final report - jefferson county wetland restoration (1)

Jefferson County – Raasch Property Wetland Restoration Project

Brandon Olson, Bryce Nelson, Daniel Mossing, and Tyler WallAdvisors: Scott Mueller and K.G. Karthikeyan

Biological Systems Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

12/15/2014

1

Table of Contents

Keywords.........................................................................................................................................3Statement of Need............................................................................................................................3Project Goal.....................................................................................................................................7Design Specifications.......................................................................................................................8Project Output..................................................................................................................................9Alternate Design Considerations...................................................................................................10Calculations....................................................................................................................................13Final Design and Drawing.............................................................................................................22Materials and Seeding....................................................................................................................24Wildlife and Habitat.......................................................................................................................27Economic Analysis........................................................................................................................28Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................30Final Design Construction Plan.....................................................................................................31Appendix........................................................................................................................................46Bibliography..................................................................................................................................56

2

KeywordsBiological corridor, erosion control, hydric soil conditions, wetland restoration, mesic seed, WRP

Statement of Need Ohne and Karen Raasch—owners of the farm land under consideration in Jefferson

County, Wisconsin—are looking to restore a portion of their 150 acre agricultural land back into a wetland. Pursuing the restoration process has been a continuing trend since 1984, a time by which 54% of wetlands in the United States had been drained or filled for development or agriculture.

Figure 1: Flooding has numerous negative effects on agricultural land, including top soil nutrient removal and saturation of soil profile causing poor crop growth.

Congress responded to these startling rates of loss by passing two critical wetland conservation and restoration programs administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to slow and reverse these alarming trends. The first of these was the Wetland Conservation Provision authorized in the 1985 Farm Bill which prohibit United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) program participants from converting remaining wetlands on their agricultural operations to cropland, pasture, or hay land unless the wetland acres, functions, and values are compensated for through wetland mitigation. The second was the Wetlands

3

Reserve Program, later authorized in the 1990 Farm Bill, which was designed to provide a financial incentive to private landowners to encourage the restoration of previously drained wetlands. Through these two programs, the NRCS works with farmers to maintain or increase important wetland benefits, while ensuring their ability to continue to produce food and fiber (Wetland Classification System, 2002). As farmers have become more aware of wetland benefits in recent years, wetlands are increasingly becoming an integral part of areas near or on agricultural fields to provide the following services:

1. Water Storage: Wetlands slow water’s momentum and erosive potential, helping to retain soils on the

property and not contribute to runoff. They promote agricultural land drainage due to their sponge like feature which absorbs

nearby excess water, thus increasing yields across other areas of the property. They reduce floodwater levels and risk of property damage and crop loss. They slowly and steadily recharge groundwater and fight water shortages in droughts.

2. Water Filtration: Water quality of surrounding areas is improved by containing runoff with high nutrient

and sediment loads. These nutrients from fertilizer application and manure in runoff from surrounding

agricultural land are dissolved and often absorbed by plant roots. Pollutants absorb to soil particles, removing downstream threats.

3. Biological Productivity: Abundant vegetation and shallow waters provide substantial habitat for aquatic and

terrestrial life, as well as migratory birds, all of which help sustain biological diversity in the surrounding areas (NRCS Code 644, 2010).

A diverse habitat promotes local biodiversity and a robust, healthy ecosystem that will better resist diseases.

Plant life flourishes in the nutrient rich environment.

4

The Raaschs are interested in restoring their land to function under all the above mentioned criteria and a detailed group of maps of the property have been provided to us by the Assistant State Conservation Engineer, Scott Mueller P.E. of the Wisconsin NRCS.

Figure 2: The boundary of the project site which is approximately 150 acres in size.

5

The site is 150 acres located in Jefferson County, just to the East of Dane County and North of Lake Mills. Large portions of the land are utilized for agriculture and will continue to be used through the end of this year (2014). There is a large wetland property owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison directly north of the project area. This wetland to the North will be an important factor in the promotion of biological corridors for the establishment of both native wildlife and native vegetation for our wetland area in the south.

