62-345.txt

UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD 

Intent and Scope.  

62-345.100 
(1) 

 
 
 
The intent of this rule is to fulfill the mandate of subsection 373.414(18), 
F.S., which requires the establishment of a uniform mitigation assessment method to 
determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset adverse impacts to wetlands and 
other surface waters and to award and deduct mitigation bank credits.  This Chapter 
shall apply to those impacts subject to review under Section 373.414, F.S., excluding 
subparagraphs 373.414(1)(a) 1, 3, 5, and 6 and paragraph 373.414(1)(b) 3, F.S.  

(2) 

(3) 
(a) 
(b) 

Except as specified above, the methodology in this Chapter provides a 
standardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other 
surface waters, the amount that those functions are reduced by a proposed impact, and 
the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that loss.  It does not assess whether the 
adverse impact meets other criteria for issuance of a permit, nor the extent that such 
impacts may be approved.  This rule supersedes existing ratio guidelines or 
requirements concerning the amount of mitigation required to offset an impact to 
wetlands or other surface waters.  Upon a determination that mitigation is required to 
offset a proposed impact, the methodology set forth in this rule shall be used to quantify 
the acreage of mitigation, or the number of credits from a mitigation bank or regional 
offsite mitigation area, required to offset the impact.  This method is also used to 
determine the degree of improvement in ecological value of proposed mitigation bank 
activities. When applying this method, reasonable scientific judgment must be used.  
 
 
 
F.S., for which special forms of mitigation are specified in the rule establishing the 
general permit; 
 
for which mitigation is specified in Department of Environmental Protection Permit 
Number 132416479, issued February 15, 1995 to Everglades National Park for a 
mitigation bank in the Hole in the Donut, which is incorporated by reference herein;  
 
Activities for which mitigation is determined under Section 373.41492, 
F.S.;   
 
is provided under a plan developed by a water management district and approved by 
Department Of Environmental Protection final order pursuant to Section 373.4137, F.S., 
prior to the effective date of this rule;  
 
(Central Florida Beltway);  

This method is not applicable to: 
Activities for which mitigation is not required;  
Activities authorized under general permits under Part IV of Chapter 373, 

Florida Department of Transportation permit applications where mitigation 

Activities in North Trail Basin and Bird Drive Basin in Miami-Dade County 

Activities for which mitigation is determined under Section 338.250, F.S. 

(d) 

(e) 

(c) 

Impacts that are offset under the net improvement provision of 

subparagraph 373.414(1)(b)3, F.S.;  

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

F.S.; or 
(i) 

Fishing or recreational values, pursuant to subparagraph 373.414(1)(a)4, 

Mitigation for mangrove trimming and alteration as required and 

implemented in accordance with Section 403.9332, F.S. 

1 
 

(4) 

This method is not intended to supersede or replace existing rules 

regarding cumulative impacts, the prevention of secondary impacts, reduction and 
elimination of impacts, or to determine the appropriateness of the type of mitigation 
proposed.  
(5) 

For the following types of secondary impacts, the amount and type of 

mitigation required to offset these impacts shall include measures such as the 
implementation of management plans, participation in a wildlife management park 
established by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, incorporation of 
culverts or bridged crossings designed to facilitate wildlife movement, fencing to limit 
access, reduced speed zones, plans to protect significant historical or archeological 
resources, or other measures designed to offset the secondary impact, rather than the 
implementation of Rules 62-345.400 through 62-345.600: 

Secondary impacts to fish or wildlife caused by collision with boat traffic, 

automobile traffic, or towers;  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 
(6) 

Secondary impacts to aquatic or wetland dependent listed animal species 

caused by impacts to uplands used by such species for nesting or denning; or, 

Secondary impacts to historical or archaeological resources.  
An entity that has received a mitigation bank permit issued by the 

Department of Environmental Protection or a water management district under Sections 
373.4135 and 373.4136, F.S., prior to the adoption of this rule, or any mitigation bank 
with an application pending pursuant to paragraph 62-345.100(7) and permitted under 
the applicable rules, ordinances and special acts in effect prior to the adoption of this 
rule, must have impact sites assessed for the purpose of deducting bank credits using 
the credit assessment method, including any functional assessment methodology, that 
was in place when the bank was permitted.  A permitted mitigation bank has the option 
to modify the mitigation bank permit to have its credits re-assessed under the method in 
this Chapter, and thereafter have its credits deducted using the method adopted in this 
Chapter.  In accordance with Section 373.4136, F.S., the number of credits awarded 
must be based on the degree of improvement in ecological value expected to result 
from the establishment and operation of the mitigation bank, as determined using the 
assessment methodology in this Chapter. 

(7) 

Any application for a permit or other authorization involving mitigation, 

including mitigation banks, that is pending on or before the effective date of this Chapter 
shall be reviewed under the applicable rules, ordinances, and special acts in effect 
before the effective date of this Chapter, unless the applicant elects to amend the 
application to be reviewed under this Chapter. 

(8) 

Applications to modify a conceptual, conceptual approval, standard, 

standard general or individual permit that was either issued prior to the effective date of 
this chapter or reviewed under the applicable rules, ordinances and special acts in 
effect prior to the adoption of this rule pursuant to paragraph 62-345.100(7), shall be 
evaluated under the mitigation assessment criteria used in the review of the permit, 
unless the applicant elects to have the application reviewed under this Chapter or 
unless the proposed modification is reasonably expected to lead to substantially 
different or substantially increased water resource impacts.  For the purposes of this 
subsection, applications to construct part or all of a project that are consistent with a 
vailid conceptual approval permit or conceptual permit. 

2 
 

(2) 

(3) 

(9) 

An  application  for  a  permit  under  part  IV  of  Chapter  373,  F.S.,  for  an 
activity associated with mining operations that qualifies for the exemption in subsection 
373.414(15), F.S., shall be reviewed under the applicable rules identified in subsection 
373.414(15), F.S.  

62-345.200  Definitions. 
(1) 

Assessment area means all or part of a wetland or surface water impact 

(10)  The  Department  and  Water  Management  Districts  shall  develop  and 
conduct training workshops for agency staff, local governments, and the public on the 
application of this rule, prior to the effective date of this rule. 
The effective date of this proposed rule is 180 days after filing the certification package 
with the Department of State. 
Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.414(9), 373.414(18), FS.  Law Implemented  
373.414(18), FS.  History - New 2-2-04, Amended 4-27-05. 
 
 
 
site, or a mitigation site, that is sufficiently homogeneous in character, impact, or 
mitigation benefits to be assessed as a single unit. 
 
Protection, or any water management district, local government or other governmental 
agency required by subsection 373.414(18), F.S., to use this methodology. 
 
"Ecological value" means the value of functions performed by uplands, 
wetlands, and other surface waters to the abundance, diversity, and habitats of fish, 
wildlife, and listed species. Included are functions such as providing cover and refuge; 
breeding, nesting, denning, and nursery areas; corridors for wildlife movement; food 
chain support; natural water storage, natural flow attenuation, and water quality 
improvement which enhances fish, wildlife, and listed species utilization. 
 
pursuant to Chapter 62-340, F.A.C., that would be impacted by the project.  Uplands 
shall not be included as part of the impact site. 
 
or other surface waters function. 

