Savannah District s Revised SOP: Moving Towards A Functional Approach. US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG

Similar documents
Appendix K.2: Sediment Management Excerpt from South Orange County Hydromodification Management Plan

Lower South Fork McKenzie River Floodplain Enhancement Project

Assessment. Assessment

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DISTRICT 3-0

WV WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PILOT PROJECT

3.11 Floodplains Existing Conditions

Birch Creek Geomorphic Assessment and Action Plan

Chapter 3 - White Oak River Subbasin Includes Bogue Sound and the Newport River

NEWS RELEASE UNDER SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (33 USC 1344) ACTION NUMBER SPA ABQ

The Refugia Concept: Using Watershed Analysis to Prioritize Salmonid Habitat for Conservation and Restoration

Stormwater Guidelines and Case Studies. CAHILL ASSOCIATES Environmental Consultants West Chester, PA (610)

How Do Human Impacts and Geomorphological Responses Vary with Spatial Scale in the Streams and Rivers of the Illinois Basin?

Conceptual Model of Stream Flow Processes for the Russian River Watershed. Chris Farrar

Puakea, Hawaiÿi. Puakea, Hawaiÿi WATERSHED FEATURES

Modeling Post-Development Runoff and Channel Impacts from Hydromodification: Practical Tools for Hydromodification Assessment

EAGLES NEST AND PIASA ISLANDS

Arkansas Highway Transportation Department (AHTD) PO Box 2261 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Addressing the Impact of Road-Stream Crossing Structures on the Movement of Aquatic Organisms

Native species (Forbes and Graminoids) Less than 5% woody plant species. Inclusions of vernal pools. High plant diversity

SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR VERIFICATION OF CORPS JURISDICTION

CR AAO Bridge. Dead River Flood & Natural Channel Design. Mitch Koetje Water Resources Division UP District

Potential Restorable Wetlands (PRWs):

Roger Andy Gaines, Research Civil Engineer, PhD, P.E.

Southwest LRT Habitat Analysis. May 2016 Southwest LRT Project Technical Report

Appendix I: The Summit-at-Snoqualmie Master Development Plan Proposal FEIS Physical and Biological Resource Data Tables

Keanahalululu Gulch, Hawaiÿi

Special Public Notice

Columbia Estuary Province

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA

Appendix I. Dredged Volume Estimates. Draft Contractor Document: Subject to Continuing Agency Review

Case Study 2: Twenty-mile Creek Rock Fords

Distinct landscape features with important biologic, hydrologic, geomorphic, and biogeochemical functions.

Lower Snake River Programmatic Sediment Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

!"#$%&&'()*+#$%(,-./0*)%(!

Implementing a Project with 319 Funds: The Spring Brook Meander Project. Leslie A. Berns

STREUVER FIDELCO CAPPELLI, LLC YONKERS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT For: PALISADES POINT

Project Delivery Team Meeting. December 14, Trusted Partners Delivering Value Today for a Better Tomorrow

Use of benthic invertebrate biological indicators in evaluating sediment deposition impairment on the Middle Truckee River, California

Summary Description Municipality of Anchorage. Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas Project

Minimum Standards for Wetland Delineations

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT YATES ASH POND 2 (AP-2) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

Island Design. UMRS EMP Regional Workshop. Presentation for the

Changes in Texas Ecoregions

Stream Ecological Assessment in Virginia Using INSTAR. Greg Garman Leonard Smock Stephen McIninch William Shuart Virginia Commonwealth University

Appendix E: Cowardin Classification Coding System

APPENDIX A REACH DECRIPTIONS. Quantico Creek Watershed Assessment April 2011

Section B - Chapter 13 Neuse River Subbasin Bay River and Pamlico Sound

GRAPEVINE LAKE MODELING & WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Chris Lenhart, John Nieber, Ann Lewandowski, Jason Ulrich TOOLS AND STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING CHANNEL EROSION IN MINNESOTA

Four Mile Run Levee Corridor Stream Restoration

Land Use Methods & Metrics Development Outcome

Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program Update

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

In order to give all interested parties an opportunity to express their views

Factors influencing nutrient and sediment retention by riverine wetlands in the Chesapeake watershed Greg Noe, Cliff Hupp, Ed Schenk, Nancy Rybicki

Version TNW Only 1 of 3

Heather Schlosser Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Studies Group August 28, 2008

United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Northeast Region

GOAL 7 AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.

