Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
John R. Dorney Atkins North America Raleigh, NC NC Water Resources Association Symposium Raleigh, NC March 27, 2012
2.
3.
Three challenges
1. Compliance crucial 2. Flexible mitigation for buffers, coming to an EMC near you! Flexibility needed for wetlands and streams too.
Three Questions
Answer no real differences by provider but overall NC better than other states. Previous wetland success rates lousy in NC. 20 to 42% in 1995 Recent study by DWQ basically shows same regulatory success rate by provider for wetlands and streams. Wetlands - 70% by area Streams - 84% by length
Question 1: How does mitigation success vary by provider in North Carolina? (cont.)
Therefore, DOT, EEP, bankers and applicant-provided all equally good at mitigation.
Interesting trends
I analyzed 19 reports on wetland regulatory success rates across the US from 1988 to 2010. In the US, regulatory mitigation success (for wetlands) does not seem to be improving.
Range 18 % (MI) to 70% (NC) Average of 48% No statistically significant trend
Why is NC different?
My conclusion existence of EEP has curtailed small, onsite, applicant-provided mitigation in NC.
Therefore, EEP has resulted in higher mitigation regulatory success in NC. Challenge keeping this true while EEP morphs with new state legislation encouraging private banks.
10
Answer No.
I believe that the failure of mitigation is exaggerated. Similarly, I believe that the success of mitigation is also exaggerated.
11
Changes needed More stream monitoring but not to the level of scientific research
Streambank stability Biological (aquatic insects) Results of DWQ study
Encourage stream enhancement over restoration Flexible (alternative) mitigation for wetlands, streams and buffers
12
13
Stream condition in piedmont streams with restored riparian buffers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 2010. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46(3): 473-485. Studied 30, 1st order streams with at least 30 meter wide buffers; stream enhancement sites. Age range from zero to 25 years old.
15
Habitat, water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate metrics generally improved with age of restored buffer.
Noticeable improvements occurring within 5 10 years post-restoration, leading to conditions approaching those of long established buffers within 10-15 years of restoration. Full water quality functionality of the restored site occurs in 15- 20 years
16
17
18
Implications for NC mitigation policy Message BE PATIENT. Very few NC sites are > 10 years old.
19
Sandy Creek within Duke Campus. Conducted - i) 1 stream restoration, ii) in-line pond (rehabilitation), and then iii) off-line constructed wetlands. Monitoring over many years (2001 2007) by a plethora of graduate students with LOTS of data.
20
N loads were reduced by 64% and P loads were reduced by 28%. Only really significant reductions after all three treatments were installed.
22
Overall conclusion - multi-phased restoration of Sandy Creek using natural stream design principles and re-contoured adjacent wetlands resulted in a restoration of the floodplain riparian hydrology, which reduced downstream water pulses
23
Main conclusions stream restoration has water quality benefit. need watershed based approach. Permitting (so called in-line treatment) can make watershed approach a challenge. To scientifically prove water quality benefit, you have either 1) huge monitoring costs, or 2) use free graduate student labor (n=150 students over 10 years).
24
25
26
Question 3: How can we begin to achieve gain of acreage and function in North Carolina?
Answer Change state and federal policies to encourage this approach Available tools of NC WAM (now) and NC SAM (soon). NC WAM and Meadow Branch example
27
28
29
26 acres
6
0 0.82
30
Three Challenges
31
Grossly underfunded by feds and state. Without oversight, no assurance that anything works (private or public; regulatory or scientific). Without recent DWQ study, wed still be having meaningless debate about who does mitigation best in NC.
32
Challenge 1 (cont.)
Important caveat Dont be surprised when regulators inspect sites and see something that you dont.
Challenge for mitigation industry (private and public) FUND POSITIONS. Fee-based positions probably most realistic
33
34
35
EMC authorized to do flexible buffer mitigation by state statute over a decade ago. Draft flexible buffer mitigation
Draft rules before Water Quality Committee of EMC six times in past three years! On WQC agenda for May 2012.
36
Challenge 2 (cont.)
Expand buffer mitigation options esp. in service areas with few options for traditional mitigation.
Do not assume these options will be cheaper most will be more expensive. Big Lesson: Often (always?) Flexible cheaper.
Recommendation discuss with your favorite EMC member to get rules to Public Hearing.
37
NC WAM/NC SAM is the tool! Everyone needs to think outside the box somewhat to make this work. Need to determine
how to use, how to monitor, etc.
Challenge 3 (cont.)
equivalents. With functional uplift, site has 13.32 acres of restoration equivalents.
1 acre). Largest site is 1.5 acres with 1.125 acres functional equivalents.
39
Next speakers
Will Harmon, Stream Mechanics Can stream mitigation meet no net loss goals? Eric Kulz, DWQ Historical performance of mitigation from different sources. Michael Ellison, EEP Mitigation in an evolutionary context. George Howard, Restoration Systems Role of private mitigation banking. Then - Panel Discussion and Questions
41