Ewing Intercounty Drain Hearing of Necessity July 14, 2020 Ewing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ewing Intercounty Drain Hearing of Necessity July 14, 2020 Ewing Intercounty Drain Drainage Board Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development Isabella County Drain Commissioner Midland County Drain Commissioner

Presentation Overview • Why Are We Here? • Drain History • Drain Overview • Drainage District Overview • Study Purpose • Drainage Issues (Exist. Conditions) • Evaluation of Alternatives • Recommendation • Lands Added / Removed • Next Steps

Why Are We Here? • A petition for improvements to the Ewing Intercounty Drain (Drain) was circulated per Chapter 8 of the Michigan Drain Code, Public Act 40 of 1956, as amended. • The petition was determined “Practicable” at Hearing of Practicability (HOP) held by Ewing Intercounty Drain Drainage Board (Drainage Board) on October 28, 2019. • Specifically, landowners were concerned about, property flooding, sediment and debris within the drain, lack of an adequate outlet and the general condition of the Drain. • Michigan Drain Code mandates that as part of the petition process, the Drainage Board must schedule and hold a Hearing of Necessity (HON).

Drain History • Established prior to 1900 • 1907 – Drain limits includes Swain ICD downstream to Little Salt ICD. • 1900 – Drain limits includes 850-ft of Swain ICD and “Branch” along Walton • 1949 / 1975 – Drain limits match what is Road. currently understood to be the Drain. North

Drain Overview • Tributary to the Swain ICD • Drain Length – 4.1 Miles • 1,184 Acre Watershed • Jasper Twp. (Midland County), Coe Twp. (Isabella County) • Includes Branch in Isabella County • Loamy Soils (High – Moderately low Infiltration Rates) • Mix of Agriculture, Forest, Wetland North

Drainage District Overview • 1,184 .1 Acre Drainage District: • 815.6 Acres (68.9%) Midland County. • 368.5 Acres (31.1%) Isabella County. North

Study Purpose Comments from October 28, 2019 Practicability Hearing: • Property flooding / tile outlets under water in the upper reaches of the Drain. • Significant amount of sediment and woody debris in the Drain. • Concern regarding the capacity of the receiving stream (Swain). North

Study Purpose Goals of Engineering Study: • Assess condition / capacity of the Drain. • Identify impairments to the Drain. • Evaluate improvement alternatives to: • Landowner concerns identified in HOP. • Address issues related to public health, convenience, and welfare.

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 10+00

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 27+00

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 49+50

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 58+00

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 75+00

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 83+50

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 110+00

Drainage Issues Woody debris obstructions in the Drain: • Reduce hydraulic capacity. • Increase frequency of flooding. • Promote channel instability (erosion). Station 129+00

Drainage Issues Ewing Intercounty Drain): • Sediment Build-up: More than 2-feet of sediment deposition, reducing hydraulic capacity of Drain and obstructing flow, thereby, increasing frequency of flooding. Channel Profile from Sta. 16+00 to 27+50 Sediment Obstruction Water Surface 2/20 Historic Grade

Drainage Issues Ewing Intercounty Drain): • Sediment Build-up: More than 2-feet of sediment deposition, reducing hydraulic capacity of Drain and obstructing flow, thereby, increasing frequency of flooding. Channel Profile from Sta. 37+00 to 49+00 Sediment Obstruction Water Surface 2/20 Historic Grade

Drainage Issues Ewing Intercounty Drain: • Sediment Build-up: More than 2-feet of sediment deposition, reducing hydraulic capacity of Drain and obstructing flow, thereby, increasing frequency of flooding. Channel Profile from Sta. 85+50 to 97+00 Sediment Obstruction Water Surface 2/20 Historic Grade

Drainage Issues Ewing Intercounty Drain: • Undersized & Failing / Aging Infrastructure: • Many crossings along Walton Road have < 10-year hydraulic capacity. • Several culverts are improperly set and restricting flow / backing up water in the Drain, thereby, increasing frequency of flooding. • Many crossings are in poor / failing condition.

Drainage Issues Ewing Intercounty Drain: • Undersized & Failing / Aging Perched Culvert Infrastructure: • Many crossings along Walton Road have < 10-year hydraulic capacity. • Several culverts are improperly set and restricting flow / backing up water in the Drain, thereby, increasing frequency of flooding. Culvert with Backfall • Many crossings are in poor / Channel Profile from Sta. 171+00 to 178+00 failing condition.

Coleman Road Culvert Drainage Issues Ewing Intercounty Drain: • Undersized & Failing / Aging Infrastructure: • Many crossings along Walton Road have < 10-year hydraulic capacity. Private Culvert – Sta 197+00 • Several culverts are improperly set and restricting flow / backing up water in the Drain, thereby, increasing frequency of flooding. • Many crossings are in poor / failing condition.

Evaluation of Alternatives Evaluate Improvement Alternatives to: • Ensure Ewing Intercounty Drain provides an adequate outlet for the District. • Manage / Eliminate areas of localized flooding. • Remove / Replace failing infrastructure.

Evaluation of Alternatives Alternative 1: Do Nothing • Intercounty Drain Drainage Board could conduct routine maintenance (limited to $25k annually) along established Drain. • Failed crossing infrastructure would be replaced by responsible parties (road commission, township, property owners, etc.). North

Evaluation of Alternatives Alternative 2: Limited Improvements along Established Drain • Goal is to address impairments North along the upstream end of the Drain. • Includes the following: • Approximately 2.5 Miles of Open Channel Excavation along the Main Drain and Branch. • Culvert / pipe replacement of improperly set, undersized, or failed crossings upstream of County Line Road. • Estimated cost: $250k (excluding administrative and financing costs) Legend: Open Channel Excavation Culvert Replacement Riprap End Treatment

Evaluation of Alternatives Alternative 3: Conveyance Improvements along Established Drain • Provides a comprehensive plan to North address impairments along the entire length of Drain. • Includes the following: • Approximately 4.0 Miles of Open Channel Excavation along the Main Drain and Branch. • Woody Debris Management throughout Drain. • Culvert / pipe replacement of improperly set, undersized, or failed crossings throughout Drain. • Estimated cost: $390k (excluding administrative and financing costs) Legend: Open Channel Excavation Woody Debris Management Culvert Replacement Riprap End Treatment

Recommendation Alternative 3: Conveyance Improvements along North Established Drain • Only alternative to address all landowner concerns expressed at Hearing of Practicability. Legend: Open Channel Excavation Woody Debris Management Culvert Replacement Riprap End Treatment

Lands Added / Removed Add 347.99 Acres Revised District 1,184.09 Acres Remove 78.33 Acres 31.12% Isabella County 68.88% Midland County Historic District 914.43 Acres 26.76% Isabela County 73.24% Midland County

Next Steps Board to decide if petition is necessary: • If the Board finds that the petition is not necessary, the project ceases immediately and no petition can be heard for the same project until 12 months have passed. • If the Board finds that the petition is necessary based on health, welfare or convenience, the Board proceeds with a project (the scope of which will be defined later). Each project is unique, however, in accordance with the Drain Code, the following tasks must be completed: 1. Complete Engineering Design 2. Obtain Easements (if necessary) 3. Apply for Permits (if necessary) 4. Bid Project 5. Hold Day of Review 6. Construct Project

QUESTIONS?