Ecological Mitigation Strategies

Transcription

1 Greg McGowan Director of Ecological Services Types, Risks, and Relative Costs of Ecological Mitigation LFR Inc The Road to Success Understand & Quantify Potential Impacts As Early in the Process as Possible Maximize Avoidance by Design Develop a Mitigation Plan to Suit Your Situation (Every Project is Different) 2006

2 Moving Forward When Avoidance is Infeasible Active Versus Passive Mitigation On-site Mitigation Off-site Mitigation Mitigation Banks / In-lieu Fees Active Mitigation Planting Plants Creating Wetlands Enhancing Creeks and Streams Weed Abatement Maintenance, Monitoring, & Reporting May Occur On-site or Off-site

3 Passive Mitigation Set-aside of Land (under easement or title) Relying on Natural Recruitment for Revegetation Maintenance, Monitoring, & Reporting (in some cases) May Occur On-site or Off-site On-Site Mitigation Mitigate impacts with activities conducted on your property Restore or enhance existing habitat Create new habitat Establish a Resource Protection Plan

4 On-Site Mitigation - Advantages Use your own land (avoid acquisition costs) May most closely replace lost habitat resources and value due to proximity Garner aesthetic and other value from mitigation site as design feature On-Site Mitigation - Disadvantages Requires that you have space to use (give up developable area) Requires that the mitigation area is suitable for the mitigation & buffered from school Requires long-term management, maintenance and protection (liability)

5 Off-Site Mitigation Mitigate impacts with activities conducted on other property Protect, restore, or enhance existing habitat Create new habitat Pay in-lieu fees/ Buy credits from mitigation bank Off-Site Mitigation - Advantages Does not require set-aside of land on site May not require long term maintenance by School District May be more suitable and/or more beneficial than on-site mitigation given parcel size and surrounding land uses (edge effect, habitat islands, etc.)

6 Off-Site Mitigation - Disadvantages Mitigation occurs farther from the impact Requires acquisition of land or land use rights on property suitable for mitigation Will likely require endowment Will require a management plan and longterm management entity Mitigation Banks & In Lieu Fees Private or publicly-owned land managed for its ecological values In exchange for permanent protection of land (and management) the landowner is allowed to sell credits Costs vary widely depending on the resource in question and the acreage needed

7 Mitigation Banks & In Lieu Fees Use avoids long-term risk and provides more certainty for regulatory requirements/approval Relatively few banks in operation (~35 currently approved by CDFG in California) Most focus on wetland habitat (more options available in Southern California) Mitigation Banking & In Lieu Fees May require approval from multiple agencies (CDFG, USACE, USFWS) Helps consolidate small or fragmented mitigation projects into single large and more ecologically valuable project Generally requires proof that avoidance is infeasible

8 Risk Management vs. Cost Lowest Risk is to Write a Check and Walk Away (buy credits, buy land rights, donate land) Lowest Cost is generally to Protect High Quality Existing Habitat On-site Under Restrictive Easement or Title Risk Management vs. Cost Highest Risk: Create New Habitat Long-term risk of establishment Highest Cost: Create New Habitat or Land Acquisition Long-term habitat maintenance cost for habitat creation High land cost/land-rights value in California for acquisition

9 Recommendations Plan Ahead - Ecological assessment and mitigation planning are slow but costly Avoid impacts by design Identify potential mitigation options ahead of EIR preparation Transfer liability - If part of a development project, have the developer mitigate for ecological impacts (e.g., include site clearing/grading in developer s project description) Limit long-term risk through dedication of land or participation in mitigation bank