Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Issues for Council Discussion April 24, Critical Habitat Changes made to Chapter II, IV and V in response to comments received, and experience gained.
Advertisements

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Restoration and Regulation Discussion Joseph P. DaVia US Army Corps of Engineers-Baltimore Chief, Maryland.
Overview of Mitigation Banking Program December 10, 2009 Robert M. Brown, Director Environmental Resource Regulation Department Robert M. Brown, Director.
Meadowbank Gold Project Cumberland Resources Ltd. Nunavut Impact Review Board Public Hearing Chesterfield Inlet, Nunavut March 30, 2006.
SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.
THE DIVERSITY OF INTERESTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE A CHALLENGE FOR THE RULE OF LAW By Professor D E Fisher.
National Environmental Policy Act of Establishes protection of the environment as a national priority Mandates that environmental impacts be considered.
Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing Fiscal Estimate.
BUILDING STRONG ® Mitigation in a Modern World or 33 CFR 332 and You Presented by Jayson M Hudson To the Texas Association of Environmental Professionals.
Modified Charleston Method (MCM)
Bill Orme, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Board Liz Haven, Asst. Deputy Director, Surface Water Regulatory Branch, State Water Board Dyan.
Protecting Designated Areas Ciaran O’Keeffe Director, NPWS Séirbhís na bPáirceanna Náisiúnta agus Fiadhúlra An Roinn Comhshaoil, Oidhreachta agus Rialtais.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources Amendments to Part 182: Endangered Species Regulations.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources Briefing on Proposed Amendments to Endangered Species Regulations.
Compensation in Spanish Law Carmen de Guerrero University of Zaragoza.
What is an In Lieu Fee Program ? Clean Water Act - Section 404 : “no overall net loss” of wetland acreage and functions. One mechanism for providing Compensatory.
1 Wetland Regulatory Programs Department of Natural Resources Legislative Audit Bureau July 2007.
Clean Water Act Section 404 Basics Clean Water Act Section 404  Regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including.
Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #2 May 28, 2008 SCAQMD Diamond Bar, California.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Regulatory Program Glen Justis Chief, Policy & Administration Regulatory Division Alaska District 2010 Building.
E B a n k i n g Information Security Guidelines ABA’s Technology Risk Management – A Strategic Approach Telephone/Webcast Briefing June 17, 2002.
Fermilab Environmental Management System (EMS)
Title slide PIPELINE QRA SEMINAR. PIPELINE RISK ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL RISK MANAGEMENT 2.
Environmental Justice: Policies, Guidance, and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions FTA Region VII Civil Rights Training.
WETLANDS and ODOT Environmental Services Oregon Department of Transportation.
NUNAVUT TUNNGAVIK INCORPORATED Lands Policy Advisory Committee Draft Uranium Policy.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Guidelines Field Exercise
WETLANDS and LOCAL PROGRAMS Environmental Services Oregon Department of Transportation.
BUILDING STRONG ® 1 Regional General Permit (RGP) 31 Interagency Meeting June 11, 2015.
Rule 62-40, F.A.C. – What is it? The Water Resource Implementation Rule (State Water Policy). Required by Sec , F.S. Goals, objectives and guidance.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations. The Endangered Species Act Sec. 2:Purpose Sec. 3:Definitions Sec. 4:Listing, Recovery, Monitoring Sec.
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
1 IDEM Overview of March 14, 2008 Draft Antidegradation Rule Presented at the April 29, 2008 Antidegradation Stakeholder Meeting.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 404 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT EVALUATION PROCESS July 22, 2005.
Options for CBP Agreement and EC Membership For Principals’ Staff Committee Consideration March, 2013.
1 February 2005 Briefing Sessions Draft Regulations Using Water for Recreational Purposes.
MS4 Remand Rule Intergovernmental Associations Briefing September 15, 2015.
UNEP Training Resource ManualTopic 7 Slide 1 The purpose of mitigation is to: F find better ways of doing things F enhance environmental and social benefits.
Compensation in Bulgarian Law Where are we ? KONSTANTIN ILCHEV.
1 CEQA and CEQA-Plus Presented by Cookie Hirn, Lisa Lee, and Michelle Jones Regional Programs Unit July 2008.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
APPLICATIONS OF WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS Module 22, part c – Applications.
ODFW Habitat Mitigation Policy and Energy Facility Siting.
Mitigation and Impact management
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Document Preparation WETLANDS BEST PRACTICES 33 rd Annual Airports Conference Marie.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service “Helping people help the land"
Environmental Commitments/Tracking. Environmental Commitments Federal Agencies Shall –Use all practicable means consistent with the requirements of.
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS. KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF A SEP Projects must improve, protect or reduce risks to public health or environment. Projects.
GBLWMP-SLUP Integration February 5, 2010 Deline. Ecological Integrity Policy GBLWMPSLUP (a): All activities in the GBLW must be consistent with.
GBLWMP-SLUP Integration Meeting February 4-5, 2010 Sahtu Land Use Planning Board.
1 Los Angeles County Santa Monica Mountains Local Implementation Plan Malibu Santa Monica Mountains Pepperdine Univ. Topanga County Beach Leo Carrillo.
Development Permit System. Development Permit System 2 Disclaimer  The information presented is provided as background information to facilitate understanding.
California WaterFix Aquatic Science Peer Review Sacramento, California April 5, 2016.
Wetlands Focus Group. Responsibilities and Goals   Growth Managements Act (Chapter 163, FS) of 1985   Included the adoption of the State Comprehensive.
OPEN SPACE/ CONSERVATION
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
THE CORPS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Planning Mitigation February 24, 2016
Wetland Mitigation.
Joint Army-EPA Mitigation Rule
Mitigation.
Updating the Article 6 guide Outline of envisaged changes
PROVISIONS UNDER THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE RELEVANT TO NEEI
Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures
Restoration and Regulation Discussion
Proposed Mitigation Rule Amendment Rulemaking Pre-Proposal State and Local Government Outreach June 20, 2019.
Mitigation.
Presentation transcript:

Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015

-My project meets the Performance Standards of both the Wetlands Protection Act and the Sudbury Wetlands Bylaw. Do I need to provide Mitigation? YES, if your project proposes work in any wetland or upland resource area. Performance Standards are a threshold of alteration of a protected resource that may be permitted only after the project has demonstrated that alteration to protected resource areas have been avoided and minimized to the full extent possible. Mitigation is replacement of all values and functions of the altered resource areas for unavoidable, permittable adverse impacts. - What is considered acceptable mitigation? Under the Sudbury Wetland Bylaw and sections of the WPA, approval of a project is at the discretion of the Commission. In using this discretion, the Commission requires mitigation that will result in no net loss of protected resource area values and functions. -How do I determine the extent of mitigation required? Mitigation based on square footage should be a minimum of 2:1 when a square footage measurement is applicable. However, the goal of mitigation is to replace lost values and functions so square footage is most often not a relevant measurement.

-What is considered acceptable mitigation? Depending on the extent of resource areas altered by the project, acceptable mitigation involves mitigation that is sufficient to replace the lost values and functions of that area. This can include restoration of degraded resource areas; enhancement of existing resource areas; establishment of new resource areas, or permanent protection of existing like areas.

WETLANDS POLICY # DRAFT 4/9/15 DD SUDBURY WETLANDS ADMINISTRATION BYLAW DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS OF MITIGATION The Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw (SWAB) requires mitigation be provided for all alteration to any protected wetland or upland resource area. Mitigation is not provided simply by meeting the performance standards of the Bylaw or its Regulations for work in these resource areas. Through this policy, the Sudbury Conservation Commission defines the term mitigation as used in the SWAB and further clarifies the intent and requirements for applicants. This Policy is intended to provide guidance regarding the exercise of discretion under the SWAB Bylaw and Regulations. It is important to realize that meeting the performance standards (under both the Wetlands Protection Act and the Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw) does not necessarily mean that wetland and/or upland values and functions have been avoided or minimized. It simply means that the project has not triggered unauthorized thresholds of alteration. The requirement for mitigation is intended to offset alteration to resource values and functions for activities below the allowable thresholds. The degree of mitigation offered will play a major factor in the Commission’s decision whether or not to allow discretionary resource areas alterations. Mitigation as used in the SWAB follows, in large part, the definition of mitigation as used by the USEPA under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands Policy page 1

Mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of wetlands, streams, adjacent uplands, or other resource areas of the SWAB, conducted specifically for the purpose of offsetting authorized impacts to these resources. The fundamental objective of mitigation is to offset environmental losses resulting from unavoidable impacts to wetland and upland resource areas of the Town of Sudbury. Mitigation enters the analysis only after a proposed project has incorporated all appropriate and practicable means to first avoid and minimize adverse impacts to protected resources. The Sudbury Conservation Commission will strive to avoid adverse impacts and offset unavoidable adverse impacts to existing wetland and upland resources, and will strive to achieve a goal of no overall net loss of values and functions with the Town. Similar to the mitigation required by the EPA, mitigation under the SWAB can occur through several methods. The Commission first makes a determination that potential impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable; remaining unavoidable impacts will then be mitigated to the extent appropriate and practicable by requiring steps to minimize impacts and compensate for altered or lost protected resource values. Avoidance: allows permit issuance for only the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Minimization: states that appropriate and practicable steps to minimize the adverse impacts will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Wetlands Policy page 2

Mitigation: appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. In determining mitigation, the functional values lost by the resource to be impacted must be considered. Generally, in-kind mitigation is preferable to out-of-kind. There is continued uncertainty regarding the success of wetland creation or other habitat development. Therefore, in determining the nature and extent of habitat development of this type, careful consideration should be given to its likelihood of success. Because the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced, restoration or preservation should be the first options considered. In determining appropriate and practicable measures to offset unavoidable impact, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Monitoring is an important aspect of mitigation, especially in areas of scientific uncertainty. Monitoring should be directed toward determining whether permit conditions are complied with and whether the purpose intended to be served by the conditions are actually achieved. Mitigation requirements shall be part of the Special Conditions of all SWAB permits. This ensures legal enforceability of the mitigation conditions and enhances the level of compliance. If the mitigation plan necessary to ensure compliance with the Bylaw & Regulations is not reasonably implementable or enforceable, the permit shall be denied. Wetland Policy End