Figure 3: The current drainage system on the site. Figure 4: The current cropland production on the site.

The Raaschs have already applied for a lifetime easement of their property and been accepted into the Wetland Restoration Program. Under this program, the NRCS provides technical and monetary assistance to landowners and is intricately involved throughout the duration of the restoration process. NRCS is in charge from the conception of the design through the final construction and will provide an operations and management guide for post-construction conditions. The landowner retains rights to the property and can use it under the condition that no alternations are made and no harm comes to the natural habitat, native species, or other wetland functions.

6

Project Goal The major goal of this design project is to develop a wetland restoration plan for a portion of existing agricultural land in Jefferson Country, WI.

Figure 5: Design team on a site survey

7

Design Specifications

Hydrology1. NRCS-657: The wetland must be restored so that it can handle a 10 year, 24-hour design

storm between both surface storage and spillway capacity.2. NRCS-656: To maintain a high standard of water quality, design the wetland so that it

will return to normal operating levels 72 hours after a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.3. NRCS-378: Dike or embankment structures should be designed with side slopes of 3:1

upstream and 2:1 for downstream or flatter if possible, with a minimum top width of 8 feet. The core of dikes can be homogenous or impervious but must not contain organic or sandy soils.

4. NRCS-378: A 5% increase to all embankment structures height should be added on to account for sedimentation build up.

5. NRCS-644: Per every 1 square mile of restore wetland, 2 to 3 nesting islands should be created totaling about 1 acre, separated by 300 feet for wildlife habitat. Islands should be 15 feet wide with side slopes of 10:1, along with 4-6 inches of topsoil.

6. NRCS-644: A ratio of 50:50 for open water to long term vegetation should try to be achieved.

Soils8. NRCS-657: Soil properties can be altered by compaction or tillage, adding compost to

increase soil organic carbon but must maintain pH levels from 6-7, slightly acidic or neutral, which can be done with lime or gypsum.

9. NRCS-658: Any fill, sediment, or other depositional soils must be removed so that the hydric soils below can be uncovered to where they have permeability, porosity, pH, or soil organic carbon levels comparable to historic site specific soils.

Vegetation11. NRCS-644: If natural colonization of vegetation is acceptable based on surrounding

ecological and biological conditions within 5 years, the area may be left open to vegetate itself.

12. NRCS-644: It may be necessary to practice prescribed burns to the area and upland vegetation based on conditions or if invasive species are present.

13. NRCS-644: A minimum of a 100-foot wide buffer zone, optimum 300-foot wide zone, should be implemented upland of the wetland consisting of local native prairie species.

8

14. NRCS-656: When selecting vegetative species, give priority to native wetland plants collected or grown from material within the Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) of the constructed wetland location.

15. NRCS-657: Where the dominant vegetation will be forest or woodland community types, vegetation establishment will include a mix of woody species (trees and/or shrubs) adequate to establish the reference wetland community.

Wildlife/Habitat16. NEH-653: Include additions of woody debris (15%) on sites to develop woody plant

communities for (1) an early carbon source and (2) fish and wildlife cover. 17. NEH-653: Establish fish and wildlife corridors linking the site to adjacent landscapes,

streams, and water bodies to increase the natural development of species colonies.

Project OutputFor this project output we will design and develop a plan with maps, seeding designs,

construction plans, and cost estimates to restore a portion of agricultural land in Jefferson County, WI back to its original wetland function.

9

Alternate Design Considerations

1. The initial design consideration involved the installation of flow control structures at two locations. One of these structures would be placed along the existing ditch, bordering large portions of the western and southern borders of the site, and be primarily used to dam up to 90% of the existing ditch’s flow. The second structure at the outlet of the proposed stream would be used to provide a consistent source of water to the restored site by keeping the stream at a high water level. This structure would also provide safe, erosion-averting outlet flow back into the existing ditch for water during high intensity storm events.

