a comprehensive, multi‐agency approach to … · mike schmidt, pe, dwre, bcee seth nehrke, pe,...
TRANSCRIPT
A COMPREHENSIVE, MULTI‐AGENCY APPROACH TO ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
ABC Ranch & Devils Garden Slough WRPOs
FSA WinterConference
December 8, 2016
Mike Schmidt, PE, DWRE, BCEESeth Nehrke, PE, DWRE
A Comprehensive, Multi-AgencyApproach to Ecosystem Restoration
Presentation Agenda
Background
Introductions
ABC Ranch – Flaghole WRPO
Devils Garden Slough WRPO
Current Status
Lessons Learned
A Comprehensive, Multi-AgencyApproach to Ecosystem Restoration
Project Background Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)
Congress authorized the WRP under the Food Security Act of 1985, which was amended by the 1990, 1996 & 2002 Farm Bills
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the program
Wetland Reserves Plan of Operation (WRPO) are to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands to achieve greatest wetland function and value with optimum wildlife habitat.
The NRCS allocated funding to the Jacksonville Corps District to plan and design several WRPOs including Devil’s Garden Slough and ABC Ranch-Flaghole
Cooperative effort by the agencies to combine their environmental, engineering, contracting, and construction capabilities
A Comprehensive, Multi-AgencyApproach to Ecosystem Restoration
A Comprehensive, Multi-AgencyApproach to Ecosystem Restoration
Project Areas
• ABC Ranch ‐ 4,260 acres
• Devils Garden ‐10,127 acres
• Focus on Devils Garden for this presentation– Larger– More complex
A Comprehensive, Multi-AgencyApproach to Ecosystem Restoration
Devils Garden Slough Project Background
Easement is approximately 10,127 acres Land uses include cattle grazing and row
crop vegetable production Primary purpose of the project is to restore
ecological function and wildlife habitat
Hendry County Nursery
Zipperer Farms
RDZ, Inc.
A Comprehensive, Multi-AgencyApproach to Ecosystem Restoration
Devils Garden Slough Project Background
Extensively cleared and ditched for row crops
Areas diked and used as reservoirs to store water
Largest reservoir retained some freshwater marsh communities• Ditched and drained for
pasture and grazing Site flow is west to east and
north to south LiDAR topography limitations
in SW corner
2007 LiDAR data
A Comprehensive, Multi-AgencyApproach to Ecosystem Restoration
Devils Garden Slough Project Background
1968 Aerial: 2011 Aerial:
vils Garden Slough oject Background
ing Project Site Communities:
Area (Ac) Coverage (%)3,659 36
37 0.5
107 1
2,241 22
830 8
2,643 26
465 5
145 1.5
10,127 100
ultiple Existing Ecotones
FW Marsh in Pasture
Active Agriculture PasturesBerms
Reservoir Pasture Reservoir Wetland
source Inventory
erous wildlife and listed species have been observed on or have the potential to use the site.
source Inventory
HydrologicSoil Group
source Inventory
9 major canal systems43 miles of dikes and levees around permitted eservoirs
92 permitted wells to plug and abandon69 permitted pump stations − Remove 67 or 68 stations
− 1 or 2 flood control pump stations to potentially remain
&H Modeling
PF for Hydrology30 year periodDesign Storms
WMM for Hydraulics30 year periodDesign Storms
AW to Confirm Wetland droperiods90 year period
etricsAreasDepths and RangesFrequenciesDurations ‐ Hydroperiod
Average annual runoff comparisons match well
&H Modeling
H&H Modeling
ologic Unit Delineation
e primary canal systems
hydrologic units
474 acres
H&H Modeling
tland restoration areas analyzed h:
HSPF-SWMM HSPF-SWMM coverage across
entire easement
SPAW 6 SPAW wetland areas
H Modeling ernative 1
ur water control structuresven ditch plugsintain one permitted flood ntrol pumpmiles of new dikess along 27 miles of existing es
ernative 1
H Modeling ernative 2
en water control structuresditch plugs
moval of two existing trol structures intain two permitted flood trol pumpsmiles of new dikess along 27 miles of existing es
Alternative 2
ernative 2Alternative 1
Alternative 2Alternative 1
ernative 1
H Modeling rnative 3
en water control structurese ditch plugsmoval of two existing trol structures (reservoir 4)ntain one permitted flood trol pumpmiles of new dikess along 27 miles of existing es
Alternative 3
Alternative 3
ernative 3Alternative 2
Alternative 2
ernative 2
mmary of Alternatives
Alternatives 2 & 3 will result in greater depths of inundation.
