1 / 23

April 6, 2006

Using Adaptive Management to Meet the Challenges of Decompartmentalization: DECOMP Adaptive Management Plan (DAMP) J. Ogden, SFWMD, J. Boone, US Army Corps, C. Mitchell, ENP, and L. Heisler, USFWS – DAMP Leadership Team. April 6, 2006. What is Adaptive Management in CERP?.

fay
Download Presentation

April 6, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Adaptive Management to Meet the Challenges of Decompartmentalization: DECOMP Adaptive Management Plan (DAMP)J. Ogden, SFWMD, J. Boone, US Army Corps, C. Mitchell, ENP, and L. Heisler, USFWS – DAMP Leadership Team April 6, 2006

  2. What is Adaptive Management in CERP? • RECOVER developed a strategy for integrating adaptive management into CERP implementation (AM Strategy) • DECOMP is the first major project proceeding under the AM Strategy • AM is a method for “learning through doing” to address uncertainties that characterize management of large natural ecosystems • AM is scientific inquiry applied to the planning, implementation and assessment of ecosystem management projects

  3. What is the DAMP? What will be gained through completing DAMP? A Method to: • Find best restoration design for DECOMP, without compromising water supply or flood control • Combine data mining, historical analysis, physical models, and evaluation tools • Address specific scientific uncertainties and incorporate new information • Use multi-agency collaborative approach (with stakeholder input) • Increase understanding of system responses to various activities • Select optimal project alternative(s)

  4. Scientific Uncertainties of DECOMP • Ecological effects of levee modifications • Effects of partial versus extensive backfilling of canals • Water depth and hydroperiod tolerance of tree islands • Support quantification of benefits of sheetflow • Assessment of seepage • Calibration of hydrologic models

  5. DAMP Data Mining and Synthesis: Team Members FWS: Tim Pinion, Lorraine Heisler & Les Vilchek NPS: Dave Hallac, Vic Engel, Quan Dong & Robert Fennema SFWMD: Chris McVoy & Martha Nungesser USGS: Paul Conrads, Ed Roehl & Aaron Higer USACE/EPJV: Tom St. Clair & Amy Swiecichowski (EPJV)

  6. DAMP Data-Mining and Synthesis Purpose: • Apply existing knowledge to address DECOMP uncertainties and develop science for PIR Objectives: • Document status of DECOMP uncertainties; • Identify lessons learned from previous projects; • Develop proposal for future data-mining that will be part of the DAMP program

  7. DAMP Physical Model: Team Members FWS: Margaret Wilson, John Galvez NPS: Vic Engel SFWMD: Fred Sklar, Sue Newman, Scot Hagerthey USGS: Greg Noe USACE/EPJV: Kim Taplin, Rob Tucker, Greg Whittle, Tom St. Clair

  8. DAMP Physical Model: Purpose • DAMP Physical Model addresses uncertainty and constraints in Everglades restoration to assist in the DECOMP PIR. • DAMP Physical Model to refine our understanding of ecological benefits to support the selection of alternative plans. • DAMP Physical Model to refine evaluation performance measures • DAMP Physical Model to obtain a better scientific understanding of how “pristine” and “impacted” regions of the ecosystem will respond to hydrologic restoration

  9. DAMP Physical Model History • The DAMP Physical Model has been through eight iterations (Kia v1, v2; Lexus v1, v2, v3; Ferrari v1; and Prius v1 and v2). • Consideration was given to the goals and concerns of all parties. • The present design: • maximizes the uncertainties and hypotheses that can be addressed • Incorporates some stakeholder concerns (e.g., restricting backfilling of canals to the L-67C) • Works within both current and future operational constraints

  10. Kia Model This is the basic CSOP design. The only modification is the location of the L-67A weirs. Levee Levee gap (no canal fill) 6,000 ft Levee New L-67A weir location CSOP L-67A weir location 6,000 ft Gap (no fill) Levee

  11. 3000 ft gap (canal plug with boat channel) Prius Model v2 This is a hybrid of the basic 3-gap CSOP design to include replicated Response Zones, and a Before and After Control Impact (BACI) flow-way physical model. L-67A Levee Canal plug with boat channel L-67C Levee L-67 Pocket Sawgrass Prairie Response Zone 3000 ft gap (complete backfill) X BACI Flow-way with one 12,000 ft L-67C gap 3000 ft gap (partial backfill) Ridge & Slough Response Zone 3000 ft gap (no fill) CSOP L-67A weir-culvert cluster location The exact location and size of the gaps, culverts and canal treatments are not final.

