Sustaining Michigan’s Wetlands: Mitigation, Conservation Easements, and No Net Loss Andrew T. Kozich MTU School of Forest Resources & Environmental Science Society of Wetland Scientists Literature Review Mitigation wetlands are often ecologically inferior to natural wetlands, lacking values or functions of the original wetlands that were lost. Problems frequently involve insufficient wetland acreage, or hydrology that is unsuitable for wetland development. Soil properties are often too low in organic matter or too high in bulk density. Colonization by invasive plant species is very common at mitigation sites. Compliance rates for mitigation site monitoring in Michigan have been shown to be low. Similarly, many permittees fail to complete the required process of placement into conservation easements. (Sources: Balcombe et al 2005; Brown and Veneman 2001; Campbell et al 2002; Cole and Shafer 2002; Hornyak and Halvorsen 2003; Michigan DEQ 2008; Moore et al 1999; Morgan and Roberts 2003; Spieles 2005; Spieles et al 2006; Stolt et al 2000.) Results Of wetland mitigation sites constructed in the U.P. between 2003 and 2006:  20 of 37 sites (54%) were in compliance with monitoring report requirements. Compliance rates were highest for MDOT (90%) and lowest for county road commissions (30%). All other permittees combined for a 47% rate of compliance.  19 of 37 sites (51%) have been placed into conservation easements as required. These sites total 43.1 acres (23% of the total wetland acreage required to be in easements).  5 of 11 field-examined sites (45%) were in compliance with DEQ standards for invasive species. All compliant sites were constructed adjacent to natural wetlands, while all but one non- compliant sites were constructed adjacent to upland ecosystems.  Combined permitted activities during this period resulted in the loss of 71.2 acres of natural wetlands and the creation of acres of mitigation wetlands. Introduction Michigan’s wetland resources are managed by the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Although wetlands are protected by local, state, and federal policies, they face ongoing pressure from human land uses. Wetland areas are often drained or filled as farms, roads, or urban features are developed. Permits are required for draining or filling wetlands. If such activities are approved by the DEQ, permittees must typically construct new wetlands to offset the losses of the natural ones. This process is known as wetland mitigation. Detailed site monitoring reports must be completed by mitigation permittees and submitted to the DEQ annually. Wetland mitigation sites must meet numerous ecological quality standards as outlined by the DEQ. The mitigation wetlands are also required to be placed into a conservation easement for permanent legal protection against future development. A conservation easement is a preservation contract between a property owner and the state. Activities that are prohibited or restricted on the property are specified in the conservation easement, and are typically binding on all future owners of the property. These processes are all part of the goal of achieving “No Net Loss” of wetland acreage, which has been the nation’s guiding philosophy of wetland conservation for over 20 years. Focus Area I examined all DEQ mitigation permit files issued in the U.P. between 2003 and 2006 to assess compliance with regulations for site monitoring and conservation easements. Of these 37 sites, I examined 11 that were constructed by road agencies to assess compliance with invasive species standards (see map image). Conclusions  Rates of mitigation site monitoring have shown little improvement since similar research was performed in  The DEQ appears to have difficulty enforcing permanent wetland protection through conservation easements. Wetland sites not placed into easements are potentially at risk from future activities.  Through mitigation, the U.P. had a net gain of wetland quantity between 2003 and However, most of this acreage is in sites that are not meeting performance standards for invasive species. It appears “No Net Loss” is resulting in diminished overall quality of wetlands.  Policy efforts should include stronger enforcement of site monitoring and conservation easement requirements, and an emphasis on mitigation sites constructed adjacent to natural wetlands. Right: Phragmites australis at MDOT’s Portage Marsh mitigation site (Delta County). This is a very problematic invasive species in many Michigan wetlands. Research Questions For wetland mitigation sites constructed in the U.P. between 2003 and 2006:  How many sites are in compliance with the DEQ’s site monitoring policies?  How many sites have been placed into conservation easements as required?  Are sites meeting the DEQ’s performance standards for invasive plant species (10% maximum total cover of invasives)?  How does the wetland acreage lost compare to the wetland acreage gained through mitigation? Two MDOT wetland mitigation sites constructed adjacent to natural forested wetlands: Iron County (left) and Houghton County (right). Left: Menominee County’s Malawka mitigation site. Note the apparent problems with soils and organic cover. Two wetland mitigation sites that have been monitored annually and placed into conservation easements: MDOT’s Tioga site (left) and Dickinson County’s Norway site (right).