62-345.500. Assessment and Scoring - Part II

(1) Utilizing the frame of reference established in Part I, the information 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.

(a) Current condition or, in the case of preservation mitigation, without 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.

(b) “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.

(c) When the “with impact” outcome is upland, the “with impact” scores for each of the wetland indicators of function shall be zero (0).

(2) Upland mitigation assessment areas shall be scored using the location 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.

(a) For upland preservation, the gain in ecological value is determined by the 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 multiplied by the preservation adjustment factor contained in subsection 62-345.500(3), F.A.C.

(b) For upland enhancement or restoration, the value provided shall be 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.

(c) 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.

(3)(a) When assessing preservation, the “with mitigation” assessment shall 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 area’s 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:

1. The extent to which proposed management activities within the preserve area promote natural ecological conditions such as fire patterns or the exclusion of invasive exotic species.

2. The ecological and hydrological relationship between wetlands, other surface waters, and uplands to be preserved.

3. The scarcity of the habitat provided by the proposed preservation area and the degree to which listed species use the area.

4. 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.

5. The extent and likelihood of potential adverse impacts if the assessment area were not preserved.

(b) The preservation adjustment factor is multiplied by the mitigation delta assigned to the preservation proposal to yield an adjusted mitigation delta for preservation.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) Three categories of indicators of wetland function (location and landscape 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.

(a) 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.

1. 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:

a. Habitats outside the assessment area represent the full range of habitats 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.

b. Invasive exotic or other invasive plant species are not present in the proximity of the assessment area.

c. Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is not limited by distance to these habitats and is unobstructed by landscape barriers.

d. Functions of the assessment area that benefit downstream fish and wildlife are not limited by distance or barriers that reduce the opportunity for the assessment area to provide these benefits.

e. Land uses outside the assessment area have no adverse impacts on wildlife in the assessment area as listed in Part I.

f. The opportunity for the assessment area to provide benefits to downstream or other hydrologically connected areas is not limited by hydrologic impediments or flow restrictions.

g. 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.

h. For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to provide optimal protection of wetland functions.

2. 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:

a. Habitats outside the assessment area are available in sufficient quantity 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.

b. Some of the plant community composition in the proximity of the 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.

c. Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is partially limited, either by distance or by the presence of barriers that impede wildlife movement.

d. Functions of the assessment area that benefit fish and wildlife downstream are somewhat limited by distance or barriers that reduce the opportunity for the assessment area to provide these benefits.

e. Land uses outside the assessment area have minimal adverse impacts on fish and wildlife identified in Part I.

f. 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.

g. Downstream or other hydrologically connected habitats derive significant benefits from discharges from the assessment area and could suffer substantial adverse impacts if the quality or quantity of these discharges were altered.

h. For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to provide significant, but suboptimal, protection of wetland functions.

3. 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:

a. Availability of habitats outside the assessment area is fair, but fails to provide support for some species of wildlife listed in Part I, or provides minimal support for many of the species listed in Part I.

b. The majority of the plant community composition in the proximity of the assessment area consists of invasive exotic or other invasive plant species that adversely affect the functions provided by the assessment area.

c. Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is substantially limited, either by distance or by the presence of barriers which impede wildlife movement.

d. Functions of the assessment area that benefit fish and wildlife downstream are limited by distance or barriers which substantially reduce the opportunity for the assessment area to provide these benefits.

e. Land uses outside the assessment area have significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife identified in Part I.

f. 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.

g. Downstream or other hydrologically connected habitats derive minimal benefits from discharges from the assessment area but could be adversely impacted if the quality or quantity of these discharges were altered.

h. For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to provide minimal protection of wetland functions.

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

a. No habitats are available outside the assessment area to provide any support for the species of wildlife listed in Part I.

b. 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.

c. Wildlife access to and from habitats outside the assessment area is precluded by barriers or distance.

d. Functions of the assessment area that would be expected to benefit fish and wildlife downstream are not present.

e. Land uses outside the assessment area have a severe adverse impact on wildlife in the assessment area as listed in Part I.

f. There is negligible or no opportunity for the assessment area to provide benefits to downstream or other hydrologically connected areas due to hydrologic impediments or flow restrictions that preclude provision of these benefits.

g. Discharges from the assessment area provide negligible or no benefits to downstream or hydrologically connected areas and these areas would likely be unaffected if the quantity or quality of these discharges were altered.

h. For upland mitigation assessment areas, the uplands are located so as to provide no protection of wetland functions.

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

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

a. Water levels and flows appear appropriate, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects.

b. Water level indicators are distinct and consistent with expected hydrologic conditions for the type of system being evaluated.

c. 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.

d. Soil erosion or deposition patterns are not atypical or indicative of altered flow rates or points of discharge.

e. Evidence of fire history does not indicate atypical fire frequency or severity due to excessive dryness.

f. Vegetation or benthic community zonation in all strata are appropriate for the type of system being evaluated and does not indicate atypical hydrologic conditions.

g. Vegetation shows no signs of hydrologic stress such as excessive mortality, leaning or fallen trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease which may be associated with hydrologic stress.

h. Presence or evidence of use by animal species with specific hydrologic requirements is consistent with expected hydrologic conditions for the system being evaluated.

i. 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.

j. Direct observation of standing water indicates no water quality degradation such as discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen.

k. Existing water quality data indicates conditions are optimal for the type of community and would fully support the ecological values of the area.

l. Water depth, wave energy, currents and light penetration are optimal for the type of community being evaluated.

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

b. Water level indicators are not as distinct or as consistent as expected for hydrologic conditions for the type of system being evaluated.

c. Although soil oxidation or subsidence is minimal, soils are drier than expected for the type of system being evaluated, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects.

d. Soil erosion or deposition patterns indicate minor alterations in flow rates or points of discharge.

e. Fire history evidence indicates that fire frequency or severity may be more than expected for the type of system being evaluated, possibly due to dryness.

f. Vegetation or benthic community zonation in some strata is inappropriate for the type of system being evaluated, indicating atypical hydrologic conditions.

g. Vegetation has slightly greater than normal mortality, leaning or fallen trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease which may be associated with some hydrologic stress.

h. Presence or evidence of use by animal species with specific hydrologic requirements is less than expected or species present have more generalized hydrologic requirements.

i. Some of the plant community composition consists of species tolerant of and associated with moderate water quality degradation or alterations in frequency, depth, and duration in inundation or saturation.

j. Direct observation of standing water indicates slight water quality degradation such as discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen.

k. Existing water quality data indicates slight deviation from what is normal, but these variations in parameters, such as salinity or nutrient loading, are not expected to cause more than minimal ecological effects.

l. 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.

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

a. Water levels and flows are moderately higher or lower than appropriate, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects.

b. Water level indicators are not distinct and are not consistent with the expected hydrologic conditions for the type of system being evaluated.

c. Soil moisture has deviated from what is appropriate for the type of system being evaluated, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects. Strong evidence of soil desiccation, oxidation or subsidence is observed.

d. Soil erosion or deposition patterns are strongly atypical and indicative of alterations in flow rates or points of discharge.

e. Fire history evidence indicates that fire frequency or severity may be much more than expected for the type of system being evaluated, possibly due to dryness.

f. Vegetation or benthic community zonation in most strata is inappropriate for the type of system being evaluated, indicating atypical hydrologic conditions.

g. Vegetation has strong evidence of greater than normal mortality, leaning or fallen trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease associated with hydrologic stress.

h. 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.

i. Much of the plant community composition consists of species tolerant of and associated with moderate water quality degradation or alterations in frequency, depth, and duration in inundation or saturation.

j. Direct observation of standing water indicates moderate water quality degradation such as discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen.

k. Existing water quality data indicates moderate deviation from normal for parameters such as salinity or nutrient loading, so that ecological effects would be expected.

l. Water depth, wave energy, currents and light penetration are not well suited for the type of community being evaluated and are expected to cause significant changes in species, age classes and densities.

4. A score of (0) means that the hydrology and water quality does not support the functions and provides no benefits to fish and wildlife. The score is based on reasonable scientific judgment and characterized by a predominance of the following, as applicable:

a. Water levels and flows exhibit an extreme degree of deviation from what is appropriate, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects.

b. Water level indicators are not present or are greatly inconsistent with expected hydrologic conditions for the type of system being evaluated.

c. Soil moisture has deviated from what is appropriate for the type of system being evaluated, considering seasonal variation, tidal cycle, antecedent weather and other climatic effects. Strong evidence of substantial soil desiccation, oxidation or subsidence is observed.

d. Soil erosion or deposition patterns are greatly atypical or indicative of greatly altered flow rates or points of discharge.

e. Fire history indicates great deviation from typical fire frequency or severity, due to extreme dryness.

f. Vegetation or benthic community zonation in all strata is inappropriate for the type of system being evaluated, indicating atypical hydrologic conditions.

g. Vegetation has strong evidence of much greater than normal mortality, leaning or fallen trees, thinning canopy or signs of insect damage or disease which may be associated with hydrologic stress.

h. Presence or evidence of use by animal species with specific hydrologic requirements is lacking and those species present have generalized hydrologic requirements.

i. The plant community composition consists predominantly of species tolerant of and associated with highly degraded water or alterations in frequency, depth, and duration in inundation or saturation.

j. Direct observation of standing water indicates significant water quality degradation such as obvious discoloration, turbidity, or oil sheen.

k. Existing water quality data indicates large deviation from normal for parameters such as salinity or nutrient loading, so that adverse ecological effects would be expected.

l. Water depth, wave energy, currents and light penetration are inappropriate for the type of community (species, age classes and densities) being evaluated.

(c) Community Structure – Each impact and mitigation assessment area is 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.

1. Vegetation and structural habitat – The presence, abundance, health, condition, appropriateness, and distribution of plant communities in surface waters, 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.

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

I. All or nearly all of the plant cover is by appropriate and desirable plant species in the canopy, shrub, or ground stratum.

II. Invasive exotic or other invasive plant species are not present.

III. There is strong evidence of normal regeneration and natural recruitment.

IV. Age and size distribution is typical of the system, with no indication of deviation from normal successional or mortality pattern.

