Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC)
Proposed Amendments to Environmental Resource Permit Rules and Forms
To Address Consistency of Use of “Semi-Impervious”
June 17, 2010
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.0
A good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to
comply with the rule, together with a general description of the types of individuals likely to be
affected by the rule .................................................................................................................... 4
3.0
A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local
government entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any anticipated
effect on state or local revenues ................................................................................................ 5
4.0
A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals and
entities, including local government entities, required to comply with the requirements of the rule
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...5
5.0
An analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined by Section 288.703, F.S., and
an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by Section 120.52., F.S.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...6
June 17, 2010
Page 3 of 6
1.0
Introduction
In February 2010, the Governing Board approved amendments to add a separate definition of
“semi-impervious” to Rule 40D-4.021(15), F.A.C. to eliminate any confusion as to whether semipervious surfaces should be included in area calculations for permitting threshold
determinations and runoff calculations. A definition for “impervious” already existed. The intent
was to confirm inclusion of both impervious and semi-impervious areas in the calculations. The
new definition added for semi-impervious was:
“Semi-impervious” means land surfaces which partially restrict the penetration of water;
included as examples are porous pavements, limerock, and other compacted materials.
However, references to such area calculations appear in many places in Environmental
Resource Permitting Information Manual and rules and the revisions initiated in February 2010
did not address all of the various provisions of the District’s rules and Part B- Basis of Review of
the Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual that concerned stormwater
treatment requirements, application information and project plan requirements relating to
impervious material. The proposed revisions simply adds “and semi-impervious” to all
appropriate areas in the Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual, rules and
application forms to correct the previous rule development oversight, and so that the clarification
is consistent throughout.
The proposed rule language is a non-substantive change. The existing definition of “impervious
surface” in section 1.7.20 of the Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual is:
“Land surfaces which do not allow, or minimally allow, the penetration of water;
examples are buildings, non-porous concrete and asphalt pavements, and some fine
grained soils such as clays.”
The existing language in italics contemplates fine grained/compacted materials in the definition
of impervious surface. Semi-impervious materials such as limerock and crushed shell have
therefore always been included in impervious area for threshold determinations and runoff
calculations. The addition of “semi-impervious” to “impervious” where addressed in various rule
provisions as proposed in the rulemaking will not decrease the number of projects that are
exempt from permitting nor will it change the type of permit that would be required under the
existing rule. The revisions also delete “and some fine grained soils such as clays” from the
definition of impervious as it is no longer necessary.
For modeling of runoff, different materials will continue to be assigned appropriate runoff curve
numbers. Therefore, there will be no changes in treatment volume requirements as a result of
the proposed revisions.
Changes are also proposed to discussions of “directly connected impervious areas” in Section
1.7.7 of the Part B-Basis of Review of the Environmental Resource Permitting Information
Manual to ensure consistency in the use of impervious and semi-impervious areas in relation to
directly connected impervious areas. The changes are consistent with the longstanding
interpretation that both impervious and semi-pervious areas are included in the calculations for
thresholds and treatment volumes. The separate provision relating to directly connected
impervious areas relating to roadways that appears in the Part B-Basis of Review of the
Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual section 5.8 is not being changed.
June 17, 2010
Page 4 of 6
Overall, the proposed revisions have no incremental cost impacts.
2.0
A good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be
required to comply with the rule, together with a general description of the types of
individuals likely to be affected by the rule
Nearly all Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules address the issue of impervious and
semi-impervious areas in one form or another. As indicated in Table 2.1, the average annual
number of unique ERP permits issued is 1,982. Those unique ERPs are more reflective of the
number of entities or individuals potentially required to comply with the proposed rules than are
ERP revisions. ERPs typically undergo multiple revisions even though it is the same individual
or entity requesting the revision. However, relative to existing rule, there will be no change in the
number of individuals and entities likely to be required to comply with the rule.
