Stream Mitigation Standards July 22, 2015 George Kelly Company Snapshot Overview Mission Mission • RES is the premier provider of ecological offset solutions in the US Resource Environmental Solutions develops and supplies ecological offsets to help companies obtain required permits for unavoidable project-related impacts to wetlands, streams and habitats. • Founded in 2007 • Operations in 9 states across the Appalachian, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast and Gulf Coast regions • 110 mitigation sites permitted/in process We help clients proactively manage risk from operations in environmentally sensitive areas by providing proactive project impact analyses, streamlining permitting processes, and limiting liability and regulatory exposure. • Conservation easements protecting roughly 400 sites • 32,000 restored wetland acres • 4,000 acres of custom mitigation solutions • 155 miles of stream restoration • Reduced over 240 tons of nutrients • Rehabilitated and preserved over 3,700 acres of endangered species habitat • 100 Energy industry clients 2 Ecological Offset Solutions Offsets Available Stream Wetland Nutrients PA Species OH MD Buffer WV KY Success History Zero project site failures Zero site violations or infractions NC SC MS AL GA LA TX Achieved all success criteria, performance monitoring and reporting requirements Knowledge of local regulator preferences Coordination with multiple regulatory agencies and NGOs Offsets are local to both HUC district and impacted habitat DE VA TN AR FL NJ Stream Methodologies - Overview • 13 states currently have formalized stream mitigation programs • 32 stream mitigation guidance documents and policies have been developed • 19% of all approved mitigation banks provide stream credits • Nationwide, more than an estimated $2.9 Billion/year is spent on mitigation Stream Methodologies Reviewed District Wilmington Fort Worth Norfolk Omaha Omaha Pittsburgh/Huntington *As of 06/07/2015 State Method (Name) Method (Type) North Carolina Texas Virginia Montana Wyoming West Virginia NC Ratio TXRAM USM MTSMP WSMP SWVM Ratio Conditional Conditional Conditional Conditional Functional Number of Stream Mitigation Banks w/ Available Credits* 16 17 47 7 1 4 4 U.S. Army Corps Districts 5 Stream Mitigation Banks w/ Available Credits 6 Stream Methodology Example Locations 7 Mitigation Plan Requirements 12 Steps Required under the 2008 Mitigation Rule • Objectives • Maintenance Plan • Site Selection • Performance Standards • Site Protection Instrument • Monitoring Requirements • Baseline Information • Long-Term Management Plan • Determination of Credits • Adaptive Management Plan • Mitigation Work Plan • Financial Assurance 8 Typical Project Monitoring Requirements Monitoring is required with each mitigation project to determine the degree of success achieved in meeting the objectives of the site, i.e. proper channel function, increased habitat quality, increased water quality, etc.. As Built Survey • Upon project completion Districts typically require an as-built report detailing the final specifications of the project. Performance Standards • Ecologically Driven – Often must prove an increase in the functional or conditional score of a project over time to continue to receive credit releases. Timeframe • Streams may be monitored between 3-10 years depending on the project and the USACE District requirements. Reports • Submittal of annual or bi-annual monitoring reports to the USACE documenting the progress of the mitigation site. 9 Wilmington District – Ratio Method Stream Crediting Ratios Mitigation Type Ratio Description Restoration 1:1 Converting unstable, altered, or degraded stream corridors, including adjacent riparian zone and flood-prone areas, to natural stable conditions. Enhancement 1 1:1 to 1.5:1 Improvements to the stream channel and riparian zone that restores dimension and profile. Enhancement 2 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 Preservation 5:1 Augmentation to channel stability, water quality and stream ecology in accordance with a reference condition. Protection of ecologically important streams in perpetuity through appropriate legal mechanisms. *The Wilmington District has issued new guidance, the NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM), a functional model that they began to utilize for internal permit reviews in April, 2015. NC SAM is not currently required for new permit applications, however the assessment may still be performed. 