Agenda 04/26/2016 Item #16A20 4/26/2016 16.A.20.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve a standalone Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment cycle to
allow for the removal of the existing maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin
from the GMP; in the interim, approve placing in abeyance the discharge rates in the GMP; and,
authorize staff to initiate amendments to the Code of Laws and Ordinances and/or Land
Development Code (LDC) to add stormwater discharge rates; and, approve a standalone LDC
amendment cycle,if needed.
OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)to authorize amendments to the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) to remove the existing maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by
basin and modify, as needed, any GMP related references to those discharge rates for proper form and
clarity; authorize placing in abeyance the discharge rates contained in the GMP; and, authorize
amendments to the Code of Laws and Ordinances and/or Land Development Code, as appropriate, to add
sixteen new maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Background: The existing conveyance capacity of the County's primary and secondary stormwater and
surface water management system is limited. Expansion or enlargement of this system to create
additional system capacity is not a viable strategy for managing stormwater flows. The Stormwater
Management Subelement of the Growth Management Plan requires that drainage systems have adequate
stormwater management capacity at the time development permit is issued, and the system be designed
"to ensure that the final outlet point has the adequate capacity to handle all discharges from the upstream
portion of the watershed under conditions present at the time of design." Additionally, Policy 6.3 of the
Subelement requires off-site discharge rates be computed using a storm event of a 3 day duration and 25
year return frequency. Analysis of the system's capacity to accept flow and adequately convey it to
downstream receiving waters resulted in the current maximum allowable post development discharge
rates. Six (6) sub-basin areas presently have specified reduced maximum allowable post development
discharge rates ranging from 0.04 to 0.13 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre; all other areas of the
County have a maximum allowable post development discharge rate of 0.15 cfs per acre. These discharge
rates are listed in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 90-41.
The Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, adopted in 1989, required that the
County develop a watershed management plan by January 1993. After postponement for several years,
the Board of County Commissioners sponsored development of a comprehensive Collier County
Watershed Management Plan(CCWMP) and accepted it in 2011. The unit discharge rates adopted in the
earlier years were based on preliminary hydraulic analyses. Detailed hydraulic modeling for evaluation
of the design storm conveyance capacity of the canal network performed as a part of the CCWMP
updated the maximum allowable discharge rates for all of the basins. Two additional detailed stormwater
management master plans, developed jointly by the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)
and the County for the Belle Meade and Immokalee areas in 2005, recommended further limiting the
discharge rates for sixteen(16) basins/sub-basins. Computer modeling results indicated various segments
of the system do not have the capacity to handle large storm events. In some cases,the canal banks would
be overtopped during a 10-year design storm event. Conditions may worsen in the future unless
management actions are implemented to control for the impact of subsequent changes to land use.
Reducing maximum allowable post development discharge rates in these 16 basin areas is recommended
to ensure adequate flood protection levels of service.
Packet Page -682-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Accordingly, amendments to existing ordinances, including the Stormwater Management Subelement are
needed to meet the commitments of the GMP by incorporating the limiting discharge rates proposed in
CCWMP and the two stormwater master plans.The following benefits are anticipated as a result:
• Improved Levels of Service (LOS) for flood protection provided by SFWMD and County
operated canals
• Enhanced groundwater recharge potential
• Restored hydrology and wetlands hydroperiod
• Water quality improvement of receiving waters
• Reduction of freshwater flows to the estuaries
• Gain consistency in Environmental Resource Permitting(SFWMD and County).
Based in part on the CCWMP, the County amended the Stormwater Management Subelement of the
GMP by Ordinance No. 15-09 to add stormwater discharge rates for 14 sub-basins. However, some of
these rates do not reflect the discharge rates contained within the studies for the Immokalee and Belle
Meade areas, and need additional public vetting. Further, staff has confirmed with the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity, the agency that oversees all local government comprehensive
plans, that these discharge rates are not required to be adopted into the GMP. Removing the discharge
rates from the GMP and instead incorporating them into the LDC and/or Code of Laws and Ordinances
will allow for an amendment process, as future changes may be needed,that is faster, less costly and less
cumbersome.
Finally, staff has presented the proposed discharge rate reductions to the Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC) on three occasions (6/3/15, 11/4/15, and 3/2/16) with assistance from the Big
Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water Management District and the engineering consulting firm of
Robau and Associates, LLC. Questions and comments were raised by DSAC members and at subsequent
DSAC meetings staff and the consultant team responded to those. Moving forward, the DSAC will
continue to review all proposed changes to the LDC and/or Code of Laws and Ordinances and provide
comments and recommendations prior to review by the Collier County Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for authorizing standalone GMPA and LDCA cycles, nor
for placing in abeyance the discharge rates in the GMP. Costs associated with the text amendments will
be accommodated in the current fiscal year budget.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: This item's Growth Management Plan(GMP) impact
consists of placing in abeyance the discharge rates listed in the Stormwater Subelement. Text revisions to
the GMP will be provided to the Board at a subsequent hearing for review and approval.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality,and requires majority
vote for Board approval.--HFAC
RECOMMENDATION: To approve a standalone Growth Management Plan amendment cycle to
remove the existing maximum allowable off-site runoff discharge rates by basin and modify, as needed,
any GMP related references to those discharge rates for proper form and clarity; authorize placing in
abeyance the discharge rates contained in the GMP; authorize staff to initiate amendments to the Code of
Laws and Ordinances and/or Land Development Code (LDC) to add sixteen new maximum allowable
off-site runoff discharge rates by basin;and,approve a standalone LDC amendment cycle, if needed
Packet Page -683-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Prepared by: Michele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and
Program Management Division, Growth Management Department and David C. Weeks, AICP, Growth
Management Manager,Zoning Division, Growth Management Department.
Attachments:
(1) Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates White Paper
(2) Stormwater Management Sub-Element,Policy 6.3
(3) Code of Laws and ordinances, Section 90-41
Packet Page -684-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.16.A.16.A.20.
Item Summary: Recommendation to approve a standalone Growth Management Plan
(GMP) amendment cycle to allow for the removal of the existing maximum allowable off-site
runoff discharge rates by basin from the GMP; in the interim, approve placing in abeyance the
discharge rates in the GMP; and, authorize staff to initiate amendments to the Code of Laws
and Ordinances and/or Land Development Code (LDC)to add stormwater discharge rates; and,
approve a standalone LDC amendment cycle, if needed.