This Powerpoint presentation summarizes the use of NetMap for a Fire Decision Support System. Created on Sept 25, 2015 by Dr. Lee Benda and Kevin

Woodstock, Route 26 Stream Relocation Project

Riparian Assessment. Steps in the right direction... Drainage Basin/Watershed: Start by Thinking Big. Riparian Assessment vs.

Limitation to qualitative stability indicators. the real world is a continuum, not a dichotomy ~ 100 % 30 % ~ 100 % ~ 40 %

Section 4: Model Development and Application

One Hilltop, Three Major Watersheds!

Ecological Land Cover Classification For a Natural Resources Inventory in the Kansas City Region, USA

Regional Sediment Management

Assessing Michigan s Biological diversity. Michigan Natural Features Inventory MSU Extension

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUILDING STRONG LOS ANGELES DISTRICT

7.34 Spartina (Spartina anglica)

A Comprehensive Inventory of the Number of Modified Stream Channels in the State of Minnesota. Data, Information and Knowledge Management.

Opportunities to Improve Ecological Functions of Floodplains and Reduce Flood Risk along Major Rivers in the Puget Sound Basin

Remote Sensing and Geospatial Application for Wetlands Mapping, Assessment, and Mitigation

December 16, Mr. Lee Hughes Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa Service Office 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, FL 33637

Use of Remote Sensing and GIS for Wetland, Riparian, and Watershed Assessment, Restoration, and Monitoring

Natural Shoreline Landscapes on Michigan Inland Lakes

ADDRESSING GEOMORPHIC AND HYDRAULIC CONTROLS IN OFF-CHANNEL HABITAT DESIGN

Wetland & Floodplain Functional Assessments and Mapping To Protect and Restore Riverine Systems in Vermont. Mike Kline and Laura Lapierre Vermont DEC

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

What is a watershed or landscape perspective?

Mobrand to Jones and Stokes. Sustainable Fisheries Management Use of EDT

Improvement of the National Hydrography Dataset for Parts of the Lower Colorado Region and Additional Areas of Importance to the DLCC

Information Paper. Kansas City District. Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project Jim and Olivia Hare Wildlife Area, MO

Hydrology and Hydraulics Design Report. Background Summary

Stream Geomorphology. Leslie A. Morrissey UVM July 25, 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued)

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Cannon River Watershed 2017 Zonation Update Clarification

ODFW AQUATIC INVENTORY PROJECT RESTORATION MONITORING STREAM HABITAT REPORT. Peggy Kavanagh, Trevan Cornwell TOLEDO SOUTH Coast Range Lora Tennant

NODE. Reconnaissance Inventory of Wetland and Sedimentation Basin Sites New and Alamo Rivers Volume lof2

Chapter 4 French Broad River Subbasin Including the: French Broad River, Little Ivy Creek (River), Ivy Creek, California Creek and Bull Creek

Stream Restoration and Environmental River Mechanics. Objectives. Pierre Y. Julien. 1. Peligre Dam in Haiti (deforestation)

Application of an Enhanced, Fine-Scale SWAT Model to Target Land Management Practices for Maximizing Pollutant Reduction and Conservation Benefits

Wetlands and Riparian Mapping Framework Technical Meeting

3/3/2013. The hydro cycle water returns from the sea. All "toilet to tap." Introduction to Environmental Geology, 5e

Session C1 - Applying the Stream Functions Pyramid to Geomorphic Assessments and Restoration Design

Transcription:

Savannah District s Revised SOP: Moving Towards A Functional Approach US Army Corps of Engineers

Agenda SOP Revision Concept New Aquatic Resource Credit Types New Urban Mitigation Service Area Filter

Background on Savannah District s Mitigation Program As a result of the 2008 Mitigation Rule (the Rule), Savannah District initiated an internal audit of the District s Mitigation Program in 2009. As a result of this internal audit, Savannah District outlined a three part plan to bring the Mitigation Program into closer alignment with the requirements of the Rule. This approach included revising the following policy components: Mitigation Banking Guidelines (the Guidelines ) for Georgia, dated March 2006. In-Lieu-Fee Program s Banking Instrument. Standard Operating Procedure for Compensatory Mitigation (SOP), dated June 7, 2004.

