Emerging Issues in Wetland Loss Mitigation: A Policy Analysis in the Tar-Pamlico Basin
Abstract
Ecological functions of wetlands and streams provide valuable services to human
societies, but conflicting societal objectives at times place greater value on conversion
or destruction than on preservation of wetlands. Therefore, it is imperative that
regulatory structures provide a system for environmental decision makers to weigh
available science, stakeholder input, and economic factors in determining how to
minimize and mitigate loss of these resources. This study utilized an environmental
policy analysis framework to evaluate the success of North Carolina’s wetland
management system in achieving these goals, and to locate programmatic components
for which performance could be improved. Comparison with past analyses revealed
that the state’s newest mitigation mechanism, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
demonstrated high-level or enhanced performance over its first two years of operation
in
efficiency, the ability to incorporate scientific advancements, transparency, and
watershed planning. Areas for continued improvement were identified as incorporating
a functional assessment methodology into wetland evaluation for determining mitigation
requirements and evaluating mitigation success, increasing the length of monitoring
for
restored and created wetland and stream projects, enhancing data availability and
clarity, and applying a watershed approach in directing development toward areas of
least environmental damage.
Type
Master's projectPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/66Citation
Hill, Tamara (2006). Emerging Issues in Wetland Loss Mitigation: A Policy Analysis in the Tar-Pamlico Basin.
Master's project, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/66.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Nicholas School of the Environment
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info