Indicators means physical, chemical, or biological indications of wetland 

Impact site means wetlands and other surface waters as delineated 

Reviewing agency means the Florida Department of Environmental 

(5)  

(4) 

(6) 

 Invasive Exotic for purposes of this rule means animal species that are 

outside of their natural range or zone of dispersal and have or are able to form self-
sustaining and expanding populations in communities in which they did not previously 
occur, and those plant species listed in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Councils 2001 List 
of Invasive Species Category I and II, which is incorporated by reference herein, and 
may be found on the Internet at www.fleppc.org or by writing to the Bureau of Beaches 
and Wetland Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone 
Road, MS 2500, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400. 

(7) 

Listed species means those animal species that are endangered, 

threatened or of special concern and are listed in Sections 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, 
and  
68A-27.005, F.A.C., and those plant species listed in 50 Code of Federal Regulations 
17.12, when such plants are located in a wetland or other surface water. 
Mitigation credit or credit means a standard unit of measure which 
 
represents the increase in ecological value resulting from restoration, enhancement, 
preservation, or creation activities.  

(8) 

3 
 

(9) 

Mitigation site means wetlands and other surface waters as delineated 

 
pursuant to Chapter 62-340, F.A.C., or uplands, that are proposed to be created, 
restored, enhanced, or preserved by the mitigation project. 
 
an assessment area assuming the proposed impact is conducted. 

With impact assessment means the reasonably anticipated outcome at 

(10) 

(11) 

With mitigation assessment means the outcome at an assessment area 

assuming the proposed mitigation is successfully conducted. 

(12) 

Without preservation assessment means the reasonably anticipated 

outcome at an assessment area assuming the area is not preserved. 
The effective date of this proposed rule is 180 days after filing the certification package 
with the Department of State. 
Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.414(9), 373.414(18), FS.  Law Implemented 
373.414(18), FS.  History - New 2-2-04.  
 

62-345.300  Assessment Method Overview and Guidance.  
(1)  When an applicant proposes mitigation for impacts to wetlands and 

To determine the value of functions provided by impact and mitigation 

 
surface waters as part of an environmental resource permit or wetland resource permit 
application, the applicant will be responsible for submitting the necessary supporting 
information for the application of Rules 62-345.400-.600, F.A.C., of this chapter and the 
reviewing agency will be responsible for verifying this information and applying this 
assessment method to determine the amount of mitigation necessary to offset the 
proposed impacts. When an applicant submits a mitigation bank or regional mitigation 
permit application, the applicant will be responsible for submitting the necessary 
supporting information for the application of Rules 62-345.400-.600, F.A.C., of this 
chapter and the reviewing agency will be responsible for verifying this information and 
applying this assessment method to determine the potential amount of mitigation to be 
provided by the bank or regional mitigation area. 
 
sites, the method incorporates the following considerations: current condition (see 
subsection 62-345.500(6), F.A.C.); hydrologic connection (see paragraph 62-
345.400(1)(d), F.A.C.); uniqueness (see paragraph 62-345.400(1)(f), F.A.C.); location 
(see subsections 62-345.400(1) and 62-345.500(7), F.A.C.); fish and wildlife utilization 
(see paragraph 62-345.400(1)(h), F.A.C.); time lag (see subsection 62-345.600(1), 
F.A.C.); and mitigation risk (see subsection 62-345.600(2), F.A.C.). 
 
The assessment method is designed to be used in any type of impact site 
or mitigation site in any geographic region of the state. The inherent flexibility required 
for such a method is accomplished in a multi-part approach that consists of the following 
processes:  
 
Conduct qualitative characterization of both the impact and mitigation 
assessment areas (Part I) that describes the assessment area, identifies its native 
community type and the functions to fish and wildlife and their habitat. The purpose of 
Part I is to provide a framework for comparison of the assessment area to the optimal 
condition and location of that native community type. Another purpose of this part is to 
note any relevant factors of the assessment area that are discovered by site inspectors, 
including use by listed species. 

(3) 

(a) 

(2) 

4 
 

Adjust the gain in ecological value from either upland or wetland 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(4) 

(b) 

Conduct quantitative assessment (Part II) of the impact and mitigation 

(5) 

The degree of ecological change on a site must be determined for both 

The functional gain or loss for mitigation and impact assessment areas, 

Part I of this method provides a descriptive framework to characterize the 

For mitigation assessment areas, assess the proposed mitigation for time 

 
sites and use the numerical scores to compare the reduction of ecological value due to 
proposed impacts and the gain in ecological value due to proposed mitigation and to 
determine whether a sufficient amount of mitigation is proposed. 
 
preservation in accordance with subsection 62-345.500(3), F.A.C.  
 
lag and risk. 
 
respectively, is determined by applying the formulas in subsection 62-345.600(3), 
F.A.C., to ascertain the number of mitigation bank credits to be awarded and debited 
and the amount of mitigation needed to offset the impacts to wetlands and other surface 
waters. 
 
assessment area and the functions provided by that area. Part II of this method 
provides indicators of wetland and other surface water function, which are scored based 
on the framework developed in Part I. Part I must be completed and referenced by the 
user of this method when scoring the assessment area in Part II. An impact or mitigation 
site may contain more than one assessment area, each of which shall be independently 
evaluated under this method. 
 
the impact and mitigation assessment areas by the mathematical difference in the Part 
II scores established pursuant to Rule 62-345.500, F.A.C., between the current 
condition and with-impact condition assessment, and between the current condition or 
without preservation and the with mitigation condition assessments. This difference is 
termed the delta. This formula must be applied to all assessment areas within both 
proposed impact sites and mitigation sites (including mitigation banks and regional 
offsite mitigation areas when applicable). 
Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.414(9), (18) FS. Law Implemented 
373.414(18) FS. History  New 2-2-04, Amended 9-12-07. 
 
 
 
An impact or mitigation assessment area must be described with sufficient 
detail to provide a frame of reference for the type of community being evaluated and to 
identify the functions that will be evaluated. When an assessment area is an upland 
proposed as mitigation, functions must be related to the benefits provided by that 
upland to fish and wildlife of associated wetlands or other surface waters. Information 
for each assessment area must be sufficient to identify the functions beneficial to fish 
and wildlife and their habitat that are characteristic of the assessment areas native 
community type, based on currently available information, such as aerial photographs, 
topographic maps, geographic information system data and maps, site visits, scientific 
articles, journals, other professional reports, field verification when needed, and 
reasonable scientific judgment. For artificial systems, such as borrow pits, ditches and 
canals, and for altered systems, refer to the native community type it most closely 
resembles. The information provided by the applicant for each assessment area must 
address the following, as applicable: 

62-345.400  Qualitative Characterization-Part I. 
(1) 

5 
 

Assessment area size; 

Classification of the assessment areas native community type, 

(a) 

Special water classifications, such as whether the area is in an 

(c) 
(d)  Geographic relationship and hydrologic connection between the 

 
Outstanding Florida Water, an Aquatic Preserve, a Class II water approved, restricted, 
conditionally approved, conditionally restricted for shellfish harvesting, or an Area of 
Critical State Concern; 
 
Significant nearby features that might affect the values of the functions 
provided by the assessment area, such as areas with regionally significant ecological 
resources or habitats (national or state parks, forests, or reserves; Outstanding National 
Resource Waters and associated watershed; Outstanding Florida Waters and 
associated watershed; other conservation areas), major industry, or commercial airport;  
 
 
assessment area and any contiguous wetland or other surface waters, or uplands, as 
applicable; 
 
