Literature DB >> 22543680

Compliance with wetland mitigation standards in the upper peninsula of Michigan, USA.

Andrew T Kozich1, Kathleen E Halvorsen.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22543680     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9861-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  9 in total

1.  Validity of Performance Criteria and a Tentative Model for Regulatory Use in Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Permitting.

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999.

Authors:  Charles Andrew Cole; Deborah Shafer
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Wetland mitigation compliance in the western upper peninsula of Michigan.

Authors:  Melissa M Hornyak; Kathleen E Halvorsen
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  Community structure and quality after 10 years in two central Ohio mitigation bank wetlands.

Authors:  Douglas J Spieles; Meagan Coneybeer; Jonathan Horn
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  It's all in the numbers: acreage tallies and environmental program evaluation.

Authors:  Lisa Dale; Andrea K Gerlak
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 3.266

6.  Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands.

Authors:  Jeffrey W Matthews; Anton G Endress
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2007-08-05       Impact factor: 3.266

7.  Wetland management: an analysis of past practice and recent policy changes in Ontario.

Authors:  Bridget Schulte-Hostedde; D Walters; C Powell; D Shrubsole
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 6.789

8.  Wise use of wetlands: current state of protection and utilization of Chinese wetlands and recommendations for improvement.

Authors:  Yanxia Wang; Yong Yao; Meiting Ju
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.266

9.  Research: The Effect of Wetland Mitigation Banking on the Achievement of No-Net-Loss.

Authors: 
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.266

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  An Assessment of Long-Term Compliance with Performance Standards in Compensatory Mitigation Wetlands.

Authors:  Kyle Van den Bosch; Jeffrey W Matthews
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.266

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.