: .~-..--~.-.-. .~.~.~-‘0‘--t 5 1:r-k}.w‘.uo:f¢f'_'."‘.‘.‘ufi_.'.‘:~9"! ‘tW‘t'

a
.
u
' ~
. . —
' c
. .
. .
. . .
. . . ,
.
n u I ‘
I. ‘ I
. .. . . .
. . . . . .
. . u
. . . - .
‘ i
. a ‘.
.
. ' I . .
. . . . _
‘ ~.- .
' v
‘ n I - _
. ‘ .. , ’
. .
. . .
. . . .
. ‘ u.-
. . ,
' ~-
. I
— .
- . . . .
.-. . _ .
- 9
I ' A .'
. . o
- . . .
‘ .
a . .
‘ 2
. .
. « .
V ‘
. .
o . '
o
5 ~ ,
n O a
« . . . ‘. .
.
n .
' .I .
.'.‘
u
. . o
' . 4
- .
‘.
... . .
. . . _
. .
- . .0 .
. . .
.
1 ‘ D O
‘ o
s .
. . .
c . .
. .7 .
c
.
u
' u
, .
.
¢
. 1
l ' ' _ . _
r
v - .
. .
. .
.
~ ,
. .
. . . ,
n . .
‘.
. . . . .
. . .
. , . . _ . .
. . .

 

n
.i'
'd
.-
"-

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
5 University

..~_—.‘ _

 
  

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

atom

 

—_ , _ - . , _r—
_ , _ "

     

_ Pin-B Paper . State Unrversrty

samm. Darcy c. 2000, n and Regional Planning
Specialization in Mine Reclamation

 

The Synergy Between
Aggregate Mining & Wetland Banking

PLAN B PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared By
Darcy C. Schmm
Winter 2000

Acknowledgments

 

Anthony Bauer, Principal, Bauer Ford Reclamation Design,
Lansing, Mi.

Bob Ford, Principal, Bauer Ford Reclamation Design and
Landscape Architects and Planners, lnc., Lansing, Mi.

Dr. Jon Burley, Landscape Architect Program, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Mi.

Boynton Sand & Gravel, Jenison, Mi.
Grand Rapids Sand & Gravel, Jenison, Mi.
Huizenga Sand & Gravel, Jenison, Mi.

All photographs by Darcy C. Schmitt

 

Table of Contents

Page
Chapter 1
Introduction 1
Literature Review
Evolution of Wetland Support 4
Defining Wetlands 5
Wetland Laws and Regulations 7
Wetland Banking 11
Mining Background 14
Mining Procedures 15
Premise of Study 17
Chapter 2
Study Area
Introduction 22
Site Inventory and Analysis 24
Methodology 27
Chapter 3
Results
Master Plan 28
Chapter 4
Discussion 31
Conclusion 33

List of Figures

 

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7

Figure 2.8

Figure 2.9

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

Diagram: Wetland Types

Photo: Example of a wetland created in mine site with
typical mining operations.

Photo: An example of the size of many mining operations.

Photo: An example of one type of wetland that can be
created on a mine site.

Photo: An example of versatile mining equipment.
Photo: An example of versatile mining equipment.
Location Map

Regional Settings Map

Ownership Patterns Map

Ariel Map

Site Inventory— Features Map

Site lnventory- Land Use Map

Site Analysis

Photo: Study site post min land showing rock pilings and a
variation in water levels.

Study site post mine land showing rock pilings and a
variation in water levels.

Master Plan
Section Plans
Section Plans

Section Plans

 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction

Reclamation specialists are interested in developing and designing post-mining land-use
that are locally meaningful. Wetland banking, the creation of new wetlands in compensation
for the destruction of other wetlands is one type post-mining land-use that is especially
pertinent to aggregate mining because the aggregate mining landscape contains great intrinsic
potential to generate new wetlands. The wetlands that are destroyed may not be eradicated
by the mining industry, but the post-mining landscape offers a setting where new wetlands can
be created, thereby banking wetlands.

Therefore, this plan 8 paper presents an overview of the integration between the aggregate
mining industry and wetland protection for the purpose of providing insight into the evolution of
two concepts, wetland banking and mine reclamation. The regulations that govern these two
concepts have similar restraints and connections to the issues that occur along urban fringe.
My intent in this paper is to illustrate how the concept of wetland banking and mining
reclamation can be united to provide positive results.

During my graduate education I was taught that federal, state and local regulations are
established to protect the health and welfare of a community. These regulations are
established recognizing current scientific knowledge and past experiences. Consequently it is
impossible to predict all repercussions that occur from well intended regulations, therefore a re-
evaluation of the processes involved in their implementation and the level of their short term
success is important to long term integrity. One group of regulations, currently involved in such
re-evaluatlon, are wetland regulations. Wetland regulations have rapidly evolved over the past
two decades, and they are at a point where their success and failures are evident. Most
developing communities have addressed wetland regulations through the wetland mitigation
procedures and, in many cases, with positive results.

Unfortunately wetland mitigation can also be a frustrating process for regulators and

developers. For developers mitigation can be a process that represents financial setbacks due
to the cost of delayed construction and the high cost of developing mitigated wetlands. For
regulators mitigation is a process that consumes man power that is not available to monitor the
development of mitigated wetland as often as may be necessary to oversee their success.
This has created the need to seek alternative ways to protect our wetland resources and at the
same time allow development to occur.

The government, along with environmental activists, developers, and other parties whose
lives are influenced by the effects of wetland regulations, are continually working on inventive
ideas to re-address wetland concerns with productive solutions. One of growing interest, has
evolved from a twenty year old concept, wetland banking. A concept that has been slow in
receiving acceptance, because many of the existing wetland banks have had difficulties in
either the establishment of the wetlands or the sale of wetland credits. With attention from the
government and environmental groups, wetland banking is beginning to show positive results

for those that were skeptical of its success.

Wetland banking is re-appearing in the spotlight due to scientific evaluation of the existing
mitigation processes. Many wetlands created through the mitigation process have been
established as many as twenty years ago allowing scientists the opportunity to access their
benefit to the existing wetland system. Unfortunately they are finding that successful wetland
creation is often cost prohibitive. Although it is not clear exactly how closely created wetlands
mimic functions of natural wetlands, there are certain landscape features that clearly need to
be present, and these features attach enormous costs to the development of wetlands.

Another group of regulations being re-evaluated are local mining regulations concerning the
aggregate industry. Aggregate mining regulations area typically simple and sometimes are not
enforced in small communities. This is changing because communities are beginning to take
an active role in permitting processes that affect their standard of living. Aggregate mining
reclamation standards in the state of Michigan were developed to prevent mining companies
from mining a site and leaving it in a state that could not be used for recreation or urban
development. Currently these standards require minimal reclamation,

therefore monetary incentive through increased property value at he post mining stage is an
exciting idea.

I contend that aggregate mining is an industry that has the potential to create interesting
topography simultaneously to extracting and reclaiming a mine site, thus the ability to create
cost effective wetlands. To be knowledgeable concerning the impact that this idea would have
on wetland regulations and wetland banking, I believe it is important to understand the
evolution of support for wetlands, the definition of a wetland and the role it plays in our
ecosystem. Equally important is the understanding of wetland regulations, the background on
wetland banking, and the characteristics of aggregate mining. Therefore this paper reviews
these historical precedents and knowledge bases and illustrates the application of wetland
banking in western Michigan.

 

Literature Review

Evolution of Wetland Support

As the United States was settled, many acres of wetlands were filled and used for
development and agriculture(Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1988). It took many
years before wetlands were viewed as anything other than a development nuisance and a
source of disease. With this past attitude toward wetlands it is estimated by the U. 8. Fish and
Wildlife Service, between the time of the first settlement until the mid-70's, the United States
had lost more than half of its wetlands due to development and agricultural practices(Dahl
1990). The largest loss, at this time, was due to agricultural practices. Unfortunately, many
acres of these wetlands were of high quality, evolving over hundreds of years and they can
never be replaced. With what is known today about the important role wetlands play in our
environment, these loses have become a significant concern.

With a greater awareness of environmental issues in the 70's the government began to
address the lose and degradation of wetlands. The state and federal government had decided
on an agenda to set a goal of “no net loss” for wetlands in the United States(Michigan
Department of Natural Resources 1988). Various regulations were developed and the proper
government agencies were put in place to oversee their enforcement. This set the stage for
the next 20 years of success and failure in meeting the goals that the government set to
protect wetlands.

The process of monitoring wetland loses more closely began in 1982 with the completion of
the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory report that estimated the wetland
acreage remaining in the United States. This report set the stage for the Emergency Wetlands
Resource Act of 1986 established to update the initial status and trends information, every ten
years, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, starting with the 1982 report(Dahl, TE. and CE.
Johnson 1991). Even with strict wetland regulations set by the government, several thousand
acres of wetlands continue to be affected by development, agriculture, and other uses each
year(Dahl, TE. and CE. Johnson 1991).

Unfortunately the full impact of wetland loss are not clearly understood. The dynamics that
affect wetlands are numerous and complicated. This along with inadequate research on
wetland creation remains a concern for regulators. Without a full understanding of wetlands
functions in the ecosystem and the dynamics that area involved in their degradation it is not
clear how long term success can be guaranteed(Environmental Law Institute 1994).

Defining Wetlands

Wetlands have distinct characteristics that separate them from other classifications. The
definition that is used to regulate wetlands is defined by the Corps of Engineers and EPA, and
reads as the following:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Environmental Law Institute, 19947).

There are three characteristics that are desired when determining a wetland. They are water
at or above ground level, hydric soils, and hydrophytes. Even while these three characteristics
are used to identify wetlands, only two of those characteristics need be present to classify a
site as a wetland (Dahl, TE. and CE. Johnson 1991).

Under the US. Fish & Wildlife Service seven classifications for wetlands are distinguished.
These classifications include, estuarine emergent, estuarine forested/scrub/shrub, estuarine
non-vegetated, palustrine forested, palustrine emergent, palustrine shrub and plaustrine non-
vegetated wetlands. (fig. 1.1)

Each of these different wetlands inhabit a different percentage of the United States, and
have different qualities and functions in the environment(Environmental Law Institute 1994).
Estuarine wetlands are saltwater habitats, while palustrine wetlands are freshwater habitats.

5

‘l‘

Forested wetlands, the largest category of the palustrine wetlands, has shown the greatest
loss. These are also one of the hardest wetlands to create, taking hundreds of years to
establish. Estuarine wetlands have suffered large losses in both emergent and intertidal
vegetated(Dahl, TE. and CE. Johnson 1991). Each state is unique in the type of wetlands
that are dominant, thus creating different needs for alternative wetland protection programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wetland Types
Ear-ho
W
Non-w
in.” II
“and.
mm
mm
Fond-a
woo-am
mm m
mm ”up...
MI-
W
m
was.»
mm
W
m
Figure 1.1

The midwest has a unique wetland system created by the glaciers that moved through the
region developing an abundance of lakes, rivers, streams and tributaries. The regional
midwest, Michigan specifically, is inundated with fringe wetlands, located along the edges of
lakes and reservoirs(Kusler 1990). These wetlands, among others throughout the region, have

an important function. They help to filter contaminated runoff that would eventually reach our
lakes and streams. Most importantly these wetlands help to control the hydrology of rivers,
lakes and streams by storing and slowly releasing flood waters(Dahl, TE. and C. E. Johnson
1991). Because various types of wetlands are scattered throughout developed areas and on
the edges of agricultural sites and cities they have the ability to improve water quality by
filtering heavy metals and suspended solids, act as sinks for nutrients and supply important
sources and refuge for wildlife(Kusler 1990). At the same time these wetlands are at risk of
degradation due to their location.

