-
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
