Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Chapter 62-345 Florida’s Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Chapter Florida’s Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM)

2 2000 and 2002 legislature (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

3 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

4 .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).

5 .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).

6 .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).

7 .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.

8 .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.

9 .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.

10 .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.

11 .500 (6)(a) Location and Landscape Support Adjacent lands and habitat support Upstream/downstream connections or barriers –fish and wildlife –hydrology

12 .500 (6)(b) Water Environment Seasonal water levels and flows Tides, wave energy Soil moisture/ erosion/ deposition Nutrient loading and assimilation

13 .500 (6)(c) Community Structure Plant or benthic community Species composition Age / size distribution Invasive, exotic species Abiotic / topographic features

14 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

15 Site Visits 81 sites 19 counties 88 agency staff 6 state and Federal agencies UMAM scores close in range WRAP conducted

16 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

17 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

18 Differences Time lag rate – 7% versus 3% Preservation as mitigation Upland preservation

19 Where do we go from here? Complete report Conduct training/briefing Implement UMAM Monitor results


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google