. Discussion of Vice Chair Vacancy (Video – 04:51) 

Ms. Donaldson noted that, according to Board Policy 110-7, Election of Governing Board 

Officers, a vacancy in any office shall be filled at the next meeting after the vacancy occurs 

unless delayed to a date certain by action of the Board. The office of the Vice Chair is 

currently vacant, and the Board may discuss its options for filling the vacancy or delaying 

action. Discussion ensued with clarifying comments by Ms. Donaldson. 

Mr. Maggard moved for the Board to select a non-officer member as Vice Chair to 

serve until May 21, 2013. Mr. Babb seconded the motion. (04:35/11:15) 

Discussion ensued to consider moving the current officers up to the next officer position 

and elect a new Treasurer, delaying selection to next month, and the purpose of having an 

officer succession plan. 

Chair Senft called the question and the motion failed. (11:15/21:45) 

Mr. Pressman nominated Mr. Tharp as Vice Chair based on succession. Ms. Closshey 

nominated Mr. Babb as Vice Chair. Mr. Joerger moved to close nominations, and 

Mr. Adams seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to close 

nominations and cast their ballots. Ms. Donaldson collected the ballots and tallied the 

results. Chair Senft announced Mr. Tharp’s election as Vice Chair. 

Mr. Pressman nominated Mr. Joerger as Secretary based on the Board’s officer structure. 

Mr. Tharp moved to close nominations. Chair Senft called the question to close 

nominations and elect Mr. Joerger as Secretary by acclamation. Mr. Pressman 

moved to elect Mr. Joerger by acclamation. Chair Senft called the question and the 

motion carried. Chair Senft announced Mr. Joerger’s election as Secretary. 

Mr. Joerger nominated Mr. Adams as Treasurer. Mr. Tharp moved to close 

nominations. Chair Senft called the question to close nominations and elect 

Mr. Adams as Treasurer by acclamation. Mr. Joerger moved to elect Mr. Adams by 

acclamation. Chair Senft called the question and the motion carried. Chair Senft 

announced Mr. Adams’ election as Treasurer. (21:45/30:05) 


Mr. Guillory noted there is one deletion and one item moved for discussion purposes: 

CONSENT AGENDA 


The following item was moved from the Consent Agenda to the General Counsel’s Report 

for discussion: 

18.b. Approve Amendments to Rule 40D-2.321, F.A.C., to comply with Section 373.236, 

Florida Statutes (F.S.), Regarding Duration of Permits and to be More Consistent 

with the Other Water Management Districts 

The following item was deleted: 

18.c. Approve Amendments to Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to Incorporate Changes 

Necessitated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Guidance 

for Consumptive Use Permit Compliance Reporting Requirements and Review 

Memorandum 

180



There being no objection, Chair Senft accepted the amended agenda. (30:05/32:10) 

7. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda – None 

CONSENT AGENDA (Video – 31:28) 

Item 18.b. was moved to the General Counsel’s Report for discussion. Item 18.c. was deleted 

from consideration. 



a. WUP No. 20009687.010 – Williams Farm Partnership / Williams Farm Partnership 

(Charlotte County) 

Staff recommended the Board approve the proposed permit provided in the Board’s 

meeting materials. 

b. WUP No. 20013343.000 – Manatee County BOCC / Manatee County Utilities 

Consolidated Permit (Manatee County) 

Staff recommended the Board approve the proposed permit provided in the Board 

meeting materials. 


9. Progress Energy – Zephyrhills North 230 kV Transmission Line Project – Perpetual 

Easement 

Staff recommended the Board accept the value proposed by Progress Energy for the 

Perpetual Utility Easements and approve the Perpetual Utility Easements and authorize 

the Chairman and Secretary to execute the instruments. 

10. Lease Agreement with Clear Channel Communications for Operation and 

Maintenance of a Billboard on District Lands, SWF Parcel No. 15-228-134X 

Staff recommended the Board approve the lease agreement with Clear Channel 

Communications for Operation and Maintenance of a Billboard on District Lands, SWF 

Parcel No.15-228-134X. 


11. Five-Year Water Resource Development Work Program 

Staff recommended the Board authorize staff to submit the proposed Five-Year Water 

Resource Development Work Program to the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection for review. 

12. Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority Irrigation Evaluation – First 

Amendment 

Staff recommended the Board approve the first amendment to the existing agreement with 

WRWSA to change the Project Manager for the District and WRWSA; modify the scope of 

work to decrease the number of follow-up evaluations from 100 percent to 50 percent of 

the total evaluations performed; extend the task deadlines; reduce the total cost of the 

project from $200,000 to $156,250, thereby reducing WRWSA’s funding obligation from 

$100,000 to $78,125; and authorize the Division Director to execute the amendment. 

13. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

a. Citrus County – Cardinal Lane Watershed 

Staff recommended the Board authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the 

Cardinal Lane watershed in Citrus County to FEMA. 

b. Polk County – Polk City Watershed 

Staff recommended the Board authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the 

Polk City watershed in Polk County to FEMA. 

14. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) 

a. M & V, LLC (H682), DeSoto County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the M & V, LLC project for a not-to-exceed project 

reimbursement of $131,625 with $131,625 provided by the Governing Board; 

(2) authorize the transfer of $131,625 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS 

181



Fund to the H682 M & V, LLC project fund; and (3) authorize the Resource 

Management Division Director to execute the agreement. 

b. Sydney Farms, Inc. (H679), Hillsborough County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Sydney Farms, Inc., project for a not-to-exceed 

project reimbursement of $45,000 with $45,000 provided by the Governing Board 

Basin Fund; (2) authorize the transfer of $45,000 from fund 013 H017 Governing 

Board Basin FARMS funds to the H679 Sydney Farms, Inc., project fund; and 

(3) authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. 

c. Three Star Farms, Inc. (H680), Hillsborough County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Three Star Farms, Inc., project for a not-toexceed 

project reimbursement of $45,000 with $45,000 provided by the Hillsborough 

River Basin Fund; (2) authorize the transfer of $45,000 from fund 013 H017 

Hillsborough River Basin FARMS funds to the H680 Three Star Farms, Inc., project 

fund; and (3) authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the 

agreement. 

d. Strawberry Ranch, Inc. (H681), Hillsborough County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Strawberry Ranch, Inc. project for a not-toexceed 

project reimbursement of $45,000 with $45,000 provided by the Governing 

Board Basin Fund; (2) authorize the transfer of $45,000 from fund 010 H017 

Governing Board Basin FARMS funds to the H681 Strawberry Ranch, Inc. project 

fund; and (3) authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the 

agreement. 

e. Winfred & Sue Harrell Investments, LLLP (H687), Hillsborough County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Winfred & Sue Harrell Investments, LLLP, 

project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $69,330 with $69,330 provided by 

the Governing Board; (2) authorize the transfer of $69,330 from fund 010 H017 

Governing Board FARMS Funds to the H687 Winfred & Sue Harrell Investments, 

LLLP, project fund; (3) authorize the Resource Management Division Director to 

execute the agreement. 

f. Gillman Farms, Inc. (H685), Hillsborough County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Gillman Farms, Inc. project for a not-to-exceed 

project reimbursement of $12,750 with $12,750 provided by the Hillsborough River 

Basin Fund; (2) authorize the transfer of $12,750 from fund 013 H017 Hillsborough 

River Basin FARMS funds to the 013 H685 Gillman Farms, Inc. project fund; and 

(3) authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. 

g. Walter-William Investment Company (H684), Polk County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Walter-William Investment Company project for 

a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $62,500 with $62,500 provided by the 

Governing Board; (2) authorize the transfer of $62,500 from fund 010 H017 Governing 

Board FARMS funds to the H684 Walter-William Investment Company project fund; 

and (3) authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the 

agreement. 

h. Bethel Farms, LLLP – Phase 2 (H686), Sumter County 

Staff recommended to (1) approve the Bethel Farms, LLLP – Phase 2 project for a notto-exceed 

project reimbursement of $198,500 with $47,867 provided by Withlacoochee 

River Basin Fund and $150,633 provided by the Governing Board; (2) authorize the 

transfer of $47,867 from fund 019 H017 Withlacoochee River Basin FARMS Fund and 

$150,633 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Fund to the H686 Bethel 

Farms, LLLP – Phase 2 project fund; and (3) authorize the Resource Management 

Division Director to execute the agreement. 



Staff recommended the Board approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget 

transfers for August 2012. 

182



16. Board Designated Encumbrances 

a. Office of Inspector General – Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 Encumbrance Request 

Staff recommended the Board approve encumbering funds in an amount not to exceed 

$85,000 remaining in the Consultant Services account for use in FY2013. 

b. Information Technology Bureau – FY2011-12 Encumbrance – Residual 

FY2011-12 Computer Sinking Fund 

Staff recommended the Board approve encumbering funds in an amount not to exceed 

$505,000 remaining in the Computer Renewal and Replacement Sinking Fund reserve 

account for use in FY2013. 


17. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board 

Approval 

a. Settlement – Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project – Settlement of SWF 

Parcel No. 20-503-183-P Via Exchange of Property Interests 

Staff recommended the Board approve the settlement agreement whereby the District 

will acquire Parcel 20-503-183-P necessary for implementation of the Project. 

b. Initiation of Litigation – Overpumpage - Country Club Utilities, Inc. – Highlands 

County 

Staff recommended the Board authorize the initiation of litigation against Country Club 

Utilities, 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. 


a. Initiation and Approve of Rulemaking to Amend Rules 40D-1.659 and 40D-2.091, 

F.A.C., and Section 7.4 of the Water Use Permitting Basis of Review to Extend 

the Timeframe for the Submittal of Mitigation Reports and to Incorporate and 

Require the Submittal of Flow Meter Installation Forms for Permittees in the 

Dover/Plant City WUCA 

Staff recommended the Board initiate and approve rulemaking to amend Rules 

40D-1.659 and 40D-2.091, F.A.C., and Section 7.4 of the Water Use Permitting Basis 

of Review to Extend the Timeframe for the Submittal of Mitigation Reports and to 

Incorporate and Require the Submittal of Flow Meter Installation Forms for Permittees 

in the Dover/Plant City WUCA and authorize staff to make any necessary clarifying or 

technical changes that may result from the rulemaking process. 

b. Approve Amendments to Rule 40D-2.321, F.A.C., to comply with Section 373.236, 

Florida Statutes (F.S.), Regarding Duration of Permits and to be More Consistent 

with the Other Water Management Districts – This item was moved for discussion 

purposes. 

c. Approve Amendments to Rule 40D-2.322, F.A.C., to Incorporate Changes 

Necessitated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Guidance 

for Consumptive Use Permit Compliance Reporting Requirements and Review 

Memorandum – This item was deleted. 

d. Approve Applicant’s Handbook Volume II and Amendments to 40D-4.091, F.A.C., 

to Incorporate the Applicant’s Handbook Volume II by Reference as Part of the 

Statewide Environmental Resource Permitting Program 

Staff recommended the Board approve the District’s Environmental Resource 

Permitting Applicant’s Handbook Volume II and amendments to 40D-4.091, F.A.C., to 

incorporate Applicant’s Handbook Volume II by reference. 


19. Approve Governing Board Minutes – August 28, 2012 Monthly Meeting 

Staff recommends approving the minutes as presented. 

Mr. Joerger moved, seconded by Mr. Tharp, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 

Motion carried unanimously. (32:10/33:18) 

The order of consideration was altered at this time. 

183



6. Employee Recognition (Video – 34:12) 

The following staff members who achieved milestones of 20 years or greater for the period 

of June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012, were recognized before the Board. 

MILESTONE EMPLOYEE NAME TITLE BUREAU LOCATION 

30 Years Laura Howe Senior Field Technician Regulatory Support Bartow 

25 Years 

Mike Ames Field Operations Supervisor Operations & Land Mgt Tampa 

Michael Balser Senior Professional Geologist Water Use Permit Tampa 


Mr. Rathke offered the invocation. Chair Senft led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of 

the United States of America. 

The order of consideration returned to the published agenda. Chair Senft relinquished the gavel 

to Regulation Committee Vice Chair Pressman who called the Committee meeting to order. 

(33:18/42:15) 

REGULATION COMMITTEE (Video – 42:28) 


20. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion – None 

21. Denials Referred to the Governing Board – None 



The following items were provided for the Committee’s information, and no action was required. 





26. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives 

Regulation Committee Vice Chair Pressman adjourned the Committee meeting and relinquished 

the gavel to Operations & Land Management Committee Chair Babb who called the meeting to 

order. (42:15/42:48) 

OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Video – 43:02) 




Mr. Granville Kinsman, Manager, Hydrologic Data Section, Data Collection Bureau, said 

August completes the third month of the four-month annual wet season (June through 

September) and provisional rainfall totals for the month were normal to above-normal in all 

regions. Rainfall during the month was scattered, regionally variable, and associated with 

several weather phenomena that included dissipating tropical waves interacting with 

convective (afternoon/evening) rain showers, a frontal boundary, and rainfall from Tropical 

184



Storm Isaac on August 26-29. Analysis of provisional rainfall data for the first three months 

of the wet-season shows District-wide totals to be about 7.5 inches above the long-term 

historic average. The 12-month and 24-month cumulative rainfall deficits, District-wide, are 

approximately 0.7 inch and 7.8 inches, respectively. Most hydrologic indicators showed 

improvement during August. Streamflow conditions in regional index rivers remained at 

normal to above-normal levels that enhanced their use as public supply sources, while 

groundwater and regional lake levels saw improvements to levels as well. (42:48/50:20) 

This item was provided for the Committee's information, and no action was required. 


The following items were submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action was 

required. 



In response to Mr. Tharp’s question, Mr. Roy Mazur, Bureau Chief, Operations & Land 

Management, said proposals are due October 11, 2012, and nine organizations have 

taken the mandatory site tour. He noted the website has received a tremendous amount 

of traffic due to advertising efforts. 





Operations and Land Management Committee Chair Babb adjourned the Committee meeting 

and relinquished the gavel to Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams who called the 

Committee meeting to order. (50:20/52:00) 

OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (Video – 52:18) 





33. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 



Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Resource Management Committee Vice Chair Babb who convened the 

Committee meeting. (52:00/52:48) 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Video – 52:58) 



185



37. Funding Request – Pasco County - Implementation of Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) in the Duck Slough Watershed (N502) 

Mr. Ken Herd, Bureau Chief, Water Resources, said the District received an out-of-cycle 

funding request from the County dated September 4, 2012 to address flood protection in 

Trinity Oaks, Thousand Oaks and nearby residential developments. Mr. Herd noted that 

the Board has copies of letters of support for the request from State Representative 

Richard Corcoran and State Senator Mike Fasano. He said three residents of the 

Thousand Oaks and Trinity Oaks community are present and one has submitted a 

Request to Speak card. Mr. Herd said Mr. Bippin Parikh, Assistant Pasco County 

Administrator, and other County staff are also present. 

Mr. Herd provided a brief overview of the project in southwest Pasco County. From 2004 

to 2009, the District provided $1.3 million of cooperative funding to the County to support 

the County’s development of a Duck Slough watershed model and the implementation of 

BMPs. Constructed BMPs consisted of retrofitting existing structures with additional 

culverts or additional weir length, and installation of adjustable gates to maintain water 

levels during dry conditions. After the BMPs were constructed, the area has continued to 

experience flooding during major storms as experienced with Tropical Storm Debby. It is 

evident that significant storm water conveyance improvements may be necessary in order 

to provide the desired flood protection measures needed for this area. Implementing 

additional BMPs will lower flood levels and reduce the duration of flooding for the Trinity, 

Thousand Oaks, and other residential developments between Little Road and the Anclote 

River. 

Mr. Herd said the estimated cost to automate structures, update the model, evaluate 

alternatives, and design and permit BMPs is $1,750,000, with the County contributing 

50 percent ($875,000) and requesting the District fund the remaining 50 percent 

($875,000). Cooperative funding for construction of BMPs is anticipated to be requested 

by the County during the FY2013-2014 District budget cycle. Since this project is located 

within the boundaries of the former Pinellas-Anclote River Basin, funding is recommended 

from the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) projects within this basin 

that were completed under budget. 

Mr. Pressman moved to approve the request by Pasco County for out-of-cycle 

funding of $875,000 and authorize the Division Director to execute the agreement; 

approve the transfer of $875,000 for this project from available funds in the FY2011- 

2012 budget restricted for projects within the Pinellas-Anclote River Basin; and the 

Board encumber the funds as of this date to be carried forward for expenditure in 

FY2012-2013 as amended. 

Mr. Pressman commended the outstanding efforts of the multi-jurisdictional entities. 

Mr. Maggard seconded the motion. (00:52:48/01:01:07) 

Committee Vice Chair Babb opened the floor for requests to speak. 

Mr. Vincent Aiello, resident of Trinity in Pasco County, said he supports the request to 

solve the issue. He said he agreed with Mr. Pressman’s comments. 

Mr. Mike Garrett, Pasco County Public Works Director, briefly addressed the Board to 

provide a project timeline. 

186



Discussion ensued regarding project implementation and costs, and emergency actions 

should another storm impact the area. 

The motion carried unanimously. (01:01:07/01:12:20) 

38. Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Update (Video – 73:14) 

Mr. Doug Leeper, Chief Environmental Scientist, Water Resources Bureau, noted that 

pursuant to Sections 373.036(7) and 373.042(2), Florida Statutes, the District is required 

to annually update its priority list and schedule for the establishment of minimum flows and 

levels (MFLs), submit the approved list to the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) for approval, and include the approved list in the District's Consolidated 

Annual Report. 

Mr. Leeper said the draft "Proposed Southwest Florida Water Management District Fiscal 

Year 2013 (October 2012 – September 2013) Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and 

Schedule" indicates the District has established MFLs addressing 17 river segments; 

9 springs; 108 lakes; 41 wetlands; and 7 Upper Floridan aquifer wells in the Northern 

Tampa Bay area, and wells associated with the Upper Floridan aquifer in the Most 

Impacted Area of the Southern Water Use Caution Area and in the Dover/Plant City Area. 

The draft Priority List differs from previous priority lists in that it identifies adoption of MFLs 

on a fiscal rather than a calendar year basis to promote consistency with performance 

metrics compiled by DEP. 

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





40. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map 

Modernization 


Resource Management Committee Vice Chair Babb adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger who called the 

Committee meeting to order. (01:12:20/01:20:23) 

FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (Video – 80:36) 








45. Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year 

At this time, an item not appearing on the agenda was considered. 

187



Independent Audit Services 

Committee Chair Joerger noted that the Board voted on the independent audit services 

proposal at the meeting held on September 11, 2012, and awarded the contract to KPMG. He 

wanted to clarify that KPMG is a Swiss company, and the Board may want to consider an 

American and/or Florida firm. 

Ms. Closshey moved for staff to investigate this issue and provide a report at the Board’s 

next meeting. Chair Senft seconded the motion. 

Committee Chair Joerger noted that staff has not contracted with the firm as yet. Chair Senft 

suggested staff review the District’s policy regarding international and national firms. 

Mr. Pokrana, Finance Bureau Chief, said staff has not posted this award, but KPMG was 

notified that discussion may occur at today’s meeting. He noted that time is an issue due to 

audit scheduling plans. Mr. Pokrana clarified the contract is for a one-year term and can be 

renewed or rebid. 

Ms. Closshey withdrew her motion and Chair Senft withdrew his second. 

Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger adjourned the Committee meeting and 

relinquished the gavel to Chair Senft. (01:20:23/01:32:25) 

GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT (Video – 92:56) 

Consent Agenda Item 18.b. was moved for discussion. 


46. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion – Item 18.b. 

18.b. Rulemaking – Approve Amendments to Rule 40D-2.321, F.A.C., to comply with 

Section 373.236, Florida Statutes (F.S.), Regarding Duration of Permits and to 

be More Consistent with the Other Water Management Districts 

Ms. Donaldson said the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is 

leading CUPcon, a statewide effort to improve consistency in the Consumptive/Water 

Use Permitting Programs implemented by the water management districts (WMDs). 

The individual WMD consumptive use permitting rules, while all developed under the 

authority of Chapter 373, F.S., are inconsistent among the WMDs. While some of the 

differences may be based on differing physical and natural characteristics, others are 

the result of development of separate rules and procedures developed over time. 

The goals of CUPcon include (1) making the consumptive use permitting program 

less confusing for applicants, (2) treating applicants equitably statewide, (3) providing 

consistent protection of the environment, (4) streamlining the process, and 

(5) providing incentives for behavior that protects water resources, including 

conservation. A copy of the proposed amendments to Rule 40D-2.321, F.A.C., was 

included in the Board meeting materials. 

Ms. Donaldson said staff recommends the Board approve Amendments to Rule 

40D-2.321, F.A.C., to comply with Section 373.236, Florida Statutes, regarding 

duration of permits and to be more consistent with the other water management 

districts. 

Chair Senft opened the floor for requests to speak. 

188



Mr. Gary Kuhl, representing the Florida Conservation Coalition, said the Coalition’s 

request is that Items 18.b. and 18.c. go through the DEP CUPCon process. He said 

the Coalition is actively involved in the process and noted that this District does have 

some different issues that need consideration. 

Ms. Donaldson clarified the CUPCon process and consistency with Florida Statutes. 

Mr. Maggard moved, seconded by Mr. Babb, to approve Amendments to Rule 

40D-2.321, F.A.C., to comply with Section 373.236, Florida Statutes, regarding 

duration of permits and to be more consistent with the other water 

management districts. (01:32:25/01:41:40) 

Discussion ensued regarding legal compliance and consistencies such as 20-year 

permit issuance. 

Motion carried unanimously. (01:41:40/01:47:08) 





48. Rulemaking Update (01:47:08/01:47:41) 

COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS (Video – 107:53) 

The following reports were provided in the Board’s meeting materials. 

49. Agricultural and Green Industry Advisory Committees Meeting 

Mr. Tharp noted that the chairs of these two committees have sent a letter regarding the 

FARMS program and contracts. He said no action is required at this time and staff is 

working on re-wording the contracts. 


Mr. Pressman provided a brief overview of the meeting. 

51. Other Liaison Reports – None (01:47:41/01:49:58) 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT (Video – 110:16) 


Mr. Guillory reminded the Board that, since the August and September Board meetings 

were relatively short, the October meeting will be longer due to several items deferred to 

that meeting. Chair Senft commended staff for the dashboard as he is finding the 

information helpful. (01:49:58/01:51:22) 

189



CHAIR’S REPORT (Video – 111:32) 

53. Approve Resolution 12-14 Commending Judith C. Whitehead for Her Service on the 

Board 

Chair Senft recommended the Board approve Resolution 12-14 for presentation to 

Ms. Whitehead at a future meeting. Board members expressed their appreciation of her 

leadership and service. 

Mr. Joerger moved, seconded by Mr. Adams, to approve Resolution 12-14 as 

presented. Motion carried unanimously. (01:51:22/01:52:55) 

54. Chair’s Report – None 

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Senft recessed the public 

hearing and adjourned the meeting at 5:53 p.m. (01:52:55/01:53:20, Video – 127:27) 




should contact the District's Human Resources Bureau Chief, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899; telephone 



190


PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FINAL FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 

MILLAGE RATE AND ANNUAL SERVICE BUDGET 




The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District met at 6:00 p.m. on 

September 25, 2012, at the District’s Tampa Service Office. The following persons were 

present: 



Douglas B. Tharp, Vice Chair 


Jeffrey M. Adams, Treasurer 


Wendy Griffin, Member 



Board Member(s) Teleconferencing 



Carlos Beruff, Member 

Staff Members Present 


Robert R. Beltran, Assistant Executive Director 







Daryl F. Pokrana, Director, Finance Bureau 

Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Director, Finance Bureau 

Michael B. Cacioppo, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Cathy A. Linsbeck, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Alan J. Lynch, Senior Budget Analyst, Finance 

Administrative Support 

Lori Manuel, Administrative Coordinator 



District. This meeting was conducted using communications media technology in order to 

permit maximum participation of Board members, and available for viewing through internet 

streaming. Approved minutes from previous meetings can be found on the District's Web site 

(www.WaterMatters.org). 

1. Call to Order and Open Public Hearing (Video 02:21:20) 

Chair Senft called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing. This meeting is 

being conducted using communications media technology in order to permit maximum 

participation of Governing Board members. This meeting is being broadcast through video 

streaming for purposes of viewing only. Public comment will only be accepted here at the 

District’s Tampa Service Office. 

Ms. Kavouras called the roll noting which Board members were present or teleconferencing 

(see above) and noted a quorum was present. 

Chair Senft said this hearing is for the purpose of adopting a final millage rate and budget 

for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Sections 373.536 and 

200.065, Florida Statutes, as amended. If any member of the public would like to speak 

during this hearing, please fill out a blue card located at the desk outside the door and give 

the card to Ms. Kavouras who is seated at the table in front of the dais. Members of the 

public will be called on at the appropriate time during the meeting and will be limited to three 

minutes per speaker. 

191


Governing Board Final Public Hearing Page 2 of 5 

Chair Senft relinquished the gavel to Mr. Joerger, immediate Past Treasurer and Chair of 

the Finance and Administration Committee. (02:02:00/02:03:55) 

2. Opening Comments 

Mr. Joerger said the purpose of this hearing is to provide the public an opportunity to speak 

and ask questions prior to the Governing Board taking any actions regarding the budget. 

Following this, the Board will adopt a final millage rate and budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2012-13. We have developed this budget based on current economic and taxation realities 

to ensure the long-term sustainability of our region’s water resources. 

Mr. Joerger said the tentative budget is $159.5 million, which is $4.0 million more than last 

year’s budget. This relates to an increase in funding for vital water resource projects within 

the District’s four areas of responsibility: water supply, flood protection, water quality, and 

natural systems. The tentative budget includes $100.5 million in ad valorem property tax 

revenue. This is based on holding the millage rate at 0.3928 mill, the same as last year. 

This is 3.63 percent below the rolled-back millage rate of 0.4076 mill. 

Mr. Joerger said that, on September 18, 2012, after the first public hearing, the District 

received a letter from Governor Rick Scott. He read into the record the letter sent to 

Mr. Senft, Governing Board Chair. 

In accordance with Section 373.536, Florida Statutes, I have reviewed the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District’s Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 2012-13. I want to applaud 

the District for working cooperatively with the Department of Environmental Protection in 

refocusing the resources of your District on the core missions of water supply, flood 

protection, water quality and natural systems. 

I also want to extend my appreciation to the Governing Board and the staff for its continued 

protection of Florida’s water resources despite challenging economic times. I also appreciate 

that you and your Governing Board are able to increase funding by $22.5 million for cost 

share funding of cooperative projects with local governments for stormwater and surface 

water projects. I congratulate the District for moving ahead with a number of important 

environmental projects, including $5 million for the continued restoration of Lake Seminole 

in Pinellas County, and $3 million for the restoration of the Rock Ponds ecosystem in 

Hillsborough County. 

I would like to personally commend the Governing Board for holding the ad valorem tax rate 

at the same rate as last year and thereby lowering the tax burden for citizens. I understand 

this is a difficult decision, but one that recognizes governmental growth cannot outpace that 

of the private sector. 

Consistent with the changes in law, pursuant to Chapter 2012-126, Laws of Florida, I am 

approving the District’s Fiscal Year 2012-13 Tentative Budget. 

I want to commend all the Districts for working with the DEP to ensure consistency across 

District boundaries while providing the most responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Moving 

forward, I ask that the Districts continue with consistency efforts and with the refinement of a 

common set of performance metrics to demonstrate stewardship of taxpayer resources while 

focusing on the core mission of protecting and developing water resources for current and 

future generations. I would also like each District to review existing contracts and lease 

agreements and seek price concessions from vendors. I have attached a list of objectives 

I wish each District to pursue moving forward. 

I want to thank you and your fellow Governing Board Members for your commitment to 

serving Floridians and I look forward to working with you during the coming year, as we 

continue to strive for the most efficient and effective manner to protect Florida’s water 

resources. 

192



Mr. Joerger noted that copies of the letter and the attached list of objectives have been 

placed on the table outside the door to the Board Room. 

Mr. Joerger requested Mr. Fritsch to provide a brief overview of the District’s budget and 

projected resources, and then Ms. Pilcher will proceed with the required portion of the 

hearing. (02:03:55/02:08:26) 

3. Budget Overview 

Mr. Fritsch provided a brief overview of the District’s FY2012-13 budget and projected 

resources using three charts. He noted there have been approximately 20 public hearings 

for budget discussion. 

The Revenue Budget chart provides the adopted budget for FY2011-12, the final budget for 

FY2012-13, and the year over year change, in dollars and percentages. 

The Expeditures Budget chart provides the District’s final expenditure budget for FY2012-13 

by category or type. The columns reflect the adopted budget for FY2011-12, the final budget 

for FY2012-13, and the year over year change, in dollars and percentages. The key 

expenditure categories are divided into two sections: Recurring (or operating) expenditures 

and Non-Recurring expenditures. The sub-total for recurring budget shows the District has 

reduced its recurring expenditures by $18.3 million or 19 percent, down to $76.2 million 

which is well below the $100.0 million of ad valorem that is budgeted for FY2012-13. These 

reductions provide more flexibility in funding vital core non-recurring projects. Every 

expenditure category has been reduced from FY2011-12, except one. The budget for the 

Cooperative Funding program has been increased to bring it back close to the investment 

level in FY2010-11 which was $65.0 million. 

The Projected Resources chart provides an estimate of the total District resources 

anticipated to be available as of October 1, 2012. This consists of: 

FY2012-13 Final Budget proposed for adoption is $159,450,185. 

Estimated ongoing projects funded with previous year budgets that are uncompleted as of 

fiscal year-end (9/30/2012). The total encumbrances for these projects will be carried 

forward and re-appropriated for FY2012-13 (current estimate is $238.0 million). 

This will result in an estimated budget (including carry-forward encumbrances) of 

$398.0 million. This compares to the current budget for FY2011-12 of $509.0 million. 

In addition to this, it is estimated that the District will have fund balances of $215.0 million 

available at October 1, 2012. These fund balances have been placed into reserve 

accounts consistent with the Governing Board’s Fund Balance Policy 130-9. 

The total projected resources to be available to the District at October 1, 2012, including 

the FY2012-13 budget, is $613.0 million. This is down from the $693.0 million available at 

October 1, 2011. This is consistent with the District’s spend-down plan which indicates the 

approximately half of available reserves and the majority of the encumbrances will be 

spent over the next five to six years. (02:08:26/02:11:51) 

4. Public Announcement of the Name of the Taxing Authority, Rolled-Back Rate, 

Percentage Decrease, and Millage Rate to be Levied for FY2012 

Ms. Pilcher presented the required public announcement of the name of the taxing authority, 

the rolled-back rate, the percentage of tax decrease below the rolled-back rate, and the 

millage rate to be levied for FY2012-13, and read into the record as required for the District. 

TAXING AUTHORITY 

Southwest Florida Water 

Management District 

(02:11:51/02:12:28) 

ROLLED-BACK 

RATE 

PERCENTAGE OF TAX DECREASE 

BELOW ROLLED-BACK RATE 

MILLAGE RATE 

0.4076 -3.63% 0.3928 

193



5. Final Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget 

a. Reconciliation of Tentative to Final Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget 

Ms. Pilcher said there have been no changes to the budget since the tentative budget 

hearing, held September 11, 2012. 

b. TRIM Budget Summary 

Ms. Pilcher noted that this summary was used to prepare the newspaper advertisement 

and is provided for the Board’s information only. (02:12:28/02:13:00) 

6. Public Comments 

a. Letters/Resolutions Received 

Mr. Joerger noted the District has not received any correspondence from taxpayers 

since the first public hearing on September 11. On September 18, the District received a 

budget approval letter from Governor Scott, which was read into the record at the 

beginning of the hearing. The District has responded in writing to the two letters that 

were received prior to the first public hearing. The District has received approximately 

15 calls to date from taxpayers regarding the proposed budget for FY2012-13. 

Letters and resolutions received regarding the final millage rate and budget, if any, since 

the first public hearing held September 11, 2012, in Tampa, have been compiled into an 

Exhibit "A" to Agenda Item 6a and are hereby incorporated by reference into the public 

record of this meeting. The budget approval letter from Governor Rick Scott dated 

September 18, 2012, is included. Copies of this exhibit are available here today and are 

also located at District headquarters. 

b. Persons Wishing to Address the Board 

Mr. Joerger requested that anyone wishing to address the budget come forward, and 

state their name, address, and group affiliation, if any. No one came forward. 

(02:13:00/02:13:45) 

7. Adopt Final Fiscal Year 2012-13 Millage Rate 



ADOPTION OF FINAL MILLAGE RATE AND 

CERTIFICATION OF LEVY TO THE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 



Following consideration, Mr. Tharp moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-12, Adoption of 

Final Millage Rate and Certification of Levy to the County Property Appraisers for 

Fiscal Year 2012-13, of 0.3928 mill. Mr. Maggard seconded the motion. The motion 

carried unanimously. (02:13:45/02:14:18) 

194



8. Adopt Final Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget 



ADOPTION OF FINAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 



Following consideration, Chair Senft moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-13, Adoption of 

Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, in the amount of $159,450,185. Mr. Pressman 

seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. (02:14:18/02:14:47) 

9. Introduce All Materials as Composite Exhibit 

Mr. Joerger introduced all budget materials as a composite exhibit. He stated that the 

record should reflect that all materials presented here this afternoon are part of the 

permanent record of the public hearing. The exhibit includes a list of newspapers publishing 

notices. 

Mr. Joerger relinquished the gavel to Chair Senft. (02:14:47/02:15:12) 

Chair Senft noted that this is the first year the District has held its two public budget hearings at 

6:00 p.m. to be fully open in the interest of the taxpayers and allow the public the opportunity to 

attend the hearings after normal business hours. 

10. Adjournment 

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Senft adjourned the 

meeting. (02:15:12/02:15:55) 

The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 




should contact the District's Human Resources Director, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899; telephone 



195

C. Resource 

Management



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 



21. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend 40D-8.041, F.A.C., 

to Establish Minimum Flows for the Chassahowitzka and 

Homosassa River Systems and Accept Report ................................... (20 minutes)....... 2 



22. Minimum Flows and Levels ............................................................................................... 6 

23. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency 

Management Agency Map Modernization ......................................................................... 10 

24. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects ....................................... 13

Item 21 



Discussion Item 

Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-8.041, Florida Administrative 

Code, to Establish Minimum Flows for the Chassahowitzka and Homosassa River 

Systems and Accept Reports 

Purpose 

To request the Board initiate and approve rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-8.041, Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to establish minimum flows for the Chassahowitzka and 

Homosassa river systems, and accept the reports entitled “Recommended Minimum Flows for 

the Chassahowitzka River System” and “Recommended Minimum Flows for the Homosassa 

River System,” dated July 15, 2012. 


The Chassahowitzka River System is located on the west coast of Florida at the border of 

Hernando and Citrus counties, and includes more than a dozen springs. The Homosassa River 

System is located approximately five miles north of the Chassahowitzka River System in coastal 

Citrus County, and includes more than 20 springs. Both systems receive minimal surface runoff 

from their respective watersheds, with the majority of flow in each arising from a much larger 

groundwater basin that yields relatively constant discharge with little seasonal variation. The 

Chassahowitzka River and Homosassa River are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. 

Staff submitted draft reports outlining recommended minimum flows for the Chassahowitzka and 

Homosassa river systems to the Governing Board in April and July 2010, respectively. These 

initial recommendations required that 89 percent of the natural flow in the Chassahowitzka 

system and 95 percent of the natural flow in the Homosassa system be maintained. Natural flow 

is defined as the flow that would exist in the absence of water withdrawals. Findings from 

separate, independent, scientific reviews by panels of experts were supportive of the minimum 

flow recommendations and were presented to the Board in August and November 2010. 

In addition to the scientific peer review, the District facilitated stakeholder review by hosting four 

public workshops between October 2010 and January 2011. Based on stakeholder interest, 

three additional public workshops were held in spring-summer 2011, and the District facilitated a 

fourth stakeholder-organized workshop in October 2011. The workshops were well attended 

and information associated with the events was posted on the District’s Springs Coast Minimum 

Flows and Levels Working Group web page. Additional outreach activities resulted in District 

participation in a total of 30 meetings and exchange of more than 1,000 correspondences with 

stakeholders. Stakeholder input was focused around four primary issues: (1) use of 15 percent 

change criteria for developing minimum flows; (2) environmental change that has been 

observed recently should not be exacerbated by withdrawal-related flow reductions; 

(3) minimum flows should address the ambient water quality standard associated with 

Outstanding Florida Water rules and the Federal Clean Water Act; and (4) various technical 

issues that may require additional consideration, including those associated with discharge 

records, groundwater flow modeling, manatee responses to recent, extremely cold winters, and 

other organism responses to flow changes. 

In response to peer-review panel and stakeholder input, staff developed revised minimum flow 

recommendations for the Chassahowitzka and Homosassa river systems, and outlined the 

analyses supporting the revised recommendations in updated minimum flow reports, dated 

2

Item 21 

July 15, 2012, and provided as Exhibits “A” and “C” (copies available upon request). Peerreview 

and stakeholder input are included as appendices to the updated reports. Revised 

minimum flow recommendations for the two river systems were discussed with stakeholders at 

a public workshop held on October 2, 2012. 

The revised, recommended minimum flows for the Chassahowitzka River System are 91 

percent of its natural flow; and the revised, recommended minimum flows for the Homosassa 

River System are 97 percent of its natural flow. There are currently no permitted surface 

withdrawals from either system, and flow reductions in each that may be associated with 

groundwater withdrawals are minimal (~1%). The District is committed to the reevaluation of 

minimum flows that are adopted for the systems, as necessary, and staff recommends that 

minimum flows for the systems should be evaluated within ten years of their adoption. The 

proposed rule language for establishment of the minimum flows for the Chassahowitzka River 

System and Homosassa River System are included as Exhibits “B” and “D,” respectively. 


The recommended minimum flows will protect the natural resources of the Chassahowitzka and 

Homosassa river systems from significant harm that may occur as a result of water withdrawals. 

The development of a recovery strategy or Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs is not 

required for either system. 

Upon Governing Board approval of the proposed rule language, staff will submit notice to the 

Governor’s Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform (OFARR) and proceed with 


as the result of comments received from the public or reviewing entities such as OFARR or the 

Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, this matter will be brought back to the Governing 

Board for consideration. 


See Reports & Exhibits 

(1) Accept the report entitled, “Recommended Minimum Flows for the Chassahowitzka River 


(2) Initiate rulemaking and approve adoption of amendments to Rule 40D-8.041, Florida 

Administrative Code, to establish minimum flows for the Chassahowitzka River System. 

(3) Accept the report entitled, “Recommended Minimum Flows for the Homosassa River 


(4) Initiate rulemaking and approve adoption of amendments to Rule 40D-8.041, Florida 

Administrative Code, to establish minimum flows for the Homosassa River System. 


from the rulemaking process. 

Presenter: 

Douglas A. Leeper, Chief Environmental Scientist, Water Resources Bureau 

3

40D-8.041 Minimum Flows 

(1) – (15) No change. 

EXHIBIT B 

Amendments to 

RULE 40D-8.041, F.A.C. 

Chassahowitzka River System MFL 

(16) Minimum Flow for the Chassahowitzka River System. 

(a) For purposes of this rule, the Chassahowitzka River System includes the watercourse 

from the Chassahowitzka Main Springs Complex to the Gulf of Mexico, including contributing 

tributaries, Blind Springs and all named and unnamed springs that discharge to the river. 

(b) The Minimum Flow for the Chassahowitzka River System is 91% of the natural flow as 

measured at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gage Chassahowitzka River near 

Homosassa (Gage No. 02310650). Natural flow is defined for the purpose of this rule as the 

flow that would exist in the absence of water withdrawal impacts. The Minimum Flow at any 

point downstream from this Gage is measured as the previous day’s natural flow at that point 

minus 9%. 

(c) The District will reevaluate the Minimum Flow within ten years of adoption of this rule. 


373.042, 373.0421 FS. History–Readopted 10-5-74, Amended 12-31-74, Formerly 16J-0.15, 

40D-1.601, Amended 10-1-84, 8-7-00, 2-6-06, 4-6-06, 1-1-07, 11-25-07, 2-18-08, 3-2-08, 5-12- 

08, 5-10-09, 3-23-10, 3-28-10, 7-12-10, 8-2-10 (8), 8-2-10 (15), ________. 

