“528:3 IllllllllllllllllilllllllilllilllilillllllHIHIIHIUIIIIIIHI

3 1293 01565 45

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES

REGARDING WETLAND PRESERVATION IN

MERIDIAN AND WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIPS,

MICH IGAN
presented by

Shannon Lorayne Ruby

has been accepted towards fulfilirnent A
of the requirements for

Mdegree in Whevelopment

  

Major professor

 
 

Date 5117/ 4%;

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

no

mi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OCT 2 9 2006]

 

 

 

 

 

JLJ

WPTE

MSU le An Afflnnettve Action/Equal Opportunlty lnetltulon

H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES REGARDING

WETLAND PRESERVATION IN MERIDIAN AND

WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN

By

Shannon Lorayne Ruby

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1997

ABSTRACT
PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES REGARDING
WETLAND PRESERVATION IN MERIDIAN AND
WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN
By

Shannon L. Ruby

Wetland preservation requires scientific information for decision making pertinent
to regulating development. In addition, local planners should determine public opinions
regarding wetland preservation, a practice lacking in this type of decision making which
may provide answers for future land use planning. The objective of this study is to
determine whether socio-economic characteristics efl‘ect personal preferences regarding
wetland fimctions and the willingness-to—pay to preserve wetland quality.

A survey of residents in Meridian and Williamstown Townships (Michigan) was
used to acquire qualitative data on public preferences regarding wetland functions and
values. Analysis of the data presents public perspectives about wetland importance and
the willingness-to-pay to preserve individual wetland functions. Findings show that
perspectives on wetland preservation tend to be similar between townships. Statistically
significant differences do exist between education level, the importance of biodiversity,
and the importance of hunting. Socio-economic characteristics efl‘ecting wetland

functions include income, education, property values, and land use.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was made possible by funds from the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station. Appreciation is due to Joel Lichty for his time and knowledge in the
development of the survey instrument. Appreciation is also given to the professors of
Resource Development who helped aid in the improvement of knowledge dealing with the
research process, Drs. Torn Edens, James Bingen, and David Wright.

A special thanks is extended to my major professor, Dr. Gerhardus Schultink, for
his continued support and guidance through my masters program and research, and for his
guidance on my thesis committee. I would also like to thank Dr. Eckhart Dersch and Dr.
Delbert Mokma for their contributions as committee members, advisors, and supporters to
my research. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Lois Wolfson for her knowledge and V
guidance throughout the project, as well as to the other graduate research assistants
(Thomas Moen, Frank Krist, and Richard van Vliet) who helped make this project

possible.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
Introduction to the Problem ....................................................... 1
Federal Wetland Protection Initiatives ........................................ 3
Michigan Wetland Protection Initiatives ..................................... 4
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT... ............................................................... 7
Introduction. . . . .. ...................................................................... 7
Risk Assessment ....................................................................... 8
Risk Communication ................................................................. 9
Resource Valuation .................................................................. 13
Economic Valuation ................................................................. 17
Willingness-to-pay .................................................................... 19
III. STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................. 2]
Objectives ................................................................................. 21
Wetland Definitions ................................................................... 23
Study Area ................................................................................ 25
IV. RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................................... 33
Study Design ............................................................................. 33
Potential Error Sources ................................................. 36
V. RESULTS ............................................................................................. 39
Introduction ............................................................................... 39
General Findings ........................................................................ 39
Wetland Functions ..................................................................... 51
Relative Willingness-to-pay ........................................................ 60
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 65
Introduction ............................................................................... 65
Major Findings ........................................................................... 66
Recommendations for Further Study .......................................... 67

APPENDICES

A. WETLAND ORDINANCE (NIERIDIAN TOWNSHIP) ................. 69
B. DEFINITIONS OF FORESTED, SCRUB/SHRUB, AND
EMERGENT WETLANDS ............................................................ 90
C. MERIDIAN WETLAND ACREAGE BY ONE
MILE SECTIONS .......................................................................... 92
D. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................................................... 93
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ lOO

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Summary of Ecological Risk Rankings ........................................................... 10

2 Ecological Risk Priorities vs. Public Perception of Environmental Risks ......... ll

21.

OOQQUI-hUJNF‘

14

15
16
l7
18

LIST OF FIGURES

m9
Study Area Map with Land Cover/Use ................................................ 26
Bar Chart of Distribution of Wetland Types in the Study Area ............. 27
Map of Wetlands in the Study Area ..................................................... 28
Classification Hierarchy of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ............. 29
Example of a Palustrine System ........................................................... 31
Household Income of Respondents in the Study Area .......................... 42
Household Income of Respondents by Township ................................. 43
Employment Situation of Respondents in the Study Area ..................... 45
Employment Situation of Respondents by Township ............................ 46
Employment Types by Respondents in the Study Area ......................... 47
Employment Types by Respondents in the Study Area ......................... 48
Property Values of the Respondents by Township ................................ 49
Respondent’s Opinions of the Most Important Wetland Functions
(regarding water quality/quantity) ........................................................ 53
Respondent’s Opinions of the Most Important Wetland Functions
(regarding biodiversity) ........................................................................ 55
Respondent’s Opinions of Hunting in the Study Area ........................... 57
Respondent’s Opinions of Hunting by Study Area ................................ 58
Respondent’s Opinions of Picnicking by Township ............................... 61
Respondent’s Opinions of the Most Important Wetland Functions
(regarding recreation and aesthetics) ..................................................... 62

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Wetland acreage across Michigan has been declining through the years even
though the functions wetlands provide make them one of Michigan’s most valuable
landforms. In fact, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1990), Michigan has
lost about 50% of original wetlands since it was inhabited by European settlers, a loss of
over 5,600,000 acres (Cwikiel, 1992). When Europeans first settled in the United States
wetlands covered approximately 200 million acres. Today, more than half, some 100
million acres of wetland habitat, have been lost (U SEPA, 1995). Wetland acreage is still
declining in the United States and Michigan, in spite of federal and state regulations to
reverse this trend.

The lack of general guidelines for wetland assessment at the township level in
Michigan is apparent. Some townships have made provisions or ordinances for wetland
preservation while others have neither zoning laws nor wetland ordinances to guard
against over-development and impacts on critical wetland acreage. One step toward the
protection of wetlands at the local level is to determine which wetlands and functions are
most important. Protection measures may include land use controls based on risk
assessment. Supplemental regulations are specific standards and criteria that apply to land
use activities. Land use controls (incorporated in zoning ordinances) can provide

standards for regulating activities that affect wetland resources (Cwikiel, 1992). An

2
example of one such land use control is sanitary codes or local ordinances which regulate

where septic tanks are placed. Prohibiting septic tanks where the water table is high
(including near wetland zones) may deter development and therefore indirectly act as a
wetland protection measure.

It seems that the way to save wetland acreage at the local level is to develop
regulations and land use controls that can withstand litigation. Developing these plans
requires the input of local decision makers and residents of the area. One must know the
functions of the various wetlands in the area and create a valuation system to determine
the relative importance of wetlands and the need for protection and conservation
measures. Ifthe firnctions and values are not known, little can be done to protect the
most important wetlands and to develop adequate land use policies and guidelines.
Therefore, there is a need for research on public preferences and the willingness-to-pay to
preserve wetlands.

This research consists of a survey of the general public in two townships,
developing a data set, and statistical analyses of these preferences and the willingness-to-
pay. Outputs include general trends on public preferences to preserve wetlands,
comparative trends for preferences in each township, preferences regarding wetland
functions associated with water quantity and quality, biodiversity, and recreation and
aesthetics, general opinions of how to obtain fiinds for preservation, and general and
comparative trends for the willingness-to-pay for wetland preservation in the two

townships.

Federal Wetland Protection Initiatives

At the national level, the US Environmental Protection Agency is ultimately
responsible for the Clean Water Act. In 1977, the act was revised fi'om the original of
1972, to include explicit provisions for wetland protection (Section 404). While the EPA
administers and has primary responsibility of Section 404, the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) shares the responsibility of enforcement of the Clean Water Act with
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. In 1984, a Memorandum of Agreement,
known as MOA, was signed between the state of Michigan and the Corps. This
agreement waived delegated permit review to the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources by allowing for wetland development permits to be processed at the state level
(MOA, 1984). The primary focus of Section 404 is to regulate discharge of dredge or fill
into US waters and adjacent wetlands. The primary goal of Section 404 regarding
wetlands is to minimize adverse impacts by preventing the unnecessary loss of wetlands.

Another federal policy to protect against wetland loss is the no net loss Wetland
Action Plan (FW S, 1990). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FW S, 1990) is in charge of
conservation practices to eliminate the net loss of wetlands, while using existing laws and
governing bodies to adopt these conservation practices and eliminate the decline in
wetland acreage (ibid.). Prior to 1985, farmers could drain wetlands for commodity '
crops and were able to collect farm support payments. At that time, wetland policies and
agricultural policies were at odds. The 1985 Farm Act and the 1986 Tax Reform Act
included the “swampbuster” provision which reversed the incentives for wetland drainage

and introduced potential loss of farm benefits if wetlands were drained for crop production

4
(O’Brien, 1996). Due to conflict over “swampbuster”, amendments to the provision were

incorporated into the 1996 Farm Bill. The act now expands agricultural lands to include
pasture, rangelands, and other lands used in the production of livestock or trees. In
addition, the act allows the US Department of Agriculture to determine which subsidy to
withhold if a wetland is drained. The US Department of Agriculture is now the primary
agency in charge of wetlands. Lands that have already been examined and deemed non-
wetlands cannot be questioned even if classified improperly. Therefore, many
conservationists feel that revisions may lead to increases in small, farmed wetlands due to
record food prices which provide monetary benefits for private landowners as opposed to
A publicly recognized, non-market values that wetlands possess (O’Brien, 1996). Other

. federal programs that help protect wetlands and their functions include the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956, the Migratory Marine Game-Fish Act, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Wetlands have and will
continue to be an important topic of concern, but matters at the local level of government

require further attention be placed on wetland development and preservation.

Michigan Wetland Protection Initiatives

Michigan’s state government has established laws protecting wetlands. The
primary law in Michigan for protecting and managing wetlands is the Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 (formerly the Goemaere-Anderson Wetlands

Protection Act of 1979). This act is administered by the Michigan Department of

5
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Land and Water Management Division and protects

against wetland loss, provides for public acknowledgment of wetland benefits, establishes
a permit program, enforces violations of the act, and authorizes regulation of wetlands by
local governments (MDNR, 1988). This act now protects smaller wetlands that have
significance too, as they each perform fimctions that may be important to local
communities. This provision, however, states that the area must be essential to the
preservation of the natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or
destruction (Public Act 295, 1992). Other state laws that affect wetlands in Michigan
include the Michigan Constitution (Article 4, Section 53), the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Act (PA. 347 of 1972), the Subdivision Control Act (PA. 288 of
1968), the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (PA. 127 of 1970), the Michigan
Endangered Species Act (PA. 203 of 1974), the Flood Plain Regulatory Act (PA 167 of
1968), the Inland Lakes and Streams Act (PA 346 of 1972), the Shorelands Protection
and Management Act (PA. 245 of 1970), and the Sand Dunes Protection and
Management Acts (PA. 146 and PA. 147 of 1989).

Although state provisions allow for local regulation it is dificult for small
governmental units, such as townships, to develop land use master plans that will prevent
piecemeal development of these small wetlands, especially without the funds to determine
which wetlands are more important to local ecosystems and public well-being. The state
gives municipalities authorization to regulate wetlands in Public Act 203 (section 8 (4)).
Municipalities may choose to enact zoning laws for land use control under the County,

Township, and City and Village Zoning Enabling Acts and some have adopted local

6
wetland zoning ordinances (Cwikiel, 1992). However, local wetland regulation has not

been without controversy as some view this as over-regulation. Still, local ordinances and
regulation can provide the most effective form of wetland protection since they may
contain restrictions that are exempt from state or federal law, local officials have easy
access to sites for enforcement of the provisions, and loCal involvement allows for
integration of ordinances into development and land use plans. In the past, the state did
not regulate wetlands under five acres in size, but since a recent revision discussed earlier
(Public Act 295), townships now have more opportunity to preserve small wetlands under
state law. The type of wetland protection for each local governmental unit depends on
political climate, funding, staff expertise, and public opinion (Cwikiel, 1992). Therefore,
each municipality must choose the best protection plan, if any, for themselves. At present,
it seems that local zoning options are more popular than stand alone wetland ordinances.

Some of the information needed in the decision making process to create zoning,
development, or wetland protection ordinances must originate from field observations.
This is due to the fact that different wetlands provide functions at varying degrees. But,
part of the information needed deals with public attitudes and preferences pertaining to the
functions and perceived values of wetlands. This allows for public voices to be heard so
local governing units can avoid assumptions about public perspectives, while also allowing
for improved decision making which can lead to better land use plans and firture need

assessments.

CHAPTER II

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Introduction

Wetland acreage is continuing to decline in Michigan. General guidelines are
needed at the township level for wetland assessment to determine which wetlands and
functions are most important to the area. Regulations and land use controls that can
withstand litigation will aid in the preservation of wetland acreage. However, public
attitudes and preferences about wetlands and functions must be included in the decision
and law making process.

This research deals with wetland preservation and local land use planning.
Determination of public preferences and the willingness-to-pay to preserve wetlands
allows for a more representative valuation of wetlands and the gathering of information
for land use plans. In determining the need for wetland preservation it is necessary to
consider risk assessment, risk communication, and resource valuation. These will be
discussed in more detail in this chapter. Investigation of the public preferences and
willingness-to—pay to preserve wetlands now, will allow this data to be incorporated with
bio-physical data on function performance, therefore allowing for a more objective
assessment of the importance of wetland types and development of specific wetland

protection criteria.

Ris_kAssessment

Traditional risk assessment dealt with potential risks to human health, however a
new branch of risk assessment dealing with risks posed to the environment and affecting
ecosystems has developed (Buie, 1996). This type of risk assessment is referred to as
ecological risk assessment and is the type of risk assessment that pertains to this study. As
stated by Elyse Rogers (1988) risk assessment is needed in the following situations: 1)
when a new risk emerges, 2) when the degree of existing risk changes, or 3) when a new
perception of risk occurs. Thinking of risk in its simplest form, one can create a
conceptual formula such as RISK = HAZARD / SAFEGUARD (ibid.). This is relevant to
wetland preservation in the sense that with each new developed area or impaired wetland,
there is the possibility of increasing hazards (e. g. reductions in water quantity) and
decreasing safeguards (e.g. flood control). When this occurs the RISK factor increases.
One way to reduce potential risk is with safeguards, such as zoning ordinances or
preserving beneficial filnctions of natural resources. It must be pointed out however that
risk reduction has its costs. Many times people feel that public benefits from natural
features are evaluated to be above dollar value (or valued above the market cost of
replacing existing natural functions) since precautionary measures or safeguards seem
reasonable in terms of market value (in the monetary sense). For example, the shade that
an old oak tree provides on a hot summer day may seem overpriced when considering the
cost of replacing a tree of the same size. When actual costs appear, the degree of risk in
losing that tree may or may not seem worth the price. Or for instance, as Rogers (1988)

states the cost of Water and air pollution abatement and control in the US during 1984 was

$43.9 billion. The government was responsible for $8.3 billion of the cost, which
undoubtedly came from citizen’s tax dollars (ibid.). Pollution control is very expensive,
but if it prevents the outbreak of illnesses and deaths around the world, many people feel
that human life is worth the cost of risk reduction. Therefore, knowing which wetlands
prevent hazards and which increase safeguards would help in the development of
management plans that would include land use controls. One method of ecological risk
management deals with prioritizing environmental risks (Harwell et al., 1992). A list of
environmental risks was compiled and put into matrices. The end result was a priority
matrix that can be seen in Table 1. However, Harwell et al. (1992) admitted that the
matrix does not match well with public perceptions of environmental risk and this can be
seen in Table 2 (Buie, 1996). Proper risk assessment should comply with public

perceptions to ensure that environmental management is headed in the right direction.