Savannah District Guidelines The Guidelines are the Savannah District s interpretation of the New Mitigation Rule (33 CFR 332). Guidelines included the development of comprehensive Monitoring Metrics & Performance Standards (Appendix 10). During the development of Guidelines, Savannah District began to conceptualize a revision of the SOP that would compliment Appendix 10. This revision would transition the District s mitigation approach from an activity focused methodology to a functional based methodology.

Why Change The Approach? According to the Rule, the amount of required compensatory mitigation must be, to the extent practicable, sufficient to replace lost aquatic resource functions. In cases where appropriate functional or condition assessment methods or other suitable metrics are available, these methods should be used where practicable to determine how much compensatory mitigation is required. In response to comments encouraging USACE to use functional assessments to determine mitigation requirements, Savannah District set out to develop its own functional assessment methodology for calculating mitigation.

2004 SOP Wetland Adverse Impact Worksheet Factor Options Dominant Effect Fill 2.0 Dredge 1.8 Impound 1.6 Drain 1.4 Flood 1.2 Clear 1.0 Shade 0.5 Duration of Effects 7+ years 2.0 5-7 years 1.5 3-5 years 1.0 1-3 years 0.5 < 1 year 0.1 Existing Condition Class 1 2.0 Class 2 1.5 Class 3 1.0 Class 4 0.5 Class 5 0.1 Lost Kind Kind A 2.0 Kind B 1.5 Kind C 1.0 Kind D 0.5 Kind E 0.1 Preventability High 2.0 Moderate 1.0 Low 0.5 None 0 Rarity Ranking Rare 2.0 Uncommon 0.5 Common 0.1 These factors are determined on a case-by-case basis.

2004 SOP Wetland Restoration Worksheet Factor Options Net Improvement Minimal Enhancement Complete Restoration Vegetation 0.1 to 1.4 Net Improvement Minimal Enhancement Complete Restoration Hydrology 0.1 to 1.4 Credit Schedule Schedule 5 0 Schedule 4 0.1 Schedule 3 0.2 Schedule 2 0.3 Kind Category 2 0.2 Maintenance Monitoring and Contingencies Plan Control High 0 N/A 0 RC 0.1 Category 1 0.6 Moderate 0.1 Minimum 0.1 RC + CE or GPP 0.3 Low 0.2 Moderate 0.2 RC + CE + GPP 0.5 None 0.3 Substantial 0.3 Schedule 1 0.4 Excellent 0.4

2004 SOP Wetland Preservation Worksheet Factor Options Degree of Threat None 0 Low 0.1 Moderate 0.3 High 0.5 Kind Category 2 0.2 Category 1 0.6 Control RC 0.1 RC + CE or GPP 0.3 RC + CE + GPP 0.5

2004 SOP Stream Impact Worksheet Factors Options Stream Type Impacted Intermittent 0.1 Perennial Stream > 15 in width 0.4 Perennial Stream < 15 in width 0.8 Priority Area Tertiary 0.5 Secondary 0.8 Primary 1.5 Existing Condition Fully Impaired 0.25 Somewhat Impaired 0.5 Fully Functional 1.0 Duration Temporary 0.05 Recurrent 0.1 Permanent 0.2 Dominant Impact Shade/ Clear 0.05 Utility X-ing 0.4 Bank Armor 0.7 Detention 1.5 Stream Crossing (< 100 ) 1.7 Impound 2.7 Morphologic Change 2.7 Pipe >100 3.0 Fill 3.0 Scaling Factor (Based on # linear feet impacted) < 100 impact 0 100-200 impact 0.05 201-500 impact 0.1 501-1000 impact 0.2 > 1000 impact 0.4 for each 1000 feet of impact (round impacts to the nearest 1000 ) (example: 2,200 of impact scaling factor = 0.8; 2,800 of impact scaling factor 1.2)

2004 SOP Stream Channel Restoration Worksheet Factors Net Benefit Options All proposals must include at least a 25 riparian buffer on both banks Buffers >50 +2 /%slope also may generate riparian credit (use see buffer worksheet) Streambank Stabilization Structure Removal Stream Channel Restoration and Stream Relocation Monitoring/ Contingency 2.0 4.0 to 8.0 Minimal (Required) 0 Moderate 0.3 Priority 4 1.0 Substantial 0.4 Priority 3 4.0 Priority 1 or 2 8.0 Excellent 1.0 Priority Area Tertiary 0.05 Control RC on restored channel and 25 buffer (Required) 0.1 Mitigation Timing Schedule 3 0 Secondary 0.2 Required RC + CE or GPP 0.3 Schedule 2 (Use for all banks) 0.1 Primary 1.0 Required RC + CE + GPP 0.5 Schedule 1 0.5