  12. Sawgrass Prairie Response Zone Ridge & Slough Response Zone Prius Model: Repeated Measure Design Does not require completion of all CSOP features to begin test 3000 ft gap (partial backfill) CSOP L-67A weir-culvert cluster location • Timeline • Construction Aug 07-Sep 08 • Sampling June 07-09 • Short duration hydrologic events 08-09 • Long duration hydrologic events 09-11 • Report results 09, 10, 11

  13. Treatment-reference site pair Prius Model: Repeated Measure Design Does not require completion of all CSOP features to begin test 3000 ft gap (partial backfill) CSOP L-67A weir-culvert cluster location

  14. WHY Replicate? • It is the most statistically powerful design and the best way to obtain the natural variability associated with cause and effect within the DAMP time frame and scale domain of WCA-3B. • Directed manipulation (e.g., hydrologic pulsing through the CSOP structures) provides the ability to control the cause while monitoring the effect.

  15. Prius Model v2 BACI Design 3000 ft gap (complete backfill) 3000 ft gap (complete backfill with boat channel) 3000 ft gap (partial backfill) 3000 ft gap (no fill) BACI Flow-way CSOP L-67A weir-culvert cluster location

  16. A “BOLD” Step: One 1000 ft L-67A Gap Prius Model v2 BACI Design Phase II 3000 ft gap (complete backfill) 3000 ft gap (complete backfill with boat channel) 3000 ft gap (partial backfill) 3000 ft gap (no fill) CSOP L-67A weir-culvert cluster location BACI Flow-way

  17. DAMP Physical Model: RESULTS EXPECTED • Evaluate performance measures for planning and designing DECOMP • Reduce major uncertainties and a clearer understanding of potential “tradeoffs” • Indicate the “ecological lift” associated with levee removal and canal backfilling • Assess the hydrologic flow fields associated with different gap sizes • Mechanistic understanding of the ecological processes associated with flow • Ability to scale up to the landscape level

  18. DAMP Field Assessment: Costs per Topic 2007 - 2011

  19. Prius Model v2 Estimated CostsTotal: $10.3 Million • Year 1 - 2007 • Levee removal and canal backfilling: $3.4 M Construction • Project Mgmt and “start-up” instrumentation: $0.6 M • TOTAL Year 1: $4.0 M • Year 2 - 2008 • Assessment: $1.6 M • Project management: $0.1 M • TOTAL Year 2: $1.7 M • Year 3 - 2009 • Assessment : $1.6 M • Project management: $0.2 M • TOTAL Year 3: $1.8 M • Year 4 - 2010 • Assessment : $1.6 M • Project management and synthesis: $0.3 M • TOTAL Year 4: $1.9 M • Year 5 – 2011 • Assessment : $0.5 M • PIR integration, synthesis and recommendation: $0.4 M • TOTAL Year 5: $.9 M

  20. Phased Implementation of PIR:Team Members Kim Taplin, Army Corps of Engineers Dave Sikkema, ENP Dewey Worth, SFWMD

  21. Phased Implementation of PIR • Proposed PIR Contents: A) Problem identification, goals and performance targets B) Analysis of alternatives and recommended plan for Miami Canal and North New River Canal C) Recommend phased features, including L-28, L-28 tie-back, L-29 and L-67A and C levees, based on DAMP D) Cost estimate for full project E) Recommend monitoring and comprehensive adaptive management plan F) Recommend process for modifying project based on field assessments and data mining G) Offer necessary assurances analyses, NEPA documents

  22. Phased Implementation of PIR:Options for Initiating DAMP • Prius Model v2 affects CSOP features by relocating weir-culvert clusters • Need discussion of options for timing and type of weir-culvert clusters: • Culverts and gated weirs early (2008), before TT, then remove gates for passive management (assurances needed) • Culverts first (2008), and passive weirs after TT complete (2010) – 2 contracts • Culverts and passive weirs after TT complete (2010) – 1 contract

  23. Summary of Costs &Proposed next steps • Costs: • $3.4 M for Physical Model Construction, and $0.6 M for Field Assessment in Year 1 = $4.0 M in Year 1 • $6.3 M more for DAMP Prius v2 for remaining 4 years • TOTAL REQUEST: $10. 3 M for DAMP over 5 years • ($1.5 M for Data Mining from PIR - separate) • Actions Requested: • Move Forward with Data Mining and Synthesis Projects, Physical Model Design, and Phased Implementation of PIR • Create a Multi-Agency DAMP Implementation Team • Request further stakeholder input and physical model scientific peer review to finalize design

More Related