Risk ConunungzatLon

When thinking about risk assessment, it is also important to think about risk
communication. This comes from the fact that even when proper risk assessment is
estimated there can be problems with communicating these risks and probabilities to the
public. According to Covello et al. (1987) there are four major problems with risk
communication. The first problems are message problems which may deal with lack of
scientific understanding creating uncertainties in estimates, or advanced risk analysis which
the general public tends to find incomprehensible. The second are source problems which

may comprise of mistrust of the assessment team or organization,

10

Table 1. Summary of Ecological Risk Rankings (Source: Harwell, et a1, 1992)

 

 

><
XXXX

XXXX

X

x

x

x
33 5.8: :3»
2.558503-

 

._

I
A .—

.—

4 E

.2

2

I
::
I

:2
I: I:

I: I:
III

::: :::
. :5:
3,983.85 .2
Eon-0.2 i

2§:222_..t..t_:

::
::
:::
E:
E:
:::

I:
I
.2
2

I:

III
II:
3::

«mm— .3 3 4.03.3: EOE .

cons—.2. BESS.
Evan?
custom o. 3:95 Eo<

36:93.53 .0
coagocsohO
.5 .m
565::
08
Eco—.552 .v
8R9 0:59.?
5:638 93.

mhvug vumugm C. mo—XOF .0

32039332299: .m
cone—not Easem—
oco~o utenqoofibm
song—83 .333:

05an .320 .—

5858 1.833— ebnneoi 38am ago-Fun

 

nab-ho «g

comet—:3 amt _~u_w.o_ooo Lo .taEEam .p o3:

 

 

11

Table 2. Ecological Risk Priorities vs. Public Perception of Environmental Risk
(Source: Harwell, et a1, 1992)

 

 

Highest Ecological Risks

0 global climate change

0 habitat alteration

e stratospheric ozone depletion
0 biological depletion

Higher Ecological Risks

o herbicides and pesticides

High Ecological Risks

0 toxins in surface waters
0 acid deposition
0 airborne toxins

 

 

Medium Ecological Risks

o nutrients

o BOD

e turbidity

Low Ecological Risks

0 oil and petroleum products
0 groundwater contamination
e radionuclides

0 acid inputs to surface waters
0 solid wastes

0 thermal pollution

Public Perception of Environmental Risk

-active hazardous waste sites

-abandoned hazardous waste sites

-water pollution from industrial sources

-oil spills

-stratospheric ozone depletion

-radiation from nuclear power plant
accidents

-chemicals fi'om industrial accidents

-radionuclides in nuclear waste

-industrial air pollution

-groundwater contamination

-coastal pollution

-solid waste

-water pollution from agricultural runofi‘

-water pollution fi'om sewage plants

-vehicular air pollution

-global climate change

-wetland habitat alteration

-acid deposition

-water pollution from urban runofi‘

-nonhazardous waste sites

-release of genetically engineered organisms

 

 

12

or experts disagreeing about results or methods. The third, channel problems, deal with
biased reporting of findings, providing information before a completed assessment, or
poor interpretation of risk information. Finally, receiver problems deal with the notion of
. risk perception such as misinterpretation of risk levels, a resistance to change, disbelief in
risk assessment due to a need for absolute certainty in findings, or resistance to reduce risk
due to other costs or benefits. Although there is no way to guarantee effective
communication, the USEPA established a loose set of guidelines that are still violated in
practice (Covello and Allen, 1988). The first rule is most significant to this study since it
includes the public as a partner for determining public perceptions of certain risks. This
decreases a researcher’s need for assumptions and biases throughout the process of
determining and communicating risk. Without public input on the subject matter, the
assesMent may not reflect the true needs and wants of the citizens in the area. Therefore,
in any assessment or communication of that assessment the public must be aware and have
some input into the process.

Involving the public is important to find general attitudes and preferences, and the
public’s willingness-to-pay to preserve natural areas. This type of data does exist broadly
in Meridian Township’s Comprehensive Development Pla_n (1993 ), in which personal
values of citizens are defined (without quantification). The same is true for Williamstown
Township. These are two neighboring townships in mid-Michigan which comprise the
study area. Still, the attitudes and values for wetlands and their firnctions in the area is
lacking in the decision making process. In addition there is little published information on

public opinions, although studies of government officials are abundant. A study of public

l3

attitudes and preferences toward wetland preservation, along with on site studies and
computer generated analytical tools may provide a fi'amework for wetland preservation at

the township level throughout Michigan.

Resource Valuation

The broad notion of valuation for implementing public policy deals with three
issues. These issues include economic valuation based on market goods and services,
resource valuation based on non-market goods, and environmental risk assessment
(Schultink, 1996). This study deals with resource valuation as natural features and their
filnctions cannot always be quantified like market goods with prices resulting fi'om supply
and demand. Resource valuation was included in the survey to obtain information about
the values of non-market goods and services associated with wetlands for use in policy
making.

The literature on wetland valuation is diverse. Many publications deal with
wetland values in general terms of beneficial functions that wetlands provide. Examples of
these are “Wetlands in the Northern Great Plains: A guide to values and management
(Berry and Buechler, 1993),” “Wetland Fact Sheets (EPA, 1995),” and “Michigan
Wetlands Yours to Protect: A Citizen’s Guide to Local Involvement in Wetland
Protection (Cwikiel, 1992).” A common way to quantify functions is in terms of
developing infrastructure that will replace these functions if they were non-existent
(opportunity or replacement costs). The reason for this is that non-market goods are

dificult to quantify, and when quantification is completed, there are many questions about

l4

validity and accuracy of outcomes since quantification relies on economic theory and not
fact. Valuation techniques may include scaling or weighting approaches, and common
denominator approaches that place dollar values on each function and on wetlands in
general (Mitsch, and Gosselink, 1993). Each approach has problems and therefore no
single approach is recognized by experts or federal agencies. Most people think of value
in terms of benefits to society, and therefore values may arise fi'om public perceptions,
location of the resource, pressure on the resource, or the abundance or scarcity of
resources. However, individual wetlands are unique and may play different roles or
possess different functions. For example, a wetland in an urbanizing area may be more
important to flood control or storm water retention while a wetland in an agricultural area
may have a small efl‘ect on flood control, but may be important in nutrient recycling. This
makes wetland valuation difficult but no less needed for the development of sound land
use plans. References for determining how to quantify wetland values range from the
most general type of valuation (discussing functions that benefit society) to complicated
mathematical or economic models. The National Research Council (1995) talks about
valuation in terms of functional assessment and discusses the need to predict the effects of
wetland evaluation while using rank or categorization methods to determine which
wetlands warrant more protection. The Corps (197 9) manual for valuation aids in permit
decisions. This publication gives qualitative guidelines for determining the efi‘ectiveness of
wetland functions. The FW S (1980) published an evaluation procedure (Habitat
Evaluation Procedure, HEP) to evaluate proposed projects on wetland sites using

numerical analysis of habitat quality and quantity, and also measures functional capacity.

15

This process is time consuming and gives a scale for habitat suitability, but is not used by
other agencies for wetland regulation. The Federal Highway Administration developed a
method for wetland functional assessment using large amounts of quantitative data to
develop evaluation algorithms that represent wetland functions (Adarnus and Stockwell,
1983). The algorithms are placed into decision trees and ranked as high, moderate, or low
to determine a function’s value. The Hollands-Magee method uses a numerical index for
each function as do many others (Hollands and Magee, 1986). Other similar methods
include “Estimating Relative Wetland Values for Regional Planning” (Hruby et al., 1995)
and “Public Attitudes and Economic Values for Wetland Preservation in New England”
(Stevens et al., 1995). The “Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology,”
Roth et al. (1993 ), uses qualitative descriptions of wetland filnctions and values as the
final outcome, but should only be used to obtain basic information. The “Method for the
Comparative Evaluation of Nontidal Wetlands in New Hampshire,” Ammann and Stone
(1991), uses a ranking method for wetland firnctions but gives no overall score or built in
rating of high, medium, or low due to beliefs that wetlands should be judged at the local
level. “The Wetlands Information Management System,” Wolfson et al. (1995), is a
computer based program that uses spatial analysis capabilities and calculates a “wetland
function index” to be used in the ranking of wetlands according to the user’s needs. These
techniques are used primarily for planning purposes by people who are not necessarily
wetland experts. However, the methods do state that they were designed to be
scientifically defensible. Michigan is in need of specific guidelines for categorizing

wetlands and their relative values as they relate to the local area of interest.

16

Wetland valuation is twofold in that it must consist of ecological and economic
valuation. This is due to several problems that must be addressed (Mitsch and Gosselink,
1993). These problems include the fact that wetlands are multiple-value systems (they
are valuable for different reasons), the most valuable products of wetlands are public
amenities that have no commercial value for the private wetland owner, the relationship
between wetland area and marginal value is complex, commercial values are finite,
whereas wetlands provide values in perpetuity (development is often irreversible), a
comparison of economic short-term gains with wetland value in the long term is often not
appropriate, and estimates of values are subjective due to personal perspectives and biases
of individuals and of the society (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).

Ecological valuation is usually based on the HEP. This requires a list of functions
to be made assigning each a value of 1. Each factor must then be scaled to represent the
maximum value for each functional value. Each scaled factor must then be weighted in
proportion to its importance. Finally, the scaled and weighted factors must be added to -
result in a value index which is arbitrary (Odum, 1979). However, techniques such as
HEP (and others based on habitat valuation) do not include all relevant goods and services
nor do they incorporate a landscape focus (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Other methods
mentioned previously do account for more than habitat evaluation but many methods are

still site specific and are not applicable over larger areas.

17

Economic Valuation

Economic valuation, with respect to resource valuation, tries to place market
prices on items that are non-market goods. This is due to the fact that most of us try to
reduce values to monetary units since all of us express our preferences in terms of these
units when making a purchase. When buying goods, we indicate our willingness-to-pay by
exchanging money for goods, therefore reflecting our preferences (Pearce and Turner,
1990). In addition, each value has a different moral standing according to the individual
viewpoint and benefits or values are more obvious in quality of life than in any increment
of economic output. Therefore, environmental values are less concrete than market values
and like ecological valuation, these non-market values tend to be downgraded by the
public (Pearce and Turner, 1990).

The main purpose of valuing resources (such as wetlands) is to provide a check on
the economic rationality of investing in environmental improvement or preservation.
Valuation is most often expressed as the ‘Rvillingness—to-pay” for the resource rather than
be without it (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). In economic theory, the price of a good is
valued and the optimum quantity of a good determined where the supply and demand
curve meet. However, with non-market goods there are problems with valuing goods like
wetlands since they are measured by real estate values and not by the fiee services or
functions provided to society (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).

Past studies have valued wetlands mostly by commercial goods fi'om wetlands,
such as fish, shellfish, feather or fur harvests. The past trend is similar to that of Berry and

Buechler (1993) where wetland non-market values are briefly discussed and wetland

18

products comprise the rest of chapter on wetland values. This trend is changing as
increased concern for the environment has forced governments to seek more efficient
approaches to environmental preservation and restoration (Turner and Jones, 1990).
Market approaches to non-market goods have assisted in improving design and
implementation of programs that protect natural resources.

Problems with valuation often deal with the fact that non-market pricing is
imprecise. However, only pricing market values of wetlands omits ecosystem and global
values of resources that are not confined to any boundaries. Two problems often
discussed are: 1) wetland values are found in functions that are defined by man but are
hard to see, study, and understand (these functions include flood control, nutrient
retention, sediment recycling, open space preservation, etc.) and 2) wetlands may provide
different functions with different efficiencies (Berry and Buechler, 1993). The second
problem can be dealt with using tests of functional capacity, but this goes beyond the
realm of this study.

As stated by Mitsch and Gosselink (1993) and Pearce and Turner (1990)
economists recognize four aspects of value. The first, use value, stems from identifiable
direct benefits to users such as hunting, fishing, hiking or boating. Second, socialivalues
are those that benefit large groups instead of individuals, such as flood protection, nutrient
retention, improved water quality or increased water quantity. Next, option value derives
from the value a resource will provide in the future, this is usually a perceived future

benefit. Finally, existence value deals with the fact that a resource is worth something

19

because it exists, and may have adverse effects if non-existent. An example may include
preserving a wetland for sustaining habitat which in turn may conserve biological diversity.
There are methods available for assigning economic values to benefits resulting
from wetland functions that cannot be exchanged in an open market. These methods may
include willingness-to-pay methods (also known as contingent analysis or valuation),
replacement cost analysis, opportunity cost analysis, travel cost analysis, and conjoint
analysis (Smith et al., 1995). For the purpose of this study willingness-to-pay is most

relevant as it is included in the survey instrument.

Willingness-to-nay

 

The willingness-to—pay method is used in the absence of an open market. The
researcher must create a hypothetical market for the non-market good or service and
include a group of subjects to answer questions about goods in that hypothetical market.
Subjects may be survey respondents or experimental subjects. The values generated
through use of the hypothetical market are treated as estimates of the value of the non-
market good, contingent upon the existence of that market. The technique applied in the
willingness-to-pay method uses direct questions, iterative bidding, or other experimental
techniques (Pearce and Turner, 1990).

While there is a wide variety of direct-question techniques, all of them involve
some variation of the following kind of question: “How much would you be willing to pay
in order to obtain or retain some non-market good (or willing to accept in order to permit

some level of provision of the good)?” Direct question techniques are widely used

20

because they are well-adapted to mail surveys, thus permitting inexpensive data collection.
(Reynolds, 1992). This technique was used for the study.

Iterative bidding techniques are used in interviews. This involves the ‘yes or no”
type of question. The interviewer varies the amount of money to be paid or received until
the highest amount the respondent is willing to pay, or the lowest amount the respondent
is willing to accept is identified. The identified amount is an estimate used on a total value
curve or plot.

The willingness-to—pay concept results in an automatic monetary estimate or
indicator of preferences. The basic idea is that individuals’ preferences should be the basis
of value or benefit measurement. However, while one can safely assume that peOple will
not pay for what they do not want, one can never be sure that willingness-to-pay as
measured by market prices accurately measures the whole benefit to individuals or society.
The reason for this is that there may be individuals willing to pay more than others or
individuals willing to pay more than the market price, since personal preferences show
one’s willingness-to-pay (Pearce and Turner, 1990). Therefore, willingness-to-pay must
be aggregated to obtain a total willingness-to-pay, yielding a value more socially desirable.
It must be noted that an individual’s willingness-to-pay for a certain benefit from a
wetland (or a wetland function) may depend on his or her understanding of ecology,
wetlands in general, and wetland functions (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). The less one
understands wetlands and their functions, the less he or she will be willing to pay to

preserve wetlands and their individual functions.

CHAPTER 1H

STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Objectives

The aim of this research is to compare wetland valuation based on perceived
functions by socio-economic characteristics (represented by proxy variables such as
property values, population density, income, education level, and. predominant land use) in
Meridian and Williamstown Township. Since Meridian Township is more urbanized and ‘
Williamstown Township is still largely agricultural, these townships can be compared and
the potential difi‘erences in preferences and the willingness-to-pay for wetland preservation
can be examined.

The primary objectives of this study are first, to provide current data on public
attitudes and preferences toward wetland preservation, and second to determine whether
socio-economic population characteristics in Meridian (an urbanizing) and Williamstown
(a predominately agricultural) Townships, effect personal preferences on the preservation
of wetlands. The researchable rationale is: Assessment of personal attitudes and
preferences regarding wetlands and wetland functions and values will improve the
rationale behind and guidelines for wetland preservation in the aforementioned townships
as well as Michigan.

The secondary objective is to explore more specific public preferences on wetland
functions, wetland preservation, and the willingness-to-pay to preserve wetlands and their

firnctions. The dependent variables include public attitudes and preferences toward

21

22

wetland preservation and the willingness-to-pay to sustain wetland functions. The
independent variables are socio-economic characteristics that will be used to compare the
results of the survey for each township and these variables include property values,
population density, income, education level, and predominate land use. These variables
have been obtained using survey methods, township data, census data, and other primary
sources.

