louisiana coastal area modification of davis pond study overview n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Louisiana Coastal Area Modification of Davis Pond Study Overview PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Louisiana Coastal Area Modification of Davis Pond Study Overview

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

Louisiana Coastal Area Modification of Davis Pond Study Overview - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 111 Views
  • Uploaded on

Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection, Restoration and Conservation Mark R. Wingate, PE Chief – Projects and Restorations Branch April 4, 2012. Louisiana Coastal Area Modification of Davis Pond Study Overview . Purpose.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Louisiana Coastal Area Modification of Davis Pond Study Overview' - temple


Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
louisiana coastal area modification of davis pond study overview

Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection, Restoration and Conservation

Mark R. Wingate, PE

Chief – Projects and Restorations Branch

April 4, 2012

Louisiana Coastal AreaModification of Davis PondStudy Overview

purpose
Purpose
  • To update the Governor’s Advisory Commission on progress of the LCA Modification of Davis Pond feasibility study:
    • Planning Objectives and Constraints
    • Alternatives under consideration
    • Other factors to be considered
    • Timeline to completion
background
Background
  • One of 15 critical projects authorized in WRDA 2007

“to sustain a larger coastal ecosystem that supports and protects the environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana”

  • WRDA language provided sequencing insight
  • Modification of Davis Pond (MDP) - Title VII, Sect 7006(e) – LCA “4”
  • LCA “4” FCSA Signed 5 June 2009 (includes MDP)
  • Next Step – TSP selection (13 April 2012)
  • Chief’s Report to be signed - 1 Nov 2013
planning goals and objectives
Planning Goals and Objectives

Goal:

Identify operational change that maximizes restoration outputs in the Barataria Basin

Objectives: Over the 50 yr period of analysis:

Objective 1: Decrease the rate of land loss, and where possible, increase wetland acreage

Objective 2: Increase the geographic extent and distribution of Davis Pond freshwater, sediment, and nutrients throughout the study area

planning constraints
Planning Constraints
  • Avoid or minimize negative impacts to T&E (Pallid Sturgeon)
  • Avoid or minimize adverse impacts to habitat
  • Maintain level of flood protection/no induced flooding
  • Avoid or minimize impacts to navigation
  • Avoid or minimize low dissolved oxygen and/or algal blooms
  • Assess only operational changes
  • Other factors to be considered
analytical tools
Analytical Tools
  • H&H Modeling (TABS) – detailed history and forecast of hydrology
  • SAND Model - estimates sediment deposition rates
  • WVA - estimates restoration outputs
  • IWR - economic analysis on cost effectiveness
  • Trade-off Analysis - Socioeconomic Impacts, EFH
modeled area
Modeled Area

DIVERSION STRUCTURE

MYRTLE GROVE

GRAND ISLE

plan formulation
Plan Formulation
  • Developed an initial array of 42 alternatives
  • Screened based on criteria
  • Final Array
    • 8 alternatives ranging from “no-action” to operating at maximum capacity throughout year
future without project no action
Future Without Project:No Action

MYRTLE GROVE

-Maintain current operation of structure

X

X

river stage dependent open continuous alternative 18
River Stage Dependent/Open Continuous:Alternative 18
  • Maximum possible flow throughout year
  • -No Salinity target
  • -No Time constraints

MYRTLE GROVE

X

X

X

X

maximize sediment load and maximize footprint alternative 41
Maximize Sediment Load and Maximize Footprint:Alternative 41
  • Maximum capacity operation during sediment peaks
  • Establish new salinity target during non-sediment peaks

MYRTLE GROVE

X

X

major flow event 3 year cycle alternative 17
Major Flow Event (3 Year Cycle): Alternative 17

-Capture maximum sediment for year 1 during sediment peaks

-For years 2 and 3, focus on establishing new salinity target

-Repeat 3 year cycle

MYRTLE GROVE

X

X

major flow event 5 year cycle alternative 40
Major Flow Event (5 Year Cycle):Alternative 40

-Capture maximum sediment from the river for year 1 during sediment peaks

-For years 2, 3, 4, and 5, focus on establishing new salinity target

-Repeat 5 year cycle

MYRTLE GROVE

X

X

maximize sediment load with time constraint jan apr alternative 42a
Maximize Sediment Load With Time Constraint (Jan – Apr):Alternative 42a

MYRTLE GROVE

  • -Maximize flow during high river conditions
  • Establish new salinity target for remainder of year

X

X

maximize sediment load with time constraint jan apr alternative 42b
Maximize Sediment Load With Time Constraint (Jan-Apr):Alternative 42b

MYRTLE GROVE

  • -Maximize flow during high river conditions
  • Maintain existing salinity target for remainder of year

X

X

maintain new 5ppt isohaline alternative 39
Maintain New 5ppt Isohaline:Alternative 39

MYRTLE GROVE

-Establish new annual salinity target

X

X

projected wetlands in acres
Projected Wetlands in Acres
  • No Action: 45% reduction in landmass over 50 years
  • Alt 18: 43% reduction in landmass over 50 years
  • Approximately 10 square miles difference between Alt 18 and No Action
  • Only assesses operational changes of DP structure

*Values Assume Intermediate Sea-Level Rise

wetland value assessment results year 50
Wetland Value Assessment Results (Year 50)

- AAHU (Average Annual Habitat Unit) – Increased Habitat Quality

other factors to be considered
Other Factors to be Considered
  • Planning Aid Letter
  • Environmental effects (adverse and beneficial)
  • Social effects (adverse and beneficial)
  • Risks and uncertainties
slide24

IWR Analysis

Alt 39

Alt 40

Alt 41

In thousands

Alt 42a

Alt 42b

Alt 17

Alt 18