4

40D-8.041 Minimum Flows 

(1) – (15) No change. 

EXHIBIT D 

Amendments to 

RULE 40D-8.041, F.A.C. 

Homosassa River System MFL 

(17) Minimum Flow for the Homosassa River System. 

(a) For purposes of this rule, the Homosassa River System includes the watercourse 

from the Homosassa Main Springs Complex to the Gulf of Mexico, including the southeast fork 

of the Homosassa River, Halls River, Hidden River and all named and unnamed springs that 

discharge to these rivers. 

(b) The Minimum Flow for the Homosassa River System is 97% of the combined natural flow as 

measured at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Homosassa Springs at Homosassa 

Springs, FL Gage (No. 02310678), and the USGS SE Fork Homosassa Spring at Homosassa 

Springs, FL Gage (No. 02310688). Natural flow is defined for the purpose of this rule as the flow 

that would exist in the absence of water withdrawal impacts. The Minimum Flow at any point 

downstream from these Gages are measured as the previous day’s natural flow at that point 

minus 3%. 

(c) The District will reevaluate the Minimum Flow within ten years of adoption of this rule. 


373.042, 373.0421 FS. History–Readopted 10-5-74, Amended 12-31-74, Formerly 16J-0.15, 

40D-1.601, Amended 10-1-84, 8-7-00, 2-6-06, 4-6-06, 1-1-07, 11-25-07, 2-18-08, 3-2-08, 5-12- 

08, 5-10-09, 3-23-10, 3-28-10, 7-12-10, 8-2-10 (8), 8-2-10 (15), ________. 

5

Item 22 



Routine Report 

Minimum Flows and Levels 

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 with regard to the District’s 

five-phase process for MFLs establishment. 

Staff anticipates presenting rule amendments associated with proposed MFLs for the 

Chassahowitzka River System and Springs, Homosassa River System and Springs, and lakes 

Bonable, Tiger and Little Bonable for approval at the October Board meeting. 

Phase 2 of the MFLs development process, which consists of data analysis and internal draft 

report development, will be delayed for Brooker Creek, Crystal River System and Kings Bay 

Springs, Lower Withlacoochee River System, North Prong Alafia River, Pithlachascotee River 

System, South Prong Alafia River, Upper Peace River “Middle” and “High” Minimum Flows and 

lakes Hannna, Keene, Kell, Raleigh, Rogers, Starvation, Tooke and Whitehurst due to time 

requirements for other priority minimum flow projects. Delayed completion of subsequent 

phases of the process for these water bodies is also anticipated. 

Completion of Phase 2 and subsequent phases of the process will be delayed for the Manatee 

River System to allow time for additional data analyses, discussions with water-supply 

stakeholders and public comment. 

Completion of Phase 2 and subsequent phases of the process will be delayed for the Rainbow 

River and Springs to allow time for additional analyses, public comment and coordination with 

the St. Johns River Water Management District. This coordination supports both the 

development of MFLs for the Rainbow River System and the Silver River System within the St. 

Johns River Water Management District. 

Completion of Phase 2 and subsequent phases of the process will be delayed for the Little 

Manatee River based on the need to develop a report for the estuarine portion of the river and 

to discuss proposed MFLs with a major user of water from the river. Progress on development 

of minimum flows for the freshwater portion of the Little Manatee River continues; a draft report 

on these MFLs was presented to the Board in December 2011 and has been subjected to peerreview. 

The need for development of a recovery strategy (Phase 4) has delayed MFLs establishment for 

Shell Creek. Rule adoption, the final phase (Phase 5) in the MFLs establishment process, will 

be delayed for the Gum Springs Group, and Upper and Middle Withlacoochee River System to 

allow time for additional data analysis and public comment on the proposed minimum flows and 

levels. Phase 5 will be delayed for Lake Hancock pending completion of land acquisitions 

associated with the upper Peace River MFLs recovery strategy. 


See Exhibit 


Presenter: 

Doug Leeper, Chief Environmental Scientist, Water Resources Bureau 

6

Board Adopted 2012 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 & Report to Board / Recovery Rule Adoption 

Internal Draft MFL Report 

Peer Review 

Strategy 

2011 

Chassahowitzka River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Jan 2012 

Gum Springs Group completed completed completed TBD Dec 2011 

Homosassa River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Jan 2012 

Lower Myakka River System completed completed completed NN completed 

2012 

Brooker Creek completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

Crystal River System & Kings Bay Springs completed May 2012 Jul 2012/ Oct 2012 TBD Dec 2012 

Lower Withlacoochee River System completed May 2012 Jul 2012/ Oct 2012 TBD Dec 2012 

Little Manatee River System completed April 2012 May 2012/ Aug 2012 TBD Oct 2012 

Manatee River System completed Feb 2012 Apr 2012/ Jul 2012 TBD Sep 2012 

North Prong Alafia River completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

Pithlachascotee River System completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

Rainbow River and Springs completed Mar 2012 Apr 2012/ Jul 2012 TBD Aug 2012 

Shell Creek Estuary completed completed completed Recovery Nov 2012 

South Prong Alafia River completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 

Upper and Middle Withlacoochee River System completed completed completed NN Apr 2012 

Upper Peace River completed Jun 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Dec 2012 

"Middle" and "High" Minimum Flows 

2013 

Charlie Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 

Horse Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 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 (reevaluation) Jan 2015 May 2015 Jul 2015/ Oct 2015 TBD Nov 2015 

* At the Board's direction, staff has added projected dates on which we: expect to have internal draft reports complete; present draft reports to the Board; 

present reports of peer review to Board; and return for rule establishment. 

** NN = not needed; TBD = to be determined; Recovery = recovery strategy needed 

*** Water bodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted list 

when the Priority List and Schedule is updated each year. 

Updated July 13, 2012 

7



Exhibit A 

LAKES 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4* Phase 5** 

Data Collection Data Analysis Peer Review Recovery Rule Adoption 

& Draft MFL Report 

Strategy 

2011 

Hillsborough County Lakes 

Carroll completed completed NA NN completed 

Hooker completed completed 

NA NN completed 

Wimauma completed completed NA NN completed 

Marion County Lakes 

Bonable completed completed NA NN Feb 2012 

Little Bonable completed completed NA NN Feb 2012 

Tiger completed completed NA NN Feb 2012 

2012 

Hillsborough County Lakes 

Hanna completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Keene completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Kell completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Raleigh completed Aug 2012 completed completed Dec 2012 

Rogers completed Aug 2012 completed completed Dec 2012 

Starvation completed Aug 2012 completed completed Dec 2012 

Hernando County Lakes 

Tooke completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Whitehurst completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 

Polk County Lake 

Hancock completed completed NA completed Jun 2012 

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 

Polk County Lakes 

Amoret June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Aurora June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Bonnet June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Easy June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Effie June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Little Aurora June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Josephine June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Lowery June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

Trout 

June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 

2015 

Polk County Lake 

Eva June 2015 Aug 2015 NA TBD Dec 2015 

* NN = not needed; TBD = to be determined 

** Water bodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted list 

when the Priority List and Schedule is updated each year. 


8



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 

Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Minimum Aquifer Level 

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, and Unnamed #22 aka Loyce 

Polk County Lakes – Annie, Bonnie, Clinch, Crooked, Crystal, Dinner, Eagle, Lee, Mabel, McLeod, 

North Lake Wales, 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) 


9

Item 23 




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). 


See Exhibit 

This item is provided for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: 

JP Marchand, P.E., Manager, Engineering & Watershed Management 

10

Exhibit – Watershed Management Program and FEMA Map Modernization Schedule 

October 2012 

Year County Watershed 

2009 

Hernando 

Topographic 

Information 

Watershed 

Model 

Public Meetings 

Present to 

Board 

Submit 

Preliminary 

DFIRMs to 

FEMA 

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 

Pasco 

Sarasota 

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 complete complete 

Whitaker Bayou complete complete complete complete complete 

Hudson Bayou complete complete complete complete complete 

Roberts Bay complete complete complete complete complete 

Alligator Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

Big Slough - Northport complete complete complete complete complete 

Note: FEMA will start their formal appeals period for adoption after the District submits the preliminary DFIRMS to FEMA. 

11

Exhibit – Watershed Management Program and FEMA Map Modernization Schedule 

October 2012 

Year County Watershed 

2010 

Polk 

Topographic 

Information 

Watershed 

Model 

Public Meetings 

Present to 

Board 

Submit 

Preliminary 

DFIRMs to 

FEMA 

Upper Peace River complete complete Sep 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 

Christina complete complete complete complete Dec 2012 

Peace CreekCanal complete complete Sep 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 

Polk City complete complete complete complete Dec 2012 

DeSoto 

Hardee 

Highlands 

Citrus 

Manatee 

Thornton Branch complete complete complete complete complete 

Deep Creek Gully complete complete complete complete complete 

Buzzards Roost Run complete complete complete complete complete 

City of Wauchula complete complete complete complete complete 

Horse Creek complete complete complete complete complete 

Alligator Branch complete complete complete complete complete 

Thompson Branch complete complete complete complete complete 

Limited Detailed Studies complete complete complete complete complete 

Crystal River complete complete complete complete Mar 2013 

Tsala Apopka complete complete complete complete Mar 2013 

Cardinal Lane complete complete complete complete Mar 2013 

Center Ridge complete complete complete complete Mar 2013 

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. 

12

Item 24 




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 encumbered $79 million in 

General Fund Water Supply and Resource Development Reserves for the project. Seventy-four 

parcels were identified as necessary to acquire in fee (40 parcels) or a lesser interest (34 

easement parcels). 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 rejected all bids based upon ambiguities in 

the bid documents and issued a new request for bid on April 15, 2011. The District awarded the 

bid on October 18, 2011, and provided the notice to proceed for the construction of the P-11 

water control structure to CenState Contractors, Inc. The ERP for the SR540/Jacque Lee Lane 

mitigation project was approved and issued by the District’s Bartow Service Office on December 

22, 2011. The City of Lakeland awarded the contract for the Oak Hill Burial Park mitigation 

project to QGS Development, Inc., and construction commenced on March 13, 2012. The U.S. 

Army Corp of Engineers issued the permit for the mitigation project on Coscia and Old Florida 

Plantation (OFP) properties on March 6, 2012. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The 

District’s construction contractor, CenState, has completed all concrete work. The equipment 

building and structural backfilling are the next anticipated construction activities. District staff 

submitted the Request for Bid package for the OFP/Coscia mitigation project to the District’s 

Procurement Section for compilation prior to advertisement on September 6, 2012. The District 

and the District’s consultant, Amec Environment & Infrastructure, participated in a 

teleconference with Florida’s Turnpike Authority on September 18, 2012, to coordinate 

authorization for construction of the mitigation project on the SR570 Polk Parkway Pond. 

Acquisition Status: Of the 74 parcels necessary for the project, the titles, subject to the 

determination of value, to 73 parcels (8,337 acres) have been acquired. The litigation for the 

remaining parcels involves three owners (36 acres) which are partial takes of easements. 

District staff has made offers on all acquisitions necessary for the project. The District's special 

counsel has initiated legal proceedings related to remaining acquisitions. District staff and the 

special counsel continue to evaluate opportunities for settlement that would avoid continued 

litigation. As of October 25, 2011, Resolution 08-27 for the project was supplemented by 

Resolution 11-20 to modify the easement language. The Polk County BOCC approved the 

13

Item 24 

exchange of their interest in the Circle B property for the Bellotto parcel. The proposed 

exchange will be considered by the District’s Governing Board who also hold an interest in the 

Circle B property. If approved and the Bellotto transaction is successfully closed, acquisition of 

title to all parcels necessary for the project will have been completed. To ensure that the 

acquisition of this parcel will not be delayed, in case a transaction does not occur, the District 

will also continue with its eminent domain proceedings until trial or dismissal. The District has 

maintained the OFP Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and made changes to the 

Development Order, as necessary, through the City of Bartow, Central Florida Regional 

Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs. The changes to the DRI allow the 

proposed development to accommodate the District’s Lake Hancock minimum flows and levels 

(MFLs) and other proposed land use projects. Those portions of the DRI and other parcels 

determined to be not needed for District projects will be considered for surplus. Before 

proceeding with the disposition of property, the District will prepare a DEP application for their 

approval. The surplus activities to date have involved only the OFP property with the 

conveyance of approximately 12 acres necessary for right-of-way to construct the Bartow 

Northern Connector Road. Project Managers: Scott Letasi/Michael Peck/Steve Blaschka 

Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project 

The intent of the Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment project is to improve water quality discharging 

from Lake Hancock to the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor. At their February 2006 meeting, 

the Governing 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. In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

rescinded all special appropriations allocated in EPA’s fiscal year (FY) 2008 and earlier. A grant 

agreement for FY2009 funds totaling $485,000 was executed in March 2012. While the grant 

agreement was being finalized, the EPA discovered that a total of $288,700 in addition to the 

$485,000 was available in grant funding due to an error in the rescission total. District staff 

revised the grant application to apply for a total of $773,700. Project construction commenced 

on September 26, 2011. New Activities Since Last Meeting: EPA processed the District’s 

application for additional funding and forwarded an amendment to the existing agreement for 

signature to add the funds. The amendment was reviewed and routed for signature. 

Construction activities continue; however, excessive rains slowed earthwork activities. Work 

continues on the pump station structure, discharge structure, aeration structure and discharge 

channel. Inlet channel dredging was completed. Slurry wall construction is on track to be 

completed in October 2012. 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. 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 

14

Item 24 

modernization projects for Pasco, Sarasota, Hernando, Marion, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, Citrus, 

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. Typically, the map modernization process includes the following steps: The community 

and District assess the mapping needs, the project is scoped, topographic data is acquired and 

watershed modeling is completed. The District and an independent peer reviewer analyze the 

data, which is then provided to the public for their verification. Updates are made incorporating 

the input from the public and peer reviewer, and the information is presented to the Governing 

Board for approval. After the approval, data is forwarded to FEMA, mapping is initiated, and the 

digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRM) are produced. New Activities Since Last Meeting: 

Hernando County: The FEMA FIRMs became effective on February 2, 2012. Pasco County: 

The countywide preliminary maps and Flood Insurance Study reports have been submitted to 

FEMA for post-preliminary processing. Sarasota County: Draft FIRM geodatabase is currently 

under review. Polk County: Work continues in the county; Peace Creek and Upper Peace 

Riverare currently being reviewed and refined. Polk City watershed was 

approved by the Governing Board in September 2012. Hardee County: The preliminary DFIRM 

90-day appeal period began on June 28, 2012, and ended on October 17, 2012. DeSoto 

County: The preliminary DFIRM 90-day appeal period began on September 27, 2012, and will 

end on December 26, 2012. Sumter County: The preliminary FIRM date was January 21, 2012. 

FEMA is now lead party in the project. Preliminary DFIRM and community coordination, and 

public open house meetings were held March 21, 2012. The preliminary FIRM notice was 

published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2012. The 90-day appeal period began on 

June 29, 2012, and ended on September 27, 2012. Citrus County: Watershed models are being 

developed for East Citrus/Withlacoochee and Homosassa River by consultants. Tsala Apopka 

watershed was approved by the Governing Board in December 2011 and was provided to the 

FIRM mapping contractor in May 2012. Cardinal Lane watershed was approved by the 

Governing Board in September 2012 and provided to the FIRM mapping consultant. Levy 

County: Maps are scheduled to become effective November 2, 2012. Letters of final 

determination were issued May 2, 2012. Marion County: Modernized FIRMs were adopted in 

August 2008. Watershed models are being developed by consultants for the Lake Stafford East, 

Priest Prairie Drain, West Ocala, and West Marion watersheds. Manatee County: Buffalo 

Canal/Frog Creek has been approved by the Governing Board and provided to the FIRM 

mapping consultant. Gamble Creek watershed was approved by the Governing Board in June 

2012. Braden River watershed model revisions are ongoing. FEMA will manage the production 

of the FIRMs and the map adoption process. Highlands County: The preliminary DFIRM 90-day 

appeal period will begin by the end of the year. Project Manager: J.P. Marchand 

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 MRWI is the Flatford Swamp area. 

The overall objective 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, as a result, a 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 in November 2010. A subsequent revenue agreement with Mosaic has been 

15

Item 24 

executed. The District will act as the lead party in the feasibility study, and a consultant services 

contract with Ardaman & Associates for the study was executed on September 20, 2011. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: Mosaic and District staff provided a status of the project to the 

Natural Resources Committee of the Manatee County Chamber of Commerce on August 17, 

2012. Mosaic is working to better characterize the receiving water at Wingate mine for specific 

constituents. The information will assist with decisions on water treatment. Ardaman is working 

on the regulatory review of the scenarios to transport excess flow to the mine. Project 

Managers: Lisann Morris/Mary Szafraniec 

Tampa Bay Water 

• 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 Tampa Bay Water’s (TBW) reservoir, 

and perform cost analyses. Ongoing activities include surface water modeling, analyses and 

cost estimating. Due to TBW’s decision to expand their reservoir, the modeling runs and 

assessments have been reduced to include Bullfrog Creek and alternative treatment locations 

only. This will allow TBW to evaluate the possibility of withdrawing additional surface water 

from Bullfrog Creek as part of their long-term planning efforts. District staff met with TBW on 

February 13, 2012, to finalize the project modeling configurations; and met with the TBW 

project manager on June 21, 2012, to discuss recent activities and time schedules. A second 

meeting was held on August 10, 2012, with TBW’s project manager and the project consultant 

to discuss the status of the project. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The consultant is 

currently performing hydraulic modeling and system analyses. The analyses will include 

evaluating potential effects that the new supply project configurations would have on the 

operations, hydraulics and water quality of TBW’s existing system. The analysis has been 

delayed due to TBW’s decision to not expand the C.W. Bill Young Reservoir. The analysis will 

be performed using a baseline scenario of the existing water distribution system, with 

comparisons to combinations of: (1) water supply from Bullfrog Creek, (2) construction of a 

new treatment facility, (3) construction of a new 6 billion gallon reservoir, and (4) treatment at 

the D.L. Tippin water treatment facility. The baseline scenario is almost complete, and all 

scenarios are expected to be complete by October 2012. The project is ahead of schedule 

and is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2012. A status meeting was held in October 

2012. Project Manager: Mike Hancock 

Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

• Regional Integrated Loop System Project: The Regional Loop System interconnects the 

water supply and distribution systems of Authority members and non-member customers. The 

project is being developed in multiple phased segments. Phase 1A connects the Peace River 

Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to the City of Punta Gorda’s Shell Creek WTP and provides 

additional service to developed portions of Charlotte County near I-75. The project includes 

approximately 12 miles of pipeline with a 6 mgd bilateral transmission capacity 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 in August 2010, and construction 

commenced in March 2011. Total cost is estimated at $19,015,000 and the District is 

providing up to $12,029,270, which includes $5,000,000 in West-Central Florida Water 

Restoration Action Plan funding and $43,541 in Water Protection and Sustainability Trust 

Funds (WPSTF). The funding agreement expires on September 30, 2013. Phase 2 is a 

7-mile, 42-inch diameter interconnect that will deliver regional supply allocations to the City of 

North Port and improve operational flexibility for Charlotte County. The pipeline runs from the 

Peace River WTP to a meter station in the City of North Port near Serris Boulevard. The 

funding agreement for Phase 2 was executed in May 2010. Construction commenced in June 

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 WPSTF. The funding 

agreement expires on June 30, 2013. Phase 3A extends the Authority’s existing regional 

transmission line that currently terminates at the Carlton WTP to a meter station for northern 

Sarasota County and creates a potential intertie to the City of Venice. This project includes 

16

Item 24 

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 funding agreement for Phase 3A was 

executed in November 2008. Construction commenced in February 2010 and was 

substantially completed in November 2011. 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. Phase 3B would extend north and interconnect Manatee County with the Regional 

Loop System. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The Phase 3A funding agreement expired 

on September 30, 2012. The project was substantially completed in November 2011, but the 

contractor is still finalizing as-built drawings. The District is reimbursing for work completed 

prior to the expiration date; and approximately $150,000 of District funds remain. Construction 

continues on Phases 1A and 2, and both segments are scheduled for completion in early 

2013. Approximately four miles of the Phase 1A segment, north of the Peace River, is already 

in service. Filling and pressure testing of the Phase 1A subaqueous segment was completed 

in September 2012. 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 for potable supply prior to 

injection and storage in the aquifer. The project is co-funded by the Southwest Florida, South 

Florida, and St. Johns River water management districts, and the Peace River Manasota 

Regional Water Supply Authority and 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. 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 

arsenic drinking water standard of 10 ug/l. The results showed that the pre-treatment process 

of removing dissolved oxygen does control arsenic mobilization. The system is now being 

operated by City staff as climatic conditions dictated and is no longer constrained to strict 

cycle testing schedules required under the DEP underground injection control (UIC) permit. In 

July 2012, the City completed the second season of successfully supplying arsenic-free water 

from their ASR system. The City initiated recharge on July 14, 2012, for the third year of ASR 

operation with low DO water. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The City has injected 

approximately 50 mg of the 230 mg goal for this current cycle. The City is preparing a final 

report documenting the pre-treatment system performance during the last and current cycle 

tests. Under the current cycle testing plan, the next cycle test will be completed between 

August and October 2013. DEP contacted the City in September 2012 requesting a meeting 

to discuss the pending operation permit application. The original anticipated date for issuance 

of the operation permit was January 2014; it appears that date may be moved up a year to 

January 2013. The District and the City have also developed a scope of work to research and 

implement methods to improve the performance of the de-oxygenation system and the 

contract will be finalized by October 2012. Modification to the system to increase its 

performance will be completed during the storage and recovery period of this current cycle 

and finished prior to the initiation of the next cycle. Project Manager: Don Ellison 

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 

17

Item 24 

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 

percent 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. The District received 

notification from the COT on November 7, 2011, that the Sulphur Springs Run Lower Weir 

project is complete. The COT and the District diverted water from Sulphur Springs and the TBC 

to the base of the dam to meet minimum flows between December 2011 and mid-June 2012; 

high river flows have occurred at the dam since June 22, 2012. The pumping facilities on the 

Upper Weir at Sulphur Springs were completed in January 2012 and are now operational. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: Staff is evaluating scenarios based on the outcome of the 

Water Use Permit technical analysis on the Morris Bridge Sink permanent pumping facility. The 

District will be participating in a cooperative funding agreement with the COT in fiscal year 2013 

to cost-share pumps on the Harney Canal and the Hillsborough River reservoir to provide water 

from the TBC to the lower river to meet minimum flows. Project Managers: Sid Flannery/ 

David Crane 

TECO’s Polk Power Station Reclaimed Water Interconnects to Lakeland/Polk County/ 

Mulberry 

• 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 was anticipated to provide 6 mgd of reclaimed water from the City of Lakeland for 

the first TECO expansion. TECO entered into a Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement with Polk 

County after it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 25, 2011. 

Once the Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement between TECO and Mulberry is finalized, 

District staff with prepare an amendment to the cooperative funding agreement to incorporate 

both the Mulberry and Polk County portions of the project. With the additional quantities that 

will be provided by Polk County and the City of Mulberry, approximately 7 mgd will now be 

available. Phase I of the project was expected to utilize 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 in 2013, the project will not use the full 7 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: While not included in the scope of work 

for the cooperative funding agreement, construction at the second injection well site 

continues. There has been an issue obtaining access to a property along the planned pipeline 

18

Item 24 

route. TECO is moving forward with property condemnation. Development of the ERP 

application continues. The IW-1 and IW-2 Class 1 test well permit applications have been 

combined, and were issued for public notice on September 7, 2012, followed by the public 

meeting on October 9, 2012. TECO selected the pipeline contractor, Westra, and mobilization 

is expected to occur in November 2012. Proposals for the treatment plant and pump station 

construction are being evaluated. TECO has also issued several purchase orders for various 

pieces of equipment and construction packages. Project Manager: Alison Ramoy 

• 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. The District project managers are visiting active recharge projects to 

identify positive results or issues requiring further investigation. 

• Currently-Funded Aquifer Recharge Projects – FY2010/2011/2012 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 at a cost of $450,000 ($225,000 

from the City; $225,000 from the District). 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 fullscale 

facility would be $4.07 per thousand gallons. Therefore, the City is moving 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. The project began on 

November 14, 2011, and will be completed by February 28, 2014, at a total cost of 

approximately $3.07 million ($1,536,250 each). The City’s consultant submitted the well 

construction permit application to DEP on February 7, 2012. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting: The UIC permit was issued by the Florida Department of Environmental 

Regulation, and construction began on the injection well and associated monitor wells in 

early October 2012. The District, City of Clearwater and Tetra Tech have completed 

discussions and agreed to final design for the pilot treatment plant, with the understanding 

that the District recommended contingency for using ozone in place of hydrogen peroxide in 

the Advanced Oxidation Process would not be needed. Construction of the Pilot Purification 

Plant is continuing and it is anticipated that the startup/shakedown will commence in late 

October or early November 2012. The next status meeting is scheduled for November 2, 

2012. Project Manager: Robert Peterson 

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. The consultant 

submitted the first technical memorandum that summarized the results of the background 

screening of potential recharge locations on January 9, 2012. The City selected properties 

for further evaluation on February 1, 2012, and initiated development of a sub-regional 

groundwater flow model to perform the analysis using the Districtwide Regulation Model. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: Technical Memorandum No. 3 (Work Task Deliverable 

No. 3 – Economic Analysis of Alternatives) was completed and delivered on time. The final 

deliverable (Final Report and Model) is due to be completed by November 15, 2012. There 

19

Item 24 

is no scheduled status meeting for the month of November 2012. Project Manager: Robert 

Peterson 

Pasco County - Reclaimed Water Natural Systems Treatment and Restoration Project 

A 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 was completed in January 2011. The study 

showed that indirect aquifer recharge is a viable option for Pasco County. A Phase II 

feasibility study and report was completed in February 2012 and includes a screening 

analysis for potential RIB locations, as well as cost analyses refinements for potential future 

phases. Phase III will include field testing and modeling once a potential property has been 

identified. The Phase III scope of work is now complete and the agreement is being routed. 

A follow-up meeting was held March 19, 2012, to develop a plan to contact land owners 

identified in the Phase II report to determine which lands are available for field testing and 

potential purchase for a RIB. A meeting was held with one property owner on May 17, 2012. 

Other property owners are being contacted and initial meetings with interested owners are 

being scheduled. A meeting with a second property owner was held on July 19, 2012. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: The cooperative funding agreement remains in the District’s 

review process, awaiting revised clauses being developed by District staff. An initial meeting 

was held on September 14, 2012, with a third property owner, with a follow-up meeting to be 

scheduled. To date, no property has been chosen. It is anticipated that work will begin on 

Phase III in the winter 2012/2013. 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. The County’s consultant completed the preliminary site assessment 

report and detailed testing plan on December 15, 2011. It was determined that the Northeast 

Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility would be the primary focus for the study; and the 

plan includes specifics on the well installations, soil borings, and aquifer and RIB testing. 

Water level monitoring and soil characterization will also be performed at Polo Davenport. 

New Activities Since Last Meeting: District staff attended a status meeting on October 18, 

2012. The consultants have completed installation of monitoring wells, collection of soil 

borings, evaluation of surface geophysics, performance of soil infiltration tests, aquifer 

testing, and the 30-day load test of the RIB system. A final report summarizing the testing 

activities was submitted to the District on August 10, 2012. The consultant is currently 

calibrating a groundwater flow model of the Polo Park and Northeast facilities. The model 

will be used to predict the hydrologic response of 2 mgd of recharge over a long-term 

period. Project Manager: Ron Basso 

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 goal of the project is to 

improve water levels within the Most Impacted Area of the SWUCA and possible slow the 

rate of inland movement of saltwater intrusion in the area. 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. The 

County’s consultant submitted the well construction permit application for authorization to 

install the test recharge well and monitoring wells on December 20, 2011. Design and 

preparation of bid documents were completed in early July 2012, a request for bids was 

released the week of July 16, 2012, with responses due by the end of August 2012. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: Project staff met to discuss quantifying benefits to the 

aquifer from recharge resulting from the project in order to better facilitate discussion of the 

Net Benefit provision. Bid openings were pushed back and held in early October for 

20

Item 24 

selection of a contractor to construct the well and other onsite facilities. Project Manager: 

Mark Barcelo 

Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Flow Meter and Automatic Meter Reading 

Equipment Implementation Program 

At the June 2011 meeting, the Governing 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 that is divided into two distinctive steps: (1) installation of flow meters, and (2) 

installation of AMR equipment. 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 their June 2010 meeting, the Governing 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 

Governing Board also authorized the use of $50,000 in contingency funds to begin AMR 

implementation. At their December 2010 meeting, the Governing 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). 

A Request for Proposal was advertised on December 30, 2011, to obtain a qualified consultant 

to install AMR equipment. On March 8, 2012, the District elected to reject all proposals from a 

group of seven respondents. The solicitation of the Request for Proposal is expected to be 

reissued in October 2012, and installations are anticipated to begin by early 2013. New 

Activities Since Last Meeting: As of September 24, 2012, a total of 57 flow meters have been 

installed. Staff is continuing to work with 100 permittees identified to date that are eligible to 

participate in the flow meter reimbursement program. As permit renewals or modifications are 

issued that qualify for the reimbursement program, permittees are contacted with instructions on 

how to participate. In addition, it is anticipated that a minimum of 35 additional permittees will be 

contacted each quarter to participate in the program over the next three to five years. Project 

Manager: Kevin Coughlin 



Presenter: 

Mark A. Hammond, Division Director, Resource Management 

21

D. Regulation



REGULATION COMMITTEE 



26. Denial(s) Referred to the Governing Board ....................................................................... 2 


27. Public Supply Report .......................................................................................................... 3 


28. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities ................................................................... 19 

29. Overpumpage Report ........................................................................................................ 20 

30. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications ........................................................ 25 

31. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff .......................................................................... 26 

32. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives ...................................................................... 28

Item 27 




Denials Referred to the Governing Board 

District Rule 40D-1.6051, Florida Administrative Code, provides that if District staff intends to 

deny a permit application, 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: 

Alba E. Más, Division Director, Resource Regulation 

2

Districtwide Major Utilities 

3 

Monthly Water Use 

2011 through August 2012 

This report shows the annual average and monthly water production for major public supply permittees throughout the District, 

including Tampa Bay Water; the cities of Tampa, Plant City, Dunedin, Clearwater and Temple Terrace and Pasco County in the 

Tampa Bay area; the Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and its member governments; the cities of Sarasota, 

Punta Gorda, Bradenton, Venice and the Englewood Water District in the southern region of the District; Polk County and the cities of 

Lakeland, Winter Haven, Haines City, Sebring and Auburndale in the "Heartland" area of the District; and The Villages, Marion, Citrus 

and Hernando counties, and On Top of the World communities in the northern District area. 

Data from 2000 through 2010 is available on the District’s website at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/index.php#reports/. 

The current data (previous year and current year to-date) will be included in the Governing Board packet on a quarterly basis 

(January, April, July and October).

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Tampa Bay Water .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

City of Tampa ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Other Tampa Bay Area Permits ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Peace River / Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and Member Governments .......................................................................... 7 

4 

Southern District ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

‘Heartland’ .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 

Northern District ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Calendar Year 2011 

Ground Water 

Tampa Bay Water Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 

Surface Water 

Tampa Bay Water Enhanced Surface Water Project 

Consolidated SCHRWF BUDWF Tampa Hills. Int. US 301 Int. TBW Desal ESWP Total (1) 

TBC Middle 

Pool TBC Lower Pool Alafia River 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Jan 86.82 71.29 20.94 17.02 2.99 2.89 1.75 1.14 0.00 0.00 4.07 9.87 42.61 54.66 0.02 0.00 23.49 12.97 3.76 6.68 

Feb 87.19 67.06 20.84 18.12 2.75 2.78 1.60 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 14.57 43.87 45.46 0.02 0.00 22.13 27.96 3.51 4.37 

Mar 85.54 72.59 20.84 21.11 2.61 3.46 1.42 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.54 12.17 47.22 48.11 0.02 0.00 22.38 11.19 3.75 2.76 

Apr 84.72 74.85 21.00 25.09 2.48 4.97 1.42 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 8.79 48.20 46.79 0.02 0.00 31.17 118.20 5.06 16.91 

May 83.77 94.49 21.48 29.88 2.61 5.00 1.42 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 49.43 50.03 0.02 0.00 28.39 0.01 4.70 0.00 

Jun 83.55 100.64 21.69 24.38 2.64 4.06 1.41 1.13 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 50.76 49.97 0.02 0.00 25.98 0.00 4.18 0.00 

Jul 82.25 81.08 21.47 17.75 2.79 3.85 1.41 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 52.24 49.73 0.02 0.00 23.45 17.91 4.54 5.02 

Aug 80.47 75.26 21.71 21.46 3.17 4.62 1.28 1.13 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 53.50 47.17 2.00 23.51 30.73 115.75 6.65 24.80 

Sep 81.43 84.75 21.87 22.28 3.55 4.64 1.17 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 51.27 36.14 4.68 32.68 35.34 105.52 8.25 24.59 

Oct 81.64 76.77 21.85 22.86 3.89 4.65 1.17 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 48.97 48.17 5.22 6.34 38.45 53.12 7.53 1.24 

Nov 81.07 73.24 21.93 23.53 4.07 4.65 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 48.33 52.19 5.22 0.00 38.45 0.00 7.21 0.00 

Dec 78.46 69.11 22.22 23.03 4.19 4.64 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 3.71 0.00 48.78 56.30 5.22 0.00 38.46 0.10 7.19 0.00 

5 






TBC Middle 


Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Jan 78.14 67.45 22.64 21.93 4.34 4.64 1.14 1.21 0.00 0.00 2.87 0.00 49.17 59.31 5.22 0.00 37.36 0.01 6.62 0.00 

Feb 78.46 68.82 23.00 22.05 4.49 4.61 1.15 1.14 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 50.41 59.41 5.22 0.00 35.21 0.00 6.28 0.00 

Mar 79.62 86.22 23.44 26.29 4.58 4.49 1.15 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 51.36 59.34 5.22 0.00 34.26 0.00 6.05 0.00 

Apr 83.41 120.95 23.65 27.57 4.54 4.48 1.15 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 42.37 5.22 0.00 24.55 0.00 4.66 0.00 

May 87.72 145.25 23.35 26.42 4.50 4.58 1.14 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.15 28.31 5.22 0.00 24.55 0.00 4.66 0.00 

Jun 87.80 101.59 22.64 15.66 4.56 4.79 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.13 37.55 5.23 0.13 26.65 25.56 5.27 7.45 

Jul 86.20 62.20 22.45 15.49 4.39 1.76 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.36 75.98 6.39 13.65 32.59 87.94 7.83 35.11 

Aug 84.52 55.52 22.10 17.36 4.00 0.04 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.39 4.61 52.52 72.61 4.40 0.00 26.54 44.51 7.96 26.37 

Sep 80.20 32.16 20.96 15.79 3.70 1.90 1.10 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.85 10.34 52.48 66.70 1.71 0.00 20.08 50.34 6.55 14.04 

1

The SAS System 



Tampa Bay Water Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 




TBC Middle 


Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Annual 

Avg 

Monthly 

Avg 

Jan 78.14 67.45 22.64 21.93 4.34 4.64 1.14 1.21 0.00 0.00 2.87 0.00 49.17 59.31 5.22 0.00 37.36 0.01 6.62 0.00 

Feb 78.46 68.82 23.00 22.05 4.49 4.61 1.15 1.14 0.00 0.00 1.76 0.00 50.41 59.41 5.22 0.00 35.21 0.00 6.28 0.00 

Mar 79.62 86.22 23.44 26.29 4.58 4.49 1.15 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 51.36 59.34 5.22 0.00 34.26 0.00 6.05 0.00 

Apr 83.41 120.95 23.65 27.57 4.54 4.48 1.15 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 42.37 5.22 0.00 24.55 0.00 4.66 0.00 

May 87.72 145.25 23.35 26.42 4.50 4.58 1.14 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.15 28.31 5.22 0.00 24.55 0.00 4.66 0.00 

Jun 87.80 101.59 22.64 15.66 4.56 4.79 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.13 37.55 5.23 0.13 26.65 25.56 5.27 7.45 

Jul 86.20 62.20 22.45 15.49 4.39 1.76 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.36 75.98 6.39 13.65 32.59 87.94 7.83 35.11 

Aug 84.52 55.52 22.10 17.36 4.00 0.04 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.39 4.61 52.52 72.61 4.40 0.00 26.54 44.51 7.96 26.37 

Sep 80.20 32.16 20.96 15.79 3.70 1.90 1.10 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.85 10.34 52.48 66.70 1.71 0.00 20.08 50.34 6.55 14.04 

6 

WUP 

AAD: 90.00 24.10 6.00 85.00 17.51 

Note: Consolidated Permit - WUP 11771.001, Expiration Date=Jan. 25, 2021 

SCHRWF - South Central Hillsborough Regional Wellfield - WUP 4352.006, Expiration Date=Dec. 31, 2020 

BUDWF - Brandon Urban Dispersed Wellfield - WUP 11732.003, Expiration Date=Nov. 29, 2019 

TBC - Tampa Bypass Canal - WUP 11796.002, Expiration Date=Dec. 31, 2030 

Alafia River Project - WUP 11794.001, Expiration Date=Dec. 31, 2010 (Application In-House for .002) 

ESWP - Enhanced Surface Water Project (Surface Water Delivered to the Regional TBW Water Treatment Plant) 

(1) - TBC Middle Pool, TBC Lower Pool, and Alafia River may not sum to ESWP (does not include reservoir-filling quantities) 

2

City of Tampa Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


Hillsborough River SW Rome Avenue ASR GW * 

Imports from TBW 

System 

Aug from TBC to 

Hillsbor. River 

Aug from SSP to 


Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. 