Meeting Date: 4/26/2016
Prepared By
Name: MoscaMichele
Title:Planner,Principal,Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees and Program Management
3/22/2016 8:26:23 PM
Submitted by
Title: Planner,Principal, Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees and Program Management
Name: MoscaMichele
3/22/2016 8:26:25 PM
Approved By
Name: KurtzGerald
Title: Project Manager,Principal, Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees and Program Management
Date: 3/24/2016 10:05:08 AM
Name: WeeksDavid
Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 3/24/2016 11:23:55 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst,Operations&Regulatory Management
Date: 3/28/2016 3:46:18 PM
Packet Page -685-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Operations&Regulatory Management
Date: 3/28/2016 3:47:54 PM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Division Director-Planning and Zoning,Zoning
Date: 3/29/2016 3:49:32 PM
Name: PattersonAmy
Title: Division Director-IF,CPP&PM,Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees and Program
Management
Date: 4/1/2016 4:39:46 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 4/7/2016 8:59:50 AM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Administration
Date: 4/7/2016 2:35:07 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Division Director-Corp Fin&Mgmt Svc, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 4/14/2016 10:11:52 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 4/14/2016 11:59:19 AM
Name: CasalanguidaNick
Title:Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office
Date:4/18/2016 1:06:39 PM
Packet Page -686-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Stormwater Management
Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division
Growth Management Department
C r Caunty
Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates
March 23,2016
Executive Summary
Since 1990 (Ord. 90-10), Collier County has had Maximum Allowable Off-Site Stormwater Runoff
Discharge Rates. In most areas of the County,the maximum allowable post development discharge rate
is 0.15 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre. There have been six (6) exception areas-areas(sub-basins)
with rates more restrictive ranging from 0.04 to 0.13 cfs per acre. These more restrictive rates were
established based on modeling studies demonstrating the need to further restrict the runoff rate from
adjacent lands based in limited conveyance capacity of the receiving canals.
Between 2006 and 2011, three (3) studies were completed which included recommendations to reduce
discharge rates in sixteen (16) additional sub-basin areas. In order to proceed with implementation of
adding these 16 additional reduced discharge rates, Stormwater Planning initiated a vetting process
including a feasibility analysis to examine all the effects that could result should some or all of the
additional reduced discharge rates be implemented. This process began in May 2015.
Since May 2015, staff has presented this issue to DSAC three (3) times on June 3, 2015, November 4,
2015, and March 2, 2016,with assistance from BCB/SFWMD staff and the Engineering Consulting firm of
Robau & Associates, LLC(R&A). Many related issues have been discussed with DSAC. The following is a
list of some key issues with staff comments.
1. Currently Built-Out Basins:Some of the areas where new restrictions are proposed are in basins
that are principally built out. Why are you proposing implementation in these areas? Staff:
Limited canal conveyance capacity is still relevant in these areas. Redevelopment potential is
high in older built out areas. Opportunities to decrease runoff at the source will play a key role
in ensuring adequate flood protection level of service (LOS).
2. Economic Analysis: What is the cost increase to developers that will result when adhering to
more restrictive discharge rates? Staff: With DSAC's approval and understanding of the worst-
case scenario - a high intensity commercial development, R&A completed a detailed analysis
and presented it on March 2, 2016. The cost increase as analyzed was approximately 2% of the
total site work. The additional cost is due to additional fill.
3. Affected Areas: Every basin should be checked. Staff: Detailed maps of each affected basin are
being produced using high-level GIS analysis. These maps will show explicit basin boundaries
and current land use with the potentially affected area (remaining undeveloped parcels)
quantified by area (acres) and by percent of total basin area.
4. Incentives,Vested Rights,etc.: Other related land development regulations should be
examined for possible changes that could offset this proposed higher regulatory standard. Staff:
Issues such as redevelopment thresholds,vested future development rights(permitted but not
Page 1of6
Packet Page -687-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Stormwater Management
Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division
Growth Management Department
cotercounty
yet built), Low Impact Development(LID)source control initiatives, relaxed parking lot drive
aisle elevation requirements, berm side slopes, and buffers are some examples of incentives for
consideration that will be examined during this vetting process.
Our next step is to seek Board approval to begin the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land
Development Code (LDC) amendment process. We anticipate going back to DSAC two (2) more times
and to the CCPC three (3)times as part of the transmittal and adoption hearings.
Staff is recommending removal of the discharge rates from the GMP with insertion into either the Code
of Laws and Ordinances or the Land Development Code.
Unfortunately, during the 2011 Ear-Based GMP Amendment Cycle which was originated to revise
format, structure and language for internal consistency, additional restricted discharge rates as
recommended by the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) were prematurely adopted by the BCC as
part of the 2015 glitch amendments. Staff will bring an executive summary to the BCC on April 26, 2016
to request that the additional restricted discharge rates be placed in abeyance until the vetting process
is complete.
Our professional team working on the initiative consists of Jerry Kurtz, Ananta Nath, Robert Wiley,
Michele Mosca, Liz Gosselin,Jin Xue, Joss De Lestang and Emilio Robau. Monthly County/BCB/SFWMD
coordination meetings include regular progress updates on this issue insuring consistent understanding
of regulatory application upon final approval and implementation.
Background
The following information includes an explanation of the history of the issue, the current need for the
change, the areas that will be impacted should such an amendment be approved and the steps in the
amendment process.
1.Surface Water Management and Maximum Allowable Discharge Rates
The existing conveyance capacity of the County's primary and secondary stormwater and surface water
management system is limited. Expansion or enlargement of this system to create additional system
capacity is not a viable strategy for managing this issue. Previously completed analysis of the system's
capacity to accept flow and adequately convey it to downstream receiving waters resulted in the current
maximum allowable post development discharge rates. Subsequent and more recent analysis has been
completed and the results indicate that sixteen (16) additional basins should have reduced maximum
allowable post development discharge rates. Computer modeling results indicate that various segments
of the system do not have the capacity to handle large storm events. In some cases,the canal banks are
overtopped even during the 10-year design storm event. Conditions would worsen in the future unless
management actions are implemented to control for the impact of subsequent changes to land use.
Page 2 of 6
Packet Page -688-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Stormwater Management
Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division
Growth Management Department
C.oiL er Crnrvety
Reducing maximum allowable post development discharge rates in these identified areas is one of the
most prudent actions recommended to insure adequate flood protection levels of service.
2.Stormwater Management Discharge Rate Restriction History
• 1974— Ordinance 74-50 Establishes Collier County Water Management Policy and implements
local design criteria.
• 1982 — South Florida Water Management District establishes Pre-development verses Post-
development matching discharge design criteria.
• 1989 — Collier County adopted its first Growth Management Plan (Ord. 89-05) requiring the
County to develop a Collier County Watershed Management Plan by 1993.
• 1990—Ordinance 90-10 Established additional design criteria, and discharge limitations for four
(4) basins including a 0.15 cfs/acre global restriction for the rest of Collier County.
• 2001—Ordinance 01-27 further updated the allowable discharge rates, added two (2) additional
basins, and other design criteria.
• 2007 — DCA pushes Collier County to fulfill the 1989 Comprehensive plan commitments and
County adopts interim watershed regulations through a Growth Management Plan Amendment
(Ord.07-16).
3. Basins with Specific Discharge Rates
Currently there are a total of six (6) basins with specified reduced maximum allowable post
development discharge rates ranging from 0.04 to 0.13 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre. In all other
areas of the County the maximum allowable post development discharge rate is 0.15 cfs per acre.
Discharge rates are computed using a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency. The
current list of basins with specified maximum allowable post development discharge rates can be found
in Policy 6.3 of Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), Public Facilities Element, Drainage Sub-
Element. This list can also be found in Ordinances 2001-27 and 2007-11, as well as on the County
Stormwater Management web page.
4.Growth Management Code References
The fourth paragraph of the introduction of the GMP, Public Facilities Element, Drainage Sub-Element,
states that"the stormwater management system has to be designed so as to ensure that the final outlet
point has adequate capacity to handle all discharges from the upstream portion of the watershed under
conditions present at the time of design".
