1. Characterizing the Effectiveness of No Net Loss: A Case Study in Northern Michigan Characterizing the Effectiveness of No Net Loss: A Case Study in Northern Michigan Andrew T. Kozich Kathleen E. Halvorsen Andrew T. Kozich Kathleen E. Halvorsen Michigan Technological University

2. Introduction Wetland mitigation Michigan: Oversight by MDNRE CWA Section 404 permits RestorationCreation No Net Loss Wetland mitigation Michigan: Oversight by MDNRE CWA Section 404 permits RestorationCreation No Net Loss

3. http://www.maps.google.com/

7. Introduction (cont.) Mitigation wetlands: Intended to provide functions and values of the original wetlands Permittees: Expected to meet all requirements described on permit Design, construction, monitoring, document submission, any necessary follow-up or “repairs” Mitigation wetlands: Intended to provide functions and values of the original wetlands Permittees: Expected to meet all requirements described on permit Design, construction, monitoring, document submission, any necessary follow-up or “repairs”

8. Literature Review Mitigation sites often do not meet design criteria or permit requirements (Brody & Highfield 2005; Brown & Veneman 2001; Burgin 2010; Campbell et.al. 2002; Dale & Gerlak 2007; Euliss et.al. 2008; Malakoff 1998; Morgan & Roberts 2003; Reiss et.al. 2009) Invasive plant species often problematic at mitigation sites (Balcombe et al 2005; Cole & Shafer 2002; Hoeltje & Cole 2008; Moore et.al. 1999; Spieles 2005; Spieles et.al. 2006; Zedler & Kercher 2004) Mitigation sites often do not meet design criteria or permit requirements (Brody & Highfield 2005; Brown & Veneman 2001; Burgin 2010; Campbell et.al. 2002; Dale & Gerlak 2007; Euliss et.al. 2008; Malakoff 1998; Morgan & Roberts 2003; Reiss et.al. 2009) Invasive plant species often problematic at mitigation sites (Balcombe et al 2005; Cole & Shafer 2002; Hoeltje & Cole 2008; Moore et.al. 1999; Spieles 2005; Spieles et.al. 2006; Zedler & Kercher 2004)

9. Literature Review (cont.) Michigan’s western Upper Peninsula: 48% of mitigation permit files missing monitoring reports, conservation easement documents, or both (Hornyak & Halvorsen 2003) Permit inspections only No site examinations Michigan’s western Upper Peninsula: 48% of mitigation permit files missing monitoring reports, conservation easement documents, or both (Hornyak & Halvorsen 2003) Permit inspections only No site examinations

10. Three key MDNRE mitigation policies Site monitoring reports must be submitted annually for 5 years Wetland acreage must be placed into conservation easement Invasive species must be limited to 10% of total cover Site monitoring reports must be submitted annually for 5 years Wetland acreage must be placed into conservation easement Invasive species must be limited to 10% of total cover

11. Research Design & Questions Update file inspections: Has compliance with monitoring & conservation easements changed since 2003? Include site examinations: Is there a relationship between site monitoring and invasive species? Examine landscape placement: Do other factors appear to be influencing levels of invasive species? Compare restored and created wetlands: Are differences apparent? Update file inspections: Has compliance with monitoring & conservation easements changed since 2003? Include site examinations: Is there a relationship between site monitoring and invasive species? Examine landscape placement: Do other factors appear to be influencing levels of invasive species? Compare restored and created wetlands: Are differences apparent?

12. Research Design (cont.) Permit files: All Upper Peninsula mitigation permits issued between 2003 and 2006 69 files; 37 mitigation sites Site examinations: All mitigation sites constructed by road agencies between 2003 and 2006 11 sites in western Upper Peninsula Releve sampling Compliance with 10% invasive species limit Permit files: All Upper Peninsula mitigation permits issued between 2003 and 2006 69 files; 37 mitigation sites Site examinations: All mitigation sites constructed by road agencies between 2003 and 2006 11 sites in western Upper Peninsula Releve sampling Compliance with 10% invasive species limit

13. Mitigation permit compliance: Site monitoring documents:20/37 54% Conservation easement documents:35/69 51% Invasive species limit:5/11 45% Mitigation permit compliance: Site monitoring documents:20/37 54% Conservation easement documents:35/69 51% Invasive species limit:5/11 45% Results

14. Results (cont.) Sites compliant for invasive species: 60% had been monitored Sites non-compliant for invasive species: 60% had been monitored Sites compliant for invasive species: 60% had been monitored Sites non-compliant for invasive species: 60% had been monitored Monitoring likely not related to levels of invasive species at mitigation sites......Other factors involved? Monitoring likely not related to levels of invasive species at mitigation sites......Other factors involved?

15. Distance to nearest road Results (cont.) Age of mitigation sites No statistical significance

16. Restored wetlands: 100% compliant Created wetlands: 0% compliant Restored wetlands: 100% compliant Created wetlands: 0% compliant Results (cont.) Landscape location related to levels of invasive species at mitigation sites......Hydrology appears to be key! (Bedford 1996; Zedler 1996) Landscape location related to levels of invasive species at mitigation sites......Hydrology appears to be key! (Bedford 1996; Zedler 1996)

17. Red = wetland creation Green = wetland restoration Site size (acres)

18. Discussion Mitigation practices are resulting in increased acreage but decreased overall quality of wetlands (Bies 2006; Burgin 2010; Dale & Gerlak 2007; Turner et.al. 2001; Zedler 1996) No Net Loss: 74 acres lost; 185 acres gained 30% of wetland acreage gained meeting performance standards for invasive species Primary limitation: sample size Mitigation practices are resulting in increased acreage but decreased overall quality of wetlands (Bies 2006; Burgin 2010; Dale & Gerlak 2007; Turner et.al. 2001; Zedler 1996) No Net Loss: 74 acres lost; 185 acres gained 30% of wetland acreage gained meeting performance standards for invasive species Primary limitation: sample size

19. Discussion (cont.) Policy efforts should emphasize the importance of mitigation site selection (Hoeltje & Cole 2008; Smith et.al. 2008) Restoration is typically a better option than creation (Euliss et.al. 2008; Mitsch & Gosselink 2000) Importance of project planning and follow-up (Brody & Highfield 2005; Ehrenfeld 2000) Policy efforts should emphasize the importance of mitigation site selection (Hoeltje & Cole 2008; Smith et.al. 2008) Restoration is typically a better option than creation (Euliss et.al. 2008; Mitsch & Gosselink 2000) Importance of project planning and follow-up (Brody & Highfield 2005; Ehrenfeld 2000)

20. Conclusions Permit file compliance: Little change since 2003 Site monitoring not related to invasive species, but landscape location is Smaller restoration projects more successful than larger creation projects Future research: Compare to older mitigation sites, expand study area, examine hydrology Permit file compliance: Little change since 2003 Site monitoring not related to invasive species, but landscape location is Smaller restoration projects more successful than larger creation projects Future research: Compare to older mitigation sites, expand study area, examine hydrology

21. Thanks! Questions?