Jan 66.72 50.56 1.12 0.00 3.07 13.89 6.45 14.02 0.00 0.00 

Feb 66.70 65.60 1.12 0.00 3.22 1.99 6.50 0.76 0.00 0.00 

Mar 66.35 60.10 1.78 7.83 3.22 0.00 7.79 15.12 0.00 0.00 

Apr 66.78 71.00 1.78 0.00 3.22 0.00 7.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 

May 67.24 71.27 1.92 8.29 3.22 0.00 9.29 17.61 0.00 0.00 

Jun 67.47 69.80 1.95 7.09 3.46 2.96 11.07 21.74 0.00 0.00 

Jul 67.57 77.03 1.95 0.00 3.46 0.00 11.80 8.56 0.00 0.00 

Aug 67.81 78.24 1.95 0.00 3.46 0.00 11.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sep 67.74 72.88 2.00 0.55 3.46 0.00 11.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 

7 

Oct 68.20 83.56 2.00 0.00 3.46 0.00 10.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Nov 68.55 73.30 2.00 0.00 3.15 0.00 8.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Dec 70.13 68.03 2.00 0.00 1.66 0.97 7.13 6.86 0.00 0.00 




System 






Jan 71.46 66.18 2.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 7.64 20.08 0.00 0.00 

Feb 72.34 74.45 2.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 9.43 23.28 0.00 0.00 

Mar 72.94 67.11 1.91 6.87 0.69 4.23 10.06 22.50 0.00 0.00 

Apr 67.10 0.00 2.66 9.08 2.19 18.27 11.40 16.38 0.00 0.00 

May 64.66 42.55 2.59 7.46 4.53 27.61 11.50 18.80 0.00 0.00 

Jun 63.82 59.53 2.36 4.32 4.69 4.83 11.06 16.33 0.00 0.00 

Jul 63.60 74.50 2.36 0.00 4.69 0.00 10.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aug 63.42 76.10 2.36 0.00 4.69 0.00 10.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sep -- -- -- -- 4.69 0.02 10.33 0.00 -- -- 

3

The SAS System 



City of Tampa Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


System 






Jan 71.46 66.18 2.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 7.64 20.08 0.00 0.00 

Feb 72.34 74.45 2.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 9.43 23.28 0.00 0.00 

Mar 72.94 67.11 1.91 6.87 0.69 4.23 10.06 22.50 0.00 0.00 

Apr 67.10 0.00 2.66 9.08 2.19 18.27 11.40 16.38 0.00 0.00 

May 64.66 42.55 2.59 7.46 4.53 27.61 11.50 18.80 0.00 0.00 

Jun 63.82 59.53 2.36 4.32 4.69 4.83 11.06 16.33 0.00 0.00 

Jul 63.60 74.50 2.36 0.00 4.69 0.00 10.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Aug 63.42 76.10 2.36 0.00 4.69 0.00 10.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sep -- -- -- -- 4.69 0.02 10.33 0.00 -- -- 

8 

WUP 

AAD: 82.00 2.74 * 20.00 

Note: City of Tampa - WUP 2062.006, Expiration Date=Dec. 14, 2024 

ASR - Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ground water recovery from ASR wells) 

ASR storage volumes are subtracted from Hillsborough River Reservoir withdrawals to eliminate double accounting 

SSP - Sulphur Springs withdrawal 

* Injection/Withdrawal quantity based on FDEP permit (1-billion gallons in/1-billion gallons out per annual cycle) 

4

Other Tampa Bay Area Permits Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


City of Plant City GW City of Dunedin GW City of Clearwater GW 

Pasco County Utilities 

GW 

City of Temple Terrace 

GW 


Jan 4.81 4.26 4.39 4.14 4.40 4.77 4.09 3.50 3.53 3.38 

Feb 4.84 4.48 4.31 4.53 4.39 4.26 4.02 3.66 3.56 3.54 

Mar 4.89 5.04 4.34 4.59 4.47 4.87 4.12 4.18 3.66 3.73 

Apr 4.93 5.43 4.37 4.51 4.55 5.15 4.12 3.97 3.69 3.93 

May 5.15 6.00 4.38 4.62 4.55 4.19 4.09 4.08 3.74 4.34 

Jun 5.02 5.80 4.37 4.56 4.65 5.42 4.16 4.86 3.76 3.95 

Jul 5.03 4.89 4.01 0.00 4.56 3.28 4.20 4.34 3.74 3.25 

Aug 5.04 4.71 4.35 8.17 4.52 3.17 4.31 4.83 3.75 3.52 

Sep 5.02 4.61 4.32 3.76 5.08 9.88 4.34 4.58 3.71 3.64 

9 

Oct 4.96 4.67 4.39 5.47 4.67 1.28 4.27 4.39 3.69 3.68 

Nov 4.94 4.80 4.35 3.91 4.73 5.50 4.26 4.66 3.70 3.78 

Dec 4.96 4.79 4.31 3.43 4.74 5.24 4.32 4.76 3.71 3.74 




GW 


GW 


Jan 5.00 4.73 4.41 5.30 4.70 4.30 4.46 5.20 3.72 3.56 

Feb 5.04 4.84 4.40 4.31 4.70 4.22 4.54 4.53 3.76 3.85 

Mar 5.07 5.41 4.41 4.64 4.67 4.46 4.59 4.70 3.74 3.48 

Apr 5.10 5.82 4.42 4.64 4.73 5.88 4.61 4.26 3.72 3.78 

May 5.10 6.01 4.42 4.64 4.87 5.79 4.62 4.14 3.78 5.02 

Jun 5.01 4.72 4.39 4.19 4.91 5.93 4.50 3.49 3.70 3.00 

Jul 5.00 4.66 4.72 3.90 5.09 5.47 4.42 3.38 3.63 2.40 

Aug 4.98 4.57 4.35 3.83 5.31 5.75 4.29 3.20 3.71 -- 2.69 -- 

5


Other Tampa Bay Area Permits Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 



GW 


GW 


Jan 5.00 4.73 4.41 5.30 4.70 4.30 4.46 5.20 3.72 3.56 

Feb 5.04 4.84 4.40 4.31 4.70 4.22 4.54 4.53 3.76 3.85 

Mar 5.07 5.41 4.41 4.64 4.67 4.46 4.59 4.70 3.74 3.48 

Apr 5.10 5.82 4.42 4.64 4.73 5.88 4.61 4.26 3.72 3.78 

May 5.10 6.01 4.42 4.64 4.87 5.79 4.62 4.14 3.78 5.02 

Jun 5.01 4.72 4.39 4.19 4.91 5.93 4.50 3.49 3.70 3.00 

Jul 5.00 4.66 4.72 3.90 5.09 5.47 4.42 3.38 3.63 2.40 

Aug 4.98 4.57 4.35 3.83 5.31 5.75 4.29 3.20 3.72 -- 2.69 -- 

10 

WUP 

AAD: 9.85 6.62 8.00 6.29 5.15 

Note: City of Plant City - WUP 1776.010, Expiration Date=Jan. 28, 2013 

City of Dunedin - WUP 2980.009, Expiration Date=Feb. 27, 2017 

City of Clearwater - WUP 2981.017, Expiration Date=Sep. 27, 2021 

Pasco County Utilities - WUP 11863, Expiration Date=Apr. 9, 2020 

City of Temple Terrace - WUP 450.009, Expiration Date=Oct. 28, 2018 

6

Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and Member 

Governments Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


PRMRWSA SW PRMRWSA ASR GW Charlotte Co. GW DeSoto Co. GW Sarasota Co. GW Manatee Co. SW Manatee Co. GW 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Jan 20.18 14.91 1.21 5.39 0.53 0.58 0.48 0.46 2.34 2.86 23.22 20.74 14.89 14.82 

Feb 16.76 13.51 1.45 5.99 0.53 0.64 0.48 0.47 2.47 4.19 23.30 24.02 15.33 12.11 

Mar 15.69 2.68 1.70 5.83 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.39 2.51 3.33 23.80 28.64 14.68 7.04 

Apr 17.68 37.54 1.55 0.95 0.53 0.62 0.46 0.37 2.62 4.03 23.94 25.86 14.46 13.02 

May 17.76 1.02 1.54 0.00 0.54 0.59 0.46 0.46 2.56 3.05 24.00 27.14 14.39 14.20 

Jun 17.76 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.54 0.55 0.45 0.44 2.49 2.46 24.26 27.29 14.34 16.10 

Jul 20.08 75.20 1.49 0.00 0.54 0.51 0.45 0.44 2.50 2.10 24.01 19.91 14.55 15.28 

Aug 23.37 85.05 1.49 0.00 0.55 0.47 0.44 0.42 2.60 2.94 24.09 18.75 14.46 14.80 

Sep 25.83 61.00 1.49 0.00 0.54 0.44 0.43 0.42 2.83 4.06 24.39 23.02 14.28 15.27 

11 

Oct 27.93 34.45 1.49 0.00 0.54 0.53 0.42 0.43 3.01 3.29 24.32 28.29 14.08 14.96 

Nov 30.50 35.39 1.49 0.00 0.55 0.62 0.42 0.35 3.15 3.00 24.13 23.84 13.87 14.83 

Dec 30.89 8.60 1.49 0.00 0.55 0.58 0.42 0.37 3.08 1.80 24.50 26.49 13.67 11.63 



Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Jan 29.63 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.56 0.67 0.41 0.40 3.14 3.61 24.80 24.27 13.62 14.27 

Feb 28.59 0.00 0.69 1.47 0.57 0.71 0.41 0.39 3.11 3.58 24.89 24.32 13.82 14.13 

Mar 28.48 1.46 0.62 4.98 0.58 0.66 0.41 0.38 3.10 3.28 25.11 31.32 13.80 6.86 

Apr 25.40 0.00 1.22 8.29 0.58 0.59 0.41 0.39 3.06 3.55 25.27 27.79 13.58 10.31 

May 25.31 -- 0.00 -- 1.91 8.08 0.57 0.45 0.41 0.43 3.17 4.37 25.12 25.38 13.77 16.43 

Jun 28.64 40.52 2.22 3.78 0.56 0.52 0.41 0.42 3.25 3.37 24.48 19.41 13.76 15.92 

Jul 36.90 97.20 2.22 0.00 0.55 0.38 0.41 0.47 3.33 3.06 24.53 20.51 13.72 14.86 

Aug 35.99 64.50 2.22 0.00 0.54 0.38 0.41 0.43 3.19 1.30 24.72 20.99 13.69 14.40 

7


Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and Member 

Governments Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Jan 29.63 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.56 0.67 0.41 0.40 3.14 3.61 24.80 24.27 13.62 14.27 

Feb 28.59 0.00 0.69 1.47 0.57 0.71 0.41 0.39 3.11 3.58 24.89 24.32 13.82 14.13 

Mar 28.48 1.46 0.62 4.98 0.58 0.66 0.41 0.38 3.10 3.28 25.11 31.32 13.80 6.86 

Apr 25.40 0.00 1.22 8.29 0.58 0.59 0.41 0.39 3.06 3.55 25.27 27.79 13.58 10.31 

May 25.31 0.00 1.91 8.08 0.57 0.45 0.41 0.43 3.17 4.37 25.12 25.38 13.77 16.43 

Jun 28.64 40.52 2.22 3.78 0.56 0.52 0.41 0.42 3.25 3.37 24.48 19.41 13.76 15.92 

Jul 30.51 97.20 2.22 0.00 0.55 0.38 0.41 0.47 3.33 3.06 24.53 20.51 13.72 14.86 

Aug 28.77 64.50 2.22 0.00 0.54 0.38 0.41 0.43 3.19 1.30 24.72 20.99 13.69 14.50 

12 

WUP 

AAD: 32.85 * 3.17 0.57 13.74 34.90 17.95 

Note: PRMRWSA - Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority - WUP 10420.006, Expiration Date=Mar. 26, 2016 

Manatee County is a Member of the PRMRWSA, however, no withdrawal quantities are transferred to Manatee County 

The data contained in this table for PRMRWSA represents the quantity of raw water being withdrawan from the river. 

* This quantity is not limited by the annual average but by a diversion schedule and maximum daily withdrawal 

Charlotte County Utilities - WUP 3522.010, Expiration Date=Sep. 26, 2012 

DeSoto County Utilities - WUP 6841.010, Expiration Date=Nov. 18, 2014; WUP 7056.004, Expiration Date=Aug. 6, 2011 

Sarasota County Utilities - WUP 8836.010, Expiration Date=Sep.29, 2018 

Manatee County Utilities - SW - WUP 5387.007, Expiration Date=Sep. 29, 2018 

GW - WUP 7345.005, Expiration Date=Dec. 18, 2017; WUP 7470.006, Expiration Date=Aug. 28, 2011 

8

Southern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


City of Sarasota GW City of Punta Gorda SW City of Bradenton GW City of Bradenton SW City of Venice GW 

Englewood Water 

District GW 

Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. Annual Avg. Monthly Avg. 

Jan 8.27 7.22 4.63 4.44 0.01 0.00 5.27 4.80 3.86 4.35 2.81 3.27 

Feb 8.29 7.94 4.67 4.61 0.01 0.01 5.27 4.76 3.91 4.57 2.79 3.54 

Mar 8.38 8.40 4.68 4.83 0.01 0.00 5.23 5.00 3.87 4.14 2.89 4.15 

Apr 8.34 8.26 4.73 5.14 0.01 0.00 5.14 4.93 3.91 4.62 3.01 4.74 

May 8.31 8.36 4.80 4.65 0.01 0.00 5.08 5.07 3.97 3.94 3.04 3.71 

Jun 8.33 8.35 4.71 3.41 0.01 0.01 5.08 5.59 3.96 4.00 3.38 6.28 

Jul 8.26 6.99 4.70 3.26 0.01 0.01 5.09 4.98 3.95 3.41 3.47 2.82 

Aug 8.23 7.57 4.62 3.55 0.01 0.01 5.13 5.35 3.98 3.86 3.49 2.46 

Sep 8.14 6.65 4.44 3.62 0.00 0.01 5.19 5.63 3.98 3.41 3.54 2.66 

13 

Oct 8.07 7.59 4.42 6.21 0.00 0.00 5.21 5.54 4.01 3.81 3.52 2.46 

Nov 8.05 7.59 4.57 7.27 0.01 0.01 5.23 5.53 3.99 4.07 3.51 3.15 

Dec 7.64 6.86 4.70 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.22 5.38 4.06 4.59 3.56 3.55 






Jan 7.67 7.48 4.79 5.46 0.01 0.01 5.32 5.98 4.03 3.97 3.36 0.86 

Feb 7.98 11.58 4.85 5.23 0.00 0.01 5.41 5.74 4.07 4.89 3.60 6.46 

Mar 8.10 9.80 4.91 5.60 0.01 0.01 5.44 5.37 4.09 4.41 3.57 3.79 

Apr 8.12 8.50 4.93 5.30 0.01 0.00 5.46 5.22 4.11 4.90 3.51 4.01 

May 8.15 8.73 4.82 3.44 0.01 0.00 5.43 4.69 4.09 3.66 3.45 3.05 

Jun 8.09 7.58 4.84 3.63 0.01 0.01 5.34 4.56 4.04 3.46 3.14 2.48 

Jul 8.20 8.31 5.01 5.17 0.01 0.01 5.05 1.51 4.07 3.73 3.15 3.02 

Aug 8.20 7.65 5.17 5.52 0.01 0.01 5.10 5.98 4.04 3.50 3.27 3.86 

9


Southern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 





Jan 7.67 7.48 4.79 5.46 0.01 0.01 5.32 5.98 4.03 3.97 3.36 0.86 

Feb 7.98 11.58 4.85 5.23 0.00 0.01 5.41 5.74 4.07 4.89 3.60 6.46 

Mar 8.10 9.80 4.91 5.60 0.01 0.01 5.44 5.37 4.09 4.41 3.57 3.79 

Apr 8.12 8.50 4.93 5.30 0.01 0.00 5.46 5.22 4.11 4.90 3.51 4.01 

May 8.15 8.73 4.82 3.44 0.01 0.00 5.43 4.69 4.09 3.66 3.45 3.05 

Jun 8.09 7.58 4.84 3.63 0.01 0.01 5.34 4.56 4.04 3.46 3.14 2.48 

Jul 8.20 8.31 5.01 5.17 0.01 0.01 5.05 1.51 4.07 3.73 3.15 3.02 

Aug 8.20 7.65 5.17 5.52 0.01 0.01 5.10 5.98 4.04 3.50 3.27 3.86 

14 

WUP 

AAD: 12.04 8.09 0.23 6.95 6.86 5.36 

Note: City of Sarasota - WUP 4318.004, Expiration Date=Jun. 24, 2013; WUP 10224.003, Expiration Date=Nov. 10, 2020; WUP 10225.002, Expiration Date=Jan. 8, 2018 

City of Punta Gorda - WUP 871.008, Expiration Date=Jul. 31, 2027 

City of Bradenton - WUP 6392.004, Expiration Date=Apr. 28, 2018 

City of Venice - WUP 5393.008, Expiration Date=Dec. 16, 2028 

Englewood Water District - WUP 4866.009, Expiration Date=Dec. 18, 2019 

10

'Heartland' Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


City of Lakeland GW 

City of Winter Haven 

GW Polk Co. GW City of Haines City GW City of Sebring GW City of Auburndale GW 


Jan 20.25 18.60 9.05 6.85 13.20 10.73 3.62 3.23 3.26 3.40 4.83 4.20 

Feb 20.55 21.64 8.98 6.92 13.25 11.51 3.65 3.52 3.27 3.45 4.89 4.46 

Mar 21.00 23.04 8.95 7.65 13.66 16.58 3.69 3.64 3.29 3.54 4.96 4.94 

Apr 21.52 25.93 8.92 8.93 13.56 14.94 3.71 3.86 3.31 3.42 5.01 5.45 

May 21.92 25.43 8.97 10.61 13.49 14.08 3.72 4.08 3.33 3.60 5.06 6.27 

Jun 22.28 25.00 9.06 10.38 13.65 15.83 3.76 4.14 3.33 3.23 5.06 5.34 

Jul 22.38 20.91 9.04 9.38 13.55 11.70 3.80 4.03 3.33 3.03 5.00 4.64 

Aug 22.38 20.17 8.95 8.12 13.44 11.74 3.73 2.98 3.35 3.02 4.91 3.87 

Sep 22.26 19.92 8.82 7.89 13.22 11.64 3.79 4.35 3.35 3.13 4.82 3.70 

15 

Oct 21.99 20.55 8.58 7.91 12.90 11.09 3.73 3.41 3.32 3.09 4.67 3.61 

Nov 21.91 20.79 8.54 9.21 12.74 11.32 3.70 3.59 3.29 3.39 4.58 3.94 

Dec 21.89 20.83 8.61 9.36 12.72 11.41 3.73 3.89 3.30 3.33 4.47 3.19 






Jan 22.06 20.62 8.79 8.94 12.84 12.18 3.77 3.74 3.33 3.69 4.48 4.36 

Feb 22.08 21.16 8.99 9.18 12.97 12.71 3.81 3.92 3.35 3.58 4.45 3.91 

Mar 22.14 23.68 9.17 9.76 12.66 12.99 3.84 3.96 3.36 3.64 4.88 10.04 

Apr 22.11 25.58 9.24 9.83 13.66 27.10 3.88 4.31 3.37 3.56 4.81 4.57 

May 22.06 24.82 9.13 9.33 13.78 15.55 3.90 4.32 3.36 3.46 4.72 5.16 

Jun 21.65 20.01 9.00 8.79 13.33 10.29 3.86 3.76 3.34 3.07 4.57 3.52 

Jul 21.57 19.99 8.96 8.96 13.34 11.76 3.85 3.81 3.35 3.13 4.68 6.02 

Aug 21.55 19.98 8.97 8.15 13.28 11.06 3.91 3.77 3.37 3.24 4.68 3.85 

11



'Heartland' Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 




Jan 22.06 20.62 8.79 8.94 12.84 12.18 3.77 3.74 3.33 3.69 4.48 4.36 

Feb 22.08 21.16 8.99 9.18 12.97 12.71 3.81 3.92 3.35 3.58 4.45 3.91 

Mar 22.14 23.68 9.17 9.76 12.66 12.99 3.84 3.96 3.36 3.64 4.88 10.04 

Apr 22.11 25.58 9.24 9.83 13.66 27.10 3.88 4.31 3.37 3.56 4.81 4.57 

May 22.06 24.82 9.13 9.33 13.78 15.55 3.90 4.32 3.36 3.46 4.72 5.16 

Jun 21.65 20.01 9.00 8.79 13.33 10.29 3.86 3.76 3.34 3.07 4.57 3.52 

Jul 21.57 19.99 8.96 8.96 13.34 11.76 3.85 3.81 3.35 3.13 4.68 6.02 

Aug 21.55 19.98 8.97 8.15 13.28 11.06 3.91 3.77 3.37 3.24 4.68 3.85 

16 

WUP 

AAD: 35.03 14.06 27.71 5.92 5.71 7.04 

Note: City of Lakeland - WUP 4912.006, Expiration Date=Mar. 25, 2014 

City of Winter Haven - WUP 4607.014, Expiration Date=Apr. 19, 2016 

Polk County BOCC - WUP 6505.011, Expiration Date=Oct. 30, 2011 (Application in-house for .012); WUP 6506.008, Expiration Date=Nov. 17, 2029; 

WUP 6507.008, Expiration Date=Jul. 31, 2012; WUP 6508.010, Expiration Date=Apr. 10, 2032; WUP 6509.012, Expiration Date=Jul. 31, 2027; 

WUP 8054.005, Expiration Date=Jan. 29, 2012 (Application in-house for .007); 

City of Haines City - WUP 8522.009, Expiration Date=Oct 25, 2031 

City of Sebring - WUP 4492.012, Expiration Date=Mar. 5, 2030 

City of Auburndale - WUP 7119.009, Expiration Date=Feb. 26, 2014 

12

Northern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


The Villages SW The Villages GW The Villages Reclaim Marion Co. Util. Dept. 

Citrus Co. 

Water Res./Util./Withla. 

Hernando Co. Util. 

Dept. 

Bay Laurel Comm. 

Develop. District 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Jan 3.96 2.07 13.10 8.92 2.15 2.70 5.92 3.93 9.10 7.24 18.33 14.99 3.22 1.89 

Feb 4.18 5.53 13.30 9.32 2.22 2.39 5.92 4.67 9.26 8.10 18.48 16.37 3.27 2.40 

Mar 3.98 2.02 14.01 15.25 2.30 2.82 6.00 5.93 9.59 10.38 18.73 18.87 3.36 2.87 

Apr 4.06 8.30 14.17 12.49 2.30 2.38 6.00 6.88 9.70 10.94 18.79 20.60 3.35 3.66 

May 3.95 2.73 14.90 25.29 2.31 2.26 6.04 7.02 9.86 12.80 18.96 23.82 3.41 4.60 

Jun 3.71 2.68 15.36 21.98 2.33 2.29 6.13 8.12 9.99 12.20 19.21 23.30 3.43 4.39 

Jul 3.80 6.49 15.10 11.25 2.37 2.46 6.03 5.50 9.98 10.02 19.25 19.68 3.36 3.14 

Aug 4.13 7.78 15.02 10.78 2.36 2.19 6.03 5.46 10.08 9.30 19.39 18.37 3.37 3.20 

Sep 4.16 7.66 15.11 12.30 2.39 2.40 5.89 5.80 10.00 9.24 19.46 19.74 3.33 3.69 

17 

Oct 4.23 3.43 14.71 16.09 2.42 2.48 5.75 5.19 9.81 9.52 19.29 19.31 3.16 2.45 

Nov 4.25 2.04 14.78 18.33 2.45 2.67 5.67 5.02 9.80 9.18 19.25 18.98 3.06 2.13 

Dec 4.60 4.69 14.59 12.78 2.48 2.70 5.69 4.75 9.81 8.67 19.33 17.89 3.03 1.96 



Citrus Co. 



Dept. 



Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Jan 4.56 1.51 15.23 16.44 2.49 2.80 5.78 5.05 9.87 7.97 19.51 17.00 3.03 1.84 

Feb 4.27 1.67 15.55 13.08 2.55 3.11 5.78 4.41 9.87 7.88 19.60 16.97 2.97 1.60 

Mar 4.39 3.44 15.55 15.26 2.57 3.02 5.73 5.38 9.74 8.87 19.65 19.45 2.92 2.25 

Apr 3.94 2.83 16.58 25.00 2.61 2.92 5.75 7.13 9.70 10.39 19.66 20.77 2.87 3.05 

May 3.70 12.67 0.00 15.73 30.32 187.03 18.61 2.64 2.55 5.73 6.76 9.50 10.48 19.53 22.32 2.73 3.01 

Jun 16.21 12.90 154.83 14.03 15.55 30.49 24.03 8.10 2.63 4.15 2.15 3.46 5.45 4.80 9.14 7.78 19.02 17.00 2.52 1.87 

Jul 16.34 12.90 11.94 7.97 30.32 15.29 9.28 9.63 2.65 4.18 2.72 4.15 5.42 5.09 8.98 8.21 18.75 16.59 2.44 2.19 

Aug 16.28 12.62 10.87 7.15 30.01 14.90 7.10 7.09 2.67 4.19 2.44 3.79 5.35 4.60 8.85 7.74 18.52 15.55 2.34 1.94 

Sep -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.22 4.21 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

13

The Villages 


Northern District Annual Average/Monthly Production (MGD) 


Citrus Co. 



Dept. 



Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Annual 

Avg. 

Monthly 

Avg. 

Jan 4.56 1.51 15.23 16.44 2.49 2.80 5.78 5.05 9.87 7.97 19.51 17.00 3.03 1.84 

Feb 4.27 1.67 15.55 13.08 2.55 3.11 5.78 4.41 9.87 7.88 19.60 16.97 2.97 1.60 

Mar 4.39 3.44 15.55 15.26 2.57 3.02 5.73 5.38 9.74 8.87 19.65 19.45 2.92 2.25 

Apr 3.94 2.83 16.58 25.00 2.61 2.92 5.75 7.13 9.70 10.39 19.66 20.77 2.87 3.05 

May 3.70 12.67 0.00 30.32 15.73 187.03 18.61 2.64 2.55 5.73 6.76 9.50 10.48 19.53 22.32 2.73 3.01 

Jun 16.21 12.90 154.83 14.03 30.49 15.55 24.03 8.10 2.63 4.15 2.15 3.46 5.45 4.80 9.14 7.78 19.02 17.00 2.52 1.87 

Jul 16.34 12.90 11.94 7.97 30.32 15.29 9.28 9.63 2.65 4.18 2.72 4.15 5.42 5.09 8.98 8.21 18.75 16.59 2.44 2.19 

Aug 16.28 12.62 10.87 7.15 30.01 14.90 7.10 7.09 2.67 4.19 2.44 3.79 5.35 4.60 8.85 7.74 18.52 15.55 2.34 1.94 

Sep -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.22 4.21 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

18 

WUP 

AAD: 23.06 9.70 12.14 27.00 2.56 * 

Note: The Villages - WUP 13005.003, Expiration Date=Mar. 26, 2017 

Marion County Utilties Dept. - WUP 377.008, Expiration Date=Sep. 25, 2013; WUP 2999.004, Expiration Date=Jan. 14, 2015; WUP 6151.009, Expiration Date=Sep. 7, 2021; 

WUP 6884.002, Expiration Date=Aug. 2, 2020; WUP 7849.004, Expiration Date=Mar. 5, 2017; WUP 8165.005, Expiration Date=Sep. 18, 2014; 

WUP 8481.005, Expiration Date=Mar. 31, 2019; WUP 11752.001, Expiration Date=Jun. 12, 2018; WUP 12218.001, Expiration Date=Jun. 25, 2012 

Citrus County Water Resources Dept./Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Auth. - WUP 729.003, Expiration Date=May 21, 2014; WUP 2842.008, Expiration Date= 

May 20, 2015; WUP 7121.005, Expiration Date=Jan. 27, 2010 (Application In-House for .006); WUP 7879.003, Expiration Date=Dec. 6, 2017; WUP 9791.007, 

Expiration Date=Feb. 24, 2015 (Application In-House for .008) 

Hernando County Utilities Dept. - WUP 2179.004, Expiration Date=June 2, 2019; WUP 2983.011, Expiration Date=Dec. 20, 2021; WUP 5789.006, Expiration Date= 

Jan. 26, 2015; WUP 12011.002, Expiration Date=Sep. 10, 2014 

Bay Laurel Community Development District (formerly On Top of the World Communities) - WUP 1156.012, Expiration Date=Oct. 28, 2021 

* The AAD decreased from 5.82 to 2.56 when the new revision was issued Oct. 28, 2011, splitting the permit into 5 separate permits. 

14

1,800 

1,600 

SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA 

TOTAL AND FLORIDAN AQUIFER PERMITTED 

ANNUAL AVERAGE QUANTITIES AND 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE 

GROUNDWATER QUANTITIES USED 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,400 

 

19 

 

 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

 

 

400 

200 

0 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Year

Under Review (1) 

Permit No. Permit Holder Use Type 

Overpumpage Report 

August 2012 

Permitted 

Quantity 

11639.005 Buckhorn Nursery LTD 1 Agricultural 298,800 gpd 

20097.001 

Robert Barben & Santa 

Rosa Ranch 1 Agricultural 106,000 gpd 

Original 

Report Date 

Annual Avg. Use 

Percent Over 

6/01/12 

331,914 gpd 

11.08% 

6/01/12 

125,325 gpd 

18.23% 

Current Report 

Date 

Annual Avg. 

Use 

Percent Over 

9/1/2012 

336,696 gpd 

12.68% 

9/1/2012 

128,964 gpd 

21.66% 

Service 

Office 

Bartow 

Bartow 

(1) Preliminary determination is that permits are in non-compliance; file is being prepared for OGC or is under review by Regulation staff 

20

Under Review (1) 



August 2012 

Permitted 

Quantity 

Original 

Report Date 


Percent Over 


Date 


Percent Over 

Service 

Office 

Continuing From Previous Report 

21 

13201.000 Bowen Brothers, Inc. 1 Agricultural 107,400 gpd 

10318.003 

Recreational / 

Homeowners of Palm Hill / 

Park 1 Golf Course 

Palm Hill Mobile Home Aesthetic – 

148,600 gpd 

4345.010 Mixon Family Farm, Inc. 1 Agricultural 688,400 gpd 

5472.009 

Hunt Bros, Inc. / Attn. 

William Hunt 1 Agriculture 158,400 gpd 

5/01/2012 

308,907 gpd 

187.62% 

6/01/12 

160,719 gpd 

8.16% 

3/01/2012 

760,041 gpd 

10.41% 

3/01/2012 

389,762 gpd 

146.06% 

9/01/2012 

80,335 gpd 

-25.20% 

9/1/2012 

207,004 gpd 

39.30% 

9/01/2012 

789,306 gpd 

14.66% 

9/01/2012 

237,931 gpd 

50.21% 

Bartow 

Tampa 

Bartow 

Bartow 

(1) Preliminary determination is that permits are in non-compliance; file is being prepared for OGC or is under review by Regulation staff.


August 2012 

(2) (3) 

Preparing for Legal Legal Action Request in Process 



Permitted 

Quantity 

Original 

Report Date 

Annual Average 

Use 

Percent Over 


Date 

Annual Avg. 

Use 

Percent Over 

Service 

Office 

22 

7082.003 

2136.000 

162.004 

Robert L and Barbara A 

Carter, Trustees 2 Agricultural 139,300 gpd 

C Dennis Carlton, Sr. and 

Lee F. 2 Agricultural 276,900 gpd 

Loop Farms, LLC 

Attn: Jack P. Sizemore, Jr. 2 Agricultural 161,000 gpd 

2128.005 BVG Groves 2 Agricultural 143,400 gpd 

7105.008 Riverview Grove Ltd. 2 Agricultural 261,900 gpd 

222.006 

7291.004 

Lake Hancock Partners 

LLP 2 Agricultural 107,600 gpd 

V.C. Hollingsworth Sr. 

Estate 3 Agricultural 167,400 gpd 

6128.007 Ben Hill Griffin, Inc. 3 Aesthetic – Golf 

Recreational/ 

Course 

337,900 gpd 

2132.004 Flying V, Inc. 3 Agricultural 104,100 gpd 

4/01/2012 

348,293 gpd 

150.03% 

4/01/2012 

345,159 gpd 

24.65% 

5/01/2012 

250,818 gpd 

55.79% 

4/01/2012 

153,416 gpd 

6.98% 

3/01/2012 

297,751 gpd 

13.69% 

3/01/2012 

145,355 gpd 

35.09% 

3/01/2012 

202,107 gpd 

20.73% 

12/28/11 

414,956 gpd 

22.79% 

4/01/2012 

135,650 gpd 

30.31% 

9/01/2012 

277,760 gpd 

99.40% 

9/01/2012 

322,411 gpd 

16.44% 

9/01/2012 

207,787 gpd 

29.06% 

9/01/2012 

171,447 gpd 

19.56% 

9/01/2012 

277,868 gpd 

6.10% 

9/01/2012 

121,419 gpd 

12.84% 

9/01/2012 

258,777 gpd 

54.59% 

9/01/2012 

414,762 gpd 

22.75% 

9/01/2012 

135,079 gpd 

29.76% 

Tampa 

Tampa 

Tampa 

Tampa 

Tampa 

Bartow 

Sarasota 

Bartow 

Bartow 

(2) Permit is still under review but is being prepared for Legal. 

(3) Legal Action Request is in the process of being completed which will be sent to Legal for potential enforcement action.

(3) 

Legal Action Request in Process 



August 2012 

Permitted 

Quantity 

Original 

Report Date 

Annual Avg. 

Use 

Percent Over 


Date 

Annual Avg. 

Use 

Percent Over 

Service 

Office 

GB 

Approved 

CO Date 


23 

11031.003 

504.005 

11059.006 

9192.003 

Growers Investment 

Group LLC 3 Agricultural 171,000 gpd 

Ray Bob Groves, 

Inc. 3 Agricultural 194,700 gpd 

Glen Lakes 

Partnership, Inc. 3 

Recreational/ 

Aesthetic 

402,200 gpd 

Bowen Bros. Inc. C/O 

Matthew E Green 3 Agricultural 218,700 gpd 

2/01/2012 

282,492 gpd 

65.20% 

2/01/2012 

223,603 gpd 

14.84% 

1/01/2012 

431,609 gpd 

7.31% 

3/01/2012 

458,485gpd 

109.64% 

9/01/2012 

284,959 gpd 

66.64% 

9/01/2012 

186,347 gpd 

-4.29% 

9/01/2012 

427,885 gpd 

6.39% 

9/01/2012 

393,652 gpd 

80.00% 

Bartow 

Bartow 

Brooksville 

Bartow 

12061.003 

12652.004 

Hunt Bros, Inc. / Attn. 

William Hunt 3 Agricultural 111,200 gpd 

Highland Reserve 

Golf Club 3 

Recreation/ 

Aesthetic - 

Golf Course 

241,000 gpd 

12/28/2011 

123,893 gpd 

11.41% 

3/01/2012 

269,468 gpd 

11.81% 

9/01/2012 

136,735 gpd 

22.96% 

9/01/2012 

287,485 gpd 

19.29% 

Bartow 

Bartow 

(3) Legal Action Request is in the process of being completed which will be sent to Legal for potential enforcement action.


August 2012 

(4) (5) 

Active Files in Legal and Consent Order Monitoring 


Permitted 

Quantity 

Original 

Report Date 

Annual Avg. 

Use 

Percent Over 


Date 

Annual Avg. 

Use 

Percent Over 

Service 

Office 

GB 

Approved 

CO Date 


3389.008 MJS Golf Group LLC 4 Aesthetic - 

Recreational/ 

Golf Course 

76,607 gpd 

11/28/2011 

1,162,744 gpd 

1,417.80% 

9/1/2012 

144,871 gpd 

89.11% 

Brooksville 

20120.000 Kasmark, Inc. 4 Aesthetic – 

Recreational/ 

Golf Course 

192,440 gpd 

2/01/2012 

268,169 gpd 

39.35% 

9/01/2012 

211,590 gpd 

9.95% 

Brooksville 

24 

8785.009 

Escalante – Black 

Diamond Golf Club, 

LLC 4 

Recreational/ 

Aesthetic - 

Golf Course 

757,080 gpd 

6274.010 Premier Citrus LLC 4 Agricultural 752,400 gpd 

8/29/2011 

986,650 gpd 

30.32% 

6/28/2011 

1,125,129 gpd 

49.54% 

9/1/2012 

924,457 gpd 

22.11% 

8/1/2012 

504,548 gpd 

-32.94% 

Brooksville 

Sarasota 

7704.005 Country Club Utilities 4 Public 

Supply 

183,000 gpd 

6/28/2011 

259,063 gpd 

41.56% 

9/1/2012 

276,694 gpd 

51.20% 

Bartow SEPT 12 

10392.005 MILMACK INC. 5 Aesthetic - 

Recreation/ 

Golf Course 

282,700 gpd 

11/28/2008 

339,678 gpd 

20.15% 

9/1/2012 

401,055 gpd 

41.87% 

Bartow FEB 12 

9791.008 

Citrus County – 

Sugarmill Woods* 5 

Public 

Supply 

2,211,000 gpd 

6/28/2006 

2,783,803 gpd 

25.91% 

9/1/2012 

2,196,510 gpd 

-0.66% 

Brooksville AUG 11 

(4) Regulation staff concurs with non-compliance and file is in Legal for enforcement. . 

(5) Legal pursued enforcement action and a Consent Order has been signed; corrective actions are now being monitored for compliance. 

*WUP 9791 – Citrus County had a Permitted Annual Average of 2,010,000 gpd until February 24, 2009 (new revision issued)

E-Permitting Performance Metrics 

September 2012 

PERMIT 

AUGUST 

2012 

SEPTEMBER 

2012 

SIX MONTH 

AVERAGE 

ONE YEAR 

AVERAGE 

Well Construction Permits 

Public on-line use for applications and 

completion report submission 

91% 

(568) 

93% 

(499) 

92% 

(3,795) 

92% 

(7,513) 

25 

Water Use Permits 

Public on-line use for applications 

34% 

(42) 

48% 

(47) 

45% 

(284) 

38% 

(495) 

Environmental Resource Permits 

Public on-line use for applications 

33% 

(69) 

35% 

(65) 

35% 

(432) 

30% 

(758) 

GOAL: Reach online utilization of 80% for each category by October 1, 2013.

INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: ERPS – AUGUST 2012 

26 

PERMIT 

NUMBER 

PROJECT 

NAME 

COUNTY 

43027030.054 Wiregrass – Parcel S1 Pasco 

43023791.214 

43035342.002 

43024078.002 

Village of Lake Deaton 

Master Grading 

Shoppes at Meres 

Boulevard 

Aqui Esta Residential 

Development 

Sumter 

Pinellas 

Charlotte 

DESCRIPTION 

Construction of surface water 

management system (mass 

grading) to serve a future 

residential subdivision 


management system to serve a 

future residential subdivision 

Construction of a retail site which 

includes the filling of 0.99 acre of 

wetland and the mitigation of the 

impacts at the North Anclote River 

Park 


management system to serve a 

future residential subdivision; 

includes docks, boat basin & ramp 

TOTAL 

PROJECT 

ACRES 

WETLAND 

ACRES 

WETLAND 

ACRES 

IMPACTED 

WETLAND 

MITIGATION 

ACRES 

677.30 163.09 6.16 8.17 

387.83 124.89 3.62 88.01 

6.91 4.40 0.99 3.95 

105.83 48.86 9.41 40.61 

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.

27 

PERMIT 

NUMBER 

20005893.012 

20006364.012 

INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: WUPS –AUGUST 2012 

PROJECT NAME COUNTY DESCRIPTION USE TYPE 

Town of Dundee 

Public Supply 

Plantation 


Association 

Polk 

Sarasota 

20007451.006 Willis Farm Hillsborough 

20009687.010 

Williams Farms 

Partnership 

Charlotte 

20020192.000 SRQ Land Sarasota 

Renewal with modification for 

public supply use, with 

decrease in quantities due to 

decrease in projected 

population 

Renewal of existing permit 

for golf course and 

residential irrigation with no 

change in quantities 

Renewal of existing permit 

for agricultural use. 

Permitted quantities are 

slightly modified due to 

AGMOD. No changes to crop 

types and associated 

acreage 

Renewal with increased row 

crop acreage, exclusive use 

of surface water (FARMS 

reservoirs) 

New permit for sod, carved 

out of existing WUP 4387 

thus not a new quantity 

PREVIOUS 

PERMITTED 

QUANTITY 

NEW 

PERMITTED 

QUANTITY 

DURATION 

(YEARS) 

Public Supply 1,831,000 917,500 10 

Recreation / 

Aesthetic 

1,213,900 1,213,900 10 

Agricultural 629,700 615,300 10 

Agricultural 1,570,900 1,858,200 10 

Agricultural 723,900 723,900 10

Item 33 




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. 

• Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) – Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) -- The 

District continues to coordinate with the St. Johns River and South Florida Water Management 

Districts, the Florida Departments of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (DACS), and public water supply utilities on the assessment of groundwater 

sustainability and development of water supply solutions, including regulations, for the Central 

Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) to reflect the emphasis on stakeholder involvement. The group 

is focused on a single model solution, creating a consistent definition of environmental 

impact/harm, agreement on the baseline reference condition and a basis of review for all 

technical decisions. Once these milestones are achieved, the emphasis will shift to determining 

groundwater availability and the potential necessity of alternative water supplies to meet the 

regional water supply demand. A decision-making process has been established featuring an 

Executive Steering Committee comprised of one Governing Board member from each district, 

senior level staff representatives from DEP and DACS, and a public water supply utilities 

representative. A Management Oversight Committee and a Technical Oversight Committee 

form the next level of governance. These committees supervise the technical teams that 

perform hydrologic modeling, environmental assessments, planning and analysis and 

development of resource management options for consideration by the Steering Committee. 

Further information on the CFWI can be found at the website www.cfwiwater.com. New 

activities since last meeting: The District’s board-approved fiscal year 2012-13 budget again 

includes $25,000 to continue the contract of the CFWI facilitator. The St. Johns River Water 

Management District, which manages the contract, and the South Florida Water Management 

District are contributing the same amount for this purpose. The Regional Water Supply Plan 

(RWSP) Team has produced a style guide and a template for the RWSP and other CFWI 

documents to ensure a consistent, professional appearance. The team has also completed an 

expanded outline for the RWSP including assignments for the various sections. The team’s 

water conservation workgroup is reviewing stakeholder comments received on its draft section. 

