Literature DB >> 23515905

Compensatory stream and wetland mitigation in North Carolina: an evaluation of regulatory success.

Tammy Hill1, Eric Kulz, Breda Munoz, John R Dorney.   

Abstract

Data from a probability sample were used to estimate wetland and stream mitigation success from 2007 to 2009 across North Carolina (NC). "Success" was defined as whether the mitigation site met regulatory requirements in place at the time of construction. Analytical results were weighted by both component counts and mitigation size. Overall mitigation success (including preservation) was estimated at 74 % (SE = 3 %) for wetlands and 75 % (SE = 4 %) for streams in NC. Compared to the results of previous studies, wetland mitigation success rates had increased since the mid-1990s. Differences between mitigation providers (mitigation banks, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's design-bid-build and full-delivery programs, NC Department of Transportation and private permittee-responsible mitigation) were generally not significant although permittee-responsible mitigation yielded higher success rates in certain circumstances. Both wetland and stream preservation showed high rates of success and the stream enhancement success rate was significantly higher than that of stream restoration. Additional statistically significant differences when mitigation size was considered included: (1) the Piedmont yielded a lower stream mitigation success rate than other areas of the state, and (2) recently constructed wetland mitigation projects demonstrated a lower success rate than those built prior to 2002. Opportunities for improvement exist in the areas of regulatory record-keeping, understanding the relationship between post-construction establishment and long-term ecological trajectories of stream and wetland restoration projects, incorporation of numeric ecological metrics into mitigation monitoring and success criteria, and adaptation of stream mitigation designs to achieve greater success in the Piedmont.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23515905     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-013-0027-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  6 in total

1.  The US Clean Water Act and habitat replacement: evaluation of mitigation sites in Orange County, California, USA.

Authors:  Mark F Sudol; Richard F Ambrose
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999.

Authors:  Charles Andrew Cole; Deborah Shafer
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Wetland mitigation compliance in the western upper peninsula of Michigan.

Authors:  Melissa M Hornyak; Kathleen E Halvorsen
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands.

Authors:  Jeffrey W Matthews; Anton G Endress
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2007-08-05       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program.

Authors:  Todd BenDor; Joel Sholtes; Martin W Doyle
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.657

6.  Compensatory stream and wetland mitigation in North Carolina: an evaluation of regulatory success.

Authors:  Tammy Hill; Eric Kulz; Breda Munoz; John R Dorney
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 3.266

  6 in total
  5 in total

1.  An Assessment of Long-Term Compliance with Performance Standards in Compensatory Mitigation Wetlands.

Authors:  Kyle Van den Bosch; Jeffrey W Matthews
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Accounting for Uncertainty and Time Lags in Equivalency Calculations for Offsetting in Aquatic Resources Management Programs.

Authors:  Michael J Bradford
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Compensatory stream and wetland mitigation in North Carolina: an evaluation of regulatory success.

Authors:  Tammy Hill; Eric Kulz; Breda Munoz; John R Dorney
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  Science, statistics and surveys: a herpetological perspective.

Authors:  Richard A Griffiths; Jim Foster; John W Wilkinson; David Sewell
Journal:  J Appl Ecol       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 6.528

5.  Voluntary Restoration: Mitigation's Silent Partner in the Quest to Reverse Coastal Wetland Loss in the USA.

Authors:  Rachel K Gittman; Christopher J Baillie; Katie K Arkema; Richard O Bennett; Jeff Benoit; Seth Blitch; Julien Brun; Anthony Chatwin; Allison Colden; Alyssa Dausman; Bryan DeAngelis; Nathaniel Herold; Jessica Henkel; Rachel Houge; Ronald Howard; A Randall Hughes; Steven B Scyphers; Tisa Shostik; Ariana Sutton-Grier; Jonathan H Grabowski
Journal:  Front Mar Sci       Date:  2019-08-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.