(e) 
considering past alterations that affect the classification. Classification shall be based 
on Florida Land Use, Cover and Form Classification System (1999) (FLUCC) codes, 
which is incorporated by reference herein. In addition, the applicant may further classify 
the assessment area using the 26 Communities of Florida, Soils Conservation Service 
(February 1981), which is incorporated by reference herein; A Hydrogeomorphic 
Classification for Wetlands, Wetland Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4, 
Mark M. Brinson (August 1993), which is incorporated by reference herein; or other 
sources that, based on reasonable scientific judgment, describe the natural 
communities in Florida; 
 
surface water and floral and faunal components, including listed species, on the 
assessment area in relation to the surrounding regional landscape; 
 
Functions to be considered are: providing cover, substrate, and refuge; breeding, 
nesting, denning, and nursery areas; corridors for wildlife movement; food chain 
support; and natural water storage, natural flow attenuation, and water quality 
improvement, which enhances fish, wildlife, and listed species utilization; 
 
Anticipated wildlife utilization and type of use (feeding, breeding, nesting, 
resting, or denning), and applicable listing classifications (threatened, endangered, or 
species of special concern as defined by Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004 and 68A-
27.005, F.A.C.). The list developed for the assessment area need not include all 
species which use the area, but must include all listed species in addition to those 
species that are characteristic of the native community type, considering the size and 
geographic location of the assessment area. Generally, wildlife surveys will not be 
required. The need for a wildlife survey will be determined by the likelihood that the site 
is used by listed species, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat 
needs of such species, and whether the proposed system will impact that use;  
 
mitigation for a prior issued permit; and  
 
ecological values of the assessment area and functions provided. 

(i)  Whether any portion of the assessment area has been previously used as 

Any additional information that is needed to accurately characterize the 

(g) 

Functions performed by the assessment areas native community type. 

(f) 

Uniqueness when considering the relative rarity of the wetland or other 

(b) 

(h) 

(j) 

6 
 

Utilizing the frame of reference established in Part I, the information 

(a) 

Current condition or, in the case of preservation mitigation, without 

62-345.500  Assessment and Scoring-Part II.  
(1) 

Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.414(9), (18) FS. Law Implemented 
373.414(18) FS. History  New 2-2-04, Amended 9-12-07. 
 
 
 
obtained under this part must be used to determine the degree to which the assessment 
area provides the functions identified in Part I and the amount of function lost or gained 
by the project. Each impact assessment area and each mitigation assessment area 
must be assessed under two conditions.  
 
preservation  For assessment areas where previous impacts that affect the current 
condition are temporary in nature, consideration will be given to the inherent functions of 
these areas relative to seasonal hydrologic changes, and expected vegetation 
regeneration and projected habitat functions if the use of the area were to remain 
unchanged. When evaluating impacts to a previously permitted mitigation site that has 
not achieved its intended function, the reviewing agency shall consider the functions the 
mitigation site was intended to offset and any delay or reduction in offsetting those 
functions that may be caused by the project. Previous construction or alteration 
undertaken in violation of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., or Sections 403.91-.929, F.S. 
(1984 Supp.), as amended, or rule, order or permit adopted or issued thereunder, will 
not be considered as having diminished the condition and relative value of a wetland or 
surface water, when assigning a score under this part. When evaluating wetlands or 
other surface waters that are within an area that is subject to a recovery strategy 
pursuant to Chapter 40D-80, F.A.C., impacts from water withdrawals will not be 
considered when assigning a score under this part. 
With mitigation or with impact  The with mitigation and with impact 
 
assessments are based on the reasonably expected outcome, which may represent an 
increase, decrease, or no change in value relative to current conditions. For the with 
impact and with mitigation assessments, the evaluator will assume that all other 
necessary regulatory authorizations required for the proposed project have been 
obtained and that construction will be consistent with such authorizations. The with 
mitigation assessment will be scored only when reasonable assurance has been 
provided that the proposed plan can be conducted.  
 
each of the wetland indicators of function shall be zero (0). 
 
and community structure indicators listed in subsection 62-345.500(6), F.A.C. Scoring of 
these indicators for the upland assessment areas shall be based on benefits provided to 
the fish and wildlife of the associated wetlands or other surface waters, considering the 
current or anticipated ecological value of those wetlands and other surface waters.  
 
mathematical difference between the score of the upland assessment area with the 
proposed preservation measure and the upland assessment area without the proposed 
preservation measure. When the community structure is scored as zero, then the 
location and landscape support shall also be zero. The resulting delta is then 

(c)  When the with impact outcome is upland, the with impact scores for 

(2) 

Upland mitigation assessment areas shall be scored using the location 

(a) 

For upland preservation, the gain in ecological value is determined by the 

(b) 

7 
 

(c) 

(b) 

For upland enhancement or restoration, the value provided shall be 

(3)(a)  When assessing preservation, the with mitigation assessment shall 

multiplied by the preservation adjustment factor contained in subsection 62-345.500(3), 
F.A.C. 
 
determined by the mathematical difference between the score of the upland 
assessment area with the proposed restoration or enhancement measure and the 
current condition of the upland assessment area.  
 
For uplands proposed to be converted to wetlands or other surface waters 
through creation or restoration measures, the upland areas shall be scored as zero in 
their current condition. Only the with mitigation assessment shall be scored in 
accordance with the indicators listed in subsection 62-345.500(6), F.A.C.  
 
consider the potential of the assessment area to perform current functions in the long 
term, considering the protection mechanism proposed, and the without preservation 
assessment shall evaluate the assessment areas functions considering the extent and 
likelihood of what activities would occur if it were not preserved, the temporary or 
permanent effects of those activities, and the protection provided by existing 
easements, restrictive covenants, or state, federal, and local rules, ordinances and 
regulations. The gain in ecological value is determined by the mathematical difference 
between the Part II scores for the with mitigation and without preservation (the delta) 
multiplied by a preservation adjustment factor. The preservation adjustment factor shall 
be scored on a scale from 0 (no preservation value) to 1 (optimal preservation value), 
on one-tenth increments. The score shall be assigned based on the applicability and 
relative significance of the following considerations:  
 
area promote natural ecological conditions such as fire patterns or the exclusion of 
invasive exotic species. 
 
surface waters, and uplands to be preserved. 
 
and the degree to which listed species use the area. 
 
The proximity of the area to be preserved to areas of national, state, or 
regional ecological significance, such as national or state parks, Outstanding Florida 
Waters, and other regionally significant ecological resources or habitats, such as lands 
acquired or to be acquired through governmental or non-profit land acquisition programs 
for environmental conservation, and whether the areas to be preserved include 
corridors between these habitats.  
 
area were not preserved. 
 
assigned to the preservation proposal to yield an adjusted mitigation delta for 
preservation. 
 
The evaluation must be based on currently available information, such as 
aerial photographs, topographic maps, geographic information system data and maps, 
site visits, scientific articles, journals, other professional reports, and reasonable 
scientific judgment.  

The extent to which proposed management activities within the preserve 

The extent and likelihood of potential adverse impacts if the assessment 

The scarcity of the habitat provided by the proposed preservation area 

The preservation adjustment factor is multiplied by the mitigation delta 

The ecological and hydrological relationship between wetlands, other 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

(b) 

(4) 

8 
 

(5) 

Three categories of indicators of wetland function (location and landscape 

 
Indicators of wetland and other surface water function listed in this part are 
scored on a relative scale of zero to ten, based on the level of function that benefits fish 
and wildlife. For the purpose of providing guidance, descriptions are given for four 
general categories of scores: optimal (10), moderate (7), minimal (4), and not present 
(0). Any whole number score between 0-10 may be used that is a best fit to a single or 
combination of descriptions and in relation to the optimal level of function of that 
community type or habitat.  
 
support, water environment and community structure) listed below are to be scored to 
the extent that they affect the ecological value of the assessment area. Upland 
mitigation assessment areas shall be scored for location and community structure only. 
 
