|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
December 1, 2003PRESERVING MICHIGAN'S WATERSBuilding replacements one solution to wetland loss, but easier said than doneBy JOHN FLESHERAssociated Press Writer It sounds like having your cake and eating it, too: Destroy a wetland, but make up for it by creating another. When state regulators grant a permit to construct a building, road or other project that will degrade a wetland, they usually require the developer to provide replacement acreage elsewhere - sometimes far from the original site. Also known as "mitigation," wetland replacement is becoming increasingly popular with businesses and government alike. They consider it a win-win situation that respects property rights and economic development without sacrificing net acreage of the precious ecosystems. "It's an idea we strongly support," said Lynn Egbert, chief executive officer of the Michigan Association of Home Builders. But there's a catch: Replacing wetlands can be devilishly hard to do. Fashioning a wet patch of ground is one thing, but duplicating the biological richness and productivity of nature's models is quite another. "It's better than nothing and at its best can be very good," said Peg Bostwick, wetland specialist with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. "But it's not as simple as just moving things around on the landscape." The DEQ spent several years studying some of the wetland replacement projects it had authorized since the late 1980s. Only 22 percent could be described as successful overall, said a report issued in 2001. Success is judged by the extent to which a constructed wetland resembles and performs the functions of a natural one, such as water purification and wildlife habitat. Roughly half contained the required acreage; 42 percent had too much open water and 32 percent too little; 41 percent had insufficient topsoil for plant growth; and just 18 percent complied with all permit conditions. Fifteen percent of the authorized projects weren't even completed. "These statistics showed that the MDEQ's wetland mitigation program has not been successful in producing adequate replacement wetlands," the report said. But the DEQ says rules and procedures put in place before the report came out will improve the program. Among them: a requirement that applicants post a bond or other funds that could be forfeited if their project doesn't meet specifications. The agency releases the bonds only when convinced the wetland is functioning as planned. But the agency relies heavily on permit holders to monitor their own replacement projects, said Mary Ellen Cromwell, assistant division chief for geological and land management. After five years, they submit a final report on whether the wetland is functioning and, if not, what improvements are needed. DEQ conducts on-the-spot checks - particularly after receiving complaints - but doesn't have enough staff to inspect all replacement wetlands. No statistics have been compiled to determine how well the updated policy is working, Bostwick said. Skeptics contend mitigation has been oversold and never will compensate for loss of natural wetlands. "The idea that you can just go out and build another wetland is one of the myths that has been hardest to let go of," said Julie Sibbing, a wetland specialist with the National Wildlife Federation. "In general, our mitigation efforts have been dismal failures." If so, the culprits are mostly shoddy workmanship and inexperience instead of inherent flaws in the idea itself, supporters say. "When everything is done right, there's no question you can reproduce a wetland that has all the functions you would expect within two to three years of its creation," said Don Tilton, an environmental consultant based in Ann Arbor. Wetlands are immensely complex, a geographical balancing act between open water and solid ground. Many are relics of the glacial meltdown that produced the Great Lakes some 10,000 years ago. Reproducing characteristics that evolved over such long periods is virtually impossible. But well-crafted imitations can perform some functions of natural wetlands, such as wildlife habitat, groundwater replenishment and floodwater storage. In most cases, developers are required to create 1.5 acres for every acre they degrade. Sometimes they must do more, as when replacing rare types of wetlands. State regulations allow several replacement methods. The easiest, and most likely to succeed, is restoring a former wetland to its previous condition. Most wetland destruction in Michigan was done for crop production. Ditches were dug, tiles laid and streams diverted to drain water and create fields. If those steps are reversed, the wetland may return, especially if aquatic plant seeds remain in the soil, Tilton said. A tougher and costlier tactic is building a wetland from scratch. Choosing a good location is crucial; it's important to have a watershed already draining into the area and a high groundwater table. Once reliable hydrology has been established, soil excavation may be needed to produce a surface, such as clay, that holds water well. Finally, wetland vegetation must be planted. In limited cases, the DEQ lets developers degrade wetlands in exchange for preserving others already in existence - but only if those being protected are a rare type or considered particularly valuable. A final option is the "mitigation bank." Developers create or restore large wetland areas, then sell "credits" to permit applicants, who are spared from having to build replacements themselves. Mitigation banks have downsides, said Wil Cwikiel, program director with the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council in Petoskey. They often consist of the most common and least costly wetlands, while developers buying into them may have degraded more unusual varieties, he said. That reduces ecological diversity. Also, he said, developers may take the easy way out by purchasing credits in a far-off mitigation bank instead of replacing a wetland near the one they damaged. But supporters say banks will boost the overall quality of replacement wetlands because the DEQ must judge them biologically successful before credits are sold. Steven Chester, DEQ director, described mitigation banking as an "economic tool" that creates free-market incentives to increase wetland acreage. "I think we need to take a harder look at that," he said in an interview. The agency has approved three banks, two of which have been built - both in Wayne County. A Jackson County farmer has been authorized to operate a bank but is awaiting construction permits. Consumers Energy has considered entering the mitigation banking business for several years, said Jon Allan, director of environmental services. The Jackson-based utility owns land around the state that might be suitable, he said. "The potential is there to create large blocks of intact wetlands that could have higher ecological value than a wetland that may be lost to development," Allan said, adding that Consumers hasn't made much progress because of difficulty navigating the complex regulations. |
|
