Willamette Partnership, Oregon Department of State Lands, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District, and the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 are working jointly to develop a function-based stream mitigation framework for Oregon in order to effectively implement stream mitigation policy in Oregon under the Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule (USEPA/USACE, 2008[1]). The rule stresses mitigation of impacts in a watershed context.

This project will develop a stream functions assessment methodology for statewide application in Oregon to assess the site/reach scale impact of proposed and permitted actions to functions, as well as the replacement (predicted and actual) of unavoidable impacts and compensatory mitigation

Project Partners have spent the last three years scoping target stream functions, developing tools to identify stream flow duration and jurisdictional streams, developing a statewide stream classification system, and mapping the path toward inter-agency adoption of a watershed-based stream mitigation framework. The project will also link closely with existing work from the Willamette Partnership’s Counting on the Environment process that bridges regulatory jurisdictions and Project Partners efforts to transition Oregon’s wetland mitigation program into a more functions-based approach that considers the watershed context.

Download the RFIP

Download Exhibit D

Download Additional Information

Pre-proposal Webinar January 27, 2012 Q & A (Posted on February 9, 2012)

First Addendum to RFIP issued February 13, 2012

Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Stream Assessment Services

Important RFIP dates 

REQUEST FOR INFORMAL PROPOSALS FOR

STREAM ASSESSMENT SERVICES

FOR THE EPA STREAMS PROJECT NO. 6565

CLEAN WATER SERVICES

PRE-PROPOSAL WEBINAR Q+A

JANUARY 27, 2012

Hosts: Bobby Cochran & Nicole Maness, Willamette Partnership, Project Managers

With: Tracie Nadeau, EPA, Project Officer for the Grant

            Dana Hicks, ODSL, Project Partner

Q: Is there any flexibility regarding the requirement for experience with “local clients?”

A: Yes, but we do want to see what work your organization has done in Oregon before we look at projects in other PNW states or elsewhere in the country.

Q: Are the hours listed in Section 3 a fixed maximum - or can they be adjusted (but staying within the overall budget of $100K) if we feel it is necessary?

A: Those time allotments are guidelines as to what you should expect to spend on those aspects of the tasks.  They are based on our previous experience with similar processes. It’s more of a heads-up that there will be a fair amount of your time required to transfer results and knowledge to project managers as well as be available, in person, during working group meetings. 

Q: Can you describe the structure of the stream classification system a little more? How GIS savvy would a user of the system expected to be?

A: The stream classification system will be a typing system that will provide information on the “functional expectation” for different streams in Oregon.  The hydrological and geological parameters that are the drivers of function are quantified in existing statewide data layers.  The integration of these GIS layers will essentially be the database from which users can determine stream type and therefore functional expectation.  The classification system will be accessed online (still TBD) and publically available.

In terms of GIS knowledge, we’d like to avoid requiring people to have and use a desktop GIS but it’s not out of bounds if the data the that much better than without. But our preference is not to require it.

Q: What are the expected delivery dates of the stream classification system?

A: We’re expecting to complete the theoretical stream classification system in April 2012.  That means, we’ll have identified all the information layers and we’ll know that the system and the user application will look like/how it will function.  The classification system may not be operational until summer 2012, but the selected contractor will have access to all and any information.

Q: What background would users of the stream function assessment tool be expected to have?

A: We’re expected that a stream professional (restoration/conservation/ecologist) with 2 to 3 days of training should be able to apply the Assessment Methodology.  We do expect that people using the tool will have a background in streams…not just anyone would be able to pick it up and use it.

Q: Can you provide more detail of the field-testing approach for the Assessment Methodology?

A: The Assessment Methodology will be field tested for its: credibility (that it is sensitive to year-over-year changes within a site and to differences among sites, and repeatable, so that any two assessment teams would arrive at a similar answer for the same site); transparency (where all indicators, formulae, etc. can be easily accessed and understood by a variety of stakeholders, not just the trained professionals applying the Assessment Methodology); and user friendliness (manuals, documentation, and tools will need to be available online and easy to understand and to use).

The testing will take place between March 2013 and August 2013 to include both a wet and dry season.  Results from the field testing will be delivered to the contractor developing the assessment methodology by October 1, 2013.  We’re hoping to test the methodology on a range of sites across the state.  The contractor for this task has not yet been selected.  We expect to have a statement of work for the field testing in April 2012.

Q: You say the methodology should favor any particular type of stream. Will there be a baseline, or will the classification of stream type set a site potential?

A: The stream classification system will provide you with the functional expectation of a stream based on hydrology and geology.  If/how/why we define a “reference” or “optimal” function is a big part of this contract and something we’ll wrestle with.

Q: Would a perennial stream and an ephemeral stream have different functions but the same value?

A: No. The functional expectation of the stream (as determined by the classification system) which would lead you to emphasize different functions depending on the stream type.