Wetland Laws and Regulations

Wetlands can be regulated at the federal, state and local levels. The primary source of
regulating wetlands is guided by the following federal level regulations; 1899 Rivers and
Harbors Act, the 1972 Clean Water Act (specifically Section 404), the 1985 Food Security Act,
the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act, the 1986 Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act and the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act. These regulations were

developed to protect the environment by requiring permits to develop in or around wetlands.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, most frequently used when dealing with wetlands was
developed in 1972 to initiate the task of eliminating wetland lose and it is responsible for a
regulatory process called mitigation. Without this process there would be no need for wetland
banking. Mitigation has been viewed with much scrutiny in the past several years. This
process allows wetlands to be altered with the intention that a wetland of the same or higher
quality be developed for its replacement. This concept is a concern due to the fact that there
has not been enough scientific research to determine if created wetlands can recreate the
same functions of those that exist naturally.

The permitting program established in Section 404 requires anyone proposing an alteration
of a wetland to obtain a permit from the regulatory agency(U.S. Department of the Interior
1988). The Section 404 program requires permits for most alterations involving the discharge
or placement of dredged or fill material in a wetland. The US. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for enforcing the Section 404 program,

 

with the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and State
resource agencies having important advisory roles. Michigan is the only state that has the
authority given by the federal government to fully assume permitting authority for Section 404
(Environmental Law Institute 1994).

Section 404 was modified on September 24, 1993, under the title of Tulloch Rule. In the
past, under Section 404, a permit was required from the Corps for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into US. waters and adjacent wetlands. This definition does not include minor
discharge due to incidental fallback of soil related to excavation activities. Under the Tulloch
Rule(1993 modification of Section 404), resulting from a settlement agreement that was
reached in North Carolina Wildlife Federation vs. Tulloch, the previous exemption of minor
discharge was eliminated, and the definition of excavation activities that require a Section 404
permit was written to include:

Mechanized land-clearing, ditching, channelization, and other excavation

activities that destroy or degrade waters of the United States, Including wetlands.
-Dredged or excavated material placed at specific discharge Site in waters of the United
States.

-Runoff or overflow from either a contained land or water disposal area

(Environmental Protection Agency).

After the publication of the final Tulloch Rule, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Corps of Engineers stated that mechanized land-clearing, ditching, channelization, or
excavation in waters of the United States could unlikely be done without incidental deposition
in the process. The American Mining Congress challenged the agencies’ revisions to the
definition of discharge of dredged material, on January 23, 1997, the U. S. District Court for
the District of Columbia held that the rule was outside the agencies’ statutory authority and
contrary to the intent of Congress to the extent that it asserted Clean Water Act(CWA)
jurisdiction over activities where the only discharge associated with the activity is incidental
fallback. The government filed a notice of appeal with the U. 8. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. The National Mining Association v. United States Army Corps of
Engineers(USCOE) was decided on June19, 1998, the decision to invalidate the Tulloch Rule
was affinned. The federal government announced in January 1999 it will not appeal the

8

I

 

Judas”. ,9

decision in National Mining Association v. USCOE(United States Court of Appeals 1998).

Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act the US. Army Corps of Engineers has the
authority to issue or deny permits for any process that has the opportunity to cause the
discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. The guidelines

established to guide the permitting processes are as follows:

-Avoidance: “Is there reasonable alternative available to the
proposed project that does not involve the loss
of wetlands.”
Minimization: “If there are no reasonable alternatives available,
the applicant must demonstrate that steps have
been taken to minimize the loss of wetlands associated
with the project.”
Mitigation: “After the application has demonstrated that the project
will minimize the unavoidable loss of wetlands, the applicant
Must mitigate the wetlands to be lost as a result of the project."

Mitigation can be achieved in a few different ways, such as, enhancement, restoration,

creation and preservation. The following are definitions from Environmental Law Institute:

“Creating wetlands means to alter upland environments or shallow aquatic
environments to produce wetlands.

Restoring wetlands means to return wetland values and functions to a former
wetland or degraded wetland where human or natural activities have diminished or
wetland values and functions to levels not present under previous natural
conditions, or to slow the natural impairment of existing values and functions.
Enhancing wetlands means to alter an existing wetland to add, or

increase, particular wetland values and functions to levels not present under
previous natural conditions, or to slow the natural impairment of existing values
and functions.

Preserving wetlands means to provide legal protection to natural wetlands that

would otherwise be lost to lawful activities." (Environmental Law Institute 1993: 4)

Although the form of mitigation is clearty defined, the definition of wetlands vary with the
different government employees responsible for the delineation of wetlands. In the past, there
where four different agencies, Corps of Engineers, EPA, US. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Soil Conservation Service, with different delineation guidelines. This making it even more
difficult to delineate wetlands. An attempt to provide consistency with delineation guidelines
produced a 1989 manual. This manual created conflict with those regulated, thus leading to
the current guidelines used. Collaboration on the issue determined that the Corps of
Engineers and EPA definition would be the determining guidelines(Environmental Law Institute
1994).

1__

Unfortunately these processes that are followed do not always lead to the results that they
were intended to produce. Natural and created wetlands are affected by intemal and external
forces that can not always be controlled(Environmental Law Institute 1993). Wetland
mitigation costs between $20,000 to $30,000 per acre to develop(Fulkerson 1997). Depending
on the type of wetland being mitigated, a 1:1 ratio or higher may be required. This can add a
large financial burden to a development. Although mitigation is well intended, it lacks the
proper expertise and manpower to implement successfully. Another concern is that when
wetlands are allowed to be mitigated they are typically done so by parties inexperienced in
wetland creation. This along with the fact that the Corps of Engineers are not able to monitor
mitigated wetlands to the extent that is necessary to ensure their success, it is not surprising
that many mitigated wetlands have a high potential to fail. The developer and the government
both have investments in these mitigated wetlands and when they fail everyone loses.

It has become clear that there is a lack of wetland research to assess the impact that
various types of wetlands have on a large scale watershed/ecosystem, and there is no solid
evidence that one type of wetlands can or cannot replace the function of another. With this
knowledge environmentalists and other activist groups are skeptical that wetlands can be
created to provide the same ecological function of a natural wetland. Thus it is important that
regulators exercise caution when considering alternatives to the existing mitigation processes.

10

Wetland Banking

Wetland banking is a concept re-emerging from the 70's as a step towards simplifying the
permitting process and ensuring that mitigated wetlands are of higher quality than those of the
past(Porter, and Salvensen 1996). The following description is used to define a Mitigation
Bank:

Mitigation Bank means a system in which the creation, enhancement, preservation
of wetlands is recognized by a regulatory agency as generating compensation
credits allowing the future development of other wetland sites

(Environmental Law Institute 199323).

The idea of wetland banking generated as a result of initiation of Section 404. It is important to
understand that it was not created to replace the regulatory process, but to act as an

alternative to the typical mitigated wetland.

The first memorandum of Agreement(MOA), for a Wetland Bank was signed, in January of
1984, for Fina La Terre Bank in Terrebonne Parish, Louisianna, but the high cost of creating a
wetland and the lack of governmental support discouraged the concept from fully evolving until
the early 90's(Porter, and Salvensen 1996). In 1993, the Clinton Administration addressed the
issues concerning the welfare of the Federal wetland policy. Several interested parties
gathered to voice their opinion on the policy and to develop a comprehensive, 40-point plan to
reinforce wetland protection while making wetland regulations fair, flexible, and effective for
the purpose of development. The Clintion Administration issued the plan on August 24, 1993.
One improvement to the plan was to make it easier for permit applicants to use mitigation
banks. As a result of this plan, five federal agencies; Department of Army Corps of Engineers,
EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service, joined in the issuing of the Federal Guidance printed in the
November 28, 1995 Federal Register. This along with experience and recognition that wetland
banking can be an efficient way to mitigate wetlands, has sparked a growing interest in the

concept(Scodari, 1995).

Guidance for wetland banking can be developed under a number of different authorities.

11

 

 

dime-.4... .9454. n

The Federal Guidance is used by the different authorities to set guidelines specific to each
locations needs. As of 1992, 17 states had accepted wetland banks as a tool to mitigate
wetlands, with 46 banks in operation, 42 of them serving only one user, and the remaining 4
being Entrepreneurial banks. Currently most of the banks are located in Florida and California.

Ideally wetland banks are developed on several acres of land by parties having a vested
interest in their success(Porter, and Salvensen 1996). The economy of scale created by this
process allows for consistent monitoring by expertise in the area of wetland creation and at the
same time minimizes the amount of time spent by the Corps of Engineers in monitoring the
mitigation process. In most cases, these wetlands are established and monitored long before
they are used for mitigation credits. In the situation where this is not financially feasible a
percentage of the credits are allowed to be sold before the development of the wetland, but
are required to carry performance bonds. This alone is an improvement to the smaller
mitigated wetland that lacks the expertise in development and monitoring to ensure long term
viability. Another improvement wetland banks hold over typical mitigation practices is that they
are frequently required to use buffers to reduce the effects of natural changes and manmade
changes that would degrade the quality of the wetland. According to the Environmental Law
Institute; “Providing buffers mitigates the impact of adjacent land uses on banked wetlands,
protects them from edge effects of adjacent “open” areas that encourage exotic species and
predators, and can connect the replacement wetland to other natural areas that serve to
enhance the effective size of the wetland(and its Biodiversity and self-regulating capacity)”
(Environmental Law Institute 1993:72). Mitigation often times takes place in urban areas,
located on sites insufficient in size to create a buffer to protect the wetland from the effects of
polluted urban runoff and other natural processes that destroy wetland vegetation.

The benefits of establishing a wetland bank sounds inspiring. Unfortunately it is not easy to
establish a wetland bank, because there are different variables in creating a successful
wetland bank, and the task of coordinating these variables in a way that insures economical

and environmental success requires various areas of expertise.

One Common failure for existing banks is lack of adequate hydrological configurations.
Those banks that were dependent on the use of artificial hydrology were more likely to
experience problems with establishment of long term success of wetland vegetation, compared

12

to those wetlands that were developed near the water table.

Another possible failure is the lack of adequate demographic study and analysis. To
establish a wetland bank there must be a need for the service. In other words, a market value
must be established. The Federal Guidance encourages the use of wetland credits within the
same watershed of the mitigated wetlands. In rare circumstances when it can be proven that it
would be more beneficial in another watershed, the sale of credits may be approved for a bank
in a nearby watershed but typically would be required, at a minimum, to be in the same
ecoregion. The size of the watershed, which varies greatly, will typically determine the market
value. Therefore the location of wetland banks must predict future development and need for
mitigated wetlands(Scodari 1995). This is a serious concern for the economic success of
establishing banks. The cost of creating a wetland and maintaining it for long term viability is
high. Without the need for development within the same watershed as the proposed bank
there would not be the need for mitigation and, therefore, no market value for wetland bank

credits.

