An Introduction to Wetland Mitigation Banking Kevin L. Erwin Kevin Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. Florida Gulf Coast University and DeTao Masters Academy Ft. Myers, Florida USA and Shanghai, PRC www.environment.com TEEB Multi-stakeholder Workshop 21 -23 January 2015 Oriental Garden Hotel, Beijing China

Kevin Erwin CSE PWS Certified senior ecologist with 44 years of experience, specializing in; large-scale wetland restoration, biodiversity conservation, watershed evaluation and management Consulting since 1980 Faculty Member of Florida Gulf Coast University in the Department of Marine & Ecological Sciences. Published numerous papers on wetlands restoration, planning, water resources and climate change. Organized many international symposia on wetland restoration including the June 2012 INTECOL meeting in Orlando, on The Status of Wetland Restoration in China. Joined DeTao in 2013

TEEB China China aims to respect, adapt and protect the nature by incorporating the nature into the national development of economy, government, culture and society. In this context, the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China (MEP) took the lead of the TEEB China project, mainstreaming the value of ecosystem services and biodiversity into governmental policy decision processes at various scales.

TEEB China Outputs A consolidated network of stakeholders of the partnering organizations to support TEEB China NAP and pilot practices will be developed. I would like to propose that my studio, representing DeTao, be a partnering organization to support TEEB China and work together on pilot restoration practices like Wetland Mitigation Banking.

What is a Mitigation Bank? A mitigation bank is a wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource area that has been restored, established, enhanced, or preserved for the purpose of providing functional compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources permitted under a similar government wetland regulation. A mitigation bank may be created when a government agency, corporation, NGO or other entity undertakes these activities under a formal agreement with a wetland regulatory agency.

Mitigation Banking History Clean Water Act No Net Loss 1980s First regional mitigation banking guidance by US Fish and Wildlife Service First mitigation bank 1990s USACE and EPA issued Memorandums of Agreement regarding mitigation banking. Federal guidance for the establishment, use and operation of mitigation banks 2000s Guidance for the establishment, use, and operation of conservation banks’ was issued by USFWS. 2010s Continue to be improved and refined Give a brief introduction of the mitigation banking history in the US http://msusa.com/timeline/

Little Pine Island Wetland Mitigation Bank 5000 acres Owned by State of Florida First mitigation bank in Florida, USA Baseline studies: 1994 Started restoration: 1997 Completed restoration: 2007 Deemed successful by state and federal government

The Little Pine Island Wetland Restoration & Mitigation Bank is a professionally designed and environmentally preferable solution for mitigating unavoidable impacts to wetland habitat. It is permitted as a Mitigation Bank in response to Federal and State legislation which encourages large-scale ecosystem restoration. Little Pine Island mitigation credits are a high-quality form of wetland replacement for unavoidable wetland impacts. One wetland mitigation credit is equivalent to the ecological value of one acre of wetland creation.

Wetland Compensation Process Using a Mitigation Bank AVOID SFA REQUIRES PROTECTION TO MAINTAIN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER MITIGATE PROJECT DEVELOPER MITIGATES PROJECT IMPACTS ONSITE TO GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE COMPENSATE PROJECT DEVELOPER COMPENSATES FOR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS OFFSITE IN MITIGATION BANK BY PURCHASING CREDITS

BENEFITS TIME: Permitting can be more efficient, project delays avoided, and development costs reduced. COST: The one-time cost for mitigation credits can replace your cost for design, construction, maintenance and monitoring for on-site mitigation. LAND: On-site land required for mitigation can be reduced, saving net property for your use. SAVINGS: The cost of wetland mitigation bank credits is usually significantly less than other mitigation alternatives. And perpetual maintenance is guaranteed by the mitigation bank

WETLAND IMPACT SITE ASSESSMENT The evaluation of a potential impact site for use at the Bank is a three step process. determination that the impact site wetlands are of a similar type to those within the Bank; determination that the impact site is within the Bank’s service area; and a functional assessment of the wetland impact site.

