Identifying wetland compensation principles and mechanisms for Atlantic Canada using a delphi approach

Wetlands

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 640-655

  Austen, Emily ^a   Hanson, Alan ^a,b  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ENVIRONMENT CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Mitigation sequence; Wetland policy

Indexed keywords

DELPHI ANALYSIS; FEDERAL SYSTEM; GUIDELINE; MITIGATION; POLICY ANALYSIS; WETLAND; WETLAND MANAGEMENT;

CANADA;

EID: 77749252656     PISSN: 02775212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1672/07-170.1     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alberta Environment. 2007. Provincial Wetland Restoration/Compensation Guide- Revised Edition February 2007. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
2. Aldred, J. and M. Jacobs. 2000. Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely Citizen's jury. Ecological Economics 34:217-232
3. Austen, E. 2005. A compensation process for wetland loss in Atlantic Canada. M.E.S. Thesis. School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
4. Austen, E. and A. Hanson. 2007. An analysis of wetland policy in Atlantic Canada. Canadian Journal of Water Resources 32:163-178
5. Babbie, E. R. 1973. Survey Research Methods. Wadsworth Publishing Inc., Belmont, CA, USA.
6. Bailey, R. O. 2000. A practical framework for applying wetland mitigation in Canada. p. 57-79. In K. W. Cox and A. Grose (eds.) Wetland Mitigation in Canada: A Framework for Application. Sustaining Wetlands Issues Paper 2000-1. Secretariat to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
7. Balzano, S., A. Ertman, L. Brancheau, and W. Smejkal. 2002. Creating indicators of wetland status (quality and quantity): freshwater wetland mitigation in New Jersey. Available online at: ,http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/ wetlands/final.pdf.. Accessed 20 July 2005.
8. Bardecki, M. J. 1984. Wetland conservation policies in southern Ontario: a Delphi approach. Geographical Monographs no. 16. York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
9. Bond, W. K., K. W. Cox, T. Heberlein, E. W. Manning, D. R. Witty, and D. A. Young. 1992. Wetland evaluation guide: final report of the wetlands are not wastelands project. Sustaining Wetlands Issues Paper, No. 1992-1. North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
10. Brinson, M. M. and R. Rheinhardt. 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69-76.
11. Brown, S. C. and P. L. M. Venemen. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21:508-518
12. Busch, W.-D. N. and S. J. Lary. 1996. Assessment of habitat impairments impacting the aquatic resources of Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:113-120
13. Coffman, M. S. 1994. Saviors of the Earth: The Politics and Religion of the Environmental Movement. Northfield Publishing, Chicago, IL, USA.
14. Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
15. Cox, K. W. and A. Grose (eds.). 2000. Wetland Mitigation in Canada: A Framework for Application. Sustaining Wetlands Issues Paper 2000-2001 North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
16. Curtis, I. A. 2004. Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign weights to attributes. Ecological Economics 50:163-194
17. Dalkey, N. C. 1972. Introduction. p. 1-11. In N. C. Dalkey, D. L. Rourke, R. Lewis, and D. Snyder (eds.) Studies in the Quality of Life: Delphi and Decision-making. Rand Corporation, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, USA.
18. Delbecq, A. L., A. H. Van de Ven, and D. H. Gustafson. 1975. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL, USA.
19. Environmental Law Institute. 2005. State Wetland Program Evaluation Phase I. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
20. Environmental Law Institute 2006. State Wetland Program Evaluation Phase II. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
21. Environmental Law Institute 2007. State Wetland Program Evaluation Phase III. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
22. Farnese, P. L. and K. W. Belcher. 2006. Wetlands in agricultural landscapes: a legal and policy context. Law, Science and Policy 3:33-58.
23. Findlay, S. E. G., E. Kiviat, W. C. Nieder, and E. A. Blair. 2002. Functional assessment of a reference wetland set as a tool for science, management and restoration. Aquatic Sciences 64:107-117
24. Gardner, R. C. 2000. Money for nothing? the rise of wetland fee mitigation. Virginia Environmental Law Journal 19:1-56.
25. Government of Canada. 1991. Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Canada.
26. Grose, A., R. O. Bailey, and K. W. Cox. 2000. Wetland mitigation in Canada. p. 1-14. In K. W. Cox and A. Grose (eds.) Wetland Mitigation in Canada: A Framework for Application. Sustaining Wetlands Issues Paper 2000-1. Secretariat to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
27. Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula, and P. W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands 19:477-489
28. Hruby, T., W. E. Cesanek, and K. E. Miller. 1995. Estimating relative wetland values for regional planning. Wetlands 15:93-107.
29. Kendall, M. G. 1955. Rank Correlation Methods, second edition. Charles Griffin & Company Limited, London, UK.
30. Kentula, M. E. and T. K. Magee. 1999. Foreword. Wetlands 19:475-476
31. Kruczynski, W. L. 1990. Options to be considered in preparation and evaluation of mitigation plans. p. 555-570 In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Volumes 1 and 2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Lab, Corvallis, Oregon. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
32. Kusler, J. 1998. U.S. experience with wetland compensation: lessons and recommendations. p. 55-57. In K. W. Cox and A. Grose (eds.) Wetland Mitigation and Compensation: Proceedings of a National Workshop. Secretariat to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
33. Kusler, J. 2006. Recommendations for Reconciling Wetland Assessment Techniques. Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY, USA.
34. Kusler, J. and T. Opheim. 1996. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guide, second edition. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
