Estimation and Analysis of Expenses of In-Lieu-Fee Projects that Mitigate Damage to Streams from Land Disturbance in North Carolina

As North Carolina’s economy has grown, the need to mitigate adverse impacts of land disturbance on aquatic ecosystems has also grown. When land disturbance adversely affects streams, a developer or the state’s Department of Transportation can satisfy mitigation requirements through payment of fees to the state’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). EEP then manages a stream mitigation project on behalf of the responsible party. EEP has had regulatory authority to require stream mitigation for 10 years. The needs of EEP to reassess its mitigation fee and identify ways to reduce costs of the program have grown over the decade. The first objective of this study was to account for all EEP expenses of design-bid and design-bid-build projects. The second objective was to analyze the determinants of contractual expenses with a cost function. EEP has spent or committed to spend $46.34 million for 45 design-build or designbid-build projects to restore or enhance 191,374 ft. of streams. Expenses per foot have been$242.12. Given its mandate to cover expenses for stream mitigation, EEP must raise mitigation fees, especially those for urban projects, make changes to reduce project expenses, or do both. As the length of a restored or enhanced stream increases, the expenses per foot decrease. The decrease is more pronounced in undeveloped, rural areas. Thus, EEP could produce mitigation for less expense by financing fewer projects with longer reaches or by financing more projects in undeveloped, rural areas. Other states with in-lieu-fee programs for compensatory mitigation might also use these results to reduce contractual expenses.Environmental Economics and Policy,

What Explains the Incidence of the Use of a Common Sediment Control on Lots with Houses Under Construction?

To analyze compliance with one aspect of the regulation of stormwater discharge, we estimate a random-utility model of the probability that a builder uses a silt fence to control sediments on a lot with a house under construction in an urbanizing county of South Carolina. The probability increases if the builder is responsible to the subdivision’s developer or if a homeowners association exists. The probability also increases as the cost to install a silt fence decreases or the number of houses under construction per built house in a subdivision increases. The results can help county officials target inspection to improve compliance.compliance with regulation, erosion and sediment control, filter fabric, management of stormwater runoff, random-utility model, silt fence, storm water pollution prevention plan, Agribusiness, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Demand and Price Analysis, Environmental Economics and Policy, Industrial Organization, Land Economics/Use, Q01, Q24, Q53, Q58,

Cervical lymph node metastasis in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the larynx: a collective international review

Adenoid cystic carcinoma (AdCC) of the head and neck is a well-recognized pathologic entity that rarely occurs in the larynx. Although the 5-year locoregional control rates are high, distant metastasis has a tendency to appear more than 5 years post treatment. Because AdCC of the larynx is uncommon, it is difficult to standardize a treatment protocol. One of the controversial points is the decision whether or not to perform an elective neck dissection on these patients. Because there is contradictory information about this issue, we have critically reviewed the literature from 1912 to 2015 on all reported cases of AdCC of the larynx in order to clarify this issue. During the most recent period of our review (1991-2015) with a more exact diagnosis of the tumor histology, 142 cases were observed of AdCC of the larynx, of which 91 patients had data pertaining to lymph node status. Eleven of the 91 patients (12.1%) had nodal metastasis and, based on this low proportion of patients, routine elective neck dissection is therefore not recommended

Estimation and Analysis of Expenses of In-Lieu-Fee Projects that Mitigate Damage to Streams from Land Disturbance in North Carolina

As North Carolina’s economy has grown, the need to mitigate adverse impacts of land disturbance on aquatic ecosystems has also grown. When land disturbance adversely affects streams, a developer or the state’s Department of Transportation can satisfy mitigation requirements through payment of fees to the state’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). EEP then manages a stream mitigation project on behalf of the responsible party. EEP has had regulatory authority to require stream mitigation for 10 years. The needs of EEP to reassess its mitigation fee and identify ways to reduce costs of the program have grown over the decade. The first objective of this study was to account for all EEP expenses of design-bid and design-bid-build projects. The second objective was to analyze the determinants of contractual expenses with a cost function. EEP has spent or committed to spend $46.34 million for 45 design-build or designbid-build projects to restore or enhance 191,374 ft. of streams. Expenses per foot have been$242.12. Given its mandate to cover expenses for stream mitigation, EEP must raise mitigation fees, especially those for urban projects, make changes to reduce project expenses, or do both. As the length of a restored or enhanced stream increases, the expenses per foot decrease. The decrease is more pronounced in undeveloped, rural areas. Thus, EEP could produce mitigation for less expense by financing fewer projects with longer reaches or by financing more projects in undeveloped, rural areas. Other states with in-lieu-fee programs for compensatory mitigation might also use these results to reduce contractual expenses

What Explains the Incidence of the Use of a Common Sediment Control on Lots with Houses Under Construction?

To analyze compliance with one aspect of the regulation of stormwater discharge, we estimate a random-utility model of the probability that a builder uses a silt fence to control sediments on a lot with a house under construction in an urbanizing county of South Carolina. The probability increases if the builder is responsible to the subdivision’s developer or if a homeowners association exists. The probability also increases as the cost to install a silt fence decreases or the number of houses under construction per built house in a subdivision increases. The results can help county officials target inspection to improve compliance