The next CFWI Committee meeting has been scheduled for November 9, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in 

Kissimmee. 

• 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 November 2012. The final rule for lakes and flowing waters was published in 

the Federal Register on December 6, 2010. The only portion of the rule to take effect is the 

Site-Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) provision, which was effective starting March 2011. In 

April 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 2011 response, EPA did not grant or 

deny the petition. EPA noted they will repeal the existing federally promulgated freshwater 

28

Item 33 

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. As a result of 

the EPA response, FDEP pursued rule development of criteria for fresh water lakes, springs and 

streams. In December 2011, the Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) and other environmental 

groups filed suit against FDEP to invalidate the existing and proposed rules relating to nutrient 

criterion. The petitioners claim the rules are not designed to protect state waters from nutrient 

over-enrichment. On December 6, 2011, Florida State University published The Economic 

Impact of the FDEP Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida. The report estimates the final 

median annual costs associated with the FDEP rule are $80,523,041. On December 8, 2011, 

the State’s Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) approved FDEP’s proposed rules 

with additional amendments. Legislation ratifying FDEP’s rules was signed into law on February 

16, 2012. FDEP formally transmitted the rules to EPA for approval the following week. The US 

District Court, Judge Hinkle, issued an order upholding EPA’s determination that numeric 

criteria are necessary, upholding the lake and springs criteria, but rejecting the streams criteria. 

On May 30, 2012, Judge Hinkle granted a motion to extend the deadline for setting draft and 

final criteria for streams (Phase I) to November 2012 and August 2013. On June 7, 2012, Florida 

Administrative Law Judge Canter ruled on the December 2011 FWF challenge by upholding 

FDEP’s rules noting they are reasonably designed to prevent pollution and show a rational 

basis. This decision allows EPA to formally act on the proposed state rules. On June 28, 2012, 

Judge Hinkle approved an extension of the EPA lake and flowing water rule’s effective date from 

July 6, 2012 to January 6, 2013. The extension allows EPA additional time to review and 

approve or disapprove Florida’s rule and, if necessary, withdraw the corresponding Federal 

criteria. On July 13, 2012, Judge Hinkle approved a further extension of publication of the draft 

and final coastal and estuarine numeric criteria (Phase II) to November 2012 and September 

2013 respectively. In doing so, the new deadline now conforms to those established for the 

remaining Phase I criteria. New activities since last meeting: EPA has not formally acted on 

the proposed state rules. In September 2012, FDEP published a document titled 

“Implementation of Florida’s Numeric Nutrient Standards” which was submitted to EPA in 

support of the Department’s adopted nutrient standards. 

• 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 a comprehensive statewide water conservation program for public 

suppliers that provides them with utility-specific options. Regulation and Office of the General 

Counsel staff have been involved in this initiative since its inception, with involvement from 

Executive, Communications and Water Resources staff , as appropriate. The main product of 

this initiative is a tool for utilities to use when developing or updating their water conservation 

plans; the current version is a web-based computer application known as “EZ Guide 2.0” that 

helps identify optional elements to include in a water conservation plan based on each utility's 

service area characteristics. To use this tool, the utility needs a GIS shapefile of its service 

area and a list of the potable water system identification numbers that it uses to report data to 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The tool combines that information 

with parcel-specific data from the Florida Department of Revenue, county tax collector and other 

public databases to develop a water use profile unique to the utility. That “uncalibrated” profile 

can be refined with optional utility-provided data, such as the results of a recent system water 

audit or an inventory of automatic irrigation systems and commercial accounts. The tool then 

uses the refined profile and goals set by the utility, to select the appropriate water conservation 

best management practices (BMPs) and identify the optimal number of units of implementation 

for each BMP such as how many toilet rebates to offer. A Steering Committee provides 

policy-level oversight and a Technical Advisory Group provides draft product review and other 

as-needed technical input to the DEP staff that manage the Conserve Florida Clearinghouse. 

The Clearinghouse, currently hosted by the University of Florida (UF) under contract from DEP, 

provides technical support for the EZ Guide, an on-line water conservation library, and other 

core services. The District's financial contribution to DEP’s current $325,000 two-year contract 

with UF is $75,000, all of which is from Fiscal Year 2011, for a scope of work that focuses on 

keeping basic Clearinghouse services available while also making targeted fixes and adding 

29

Item 33 

priority functions to the EZ Guide so that more public suppliers will use it for permitting, 

compliance and planning processes. The District budgeted an additional $75,000 for Fiscal 

Year 2012 to fund the programming associated with additional BMPs and other features which 

would only benefit public suppliers within the District, such as calculations consistent with 

rule-required per capita formulas. In October 2011, public suppliers from three water 

management districts attended a hands-on workshop regarding the EZ Guide that was held at 

the Tampa Service Office. This workshop was taught by UF staff and graduate students; it 

resulted in each utility participant leaving with access to pre-populated profiles for their service 

areas, so that they can refine the profiles and use them to develop a water conservation plan for 

each water use permit or combination of permits, and UF representatives receiving valuable 

feedback regarding how to continue improving the EZ Guide. On November 9, 2011, District 

staff and the DEP contract manager had a conference call to discuss priorities for the 

District-specific Fiscal Year 2012 funding. The contract manager agreed to seek clarification 

from UF regarding the cost and effort associated with these priorities. New activities since 

last meeting: Staff from three of the water management districts jointly reassessed contract 

work priorities related to the Clearinghouse’s Fiscal Year 2013 (and beyond) funding and 

contract work. The DEP staff has met with staff to seek clarification regarding the joint 

comments. 

• Water Shortage Order Implementation – Each time water shortage restrictions are declared, 

extended, modified or rescinded, certain implementation activities occur. An advertisement 

must be published in applicable newspapers. Notices must be mailed to affected Water Use 

Permit holders. Local government officials must also be apprised and efforts by the 

Communications Bureau to inform the general public must be supported by Demand 

Management staff. In addition to maintaining the hotline (see below), staff must also track and 

take compliance action related to temporary, order-specific permittee reporting requirements. 

New activities since last meeting: WUP Compliance staff contacted 18 permittees who did 

not provide system status reports that were required by the Modified Phase II and Modified 

Phase III orders. 

• Water Restriction Hotline – Demand Management 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 347 calls during the five-week period that ended October 

5, 2012. During that same period, the hotline also answered 149 e-mails. Hotline activity 

resulted in 6 first-time violation letters being sent to a property owner or manager and 3 

repeat-violation situations were referred to a local enforcement agency for investigation. In 

addition, 4 variances (requests for a special watering schedule that abides by the basic intent of 

current restrictions) were also approved or otherwise resolved. 



Presenter: 

Alba E. Más, P.E., Regulation Division Director 

30

Item 33 

TYPE OF PERMIT 

ENV RES PERMITS ISSUED 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

Aug-12 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

General Minor System 10 20 20 

Noticed General 9 6 8 

General 75 68 68 

Individual 3 3 5 

Exemption 56 53 53 

Formal Wetland Determination 6 5 4 

ERP Conceptual 2 1 1 

ERP Site Condition 0 0 0 

Letter Modification 44 52 47 

TOTALS 205 208 206 

ENV RES ACRES PERMITTED 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

General Minor System 15.62 27 29 

Noticed General 19.86 617 630 

General 1137.36 806 765 

Individual 761.39 600 834 

Exemption 695.57 616 595 

Formal Wetland Determination 445.24 890 804 

ERP Conceptual 2146.6 1089 712 

ERP Site Condition 0 0 0 

Letter Modification 2651.72 2457 2336 

TOTALS 7873.36 7102 6705 

WATER USE PERMITS ISSUED 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Small General 57 46 47 

General 21 26 24 

Individual 1 7 7 

Letter Modification 12 11 17 

TOTALS 91 90 95 

WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Well Construction 439 505 478 

COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Water Use Inspection (includes Well Tag Installations) 17 22 34 

ERP/WUP Permit Condition Violation 3 32 26 

ERP/WUP Expired/Expiring 83 64 64 

ERP/WUP Permit Ownership Trnsfr 47 21 24 

ERPs Re-certification Received 444 468 453 

ERP/WUP Complaints Received 118 79 66 

ERP Construction Inspection 796 823 760 

ERP As-Built Activities 130 129 140 

ERP Transfer to Operation 76 102 113 

Well Abandonments/Grouting 36 37 34 

Other Well Construction Inspections 69 88 71 

TOTALS 1819 1865 1785 

AGRICULTURAL GROUND & SURFACE WATER 

MGT PROJECT DESIGNS (AGSWM) 

MONTHLY 

TOTAL 

6-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

12-MONTH 

AVERAGE 

Ordinary Farming 1 1 1 

Temporary Farming 0 0 0 

Permanent Farming 3 2 2 

TOTALS 4 3 3 

31

E. Operations & 

Land Management



OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 



34. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report ........................................ (10 minutes) .................. 2 


35. Surplus Lands Assessment Update .................................................................................. 4 

36. Flying Eagle Nature Center Update ................................................................................... 5 

37. Management Team Review Evaluations – Chassahowitzka Riverine Swamp, 

Jack Creek, Starkey Wilderness Preserve and Conner Preserve .................................... 6 


38. Structure Operations ......................................................................................................... 12 

39. Significant Activities ........................................................................................................... 26

Item 34 

Operations and Land Management Committee 



Hydrologic Conditions Status Report 

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 

Provisional rainfall totals as of September 30 th were below-normal in the northern and southern 

regions of the District, while they were in the low-normal range in the central region. 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. 

• Northern region rainfall averaged 3.69 inches, equivalent to the 19 th percentile 

• Central region rainfall averaged 5.21 inches, equivalent to the 29 th percentile. 

• Southern region rainfall averaged 5.10 inches, equivalent to the 21 st percentile. 

• District-wide, average rainfall was 4.75 inches, equivalent to the 21 st percentile. 

Streamflow 

Streamflow data for September indicate that flow in regional index rivers increased in the 

northern and southern regions of the District, while it decreased in the central region, compared 

to the previous month. Regional streamflow conditions ended the month within the normal range 

in all three regions of the District. Normal streamflow is defined as flow that falls 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 62 nd percentile. 

• The monthly average streamflow measured in the Hillsborough River near Zephyrhills in the 

central region was in the 66 th percentile. 

• The monthly average streamflow measured in the Peace River at Arcadia in the southern 

region was in the 59 th percentile. 

Groundwater Levels 

Groundwater data for September indicate levels in the Floridan/Intermediate aquifer increased 

in all three regions of the District, compared to last month. Groundwater conditions ended the 

month within the normal range in all three regions. 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 region was in the 66 th percentile. 

• The average groundwater level in the central region was in the 75 th percentile. 

• The average groundwater level in the southern region was in the 52 nd percentile. 

2

Item 34 

Lake Levels 

Water-level data for September indicate average lake levels increased in the Northern, Polk 

Uplands and Lake Wales regions of the District, while they decreased in the Tampa Bay region, 

compared to the previous month. Regional lake levels ended the month below the base of the 

annual normal range in the Northern, Polk Uplands and Lake Wales Ridge regions, while the 

Tampa Bay region ended the month within the 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 0.38 foot and were 1.15 feet below the base 

of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Tampa Bay region decreased 0.22 foot and were 1.50 feet above 

the base of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Polk Uplands region increased 0.47 foot and were 0.20 foot below 

the base of the annual normal range. 

• Average lake levels in the Lake Wales Ridge region increased 0.43 foot and were 2.54 feet 

below the base of the annual normal range. 

Issues of Significance 

September historically marks the last month of the four-month wet season and this year’s 

September provisional rainfall totals were less than expected, falling into the low-normal to 

below-normal range in all regions of the District. Rainfall received during the first three months 

of the 2012 wet season significantly improved hydrologic conditions, but the passage of Tropical 

Storm Isaac in late August saw a weather pattern shift to somewhat drier conditions. Analysis of 

provisional rainfall data for the four-month wet-season shows District-wide totals to be about 

5.1 inches above the long-term historic average. As the District enters into the 8-month dry 

season (October through May), the 12- and 24-month cumulative rainfall deficits, District-wide, 

are approximately 1.4 and 7.3 inches, respectively. 

Hydrologic indicators continued to show improvement in most regions of the District during 

September, while the Tampa Bay Region saw declines in lake levels and streamflow. 

Streamflow conditions in regional index rivers continue to remain at levels that allow their use as 

public supply sources. 

NOAA climate forecasts continue to predict above-normal rainfall conditions from October 

through April due to continuing development of El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Above 

normal rainfall during the dry season would help maintain or improve overall hydrologic 

conditions, and would help prevent any resource-related impacts during the coming dry season. 

Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-October. 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. 


This item is presented for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: 

Granville Kinsman, Manager, Hydrologic Data Section 

3

Item 35 




Surplus Lands Assessment 

Staff completed the land assessment process for Evaluation Area 4 (parcels in Hernando, Citrus 

and Sumter Counties including the Weekiwachee Preserve). Staff has identified approximately 

65 acres as surplus to be presented to the Governing Board Subcommittee for their 

consideration. The next Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for November 6, 2012 at the 

Brooksville office. 

Staff has submitted the surplus evaluation forms for the Frog Creek parcel (recommended from 

Evaluation Area 1) to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for their review. DEP 

has approved the surplus in concept and is polling other state agencies regarding their interest 

in acquiring the parcel. Staff is producing the evaluation forms for the Tampa Bypass Canal 

(12 parcels, 26.5 acres total) and Chito Branch parcels (2 parcels, 126 acres total) from 

Evaluation Area 2. Staff is also producing the evaluation forms for the 111-acre parcel identified 

in Evaluation Area 3. 

Pending a favorable review from DEP, staff anticipates bringing the Frog Creek parcel to the 

Governing Board for their surplus consideration at the November or December 2012 meeting. 


This item is provided for the Committee's information; no action is required. Staff welcomes any 

input or direction on this item. 

Presenter: 

Roy Mazur P.E., AICP, Bureau Chief, Operations & Land Management 

4

Item 36 




Flying Eagle Nature Center 

The Flying Eagle Nature Center is located within the Flying Eagle Preserve in Citrus County. 

Upon the dissolution of the lease with the Gulf Ridge Council of the Boy Scouts of America in 

May 2012, the Governing Board directed staff to seek other joint ventures to explore the 

continued recreational potential for the center, while also providing the maintenance and 

security for the property. 

District staff has formed a multi-disciplinary project team that has developed a marketing plan 

and website, researched organizations to target, conducted site visits with interested parties, 

prepared the facilities for marketing, and developed a Request for Proposal (RFP). Staff has 

also engaged the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to patrol the 

property. 

The RFP was released August 17, 2012, with a closing date of October 11, 2012. The RFP has 

been advertised in the Citrus County Chronicle, Tampa Tribune, Florida Sentinel and La Gaceta 

newspapers; Woodall’s Campground Management, a campground owner and operator trade 

magazine; an email blast to over 1,800 members of the American Camp Association; and 

Google ads. Additionally, the Citrus County Chronicle ran a feature story on the Flying Eagle 

Nature Center in August. Staff has conducted multiple site visits with 39 attendees representing 

11 organizations. 

The RFP results will be presented to the Governing Board at its November 2012 meeting and it 

is anticipated that a lease agreement with the successful respondent will be presented at the 

Governing Board’s February 2013 meeting for review and approval. 


This item is submitted for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: 

Cheryl Hill, Land Program Coordinator, Operations & Land Management Bureau 

5

Item 37 




Land Management Team Review Evaluations – Chassahowitzka Riverine Swamp, Jack 

Creek, Starkey Wilderness Preserve and Conner Preserve. 

Purpose 

Provide the Governing Board with the results of four Land Management Evaluations conducted 

on District owned and managed lands in accordance with Section 373.591, Florida Statutes 

(F.S.). 

Background and History 

Section 373.591, F.S., describes the process the District is required to follow to perform 

evaluations of management plans and management activities conducted on District-owned 

lands to ensure that lands are being managed consistent with purposes of acquisition and site 

specific land use and management plans. The District is required to organize review teams that 

consist of state and local governments, conservation organizations, and private landowners for 

each evaluation. Each team member reviews the site specific land use and management plan 

and participates in a site visit that is designed to show the team management accomplishments 

achieved on each property. For each evaluation, District staff develops individual property 

summaries for each team that contain current details about water resource and natural systems 

maintenance and restoration activities, public recreation and management partnerships. Each 

team member completes evaluation forms with criteria consistent with Section 259.036, F.S., 

that requires a one to five rating scale with one being poor and five being excellent. 

The District conducted four evaluations of District-owned lands between 2011 and 2012. The 

properties include Chassahowitzka Riverine Swamp, Jack Creek, Starkey Wilderness Preserve 

and Conner Preserve. The following is a brief summary of the evaluation results: 

Chassahowitzka Riverine Swamp - Overall Average Rating was a 4.4 

In general the team agreed that the property is being managed consistent with the adopted 

management plan and purposes for acquisition. The team encouraged District staff to continue 

the strong coordination between the District, Citrus County manager of the Chassahowitzka 

Campground and private adjacent landowners. 

Jack Creek - Overall Average Rating was a 3.0 

The team agreed that the property is being managed consistent with the adopted management 

plan and purposes for acquisition. Specific comments were made relative to increasing 

prescribed burn activities and exploring more opportunities for onsite restoration. Staff currently 

manage the property within budget constraints, but is evaluating the potential transfer of 

management responsibilities to another agency as part of the District’s Surplus Lands 

Assessment efforts. 

6

Item 37 

Starkey Wilderness Preserve – Overall Average Rating was a 4.3 


plan and purposes of acquisition. The property is also used as a regional well field by Tampa 

Bay Water. The team provided very positive comments about the condition of the natural 

habitats and restoration activities being conducted on the Preserve. 

Conner Preserve – Overall Rating was a 4.3 


plan and purposes of acquisition. Extensive restoration has taken place on the property as a 

result of mitigation projects. The team provided very positive comments regarding District staff’s 

success with upland restoration efforts restoring natural habitat. 


See Exhibits 

This item is provided for the Committee’s information only; no action is required. 

Presenter: Will Vangelder, Land Management Supervisor, Operations & Land Mgt. Bureau 

7

Chassahowitzka River 

Mason Creek 

W CARDINAL ST 

W 

CY PRES S BLVD 

Salt Creek 

98 

W OAK 

PARK BLVD 

98 

Bair d Creek 

Johnson Creek 

Ryle Creek 

Chassahowitzka River 

0 2,000 4,000 

Feet 

Crawford Creek 

CITRUS 

HERNANDO 

Lands Acquired Fee 

Lands Acquired Less-than-fee 


19 

19 CITRUS 

HERNANDO 

PASCO 

8

Jack Creek 

Lake Josephine 

LAKE JOSEPHINE D R 


27 


27 

POLK 

HARDEE 

Lake Hill 

0 750 1,500 

Feet 

HIGHLANDS 

DESOTO 

CHARLOTTE GLADES 

9

Starkey Wilderness Preserve 

HICKS RD 

MOON 

LAKE RD 

52 

HAYS RD 

HERNANDO 

PASCO 

HILLSBOROUGH 

HIDDEN LAKE 

RIDGE RD 

SUNCOAST PKY 

Fivemile Creek 

DECUBELLIS RD 

Cross Cypress Branch 

SUNCOAST PKY 

SUNCOAST PKY 

STARKEY BLVD 

Anclote River 

Sandy Branch 

South Branch Anclote River 

0 3,000 6,000 

Feet 

TRINITY BLVD 

GUNN HWY 


54 


10

Conner Preserve 

CITRUS 

HERNANDO 

PASCO 

52 

LAND LAND O O LAKES LAKES BLVD BLVD 



0 1,500 3,000 

Feet 



EHREN CUTOFF 

EHREN CUTOFF 

CYPRESS CREEK 

PRESERVE 

11

Item 38 




Structure Operations 

September historically marks the last month of the four-month wet season and this year’s 

September provisional rainfall totals were less than expected, falling into the low-normal to 

below-normal range in all regions of the District. Rainfall received during the first three months 

of the 2012 wet season significantly improved hydrologic conditions, but the passage of Tropical 

Storm Isaac in late August saw a weather pattern shift to somewhat drier conditions. Analysis of 

provisional rainfall data for the four-month wet-season shows District-wide totals to be about 

5.1 inches above the long-term historic average. As the District enters into the 8-month dry 

season (October through May), the 12- and 24-month cumulative rainfall deficits, District-wide, 

are approximately 1.4 and 7.3 inches, respectively. 

Hydrologic indicators continued to show improvement in most regions of the District during 

September, while the Tampa Bay Region saw declines in lake levels and streamflow. 

Streamflow conditions in regional index rivers continue to remain at levels that allow their use as 

public supply sources. 

NOAA climate forecasts continue to predict above-normal rainfall conditions from October 

through April due to continuing development of El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Above 

normal rainfall during the dry season would help maintain or improve overall hydrologic 

conditions, and would help prevent any resource-related impacts during the coming dry season. 

Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-October. 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 

Provisional rainfall totals as of September 30 th were below-normal in the northern and southern 

regions of the District, while they were in the low-normal range in the central region. 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. 

• Northern region rainfall averaged 3.69 inches, equivalent to the 19 th percentile 

• Central region rainfall averaged 5.21 inches, equivalent to the 29 th percentile. 

• Southern region rainfall averaged 5.10 inches, equivalent to the 21 st percentile. 

• District-wide, average rainfall was 4.75 inches, equivalent to the 21 st percentile. 

A summary of the operations made in September is as follows: 

• Inglis Water Control Structures: Both the Inglis Main Dam and Bypass Spillway were 

operated during the month of September 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 27.61’ NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level for the 

reservoir of 27.50’ NGVD. 

12

Item 38 

• Withlacoochee River Watershed: During the last two weeks of September all water control 

structures in the Tsala Apopka Chain of Lakes were closed to conserve water with the 

exception of the Floral City and Leslie Heifner Structures allowing for flow from the 

Withlacoochee River into the Floral City Pool. The Wysong-Coogler Water Conservation 

Structure main gate and low flow gate were deflated to 37.20’ NGVD and 34.10’ NGVD, 

respectively, to aid in the regulation of the Lake Panasoffkee water level and provide flow to 

the Withlacoochee River downstream of the structure. The average monthly water level for 

Lake Panasoffkee was 39.63’ NGVD. 

• Alafia River Watershed: The Medard Reservoir structure was operated to lower the reservoir 

to 59.00’ NGVD in order to evaluate conditions on the berm. There were no other structures 

operated during the month of September. The average monthly water level for the Medard 

Reservoir was 60.24’ NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 60.00’ 

NGVD. 

• Hillsborough River Watershed: The Tampa Bypass Canal Structures (S-159, S-161, S-162, 

S-160) were operated the first two weeks of September to assist in diverting excess water 

from the Hillsborough River caused by Tropical Storm Isaac. The average monthly water level 

for Lake Thonotosassa was 36.40’ NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level 

of 36.50' NGVD. 

• Tampa Bay/Anclote Watershed: The Sawgrass Lake, S-551 (Lake Tarpon), Magdalene, Bay, 

Ellen-Lipsey, Armistead, Pretty, Crescent, Keystone, and Island Ford structures were 

operated during the month of September. The average monthly water level for Lake Tarpon 

was 3.25’ NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 3.20' NGVD. 

• Peace River Watershed: The Lake Parker, Banana and Gibson structures were operated 

during the month of September. The average monthly water level for Lake Gibson was 

143.08’ NGVD. The recommended maintenance level for the Lake Gibson is 143.00’ NGVD. 

The average monthly water level for Lake Hancock was 98.79’ NGVD compared to the 

recommended maintenance level of 98.70’ NGVD. Work on the P-11 replacement structure is 

progressing. The scheduled completion date is September 2013. 

• Lake Wales Ridge Watershed. The average monthly water level for Lake June-in-Winter was 

74.85’ NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 74.50’ NGVD. 


See Exhibit 


Presenter: 

David P. Crane, P.E., Manager, Structure Operations Section 

13

STRUCTURE OPERATIONS SECTION HYDROLOGIC REPORT 


STRUCTURE 

ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF 

LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE 

STRUCTURE 

LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE 

FLINT CREEK 36.52 FLORAL CITY POOL 41.61 

HIGH LEVEL 37.00 -0.48 Gates Open 0.10' HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 41.80 -0.19 Leslie Heifner Fully Open 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.50 0.02 All drop gates: 36.00' MSL HIGH MIN LEVEL 41.20 0.41 Floral City Fully Open 

LOW LEVEL 34.50 2.02 invert 32.9' MIN LAKE LEVEL 39.80 1.81 Golf Course Golf Course All Gates Closed 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 39.60 2.01 invert 38.0' Moccasin Slough Closed 

KELL 65.70 

HIGH LEVEL 66.00 -0.30 INVERNESS POOL 40.17 

Fully Open 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 65.50 0.20 HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 40.30 -0.13 Brogden Bridge Gates Closed 

LOW LEVEL 63.50 2.20 invert 64.66' HIGH MIN LEVEL 40.10 0.07 Brogden Bridge Brogden Culvert Closed 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 38.70 1.47 invert 34.25' Bryant Slough gates Closed 

KEENE 62.41 Keene 1: 6" Log in place LOW GUIDE LEVEL 37.80 2.37 

HIGH LEVEL 63.00 -0.59 Keene 2: 6" Log in place 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 62.50 -0.09 1-invert 61.6' Keene 3: Fully Open HERNANDO POOL (S353) 38.89 

LOW LEVEL 60.50 1.91 2-invert 61.6' Sherry Brook: 12" Log in place HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 39.00 -0.11 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 38.70 0.19 S-353 Van Ness Closed 

STEMPER 60.78 MIN LAKE LEVEL 37.30 1.59 invert 36.5' S-353 Gates Closed 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 61.20 -0.42 4" log in place LOW GUIDE LEVEL 35.90 2.99 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 60.80 -0.02 Two Mile Prairie (max) 35.00 -9.64 25.36 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 59.40 1.38 invert 60.25' 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 59.10 1.68 LESLIE HEIFNER 41.68 Upstream (RIVER level) 

UPSTREAM 41.61 Downstream (POOL level) 

HANNA 61.73 DOWNSTREAM Gate Fully Open 

HIGH LEVEL 62.50 -0.77 invert 35.0' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 61.75 -0.02 

12" log in place. 

LOW LEVEL 59.50 2.23 invert 60.28' WYSONG-COOGLER 

UPSTREAM 39.50 -1.04 38.46 Main Gate at 37.19' 

CYPRESS CREEK Flood Stage DOWNSTREAM 38.06 Independent gate at 34.74' 

WORTHINGTON GARDENS 8.00 -3.65 4.35 Drop Gate Open 3.0'. Total cfs 1,040 

INGLIS 27.61 

SAWGRASS LAKE HIGH LEVEL 28.00 -0.39 By-pass Gates Open 3.9' 

HIGH LEVEL 5.00 -0.63 4.37 Gate 1 Fully Open MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 27.50 0.11 Main Gates Open 0.4' 

LOW LEVEL 3.80 0.57 Gate 2 Open 1.30' LOW LEVEL 26.50 1.11 invert 11.3' 1,970 Total Flow cfs 

Gate 3 Closed 

TARPON (S551) 3.25 LAKE BRADLEY 

HIGH LEVEL 3.80 -0.55 Main Gates 1, & 4 Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 42.50 -0.89 41.61 Gate Open 1.8' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 3.20 0.05 Main Gates 2, & 3 Open 0.10' 

LOW LEVEL 2.20 1.05 Drop Gates 1,2,3,4 at 3.2' LAKE CONSUELLA 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.50 -0.60 40.90 Fully Closed 

ANNE PARKER 47.58 

HIGH LEVEL 48.75 -1.17 MEDARD RESERVOIR 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 48.25 -0.67 Fully Open 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 60.00 -0.94 59.06 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 45.75 1.83 invert 46.40' 

HANCOCK (P11) 98.89 Gauge at structure 

WHITE TROUT 35.19 HIGH LEVEL 99.00 -0.11 98.98 Gauge on lake 

HIGH LEVEL 36.50 -1.31 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 98.50 0.39 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.00 -0.81 12" log in place LOW LEVEL 96.00 2.89 invert 91.7' Both Gates Fully Open 

LOW LEVEL 34.00 1.19 invert 32.94' HENRY (P5) 126.06 

HIGH LEVEL 126.50 -0.44 Gate Closed 

KEYSTONE 41.83 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 126.00 0.06 

HIGH LEVEL 42.00 -0.17 LOW LEVEL 124.00 2.06 invert 122.0' 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.75 0.08 

Weir Gates 1 Open 2.0' 

LOW LEVEL 39.75 2.08 invert 37.2' SMART (P6) 126.78 

HIGH LEVEL 128.75 -1.97 Gate Closed 

CRESCENT 42.05 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 128.50 -1.72 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 41.90 0.15 LOW LEVEL 126.50 0.28 invert 127.2' 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 41.30 0.75 

Gate Open 0.30' 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 40.30 1.75 invert 38.5' FANNIE (P7) 122.08 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 39.80 2.25 HIGH LEVEL 125.75 -3.67 Gates Closed 


ISLAND FORD 40.87 LOW LEVEL 123.50 -1.42 invert 119.5' 

HIGH LEVEL 41.50 -0.63 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.00 -0.13 invert 35.0' All Gates Closed 

HAMILTON (P8) 119.60 

LOW LEVEL 39.00 1.87 crest 41.25' HIGH LEVEL 121.50 -1.90 Gates Closed 


PRETTY 44.53 LOW LEVEL 119.00 0.60 invert 113.0' 

HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 44.30 0.23 Lift Gates 2 and 3 Closed 

HIGH MIN LEVEL 43.90 0.63 Drop Gates 1 and 4 Open 0.60' LENA (P1) 135.29 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 42.50 2.03 invert 38.0' HIGH LEVEL 137.00 -1.71 Gate closed 

LOW GUIDE LEVEL 42.20 2.33 MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 136.75 -1.46 

LOW MANAGEMENT 134.50 0.79 invert 134.47' 

MAGDALENE 49.54 Lake gauge 

HIGH LEVEL 50.00 -0.46 49.59 Structure gauge JUNE-IN-WINTER (G90) 75.00 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 49.50 0.04 HIGH GUIDE LEVEL 74.70 0.30 Gates Closed 

LOW MANAGEMENT 47.50 2.04 invert 45.6' Gates Closed HIGH MIN LEVEL 74.50 0.50 Overflow at 75.00' NGVD 

MIN LAKE LEVEL 74.00 1.00 invert 65.37' 

BAY 45.60 LOW GUIDE LEVEL 73.20 1.80 

HIGH LEVEL 46.75 -1.15 ARIETTA (P3) 140.54 

Gates Closed 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 46.00 -0.40 HIGH LEVEL 144.00 -3.46 Gate Closed 

LOW LEVEL 44.00 1.60 invert 44.0' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 142.50 -1.96 

LOW LEVEL 141.00 -0.46 invert 137.4' 

ELLEN-LIPSEY 41.00 Structure Gauge 

HIGH LEVEL 41.50 -0.50 41.00 Lake Gauge GIBSON 143.10 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 41.00 0.00 Both Gates Closed HIGH LEVEL 143.50 -0.40 Gate Open 0.50' 

LOW LEVEL 39.00 2.00 invert 37.6' Drops: At 41.00' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 143.00 0.10 Stop log bays at 142.64' crest 

Low Level 141.50 1.60 invert 141.4' 

CARROLL 37.06 

HIGH LEVEL 37.00 0.06 PARKER 131.00 

Fully Open (No Logs) 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 36.50 0.56 HIGH LEVEL 131.00 0.00 Gate Open 1.0' 

LOW LEVEL 34.50 2.56 invert 34.17' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 130.75 0.25 

LOW LEVEL 128.75 2.25 invert 129.15' 

ARMISTEAD 42.22 

HIGH LEVEL 44.00 -1.78 Gate Open 0.30' PEACE RIVER Flood Stage 

MAXIMUM DESIRABLE 43.00 -0.78 BARTOW 8.00 -4.00 4.00 

LOW LEVEL 40.50 1.72 ZOLFO SPRINGS 16.00 -9.85 6.15 

ARCADIA 11.00 -8.32 2.68 

HILLSBOROUGH RIVER Flood Stage 

MORRIS BRIDGE 32.00 -5.28 26.72 S-155 Open LITTLE MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage 

FOWLER 29.00 -6.43 22.57 WIMAUMA 11.00 -7.10 3.90 

WITHLACOOCHEE R. Flood Stage ALAFIA RIVER Flood Stage 

TRILBY 61.27 -3.78 57.49 LITHIA 13.00 -9.12 3.88 

CROOM 47.94 -2.48 45.46 

HIGHWAY. 48 41.68 MYAKKA RIVER Flood Stage 

LAKE PANASOFFKEE 40.70 -1.31 39.39 MYAKKA STATE PARK 7.00 -3.02 3.98 

HOLDER 35.52 -2.92 32.60 

MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage 

ANCLOTE RIVER Flood Stage MYAKKA HEAD 11.00 -7.84 3.16 

ELFERS 20.00 -9.95 10.05 

14

FLAGLER 

LEVY 

#* 

ROUSSEAU 

CITRUS 

#* 

INVERNESS POOL 

HERNANDO POOL 

#* 

MARION 

District 

Structure 

Sites 

VOLUSIA 

CONSUELLA 

BRADLEY 

FLORAL CITY POOL 

#* 

#* #* 

LESLIE HEIFNER 

SUMTER 

LAKE 

SEMINOLE 

HERNANDO 

ORANGE 

PASCO 

ISLAND FORD 

KEYSTONE 

CRESCENT 

TARPON 

PINELLAS 

#* 

#* 

ANN-PARKER 

#* 

#* 

#* 

#* 

PRETTY 

ARMISTEAD 

SAWGRASS 

#*#* 

#* 

#* 

#* #* 

KELL 

HANNA 

KEENE 

STEMPER 

#* 

THONOTOSASSA 

MAGDALENE 

BAY 

ELLEN-LIPSEY 

CARROLL 

WHITE TROUT #* 

MEDARD 

HILLSBOROUGH 

LOWERY 

GIBSON ARIETTA (P-3) 

#* 

HAINES 

#* #* #* #* HENRY (P-5) 

PARKER#* 

#* #* #* SMART (P-6) 

LENA (P-1) #* FANNIE (P-7) 

POLK 

HAMILTON (P-8) 

#* 

HANCOCK (P-11) 

OSCEOLA 

MANATEE 

HARDEE 

HIGHLANDS 

#* 

´ 

SARASOTA 

DESOTO 

JUNE-IN-WINTER (G-90) 

15

Lake Gibson 

Lake Tarpon, S-551 

145.00 

5.50 

144.50 

5.00 

Water Surface Elevation 

144.00 

143.50 

143.00 

142.50 

142.00 

141.50 

141.00 


4.50 

4.00 

3.50 

3.00 

2.50 

2.00 

140.50 

1.50 

140.00 

1.00 

0.50 

Daily Average Values 

Lake Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 

Lake Surface Area = 480 Acres 

Low Slab = 144.81' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 100.00' 

Lake Gauge Datum = 135.00 MSL 

SCADA Device Number 2427 



Lake Surface Area =2,534 

SCADA Device # 6491 

Lake Thonotosassa 

Lake Anne Parker 

16 

39.50 

49.50 

39.00 

49.00 

38.50 

48.50 


38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 


48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 



Low Slab = 39.0' 

Flint Creek Gauge Datum = 32.16 

SCADA Device #6807 



Low Slab = 40.09' 

SCADA Device Number: 8491 


Lake Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level

Lake Hanna 

Lake Keene 


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 


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 




Low Slab = 63.68' 






Lake Kell 

Lake Stemper 

17 

67.50 

63.00 

62.50 

67.00 

66.50 

62.00 

61.50 

61.00 


66.00 

65.50 

65.00 

64.50 

64.00 

63.50 

63.00 

62.50 

62.00 


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 

61.50 

53.50 

53.00 


Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 68.09' 


Lake Gauge Datum = 54.45' MSL 


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

Bay Lake 

Lake Carroll 

48.00 

47.50 

38.50 

38.00 

L 

47.00 

37.50 


46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 


37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 

32.50 

32.00 

42.50 

31.50 

42.00 

31.00 

30.50 


Lake Level Low Level Max. Desireable High Level 

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 = 39.50' 



Crescent Lake 

Lake Island Ford 

18 


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 


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 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 44.63' 


Lake Gauge Datum = Direct Read 



WSE Low Level Max Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 42.64 


SCADA Device number = 1621

Lake Keystone 

Lakes Ellen and Lipsey 


43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 


42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 

39.00 

38.50 

38.00 

38.00 

37.50 

37.50 

37.00 

37.00 

36.50 




Low Slab = 43.53' 



SCADA Device Number: 6161 


Lipsey WSE Lake Ellen Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 42.35' 


Lake Magdalene 

Lake Pretty 

19 


51.00 

50.50 

50.00 

49.50 

49.00 

48.50 

48.00 

47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 


47.50 

47.00 

46.50 

46.00 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

44.00 

43.50 

43.00 

42.50 

42.00 

41.50 

45.50 

45.00 

44.50 

41.00 

40.50 

40.00 

39.50 


Level at Control Structure Lake Level Low Level Max Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 51.80' 

Structure Gauge Datum = 45.52 



Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 


(Pretty, Rock, Josephine combined) 

Low Slab = 47.10' 


Lake Gauge Datum = 31.74' MSL

Lake White Trout 

Lake Lowery 


38.50 

38.00 

37.50 

37.00 

36.50 

36.00 

35.50 

35.00 

34.50 

34.00 

33.50 

33.00 


132.00 

131.50 

131.00 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

32.50 

126.50 

32.00 

126.00 

31.50 

125.50 




Low Slab = 39.41' 






Low Slab = 131.61 


20 

29.50 

Lake Rousseau 

144.50 

Lake Arietta (P-3) 

29.00 

144.00 

143.50 


28.50 

28.00 

27.50 

27.00 

26.50 

26.00 


143.00 

142.50 

142.00 

141.50 

141.00 

140.50 

140.00 

139.50 

25.50 

139.00 

25.00 

138.50 

138.00 

24.50 

137.50 




Structure Gauge Datum = 10.00 



Lake Gauge Datum = 100.00' 




Hernando Pool 

Inverness Pool 


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 


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 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min. Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 40.47' 




Level Low Guide Lv. Min. Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 42.54' 



21 

Leslie Heifner 

Floral oa City CtyPool 


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 


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 

Upstream Level 


Downsream Level 


Low Slab = 47.80' 

SCADA Device #6767 & #6766 


Level Low Guide Lv. Min.Lake Lv. High Min. Lv. High Guide Lv. 


Low Slab = 44.10' 



SCADA #2007

Lake Fannie (P-7) 

Lake Hamilton (P-8) 


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 


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 



Low Slab = 127.60' 




Lake Surface Area = 2,640 Acres 





22 

Lake Hancock (P-11) 

Lake Henry (P-5) 


103.00 

102.50 

102.00 

101.50 

101.00 

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 


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 





SCADA Device Number = 1767 & 4087 



Structure Gauge Datum = 100.00' MSL 

S.R. Gauge Datum = 120.00' MSL 


Gauge at Structure Lake Level Low Level Max Desirable High Level 


Lake Lena (P-1) 

Lake June-in-Winter (G-90) 

138.00 

77.00 

137.50 

76.50 

137.00 

76.00 


136.50 

136.00 

135.50 

135.00 

134.50 

134.00 

133.50 

133.00 

132.50 


75.50 

75.00 

74.50 

74.00 

73.50 

73.00 

72.50 

132.00 

72.00 




Lake Gauge Datum = 132.12 



Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High Min Lv. High Guide Lv. 




SCADA Device Number=6136 

23 

133.00 

Lake Parker 

130.50 

Lake Smart (P-6) 

132.50 

130.00 


132.00 

131.50 

131.00 

130.50 

130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 


129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 

124.00 

123.50 

123.00 


Lake Level Low Guide Lv. Min Lake Lv. High MinLv. & High Guide Lv. 