Policy 1.2 of the GMP, Public Facilities Element, Drainage Sub-Element, states that procedures and
projects will be designed and implemented in a manner to ensure that adequate stormwater
management facility capacity is available at the time a development permit is issued or that such
capacity will be available when needed to serve the development.
Page 3 of 6
Packet Page-689-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Stormwater Management
Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division
Growth Management Department
CoilTer Caurety
Goal 2, Objective 2.1., interim standard d, of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element states
that limiting discharge rates will be reviewed as part of the Watershed Management Plans and modified
accordingly to the analysis and findings of the plans.
5. Basis(Analysis)for Proposed Amendment
Four (4) of the recommended maximum allowable post development discharge rates are based on two
(2), 2006 completed stormwater management master plans, the Belle Meade Area Stormwater Master
Plan and the Immokalee Area Storm water Master Plan. The remainder of the recommended maximum
allowable post development discharge rates are based on analysis completed as part of the Watershed
Management Plan(2011).
Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan
From page 4-21 of the Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan, by Parsons Inc., dated
September 2006, "The Belle Meade Basin allowable discharge rates were determined from the study's
model results for the 25-year, 3-day design storm". The allowable discharge represents baseline
conditions and is needed to maintain flood protection level of service when future land use
modifications are proposed. In establishing an allowable discharge by watershed the Belle Meade
model area was divided into two watersheds separated by Sabal Palm Road. The peak 25-Year, 3-day
flow from the two watersheds will be divided by the total respective area to determine the allowable
discharge. This method, approved by SFWMD personnel, is simple to administer and is consistent with
the Environmental Resources Permit Information Manual (Volume IV, 2000) developed by SFWMD
Environmental Resources Regulation Division. This method determines the allowable discharge for
grouped sub basins and not by individual sub basins."
Immokalee Area Stormwater Master Plan
The limiting unit discharge rates of 0.05 and 0.10 cfs/acre respectively,for the areas east and west of
State Road 29 in Immokalee were developed from the outputs of the Stormwater Management Model
(XPSWMM) runs of the Immokalee Master Plan project. These rates,were however, not documented in
the Master Plan report. The model results were subsequently reviewed and summarized by staff from
the South Florida Water Management District Big Cypress Basin office after the report was published.
The model inputs/outputs are available in SFWMD files and can be reviewed if further verification is
needed.
Watershed Management Plan
The Watershed Management Plan (WMP) was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners on
December 13, 2011. One of the efforts involved in completing the plan included a computer generated
hydraulic conveyance analysis. MIKE SHE/ MIKE 11 computer model results determined the maximum
flow that can be conveyed by the various water management canal segments. Results indicated that
various segments of the primary and secondary water management systems do not have the capacity to
handle large storm events. As previously stated, in some cases, the canal banks are overtopped even
Page 4 of 6
Packet Page -690-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Stormwater Management
Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division
Growth Management Department
Co er Coxnty
during the 10-year design storm event. Conditions would worsen in the future unless management
actions are implemented to control for the impact of new development.
A detailed description of the analysis is provided in the Surface Water Quantity Assessment section in
Volume 4 of the WMP. To check the current allowed maximum discharges, as required by the County
ordinance, the maximum flow predicted by the computer model was divided by the extent of the
drainage area to obtain the actual maximum allowable discharge rate associated with each canal
segment. It was found that maximum discharges for many of the County basins needed updating. That
was expected because the original limits were based on preliminary analyses.
Page 11 of Volume 3 of the WMP includes Table 3-3, a list of the recommended maximum allowable
discharge rates for additional basins. Fourteen (14) basins are identified for recommended
modification. Below are three clarifications in reference to this table.
(1)Table 3-3 listed the Harvey Canal Basin twice, once as the Harvey Canal Basin and second as the
Island Walk Basin. It is the same basin and the correct name is the Harvey Basin. Its discharge rate
has been previously set based on the Harvey Basin Master Plan and is currently addressed in
Ordinance 2001-27. No changes to this basin's rate are necessary.
(2) Table 3-3 references the Henderson Creek Basin. This basin is the same as the Belle Meade
Basin. The source for consideration of this basin's discharge rate modification will be the Belle
Meade Stormwater Master Plan (BMSMP). The BMSMP split the basin into two parts using Sable
Palm Road as the dividing line.
(3) Table 3-3 indicates that no modification is recommended to the Upper Immokalee Basin.
Modifications for the Immokalee area basins will be considered using the analysis completed by the
Immokalee Area Stormwater Master Plan. This master plan split the basin in half using State Road
29 as the dividing line.
6.The Basins and Discharge Rates
Current Six Specific Discharge Limitation Basins Rate
1. Airport Road North Sub-Basin 0.04 cfs/acre
(North of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
2. Airport Road South Sub-basin 0.06 cfs/acre
(South of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
3. Cocohatchee Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre
4. Lely Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre
5. Harvey Basin 0.055 cfs/acre(Recommend amending/rounding this off to 0.06 cfs/acre)
6. Wiggins Pass Basin 0.13 cfs/acre
Page 5 of 6
Packet Page -691-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Stormwater Management
Capital Project Planning,Impact Fees&Program Management Division
Growth Management Department
calltr county
Proposed Additional Basins
1. Henderson Creek Belle Meade Basin(North 0.06 cfs/acre*
of Sabal Palm Rd.)
2. Henderson Creek Belle Meade Basin(South
of Sabal Palm Road) 0.04 cfs/acre *(Belle Meade MP recommended 0.0375 cfs/acre;
recommending rounding to hundredths.)
3. Immokalee Master Plan Area (East of SR 29) 0.05 cfs/acre
4. Immokalee Master Plan Area (West of SR 29) 0.10 cfs/acre
5. CR 951 North Canal Basin 0.11 cfs/acre*
6. C4 Basin 0.11 cfs/acre
7. Corkscrew Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre*
8. Cypress Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre*
9. Faka Union Canal Basin(North of 1-75) 0.09 cfs/acre*
10. Gordon River Extension Basin 0.09 cfs/acre
11. 1-75 Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre*
12. Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin 0.12 cfs/acre
13. Lely Manor Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre
14. Main Golden Gate Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre*
15. Palm River Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre
16. Pine Ridge Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre
*Basins with final outfall to SFWMD/BCB operated canals(8 of 16).
7. Benefits
• Improved Levels of Service (LOS) for flood protection provided by South Florida Water
Management District and Collier County operated canals
• Enhanced Groundwater Recharge
• Improved Hydrology and wetlands hydro-period
• Reduce Pollution by Source Capture
• Water Quality Improvement of receiving waters
• Reduction of freshwater flows to the estuaries
• Gain consistency in Environmental Resource Permitting(SFWMD and County)
• Fulfill Growth Management Plan Commitments
8. Review and Approval Process
Staff is proceeding with BCC approval to begin the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land
Development Code (LDC) amendment process to remove the existing maximum allowable off-site
discharge rates by basin from the GMP; adding the existing six discharge rates and sixteen (16) new
discharge rates to the LDC. This process is anticipated to take up to a year and a half. Staff anticipates
returning to DSAC two (2) more times with prepared amendments for transmittal and adoption
hearings. Issues such as redevelopment thresholds,vested future development rights (permitted but not
yet built), and possible incentives for consideration will be examined during this process.