2004 SOP Stream Riparian Restoration Worksheet Factors Net Benefit - select value for each stream side System Credit Condition 1 System Credit Condition 2 M&C - select value for each stream side Options Riparian Restoration/Habitat Improvement/Preservation Factors MBW = Minimum Buffer Width = 50 +2 /% slope Select Values from Table 1 Condition 1: MWB restored or protected on both streambanks To Calculate Value: Average of the Net Benefit values for Stream Side A and RC Placed on Channel 0.05 Mimimal (Required) 0 Moderate 0.2 Stream Side B RC and CE Placed on Channel 0.1 Substantial 0.25 Excellent 0.3 Priority Area Tertiary 0.05 Secondary 0.2 Primary 0.7 Control RC on restored channel and 25 buffer (Required) 0.1 Required RC + CE or GPP 0.3 Required RC + CE + GPP 0.5 Mitigation Timing - select value for each stream side Schedule 3 0 Schedule 2 (Use for all banks) 0.05 Schedule 1 0.15

2011 SOP Concept For impacts and restoration, the first step is to determine how much function does the aquatic resource currently have (i.e., a functional assessment of existing conditions). Once the existing condition is determined, then you can calculate the appropriate functional loss or gain from the baseline score dependent upon the proposal. The existing conditions, impacts, and restoration worksheets are structured to follow the 3 factor approach in Appendix 10 of the Guidelines.

2011 SOP Existing Conditions (Streams) I. Background Information FUNCTIONAL SCORESHEET - STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) Date: December 11, 2011 USACE Project #: SAS-2011-00010 Stream Name: Stream 1 Formal Stream Name: List stream name (if named trib.) Stream Type: 1st and 2nd Order Perennial Stream Coordinates: Latitude - 34.00000 N Longitude - 84.00000 W County: Forsyth County Name of Nearest Downstream Trib.: List tributary name 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code: 03150104 Etowah River 12-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code: 031501041504 Level III Eco-Region: Piedmont (45) Level IV Eco-Region: Southern Outer Piedmont (45b)

2011 SOP Existing Conditions (Streams) II. Physical Functions Channel Dimension (Bank Height Ratio): 1.00 to < 1.20 1.00 Channel Dimension (Entrenchment Ratio): > 2.2 1.00 Channel Pattern and Profile (Pool to Pool Spacing Ratio): > 4.0 to 5.0 1.00 Channel Stability (BEHI Score): Very Low 1.00 Mean Physical Score (Phys score ): 1.00

2011 SOP Existing Conditions (Streams) III. Chemical Functions Temperature: 90 F and below 1.00 DO: 4 mg/l (warm water) or 5 mg/l (cold water) 1.00 ph: 6.0 to 8.5 1.00 Turbidity: 0 to 50 NTU 1.00 Supplementary Variable #1: Fecal Coliform Meets EPD Criteria 1.00 Supplementary Variable #2: Choose Supplementary Chemical Var. Choose Water Quality Cat. Index Value Supplementary Variable #3: Choose Supplementary Chemical Var. Choose Water Quality Cat. Index Value Supplementary Variable #4: Choose Supplementary Chemical Var. Choose Water Quality Cat. Index Value Mean Chemical Score (Chemscore): 1.00

2011 SOP Existing Conditions (Streams) IV. Biological Functions A. Riparian Buffer and Landscape Analysis: Index % Cumulative Index Riparian Buffer Comp.: Reference Standard Vegetation 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 1.00 Riparian Buffer Structure: Index % Cumulative Index Stand older than 40 years 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 1.00 Percent Relative Cover of Invasive Species: Index % Cumulative Index 0% Invasive Cover 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 BUILDING 100.00 STRONG 1.00

2011 SOP Existing Conditions (Streams) Localized Drainage Basin Condition: B. In-Stream Biological Analysis: Index % Cumulative Index Forest and Native Range - > 75% ground cover 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 1.00 Macro-Invertebrate Site Index Scores: Excellent 1.00 Fish Index of Biological Integrity Scores (IBI): Excellent 1.00 Habitat Assessment Scores: Optimal 1.00 Biological Surrogate Option: No Mean Biological (Bioscore): 1.00

2011 SOP Existing Conditions (Streams) V. Summary Existing Conditions Score Phys score = 1.00 Chem score = 1.00 Bio score = 1.00 Total Mean Existing Condition Score = Phys score + Chem score + Bio score / 3 = 1.00

2011 SOP Impact Index (Streams) STREAM IMPACT SCORESHEET I. Background Date: December 11, 2011 USACE Project #: SAS-2011-00010 Stream Name: Stream 1 Stream Type: 1st and 2nd Order Perennial Stream Impact Size: 300.00 l.f.

2011 SOP Impact Index (Streams) II. Primary Impact Index Total Mean Existing Condition Score: 1.00 Impact Category: Fill/Pipe 1.00 Impact Duration: > 7 years 1.00 Mean Primary Impact Score: 1.00

2011 SOP Impact Index (Streams) III. Secondary Impact Index (On Remaining Stream Resources) Secondary Impacts (Following Impact): Yes Remaining Stream Existing Condition Score: 1.00 Secondary Impact Type:Morphological Change 0.45 Impact Duration: > 7 years 1.00 Impact Length (Adjacent To Primary Impact): 100 l.f. Mean Secondary Impact Score: 0.45

2011 SOP Impact Index (Streams) IV. Watershed Factor Score #1 Watershed Factor: 303(d) listed streams 0.20 #2 Watershed Factor: High impervious areas (greater than 9.20%) 0.20 #3 Watershed Factor: Primary Trout Streams (EPD designated) 0.20 #4 Watershed Factor: Georgia rare and threatened species habitat 0.20 #5 Watershed Factor: Federal threatened and endangered species habitat 0.20 Total Watershed Factor Score (W fs ): 1.00

2011 SOP Impact Index (Streams) V. Summary Impact Score (Credits Owed) Primary Impact Credits Owed = (Primary Impact Score) x (9 Credits+Wfs Credits) x (l.f.) = 3000.00 Secondary Impact Credits Owed = (Secondary Impact Score) x (9 credits+wfs Credits) x (l.f.) = 450.00 Total Impact Credits Owed = Primary Impact Credits Owed + Secondary Impact Credits Owed = 3450.00

2011 SOP Restoration Index (Streams) STREAM RESTORATION SCORESHEET I. Background Date: December 11, 2011 USACE #: SAS-2011-00010 Stream Name: Stream 1 Stream Type: 1st and 2nd Order Perennial Stream Restoration Size: 300.00 l.f.

2011 SOP Restoration Index (Streams) II. Physical Restoration Index Mean Existing Condition Phys score : 0.00 Net Restoration Potential: 1.00 Type of Mitigation: Restoration/Enhancement Proposed Function Restoration Index EC Index Net Index Change Channel Dimension (Bank Height Ratio): 1.00 to < 1.20 1.00 0.00 1.00 Channel Dimension (Entrenchment Ratio): > 2.2 1.00 0.00 1.00 Channel Pattern and Profile (Pool to Pool Spacing Ratio): > 4.0 to 5.0 1.00 0.00 1.00 Channel Stability (BEHI Score): Very Low 1.00 0.00 1.00 Physical Restoration Score (Phys restoration ): 1.00

2011 SOP Restoration Index III. Chemical Restoration Index (Streams) Mean Existing Condition Chem Score : 0.00 Restoration Potential: 1.00 Type of Mitigation: Restoration/Enhancement Proposed Function Restoration Index EC Index Net Index Change Temperature: 90 F and below 1.00 0.00 1.00 DO: 4 mg/l (warm water) or 5 mg/l (cold water) 1.00 0.00 1.00 ph: 6.0 to 8.5 1.00 0.00 1.00 Turbidity: 0 to 50 NTU 1.00 0.00 1.00 Supplementary Variable #1: Fecal Coli form 1.00 0.00 1.00 Supplementary Variable #2: Choose Supplementary Chemical Var. 1.00 Index Value Index Value Supplementary Variable #3: Choose Supplementary Chemical Var. 1.00 Index Value Index Value Supplementary Variable #4: Choose Supplementary Chemical Var. 1.00 Index Value Index Value Chemical Restoration Score (Chem restoration ): 1.00