Low Slab = 131.43' 


SCADA Device Number: 2167

Sawgrass Lake 

Lake Armistead 


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 


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 Level Low Level High Level 



Low Slab = N/A 






Low Slab = 45.72' 



Lake Haines 

Medard 

24 


130.00 

129.50 

129.00 

128.50 

128.00 

127.50 

127.00 

126.50 

126.00 

125.50 

125.00 

124.50 


63.5 

63.0 

62.5 

62.0 

61.5 

61.0 

60.5 

60.0 

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 




Low Slab = 131.61' 




Water Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level


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 


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 

Water Level Low Level Max. Desirable High Level 


Low Slab = 47.80' 



Weekly Average Values 



Low Slab = 44.38' 

25

Item 39 




Significant Activities 

This report provides information on significant Operations and Land 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 projects that have recently 

occurred or are about to happen. 

Land Management 

• The District registered the largest red maple tree in Florida which was designated the Florida 

Champion. The tree is located in the Green Swamp Wilderness Preserve, East Tract with a 

height of 103 feet and circumference of 166 inches. 

Fire Activity 

• Two small wildfires occurred on the Deer Prairie Creek Preserve in August totaling less than 

three acres. Recent prescribed burns limited the size and intensity of the wildfires allowing for 

quick and limited suppression efforts. The FY2012 wildfire total increased to 495 acres. 

District crews optimized the few windows of opportunity in the current wet weather patterns to 

increase the total acreage burned under prescription to 18,072 acres in FY2012. The state 

continues to be in a wet pattern that should provide a consistent input of rain throughout the 

District. This supports active prescribed fire with little residual smoke related issues, but can 

produce unpredicted shifts in wind direction and intensity. 



Presenter: 

Michael L. Holtkamp, P.E., Division Director, Operations, Maintenance & Construction 

26

F. Outreach & 

Planning



OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE 




40. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report ..................................... 2 

41. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report .............................................................. 9 

42. Significant Activities ........................................................................................................... 13

Item 41 

Outreach and Planning Committee 



Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report 

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). 


See Exhibit 


Presenter: 

Colleen Thayer, Bureau Chief, Public Affairs

Local Government 

Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report September 30, 2012 

Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP 

Anna Maria 12-1ESR ESR 11/23/2011 12/22/2011 No substantive comments. 

Arcadia 12-1ER EAR-based 1/27/2012 2/13/2012 Text and FLU map amendments. 

Auburndale 12-1ESR ESR 12/15/2011 1/11/2012 FLU Map changes near the Polk Parkway and US 92 for "ecotourism" 

site. 

Auburndale 12-2ACSC Regular 8/10/2012 9/7/2012 FLUM amendments on the Fantasy of Flight - Orlampa property. 

Reduces permissible entitlements. May generate nearly 1 MGD 

potable water demand. 

Auburndale 12-2ESR ESR 7/10/2012 7/18/2012 FLUM amendment on 14.88 recently annexed acres from Linear 

Commercial Corridor to Commercial Corridor. 

Avon Park 12-1ESR ESR 3/19/2012 4/9/2012 FLU change County MDR & HDR to City MDR. 65 acres near Lakes 

Anoka and Lelia. 

Avon Park 12-2ESR ESR 4/27/2012 5/17/2012 Text amendments for compatibility with Avon Park Air Force Range 

JLUS. 

Bushnell 11-1ESR Regular 10/12/2011 Rewrite of Comprehensive plan, adding two new FLUM categories, 

amending and updating various elements. 

Center Hill ESR 7/25/2012 8/30/2012 Provided feedback on ten-year water supply facilities work plan. 

Center Hill 12-1ESR ESR 5/15/2012 6/14/2012 Proposed land use change for 30 acres annexed into the City. 

Encouraged coordination with District Regulation for renewal of 

water use permit currently under review. This permit would 

provide water quantities for proposed development. 

Charlotte County 11-3ESR ESR 11/4/2011 The County is proposing to several FLUM related changes. 

Citrus 12-1ESR, 12-2ESR, 12-3ESR ESR 1/24/2012 2/21/2012 Text and map amendments. Comments included support for the 

implementation of lead BMPs for a proposed shooting range and 

coordination on activities for port siting and planning. 

Citrus 12-6 ESR 4/6/2012 5/2/2012 Map amendment for 27.5 acres. No substantive comments provided. 

Clearwater 12-2ESR ESR 8/20/2012 9/18/2012 The amendment proposes changes to school concurrency and misc. 

maps. 

Dundee 12-1ESR ESR 3/20/2012 4/9/2012 FLU LDR to MDR. 77 acres near Lake Marie.


Dundee 12-2ESR ESR 8/20/2012 9/13/2012 FLU change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density 

Residential on 12 acres. Additional 30,240 GPD potable water 

demand. No wetland impacts. 

Dunedin 12-1ESR ESR 12/19/2011 This amendment proposes to revise Policy G-5 of the FLUE to 

include reference to the most recently adopted Countywide Plan and 

the City's land development regulation. 

Fort Meade 12-1ER EAR-based 11/4/2011 11/22/2011 Text and map amendments identified in EAR. 

Fort Meade 12-2ESR ESR 5/15/2012 6/8/2012 FLUM amendement on 1,163 acres (recently annexed) from 

unassigned to Industrial. Proposed uses include power generation 

and biomass fuel production. Requested data to substantiate water 

use projections, infrastructure expenditures and source options. 

Frostproof 12-1ESR ESR 4/27/2012 5/17/2012 Text amendments for compatibility with Avon Park Air Force Range 

JLUS. 

Hernando 12-1 ESR 7/18/2012 8/6/2012 Land use map amendment for 130 acres. No substantive comments 

provided. 

Highland Park 11-1ESR ESR 11/10/2011 11/22/2011 FLUM request to change several properties (


Lakeland 11-2ESR ESR 10/4/2011 10/25/2011 FLU change on 95.2 acres near Linder Airport. Recently annexed 

into the city, propose changing county land use to city land use. 

Lakeland 12-1ESR ESR 4/27/2012 5/21/2012 FLUM amendment on 24.33 acres from Residential Low-4 to 

Industrial. Improved pasture with no wetlands. Change allows for 

the construction of an organic fertilizer processing plant that will 

reduce waste spreading and associated water quality impacts. 

Largo 11-3ESR ESR 10/31/2011 11/22/2011 The City of Largo proposes to update the level of service standards 

for the sanitary 

sewer system that are contained in the Public Facilities and Capital 

Improvements elements. 

Largo 11-4ESR ESR 11/16/2011 12/16/2011 The City annexed 90 parcels (123.35 acres) and portions of right of 

way along Ulmerton Rd. into the City limits and is updated the 

FLUM to reflect the changes. 

Longboat Key 12-1ESR, 12-2ESR 

(proposed) 

ESR 11/28/2011 12/27/2011 Provided comments for development of the 10-year water supply 

facilities work plan and promoted LID implementation in a 

proposed redevelopment area. 

Madeira Beach 12-1ESR ESR 5/24/2012 6/22/2012 FLU text amendments 

Manatee 12-1ESR ESR 12/9/2011 1/6/2012 Encouraged limited, if any, encroachment in Myakka River's 

wetland/floodplains and the implementation of LID practices when 

possible. 

Manatee 12-2ESR ESR 2/13/2012 2/21/2012 Text amendment to add dormitories as an allowable use in RES-9 & 

RES-12 

Manatee 12-3ESR ESR 8/15/2012 9/7/2012 Text amendments to Water Supply Sub-Element and Future Land 

Use Element. 

Marion 12-1ESR ESR 5/11/2012 5/29/2012 Coordinated w/ SJRWMD on 150-acre plan amendment proposed 

close to our boundaries. Also reviewed future land use text 

amendments creating new land use category and a 25-acre 

commercial plan amendment. No issues were identified for 2 

amendments. 

Marion County 12-1ESR ESR 5/9/2012 6/6/2012 Land use change. No substantive comments. 

Mascotte ESR 4/2/2012 5/15/2012 Land use map change. Amendment is not within District 

boundaries. 

Mulberry 12-1ER EAR-based 11/23/2011 12/22/2011 Text amendments.


Mulberry 12-2ESR ESR 6/20/2012 7/18/2012 FLUM amendment on 19.96 acres along SR 60 from Industrial to 

Commercial Highway. Several wetland sites (2,8,10). Drains to 

North Prong - Alafia River. 

Ocala 12-1 ESR 3/21/2012 4/11/2012 Property situated outside Southwest Florida Water Management 

District. No comments submitted. 

Ocala 12-2ESR ESR 7/27/2012 Future land use map amendment. Not located within District. 

Ocala 12-3ESR ESR 9/3/2012 10/4/2012 Incorporate visioning workshops into plan. No substantive 

comments. 

Pasco 11-2ESR-CPA 11(04); 11- 

3ESR-CPA 11(05); 11-4ESR- 

CPA11(06); 11-5ESR-CPA11(07) 

Regular 10/18/2011 11/14/2011 Proposed changes to market overlay areas. Made comments relating 

to wetlands, water supply and flood prone areas. 

Pasco 12-1ESR ESR 11/29/2011 12/22/2011 No substantive comments 

Pasco 12-2ESR ESR 12/22/2011 

Pasco 12-2ESR ESR 12/22/2011 1/17/2012 No substantive comments made. 

Pasco County 12-3ESR ESR 3/7/2012 4/6/2012 Proposed amendment to add ~ 5460 acres to the South Market Area. 

 

Pasco County 12-4ESR ESR 4/30/2012 5/29/2012 The Comp Plan amendment proposes to change land use for the 

Starkey Ranch to pre DRI conditions. 

Pasco County 12-5ESR ESR 6/11/2012 7/9/2012 This proposed amendment is a FLU change fro Res to PUD. 

Pinellas County 12-1ESR ESR 12/30/2011 Through this amendment, the County proposes to revise several 

Objectives and Policies of the Transportation Element related to the 

St. Petersburg Clearwater International Airport. 

Pinellas Park 11-1ESR ESR 11/2/2011 11/17/2011 The City is proposing to redifine the "Coastal Storm Area" of the 

City. 

Pinellas Park 12-3ESR ESR 3/6/2012 4/5/2012 10 Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan 

Pinellas Park 12-3ESR ESR 8/20/2012 9/18/2012 The proposed amendment removes the school concurrency 

provision from the Public School Facility Element. 

Plant City 12-1ESR ESR 12/29/2011 

Plant City 12-1ESR ESR 12/29/2011 1/24/2012 Commented on historical flooding and encouraged the incorporation 

of LIDs in development proposals. 

Plant City 12-1ESR (proposed) ESR 12/29/2011


Plant City 12-2ESR ESR 5/24/2012 6/22/2012 Text amendment changes 

Polk 12-1ESR ESR 3/2/2012 3/27/2012 Text amendments to the FLUE revising A/RR, defining PD and 

deleting RCC-R. 

Polk 12-3ESR ESR 8/31/2012 9/28/2012 FLUM change from PM to A/RR, text amendment and the Southeast 

Polk Selected Area Plan. The SAP may allow for 1.65 MGD 

additional water demand. Comments made promoting regional, 

alternative supplies and seeking protection for Crooked Lake and 

Clinch Lake. 

Polk City 12-1ER EAR-based 6/20/2012 7/17/2012 Text amendments. Never adopted a 10YWSFWP. 

Sarasota 12-1ESR ESR 6/1/2012 6/20/2012 Text amendment adding allowable uses to Major Employment 

Centers. 

Sebring 12-1ESR ESR 5/31/2012 6/11/2012 Text amendments for compatibility with Avon Park Air Force Range 

JLUS. 

St. Pete Beach 12-1ESR ESR 5/24/2012 6/22/2012 Proposed amendment changes .38 acre parcel from Res High to Res 

Low Med on the FLU. 

Sumter 12-1ESR ESR 7/17/2012 8/17/2012 Includes two text amendments. Commented on Ten-Year Water 

Supply Facilities Work Plan. 

Sumter 12-2ESR ESR 8/20/2012 9/19/2012 Villages plan amendment. Comments offered encouraged low 

impact development practices. 

Tampa 12-1ESR ESR 4/25/2012 Text amendments to the City of Tampa's Comp Plan, FLUE to 

facilitate the implementation of the Seminole Heights Flex Provision. 

Tarpon Springs 11-2ESR ESR 11/8/2011 12/5/2011 The City is proposing to amend the FLUM from R/OS to RL on .23 

acres of unused area on the City's golf course. 

Tarpon Springs 12-1ESR ESR 4/17/2012 Proposed amendments to the City of Tarpon Springs' FLUM for 

15.93 acre from Industrial Limited, Preservation, and Transportation 

Utility Overlay districts to Res Low Medium, Preservation, and 

Transportation Utility Overlay districts. 

Temple Terrace 12-1ESR ESR 6/20/2012 7/20/2012 Proposed FLU changes. 

Treasure Island 12-1ESR ESR 2/29/2012 The City is proposing changes to the FLUE text and the FLUM to 

provide for a Planned Reredevelopement Mixed Use category. 

Treasure Island 12-1ESR ESR 2/29/2012 3/29/2012 FLUM change to provide for a Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use 

category.


Venice 11-1ESR ESR 11/4/2011 The City proposes to revise several text related amendments. 

Venice 12-2ESR ESR 5/8/2012 5/17/2012 Text amendments relating to regional airport. 

Wauchula 12-1ESR ESR 1/5/2012 2/1/2012 Capital Improvement Element update. 

Webster 12-1ESR ESR 8/1/2012 9/4/2012 unified pan for Sumter County. Made comments addressing Ten- 

Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 

Wildwood 12-1ESR ESR 4/2/2012 5/2/2012 Proposed text amendments. Provided water supply planning 

information. 

Wildwood 12-2ESR ESR 8/31/2012 8/30/2012 Unified Sumter County plan. Made comments addressing Ten-Year 

Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 

Williston 12-1ESR ESR 1/24/2012 2/21/2012 No substantive comments to be provided. 

Winter Haven 12-1ESR ESR 3/1/2012 3/27/2012 FLU County RES LOW 1 to City RES-Low Density. Near Lake 

Dexter in the Peace Creek watershed. 

Yankeetown 12-1ESR ESR 5/29/2012 6/18/2012 Land use change. No substantive comments made. 

Zephyrhills 11-1ESR ESR 10/25/2011 11/22/2011 Land use change involving 17.5 acres. Commented on flood hazard 

areas. 

AR 

ACSC 

CIE 

DRI 

EAR 

ESR 

PSFE 

Remedial 

WSFWP 

Alternative 

Area of Critical State Concern 

Capital Improvement Element 

Development of Regional Impact 

Evaluation and Appraisal Report 

Expedited State Review 

Public School Facilities Element 

NOI-Not In Compliance 

Water Supply Facilities Work Plan

Item 42 




Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 

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). 


See Exhibit 


Presenter: 

Colleen Thayer, Public Affairs Bureau Chief

DRI Activity Report September 30, 2012 

Project DRI Location DRI App Type Date Assigned Date Completed Description 

CF Industries South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD - 1st 

Sufficiency 

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. 

CF South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

1/18/2012 2/13/2012 Additional land to be added to CF Industries' 

existing South Pasture Phosphate Mine in Hardee 

County. 7,513 acres. 

 

Cooper Creek Manatee County NOPC 8/30/2011 9/27/2011 Application proposes several changes to the 

existing development scenario. No substantive 

issues were identified made due to close 

coordination with developer during the 

development review process. 

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 Addition S/D (aka 

G&D Farms) 

Manatee County 

ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

2/2/2011 3/3/2011 Application review. 

Four Corners Mine Addition S/D (aka 

G&D Farms) 

Manatee County 

ADA - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

Heron Creek North Port NOPC - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

8/1/2011 8/26/2011 Examined materials. Review completed 8/26/11. 

No substantive comments made. 

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. 

Lake Hutto 

Hillsborough 

County 

NOPC - 1st 

Sufficiency 

11/10/2010 12/7/2010 Mixed Use Development: 1,856 residential units; 

207,500 sf retail; 219,000 sf office; 36,000 sf 

medical and school. 

Lake Hutto 

Hillsborough 

County 

NOPC - 4th 

Sufficiency 

10/4/2011 No substantive comments. Application dealt with 

a number of transportation issues. 

Lake Hutto 

Hillsborough 

County 

NOPC - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

4/7/2011 4/21/2011 No substantive comments.

Lake Hutto 


Hillsborough 

County 

NOPC - 3rd 

Sufficiency 

7/22/2011 8/12/2011 No substantive comments made. Made earlier 

comment re: reclaimed water availability. 

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 

7/15/2011 8/3/2011 No substantive comments. 

Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate Extension (DRI 

272) 

Mosaic Riverview Phosphogypsum Stack 

Expansion 

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. 

 

Oakbridge Lakeland SD 2/27/2012 3/26/2012 Additional 550,000 sq. ft. Regional Mall. 

Additional 98 dwelling units. Changes affect 

southeast quadrant (south of Polk Parkway) only. 

Oakbridge Lakeland SD - 1st 

Sufficiency 

6/5/2012 6/20/2012 Additional 550,000 sq. ft. Regional Mall. 

Additional 98 dwelling units. Changes affect 

southeast quadrant (south of Polk Parkway) only. 

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 Sarasota County ADA 4/2/2012 4/30/2012 Increment XX - Application for Increment 

Development Approval. 267 single family 

residential units on 217 acres. 

Palmer Ranch Sarasota County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

5/29/2012 6/11/2012 Increment XX - Application for Increment 

Development Approval. 267 single family 

residential units on 217 acres.


Palmer Ranch Increment XXI Sarasota County ADA - 2nd 

Sufficiency 

8/16/2012 9/10/2012 290 single-family units on 140 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 

Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - 1st 

Sufficiency 

Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - Initial 

Review 

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 No substantive comments made. 

7/11/2011 Packet incomplete; waiting for additional 

materials. This was the first review of materials 

on file to date. 

12/29/2010 1/21/2011 Conducting ADA review. 

 

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. 

Unnamed Exclusive Country Club Manatee NOPC - 1st 

Sufficiency 

5/16/2012 6/11/2012 Request to increase residential use category by 

11.59 acres. 

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. 

Villages Wildwood Sumter County NOPC 6/28/2012 7/26/2012 353-acre mixed use development in Sumter 

County, close to City of Wildwood. Submitted 

comments encouraging implementation of low 

impact development practices, identification of 

groundwater wells and noted Lake Deaton has 

adopted minimum levels. 

ADA 

DRI 

NOPC 

Pre-App 

SD 

Application for Development Approval 

Development of Regional Impact 

Notice of Proposed Change 

Pre-Application Meeting 

Substantial Deviation

Item 43 




Significant Activities 

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 inserts, outreach to existing partners and social media efforts such as the online 

WaterMatters.org Newsletter, Facebook and Twitter. New Activities Since Last Meeting — 

Staff distributed a news release recapping the rainy season, but reminding readers to conserve 

water since September rainfall was below normal. 

Research 

The Communications Bureau uses research to enhance education program design, plan 

communications strategies and evaluate programs. For example, focus groups have been used 

in the development of campaigns, 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) WaterReuse 

Research Foundation Advisory Committee: Staff is serving as a project advisor for the 

WateReuse Research Foundation on its Public Acceptance Clearinghouse of Information for 

Website development project. In this capacity, the staff member will serve as an advisor and 

reviewer during an RFP development, proposal review and implementation process that will 

result in an online clearinghouse of research and data on public acceptance of alternative water 

supplies (e.g., reclaimed water, desalination). Staff has completed reviewing all proposals and is 

currently assisting in picking a vendor for this project. The advisory team will meet with the 

vendor by phone to discuss project details. (2) Alternative Water Supply Survey: The alternative 

water supply survey was completed in July. The draft report, received from the evaluation 

vendor in mid-September, is under review. 

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 

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 — Water CHAMP has 347 participants. Water 

PRO has 255 participants. According to a survey of participants, 28 restaurants are no longer in 

business and have been removed from Water PRO roles. 

Florida Water Star SM (FWS) Certification Program 

FWS is a voluntary certification program for builders, which 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 fourth year in the District; the first house was certified March 25, 2009. New

Item 43 

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 545 properties. Certifications: As 

of October 10, this District has certified 307 properties. 

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 best 

management practices in 11 counties is provided to audiences that include homeowners, 

students, builders, landscape and irrigation professionals, property managers, and members 

and boards of community associations. New Activities Since Last Meeting —(1) Marion: The 

FFL program reports conducting 13 yard evaluations this quarter, educating 9 employees at 

Southern Charm Landscaping & Nursery on 6/1, and providing a “brown bag” lunchtime 

program for City of Ocala Utility staff on 6/12. (2) Citrus: The FFL program reports that in 

December 2011, the Extension staff conducted site visits to Brentwood Retirement Community 

(280 rooms) and Sugarmill Assisted Living Community (36 rooms) to promote the following: 

retrofitting inefficient fixtures, rescheduling irrigation time clocks and skipping a week of 

irrigation during the winter months. Each facility was provided with efficient aerators and 

showerheads. During a six-month period from January–July 2012, Brentwood’s water use 

decreased by 1,319,000 gallons and Sugarmill’s water use decreased by 38,000 gallons. 

(3) Pinellas: The FFL program reports conducting 26 presentations to HOA/COA boards on FFL 

principles this quarter. (4) Communications staff has held several meetings with UF personnel, 

Extension directors, county government staff, as well as other District Bureaus, including Public 

Affairs, Water Resources, Executive and Natural Systems & Restoration, to identify resident 

behaviors that can potentially result in quantifiable water savings and water quality benefits 

resulting from implementation of FFL principles. District staff is working with FFL coordinators to 

incorporate identified program efficiencies and targeted audiences and behaviors into the 

FY2013 scopes of work. 

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) The Lakes Education/Action Drive’s (LE/AD) Living at the 

Lake series of workshops was held August 2, 6 and 9. More than 80 residents attended. (2) The 

District hosted a booth at the LE/AD Cardboard Boat Challenge and Lakes Festival event on 

Sept. 15. Approximately 320 people received water resources information at the District booth. 

(3) The Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Tri-County Water School was held September 11–12. 

Approximately 65 interested residents and community leaders attended the two-day event, 

which was held at the Brooker Creek Preserve. (4) Springs Awareness Week took place from 

Sept. 14–22 in Citrus and Marion counties. More than 1,000 residents participated in the 

weeklong series of events including volunteer litter cleanups, river tours, guided walks, 

watershed bus tours and workshops. The week’s presentations and events educated residents 

about their watershed and about how their behaviors affect water quality. 

Community Education Grant Program 

The Community Education Grant (CEG) program is in its fifteenth year and is funded through 

Initiatives for Public Education (P268). The CEG program offers reimbursement grants up to 

$7,500 for individuals, service groups, community associations and others to implement water 

resources education projects. New Activities Since Last Meeting — The FY2012 Community 

Education Grant program is now complete. Final reports and invoices are being processed. (1) 

The City of North Port’s aquatic planting and educational sign project is complete. The project 

included the installation of 6 educational signs that encouraged behaviors to protect water 

quality. Participants at 3 workshops and 2 presentations learned about proper fertilizer use, the 

benefits of aquatic plants and the effects of pet waste on water quality. In addition, 26

Item 43 

volunteers removed 3.6 tons of litter at a cleanup event and 87 pledges were signed by program 

participants. (2) The City of St. Petersburg’s “Walsingham Reservoir Invasive Plant Control and 

Wetlands Education” project is complete. During the project, 4 signs were installed educating 

Walsingham Reservoir visitors about invasive exotic plants and wetland native plants. More 

than 20 volunteers removed invasive exotic plants, trash and other debris from the island during 

a hands-on enhancement event at Walsingham Park. (3) More than 230 Pinellas County 

residents participated in Tampa Bay Living Green’s “Water Smart St. Petersburg” project. 

Throughout the summer, the organization conducted 6 educational workshops, constructed 3 

demonstration gardens and distributed 192 rain barrels. Participates learned how to apply 

Florida-Friendly Landscaping principles, how to reduce polluted stormwater runoff and how to 

construct and use a rain barrel. As a result of the project, 212 residents signed watershed 

protection pledges. 

Youth Education 

More than half the students and teachers in the District are reached through the Youth Water 

Resources Education program in a typical year. For FY2013, the Youth Water Resources 

Education Program has been streamlined to eliminate potential duplication and to enhance 

efficiency. Planned changes retain but limit the program's major components: school board 

agreements, grants for classroom projects, teacher training workshops, curriculum tools and 

publications for students and educators. For the FY2012–2013 school year, the following 

changes have been made: (1) While educational resources and teacher training will continue to 

be offered to county school districts, charter schools, private schools, homeschool groups and 

nonformal educators, Splash! school grants and field studies programs will be offered only to 

school districts and charter schools. (2) The Splash! school grant process has been revamped 

to reduce staff time required to review, select and manage the grants. (3) The types of teacher 

training workshops coordinated by staff throughout the District’s 16 counties will be limited to 

Project WET (Water Education for Teachers). Kindergarten through twelfth-grade educators 

attending workshops will continue to receive curricula as well as District materials. (4) About half 

of the youth publication titles are being phased out. New Activities Since Last Meeting — 

Splash! School Grants: This competitive grant program provides funding up to $3,000 per 

school to enhance student knowledge of freshwater resources issues. This year, 165 

applications were submitted by the Sept. 7 deadline. Applications are under review. Teacher 

Training: 27 Polk County teachers attended a Project WET workshop conducted on September 

25 and 27. School District Coordination: The District provides funding through school board 

agreements to implement water resources education programs for K–12 students and 

educators. Staff is working with school district personnel from Charlotte, Citrus, DeSoto, 

Hardee, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Levy, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, 

Sarasota and Sumter County school districts to implement 2012-2013 projects. Educational 

Tools: 1) More than 360,571 copies of youth education publications and other materials have 

been distributed thus far during FY2012. 2) District staff is working with a teacher from the 

Hernando County School District to create teacher’s guides for each of the District’s six virtual 

watershed excursions. 

Strategic Communications Planning 

Communications staff members work with staff from various bureaus 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. Staff 

assist with the planning, execution and evaluation of these efforts. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting — (1) Staff is working with the Water Resources Bureau to identify and address public 

outreach needs associated with five cooperatively funded reclaimed water aquifer recharge 

projects in Polk, Pasco and Hillsborough counties and the cities of Winter Haven and 

Clearwater. Staff is also attending regular project meetings with the cooperators to discuss the 

communications plan, implementation and public meetings. (2) Staff is working with the Public 

Affairs Bureau to assist with communications activities for the Central Florida Water Initiative 

Regional Water Supply Plan planning process. (3) Staff is working with SWIM and Public Affairs 

Bureau staff as well as staff from the cities of St. Petersburg and Gulfport to plan the Clam 

Bayou Project and Skyway Trail Dedication. This SWIM restoration and stormwater project has

Item 43 

been an ongoing partnership with the cities of St. Petersburg and Gulfport. The dedication 

ceremony was scheduled to be held Saturday, October 27. The event will include a trail ribboncutting, 

rehabilitated bird release, walking tour of the SWIM project and a kayak tour of the 

Bayou. Staff is assisting with the coordination of a list of invitees and the development of 

invitations, programs, media advisories and overall ceremony planning. (4) To address 

concerns about the upcoming revised MFLs for the Chassahowitzka and Homosassa river 

systems, staff held a public meeting at the Lecanto Government Center on October 2 to present 

the revised MFLs. 

Internal Communications 

Staff continues to improve communication to staff and provide them with timely and accurate 

information through the internal communications program. As part of the program, Currents, the 

weekly employee newsletter, is sent via email on Mondays and includes special dates and 

important employee-related information. In addition, Communications staff continues to 

coordinate all-user emails to ensure all messages are clear and consistent. 

Social Media 

Social media allows the District to send information directly to the public in a timely, costefficient 

way. The District’s social media platforms are used to communicate the District’s 

mission and culture. (1) Twitter is used on a regular basis to post news releases and other 

important information to 816 followers to date. (2) Facebook promotes special events, news and 

public interest stories to 1,812 friends to date. (3) The District will soon launch a social media 

campaign on Instagram promoting District properties. (4) Pinterest will soon be used to highlight 

water conservation and protection actions with the goal of driving people to the District’s 

website. (5) Various videos are in the planning stage on the following topics: Florida-Friendly 

Landscaping success stories, water pollution prevention, Florida Water Star and how water 

is managed for you. (6) Staff is researching the implementation of a new mobile app that will 

highlight District properties and recreation opportunities. 

Visual Communications Print 

The print team provides prepress layout, illustration and design of publications and displays for 

the Communications Bureau and Districtwide support. New Activities Since Last Meeting — 

Communications: Florida Water Star certificates; graphic elements for Facebook and 

Pinterest; Chassahowitzka and Homosassa event materials; District Dash 5K event materials; 

“Get Outside!” display graphic; Save Our Waters Week materials; Swimsuits to Hiking Boots 

event materials; water conservation pledge card; outdoor irrigation tips card revision; Water 

CHAMP materials; Florida-Friendly Landscaping poster; documentary photos for new 

records management storage building; DVD label. Data Collection: ROMP 41 technical report; 

ROMP 29 technical report; EOC contact cards updates. Public Affairs: Consolidated Annual 

Report covers (19 total). Natural Systems & Restoration: 2012 Report to Legislature draft 

assistance. Water Resources: Tri-County Water School presentation; water resources 

presentation; Duck Slough presentation. Office of Executive Director: Governing Board 

nameplates; August metrics dashboard; executive presentations assistance. Human 

Resources: Staff benefits packet covers. Operations & Land Management: Plotting and 

mounting of land maps (5); plotting of “How Lands Protect Our Water” posters (22). Regulatory 

Support: Revised regulation map; meeting signage. Finance: Budget hearing and budget 

summary newspaper ads. 

Visual Communications — Web 

The web team designs and develops website content and code. New Activities Since Last 

Meeting — 2012–2013 Hog Hunts webpage; multimedia and video updates; Water News You 

Can Use newsletter; Emergency Operations Center (Tropical Storm Debby) webpages and 

updates; District Restructuring (intranet); ITB Help Desk redesign (intranet). Monthly Web 

Trends: Overall site traffic was 71,249 visits with 195,072 page views. Visits were up 6% from 

last month and up 16% from same period last year. Most popular webpages: Recreation 

(42,443 page views; up 19% from last month, up 33% from same period last year); Education 

(22,197 page views; up 75% from last month, up 3% from same period last year); ePermitting

Item 43 

(14,265 page views; down 4% from last month, up 3% from same period last year). Most 

increased traffic (excluding “most popular webpages”): Flying Eagle Nature Center (9,077 

page views; up 258% from last month); Data & Maps webpage (13,829 page views; up 11% 

from last month, up 22% from same period last year); Splash! School Grants (7,811 page views; 

up 169% from last month, down 22% from same period last year). Governing Board Portal: 

Staff is in the process of developing a Governing Board Portal to provide Board members with 

easy web access to sites that are of interest or frequently visited. The Portal page will provide 

quick links to items such as the budget, staff organization charts, and employment opportunities. 

Board members will have easy access to the weekly media advance, news releases and daily 

ClipTRACs. The District calendar, document downloads, and Governing Board meeting videos 

will be simple to navigate, and during the Legislative Session timely updates will be instantly 

available. The Portal is still in the development stages, and staff will be meeting one-on-one with 

Board members during the coming months to demonstrate the Portal and obtain feedback to 

ensure the site contains information of interest to the Board. Concurrent with this effort, District 

email addresses for Board members will be rolled out on a trial basis to those who are 

interested. 

Special Events 

Event Title: Hillsborough River & Coastal Cleanup and Rollin’ on the River Rally 

Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 

Time: 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. 

Location: Lowry Park, Tampa 

Sponsoring Organization: Keep Tampa Bay Beautiful 

Attendees: General public 

Event Title: Clam Bayou Project and Skyway Trail Dedication 

Date: Saturday, October 27, 2012 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Location: Clam Bayou Preserve, St. Petersburg 

Sponsoring Organization: City of St. Pete, City of Gulfport, Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and District 


Event Title: Water, Wings and Wild Things 

Date: Saturday, November 3, 2012 

Time: 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. 

Location: Polk's Nature Discovery Center on the Circle B Bar Reserve, Lakeland 

Sponsoring Organization: Polk County government agencies, local municipalities, state 

agencies and non-profit organizations 


Event Title: Charlotte Harbor Nature Festival 


Time: 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. 

Location: Charlotte Sports Park, Port Charlotte 

Sponsoring Organization: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 


Event Title: Sarasota Bay Water Festival 


Time: 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. 

Location: Ken Thompson Park, Sarasota 

Sponsoring Organization: The Sarasota Bay Estuary Program 


PUBLIC AFFAIRS BUREAU

Item 43 

The Public Affairs Bureau supports the District’s mission through a broad range of activities. 

Staff serves as liaisons with local, state and federal government officials and represents the 

District with a number of community organizations. Staff also advocates the District’s legislative 

priorities and develops and implements strategies to acquire state and federal appropriations. 

Further, staff provides government and agency assistance, economic and demographic 

analysis, Board and Advisory Committee support, and outreach and strategic planning for the 


Legislation and Policy 

The Public Affairs Bureau 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. Public Affairs staff works with executive, legal and other departments to develop and 

manage internal District legislative procedures and policies. New Activities since Last 

Meeting: Staff continues to meet with key legislators during the interim to brief them on 

legislative issues of importance to the District. Further, incoming Speaker of the House Will 

Weatherford has announced the appointment of Representative Seth McKeel (R), Lakeland, as 

his Appropriations Chair. Additional appointments are pending. 

As November 6 draws near, staff continues to monitor those local, state and federal general 

elections and will report on results following those elections. 

Local Government Efforts 

As part of the District’s community and legislative affairs program, the Public Affairs Bureau 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, PAB 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: 

• Englewood LID Dearborn Street Stormwater Project Groundbreaking (9/6/12) – District 

staff attended Sarasota County’s groundbreaking ceremony for the Dearborn Street LID 

project. This project has been in the planning stages for several years and is cooperativelyfunded 

by the District. The project will be in the Englewood Community Redevelopment area 

and is a pilot project to incorporate various LID components in a stormwater system. The 

project will incorporate environmentally friendly features such as bio-swales, prepared or 

mixed soil layers, pervious concrete pavement and stormwater reuse for irrigation. Equipment 

will be installed for efficiency monitoring of water samples during and after construction to test 

for nutrient reduction and improved water quality for Lemon Bay. Former Commissioner 

Shannon Staub and Sarasota County Commission Chair Christine Robinson publicly thanked 

the District for the District’s funding and continued partnership. 

• Citrus Ag Alliance (9/10/2012) – District staff attended the monthly Ag Alliance meeting and 

provided an update on the Flying Eagle Nature Center and the associated RFP. Staff also 

provided an update on surplus lands, cooperative funding, and MFLs. Several representatives 

in the group are interested in the surplus lands assessment and plan to attend the 

Subcommittee meeting in November. 

• Citrus County Task Force (9/10/2012) – The Task Force heard presentations about the 

Homosassa River from a variety of stakeholders including the District, Citrus County, 

University of Florida, FDEP and the Homosassa River Alliance. The presentations were 

focused on efforts to monitor and improve water quality and habitat within the Homosassa 

River. The Homosassa River Alliance included a presentation for a proposed restoration 

project in Mitten Cove near the Homosassa Main Spring. The Task Force voted unanimously 

to include the proposed project in their 2012 Report to the Legislature. The Task Force also

Item 43 

received an update from District staff regarding the restoration efforts at Chassahowitzka 

Springs. The project is scheduled to begin construction in April 2013. 

• City of Crystal River City Council (9/10/2012) – The City Council requested a District 

representative give a presentation on a recently issued Water Use Permit for bottled water in 

Crystal River. Staff explained the District’s WUP process and then answered several 

questions from the Council and citizens. Both the Council and approximately 40 citizens, who 

attended the meeting, are opposed to bottled water permits. Staff explained that the District 

does not discriminate among use types when reviewing applications. By the end of the 

presentation the Council seemed to understand that the District issued the permit according to 

the rules in place. The Council asked their City Manager, Andy Houston, to submit a request 

to the District requesting notification of future pending WUPs in Crystal River. 

• Citrus County Board of County Commissioners (9/11/2012) – District staff accepted Citrus 

County’s proclamations for “Save Our Waters Week” and “Springs Awareness Week.” Each 

year Citrus County 20/20 partners with the FDEP, District, and Citrus County to promote 

awareness and educate citizens about the health and wellbeing of Citrus County’s water 

ways. 

• Sarasota County Commission (9/11/12) – The Sarasota County Commission voted 3-2 in 

favor of an amendment to a cooperative funding agreement with the District. Specifically the 

amendment was a time extension for the Pilot Treatment Study and Intermediate Well for the 

Dona Bay Water Supply Project (H088). The new expiration date is July 31, 2012. The 

extension allows for continued testing and time for a final report to be written in an orderly 

fashion. Commissioners Barbetta and Robinson voted against the extension. 

• Pasco County BOCC (9/11/12) – Pasco County BOCC approved on consent $348,176 in 

task orders for engineering support services and model updates for the Duck Slough 

Watershed. 

• Land Exchange between the District/Polk County & Mr. Al Bellotto (9/18/12) – Polk 

County’s attorney presented the proposed land swamp of 4.26 acres of uplands on Circle B 

Bar Reserve for 4.26 acres of wetlands owned by Mr. Al Bellotto. He explained that this 

transfer would not result in any fiscal impact to the County and said a conservation easement 

would be placed on the transferred property. Jeff Spence, Polk County, provided a brief 

overview of the property and previous action taken by the CLASAC Committee approving the 

transfer. Two members spoke against the transfer. Commissioners asked for District’s input. 

District staff provided an overview of the Lake Hancock/Lake Level Modification Project and 

the continued partnerships with the County. One Commissioner asked about the proposed 

trail and boat ramp. District staff reiterated the Governing Board approved “Recreational 

Study” around the lake and how it includes a proposed trail. The commission voted 5-0 to 

support the transfer. 

• Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (9/19/2012) – Staff attended the WRWSA 

regular meeting which included the approval of an amendment to the District’s N278 CFI 

project. The amendment will extend the contract period and refine some of the project 

timelines. The WRWSA Board also approved two CFI applications for submittal in the FY 

2014 process. The Board had a brief discussion regarding the small general permit for a 

bottled water company that was issued by the District in Citrus County. The Board directed its 

Executive Director, Richard Owen, to develop a list of potential permits (quantities and types) 

that the Board may wish to be noticed by the District in the future. 

• Sarasota County (9/26/12) – County staff presented the County’s priority list of projects for 

the FY 2014 SWFWMD Cooperative Funding Cycle. The County is submitting six projects and 

the Commission authorized funding the County match in an amount not to exceed $3,432,514. 

The Commission voted 5-0 in favor of the priority list of projects and also approved a letter to 

the District requesting the re-appropriation of FY 13 cooperative funds for the wetland 

restoration project and 72-inch conveyance system and Cow Pen Slough Weir structure. 

Commissioners Barbetta, Robinson and Thaxton all thanked the District for their continued 

support and “patience” with the Dona Bay project. Commissioner Thaxton also stated that it 

was important for the Dona Bay project to continue to be in front of the Governing Board with 

the knowledge that it has full support from the Commission. 

Planning

Item 43 

• Regional Planning Councils 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (10/8/12) -- Dr. Barbara Foster of the Department 

of Economic Opportunity (DEO) provided an overview of the five-year Statewide Strategic 

Plan for Economic Development, which began in October 2011. Staff from DEO and the 

Florida Regional Planning Councils held 50 workshops with over 3,000 stakeholders 

throughout the state in this consensus-based, collaborative approach to strategic planning. 

DEO is marking the first anniversary of the agency with the roll out of the plan. The City of 

Zephyrhills passed a Resolution at their August Council Meeting in favor of joining the 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. The Council voted unanimously to accept their 

membership. TBRPC staff provided an update on two statewide energy planning projects 

identifying ways to diversify our energy sources and how to prepare for a major energy 

disruption. Partners include the Florida Regional Planning Councils, the Florida Office of 

Energy, the U.S. Economic Development Administration, and the U.S. Department of 

Energy. The studies will help identify strategies to diversify Florida's energy future and 

reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. Two surveys have been created to better 

understand the current energy infrastructure paradigm from both a residential and nonresidential 

perspective. The surveys are located at www.florida-energy.org. Finally, the 

Council will make available 13,940 square feet of premium office space for lease on Feb. 1, 

2012 with favorable rates for nonprofits. 

