tile lines were fitted with corrugated metal pipes, and rip-rap installed, to serve as inlets into the new ditch.
Figure 1.
1. Project Title: Peterson Wetland Restoration Project
2. Contact
Tom Eitniear
U.S. Fish and Wildfire Service, 1405 South Harrison, Room 302, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
Tel.: (517) 337-6650; FAX: (517) 337-6899
3. Agencies Involved
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office, 1405 South Harrison, Room 302, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
Clinton County Drain Commission, 1017 South US-27, Suite 35-B Southpoint Mail, St. Johns, MI 48879, USA
Tel.: (517) 224-5160
Mid-Michigan Duck Hunters Association, 1884 W. Howell Rd., Mason, MI 48854. USA
Tel.: (517) 676-1168 [Contact: Mike O'Malley]
Ducks Unlimited
4. Restoration Goals
Restore a 14 ha drained wetland;
Reduce siltation and water volume entering the county drain, and subsequently, the Looking Glass River;
Increase flood storage capabilities;
Increase water quality;
Provide habitat for wetland associated wildfire.
5. Project Type
Relocate county drain ditch and plug original ditch to restore the wetland.
6. Background and Rationale
The project is located on a 32 ha parcel in Section 1 of Watertown Township, Clinton County, Michigan. The initial site inspection occurred in December 1993 with actual earth moving initiated in February 1994.
This project restored wetland functions, in addition to fostering a productive working relationship with the Clinton County Drain Commission. The intended function of the Michigan County Drain Commission is to move the water off the land, which conflicts with the goals of the U.S. Fish and Wildfire Service to preserve and restore wetlands. This project not only restored the wetland but also maintained adequate drainage for those landowners located upstream from the project site.
7. Regulatory Considerations
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has taken over implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and also has permit authority for the State's Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (P.A. 203) and Inland Lakes and Stream Act (P.A. 346). Michigan's Drain Code of 1956 (Act 40) is virtually exempt from State wetland regulations; thus, no permits were required for the county drain relocation.
Recording of easement survey for relocated drain at Clinton County register of deeds office. Easement survey completed by a registered surveyor.
Release of right-of-way by the landowner.
Completion of drain relocation petition with the signatures of 5 landowners utilizing the county drain.
Elevation data provided to Clinton County Drain Commission by a registered surveyor proving no adjacent landowners will be flooded by the restored wetland.
8. Criteria
Establish permanent water depth averaging 30-60 cm.
Combination of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetland.
9. Project Design
The ditch plug was designed to act as the spillway for excess water. An earthen ditch plug was installed by first removing organic soil material from the ditch at the plug site. A cut was made on each side of the ditch to serve as an area to key the plug, Heavy clay soils were used and filter fabric was placed on the plug. Concrete rip-rap was placed on top of the fabric in a jigsaw puzzle fashion to establish the desired water elevation.
The relocated drain was 208 m in length, with 3:1 sloped sides and a bottom width of 0.90 m. The tile inlet consisted of a 3 m section of corrugated metal pipe with rip-rap installed to reduce erosion. The ditch spoils were leveled and seeded (Figure 1).
Four wood duck nesting boxes were built and donated by the Mid-Michigan Duck Hunters Association. The boxes were erected in February 1994.
10. Implementation
The project was initiated on February 28, 1994, completing the drainage ditch first, then installing the ditch plug. The ditch plug consisted of 23 m3 of fill, 13 m3 of concrete rip-rap, and approximately 30 m3 of filter fabric. Earthmoving work was completed on March 7, 1994, except for leveling the spoil bank which was completed in April. Due to precipitation and warmer temperatures, site conditions became unfavourable after March 3, 1994, delaying the actual project completion by 1 month. The increased precipitation and temperatures did, however, fill the wetland to near capacity by March 10, 1994.
Two field drainage tiles were unexpectedly discovered while excavating
the new ditch. Both
tile lines were fitted with corrugated metal pipes, and rip-rap
installed, to serve as inlets into the new ditch.
Figure 1.
11. Degree of Environmental Intervention
Two tracked backhoes and a small dozer were used to complete the project. All materials, except for the filter fabric, corrugated metal pipe, and concrete rip-rap, were taken from the project site.
The drain relocation site was located in an agricultural field, as was the access route. Due to the installation date, the project was completed before any farming practices were instigated, allowing for minimal disruption.
12. Costs
Labor and materials $6 200
Survey $ 450
Inspection fees* $ 500
Total $7 150
* Clinton County Drain Commission
13. Biological Assessment
Expected results from the project consist of an increase in wetland vegetation and waterfowl use, water retention, water quality, and reduced siltation. Subsequent inspections verified wetland vegetation, waterfowl use, and water retention. Water quality and siltation data were not available due to inadequate monitoring and assessment.
An inspection on March 25, 1994 found the target water depths achieved. Approximately 80% of the wetland area had an average depth of 60 cm, while the remaining 20% ranged from 0 to 60 cm. More than 100 waterfowl were estimated to be using the wetland. Species documented include mallards, blue-winged teal, pintail, black duck, and wood duck. The ditch plug was functioning as designed and showed no signs of damage.
An area of the wetland previously farmed became open water when the wetland achieved the desired water elevation. An inspection on July 26, 1994 found excellent growth of emergent vegetation in this area. It was dominated by cattails and water plantain. Other species of wetland vegetation that were documented include duckweed, arrowhead, and blue flag.
Several wood ducks were observed feeding in an area of shallow water, although use of the wood duck nesting boxes was not documented.
An inspection on October 12, 1994 showed that the banks of the ditch have vegetation growing adequately but also have experienced some erosion. Parts of the ditch banks and leveled spoil bank have poor growth of vegetation due to the heavy clay soils exposed at these points.
14. Measures of Success
The Peterson wetland restoration project was deemed successful
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Clinton County Drain
Commission. Not only was a 14 ha wetland restored but agricultural
drainage was maintained, possibly improved. The level of waterfowl
use increased, not only for nesting, but for migration purposes.
For water retention purposes, consider the
following estimate:
80% of wetland averaging 0.6 m in depth = 11.2 ha
20% of wetland averaging 0.3 m in depth = 2.8 ha
11.2 ¥ 0.6 ha × m = 6.7 ha × m
2.8 ¥ 0.3 ha × m = 0.8 ha × m
Total 7.5 ha × m = 77 695 505 litres
Retaining more than an estimated 77.7 million litres of water
out of the county drain was
considered successful. This project provided excellent wildlife
habitat in addition to reduced
sedimentation, erosion, and flooding.
15. Key References
None.
Correct citation for this contribution:
Eitniear, T. 1995. Peterson Wetland Restoration Project, p. 282-286.
In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. Methods
of
modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI
(Can. Inst. Sci. Tech. Inf.) Occas. Pap. No. 1.