The results of this research will benefit the peOple in the community by raising
awareness, providing new information to planners and decision makers, and helping to
protect wetland species and ecosystems. Local units of government may use the results of
the public preferences and willingness-to-pay to preserve wetlands to create land use plans
and ordinances (where applicable) that may protect critical wetland acreage in the area.
More specifically, the results can be used to develop or modify wetland and zoning
ordinances which guide future development, while preserving important wetland functions.
The Michigan Township Association, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality may benefit from improved wetland
preservation and planning at local levels. Natural resource industries that depend on
wildlife, fisheries, tourism, and the like will benefit from this study as wetlands, natural
areas, biological diversity, and wildlife species are protected. Wetland protection
strategies may also help reduce the need for drain construction and maintenance, storm
water management, and water quality initiatives. The contrasts between the two
townships may help explain why different communities chose whether or not to preserve

and protect certain natural resources, therefore aiding in the understanding of public

23

behavior. This study may also result in the exploration of public attitudes and preferences

in other types of communities with differing predominant land uses.

Definitions

Wetlands are unique ecosystems that serve as the transitional zone between upland
and aquatic habitats (Cowardin et al., 1979); There are many different types of wetlands
and Michigan contains diverse wetland types. The predominant wetlands in the study area
are open water, forested, scrub/ shrub, and emergent wetlands. Percentages of these
distributions will be discussed later in this chapter. Definitions of wetlands have stressed
separate emphases for wetland scientists, and wetland managers and regulators. The
scientific definition adopted by the FWS in 1979 first appeared in Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979). As

written this definition states:

Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow
water...Wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: l) at
least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytee, 2) the
substrate is predominantly undrainw hydric soil, and 3) the substrate is nonsoil
and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the
growing season of each year.
The three criteria are inter-related and must all be present for an area to be considered a
wetland. Data on these criteria can usually be found through soil type and species lists
developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the EPA, the US Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FW S).
Wetland hydrology data are usually the most difficult to obtain but can be found by

reviewing hydrological data, aerial photographs, or simply by direct field observations.

24

Although the cited FW S definition above is probably one of the most widely used and
accepted definitions, that of the Corps is more appropriate for management and regulation
purposes (Mitsch et al., 1993).

The USEPA and the Corps use the legal definition of a wetland, a definition which

is more reliable under litigation (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).

Thetermwetlandsmeansthoseareasthatareinundatedor saturatedbysurfaceor
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas.

The USEPA and the Corps developed this definition for implementation of permitting laws
required by the 197 7 Clean Water Act, Section 404. Vegetation cover is the only factor in
determining if wetland conditions exist because this definition is used for rapid
identification of a wetland, identification of wetland boundaries, and determination of
regulatory jurisdiction.

Michigan has also created a wetland definition contained in the Natural Resources
and Wetlands Protection Act. This is due to responsibilities dealing with permitting and
state regulation. The Wetland Protection Act definition was defined by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and is now administered by the MDEQ, which

originated fiom state governmental reform (Cwikiel, 1992).

Wetlands are land characterized by the presence of water at a fiequency and duration
suflicienttosupportandthatundernormalcircumstancesdoessupport, wetland
vegetation or aquatic life, and is commonly referred to as a bog , swamp, or marsh.

This definition resembles that of the USEPA and the Corps, with slightly difl‘erent
wording. The largest difference is that Michigan’s state definition goes one step beyond

that of the USEPA and Corps to include aquatic life as well as hydrophytic vegetation.

25

This allows for greater preservation of wetland areas without weakening the regulatory
power of the definition in court. This does slow some management strategies as more
information is needed to determine if an area should indeed be classified as a wetland.

For the purpose of the survey, wetlands were defined as any lake, stream, swamp,
pond, or area with frequently damp soils. This was done to keep from leading

respondents with knowledge that may influence individual opinions about wetlands.

Study Area

The study area consists of two neighboring townships (Meridian and
Williamstown) in Ingharn County, mid-Michigan. A map of the study area with land
cover/use can be seen in Figure 1. These areas were chosen because of differences in
development pressures that may affect wetland preservation needs and conflicts. The
classes of wetlands in the area include aquatic, open water, forested, scrub/shrub, and
emergent wetlands. Distributions of the types of wetlands in the area can be seen in pie
chart form in Figure 2. For the purpose of this study, only forested, scrub/shrub, and
emergent wetlands were included. Definitions for each of these wetland types can be seen
in Appendix B. A map of these wetland types in the study area can be found in Figure 3.
According to the FWS these types of wetlands fall into a system called the Palustrine
System (Cowardin et al., 1979). Palustrine wetlands include marshes, bogs, or swamps.

A list of each system, subsystem, and class can be found in Figure 4.

iii

26

E S

IaUIDIIIIIIflIIUDIElUI

 

 

Figure l. MpofSnldyAreavvitllImrdCover/Use (Source: MIRIS, 1978)

27

A82 .mam ”couaomv manages assess; Ea 5652 “85. ease? as :83an .N cam:

 

 

 

as E.
“comuoEm
so 5
92.5
comm ammm
Em; :80 as; cameo”.

tom 23:91

 

 

28

A89 as: Hausa 82 seem can sees? .m can

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; . . _.__.C

at. an...

Iranian; Lug-sewn.

 

a§ Ali!

m

 

 

— Marine

 

 

 

L— Estuarine

 

 

 

 

 

— Riverine __J.

 

WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER HABITATS

 

 

 

——Lscustrine——J

 

 

 

— Palustrine

29

Subsystem

Subtidnl

Intertidal

A Class
Rock Bottom

4 Unconsolidsted Bottom

— Aquatic Bed
‘— Reef

Aquatic Bed
J: Reef

 

Subtidsl

I: Rocky Shore
Unconsolidsted Shore

Rock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom

 

‘ Aquatic Bed
C Reef

Aquatic Bed
Reef
Stresmbed

Rocky Shore

 

lnterddsl

Tidal

Unconsolidsted Shore

Emergent Wetland

Scrub-Shrub Wetland
, Forested Wetland

Rock Bottom
E Unconsolidated Bottom

 

Lower Perennial

Upper Perennial

Intermittent

Unconsolidsted Shore
Emergent Wetland

Rock Bottom
Unconsolidsted Bottom
Aquatic Bed

Rocky Shore
Unconsolideted Shore
Emergent Wetland

Rock Bottom
Unconsolidsted Bottom

 

Aquatic Bed
Rocky Shore ’
Unconsolideted Shore

 

Stresmbed

 

Littoral

Rock Bottom .
E Unconsolidsted Bottom
Aquatic Bed

 

Rocky Shore
Unconsolidsud Shore
Emergent Wetland

Rock Bottom
Unconsolidsted Bottom
Aquatic Bed
Unconsolidsted Shore

 

Emergent Wetland
Scrub-Shrub Wetland

E Moss-Lichen Wetland
Forested Wetland

Figure 4. Classification Hierarchy Used in the Cowardin Wetland Classification System

(From Cowardin et al. 1979). .

30

The FWS defines a Palustrine System as:

All nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent
mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to
ocean-derived salts is below 0.5%». It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation,
but with all of the following four characteristics: 1) area less than 8 hectares (ha) or 20
acres; 2) active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; 3) water depth in
the deepest part of basin less than 2 m at low water; and 4) salinity due to ocean-derived
salts less than 0.5%».

An example of a Palustrine System can be seen in Figure 5. Forested wetlands must
contain trees or woody vegetation at least 6 m tall. Subtidal waterways are the only water
regimes not included in this class. Forested wetlands are most common along rivers or
mountains. In fact, the Red Cedar River flows through both townships. Scrub/ shrub
wetlands include trees or woody vegetation less than 6 m in height. The vegetation
usually consists of shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that have been stunted due to
waterlogging. These wetlands may be in the succession stage into forested wetlands or
may be stable in and of themselves. Again, subtidal regimes are not included in this class.
Emergent wetlands are dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding
mosses and lichen. These plants are usually perennials and present for most of the
growing season. Emergent wetlands may be stable environments, but with dramatic
climate changes they may become open water wetlands in some years (Cowardin et al.,
1979). The subtidal regimes are not present in this class either.

Meridian Township is experiencing rapid grth in population which creates
development pressures. Urbanization and increases in population creates a larger demand
for residential and commercial development. Meridian Township also has a higher

average income and higher average property values than Williamstown Township. This

.Ethm Evans—en— ofi E 8332. .o 3.3588 1:: 33.3.8 mom—3.6535 6.9,.—

 

 

 

31

 

 

  

 

 

    

 

  
  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

322556.
Own—004... >4hzmz<2¢wa 0
030.38 359:255. o
ONOOOJ... >4b2m2<2¢m22mw o
I a lllllll Own—004k >44<20m(mm a
<3 33 omoood 3.3.9.3» .-
<3 m0<¢w>( \ a
. \PO -.
u?! so! . any. .—
. I .. ”It...
I .
n. v.7: .u
.t in.»
w
. .w 3 a. 3
M .A a . m n m.
.. - 8
i. a n m... t m n a n .. s
f 3 a. d n m a O M B 3 3 M O M B
m m a m V m We a m w m. .1... a .t... m
I a
s m m .1 s s .v. s n a.
..... m. u m m m a m m ..... m. u m u w
m u a. t. 1 . n
V m m m M B
WAMAlllAlAtI 401A

g<§ . ghaarzt 24.5 ghmaia M2<4¢D minimal-(Mt OZ<§

 

 

32

places increasing pressure on Meridian township officials. In fact Meridian has developed
a wetland ordinance along with a wetland commission to aid in the protection of these
natural areas. Meridian Township’s wetland ordinance, known as the Wetland Protection
and Restoration Ordinance, was first adopted in 1991 and amended in 1994. A copy of
this ordinance can be seen in Appendix A. This ordinance regulates wetlands from one-
quarter acre to five acres, and those wetlands not regulated by the state. Appendix C
reveals an inventory of wetlands in the area by one mile sections (Charter Township of
Meridian, 1993).

Williamstown Township is quite different. This township is still largely agricultural
and rural. Development is increasing in this township, but not at the same rate as
Meridian. Williamstown Township’s population has increased ahnost 8% while Meridian’s
population has increased 24% from 1980 to 1990 (Tri-County Regional Planning
commission, 1992). In both townships, Planning Commission Members are voluntary
appointed citizens. Meridian Township does have professional planners on staff, while
Williamstown Township does not have a formal staff. Williamstown Township has not yet
created a wetland ordinance for the protection of wetland areas. There has not been as

much conflict over the wetland issue and development pressures are not as severe.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH METHOD

Study Desigp

Obtaining data on personal preferences and the willingness-to-pay to preserve
wetlands requires a representative survey. In this case, a mail survey of 400 township
residents was conducted. The survey instrument is included in Appendix D. The first step
in the survey process was to determine perceptions on the functions that wetlands perform
in the study area. A list of functions were compiled using “A Wetlands Information
Management System (WIMS) for Facilitating Wetland Evaluation” (W olfson, et al.,

1995). This publication was used because it focuses on similar wetlands in the Sycamore
Creek Watershed located in Michigan. The second step was to work closely with a survey
expert, Joel Lichty, to minimize potential bias of the survey. Recipients of the mail survey
were selected from a cross reference of property owner and registered voter lists. These
lists were obtained fi'om the respective township offices.

The survey (Appendix D) consisted of five main parts, including questions about
community, qualitative wetland issues, wetland functions, quantitative wetland issues, and
general background information about the respondent. Respondents answers were
anonymous, and all information was treated with the strictest confidence. No information
can be traced to a specific respondent.

Respondents were first asked to answer general questions about wetlands.

Opinions about wetland functions were soliCited with respect to water quality, water

33

34

quantity, flood prevention, ground water recharge, sediment control, and nutrient
recycling. Other opinions solicited dealing with bio-diversity included wildlife, plant, and
aquatic diversity, and habitat for threatened and endangered species. The final questions
related to recreation, including fishing, hunting, boating, hiking/walking, camping,
swimming, and picnicking, and aesthetics such as nature observation and nature
photography.

Using a survey allowed some functions to be relatively valued using the notions of
economic valuation discussed in Chapter 2. Respondents were asked to rate the
importance of these functions and, in general, how much they would be willing to sacrifice
financially to ensure the protection of wetlands in their township. By surveying personal
preferences and attitudes towards wetlands in general, wetland preservation and
protection needs can be predicted for Meridian and Williamstown Townships. Personal
preferences are determined from the analyses conducted.

These results are discussed in Chapter V. Functions were given anumeric ranking
from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important), while also being assigned a range of dollar
values representing willingness-to-pay “less than $50 a year” or willingness-to-pay “more
than $50 a year.” The survey also contained questions to help assess public perceptions
about who should be paying for wetland preservation, how much of the township budget
should be allocated to wetland preservation, individuals’ relative willingness-to-pay for
wetland preservation in general, the relative importance of wetlands to the area, how

future moneys should be raised by township officials for wetland preservation or

35

mitigation, and whether people feel their township is doing enough to protect wetlands.
All of these data were averaged for each township and the results compared.

The independent variables were also important to the investigation. As stated,
these variables are socio-economic characteristics that were used to compare the results of
the survey in each township. These variables include property values, population density,
income, level of education, and predominant land use. Three of these variables, property
values, income, and level of education were obtained directly from the survey. The rest of
the variables were obtained from census data, township records, and land use maps.

These variables were then used to compare the differences in survey results to help explain
the difi‘erent results (predicted), if any, in the way each township values wetland
preservation.

Data analysis was conducted using Statistical Products and Service Solutions,
SPSS, (formerly known as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) a computer
program developed by SPSS Inc. to display results. Frequency tests were run for each
variable, first including both townships and then individually. Frequency tests help
determine how many persons gave a certain response, the percentages, and means of each
response. Correlation tests were run for all variables to determine whether relationships
between the variables existed and the statistical significance level of the relationships.
Independent t-tests were run for all of the variables (using township as the dependent
variable) to determine if there were statistically significant differences in the responses
between townships. After viewing the results, conclusions were drawn and the

appropriate graphs were produced to help explain these results.

36

Potential Error Sources

Answers to the questionnaire are empirical, relying solely on the current
knowledge and perceptions of the respondent. Therefore, some uncertainty or error will
exist, and in several instances questions were skipped by respondents because they did not
know the answer or did not feel they knew enough about current township involvement in
wetland preservation. Also, several respondents may have shied away from questions
dealing with money or willingness-to—pay possibly to avoid tax liabilities, even though
these were hypothetical situations. This study assumed that the survey design did obtain
the best available information for each township, even though respondents’ knowledge of
wetlands, ecology, and wetland firnctions was not determined. This was not necessary
since the study was based on public opinions, attitudes and preferences toward wetland
preservation, and not the respondents’ previous knowledge base.

A pre-test of the questionnaire was not conducted. The pre-test was deemed
unnecessary since there were several reviews of the survey instrument and the data to be
obtained dealt with individual opinions that cannot be exactly duplicated.

Statistical error may include recording error, measurement error, and Type I or
Type 2 error around hypothesis testing. Recording error has to do with the transposition
of survey answers into the computer program. Human error can» always be present, but
entries were entered carefully and proofed before any statistical analysis was performed.
After the first statistical test was run, two errors in data entry were found and corrected.

Therefore, it is the author’s opinion that recording error is non-existent.

37

Measurement error can deal with how well the questions obtained the desired
output. Since a pretest was not conducted, this is difficult to determine. Questions about
how well the survey obtained desired results have been raised. These questions have
occurred in the willingness-to-pay section of the survey since questions reveal relative
willingness-to-pay instead of a precise quantification of this. Other questions have been
raised about how valid results are since predictions called for more variation between the
two townships. Since the survey was reviewed by an expert, approved by the university,
and followed the general guidelines for this type of survey, the author feels its accuracy is
adequate to draw the necessary conclusions.

Measurement error can also deal with measurement of statistics. Type I and Type
H statistical errors have to do with hypothesis testing. A Type I error occurs when a
researcher rejects a null hypothesis that is true. A Type 11 error occurs when a researcher
fails to reject a null hypothesis that is false (Norusis, 1995). Since the data being
examined was qualitative, null hypotheses were more vague than if quantitative data were
being used to test means and significance. In most cases the null hypotheses stated: The
two townships have the same mean for the variable being examined. This simplified
analysis and allowed for more accurate interpretations of null hypotheses. The major
concern in this area has to do with the experimental design, which may allow for some
misrepresentation of preferences and raise questions of whether the data actually allow for
accurate hypothesis testing. The author is confident in the accurate interpretation of the

null hypotheses from the results obtained from the various statistical tests.