Central Florida Regional Planning Council (9/12/12) – In addition to attending to several 

administrative items relating to staff salaries and roof repairs, the Council heard 

presentations on the efforts to make broadband internet services widely available 

throughout the region and on a grant request for brownfields assessments. During the 

broadband presentation member Andy Tuck and District staff emphasized the importance of 

having a robust mobile network for the agricultural community, especially since farming 

practices are increasingly relying on moment-to-moment technologies that can be adjusted 

remotely (via smart phone) according to weather and other natural conditions. The next 

meeting will not be held until November, at which time a public hearing for the Oakbridge 

DRI will take place. 

• Central Florida Water Initiative 

CFWI Base Map Subgroup (9/11/2012) – Staff participated in the second CFWI Base Map 

Subgroup conference call. There were also representatives from SFWMD and SJRWMD. 

The goal of the group is to determine the technical, logistical, and aesthetic components of 

the CFWI base maps. We discussed the map revisions made as a result of the first 

meeting, as well as additional revisions based upon the latest version. A few features were 

missing from the base map in our region and staff agreed to provide those within a week. 

SFWMD is taking the lead on housing the data and creating the base maps. 

Population and Demand Projections Subgroup (9/13/12) – Staff participated in the CFWI 

Population and Demand Subgroup’s Regional Water Supply Planning (RWSP) meeting in 

Maitland. The focus of the meeting was to incorporate stakeholder comments into the 

demand projections portion of the RWSP. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services had the most comments and asked that several portions of the agricultural section, 

regarding stakeholder review and limitations/uncertainties, be sent back to the main group 

for consideration. After the meeting, some stakeholders expressed concern over their 

perception that agriculture does not use all the water that is allocated to it and that changing 

the drought frequency to one-in-ten will only increase the gap between permitted and used 

quantities in agriculture. The concern is that higher permitted quantities will impact other 

users, exacerbate MFL issues and require the development of more expensive alternative 

supplies. 

RWSP Task Management Subgroup (9/19/12) – The CFWI RWSP Task Management 

Subgroup met to discuss several items related to the RWSP development and editing 

process. The group revised the list of near term deliverables and plan elements that can be 

completed now and established a GIS subgroup to develop map standards. An expanded 

guidance document/outline that provides direction to the technical team authors was 

finalized and submitted to the Groundwater Availability and RWSP teams. The subgroup 

has also developed an editing process document and a Word version of the author’s 

template to allow for simple and consistent formatting and submitted both to the RWSP

Item 43 

team for review. Finally, the RWSP writing process has commenced for several chapters 

and writing responsibilities have been assigned to the appropriate teams. 

RWSP Team Meeting (9/20/12) – The full CFWI RWSP team held its monthly meeting in 

Maitland to discuss the progress of the various technical teams, manage the development of 

the RWSP, and hear status reports from each of the RWSP subgroups. The Public 

Involvement Subgroup updated the Communications Plan to address delays in the 

schedule. The subgroup is also engaging myregion.org to discuss their potential 

involvement in the CFWI/RWSP. John Shearer and Jason Mickel will be meeting with 

Shelley Lauten of myregion.org to collaborate on promoting the CFWI process and 

improving associated messaging. The Water Supply Options subgroup met to discuss the 

necessary tasks required to get their portion of the RWSP done and established a 

Reclaimed Water subgroup. The Water Conservation subgroup submitted their draft 

chapter to the RWSP team for review. 

• Lake Hancock Field Office Preapplication Meeting (9/20/12) – District and Polk County 

staff met with Hamilton Engineering, regarding the future land use map amendment and 

associated site plan approval for the Lake Hancock Field Office proposed for a portion of the 

District’s Kent tract. The County did not express any major concerns relating to floodplains or 

transportation and utilities concurrency, focusing primarily on the need for a clear summary of 

the District's proposal and a proper legal description for the site in order to qualify for a smallscale 

amendment. County staff supports continued use of well and septic at the site and noted 

that the State Fire Marshall has jurisdiction for the buildings associated with the proposed 

Lake Hancock Field Office. District staff expects Hamilton Engineering will submit concurrent 

applications for the Level 2 site plan and the Level 4 comprehensive plan amendment in order 

to go to BoCC hearing in April 2013. 

Community Services 

In addition to acting as the District’s liaison to local government, the Public Affairs Bureau is 

responsible for the primary “grassroots and grasstops” efforts with 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. New Activities Since Last Meeting: 

• State Emergency Response Team (8/26 – 8/29) – PAB staff supported the State EOC as the 

liaison for all 5 WMDs. The focus during the Hurricane Isaac event was to stay in contact with 

SFWMD to provide information to the State EOC regarding the flooding of western Palm 

Beach County. Some areas within Palm Beach County experienced 16+ inches of rainfall over 

a 3-day period. The SFWMD measured record high flows at many of their structures. Several 

local drainage districts were given approval to pump water into the SFWMD system by way of 

an Emergency Order issued Tuesday afternoon. SFWMD was able to meet all of their needs 

without assistance from the State EOC. Staff had had regular communications with the 

NWFWMD as the storm made landfall. The NWFWMD was primarily concerned with storm 

surge and was able to meet all of their needs without assistance from the State EOC. Regular 

updates from each WMD which were passed to the appropriate State EOC staff for 

processing. Governor Rick Scott made regular appearances at the State EOC and thanked 

the District for its efforts during the event. 

• Central Polk Parkway Extension Discussion (9/10/12) –The URS Corporation Southern is 

on FDOT’s shortlist for the Central Polk Parkway Extension project. They requested a meeting 

with staff from Polk County Natural Resources, Transportation and Planning Departments and 

the District to discuss the alignment from CR 540 to US Hwy. 17. The particular alignment 

proposed the extension run on the eastern edge of the Hampton Tract, along Thornhill Road, 

Old Eagle Lake Road and across to US Hwy. 17 near Crossover Road (very near the current 

entrance to Old Florida Plantation). The County is interested how the alignment would affect 

current and proposed recreational facilities on the Hampton property and connectivity of the 

trail system. URS used this meeting to gain understanding about current and future activities 

along the corridor and asked about the following: the potential re-alignment of Thornhill and 

Crossover Roads, and the status of existing and future stormwater systems. Polk County

Item 43 

Planning Department staff indicated, “in a perfect world (financially speaking), this extension 

would not even begin until 2025-2030.” 

• Thousand Oaks/Trinity Oaks Problem-Solving Task Force (9/10/12) – Due to the recent 

rains, homeowners in Thousand Oaks and Trinity Oaks raised concerns over water levels 

rising in their neighborhoods. Pasco County is currently pumping water from the 

neighborhoods. The County reported that initial survey data is showing that the wetlands in 

the area are not connected like they had thought and this may complicate any future potential 

projects. The HOA representatives reported that District staff met with them to look at the 

maintenance on the stormwater systems. They reported that they have a timeline to perform 

the needed maintenance. The County also provided a wetland update, stating that Five Mile 

Creek (owned by Pasco County) is a potential area for wetland mitigation. Pasco County 

attorneys continue to look at language to address designating the area a Drainage Basin of 

Special Concern. There are some conflicts due to exemption language in the ordinance that 

exempts developments with a master drainage plan. C 

• Lake Jackson Water Levels and Hydrology Public Meeting (09/17/12) – Residents living 

near Lake Jackson and Little Lake Jackson in Highlands County are concerned the lakes are 

losing water and there is seepage near the structures. At the request of Representative 

Denise Grimsley and the Highlands County BOCC, staff from the District, FDOT & FDEP was 

requested to provide a presentation on Lake Jackson and Little Lake Jackson. Staff from each 

agency provided an overview of how their agency manages the lake and surrounding areas. 

Clell Ford of Highlands County gave a brief history of lake levels on Lake Jackson and Little 

Lake Jackson. District staff explained how the District develops MFLs as determined by state 

statue and also described what happens after an MFL has been set and further detailed 

specifics with Jackson/Little Jackson lakes. Dr. Gary Williams provided the results of the 

Jackson/Little Jackson Watershed Recovery Evaluation. Williams’ primary focus was on the 

lack of rainfall in the region. Approximately 120 residents attended the presentation and 

participated in a question and answer session. Many asked how the passage between the two 

lakes can be dredged for boat traffic. Out of the questions directed to the District, the following 

required follow-up: (1) District staff will work with the BOCC, Representative Denise Grimsley, 

and Congressman Tom Rooney to set up an onsite tour of Structure 1 which is the first 

structure on the Josephine Canal. Residents believe most of the seepage leaving Little 

Jackson is happening at this County structure and want the District and others to observe the 

seepage; (2) The District was asked to consider a study that would further investigate the 

possibility of cracks/seepage (breaks in the hardpan) beyond what has already been studied 

around both lakes and the Josephine Canal. If a study is to proceed, it should be done 

through cooperative funding. Congressman Rooney's Aide offered to work with the folks as 

much as possible to accommodate dredging (financially) between the lakes. 

• Utility Service Program (9/19/2012) – Members of the District’s Utility Service Program met 

with the Windstream Utilities Co., in Marion County. The purpose of the meeting was to 

introduce District staff and explain the Utility Service Program. We discussed District 

resources that are available to utility operators, Public Supply Annual Reports and per capita 

rates. Butch Dlouhy, Windstream owner, provided several recommendations regarding the 

program and the reference manual. 

• Lakes Bonable, Tiger and Little Bonable MFL Public Workshop (9/27/2012) – District staff 

presented proposed Minimum Levels for three lakes in Marion County. Approximately 40 

people attended the public meeting and asked staff questions pertaining to how the MFL was 

developed, how existing withdrawals impact water levels and if the District would be 

augmenting the lake with groundwater. Staff explained the process of developing the MFL 

including the modeling that was completed which indicated that very little drawdown occurs 

due to groundwater withdrawals. The lakes are primarily driven by rainfall. Staff also explained 

the District has no intentions to augment the lake. 

• Tri-County Water School (9/11/12) – Approximately 70 people attended the Tri-County 

Water School sponsored by UF/IFAS, Pinellas County, Pasco County, Hillsborough County 

and the District. Participants heard from several speakers regarding current and future 

challenges for water issues within the region. Participants had numerous questions regarding 

water use permitting, water quality, public utility rates, bottle water permits and agricultural 

issues.

Item 43 

• Hernando County Chamber of Commerce (9/20/2012) – District staff presented to the 

Hernando Leadership Steering Committee at their annual meeting of this year’s class of 

graduates from the program. Graduates are members of the Hernando County business 

community. They heard presentations regarding the origin of the District, areas of 

responsibility, surplus lands and water quality programs. 



Presenter: 

David T. Rathke, Chief of Staff

G. Finance & 

Administration



FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 




44. Bartow Service Office Update ............................................................................................ 2 


45. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report .......................... 4 

46. Monthly Financial Statement .............................................................................................. 9 

47. Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year ............................................................................. 14

Item 44 

Finance and Administration Committee 


Submit and File Report 

Bartow Service Office Update 

Purpose 

To provide the Governing Board with an update of the activities completed and planned for 

selling the Bartow Service Office property and relocating the District staff assigned to that 

facility. 

Background 

The Governing Board provided three preferences for the Bartow Service Office property: 

(1) relocate the Operation Division staff to facilities existing within the District’s Lake Hancock 

landholdings (Kent Property); (2) sell the Bartow Service Office property, preferably to a 

governmental entity; and (3) when appropriate, relocate the Regulation Division staff to a leased 

location in Polk County, preferably leased from a governmental entity. 

Update 

District staff has completed the following activities and will complete the following plan: 

1. The District’s Kent Property building improvements are completed and are ready for the 

Operations Division. Staff is waiting for appropriate zoning and permit approvals from Polk 

County and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Final authorization to relocate 

is anticipated between January and March 2013. 

2. The surplus of the Bartow Service Office property underwent review and approval by DEP in 

accordance with their policies and procedures. The process included the property being first 

made available for consideration to other governmental entities. A couple of agencies have 

made inquiries, expressed significant interest, and received information about the property. 

Despite staff offers to negotiate creative financial alternatives, the District has not received 

any offers from any public entities. Therefore, staff will proceed with an initial public offering 

before December 31. The District will conduct a Request for Bid (RFB) process to ensure 

that everyone receives an equal opportunity to bid for the property. If the initial public 

offering does not result in a sale, the property will remain available to all potential parties, 

outside of the RFB process. The District will remain flexible with its options for a transaction; 

including the ability to consider leasing back a portion of the property, if beneficial. The 

District’s consideration and acceptance of any offer requires that the sale must be made in 

accordance with the provisions of Section 373.089, Florida Statutes, and the terms of a 

transaction will require the approval of the Governing Board. 

3. Staff has completed an inventory of the available public sector space, which could 

accommodate the defined needs of the Regulation Division staff. Four possible alternatives 

have been identified, and staff prepared a ten-year total cost analysis on the properties, 

which include two City of Bartow airport properties, a Polk County Landfill property, and the 

Bartow Service Office West Wing. The ten-year cost totals range from $475,500 to 

$1,041,450 with retaining or leasing-back a smaller segment of the Bartow Service Office 

being the low cost option. Staff is using this analysis to prepare a Request for Proposal 

(RFP) for the leasing of space. The fore mentioned public entities may participate, and 

private entities will be eligible. Staff will continue to reduce the Regulation Division

Item 44 

operating footprint within the Service office to reduce operating and utility costs further. As 

the sale of the property becomes imminent, staff will finalize the RFP, update the Governing 

Board on options then available, and commence negotiations for leased space for 

Regulation Division staff. 


This item is submitted for the Committee’s information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: Lloyd Roberts, Bureau Chief, General Services

Item 45 




Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report 

Purpose 

Presentation of the Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report 

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 September 30, 2012, which reflects total cash and investments at a market value 

of $589,658,949. 

As reflected on the September 30, 2012, Treasurer's Report, the investment portfolio had 

$131.7 million or 22.2 percent invested with the State Board of Administration (SBA) of which 

$126.2 million is invested in the Florida PRIME (formerly the Local Government Investment 

Pool) and $5.5 million in the Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (Fund B). The District has 

received $387,088 of Pool A interest earnings during fiscal year 2011-12. 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 

Fund/Institutional money market fund and U.S. Treasury bills. 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 September 30, 2012, the District's investment in Fund B was $5.5 million, down from the 

initial investment of $40.7 million. The market value of the Fund B investments is estimated at 

$4.9 million or approximately 91 percent of cost, reflecting $517,287 at risk. District staff is not 

aware of any plans by the SBA to liquidate Fund B investments below cost. 

On October 4, 2012, the SBA released another $154,359 from Fund B. Therefore, subsequent 

to September 30, 2012, the balance of $5.5 million has been reduced by $154,359 which further 

reduces the $517,287 at risk. 

Staff will continue to monitor the SBA activities to determine how this will impact the District's 

current investment in the Florida PRIME, and affect the District's investment strategy going 

forward. 

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).

Item 45 

The FY2011-12 Contingency Funds Report (District only) follows: 

ORIGINAL BUDGET AMOUNT: $7,100,000 

Less Approved Transfers 

Date of 

Board Action 

Information Technology Analysis and Review 200,000 December 20, 2011 

BALANCE: $6,900,000 


See Exhibit 

These items are presented for the Committee's information, and no action is required. 

Presenter: 

Daryl F. Pokrana, Bureau Chief, Finance


TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BOARD 

September 30, 2012 

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 

3133eajw9 0.74 Callable 04/02/2012 04/02/2015 3.00 914 $20,000,000 $20,051,600 $73,589 

3133eakr8 0.64 Callable 04/09/2012 04/09/2015 3.00 921 20,000,000 20,053,200 61,156 

3133ealp1 0.61 Callable 04/20/2012 04/16/2015 2.99 928 5,947,918 5,987,096 16,362 

3133ealp1 0.61 Callable 04/23/2012 04/16/2015 2.98 928 7,622,331 7,619,941 20,969 

3133eak31 0.50 Callable 08/20/2012 08/20/2015 3.00 1054 19,980,000 20,023,600 10,706 

TOTAL FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 

$73,550,249 $73,735,437 $182,782 12.41 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 

313373h54 1.50 Bullet 04/15/2011 05/15/2014 3.08 592 $20,000,000 $20,402,000 $113,333 

313374rp7 1.00 Bullet 07/18/2011 07/18/2014 3.00 656 20,000,000 20,262,200 40,556 

313378r60 0.71 Callable 04/09/2012 04/09/2015 3.00 921 19,994,000 20,126,200 66,889 

3133796c8 0.60 Callable 05/14/2012 05/14/2015 3.00 956 19,994,000 20,000,400 44,906 

3133804a2 0.53 Callable 07/30/2012 07/30/2015 3.00 1033 20,000,000 20,032,600 17,961 

TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 

$99,988,000 $100,823,400 $283,645 16.88 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION 

3134g3nz9 0.55 Callable 04/20/2012 02/27/2015 2.86 880 $20,000,000 $20,028,400 $10,389 

3134g3pd6 0.56 Callable 04/20/2012 02/27/2015 2.86 880 9,288,748 9,234,592 5,195 

3134g3pd6 0.52 Callable 04/20/2012 02/27/2015 2.86 880 10,713,019 10,840,608 5,194 

3134g3uu2 0.60 Callable 05/22/2012 05/22/2015 3.00 964 20,000,000 20,037,800 43,000 

3134g3j50 0.50 Callable 09/10/2012 09/10/2015 3.00 1075 20,000,000 20,006,800 5,775 

TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION 

$80,001,767 $80,148,200 $69,553 13.50 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

31398a4s8 1.05 Callable 12/08/2010 10/22/2013 2.87 387 $20,000,000 $20,161,200 $92,750 

3135g0dy6 0.70 Callable 10/17/2011 10/17/2014 3.00 747 20,009,375 20,005,200 68,333 

3135g0ef6 0.80 Callable 10/24/2011 10/24/2014 3.00 754 20,000,000 20,006,400 69,778 

3136ftfz7 0.65 Callable 10/24/2011 10/24/2014 3.00 754 20,000,000 20,002,800 56,694 

3135g0em1 1.00 Callable 11/07/2011 11/07/2014 3.00 768 20,000,000 20,012,200 80,000 

3135g0lc5 0.70 Callable 05/29/2012 05/29/2015 3.00 971 20,000,000 20,010,000 47,444 

TOTAL FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 

$120,009,375 $120,197,800 $414,999 20.26 

TOTAL AGENCY SECURITIES $373,549,391 $374,904,837 $950,979 63.05




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 

9127956t3 0.10 08/23/2012 11/23/2012 0.25 54 $19,995,017 $19,995,017 $2,113 

9127957f2 0.13 08/23/2012 02/14/2013 0.48 137 19,987,847 19,987,847 2,708 

9127956r7 0.15 08/22/2012 05/30/2013 0.77 242 19,977,364 19,977,364 3,222 

TOTAL UNITED STATES TREASURY BILL 

$59,960,228 $59,960,228 $8,043 10.12 

STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) & OTHER INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS 

EFFECTIVE 

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT 

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 

0.32 $94,376,367 $94,376,367 

271411 SBA Workers' Compensation 

032 0.32 1,471,324 $1,471,324 

271414 SBA Land Resources 

0.32 7,135,848 $7,135,848 

271415 SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) 

0.32 4,958,507 $4,958,507 

271416 SBA Advanced State Funding (FDOT) 

0.32 11,289,890 $11,289,890 

271417 SBA Advanced State Funding (WRAP) 

0.32 3,436,848 $3,436,848 

271418 SBA Advanced State Funding (WPSTF AWS) 0.32 3,584,515 $3,584,515 

$126,253,299 $126,253,299 

Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (1) 

271413 SBA General Investments 

0.00 $4,965,124 $4,494,430 

271415 SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) 

0.00 491,485 444,892 

$5,456,609 $4,939,322 

TOTAL STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) ACCOUNTS 

$131,709,908 $131,192,621 22.24 

(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.




EFFECTIVE 

ACCOUNT ACCOUNT 

INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION 

RATE COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO 

FEDERATED GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS FUND / INSTITUTIONAL 0.02 27,218,596 27,218,596 4.59 

TOTAL INVESTMENTS 

CASH, SUNTRUST DEMAND ACCOUNT (2) 

TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

$592,438,123 $593,276,282 100.00 

(3,617,333) (3,617,333) 

$588,820,790 $589,658,949 

Weighted average yield on portfolio at September 30, 2012 is 0.55%. 

(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. 

EQUITY - CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

 

DISTRICT AND BASINS 

District General Fund $304,628,343 51.74% 

Alafia River Basin 15,314,392 2.60% 

Hillsborough River Basin 76,758,975 13.04% 

Coastal Rivers Basin 11,060,811 1.88% 

Pinellas-Anclote River Basin 101,879,189 17.30% 

Withlacoochee River Basin 10,613,075 1.80% 

Peace River Basin 17,823,902 3.03% 

Manasota Basin 34,759,314 5.90% 

FDOT Mitigation Program 11,126,956 1.89% 

Florida Forever Fund 4,855,833 0.82% 

TOTAL EQUITY IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS 

$588,820,790 100.00%

Item 46 




Monthly Financial Statement 

Purpose 

Presentation of the September 30, 2012, monthly financial statement. 

Background 

In accordance with Sections 373.536(4)(d) and 215.985(12), Florida Statutes, relating to state 

financial information with certain financial transparency requirements, the District is submitting a 

“Preliminary Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds for the Year Ended September 30, 2012” 

to be posted to the District’s website following presentation to the Governing Board. This is a 

preliminary financial statement for fiscal year 2012. A full set of financial statements will be 

prepared and finalized as year-end processes are completed in preparation for the annual 

financial audit. 


See Exhibit 

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

Presenter: 


Preliminary Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds 

For the Year Ended September 30, 2012 

The attached “Preliminary Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds” statement is provided for 

your review. This is a preliminary financial statement for fiscal year (FY) 2011-12. A full set of 

financial statements will be prepared and finalized as year-end processes are completed in 

preparation for the annual financial audit. This preliminary financial statement provides 

summary-level revenues (i.e., sources) and expenditures by program (i.e., uses). 

This financial statement compares revenues recognized and encumbrances/expenditures 

made against the District’s FY2011-12 available budget of $509.2 million. Encumbrances 

represent orders for goods and services which have not yet been received. 

Revenues (Sources) Status: 

• Overall, as of September 30, 2012, 93 percent (including fund balance) of the District’s 

budgeted revenue has been recognized. 

• As of September 30, 2012, the District has received $104.5 million of ad valorem tax 

revenue representing 101 percent of the budget. The budget represents 96 percent of the 

tax levy based on the historical collection rate. 

• Intergovernmental Revenues are recognized at the time related expenditures are incurred. 

For FY2011-12, $30.7 million in revenues have been recognized, representing 45 percent 

of the budget. From year to year, the budgeted amount of intergovernmental revenue 

compared to the recognized amount can fluctuate for various reasons; projects can be in 

the planning stages and have not incurred a significant amount of expenditures, or 

anticipated projects may be canceled (e.g., cooperative funding projects). 

• The FY2011-12 interest earnings budget was based on a 0.5 percent expected rate of 

return. The District’s investment portfolio at September 30, 2012, is earning a weighted 

average yield of 0.54 percent. For the year ended September 30, 2012, the District has 

earned 0.60 percent yield on its investments. Due to the higher than budgeted interest rate 

and varying cash balances related to project timing, interest earnings on invested funds in 

the amount of $3.7 million have been recognized representing 141 percent of the budget. 

• License and Permit Fees consist of revenue from water use permits, environmental 

resource permits, water well construction permits, and water well construction licenses. 

Revenue recognized represents 86 percent of the budget as of September 30, 2012. 

• As of September 30, 2012, other revenue collected is 271 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, the 

prorated share of revenue from Blue Cross Blue Shield, rebates, and insurance proceeds 

can vary significantly from year to year. 

• 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 FY2011-12.


For the Year Ended September 30, 2012 2 

Expenditures (Uses) Status: 

Overall, as of September 30, 2012, the District had obligated 89 percent of its total budget. 

This indicates that most major projects are in progress and will be accomplished. 

Summary of Expenditures by Program 

This financial statement illustrates the effort to date for each of the District’s six statutory 

program areas (Section 373.536(5)(d)4, Florida Statutes). Provided below is a discussion of 

the expenditures 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 resources planning; research, data collection, analysis, and 

monitoring; and technical assistance (including local and regional plan and program 

review). Of the $57.6 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 

92 percent of the budget (46 percent expended and 46 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 $358.9 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 

91 percent of the budget (23 percent expended and 68 percent encumbered). 

• 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 $21.7 million budgeted for this 

program, the District has obligated 85 percent of the budget (69 percent expended and 

16 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 $21.2 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 91 percent of the 

budget (77 percent expended and 14 percent encumbered). 

• 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 $6.2 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 

88 percent of the budget (57 percent expended and 31 percent encumbered).


For the Year Ended September 30, 2012 3 

• The Management and Administration Program includes all governing board support; 

executive support; technology and information services; general counsel, ombudsman, 

human resources, finance, audit, risk management, and administrative services; 

annual contingency funds; and 16-county property appraiser and tax collector fees. 

Of the $43.6 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 71 percent of 

the budget (60 percent expended and 11 percent encumbered). 

Of the $43.6 million budgeted, $7.1 million was budgeted as annual contingency funds; 

a balance of $6.9 million remains as of September 30, 2012. 

For this financial report, the Management and Administration Program’s costs are inclusive 

of all costs. For other financial reports that relate to performance metrics, certain costs of 

this program area are allocated to direct program areas, as appropriate. 

Based on the financial activities for the year ended September 30, 2012, 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.

SouthwestFloridaWaterManagementDistrict 

PreliminaryStatementofSourcesandUsesofFunds 

FortheYearEndedSeptember30,2012 

(Unaudited) 

Actuals 

Variance 

Current Through (under)/Over ActualsAsA 

Budget 9/30/2012 Budget %ofBudget 

Sources 

AdValoremPropertyTaxes $ 103,449,973 $ 104,477,462 $1,027,489 

101% 

IntergovernmentalRevenues 68,865,594 

30,685,010 (38,180,584) 

45% 

InterestonInvestedFunds 2,615,000 

3,680,361 

1,065,361 

141% 

LicenseandPermitFees 1,900,000 

1,641,924 (258,076) 

86% 

Other 752,369 2,039,666 

1,287,297 

271% 

FundBalance 331,622,912 331,622,912 

100% 

TotalSources $509,205,848 

$ 474,147,335 $(35,058,513) 

93% 

 

Current 

Available 

Budget Expenditures Encumbrances 1 Budget %Expended %Obligated 2 

Uses 

WaterResourcesPlanningandMonitoring $ 57,622,467 $ 26,459,404 $26,457,370 

$4,705,693 

46% 92% 

Acquisition,RestorationandPublicWorks 358,871,592 83,745,605 

241,198,178 

33,927,809 

23% 91% 

OperationandMaintenanceofLandsandWorks 21,741,147 

15,026,306 

3,438,045 

3,276,796 

69% 85% 

Regulation 21,172,494 

16,405,465 

2,834,685 

1,932,344 

77% 91% 

Outreach 6,175,742 

3,528,787 

1,934,690 

712,265 

57% 88% 

ManagementandAdministration 3 43,622,406 

26,382,178 

4,741,993 

12,498,235 

60% 71% 

TotalUses $509,205,848 

$171,547,745 

$280,604,961 

$ 57,053,142 

34% 89% 

1 Encumbrancesrepresentunexpendedbalancesofopenpurchaseordersandcontracts. 

2 Representsthesumofexpendituresandencumbrancesasapercentageofthecurrentbudget. 

3 Managementandadministrationcostsareinclusiveofallcosts;forperformancemetricscertaincostsareallocatedtodirectprogramareas, 

asappropriate. 

ThisunauditedpreliminaryfinancialstatementispreparedasofSeptember30,2012,andcoversthefiscalyear201112.

Item 47 




Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year 

Purpose 

To provide a schedule of monthly cash balances by fiscal year, updated to reflect the cash 

balance as of September 30, 2012. 

Background 

This routine report has been developed to allow the Governing Board to easily monitor the 

District’s cash balances at each month-end and in comparison with cash balances for the last 

four fiscal years. This trend information will become more important as the District’s budget 

declines and reserves are utilized for projects. 


See Exhibit 

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

Presenter: 



Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year 

(FY2007-08 through FY2011-12) 

$800M 

FY2011-12 

$750M 

FY2010-11 

$700M 

FY2009-10 

$650M 

 

FY2008-09 

$600M 

FY2007-08 

$550M 

$500M 

September 

of Previous 

Fiscal Year 

October November December January February March April May June July August September

H. General 

Counsel's Report



GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT 




49. Environmental Resource Permit Penalties Equal to or Greater than $5,000 ..................... 2 


50. Litigation Report .................................................................................................................. 3 

51. Rulemaking Update ........................................................................................................... 31

Environmental Resource Permit Penalties 

Equal to or Greater than $5,000 

Office of General Counsel 

Period 7/1/12 - 9/30/12 

ERP Penalties Equal to 

or Greater Than $5K 

Name 

Water Qual 

Degrad 

No/partial 

System $2,500- 

10,000 

Water Qty 

Impact 

Potential 

$250-2,499 

Wetland 

Impact 

Functnl lossherbaceous 

Wetland 

Impact 

Functnl 

loss x 

$20K 

Construction 

Deviation 

Moderate 

$2,500-7,499 

% 

Reduction 

for Good 

Faith Efforts 

to Comply 

Ordered/ 

Settled 

Penalty 

Ordered/ 

Settled 

Cost 

Order No. & 

Date 

Base 

Penalty 

Base 

Costs 

Matrix 

Total 

Settlement Dollar Golf, Inc. and 2,500 2,500 2,600 50% 2,550 1,250 1,300 2,550 

Agreement Trails at Rivard HOA 2,500 2,500 2,600 50% 2,550 1,250 1,300 2,550 

12-010 

8/28/12 Peter A. Geraci 5,000 2,499 227,200 11.36 234,699 2,800 0% 237,499 88,950 2,800 91,750 

Total 

Final 

Penalty 

2

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LITIGATION REPORT 

October 2012 

(Current status of case is in boldface type) 

STYLE/CASE NO. COURT ATTORNEY ACTION DESCRIPTION/STATUS 

DELEGATED ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MATTERS 

None for October 2012 

OPEN ENFORCEMENT CASES 

104 Cases as of September 1, 2012 

92_Cases as of October 11, 2012 

ENFORCEMENT CASES IN ACTIVE LITIGATION 

9 as of October 11, 2012 

(Including Administrative Complaints) 

3 

SWFWMD v. 

Copper Ridge 

Master 

Association, Inc. 

SWFWMD v. 

Copper Ridge 

Master 

Division of 

Administrative 

Hearings 

J. Ward Administrative Complaint and 

Order 

J. Ward Request for Administrative 

Hearing 

On December 10, 2009, the District received a flooding complaint 

from property owners adjacent to the Property. On January 6, 2010 

and May 15, 2012, District staff conducted a site inspection and 

determined that the surface water management system has not 

been properly maintained. Specifically, a swale along the rear of 

Lots 14 to 25 (designed to convey stormwater runoff to Pond 5) was 

compromised in several locations due to a failure to maintain it, 

allowing water to bypass Pond 5 and discharge offsite. By letters 

dated February 3, 2010, April 20, 2010 and July 22, 2010, Copper 

Ridge Master Association, Inc. (Copper Ridge) was advised of the 

need to correct the deviations. On May 6, 2010, the District 

received a separate complaint from the owner of another adjacent 

property concerning flooding to the east of Pond 7. On May 10, 

2010 and May 15, 2012, District staff inspected the site and 

determined that the flooding stems from a latent design defect. 

Specifically, Pond 7 appears to be failing, causing a point-source 

discharge of water on the complainant’s property, a condition which 

is inconsistent with pre-development site conditions as well as the 

design of Pond 7. By letters dated June 30, 2010 and November 8, 

2010, the District advised Copper Ridge of the need to correct the 

deviations from permitted design. On January 14, 2011, the District 

issued a Notice of Violation advising Copper Ridge that failure to 

timely correct the deviations could result in the imposition of 

monetary penalties and enforcement costs. No ERP has been 

issued by the District authorizing alteration of the system. On June 

13, 2012, an Administrative Complaint was issued and Copper 

Ridge was served on June 22, 2012. 

On July 6, 2012, the District received a Request for Administrative 

Hearing on the matter, which was referred to the Division of 

Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on July 23, 2012. On August 1, 

1


Association, 

Inc./Case No. 12- 

2539/ D. R. 

Alexander 

2012, DOAH issued its Initial Order. On August 22, filed Amended 

Joint Response to Initial Order. Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre- 

Hearing Instructions issued on August 23, setting final hearing for 

December 17 & 18, 2012. Written discovery is ongoing and 

depositions are being scheduled. 

4 

SWFWMD v. 

Dollar Golf, Inc. 

and The Trails at 

Rivard 

Homeowners’ 


SWFWMD v. 

Dollar Golf, Inc. 

and The Trails at 

Rivard 

Homeowners’ 

Association, Inc./ 

Case No. CA 11- 

2865 

5 th Judicial Circuit 

Hernando County 

R. Moore Administrative Complaint and 

Order 

R. Moore Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement 

2 

On January 20, 2010, the District received a complaint concerning a 

sinkhole located within a retention pond on property owned by 

Dollar Golf, Inc. Inspection by District staff confirmed that a small 

depressional area was present within the side bank of Retention 

Pond M. Pursuant to Environmental Resource Permit Number 

49009200.011, (the Permit). Dollar Golf, Inc. and the Trails at 

Rivard Homeowners’ Association, Inc., (collectively the Permittees) 

are jointly responsible for the operation and maintenance of the 

retention ponds. On January 22, 2010, staff issued a Drainage 

Complaint Notice to the Permittees advising them that a sinkhole 

had been observed within Retention Pond M and that the surface 

water management system may not be functioning in compliance 

with the Permit. No response was received to the Drainage 

Complaint Notice. On July 30, 2010, the District issued a Notice of 

Violation to the Permittees. Subsequently, District staff spoke to a 

representative of the Trails at Rivard Homeowners’ Association, Inc. 

who stated that the Association had acquired an estimate for the 

corrective work but had been unsuccessful in attempts to 

coordinate with Dollar Golf, Inc. regarding repair of the deviations. 

On March 23, 2011, the District issued a proposed Consent Order 

that assessed $4,100 in penalties and costs and required the 

Permittees to repair the sinkhole and the return of Retention Pond 

M to its permitted design. District staff spoke to a representative of 

the Trails at Rivard Homeowners’ Association, Inc., who stated that 

they are not able to correct the deviations without the cooperation of 

Dollar Golf, Inc. The District has received no response from Dollar 

Golf, Inc., to the proposed Consent Order. 

In October 2011, the District served Permittees with an 

Administrative Complaint and Order. Both Permittees responded by 

filing petitions for hearing that were determined to be insufficient. 

The District dismissed both petitions with leave to file an amended 

petition. Trails at Rivard Homeowners’ Association filed an 

amended petition, which it later withdrew. Dollar Golf did not file an 

amended petition. The District entered final Order SWF 11-023 on 

November 9, 2011. The District initiated a civil enforcement action 

in Circuit Court on December 20, 2011. Trails at Rivard 

Homeowners’ Association was served on December 29, 2011, and 

Dollar Golf was served on January 20, 2012. Dollar Golf is now 

represented by counsel and wants to settle this matter. The District 

is currently negotiating settlement with Trails at Rivard


Homeowners’ Association and Dollar Golf. The District and Trails at 

Rivard Homeowners’ Association have agreed on a payment 

schedule for the payment of penalties and costs. The Trails at 

Rivard Homeowners’ Association and Dollar Golf continue to 

negotiate a contract to jointly complete the repair to the sinkhole. 

Dollar Golf and the Trails at Rivard Homeowners’ Association have 

entered into their contracts to repair the sinkhole and the parties are 

negotiating the final terms of a settlement agreement. A Settlement 

Agreement was reached and entered into by all parties on July 

31st. The parties are jointly filing a motion for entry of a consent 

final judgment. 

On August 20th, the Circuit Court entered a Consent Final 

Judgment, which incorporated the Settlement Agreement. On 

August 23rd, the District received an engineering certification 

concerning the repair made to the sinkhole. On August 28th, 

District staff verified that the repair had been made. The Trails at 

Rivard is on target for paying its penalties and costs. Dollar Golf 

has paid its penalties and costs in full and the District will be filing a 

Satisfaction of Judgment for Dollar Golf with the Circuit Court. 

5 

SWFWMD v. 

Fatemah 

Corporation 

A. Vining Administrative Complaint and 

Order 

3 

On September 21th the District filed a Satisfaction of Judgment 

for Dollar Golf, Inc. with the Circuit Court. The Trails at Rivard 

has been making its monthly payments of penalties per the 

Consent Final Judgment. The Trails at Rivard is required to 

have all penalties paid by August 2013. 

On January 1, 2003, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 

20008605.002, (Permit) to Fatemah Corporation, (Permittee) 

authorizing withdrawals of 39,400 gallons per day (gpd) on an 

annual average basis for the irrigation of 55 acres of citrus in 

Hillsborough County. By letters dated April 29, 2005, and June 27, 

2005, District staff informed Permittee that it appeared that the 

citrus had been removed from the property and that tomatoes had 

been planted in place of the citrus, an action that required 

modification of the Permit to reflect the change in crop type. Staff 

also informed Permittee that cultivating tomatoes on the property 

would require the withdrawal of a significantly larger quantity of 

water than what the Permit currently authorized. Permittee 

submitted an application to modify the Permit to reflect the change 

in crop type on August 26, 2005. The Governing Board denied the 

application March 25, 2008, because the Permittee failed to supply 

the District with sufficient information to complete the application. 

District staff sent letters on April 16, 2008, and May 22, 2008, again 

notifying Permittee of the need to address the change in crop type 

from citrus to tomatoes. On April 23, 2009, the District mailed a


proposed Consent Order to Permittee that assessed $10,500 in 

penalties and costs. Permittee did not sign the Consent Order. 

The District served the Permittee with an Administrative Complaint 

and Order on October 18, 2010. Permittee filed a request for 

hearing on November 1, 2010, but later requested that the matter 

not be referred to DOAH in order to give Permittee time to submit a 

permit application and resolve the matter. Permittee submitted an 

application to modify its Permit on August 30, 2011. On February 

16, 2012, Permittee provided a partial response to the District’s 

September 28, 2011, Request for Additional Information letter. On 

July 30, 2012, Water Use Permit No. 20008605.004 was issued to 

Diehl Family L.P., which is the lessee of Permittee. This WUP will 

be servicing Permittee’s property and provide part of the quantity 

needed to cultivate tomatoes on the parcel. The Permit still needs 

to be modified to reflect the change in crop type and there are 

ownership issues that need to be resolved by the Permittee before 

the modification can be issued. On October 3, 2012, received a 

counteroffer in response to the penalty contained in the 

proposed Consent Order. 

6 

SWFWMD v. 

Peter Geraci and 

Sheila Geraci/ 

Case No. 11-4509 

Division of 


Hearings 

M. Moore/A. 

Brennan 

Administrative Complaint and 

Order 

On March 15, 2008, District staff received information concerning 

possible unauthorized construction activities occurring on 976 

contiguous acres of property owned by Peter A. Geraci (Owner) in 

Manatee, County, (the Property). The information concerned 

possible dredging and filling impacts to wetlands on the Property 

and to a portion of Owen Creek that flows through the Property. 

