1 / 19

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

Chapter 62-345 Florida’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.

jaimie
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 2000 and 2002 legislature373.414(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

  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

More Related