35. Lynch-Stewart, P. and K. Cox. 2000. Grand Lake Meadows: negotiating a mitigation agreement for a NAWMP project site. p. 38-47. In K. W. Cox and A. Grose (eds.) Wetland Mitigation in Canada: A Framework for Application. Sustaining Wetlands Issues Paper 2000-1. Secretariat to the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
36. Lynch-Stewart, P., I. Kessel-Taylor, and C. Rubec. 1999. Wetlands and Government: Policy and Legislation for Wetland Conservation in Canada. Sustaining Wetlands Issue Paper Series no. 1999-2001 North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
37. Lynch-Stewart, P., P. Neice, C. Rubec, and I. Kessel-Taylor. 1996. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation: Implementation Guide for Federal Land Managers. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
38. MacMillan, D. C., D. Harley, and R. Morrison. 1998. Costeffectiveness analysis of woodland ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 27:313-324
39. Maine Land Use Regulatory Commission. 1998. Wetland compensation guidelines. Available online at: ,http://www. maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index. php?topic5lurcfiles&id5 2811&v5tplfiles.. Accessed 31 July 2005.
40. Milko, R. 1998. Wetlands Environmental Assessment Guideline. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
41. Morgan, K. L. and T. H. Roberts. 1999. An Assessment of Wetland Mitigation in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN, USA.
42. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, and Environment and Local Government. 2001. New Brunswick Wetlands Conservation Policy. Fredericton, NB, Canada. Available online at: ,http://www.gnb.ca/0078/reports/ wetlands/wetlands.pdf.. Accessed 17 July 2005.
43. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1993. Freshwater wetlands regulations: guidelines on compensatory mitigation. Available online at: ,www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/wetlmit.pdf.. Accessed 31 August 2005.
44. Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour. 2006. Policy Respecting Alteration of Wetlands (March 1, 2006). Available online at: ,http://www.gov.ns.ca/enla/airlandwater/wetlandalteration.asp.. Accessed 1 August 2007.
45. Prince Edward Island Department of Fisheries, Agriculture, and Environment. 2003. A Wetland Conservation Policy for Prince Edward Island. Available online at: ,http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/fae-wetland-con.pdf.. Accessed 31 August 2005.
46. Race, M. S. and M. S. Fonseca. 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecological Applications 6:94-101.
47. Robb, J. T. 2002. Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435-440
48. Roberts, L. 1993. Wetlands trading is a loser's game, say ecologists. Science 260:1890-1892
49. Rubec, C. D. A. and A. R. Hanson. 2008. Wetland mitigation and compensation; Canadian experience. Wetland Ecology and Management: accepted.
50. Scodari, P. and L. Shabman. 2000. Review and analysis of in lieu fee mitigation in the CWA Section 404 permit program. Prepared for Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA, USA. Available online at: ,http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/IWRReport-ILF- Nov00.PDF.. Accessed 21 July 2005.
51. Shabman, L., K. Stephenson, and P. Scodari. 1998. Wetland credit sales as a strategy for achieving no-net-loss: the limitations of regulatory conditions. Wetlands 18:471-481
52. Siegel, S. 1956. Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. McGraw-Hill, London, UK.
53. Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-9.
54. Taylor, J. G. and S. D. Ryder. 2003. Use of the Delphi method in resolving complex water resources issues. Journal American Water Resources Association 39:183-189
55. The Wetlands Company. 2001. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act wetland banking system assessment and recommendations: final report. Available online at: ,http://www.bwsr.state.mn. us/wetlands/publications/bankingreport.pdf.. Accessed 21 July 2005.
56. Tiner, R. W. 2003. Correlating Enhanced National Wetlands Inventory Data with Wetland Functions for Watershed Assessments: A Rationale for Northeastern U.S. Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Program, Region 5, Hadley, MA, USA.
57. Tiner, R. W. 2005. Assessing cumulative loss of wetland functions in the Nanticoke River watershed using enhanced National Wetland Inventory data. Wetlands 25:405-419
58. Turoff, M. 1975. The policy Delphi. p. 80-96. In H. A. Linstone and M. Turoff (eds.) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA, USA. Available online at: ,http://www.is.njit. edu/pubs/delphibook/index.html.. (online version copyright 2002). Accessed 31 August 2005.
59. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 02-2. Online: ,http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot-topics/RGL-02-2.pdf. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot-topics/RGL-02-2.pdf. Accessed: August 31 2005.
60. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Savannah District). 2004. Standard Operating Procedure. Compensatory mitigation: wetlands, openwater & streams.Draft edition (March 2004). Online: ,www.sas. usace.army.mil/SOP.04.doc. . Accessedwww.sas.usace.army. mil/SOP.04.docAccessed 21 July 2005.
61. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Services, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Federal guidance on the use of in-lieu-fee arrangements for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Available online at: ,http://www.epa.gov/ owow/wetlands/regs/inlieufee. pdf.. Accessed 21 July 2005.
62. Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2004. Guidance on wetland mitigation in Washington State. Part 1: Laws, rules, policy, and guidance related to wetland mitigation (Draft). Ecology Publication 04-06-013a. Available online at: ,http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0406013a.pdf.. Accessed 20 July 2005.
63. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Guidelines for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Wisconsin. Available online at: ,http://www.dnr. state.wi.us/org/es/science/publications/wetland-mitig.pdf.. Accessed 1 June 2005.
64. Zedler, J. B. 1996. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecological Applications 6:33-37.