Presentation made by Greg Jennings, PhD, PE at the 2013 Colorado and Wyoming American Fisheries Society conference.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. • 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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)?

11. 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

12. 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

13. Stream Restoration: Ecology & Engineering
Planning Design
Construction Evaluation
Communication

14. 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

15. Functional Assessment
Is the project trending toward achieving specific objectives?
– Hydrologic
– Ecological
– Watershed-scale
– Human & ecosystem services

16. 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)

17. Successful Mitigation Banking
• Teamwork & communication
• Quality projects with public support
• Clear goals, objectives, outcomes
• Sharing of lessons learned (technical & policies)
• Innovation: processes, technologies, management

18. Greg Jennings, PhD, PE
greg.jennings@stantec.com
Thank you
Photo: Dave Bidelspach