Along with the complaint, District staff received aerial photographs 

of the activities. Based upon a review of the photographs provided 

and GIS data, District staff determined that dredging and filling 

activities had in fact occurred around Owen Creek and in three 

other wetland areas, resulting in wetland and floodplain impacts. On 

April 9, 2008, the District issued Owner a Notice of Unauthorized 

Construction. The notice also explained that continued construction 

without an environmental resource permit could result in increased 

penalties. Following a subsequent site inspection, staff determined 

that additional dredging and filling activities had occurred after the 

photographs were taken. On December 17, 2008, the District 

issued a Notice of Violation and proposed Consent Order to Owner 

that assessed $237,499 in penalties and costs. Owner responded 

by submitting a $20,412 counteroffer and a proposed restoration 

plan. District staff rejected Owner’s counteroffer as it was not in 

good faith, and rejected the proposed restoration plan because staff 

determined it was not technically or scientifically appropriate. After 

working with Owner’s consultants and obtaining actual survey data, 

District staff issued a revised Consent Order to Owner on October 

22, 2009, proposing $178,499 in penalties and costs. On December 

4


10, 2009, Owner responded to the revised Consent Order by 

submitting a report from a consultant opining that Owner is engaged 

in the practice of silviculture on his Property and was therefore 

exempt from permitting requirements. No direct response was 

made with respect to the Consent Order. On May 26, 2010, staff 

referred this matter to the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (FDACS) for a nonbinding opinion as to 

whether the work done on the Property qualifies for the permitting 

exemption provided in Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. On July 

27, 2010, the District received FDACS’ opinion, which stated that 

the activities on the Property did not qualify for the exemption. In a 

last effort to resolve this matter, on August 10, 2010, District staff 

reissued to Owner the revised Consent Order which proposed 

penalties and costs in the amount of $178,499. Owner did not agree 

to the Consent Order. 

7 

On March 2, 2011, the District issued an Administrative Complaint 

and Order which has been served on all necessary parties. Sheila 

Geraci was served with the Administrative Complaint and Order on 

March 17, 2011, and Peter Geraci was served on April 13, 2011. 

On April 25, 2011, counsel on behalf of Sheila Geraci and Peter 

Geraci filed a request for extension of time to file a Petition. While 

the request for extension of time was timely with respect to Peter 

Geraci, the request for extension of time was 25 days late with 

respect to Sheila Geraci. The request for extension of time was 

granted for Peter Geraci and denied for Sheila Geraci. The District 

entered a Final Order of Dismissal as to Sheila Geraci on May 25, 

2011. On May 19, 2011, Peter Geraci filed a timely Amended 

Answer to the ACO and a request for formal administrative hearing. 

The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. 

Pursuant to Sections 373.406 and 373.407, Florida Statutes, on 

January 18, 2012 the District requested a Binding Determination 

from FDACS in regards to whether the activities on the Property 

were exempt from permitting requirements. A final hearing on this 

matter was rescheduled to May 22-24, 2012, to allow time to 

receive FDACS’ binding determination. 

On March 22, 2012, FDACS rendered a binding determination that 

the activities on the Property were not exempt from District 

permitting requirements. On April 2, 2012, Geraci moved to stay 

this matter while he considers challenging the FDACS 

determination. The District objected to Geraci’s motion as 

premature. At a telephonic motion hearing held on April 9, 2012, the 

ALJ gave Geraci a deadline by which to inform the ALJ as to 

Geraci’s response to the FDACS determination. On April 12, 2012, 

Geraci filed a Petition For Formal Administrative Hearing with 

5


FDACS and notified the ALJ accordingly. On April 16, 2012, the 

ALJ issued an order to stay the District’s case until a final order is 

rendered by FDACS regarding Geraci’s challenge to FDACS’ 

binding determination of nonexemption. The parties are to file with 

the ALJ a status report on the FDACS proceeding by July 31, 2012. 

The District has been granted leave to intervene in the DOAH 

proceedings concerning the FDACS determination – see Case No. 

12-1493, under Miscellaneous Cases, below. A hearing on the 

District’s ACO is on hold pending the outcome of the FDACS 

proceeding. District counsel and Geraci have agreed upon a 

proposed consent order which was signed by Geraci and returned 

to the District on July 13, 2012. Approval of the consent order is 

scheduled for the August Board meeting. On July 25, 2012, a Joint 

Status Report was filed and on July 26, 2012, an Order Continuing 

Case in Abeyance was issued. 

8 

On August 2, 2012, an Order Granting Continuance was entered by 

Judge Parrish continuing Final Hearing on August 28, 2012, and 

August 29, 2012. On August 28, 2012, the Governing Board 

approved the Consent Order in resolution of the District’s 

enforcement matter with Mr. Geraci. The parties will file a joint 

status report pending District approval of Mr. Geraci’s corrective 

actions. 

As of September 13, 2012, this case is in abeyance pending 

completion of Consent Order corrective actions. Required 

initial penalty payment of $31,750 was timely received. 

Application for ERP/Restoration Plan was timely received and 

is pending. 

SWFWMD v. 

McClendon, J.C., 

Jr./Case 

No.0811837CI13 

6 th Judicial Circuit, 

Pinellas County 

A. Vining Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement of ACO SWF07- 

056 

On November 1, 2006, District staff conducted a site visit in 

response to a complaint and determined that four sand point 

irrigation wells had been constructed in Pinellas County by Mr. 

J.C. McClendon, Jr., who did not have a valid water well 

contractor’s license and who did not obtain the required Well 

Construction Permit. The District issued a Notice of Violation, 

Proposed Consent Order, and Notice to Cease and Desist to Mr. 

McClendon on March 2, 2007, for the above-described violations. 

The Consent Order assessed penalties of $1,500. Mr. McClendon 

did not respond to the proposed Consent Order. An Administrative 

Complaint and Order was served on Mr. McClendon on 

September 25, 2007, which became final Order SWF 07-056 on 

October 29, 2007, when Mr. McClendon did not respond. The 

District initiated a civil enforcement action in Circuit Court on 

August 18, 2008. The Court issued an Order Granting Summary 

6


Judgment on January 28, 2011. 

9 

SWFWMD v. 

Milmack, 


2011-CA-000910- 

0000-00 


Polk County 

A. Brennan Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement of ACO SWF 

2010-018 

On January 1, 2003, the District issued Water Use Permit (“WUP”) 

No. 20010392.005 (the “Permit”) to Milmack, Inc., (“Permittee”) 

authorizing withdrawals of 259,900 gallons per day (“gpd”) on an 

annual average basis and 282,700 gpd on a drought annual 

average basis from one well for golf course irrigation in a 

community known as Oakwood, located in Polk County. On 

February 18, 2009, District staff issued Permittee a Notice of Non- 

Compliance advising that the annual average quantity withdrawn for 

the 12-month period ending December 31, 2008 was 387,575 gpd, 

or approximately 30% in excess of the permitted quantity. 

Permittee responded to the Notice of Non-Compliance, claiming 

that it had initiated litigation with the developer and engineer of the 

community concerning damage to the golf course and its irrigation 

system allegedly caused by the surface water management system 

serving the development. Permittee’s withdrawals continued to 

exceed its permitted quantity. On September 14, 2009, the District 

mailed a proposed Consent Order to Permittee assessing $8,687 in 

penalties and costs for exceeding its permitted drought annual 

average quantities from April through July, 2009. Permittee 

responded to the proposed Consent Order on October 14, 2009, 

reiterating its involvement in litigation concerning the surface water 

management system. Permittee requested that the District impose 

no penalty for prior overpumpage, which request was rejected. 

District staff met with Permittee and its representatives on October 

26, 2009, to discuss possibilities for resolving the overpumpage, 

and agreed to a 90-day extension of time to calibrate the well’s 

meters, to employ additional compliance measures, and to respond 

to the District’s proposed Consent Order. District staff and 

Permittee were unable to reach a resolution of this matter. 

This matter was then presented to the District’s Governing Board at 

its June 2010 meeting. The Governing Board requested that District 

staff work with Permittee for 30 days in an attempt to make 

progress in resolving the compliance matter, and report back to the 

Governing Board at its July meeting. The matter was again 

presented to the Governing Board at its July 2010 meeting. 

Because substantial progress had not been made in resolving this 

matter, the Governing Board authorized initiation of litigation against 

Permittee. On August 19, 2010, the District issued an 

Administrative Complaint and Order (ACO), which became final 

Order No. SWF 10-018 on September 21, 2010, when permittee did 

not respond. On March 11, 2011, the District filed a civil 

enforcement action in Circuit Court to enforce the terms of the ACO. 

During the pendency of litigation, District staff and Permittee 

7


10 

continued to explore settlement negotiations. On November 17, 

2011, Permittee requested that the District consider offsetting the 

payment of monetary penalties in exchange for the completion of 

mandated irrigation system upgrades which would enhance water 

conservation and system efficiency at Oakwood. On November 30, 

2011, the District proposed a Settlement Agreement to Permittee, 

which provides for payment of $2,000 in enforcement costs; and 

$4,000 in penalties to the District. As an alternative to paying 

$4,000 in penalties, Permittee may elect to implement consumption 

reduction-related irrigation system upgrades costing at least $4,000 

to assist in reducing total consumption. The cost of the irrigation 

system upgrades are required to provide a dollar-for-dollar offset of 

the penalties. Should the cost of the irrigation system upgrades not 

provide a dollar-for-dollar offset of the penalties, Permittee must pay 

to the District $4,000 in penalties, minus any amounts expended in 

irrigation system upgrades. Additionally, the proposed settlement 

agreement required Permittee to submit a WUP renewal application 

to the District by March 1, 2012 that includes a water use plan 

demonstrating how Permittee will come into and remain in 

compliance with state statutes, District rules, and the terms of its 

Permit. On December 2, 2011, the District received a signed 

Settlement Agreement from Permittee which was approved by the 

Governing Board on January 31, 2012. Pursuant to the Settlement 

Agreement, on February 22, 2012 the parties filed a Joint Motion for 

Consent Final Judgment and a draft Consent Final Judgment for 

consideration and entry by the Circuit Court. On February 24, 2012, 

the judge signed the Consent Final Judgment. Permittee has paid 

$4,000 in penalties and costs to the District, and on March 1, 2012, 

Permittee submitted its Permit renewal application as required in 

accordance with the Settlement Agreement. On May 1, 2012, 

Permittee submitted receipts for irrigation system upgrades totaling 

$4,481.41. On July 3, 2012, the District approved an extension of 

time for Permittee to come into compliance with the terms of its 

Permit until October 12, 2012 as Permittee has demonstrated that it 

is working with the District in good faith to complete the renewal of 

its Permit. 

SWFWMD v. 

Wendy B. 

Mozdzer/Case No. 

53-2011-CA- 

001131-0000-00 


Polk County 

J. Ward Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement 

On March 2, 2005, District staff received a complaint concerning 

possible unauthorized construction activities occurring on property 

owned by Wendy Mozdzer (Owner), located in Polk County 

(Property). District staff investigation revealed the excavation of 

two pits, each approximately 1.5 acres in area and approximately 

10 feet deep, and the transport of the excavated material from the 

Property by commercial haulers. No Environmental Resource 

Permit (ERP) had been issued to authorize the construction 

activities. On March 23, 2005, staff issued a Notice of 

8


Unauthorized Construction to the Owner. By letter dated March 

30, 2005, Owner advised District staff that the construction 

activities were for the purpose of constructing an agricultural pond 

and should be considered exempt from ERP requirements 

pursuant to Rule 40D-4.051(2), Florida Administrative Code. 

District staff determined that the ponds did not qualify for an 

exemption. Owner continued the excavation activities on the 

Property after District staff informed her that an ERP was 

required. On May 27, 2005, the District issued a Notice of 

Violation and proposed Consent Order. The Consent Order 

required Owner to obtain an ERP and assessed $13,720 in 

penalties and costs. Despite numerous attempts, District staff and 

Owner were unable to negotiate a Consent Order to resolve the 

matter. 

11 

On August 5, 2008, the District served Owner with an 

Administrative Complaint and Order. On August 13, 2008, after 

receipt of the Administrative Complaint and Order, Owner 

provided a counteroffer to the proposed Consent Order wherein 

she offered to pay $7,000 to settle the matter. Her counteroffer 

was not acceptable to District staff. However, because Owner 

could have reasonably believed based on past written 

communications with the District that the activities on the Property 

were exempt from District permitting requirements the District 

agreed to revised penalties and costs totaling $7,680. On 

September 30, 2008, the District and Mozdzer entered into a 

Consent Order to resolve the matter. 

9 

On March 14, 2011, the District filed a civil enforcement action in 

Circuit Court seeking to enforce the terms and conditions of the 

Consent Order. Mozdzer filed an answer to the complaint on April 

25, 2011. On May 12, 2011, the District served a Motion to Strike 

Affirmative Defenses and a hearing was scheduled on the motion 

for July 6, 2011. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 

October 14, 2011. Prior to the hearing Mozdzer retained counsel 

and on October 24, 2011, served the District with an Amended 

Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Affirmative Defenses. On 

November 16, 2011, the District served a Second Motion to Strike 

and an Order granting that motion was entered on January 3, 2012. 

On January 27, 2012, Mozdzer served a Second Amended Answer 

to the District’s complaint. In July 2012, attempted to contact 

Mozdzer’s attorney regarding settlement negotiations. On August 

16, 2012, received communication from Mozdzers’ attorney 

requesting additional 15 days to discuss potential resolution of 

litigation with his clients. Mozdzers were not receptive to 

settlement, so case is proceeding. Mozdzers’ depositions


scheduled for November 2. 

12 

SWFWMD v. 

Vikings, LLC 

R. Moore Administrative Complaint and 

Order 

On May 11, 2006, the District issued Water Use Permit No. 

20012843.001 to Vikings, LLC, authorizing withdrawals of 263,000 

gallons per day (gpd) on an annual average basis, and 641,000 

gpd on a peak month basis from 8 wells used for public supply, 

augmentation of ponds, and golf course irrigation. On July 6, 

2007, District staff issued a Notice of Non-Compliance to the 

Permittee advising that the annual average quantity withdrawn for 

the 12-month period ending May 2007 was 385,672 gpd, 

approximately 46% in excess of the permitted quantity. On 

September 6, 2007, District staff issued Permittee a 2 nd Notice of 

Non-Compliance advising that the annual average quantity 

continued to exceed the permitted quantity. In August 2008, 

Permittee submitted an application to modify its permit to increase 

quantities. In October 2008, the District sent a Consent Order to 

the Permittee that assessed $42,986 in penalties and costs for 

overpumpage from August 2007 through March 2008. On March 

4, 2009, the District issued Water Use Permit number 

20012843.002 (the .002 Permit) that authorized an increase in the 

permitted quantities based on calculations from the Agricultural 

Water Use Model Version 2.0 (AGMOD). The .002 Permit 

authorized withdrawal quantities of 310,520 gpd on an annual 

average basis and 786,550 gpd on a peak month basis. 

Permittee’s withdrawals continued to exceed the permitted 

quantity authorized in the .002 permit. On April 30, 2009, the 

District sent another proposed Consent Order to Permittee that 

assessed $40,036 in penalties and costs for overpumpage of 

permitted quantities for the 12-month periods ending October 

2007 through April 2008. The Permittee initially expressed a 

willingness to sign a consent order, with a penalty based on the 

AGMOD calculations, however, to date, the District has not 

received a signed consent order from Permittee. 

In November 2010, the District served Permittee with an 

Administrative Complaint and Order. 

SWFWMD v. 

Vikings, LLC/Case 

No. 10-10588 

Division of 


Hearings 

R. Moore Petition for Administrative 

Hearing with regard to 

Administrative Complaint and 

Order 

Permittee filed a timely petition for hearing and the matter was 

forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to a 

hearing on the matter, the District and Permittee agreed to the entry 

of an Amended Administrative Complaint and Order and the matter 

was relinquished to the District. The District entered the Amended 

Administrative Complaint and Order as final Order SWF 2011-015 

on July 12, 2011 (Final Order). On September 9, 2011, Permittee 

suggested a proposed penalty of $2,000.00 for overpumpage to 

date. While Permittee has integrated several technologies to curb 

10


its water use, Permittee is still overpumping. The District informed 

Permittee in November 2011, that the proposed penalty was not 

sufficient. The District has not received a counteroffer from 

Permittee. The District is drafting a settlement agreement with 

proposed penalty amounts acceptable to the District, to provide 

Permittee in an attempt to conclude this case. 

On September 4, 2012, the District sent Permittee a settlement 

offer of $60,118 in penalties and $500 in District costs totaling 

$60,618 in payment for the overpumpage per the Final Order. 

The settlement offer included Permittee’s ability to reduce the 

amount of penalties paid with water conservation measures 

Permittee would put in place. The Permittee indicates that it is 

working on a counteroffer to submit to the District. 

13 

SWFWMD v. 

Zerep Enterprises, 


CA-011085 


Hillsborough County 

A. Vining Complaint and Petition for 

Enforcement 

On August 29, 2001, the District issued Environmental Resource 

Permit No. 46012777.003 (Permit), authorizing the construction of a 

surface water management system (System) serving a medical 

office building project, located on 0.45 acres of land in Hillsborough 

County (Property). On or about July 12, 2005, Zerep Enterprises, 

Inc. (Owner), acquired ownership of the Property. Upon acquisition 

of the Property, the Owner did not seek to transfer the Permit or to 

otherwise obtain a permit from the District for the operation of the 

System on the Property. By letters dated November 16, 2006, 

December 14, 2006, and January 12, 2007, District staff advised 

Owner of the requirement to obtain a permit authorizing the 

operation of the surface water management system, by either 

applying for a new permit or requesting transfer of the existing 

Permit. On December 20, 2007, District staff issued a Notice of 

Violation to Owner. The Owner did not respond to the Notice of 

Violation. On December 16, 2008, District staff issued a proposed 

Consent Order to Owner that assessed $1,700 in penalties and 

costs. The Owner did not respond to the proposed Consent Order. 

The District served the Owner with an Administrative Complaint and 

Order on June 8, 2009, which became final Order No. SWF 09-023 

on June 30, 2009 when the Owner did not respond. 

The District initiated a civil enforcement action in Circuit Court on 

May 27, 2010. The Owner never responded to the civil complaint 

and the District obtained an Order Granting Motion for Default on 

September 22, 2010. Owner then filed for bankruptcy placing the 

District’s case in abeyance. The bankruptcy was converted to a 

Chapter 7 on October 6, 2011. The District filed its Notice of Claim 

in the related bankruptcy case on February 8, 2012. A Final 

Evidentiary Hearing regarding the bankruptcy proceeding is 

scheduled for August 17, 2012. Final Hearing occurred and 

11


awaiting order resolving bankruptcy. 

PERMIT/AGENCY ACTION CHALLENGES 

4 Cases as of October 11, 2012 

Ginsberg-Klemmt, 

Erika and Achim- 

SRQUS, LLC v. 

SWFWMD and 

City of Sarasota / 

Case No. 12- 

002161 

Division of 


Hearings 

M. Moore Petition for Administrative 

Hearing Challenging ERP 

44040881.000 

On May 21, 2012, the District received a Request for Administrative 

Hearing. On June 6, 2012, the District entered an Order of 

Dismissal Without Prejudice, granting the Petitioner SRQUS, LLC 

(SRQUS) 14 days from the date of the Order to file an amended, 

sufficient petition. On June 13, 2012, the District received an 

Amended Petition which was determined to be sufficient and 

referred to DOAH for a hearing. Sarasota County has intervened in 

the case and discovery is ongoing. 

SRQUS’ discovery responses were received on August 8, 2012. 

SRQUS’ members and expert witness were deposed on August 23 

and 24, 2012. Numerous motions and pleadings have been filed by 

SRQUS, including a Motion to Terminate the challenged permit, all 

of which have been denied by the ALJ. Respondents filed a joint 

motion to strike/dismiss one of petitioner’s issues as beyond the 

jurisdiction of DOAH, which was denied. 

Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel discovery responses from 

Sarasota County which was granted. The District was served with 

Petitioner’s discovery requests and has responded. Notice of 

Service was filed August 20, 2012. 

On August 31, 2012, Sarasota County filed a Motion to Reconsider 

and to Modify the Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Compel, 

which was denied. Petitioner subsequently served its discovery 

requests upon the County. On September 20, 2012, Sarasota 

County served its discovery requests on Petitioner. 

A final hearing is now scheduled for December 4 - 6, 2012 to be 

held at the District’s Sarasota Office. 

14 

Tony’s Roasted 

Red Peppers, Inc. 

v. SWFWMD and 

Hillsborough 

County/Case No. 

12-002155 

Division of 


Hearings 

M. Moore Petition for Administrative 


43001220.012 

On June 6, 2012, the District received Petitioner’s petition 

challenging the .012 permit. On June 18, 2012, the Petition was 

referred to DOAH. On June 25, 2012, the County filed a Motion to 

Dismiss/Motion for More Definite Statement and Motion to Strike. 

On July 10, 2012, the ALJ denied Hillsborough County’s Motion to 

Dismiss, granted the County’s Motion to Strike and ordered the 

Petitioner to file an amended petition. The final hearing is scheduled 

for September 18 – 20, 2012 in Tampa. 

On June 26, 2012, the District served discovery requests on Tony’s 

Roasted Pepper. Deposition of Geoffrey Weber, Managing Member 

12


for Tony’s Roasted Pepper scheduled for August 17, 2012 was 

cancelled. On July 23, 2012, the parties held a resolution session 

for this matter and a related civil matter (see below), and a 

settlement was reached. On July 24, 2012, Hillsborough County 

filed a joint stipulated motion for abeyance pending approval of the 

settlement agreement by the Board of County Commissioners, which 

is scheduled for August 7, 2012. On July 24, 2012, an Order 

Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance was entered. 

Approval of the settlement agreement by the Board of County 

Commissioners has been rescheduled for September 4, 2012. A 

Status Report is due to the ALJ by September 7, 2012. 

On September 4, the settlement agreement was approved by the 

County Commissioners. The District filed a Joint Status Report 

with DOAH. Petitioner subsequently filed a Notice of Dismissal. 

On September 11, 2012, DOAH issued its Order Closing File and 

Relinquishing Jurisdiction. This case is now closed and the 

challenged permit can now be issued. 

Nichols Ranch, 

LLC; Mims 

Properties 

Investments, LLC; 

and Mims 

Hammocks, LLC 

v. SWFWMD and 

Mosaic Fertilizer, 


001043 

15 

Division of 


Hearings 

A. Brennan / 

A. Vining 

Petition for Administrative 

Hearing challenging WUP 

20011400.025 

On February 16, 2012, the District issued a Water Use Permit (WUP) 

to Mosaic Fertilizer, Inc. authorizing groundwater withdrawals for 

phosphate rock mining and fertilizer manufacturing. The WUP was a 

renewal with modification, reduced total permitted quantities and 

combined seven of Mosaic’s existing WUPs into a single Integrated 

WUP. On February 23, 2012, the District received Petitioners’ 

petition challenging the WUP. On March 9, 2012, the petition was 

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned 

Case No. 12-1043. On March 20, 2012 DOAH entered an Initial 

Order concerning scheduling matters, to which the parties filed a 

Joint Response on March 26, 2012. On March 27, 2012 the District 

received the Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-Hearing 

Instructions. On April 2, 2012, Petitioners filed a request to 

reschedule the final hearing, which is currently scheduled for August 

6-10, 2012. On April 4, 2012, Mosaic filed a response to the Motion 

to Reschedule, objecting to rescheduling the final hearing. The 

District concurred with Mosaic’s position. A telephonic hearing on the 

Motion to Reschedule was set for April 16, 2012. On April 16, 2012, 

Petitioners’ Motion to Reschedule the Hearing was cancelled in that 

the conflict with the final hearing date had been resolved. 

On April 5, 2012, Mosaic moved to dismiss the Petition for Hearing 

filed by the Petitioners based on a lack of standing, to which the 

District did not object. On April 12, 2012, Petitioners submitted a 

Response to Mosaic’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Leave to 

Amend Petition. On April 19, 2012 Mosaic responded to Petitioners’ 

Motion for Leave to Amend Petition, stating that it did not object to 

Petitioners’ request to amend the petition so long as it had 20 days 

13


to file any responsive motions. Also on April 19, 2012, the parties 

held a joint resolution session in an effort to resolve the matter, but 

were unable to reach any resolution. On April 23, 2012 an Order was 

entered granting Petitioners’ Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and 

allowing Mosaic and the District 20 days to file any responsive 

motions. 

On April 25, 2012, Mosaic served its First Sets of Interrogatories and 

First Requests for Production of Documents upon Petitioners. 

On May 17, 2012, the Parties filed a joint request for a more specific 

discovery schedule, which was granted on May 17, 2012. On May 

25, 2012, Petitioners responded to Mosaic’s first set of 

interrogatories and requests for production of documents. On May 

30, Mosaic took the deposition of the Petitioners’ corporate 

representatives. On May 31, 2012, the Parties filed their preliminary 

witness lists. 

16 

On June 6, 2012, Petitioners' Request for Production to Mosaic 

Fertilizer, LLC, Petitioners' Request for Production to the District, 

Notice of Serving Interrogatories to the District, and Notice of 

Serving Interrogatories to Mosaic Fertilizer were filed. On June 21, 

2012, Petitioners' Requests for Admission to District was filed. On 

June 22, 2012, each party served its Final Witness List. Several 

depositions of the District’s and Petitioners’ witnesses have 

occurred. 

On July 3, 2012, SWFWMD filed a Motion for Continuance of the 

final hearing in this matter. Mosaic joined in the District’s Motion but 

it was opposed by Petitioners. On July 5, 2012, a hearing was held 

on the Motion for Continuance and the Administrative Law Judge 

continued the final hearing, which is likely to be rescheduled 

sometime in January or February 2013. The parties are required to 

provide the Administrative Law Judge with their availability for final 

hearing during that time period as well as a newly-proposed 

discovery schedule no later than July 12, 2012. On July 18, 2012, 

the ALJ entered an Order rescheduling the final hearing for February 

25-28, 2013 and setting new discovery deadlines. 

On July 11, 2012, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC's Responses to Petitioners' 

Interrogatories to Respondent Mosaic Fertilizer, Mosaic Fertilizer's 

Response to Petitioners' Request for Production and Mosaic 

Fertilizer, LLC's Notice of Serving Responses to Petitioners' 

Interrogatories to Respondent Mosaic Fertilizer were filed. On July 

23, 2012, SWFWMD’s Notice of Serving Responses to Petitioners’ 

First Request for Admissions was filed. The Parties continue to 

disagree regarding the scope of discovery in this case. Mosaic has 

14


17 

filed several motions in that regard. The District, in responding to 

Petitioners’ first set of written discovery, has also filed objections to 

portions thereof. A motion hearing was partially held July 25, 2012, 

during which the Administrative Law Judge ruled on many of 

Mosaic’s discovery objections. The motion hearing was scheduled 

for completion on August 3, 2012, but was later continued at the 

request of Mosaic and Petitioners in order for settlement 

negotiations to take place between those parties. Mosaic and 

Petitioners will notify the Administrative Law Judge no later than 

August 10, 2012 as to the outcome of the settlement negotiations. 

On August, 10, 2012, Mosaic informed the Administrative Law Judge 

that it and Petitioners agree that the motion hearing does not need to 

be reset at this time, and will notify the Administrative Law Judge on 

or before August 24, 2012, of the status of the matter. On August, 

24, 2012, Mosaic informed the Administrative Law Judge that it and 

Petitioners remain in agreement that the motion hearing does not 

need to be reset at this time, and will notify the Administrative Law 

Judge on or before September 14, 2012, of the status of this matter. 

On September 14, 2012, Petitioners filed a Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal with Prejudice. On the same day an Order was 

issued by the Division of Administrative Hearings cancelling the 

final hearing, relinquishing jurisdiction to the District, and 

closing the file. The WUP application will now be considered at 

the October 30, 2012 Governing Board meeting since the 

challenge to the WUP has been withdrawn. 

Highway 60 and 

301 Center, Inc. 

v. Big Bend 

Center, LLC, 

Enterprise 

Holdings, Inc. and 

SWFWMD/Case 

No. 12-002021 

Division of 


Hearings 

R. Moore Petition for Administrative 


44003983.008 

On January 11, 2012, the District issued an ERP (.007 permit) to Big 

Bend Center, LLC (Big Bend) for construction of a project known as 

the Enterprise Project. On May 4, 2012, the District received a 

petition challenging the .007 permit from Highway 60 and 301, 

Center Inc. (Highway). On May 9, 2012, the District issued an Order 

of Dismissal Without Prejudice, granting Highway 14 days to submit 

a sufficient amended petition. 

On May 18, 2012, Highway filed an Amended Petition for Formal 

Administrative Hearing, or Alternatively Petition to Revoke Permit 

with the District. On May 25, 2012, the District received Big Bend’s 

permit application modifying the .007 permit. 

On June 11, 2012, the challenge to the .007 permit was referred to 

the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and was assigned 

Case No. 12-002021. On June 12, 2012, the District issued an ERP 

that replaced the .007 permit (.008 permit). On June 19, 2012, the 

District filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction concerning the 

challenge to the .007 permit, since the challenge was now moot. On 

June 28, 2012, Highway filed its response to the District’s Motion to 

Relinquish Jurisdiction, along with its Second Petition for Formal 

15


Administrative Hearing, or Alternatively Petition to Revoke Permit 

challenging the .008 permit. A case management conference was 

held on July 6, 2012, and the District’s Motion to Relinquish was 

denied. The matter is going forward on Highway’s challenge to the 

.008 permit and has been set for hearing on October 30th. 

On August 17th, the District propounded interrogatories and a 

request for production of documents on Highway for it to answer. 

On September 19, 2012, Joshua A. Harrow, Esq., as counsel on 

behalf of Highway, filed a Notice of Appearance. On September 

21, 2012, Highway filed a motion for continuance of the hearing, 

which the District did not oppose, but was opposed by Big 

Bend. On October 4, 2012, Big Bend filed a request to continue 

the hearing. On October 5, 2012, DOAH issued its Order 

Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing for February 

12, 2013. 

It is anticipated that Big Bend will be submitting an application 

to modify its permit to increase impervious surface area at its 

facility. 

18 

MISCELLANEOUS 


Tenika Blount v. 

SWFWMD/Case 

No. 2011-014441 

13th Judicial Circuit, 


J. Ward/M. 

Roper 

Complaint and Demand for Jury 

Trial related to a motor vehicle 

accident involving a District 

vehicle 

On November 21, 2011, the District was served with a complaint 

filed in Circuit Court in Hillsborough County seeking damages for 

personal injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff, Tenika Blount, in 

an automobile accident involving a District vehicle. According to the 

allegations of the complaint, Blount was driving on Busch 

Boulevard in Tampa on March 14, 2011, when she was involved in 

an automobile accident with a District vehicle being driven by a 

District employee. The complaint alleges that the employee’s 

negligence caused the accident, and that as a result, Blount 

suffered various injuries. Costs of repair to the District vehicle were 

$693.42. Blount claimed $85,000.00 in damages for her alleged 

personal injuries. 

The District forwarded the complaint to its insurance carrier, which 

subsequently assigned counsel to defend the District against 

Blount’s claim. The carrier appointed counsel filed an answer to the 

complaint, and made an initial offer of settlement to Blount for 

$5,000.00, which resulted in Blount reducing her demand to 

$75,000.00. The District’s outside counsel then offered $10,000.00 

to settle, but Blount also rejected this offer. However, Blount 

reduced her personal injury damages demand to $32,500.00, along 

with a claim for $1,710.77 for property damage. 

16


In December 2011, the District’s counsel served a formal proposal 

for settlement for $10,000.00, which will entitle the District to an 

award of attorney’s fees if Blount ultimately receives a judgment 

that is 25% less than the amount of the settlement proposal (i.e., 

$7,500.00), or less. In late July 2012, Plaintiff accepted settlement 

from the District’s insurance carrier. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff’s 

counsel filed a notice of settlement. Case dismissed and 

resolved. 

19 

Bradshaw, Chester 

J. and Charles E. 

Strange, Jr., v. 

SWFWMD/Case 

No. 2011 CA 4011 

Branch Banking 

and Trust Co v. 

Krueger, Joseph 

M., et al./Case No. 

2010 CA 001200 

Maguire, Raymer 

F., III and 


Citrus County 


Sumter County 


Highlands County 

J. Ward Complaint for Declaratory Relief On October 19, 2011, the District was served with a Complaint for 

Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks declaratory relief 

against the District on grounds the District owns certain real 

property identified as the Potts Preserve and Flying Eagle ranches. 

The specific relief sought consists of a declaration that portions of 

the properties are sovereignty lands, rather than being subject to 

District ownership, and an order requiring the District to remove all 

fences, signs, and barriers on sovereignty lands in Potts Preserve 

and Flying Eagle. On December 14, 2011 the District filed a motion 

to dismiss the complaint. On April 20, 2012, a hearing was held on 

the District’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the District’s 

motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 

4, 2012, adding DEP as a defendant in the case. The District filed 

a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 27, 2012, and 

DEP filed a motion to dismiss shortly thereafter. The District and 

DEP’s motions to dismiss are currently pending. 

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 

J. Ward Suit seeking declaratory judgment 

re tax certificates 

17 

This is a foreclosure proceeding relating to the Suggs ERP 

enforcement matter (see detailed description in “Appeals” section 

below). Joseph Krueger was a former owner of one of the 

properties on the Suggs master parcel. On October 8, 2010, this 

foreclosure proceeding was filed by the lender holding the note on 

that particular property. The District is named as a defendant only 

because it recorded a final judgment placing a lien against the 

subject property. The District’s interest in the property is 

subordinate to the foreclosing lender’s interest. The District filed an 

answer to the complaint on October 26, 2010. On December 3, 

2011, the court issued an order to show cause as to why the case 

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. By order dated 

January 27, 2012, the plaintiff is required to appear before the court 

on April 4, 2012, to show cause as to why the case should not be 

dismissed. The plaintiff canceled the hearing on its motion for 

summary judgment, and has initiated discussions with the District 

regarding settlement. The plaintiff is currently contemplating 

settlement options. 

On November 3, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint 

suing several governmental defendants, including the District,


Charlotte E., M.D., 

as Trustees of the 

Raymer F. 

Maguire Trust v. 

SWFWMD, et 

al./Case No. 10- 

609 GCS 

seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for payments made 

plus interest in connection with their purchase of tax certificates 

with respect to properties located in Highlands County. The 

District filed it answer to the complaint on November 22, 2010, 

and joined in the co-defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of 

standing. The District is not the primary defendant in the case, 

and has only been included because it received some revenue 

from the sale of the tax certificates. After the amended complaint 

was dismissed, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, 

and the defendants again moved to dismiss. On November 9, 

2011, the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was dismissed. 

The plaintiffs appealed and that appeal is currently pending (see 

“Appeals”). 

20 

Mudd, Marcia, et 

al. v. SWFWMD, et 

al./Case No. 

2006CA-001537- 

0000 


Polk County 

D. Scott/J. 

Ward 

Complaint for Inverse 

Condemnation and Continuing 

Trespass 

On February 1, 2010, multiple property owners filed a Third 

Amended Complaint asserting an inverse condemnation claim 

against the District and the City of Lake Wales. Polk County and 

DEP were previously defendants, but were voluntarily dismissed by 

the plaintiffs’ counsel. The plaintiffs allege that wastewater reuse 

facilities operated by Lake Wales and constructed pursuant to a 

cooperative funding agreement with the District, resulted in 

temporary flooding to their homes, which border Lake Belle in Polk 

County. The District’s cooperative funding agreement includes an 

indemnification provision whereby the City agreed to indemnify the 

District for any claims arising from the treatment facility. The District 

answered the complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment 

on February 26, 2010, asserting lack of liability as a matter of law. 

The court denied the District’s motion, and on December 1, 2010, 

granted the plaintiffs leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The 

District filed its answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint and the 

parties participated in mediation, which resulted in an impasse. 

Discovery is ongoing, with depositions of the plaintiffs and their 

experts upcoming. The liability trial is scheduled for May 2012. At 

the request of the plaintiffs, and upon agreement by codefendant 

the City, the parties filed a joint motion to continue the trial to 

October 2012. The court granted the motion, rescheduling the trial 

to October 8, 2012. Depositions are on-going in preparation for 

trial. On September 10, District filed a second motion for 

summary judgment asserting plaintiff has failed to establish 

claim for inverse condemnation. By letter dated September 20, 

City of Lake Wales refused District’s demand for 

indemnification pursuant to cooperative funding agreements. 

18 

A four-day bench trial was scheduled for October 8 through 11, 

2012. On the morning of Friday, October 5, the Office of 

General Counsel was advised by the District’s outside counsel


that the plaintiffs’ attorney proposed settling the case as to the 

District for $100,000. Since trial was set to begin on Monday 

morning, October 8, the General Counsel consulted with the 

Executive Director and the Board Chair to obtain approval for 

settlement pursuant to Board Policy 160-3, which allows such 

approval “if the matter requires immediate action and cannot 

be delayed to be represented at the next regularly scheduled 

Board meeting.” After further negotiations, the parties agreed 

on the morning of trial to settle for $40,000, subject to 

Governing Board approval. While the District had a strong 

defense to plaintiffs’ claims, the settlement brings certainty of 

result, avoiding potentially significant liability plus plaintiffs’ 

attorney’s fees, while also avoiding the costs of a four-day 

trial. To October Board for approval. 

21 

SWFWMD v. King, 

M. Lewis, Hancock 

Lake Ranch, et al./ 

Case No. 2011CA- 

000665-111P-00 


Polk County 

R. Neill, Jr./ 

J. Ward 

Petition in Eminent Domain 

(Parcel No. 20-503-111-P) 

On March 28, 2011, in connection with its Lake Hancock Lake 

Level Modification Project, the District filed its Petition in Eminent 

Domain and Declaration of Taking with regard to an 18.5 acre 

easement on a 75.44 acre property. During the litigation, it became 

apparent that the language of the easement, as described in the 

Governing Board’s Resolution authorizing eminent domain 

proceedings, needed to be amended to make clear that the 

inundation easement would be intermittent, rather than perpetual. 

After amending the language of the easement through an Amended 

Resolution, the District moved to amend the Petition on June 15, 

2011. The court granted the motion on July 18, 2011, and the 

District filed an amended petition. The property owners moved to 

dismiss the amended petition on grounds the eminent domain 

proceeding was commenced prior to approval of the amended 

Resolution. The court granted the motion to dismiss, and on 

October 28, 2011, the District filed its Second Amended Petition. 

The owners again moved to dismiss, and the court granted the 

motion. On January 23, 2012, the District filed notice of declining to 

further amend, asserting that the existing Petition is legally 

sufficient, but opting to commence new proceedings with respect to 

this property (see below). 

SWFWMD v. King, 

M. Lewis, Hancock 

Lake Ranch, LLC, 

et al/Case No. 53- 

2012-CA-001123 


Polk County 


J. Ward 


(Parcel No. 20-503-111-P) 

On March 1, 2012, in connection with its Lake Hancock Lake Level 

Modification Project, the District filed its Petition in Eminent Domain 

and Declaration of Taking, and served written discovery requests to 

the property owners. On May 21, 2012, the court entered a 

stipulated Order of Taking. The parties are preparing for the 

compensation trial. Parties settled issue of just compensation 

and costs at August 30, 2012 mediation, subject to Board 

approval at October meeting. Property owner executed 

19


Stipulated Final Judgment on September 21. 

SWFWMD v. 

Quintana-Alcocer, 

Elia, et al./Case 

No. 53-2010-CA- 

05262 


Polk County 


J. Ward 


(Parcel No. 20-503-177-P) 

On July 6, 2010, in connection with its Lake Hancock Lake Level 

Modification Project, the District filed its Petition in Eminent Domain 

and Declaration of Taking with respect to a 4.77 acre easement on 

a 6.04 acre property. The parties subsequently agreed to an order 

of taking, and on November 2, 2010, the court entered a Stipulated 

Order of Taking. The issue of just compensation for the property 

taken remains pending. The District is procuring an appraisal of the 

property for purposes of assessing the value of the easement being 

taken. In late July 2012, the District’s land planning expert 

completed a report regarding the development restrictions on the 

property. The District’s appraiser is moving forward with a reinspection 

of the subject property to assess proper valuation. 

Parties are scheduling mediation and setting matter for trial if 

mediation fails to produce settlement. 

In re Sabal Palm 

Point Homeowners 

Association & 

Sabal Palm Point 

Subdivision, in 

Connection with 

MSSW 

43010245.001 

22 

In re Sabal Palm 

Point Homeowners 

Association & 


Subdivision, in 

Connection with 

ERP Applications 

43010245.002 & 

.003 

M. Moore Verified Complaint & Request for 

Enforcement pursuant to 

§403.412, F.S. 

M. Moore Verified Complaint & Request for 

Enforcement pursuant to 

§403.412, F.S. 

