Transcript Jekyll Island Conservation Plan

North Florida Section
Association for the Advancement
of Cost Engineering International (AACEi)
Ecological and Environmental Considerations for
Cost Estimating Development Projects
February 17, 2011
Ecological Considerations:
• Wetlands and water bodies
• Unique habitat
• Threatened and Endangered Species
• Ecological Corridors and Set-asides
• Floodplain
• Water quality
• Green design requirements
• Climate Change/Resiliency
• Carbon sequestration
Ecological Considerations:
What are the mechanisms for regulating these natural features?
• Federal
–
–
–
–
–
NEPA for projects that receive federal funding
ACOE for wetland impacts
ESA for T&E impacts
NPDES for stormwater discharges
FEMA for floodplain impacts
• State
–
–
–
–
FDEP and WMD wetland and surface regulations
WMD for buffers (including RHPZ)
FWC for state T&E impacts
FDEP for water quality assurance
• Local
– Unique protected areas
– Wetlands, springsheds, Comprehensive Planning restrictions
– Requirements for LEED certification
Ecological Considerations:
How can these ecological constraints impact project
costs?
• Render a site undevelopable
• Increase the “costs to cure”
– Wetland or wildlife mitigation
– Fill or compensating storage requirements
– Carbon off-sets
• Affect a site’s ideal configuration
• Increase infrastructure costs
– Increased stormwater retention
– Natural resource management costs
– Up-front costs for energy efficiency/green design
Hypothetical Example
Hypothetical Example – Regional Landscape
Hypothetical Example – Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetland Regulations - Federal
• Executive Order 11990 — President Carter, 1977, ended the official
policy of federal assistance for wetlands conversion and directed all
agencies to minimize wetland impacts in their regulations.
• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347)
was the first U.S. law to focus environmental concerns within a
comprehensive national policy. It’s purposes, as stated in the Act, are
"To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and
biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the
understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental
Quality.“
Wetland Regulations - Federal
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is the federal agency that
regulates wetlands disturbing activities. It does so under the Clean
Water Act, Section 401(33U.S.C 1341) or 404 (33 U.S.C 1344), and the
Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 (33 U.S.C 403). The Jacksonville
District Regulatory Division has jurisdiction in Florida.
Wetland Regulations - Federal
• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) - The basic premise
of the law is that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be
permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the
aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly
degraded. In other words, when you apply for a permit, you must show
that you have:
– taken steps to avoid wetland impacts where practicable
– minimized potential impacts to wetlands
– provided compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through
activities to restore or create wetlands
Wetland Regulations - Federal
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - writes guidelines for
determining whether a particular activity that will affect wetlands can be
permitted and how it should be evaluated; reviews/comments on
individual permit applications; has authority to veto the Corps' permit
decisions.
Wetland Regulations - State
• Three different state agencies have some degree of
regulatory authority or guidance over activities in wetlands
in the State of Florida:
– The state water quality standards are enforced by the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) and/or the Water Management
Districts (WMDs).
– The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of
Forestry ( DOF ), is responsible for implementing the silvicultural
element of the State Water Quality Plan through the silviculture
BMPs.
Wetland Regulations - State
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
/Water Management Districts (WMDs)
– Exert regulatory jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities in “waters
of the State” to their “landward extent,”
Wetland Regulations - State
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
/Water Management Districts
– Unified method for delineation of wetlands
– Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) - required before wetland
impacts may occur.
– Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM)- statewide
method to determine the amount of mitigation required
Wetland Regulations - Local
• Environmental Protection Departments
– May want to confirm state wetland line
– May add restrictions to certain types of wetlands
– May add buffers to protected wetlands
Wetland Regulations – Ultimate Costs
• Protection of most wetlands (land costs)
• Mitigation Costs
– Wetland “creation”
• $50,000 per acre
• long-term monitoring
• loss of land
– Upland and wetland conservation • loss of land
• long-term management at $200 per acre per year
– Mitigation Bank
• $110,000 per credit
Wetland Regulations – Ultimate Costs
• For our hypothetical example, assume an
impact of 20 acres of forested wetlands
• Mitigation Costs
– Environmental permitting costs - $250,000
– Upland and wetland conservation • loss of land for 125 acres at $20,000 per acre –
$2.5M
• long-term management at $50 per acre per year –
requires a long-term management fund of $125,000
– Purchase of wetland mitigation credits
• 15 credits at $110,000 per credit – $1.65M
Total costs for wetland impacts = $4.525M
Hypothetical Example – Listed Species
Audubon’s crested caracara
• ESA – designated as a
Threatened Species
• Opportunistic feeder - eats
carrion and captures live prey
• Nests in cabbage palm trees
• Impacts to individuals or habitats
require permitting through the
USFWS
• Protection zones defined by
telemetry research on the bird
Hypothetical Example – Protection Zones
Threatened and Endangered Species Regulations –
Ultimate Costs
• Protection of nest site (land costs, and affects
on site configuration)
• Mitigation Costs
– Nest site protection
– Long-term management and monitoring
– Contribution to Management Fund managed by
the USFWS - $30,000 per unit
Threatened and Endangered Species Regulations –
Ultimate Costs
• For our hypothetical example, assume protection of 40 acres
around the nest site (some of which is wetland)
• Mitigation Costs
– Environmental permitting costs - $250,000 (in addition to
wetland permitting)
– Nest site conservation • loss of land for 40 acres at $20,000 per acre – $800,000
• long-term management at $50 per acre per year – requires a
long-term management fund of $67,000
– Monitoring of caracara nesting behavior during construction $50,000 per year for 3 years - $150,000
– Purchase of caracara mitigation credits
• 40 credits at $30,000 per credit – $1.2M
Total costs for caracara conservation = $2.467M
Ecological Considerations:
• Floodplain
– Extensive fill costs to keep building and road
floors above the 100-year floodplain
– Compensating storage (ponds) to account for
the volume in the floodplain
Ecological Considerations:
• Unique habitat
– Springs/springsheds
– Wekiva Basin – Riparian Habitat Protection
Zone
Ecological Considerations:
• Ecological Corridors and Set-asides
–
–
–
–
–
Black bear
Florida panther
Scrub ecosystems
River floodplains
Ocala to Osceola corridor
Hypothetical Example – Regional Landscape
Ecological Considerations:
• Water quality
– EPA/FDEP in a battle over Numeric Nutrient
Criteria
– FDEP to implement new stormwater criteria
to reduce pollutant loads in surface water
– The effect will be to increase the costs, and
land required for stormwater
Ecological Considerations:
• Green design requirements
– Numerous local governments have specific
requirements for LEED certification
particularly for public buildings
Burnett Building - LEED Silver
Certification
•Maximize Open Space
•Create ‘dark skies’
•Water Efficient Landscape
•Recycled Content
•24 acres of landscape
• 819 trees from 16 species of
deciduous and evergreen
• 67,658 shrubs, grasses and
perennials from 30 species
•Well over 98% Native Plantings
Ecological Considerations:
• Climate Change/Resiliency
– Additional design requirements
– Climate Action Plan goals
Ecological Considerations:
• Carbon sequestration
– Carbon offsets
– “Cap and Trade”
End of Part 1.
For Part 2, please return to Resources page at
www.nflaace.org and download separate file.
To exit slideshow and return to Web site, click “Back”
arrow.