38

Error can be introduced to a study in many ways, but it is the researchers duty to
try to keep this error to a minimum. The author feels this was done to the best of her

ability to improve accuracy and reduce suspicions about the results that follow.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses portions of the survey results related to public
preferences regarding wetlands and their functions, and the willingness-to-pay to preserve
these functions. The results presented depict respondents preferences during October,
1996. Presented are data, findings, and the response rate from this survey.

Analysis of wetland preservation is done relative to the two townships inclusively,
as well as individually. Wetland preservation is analyzed relative to each section of the
survey including general findings, wetland function results, and the relative willingness-to-
pay. Responses are then discussed by township differentiation, and the significance of the

study findings.

General Findinga

Before proceeding with the results it is necessary to describe the determination of
the strength or weakness of a relationship as found in correlation tests and the statistical
significant levels for these and other statistical tests. A correlation test results in a
probability of whether variables are related and how statistically significant this
relationship is determined to be using a twootailed significance level. The probability is
explained in terms of a correlation coefficient which allows a researcher to determine

whether there is a positive or negative relationship between variables and how strong or

39

40

weak of a relationship exists. There are no set rules for determining the strength or
weakness of a relationship, but the correlation coefficient can be from .0000 to .9999.
The author determined each interval of strength using weak (.0000 to .2999), moderately
weak (.3000 to .5555), moderately strong (.5556 to .7999), and strong (.8000 to .9999).
Since there are no guidelines these intervals are arbitrary, but help explain the findings.

The significance levels found in various statistical tests help determine the
confidence that a particular relationship or difi‘erence in findings exists. For example, tests
showing significant levels less than .001 mean that the researcher is 99% confident with
the results, less than .002 means that a researcher is 98% confident, and so on. This
allows the researcher to determine the accuracy of the findings. These concepts are used
throughout the results.

Surveys were returned by mail in early October, 1996. The anticipated response
rate was 25 to 30%, however in actuality the response rate was higher at 36.25%.
Therefore, participation was better than anticipated with 145 returned surveys, 73 fiom
Meridian Township and 70 fiom Williamstown Township and 2 non responses to that
particular question. Due to the no response to the township of residence question
included in the survey, some respondents were not included in individual township data or
when using t-tests. The reasoning behind their exclusion is the township of residence
cannot be determined and therefore the researcher and SPSS cannot record or include
their particular responses. These responses, however are included in the overall findings.

Therefore, totals for individual township data add to 143 instead of the total of 14S.

41

Participants varied by gender, education level, income, employment, and property
value. There were 84 male (41 in Meridian and 42 in Williamstown Townships) and 59
female respondents (30 in Meridian and 28 in Williamstown Townships), with 2 cases that
were entered as “no response” since the respondents chose not to answer that particular
question. The higher response rate of males may be due in part to the cross referencing of
property owner lists and voter registration lists. Cases of property owner lists often only
list males as the owner even if that male is married and shares the property title with a
spouse or relative. In cases where both were listed, and both appeared as voters,
envelopes were addressed to both parties indicated.

Education levels revealed 3 respondents had less than a high school diploma, 8
respondents had a high school diploma, 40 respondents had completed an Associate’s
degree or had completed some college, 42 respondents had received a Bachelor’s degree,
27 respondents had received a Master’s degree, 22 respondents had received a Doctoral
degree, and there were 3 responses coded as no response (1 in Meridian and 2 in
Williamstown Townships). When the two townships are compared to one another using a
t-test the results show that there exists a statistically significant difi‘erence between
education levels. Meridian Township has a higher mean average education level than
Williamstown Township (at the confidence level of 99% and a standard error of mean
difference equal to .199).

Using the “Explore” function in SPSS, the mean household income for
respondents in Meridian and Williamstown Townships is determined to be fi'om “$50,000

to $74,000” a year. Figures 6 and 7 depict absolute fi'equencies of household incomes for

42

 

ooodm FA

 

. 6585 22.83

mmmdm 0. mu mamdv 2 av mmmdw 2 pm
mad: 2 OS mmm€h 2 cm mmmdm 2 on

 

  

ooodwv

  

 

.ON

.09

 

 

moi saw as s

Econcoamom .2 9:85 20:38:

m 9:9“.

om

iunoo

43

2:85 29.83...

ooodmpa mamdm 2 mm mamdv 2 av $8.8 2 FN
mafia: 9 8.. mmmfh 2 on mmmdm 2 on ooodmv

=o.uEn_.§>_rL _|l11
5.9.22 l

35:32

 

 

runoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mucoEmom .0 95:26... 3
9528mm: .6 9:85 20:33: K 2:9“.

44

the study area and the two townships. A correlation test showed that education level and
household income are positively related, with a significance level of less than .001 (a 99%
confidence level) and a correlation coefficient of .3698. This probability means that the
two variables have a moderately weak relationship, keeping in mind that these numbers
represent household, not individual income. This helps to explain the fact that a t—test
showed no statistically significant difference between the townships in mean household
income per year. This finding is surprising since one would expect Williamstown
respondents to have a lower household income since their education level is lower.

Employment was examined through the employment situation (i.e. full time) and
by type. The majority of respondents are employed full time in overall and individual
township findings. F igures'8 and 9 show respondents employment situation by study area
and townships. Figures 10 and 11 depict respondents employment type overall and by
township. T-tests show no statistically significant difference between townships in
employment situation or employment type. It was not surprising to find the majority of
workers to be educational or professional workers given the proximity of these two
townships to Michigan State University and various state agencies. It was disappointing
to find only one respondent employed as a farmer since Williamstown Township acreage is
predominantly agricultural. Although it must be noted that the residents are not
predominantly employed in the agricultural sector.

Property values were also examined. By analyzing t-test results there were no
statistically significant differences in property values between the two townships (See .
Figure 12). A correlation test revealed that property values are related to the employment

situation (with a correlation coefficient of .3158), employment type (with a correlation

Figure 8. Employment Situations for

Respondents in the Study Area

45

 

 

unemployed. not seek

 

 

 

100

 

seasonal worker now

full time

reti

unemployed, seeking

partti

employment situation

46

c2626 29:3an

9.28» .33an5 E: can
2x8». 6: 620358: 30: Euro; .288...“ o6: =2

 

c9235.; E
c2322 I

95:32

 

 

___-l.E_ L r!

 

 

.ov

 

 

35.56% 3 mucmncoammm
.2 cozmszm EoEBEEm .m 2:9“.

runoo

Figure 10. Employment Types for

Respondents in the Study Area

47

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

 

skilled work other

sales/office work

homemaker

educ/prot work

nt

manager semi-skilled work

farmer

employment

48

5583...; D
5.952 I

9:239

EoEBEEm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35:26» 3 $5388:
.2 mg... EoECAoEEw . I 9:9“.

runoo

49

ooodoma

 

cones; E
causes. I

35:32

 

 

 

 

ooodom 2 cm—

 

 

o2m> Emaoa

mamdww 9 mm P mmmdm 9 on
mamiwp 2 8.. www.mv 2 ON

 

row

 

 

 

 

 

25.36% 3 mccmncoamom
.2 mo:_m> Eonoi .Nw 939”.

Iunoo

50

coefficient of .2468) and income (with a correlation coefficient of .5699). These are all
positive relationships but they are moderately weak, weak, and moderately strong,
respectively.

General questions about wetlands are discussed in Part II of the survey. None of
respondent’s answers to these questions revealed significant differences through t-tests. It
is important, however, to examine these general findings. The most frequent response to
the following statements was “strongly disagree”: 1) Wetlands tarnish the beauty of an
area, 2) Wetlands pose problems for human health, and 3) Wetlands are lands that could
be put to better use. This shows that many of the respondents feel favorably about
wetlands in the area. Most people “agr ” to the following statements: 1) Wetlands are
mosquito hatching grounds, 2) Wetlands are aesthetically pleasing, 3) Wetlands are
important to maintaining ecosystem health, 4) Wetlands help in flood control, 5) Wetlands
help in providing clean drinking water, 6) Wetlands are important in maintaining open
spaces, 7) Wetlands have economic value, and 8) Although wetlands greater than five
acres are protected by the state, some small wetlands may perform functions that warrant
their protection by the township. Most respondents “strongly agreed” with the statement
“Wetlands provide wildlife habitat”. When asked if wetlands are important to the
township most people thought wetlands were ‘Very important” followed by “important”.
When asked if the township was doing enough to protect wetlands 60% of respondents
said ‘yes”. In Meridian Township 56.1% of respondents feel the township is doing
enough while in Williamstown Township 62.9% feel this way. Although Williamstown

Township does not have a wetland ordinance at this time, it is not surprising that most

51

citizens feel the township is doing enough since it is not under the same development
pressures that Meridian Township currently faces. Several respondents commented that
responsibility should be a joint effort between all forms of government.

General questions about the funding of wetland protection were also addressed.
The most frequent response was “1 to 5%” of township budget expenditures should be
allocated to wetland preservation. There was no statistically significant difference
between the responses by township. Most people feel the township should raise money
for wetland protection by charging a fee to new developers or by collecting fees from
wetland use applications/permit programs. However, without the proper zoning and
wetland ordinances these fees would be difi'lcult to collect legally. If citizens alone were
responsible for general wetland protection, respondents would be willing to pay “$11 to
$30 a year” for this preservation. Again there were no significant differences found
between townships. These dollar amounts show that respondents value wetlands at $11 to
$30 a year as discussed in Chapter H in sections entitled Resource Valuation, Economic

Valuation, and Willingness-to-pay.

Wetland Functions

Part III of the survey relates to wetland firnctions. Functions were broken down .
into three types: 1) functions related to water quality and quantity, 2) functions related to
biodiversity, and 3) functions related to recreation and aesthetics. After each function
type, respondents were asked to indicate which they felt was most important to their

township.

52
Wetlands perform a variety of functions dealing with water quality and quantity.

The functions examined include flood control, groundwater supply or recharge, water
quality improvement, sediment/toxicant retention, and nutrient removal or transformation.
T-tests show that there are no significant differences between townships for these
variables, but fiequency distributions warrant discussion. The most frequent response to
all of these functions was “important” when looking at the townships inclusively and
individually. Overall, respondents chose recharge as the most important of these functions
dealing with water. Williamstown Township had similar results. However, Meridian
Township respondents felt that flood control was the most important wetland function
dealing with water in their township (See Figure 13). Development pressures tend to have
a large impact on flood control as the construction of drains becomes necessary. When
natural features that once controlled flooding are reduced in number there is a larger need
for drain construction and maintenance by township planners. This may explain the slight
difl‘erence in preferences of function related to water quality and quantity between the two
townships even though the difference was not found to be statistically significant.
Correlation tests reveal that for each of these dependent variables there is a weak negative
relationship with income. This would mean that as income increases, positive opinions
about wetland functions would decrease. This does not imply that people with larger
amounts of money feel that natural wetland functions are not important, it may simply
mean that they are more financially capable of dealing with these issues or paying the
higher costs associated with loss of wetland function. Two dependent variables, water

quality improvement and sedirnent/toxicant retention, were found to be related to property

53

Emtoaé “mos c263“.

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 58.658553 . . census
.0 BEES «cots: , >29... £95 853 .268 poo:
:ofiEm._§>_|i_ , .. ‘ .0
cases. . wwww
. ...... I OF
35:26.

E“

. 8

9.

 

 

 

szcmzckzfiac .395 9.688:
mcozoczm page; Emtoaé “mo—2
9: .6 95an meconcoamom .9 939....

runoo

54

values as an independent variable. Again, these are negative and weak relationships, but
as property values increase, opinions about the importance of these functions decrease.
Wetland functions dealing with biodiversity include maintaining wildlife diversity,
aquatic diversity, plant diversity, and threatened or endangered species. Wetlands may
help preserve habitats for these species and therefore deserve discussion. In overall
findings wildlife diversity was rated as ‘Very important”, and the others were rated as
“important.” In addition, the function of wetlands related to biodiversity with the highest
frequency was indeed wildlife diversity. In Meridian township the highest frequency of
responses to these variables were all ‘Very important”. The most important function
regarding biodiversity was wildlife diversity in both townships (See Figure 14). However,
the most frequent response in Williamstown Township to each of the functions was
“important”, except for wildlife diversity which again was “very important”. Correlation
tests between independent and dependent variables showed no statistically significant
relationship between variables. T-tests did show that there was statistically significant
differences in response rates between townships for the most important function dealing
with biodiversity, even though most frequencies peaked with wildlife diversity (See Figure
14). It was determined that Meridian Township’s mean response was 2.2319 and A
Williamstown Township’s mean response 1.7612, a mean difference of .4707. The
significance level for this test is .029 (a confidence level of 97 . 1%) with a standard error of
difference at .213. The statistically significant difi‘erence stems from the fact that Meridian

Township respondents had more variation in response to what was most important to their

55

 

co~§__._>> E
c3335. I

95:32

 

 

55:2 3 Emtoaé 56E

 

  

 

 

Enos so Scenes 33% an... 3eo>a 2.8.2 3296 c523

 

  

 

 

 

 

$55253 9555:

555:3”. 5953 238:8. 522

9: :o 55:50 5

.Eoncoamom .3 9:9“.

runoo ‘

56
township, while Williamstown Township leaned largely toward wildlife diversity as the

most important wetland function dealing with biodiversity.

The final filnction type deals with recreation and aesthetics. General aesthetic
questions were addressed in the “General Findings” section of this chapter. The variables
in this category include fishing, hunting, boating, hiking/nature walking, camping,
swimming, picnicking, nature observation, and nature photography. The overall most
frequent response to the importance of fishing is “important”. Williamstown Township
follows this trend, but Meridian has equal frequencies for “important” and “of little
importance.” None of the independent variables had a significant relationship to fishing,
and a t-test found no statistically significant difference in the mean response to the
importance of fishing.

Hunting provided interesting findings. The most frequent responses to the
importance of hunting were “important” and “of little importance” (See Figure 15). The
mean of these responses yields that hunting is “moderately important” when looking at the
townships inclusively. However, the most frequent response to the importance of hunting
was “of little importance” in Meridian and “important” in Williamstown Townships (See
Figure 16). A Host reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between mean
values in the townships. The mean for Meridian Township is 2.3380 and Williamstown
A Township is 3.3913, a mean difference of -1 .0533. The negative number shows that
Meridian Township has a lower opinion of the importance of hunting when compared to
Williamstown Township. The significance level is less than .001 (a confidence level of
99%) with a stand error of difference at .191. Correlation tests show that hunting is

related to education levels and predominant land use. Both dependent variables have

57

  

 

5528: n mm 95:3:

22:85. . 85:85. c3.
Eocene. 5553:. 85:85 8

 

Iunoo

E8895 :2,

  

 

.om

Tom

 

0v

 

m9< Sam 9: :_ 95:31
:0 22:30 mpcoucoamom .9 9:9“.

58

523...? B
56:22 I

25:32

53.85. b?

 

II

 

 

 

 

 

  

c2328. a 3 9:25:

25.85. 8cmc8§ 2....
59.861.283.98 woe—wrong o:

1unog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35:26... 3 9:25...
.6 95an mpcmncoammm .9 9:9...

59

confidence levels of 99%. Education level is related to hunting with a negative,
moderately weak relationship. The correlation coefiicient of this relationship is .4020.
This means as education levels rise, positive opinions on the importance of hunting to the
townsz residents decrease. The correlation coeficient is not negative due to question
formatting. Since Meridian Township has a higher mean education level, it can again be
concluded that these respondents will have a less favorable opinion of the importance of
hunting. Hunting is also related to the predominant land use. This is a positive, yet
moderately weak relationship with a significance level of less than .01 (99% confidence
level) and a correlation coeflicient of .4248. This means that the more rural an area the
more important hunting is to residents of that area. Therefore, Williamstown Township
respondents feel that hunting is more important than Meridian Township. This may be
due to the fact that land is more available for wildlife and hunting, hunting may be
somewhat more traditional in rural areas, and there may be more of a need for hunting in
rural areas to feed residents or keep wildlife population counts in balance.