Attachments: March 2, 2016 DSAC Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Page 6 of 6
Packet Page -692-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
x
' -:,,, '0.3
'4_
C aliS
Ce
a)
m
.'- -C U CZ
Q
M`, r/ ! J
0 O
N
D a) 4 „-
$f cC s� o c
_ !' iv N
FiNgi 0 C L.... tIO
0) a CU
•-
isms
V
1••••• •� E
®
u 4
V4
■
of \ 0
i
U
'p
d`
U
S
Bs 1.
Packet Page-693-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
to c N
N p CD i N` 7:3 a) . s._L O C c 4
C > v N a) a) c
�'' 0
c ' = - :
U a) rn a) v a) }' a)
al ,+ E b
o r, L co
t�I o 0 RI E c
a) _2 ID U IA vi OU 2
a) > L L a)
0 cu i co .0 E
Q
. cn taO v +-' 0)
- O >
co 't V
= co v,
N a--+ 'i C t C co
•® CD qpp ap+ •O O
�� .}.:r L •vs b. .� .;_, t]A
'L C U 'i N 0
G CU a) p
et
I . +� :4-' CD a) L CU U 0
C U 'c N CD 0 C
O_
st CV O — C _C N CD O CD 00 +'
+'
CC U t_vo aJ c •
L 0 •v) CD •O v - . a) _ =
r av a) +� a) O ._ L �-' — wo
U CU co
ti
U L '' V 70_ V O a
CI cn a ajio C 4=. p C +� -�
,tn .— L 'N C a)
fa to vs L N
O a) N +-,
E 0 .•
L N •C a O v}i tin = a) i .
w U +-+ t O U W C 4- s .....�
W OO C,p (DU D fD 073 N ' = N LC)
O
CZ i • CO Q , N - O I .
C N ca E 4-J• O p C C U •C I�
N -0 C O 01 .— 0 CD vs N 0
a) _ i- C O > O 0 a) . v +J
C U O O U OW 73 C •C U C N p� "�
L O CO� CO O =
W C s 0- a) +., C C as 0- co +-+
\ ea — '— >. c
- C cp a) Q •N 76 < +' a)
‘, I I I p I O +>, I O I O
1 _
'°1 ® N O 00 v 00 O 01 ' = O -a O -o c
' C31 .E O�1 011 �O U 0N 0 ON co E
Packet Page -694-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
n
U
if 1 x a;. 4111,,
€ > ;o i
[e*}7,(1 H•l�,J•, I .4--', ) u I -t
(� 4+.�.' CAL°: ( ) Vb»-r R
s.
r-i O a--1
CD
N O
•
cn 0 L N +�
L 00 N f6 E O 2 .c_ -
1. f6 N v '� E
co ca � C N
— c0 X a1 V C
} v) c O L c6 m O vi N r-I
r'yu +�--+ to < U N c/) }' "c a.' W E ° — O
C _ 3 O O +� O
13 +°. CO U ro •-E- E ,,c; c'-cp ?,-.)) L'Ic -Cal vio ('--I'' ji3:51 -: ti1C)- -° c 4-' 01-
. W V •1 C V) L m ra ,U Q L
O .� CO bD O 0 a) a +; c, �, v, a,
_ __
�' v Q. c E N > > .E E E Q 1-
�° O O �• i O E U }, N •E E E 4J i
N > cv Q E cu O C o UU N OU >
to O
,� -� N O H U H Q {— E O
,
Packet Page -695-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
°
A N r N o Z o m 1vi c,
a
, .�_;
br 6I�Sk o ./' !i \\
0
—� —`l
- m L
cu
�f
) 3 1J n
J t �/' �� 'a Nd116.010530 SD 010530
]]°/]tl A. $3A3 SWN AOYI'Jtl3A3
B
OTC�
as
�� � � o
a8 F i W t$ t �
�. } g—--.U.
IV
X14''4
°hi& ''''''. ' ' k.
— Iiitlk A i•w
a ti ,] I eilmoi 41 ., -,F $
Id1 9. :Y.
r I W' I ALL IWYIWYl U .n.n.N . tee.....---�-:i"u.
?(}� aat9etlaaNfPi «FLLiP�!tl
o N N
v)
-6
C N LV>O w 0 U V A N
ii
W^ U ( a U O U N
1.1 O U N R w O .N N w "O U 1 @ O U c U U @—E G?i� • O O O R U O O @ U c co '7) :2 N N w U @ L c zw N O m O Q W N dJ {6 O e- —c"
U V N V @ O V m @ C'* j, t c c N @ @ O w m ? C N C C U 1 b jV (,0; N v , c C C O N N w O U C O O N O N O m d m m m! N m cam D32 O(U O w O U c .N m m e O C ?O•w f � .a C C @ O Q CU'
O m N O d N U C ( @ c @ Y j o @ @ — m — — (13 C c W @ @ @ c U U -_,,°- N O2 N w r c 2 N @ U N c U ru O E.• t N m N O N @ O N c m o c rn E@ O W m @ N Z m U m c N O c ( LL 2 to -
N Z N C N 'Q
N c C c 0E
Er c @ a'O N _ ,D c 2 d N @ D N 0 c E w v 7 _ o f, (r.; c O @ @ co,' d U m v c E s i y wr ... K m T @ c @ N O_ U U a x a n C L r u U rn f m O — ° m O m o °N o O v �, _ U U LL i W U o J 2 C a a O O c K W @ n.\ ,t'= ¢ U x .E o U >_ N w C 2 LL _U m m o U V U U O LL U 1 . (/1 � m 0 D U _Q O 0, dE•o®
'C w +. U p t • p pq
R.r'
Packet Page -696-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
c
U
O
_
L
c 6.
▪ -0
2
; O U
U N-
cc bp
1t a) .-
tL L u,(
,` i.
I? 0 L 0)L L L U L" a) L L L N N N L L N L N O P. 4L 21
L
- ' � 0 0 U 00 6 U
co Co o CO 0 C (O 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Co
co N- N- 4N to- 6 t h h 4N 4h 42 4- 42 42 42 42 42 42 4N 42 42 4- 42
0 0 U U ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�t co d Lo Ill i • m Lo d' u1 o r-c c-1 d' Lo rn rn to N 'o d' m m
t .Q 0 0 0 0 0 r1 0 0 0 .-+ .1 r+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e-i
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' d.•+
CC a 13 o- 0 I CO
. a) o o
•
L .c s E E r'
,, ' , U 0 4-
I C v v CO CO 0 CO 03 73 73 00
±J ±� 'QN ca co
CO
V) Cl) c
® o o U
a) U,• C c 01 N "O rN1 cc a)
� i 0 4- 4- ° N CO
m o o Z V1 (n 4-
.. o La)
10 C c - c c o N
❑.