Location and Landscape Support  The value of functions provided by an 
assessment area to fish and wildlife are influenced by the landscape position of the 
assessment area and its relationship with surrounding areas. While the geographic 
location of the assessment area does not change, the ecological relationship between 
the assessment area and surrounding landscape may vary from the current condition to 
the with impact and with mitigation conditions. Many species that nest, feed or find 
cover in a specific habitat or habitat type are also dependent in varying degrees upon 
other habitats, including upland, wetland and other surface waters, that are present in 
the regional landscape. For example, many amphibian species require small isolated 
wetlands for breeding pools and for juvenile life stages, but may spend the remainder of 
their adult lives in uplands or other wetland habitats. If these habitats are unavailable or 
poorly connected in the landscape or are degraded, then the value of functions provided 
by the assessment area to the fish and wildlife identified in Part I is reduced. The 
location of the assessment area shall be considered to the extent that fish and wildlife 
utilizing the area have the opportunity to access other habitats necessary to fulfill their 
life history requirements. The availability, connectivity, and quality of offsite habitats, 
and offsite land uses which might adversely impact fish and wildlife utilizing these 
habitats, are factors to be considered in assessing the location of the assessment area. 
The location of the assessment area shall be considered relative to offsite and upstream 
hydrologic contributing areas and to downstream and other connected waters to the 
extent that the diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife and their habitats is affected 
in these areas. The opportunity for the assessment area to provide offsite water quantity 
and quality benefits to fish and wildlife and their habitats downstream and in connected 
waters is assessed based on the degree of hydrologic connectivity between these 
habitats and the extent to which offsite habitats are affected by discharges from the 
assessment area. It is recognized that isolated wetlands lack surface water connections 
to downstream waters and as a result, do not perform certain functions (e.g., detrital 
transport) to benefit downstream fish and wildlife; for such wetlands, this consideration 
does not apply.  
 
A score of (10) means the assessment area is ideally located and the 
surrounding landscape provides full opportunity for the assessment area to perform 
beneficial functions at an optimal level. The score is based on reasonable scientific 
judgment and characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable: 

(6) 

(a) 

1. 

9 
 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

2. 

The opportunity for the assessment area to provide benefits to 

Functions of the assessment area that benefit downstream fish and 

Invasive exotic or other invasive plant species are not present in the 

Land uses outside the assessment area have no adverse impacts on 

Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is not 

Habitats outside the assessment area represent the full range of habitats 

For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to 

 
needed to fulfill the life history requirements of all wildlife listed in Part I and are 
available in sufficient quantity to provide optimal support for these wildlife.  
 
proximity of the assessment area. 
 
limited by distance to these habitats and is unobstructed by landscape barriers. 
 
wildlife are not limited by distance or barriers that reduce the opportunity for the 
assessment area to provide these benefits. 
 
wildlife in the assessment area as listed in Part I. 
 
downstream or other hydrologically connected areas is not limited by hydrologic 
impediments or flow restrictions. 
 
Downstream or other hydrologically connected habitats are critically or 
solely dependent on discharges from the assessment area and could suffer severe 
adverse impacts if the quality or quantity of these discharges were altered. 
 
provide optimal protection of wetland functions.  
 
A score of (7) means that, compared to the ideal location, the location of 
the assessment area limits its opportunity to perform beneficial functions to 70% of the 
optimal ecological value. The score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and 
characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable: 
 
and variety to provide optimal support for most, but not all, of the wildlife listed in Part I, 
or certain wildlife populations may be limited due to the reduced availability of habitats 
needed to fulfill their life history requirements. 
 
assessment area consists of invasive exotic or other invasive plant species, but cover is 
minimal and has minimal adverse effect on the functions provided by the assessment 
area. 
 
partially limited, either by distance or by the presence of barriers that impede wildlife 
movement. 
 
downstream are somewhat limited by distance or barriers that reduce the opportunity for 
the assessment area to provide these benefits. 
 
fish and wildlife identified in Part I. 
 
The opportunity for the assessment area to provide benefits to 
downstream or other hydrologically connected areas is limited by hydrologic 
impediments or flow restrictions such that these benefits are provided with lesser 
frequency or lesser magnitude than would occur under optimal conditions. 

Land uses outside the assessment area have minimal adverse impacts on 

Habitats outside the assessment area are available in sufficient quantity 

Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is 

Some of the plant community composition in the proximity of the 

Functions of the assessment area that benefit fish and wildlife 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

10 
 

g. 

h. 

3. 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

4. 

Functions of the assessment area that benefit fish and wildlife 

Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is 

Availability of habitats outside the assessment area is fair, but fails to 

The majority of the plant community composition in the proximity of the 

Downstream or other hydrologically connected habitats derive significant 

Land uses outside the assessment area have significant adverse impacts 

For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to 

 
benefits from discharges from the assessment area and could suffer substantial 
adverse impacts if the quality or quantity of these discharges were altered. 
 
provide significant, but suboptimal, protection of wetland functions.  
 
A score of (4) means that, compared to the ideal location, the assessment 
area location limits its opportunity to perform beneficial functions to 40% of the optimal 
ecological value. The score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and 
characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable: 
 
provide support for some species of wildlife listed in Part I, or provides minimal support 
for many of the species listed in Part I. 
 
assessment area consists of invasive exotic or other invasive plant species that 
adversely affect the functions provided by the assessment area. 
 
substantially limited, either by distance or by the presence of barriers which impede 
wildlife movement.  
 
downstream are limited by distance or barriers which substantially reduce the 
opportunity for the assessment area to provide these benefits. 
 
on fish and wildlife identified in Part I. 
 
The opportunity for the assessment area to provide benefits to 
downstream or other hydrologically connected areas is limited by hydrologic 
impediments or flow restrictions, such that these benefits are rarely provided or are 
provided at greatly reduced levels compared to optimal conditions. 
 
benefits from discharges from the assessment area but could be adversely impacted if 
the quality or quantity of these discharges were altered.  
 
provide minimal protection of wetland functions.  
 
habitat support for wildlife utilizing the assessment area and no opportunity for the 
assessment area to provide benefits to fish and wildlife outside the assessment area. 
The score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a 
predominance of the following, as applicable: 
 
support for the species of wildlife listed in Part I.  
 
The plant community composition in the proximity of the assessment area 
consists predominantly of invasive exotic or other invasive plant species such that little 
or no function is provided by the assessment area. 
 
precluded by barriers or distance. 
 
and wildlife downstream are not present. 

For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to 

Functions of the assessment area that would be expected to benefit fish 

Downstream or other hydrologically connected habitats derive minimal 

No habitats are available outside the assessment area to provide any 

A score of (0) means that the location of the assessment area provides no 

Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

11 
 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

c. 

d. 

