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
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