Environmental assessment framework for identifying and mitigating the effects of linear development to wetlands

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 99, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 133-140

  Noble, Bram ^a   Hill, Michael ^b   Nielsen, Jesse ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^b DUCKS UNLIMITED CANADA   (Canada)

^c NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Environmental assessment; Linear development; Mitigation; No net loss; Wetlands

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY;

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; LINEAR DEVELOPMENT; MANAGEMENT PRACTICES; METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS; MITIGATION; NO NET LOSS; TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS; WETLAND CONSERVATION;

WETLANDS;

AID ORGANIZATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; GUIDELINE; MITIGATION; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; WETLAND MANAGEMENT;

CANADA;

EID: 78650022493     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abbruzzese B., Leibowitz S.G. Environmental auditing: a synoptic approach for assessing cumulative impacts to wetlands. Environ. Manage. 1997, 21(3):457-475.
2. Austen E., Hanson A. An analysis of wetland policy in Atlantic Canada. Can. Water Resour. J. 2007, 32(3):163-178.
3. Bartzen B., Dufour K., Clark R., Caswell F. Trends in agricultural impact and recovery of wetlands in prairie Canada. Ecol. Appl. 2010, 20(2):539-553.
4. Beanlands, G.E., Duinker, P.N., 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, PQ.
5. BenDor T., Brozovic N., Pallathucheril V.G. The social impacts of wetland mitigation policies in the United States. J. Plan. Lit. 2008, 22(4):341-357. doi: 10.1177/0885412207314011.
6. BenDor T. A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy. Landscape Urban Plan. 2009, 89:17-27. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.09.002.
7. Birol E., Cox V. Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: the case of Severn estuary wetland, UK. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2007, 50(3):363-380. doi: 10.1080/09640560701261661.
8. Bockstael N.E. Modeling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1996, 78:1168-1180.
9. Bowden M.A., Weichel B. Environmental impact assessment in Saskatchewan. Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation 2009, 333-345. Don Mills, ON: Oxford. K. Hanna (Ed.).
10. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2010. Operational policy statement. Establishing the project scope and assessment type under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Ottawa, ON: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.
11. Conley F.M., van der Kamp G. Monitoring the hydrology of Canadian prairie wetlands to detect the effects of climate change and land use changes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2001, 67(1-2):195-215.
12. Cox K.W., Grose A. Wetlands Mitigation in Canada: A Framework for Application 2000, North American Wetlands Conservation Council, Ottawa, ON.
13. Dahl T.E., Watmough M.D. Current approaches to wetland status and trends monitoring in prairie Canada and the continental United States of America. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2007, 33(1):17-27.
14. Duinker P.N., Greig L.A. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environ. Impact Assess. 2007, 27:206-219. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.11.001.
15. Duinker P.N., Greig L.A. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ. Manage. 2006, 37(2):153-161. doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5.
16. Environment Canada, 2007. Wetlands. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp%3Flang=En%26xml=540B1882-7E70-4B92-B5C8-D8FB3E23E935.
17. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Corps of Engineers.
18. Euliss N.H., Gleason R.A., Olness A., McDougal R.L., Murkin H.R., Robarts R.D., Bourbonniere R.A., Warner B.G. North American prairie wetlands are important nonforested land-based carbon storage sites. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 361:179-188. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.06.007.
19. Forman R.T.T., Deblinger R.D. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) suburban highway. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14(1):36-46.
20. Gibson R.B. Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological consideration in significant decision making. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manage. 2002, 8(3):259-280.
21. Golder Associates Ltd. Wetland and Grassland Habitat Compensation Plan for the Trans Canada East Twinning Project and Highway No. 16 Twinning Project (Final Report 03-1361-027/4010) 2006, SK: Golder Associated Ltd., Saskatoon.
22. Golder Associates Ltd. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Screening Report for the Trans Canada East Twinning Project (Final report 03-1361-027) 2003, SK: Golder Associated Ltd., Saskatoon.