10 Wilmington Ratio Method cont’d… Mitigation Site Selection Criteria 1. Mitigation should be within one stream order of the impacted stream, within the same subbasin, and as close to the impacted streams possible. 2. Mitigation should be performed on streams with similar habitat designations (cold, cool and warm-water). 3. Mitigation should be performed within the same Physiographic Region. Priority will be given to mitigation sites that have the potential to improve habitat for T&E species. Stream Debiting Ratios Stream Condition Excellent Good Poor to Fair Ratio 3:1 2:1 1:1 The higher the quality of the existing channel to be impacted, the greater the amount of mitigation required 11 Fort Worth District – TXRAM Stream Module Core Elements Metrics Floodplain Connectivity Channel Condition Bank Condition Sediment Deposition Riparian Buffer Condition Hydrologic Condition In-Stream Condition Riparian Buffer (Left and Right) Flow Regime Channel Flow Status In-Stream Habitat Substrate Composition TXRAM: Overview • Conditional Model: Allows for rapid, qualitative measurement of overall stream condition • Each core element accounts for 25% of the overall score (0-100) • Each metric is scored based on quick observations in the field supplemented with desktop analysis • Metrics are scored for every Stream Assessment Reach (SAR), which is determined by similar stream extents with consistent channel, buffer, and in-stream characteristics • Scoring sheets are provided for use in the field and recording/calculating metric and overall scores for each SAR • TXRAM scores can be inferred for large projects if multiple streams are very similar, or access is limited 12 Fort Worth District – Stream Mitigation Method • When and where credits are available, a minimum of 50% of the required mitigation must be purchased through “in-channel” credits as opposed to stream credits or riparian buffer credits • Mitigation Banks are clearly listed as the preferred method for compensatory mitigation • To emphasize in-kind mitigation: □ Perennial and intermittent impacts must be offset with in-kind credits □ Ephemeral impacts can be offset with only ephemeral or intermittent credits In-Channel Credits Credits earned from a SAR where >50% of the overall lift score comes from the 3 in-channel Core Elements: • Channel Condition • In-Stream Condition • Hydrologic Condition Stream Credits Riparian Buffer Credits Most commonly - existing stream credits, prior to the implementation of the TXRAM Model Credits earned or lift generated from riparian work performed on a given SAR (Core Element: Riparian Buffer Condition). 13 Virginia/Norfolk District - USM Step 1: Stream Impact Site Assessment Variables Channel Condition (1-3) Riparian Buffer (0.5-1.5) In-Stream Habitat (0.5-1.5) RCI = Sum of All Condition Indices/5 Channel Alteration (0.5-1.5) Length of Stream Assessment Reach (Linear Feet) Step 3: Calculate Compensation Requirement (CR) CR = RCI x IF x LF Step 2: Stream Impact Factor Assessment Impact Factor (IF) (0-1) 1 - Severe Impact .75 – Significant Impact .5 – Moderate Impact 0 – Negligible Impact 14 Virginia USM cont’d… Step 4: Determine Compensation Credit (CC) Compensation Activity Restoration 1 credit per foot Enhancement 0.09 to 0.3 credits per foot Riparian Areas 0 to 0.4 credits per foot Adjustment Factor CC = SUM (Compensation Activity Credit + Adjustment Factor Credit) Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 0.1 – 0.3 credits per foot Livestock Exclusion 0.1 – 0.3 credits per foot Watershed Prevention 0.1 – 0.3 credits per foot Final Step: Prove total CC is greater than or equal to total CR 15 Montana Stream Mitigation Procedure - MTSMP Factors Stream Type Stream Status Existing Condition Dominant Impact Cumulative Impact Comparative Stream Order of Mitigation Site Location of Mitigation Site Legal Protection on Mitigation Site Mitigation Timing Sum of Factors Multipliers Intermittent: 0.3 Ephemeral: 0.2 All Others: 0.25 Impaired: 0.25 Somewhat Impaired: 0.75 Bank Stabilization: .2-1 Morphologic: 1.5 Channelization: 2.0 Impound: 2.0 ≤1,000 LF: 0.0005 x LF of Impact 1,001 to 3,000 : 0.00075 x LF of Impact Same Order: 0.0 1 Order Difference: 0.10 On Site: 0.0 Off-site: 0.10 Covenant: 0.15 Deed Restriction: 0.10 Conservation Easement: 0.05 Prior to Impacts: 1.0 Concurrent with Impacts: 1.25 Mitigation Timing Linear Feet of Impact Perennial: 0.6 High Resource Value: 0.75 Fully Functional: 1.5 Pipe: 2.2 Fill: 2.5 >3,000 LF: 0.001 x LF of Impact ≥2 Order of Difference: 0.2 Outside Watershed: 0.2 Fee Title: 0.00 After Impacts: 1.5 Total Debits 16 MTSMP cont’d… Credit Calculations Factors Multipliers Buffer Width Width of