There is negligible or no opportunity for the assessment area to provide 

Discharges from the assessment area provide negligible or no benefits to 

For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to 

(b)  Water Environment  The quantity of water in an assessment area, 

 
wildlife in the assessment area as listed in Part I.  
 
benefits to downstream or other hydrologically connected areas due to hydrologic 
impediments or flow restrictions that preclude provision of these benefits. 
 
downstream or hydrologically connected areas and these areas would likely be 
unaffected if the quantity or quality of these discharges were altered.  
 
provide no protection of wetland functions.  
 
including the timing, frequency, depth and duration of inundation or saturation, flow 
characteristics, and the quality of that water, may facilitate or preclude its ability to 
perform certain functions and may benefit or adversely impact its capacity to support 
certain wildlife. Hydrologic requirements and tolerance to hydrologic alterations and 
water quality variations vary by ecosystem type and the wildlife utilizing the ecosystem. 
Hydrologic conditions within an assessment area, including water quantity and quality, 
must be evaluated to determine the effect of these conditions on the functions 
performed by area and the extent to which these conditions benefit or adversely affect 
wildlife. Water quality within wetlands and other surface waters is affected by inputs 
from surrounding and upstream areas and the ability of the wetland or surface water 
system to assimilate those inputs. Water quality within the assessment area can be 
directly observed or can be inferred based on available water quality data, on-site 
indicators, adjacent land uses and estimated pollutant removal efficiencies of 
contributing surface water management systems. Hydrologic conditions in the 
assessment area are a result of external hydrologic inputs and the water storage and 
discharge characteristics of the assessment area. Landscape features outside the 
assessment area, such as impervious surfaces, borrow pits, levees, berms, swales, 
ditches, canals, culverts, or control structures, may affect hydrologic conditions in the 
assessment area. Surrounding land uses may also affect hydrologic conditions in the 
assessment area if these land uses increase discharges to the assessment area, such 
as agricultural discharges of irrigation water, or decrease discharges, such as wellfields 
or mined areas.  
 
the functions and provides benefits to fish and wildlife at optimal capacity for the 
assessment area. The score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and 
characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable: 
 
tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects. 
 
conditions for the type of system being evaluated. 
 
Soil moisture is appropriate for the type of system being evaluated, 
considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic 
effects. No evidence of soil desiccation, oxidation or subsidence is observed. 
 
flow rates or points of discharge. 

b.  Water level indicators are distinct and consistent with expected hydrologic 

Soil erosion or deposition patterns are not atypical or indicative of altered 

1. 

A score of (10) means that the hydrology and water quality fully supports 

Land uses outside the assessment area have a severe adverse impact on 

a.  Water levels and flows appear appropriate, considering seasonal variation, 

12 
 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

l. 

2. 

Direct observation of standing water indicates no water quality 

Vegetation shows no signs of hydrologic stress such as excessive 

Evidence of fire history does not indicate atypical fire frequency or severity 

A score of (7) means that the hydrology and water quality supports the 

Water depth, wave energy, currents and light penetration are optimal for 

Existing water quality data indicates conditions are optimal for the type of 

 
due to excessive dryness. 
 
Vegetation or benthic community zonation in all strata are appropriate for 
the type of system being evaluated and does not indicate atypical hydrologic conditions. 
 
mortality, leaning or fallen trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease 
which may be associated with hydrologic stress. 
Presence or evidence of use by animal species with specific hydrologic 
 
requirements is consistent with expected hydrologic conditions for the system being 
evaluated. 
 
Plant community composition is not characterized by species tolerant of 
and associated with water quality degradation or alterations in frequency, depth, and 
duration in inundation or saturation.  
 
degradation such as discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen. 
 
community and would fully support the ecological values of the area. 
 
the type of community being evaluated.  
 
functions and provides benefits to fish and wildlife at 70% of the optimal capacity for the 
assessment area. The score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and 
characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable: 
 
a.  Water levels and flows are slightly higher or lower than appropriate, 
considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic 
effects. 
 
hydrologic conditions for the type of system being evaluated. 
 
expected for the type of system being evaluated, considering seasonal variation, tidal 
cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects. 
 
or points of discharge. 
 
than expected for the type of system being evaluated, possibly due to dryness. 
 
for the type of system being evaluated, indicating atypical hydrologic conditions. 
 
trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease which may be associated 
with some hydrologic stress. 
 
requirements is less than expected or species present have more generalized 
hydrologic requirements. 
 
and associated with moderate water quality degradation or alterations in frequency, 
depth, and duration in inundation or saturation. 

b.  Water level indicators are not as distinct or as consistent as expected for 

Fire history evidence indicates that fire frequency or severity may be more 

Vegetation or benthic community zonation in some strata is inappropriate 

Soil erosion or deposition patterns indicate minor alterations in flow rates 

Some of the plant community composition consists of species tolerant of 

Presence or evidence of use by animal species with specific hydrologic 

Vegetation has slightly greater than normal mortality, leaning or fallen 

Although soil oxidation or subsidence is minimal, soils are drier than 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

13 
 

Direct observation of standing water indicates slight water quality 

Soil erosion or deposition patterns are strongly atypical and indicative of 

3. 

A score of (4) means that the hydrology and water quality supports the 

Existing water quality data indicates slight deviation from what is normal, 

Soil moisture has deviated from what is appropriate for the type of system 

b.  Water level indicators are not distinct and are not consistent with the 

a.  Water levels and flows are moderately higher or lower than appropriate, 

 
degradation such as discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen. 
 
but these variations in parameters, such as salinity or nutrient loading, are not expected 
to cause more than minimal ecological effects.  
 
Water depth, wave energy, currents and light penetration are generally 
sufficient for the type of community being evaluated but are expected to cause some 
changes in species, age classes and densities. 
 
functions and provides benefits to fish and wildlife at 40% of the optimal capacity for the 
assessment area. The score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and 
characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable: 
 
considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic 
effects. 
 
expected hydrologic conditions for the type of system being evaluated. 
 
being evaluated, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and 
other climatic effects. Strong evidence of soil desiccation, oxidation or subsidence is 
observed. 
 
d. 
alterations in flow rates or points of discharge. 
 
more than expected for the type of system being evaluated, possibly due to dryness. 
 
for the type of system being evaluated, indicating atypical hydrologic conditions. 
 
or fallen trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease associated with 
hydrologic stress. 
 
Presence or evidence of use by animal species with specific hydrologic 
requirements is greatly reduced from expected or those species present have more 
generalized hydrologic requirements. 
 
and associated with moderate water quality degradation or alterations in frequency, 
depth, and duration in inundation or saturation. 
 
degradation such as discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen. 
 
parameters such as salinity or nutrient loading, so that ecological effects would be 
expected.  
 
suited for the type of community being evaluated and are expected to cause significant 
changes in species, age classes and densities.  
 
support the functions and provides no benefits to fish and wildlife. The score is based 

Vegetation or benthic community zonation in most strata is inappropriate 

Vegetation has strong evidence of greater than normal mortality, leaning 

Much of the plant community composition consists of species tolerant of 

4. 

A score of (0) means that the hydrology and water quality does not 

Existing water quality data indicates moderate deviation from normal for 

Water depth, wave energy, currents and light penetration are not well 

Direct observation of standing water indicates moderate water quality 

Fire history evidence indicates that fire frequency or severity may be much 

j. 

k. 

l. 

c. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

l. 