Just as important, is the functional success of the bank. Each wetland has a different
function in the ecosystem, therefore it is important to mitigate with banked wetlands that have
the same functional value as the wetland they are replacing or compensate with a balance of
ratio of mitigated wetlands. High quality wetlands with the same functions characteristic of the

watershed can be mitigated at a higher ratio and will maximize the profits made by the bank.

Another concern is that wetland banks continue to be monitored and maintained after
credits are sold. In the past, it was not always clear who would be responsible for a banks
continued viability. Today it is unlikely that a wetland bank would be approved without clear
statement of parties responsible for perpetual maintenance and a plan that would outline the
steps taken to assure its continued success.

13

Mining Background

Aggregate mining is an industry that occurs in all of the 50 states(Hart 1992). The
products of this industry are considered nonrenewable resources critical for maintaining and
upgrading infrastructure and building homes, schools and business. Because these products
are used for development, the need for this industry is directly related to the state of the
economy. When the economy is doing well development progresses and when the economy
is doing poorly development slows as does the need for aggregate and its byproducts.

It takes several tons of aggregate to build a house and even more to build one mile of
highway. Due to the quantity of aggregate needed for development, the location of mining
operations in relation to development is very important. The cost to transport several tons of
aggregate is high. Therefore the mining operations are located on the fringe of development
thus minimizing the transportation cost which is then passed on to the consumer for

construction.

The geologic nature of aggregate dictates the location of quality deposits. Many quality
deposits are located in floodplains along lake, river and stream beds(Matter, Mannan 1988).
This places mining operations in a regulatory defense position. There are typically sensitive
environmental issues related to floodplains. Not only are they inundated with pockets of
wetlands but they are prime breeding and habitat corridors for many types of species. There
are also concerns with sedimentation and erosion produced through the mining procedures; it
can destroy river vegetation and endanger the biologic function of the river(Buttleman, 1992).

A few states are without reclamation standards for mining, and those states that do have
standards, the standards are weak and easily manipulated. Without strong state level
standards local governments have limited power to prevent this from continuing. Instead they
must depend on consulting resources, knowledge of existing regulations related to aggregate
mining, and the integrity of the mining companies to follow through with respectable mining

and reclamation practices.

Irresponsible practices of the past make it difficult for those mining companies that are
trying to change the negative reputation of the mining industry(Buttleman 1992). Many
companies are looking for new ways to balance the cost of quality reclamation to provide a win

14

win situation. Mining companies are in the business to make a profit, therefore it is important
to have a monetary balance related to responsible mining and reclamation programs.
Reclamation practices need to be financially feasible to allow mining operations to continue
mining while minimizing the negative environmental effects. Mining companies are beginning
to realize the importance of the post mining value of mined properties. In the past, the majority
of mining was done in the most cost effective manner to ensure that profits from minerals
extracted would far outweigh the cost of extraction. This meant mining a property to the extent
of the mining limits and providing minimal reclamation of the site. With this practice there was
no vision of the potential end use which often leaves the property useless for development or

recreation without large renovation costs.

Aggregate mining typically occurs on the outskirts of developing communities with the life of
a mining operation ranging from five(5) to thirty(30) years. Because mining can only occur
where the deposits are available it often times conflicts with other land uses. It is a common
occurrence that communities are developed above valuable sand and gravel deposits. As
communities grow and available minable land becomes more difficult to obtain so does the
conflict between communities and mining operations. The intensity of this problem seems to

be growing with no apparent solutions.

Mining Procedures

After World War II came a drastic increase in housing development and road construction,
therefore the need for aggregate mining increased significantly. Over time, as more land was
developed it became difficult for mining companies to locate their operations in areas that
would not have a direct affect on nearby communities. Past mining procedures often left a
site with little development potential. Because of this problem, as these operations moved
closer to communities, planners and landscape architects became more involved in shaping
the mining processes. This small group of professionals worked with mining companies and
each other to develop mining practices that would have less impact on the land. These mining
practices consisted of sequential mining and reclamation(Burley and Bauer 2000). This
encouraged mining companies to develop plans that would allow them to incorporate

15

reclamation of the land into the mining process. Mining in this way allowed the company to
reclaim the site in an efficient manner, thus a more economical way. These processes are
promoted and utilized today for many mining operations.

Aggregate mining is a surface mining operation with the type and depth of the deposit
varying greatly, therefore geologic studies or test drills are taken to determine the quantity and
quality of a deposit prior to initiation of mining operations. Next, state and local mining
regulations are reviewed to determine restrictions and guidelines for the operation. Inventories
of floodplains, wetlands, open water bodies, and habitats are taken to determine the
appropriate permit applications needed. With this information base a mining and reclamation
plan can be initiated for the mine permitting process(Baker1996).

The reclamation plan is developed using a topographic map typically showing 2 foot
contour intervals. lnforrnation concerning deposit depths, mining regulations, surrounding site
conditions, site features, mining procedures, and end use will be shown on the plan. This
information is arranged on separate plans typically consisting of a site analysis plan,
operations plan, grading plan, and a site plan.

Depending on the size of the operation the site may be divided into two or more cells for the
purpose of sequential mining and reclamation. This encourages quality reclamation practices
to eliminate erosion problems that would prevent the site from becoming a valuable piece of
property for development or recreation. With the proper permits in place aggregate mining
operations proceed using large excavation equipment to remove thousands of tons of
overburden for the purpose of reaching aggregate deposits for extraction. The overburden is
stockpiled until a cell is completely mined. Deposits can range from 6 feet to as far as 30 feet
below the grounds surface. Often the deposit will weave above and below the water table
allowing the need for different types of excavation equipment. When mining is completed in
the first cell the operation will move to the next cell to proceed with mining operations while at

the same time, reclaiming the first cell. This process will continue until all cells are mined.

The variation in deposit depths also allows for opportunities to develop interesting
topography in the final reclamation of the site. At the completion of aggregate extraction the
land can have a variety of land formations above and below the water table. After mining is
completed in a mining cell the overburden must be redistributed over the site. This creates

16

endless possibilities for sculpting the character of the site. Interesting residential or
commercial sites can be developed around bodies of water. The overburden generated
through the mining process can be replaced at varied depths above and below the watertable
to create potential lakes and wetland environments around profitable residential or commercial

developments.

Premise of Study

As a result of the mining industries increasing interest in land development, it is becoming
more apparent that mining operations have the potential to create cost effective wetland
banks. Often times, wetlands are created unintentionally during the mining procedures. (fig.
1.2)

 

Figure 1.2

Example of a wetland created in a mine site with typical mining operations

Many abandoned mine sites have evolved into unique wetland habits overtime without any
specialized intervention(Brenner1995). This is sparking interest for mining companies and
environmental consultants. Imagine what a created wetland site could become with the

advantage of wetland specialists and long term monitoring and management.

17

It is not unusual for mining operations to continue on a single site for 25 or more years, and
with this many years involved in the mining process, and simultaneous mining and wetland
creation, mining companies have the capability of having several acres of wetlands banked up
at the completion of the mining processes. The banked wetlands could be used to mitigate
wetlands in the proposed mining operation, or credits could be sold to developers within that
particular watershed. Using aggregate mining operations as a resource in creating effective
wetlands may be one solution to creating economical and effective wetland banks. The fact
that mining operations are located near development, places mining companies in a good
position to develop wetlands for wetland banking. Mining operations have the opportunity to
develop wetland banks close to developing areas, allowing mitigated wetlands to remain in
same watershed. Mining operations create various depths of excavation that are important for
the development of wetlands because it encourages a variety of plant and animal species.
The magnitude of land needed for mining allows mining companies an unique opportunity to
develop large areas of wetlands that have the potential to be linked to wetlands within the
same watershed.(fig. 1.3)

 

Figure 1.3

An example of the size of many mining operations.

18

This quality is high on the list of criteria to gain approval for the establishment of wetland
banks. The scale of the property also provides the opportunity to use buffers to protect a

created wetland from surrounding elements(Environmental Law lnstitute1993).

Several different aspects of mining operations help to warrant the assumption that the
development of wetlands during the mining process would be less costly than wetlands
created otherwise. First, when mining for aggregate, mining companies oftentimes have to
mine close to and below the watertable. In doing so, a topography of varied depths above and
below the watertable are created. Also, the redistribution of overburden allows for the
opportunity to manipulate the topography further. With simultaneous reclamation the
overburden is moved only one time for the mining operation, and created wetlands. (fig. 1.4)

 

Figure 1.4

An example of one type of wetland that can be created on a mine site.

19

 

Figure 1.5 8. 1.6

An example of versatile mining equipment.

Expensive excavation equipment needed for wetland creation is already in operation for the
mining operations.(fig. 1.5 & 1.6) Therefore, with pre-mining reclamation plans, the cost of
moving overburden and shaping wetlands can be combined into one cost. Another advantage
is that the depth of valuable minerals varies creating pits of different depths. Thus, less
overburden will be moved to create the bio-diversity that is dependent on the variation in water
depths that produce different plant types and encourage a variety of habitat. Again, the mining
company has reduced the development cost to create wetlands through mining procedures.
Also, different byproducts of mining can be used to amend soils for wetland plant adaption.
These byproducts are considered waste material therefore the cost to the mining company for
soil amendment is reduced. The possibility of the cumulative cost reduction to produce
wetlands, for the creation of wetland mitigation banks, may motivate mining companies to
consider the concept of banking credits. More companies are becoming aware of the value
mined properties could have for development after mining is completed. This awareness is
producing more planning for reclamation in a way that the potential value of the property could

be optimized, thus creating a profit from reclamation of mine sites.

20

Wetland destruction has been occurring for many years, and it will not change overnight,
nor will mining companies have incentive to reclaim mined property beyond state regulations
without monetary rewards, and it is unlikely state regulations will restrict mining companies
further at the risk of losing a necessary industry. With these ideas in mind, it is possible that
the idea of wetlands created in this manner, could become an important aspect in reducing the
skepticism towards mitigation banking, as well as, the quality of mine reclamation. It is also
possible that the potential quality of a bank created by a mining company would give those
states not yet participating in wetland banking the confidence needed to support wetland
mitigation banking, as a method to help protect wetlands against development. With the
increased awareness of wetland issues, and the rebirth of wetland banking, mining operations
may see exciting changes in opportunities to produce profitable reclamation projects that are
successful as well as environmentally friendly.

Therefore, I intend to illustrate that aggregate mining operations produce environments that
are favorable for creating wetlands. In addition these operations produce byproducts that are
valuable for wetland constmction, thus illustrating the economical value that mining operations

posses for the potential development of wetland banking.