R. Buffer Preserved ÷ 100 Remove Disturbance to Riparian Buffer 0.5 Fence Around Buffer 0.5 Re-vegetate Riparian Buffer 1.0 x % of buffer re-vegetated Micro Topography in Floodplain 0.5 Addition of Woody Debris in Floodplain 0.5 Management of Invasive Species 0.5 Removal of Riprap Below Ordinary High Water 1.0 x % of Riprap removed Removal of Floodplain Fill 1.0 x % of fill removed Restoration of Channel Morphology 1 (both sides will earn 1 as a multiplier) Total Credits must be ≥ Sum of Factors Linear Feet of Mitigation Total Credits Total Debits • Calculations are run independently for each side of the stream reach (each reach will receive credit for both the left and the right side). • Credits for removal of fish passage barriers, acquisition of water leases, culvert removal, placement of in-stream habitat features, specific measures to reduce pollution, and other habitat or water quality improvements will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 17 Wyoming Stream Mitigation Procedure- WSMP Stream Losses (Debits) Factors Stream Classification Special Resources Existing Conditions Type of Loss Cumulative Impact Multipliers Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1 B A D C or B D Class 1 A, AB or B 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 2 Red Ribbon: 0.6 Conservation: 1.0 Blue Ribbon: 1.0 Wild & Scenic: 1.5 T&E Species: 2.0 Non-Functional: 0.5 Deficient: 1.5 Functional: 2 Partial Functional Loss: 1.0 Functional Loss: 4.0 Physical Loss: 6.0 Multiply total length of all stream disturbances x 0.005 Debits = Sum of Debit Factors x Linear Feet of Impact Mitigation Measures (Credits) Factors Multipliers Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1 Stream Classification B A D C or B D Class 1 A, AB or B 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 2 Special Resources Red Ribbon: 0.6 Conservation: 1.0 Blue Ribbon: 1.0 Wild & Scenic: 1.5 T&E Species: 2.0 Riparian Buffer Total Width of Riparian Buffers ÷ 100 (+0.3 for both sides) Net Riparian Improvement Minimal: 0.2 Moderate: 0.7 Substantial: 2.5 Net Stream improvement Minimal: 1.5 Moderate: 3.5 Substantial: 5.0 Type of Protection Deed Restriction: 0.5 Permittee Easement: 1.0 Agency Owned: 1.0 Conservation Easement: 3.0 Fee Title: 5.0 Timing Schedule 3: -1.5 Schedule 2: 0.0 Schedule 1: 4.0 Location Outside Watershed: -1.0 Off-Site HUC 8: 0.0 Off-Site HUC 10: 0.2 On-Site 0.4 Watershed Approach 1.5 Credits = Sum of Mitigation Factors x Linear Feet of Mitigation 18 West Virginia - SWVM 50% Baseline Components HGM* 50% Physical Chemical Biological *Exclude if: -Perennial Stream -Slope <4% • USEPA RPB • Conductivity, pH, DO • WVSCI Debit Credit Using the SWVM worksheet, calculate values at the impact site to determine an “Index” for the stream reach, and using the stream length (L.F.) a “Unit Score”. Calculate the same values for the mitigation site at present time (existing conditions), a 5 year outlook, 10 year outlook, and at maturity. Other factors are considered in determining the appropriate amount of compensatory mitigation: □ Temporal Loss-Construction: Additional mitigation is required if there is a time lapse between impact and mitigation construction. □ Temporal Loss-Maturity: Additional mitigation is required if there is a time lapse between impact and mitigation maturity. □ Extent of Stream Restoration: Level I Restoration – 100% incentive, Level II – 75%, Level III – 50% □ Extended Stream Buffer Zone Width: Incentive for revegetation, supplemental planting and preservation within 0-300’ of the stream bank. □ Long-term Protection: Additional mitigation required for any non permanent mitigation projects 19 Conclusions • The number of stream mitigation banks and the use of stream mitigation in the United States is rapidly growing • Standards are evolving towards a more functional approach, however simplicity is preferred, and often methods are based on a judgement call in the field • Functional approaches rely heavily on type of mitigation practices with preference for restoration • Credits are typically blended • There is often little consistency in the application of stream methodologies to both stream impacts and mitigation between neighboring districts • Markets will vary in pricing and other factors as a result of the stream assessment method that is in place for a specific geographic region 20 Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC http://www.res.us Houston Baton Rouge Lafayette Pittsburgh Richmond Charlotte Raleigh Oak Hill Baltimore Camden website wetlands photo here
© Copyright 2025 Paperzz