23. Government of Alberta Provincial Wetland Restoration/Compensation Guide 2007, Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.
24. Government of Canada, 1992. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. S.C. 1992, c. 37. Ottawa, ON: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.
25. Government of Canada The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation 1991, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON.
26. Grayson J.E., Chapman M.G., Underwood A.J. The assessment of restoration of habitat in urban wetlands. Landscape Urban Plan. 1999, 43:227-236.
27. Hanson, A., Swanson, L., Ewing, D., Grabas, G., Meyer, S., Ross, L., Watmough, M., Kirkby, J., 2008. Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 497. Atlantic Region, 59 pp.
28. Harriman J.A.E., Noble B.F. A conceptual basis and methodological framework for regional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA) in Canada. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 2009, 27(4):258-270. doi:10.3152/146155109X479440.
29. Herring R.J. The Canadian federal EA system. Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation 2009, 281-297. Don Mills, ON: Oxford. K. Hanna (Ed.).
30. Houlahan J.E., Keddy P.A., Makkay K., Findlay C.S. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 2006, 26(1):79-96.
31. Karstens S., Bots P., Slinger J. Spatial boundary choice and the views of different actors. Environ. Impact Assess. 2007, 27:386-407. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.002.
32. King, D.M., Price, E.W., 2004. Developing Defensible Wetland Mitigation Ratios: A Companion to " The Five-Step Wetland Mitigation Ratio Calculator" Solomons, MD: University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies.
33. Leibowitz S.G., Vining K.C. Temporal connectivity in a prairie pothole complex. Wetlands 2003, 23(1):13-25.
34. Li J., Chen W. A rule-based method for mapping Canada's wetlands using optical, radar and DEM data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26(22):5051-5069. doi: 10.1080/01431160500166516.
35. Lynch-Stewart, P., Neice, P., Rubec, C., Kessel-Taylor, I., 1996. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation Implementation Guide For Federal Land Managers. Ottawa, ON: Habitat Conservation Division of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada.
36. Maltby E. Wetland management goals: wise use and conservation. Landscape Urban Plan. 1991, 20:9-18.
37. Morgan K.L., Roberts T.H. Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA. Wetlands 2003, 23(1):65-69.
38. Morrison-Saunders A., Arts J., Baker J., Caldwell P. Roles and stakes in environmental impact assessment follow-up. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 2001, 19(4):289-296.
39. Natural Resources Canada, 2004. The Atlas of Canada: Wetlands. Retrieved from http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/.
40. Nielsen, J., 2010. A Cumulative Effects Approach to Wetland Mitigation. M.Sc. thesis. Saskatoon, SK: Department of Geography and Planning, University of Saskatchewan.
41. Noble B.F. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: Guide to Principles and Practice 2010, Don Mills, ON: Oxford. second ed.
42. Noble B.F., Storey K. Towards increasing the utility of follow-up in Canadian EIA. Environ. Impact Assess. 2005, 25:163-180. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.009.
43. Ross W.A., Morrison-Saunders A., Marshall R. Common sense in environmental impact assessment: it is not as common as it should be. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 2006, 24(1):3-22.
44. Rubec C.D.A., Hanson A.R. Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 2009, 17:3-14. doi: 10.1007/s11273-008-9078-6.
45. STEC, Saskatchewan Transportation and Environment Committee, 2006. Wetland and Upland Mitigation Guidelines For Road Construction (Guideline No. 1). Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways.
46. Steinemann A. Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. 2001, 21:3-21.
47. Therivel R., Ross W.A. Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter?. Environ. Impact Assess. 2007, 27:365-385. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.001.
48. Tiner R.W. Assessing cumulative loss of wetland functions in the Nanticoke river watershed using enhanced national wetlands inventory data. Wetlands 2005, 25(2):405-419.
49. Tinker L., Cobb D., Bond A., Cashmore M. Impact mitigation in environmental impact assessment: paper promises or the basis of consent conditions?. Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 2005, 23(4):265-280.
50. Weber T.C., Allen W.L. Beyond on-site mitigation: an integrated, multi-scale approach to environmental mitigation and stewardship for transportation projects. Landscape Urban Plan. 2010, 96:240-256. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.04.003.
51. Wood G., Becker J. Discretionary judgement in local planning authority decision making: screening development proposals for environmental impact assessment. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2005, 48(3):349-371. doi: 10.1080/09640560500067467.