Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compliance with Wetland Mitigation Standards in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The United States has lost about half its wetland acreage since European settlement, and the effectiveness of current wetland mitigation policies is often questioned. In most states, federal wetland laws are overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but Michigan administers these laws through the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Our research provides insight into the effectiveness of the state’s implementation of these laws. We examined wetland mitigation permit files issued in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula between 2003 and 2006 to assess compliance with key MDEQ policies. Forty-six percent of files were out of compliance with monitoring report requirements, and forty-nine percent lacked required conservation easement documents. We also conducted site assessments of select compensatory wetland projects to determine compliance with MDEQ invasive plant species performance standards. Fifty-five percent were out of compliance. We found no relationship between invasive species noncompliance and past site monitoring, age of mitigation site, or proximity to roads. However, we found wetland restoration projects far more likely to be compliant with performance standards than wetland creation projects. We suggest policy changes and agency actions that could increase compliance with wetland restoration and mitigation goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Rentch JS, Grafton WN, Kordek WS (2005) A comparison of plant communities in mitigation and reference wetlands in the mid-Appalachians. Wetlands 25(1):130–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (1993) Sustainable use of wetlands—valuing tropical wetland benefits: economic methodologies and applications. Geographic Journal 159(1):22–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BenDor T, Brozovic N, Pallathucheril VK (2008) The social impacts of wetland mitigation policies in the United States. Journal of Planning Literature 22(4):341–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies L (2006) Wetlands management in the United States. The Wildlife Society 34(3):894–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaux A, Serefiddin F (1999) Validity of performance criteria and a tentative model for regulatory use in compensatory wetland mitigation permitting. Environmental Management 24(3):327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock MA, Smith RG, Jarman PJ (1999) Drain it, dam it: alteration of water regime in shallow wetlands on the New England Tableland of New South Wales, Australia. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown PH, Lant CL (1999) The effect of wetland mitigation banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Environmental Management 23:333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SC, Veneman PL (2001) Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands 21(4):508–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgin S (2010) ‘Mitigation banks’ for wetland conservation: a major success or an unmitigated disaster? Wetlands Ecology and Management 18:49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DA, Cole CA, Brooks RP (2002) A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 10(1):41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimner RA, Lemly JM, Cooper DJ (2010) Mountain fen distribution, types, and restoration priorities, San Juan Mountains, Colorado, USA. Wetlands 30:763–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole CA, Shafer D (2002) Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986–1999. Environmental Management 30(4):508–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor EF, McCoy ED (1979) The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. The American Naturalist 113(6):791–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuperus R, Canters KJ, Udo de Haes HA, Friedman DS (1999) Guidelines for ecological compensation associated with highways. Biological Conservation 90(1):41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl TE (1990) Wetlands losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress, Washington DC, p 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale L, Gerlak AK (2007) It’s all in the numbers: acreage tallies and environmental program evaluation. Environmental Management 39(1):246–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits of restoration: the need for realistic goals. Society for Ecological Restoration 8(1):2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin KL (2009) Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euliss NH, Smith LM, Wilcox DA, Browne BA (2008) Linking ecosystem processes with wetland management goals: charting a course for a sustainable future. Wetlands 28(3):553–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB (2006) Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 364

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaddie RK, Regens JL (2000) Regulating wetlands protection: environmental federalism and the states. State University of New York Press, Albany, p 155

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornyak MM, Halvorsen KE (2003) Wetland mitigation compliance in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Environmental Management 32(5):535–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BB, Pflugh KK (2008) Local officials’ and citizens’ views on freshwater wetlands. Society and Natural Resources 21:387–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz MD, Kerr J (2003) Michigan residents’ perceptions of wetlands and mitigation. Wetlands 23(2):267–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsford RT (2000) Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions, and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Australian Ecology 25:109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krogman NT (1999) Bureaucratic slippage in environmental agencies: the case of wetlands regulation. Research in Social Problems 7:163–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupi F, Kaplowitz MD, Hoehn JP (2002) The economic equivalency of drained and restored wetlands in Michigan. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5):1355–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews JW, Endress AG (2008) Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management 41:130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Public Act 451 Part 303 (March 30, 1995), Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. http://www.state.mi.us/orr/emi/admincode.asp?AdminCode=Single&Admin_Num=28100921&Dpt=EQ&RngHigh. Accessed 26 June 2010