Boating, hiking and nature walking, camping, swimming, picnicking, observing
nature, and photographing nature showed no statistically significant differences between-
townships or no statistically significant relationships with any of the independent variables
(income, education, property value, population density, orpredominant land use). Overall
and individually, boating was “moderately important” in the two townships. Overall and
individually, hiking and nature walking was “moderately important” to respondents in the
townships. Providing an area for camping as a wetland function was “of little importance”

to respondents in both townships. Swimming was of “little importance” to respondents in

60
both townships. Overall, picnicking was rated “moderately important” in the two

townships, and although there was not a statistically significant difi‘erence in the means,
Meridian Township seems to think picnic areas are slightly more important to their
township than Williamstown Township (See Figure 17). This may again be explained by
the development pressures existing in Meridian Township and the desire to preserve some
areas as parks and recreations areas. Both townships feel that nature observation is
“important” to their township. This may be due to the desire to preserve natural features
for future generations. It may also be due in part to respondents simply enjoying the view
that natural areas and wetlands provide. Nature photography was found to be
“moderately important” to both townships.

The most important recreation or aesthetic function is the final topic of discussion.
In this category the most frequent response to the most important wetland firnction
dealing with recreation/aesthetics was nature observation, with 60.7 percent of
respondents choosing this fimction (See Figure 18). Correlation tests showed no
relationship between this variable and any of the independent variables. However, there
was a statistically significant difference in means for this variable. The significance is .017
(a confidence level of 98.3%) and the standard error of difference is .439. This can be

explained by the higher variance of responses in Williamstown Township.

Relative Willingness-to-Pay
The importance of each wetland fimction discussed above allows general

conclusions to be made about public preferences and attitudes toward each of the

61

2.3.8559,

 

835...; E
5.2.22 I

9:232

 

F!

 

5.698. a 3 9.2283

29.8.... Sagas. 2.5

$9.88. 229805 8cmcan_ o:

   

tunoo

 

.ow

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

aEmEsB .3 9.22.85
.0 «.5an m..cmucoammm .5 9:9”.

62

23.3.2... 239.

3:82 02368202382 .cmtoag .moE

8.25.3... 83328:... 8.2....

5.6388 23m... 9.368 9:83 9...»:

 

co§_.=>> E
c8282 I

95:26.

 

 

HIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[#1151]!

.om

.ov

.om

 

 

$28.53 new c2699.... 9.6.39.
959.32. .3 mcozoczn. €9.an. $22
on. .o 9.0an w..cmn:oammm .9 9:9“.

tunoo

63

functions. The relative willingness-to-pay for these functions give indications of how
respondents value wetland functions. The survey sets a hypothetical situation, in which
respondents are asked how much they would be willing to pay for services if wetlands
were non-existent in the township. These services include drain construction, drain
maintenance, public health, additional drinking water treatment, additional waste water
treatment, habitat preservation, water availability, sediment or toxicant removal fiom
water, nutrient removal fi'om water, endangered species preservation, open space
preservation, travel to similar natural areas, travel to similar recreational areas, and
augmentation of well water supplies with water purchased from other sources (such as the
Lansing Board of Water and Light).

Overall and individual fi'equencies and means show that respondents are willing to
pay “less than $50 per year” for each of the services listed. Therefore, t-tests show no
statistically significant differences for any of the variables noted above. These findings are
not surprising since respondents were only willing to pay “$11 to $30 a year“ to protect
community wetlands. A pre-test may have shown that these questions needed to be
reworked so more representative dollar figures could have been presented to respondents.
It must also be noted that 5 respondents chose not to answer these questions. This could
be due to a fear of a tax increase to pay for these services, or the way the question was
presented. In future studies more representative questions and answer categories should
be used. The researcher found this question to be of little significance to the study. It
should be mentioned, however, that income (an independent variable) was related to

respondents willingness-to-pay for water availability and willingness-to-pay to travel to

64

similar natural areas. These relationships are weak (with correlation coefficients of .2308
and .2444, respectively), but they are positive relationships revealing that as income
increases so does the respondents willingness-to-pay for water availability and travel to
similar natural areas.

It was surprising not to find more relationships between independent and
dependent variables. It was also surprising to find that township perspectives are similar
even though the characteristics of the area and the respondents have differentiation. It
would be interesting to see if actual differences exist between non-neighboring townships
or townships with more extreme land use difi‘erences. Population density did not seem to

significantly effect the variables, however it is interrelated with predominant land use

types.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

To date, information on public preferences and attitudes regarding wetland
preservation in Michigan has been limited. Available information has been presented in
regards to wetland preservation in general, accompanied by information on preservation of
wetland fiinctions and the relative willingness-to-pay to preserve these wetland firnctiOns.
The objective of this study was to provide current data on public preferences and attitudes
toward wetland preservation, and second to determine whether socio-economic
population characteristics in Meridian (an urbanizing) and Williamstown (a predominately
agricultural) Townships, effect personal preferences on the preservation of wetlands.
Through a mail survey of township residents, data was acquired and presented holistically
and individually by township. It is dificult to assess the accuracy of this data since
responses were based on public opinions that change over time. However, the
willingness-to—pay to preserve wetland functions did not yield expected results and
therefore may have a low confidence level.

This chapter presents the major findings of the analyses of the completed survey
for Meridian and Williamstown Townships in mid-Michigan. Results were obtained in
early October, 1996 and are indicative of wetland preservation preferences for this time.

Also presented in this chapter are recommendations for further study.

65

Major Findings

10.

11.

The major findings of this study are presented as follows:

In general, respondents tend to have a positive image and opinion of wetlands.
This is important because in the past, wetlands were thought of as wastelands that
should be drained and filled.

Most respondents agree that wetlands and their fiinctions are important to the
community, and that wetlands possess economic value.

Respondents seem most concerned about biodiversity and preserving species
habitat when examining wetland fiinctions holistically.

Respondents felt that their township adequately protected wetlands and their
functions, and township boards should be held responsible for wetland
preservation with l to 5% of the township budgets allocated to this goal.

Citizens would be willing to pay a range of $11 to $30 a year to protect wetlands,
in general, but would be willing to pay “less than $50 a year” for each function
wetlands provide, or “less than $50 a year” to replace these functions if lost.

Major statistically significant difi‘erences in preference between townships were not
found, even though the two townships have different mean education levels,
different population densities, and difi‘erent predominant land uses. However,
statistically significant differences were found in education level, importance of
biodiversity, importance of hunting, and most important wetland function dealing
with recreation/aesthetics.

Water recharge and flood control preferences were the most important when
dealing with wetland functions regarding water quality and quantity.

Respondents felt the most important wetland functions are associated with
biodiversity and with the preserving of wildlife.

Respondents felt the most important function associated with recreation or
aesthetics was nature observation.

The independent variables (or socio-economic characteristics) that had significant
effects on dependent variables (the wetland firnctions) include income, education,
property values, and land use.

Income was the most important independent variable and eflected wetland
functions including flood control, groundwater recharge, water quality
improvement, sediment/toxicant retention, and nutrient removal or transformation.

67

Income effected the willingness-to-pay for water availability and travel to similar
natural areas.

12. Education level had a moderately weak influence on the preferences of hunting as
a wetland function regarding recreation since the correlation coefficient is .4020.

13. Property values had small effects on preferences dealing with water quality
improvements and sediment/toxicant retention as wetland functions regarding
water quality and quantity (with correlation coemcients of .2627 and .2625,
respectfully, the relationships are weak).

14. Predominant land use had a moderately weak effect (with a probability of .4248)
on preferences dealing with hunting as a wetland function regarding recreation.

15. Assessment of the willingness-to-pay for preservation of wetland quality could be

improved with a different type of question. This assessment was ineffective in this
study.

Recommendations for Further Stug

Future studies will be needed to keep up with changing opinions and public
preferences. A study similar to this one using extreme differences in socio-economic
characteristics (and non-neighboring townships) may provide more understanding into the
factors and reasoning behind public preferences regarding wetland preservation.
However, a more complete contingent valuation study will be necessary for determining
the public’s willingness-to-pay to preserve wetlands and their functions. Tests can be
performed to evaluate the public’s knowledge of wetland preservation issues, and
measures can be taken to improve their knowledge, where necessary. This will allow the
public to be involved in determining future needs for wetland preservation and land use
planning. Improving public information will also allow for more informed decision

making. Finally, public preferences can be incorporated into weighting schemes for

68

wetland assessment to ensure the public’s attitudes are heard and incorporated into land

use planning and zoning ordinances and practices.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

WETLAND ORDINANCE (MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP)

APPENDIX A

CHAPTER 105

WETIAND PROTECTION

Section 105-], Figglm

The Township Board of the Charter Township of Meridian finds that wetlands are indispensable and
fragile natural resources that provide many public benefits, including maintenance of water quality
through nutrient cycling and sediment trapping as well as flood and storm water runofl' control
through temporary water storage. slow release. and groundwater recharge. In addition. wetlands
provide open space; passive outdoor recreation opportunities; fish and wildlife habitat for many forms
of wildlife. including migratory waterfowl, and rare. threatened or endangered wildlife and plant
species; and pollution treatment by serving as biological and chemical oxidation basins.

Preservation of the remaining Township wetlands in a natural condition shall be and is necessary to
maintainhydrological. economic, recreational. and aesthetic natural resource values for existing and
future residents of the Charter Township of Meridian. and therefore the Township Board declares
a policy of no net loss of wetlands. Furthermore, the Township Board declares a long-term goal of
net gain of wetlands to be accomplished through review of degraded or destroyed wetlands in the
Township. and, through cooperative work with landowners, using incentives and voluntary agreements
to restore wetlands.

Pursuant to Article 4, Section 52 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan, the conservation and
development of natural resources of the state is a matter of paramount public concern in the interest
of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people. Therefore. with authority from Section 8
(4) of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (Act 203,-Public Acts of 1979, as amended),
the Township Board finds that this Chapter is essential to the long term health, safety, economic. and
general welfare of the people of the Charter Township of Meridian, and, to the furtherance of the
policies set forth in the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (Act 127, Public Acts of 1970) and
the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (Act 203, Public Acts of 1979, as amended).

~ S 5-2

The purposes of this ordinance are to provide for:

a. The protection. preservation. replacement. proper maintenance. restoration. and use in
accordance with the character. adaptability, and stability of the Township's wetlands. in Order

to prevent their pollution or contamination; minimize their disturbance and disturbance to the
natural habitat therein; and prevent damage from erosion, siltation. and flooding.

Adopted 8.6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

69

70

The encouragement of proper and reasonable economic use of wetlands. the discouragement
and limitation of imprOper use, the reduction of financial burdens improper uses impose on
the community, the maintenance of harmonious and compatible land use balance within the
Township. and the prevention of nuisance conditions that arise with the indiscriminate
development of wetlands.

The coordination with, and support for. the enforcement of applicable federal. state. and
county statutes, ordinances. and regulations. including but am limited to:

1. Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (Act 203, Public Acts of 1979. as
amended), enforced by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources; and

2. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act (Act 347, Public Acrs of 1972. as
amended), enforced by the Ingham County Drain Commissioner.

Compliance withgthe Michigan Environmental Protection Act (Act 127, Public Acts of 1970).
which imposes a duty on government agencies and private individuals and organizations to
prevent or minimize the pollution, impairment or destruction of the natural resources that
is likely to be caused by their activities.

The establishment of standards and procedures for the review and regulation of the use of
wetlands.

The issuance of wetland use permits for approved activities.
A procedure for appealing decisions.
The establishment of enforcement procedures and penalties for the violation of this Chapter.

Assurance that the right to reasonable use of private property is maintained.

Section 05-3 ti f e

The following definitions shall apply to the words and terms used in this Chapter:

a.

"Aggficvcd Person“ is any land owner whose property is located within 500 feet of the
property affected by the permitted activity or any other person determined by the Townsz
Board to be aggrieved. '

b. "Aquatic Life" means vertebrates or invertebrates that are dependent on wetlands for some
vital portion of their life cycle including any of the following: breeding, spawning, nesting.
rearing of young, feeding, and resting or protection.

Adopted 8-6-91

Rev. 6—7-94

09

71

"Deposit" means to fill. place or dump. .

"Director of Planning and Development Control” shall mean the Director of Planning and
Development Control for Meridian Township or his/her designee.

"Fill material" means soil. rocks. sand. pilings. waste of any kind. or any Other material which
displaces soil or water, reduces water retention potential or reduces ability for wetland
vegetation growth.

"LOt" means a designated parcel. tract. building site or other interest in land established by
plat. subdivision. conveyance, condominium maSter deed. or as otherwise permitted by law.
to be used. developed or built upon as a unit.

"Minor drainage" includes ditching and tiling for the removal of excess soil moisture incidental
to the planting, cultivating, protecting. or harvesting of crops or improving the productivity
of land in established use for agriculture, horticulture, silviculture. or lumbering.

"Mitigation of wetlands” shall mean: (1) methods for eliminating or reducing potential impact
to regulated wetlands: or (2) creation of new wetlands of the same or similar funcnon to
offset unavoidable loss of existing wetlands to meet the Township goal of no net loss of
wetlands.

"Person" means an individual. sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation. association.
municipality, this state. and instrumentality or agency of this state, the federal government.
or an instrumentality or agency of the federal government, or Other legal entity.

"Remove" means to dig, dredge, suck. pump. bulldoze, drag line. or blast.

"Restoration" means to return from a disturbed or totally altered condition to a previously
existing natural or altered condition by some action of man.

"Structure" shall mean any assembly of materials above or below the surface of the land or
water. including but not limited to, buildings, bulkheads, piers, docks, landings. dams.
waterway obstructions. paving and roadways, poles, towers. cables, pipelines. drainage tiles.
and other underground installations.

"Township Board” shall mean the legislative body of Meridian Township, Ingham County.
Michigan. -

"Township Wetland Consultant" shall mean a person(s) professionally knowledgeable in
wetland delineation and resource value assessment. wetland protection, wetland restoration
and wetland mitigation. appointed pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Township Personnel Policy
to carry out certain duties hereunder. Any firm or individual appointed on a contrast basis
shall be selected competitively under the Township Purchasing Policy.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

72

”Township Wetland Inventory Map" refers to the Meridian Township Wetland Inventory Map
created to comply with Section 8a(1) of the Goemaere-Anderson Act. The Township
Wetland Inventory map is based on the National Wetland Map of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; the Michigan Resource Information System Mapping (MIRIS) of the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources; the soils maps of the Soil Conservation Service. aerial
photography, and on-site inspections.

"Wetland” means land characterized by the presence of water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support. and that under normal circumstances does support, wetland vegetation
or aquatic life and is commonly referred to as a hog, swamp, or marsh.

"Wetland Board" shall mean the Wetland Board of the Charter Township of Meridian or any
Other body designated by the Township Board to assume the Wetland Board's duties.

"Wetland Vegetation" means plants that exhibit adaptatiOns to allow germination and growth
with at least their rOOt systems in the water or saturated soils under normal conditions.

Section 105-4 Lands to Which This Chagter Applies; ‘

a.

This Chapter shall apply to:

1. All wetlands, as defined in this Chapter, that are equal to or greater than one-quarter
(.25) acre and equal to or less than five (5) acres in area except those wetlands for
which the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has determined to
exercise State regulation under MCL 281.702 (g) (iii).

2.. Notwithstanding the above, it shall be unlawful under this Chapter to conduct any
activity or use within a MDNR regulated wetland without full compliance with the
requirements of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act. A copy of all
applications for Wetland Permits filed with the MDN'R and for which permits are not
governed by this Chapter. shall be submitted to the Township for review and
comment by the Township Wetland Consultant. A copy of the comments filed by the
Township Wetland Consultant shall be forwarded to the Board.

Section 105-5 Township Wetlagd Inventor-v Mag

The Township Wetland Inventory Map is a guide to the location of wetlands in Meridian Township.
The Map shall be used in the administration of this Ordinance and Chapter 84 of the Code of
Ordinances.

a.

The Township Wetland Inventory Map, together with all explanatory matter thereon and
attached thereto, as may be amended through the Wetland Verification and Delineation
process, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be part of this Chapter. The
Township Wetland Inventory Map shall be on file in the Department of Development
Control.