21

Chapter 2
Study Area

Introduction

Mining companies in Michigan are interested in the potential to enhance post mined land
with the creation of wetlands. In doing this, they are receptive to the idea of creating wetland
banks that would provide potential mitigation opportunities for future mining operations and
development in the area. This maximizes the post mine value of the property and generates
additional revenue for the mining company. The opportunity to create a wetland bank
efficiently and effectively is greater at the pre-reclamation stage. At this stage a site plan can
be developed by professionals in mining, site design and wetland creation that would guide the
reclamation as the mining is completed. The exciting part of this processes is that the mineral
deposit depths guide a large percentage of the site design, while the site plan provides a tool
to enhance the site by strategically placing overburden and mining byproducts.

Each aggregate mining operation is unique in size, location, surrounding land use and
deposit quality and depth. Therefore, not all aggregate mining operations have the potential to
be developed into wetland banks. There are specific elements need for the opportunity to
develop a successful wetland bank simultaneous to mining for aggregate. An aggregate mine
site in southwest Michigan appears to have the qualities needed to create a successful
wetland bank. This site provides the opportunity to explore the potential fit between aggregate
mining and wetland banking.

The study site is located on the southwest side of Michigan in the City of Jenison,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan(See fig. 2.1). It consists of multiple mining
operations at various stages of mining and reclamation. The Ottawa County Parks and
Recreation Commission hired Bauer-Ford Reclamation Design to provide a Master Plan for this
approximate 1,000 acre site. The products of that contract were utilized to conduct this study.

The site is owned by six different owners(See fig. 2.3). Four of the owners are mining
companies with three of the four companies actively mining the site. The remaining two
owners have no mining interest in the properties. The property owners are interested in joining

22

mining and land development efforts to maximize the value of the site. The project is a unique
situation in which the finished product will provide Georgetown Township with Mining
Reclamation Plans for the three mining operations and a County Park Master Plan for Ottawa
County.

The goal of the project was to provide an analysis of the site to determine the best use of
the post mined land. The project focuses on determining the potential land form configuration
at the end of the mining operations, thus providing valuable information when determining the
potential for final land use. The Ottawa County Parks and Recreations Commission’s interest
in the project is the potential for land acquisition to develop as a county park. Post mined land
that would not benefit the mining companies for development may be quality land for the
development of a county park. In return, the development of a county park has the ability to
enhance the potential housing and commercial development providing a win win situation.

 

 

OTTAWA COUNTY
4 ) I JENISON

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOCATION MAP

Figure 2.1

The Location Map shows the relative location of
Jenison to the Grand River and Lake Michigan.

23

‘1~»‘-‘f2"-Tt 3i 0

A31

69."

l'-‘J(‘Ul.’l Ll

 

        
   

 

 

  

I T: g a
<
33
.- AME .uiic‘iiimtri mt . ‘- _ _
I - A - t
V I .. .
fig 4 J 'JxN VALL ‘Y ,. , ,.
~~. l tsrme umverzsrrr -_',~'
ftf .? . '..:;,-:”\: "",‘."-.‘.> ., ,.
‘ - ~v
.1; SE
‘ Ex: I I
f .. .- ._ ..
F

 

North Blcridori
lArlOIt 1.7

 

  

 

BAUER it).

 

“HMO" 31

t

\

MU”? VD.

iirwou 5!. «It

0

 

 

RIVER
LAKE
OPEN SPACE/RECREATION

RESIDENTIAL USE

 

SCHOOLS

 

WOODED AREA

CEMETAR'I’

POI! WlDORST. " ‘
I ' "ll
'h-

’

South Blendon

   

 

.I.-- 5‘

 

 

r02; SMLLDON st
'1.
2

  
    
   
  
  
   
   
  
    
 

 

~
I.
‘f‘

’.
.
7w— .' - '.
a . .
‘ ..‘.«.
~I‘ , E I
V "‘ at\
.3 . .
.
l n ‘ ’
- j. r
' '
.
.

 
   
  
 
      
        
       
  

Lit/HAL, 1,:

" l/Uif I-MCHIG-AH OR

..
I' 0

E...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOIODO

....Q.-.

. .‘

KENT CO.

I.....O...OO..OOIOOCOOOOOOIOGPCOOOOOO...

 

 

n

9000900000.
.

 

 

 

 

$2.0,

     
 

 

tram

‘ a
L

   
 

Ht FCL no

 

“All 31’.

 

 
   

 

 
 
  
 

 
 
   
 

 
 
  
    

 

Figure 2.2

 

 

WI, mirrat 3 Am inc.
’

 

l

 

u;

 

 
 

GRAND RAPIDS
cmmwtco ._-c, ,-

  

 

 

:
h
o
r
'O

 

EA MASTER PLA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F t
cf) 3
Z «—
: '1‘.‘ - .' .' '5 I .70: : Inf. L“ .U
:_' i‘..¥“~ J.‘-'*>¢‘\‘ ’ .‘j"\‘:~‘. 3‘. “ E
0‘ e, 3'! he; .~ .‘-"_l
- I" I THREE; EP- f-‘rTf-i'31-3: 49.1731: . t: '
: ’ - tar“ ’1'-".$.°~.F‘-:'.‘f7’ 3‘7"". 127‘ . m
t 1, '5’ ‘ . U;&~N3)EJHC1 ': Jl: .. 5“ 111:5}... < a“; N
3 - -- .. ,2 ‘pEWEN‘r l o. .— .. a:
\_ ‘ I ' . is. :z’ *3“ "W . int“, '_ . ,0. 7‘:,.‘..A . h
i j." a- «‘t, ~ “may - :: . cgiégl 0- 4:; =
j ., 'u- f‘ -.\.,.,‘.y._...u'13 ,_L;‘. 2 u)
. . ‘0...H_ 1‘ Qty... .33. j l . .r -i ' ‘ i a
, D r f" "“‘ff'g'T 1% :‘I.!".\"‘.‘“" - t) gait? I ). .—
x' ' l‘l. 9;?”- '7 tisq; :fix“7".- 'i gaff: : ‘ (f) u.
o- r", ,:*,"", . . _- .':-.r-{ ” "t5; . \
u! _ - .:,_-., ‘,._ , . , ‘ ‘ . ~ . :V- . "I ’ :iL“ 0. ‘ \' L ‘
1 193':- ‘4- ‘. - . ' ,' - -' - :‘ity 30.23. 3 \” ‘2" ”’74 ‘3‘}? . \ \ CK ’-
' ~ 5 A . “: “It: 5'." g: . - “1‘3: 32.}... ' [Ski P Lu E
w“. ' r- - -, ’, ' ’ ' (,4 « 1:350. .‘Jfif , "'3 ,‘
r 'i.’.‘.“."" ‘ . . , MI" “In“ #4 .1. )4: -:I '0'“l' ,;.gj~_,r‘lfa“_ L 80 TON \ Z
« ,‘ .- — - _ a- it - 11'ssvt—",’..~=i-; . CK "
m " *‘_ -—£J . in”. :' ' ' J ' GS;’1;:" 0 ”Jar“ I tQfig" ‘1':,‘..; i \\ f) Q ; {J U
N _ ______ __ _‘_ __ __ -- l 2: . -. " ."5 .".I[ ; , ‘ ‘
WNW ‘ T 3‘“ w :3.” ‘3')” * 'tz' ~‘ l ‘ I < 05
' '* l i Q (It
0 ‘ . l t. :3
IEQEIIQ a, d ra 2&3 L
noxocaxmuw [JJ “ . *
norzm U5! —— —— m
USOSIE‘N-CHM w . A
FLOOD rum ------------ S
W'ETIANO -* a
veoerxnou Cit-SQ VI
W D
01 WILLS O
PAVEO ROAD. 2
UNPAVED ROADS 2212‘.
‘-

Note:
Boundaries are
approximations of

property ownership.

 

0| IAHA COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION CW1
Otter-e County Hich‘lgan

 

$1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Inventory and Analysis

Michigan’s geological patterns divide the state into sixty-three(63) different watersheds,
thus making watershed based wetland mitigation difficult. The project site is located in one of
the largest watershed in Michigan, the Grand Watershed covering four(4) counties and
draining into Lake Michigan. These four(4) counties include Ottawa, Kent, Ionia, and Jackson.
This is important because the size of the watershed determines the market area when creating
a wetland bank. The market area is also dependent on development and population growth.

Surrounding land use for the site consists of passive recreational and residential use. The

site is bordered by a golf course to the southeast, which provides substantial open space near
the site. In addition, there is a residential neighborhood to the south and residential homes
with larger tracts of land to the west (fig. 2.4).

Current land use for the site includes a private airport located on the far east side, which is
used for small commuter airplanes with onsite storage. There are also three(3) occupied

homes on the site, and the remaining land is used for mining aggregate (See fig. 2.4).

Approximately seventy(75) percent of the site is located in the 100 year floodplain with an

elevation of 603 or less, according to the February 5, 1992 Federal Emergency Management
Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map. Areas within the 100 year floodplain would require filling
with overburden to raise them above the elevation of 603 to develop for housing or commercial

use. This limits large scale development on this portion of the site.

Another one hundred and twenty(120) acres of the site are located in a densely wooded
wetland located between the minable land and the Grand River(fig. 2.4, 2.6, and 2.7). It is
considered a high quality habitat area. This area is restrictive for mining and development.
Another fifteen(15) acres of wetlands are located in a high quality deposit area(fig. 2.4, 2.6,
and 2.7). If mining is permitted in this area mitigated wetlands will be required within the same
watershed. An additional five(5) acres of wetlands runs along the golf course. This area has
shallow mineral deposits limiting development potential, but making it valuable for wetland
enhancement. This series of existing wetlands creates a greenway corridor from the golf
course to the Grand River creating a favorable habitat link(fig. 2.4).

24

Existing and potential open waterbodies create important recreation and habitat
opportunities. A lake created through a previous mining process opens into the Grand River
on the far west side of the site changing the designation and the regulation of this lake into
navigable waters of the US, therefore it is regulated by the federal govemment(See fig. 2.5).
Mining to connect to other open waters to this lake would increase federally regulated areas on
the site.

Another previously mined area of the site is currently showing evidence of wetland
vegetation and habitat. The vegetation has occurred without the initiation of reclamation
procedures. The site exists in the shallow mineral deposit area of the site(See fig. 2.4 and
light blue shading on Site Analysis Map fig. 2.7). The site is adjacent to an existing wetland
and was unintentionally developed with a variation in water levels, rock pilings, and brush piles
(fig. 2.8 8. 2.9).

The quality aggregate varies in depth throughout, with the deepest deposit located in the
north central portion of the project site(See dark blue shading on Site Analysis Map fig. 2.7).
This area will determine the open waterbodies for the end use site plan. The aggregate depth
begins to shallow toward the southern portion of the site(See light blue shading on Site

Analysis Map fig. 2.7). In these areas there is more flexibility in developing the final land use

opportunities.

The existing fines stockpile and the clay outcropping have the potential to be utilized for
wetland production(fig. 2.7). The wetland area that is located in the deep mineral deposit area
will likely be submitted for a DEQ permit to alter a wetland area(fig. 2.7). The aggregate
located under the wetland area is a valuable non-renewable resource and there is a strong
potential to mitigate these wetlands onsite.

