Presentation on theme: "Stream Mitigation and the Clean Water Act Sec"— Presentation transcript:
1 Stream Mitigation and the Clean Water Act Sec Stream Mitigation and the Clean Water Act Sec. 401 and 404: Midwest Status
2 Federal Jurisdictional Authority Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899“Navigable waters and their tributaries”Section 404 of the Clean Water Act“Waters of the US”Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 33 part published April 10, 2008
3 Federal Guidelines For Mitigation Emphasizes watershed approach to mitigationRequires measurable and enforceable performance standardsRequires regular monitoring for all types of compensation/mitigationRequires financial assurance and identification of responsible parties for long term protectionEstablishes a preference for the use of mitigation bank credits (wetlands and streams)
4 State AuthoritySection 303 of The Clean Water Act requires all states to have water quality standards for surface waters (e.g., streams, lakes, wetlands)Section 401 of The Clean Water ActFederal Permit or license requires State Water Quality Certification (WQC)WQC certifies the project does not violate State Water Quality StandardsMitigation can be required by state to meet water quality standards and Corps must include as a condition of Federal Permit
5 Stream Mitigation in Kentucky In 2000 the legislature passed KSR which established:- Wetland and stream mitigation fund through KDFWR (an in-lieu fee program)- Northern Kentucky University (in-lieu fee program)- Metropolitan Sewer District Jefferson County (in-lieu fee program)On site (applicant based mitigation)Mitigation Review Team (MRT) – EPA, Corps, KDFWR, KDOW, USFWS- defines conditions under which in-lieu-fees may be used- review and approves individual mitigation projects- provides annual reviews of completed and on-going projects
6 Kentucky Stream Mitigation Guidelines Draft published in 2002- Established criteria for when mitigation necessary- Required data to support relocation projects- Established criteria for stream relocation design- Established physical monitoring requirements- Required Biological monitoring- Described acceptable mitigation types- Provided draft guidance for credit calculations
7 Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont.) Criteria for when mitigation necessaryRequires mitigation for losses over 200 ft.Defines Waters of the Commonwealth as dashed or solid blue lines on recent USGS topographic maps.Partial losses of in-stream habitat, channel armoring, channel widening and deepening, as well as relocations that do not utilize Natural Channel Design principles also require compensationEstablishes “no permanent impact” policy on Outstanding State And National Resource Waters, exceptional Waters, or Coldwater Aquatic Habitat. Any impacts to these waters require individual 401 Certification.
8 Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont.) Required supporting data Fluvial geomorphic principled designIncludes stable planform and profileAppropriate in-stream structureMinimum 25 ft. riparian buffer each sideReference reach if existing channel not stableAll project information and Level II Rosgen data collection and analysisTechnical information on structure(s) to be installed, riparian vegetation, mitigation monitoring & schedule
9 Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont.) General criteria for stream relocation projectsStream relocation implemented according to plans unless prior approval by KDFWRWidening of channel cross section above bankfull only, widening of floodprone area encouragedRevegetation required from bankfull elevation to 25 feet from stream (minimum)4 native shrub/tree 300 live stems per acre required after 3 years
10 Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont.) Physical monitoring requirements Relocation monitoring required for 3-8 years with annual reports, enhancement monitoring less (not defined)As-built survey (channel slope, valley slope, bankfull, cross sections, plan view, monuments)Permanent photographic stationsRiffle and channel pebble countsBar samplesVegetative monitoringHabitat assessment
11 Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont.) Required biological monitoring Use 2008 KDOW “Methods for Assessing Biological integrity of surface waters”Site Characteristics (particle size, morphology, canopy cover)Physiochemical monitoringHabitat assessmentAlgaePhytoplanktonMacroinvertebrates (may include mussels)Fish communityContaminant analysis
12 Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont Kentucky Draft Guidelines (cont.) compensatory guidelines (credit calculations)Linear distance of loss = credits requiredDaylighting + full restoration = 1 credit/ftDaylighting + enhancement = 0.8 credits/ftFull scale restoration = 0.8 credits/ftStream enhancement = credits/ft (riparian, bank stabilization, in-channel work each)Preservation = 0.1 credit/ft
14 Ohio Stream Mitigation Status Authority: Ohio Water Quality Standards chapter 3745 and 6111 of the Ohio Revised CodeOhio EPA is lead agencyGuidelines under development since 2004Draft rules circulated in 2006PHWH use designations added 2008(PHWH = Primary Headwater Habitat)Stakeholder group meeting Sept. 2009
16 Ohio Stream Mitigation Proposed tiered mitigation approach Impacted stream = LRW, LWH, Class I modified PHWH, Class 1 PHWH: no weighting factor for mitigation, requires protection of downstream uses (1:1).Impacted stream = MWH or Class II PHWH: requires relocation project to protect in-stream and downstream uses without a weighting factor or requires simple weighting factor of 3 times LF of impact (2x if impact site was previously modified) for off site mitigation.All other stream types (high quality) detailed weighting factor applied to impact site (next slide).
