Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | neil-mccarthy |
View: | 232 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Chapter 62-345Florida’s Uniform Mitigation
Assessment Method(UMAM)
2000 and 2002 legislature
373.414(18), F.S.
• DEP and WMDs develop a state-wide
uniform mitigation assessment method
• Include local governments, USACE
• DEP adopts the method by rule
• Used by state and local governments
Goals in developing method:
• Practical for use within permitting timeframes
• Consistent process
• Use with reasonable scientific judgment
• Account for different ecological communities in different areas of the state
.300 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance
1. Applicant submits “necessary supporting
information”; review agency verifies the
information and applies this assessment
method .
2. Conduct Qualitative Characterization (Part
I).
3. Assess & Score the area (Part II).
.300 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance
1. Applicant submits “necessary supporting
information”; review agency verifies the
information and applies this assessment
method .
2. Conduct Qualitative Characterization (Part
I).
3. Assess & Score the area (Part II).
.300 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance
1. Applicant submits “necessary supporting
information”; review agency verifies the
information and applies this assessment
method .
2. Conduct Qualitative Characterization (Part
I).
3. Assess & Score the area (Part II).
.300 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance
4. If the mitigation is preservation, use the
preservation adjustment factor.
5. For all forms of mitigation, adjust for time
lag and risk as appropriate.
6. Degree of ecological change ==> Delta =
numerical difference between current (or
w/o preservation) and “with” scores.
7. Apply the formulas.
.300 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance
4. If the mitigation is preservation, use the
preservation adjustment factor.
5. For all forms of mitigation, adjust for time
lag and risk as appropriate.
6. Degree of ecological change ==> Delta =
numerical difference between current (or
w/o preservation) and “with” scores.
7. Apply the formulas.
.300 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance
4. If the mitigation is preservation, use the
preservation adjustment factor.
5. For all forms of mitigation, adjust for time
lag and risk as appropriate.
6. Degree of ecological change ==> Delta =
numerical difference between current (or
w/o preservation) and “with” scores.
7. Apply the formulas.
.300 Assessment Method Overview and Guidance
4. If the mitigation is preservation, use the
preservation adjustment factor.
5. For all forms of mitigation, adjust for time
lag and risk as appropriate.
6. Degree of ecological change ==> Delta =
numerical difference between current (or
w/o preservation) and “with” scores.
7. Apply the formulas.
.500 (6)(a)
Location and Landscape Support
Adjacent lands and habitat support
Upstream/downstream connections or barriers– fish and wildlife– hydrology
.500 (6)(b) Water Environment
Seasonal water levels and flows
Tides, wave energy
Soil moisture/ erosion/ deposition
Nutrient loading and
assimilation
.500 (6)(c) Community Structure
Plant or benthic
community
Species composition
Age / size distribution
Invasive, exotic species
Abiotic / topographic
features
Calibration Plan
• 5 regions
• 6 types of ecosystems
• 5 sites per ecosystem per region
• 85 test sites
• Test on existing applications requiring a WRAP
• Entire suite and range in values of wetland functions
Site Visits
• 81 sites
• 19 counties
• 88 agency staff
• 6 state and Federal agencies
• UMAM scores close in range
• WRAP conducted
Lessons Learned
• Complete Part I prior to scoring Part II
• Agree on how to classify the ecosystem
• Consider assessment area’s give and take with surrounding landscape
• Scores should reflect one’s opinion
Issues
• Water quality and hydrology should be separated
• Fire frequency and fire suppression
• Bullets not distinct within a parameter
• Bullets not distinct across scoring categories
• Overlap in observations among the 3 indicators
• Risk is arbitrary
• Preservation Adjustment Factor is arbitrary
• Establish literature-based time lag standards
Differences
• Time lag rate – 7% versus 3%
• Preservation as mitigation
• Upland preservation
Where do we go from here?
• Complete report
• Conduct training/briefing
• Implement UMAM
• Monitor results