The Ecological Offset on the BPL tttANNE INSERT NEW COVER IMAGE PLEASE HSL, a French Linear Railway Infrastructure ________________________________________________ Eiffage, France – A Case Study (2018) 2 Publication Data Title: The ecological offset on the BPL HSL, a French linear railway infrastructure – Eiffage, France - A Case Study (2018) Key words: Mitigation hierarchy, Compensation, Biodiversity, Linear infrastructure, Railway, High-speed line, BBOP standard Authors: Clément Bourge, Marion Aubrat (Eiffage) Acknowledgements: We thank the following individuals for their comments and suggestions: Amrei von Hase, Kerry ten Kate, Joachim Lémeri, Laure-Hélène Candelier and Halya Odolant. We’d also like to address a special thank to Dervenn for their help concerning the data collection of the compensation. About Eiffage Eiffage is one of Europe's leading construction and concessions companies. The Group's business activities include: construction, real estate and urban development, civil engineering, metal, roads, energy and concessions. Unique by nature, universal by vocation, Eiffage is based on a structural balance between the Construction and Concessions businesses. Its multiple areas of expertise allow it to propose innovative solutions and to fund, design, construct, operate and maintain buildings, sites and infrastructures in France and throughout the world. Thanks to the experience of more than 65,000 employees, Eiffage generated €15 billion in 2017, 21% of which came from other countries. The Eiffage Group joined the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) in 2013. Available from https://www.eiffage.com/en/home See also http://www.developpementdurable.eiffage.com/en/ About the project The Bretagne-Pays de La Loire High Speed Rail Line (BPL HSL) is a 182 km high speed railway junction between Le Mans and Rennes situated in the west of France. It is the Eiffage Group’s most extensive project. Eiffage was entrusted with the final design, construction and maintenance of the railway in 2011 and until 2036 is engaged in a public-private partnership agreement with the SNCF Réseau (formerly the RFF), which manages the French rail network. Available from http://www.ere-lgv-bpl.com/home The Ecological Offset on the BPL HSL, a French Linear Railway Infrastructure. Eiffage, France – A Case Study (2018) Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). 2018. BBOP, Washington, D.C. © Forest Trends – Eiffage 2018. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder. Cover and graphic design by Rima Design and Forest Trends Photos by ©Gaël Arnaud and ©Dervenn Date of publication: November 2018 4 Abstract The Bretagne-Pays de la Loire (BPL) high-speed railway line’s application of the mitigation hierarchy, including biodiversity offsets, has benefitted from almost 20 years of planning, assessment and optimisation of mitigation measures to limit impacts on biodiversity. The project’s aim was to follow best practice and goes beyond the requirements in the 2012 French regulation (Mitigation Doctrine, 2012). This case study explains and demonstrates the project’s key avoidance, minimisation and compensation measures. In particular, the case study details the predicted residual impacts and associated compensation requirements for all species and habitat types listed in relevant water and protected species legislation. It also sets out the kinds of compensation measures being implemented, where and how they are taking place and how monitoring is undertaken. The outcome of an assessment of the BPL project relative to the 10 BBOP principles is summarized. This work was done to see whether the project could meet international standards for No Net Loss and identify lessons learnt and areas for improving mitigation practice in future Eiffage projects in France and internationally. 5 Table of Contents PUBLICATION DATA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 ABOUT EIFFAGE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 ABOUT THE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 TABLE OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10 1. THE FIRST STEPS OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MITIGATION HIERARCHY TO THE BPL PROJECT : AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION ................................................................................................................................................................... 14 1.1 Early stages avoidance ............................................................................................................................. 14 1.2 To know the potential impacts of the project on biodiversity is to mitigate them better ......................... 16 1.3 Ecological continuities analysis and the establishment of the Key Biodiversity Components (KBC) .......... 16 1.4 Detailed studies ....................................................................................................................................... 17 1.5 Avoidance: The choice of a path of least impact ....................................................................................... 18 1.6 Minimization ............................................................................................................................................ 18 1.7 Residual impact and offset requirement assessment ............................................................................... 19 1.7.1 For protected species .................................................................................................................................. 19 1.7.2 For protected areas ..................................................................................................................................... 21 2. THE OFFSET REQUIREMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.1 General principles .................................................................................................................................... 23 2.2 Risks that the residual impacts cannot be offset ...................................................................................... 24 2.3 Offset measures ....................................................................................................................................... 24 2.4 Offset on-site intensification .................................................................................................................... 24 2.4.1 Fungibility concept: intensive compensation over land consumption ........................................................ 25 2.4.2 Biological complementarities ...................................................................................................................... 26 2.5 Site selection ............................................................................................................................................ 27 6 2.5.1 Anticipation ................................................................................................................................................. 27 2.5.2 Land securing strategy................................................................................................................................. 27 2.5.3 Sites secured ............................................................................................................................................... 29 3. OFFSET IMPLEMENTATION AND SURVEY ...................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 PAOG (development, orientation and management plan)........................................................................ 31 3.2 Offset works ............................................................................................................................................. 31 3.3 Effective implementation of the offset requirement ................................................................................ 32 3.4 Long-term management