Table 2.1
Environmental Resource Permits Issued from 2004 to 2009
All 16 Counties in Southwest Florida Water Management District
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Item
(a)
ERP Project Description
Number of ERP Revisions
Agriculture
15
42
136
127
71
51
Commercial
1,301
1,466
1,499
1,463
1,244
816
Environmental
8
18
24
30
33
33
Government
363
409
350
480
481
499
Industrial
60
52
57
67
57
32
Mining
15
17
17
33
22
15
Road Projects
184
221
197
201
204
228
Residential
844
1,031
1,045
915
529
290
Semi-Public
226
204
174
218
212
185
Water quality treatment
system
5
2
1
4
3
0
Total No. of ERP Revisions
3,021
3,462
3,500
3,538
2,856
2,149
Unique ERPs by Year (b)
2,395
2,783
2,836
2,900
2,368
1,804
(c)
Estimated number of applicants 2004-2009
Average Annual Unique ERPs 2004-2009(d)
Total
442
7,789
146
2,582
325
119
1,235
4,654
1,219
15
18,526
N/A
11,894
1,982
(a) An ERP is often revised as additional contiguous acreage is developed by the permittee. Instead of issuing a new ERP number,
the District adds a revision number to the end of the permittee’s ERP number. For a new ERP, the revision number is 0. Typically,
each revision is a separate project owned by the permittee on contiguous land.
(b) The number of ERPs each year is the number of unique ERP numbers in that year where only one of the revision numbers is
counted that year.
(c) The number of ERPs during the 6 year period is the number of unique ERP numbers issued during the 6 year period where only
one of the revision numbers is counted. This number should be lower than the “number of unique ERPs each year” because a
permit may be modified in multiple years and multiple times per the same year.
(d) 11,894 divided by 6 years equals 1,982.
Source: From ERP File of Record data from March 21, 2010.
June 17, 2010
Page 5 of 6
3.0
A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local
government entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any
anticipated effect on state or local revenues
The proposed revisions will not pose any significant additional implementation, monitoring or
enforcement costs to the District or any other state or local governments. The most likely costs
would be those of revising and reprinting rules and application forms. Labor costs are minimal
for such activities and printing costs have declined significantly over the years as most rules and
forms are accessed from the internet. There are no anticipated negative impacts on state or
local revenues.
4.0
A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals
and entities, including local government entities, required to comply with the
requirements of the rule
No individuals or entities will incur additional transactional costs as a result of the proposed
changes. The proposed rule language is a non-substantive change. The existing definition of
“impervious surface” in section 1.7.20 of the Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP)
Information Manual is:
“Land surfaces which do not allow, or minimally allow, the penetration of water;
examples are buildings, non-porous concrete and asphalt pavements, and some fine
grained soils such as clays.”
The existing language in italics contemplates fine grained/compacted materials in the definition
of impervious surface. Semi-impervious materials such as limerock and crushed shell have
therefore always been included in impervious area for threshold determinations and runoff
calculations. The proposed addition of “semi-impervious” to various rule provisions that address
impervious materials as proposed in the rulemaking will not decrease the number of projects
that are exempt from permitting nor will it change the type of permit that would be required
under existing rules. The revisions also delete “and some fine grained soils such as clays” from
the definition of impervious as it is no longer necessary.
For modeling of runoff, different materials will continue to be assigned appropriate runoff curve
numbers. Therefore, there will be no changes in treatment volume requirements as a result of
the proposed revisions.
Changes are also proposed to discussions of “directly connected impervious areas” in Section
1.7.7 of the Part B-Basis of Review of the Environmental Resource Permitting Information
Manual to ensure consistency in the use of impervious and semi-impervious areas in relation to
directly connected impervious areas. The changes are consistent with the longstanding
interpretation that both impervious and semi-pervious areas are included in the calculations for
thresholds and treatment volumes. The separate provision relating to directly connected
impervious areas relating to roadways that appears in the Part B-Basis of Review of the
Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual section 5.8 is not being changed.
Overall, the proposed revisions have no incremental cost impacts.
June 17, 2010
Page 6 of 6
5.0
An analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined by Section 288.703, F.S.,
and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by Section
120.52., F.S.
As the proposed revisions are non-substantive in nature as discussed in Sections 1.0 and 4.0,
small businesses, counties and cities will not be impacted by these proposed changes in rule
language.