$I ° Co m N o CO
O ; z c w
® •= a) o �u m c c m
E •c c -a co ca j .c '7 v, p
Q J co Co m y a) s- L ° ca CO co 0
ca _CI c �v QQ c zm a•
o = CO o a—' a) O Co CO c •N .0 7 •'- o 'N 'C cm
E s cc) cn m a) a a _ 'N CO N co U co co 0
V .� C -O m m L L zi, (a m .N m w O m a) m m .F!
N L +r C .17) N c @ X i-� _ _■
oX 0 O ° Co C Ca < 6 m co C f0 CO (O TO
■ Z N U 'In m ^ v (o CO ca U c CO w •N O CO C7 c C },
W -0 -a a) CO c U) to U U 2 v C U a) to .7, u c v v m
U CO Co m 'N c c a) v LO (o c > m p . , w °QJ TO
1w5 N y_ c co > C_ 0) a1 v Y Y r-I .v, U U D O (O 'L C7 2 4-
O 0 U a) .E0 •F• -0 -0 O O Ln ca 73 U a) C t
01 .m L > +_+
q) Q > i to X c c E E L �n to c
\ of x L L o v Co i' w ° E E c 'zt 0 co ° E v ro
® 7) a a 0 -Jz > -az I uuuuu. (9 _ n_ 0
v. 0. ' N Cr) d- � to o m1 Q"I 01 ; I �I 1I 741 �I �i N1 0I �I 01 NI NI .0
d``,; ( 0 L 0.L 0 m
1
r
4
A f
Packet Page -697-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
s
cu.' d
— > o U ati
CD
'e 4CU.,
cn
a o 0
k 4 y.'_ CD I +' ` • vi
qA c C
4-J C aa) •N
a co O a a ,' •U co
-0 i �
cn L. L 0 O — - - U
a U CO
.1 a`a) 0 Cl) }' > > .N U
. c a s - o a
co u) 0 c -0 - a E 0_
+it c0 co 0 v -o - I CO
(, 4-' '� c N -o CO CO a
;; c
cn a +-J c0 4 vi -o U 4J
3`' 'yf }' C a 0 co cn
'? ?- a U a c +-+ O a "O co N 0
a C 4—
Ca CO Q. 0 E U -0
a CD
c N N a E o CO
- O N m .� O a) U O O a
f' Co c - �' 4-' a) E c c co C U
0 0 a O > = O_ 0 c O c
+ a-+ `2 .t E N ca CO +-I — 4-= c = C •— _0 _= = C 0 O Ci To 02 a
O a — CO +-+ C W W CO
'�"' •c 4- U I I U
!�
t3O 2 U' 4A +-' --,
J =to-0 cu W c .c v o c ., 4-, .N . c a)
, ce •N 47, O U i 'Q CO
i t L C +CO •.C N CD vi >` .U +-' E
� O a c cn a a =J w w O a) E
C a C c a •-
i - ' — 4-' N C N +-2 � U
Co E 0- n3 17 a-' - 0 0 v cn
Q c co U 0) v 4'-
,. O 0 a _ � v v �
U a
U co 0` i cn Q Q '� CO CB CO 0 c O (D 0
a E 0 N Ca a N c c N O 2 U - a
® L CO D N N co O CO c-I r-1 fO U >
Co o U) > a .� > > c U' a
k,� a) " U W :• .-` LL.I (O
(73 RS < .0 CO O 0 0
aj
w
Packet Page -698-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
g ,
A (Iti.
tt.
(
5
,
i 1
2 1
4 11
'■'t I i I
.,.,
0 i
1 2 3
..,
: !....
, ,1
,• P
? li 1 I U i
h I - I
I pi 2 II
§
. k -
=
04
""-----
I. R.
40 .! .
••41 i I 1 ' .' ..„.ez d.., \ 1
.........,
04 •tz 5„,,,...,,,,,,cf-0 kli jpr-----, 7-— . ., , 1 Al I ,
VS ''' I • I i - t I 1 Rail ,
..,
cl.
immt
O s -
_ ■ a i
4.
O 1 —
m - 1
;
1.; tri -,-t
t ,
.
,■....',07 i I
■5 S, , , ,,,„.„,,,,_ ,
Packet Page-699-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
,.,
i 7 .
.....
1-■ prx:ay,
1 ,
1 ' r ., • '
•
' 1
1 1 id
z 2 ,
11.41-■
-....,
.omg,umeiVik 2 — - n
'fr,
■ 4 I 1 ' -=—,A
I
, r•
1 I
S.,
i ._......—
1 ' w
1 .
.c._- --
1.7!
, a
siii■"W
1 rs) Els
u o
CO
R '
gt2 124 1----
'
.
1...4
—
s • y
PM*4.114
1 i
414 -.1 7 i 1 1 a
O I
, , ' . ,,i -1
1. 1 I , .....
U A E E gr,
-- 1,----,,,,,,, ' '
r., a
PIPP6
'1 2 a ' - K
L , „„,u.....,,,...,.... .1....... I. ,1 ..,
4.• 4 2 I a E
Ili 00 I
v s H
1 ,
1 _
Li iirl 1
0....1 ..
i , a
1 , ..g , ' g
44.41 "
r t
u.i ,.. ..'
ci I Et.
, \
t t II w
- '
l' ,
, ,
aTh009, .."1 -1.. .■ , k
> '-. 7.- .' ; 1.2",■ "7.. - 1:, x[',. .,litt,,,i-' - 'fi---
'•,, w 1.2 i e,' 1. : i ; :; -Z''..
4 1
.....;,
"i J 4■ -;'' 1 i."
,ti. , 1, 1,, t ,
, ,I.- s- g. tl
i
,9t4
A ^1.— 1 ---■ ,F,'- v
•4-' 0-----1 % t - ' 4frfr,--'''—,-.4.:,,:s.4'' '
Packet Page -700-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
_ _ . ,
...
, ,
p ''-.),_.„
. _
,,,
6
,, ti5
1
6
,
1
t 1 —
a ` ,
j x
is
It
m
.
1. •
CI
, • s1
1 :et :: ii :L wxxr .el
E su
t c.)... a ;1 , ..
fV
m
� W
jj
,...."0 \_.i
� 9 y s
Al am E ,
ll
U
Packet Page -701-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
4.J o
(,3
411,,,•".1..
v ,
t
i b
1
I cE I r
‘,11
11.1 v i )
'
.,,
1 1
. ,
4,..
1
i,-
i.
f,,, i,
1 1. 1 Li'. 1
38 IF i1 ii '
''" ,j [I ll 11.1i 1
,`I 1 I
:11 i
,
■ , t
t
,4 f
z
,
, \
H. 1
11
;'
., ' ,
'Y'
IL........., i..4
- \
..., ,
so...1 .....I
I COt 472 i
MI et t 0 9 g i
0
' .....0 1.
