Stream Mitigation Rule Update
Ohio EPAStream Mitigation RuleDraft Rule OAC 3745-1-56
Presentation to DSW 401 Staff
March 1, 2011
The following people contributed many of the ideas incorporated
into this proposal:
Dan Mecklenburg, ODNR-DSWR
Randy Keitz, ODNR-DMR
Laura Fay, ODNR-DSWR
Steve Tuckerman, Ohio EPA
Roger Thoma
The following people also provide valuable assistance in the
development and review of this model:
Dr. Robert Davic, Brian Gara, Tom Harcarik, Joe Loucek, Mick
Miccachion, Erin Sherer, Mike Galloway, and Mike Smith
The valuable input of all of those who have participated in the
series of stakeholder meetings is also gratefully acknowledged
Acknowledgements
Current Situation
401 Water Quality Certification reviews for stream impacts
conducted under context of the anti-degradation rule in the Ohio
WQS.
Traditionally, linear foot ratios have been used to establish
mitigation requirements.
Currently no codified or standardized procedures for project
review.
3 : 1 ???
1.5 : 1 ??
Preservation?
Restoration??
Consequences
Processing of applications slowed because of case-bycase review
procedures and lack of uniform guidance.
Lack of predictability regarding the awarding of mitigation
credits discourages the development of sound mitigation
projects.
Stream preservation becomes the most desirable mitigation
approach because of costs and availability.
Consequences
Mitigation projects may not adequately compensate for impacts
approved through the 401 process.
Resolution of disputes difficult because of the lack of uniform
policy.
Goals for Rule Development
Rule and protocol should provide predictability and uniformity
to the 401 Water Quality Certification process.
Rule and protocol should emphasize the development of mitigation
proposals which are scientifically sound and durable.
Criteria for approved stream mitigation plans:
provide protection for upstream and downstream beneficial uses;
and
provide appropriate compensation for lost or impaired in-stream
uses
Rule Development History
Draft rules and mitigation protocol circulated for interested
party review Spring 2006
Model developed by the Savannah Corps of Engineers District
modified for Ohio.
Workshops held state-wide during the comment period.
Over 100 sets of comments received
Stakeholder group formed in 2007 to receive further input.
Several group meetings over a one year period.
PHWH use designations added to the WQS rule package in 2008.
Collaboration with Ohio EPA DSW staff and ODNR DSWC staff has
resulted in the current proposed rule.
Stakeholder Process
Tiered mitigation approach
Priorities:
Protection of in-stream and downstream beneficial uses.
Water quality functions vary dependent on stream size and
beneficial uses.
For limited quality waters, protection of downstream uses is the
goal.
For high quality waters, in-stream beneficial uses must be
protected.
Mitigation requirements should be designed to meet goals for
water quality protection.
Refinement of metrics used for debits and credits.
Tiered Mitigation Approach
Tiered Mitigation
Review of 401 Certification Applications
Permitted activities over a three-year period:
15% affect ephemeral or other Limited Quality Water streams
52% affect Class II PHWH or MWH streams
33% affect General High Quality Waters
Significant opportunity for streamlining of the process.
Aquatic Life Use
[OAC 345-1-07(E)]
(undesignated streams)
Tiered Aquatic Life Use
[OAC 345-1-07(F)]
Warmwater Habitat
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(1)]
Exceptional Warmwater Habitat
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(2)]
Modified Warmwater Habitat
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(3)]
Cold Water Habitat
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(4)]
Seasonal Salmonid Habitat
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(5)]
Limited Resource Water (LRW)
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(6)]
Primary Headwater Habitat (PHWH)
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(9)]
Navigation Use
[OAC 345-1-07(H)]
Drainage Use
[OAC 345-1-07(G)]
Modified PHWH
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(9)(d)(iv)]
LRW Acid Mine Drainage
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(6)(a)]
LRW Other, specified
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(6)(c)]
Class I PHWH
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(9)(d)(i)]
Class II PHWH
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(9)(d)(ii)]
Class III PHWH
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(9)(d)(iii)]
LRW Small Drainageway Maintenance
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(6)(b)]
Upland Drainage
[OAC 3745-1-07(G)(1)]
Water Conveyance
[OAC 3745-1-07(G)(2)]
Class I
Class II
Beneficial Stream Uses
Addressed by the Proposed
Stream Mitigation Rule and
Protocol (OAC 3745-1-56)
Native Cold Water Fauna
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(5)(b)(iii)]
Inland Trout Stream
[OAC 3745-1-07(F)(5)(b)(ii)]
Mitigation Category 1
Mitigation Category 2
Mitigation Category 3
Mitigation Category 4
LRW Acid Mine Drainage
QHEI45
Warmwater Habitat
(GHQW)
Cold Water Habitat
Inland Trout
Exceptional Warmwater Habitat
Cold Water Habitat
Native Fauna
Mitigation Requirements
Mitigation Requirements
Flood prone area replacement used as a best management practice
to protect downstream uses. (Anti-degradation exclusion
possible)
Where replacement is not met, off-site mitigation required.
Where practicable, on-site relocation according to protective
criteria (assumed minimal degradation)
Else, off-site mitigation for flood prone area required.
Debit-Credit model used to calculate mitigation
requirements.
Flood prone area, habitat, and woody riparian buffer acreages
used for credits and debits..
Full antidegradation review.
Impacts allowed only after demonstration of maximum avoidance of
impacts and/or public need and socio-economic justification.
Debit-Credit model used to calculate mitigation
requirements.
LRW Other
(case by case)
Stream Mitigation Requirement Summary Based on Mitigation
Category
Warmwater Habitat
(SHQW, OSW, ONRW)
Class III PHWH
Mitigation Design
Premise: The ecological integrity of a stream will be maximized
in its natural state; when best fit to its existing conditions
Design Objective: Minimize the deviation of the new stream from
its natural condition
Mitigation Design
General Design Goals: To protect existing and downstream uses
the goals are tiered based on the mitigation category:
Category Four:
maintain biota, habitat, form, and function
Category Three:
maintain habitat, form, and function
Category Two:
maintain form, function
Category One:
maintain function
Tiered Mitigation Requirements
Version 5, Ohio EPA Stream Mitigation Protocol
Important Definitions
Bankfull Stage: the water elevation at approximately the 1.5
year recurrence interval peak discharge
Area inundated or saturated at bankfull stage is most
critical
Flood Prone Area: area inundated or saturated at 2 times the
maximum depth as measured in a riffle at the bankfull stage