25

 

 

 

 

 

      

. ., .
o n o 'c"."
c 1 . _. 1“;.--\"“L;"'
L I
.us-‘_ .J“. ." "
. ,c..

    
 

'."‘ y‘.‘ ,-
i «fie-:15}? "‘
it}, 3‘!" *‘W" " T
égfig. ’v (a
r it

C
..
itsu};

   
    

gaereitlon

ARIEL MAP
Figure 2.4

\t

' 1 ..
. .6;
' .n a.“ I‘ ‘1’.-

 

 

 

3 2::

 

 

 

Illi|::_ N _
8.2 2.! 9.: a 8a

.07: .wmwzzxjm w whumtrumd mm<omoz<q

camerflxzeia 53921235» 533 E .233 Pam .53 con
mkuwtxomd. mm<umoz<4 w mmmzzjm 202.4243qu

29me ZOF<Z<4UmE omOwummD/xm

NORTH

Q

 

BOMKOZOF MOu mmm6m02<4 UZHQ<IMI><OOF mOu meMDOmwm DZHLiUét—ixm
can .Eo E .a Emcee. Esouwmcocu

Z<i_n_ mmkmdi <mm< 02mm
H ea: 313%... l >moezw>2H Rim

5mm Eur). xpcsou mamuuo
ZOHmmHEEOU ZOHF<wmumm Dz< mvEdd
>FZDOU <3<t0

 

 

OF

 

 

 

     
                                     

.\

66 P 0.7

 

[FILLMORE sr.

 

 

 

W'“ honor: sr otrizow.

an“

"11"!“ch I'ISS’rII'tiv‘tvu null

\

  

\

.o-vbW-o‘
“IIY'WOI‘VIOYVIIVDIY‘III'IW

\

' W

66' R O.W.

 

____
sr
-—-------

FIL'thoEE

 

 

3.0 m .3 _

8%.»

._ Ill III'IIIIII

 

 

LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROPERTY LINE

 

66' R.O.W.

 

OLE ST.

 

a .

1.. _
.. “—
I“ __
,. .: .I
b. __
a...”
b.
D
E
W
M
K.
mm m
V A5
Hum NS mow.

D
CM OE AR
N DIRSODO
mpnmmuaee

E

SDMTCWDAVAR RR vi
OTEU EPT E
mOEmRKVNA WTAITIIH. M
UHWVQOMUW SW5 C

ABOVE FLOOD PLAIN POST 1992

FARMLAND

 

 

 

~|

 

c
W”

IN

mm
‘1!)

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8 PLANNERS.

- .—

200

80‘? Count 3!th Lmsm.HIL8906:15L(5mus-5574.; FAL'(5I7)LBS-557b.

 

 

» RECLAHATION PLANNERS 8L LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS;

I
I
I
I
I
\_/
III
/
—‘\\\ BAUER-FORD RECLAMATION DESIGN

 

Tgan

-SHAPING LANDSCAPES FOR TOMORROW

 

 

 

OD
O
l’
V
5

1p, MTC

 

 

 

REA MASTER PLAN

 

 

 

. - . L , L . . , , , . 3 co
u \ * .5 ' ‘ u ' . I 4 I ‘ \ O . .
~_’ A I .' r ' ‘ T. ' ~.. ‘
I: ...P -" ‘ .. ... . ~ I . . , \ N
O . _ \ r " ' D S ‘ ‘ ‘ \\
‘2 ‘ “ ' T \ I ' -. ' . o v.1 ' p F ‘; ~‘ I w
:0 '1 "r ' a. ‘ 'w " . ' E I '_ ,, v” — . -~ _., ‘ ' " . T ' . . ' - 1 I}... ~ r g. . n “' h
‘0 ...- 4 . ,.. . I . _ 1 . y _ I ‘ _ ' U. . a. . a. . : I. . . ' . ‘ c =
_.4 . 'Y' ‘ ‘ I.» _ h I .f 1. .av- " “' ‘ ‘ . ‘I ‘ “I. ~- ' ' a .- ‘ . 0"".1 ' v . "O ‘. 't ‘ . ‘ ‘ ' 5'
L —— II I A ‘ - ‘ . 4 r 1 ~ . n I, 1 of . . . ‘ a,
‘- - P ' - 5' ' —‘ ‘ ' ' ‘ . . A, ' ” ‘ ' " .. b~\~- ' .' . o ‘ A . - 6 - o . v. . . . . . .- . ’0 . .-
3“: I .u ‘ I " ‘ " E ‘ . ' ' ‘ ' ' ’ u' ' .. ' . N i . . 0" 0 .§ ' 9‘. ' ‘. « .' u '
‘1 w \_ . .‘u; u , »- I a t . v . " ' ‘ , ,. . ~. u . ‘ . _ .' -_- , o." "‘1 ~ . p I . y ' .'. ‘ ~ ' O I I
Lj‘ V ‘ ' ‘ . , -. ~ . O , ‘ . . I \ ‘ N I Q .
‘ . ' '- u ' ‘ .. ‘ v .,. " , "'0 f '
{2‘ .-- w ' 1 ' ’ ’ - " ~ » . H. ‘ ' n I )1? " E T 1’:‘ ,' .‘A .1 . "- I... 3 .‘ .' .'."'- . . Q." .‘n,‘ .21"? 4.,
' . . - . ‘ . . a n1) ' : ~ . ‘
N . u I » ', l . - 1 . . ‘ > ‘ '1' . s. . h N ’ , H .
K; " Wm- -— ~ -—»— —- mm“... .. .. . ~ .4 ~ .4. I .. _, . - . ,.,i,.,4¢1..,- ,. . .. ..,.. 4.1.1 . ~43 ..-
“—— ' ‘TT' ' ' ’ ' > . _ ‘H ‘3; .. ‘ ‘ . . I . . ' '. "'3 ‘ ‘3‘ 5’.f¢‘ I‘“ : 91‘" ‘VT . ‘ Io. ‘ "_."' . .2“ . 'v- ' ...-
\.___ __ ~ - . . m

 

 

- .v 4.1 3'.
O 1 ’ \ D . I .v,’ .{ I o . S
- —- .__~_ _._.... .- - "~ .' . ~ . . ‘ . ~' .fl " Ix. 'z'x‘; I _‘ -‘% '«u.'o,‘§ -" 1 .. ‘3 ,' I' $9
Ioaesr. 66W“ . . rt» . . . . I). _, , _.¢..z.'_.
. - ~. I,

I"!

’PILLMOR: or T T ' ~ 4
. J . . P_O.\",' . ‘ I .. . _ . . -. ' ‘ . - ' . 7 . ' ' . . { ,
\ 0/I 66 - \ r "- 4‘ ' I . :1 ,- .., ~c a ' 0:2"5-u" .. - "o u I l {H‘- .BT;’.~ ' » ' ;.' h ‘ . n t' D -
V_ .4 .. 7- A . ' E _ "' ‘ . ”I ' ., u . .-' ‘. o . l 3" ' ,.' r .‘ .l" I. > v... ... . r. a-‘.. ' n , . :..
" ' " ' ' ,' .. . -. ' ~ . ' e, 3a: ‘-- , '. -, I." . ' ’ I: '.."‘... x"- 'f 3.1:
‘ 1“ ’ . . . . , . - . -' ' - ' . - . '. ‘ -' " 'w .o " . ,, _
. . ‘ ‘ " ' " ‘ .. ..-- ' 4 ' '.. '- _ I -" ~. '."’I‘.' -.- 3'
o ‘ _ {-1 .n‘ . - '3' . . ' . ‘ . . : .. . ‘ ‘ 1,. . -I J . E‘I’or'4 . .-".;. L .-
. \ ‘ 1 . . . v o . .. . _ _ - ' .' - 'I -‘.H ‘ 1‘33“? '. --> "., ' I ’
LEGEND \ II / ' ' ' ‘ " ‘ ' ' ‘ . .j-f' '. . : .51. . ,
L / / . 1.. . », .. .' ., .4 .

Geor

EXT RACTING RESOURCES FOR TODAY

- .. . .. .
A ‘ u- ~— 1- '. . a a , 'Y
\

2..
SITE.INVENTORY - LANDUSEIWAP I

BEND A

 

 

O ' L... - , ' .3 : ‘. _ ‘1 .5. ,1
PROJECT BOUNDARY -___..._.___ \ o I. l. 4“ ."l ‘ . .. . L . " ' ; . 3— l . .H ,
WWW —“ \\w\ ”&’"'u '“ ' . Ty, .m.nfl I
USGS BENCHMARK *m‘f r I \O. If,“ ‘ " " DEVI‘VN' ' _ .2 .. . \fio \
FLOOD PLAIN PRE-MINE " ~ ' \'. o x . ‘ " - . - . ' A": J -' ' . "- " .. .' . . - J T' y’ 73"): :32 \

. .. ' , ; . a. .
\ \ , \ ‘. > . I .. _. . ..... . 4. . . ;: .. ~ , . n: , 1..“ .
VVETLAND . \ \ ’ ’1‘. . - - . - ' 1). , . . , . . ' ‘ . - . ' P 1‘" .2 ,' 9 "I. ”'1': \
{Wm \ ' , /‘ _ - “fl - - - . -, . . z-, .. 5;.2 , ,
VEGETAT'ON Mm \ ,’ I \ V 2"", :x': ‘ l , I - . I » ,_ .‘. .' ‘c .0 "-' .)- _UII'V 3"" I
STRUCTURES ca ’ j . _ . . . , , . . .. 4 . . _. _
_ \\ . . _. ..
OIL WELLS O

0 /
/
—-——— POTENTIAL SHORELINE - 0 0 0 &\
PAVED ROADS _ 047
R%‘

I

I
UNPAVED ROADS 2221-. MINING LIMITS III.- I
0;} \ /'I

\
a
o

1",:

/
\
-‘_-
.3“:
fl

WATER BODIES FUTURE MINING AREAS

 

I
\
OTTAWA COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Ottawa County Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ \ ‘ ; '. I ‘l
‘ \ 0 I ' ‘1 I ‘ / .L I
\ I — \
\ \‘ u ' I D D I I C) I , . -~ \\
PROCESSING PLANT \\ .. ___._.J .. . L _ __ _.._ _ ____,_ ____4__ _ _ ~ ~ , . , ~ : . . I -.
- .-... ~ - _ . _ . ..._,.. _ ‘ _ . -~ ' ‘. a /‘- - LL ,
\ \ \—-—-\ ‘ TAYIOP. ST. wkow ' x ' , .'. _ - - -~' ' -- 7‘, ‘5 -\ r:
T L I R ‘ . - - - l I ' - I. J- I‘- \
SITE CCESS \ 3. I , 5-. I _ I
| \I . I I x
A NOTE: 3 : . . . . . . ' .' .~. \I \.‘ \‘
Flood plain fongcs from oIcvalIon 603.7 on Iho cat! :2 ‘ T fl ‘ 5 ‘ - ' ‘ = . . I .' ' . ' I I‘ ‘.
Io cIcvoIion 603.I on lho west. Average flood plain I .’ " “ " ' ' '- ‘ 3 ‘.I \Q ’3" \
‘ ' lovaIion 603.5. g ‘ I .'
MINE CREATED FLOOD PLAIN ° < I ~‘ I , ‘, .\
Lake elevation L-slimolos rongn from 585 Io 591.4. ('9 ‘ ' I ‘\ /

O
'11

AVOfOBO "0’0! olm'olion: ow 589. ' i ' ;-_ '. - ' I : I .
LAND ABOVE FLOOD PLAIN . -. I. .’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13m

“)0
‘ I

CONTAINS ABOUT IS ACRES WETLAND
POTENTIAL FOR A VARIET‘;' OF MINING

WETLAND AND FLOOD PLAIN AND END USE

CONSIDER VARYING SHORELINE EXCELLENT AREA FOR TRAILS
IN FINAL RECLAMATION PLAN AND NATURE INTERPRETATION

 
  
  
  
   

 

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

90‘ m Sm: Lu.“ ‘0 WI;TI<317)Lfl-M7k Puf5Ul-I3—55‘0

   

m

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 8 PLANNERS. INC.