= ›,,
,
A E =
, 1 1.1 ot
a ; x ir. ,-■a
'
=
`.•:'..4.1,—,„LITzr,......,,,,,c;
, I
s, ---
Packet Page -702-
4/26/2016 16.A20.
v z
— O u rd 6
•r0 c (JD U tt
.-
O X11
to
QJ tt
E '�
v o
Tv' cn
'y
N
'CI O
CU v
v rd
•-d v
v
} O v ^d p
ff
O O N 0 .7 O•
v
v o ft u
1 v •o o 5 o. , •
' i it/ 5
v
n U I I b./3 4- +
II
, •
.� v•�
-I-) v Cn rd
u
cn p_, VS' •v 'A s�
b
.. � N v)
p ,� V
E v U
3 O
_ v v c b
.f 'y s� rt rt u 1 mi O r 0
U
� '� 0 0 0 ai
Packet Page -703-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
g -
d
A
s?t
r5
,TlynOcSV,9 riVq0/1. ... ,__,
Ut
NV Id 1I1S 11V11 IA0
M D
,........l',,q1ff.
1 .
't
OD tarn03 ....
iig'21 i 1
1) 1)013 ENJ/40.3 1111111g
......-
I
,..„„.,
1 1
4 4 I
4 I
4 ,
Pr
___..___ „—•,--;-
, .
(
. ,
, .
. ,
• ,
' . ......-. —.....
.?;'..,
%.,
4 ,,e;,',/
, /• 1 `g (",,,,,..zr(4,:,`" \ ,,,,.;,-,c
\ I
.\
'''7;,4i,r4+,i'
\,•-__ \''''''■:01V''' ' \• . ° i
0
',. '
—\ v
\\'' \‘' , ■
\ \ \ „,,,,A ,, .,e,., i,,,k ••..;„*wve..,,,,,,,?,..., 4.,;.,,,e0,-. ', t
,,1 1
ss, ,..,,,,',..r z, - ,,.: P -";:,..4454.4 4".,-.4•4II4, 'MI-Mitt, • 1
\ \ '''tpi,\\ \ ''‘v*,k4'-',,,,ic`,*. ,'+'.;tl,"1;\ ''-1,. ',',,,,'”,ft*.,\'',„' ,*,.:':,hk. '• a
SS 4'"..:?."'S': s ''try','''\ \'',',.■-'1,. '''',,'■ 4371'1' 1
\ \ A\ •\ ,.., \,,,,..-;:,.,45,,, ,.., ,,,...,_,, ,L,;,,,,,,„,,.( 1.
•
s., 1,, \;.• , .,.. „--'
1 —
.--
I (13
'—
,',\, r, '...,\, 's, ...•
, E
,.,.,
''•?",-',. '\''\ , ,,,
\\•\''\ \,- ,,„
(13
U
°
,,.. 4 .
4 ' i i
\ \
;," , g 1 •*, 1 ,,.
/ !' / '\\ \
.? rii:. Ili I t'el /' \\\
a i t . It-,'i F■7: ..'; ;T.,.- '=!
1:;,12L: -,-° 4,ei :qj , /
\\ N"N
-' z.L',3-''' 1''''"4
v,■4
3 ;,
T., j 7cliiii -2
-:
\ \ \ \}
., , •
Packet Page -704-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
3 x
�
t
{
6
....t..,
.'It
0
t
a? Sarvr OSSV'4 nVeOl7 1
yddHS JIHdVWJOdO. •'
}
mwu v.
1 R JLNfl0�lI81I10.7 � EEE °�5 1 9 '
g1JVllPIVI YILIM,NOJ w Oitly"
S
L bye / \z.\ \ `s•o
�,� �s, ..)4,' t .a ," \ ,I
\\,:\::::,:\oc,,,,,';'' .,‘ ,. :F." \\,.v. \\\, ; .„ '',;.,s 4
s. ‘ 'i%)
,4o* s .. :714:
/ (13
(O \ \ HC4� _ �'/
co
\ . , . _,_7,. J. 5
� s
,
$ v`- ,"
Yf,
M
Packet Page-705-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
pow,
I
N
CO
CN
.■
1 Ci)
d
0 , Lo
, • ,....
u
.4-
t• L-- 0
• •
•i U 0
+++I /)
CD
U
Itt t 1 Ln
ti •
t 119 C9
CIO
CN
,
...
,
1
v) 0
,4_.
If
•• ,, U
'', i;• t• 0
I 1
•i 0 LO
1— • •
C) i
t I CA "--1 L.: i •
,, I 4—, C,.) >••■ 1
• . .... c.. •r•-• (2)
, • ., ci) 1...„ E
CO C 17.
f`. ;'.. I:10 C)
,.. CS Cl)
• 0 CN
• 4-1 1.—
1
m 4 x
Et
o
, I <
1 0
a) .
0
4-..
•— - '
i
Lo ,
1 co (N
U
s.— G7 ■
a) ,—
E op ,
x
' 0 ci0
1,
, U
\ ,,......1
0
4 '
-
L)
.4 4
4
>
1,0
' ■1 1
(N , •rt-
k
05
L) 0
r--,. Ica, QS xi 1.6
CN (N (N CN CN 04 (NI CN
ebeis
Packet Page -706-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
g
tc
O�'' uNn •• .
sa 7,-i., w * o„.,,,,,o,,,' � —
1 1. i
"osFUv » E:a ? „L..._o3e�z7a��.� Lwxi'N)83NJNOJ o, ,ill!n
�� � 111 11 1
= � 1° S
i; V 19 i ° .
2 3pg �-
:- AS A
U
•
ir ��..
'
+ `t �3
Y \\ \ �c /// 4'' 4
0
E
.�' � xq r
U = t
CZ rIkcIt*AS'b �> 1 t }u p r
L
5}
b Y t
',1.•,
rr
$t.
L
Packet Page -707-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
e
s
�wtxx3n� '4 Zl
A.LNf10O113P1'I0O �,�.�....E.E,iC< ;n M m p
®F 8p11y 1 M o U
�•� JJVILL 7VD113WINOJ ..ill U1 �� Y m
�++u ill i
■t . m 111i� m �1.gN •�s /ig '
m ;
\ i . s€I
O \\ g
f
i4"' \ \ {
o
CO
d bi D \ \ y.
, sill
a ,•
(/') \` I
lit •— ,
\,,\\ .•\ N €11 I
CL) p
1 3 \\ \\,�\ \\ \ \Y' m / .tom
!' E u ••�
i k g$i{p
3 a \,
J , 1
IA V� $'d y
1. a,,
it
b
x
° v
Packet Page -708-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.1
iiJ -' 1 1°
--
,i ;Hl
—• - _.-
I
NI !ts
1 1111 l' 1 • 1 'V 1
:
,
,.:
1
)
u_
co
,
. c
.-o '
17
—t".3
,
<
cc)
,,-
4-1
„,,,,
C
',;,,'
„....
CL)
\ i
s...
CD
I ,
, •-+ cL
[
JI
4 (,)
1
■ '
i i --.
,,,,,,I,. ,....
a) (1..,,) u
_ _...
, 1
. ,
, 4–
01 1! , .
cn LI–I V)
1 15 1, '. •1
t• ,
,
... •
. t
If) t—, ,
i !'
■!11• •
CU 0) co , 111
• 1
.- '1-1 75
V) CA w
1. 1 i. .1 •■••
rili rt I-1.
',.;,•
.t.-1 •
U U .—
`4, Hifi', (\■ ' '''
;..4 T■4 ” )
CU CI) a) a)
(13 .—
E E v.:I) -= ,
E E &._ 0-
i
, E
U U -
7
t ,
, .
