Chapter 62-345 Florida’s Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM)

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