Measures of Successful Wetland Restoration: An Examination of Policies and Ecologies

1. Measures of Successful Wetland Restoration: An Examination of Policies and Ecologies in Northern Michigan Andrew T. Kozich Michigan Technological University

2. Introduction • Regulation of Michigan’s wetlands: DEQ • Much mitigation activity: Road agencies

5. Three key DEQ mitigation policies • Monitoring reports of mitigation sites must be submitted to the DEQ annually for 5 years • Wetland acreage must be placed into conservation easement • Invasive species at mitigation sites must be limited to 10% of total cover

6. Previous literature • Hornyak & Halvorsen (2003): 48% of mitigation permit files in the western U.P. were missing monitoring reports, conservation easement documents, or both • Invasive plant species often problematic at mitigation sites • (Balcombe et al 2005; Cole & Shafer 2002; Moore et al 1999; Spieles 2005; Spieles et al 2006)

10. Research Questions • Have rates of site monitoring & conservation easements changed since 2003? • Is there a relationship between site monitoring and invasive species? • Do other site factors appear to be influencing levels of invasive species? • What about creation versus restoration?

11. Research Design • Examine all U.P. mitigation permit files from 2003 to 2006 (69 files; 37 mitigation sites) • Examine mitigation sites constructed by road agencies between 2003 and 2006 (11 sites) • Estimate compliance with 10% invasive species limit • Releve sampling • Created wetlands versus restored wetlands

13. Results • Monitoring report compliance: • Michigan Dept. of Transportation: 90% • County road commissions: 30% • Other/public entities: 45% • Private entities: 50% • Overall compliance: 54% • (20 of 37 sites in compliance)

14. Results • Conservation easement compliance: • Michigan Dept. of Transportation: 29% • County road commissions: 38% • Other/public entities: 50% • Private entities: 60% • Overall compliance: 51% • (19 of 37 sites in compliance)

15. Results • Compliance with 10% invasive species limit: • 5 sites likely in compliance • 5 sites likely out of compliance • 1 site uncertain • Overall compliance: 45%

16. Results • Sites in compliance with invasive species: 60% had been monitored • Sites non-compliant with invasive species: 60% had been monitored Monitoring likely not related to levels of invasive species at mitigation sites

17. Results • Other factors influencing invasive species? • Permittee • Age of mitigation site • Proximity to nearest road

18. Results Number of invasive species related to mitigation site acreage R2 = 0.74 R2 = 0.74

19. Further... • 100% of compliant sites were wetland restorations, constructed adjacent to natural wetlands • 80% of non-compliant sites were wetland creations, constructed adjacent to upland forests

20. Smaller mitigation sites (mean = 1.8 acres) Simple road re-location Restoration Pre-existing wetland hydrology Fewer invasives (mean density 6.2%)

21. Smaller mitigation sites (mean = 1.8 acres) Large mitigation sites (mean = 4.2 acres) Simple road re-location Multiple projects Restoration Creation Pre-existing wetland hydrology Wetland hydrology questionable Fewer invasives (mean density 6.2%) More invasives (mean density 16.9%)

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

23. Summary • Site monitoring & conservation easements: Very little change since 2003 • Site monitoring not related to invasive species, but landscape location is • Smaller restoration projects more successful than larger creation projects

24. No Net Loss? 74 acres lost; 185 acres gained Wetland acreage meeting performance standards for invasive species: 30%

25. Conclusions • Mitigation practices in the U.P. are resulting in increased acreage but decreased overall quality of wetlands • Policy efforts should emphasize the importance of mitigation site selection • Restoration is the best option!

26. Questions?