1. 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
TEEB Multi-stakeholder Workshop
January 2015
Oriental Garden Hotel, Beijing China

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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)

22. 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.

23. January 2014

24. January 2014

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