Kozich SWS 2011 by G98gIP

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 21

									Characterizing the Effectiveness
        of No Net Loss:
 A Case Study in Northern Michigan



             Andrew T. Kozich
           Kathleen E. Halvorsen



         Michigan Technological University
        Introduction

      Wetland mitigation


Michigan: Oversight by MDNRE


   CWA Section 404 permits


Restoration            Creation


       No Net Loss
http://www.maps.google.com/
                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”
                 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)
            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
  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
      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?
              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
                        Results

            Mitigation permit compliance:


• Site monitoring documents:         20/37   54%

• Conservation easement documents:   35/69   51%

• Invasive species limit:            5/11    45%
              Results (cont.)

• 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?
                 Results (cont.)


Distance to nearest road    Age of mitigation sites




         No statistical significance
              Results (cont.)


• Restored wetlands: 100% compliant

• Created wetlands: 0% compliant


 Landscape location related to levels of
  invasive species at mitigation sites...


    ...Hydrology appears to be key!
          (Bedford 1996; Zedler 1996)
Red = wetland creation




                         Green = wetland restoration




               Site size (acres)
                         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
                     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)
                   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
Thanks! Questions?

								
To top