14 
 

Fire history indicates great deviation from typical fire frequency or severity, 

a.  Water levels and flows exhibit an extreme degree of deviation from what is 

Soil erosion or deposition patterns are greatly atypical or indicative of 

Vegetation has strong evidence of much greater than normal mortality, 

Presence or evidence of use by animal species with specific hydrologic 

Vegetation or benthic community zonation in all strata is inappropriate for 

Soil moisture has deviated from what is appropriate for the type of system 

b.  Water level indicators are not present or are greatly inconsistent with 

on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the 
following, as applicable: 
 
appropriate, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other 
climatic effects. 
 
expected hydrologic conditions for the type of system being evaluated. 
 
being evaluated, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and 
other climatic effects. Strong evidence of substantial soil desiccation, oxidation or 
subsidence is observed. 
 
greatly altered flow rates or points of discharge. 
 
due to extreme dryness. 
 
the type of system being evaluated, indicating atypical hydrologic conditions. 
 
leaning or fallen trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease which may 
be associated with hydrologic stress. 
 
requirements is lacking and those species present have generalized hydrologic 
requirements. 
 
tolerant of and associated with highly degraded water or alterations in frequency, depth, 
and duration in inundation or saturation.  
 
degradation such as obvious discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen. 
 
parameters such as salinity or nutrient loading, so that adverse ecological effects would 
be expected.  
 
inappropriate for the type of community (species, age classes and densities) being 
evaluated. 
 
(c) 
evaluated with regard to its characteristic community structure. In general, a wetland or 
other surface water is characterized either by plant cover or by open water with a 
submerged benthic community. Wetlands and surface waters characterized by plant 
cover will be scored according to subparagraph 62-345.500(6)(c)1., F.A.C., while 
benthic communities will be assessed in accordance with subparagraph 62-
345.500(6)(c)2., F.A.C. If the assessment area is a mosaic of relatively equal parts of 
submerged plant cover and a submerged benthic community, then both of these 
indicators will be scored and those scores averaged to obtain a single community 
structure score. 
 
Vegetation and structural habitat  The presence, abundance, health, 
condition, appropriateness, and distribution of plant communities in surface waters, 

Community Structure  Each impact and mitigation assessment area is 

Direct observation of standing water indicates significant water quality 

The plant community composition consists predominantly of species 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

g. 

h. 

i. 

j. 

k. 

l. 

1. 

Existing water quality data indicates large deviation from normal for 

Water depth, wave energy, currents and light penetration are 

15 
 

wetlands, and uplands can be used as indicators to determine the degree to which the 
functions of the community type identified are provided. Vegetation is the base of the 
food web in any community and provides many additional structural habitat benefits to 
fish and wildlife. In forested systems, for example, the vertical structure of trees, tree 
cavities, standing dead snag, and fallen logs provide forage, nesting, and cover habitat 
for wildlife. Topographic features, such as flats, deeper depressions, hummocks, or tidal 
creeks also provide important structure for fish and wildlife habitat. Overall condition of a 
plant community can often be evaluated by observing indicators such as dead or dying 
vegetation, regeneration and recruitment, size and age distribution of trees and shrubs, 
fruit production, chlorotic or spindly plant growth, structure of the vegetation strata, and 
the presence, coverage and distribution of inappropriate plant species. Human activities 
such as mowing, grazing, off-road vehicle activity, boat traffic, and fire suppression 
constitute more direct and easily observable impacts affecting the condition of plant 
communities. Although short-term environmental factors such as excessive rainfall, 
drought, and fire can have temporary impacts, human activities such as flooding, 
drainage via groundwater withdrawal and conveyance canals, or construction of 
permanent structures such as seawalls in an aquatic system can permanently damage 
these systems. The plant community should be evaluated to consider whether natural 
successional patterns for the community type are permanently altered. Inappropriate 
plants, including invasive exotic species, other invasive species, or other species 
atypical of the community type being evaluated, do not support the functions attributable 
to that community type and can out-compete and replace native species. Native upland 
and wetland vegetation, such as wax myrtle, pines and willow, which are not typically 
considered as invasive, can occur in numbers and coverage not appropriate for the 
community type and can serve as indicators of disturbance. The relative degree of 
coverage by inappropriate species, inappropriate vegetation strata, condition of 
vegetation, and both biotic and abiotic structure all provide an indication of the degree to 
which the functions anticipated for the community type identified are being provided.  
 
structure provide conditions which support an optimal level of function to benefit fish and 
wildlife utilizing the assessment area as listed in Part I. The score is based on 
reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the following, 
as applicable: 
 
species in the canopy, shrub, or ground stratum.  
 
 
 
deviation from normal successional or mortality pattern. 
 
provide optimal structural habitat for that type of system. 
 
spindly growth or insect damage. 
 
community.  

Invasive exotic or other invasive plant species are not present. 
There is strong evidence of normal regeneration and natural recruitment.  
Age and size distribution is typical of the system, with no indication of 

Plants are in good condition, with very little to no evidence of chlorotic or 

VII. 

Land management practices are optimal for long term viability of the plant 

All or nearly all of the plant cover is by appropriate and desirable plant 

The density and quality of coarse woody debris, snag, den, and cavity 

I. 

II. 
III. 
IV. 

V. 

VI. 

a. 

A score of (10) means that the vegetation community and physical 

16 
 

b. 

A score of (7) means that the level of function provided by plant 

Invasive exotic or other invasive plant species are present, but cover is 

V. 

Coarse woody debris, snags, dens, and cavities have either slightly lower 

If submerged aquatic plant communities are present, there is no evidence 

Majority of plant cover is by appropriate and desirable plant species in the 

VIII.  Topographic features, such as refugia ponds, creek channels, flats or 

There is evidence of near-normal regeneration or natural recruitment. 
Age and size distribution approximates conditions typical of that type of 

 
hummocks, are present and normal for the area being assessed. 
 
of siltation or algal growth that would impede normal aquatic plant growth.  
 
physical structure provide an optimal level of habitat and life history support for fish and 
wildlife in the associated wetlands or other surface waters. 
 
community and physical structure is limited to 70% of the optimal level. The score is 
based on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the 
following, as applicable: 
 
canopy, shrub, or ground stratum.  
 
II. 
minimal. 
III. 
 
 
IV. 
system, with no indication of permanent deviation from normal successional or mortality 
pattern, although there may have been temporary deviations or impacts to age and size 
distribution. 
 
than or slightly greater than normal quantity due to deviation from expected age 
structure or land management. 
 
or spindly growth or insect damage. 
 
some fire suppression or water control features that have caused a shift in the plant 
community.  
 
hummocks, are slightly less than optimal for the area being assessed. 
 
siltation or algal growth that would impede normal aquatic plant growth.  
 
physical structure provide high, but less than optimal, level of habitat and life history 
support for fish and wildlife in the associated wetlands or other surface waters.  
 
community and physical structure is limited to 40% of the optimal level. The score is 
based on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the 
following, as applicable: 
 
the canopy, shrub, or ground stratum.  
 
other invasive plant species. 
 

VIII.  Topographic features, such as refugia ponds, creek channels, flats or 

VII. 

Land management practices are generally appropriate, but there may be 

VI. 

Plant condition is generally good condition, with little evidence of chlorotic 

Majority of plant cover is by inappropriate or undesirable plant species in 

III. 

There is minimal evidence of regeneration or natural recruitment. 

c. 

A score of (4) means that the level of function provided by the plant 

In submerged aquatic plant communities, there is a minor degree of 

If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and 

IX. 

X. 

I. 

IX. 

X. 

I. 

II. 

If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and 

Majority of the plant cover and presence is comprised of invasive exotic or 

17 
 

In submerged aquatic plant communities, there is a moderate degree of 

If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and 

IV. 

Age and size distribution is atypical of the system and indicative of 

No appropriate or desirable plant species in the canopy, shrub, or ground 

V. 

Coarse woody debris, snags, dens, and cavities are either not present or 

VI.  Generally poor plant condition, such as chlorotic or spindly growth or 

VII. 