, 1
, 4
,
_.■ .,
Packet Page -709-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
U
E
o � O
O 0 t'o 04$N- co °
!.
uO
s in d O d,
� M M
.
U
0.b y lL W p trN M N u H r" ri N y 1".
-5
a TA ds cos. vs frs ill n U
Pt t
4 a a II u a
, c4 E CA cli •R
•,.
O Ort ,,
7
U v u O g 5
u x z z O bh
v o U u rd u
� �0
A A N W gg
v:
i zA us A 44 • aq
C5 O U a
E - - 3
E a a m v ,
an
a V V ON rn
�r
ru
v V
0 u3 I.
0 hH
v
u
O u ° cn i a
c 0 Q 3 v
I. cu SA +, v Z ro o� w v O= a o v . o
v .ti U w
v
�. H ;, v
Oa 4 L° t+.° 0 �° b"zi rs i 4 v 4 "cs Z
w o f ° t H •b °
A a; a p; a `/' v rt
° ° UU v w°
t O O•
t1. v G.v O U CA
W O Z O Z •t10 ft
CA
\ U
T$ '1 S 0„1
i
,
z
Packet Page -710-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
a z 6
• ,•. ->--.
r` C U
0
o
N U
r OO C -o
G co C
i . u 03
0
v ro
.> V^J ,^
li v� '
0 0 tan
tr 9�
0 =
a u U E
aJ N cn
N 'O .a a C
O
Q — a) CO L a) a)
O Q c6 u
o
L to O p
O 0J C 0J N
s,. 4= rcs > .> CI) E
O U 0 +�-' U 4-,_c — U
` ) v �i) c U ,_ 0 C CO
O .- _C O V) CU _
4_' u O U CO C E 4-'
a) C au C
u a oc O 4= O O
•> E L -o o E L P
L a� a-) C a) a)
cn co a ,� o c0 w to
L c
O 0 O C N •> Co
N N O w �+_, +-'p
' a > co C o u u #.-:: L7
ki L c6 L N —
:, \ a. '"_ a �--' -� C �±_-
E o C aJ a, �( 5
0® _ i.._ w P4 > oC U U-
1
fr
C,r'
4 °
x
3q
Packet Page -711-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
N 4
4a
C 0
C m
N
co C t5
`` a. -o a)
C N
a) E E
µ E Q o
U U
4A U -a U
ro 0 C m
- 3 C J
't11
i O
_N O
-1—) U •> •v
2 N
•�
,," 0 E v E
4—
0 0 V)
— --CD 4A
C
t O 0 •a) •E
0_ —0 �
Q C
, a:
U ca a.
U OU J
U `l c< o =
0 = -a U U o
>' U
�`f C N j Q 0 i
1 p C�0 co -cn N
-
•cn c6
N
C Q V
v a U)
C
O .3 C-o U.—>• s.
U
= o n
—0 L c —C
C —0 CO > < +.' C
N +�
U �C v O UQ N O
D_ O C v Q a Q O
CU i 0 i- O -g
c6
tn ci a- — au > U U
x m w n_ 0
E
Y
f
r
r w c rev...�... ,•
Packet Page -712-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
(I)(II)(IV) Policy 6.3:
Allowable off-site discharge rates shall be computed using a storm event of 3 day duration and
25 year return frequency. The allowable off-site discharge rates are as follows:
a. 951 Canal North Basin 0.11 cfs/acre
b. Airport Road North Canal 0.04 cfs/acre
Sub-basin
(North of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
c. Airport Road South Canal 0.06 cfs/acre
Sub-basin
(South of Vanderbilt Beach Road)
d. C-4 Basin 0.11 cfs/acre
e. Cocohatchee River Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre
f. Corkscrew Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre
g. Cypress Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre
h. Faka Union Canal Basin 0.09 cfs/acre
(North of 1-75)
i. Gordon River Extension Basin 0.09 cfs/acre
j. Harvey Canal Basin 0.011 cfs/acre
k. Henderson Creek Basin 0.08 cfs/acre
I. 1-75 Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre
m. Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin 0.12 cfs/acre
n. island Walk Basin 0.055 cfs/acre
(aka Harvey Basin)
o. Lely Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre
p. Lely Manor Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre
q. Main Golden Gate Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre
r. Palm River Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre
s. Pine Ridge Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre
t. All other areas 0.15 cfs/acre
(III) The County may exempt projects from these allowable off-site discharge rates if any of the
following applies:
1. The project is part of an existing SFWMD permit, which allows discharge rates different than
those listed above.
(1V)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2015-09 on January 27,2015
5
Packet Page -713-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Stormwater Management Sub-Element as of Ordinance No.2015-09 adopted January 27,2015
(IV) 2. It can be documented that the project currently discharges off-site at a rate higher than
those listed above. The documentation required for this purpose shall be prepared by a
registered professional engineer, and will consist of an engineering study which utilizes the
applicable criteria in the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook Volume II for
use within the Geographic Limits of the South Florida Water Management District(2014), or
its successor. The study shall be subject to review and approval by the County and SFWMD
staff. The study shall include the following site-specific information:
a. Topography
b. Soil types and soil storage volume
c. Vegetation types
d. Antecedent conditions
e. Design rainfall hydrograph
f. Depression storage capacity
g. Receiving water hydrograph, and
(Ill) h. Other relevant, appropriate, and professionally accepted hydrologic and hydraulic data.
Using the above information, a hydrologic and hydraulic model shall be developed which
demonstrates the higher off-site discharge rate.
•
(IV)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No,2015-09 on January 27,2015
6
Packet Page -714-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
Sec. 90-41. -Permit required.
(a) It shall be unlawful without first obtaining a permit as required by this article, for any person, including
a landowner, lessee or other person with the right or duty to control the use of land, to:
(1) Use, divert, or withdraw any water within the county;
(2) Construct, alter, operate, maintain or abandon any dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant
work or works in the county;
(3) Begin construction of any project to artificially recharge any aquifer or intentionally introduce
water to any underground formation in the county;
(4) Discharge industrial or commercial waste or public, municipal or private sewage effluent into the
waters, adjacent soils or underground formations of the county by surface discharge, or other
method;
(5) Connect or place structure in, on, under or across project works, or otherwise mar use of project
works or lands of the county.
No landowner shall be denied a permit to withdraw water from his land for his reasonable-beneficial
domestic use.
(b) Each application for a permit shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee as established from time
to time by resolution of the board of county commissioners and shall be filed with the county
administrator in a form to include, but not be limited to, the following information:
(1) Date the application is filed;
(2) Name and address of the applicant (if a corporation, address of the local and principal business
office);
(3) The source of water supply (if a lake, spring, river, stream or other surface water, the name
generally used in the vicinity, if a groundwater source, so state);
(4) The quantity of water applied for, the use to be made of the water and any limitation including
the nature of the use, method of withdrawal or diversion, and facts upon which the amount of
water requested is based;
(5) The place and land area where the water is to be used;
(6) The location of the surface water point of diversion;
(7) The total land area owned or leased by the applicant from which water is to be withdrawn;
(8) The signature of the applicant or his agent (if a representative capacity, attach proof of
authority; if a corporation, public district, county, municipality, etc., include a certified copy of the
authority by which the application is made);
(9) Other information required by the board of county commissioners.