nly displaying two Wetland ut of 5
mmary of Alternatives
Freshwater Marsh and Pond communities meet target depths of inundation.
nly displaying two Wetland ut of 5
quency and Duration of Inundation in tlands ‐ SPAW
Freshwater Marsh (Target: >200 days)
SPAW Model Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3WA1 01 70 253 253WA2 01 264 264 264WA3 343 343 340 340WA4 Freshwater marsh communities not present in this areaWA5 26 165 165 165WA6 2 245 245 245
Wet Prairie1(Target: 50‐150 days)
SPAW Model Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3WA1 01 31 135 127WA2 01 171 180 171WA3 Wet Prairie communities not present in this areaWA4 01 112 112 112WA5 01 52 52 52WA6 01 78 78 78
equency of inundation based on land surface elevations and:wetland habitats do not exist under current conditions; these areas currently exist as agriculture or improved pasture.
quency and Duration of Inundation in tlands – HSPF‐SWMM
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
96
27
149
171
117
137
91
55
79
191
86
180
256242
185
249
201
88 89
127
157
98
172
84
0
146
176
134
56
120
152
Days Inundation
Annual Average = 132.6 days
al Wetland Areas Restored
Wet Prairie habitats do not exist under current conditions.
al Wetland Acreage and Areas Restored
unity TypeExisting ConditionsTotal Area (Ac)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Total (Ac) Area Created
(Ac)Total (Ac) Area Created
(Ac)Total (Ac) Area Created
(Ac)ater Marsh 830 1,390 560 2,155 1,325 1,876 1,046Prairie1 0 2,918 2,918 3,068 3,068 3,306 3,306ida Flatwoods 86 5,820 5,820 4,905 4,905 4,946 4,946etland Area 830 4,308 3,478 5,223 4,393 5,182 4,352
airie habitats do not exist under current conditions.
native 1 – Conceptual Cost = $2,002,000 ($198 per WRPO acre)native 2 – Conceptual Cost = $2,437,000 ($241 per WRPO acre)native 3 – Conceptual Cost = $2,168,000 ($214 per WRPO acre)
mmary and Recommendations
three of the proposed alternatives will substantially:Increase the areal extent of wetland communities
Improve wetland quality via rehydration
Enhance historic mesic habitats such as south Florida flatwoods
Benefit wetland dependent wildlife and listed species through increased availability and quality of nesting and foraging habitat
ernatives 2 and 3 are more favorable than Alternative 1 cause they:Further increase the overall area of wetland communities by 20 to 21%Improve hydroperiods with greater depths of inundation and increased frequency and duration – more sustainable
ernative 2
vides the maximum practicable provement in historic wetland a, depth, duration, and quency within the NRCS ranges unit cost per acre
pports a mosaic of transitional d upland species and habitats to vide a diverse, natural south rida ecosystem
vides the greatest amount of od control LOS consistent with downer concerns, SFWMD uirements, and regional water nagement goals
rrent Status – Both Projects
C Ranch ‐ Flaghole
Completed Final Design and Contract Documents
Finalized C‐139 Works of the District, ERP, & USACE permitting
Construction initiated and in progress
vils Garden Slough
Completed Final Design and Contract Documents
Finalized C‐139 Works of the District, ERP, & USACE permitting
Construction imminent this dry season
oject Challenges & Lessons Learned
roject Challenges
• Multiple Government Agencies, Permits, and Landowners
• Communication & Concurrence
essons Learned
• Important to calibrate the ecosystem field observations with H&H models
• SWMM and HSPF provided a comprehensive model approach consistent with NRCS methods
• Some cost components like seed and mulch can be large over many miles of dikes and cuts
A COMPREHENSIVE, MULTI‐AGENCY ROACH TO ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
ABC Ranch & Devils Garden Slough WRPOs
January 29, 2015