99 



The effects of mitigation banking on wildlife, wetlands and society, have positive and negative 

 aspects. Mitigation banking pluses include: 



1) alternatives for improving quantity of high quality wetlands as well as acquisition 



and management opportunities; 



2) opportunities for restoration of degraded wetlands; 



3) increased diversity and isolation for wildlife species; 



4) scale, size and location improvements if regulators and developers are required to 



employ a landscape approach; 



5) preservation of existing habitats through acquisition and management; 



6) oetter adherence to fish and wildlife needs; 



71 exploits new management opportunities and approaches- 



8) potential for a net gain of wetland if creation is successful; 



9) better technical and professional expertise are likely to be available on larger 



projects; ^ . ,• , 



10) greater involvement and possible cash flow for owners of lands that now have little 



market value. 



1 1) facilitates conflict resolution; 



12) reduced delays encountered by developers; could provide clear direction to 



developers and enhance their ability to estimate total project costs; gives 

 developers a degree of certainty in terms of permit approvals and timing so 

 they can deal with banks, other funding sources and planning agencies; could 

 be seen as positive effort by environmentalists to work with developers; and, 

 could positively influence developers attitudes towards wetlands and wildlife in 

 general; . 



13) mitigation banking could create greater acceptance and undersunding in the 



regulated community of wetland functions and values that might encourage 

 deliberate use of created/constructed wetlands in development projects. 



Mitigation banking negatives include: 



1) converting to wetlands can cause loss of other habitats especially certain terrestrial 



habitats. 



2) influencing the natural distribution of wetlands; 



3) altering ivpes of wetlands; 



4) altering functions of wetlands; 



5) impacting size (including sacrificing many small wetlands for one large wetland); 



6) increasing regulatory requirements; 



7) potential losses of wetland since enforcement in mitigation banks has been piK)r or 



lacking; , 



8) potential losses due to lack of long-term ftinding. Many pro)ects lack provisions tor 



management and funding in perpetuity; can guaranteea, long-term funding be 

 provided and who will be responsible for long term management? 



The Committee believes that wildlife scientists and managers must initiate a pro-active 

 approach to mitigation and mitigation banking and develop guidelines for mitigation and mitigation 

 banks that will respond to the needs of developers and accomplish a net gam in wetland resources. 

 Developing and promoting a program/policy to enhance the positive resource aspects of bankmg while 

 reducing the negative wetland impacts and improving regulatory conditions for developers could 

 become a win-win situation. However, the policy must increase wetland form and functional values 

 and concurrently reduce and standardize regulatory requirements. The Institute of Water Resources 

 Survey currently underway is likely to provide additional information in the near future. However, in 

 the interim, the mitigation banking policy should include: 



1) rea)gnition that the basic precepts of mitigation banking are: 

 -economic and development driven 

 -permit driven 

 -not altruistic 

 must deal with areal scale 

 -<iwnership {covenant codes and restrictions) 

 -administration 



