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 R 2 = 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. Simple road re-location Restoration Fewer invasives (mean density 6.2%) Pre-existing wetland hydrology Smaller mitigation sites (mean = 1.8 acres)

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

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?