- A 44-acre property in Van Buren Township containing one of the last wet-mesic flatwoods ecosystems in the region is threatened by Waste Management’s landfill expansion plans.
- State regulators have approved the landfill expansion, dismissing the wetland’s ecological significance as minimal and favoring the perceived public benefit of increased landfill capacity despite expert disagreement and local conservation efforts.
- Conservationists, led by the Wayne County Conservation District, argue that alternatives exist that would not require the destruction of the wetland, challenging state assessments and permit decisions. A recent legal rulings favors Waste Management’s expansion plans.
A 44-acre Van Buren Township property holds one of the last remaining examples of wet-mesic flatwoods, a now rare ecosystem type once common across metro Detroit.
The state-protected wetland is “what the French saw when they first got here 200 years ago,” said Connie Boris, chair of Wayne County Conservation District’s chair and advocate for the site, which provides habitat for rare and endangered species like the eastern Massasauga rattlesnake and rayed bean mussel. Protected bat species nest in its trees. A monument burr oak on the property dubbed “The Monarch” is thought to be the state’s second largest in diameter.
But the area will soon be filled with trash, and like nearly two-thirds of wetlands in the region, it will be destroyed.
Garbage industry giant Waste Management is moving forward with plans to expand a neighboring landfill, which will destroy the wetlands. State regulators approved the permit, determining that the wetland holds little ecological or public value and the expanded landfill capacity is a greater benefit to Wayne County residents.
Since the permit was approved in 2020, WCCD has produced a range of experts who disagreed with the state’s findings. But a ruling last month from the state’s permit review commission dashed any final hope for reversing the decision – the wetlands will be destroyed.
“It’s phenomenal—the amount of species out there,” Boris told Planet Detroit. “When I think about all the wildlife deaths, the loss of habitat…” she added, trailing off as she fought back tears.
Michigan wetlands protection vs. landfill expansion
The overarching dispute pits the WCCD against Waste Management and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), which approved the wetland destruction permit. It centers on whether the additional landfill space or wetland provides more public benefit.
Waste Management argued that very little wet-mesic flatwoods exist on the site. EGLE characterized the wetland as “highly degraded” and disconnected from the larger ecosystem because of a nearby freeway and existing dumps.
Show lessThe company argued that denying a permit would harm the public because garbage collection rates would increase if the trash were shipped to a landfill outside the county. It further argued that the expansion is the only option that makes financial sense for the company.
To compensate for the loss, a new wetland will be constructed eleven miles to the south, though it would not be a wet-mesic flatwood area, which is impossible to recreate.
Conservationists charge Waste Management and EGLE misidentified and mischaracterized the wetland, one of just nine wet-mesic flatwood ecosystems remaining in the region. They say it has a high ecological value, and Wayne County does not need the additional landfill capacity. They also say other sites that wouldn’t exact such a steep ecological toll exist throughout the area.
At issue is EGLE’s interpretation of two Michigan wetlands law provisions that require regulators to determine whether there is “no feasible and prudent alternative” to wetland destruction and if there is no “unacceptable disruption of aquatic resources (e.g., waterfowl, fish, amphibians, frogs, reptiles, etc.).”
WCCD appealed the permit in the courts and administratively, but judges and a state panel sided with Waste Management and EGLE.
The permit approval is part of a larger pattern, conservationists allege. EGLE has signed off on around 97% of permit applications to destroy protected wetlands since 2000, a WCCD analysis of state data found.
“One might expect things to improve under a Democratic administration, but one would be mistaken,” said WCCD board member Evan Rosin. In its testimony, WCCD said that about 90% of Wayne County wetlands have been destroyed, which has a “devastating effect” on the region’s natural communities.
In a statement to Planet Detroit, EGLE spokesperson Hugh McDiarmid said developers often contact the agency before submitting most applications. Those that do not meet requirements are addressed, so bad applications are “weeded out” or amended before reaching the approval or denial stage.
“This process saves time for everyone, filters out bad proposals early, and isn’t reflected in the approve/deny stats,” McDiarmid said.
The WCCD also raised concerns about the approval process. Before the permit approval appeal could play out, it had to obtain a restraining order in state court to stop Waste Management from destroying the wetlands. The company destroyed about eight acres before a judge halted the activity. Boris said EGLE never alerted WCCD of the permit application in 2019, as is required by law.
A ‘rare and imperiled’ wetland
Michael Kost, a University of Michigan ecosystem science and management researcher who teaches a graduate course in ecology and plant identification, saw an ecologically rich wet-mesic flatland when he visited the property.
He noted the telltale signs of wet-mesic flatwoods, like the shagbark hickory, large-diameter red oak and swamp white oak. The area is dotted with vernal pools that provide nursery habitat for amphibians, and the Virginia creeper, a woody vine common in wet-mesic flatwoods, dominates the ground cover.
The area is “structured by natural processes such as seasonal water level fluctuations, tree fall, and tree regeneration,” an indicator of wet-mesic flatwoods, Kost wrote in testimony for a hearing on the matter.
He added that the area’s canopy is composed of at least 16 native tree species, all of which are characteristic of wet-mesic flatwoods. Taken together with other characteristics, Kost said in 2021 testimony for an administrative hearing that the evidence is clear: “[It is] best described as a wet-mesic flatwoods, which is rare and imperiled.”
“Destruction of this rare, forested wetland would constitute irreparable harm to aquatic resources and violate the state’s own goals and guidelines for wetland protection,” Kost added.
There is perhaps no one more qualified to determine what the property should be labeled, Boris said. Kost directs Ann Arbor’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens and worked for around 20 years as an ecologist at the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, which catalogs and provides expertise on the state’s natural communities. He has developed a system for classifying natural communities and authored a book on the topic.