Adopted 8&6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

73

b. The Township Wetland Inventory Map shall serve as a general guide for the location of
protected wetlands.

c. The Township Wetland Inventory Map does nOt create any legally enforceable presumptions
regarding whether property that 13 or is not included on the inventory map is or is nm in fact
a wetland.

d. Map Amendment Process
1. Any change to the Township Wetland Inventory Map. approved by the Direcror of

Planning and Development Control through verification or delineation. shall be added
to the Township Wetland Inventory Map on an annual basis.

SJ

The Township shall insure that each record owner of property on the property tax roll
shall be notified of any amendment to the Township Wetland Inventory Map on an
annual basis. The nOtice shall include the following information:

. a. the maps have been amended
b. the location to review the maps
c. the owner’s property may be designated as a wetland on the inventory map
d. the Township has an ordinance regulating wetland
e. the inventory map does not necessarily include all of the wetland within the

Township that may be subject to the wetland ordinance
Sectiog 105-6 Wetland Verification and Delineation

The Township Wetland Inventory Map shall be validated through the Wetland Verification Process
and the Wetland Delineation Process. The Wetland Verification Process, as set forth herein. shall
be used to verify wetlands on properties where wetland is shown on the Wetland Inventory Map.
The Wetland Delineation Process. as set forth herein. shall be used to establish the actual boundaries
of wetlands m the Township. The identification of the precise boundaries of wetlands on a projecr
site shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

a. Wetland Verification Process

1. The Township or property owners of wetlands may initiate a verification of the areas
shown on the Township Wetland Inventory Map as wetland. The verification shall
be limited to a finding of wetland or no wetland by the Township Wetland
Consultant. The finding shall be based on, but not limited to, aerial photography.
topographical maps. and field inspection.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

74

$0

In the event that there is a finding of no wetland on the property. then no further
action by the applicant would be required and the finding shall be incorporated into
the Wetland Inventory Map during the Map Amendment Process.

3. In the event that there is a finding of wetland, then the establishment of the precise
boundary through a wetland delineation shall be required to amend the Township
Wetland Inventory Map or process a wetland use permit application.

4. The applicant shall pay fees for the Wetland Verification Process as established by
resolution of the Township Board. The fee shall be refunded if there is a finding of
no wetland.

b. Wetland Delineation Process

Prior to the issuance of any permit or land development approval for a property which is shown to
include a wetland on the Township Wetland Inventory Map, the applicant may be required to provide
a wetland delineation to the Township. The Director of Flaming and Development Control shall
decide whether a delineation is required, based on the proximity and relationship of the project to
the wetland.

1. To establish actual wetland boundaries on a property, an applicant shall provide a
survey or dimensional site plan, drawn at an appropriate scale, showing prOperty lines.
buildings and any points of reference along with the determined wetland boundaries,
according to one of the following:

A. Wetland delineation by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR).

B. Wetland delineation by the applicant’s wetland consultant subject to review
and approval by the Township Wetland Consultant .

2. Where a wetland delineation is required by this Chapter, the Township Wetland
Consultant shall establish wetland boundaries following receipt of the above required
information and after conducting a field investigation.

DJ

The applicant shall pay fees for the Wetland Delineation Process as established by
resolution of the Township Board.

Section 105-7 Activities Not Rguiflgg A Peggt

The following uses shall be allowed in a wetland without a permit subject to other laws of this state
and the owner’s regulation:

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 67-94

qq

75

Fishing, trapping or hunting.
Swimming or boating.
Hiking.

Grazing of animals.

Farming, horticulture. silviculture. lumbering, and ranching activities. including plowing,
irrigation. irrigation ditching, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage. harvesting for the
production of food. fiber. and forest products. or upland soil and water conservation practices.
Wetland altered under this subdivision shall not be used for a purpose other than a purpose
described in this subsection without a permit from the Township.

Maintenance or Operation of serviceable structures in existence on October 1. 1980 or
constructed pursuant to the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Prorection Act. ~

Construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds.

Maintenance, operation. or improvement which includes straightening, widening or deepening
of the following which is necessary for the production or harvesting of agricultural products:

(i) An existing private agricultural drain.

(ii) That portion of a drain legally established pursuant to the drain code of 1956. Act No.
40 of the Public Acts of 1956; as amended, being section 280.1 to 280.630 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws. which has been constructed or improved for drainage
purposes.

(iii) A drain constructed pursuant to other provisions of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland
Protection Act.

Construction or maintenance of farm roads. forest roads. or temporary roads for moving
mining or forestry equipment. if the roads are constructed and maintained in a manner to
assure that adverse effect on the wetland will be otherwise minimized.

Drainage necessary for the production and harvesting of agricultural products if the wetland
is owned by a person who is engaged in commercial farming and the land is to be used for
the production and harvesting of agricultural products. Except as otherwise provided in the
Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, wetland improved under this subdivision after
October 1. 1980. shall not be used for nonfarrning purposes without a permit from the
NflDNR. This subdivision shall not apply to a wetland which is contiguous to a lake or stream.
or to a tributary of a lake or stream, or to a wetland which the MDNR has determined by
clear and convincing evidence to be a wetland which is necessary to be preserved for the
public interest. in which case a permit shall be required.

Adorned 8-6-91

.o.

76

Maintenance or improvement of public streets, highways or roads, within the right of way and
in such a manner as to assure that any adverse effect on the wetland will be otherwise
minimized. Maintenance or improvement does not include adding extra lanes; increasing the
right-of-way; or deviating from the existing location of the street. highway. or road.

Maintenance. repair. or operation of gas or oil pipelines and construction of gas or oil
pipelines having a diameter of 6 inches or less. if the pipelines are constructed. maintained.
or repaired in a manner to assure that any adverse effect on the wetland will be otherwise
minimized.

Maintenance. repair. or Operation of electric transmission and distribution power lines and
construction of distribution power lines if the distribution power lines are constructed.
maintained. or repaired in a manner to assure that any adverse effect on the wetland will be
otherwise minimized. .

Operation or maintenance, including reconstruction of recently damaged'parts. of serviceable
dikes and levees in existence on October 1. 1980. or constructed pursuant to the Goemaere-
Anderson Wetland Protection Act.

Construction of iron and copper mining tailings basins and water storage areas.

Section 105-8 Activities Rguiring a Wetland Use Permit

It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct any activity, listed below, within a wetland without first
obtaining a wetland use permit in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. Activities
governed by this Section include but are not limited to the following:

a. Depositing or permitting fill material to be deposited in a wetland.

b. Grading in a wetland.

c. Dredging, removing, or permitting the removal of soil or minerals from a wetland.

d. Draining, or causing to be drained through artificial means. excluding storm runoff. any water
into or from a wetland.

e. Constructing, operating, or maintaining any use or development in a wetland that requires a
building permit under the Building Code.

Section 105-9 Nonconfo ts Uses a d ctures

Building sites or lots, uses and structures lawfully existing on September 2. 1991, shall be subject to
the requirements of this Chapter, except as follows:

AdOpted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

77

Any activity, structure. or use lawfully existing prior to September 2. 1991. but n0t in
conformity with the provisions of this Chapter, may be continued. maintained and operated.

Any structure lawfully existing prior to September 2. 1991. damaged by fire. explosion. act of
God. or other causes beyond the control of the owner, may be restored. rebuilt. or repaired
without obtaining a wetland use permit. provided construction on the structure commences
within two years from the date the structure was damaged.

Section 105-10 Application Rguirements for Wetland Use Permits

Application for approval, appeal. and issuance of wetland use permits shall be concurrent with the
application for approval. appeal. and issuance of other necessary Township approvals. The applicant
' for a wetland use permit shall submit the following to the Director of Planning and Development .
Control:

a.

An application completed in full, on a form provided by the Township, and including such
other information as required by the Director of Planning and Development Control.

A wetland delineation prepared by the applicant’s wetland consultant including, but not
necessarily limited to the following information: dominant vegetation in the tree. sapling,
shrub, and herb layers: presence or lack of accepted wetland hydrology indicators: analysis of
soil including a description of the soil profile to at least 20 inches and comparison to Ingham
County Soil Survey and maps of the wetland(s) mapped. Mapped data shall be represented
in a manner that allows comparison to the Meridian Township Wetland Inventory Map. '

Soil drainage and stormwater management plans.
A mitigation plan. if the proposed activity will result inthe loss of wetland resources.

The applicant may elect to have the application processed under one of the following
procedures:

1. The wetland application shall be reviewed immediately, either prior to or concurrent

with the review of the proposed land use review with the understanding that the land

' use review may not be completed at the time a decision is rendered on the wetland

application. EleCtion of this alternative may require a reopening of the wetland
application if the land use approval is inconsistent with the wetland approval.

!"

The wetland application shall be reviewed and acted upon concurrent with the review
of the land use proposal submitted by the applicant and the 90 day review period
limitation specified in Section 105-11 is hereby extended accordingly.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

78

f. Copies of wetland permit applications filed with the MDNR and forwarded to the Township
in accordance with Section 6 (3) of the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Pretection Act shall
become part of the application for a Meridian Township wetland use permit. -

Sectiop 105-11 Method of Review of Wetland Use Permit Application

 

a. The Director of Planning and Development Control shall insure that all required information
including a wetland delineation and payment of a fee has been submitted. If an application
is not complete. the applicant may be granted additional time to complete the application
provided that the applicant agrees that the additional time shall not be charged against the
Township’s 90-day time limit for making a decision. The receipt of the application shall
constitute permission from the owner to conduct an on-site investigation.

b. Upon receipt of an application. the Director oftPlanning and Development Control shall:

1. Transmit one c0py of the application to the Department of Natural Resources.

'2. Cause to be published a notice of the application and the date and time for
submission of written public comments in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Township.

3. Post the subject property with a sign that shallbe no less than ten (10) square feet
in size.

4. Transmit one copy of the application and supporting materials to the Township

Wetland Consultant to confirm the boundaries of the wetlandiand to review the
proposal in light of the purpose and review standards of Section 105-13 of this
Chapter and other applicable sections of this Chapter.

c. The Township Wetland Consultant shall prepare and transmit a report and recommendation
to the Director of Planning and Development Control documenting the review required by
Section 105-11(b)(4).

d. The following process shall apply to wetland use permit decisions by the Dinner of Planning
and Development Control:

1. For wetland use permit applications submitted in conjunction with activities that do
not require approval by the Planning Commission and/or Township Board. the
Director of Planning and DevelOpment Control shall approve. approve with
conditions or deny the application within 90 days after receipt of an application.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

!J

L»

79

The Director of Planning and Development Control shall transmit application
materials and the report and recommendation prepared by the Township Wetland
Consultant to the Wetland Board. The Wetland Board may review the materials and
transmit comments for consideration to the Director of Planning and Development
Control.

Persons wishing to comment on the application must submit their comments in writing
to the Director of Planning and Development Control prior to the date and time set
in the notice. Persons wishing to receive natice of the Director of Planning and
Development Control’s decision must submit a written request to the Dinner of
Planning and Development Control.

The Director of Planning and Development Control’s decision shall be made only
after reviewing the report and recommendation from the Township Wetland
Consultant. written public comments. and any comments submitted by the Planning
Commission or Wetland Board.

When a wetland use permit is approved, approved with conditions. or denied by the
Director of Planning and Development Control, written notice shall be sent to the
applicant, and'to all persons who have requested notice of the Director of Planning
and Development Control’s decision. The denial of a permit shall be accompanied
by a written reason of denial.

A permit approved by the Director of Planning and Development Control shall n0t
be issued or effective until ten (10) calendar days following the date of the approval
and compliance with Section 105-15(c).

The following process shall apply to appeals of decisions made by the Director of Planning

and Development Control or Planning Commission:

1.

’0

U)

Any person who is aggrieved by the approval. approval with conditions. or denial of
a wetland use permit by the Director of Planning and Development Control or
Planning Commission. as applicable. may appeal the decision to the Township BOard
by filing a written statement containing the specific reasons for the appeal with the
Township Clerk within ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision. The
timely filing of an appeal shall have the effect of staying the permit pending the
outcome of the appeal.

In the event that the person(s) filing the appeal is not an owner'of property within
500 feet of the property affected. the Township Board shall determine whether the
person(s) is an aggrieved person. '

The Township Board shall hold a hearing on the appeal which shall be open to public
comment and shall include oppOrtunity for the appealing party to present their
appeaL

AdOpted 8-6-91

Rev. 6-7-94

Ut

({Q

80

Notice of the time and place for consideration of an appeal shall be placed in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Township n0t less than five (5) days prior to
the date of the hearing. A notice shall also be sent by mail or personal delivery to
the owners of the prOperty considered in the appeal. and to all owners listed on the
most recent tax roll of real property within 500 feet of the boundary of the property
in question. Said n0tice to be sent not less than five (5) days prior to the hearing.

The Township Board shall affirm. affirm with conditions. or reverse. the decision of
the Planning Commission or Director of Planning and Development Control. The
Board's decision shall be based on written findings.

The following process shall apply to wetland use permit decisions by the Township Board and

Planning Commission:

1.

30

DJ

Wetland use permit applications submitted in conjunction with a related land
development activity shall be decided by the same entity that decides the related land
development activity consistent with the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection
Act. The Planning Commission shall decide any wetland use permits in conjunction
with special use permit applications and shall require that the delineation and wetland
use permit application requests be submitted prior to the special use permit hearing.
The Director of Planning and Development Control shall transmit application
materials and the report and recommendation prepared by the Township Wetland
Consultant to the Township Board, Planning Commission. and Wetland Board. The
Wetland Board may review the materials and provide comments for consideration by
the Township Board or Planning Commission, as applicable.

After review and study of the application materials, the Township Wetland
Consultant’s report and recommendation, and optional comments from the Wetland
Board. the Township Board or Planning Commission. as applicable. may hold one
public hearing after publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Township
not less than five (5) days nor more than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the
hearing. Such notice shall indicate the place. time and subject of the hearing and the
place and time the proposed wetland use permit may be examined. The wetland use
permit hearing may be held in conjunction with a review of the related land use
request.

In the event of a public hearing, notice shall be sent by mail or personal delivery to
the owners of property for which approval is being considered. and to all owners of
property, as listed on the most recent tax roll. within 500 feet of the boundary of the
property in question. Notification need not be given to more than one (1) occupant
of a structure. except that if a structure contains more than one (1) dwelling unit or
spatial area owned or leased by diflerent persOns, one (1) occupant of each unit shall
receive notice. In the case of a single structure containing more than four (4)

Adopted 8-6-91

Rev. 6-7-94

81

dwelling units. notice may be given to the manager or owner of the struCture who
shall be requested to post the notice at the primary entrance to the structure. A
notice containing the time. date. place and purpose of the hearing shallbe posted on
the subject property at least eight (8) days prior to the hearing. The posting sign shall
be no less than ten (10) square feet in size.

After completing the review and holding one public hearing, if so required. the
Township Board or Flaming Commission shall approve. approve with conditions or
deny the application within 90 days after receipt of an application. in accordance with
this Chapter. '

Written nOtice shall be sent to the applicant upon approval. approval with conditions
or denial of a wetland use permit by the Township Board. The denial of a permit '
shall be accompanied by a written reason for denial.

A permit approved by the Township Board or Planning Commission shall not be
issued or effective until ten (10) calendar days following the date of the approval and
compliance with Section 105-15(c) of this Chapter.

Section 105-12 Criteria for Wetlands Under Two (21- Acres in Size

a. Where an applicant proposes to perform a regulated activity in a wetland less than two (2)
acres in size. the Director of Planning and DeveIOpment Control shall be so advised in
writing. The Director of Planning and Development Control shall forward the location and
other information concerning the wetland to the Township Wetland Consultant. who shall
issue a preliminary finding as to whether one or more of the following criteria are likely to
apply to the wetland: - -..

l.

S»)

U)

The site supports state, or federal endangered or threatened plants. fish. or wildlife
appearing on a list specified in section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1974, Act
No. 203 of Public Acts of 1974, being Section 299.226 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws and/or subsequent amendments. .

The site represents what is identified as a locally rare or unique ecosystem.

The site supports plants or animals of an identified local importance.
The site provides groundwater recharge documented by a public agency.

