Nonregiilatorv Wetland Restoration Program
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ORRSU-0-98-001 C2 Recommendations for a NONREGIILATORVWETLAND RESTORATIONPROGRAM for Oregon aOAI %PALOip James W. Good Calvin B. Sawyer ORE'HU-0-98-001 Recommendations for a NONREGULATORVWETLAND RESTORATIONPROGRAM for Oregon Prepared for the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X James W. Good Calvin B. Sawyer Q 1998 by Oregon Sea Grant. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-881826-12-0 Oregon Sea Grant Oregon State University 402 Kerr Administration Bldg. Corvallis, OR 97331-2134 Support This book was funded by the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, through Oregon Sea Grant grant number NA36RG0451 and projectnumber ASESG-3! and by appropriationsmade by the Oregon State legislature. The views expressedherein are those of the authorsand do not necessarilyreflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. The work was funded by the Oregon Division of State I ands with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency.Additional supportcame from Oregon Sea Grant and the Oregon State legislature. Rdmtor: Sandy Ridlington Cover: Dike and tide gate removal in 1978 Salmon River estuary restoration projectQ!iane Mitchell photo!, Contents List of Figures and Tables iv Acknowledgments v Abbreviations vi Executive Summary vii Introduction and Background Introduction 3 Wetland Restoration Defined 7 Why Oregon Needs a Wetland Restoration Policy 15 Recommendations and Implementation Actions Overview Recommendations for a Nonregulatory Wetland Restoration Program for Oregon 21 1. Formally establisha... nonregulatorywetland restorationprogram..., 23 2. Developan Oregonhydrogeomorphic functional assessmentmethod..., 27 3. Establish a[n]... integrated framework for... watersheds, ecoregions, and project sites.... 39 4. Integrate wetland restoration into Oregon'swatershed... programs.... 57 5. Remove regulatory, land use, and tax barriers.... 63 6. Increase incentives for... nonregulatory wetland restoration.... 67 7. Identify and restore... wetlands on public lands.... 73 8. Establish a wetland restoration site inventory.... 77 9. Integrate regional wetland restoration priorities into wetland mitigation.... 81 10. Integrate wetland restoration into... Oregon land use.... 85 Appendix:Wetland RestorationPolicy Work Group Membersand Participants 89 References 91 Glossary 95 Fi ures and Tables Figures 1. Approximate distribution of major wetland systems in Oregon 3 2. Large losses of riverine and depressional wetlands 16 3. Process for developing a hydrogeomorphic approach 33 4. Typical watershed bounded by ridgetops 40 5. Oregon Level III ecoregions 42 6. Conceptual framework for wetland restoration planning 45 7. Reconstruction of historic vegetation patterns 47 8. Oregon Coast Range and Willamette Valley Level III and IV ecoregions 49 9. An idealized process for watershed-level wetland restoration planning 51 10. Steps in the design and implementation of a restoration project 54 11. Streams and riparian areas have been the principal focus of watershed assessment methods to date 60 Tables 1. Principal wetland management functions, governmental agencies 10 2. Wetland functions, related effects of functions, corre- sponding societal values 28 3. Hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands 30 4. Functions of riverine wetland classes 31 5. Draft HGM classes and subclasses for the Puget Sound Lowlands 35 6. Initial recommendations for Wetland Restoration Site Inventory database fields 79 Acknowled ments hisreport is the culmination of a two-year Frenkel, Jim Pease, Dave Bella, Steve Daggett, effort to developa comprehensiveblueprint Willa Nehlsen, Ed Alverson, Mike Gr aybill, Julia T for an Oregon nonregulatory wetland res- Jones, Steve Pfeiffer, and Mary Lau Socia. We toration program. As with any undertaking of this appreciate your efforts on the project. Thanks are scope,many individuals made significant contri- due also to Greg Benoit, who assisted us with data butions toward its completion.We especiallythank gathering,Joy Burck, who helpedorganize work- Ken Bierly, Janet Morlan, and Joel Shaich for their shopsand prepare materials, and Sandy Bryce and encouragementand assistance,Ken initiated the Sharon Clarke, who provided maps of Oregon's project while wetlands program leader at the Or- ecoregions. egon Division of State Lands and managed it un- This work was financially supported though a til his departure to the governor's office. Janet, as contract with the Oregon Division of State Lands the Division's new wetlands program leader, pro- with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protec- vided the support and impetus for its completion. tion Agency. Additional support was provided by Joel's organization, the U.S. Environmental Pro- grant