  • Michigan State University and Michigan Natural Features Inventory (2007) Invasive plant species of Michigan. http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/education/draft_for_review06.08.07.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2008

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (1993) Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p 722

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35:25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore HH, Niering WA, Marsicano LJ, Dowdell M (1999) Vegetation change in created emergent wetlands (1988–1996) in Connecticut USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7(1):177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan KL, Roberts TH (2003) Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA. Wetlands 23(1):65–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New York, p 547

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10134&page=R1. Accessed 11 July 2011

  • O’Connell MJ (2003) Detecting, measuring, and reversing changes to wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11:397–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT (2009) Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study. Wetlands 29(3):907–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubec CD, Hanson AR (2009) Wetland mitigation and compensation: Canadian experience. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundcrantz K, Skarback E (2003) Environmental compensation in planning: a review of five different countries with major emphasis on the German system. European Environment 13:204–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Hostedde B, Walters D, Powell C, Shrubsole D (2007) Wetland management: an analysis of past practice and recent policy changes in Ontario. Journal of Environmental Management 82:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuyt KD (2005) Economic consequences of wetland degradation for local populations in Africa. Ecological Economics 53:177–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith LM, Euliss NH, Wilcox DA, Brinson MM (2008) Applications of a geomorphic and temporal perspective to wetland management in North America. Wetlands 28(3):563–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spieles DJ (2005) Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25(1):51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spieles DJ, Coneybeer M, Horn J (2006) Community structure and quality after 10 years in two central Ohio mitigation bank wetlands. Environmental Management 38(1):837–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squillace MS (2006) From ‘navigable waters’ to ‘constitutional Waters’: the future of federal wetlands regulation. University of Michigan Law School Publications Center 13(12):20–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolt MH, Genthner MH, Daniels WL, Groover VA, Nagle S, Haering KC (2000) Comparison of soil and other environmental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands. Wetlands 20(4):671–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Van den Bergh J, Soderqvist T, Barendregt A, Van der Straaten J, Maltby E, Van Ierland EC (2000) Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological Economics 25:7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum of Agreement (February 8, 1990). The determination of mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitigate.cfm. Accessed 10 July 2011

  • Wang Y, Yao Y, Ju M (2008) Wise use of wetlands: current state of protection and utilization of Chinese wetlands and recommendations for improvement. Environmental Management 41:793–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wende W, Herberg A, Herzberg A (2005) Mitigation banking and compensation pools: improving the effectiveness of impact mitigation regulation in project planning procedures. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23(2):101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (1996) Ecological issues in wetland mitigation: an introduction to the forum. Ecological Applications 6(1):33–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Callaway JC (1999) Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7(1):69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors express appreciation to the anonymous reviewers whose assistance greatly improved this paper. We also thank Rod Chimner, Catherine Tarasoff, and Hugh Gorman of Michigan Technological University; Virginia Pennala and Ann Sullins of the MDEQ, Michael Pennington of the MDOT, and the supervisors of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula county road commissions who assisted us with our research. We thank the Michigan Technological University Department of Social Sciences for financial assistance with this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest Resources & Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA

    Andrew T. Kozich & Kathleen E. Halvorsen

Authors
  1. Andrew T. Kozich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen E. Halvorsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew T. Kozich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kozich, A.T., Halvorsen, K.E. Compliance with Wetland Mitigation Standards in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. Environmental Management 50, 97–105 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9861-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9861-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation