How Many Stream Credits are Just Right for an Inland Dam Removal? An Ohio Case Study
Dana J. Ohman
The Nature Conservancy, Ohio
Dublin, OH
Authors: Ohman, D.J., Harris, A., and Crowley, C.
Regulators and stream restoration practitioners alike are constantly navigating the changing waters of how mitigation credits are derived from stream restoration practices. Practices can vary in scope and scale, dam removal as a form of mitigation, creates a unique set of challenges. Dam removals have occurred for over a hundred years, but as a form of stream mitigation, have only been federally recognized since 2018. The amount of compensatory mitigation credits received from dam removals were pioneered in coastal states to increase the movement of migrating diadromous fish communities. Crediting in those instances was driven by the length of the stream that became available to fish communities to complete their necessary life cycle stages. When comparing crediting of coastal dam removals to inland dam removals in how credits are determined discrepancies existed as to how crediting should be allocated when diadromous fish species were not present. Multiple considerations and factors were explored to determine the appropriate number of compensatory mitigation credits received for a low-head dam removal in Ohio. Considerations and factors explored were existing federal regulatory guidance, precedent, ethics, land encumbrances and ownership, biological communities, threatened and endangered species, monitoring, and performance standards. Exploration of these factors led to embracing the Goldilocks Principle to determine the appropriate compensatory credits for the 7,530 stream credits requested. Credits are released over a 10-year maintenance and monitoring period as performance objectives are completed.
About Dana J. Ohman
Coming Soon