V. The density and quality of coarse woody debris, snag, den, and cavity provide optimal structural habitat for that type of system.

VI. Plants are in good condition, with very little to no evidence of chlorotic or spindly growth or insect damage.

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

VIII. Topographic features, such as refugia ponds, creek channels, flats or hummocks, are present and normal for the area being assessed.

IX. If submerged aquatic plant communities are present, there is no evidence of siltation or algal growth that would impede normal aquatic plant growth.

X. If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and physical structure provide an optimal level of habitat and life history support for fish and wildlife in the associated wetlands or other surface waters.

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

I. Majority of plant cover is by appropriate and desirable plant species in the canopy, shrub, or ground stratum.

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

III. There is evidence of near-normal regeneration or natural recruitment.

IV. Age and size distribution approximates conditions typical of that type of 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.

V. Coarse woody debris, snags, dens, and cavities have either slightly lower than or slightly greater than normal quantity due to deviation from expected age structure or land management.

VI. Plant condition is generally good condition, with little evidence of chlorotic or spindly growth or insect damage.

VII. Land management practices are generally appropriate, but there may be some fire suppression or water control features that have caused a shift in the plant community.

VIII. Topographic features, such as refugia ponds, creek channels, flats or hummocks, are slightly less than optimal for the area being assessed.

IX. In submerged aquatic plant communities, there is a minor degree of siltation or algal growth that would impede normal aquatic plant growth.

X. If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and 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.

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

I. Majority of plant cover is by inappropriate or undesirable plant species in the canopy, shrub, or ground stratum.

II. Majority of the plant cover and presence is comprised of invasive exotic or other invasive plant species.

III. There is minimal evidence of regeneration or natural recruitment.

IV. Age and size distribution is atypical of the system and indicative of permanent deviation from normal successional pattern, with greater than expected amount of dead or dying vegetation.

V. Coarse woody debris, snags, dens, and cavities are either not present or greater than normal because the native vegetation is dead or dying.

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

VII. Land management practices have resulted in partial removal or alteration of natural structures or introduction of some artificial features, such as furrows or ditches.

VIII. Reduction in extent of topographic features, such as refugia ponds, creek channels, flats or hummocks, from what is normal for the area being assessed.

IX. In submerged aquatic plant communities, there is a moderate degree of siltation or algal growth.

X. If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and physical structure provide moderate level of habitat and life history support for fish and wildlife in the associated wetlands or other surface waters.

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

II. High presence and cover by invasive exotic or other invasive plant species.

III. There is no evidence of regeneration or natural recruitment.

IV. High percentage of dead or dying vegetation, with no typical age and size distribution.

V. Coarse woody debris, snags, dens, and cavities are either not present or exist only because the native vegetation is dead or dying.

VI. Overall very poor plant condition, such as highly chlorotic or spindly growth or extensive insect damage.

VII. Land management practices have resulted in removal or alteration of natural structure or introduction of artificial features, such as furrows or ditches.

VIII. Lack of topographic features such as refugia ponds, creek channels, flats or hummocks, that are normal for the area being assessed.

IX. In submerged aquatic plant communities, there is a high degree of siltation or algal growth.

X. If an upland mitigation assessment area, the plant community and physical structure provide little or no habitat and life history support for fish and wildlife in the associated wetland or other surface waters.

2. 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 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.

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

I. The appropriate species number and diversity of benthic organisms are optimal for the type of system.

II. Non-native or inappropriate species are not present and the site is not near an area with such species.

III. Natural regeneration, recruitment, and age distribution are optimal.

IV. Appropriate species are in good condition, with typical biomass.

V. Structural features are typical of the system with no evidence of past physical damage.

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

VII. Spawning or nesting habitats, such as rocky or sandy bottoms, are optimal for the community type.

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

I. Majority of the community is composed of appropriate species; the number and diversity of benthic organisms slightly less than typical.

II. Any non-native or inappropriate species present represent a minority of the community or the site is immediately adjacent to an area with such species.

III. Natural regeneration or recruitment is slightly less than expected.

IV. Appropriate species are in generally good condition, with little reduction in biomass from what is optimal.

V. Structural features are close to that typical of the system, or little evidence of past physical damage.

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

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

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

I. Appropriate species number or diversity of benthic organisms is greatly decreased from typical.

II. Majority of species present is non-native or inappropriate species or the site is immediately adjacent to an area heavily infested by such species.

III. Natural regeneration or recruitment is minimal.

IV. Substantial number of appropriate species are dying or in poor condition, resulting in much lower than normal biomass.

V. Structural features are atypical of the system, or there is evidence of great or long term physical damage.

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

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

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

I. Lack of appropriate species and diversity of those species; any appropriate species present are in poor condition.

II. Non-native or inappropriate species are dominant.

III. There is no indication of natural regeneration or recruitment.

IV. Structural integrity is very low or non-existent, or there is evidence of serious physical damage.

V. Topographic features, such as relief, stability, and interstitial spaces for hardbottom and reef communities or snags and coarse woody debris in riverine systems, are lacking.

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

(7) The Part II score for an impact, wetland, or surface water mitigation 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 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.