The site provides flood and storm control by the hydrologic absorption and storage
capacity of the wetland.

The site provides wildlife habitat by providing breeding, nesting, or feeding grounds
or cover for forms of wildlife. waterfowl. including migratory waterfowl and rare.
threatened. or endangered wildlife species.

Adopted '8-6-91

Rev. 6-7-94

82

7. The site provides protection of subsurface water resources and provision of valuable
watersheds and recharging groundwater supplies.

8. The site provides pollution treatment by serving as a biological and chemical oxidation
basin.
9. The site provides erosion control by serving as a sedimentation area and filtering

basin, absorbing silt and organic matter.

10. The site provides sources of nutrients in water food cycles and nursery grounds and
sanctuaries for fish.

The Township Wetland Consultant’s report shall be forwarded to the Township Board. which
shall determine whether a wetland .use permit application meeting the requirements of
Section 105-10 of this Chapter shall be required. based on a finding that the wetland is
essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the Township. Said determination
shall be based on a finding that one or more of the criteria set forth in (a) above are met.

If the Township Board determines that the wetland is not essential to the preservation of the
natural resources of the Township, the Township Board’s decision shall be so owed on the
Township Wetland Inventory Map, at the time it is amended. The requested activity shall be
approved subject to all other applicable laws and regulations.

When a wetland under two (2) acres in size has been determined to be essential to the
natural resources of the Township and the Township has found that one or more of the
criteria set forth in 105-12(a) exist at the site, the Township shall n0tify the applicant in
writing Stating the reasons for determining the wetland to be essential to the preservation of
the natural resources. '

After determining that a wetland less than two (2) acres in size is essential to the preservation
of the natural resources of the Township, the wetland use permit application shall be
reviewed according to the standards in Section 105-13.

Section 105-13 Review Stapdagjs {or Wetland Use [emits

The criteria toevaluate wetland use permits under this Chapter and to determine whether a permit
is granted are as follows:

a.

A permit for any activity listed in Section 105-8 shall not be approved unless the proposed
activity is in the public interest and is otherwise lawful in all respects. Public input shall be
evaluated in approving, approving with conditions. or denying the application. The reasonable
use of the property involved in accordance with applicable local ordinances and State law
shall also be considered.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

83

b. In determining whether the activity is in the public interest. the benefit which reasonably may
be expected to accrue from the prOposal shall be balanced against the reasonably foreseeable
detriments of the activity. The decision shall reflect the national. state. and localconcern for
the protection of natural resources from pollution. impairment. and destruction. The
following general criteria shall be considered:

1. The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed activity.

2. The availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods to
accomplish the expected benefits from the activity.

DJ

The extent and permanence of the beneficial or detrimental effects which the
proposed activity may have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited.
including the benefits the wetlands provide.

.4. The probable impact of each proposal in relation to the cumulative effect created by
other existing and anticipated activities in the watershed.

SA

The probable impact on recognized historic. cultural, scenic, ecological. or recreational
values and on the public health or safety, or fish or wildlife.

6. ' Economic value. both public and private, of the preposed land change to the general
Township area. .

7. The findings of necessity for the proposed activity which haveibeen made by Other
agencies. j“

8. Amount of wetland remaining in general area and proximity to a waterway.

c. A wetland use permit shall not be issued unless it is shown that an unacceptable disruption

will not result to the aquatic resources. In determining whether a disruption to the aquatic
resources is unacceptable. the benefits outlined in Section 105-1 and the criteria set forth in
Section 105-13 b shall be considered. A permit shall not be issued unless the applicant also
shows either of the following:

1. The proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland. or'
2. A feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.
d. Failure to submit a complete application may be reason for denial of a wetland use permit.
AdOpted 8-6-91

Rev. 6-7-94

84

Section 105-14 Consideration of Wetland Mit_igation Progsals

To ensure no net loss of wetlands in the Township. mitigation shall be required in instances where
there are losses of wetland resources. The Township Wetland Consultant shall review an applicant's
mitigation plan and transmit a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development
Control. The Director of Planning and Devel0pment Control, Planning Commission. or Township
Board. as applicable. shall review the appliCant’s mitigation plan and consider the Township Wetland
Consultant’s recommendation as part of the wetland use permit review process. A mitigation plan.
if required. shall be approved as part of the wetland use permit decision by either the Director of
Planning and Development Control or the Township Board. as applicable. Mitigation shall not be
considered a substitute for making all prudent attempts to avoid wetland impacts.

3.

Prior to considering a proposal for wetland mitigation it must be shown that it is practical to
replace the wetland resource values which will be unavoidably impacted including: flood
prevention; wildlife habitat. groundwater resource protection and recharge: pollution
treatment: erosion control; nutrient sources; aesthetics; recreation; open Space and any other
values identified.

b. If determined by the Township Wetland Consultant that the above is met. the following
criteria shall be considered when reviewing an applicant’s mitigation proposal:

1. Mitigation shall be provided on-site where practical and beneficial to the wetland
resources. If mitigation on-site is not practical and beneficial, then mitigation in the
immediate vicinity, within the same watershed, of the permitted activity may be
considered. Only if all of these options are impractical shall mitigation be considered
elsewhere.

2. Any proposal shall assure that there will be no net loss to the wetland resource
values.

3. The mitigation plan must comply will all applicable federal, state. and local laws.

4. A plan to monitor preserved and replacement wetlands over a minimum of five years
has been specified.

c. Wetland mitigation and monitoring plans shall become conditions to the wetland use permit
and shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

d. Financial assurances that mitigation is accomplished as specified by the permit condition may
be required by the Director of Planning and Development Control, Planning Commission. or
Township Board, as applicable.

AdOpted 8-6-91

Rev. 6-7-94

85

Any mitigation activity shall be completed before initiation of other permitted activities. unless
a phased concurrent schedule can be agreed upon between the Director of Planning and
Development Control. Planning Commission. or Township Board. as applicable. and the
applicant.

Wetland mitigation plans that create less than two (2) acre wetlands shall meet one Of the
conditions listed in Seetion 105-12(a).

Section 105-15 Wetland Use Permit Conditions of Issuance

a.

qq

The Director Of Planning and Development Control. Planning Commission. or Township
Board. as applicable. shall attach any reasonable conditions considered necessary to insure
that the intent of this Chapter will be fulfilled. to minimize or mitigate damage or impairment
to. encroachment in. or interference with natural resources and processes within the prOtected
wetland or to otherwise improve or maintain the water quality.

The Director of Planning and Development Control. Planning Commission. or Township
Board shall fix a reasonable time for the undertaking and completion Of all aetivities and
structures, as applicable.

Following the approval Of the wetland use permit application. a permit shall be issued upon
determination that all other requirements Of the ordinance and law have been met. including
site plan. plat or land use approvals. as applicable. and including issuance Of required permits
by Ingham County or the Michigan Department Of Natural Resources. under ACt 203 Of the
Public Acts of 1979. as amended. ..-'

The Director of Planning and Development Control. Planning Commission. or Township
Board, as applicable. upon issuance of a wetland use permit. may require the applicant tO file
with the Township Treasurer cash, certified check. or an irrevocable bank letter of credit in
an amount- the Director of Planning and Development Control. Planning Commission or
Township Board, as applicable. determines is necessary to insure compliance with the wetland
use permit approval conditions and this Chapter.

At no time shall the Director Of Planning and Development Control. Planning Commission.
or Township Board. as applicable. issue a wetland use permit that allows a more extensive
alteration Of the wetland than permitted by state or federal law.

Wetland use permits for seasonal operations need not be renewed annually unless Otherwise
stated inthe permit.

Any change that increases the size or scope Of the Operation and that affects the criteria
considered in approving the permit as determined by the Director Of Planning and
DevelOpment Control. Planning Commission. or Township Board. as applicable. shall require
the filing Of a new wetland use permit application.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

86

b. Any temporary, seasonal. or permanent operation that is discontinued for two (2) years or
two (2) seasons shall be presumed to have been abandoned and the wetland use permit
automatically voided.

i. Any permit granted under this Chapter may be revoked or suspended by the Township Board.
after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, for any of the following causes:

1. A violation of a condition of the permit.
2. . Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose relevant facts in the application.
3. A change in a condition that requires a temporary or permanent change in the
actrvrty.
j. An applicant who has received a wetland use permit under this Chapter shall comply with the

following in connection with any construction or other activity on the property for which the
wetland use permit has been issued:

. 1. Maintain soil erosion control structures and measures. including but met limited to.
silt fences, straw bale berms, and sediment traps. The permittee shall provide for
periodic inspections throughout the duration of the project.

:0

Maintain clear delineation of the protected wetlands (so marked by the Township
Wetland Consultant during the on-site inspection) so that such locations are visible
to all construction workers.

1))

Post on the site. prior to commencement of work on the site and continuing
throughout the duration of the project, a copy of the approved wetland use permit
containing the conditions of issuance, in a conspicuous manner such that the wording
of said permit is available for public inspection.

k. The wetland use permit shall remain effective for a time period coincidental with any other
land use permit reviewed and approved concurrent with the wetland use permit. If applied
for prior to the expiration date and concurrent with the expiring land use permit. the
applicant may be granted an extension that corresponds to additional time granted for the
underlying land use permit. Extensions shall be approved by the same person or body that
made the original decision. The maximum number of extensions shall coincide with the
maximum number allowed for the underlying land use permit.

1. Where there is no other activity or permit involved, the wetland use permit shall remain
effective for one (1) year. A maximum of a one (1) year extension may be approved.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

87

SectionL105-16 Wetland Board

The Township Board hereby creates a Wetland Board whose membership. appointment and duties
shall be as follows:

a. The Wetland Board shall consist of five (5) residents of the Township appointed by the
Township Board; four of whom shall have knowledge and experience in the areas of botany,
soils. geology, hydrology, or natural resources. The initial terms of appointment shall be as
follows: 2 individuals for 3 years, 2 individuals for 2 years, and 1 individual for 1 year.
Thereafter, appointments shall be for a term of three years.

b. The Wetland Board shall establish rules of procedure.

c. The duties of the Wetland Board shall include the following:

1.

9)

May advise the Township Board. Planning Commission. and Director of Planning and
Development Control. on wetland use permits. appeals of wetland use permits. and
mitigation plans.

Serve in an advisory role in setting policy guidelines on wetland issues in the
Township.

Identify conflicts with wetland protection by present Township ordinances. Township
operating procedures, and Township activities.

Identify and propose solutions to problems associated with wetland management.

Provide recommendations to the Director of Planning and Development Control on
map administration.

Coordinate with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in keeping‘up-to-
date on issues affecting wetland prOtection.

Recommend a program to protect and acquire important wetlands through tax

' incentives. donation. development rights. easements. land exchange. purchase. and

Other means. Assist landowners who are interested in the voluntary prOtection c‘
wetlands through one of these methods.

Promote wetland education at all levels. Develop education programs for the public
and for Township schools. The program should promOte the values of wetlands and
awareness of the hazards and threats to wetlands. The program should be particularly
targeted to landowners with wetlands and emphasize how-best to prOtect wetland
values on their property.

Adopted 8-6-91

Rev. 6-7-94

88

9. Coordinate a voluntary wetland stewardship program. Develop an adOpt-a-wetland
program for interested citizens to participate more directly in preservation of specific
wetlands.

10. Review degraded or destroyed wetlands in the Township for possible rehabilitation

or restoration.

Section 105-17 Reguest for Revaluation of Affected Progrtv

The owner of any property for which a wetland use permit was applied for under this Chapter and
was denied. upon appeal. by the Township Board may request a revaluation of the affected prOperty
by the Township Board of Review for assessment purposes to determine its fair market value under
the use restriction. A landowner who is aggrieved by a determination. action. or inaction under this
chapter may protest and appeal that determination. action or inaction pursuant to the General
Property Tax Act. Act NO. 206 of the Public Acts of 1893. being Section 211.1 to 211.157 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws. ‘

Section 105-18 Fees

Applications for wetland use permits. wetland verifications and delineations under this Chapter shall
be accompanied by an application fee in an amount specified by resolution of the Township Board.

Section 105-19 Penalties and Enforcement

a. Penalties. In addition to the rights and remedies herein provided to the Township. any
person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in an amount not exceeding Five
Hundred Dollars ($500.00). or be imprisoned in the county jail for a period nOt exceeding
ninety (90) days, or both fined and imprisoned. Each violation of this act shall be a separate
Offense and in the event of a continuing violation. each day during which the violation exists
shall be deemed to be separate and distinct ofl'ense. Each day such violation is continued or
permitted to continue shall constitute a separate Offense and shall be punishable as such
hereunder. '

b. Stop Work Orders. Whenever any work is performed contrary to the provisions of this
Chapter. the Township Superintendent or his agent shall order the work to cease by nOtice
in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing such work to be performed.
and any such persons shall. upon receipt of the order, forthwith stop such work until
authorized by the Township Superintendent or his agent to proceed.

c. Civil Remedies. Any use of land or premises in violation of any provision of this Chapter is
declared to be a nuisance per se. Whenever any work is being done contrary to the
provisions of this Chapter. the Township may commence judicial proceedings for injunction.
mandamus. or Other appropriate relief to prevent. enjoin. abate. correct. restore. or remove

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

89

any violation of this Chapter. The rights and remedies herein provided are civil in nature and in
addition to any criminal remedies under this Chapter or provided by state law.

d. Appearance Tickets. In all arrests and prosecutions for violation of this Chapter. appearance
tickets and the appropriate procedures set for in Act 147, Michigan Public Acts of 1968. as
amended. may be used.

e. The Director of Planning and Development Control or his agent. officer or employee shall
have authority under this Ordinance to enter upon privately owned land for the purpose of
performing the Township's duties under this ordinance and may take or cause to be made
such examinations. surveys or samplings as are deemed-necessary.

f. Law enforcement Officials or other officials having the police power shall have authority to
assist the Office Of Planning and Development Control in the enforcement of this ordinance.

g. In the event of a violation of this ordinance. the Township Board shall have the power to
order wetland restoration for the damaged or destroyed wetland area by the owner of the
property afiected or the person or agent responsible for the violation. If the owner or person
responsible does not complete the restoration measures within an ordered period of time. the
Township Board may order the affected wetland restored to its prior condition and/or create
or restore other wetlands for the purpose of offsetting losses sustained as a result of the
violation. The owner or person responsible for the original violation shall be responsible to
the Township for the full cost of all such remedial activity.

Section 105-20 Notice to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources .,;_

1. The Township shall notify the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Of the adoption
of this Chapter. The Township shall cooperate with the Department of Natural Resources
in the enforcement of Act 203 as to wetlands under the Department of Natural Resources’
jurisdiction as defined under this Chapter.

2 The Township shall notify the Department of Natural Resources of its decisions on all
applications processed by the Township. '

Section 105-21-Abmgatipn agd Conflict of Apthorig

Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted to conflict with present or future state statutes in the
same subject matter; conflicting provisions of this Chapter shall be abrogated to, but only to, the
extent of the conflict. Moreover. the provisions of this Chapter shall be construed, if possible. to be
consistent with and in addition to relevant state regulations and'statutes. If any part of this Chapter
is found to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction. such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision. Such holding shall not affeCt the validity
of the remaining portions thereof. and the remainder of the Chapter shall remain in force.

Adopted 8-6-91
Rev. 6-7-94

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS OF FORESTED, SCRUB/SHRUB, AND EMERGENT WETLANDS

APPENDIX B

Wetland definitions are taken from the National Wetlands Inventory.

Forested Wetlands (F0)

Woody vegetation greater than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. All water regimes. They
normally possess an overstory of trees, and understory of young trees or shrubs, and a
herbaceous layer. The “broad-leaved deciduous” subclass is commonly dominated by
species such as red maple, American elm, ashes, black gum, tupelo gum, and swamp white
oak.

For scrub/shrub and forested classes, the determination of the subclass is based on
that subclass type which represents more than 50% of the aerial canopy coverage during

the leaves-on period.

Scrub/Shrub (SS)

Woody vegetation less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. The species include true
shrubs, young trees (saplings) or trees that are small or stunted because of environmental
conditions. They may represent a successional stage leading to Forested Wetlands, or
they may be relatively stable communities. In the Palustrine System, the “broad-leaved
deciduous” subclass typically includes alders, willows, buttonbrush, red osier dogwood,
honeycup, spirea, bog birch, and young trees of species such as red maple or black spruce.