no. NA36RG045l,project number AhESG- tection Agency, provided the Division of State 3 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- Lands with the means to carry out the project and ministration to Oregon Sea Grant,, and by strongly supported it throughout. We also thank appropriationsmade by the OregonState legisla- all of the workshop participants and speakers ture. listed in the appendix! who helped sort out wet- Although the recommendations in this report land restoration-related issuesand problems,iden- have not been officially endorsed by the individu- tify solutions, and suggest new directions for als who participated in the processor by the groups Oregon. We especially appreciate the services of they represent,the recommendationsdo, in the Reed Noss of Oregon State University, Phil Will- view of the authors, represent a rough consensus iams of Philip Williams Associates, and Trina of the workshop participants and reviewers of the Wellman of Battelle Northwest. Each prepared draft report. However, not all would agree with background papers and gave stimulating presen- all of the recommendations. Finally, the authors tations at restoration workshops. Other present- take responsibility for all errors of fact or omis- ers or principal paper respondentsincluded Bob sion. Abbreviations BLM Bureau of Land Management ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and U.S. Department of Agricultur e! Wildlife Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OFWAM Oregon Freshwater Assessment CSRI Coastal Salmon Restoration Methodology Initiative OPRD Oregon Parks and Recreation DEQ Department of Environmental Department Quality Oregon! ORCTF Oregon Resource Conservation DLCD Department of Land Conserva- Trust Fund tion and Development Oregon! ORS Oregon Revised Statutes DOF Department of Forestry Oregon! OSU Oregon State University DOGAMI Department of Geology and OWRAC Oregon Wetland Restoration Mineral Industries Oregon! Advisory Council DSL Division of State Lands Oregon! OWRD Oregon Water Resources Depart- EFU exclusive farm use ment EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Park Service National Park Service Agency PLSS public lands survey system ESEE economic, social, environmental, R range and energy S section ESU evolutionary significant unit for SS subsection salmonids! SWCD Soil and Water Conservation Federal Emergency Management District Agency SWI statewide wetlands inventory GIS Geographic Information System SWMG Strategic Water Management GWEB Governor's Watershed Enhance- Group ment Board Oregon! T township HGM hydr ogeomorphic UGB urban growth boundary HUC hydrologic unit catalog USFS U.S. Forest Service Joint Venture Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LWI local wetlands inventory UUC urban unincorporated commu- MOU memorandum of understanding nities NMFS National Marine Fisheries UTM universal transverse Mercator Service WCM wetland compensatory mitigation NRC National Research Council WCP wetland conservation plan NRCS Natural Resources Conservation WCPI wetland conservation plan inven- Service tory XWI National Wetlands Inventory WET Wetland Evaluation Technique OAR Oregon Administrative Rules WHP Watershed Health Program ODA Oregon Department of Agricul- WRD Water Resources Department ture Oregon! Executive Summar etlands are among the most important state policy or programmatic direction and little ecosystems on earth, providing a flow integration of wetlands with programs that seek W of valuable natural goods and services ta improve water quality, mitigate flood damage, that include water purification, flood water stor- restore fisheries, or restore watersheds in general. age during high flows, and habitat for fish and Yet restored wetlands could contribute mightily wildlife of commercial, recreational, and cultural ta these goals. significance.Approximately 40 percent of the origi- These findings suggest a need for clear, unam- nal wetlands in Oregon have been altered or con- biguous, nonregIdatory wetland reStOrationpolicy, verted to other uses since early Euro-American improved coordination among governmental and settlement. Many of the remaining wetlands have nongovernmental programs, better planning and been degraded and are no longer fully functional. assessment tools, and mare support and technical Although these wetland conversionshave resulted assistance ta landowners. This report addresses in many benefits for Oreganians a productive ag- these needs. It is the culmination of a two-year ricultural industry, modern cities and transporta- effort ta forge such a strategy. The work involved tion systems, and ports and waterways that link many of the key players in the sta~federal, the state ta the world the ecological and economic state, local, and private. Although the recommen- costs have also been great. At the time, these re- dations