   

CONSIDER FILLING FLOOD PLAIN AREA
TO E}""AND BUILDABLE AREA

ALL.

lb
HAIRES LANDING

ABANDONED OLD
wTOWN REMNANTS

_./
.."

 

   

BAUER-FORD RECLAMATION DESIGN

 

————._._ _.4--

§
2

 

 

EXISTING BOAT CHANNEL

.........
,-

Tgan

 

TCh
-SHAPING LANDSCAPES FOR TOMORROW

(”WT—«rm *s 511"": ~ , . . "u; 1 . ' " . ‘ ‘: .' ' fl ‘ ‘ HISTORIC RIVER PARK

HEAVILY WOODED
WETLAND AND FLOOD PLAIN

   

1p, M

 
     

RESIDENTIAL .‘JELOPMET
CONSIDERO NING ARE/I

wwwfl9&@§

POTENTIAL TO EXPAND "
BUILDABLE LAND
WITH ENGINEERED FILL

    
 

 

Figure 2.7

 

SITE ANALYSIS
AREA MASTER PLAN

 

\—

 

h
I
“ AVE; 66‘ROW

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
  

66' P..O W.

   
 

K

HAIRES HISTORIC CEMETERY

  
  
  

FINES STOCKPILE
'— DIFFICULT TO BUILD O

SUITABLE FOR WETLAND
LEG N :L CREATION

PROPERTY LINE ON H; MORE 5T.

USGS BENCHMARK 589' 9. STEEP NARROW AREA
REQUIRES ENGINEERED FILL

\

.,n-—--.._

Georgetown Townsh

EXTRACUNG RESOURCES FOR TODAY

  
  

BEND

 

 

 

-.-a- -.-

 

    
   
     

  
  
  
   
  
    
   
 

ig’EIII‘I‘ERNJo’EREfiIAI’SEEEIROD W mm wooow
WATERFRONT PROPERTY HABITAT AREA

’- M _ _“'___ - - V-
V ' ' ' ___ Iii—Jami. .-

     

 

._ ___‘_.___.;.- ( Jar)
I\-

 

       
 
 

  
 

     

GOLF COURSE

PRIMARY HABITAT
WETLAND POTENTIAL

. , M. \\ \
SHALLow ARFAS IDEAL FOR . I C ' ”‘1‘ \ \I
CREATING WETLANDS \ CONSIDER LARGE CULVERT * , \ \O A; \
AND AQUATIC HABITAT I _ . X To CONNECT LAKES -. ‘\.

LACKS ORGANIC SOIL

        

Z

8

FLOODPLAIN I 344 \ In

WETLAND “‘2 LANDFILL \ IQ
VEGEW'ON 3:3: :5 CLAY OUTCROPPING 3 w '2‘. g
STRUCTURES :1 '. O— 5‘
I - ' I :52 U "T
OIL WELLS O CONSIDER IMPACT . fl 5
pAVED ROADS __ ON RESIDENTIAL AREA ’ I ~. I I A; 375 g E

-, I , . ,
UNPAVED ROADS 2:22: \ -. r-r , ‘ I -' _ ,. - . - ’ ,1 O H >
SHALLow DEPOSIT WITH \ : “t f I . ‘\. . . . J YNTON HO ESTEAD < I;
CLAY VIEN POTENTlAL .\_ /)[ \_. I 44 REMNAN, REMAIN < LU 8
FOR CREATING BUILDABLE . "- I I “m I / 3 a: u
IANDWITH ENGINEERED FILL . - . - - ° °'" 3 D‘ < a m
. I . .IE I:

Q 44
2 O

<

Ll)

Si

at

<

D.

   

 

CONSIDER IMPACT
‘ ON ADJACENT RESIDENCES

//
/./
//
(\
/
0
TI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.8

Study site post mine land showing rock pilings and a variation in water levels.

 

Figure 2.9

Study site post mine land showing rock pilings and a variation in water levels.

26

Methodology

To identify the potential fit between the Master Plan development for post mining and its

potential to retrofit wetland banking into the final product, a review of literature relating to
wetland banking, wetland laws and regulations, mining procedures, and regulations concerning
mining was conducted. Next the design process was employed to create a post mining Master
Plan for the Ottawa County mine site to develop a successful wetland bank.

The design process began with the collection of important data such as U.S.G.S maps,
floodplain maps, photographs, drill logs, oil well map, wetland maps and historical literature.
Additional data was collected through interviews with the clients. Next the collected data was
recorded on an inventory map. An inventory map is a map that records existing conditions
relevant to the project. The inventory map was then used to produce two analysis maps. An
analysis map records the relevance of the site inventory to the project goal. The analysis
maps also highlight the sites limitations and potentials for development. With information from
the analysis maps three concepts were produced. The concept plans were used as a tool to
generate feedback from the clients. In conclusion of the design process, a master plan was

developed using the clients input from the review of the concept plans.

27

   
   
     
     
  

09, _ .
V ' . ‘.'. '.I_.
.3; .1, ,

. Gnom'gt'rt

.p
""""

 

 

 

 

Proposed llc5IdcntIaI -
Development

 

 

 
 

‘I
A .
lliveI LandIzII, '. '-
COIpoIaII: PaIk

IDALIE--._ _ X _
3.

 

CZ?

_ _.-____._22I

Figure 3.1

 

 

 

Gum-01
Pm ‘\

-~FTLLMORE 3T7.— —“—— — ._ .
\ Oman-n I‘m [mace :I ‘
Pm

 

EL

 

 

PRIVATE LAKE

"Extracting Resources For Today-
Shaping Landscapes /or Tomorrow”

"" ‘3 'JVICLJ IQV‘L

 

ROCK POIIII ESTATES

I BEND AREA MASTER PLAN '

Georgetown Township, Michigan
I OTTAWA COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Ottawa County, Michigan

 

 

 

® BAUER-FORD RECLAMATION DESIGN

Rcclamabon Planners 1. Landscape Archhccls ,
West Section I " " Center SectIon E: , _...

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5 PLANNERS. INC.

East Section

 

 

  
 
  

PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

COUNTY PARK

High Water
Low Water

  

 

 

 

 

 

--.'"_—=”u'.-.mu.—-.
_ . Ewan-"a: 2! ~ . .
IIL'T‘='""=""""'=""'”M"‘ II I II” I S ECTI O N. A-A
J-‘ft'l —— T II
Huizenga Lake ,7'
is R
I, _ 2?.
fgti‘fi’ I” VIEW NORTH IHIII a“
-T_ I =2
,é—fp Path TO Preserve "Trig.
LII I
ET 0 10' 20' 40' lg...
C: VERTICAL SCALE: -:-:_ A"
3.2%?“ o 50' 100' 150' 1" '12. ESL Lake 80mm N
IE HORIZONTAL SCALE: -:-:—:2 ” IIT ggfil"5==£‘fii""=-l 562 var'ab'e 2
' . II T T" L
8
L:

 

 

  
 
 
   
  

 

  
 

 

 

f
t . ‘ f I
Boardwalk ,. '~' «(A ', _." I
Beach PETERTDO ‘5 "0,. A of o. I ',_ “'6’: 3‘0" Wetland
l HIgh Water ‘ I'LTS‘I‘mw‘akyl,’ 0:. R . I!" 4, HIgh Water
‘2 - M_ _" '4" ' ,....Ia.. 08d ,-
(F Low Water a”, I - __.;__ "'“IETEII'LIII."":TIIII::‘:"~...._ «£32. I“ Path Low Water y.
-- -- -- 7‘" W WEE I5 ( ._— o-"_ ' s: I." " ,. , {- .. '
' _aflaL”II I' _._ T— ’ P":- - ’ T“ 3 7'
OW .. ________ .. ' ”Elma 'I‘ngqm‘m __ — W” 'E I
—— -' =— b'lfig‘l‘mm: ' I! AL — in" -"l
County Park Lake 7‘ :3 "fl’fi-Ifififlflflfii’lt: “#13: k'lue. J5: “'3

SECTION. 8-8 MIL," T u“ mfilW-a"f’l”=llllfl2?

.__._. ’_— ___. --

0,... - I' -I III= VIEW NORTH
E “W P I T Beach/Wetland Area
I II’;
VERTICAL SCALE: O_:___§0’ «34:610.

0 I00’ ’ ,
HORIZONTAL SCALE; -:-:—80—_%\_I0 40°

   

 

 

    

 

 

SECTION: E-E

 

Proposed Housing

 

I'm—....
"IF: ITIIlE'ilm -

IIIIII

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
 

 

 

  
 
 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fa
E
E 8
co
84% Greenway COUNTY PARK
9' (0 p
CL CL ath
I,‘ A
4&5? «Wk—{'4 ""
(J . A Park Sheiter
C '4 . 3'" f?“
r“. film - A? .ggg . Iggy/,3 /- Parking
’t‘ \ I if“. ' ' ~¢~ ”Ty ; 4;!) .-
1136 _ v A.‘ . - Wetland
2 f I. fig I, T t! fl ray/1;? Park
m... I: .,_ -.....é, If ‘4, Road
a: I I}; 11","an (
_ IEI" r I “‘"i, [I kg'L‘g—‘mgmp 4!": |||m=m «A Path _ ' f
Jr. JIM-2:... ITTITTTIIWTTHT—Efli I——III;__.. y— I'm... ‘—s--m.—--. ... ”W. #1:: v 6 . SECBT‘IIFT 3% .. (x (a
— ; z—IIIIE IT: jig—*4 "If." -_.l‘='IiI ""‘a: ".55. “ :__""E" ”It" " ...; ,. T"
VIEW WEST T 3:;
Across Road Commission Land
0 50’100150’
VERTICAL SCALE: -_ ——-__ _—::
a
0 _ 800’ 400’ 600’ ‘5
HORIZONTAL SCALE: -_-: : ,
COUNTY PARK
\ 9‘5 I ‘ .- '
1 ‘T Gravel Bar ‘ A! 1"? Path ‘7. .32.; / 7,
- . High Water 'h ’ ' ...LJ 4» o‘, ;' ' Q
4“ ' ‘ / ‘2‘ 4‘ fl H' 1;;4013all‘gfiéI'53ff‘d'ml. *—
' . " / 93.11%; ' I —""E 6-7' ;I! #54!
, T a :.. "MIT. ;I ”...1' ‘ ~ 41';- Santa Ia“;
M“ I" 2: a " _"3“ :TUT ‘ Mm"
Ia. ,A ...— g
. I . m
.4 ‘. 5 m
. “‘3 Q.)
n . I , :53)
g . ' ’k‘! ' VIEW WEST LT.
a ‘ I” SECTION. D-D Wetland Area
a
/
TN -' If " 20' 40' 60'
\I’: A 7“ \ n 1' VERTICAL SCALE; -‘- —:3
“\I _ / ,
“I ‘ fig." 'fid HORIZONTAL SCALE: O—:--_—1—00——a 0_—::£IIO
v ‘ v"
‘4! a
E »
IIIT I " 44;;4 #1.‘. PA;
I 4 q cf
AI I{:E: I II I _
~.;=_=_=—_ :2, LT!" I ”—

VIEW WEST
Entrance Road

VERTICAL SCALE:

HORIZONTAL SCALE:

WI

20' 40’

0 __ ,_10'
-_-_—::j

0 __ 50' 100' 150’
-_-:—:I

IIIIII

III

II

‘ T

—_
..—

County Park Lake

 

 

 

ROCK POINT ESTATES

Rock POint Lake

1/
_. .‘-—=I
I TI g;l“:§llfln—nm£] Fm
3‘ K I
\3

SECTION: H-H

 

 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   

COUNTY PARK

BOYNTON PRIVATE RECREATION

Private Picnic Area

 

_._.., IIIIIIm’.