2011 SOP Restoration Index IV. Biological Restoration Index (Streams) Mean Existing Condition Bio Score : 0.00 Restoration Potential: 1.00 Type of Mitigation: Restoration/Enhancement A. Riparian Buffer and Landscape Analysis: Proposed Function Restoration Index % Cumulative Index Riparian Buffer Comp.: Reference Standard Vegetation 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Composition Index Value 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 1.00 Net Index Change 1.00 Proposed Function Restoration Index % Cumulative Index Riparian Buffer Structure: Stand older than 40 years 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Riparian Buffer Structure Index Value 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 1.00 Net Index Change 1.00

2011 SOP Restoration Index (Streams) Percent Relative Cover of Invasive Species: Proposed Function Restoration Index % Cumulative Index 0% Invasive Cover 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Percent of Invasive Cover (Baseline) Index Value 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 1.00 Net Index Change 1.00 Restoration Index % Cumulative Index Proposed Function Localized Drainage Basin Condition: Forest and Native Range - > 75% ground cover 1.00 100.00 1.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Choose Local Drainage Basin Cover Class Index Value 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 1.00 Net Index Change 1.00

2011 SOP Restoration Index B. In-Stream Biological Analysis: (Streams) Restoration Proposed Function Index Macro-Invertebrate Site Index Scores: 15.00 1.00 Fish Index of Biological Integrity Scores (IBI): 15.00 1.00 Restoration Index Net Index Change Proposed Function EC Index Habitat Assessment Scores: Optimal 1.00 0.00 1.00 Fish Surrogate Option: No Biological Restoration Score (Bio restoration ): 1.00

2011 SOP Restoration Index (Streams) V. Watershed Factor Score #1 Watershed Factor: 303(d) listed streams 0.20 #2 Watershed Factor: State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) High Priority Areas 0.20 #3 Watershed Factor: Areas directly adjacent to areas of perpetual protection 0.20 #4 Watershed Factor: Primary trout streams (EPD designated) 0.20 #5 Watershed Factor: Federal threatened and endangered species habitat (except within the Etowah River Basin) 0.20 Total Watershed Factor Score (W fs ): 1.00

2011 SOP Restoration Index (Streams) VI. Summary Restoration Score (Credits Generated) (Phys restoration )(3 Credits) = 3.00 (Chem restoration )(3 Credits) = 3.00 (Bio restoration )(3 Credits) = 3.00 Total W fs Credits = 1.00 Sum of Credits Generated = 10.00 per l.f. Total Credits = (Sum of Credits Generated)(Stream Length) = 3000.00

2011 SOP Project Applicability In 2004 SOP, it specifically states that the methodology is applicable to projects resulting in adverse impacts to 10 acres or less of wetland and/or 5,000 linear feet of stream. This has left a hole in the SOP s ability to determine mitigation requirements for large projects (i.e., reservoirs). The intent of the 2011 SOP revision is that it will be applicable to all projects, no matter what the extent of the impact.

New Aquatic Resource Credit Types To date, Savannah District has operated its compensatory mitigation program on generic credit types (i.e., stream credits and wetland credits) However, it has become evident through stakeholder comments that these generic credit types often do not provide the desired in-kind mitigation. In response, Savannah District has developed new aquatic resource categories for implementation into the Georgia Mitigation Marketplace. These new aquatic resource categories will replace the previous generic credit types with the intent to ensure functional replacement.

New Aquatic Resource Credit Types Wetland Credits will be replaced by the following wetland credit types (based upon hydro-dynamics): Riverine (i.e., Bottomland Hardwoods) Lacustrine Fringe Depressional Slope (i.e., Seeps and Bays) Flats (i.e., Pine Flatwoods) Salt Tidal (i.e., Saltwater Marsh) Fresh Tidal (i.e., Freshwater Marsh) Stream Credits will be replace by the follow stream credit types (base upon flow regime): Ephemeral Intermittent 1 st and 2 nd Order Perennial 3 rd Order Perennial and greater

New Urban Service Area Filter As a measure to ensure aquatic functions are not trans-located from urban areas through the purchase of credits from non-urban mitigation banks, Savannah District has developed a new urban service area filter concept. This concept would provide additional filter in which to determine the preferential mitigation option. This urban filter would be placed upon the existing primary service areas and give urban mitigation banks higher preference to compensate for impacts that occur within urban designated 12-digit HUCs. Urban 12-digit HUCs will be identified through a selected percentage of impervious surface present. The threshold of the percentage of impervious surface for the urban categorization has yet to be finalized.

New Urban Service Area Filter

Questions? Contact Information: Email justin.a.hammonds@usace.army.mil Phone (770) 904-2365