Land management practices have resulted in partial removal or alteration 

VIII.  Reduction in extent of topographic features, such as refugia ponds, creek 

 
permanent deviation from normal successional pattern, with greater than expected 
amount of dead or dying vegetation. 
 
greater than normal because the native vegetation is dead or dying. 
 
insect damage. 
 
of natural structures or introduction of some artificial features, such as furrows or 
ditches. 
 
channels, flats or hummocks, from what is normal for the area being assessed. 
 
siltation or algal growth.  
 
physical structure provide moderate level of habitat and life history support for fish and 
wildlife in the associated wetlands or other surface waters.  
 
A score of (0) means that the vegetation communities and structural 
habitat do not provide functions to benefit fish and wildlife. The score is based on 
reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the following, 
as applicable: 
 
I. 
stratum.  
 
II. 
species. 
 
III. 
 
IV. 
distribution. 
 
exist only because the native vegetation is dead or dying. 
 
growth or extensive insect damage. 
 
natural structure or introduction of artificial features, such as furrows or ditches. 
 
or hummocks, that are normal for the area being assessed. 
 
or algal growth. 
 
physical structure provide little or no habitat and life history support for fish and wildlife 
in the associated wetland or other surface waters. 
 
Benthic Communities  This indicator is intended to be used in marine or 
freshwater aquatic systems that are not characterized by a plant community, and is not 
intended to be used in wetlands that are characterized by a plant community. The 
benthic communities within nearshore, inshore, marine and freshwater aquatic systems 
are analogous to the vascular plant communities of terrestrial wetland systems in that 

There is no evidence of regeneration or natural recruitment. 
High percentage of dead or dying vegetation, with no typical age and size 

VIII.  Lack of topographic features such as refugia ponds, creek channels, flats 

VII. 

Land management practices have resulted in removal or alteration of 

VI.  Overall very poor plant condition, such as highly chlorotic or spindly 

V. 

Coarse woody debris, snags, dens, and cavities are either not present or 

IX. 

X. 

d. 

IX. 

X. 

2. 

High presence and cover by invasive exotic or other invasive plant 

In submerged aquatic plant communities, there is a high degree of siltation 

If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and 

18 
 

a. 

A score of (10) means that the benthic communities are indicative of 

The appropriate species number and diversity of benthic organisms are 

they provide food and habitat for other biotic components of the system and function in 
the maintenance of water quality. For example, oyster bars and beds in nearshore 
habitats and estuaries filter large amounts of particulate matter and provide food and 
habitat for a variety of species, such as boring sponges, mollusks, and polycheate 
worms. Live hardbottom community composition varies with water depths and 
substratum, but this community type contributes to the food web, as well as providing 
three-dimensional structure through the action of reef-building organisms and rock-
boring organisms and water quality benefits from filter-feeding organisms. The 
distribution and quality of coral reefs reflect a balance of water temperature, salinity, 
nutrients, water quality, and presence of nearby productive mangrove and seagrass 
communities. Coral reefs contribute to primary productivity of the marine environment 
as well as creating structure and habitat for a large number of organisms. Even benthic 
infauna of soft-bottom systems stabilize the substrate, provide a food source, and serve 
as useful indicators of water quality. All of these communities are susceptible to human 
disturbance through direct physical damage, such as dredging, filling, or boating 
impacts, and indirect damage through changes in water quality, currents, and 
sedimentation.  
 
conditions that provide optimal support for all of the functions typical of the assessment 
area and provide optimal benefit to fish and wildlife. The score is based on reasonable 
scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable:  
 
optimal for the type of system. 
 
near an area with such species. 
 
 
 
physical damage. 
 
hardbottom and reef communities or snags and coarse woody debris in riverine 
systems, are typical of that type of habitat and optimal for the benthic community being 
evaluated. 
 
for the community type. 
 
communities of the assessment area provide functions at 70% of the optimal level. The 
score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance 
of the following, as applicable: 
 
number and diversity of benthic organisms slightly less than typical.  
 
the community or the site is immediately adjacent to an area with such species. 
 
Natural regeneration or recruitment is slightly less than expected.  
 
Appropriate species are in generally good condition, with little reduction in 
biomass from what is optimal. 

Natural regeneration, recruitment, and age distribution are optimal. 
Appropriate species are in good condition, with typical biomass. 
Structural features are typical of the system with no evidence of past 

VII.  Spawning or nesting habitats, such as rocky or sandy bottoms, are optimal 

Any non-native or inappropriate species present represent a minority of 

Topographic features, such as relief, stability, and interstitial spaces for 

Non-native or inappropriate species are not present and the site is not 

b. 

A score of (7) means that, relative to ideal habitat, the benthic 

Majority of the community is composed of appropriate species; the 

I. 

II. 

III. 
IV. 
V. 

VI. 

I. 

II. 

III. 
IV. 

19 
 

Structural features are close to that typical of the system, or little evidence 

c. 

A score of (4) means that, relative to ideal habitat, the benthic 

Structural features are atypical of the system, or there is evidence of great 

V. 

VI. 

I. 

II. 

III. 
IV. 

V. 

VI. 

I. 

II. 
III. 
IV. 

V. 

Appropriate species number or diversity of benthic organisms is greatly 

Topographic features, such as relief, stability, and interstitial spaces for 

Topographic features, such as relief, stability, and interstitial spaces for 

Majority of species present is non-native or inappropriate species or the 

VII.  Spawning or nesting habitats, such as rocky or sandy bottoms, are less 

Natural regeneration or recruitment is minimal. 
Substantial number of appropriate species are dying or in poor condition, 

 
of past physical damage. 
 
hardbottom and reef communities or snags and coarse woody debris in riverine 
systems, indicate slight deviation from what is expected and is less than optimal for the 
benthic community being evaluated. 
 
than expected. 
 
communities of the assessment area provide functions to 40% of the optimal level. The 
score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance 
of the following, as applicable: 
 
decreased from typical.  
 
site is immediately adjacent to an area heavily infested by such species. 
 
 
resulting in much lower than normal biomass. 
 
or long term physical damage. 
 
hardbottom and reef communities or snags and coarse woody debris in riverine 
systems, are greatly reduced from what is expected and is not appropriate for the 
benthic community being evaluated. 
 
available. 
 
d. 
functions identified and do not provide benefits to fish and wildlife. The score is based 
on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the 
following, as applicable: 
 
appropriate species present are in poor condition. 
 
 
 
serious physical damage. 
 
hardbottom and reef communities or snags and coarse woody debris in riverine 
systems, are lacking. 
 
VI. 
present. 
 
(7) 
assessment area shall be determined by summing the scores for each of the indicators 
and dividing that value by 30 to yield a number between 0 and 1. For upland mitigation 
assessment areas, the Part II score shall be determined by summing the scores for the 

Non-native or inappropriate species are dominant. 
There is no indication of natural regeneration or recruitment. 
Structural integrity is very low or non-existent, or there is evidence of 

VII.  Few spawning or nesting habitats, such as rocky or sandy bottoms, are 

Topographic features, such as relief, stability, and interstitial spaces for 

No spawning or nesting habitats, such as rocky or sandy bottoms, are 

A score of (0) means that the benthic communities do not support the 

The Part II score for an impact, wetland, or surface water mitigation 

20 
 

Lack of appropriate species and diversity of those species; any 

(a) 

The time lag associated with mitigation means the period of time between 

62-345.600  Time Lag, Risk, and Mitigation Determination.  
(1) 

Time lag shall be incorporated into the gain in ecological value of the 

location and community structure indicators and dividing that value by 20 to yield a 
number between 0 and 1. 
Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.414(9), (18) FS. Law Implemented 
373.414(18) FS. History  New 2-2-04, Amended 9-12-07. 
 
