Oregon Stream Mitigation Framework:Driver for RestorationDriver for Restoration

Tracie Nadeau

USEPA R i 10USEPA, Region 10

Peter SkidmorePeter Skidmore

Skidmore Restoration Consultin

River Restoration Northwest 2012

Context

EPA/USACE/Oregon Department of State – EPA/USACE/Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) joint effort to develop a science-based frameworkscience based framework

Agencies have primary responsibility but – Agencies have primary responsibility, but working collaboratively with partners

– New framework within existing regulations

Regulatory Atmosphere Supports Development ofFunction Based Stream Mitigation FrameworkFunction Based Stream Mitigation Framework

USEPA/USACE Compensatory Mitigation Rule - 2008Oregon Removal-Fill Program Rule – 2009

USEPA– For all types of aquatic resources, including

streams

– Focus on ecological significance and watershed approachwatershed approach

– Requires offsetting losses of functions and Requires offsetting losses of functions and services

Desired Outcomes

• Integrate best available science and • Integrate best available science and consider ecological function/processes and watershed approach

USEPApp

• Satisfy needs of partner agencies with overlapping regulatory authoritiesoverlapping regulatory authorities

• Enhance transparency, consistency, timeliness, and effectiveness of regulatory programs

• Promote effective restoration

Elements of Compensatory Mitigationp y g

St f ti t • Stream function assessment – assess credits (restoration outcomes) and d bit (i t)debits (impact)

• Site selection criteria (watershed Site selection criteria (watershed approach)

• Performance Standards (credit release)

Credit/debit accounting (track credits)• Credit/debit accounting (track credits)

Existing Frameworks LimitedgReliance on condition (structure) for assessment and accounting

Lacking:

• Stream function assessment tool for Stream function assessment tool for credit (mitigation)/debit (impact) assessment

• Defined watershed approach

• Function-based accounting

Addressing LimitationsgTransition from available science to

implementable, function-based framework

1) Stream classification system• Stream types that reflect characteristic St ea types t at e ect c a acte st c

expected functions for each type• Basis of rapid function assessment

t lprotocol

2) Function assessment method2) Function assessment method• Site specific assessment

Challenges

Assessment must be rapid, consistent, and repeatable

Determining Jurisdiction ‘Watershed approach’ dependent

on existing informationon existing information

Limited by the current state-of-h ithe-science

Stream FunctionsCATEGORY Hydrologic Geomorphic Biologic Chemical/NutrientCATEGORY Hydrologic Geomorphic Biologic Chemical/Nutrient

Surface S di t M i t i

ON

S

Water Storage

Sediment Continuity

Maintain Biodiversity Nutrient Cycling

FUN

CTI

O

Sub/surface Transfer

Substrate Mobility

Create Habit Aquatic/Riparian

Chemical Regulation

Flow Variation

Sustain Tropic Structure

Relevance; utility; multi-functionality

Stream Classification System Development

INITIAL REVISED

Analyzed Existing Classifications Considered Spatial Hierarchy

Parameter Selection Criteria Statewide Consistent across watersheds

Refined Selection Criteria Transparent Consistent w/policy intentCo s ste t ac oss ate s eds

Available , mappable data layers Rapid and automated

Co s s e /po cy e Appropriate data resolution

Classification FrameworkIn Progress

Hi hi l t d • Hierarchical – stream order organizational principle

• Dualistic – local (reach) and watershed (integrative)watershed (integrative)

• Hydrologic, geologic drivers of stream functions

Expandable• Expandable

Wigington et al. 2012, Oregon Hydrologic Landscapes, in review

Next Steps

Classification System• Spring 2012 - theory• Summer/Fall 2012 - practice

Function Assessment Method*• Spring 2013 – field testSpring 2013 field test

Stream Mitigation Framework• Policy development – parallel• Winter 2014 - ‘80% commonly

permitted’permitted

In Summary

Compensatory mitigation is a driver for restoration actions

Existing stream mitigation approaches not providing consistent successnot providing consistent success

To meet CWA/R-F goals, Framework To meet CWA/R F goals, Framework must promote effective restoration considering functional replacement

Acknowledgments

Alison Aldous Leslie Bach Bob Bilby Alison Aldous, Leslie Bach, Bob Bilby, Pete Bisson, Renee Brooks, Janine Castro, Randy Comeleo, Jaimee Davis, Dana Hicks, Randy Comeleo, Jaimee Davis, Dana Hicks, Sara Howard, Sherri Johnson, Chris Jordan, Jimmy Kagan, Gwen Kittel, Greg Koonce, y g , , g ,Scott Leibowitz, Kelly Moore, Julian Olden, Sopan Patil, Michael Schindel, Andy Selle, p yDan Sobota, David Stagliano, Jim Wigington