17 Ohio Draft Weighting Factors for Stream impacts and proposed mitigation
18 Ohio Stream Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Categories LRW(most)Modified PHWHClass I and IIClass I PHWHLRW acid mineDrainage withQHEI > 45LWHClass II PHWHMWHWWHCWHClass III PHWHWWH= OSW,SHQW, ONRWEWHCWH + native faunaStreamTypeOnsitefloodproneareareplacementor offsitemitigationOnsite relocationaccording toprotectivecriteria or offsitemitigation forfloodprone areaDebit-Creditmodel usedto calculatemitigationrequirementsNo impacts w/osocio-economicjustification andmax. avoidance,otherwise debit-creditcalculation appliesMitigationrequirement
19 Ohio Stream Mitigation Stream Credit-Debit Summary Sheet (draft)On site web tool (draft)
21 Indiana – coming Soon… No published guidelines for stream mitigation Three Corps Districts and IDEM to developLouisville District Corps is leadFirst meeting held in October 2009Which state guidelines should Indiana mimic?
23 What is a Stable Channel*? Dimension: depth and width of bankfull channel, and floodprone areaPattern: meander width, length, and curvature of bendsProfile: slope, riffle-run-pool-glide sequence and spacing*IN THE PRESENT CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
24 Dimension: depth and width of bankfull channel, and floodprone area Pattern: meander width, length, and curvature of bendsProfile: slope, riffle-run-pool-glide sequence and spacing
25 Dynamic EquilibriumStable Channels Have a Pattern, Profile, and Dimension All in Stable Equilibrium
26 Channel Evolution Models Schumm, Harvey, and Watson Incised channels: Morphology, dynamics and controlType 1 – Initial Channel condition (stable?)Type II – Channel incision and entrenchment > stream powerType III – Channel widening, less depth and stream powerType IV – Aggradation and building of new floodplainType V – Return to stable dimension, pattern, and profileSimon and HuppStage 1 – Pre-modified stable channelStage 2 – Constructed (u-shaped) channelStage 3 – Degradation (downcutting)Stage 4 – Channel widening and further degradationStage 5 – Aggradation associated with continued wideningStage 6 – Channel Equilibrium (stable dimension, pattern & profile)
28 Rosgen Channel Classification Dr. David Rosgen Applied River MorphologyBased on objective measurable stream characteristics for the primary purpose of providing a consistent frame of reference.Level I - Geomorphic Characterization: considers geology, Valley slope/sinuosity, meander width, channel shape, channel patterns (stream types A-G)Level II - Morphological Description: considers entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, channel slope and sinuosity, and bed materials (modifiers 1-6)Level III - Stream Condition: vegetation, woody debris, deposition patterns, bank erosion potential, current stability of dimension, pattern and profile, bed loadLevel IV - Validation Level: measured values of bedload, suspended sediments, hydraulics
29 LEVEL 1: Valley Types Type I: V-notched (A channels) Type 2: Colluvial (B-channels)Type 3: Alluvial Fans (A,B,G, and D channels)Type 4: Gorge (canyons and other confined channels)
30 Valley Types Continued Type 5: U-shaped glacial valley with developed terraceType 6: Fault controlledType 8: Broad terraced floodplainType 7: Dissected
31 Valley Types Cont.Type 9: Glacial outwash (plains, coastal and tundra areas)Type 10: Coastal floodplain (low slopes with wetland floodplain)
35 What’s the Big Deal? The Rosgen Classification System Provides: Common Language – A C4 stream in Bangladesh should have the same geomorphic characteristics as a C4 in Indiana.Baseline Data Ranges – Allows us to compare our stream data with others working on similar streams and projects.Compare Project Components By Stream Type – What works (or doesn’t) and on what stream type/condition.
36 Importance of Bankfull “Bankfull” – The channel forming flow. Elevation corresponding to point of flooding with a reoccurrence interval of roughly 1.5 years.Single most important stream morphology variable:Determines other data collection parameters.Provides target elevations for structures.Nearly (but NOT) synonymous with OHWM.
37 Importance of Bankfull Bankfull location varies on any given stream.It is sometimes, but not always, the “top of bank”.
38 Rosgen Stream Types “A” and “B” Streams Steep Slopes “A” are typical step-pool streams.“B” are steepest of riffle-pool complex streams.Point bars absentType AType B
39 Rosgen Stream Types “C” Streams Moderate Sinuosity Slightly Entrenched/Regular FloodingPoint Bars PresentCommon Type Throughout MidwestType C
40 Rosgen Stream Types “D” and “DA” Streams High Sinuosity Multiple ChannelsOften Related to Large Rivers and Deltas or glacial outwashType D
41 Rosgen Stream Types “E” Streams High Sinuosity Slightly Entrenched/ Regular Flooding“Classic” Trout StreamType E
42 Rosgen Stream Types “F” Streams Typical of Maintained Ditches Type F“F” StreamsTypical of Maintained DitchesWide and ShallowOften Morphologically Unstable
44 The Reference Reach and Data Utilizing a Reference Reach or Reference Data Provides:Point of Reference – Just like ecosystem restoration…gives a goal “state” to aim.Data Verification – Are my calculations/assumptions/techniques correct?Baseline Data Ranges – Allows comparison.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.