 
 
proposed mitigation as follows. 
 
when the functions are lost at an impact site and when the site has achieved the 
outcome that was scored in Part II. In general, the time lag varies by the type and timing 
of mitigation in relation to the impacts. Wetland creation generally has a greater time lag 
to establish certain wetland functions than most enhancement activities. Forested 
systems typically require more time to establish characteristic structure and function 
than most herbaceous systems. Factors to consider when assigning time lag include 
biological, physical, and chemical processes associated with nutrient cycling, hydric soil 
development, and community development and succession. There is no time lag if the 
mitigation fully offsets the anticipated impacts prior to or at the time of impact. 
 
The time lag factor under this section shall be scored as 1 when 
evaluating mitigation for proposed phosphate and heavy mineral mining activities in 
accordance with this rule to determine compliance with section 373.414(6)(b), F.S. 
 
For the purposes of this rule, the time lag, in years, is related to a factor 
(T-factor) as established in Table 1 below, to reflect the additional mitigation needed to 
account for the deferred replacement of wetland or surface water functions.  
 
time the wetland impacts are anticipated to occur and the time when the mitigation is 
anticipated to fully offset the impacts, based on reasonable scientific judgment of the 
proposed mitigation activities and the site specific conditions.  
 
Year 
 
< or = 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6  10 
11  15 
16  20 
21  25 
26  30 
31  35 
36  40 
41  45 
46  50 
51  55 

TABLE 1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

T-factor 
 
1 
1.03 
1.07 
1.10 
1.14 
1.25 
1.46 
1.68 
1.92 
2.18 
2.45 
2.73 
3.03 
3.34 
3.65 

(d) 

The Year column in Table 1 represents the number of years between the 

(b) 

(c) 

 

21 
 

>55 

 

 

3.91 
 

(a) 

The vulnerability of the mitigation to and the extent of the effect of different 

 
 
(2)  Mitigation risk shall be evaluated to account for the degree of uncertainty 
that the proposed conditions will be achieved, resulting in a reduction in the ecological 
value of the mitigation assessment area. In general, mitigation projects which require 
longer periods of time to replace lost functions or to recover from potential perturbations 
will be considered to have higher risk that those which require shorter periods of time. 
The assessment area shall be scored on a scale from 1 (for no or de minimus risk) to 3 
(high risk), on quarter-point (0.25) increments. A score of one would most often be 
applied to mitigation conducted in an ecologically viable landscape and deemed 
successful or clearly trending towards success prior to impacts, whereas a score of 
three would indicate an extremely low likelihood of success based on the ecological 
factors below. A single risk score shall be assigned, considering the applicability and 
relative significance of the factors below, based upon consideration of the likelihood and 
the potential severity of reduction in ecological value due to these factors.  
 
hydrologic conditions than those proposed, considering the degree of dependence on 
mechanical or artificial means to achieve proposed hydrologic conditions, such as 
pumps or adjustable weirs, effects of water withdrawals, diversion or drainage features, 
reliability of the hydrologic data, modeling, and design, unstable conditions due to 
waves, wind, or currents, and the hydrologic complexity of the proposed community. 
Systems with relatively simple and predictable hydrology, such as tidal wetlands, would 
entail less risk than complex hydrological systems such as seepage slopes or perched 
wetlands; 
 
(b) 
viability of plant communities other than that proposed, and the potential reduction in 
ecological value which might result, considering the compatibility of the site soils and 
hydrologic conditions with the proposed plant community, planting plans, and track 
record for community or plant establishment method; 
 
other invasive species, considering the location of recruitment sources, the suitability of 
the site for establishment of these species, the degree to which the functions provided 
by plant community would be affected;  
 
The vulnerability of the mitigation to degraded water quality, considering 
factors such as current and future adjacent land use, and construction, operation, and 
maintenance of surface water treatment systems, to the extent that ecological value is 
affected by these changes; 
 
The vulnerability of the mitigation to secondary impacts due to its location, 
considering potential land use changes in surrounding area, existing protection provided 
to surrounding areas by easements, restrictive covenants, or federal, state, or local 
regulations, and the extent to which these factors influence the long term viability of 
functions provided by the mitigation site; and  
 
and existing and proposed protection provided to the mitigation site by easements, 

The vulnerability of the mitigation to direct impacts, considering its location 

(c) 

The vulnerability of the mitigation to colonization by invasive exotic or 

The vulnerability of the mitigation to the establishment and long-term 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

22 
 

(3) 

(a) 

(b) 

restrictive covenants, or federal, state, or local regulations, and the extent to which 
these measures influence the long term viability of the mitigation site. 
 
The relative gain of functions provided by a mitigation assessment area 
must be adjusted for time lag and risk using the following formula: Relative functional 
gain (RFG) = Mitigation Delta (or adjusted mitigation delta for preservation)/(risk x t-
factor). The loss of functions provided by impact assessment areas is determined using 
the following formula: Functional loss (FL) = Impact Delta x Impact Acres. When the 
acres of a proposed mitigation assessment area is known, the gain in functions 
provided by that mitigation assessment area is determined using the following formula: 
Functional gain (FG) = RFG x Mitigation Acres. 
 
To determine the number of potential mitigation bank credits a bank or 
regional offsite mitigation area can provide, multiply the relative functional gain (RFG) 
times the acres of the mitigation bank or regional offsite mitigation assessment area 
scored. The total amount of credits is the summation of the potential RFG for each 
assessment area.  
 
To determine the number of mitigation bank credits or amount of regional 
offsite mitigation needed to offset impacts, when the bank or regional offsite mitigation 
area is assessed in accordance with this rule, calculate the functional loss (FL) of each 
impact assessment area. The total number of credits required is the summation of the 
calculated functional loss for each impact assessment area. Neither time lag nor risk is 
applied to determining the number of mitigation bank credits or amount of mitigation 
necessary to offset impacts when the bank or regional offsite mitigation area has been 
assessed under this rule.  
 
one assessment area when not using a bank or a regional offsite mitigation area as 
mitigation, divide functional loss (FL) by relative functional gain (RFG). If the acreage of 
proposed mitigation is known, then functional gain (FG) must be equal to or greater than 
the functional loss (FL). 
 
assessment areas with known acreages to offset those impacts, then the summation of 
the appropriate functional gains (FG) must be equal to or greater than the summation of 
the respective functional loss (FL). 
Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.414(9), 373.414(18) FS. Law Implemented 
373.414(18) FS. History  New 2-2-04, Amended 9-12-07. 
 
 
The forms used for the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method are adopted and 
incorporated by reference in this section. The forms are listed by rule number, which is 
also the form number, and with the subject title and effective date. Copies of these 
forms may be obtained by writing to the Department of Environmental Protection, 
Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources, 
MS 2500, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, or any local district 
or branch office of the Department. 
 
 
 

(1) 
(2) 
(3)  Mitigation Determination Formulas, 9-12-07. 

Part I  Qualitative Description, 2-2-04. 
Part II  Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation), 2-2-04. 

(d) 

If there are multiple impact assessment areas and/or multiple mitigation 

(c) 

To determine the acres of one mitigation area needed to offset impacts to 

62-345.900  Forms. 

23 
 

Specific Authority 373.026(7), 373.043, 373.414(9), 373.414(18) FS. Law Implemented 
373.414(18) FS. History  New 2-2-04, Amended 9-12-07. 

24