(c) The board of county commissioners shall have the authority to effect changes in the nonrefundable
application fee for permits by adoption of a resolution.
(d) All building permit applications requiring review and approval of a water management system design
shall be charged a review fee. The board of county commissioners shall establish, and adopt, by
resolution, a schedule of fees for building permit related water management system design review
and approval pertaining to this article. The schedule of fees shall be posted in the office of the
building department and the development services department and the resolution establishing such
fees shall be on file with the clerk of the board of county commissioners. The schedule of fees may
be changed in accordance with standard resolution adoption and amendment procedures of the
board of county commissioners and repeal or amendment of the schedule shall not be subject to the
procedure otherwise necessary for amendment of this article.
Page 1
Packet Page -715-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
(e) Chapters 40E-2, 40E-4, 40E-20 and 40E-40, Florida Administrative Code, as same may be amended
from time to time, are incorporated herein by reference as a part of this article.
(f) In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, Section 40E-
4.091(1)(a) and the "Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the
South Florida Water Management District August, 2000" Section 6.0, as those two documents may
be amended from time to time, the following local design criteria shall be used in Collier County:
(1) Section 6.2.: Discharge Rate—Offsite discharge contributed by a development is limited to
amounts which will not cause adverse off-site impacts. These amounts may be determined by:
(most restrictive applies)
a. Historic discharges rates;
b. Rates determined in previous SFWMD permit actions;
c. Rates specified in SFWMD criteria (Basis of Review Appendix 2):
d. Rates based on system capacity for selected county primary outfall canals, unless special
engineering studies are provided by a registered professional engineer, shall be as follows:
ALLOWABLE POST-DEVELOPMENT DISCHARGE FORMULAS FOR COLLIER COUNTY CANALS
Design
Canal Allowable Runoff
Freq./Dur.
Airport Road North Subbasin (North of Vanderbilt Beach
Rd.)
25.6 CSM (0.04 cfs/acre) 25 year/3 day
Airport Road South Subbasin (South of Vanderbilt Beach
Rd.) 38.4 CSM (0.06 cfs/acre) 25 year/3 day
Cocohatchee Canal Basin 25.6 CSM (0.04 cfs/acre) 25 year/3 day
Lely Canal Basin 38.4 CSM (0.06 cfs/acre) 25 year/3 day
35.2 CSM (0.055
Harvey Basin 25 year/3 day
cfs/acre)
Wiggins Pass Basin 83.2 CSM (0.13 cfs/acre) 25 year/3 day
e. In all other areas of the county off-site discharge shall not be in excess of 0.15 cfs/acre.
Variations to the above requirement may be allowed with County staff approval based upon
special engineering studies prepared by a registered professional engineer. Unless otherwise
specified by previous SFWMD permits or SFWMD criteria, a stormwater event of a three-day
Page 2
Packet Page -716-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
duration and 25-year return frequency shall be used in computing off-site discharges. Allowable
discharges will be designated by SFWMD on a case by case basis upon request.
(2) Section 3.2.1.3.: Local government criteria- Designs shall provide drainage and flood protection
in accordance with the following:
a. Roads and parking lot traveiways:
1. Frequency, 25 years
2. Duration, 3 days
b. Parking areas:
1. Frequency, 10 years
2. Duration, 1 day
(3) Section 3.2.2.2.a.2.: Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the amounts
computed for wet detention, but not less than one inch of runoff.
(4) Section 3.2.2.2.a.3.: Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above
amounts computed for wet detention but not less than one inch of runoff. Retention volume
included in flood protection calculations requires a demonstration of guarantees of long term
operation and maintenance of system bleed-down ability. This must normally consist of proof of
excellent soil percolation rates by an approved field test for determining hydraulic conductivity
(example: coastal ridge sands) or an operations entity which specifically reserves funds for
operation, maintenance and replacement.
(5) Section 3.2.2.2.b.: Commercial or industrial zoned projects shall provide at least one-half inch of
dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention, unless
reasonable assurances can be offered that hazardous materials will not enter the project's
surface water management system. Such assurances may include deed restrictions on sale
property occupancy, recorded lease agreements, local government restrictive codes,
ordinances, licenses, engineered containment systems, etc.
(Note: Pretreatment shall be included in the net required retention/detention per 3.2.2.2.a
after credits earned from, 3.2.2.2.c and e, as amended).
(6) Section 3.2.2.2.e.: Water surface and roofed areas can be deducted from site areas for water
quality pervious/impervious percentage calculation only. Roof areas can be deducted only if
there is a direct connection from the roof drainage to the receiving water. Direct connection shall
be piped over such a short distance so to not pick up pollutants during transportation to the
detention/retention area.
(7) For those projects exempt from SFWMD regulations in accordance with chapter 40E, section
4.053, only section 3.2.2. (water quality) of Basis of Review shall be required as amended by
subsections (3)through (6)of this subsection.
(8) Raising elevation of single family residence lot subsequent to construction of the residence.
Subsequent to the construction of a single-family residence on the respective lot (parcel of
land), it shall be a violation of this article to cause "additional surface water"to run onto any real
property owned by another landowner by filling, grading or otherwise raising the elevation of the
respective water source single family residence lot. This provision shall not apply to the extent
that such filling, grading or other land elevating acts occur concurrently with the initial
construction of the single-family residence. This provision shall not apply to the extent that such
filling, grading or other land elevating acts are mandated by statute, ordinance, rule or
regulation. In the context of this provision "additional surface water" shall be limited to surface
water that exceeds the historic surface water flows from the respective single-family residence
lot. If the historic surface water flows are exceeded because of such filling, grading or other
actions, it shall be the responsibility of the owners of such water source lot to eliminate the flow
Page 3
Packet Page -717-
4/26/2016 16.A.20.
of such additional surface water by construction of a depression, such as a swale, or by other
appropriate measures. If such grading, filling or other lot elevating actions come to the attention
of staff prior to their completion, staff may issue a stop work order if staff reasonably believes
that such filling, grading, or other lot elevating acts are likely to cause a violation of this
provision, in which event the landowner of the water source lot shall either provide evidence that
completion of the planned elevation of the lot will not cause a violation of this provision, or shall
be required to modify the planned lot elevating activities to eliminate the anticipated flow of
additional surface water, by construction of a depression, such as a swale, or by some other
appropriate measures. If the elevation of the lot is raised by such filling, grading or other lot
elevating actions and it is proven that thereafter additional surface water flows off of the lot onto
land owned by another landowner, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that such additional
surface water run-off was caused by that elevation of the water source single-family residence
lot. Anyone who claims to be "grandfathered" against application of this provision (by alleging
that the respective grading, filling, or other lot elevating actions were completed prior to the
effective date of this provision)shall have the burden of proving the allegation.
(Ord. No. 74-50, § 1(2.01); Ord.No. 76-67, §§ 1, 2; Ord.No. 81-24, § 1; Ord.No. 88-77, § 1;
Ord. No. 88-99, § 10; Ord. No. 90-10, § 4; Ord. No. 01-27, §§ 1, 2, 5-22-01)
Page 4
Packet Page-718-