’ a 4,... . lIIIII-llsg-IIIErIIm - IRI=IET=IIIIII=IHI§§

‘Ir—"IIIIIIII -I—EIII=: '=-:=.
sII WI 7311‘] 'TT’.\__\

:3—
‘E‘.. ‘
"“5“,“ V -
‘9 3t .:
~. ‘I- .

E
Security Fence IIITI "k... “a. .
II =IRQI;._._"_.¢\' %‘

-

 

2‘

 

HEIILIIF ~\
VIEW NORTH II‘I EMB\
12m Avenue II Wig-TIM; =-5-'-“'=‘Im Boynton Lake
LEE-AF.
, I I=IIII
VER , 0 ~ _10 20' 40' I 2":
TICAL SCALE. -~-_—: Walla
0 5 0 , 1 00 , , I—T‘é: man" a: flour—’3'm”:9:Illm=uIII===mlW-Imi
HORIZONTALSCALE: -:-:—:JISO III {TTgII'I (mg—I g): ._“=___II_-III'ii
2 II _ --=I_III.' ””
:2, .

SECTION: F-F

COUNTY PARK

High Water
Gravel Bar Low Water

 

 

{ii-.8, .. ..—
—IIIII_§:3EW / -- SECTION. G‘G

 
   

     

II T "I ' . y:
= I g»:=um‘u‘:!""_
- "anus;- -« “um ‘
I ..——.-—" "ET Emu“ ' ”=3
: ||m:-:IIIII=|mI——II'I';
VIEW WEST “‘I g” =‘IL'II' "é‘l
Greenway Path
0 10' 80’ 40’
VERTICAL SCALE: -:-:—:::3
0 50' 100' 150'
HORIZONTAL SCALE: —:-:—_____——‘—_'3
8
:3
Taylor St. E g
I\ 0‘ $8-
- VII“ ‘ Flood Plain h g g
. fir . l
“ .I- ,4 POINT ESTATES . 1.: '
If” If n. ROCK ‘0’. COUNTY PARK {‘an, m t," 9:", ,
m "I; Path Path Hf Wetland
775'?‘ m: ‘ .. ' Wetland 587 ‘1 ’Or'z‘ - ' .
“ E23. ’56:}. ' . 3 . .“ n ‘ I ....n muté J'I'T'l‘lnlltlIhI/A‘III I'll! ...-Lain!!! s; d T fi
"CE. ~’ I $2.2 .I-....i...._-:-. ' .. ._ '“ITEI‘T‘W‘LJ “”7" I32" I2;- ‘ -;..'- .. ‘
“ Rock Point Lake III‘P-Yrgw-Izgj‘mg'" 2:};‘4. :5 2 I (I '2; '.:‘:"éllr"'~unmu"h—”
m = a
t... __ — I gnu-
...."was"?III=—=::I",=I_I£:,-7-':-LI‘LIJIE'ELH'II'T’LI’ “‘ 0 so, 100, 150,
Hm I ‘5 VIEW WEST VERTICAL SCALE- -:-:—::J

0 200’ 400’ 600'
Boynton/Dewent Land HORIZONTALSCALE -_ —- :—::

 

Figure 3.4

 

Chapter 3
Results

Master Plan

The Master Plan evolved out of an integration of the site’s limitations and potentials
combined with the interaction of the client, land owners, and Township representatives. Some
of the issues that helped in determining the final Master Plan were the quality and depth of the
aggregate deposit, the existing protected natural features, the existence of soils, existing land
use, and the client and land owners preference.

The project began with several meetings with the land owners, Ottawa County Park 8.
Recreation Commission representatives, Georgetown Township representatives, and District
Representative for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Then a complete
inventory of the site was comprised through site visits, ground and aerial photography,
U.S.G.S. maps, oil well map, wetland map, floodplain map, and historical literature(fig. 2.5 and
2.6). With the completion of the meetings and inventory, three concepts were developed and
introduced to the parties involved. These concepts began the master plan development by
providing a visual tool showing the combination of potential land use mixes for the site. This
generated input from land owners, the Georgetown Township Board, and Ottawa County
Parks and Recreation representatives guiding the final Master Plan for the project referred to
as the Bend Area Project.

Because the goal of this project is to provide land owners with optimal value for their post
mine properties, the Master Plan provides a combination of proposed housing, commercial,
and park development. It is the intention that each will enhance the value of the entire project
site.

The existing conditions provided a valuable guide to the development of the final plan. The
lakes indicate the location of quality aggregate deposits that range from 20 to 30 feet deep,
while the wetland areas indicate where the deposit begins to shallow. A large area of wetlands
located between the largest lake and the river will remain in it’s existing condition. It is a highly
sensitive swampy area and would be difficult to mine due to the extent of hydric soils, therefore

28

it provides a high quality buffer and habitat area for a pathway. The existing airport on the
east side of the project guided the decision to develop this area for commercial use01. The
existing lake on the far northeast side of the project site is channeled out to the Grand River
allowing public access. Providing a restaurant and marina will enhance the existing and
proposed use. The outer edges of the project site are above the 100 year floodplain elevation
of 603 and are 100 feet or more in from the project boundary line because of the 100 foot
setback for mining boundaries. This portion of the site did not provide high quality aggregate
for mining therefore it is more valuable for development.

The proposed land development for the site is orchestrated to provide smooth transitions
and compatible uses between each development. The entire edge of the Grand River is
buffered from the developed areas with the preservation of the existing vegetation. This area
is entirely in the 100 year floodplain and is predominantly wetlands. A pathway through this
area will allow people the opportunity to enjoy a variety of natural areas with minimal disruption
to the existing habitat. The only interface with the river from the project site is located at the
channel connected to the lake at the far east portion of the project site. This will allow public
access from the river to the commercial area of the project. The commercial area at the far
east portion of the project proposes the development of trailer and tent camping. There
are,also, two unconnected lakes on this section of the project site, one lake that connects to
the river and a second lake that connects to the county park lake. This lake provides a
connection to a wetland through a culvert under 12th Avenue. This allows the commercial
camping area the recreational use of the county park for non-motorized boating. The
proposed restaurant is positioned to provide use for boaters, campers, plane commuters, and
residents of the area.

The county park area is centrally located on the project site. The proposed and existing
mining places the county park from 10 to 20 feet lower in elevation than the surrounding
proposed and existing housing developments. It is the intent of this plan to provide access to
the county park and at the same time provide visual buffers to allow for privacy.(See sections
A, C, and G, fig. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) The proposed wetland area is approximately 100 acres.
The plan proposes to utilize the mining operations to develop land forms of varied heights
above and below the watertable and byproducts of mining to provide for various habitat areas.
(See sections B, D, and H, fig. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) The wetland area will have a combination of

29

canoe paths and boardwalks with habitat viewing blinds and fishing piers to allow access to
designated areas( See section D, fig. 3.3). The plan also proposes the development of a
beach, picnicking areas, interior paths, and a county path connection on the outer edge of the
proposed park(See section C, fig. 3.3). The south and west side of the proposed park is a
combination of proposed and existing residential developments. The two proposed housing
developments provide private lakes located between the housing and park area maintaining a
continuation of the buffer between developed areas and the proposed wetland area(See
section A and C, fig. 3.2 and 3.3). Together the project site provides a balance of commercial,

residential, and recreational use blended with a variety of open water, shallow water, and
upland habitat areas.

30

Chapter 4

Discussion

The Bend Area Project provides an opportunity to explore the potential fit between mining
reclamation and wetland banking. Wetland banking establishment requires expertise in
several aspects of its development as was mentioned in Chapter 1. My opinion is based on
general understandings referred to in Chapter 1. Several elements exist in this project that test
the feasibility of creating a wetland bank that will function as a self-sustainable wetland while
providing monetary value for the mine operator.

First and most important, a potential wetland bank and mining operation have one common
bond in which both require a market to justify their existence. If there is no need for
development then there would be no need for aggregate, and at the same time no need for
mitigation of wetlands. The Bend Area Project is located on the outskirts of Grand Rapids,
Michigan a popular Metropolitan Area that offers a diverse job market, entertainment, and
educational opportunities. Grand Rapids is located in Kent County just east of the Ottawa
County line. Population growth trends show communities radiate out from these metropolitan
areas and continue to grow outward as maximum growth is reached. According to a Michigan
population update conducted by the Michigan Department of Management and Budget, the
Michigan Information Center, and the Office of State Demographer, the 1996 county
population estimates indicate that 45 counties in Michigan experienced population growth
faster than the national average of .91 percent between 1990 and 1996. one of the counties
within this growth area is Ottawa County with a growth of 13.4%(Michigan Department of
Management and Budget 1997). The 1990 population count from the United States Census
bureau for the City of Jenison is 17,882. Jenison is approximately 12 miles outside of the City
of Grand Rapids, Michigan a Metropolitan area with a population of 185,437 according to the
1990 census count. The combined population of four counties located within the project site
watershed as of the 1990 census count is 895,179 increasing to 1,005,046 in 1999 census
estimates showing an 8.9% increase in population. Population growth in Ottawa County alone
indicates potential for continued housing, school, and infrastructure development. This
indicates the need for aggregate production and potentially wetland mitigation. Therefore the
site appears to have a potential population growth and watershed large enough to support the

31

sale of credits from a wetland bank.

Another common bond between wetland banking and mining operations is that both are
reliant on location. Mining can only occur where there is an adequate quality mineral deposit
and wetlands can only occur where there is an adequate hydrological connection. The nature
of aggregate deposits typically place them in the same location as wetlands. The nature of
mining, excavating below the water table, has the potential to extend these wetlands by
continuing existing hydrological connections.

