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