Once a determination has been made that the proposed wetland impact site is of such a nature that use of the Bank would be appropriate and that because the wetlands to be impacted are of a type similar to those occurring in the Bank and the mitigation service area criteria have been met, then the functional capacity of the proposed wetland impact area is conducted. A score of 1.0 indicates that the wetland fully performs the specific function while a score of 0.0 indicates the function is not being provided. For each wetland type the existing functional capacity is determined for nine wetland functions using the methodology described below.

Wetland Functional Capacity Score Wetland Functional Capacity Freshwater Marsh Saltwater Marsh 1. Habitat for Wetland Dependent Species 0.7 0.9 2. Support of Food Chains 0.8 3. Support of Native Plant Populations 4. Maintenance of Biological Integrity 0.6 5. Provision of Landscape Heterogeneity 1.0 6. Access to Aquatic Refugia 7. Maintenance of Natural Hydrologic Regimes 0.5 8. Maintenance of Water Quality 9. Support of Soil Processes Total 6.7 8.2 Wetland Functional Capacity

Step 2. Score Wetland Functions   For each of the nine identified functions a score of 0.0 – 1.0 is assessed. A score of 0.0 indicates that the wetland does not perform the function while a score of 1.0 indicates that the wetland fully performs the identified function. The amount of sampling and data collection will be determined by many factors such as extent of impacts, complexity of system being evaluated (uplands and wetlands), and potential for additional (third party) review or comment. At a minimum the evaluator should review the entire wetland perimeter and conduct sufficient transects to evaluate all communities within the wetland.

7. Assessment of natural hydrologic regimes   An assessment of wetland hydroperiod, frequency of flooding, duration of flooding, and water depth. This function can generally be evaluated using a combination of field review (vegetative indicators, soil condition, algal communities, water marks, & drift (wrack) lines) as well historic aerials, USGS quad sheets, and NRCS soil maps. In certain circumstances installation and monitoring of shallow wells may be appropriate. The scoring of this function is based on review of site conditions compared to historic or undisturbed site. Score 1.0 Fully Functioning Native wetland plant communities are healthy with no sign of stress resulting from improper hydroperiod. Field indicators and/or water level monitoring indicate appropriate wetland hydroperiod No indications of anthropomorphic modification of the wetlands hydroperiod such as ditches, berms, roads, or other impediments to natural water flows. Score 0.5 Moderate Functions Native wetland plant communities are present but are being effected by altered hydroperiod (e.g. showing signs of stress, poor regeneration, and/or conversions to other wetland type) Field reviews or water level monitoring suggest altered hydroperiods There may be evidence of soil subsidence Hydroperiod being somewhat influenced by ditches, swales, berms, seawalls, etc. Score 0.0 Not Providing Wetland Function Native wetland plant communities are severely stressed and there is strong evidence of conversion to upland and or exotic dominated system. There are no indicators of appropriate hydrologic regime There may be substantial soil subsidence or accretion Land-use activities such as roads, canals, ditches, berms, etc. have significantly altered wetland hydrology.

Step 3. Calculate Wetland Functional Capacity Index This is the easiest part, Simply add all the scores for the 9 categories and divide by nine to obtain the Wetland Functional Capacity (WFC) index of the wetlands to be considered for mitigation at the bank. Amount of mitigation is then determined by multiplying the number of acres impacted by the WFC.

1.) Based upon $35,000 per Credit and a Functional Assessment of .8. (.8 X 5 impact acres = 4 Credits X $35,000 = $140,000) 2.) Based on $15,000 per acre land cost, plus $10,000 for design and permitting, plus $130,000 or construction and maintenance. ($15,000 X 5 impact acres = $75,000 + $10,000 + $130,000 = $215,000) 3.) Based on a 10:1 ratio (10 acres of mitigation required for each impacted acre), plus off-site land cost of $6,000 per acre. (5 impacted acres x 10 = 50 off-site acres x $6,000 = $300,000)

In 1996, Little Pine Island Wetland Restoration & Mitigation Bank prices averaged $28,000 per credit. The market value has risen steadily, due to the substantial cost savings provided by mitigation credits when compared to other mitigation alternatives.

January 2014

January 2014

Photo taken in March, 2014, after the little pine island successfully restored. Studio Erwin of Ecological Restoration DeTao Group