In addition, the characteristics of the mineral deposit provides an opportunity to extract
valuable deposit while creating land forms at various depths above and below the watertable.
These minerals have the potential to enhance wetland soils, and provide gravel bases and
rock pilings for habitat.

The Bend Area Project has several natural and man made characteristic that will provide a
favorable site to create wetlands. First of all the site exists along the Grand River a natural
corridor for migrating birds and it has approximately 160 acres of existing wetlands. A large
portion of the wetlands run along the rivers edge between the river and the potential wetland
bank site. The proposed and existing wetlands are located within the 100 year floodplain with
an elevation of 603. The site also consists of four(4) lakes created through the mining
process. The largest open water area of the four lakes is located on the edge of the existing
and proposed wetland. This along with the existing conditions creates approximately 664
acres of open water, shallow water, and upland area on one site to accommodate a variety of
habitat enhancing a potential wetland banks productivity.

These common denominators between the project site features and the features needed to
provide a quality wetland bank are enough to spark interest in the concept, but there is still a
concern with the lack of scientific evaluation of created wetlands and the development of
proven techniques. Native wetland plant stock must be available along with the proper soil
qualities to encourage the survival of wetland plants. With the project site there is potential to
utilize existing wetlands to provide some of the plant base. There is also the opportunity to
stock pile wetland soils and seed base from a portion of the existing wetland, that will be part
of the mining operation.

32

An inventory of plant species and habitat was taken on the site in a mining area that has
not yet been reclaimed. The inventory was taken by a nearby resident over a six month time
span between April and May of 1998. The inventory shows an impressive wetland plant base
germinating on the site along with a diverse collection of bird species. In all there were fifty
three(53) bird species including the Bald Eagle and the Golden Eagle. Not all of the
germinating plants are favorable to a quality wetland and their reproduction will need to be
discouraged with the proper herbicide or weeding. This spontaneous generation of plant and
animal species is cultivating in an area that has active mining operations to the immediate east
and west side. This may be a strong indication of the compatibility of mining and wetland
development.

Conclusion

The Bend Area Project has all the right ingredients to break ground in Michigan for the
purpose of creating a wetland bank in the reclamation process of aggregate mining. There is
the opportunity to create a private/public partnership with the mining operators and the Ottawa
County Park Commission in the development and management of a wetland bank that would
provide quality recreation and a chance experiment with wetland development.

The development of wetland banking in an aggregate mine sites is not a new concept.
There has been an interest in this concept for many years and each state will have different
restraints and concerns implementing this concept. But for the most part, the features needed
to develop economically and environmentally feasible wetland banks in mine sites are present.
The life of the mining operations lasting for 5 to 30 years provides development and monitoring
time to establish the bank with minimal effort and cost to the mining company. And there is
strong evidence that habitat can exist harmoniously with mining operations occurring around a
wetland site without disturbance from the operations. Aggregate mining can also provide
hydrology, silt, clay, sand, gravel, and rock for the development of wetlands and wetland
habitats.

In the process of developing recreational use for the county park Master Plan a unique
opportunity arises to develop the recreational wetland area into a wetland bank to provide for

33

future mitigation of wetlands disturbed in the mining process and provide additional wetland
mitigation credits for future development within the Grand watershed. The mining company
would have the opportunity to sell the credits for the current market value in the area. A
determined percentage of the sales per acre could be set aside to be established in an
account for use in monitoring and managing the wetland bank. The land could then be gifted
to the Ottawa County Park Commission providing they maintain and manage the wetland to
ensure its continued establishment of high quality and quantity of wetland plant and animal
species. Thus fulfilling the obligation to maintain the wetland and provide quality recreation
for the county park patrons.

Michigan historically is know for strict protection of wetlands, and in the past representatives
of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality appeared to be skeptical about the
potential development of wetland banks. This is beginning to slowly change, although there
are no wetland mitigation banks in Michigan there are guidelines developed'for producing a
bank. This is a promising gesture considering the lack of support in the past. There is a
developing history of wetland creation in Michigan to begin to draw experiences from, as well
as, a history of wetland banking in other states that could be the starting point for developing
guidelines and techniques for creating wetland banks in aggregate mine sites in the state of
Michigan. The Bend Area Project or a project with the same elements may provide the
encouragement that Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality needs to see that the
wetland banking in Michigan can provide a useful tool for minimizing the effects that
development has on the goal of “no net loss” in Michigan.

34

Selected Bibliographies

Aggregates Industry Wetlands Coalition. Wetlands & The Aggregates Industry Management
Guidelines. Boulder, Colorado: Hart & Associates, 1992.

The American Society of Landscape Architects. Creating Land For Tomorrow: A Guide to
Landscape Architect’s Participation in Planning Development. Washington, DC: ASLA,
October 1978.

Army Corps of Engineers. National Wetland Banking Concepts: Institute for Water Resources,
Water Resource Support Center US. Alexandria, Virginia: IWR Publication, July 1992.

Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research.
Volume 14 Number 2. Winter 1995.

Bauer, Anthony M. Shaping Land For Tomorrow: A Land Reclamation Forum Conference
Proceedings. East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Urban Planning, Michigan State
University, October 24-27, 1982.

Baker, Douglas. Planning for Aggregate Resource Extraction: Putting the Inventory into a

Context. [Online] Available http://www.cafgeosmin/maginv/surfical/forum/fiapefl.htm,
1996.

 

Benson, Dr. John F. “The Elements of Sustainable Aggregate Policy”. Journal of Planning and
Management. Tyne, UK: University of Newcastle. Volume 14 Number 4, December 1995.

Booth, Norman K, James E. Hiss. Residential Landscape Architecture: Design Process for the
Private Resident. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey : Prentice Hall Career & Technology, 1991.

Brenner, Fred J. “Reclaiming Mine Lands For Habitat Diversity”. Sudbury ‘95 Mining and the
Environment. Sudbury, Canada. Volume III Conference Proceedings. May 28 to June 1,
1995.

Brumbaugh, Dr. Robert W. Wetland mitigation banking: Entering a new era? US. Army Corps
of Engineers Institute for Water Resources. [Online] Available
htth/wmvgrmy.mil/'el/wrtc/wrp/bulletinesfvsn3/brum.html 1998.

 

Buttleman, Cynthia B. A Handbook for Reclaiming Sand and Gravel Pits in Minnesota. St. Paul
Minnesota: Department of Natural Resource Division of Minerals, July 1992.

Burley, J .B., A.M. Bauer. Kenneth L. Schellie, A Landscape Architectural Reclamation Pioneer.
A New Era of Land Reclamation. American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation.
Tampa, Florida, June 11-15, 2000.

Crawford, Richard D. and Judith A. Rossiter. General Design Considerations in Creating
Artificial Wetlands for Wildlife North Dakota: North Dakota Department of Biology,
University of North Dakota, 1992

Dahl, T. E. Wetlands Losses In The United States 1780's To 1980's. Washington, DC:
Department Of The Fish and Wildlife Services, 1990.

Dahl, T. E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States Mid-
19 70 ‘s to Mid-1980’s. US. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC, 1991.

Ettigner, William J. and William R. Mannan. “Sand and Gravel Pit Reclamation Louisiana:
Creation of Wetland Habitats and its Integration into Adjacent Undisturbed Boyou”.
Wildlife Values of Gravels Pits Symposium. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, June 24-26,
1982.

Environmental Law Institute. Wetland Mitigation Banking: An Environmental Law Institute
Report. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute, 1993.

Environmental Law Institute. National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: Wetland Mitigation.
Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute, February, 1994.

Hammer, Donald A. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, London: Lewis
Publishers, 1992.

Hart, Michael J. “What You Should Know About Wetlands”. Rock Products. Boulder,
Colorado: February, 1995.

Hynes, Thomas P., and Marcia C. Blanchette. Mining and the Environment. Sudbury ‘95
Sudbury, Canada, May 28 to June 1, 1995.

Jensen, David R. “Selecting Land Use for Sand and Gravel Sites”. Department of Landscape
Architecture: University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. National Sand and Gravel Association,
1967.

Kusler, Fr. Jon A. and Mary E. Kentula, ed. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status
of the Science. Washington DC: Island Press, 1990.

Levesque, Raymond C. Wetland Loss Mitigation: Case Stua)» Under Section 404. The
Environmental Professional, Volume 15, 1993.

Matter, William J. and William R. US. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Publication 171. Washington, DC. 1988.

Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers. Beyond The Limits:

Confronting Global Collapse Envisioning A Sustainable Future. White River Junction,
Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992.

Michigan Department of Management and Budget. Michigan Population Update. Michigan
Information Center Oflice of the State Demographer. Vol. 5 No.2, June, 1997.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Report of The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Wetland Policy Work Group. Lansing: MDNR, December 22, 1993.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division. Wetland
Protection Guidebook. Lansing: MDNR, 1988.

Miller, Robert H, PE. and Richard M. Hopen, Esq. “Wetlands Mitigation Banking: Trend of
Fade?” Florida Engineering Society Journal. Florida, October, 1993.

Porter, Douglas R., and David A. Salvensen. Mitigation Banking: Theory and Practice.
Washington DC: Island Press, 1996.

Porter, Douglas R., and David A. Salvensen. Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and Wildlife:
Issues and Examples. Washington DC: Island Press, 1995.

Sather, J .H., and RD. Smith. An Overview of Major Wetland Functions. Washington DC.:
US. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report FWS/OBS-84/ 18, 1984.

Steinberg, Robert E., Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur. Wetlands and Real Estate Development
Handbook. Rockville, Maryland: Government Institutes, Inc, 1991.

Storm, Linda. Wetland Banks: Case Studies. US. Environmental Protection Agency.
[Online] Available http://wwwwsdotwa.gov./eesc/environmental/B7.htm, 1997.

Svoboda, Franklin J. “Wetland Restoration-Myth or Reality?!” Land and Water. September/
October, 1996.

Scodari, Paul, and Robert Brumbauh. National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: Commercial
Wetland Mitigation Credit Ventrues: 1996 National Survey. Alexandria, Virginia: Institute
for Water Resources Support Center U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. IWR Report
96-WMB-9, August, 1996.

Svendarsky, Daniel W. Gravel Pits as Habitat for Wetland Wildlife in North America and
Europe. San Jose, Costa Rica: The international Wildlife Congress, September 1993.

U. S. Department of the Interior. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. Washington DC: US. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/3 1,1979.

US. Department of the Interior. Mitigation Banking. Washington, DC: US. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Biological Report, 88(41), 1988.

US. Environmental Protection Agency. America ’s Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and
Water. Washington, DC: Office of Wetland Protection, 1988.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wetlands Mitigation Banking. [Online] Available
httg/r’mvw.epggov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact11.html August 26, 1997.

 

US. Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] Available
httpzz’l’www.u'etlands.com/fed/frlOmgy99ghtm, May 10, 1999.

United States Court of Appeals. [Online] Available
http://wwwwetlgmds.com/fed/tulloch4.htm. 1998.

 

IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III II

 

02645 9861

 

/‘4‘