Stream mitigation banking

Lave, Rebecca

doi:10.1002/wat2.1279

Cited by 34 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Why then, are these data not more widely used? Some researchers may be skeptical of using data collected by restoration practitioners (Lave 2018). Furthermore, collating data from numerous reports can be time-consuming.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inadequate monitoring is frequently cited as a barrier to understanding the efficacy of stream restoration broadly (Bernhardt et al 2005;Palmer et al 2014) and at stream mitigation bank sites specifically (Lave 2018). However, compensatory mitigation projects must submit monitoring reports to the Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008), and the resulting data provide an opportunity to examine restoration efficacy more broadly than studies that focus on individual restoration sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United States, an important driver of stream restoration is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires that damages to stream ecosystems must be mitigated, meaning avoided or minimized if possible, or compensated for if damages are deemed unavoidable. In practice, damages are rarely avoided completely, and thus nearly all mitigation is in the form of “compensatory mitigation” that offsets detrimental impacts to streams with restoration or preservation of streams in other locations (Lave 2018). The key policy underpinning compensatory mitigation is “no net loss,” the idea that restoration activities improve ecosystem conditions in one stream to offset damage to other streams (Doyle & Shields 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stream restoration produces transitory, not permanent, changes to fish assemblages at compensatory mitigation sites

Stowe

Petersen

Rao

et al. 2023

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is inconsistent evidence that stream restoration projects lead to recovery of ecosystem attributes, especially stream biota. While some assessments have documented desired changes in fish community metrics in the first years following restoration, longer‐term studies have not always corroborated these findings. In this study, we used data and monitoring reports submitted to federal regulators by stream mitigation consultants to examine whether in‐stream restoration activities led to changes in fish community attributes at 23 compensatory mitigation projects representing 53 sampling sites in Georgia, United States over 7 years of post‐restoration monitoring. Modeling results indicated that abundance and species richness of fishes generally increased in the first years after restoration before decreasing to baseline levels by the seventh year. This pattern was consistent for models considering sensitive fish taxa, as well as at sites across a range of agricultural and forested land cover percentages. However, the effect of restoration on species richness was dampened in larger streams and at more urbanized locations. A community trajectory analysis supported the findings that fish community change was transitory at most sites. Remote estimation of canopy cover change at restoration sites suggested that the hump‐shaped response may be driven by increased light availability during the immediate‐post restoration period, followed by subsequent re‐shading of stream channels by riparian plantings. Our analysis indicates that reach‐level manipulation of streams should not be expected to induce long‐term changes in fish communities, and that publicly available monitoring reports may be leveraged to address questions of stream restoration efficacy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stream restoration produces transitory, not permanent, changes to fish assemblages at compensatory mitigation sites

Stowe

Petersen

Rao

et al. 2023

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, markets for ecosystem services are developing in the region where monetary incentives are available for forestbased ecosystem services. For example, conservation crediting strategy offers credits to offset the loss of endangered species, mitigation banking offsets the loss in wetlands and streams, and voluntary carbon markets pay for the net carbon stored in the forests (Bauer et al, 2004;Lave, 2018). A well-managed longleaf pine stand with an understory and longer rotation provides habitat for various species, including several endangered species, stores carbon on a long-term basis, and is key for improving water quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of Southern Pines With and Without Payments for Environmental Amenities in the US South

Paudel

Dwivedi

2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the early 1900s, nearly 37 million hectares of land in the Southern United States were under longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) relative to the current area of 1.6 million hectares. This study compares the economics of southern pines (longleaf, loblolly (Pinus taeda), and slash (Pinus elliottii)) to facilitate the decision making of family forest landowners and design suitable financial incentives for increasing the area under longleaf pine in the region. We simulated six growth and yield scenarios for selected southern pines over three site indices in the Lower Coastal Plain of South Georgia. We estimated land expectation values (LEVs) of each scenario for the three cases, i.e., payment for forest products, payment for forest products and net carbon storage, and payment for forest products, net carbon storage, and net water yield. Our findings show that pine straw income significantly increases the LEV of longleaf pine. The financial risk of growing longleaf pine is lower than that of other southern pines. Existing financial support through various governmental incentives or additional monetary support for ecosystem services provided by longleaf pine ecosystems is needed to increase the area under longleaf pine in the Southern United States, in general, and in South Georgia, in particular. However, a need exists to reevaluate the conservation values provided by longleaf plantations considering expected shorter rotation ages due to the income provided by pine straw markets in Southern United States.

show abstract

“…The third research question considered the quality of data collected by CMAs. It is widely acknowledged that lack of monitoring and assessment is a problem for river restoration projects (e.g., Palmer et al , Bernhardt et al ; Brookes and Lake 2007; Kondolf et al ; Palmer et al ; Lave ). For example, the Victorian Catchment Management Council (VCMC) conducts reviews every 5 years of all available data from the 10 Victorian CMAs about the state‐wide condition of catchments, including the condition of riparian vegetation on river restoration sites (VCMC ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using voluntary agreements to exclude stock from waterways: An evaluation of project success and persistence

Moore

Rutherfurd

2018

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture is one of the major drivers of ecological degradation in river basins. Excluding stock (cows and sheep) from grazing riverbanks and accessing rivers is one of the most common river restoration activities. To be effective, stock exclusion must be maintained indefinitely. In Australia, and elsewhere, stock exclusion projects are most commonly implemented by establishing voluntary agreements between landholders and government agencies. This study examined the extent to which landholders in 3 catchment management authority (CMA) regions in southeast Australia maintain stock exclusion from waterways, whether vegetation on riverbanks recovered, and the effectiveness of assessment methods. It was found that nearly half of landholders continue to graze stock on the riverbank. There has been some success with improving the condition of riparian vegetation. Sites with full stock exclusion contain the pre-European abundance of juvenile trees, and sites with continued grazing contain significantly lower abundance of juvenile trees. Establishing the effectiveness of management was made more difficult by the inconsistent methods used by the different CMAs. Stock exclusion projects implemented with voluntary agreements have the potential to succeed if oversight is improved between government agencies and CMAs and between CMAs and landholders. Projects will be easier to assess if regional authorities use consistent methods of assessment. Voluntary agreements are only suitable for environmental management if projects are monitored, maintained, and assessed appropriately. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:237-247. C 2018 SETAC

show abstract

Stream mitigation banking

Cited by 34 publications

References 35 publications

Stream restoration produces transitory, not permanent, changes to fish assemblages at compensatory mitigation sites

Stream restoration produces transitory, not permanent, changes to fish assemblages at compensatory mitigation sites

Economics of Southern Pines With and Without Payments for Environmental Amenities in the US South

Using voluntary agreements to exclude stock from waterways: An evaluation of project success and persistence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About