a comprehensive, multi‐agency approach to … · 2017. 1. 13. · a comprehensive, multi-agency...

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


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


Project Areas

• ABC Ranch ‐ 4,260 acres

• Devils Garden ‐10,127 acres

• Focus on Devils Garden for this presentation– Larger– More complex


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.



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



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