An industry consultant from Applied Science and Technology (ASTI) hired by Waste Management saw something else entirely at the property. The consultant recorded 1.8 acres of wet-mesic flatland wetlands and another 7.1 acres of uplands.
EGLE largely sided with the paid consultant’s assessment. In testimony, EGLE staff said, “Some of the woodlot could be classified as wet-mesic flatwoods; however, we believe more fieldwork would need to be done to confirm this.”
Kost notes he did fieldwork. In testimony, he also stated that EGLE staff contradicted one another. While one staffer called the wet-mesic flatlands “relatively small,” another said, “There are not a lot of mature, intact, forested wetlands of this size remaining in southeast Michigan. It is a very large proposed impact.”
Another EGLE staffer also characterized parts of the site as an “ecological desert” and a “severely fragmented and modified local landscape.” EGLE said this limits its value because it does not provide the cumulative benefits of a wetland connected to other natural landscape features. EGLE staff did not report seeing protected species on site visits, and its research using various ecological catalogs only suggested one species was at risk.
Boris questioned ASTI’s assessment, alleging the consultant had misidentified silver maple trees. In testimony, Kost also took aim at ASTI’s findings, charging that the consultant missed or ignored “key indicators” of wetlands like the presence of gray, mottled hydric soils, which indicate “the long-term presence of a high, seasonally fluctuating water table.”
Moreover, Kost measured four inches of standing water in some areas that ASTI labeled a forest, and other areas labeled as woodlands were even wetter than those ASTI deemed wetlands. Kost wrote that ASTI’s “characterization is incorrect.”
“Based on this, it is my opinion that ASTI has substantially underestimated the total extent of the wetland that Waste Management desires to destroy,” he wrote. Because the company had already destroyed eight acres of potential wetland before a court ordered it to stop, it is “impossible now to determine the correct number of acres of wetland that would be destroyed” he wrote.
In an emailed statement, Waste Management said company “experts thoroughly mapped and delineated all of the wetlands on the property. WM and its experts’ delineation was confirmed by EGLE specialists.”
No ‘feasible or prudent’ alternative to wetland destruction?
Waste Management could have explored other options that would not destroy a protected wetland, Hiroshan Hettiarachchi, a civil engineer and sustainable waste management consultant, wrote in 2022 expert testimony for the WCCD.
Nearby active landfills could support the region’s garbage stream for another 20 years, according to Hettiarachchi, and closed landfills in the vicinity could be redeveloped and reopened to extend capacity.
Wayne County’s landfills accept trash from outside the county and country—the county’s landfills could stop accepting trash from elsewhere, Hettiarachchi wrote. Incineration or implementing stronger waste reduction strategies were also viable possibilities, he said.
However, conservationists argued that Waste Management had only fully considered expanding into the wetland, and its proposed alternatives were ultimately only variations of the plans for the same site. Not exploring offsite locations violated state rules, they allege, which require permit applicants to consider “alternative locations,” including purchasing property if needed.
EGLE’s rules on the issue also state, “It is not acceptable to define the project purpose in a manner that limits the project to the applicant’s preferred location.”
But Waste Management’s application did just that. Hettiarachchi wrote a lengthy description of how EGLE had violated its own rules. It “unjustly precludes” alternatives, he added.
Though the application mentioned the possible use of parcels near Willow Run Airport, it said the proximity to the airport could limit height. But it provided no evidence to support its claims and did not constitute a true exploration of an alternative location, Hettiarachchi wrote.
In a statement sent to Planet Detroit, Waste Management disagreed, saying it “considered all offsite alternatives with respect to this project.” State regulators and an administrative law judge “unanimously concluded that this project does not have any other alternatives and is in the public’s interest.”
EGLE staff member Jon Jones testified in the administrative hearing that EGLE was satisfied that Waste Management had explored alternatives and underscored the need to balance industry interests in its decision-making.
“Ultimately, we want the alternative that best meets the applicant’s stated project purpose and minimizes the impacts to the resource,” he said in an administrative hearing.
EGLE and Waste Management also partially justified the permit because they claimed the region needs more landfill space. In an email to Planet Detroit, an EGLE spokesperson noted the agency could not consider alternatives outside the county when considering a permit.
In testimony, Hettiarachchi cited state data from 2022 showing Michigan had 26 years of landfill space available while Wayne County had about 16 years. Counties are required to maintain at least 10.
Even as the population grows, the number of active landfills in the US has dropped by about 60%, Hettiarachchi wrote, so it is unlikely the need for more landfill space will increase.
Victory for the garbage giant
Ultimately, an administrative law judge and the Michigan Environmental Review Commission sided with EGLE and Waste Management.
In his opinion, the administrative judge wrote that EGLE had used a GIS mapping system and Michigan Natural Features Inventory data to determine whether protected species and habitats would be on the site, and it only found “one hit.”
Kost, in his testimony, noted that MNFI does not keep an inventory of every parcel of land in the state, and it was never his experience while working as an ecologist at MNFI that its data would be used in this capacity.
The judge also noted mitigation practices for protected bass and rattlesnakes and highlighted that Waste Management had produced four alternatives, none of which were found to be reasonable or prudent.
Responding to conservationists’ claims that no alternative site was considered, the judge wrote that building landfills elsewhere would be difficult, though it ignored the use or reuse of existing sites.
The judge wrote in his decision the project was in the public’s interest because it would keep garbage rates low and would provide Van Buren Township with an $8 million payment.
“He ignored almost all of our highly qualified witnesses, which was shocking,” Boris said.
It’s unclear what comes next, though the fight seems to be over, she added.
“No one in the government seems to care,” Boris said. “[We] need some time to decompress after four years of working almost every day to preserve this rare wetland.”