Photo Credit: Enrique/Pixabay.com
Tom Cervone, Ph.D., Nicole Cervone-Gish, M.S., and Michael Cervone, B.S.
Our Planet Earth
Author’s note: This website encourages and informs all of God’s children to act in Care for Our Common Home.
Introduction
Did you know that mitigation is sometimes required to make up for impacts from highways, wind farms, development, and other projects? Such mitigation must offset and abate the loss of natural resources, including endangered/threatened species, and mitigation projects often require a permanent conservation easement with specific long-term management to ensure their success. Prior to mitigation, though, agencies responsible for permitting the action must avoid as many impacts as possible, and then minimize impacts.
A most helpful planning tool for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating is a Geographic Information System to locate human and natural resources. Mitigation efforts for impacts require different ratios, which need to equal or be greater than those caused by the project. This means that if an impact to a jurisdictional wetland is 1 acre and the mitigation ratio is 3:1, then 3 acres of wetland are required. In addition, the mitigation site must be near the impact site, and it must be approved by environmental regulatory agencies. In some projects, a Preliminary Mitigation Plan needs to be approved.
Billions of birds and millions of bats have been lost in the last few decades reducing some species to near extinction, which explains why mitigation properties are so important. For instance, projects that change the landscape and kill wildlife need to follow prescribed steps given by review agencies, which may include following the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or some similar process. The “tipping point” may apply for such species, where the number gets so low that the species population is in jeopardy.
Prior to 1970, humankind did what it wanted, and often left degraded environments. But today, NEPA requires an assessment of both human and natural resource impacts prior to approval of a project. Having practiced and taught mitigation for more than three decades and understanding that there is a functionality required, I realize that mitigation should not be completed just for the purpose of doing it. It must have meaningful outcomes that positively contribute to our human and natural environments, e.g., in this article, we’ll focus on protecting endangered/threatened species along with discussing mitigation sites that provide habitat with a true replacement value. If the endangered species is a bat, then mitigation could be at a minimum, (1) located within a recorded maternity colony, (2) have maternity roost tree(s) where females can give birth and rear young or possibly even have (3) a cave that acts as winter habitat.
If a project kills birds, bats, or impacts other natural resources, regulatory agencies require serious mitigation to make the replacement useful. We can’t continue to kill wildlife and say, “Oh, we have conservation easements available to make up for the loss.” This may be true, or it may not, depending upon the requirements in each permit, which should include at least, yearly mortality numbers from the project and results from any bat surveys completed at the mitigation site. From experience, the more carefully planned selection of mitigation sites offers improved and more helpful results, especially in consultation with environmental review agencies and a third party monitoring them. If you are the monitoring party, know everything about the mitigation conservation easement, since it is making up for wildlife losses, functions, and values.
What Can You Do?
Follow the 10 Eco-Commandments as given in the presentation “Man and Biosphere,” delivered 3/9/1968 in Paris by Peter Menke-Gluckert to the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Peter Sogaard Jorgensen, 4/29/2014, “Ten Eco-Commandments, Evolution and Sustainability”).
Do everything possible to promote the protection of natural habitats.
Short Video on Mitigation:
Quote: “When we look back at the end of our lives, each of us will have to answer that all important question. Did I leave the natural world a better place than I found it or did I only take from it what was good for me?” John Martin, Founding Board Member and a Landowner of the Valley Land Fund.
Tom Cervone, Ph.D. is the Founder of Our Planet Earth, Deacon, and ecologist. Nicole Cervone-Gish, Ed. MS. is an award-winning St. Elizabeth Anne Seton teacher at Holy Spirit. Michael Cervone, BS. is the programmer and designer of the Our Planet Earth website.
Special thanks also go out to Bill McCoy, Rabbi Brian Besser, Caroline Nellis, and Sister Jean Marie Ballard, OSB for reviewing this article.
Comments may be directed to ourplanetearth.eco@gmail.com Thank you!