20 

On March 10, 2012, counsel for Rachel Wray, individually & on 

behalf of other similarly situated members of the Sabal Palm Point 

Homeowners Association (HOA) and the Coalition to Protect 

Lemon Bay, emailed to the District and Charlotte County a verified 

complaint pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act of 1971 

(§403.412, F.S.), alleging violations of the Management and 

Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit issued by the District 

and seeking enforcement by the District and the County. The 

complaint alleges that the HOA has not properly maintained the 

surface water management system, unlawful structures have been 

constructed and require removal, and the subdivision must be 

replatted. The District investigated the allegations in the complaint 

and on April 11, 2012, provided its response to the plaintiffs. 

District staff is continuing to address any compliance matters 

identified. 

On March 19, 2012, counsel for Rachel Wray, individually & on 

behalf of other similarly situated members of the Sabal Palm Point 

Homeowners Association (HOA) and the Coalition to Protect 

Lemon Bay, emailed a verified complaint to the District and the 

Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) pursuant to the 

Environmental Protection Act of 1971 (§403.412, F.S.), alleging that 

the existing dock operated by the HOA was constructed on 

sovereignty state lands without regulatory authorization, and that 

the ERP applications for a new dock and a replacement dock for 

the subdivision contained errors and omissions that rendered the 

applications unpermittable. The complaint seeks to have DEP take 

enforcement action on the HOA’s existing dock and assume 

regulatory jurisdiction for any proposed dock projects. A


Supplement to the Verified Complaint along with a Supplemental 

Declaration was received by e-mail on April 17, 2012. On April 20, 

2012, the District provided its response to the plaintiffs’ original 

complaint. On May 16, 2012, the District responded to the 

Supplement to the March 18, 2012 Verified Complaint and Request 

for Enforcement Action. District staff continues to review the 

pending permit application and is considering information provided 

by the complainant in its review. In June 2012, Petitioner Mrs. 

Wray and her attorney appeared before the Governing Board on 

this matter. 


Homeowners 


v. Rachel S. Wray 

Charlotte County 

Circuit Civil 

Case No. 10- 

003334-CA 

Hon. George C. 

Richards 

M. Moore Verified Third Party Complaint 

and Amended Counterclaim by 

Rachel S. Wray for Injunctive 

Relief, Declaratory Relief, and 

Damages 

On August 30, 2012, SWFWMD was served with Summons and 

Verified Third Party Complaint and Amended Counterclaim by 

Rachel S. Wray for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, and 

Damages. An Emergency Motion by Rachel S. Wray for 

Preliminary Injunctive Relief Against the Sabal Palm Point 

Homeowners Association was also filed. The complaint 

asserts 14 counts; 4 of which are against the District and other 

co-defendants, and contains 486 numbered paragraphs. 

Attached exhibits exceed 800 pages. 

23 

On September 12, 2012, the Sabal Palm Point HOA filed a 

Motion to Dismiss. On September 17, 2012, Charlotte County 

filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time. On September 19, 

2012, the District filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On 

September 28, 2012, Third Party Defendant, DMK Associates, 

Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for More Definite 

Statement. On September 27, 2012, Charlotte County filed a 

Motion to Dismiss, Motion for More Definite Statement and 

Motion to Strike. A Motion hearing is scheduled for October 

31, 2012 in Charlotte County. 

Peter Geraci v. 

Florida 

Department of 

Agriculture and 

Consumer 

Services, Case 

No. 12-1493 

Division of 


Hearings 

A. Brennan/ 

M. Moore 

Challenge to Binding 

Determination regarding 

Agricultural Exemption provided in 

Section 373.406(2), F.S. 

In October 2010, the District Governing Board authorized the Office 

of General Counsel to initiate litigation against Peter A. Geraci 

(Owner) and any other appropriate parties to obtain compliance, a 

monetary penalty, and recovery of District enforcement costs, court 

costs, and attorney’s fees concerning unauthorized activities 

conducted in 2008 on Owner’s property in Manatee County (the 

Property). The unauthorized construction activities involved 

dredging and filling impacts to wetlands on the Property and to a 

portion of Owen Creek that flows through the Property without the 

required environmental resource permit. An Administrative 

Complaint and Order (ACO) was served on Owner on March 2, 

2011, and on May 19, 2011 Owner submitted a timely Answer to 

the ACO and requested a formal administrative hearing. The matter 

was referred to and is currently pending before the Division of 

Administrative Hearings. See, SWFWMD v. Geraci, Case No. 11- 

21


24 

4509, Enforcement Cases in Active Litigation, above. 

As part of the ongoing administrative proceedings, on January 18, 

2012, the District requested from the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) a binding 

determination as to whether the activities on the Property were 

exempt from environmental resource permitting requirements 

pursuant to the agricultural exemption provided in Section 

373.406(2), F.S. On March 22, 2012, FDACS issued its binding 

determination, finding that the activities conducted on the Property 

were not exempt from permitting requirements. Owner indicated 

that he intended to challenge FDACS’ binding determination. 

Because the District requested the binding determination from 

FDACS and because the outcome of any such proceedings have 

the potential to impact the District’s underlying lawsuit against 

Owner, intervention in any challenge to the binding determination 

would be necessary to preserve the District’s interests. On April 24, 

2012, the District Governing Board authorized intervention in any 

proceeding initiated by Owner or any other appropriate parties 

against FDACS with respect to the March 22, 2012 binding 

determination. 

On April 12, 2012, Owner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative 

Hearing with FDACS, challenging the binding determination. On 

April 19, 2012, FDACS referred the matter to the Division of 

Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. On April 23, 

2012, the ALJ issued an Initial Order. On May 2, 2012, the District 

filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene in the proceeding. 

On May 21, 2012, an Order Granting Petition to Intervene was 

entered. On June 5, 2012, the District served its first request for 

production of documents and interrogatories on Geraci. Geraci has 

yet to file his responses to the District’s first request for production 

of documents and interrogatories. The final hearing is currently 

scheduled for August 28 and 29, 2012. The District and Geraci 

have continued to pursue settlement of the District matter (see 

above). On July 13, 2012, Geraci signed a proposed consent order 

for resolution of the District matter. Accordingly, on August 1, 2012, 

a Joint Motion for Continuance pending approval of the consent 

order was filed in the FDACS matter. On August 2, the ALJ 

cancelled the DOAH hearing. A proposed consent order in 

resolution of the District matter was approved by the Governing 

Board on August 28, 2012. On August 31, 2012, the District filed a 

joint status report as to this matter and the related FDACS matter. 

On September 5, 2012, the District filed a Joint Motion to 

Abate. On September 13, 2012, this matter was abated. A 

22


status report is due to the ALJ on December 14, 2012. 

Joseph E. 

Zagame, Jr. v. 

Florida 

Department of 

Agriculture and 

Consumer 

Services and 

SWFWMD, Case 

No. 12-1356 

Division of 


Hearings 

R. Moore/M. 

Moore 

Challenge to Binding 

Determination regarding 

Agricultural Exemption provided in 

Section 373.406(2), F.S. 

In December 2010, the District Governing Board authorized the 

Office of General Counsel to initiate litigation against Ramaela of 

Clermont, LP (Owner) and any other appropriate parties to obtain 

compliance, a monetary penalty, and recovery of District 

enforcement costs, court costs, and attorney’s fees concerning 

unauthorized activities conducted in 2007 on Owner’s property in 

Sumter County (the Property). The unauthorized construction 

activities involved dredging and filling impacts to wetlands on the 

Property without the required environmental resource permit (ERP). 

On January 4, 2011, the Owner submitted an ERP, application 

number 643440, to the District concerning the unauthorized 

activities. The District issued a request for additional information to 

Owner on February 1, 2011. The ERP application is currently on an 

extension of time to provide the requested information. 

25 

On November 14, 2011, the District requested from the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) a 

binding determination as to whether the activities on the Property 

were exempt from ERP requirements pursuant to the agricultural 

exemption provided in Section 373.406(2), F.S. On April 13, 2012, 

FDACS issued its binding determination, finding that the activities 

conducted on the Property were not exempt from permitting 

requirements. On March 5, 2012, Owner filed a Petition for Formal 

Administrative Hearing (petition) with FDACS, challenging the 

binding determination. FDACS, on March 8, 2012, issued an order 

dismissing Owner’s petition with leave to file an amended petition. 

On April 6, 2012, Owner filed an amended petition with FDACS. 

On April 16, 2012, FDACS referred the matter to the Division of 

Administrative Hearings (DOAH) to conduct a formal hearing. 

Because the District requested the binding determination from 

FDACS and because the outcome of any such proceedings have 

the potential to impact the District’s ability to administer and enforce 

its ERP requirements and the active compliance and enforcement 

action against Owner, intervention in any challenge to the binding 

determination would be necessary to preserve the District’s 

interests. On April 24, 2012, the District Governing Board 

authorized intervention in any proceeding initiated by Owner or any 

other appropriate parties against FDACS with respect to the April 

13, 2012 binding determination. 

On May 9, 2012, the District filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene 

in the DOAH proceeding. DOAH granted the District’s request to 

intervene on May 10, 2012. The hearing is set for July 10, 2012, in 

Leesburg, Lake County, Florida. 

23


On May 16, 2012, the District filed its Motion to Dismiss. On May 

23, 2012, FDACS filed its Response in Opposition to the District’s 

Motion to Dismiss. On May 24, 2012, DOAH issued its Order 

denying the District’s Motion to Dismiss. On May 24, 2012, the 

Owner filed a motion titled “Petition Objecting to SWFWMD Petition 

for Leave to Intervene,” DOAH denied Owner’s motion on June 13, 

2012. 

On June 29, 2012, Petitioner requesting a continuance of the 

hearing. On July 2, 2012, DOAH granted Petitioner’s request and 

the hearing is scheduled for August 8, 2012. Depositions in this 

matter were held on July 11, 2012. 

The District and Mr. Zagame are working on a proposed settlement 

to restore the impacted wetlands, and for the payment of penalties 

and costs. On August 1, 2012, Joe Zagame’s Witness List was 

filed. On August 6, 2012, Joint Motion for Continuance was filed. 

On August 7, 2012, Order Denying Continuance of Final Hearing 

was filed. 

A final hearing in this matter occurred on August 8th. The parties 

ran out of time to complete presentation of the case and a second 

day of hearing is scheduled for Oct. 15th. In the meantime, Mr. 

Zagame and the District continue to negotiate a settlement of this 

matter. 

The deposition of Mr. Zagame’s expert, James Modica, was 

taken on September 28, 2012. The parties filed their prehearing 

stipulation with DOAH on October 9, 2012, in 

preparation for the continuation of the hearing on October 15, 

2012. 

26 

Tony’s Roasted 

Pepper, LLC v. 

Hillsborough 

County & 

SWFWMD 



M. Moore Complaint for Bert Harris, 

trespass & inverse condemnation 

On July 17, 2012, the District was served with an amended 

complaint alleging Bert Harris, trespass & inverse condemnation 

claims against the County and a continuing trespass claim against 

the County and the District in relation to actions undertaken by the 

County and District permitting. The complaint seeks damages 

regarding County storm drainage systems allegedly impacting 

Tony’s Roasted Pepper, LLC (TRP) property, the County’s alleged 

unauthorized use of TRP property and the County’s failure to grant 

zoning approval of TRP’s proposed residential subdivision involving 

Lake Wee. Injunctive relief is sought against the District & the 

County for continuing trespass of stormwater that is alleged will 

occur as a result of a District ERP to the County for drainage 

improvements in the Lake Meade area. TRP has also challenged 

the County ERP, which is now pending before DOAH. (See permit 

challenge above.) The District’s answer is due August 6, 2012. On 

July 23, 2012, the parties held a joint resolution conference for all 

24


APPEALS 


matters, including this complaint. A proposed settlement 

agreement has been reached and will be presented to the Board of 

County Commissioners for approval on August 7, 2012. If 

approved, both matters involving the District will be resolved. The 

District’s Answer was filed Aug. 6, 2012. The settlement agreement 

has been rescheduled for approval by the Hillsborough County 

BOCC at its September 4, 2012 meeting. On September 4, 2012, 

the settlement agreement was approved. TRP filed a Notice of 

Dismissal on September 10, 2012. The Court subsequently 

entered its Order of Dismissal. This case is now closed. 

27 

Arrowhead 

Citizens Assn., Inc. 

v. Dept. of 

Environmental 

Protection & 

SWFWMD/Case 

No. 5D12-540 

Fifth District Court of 

Appeal 

M. Moore Appeal of DEP’s dismissal with 

prejudice of Arrowhead Citizens 

Association, Inc. Amended 

Petition for Hearing 

On September 15, 2011, the Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) issued a notice of intent to issue an 

Environmental Resource Permit to the District authorizing 

construction of a new access road and tie-back berm associated 

with Structure S-353 on the District’s Potts Preserve property. On 

October 3, 2011, DEP received from Arrowhead Citizens Assn., 

Inc. a petition for an administrative hearing on the DEP’s proposed 

agency action. On November 4, 2011, DEP dismissed the petition 

as incomplete, with leave to amend. On November 21, 2011, DEP 

received an amended petition. On January 13, 2012, DEP issued a 

final order dismissing the amended petition with prejudice. On 

February 8, 2012, Arrowhead Citizens Association filed a Notice of 

Appeal. Arrowhead Citizens filed its initial brief on April 16, 2012. 

On April 23, 2012, Southwest Florida Water Management District 

filed a Notice of Appearance of Counsel and Motion to Correct 

Style of Case to add the District as a named Appellee. The Court 

entered its Order granting the Motion to Correct Style of Case to 

include SWFWMD as an Appellee. Appellant filed its initial brief on 

April 17, 2012, but failed to serve a copy on the District. Due to this, 

the District requested an extension of 20 days in which to serve its 

answer brief. On May 8, 2012, the Court ordered an enlargement of 

time for service of Appellee, SWFWMD, to file its Answer Brief. The 

Answer Brief of Appellee Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection was served on May 7, 2012. The District’s brief was 

served on May 29, 2012. Arrowhead filed Reply Briefs to DEP’s 

and the District’s Answer Briefs. 

On June 6, 2012, Arrowhead moved to substitute its filed briefs with 

re-typed documents prepared in the Times New Roman Font 14 

required by appellate rules, which was granted by the court on June 

12, 2012. The corrected documents were re-filed on June 25, 2012. 

Oral argument was held on September 4, 2012 in Daytona 

25


Beach. On September 11, 2012, an Affirmed Decision was 

received from the 5 th DCA. On October 1, 2012, received 5 th 

DCA Mandate with Order (Not Final Until Time Expires to File 

Motion for Rehearing and Disposition Thereof If Filed). 

Hames, Cedar and 

Nora H. Scholin v. 

SWFWMD, et 

al./Case No. 2D11- 

1817 

Second District 

Court of Appeal 

D. Graziano/ 

J. Ward 

Appeal of Final Judgment 

entered in Manatee County 

Circuit Court Case No. 2007 CA 

001649 

In 2007, after the District denied their ERP application to construct 

eight single-family residences on eight platted lots consisting 

largely of submerged bay bottom, the plaintiffs filed an inverse 

condemnation suit contending that they have a statutorily vested 

right to bulkhead and fill the lots, and therefore the permit denial 

constituted a taking of their property. The plaintiffs claimed 

damages exceeding $5,000,000. 

The District defended the claim by arguing that (1) the plaintiffs did 

not have a statutory right to bulkhead and fill because they obtained 

title after the pertinent statute was repealed, and (2) the plaintiffs’ 

claim was not ripe for judicial review because they did not submit a 

meaningful application that would enable the District to determine 

the extent of permissible development since the plaintiffs failed to 

propose any mitigation or practicable design alternatives for their 

proposed project. 

Following trial in December 2010, the trial court entered final 

judgment in favor of the District; the plaintiffs appealed on April 5, 

2011. The District filed an answer brief and a cross-appeal on an 

issue that it unsuccessfully raised early in the case by summary 

judgment motion: that plaintiffs’ claim is time-barred by statute, 

because they did not filed their claim within 30 days of permit 

denial. The appeal was fully briefed as of March 5, 2012. Oral 

argument occurred on May 16. On June 15, 2012, the appellate 

court ruled in favor of the District, fully affirming the trial court’s final 

judgment. On July 2, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for 

rehearing. The District filed its response to the motion on July 17. 

Court denied Hames’ motion for rehearing and mandate issued 

by court on September 19. District is pursuing motion for fees 

and costs based on proposal for settlement rejected by 

plaintiffs. 

28 

Maguire, III, 

Raymer F. and 

Charlotte E. 

Maguire, M.D. as 

Trustees of the 

Raymer F. Maguire 

Trust v. SWFWMD, 

et al./Case No. 

Second District 

Court of Appeal 

J. Ward Notice of Appeal of Order 

Granting Defendant’s, Sun ‘N’ 

Lake of Sebring Improvement 

District, Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Complaint; and Denying All Other 

Motions As Moot rendered 

November 9, 2011 

In November 2010, the plaintiffs sued several governmental 

defendants, including the District, seeking a declaratory judgment 

and damages for payments made plus interest in connection with 

their purchase of tax certificates with respect to properties located 

in Highlands County. The complaint and amended complaint were 

both dismissed for lack of standing. On December 7, 2011, the 

plaintiffs appealed and their initial brief is due to be served by 

March 16, 2012. By order dated April 13, 2012, the plaintiffs’ were 

26


2D11-6317 granted an extension to April 30 to serve their initial brief. The 

various defendants filed answer briefs in June, and on June 29, 

2012, the District filed a notice of joinder in co-defendant Sun ‘N 

Lake Improvement District’s answer brief. The plaintiffs filed their 

reply brief on August 24, 2012. Oral argument set for November 

27. 

Suggs, Danny 

Joseph v. 

SWFWMD/Case 

No. 5D10-3786 

Suggs, Gary Dale 

v. SWFWMD/Case 

N. 5D11-253 

29 

Fifth District Court of 

Appeal 

J. Ward Appeal of Sumter County Court’s 

Order on Plaintiff’s Post-Judgment 

Motion for Determination of 

Homestead Property Claimed by 

D. J. Suggs 

Appeal of Sumter County Court’s 

Order on Plaintiff’s Post-Judgment 

Motion for Determination of 

Homestead Property Claimed by 

G. D. Suggs 

27 

This appeal and the related Gary Suggs appeal arise from a longstanding 

enforcement matter concerning approximately 180 acres 

of property in Sumter County owned by the Suggs family. After 

discovering unauthorized construction activities on the property in 

2001, including dredging and filling wetlands without a permit, the 

District served an administrative complaint and order in December 

2002, and subsequently brought an enforcement proceeding 

against the Suggs family in circuit court in 2003. The defendants 

pursued a number of appeals over the next few years, after which 

the trial proceedings resumed in earnest. 

During the trial proceedings, the Suggs asserted an agricultural 

exemption defense, which resulted in a formal administrative 

hearing in January 2009. Following the administrative proceeding, 

the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the District, finding 

that the Suggs could not claim the agricultural exemption. 

The District thereafter continued the enforcement process in circuit 

court. Following a bench trial in May 2009, final judgment was 

entered in favor of the District in July 2009, which included the 

assessment of substantial penalties against the Suggs defendants. 

During proceedings supplementary to satisfy the final judgment, the 

District levied on a number of vehicles owned by the Suggs 

defendants, and subsequently had the vehicles sold via sheriff’s 

auction. 

Gary Suggs and Danny Suggs both raised homestead exemptions 

to the District’s efforts to force the sale of multiple homes located 

on the property at issue. Following a hearing on the homestead 

issue, in December 2010, the trial court ruled in favor of the District 

on all but one of the homes, declining to rule on the matter until 

other matters are resolved on appeal. Gary and Danny Suggs both 

appealed the rulings on their homestead claims, and the District 

filed its answer briefs in July 2011. 

Gary Suggs’s appeal was dismissed by the appellate court due to 

his failure to comply with court orders. On June 26, 2012, the 

appellate court ruled wholly in favor of the District in Danny Suggs’s 

appeal, affirming the trial court’s order below. Settlement 

negotiations with the defendants have been fruitful. While a 

settlement agreement was being finalized for Board approval,


CONSENT ORDERS 

1 for October 2012 

the District learned that Suggs may be receiving significant 

monies pursuant to a settlement in another case. District is 

investigating and will pursue such funds if true. 

VIOLATOR BOARD POLICY ATTORNEY VIOLATIONS STATUS 

Buddy Tyler 160-6 C. Pettit Well Construction w/out 

Valid License and w/out 

Required Well 

Construction Permit 

Consent Order signed by Mr. Tyler on September 19, 2012. 

Consent Order signed by Executive Director on September 27, 

2012. Mr. Tyler will pay administrative fines of $1,500 and will 

have 15 points assessed against his well contractor’s license in 

the event he obtains a valid license. 

30 

28

RULEMAKING UPDATE 


PROPOSED RULES &AMENDMENTS 

RULE 

1. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking 

to Amend Rule 40D-1.603, F.A.C., to 

Specify that Requests for Notices of 

Agency Action Must be Made in Writing 

or by Electronic Mail 

2. Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 

1.607, F.A.C., to Incorporate 

Standardized Environmental Resource 

Permitting Fee Categories as Part of 

the Statewide Environmental Resource 

Permitting Program 



Clarify the Requirements for Certain 

Counties and Municipalities to Request 

a Permit Fee Reduction 


to Amend Rules 40D-1.659 and 40D- 

2.091, F.A.C., and Section 7.4 of the 

Water Use Permitting Basis of Review 

to Extend the Timeframe for the 

Submittal of Mitigation Reports and to 

Incorporate and Require the Submittal 

of Flow Meter Installation Forms for 

Permittees in the Dover/Plant City 

WUCA 

5. Approval of Rule Language to Amend 

Rule 40D-2.091, F.A.C., and Section 

3.1 of the Water Use Permitting Basis 

of Review to Address Certain Reuse 

Feasibility Requirements for Water Use 

Permit Applicants and Reuse Providers 

as Mandated by Statute 

6. Initiation and Approval of Amendments 

to Rules 40D-2.091 and 40D-2.801, 

F.A.C., to Correct the Legal 

Descriptions of the Boundaries of the 

Southern Water Use Caution Area 

(SWUCA) and the Most Impacted Area 

of the SWUCA 

INITIATION 

DATE 

NEXT 

SCHEDULED 

ACTION 

BOARD 

PROJECTED/ 

APPROVED DATE 

May 2012 TBD May 2012 

August 2012 

(This item is part 

of the Statewide 

Environmental 

Resource 

Permitting 

Rulemaking – 

Item 22) 

October 2012 

TBD 

Initiation and 

Approval 

October 2012 

September 2012 Effective approx. 

November 2012 

June 2011 

September 2011 

Effective approx. 

November 2012 

Effective 

October 11, 

2012 

November 

2012 

October 2012 

September 

2012 

August 2012 

September 

2011 

NA = NOT APPLICABLE;TBD=TO BE DETERMINED 

31

RULE 

7. Approve Amendments to Rule 40D- 

2.321, F.A.C., to Comply with Section 

373.236, F.S., Regarding Duration of 

Permits and to be More Consistent with 

the Other Water Management Districts 

8. Approval of Amendments to Rule 40D- 

2.322, F.A.C., to Incorporate Changes 

Necessitated by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection’s Guidance 

for Consumptive Use Permit 

Compliance Reporting Requirements 

and Review Memorandum 


to Amend Chapter 40D-3, F.A.C., to 

Incorporate Changes Necessitated by 

Amendments to Chapters 62-528 and 

62-532, F.A.C. 



Require Permits for Specific Injection 

Wells Pursuant to Legislative 

Amendments to Section 373.326(3), 

F.S. 



Clarify that a Property Owner or Party 

in Legal Control of Property can 

Request the District to Administratively 

Cancel a Well Construction Permit 

12. Approval of Applicant’s Handbook 

Volume II and Amendments to 40D- 

4.091, F.A.C., to Incorporate the 

Applicant’s Handbook Volume II by 

Reference as part of the Statewide 

Environmental Resource and 




Adopt Minimum Flows for Lower 

Myakka River 



Adopt Minimum Flows for the 

Chassahowitzka River System 

INITIATION 

DATE 

April 2012 



Consumptive 

Use Consistency 

Effort – Item 21) 

April 2012 



Consumptive 

Use Consistency 

Effort – Item 21) 

August 2012 

August 2012 

August 2012 

August 2012 



Environmental 

Resource 

Permitting 

Rulemaking – 

Item 22) 

December 2011 

October 2012 

NEXT 

SCHEDULED 

ACTION 


November 2012 


Approval 


November 2012 


November 2012 


November 2012 

TBD 

Effective 

September 16, 

2012 


Approval 

October 2012 

BOARD 

PROJECTED/ 

APPROVED DATE 

September 

2012 

TBD 

August 2012 

August 2012 

August 2012 

September 

2012 

July 2012 

October 2012 



Adopt Minimum Flows for the 

Homosassa River System 

October 2012 


Approval 

October 2012 

October 2012 


32

RULE 



Adopt Minimum Levels for Lake 

Hooker, Hillsborough County 



Adopt Minimum Levels for Lakes 

Bonable, Tiger, and Little Bonable, 

Marion County 



adopt Minimum Levels for Tooke Lake 

and Whitehurst Pond, Hernando 

County 



Clarify the Noticing Requirements 

Pursuant to the Issuance of a Water 

Shortage Declaration 

20. Initiation of Rule Development to 

Amend the District’s Water Use 

Permitting Rules in Accordance with 

the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Statewide 

Effort to Improve Consistency between 

the Water Management Districts’ 

Consumptive/Water Use Permitting 

Programs 

21. Initiation of Rulemaking to Amend 

Chapters 40D-1, 4, 40 and 400, F.A.C., 

and Approval of Applicant’s Handbook 

Volume II, Incorporated by Reference 

in 40D-4.091, F.A.C., as Part of the 

Statewide Environmental Resource 


INITIATION 

DATE 

August 2012 

October 2012 

November 2012 

July 2012 

NEXT 

SCHEDULED 

ACTION 


November 2012 


Approval 

October 2012 


Approval 

November 2012 


November 2012 

BOARD 

PROJECTED/ 

APPROVED DATE 

August 2012 

October 2012 

November 

2012 

July 2012 

April 2012 TBD Ongoing 

August 2012 TBD Ongoing 


33

I. Committee/ 

Liaison Reports

Items 52 - 55 



COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS 


The meeting was held on October 15, 2012 ....................................................................... 2 


The meeting was held on October 11, 2012 ....................................................................... 4 


The meeting was held on October 8, 2012 ......................................................................... 5 

55. Other Liaison Reports

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

LIAISON REPORT –MICHAEL BABB 

MEETING DATE –OCTOBER 15, 2012 

Rulemaking Update 

• Laura Donaldson, General Counsel, described the Statewide Environmental Resource 

Permitting (SWERP) rulemaking efforts, and informed the Committee that the effective date of 

the rule has been pushed back a month to February 2013. 

• She answered questions about issuance of permits and how the District will be affected by the 

rule changes. A handout was distributed outlining the remaining schedule along with a list of 

related documents. 

• She spoke about the Consumptive Use Permitting Consistency (CUPCon) rulemaking efforts 

and said individual workgroups have been formed to address specific issues. Another round of 

public workshops will be held prior to Thanksgiving. 

• Ms. Donaldson addressed concerns about unmetered wells, and said exemptions will not 

apply to water use caution areas. 

• She mentioned MFL rulemaking efforts and upcoming Board action on controversial river 

systems. 

Hydrologic Conditions and Water Shortage Orders 

• Lois Sorensen, Demand Management Program Manager, provided an overview of hydrologic 

conditions and noted surface and groundwater levels are fluctuating well within the normal 

range. 

• She said the rainfall 12-month departure from mean shows a 1.9” deficit. 

• The C.W. Bill Young Reservoir is being drawn down in anticipation of repairs, and the 

PRMRWSA has 8.6 billion gallons in storage. 

• Climate forecasts are still calling for above normal precipitation through April. 

• She reminded the Committee that Modified Phase I restrictions are in effect district wide, and 

will expire December 31, 2012. 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) Update 

• Veronica Craw, Environmental Manager, provided an update indicating that staff has been 

tracking this issue since Earthjustice filed suit against EPA in 2008. 

• She reviewed the history and timeline, and clarified that no criteria are currently in effect 

because both state and federal rules were challenged, and criteria effective dates have been 

extended. 

• Ms. Craw reviewed the upcoming schedule which sets an effective date of January 2013 for 

EPA NNC for springs and lakes, an August 2013 deadline for final NNC for streams, and a 

September 2013 deadline for final NNC for coasts, estuaries and South Florida canals. 

• She spoke about FDEP’s Guidance Document, which describes how they will implement the 

criteria, and provided several examples of the hierarchical protocol that will be used. 

• Ms. Craw addressed questions about net environmental benefit, responsible entities, and the 

District’s role in the process. 

Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification and Outfall Treatment Project Update 

• Randy Smith, Environmental Scientist in the Water Resources Bureau, provided an overview 

of both components of the project. The major goals are to increase flows in the Upper Peace 

River and improve water quality leaving Lake Hancock. 

• He described the conveyance improvements, replacement of the structure, land acquisition 

activities, and the components of the outfall treatment portion of the project. Overall, the 

project is about 60% complete. 

2

• Time-lapse photography was shown. Mr. Smith then answered questions about the quantity of 

water that will be treated, cell maintenance to de-nitrify the system, and the size of the 

remaining parcels of land to be acquired. 

• The PRMRWSA expressed their appreciation of staff as they worked cooperatively to resolve 

some water quality issues. 

Hunting on District Lands 

• Joseph Quinn, Land Management Manager, provided an overview of hunting opportunities on 

District lands, which have been available to the public since the 1970s. Approximately 

132,000 acres are open for hunting as designated Wildlife Management Areas managed by 

the FWC. 

• In addition, the District manages special hunts for youth and the mobility-impaired. Special 

opportunity hunts allow the District to conduct feral hog control in an efficient and costeffective 

manner. 

• Mr. Quinn described the District’s recent hunting evaluation, which was initiated by a request 

from the United Water Fowlers. The evaluation resulted in Governing Board approval of 

expanded opportunities on four District properties. 

• He discussed ongoing activities, including coordination with FWC, opportunities to expand 

feral hog control, and the potential formation of a Land Management Advisory Committee. (A 

member of the public representing the Native Plant Society spoke in favor of the creation of an 

advisory committee.) 

• Mr. Quinn answered questions from Committee members concerning the number of hogs 

eliminated last year, compatibility of mixed use on District lands, fees, and the occurrence of 

hunting activities along marked trails. 

Cooperative Funding Program Update 

• Terri Behling, Governmental Affairs Manager, reviewed the process and said the due date for 

proposals was October 5, two months earlier than in prior years. The schedule was moved up 

in order for staff to evaluate and ensure the completeness of the proposals prior to 

presentation to the Governing Board. 

• She said 143 applications were received, requesting more than $86.7 million in FY2014. The 

majority of the projects are in the water quality and water supply categories, and more than 

half of the projects were submitted in the Tampa Bay region covering Pasco, Pinellas and 

Hillsborough Counties. 

• Ms. Behling answered questions about the availability and source of funding, and provided 

information on the typical applicant. 

Development of Agenda Topics 

• Committee members suggested a number of potential topics for future meetings and asked 

Board liaison Michael Babb if there is any specific input the Governing Board would like from 

the Committee. Mr. Babb said he will present a list to the Committee in January. 

• The next meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee is scheduled for January 14, 2013 

at 1:30 p.m. in the Tampa Service Office. 

3

WELL DRILLERS ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

LIAISON REPORT – _________ 


DEP/WMD/DOH/FGWA Statewide Well Construction Permit Streamlining Initiative Update 

Mr. David Arnold presented proposed modifications to Chapter 40D-3, Florida Administrative 

Code (F.A.C.) that will add a Violations of Permits section. This proposed rule change is 

consistent with a similar section within St. John’s River Water Management District’s well 

construction rules. WDAC members approved this modification to Chapter 40D-3, F.A.C. Mr. 

Arnold also presented a summary of the proposed well construction permitting streamlining 

initiative led by DEP at the September 28, 2012 Department of Environmental Protection / 

Water Management District / Department of Health / Florida Groundwater Association 

(DEP/WMD/DOH/FGWA) quarterly meeting. Although this streamlining initiative is currently on 

hold until finalization of CUPCON and SWERP efforts, DEP is requesting feedback on the 

current streamlining effort. Mr. Arnold’s summary of the September 28, 2012 workgroup 

meeting also included FGWA’s lobbying proposal to the key members of the upocoming Florida 

Legislative session to revise Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.) to pre-empt any delegations 

beyond Water Management Districts from issuing well construiction permits, and to pre-empt 

counties, cities, or municipalities from having their own ordinances requiring a separate water 

well contractor’s licenses and permits to construct a well which is not otherwise authorized 

under Chapter 373, F.S. 

WMIS WCP Search Tool Refresher and Inspection Metrics 

Based on multiple water well contractors stating that they either no longer had staff employed or 

had forgotten how to use WMIS’ well construction permit search tool, Ms. Misty O’Neal provided 

a refresher for using WMIS to locate well construction permit data. Ms. O’Neal also provided a 

summary of District well construction inspection matrixes. 

Well Drilling Private Contracts 

Due to an emergency, Mr. Griffin (Junior) Crosby, Jr. was not able to attend the WDAC meeting. 

Update on ASR Projects: What’s Working and What are our Remaining Challenges 

Mr. Don Ellison presented a summary of ASR project statuses within the District and their 

challenges regarding arsenic liberation from injecting water to from the wells to particular 

aquifers. The presentation illustrated how engineering, well design, and repeated injection and 

withdrawal cycles are successfully mitigating arsenic concentrations in groundwater recovered 

by ASR wells. 

Hydrologic Update 

Ms. Lois Sorensen discussed hydrologic conditions and program updates of interest to 

attendees including the rebound of aquifers and lakes due to heavy summer rainfall. 

Hillsborough County Pump Permitting/Inspection Program 

Mr. Tom Legler provided a question and answer session to members of WDAC and the 

audience regarding Hillsborough County’s pump inspection and permitting program for potable 

water wells. Mr. Legler provided clarifications on County pump permitting requirements and that 

water well contractors should wait to chlorinate newly-constructed water wells until after the 

pump is inspected to lessen the chance of water quality samples from these wells failing quality 

requirements by the Hillsborough County Health Department. 

4

TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL 

LIAISON REPORT –TODD PRESSMAN 


Dr. Barbara Foster of the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) provided an overview of 

the five-year Statewide Strategic Plan for Economic Development, which began in October 

2011. Staff from DEO and the Florida Regional Planning Councils held 50 workshops with over 

3,000 total stakeholders throughout the state in this consensus-based, collaborative approach to 

strategic planning. DEO is marking the first anniversary of the agency with the roll out of the 

plan. Dr. Foster discussed the goals, objectives, strategies and next steps of the plan. 

TBRPC staff provided an update on two statewide energy planning projects identifying ways to 

diversify our energy sources and how to prepare for a major energy disruption. Partners include 

the Florida Regional Planning Councils, the Florida Office of Energy, the U.S. Economic 

Development Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy. The studies will help identify 

strategies to diversify Florida's energy future and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. 

Two surveys have been created to better understand the current energy infrastructure paradigm 

from both a residential and non-residential perspective. The surveys are located at 

www.florida-energy.org. 

There will be approximately 13,940 square feet of premium office space available for lease on 

Feb. 1, 2012 at the TBRPC office. Favorable rates will be available to nonprofit groups. 

The next Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 12, 2012 at 10 a.m. 

5

J. Executive 

Director's Report

Item 56 



EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 

a. Inspector General Policies, Procedures and Succession ..................................................... 2 

b. Other 

Presenter: 

Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director

Item 56 

Executive Director Report 


Inspector General Policies, Procedures and Succession 

Purpose 

In compliance with Governing Board Policy 710-1, the purpose of this item is to present options 

for the Governing Board’s consideration to select an Inspector General to replace Captain 

Robert R. Dunne. 


The District’s Office of Inspector General currently consists of two positions: the Inspector 

General and the Assistant Inspector General. With the retirement of the Inspector General 

effective September 30, 2012, the need exists for the Governing Board to recruit and appoint a 

new Inspector General. 

District Policy provides the process for the recruitment and selection of the District’s Inspector 

General. It specifically delegates the authority for the recruitment of the Inspector General to 

the Executive Director unless such delegation is revoked. Upon a vacancy, the Policy directs 

the Executive Director to brief the Governing Board regarding the recruitment and selection 

process; to revise the existing position description, if necessary; and to present the position 

description to the Governing Board for approval. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to Board Policy, the following options are available for consideration: 

(1) immediately appoint an Inspector General; 

(2) appoint an interim Inspector General; and 

(3) have the position remain open during the recruitment and selection of a new Inspector 

General. 

In addition, if either option (2) or (3) is selected, the Governing Board will then decide who will 

conduct the recruitment, the Executive Director or the Governing Board. The procedures are 

substantially the same. Under either option, the Governing Board selects the new Inspector 

General by a majority vote. 


To facilitate the decision-making process, staff is recommending that the Governing Board 

should first determine whether it wants to immediately appoint an Inspector General; appoint an 

interim Inspector General; or have the position remain open during the recruitment and selection 

process. Consistent with the Governing Board’s decision last year regarding the interim 

Executive Director, if option (2) is selected, it is advisable that the person who serves as interim 

Inspector General is not a candidate for the position. 

Presenter: Blake R. Guillory, P.E., Executive Director 

2

K. Chair's Report

Item 57 



CHAIR’S REPORT 



See Exhibit 

Approve Resolution 12-16 for presentation to Mr. Gramling at a future meeting. 

b. Other 

Presenter: Paul Senft, Chair


COMMENDING 

HUGH M. GRAMLING 

FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE 

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD 

WHEREAS, HUGH M. GRAMLING was appointed by Governor Charlie Crist to the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District Governing Board in April 2008 to a term to expire March 1, 2012, and he served through 

August 2012; and 

WHEREAS, HUGH M. GRAMLING was elected as the Board’s Vice Chair in May 2010, re-elected in May 2011 

and re-elected in May 2012 and served through August 2012; and elected and served as the Board’s Secretary from 

May 2009 through May 2010; and 

WHEREAS, HUGH M. GRAMLING served on Governing Board Committees, served as liaison to the 

Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program Policy Board, and represented the Board on 

various subcommittees; and 

WHEREAS, HUGH M. GRAMLING served as Chair of the Hillsborough River Basin Board from April 2008 

through May 2011 and as a Hillsborough River Basin Board Member from May 2006 until his appointment to the 

Governing Board; and 

WHEREAS, HUGH M. GRAMLING championed service to the agricultural community; supported the 

development of regional alternative water supplies; promoted conservation, water resource education, and community 

based social marketing; advocated for the SWIM and FARMS programs; and 

WHEREAS, HUGH M. GRAMLING was a member when the Governing Board approved the Dover/Plant City 

freeze management strategy and rules, demonstrating remarkable leadership and commitment as he facilitated public 

meetings and worked with staff to ensure the equitable resolution of issues; was instrumental in helping staff partner 

with the University of Florida - IFAS to ensure the research needs of the District were met in areas such as water 

requirements for landscape plants, turf research, and alternative cold protection methods for strawberries and other 

crops; encouraged the responsible management of District land including the evaluation of land for potential surplus; 

and 

WHEREAS, HUGH M. GRAMLING, as a member of the Governing Board and Basin Board, demonstrated 

exceptional skill in coalition-building, leadership in environmental stewardship, foresight, wisdom and administrative 

abilities that were instrumental in ensuring responsible management of water resources and natural systems; and 

WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District wishes to express its 

appreciation of these outstanding contributions, as well as numerous others that are not mentioned but which will long 

be attributed to the service of HUGH M. GRAMLING. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SOUTHWEST 

FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT that this Board honors HUGH M. GRAMLING by adopting this 

resolution, expressing its appreciation for his commitment to the mission of the District, his outstanding work and his 

dedication to public service; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be incorporated into the minutes of this District, permanently 

honoring the service of HUGH M. GRAMLING to this District, and that this resolution be presented to him. 

PASSED and ADOPTED this _________ day of _____________ 2012. 

GOVERNING BOARD OF THE 


BY ______________________________________ 


ATTEST ______________________________________ 

Albert G. Joerger, Secretary

notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?