Improved Approach to Naturalization Projects
Filed in Restoration and Protection |
The consultant team and the Steering committee are making progress in giving shape to an improved approach to permitting projects whose underlying purpose is to improve the ecological health of the County, whatever the economic driver of the project is. An earlier blog post talked somewhat about this, and we are calling this category of project “naturalization Projects”. A draft of both the guidance for this approach and specific ordinance language is coming soon for review, but we are anxious to get your feedback on this approach.
Recognizing that some projects improve rather than harm the environment may seem obvious, but language in an ordinance recognizing the fact presents a significant improvement on what is allowed under the current Ordinance while maintaining the level of protection the current Ordinance provides to wetlands and buffers. Below we have tried to summarize the positive benefits in the area of wetlands permitting we expect this Ordinance Update to produce:
1. One of the biggest complaints we hear is that the current Ordinance outright “Prohibits” impacts to wetlands and strongly discourages impacts to buffers unless it can be proven that there are no practicable alternatives. The Ordinance, as written, assumes that avoidance of impact is the best alternative. If wetland or buffer must be impacted the applicant must provide documentation to support that there are no practical alternatives to the impact. Unfortunately, no specific listing of information is provided that details what that information should be, unlike other local Ordinances.
The updated version of the Ordinance will specifically define what is permissible, giving applicants and reviewer’s upfront knowledge regarding permissible projects. Applicants should be able to review their projects prior to making the formal submittal, determine what aspects of the project are not going to be allowed, make the necessary changes, and feel comfortable that provided they meet the requirements of the Ordinance that permit issuance is likely.
2. The Ordinance does not distinguish between temporary and permanent impacts. For example:
-
- In the Ordinance’s current form, there is no ability to complete wetland enhancement or restoration without mitigating for the impacts caused by physically entering a wetland. Under the current Ordinance, this is an impact to the wetland that must be mitigated. The applicant has to create additional wetland or purchase credits for the impact. This situation discourages restoration or enhancement of existing wetland areas because the applicant is penalized by having to mitigate the impact and increase the total area of wetland and associated buffer onsite.
- The same situation would be true for installation of a utility line. A utility line may be installed and grades returned to original contour. Currently compensatory mitigation is required, however, the updated Ordinance will distinguish between temporary and permanent impacts, and in many circumstances, no additional compensatory wetland mitigation will be required, only restoration of the impacted area will be necessary.
Permitting for projects that involve only temporary wetland impacts should experience cost savings due to eliminated mitigation costs and improved turnaround times for reviews.
3. There are many situations in which the applicant is willing to install native vegetation or enhance existing plant communities within their project site; however there is no direct benefit to the applicant in the permitting process for doing so. The updated Ordinance will give wetland mitigation and BMP credit to the applicant for installing native vegetation within the development, provided it meets a minimum floristic quality standards established in the permit review process.
Wednesday, February 3rd 2010 at 4:20 pm |
To clarify, the County currently allows for temporary impacts to wetlands, including impacts for the installation of utility lines, as long as these impacts truly are temporary. For example: if a utility line is installed through a wetland, the County would require that the wetland be restored in place, without additional (1.5:1 or 3:1) mitigation. To permit temporary impacts, the County would require that the grades are restored to existing elevations. Specifications for soil handling and a native planting plan with performance standards for the impacted areas are also required to ensure that the impacted wetland returns to wetland conditions after the work is done. If a project can meet these criteria (and most utility projects do), the County currently considers it to be temporary without requiring additional mitigation.
Thursday, February 4th 2010 at 8:11 am |
A definition of temporary and permanent wetland impact should be included in the Ordinance update to help explain the difference between the two impacts and the associated mitigation ratios. A discussion with examples in a guidance document would be very useful as well.
Friday, February 5th 2010 at 3:52 pm |
Item #1 of the original post: The specifics related to wetland avoidance are included in the original 1992 Appendix E Technical Guidance Document. Some additional language could be added to the Ordinance to help guide users. But where should the balance be between Ordinance language and guidance? The Ordinance contains technical criteria. A guidance document should supplement the Ordinance and provide the background necessary to understand why the provisions of the Ordinance are mandated. Guidance should provide an explanation of how the Ordinance criteria may be achieved. Avoidance of wetland impacts as the best alternative is the central model of wetland protection nationally. The key concept is the definition of practicable alternatives and the basic purpose of the project. No wetland impact should be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed impact which would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purpose. The ideas of practicable alternatives and the basic purpose of the project are well documented in case law, which could be further explored and explained in the guidance document.
None of the listening sessions resulted in complaints that the wetland avoidance criteria is to tough to navigate. And one of the highest rating values of the survey was that the Ordinance does a good job of protecting and preserving natural areas, including wetlands and streams. I assume the complaints that the current Ordinance outright ‘prohibits’ impacts to wetlands is coming from a select group of people on the development/economic side of things and not the majority of the DuPage general population that use or benefit from the Ordinance. Comments from the listening sessions and results from the survey did suggest that more guidance and direction as to how the practicable alternatives (avoidance) concept is evaluated and applied. These concerns can be addressed through a combination of additional language in the Ordinance, greater depth in the guidance document, and specific education on the avoidance criteria.
Friday, February 12th 2010 at 4:18 pm |
There has been some confusion on what is considered a practicable alternative, especially when it involves cost considerations. It took over a year to make a case for mitigation based ecomonic viability. Much of that time was spent with the County and the consulting firm trying to define what was considered practicable alternatives. Specifically defining what is permissible will better enable permit reviewers and applicants.
Although the County does state they allow for temporary impacts to wetlands for utility lines, the Ordinance basically treats them the same as any other impact. One must show that they can’t avoid the wetlands, that they’ve investigated alternatives even if they are more costly and the wetlands must be restored. Providing better clarification as to when mitigation is required and when only restoration is required will improve the Ordinance.
Restoration and enhancement are some of the best ways to improve the functional use of streams and should be strongly encouraged through credits. However, this may require the restored or enhanced areas to be placed in a protective covenant or easement.