Introduction to Mitigation Banking and Functional

Assessment in CO/WY and other Regions

Greg Jennings, PhD, PE

Stantec Consulting

David Bidelspach, PE

Stantec Consulting

Darrell Westmoreland

North State Environmental Inc.

Tara Disy Allden

Restoration Systems LLC

2013 Annual Meeting of the

Colorado-Wyoming Chapter of the

American Fisheries Society

February 25-27, 2013

Activities that initiate or accelerate the recovery of

ecosystem health, integrity, and sustainability (SER, 2004)

Goals:

• Habitats & water quality

• Natural flow regimes

• Recreation & aesthetics

• Infrastructure protection

• Public education & engagement

Ecosystem Restoration

Stream Restoration

• Channel reconfiguration

• Bedform enhancement

• Floodplain connection

• Log & rock structures

• Toe wood revetments

• Native riparian vegetation

• Floodplain wetlands & oxbows

• Cattle exclusion

• Stormwater treatment

• Dam removal

• Flow augmentation

Entrenchment Ratio = Wfpa / Wbkf = 120/15 = 8

Compensatory Mitigation – a driver of restoration

Mitigation: regulatory mandate to offset permitted

impacts, funded by permittee

2008 Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule:

framework that requires in-kind, watershed-

based, functional mitigation

Permittee must avoid . . . minimize . . . & then mitigate

Credits determined by Corps Districts & States

Risks: Environmental, Regulatory, Financial

• Physical Stream Assessment

Protocols 2004

• Natural Channel Design

Review Checklist 2008 and

updates

• Stream Assessment and

Mitigation Protocols 2010

• A Function-Based

Framework for Stream

Assessment & Restoration

Projects 2012

6

Federal Guidance(courtesy of Brian Topping, USEPA)

Mitigation Banking Process

1. Prospectus

2. Draft MBI & Mitigation Plan

3. Final MBI & Mitigation Plan

4. Conservation Easement

5. Financial Assurances

6. 1st Credit Release

7. Implementation

8. Monitoring for 5 to 7 years

9. Credits released with success

10.Closeout

11.Perpetuity

Financial Assurance

Federal Rule, Section 332.3(n): “The district engineer shall require sufficient financial assurances to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with applicable performance standards.”

Risk Minimization:1. Project Selection

2. Quality Design & Implementation

3. Monitoring & Maintenance

1. Project Selection: Include design/build team

• Large site with cooperative landowners

• Strong need for restoration

• Constraints are manageable

• Engineers & Ecologists agree on cost-effective plan

• Agreeable to IRT Agencies

• Service Area with high credit value (demand)

1. Project Selection: Questions to Ask

• Causes and sources of problems?

• Upstream & downstream implications (e.g. flooding)?

• Watershed factors (e.g. stormwater, wastewater, sediment)?

• Landowner relationships (including neighbors, family)?

• Viability of restoration & maintenance efforts?

• Vegetation issues (e.g. invasive plants)?

• Constraints (e.g. bridges, culverts, utilities)?

2. Quality Design & Implementation

• Design/build team with experience working together on

similar projects

• Thorough review of engineering & ecology plans

• Communications with owners & permitters

• Flexibility throughout implementation

• Long-term commitment to monitor, maintain, repair as needed

2. Quality Design & Implementation

• Flows sufficient to meet goals

• Watershed & site condition assessment

• Hydrologic & hydraulic analysis

• Floodplain connection

• Structures compatible with goals

• Vegetation & habitats sustainable

• Risk assessment and minimization

Stream Restoration: Ecology & Engineering

Planning Design

Construction Evaluation

Communication

3. Monitoring & Maintenance

• Experienced assessment team on the ground

• Regular visits, especially following floods

• Communications with design/build team & IRT

• Responsive maintenance & repair to avoid big problems

• Functional assessment to meet IRT needs

Functional Assessment

Is the project trending toward achieving specific objectives?

– Hydrologic

– Ecological

– Watershed-scale

– Human & ecosystem services

Functional Assessment: 85 NC Projects

• Most projects achieving some functional uplift

• Many projects lacked well-defined objectives

• Newer projects better designed & constructed

• External factors important (stormwater, sediment, wastewater)

Successful Mitigation Banking

• Teamwork & communication

• Quality projects with public support

• Clear goals, objectives, outcomes

• Sharing of lessons learned (technical & policies)

• Innovation: processes, technologies, management

Greg Jennings, PhD, PE

greg.jennings@stantec.com

Thank you

Photo: Dave Bidelspach