All water regimes are included.

9 l
Emergent (EM)

 

Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and
lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. All
emergent wetlands visible on aerial photos will be considered to be persistent and mapped
as Palustrine or Estuarine unless field or collateral information indicates otherwise.
Reference to Cowardin et al. (197 9) should be made when distinguishing between what

constitutes persistent vs. nonpersistent emergents. All water regimes are included.

APPENDIX C

MERIDIAN WETLAND ACREAGE BY ONE MILE SECTIONS

APPENDIX C

WEI‘IANDS INVENTORY

Section Acres of Percent of Acres Regulated Percent of

mm W .IntaL mm‘. M.
1 252.78 4.65 24151 4 79
2 47959 8.83 47522 9 42
3 343.20 6.32 34320 6 80
4 155.67 2.87 120.99 2 40
5 10034 1.85 85.86 1 70
6 214.86 3.96 200.86 3 98
8 98.50 1.81 8724 1 73
9 14631 2.69 133.43 2 64
10 155.43 2.86 153.82 3.05
1 1 238.51 4.39 230.25 456
12 182.29 3.36 175.74 3 48
13 221.40 4.08 206.92 4.10
14 216.69 3.99 212.09 4.20
15 233.71 4.30 220.84 4.38
16 27456 5.06 267.66 530
17 88.73 1.63 87.12 1 73
20 16552 3.05 162.07 3.21
21 131.54 2.42 127.17 2.52
22 53.29 0.98 29.85 0.59
23 197.89 3.64 183.42 3.64
24 142.61 2.63 118.70 235
25 - 208.92 3.85 196.74 3.90
26 134.08 2.47 12420 2.46
27 90.70 1.67 84.95 1.68
28 78.97 1.45 72.99 1.45
29 18527 3.41 16851 334
32 173.94 3.20 138.42 2.74
33 90.01 1.66 75.06 1.49
34 _ 77.06 1.42 5855 1.16
35 - 180.24 3.32 169.89 337
36 118.16 2.18 92.29 1.83

TOTAL 5,430.771 100.00% 5.04556 ' 100.00%

‘ MDNR - Michigan Department of Natural Resources
2 This figure differs from the wetlands figure in Table 23 because this figure includes Lake

Lansing and other surface waters.

Source: J & L Consulting Services, March 1991 Survey '

MTMJW

92

APPENDIX D

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX D

Dear Resident:

The Department of Resource Development at Michigan State University is conducting an independent
survey on wetland conservation needs. As a graduate student working on this project, I am asking 15
minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire. There will be no cost to you, simply return it in the
stammd envelope enclosed. Your answers will help local oflicials and others in making more informed
decisions about wetland and open space preservation needs based on public preferences and the
importance of wetlands to the community. Funding assistance has been provided by the Michigan
Agricultural Experiment Station.

IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS

 

This survey should be completed by a person in the household who is of legal voting age. If you
should have any questions about the questionnaire, please contact Shannon Ruby at 381-0603
(afternoons and evenings).

Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Your answers will be anonymous, and all information
will be treated with the strictest confidence. Responses will be used to complete some statistical
analyses to determine how people in your township and neighboring townships feel about wetland
preservation needs. No one in your community will know which answers came from which address.
In addition, all participants will remain anonymous in any reporting of research findings.

Please fill out the questionnaire by yourself. I want YOUR personal opinion of the issues raised
Please answer all of the questions. Your opinions are important to meet the research objectives.

For the purpose ofthis study wetlands are defined as any lake, stream, swamp, pond, or area with
frequently damp soils.

When you have completed the questionnaire, place the questionnaire in the addressed, stamped return
envelope enclosed, and seal the envelope. Do not write your name or return address on the envelope.
To make sure that your answers are confidential, there are no identifying marks on the envelope. The
numbers on the return envelopes will be used to send a follow up letter to non-respondents, but will be
discarded alter the return date.

PLEASE HAVE COMPLETED SURVEY POSTMARKED BY OCTOBER 10, 1996

The questionnaire has five sections and should take about fifteen minutes to complete. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Thank you for your
time and cooperation in advance.

93

94

Part 1. COMMUNITY

1. Are you a resident of Meridian or Williamstown Township? (Circle 1 or 2)
l—Meridian Township
2—Williamstown Township

2. Are you a full time resident of the Township? (Circle 1 or 2)

l—Yes
2—No
3. Do you live near a wetland? (Circle 1 or 2)
l—Yes
2—No

Part II. QUALITATIVE WETLAND STUDY.

4. Please circle the answer that best describes how you feel about wetlands. (Circle one number for each
statement.)

No Qpinion Strongly Disaggee Agree Strongiy
' Disaggee m
Wetlands tarnish the beauty of an area. 1 2 3 4
Wetlands pose problems for human 1 2 3 4
health.
Wetlands are mosquito hatching l 2 3 4
grounds.
Wetlands are lands that could be put to l 2 3 4
better use. -
Wetlands are aesthetically pleasing. l 2 3 4
Wetlands are important to maintaining l 2 3 4
ecosystem health.
Wetlands help in flood control. 1 2 3 4
Wetlands provide wildlife habitat 1 2 3 4
Wetlands help in providing clean 1 2 3 4
drinking water.
Wetlands are important in maintaining 1 . 2 3 4
open spaces.
Wetlands have economic value. 1 2 3 4
Although wetlands greater than five 1 2 3 4

acres are protected by the state, some
small wetlands may perform functions
that warrant their protection by the
township.

94

95

5. In your opinion, how important are wetlands to your township? (Circle one)
1—-Of No Importance
2—Of Little Importance
3—Moderately Important
4—Important
S—Very Important

6. Do you think your township is doing enough to protect wetlands? (Circle 1 or 2)
l—Yes
2—NO

7. Who should have the responsibility of managing wetlands? (Circle one)
l--Federal Government
2—State Government
3—County Government
4—T‘ownship Board or Local Municipality

Part III. WETLAND FUNCTIONS

8. Wetlands can perform a variety of functions dealing with amount and quality of our water supply.
How important do you think each of these functions is as a reason to preserve wetlands in your township?

(Circle one answer for each function)

Of No Of Little Moderate E11
matinee [Lumrtance Impprtant Impprtant Immrtant
1. Flood Control
1 2 3 4 5
2. Groundwater '
Supply 1 2 3 4 5
(Recharge)
3. Water Quality
Improvement 1 2 3 4 5
4. Sediment/
Toxicant 1 2 3 4 5
Retention
5. Nutrient
Removal or 1 2 3 4 5
Transformation

9. Of the above, which do you feel is most important to your township? (Circle one)
1 2 3 4 5

95

96

10. Wetlands can perform a variety of functions dealing with biodiversity. How important do you feel
each of these functions is as a reason to preserve wetlands in your township? (Circle one for eggh

function

11. Of the above, which do you feel is most important? (Circle one)

1

Wildlife
Diversity
Aquatic
Diversity
Plant
Diversity
Threatened or
Endangered

Species

2

3

4

OfNo

Immrtance

l

l

l

1

Of Little
Immrtance

2

2

2

2

Moderate
Immrtant

3

3

Immrtant
4

4

Very Immrtant
5

5

12. Wetlands can perform a variety of functions dealing with recreation and aesthetics. How important
do you feel each of these functions is as a reason to preserve wetlands in your township? (Circle one for
each activity)

90>:

13. Of the above, which would you consider most important? (Circle one)

I

. Fishing
. Hunting
Boating

II‘l . g
Walking

. Camping

. Swimming

Picnicking
Nature
Observation
Nature
Photography

2

3

4

OfNo

Impgrtance

5

l

l

l

1

Of Little
I_n_tpprtance

6

2

2

7

Moderately

Immrtant

8

3

3

Immrtant
4

4

V_erx

_In_tpgrtant
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

97

Part IV. QUANTITATIVE WETLAND STUDY

14. If the township alone were responsible for protecting wetlands, what percentage of the township
budget do you feel should be allocated to wetland protectiOn? (Circle one)

1— Less than 1%

2—- l to 5%

3— 6 to 10%

4— 11 to 25%

5— More than 25%

15. If needed, how would you prefer your township raise money for wetland protection? (Circle one)
l—Increase in property taxes
2—Fee for new developments
3—Collect a fee from every household
4—Use existing funds and/or cut existing programs
5—Voluntary contributions
6—Fee for those with wetlands on their property
7—Fees derived from wetland use applications/permit programs

16. If citizens alone were responsible for protecting community wetlands, how much money each year
would you be willing to spend? (Circle One)

l—None

2—51 to 10

3-$ll to 30

4—831 to 50

5-$51 to 100

6-$lOO+

If wetlands were non-existent in your township, how much would you be willing to pay each year for the
following services? (Circle 1 or 2 for each of the services)

Less than 55000421: yea; More than $50.00peryea_t_r

Drain construction 1 2
Drain maintenance 1 2
Public health 1 2
Additional drinking water treatment 1 2
Additional waste water treatment 1 2
Habitat preservation l 2
Water availability 1 2
Sediment/Toxicant removal 1 2
Nutrient removal from water 1 2
Endangered species preservation 1 2
Open space preservation 1 2
Travel to similar natural areas 1 2
Travel to similar recreational areas 1 2
Augment well water supply with water 1 2
purchased from the Lansing Board of

Water and Light

97

98

Part V. BACKGROUND

18. Are you: (Circle one)
l—male
2—female

20. Please circle which best describes your household income. (Circle one)
l—Below $20,000
2—320,000 to 29,000
3—330,000 to 39,000
4—340,000 to 49,000
5—350,000 to 74,999
6—375,000 to 99,999
7—3100,000 to 149,000
8—3150,000 +

21. Highest level of education. (Circle one)
l—Less than high school
2—High school graduate
3—Some college or Associates Degree
4—Bachelor’s Degree
S—Master’s Degree
6—Ph.D. or equivalent

22. Most recent employment (Circle one)
l—Educational or professional worker
2—Farmer
3—Homemaker
4—Manager or Proprietor
S—Sales or Office Worker
6—Semi-skilled worker
7—Skilled worker, Crafisman or Foreman
8—Student
9—Other

23. Employment Situation. (Circle one)
l—Employed full time
2—Employed part time
3—Seasonal worker now employed
4——Unemployed, seeking work
S—Unernployed, not seeking work
6—Retircd

98

99

24. What category best describes the value of your property? (Circle one)
l—Below $20, 000
2—320,000 to 50,999
3—$51,000 to 99,999
-4—-$100,000 to 125,999
5—8126,000 to 150,999
6—3151,000 to 200,000
7—Greater than $200,000

99

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamus, PR, and LT. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional
Assessment, Volume H. Ofice of Research and Development, Federal Highway
Administration, US Department of Transportation. Washington DC.

Ammann, AP, and AL. Stone. 1991. Method for the comparative evaluation of
nontidal wetlands in New Hampshire. NHDES-WRD—1191-3. New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services. New Hampshire.

Berry, Charles R. Jr. and Dennis G. Buechler. 1993. Wetlands in the Northern Great
Plains: A guide to values and management. US Fish and Wildlife Service and
South Dakota Agricultural Extension Service. Brookings, SD. pp. 4-7.

Bnie, John. 1996. Methods of Risk Analysis: Traditional and Ecological Approaches.
Wetlands Program Technical Report. No. 96-8. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science. Glouscester Point, Virginia. pp. 1, 3-5.

Charter Township of Meridian. 1993. Comprehensive Development Plan. Charter
Township of Meridian. Okemos, MI. pp. 9-10, 111-112.

Covello, V. T. and F. Allen. 1988. Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication.
USEPA, Office of Policy Analysis. Washington, D. C.

Covello, V. T., A. Moghissi., and V.R.R. Uppuluti. 1987. Uncertainties in Risk
Assessment and Risk Management. Plenum Press. New York, New York.

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet., and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ofiiee of Biological
Services. Washington, DC pp. 5, 12-23.

Cwikiel, Wilfred. 1992. Mohigan Wetlands Yours to Protect: A Citizens’ Guide to
Local Involvement in Wetland Protection. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council.
Conway, M]. p. 6.

Dahl, TE. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780 to 1980’s. US Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC

Harwell, M.A., W. Cooper, and R. Flaak. 1992. Prioritizing Ecological and Human

Welfare Risks from Environmental Stresses. Environmental Management, 16(4):
45 1-464.

100

101

Hollands, G., and D.W. Magee. 1986. A Method for Assessing the Functions of
Wetlands. In Proceedings of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium.
Association of State Wetland Managers. Chester, VT.

Hruby, Thomas, W. Cesanek and K. Miller. 1995. Estimating Relative Values for
Regional Planning, Wetlands, Volume 15, No. 2. June 1995, pp. 93-107.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Wetland Protection Guidebook.
MDNR, Land and Water Management Division. Lansing, MI. Appendices.

Mitsch, W.J., and JG. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New
York, NY. pp. 24-29, 507-540.

MOA. 1984. Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Michigan and the
Department of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands Characteristics and Boundaries.
. Committee on Characterization of Wetlands, Water Science and Technology
Board, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. National Academy
Press. Washington DC pp. 215-226.

Norusis, Marija J. 1995. SPSS, SPSS 6.1, Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp. 185, 203, 219, 245, 256.

O’Brien, Jr., C. Donald. 1996. Small and Farmed Wetlands Cases for Wildlife.
National Audubon Society. PSA, Inc./Byer Group. Beltsville, Maryland. pp.
24-25.

Odum, ER 197 9. The value of wetlands; a hierarchical approach, in Wetland Functions
and Values: The State of Our Understanding. P.E. Greeson, J .R. Clark, and 1E.
Clark, eds, American Water Resources Association. Bethesda, MD. pp. 1-25.

Pearce, David W. and R. Kerry Turner. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the
Environment. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. pp.
1 20- 140.

Public Act No. 295 (SB 522). 1992. Sections amended and added; Geomaere-
Anderson Wetland Protection Act. Lansing, MI.

Reynolds, John E. 1992. Land and Water Economics, Class Notes. Department of
Food and Resource Econorrrics, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. pp. 116-117.

Rogers, Elyse M. 1988. Life is in the Balance: Weighting the Questions of Risk and
Benefit in Today’s World. Dow Chemical USA Midland, MI. pp. 5, 8.

102

Roth, E.M., RD. Olsen, PL. Snow, and RR. Sumner. 1993. Oregon Freshwater
Wetland Assessment Methodology. S.G. McCannell, ed. Oregon Division of
State Lands.

Schultink, Gerhardus. 1996. Personal Communication. Michigan State University.
East Lansing, Nfl.

Smith, Daniel R., Alan Ammann, Candy Bartoldus, and Mark M. Brinson. 1995. An

' Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic
Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. US Army Corps of
Engineers. Washington DC. pp. 25-28.

Stevens, T., S. Benin, and J. Larson. 1995. Public Attitudes and Economic Values for
Wetland Preservation in New England. Wetlands, Volume 15, No. 3. September
1995. pp. 226-231.

Tri-County Regional Planning Comrrrission. 1992. Tri-County Overall Economic
Development Program. Tri-county Regional Planning Commission and the US
Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration. Lansing, MI.

pp. 16.

Turner, Kerry and Tom Jones. 1990. Wetlands: Market and Intervention Failures.
Earthscan Publications Limited. London. pp. iv-34.

US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1979. Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods
for Wetlands Identification. Government Printing Ofiice. Washington, DC

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Wetland Fact Sheets. EPA, Fact Sheet 5,
p. 5.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Wetlands: Meeting the Presidents Challenge.
USFWS. Washington, DC. p. 64.

us Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. National Wetlands Inventory, Fact Sheets and
Infomation. Washington, DC. pp. 1-10

Wolfson, L.G., Y.T. Kang, T.E. Zahniser, and J .F . Bartholic. 1995. A Wetlands
Information Management System (WIMS) for Facilitating Wetlands Evaluations.
Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University. pp. 71

MICHIGAN stars UNIV. LIBRARIES
mWW“I“WW”H"IIIWIHINH‘IWIIHl
31293015654522