North Florida SectionNorth Florida SectionAssociation for the AdvancementAssociation for the Advancementof Cost Engineering International (AACEi)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.