The idea behind re-creating what appears to be the stream’s original flow path was to bring a large amount of water onto the site. This water could then be distributed to the two large scrapes in the northwest and allow it to naturally re-hydrate the low elevation areas in the southwest. The larger areas of standing water and forested areas in the north combined with the slow flowing stream and the filled drainage ditches in the southern portion will benefit from the re-establishment of the stream’s original flow path.

Ultimately, the flow control structures could not be implemented due to legal restrictions. Constraining flow would cause alternations both up and down stream that could potentially result in property damage to other land owners. On top of this, there is little economic justification for the expense of moving excavated soil from the scrapes in the north all the way to the south to fill the ditches, which would be upwards of 2,400 feet.

10

Figure 6: Alternative Design 1

2. The second design emphasizes the importance of wildlife and vegetative species recovery. Although no native species were severely threatened in this area (with the exception of the Blanding’s turtle which is already on the special concern list for Wisconsin species), the agricultural development on this site and the surrounding area has fragmented a significant portion of the natural habitat. This design aims to provide as much diverse habitat as possible, by varying scrape size, shape, depth, and location and providing differing landscapes for both wet and dry mesic seeding mixes.

More specifically, the scrapes in the north will provide shallow areas of standing water during the wet seasons and receding mud flats in the dryer seasons. Shallow water and mud flats provide great feeding areas for water fowl, and coupled with the nearby cluster of trees will provide habitat and protection for both birds and amphibians. Also benefiting amphibians and fish will be the narrow channels constructed in between the three scrapes that will function as biological corridors, allowing for safe travel and a large selection of breeding locations. The southern scrapes are more spread out to provide room for duck nesting. Ducks are territorial to the point where they will not nest if they have seen other ducks in the same pond. The spacing will also allow for native seeding to be established in between the scrapes.

The shortcoming of this design was again the financial viability of investing so much in the northern portion of the site. For the wetland to be functional, the primary concern is filling the drainage ditches in the southwest and re-establishing the wet condition of the hydric soil. Although this alternate design did not result in efficient use of funds, many of the scrape ideas were carried through and still utilized in the final design.

11


3. In this preliminary design proposal, scrapes and fills were again utilized in the southwestern area of the site, a carryover from the first two concepts. Three scrapes would be created in order to expose ground water as well as provide just enough soil to satisfactorily fill in the drainage ditches. One key change would be converting portions of the north-south flowing drainage ditches into a stream, with all remaining portions of drainage ditches being filled.

The stream would cut across the site from the center of the western border to the center of the southern border. This would allow for an additional option to re-direct water from the surrounding areas into the project site. This path was chosen to mimic what was believed to be the original stream flow direction that diagonally cut across the project site (see alternate design 1), but the flow path was altered to encourage slow, shallow flow. This stream configuration would provide more habitats for aquatic species and further reduce erosion compared to a faster, linear flowing stream. Smaller diversions off the proposed stream were also considered to encourage more water ponding in the scrapes.

Several issues arose while delving into the plan further (excluding similar issues discussed in alternate design 1). This included the relatively low change in elevation (less than 4 feet from stream inlet to the outlet) and with such a small gradient the stream could easily be backed up and cause flooding in surrounding properties during heavy rainfall events. Although this proposed stream was designed considerably smaller than the original, rough calculations led us to believe it would still threaten to push the project over-budget.

12


Calculations

Lateral EffectAn important feature that was considered in the design and calculation process was the

existing stream that hugs large portions of the western and southern border of the project area. Since legally no alteration can be made to the stream, calculations were done based off its current state. A major way that the stream will influence our design within the project area is by its lateral effect.

Figure 9: Outer ditch around Southwest corner of project area

“’Lateral effect’ (Le) equations were developed to determine the effect of drainage systems on water table drawdown” (EFH – Part 650-19). Since the drainage that is being considered is open ditch flow, the van Shilfgaarde methodology was chosen. There are several other popular equations that are used to calculate effective length—like Hooghoudt equation—but are limited because they require the stream to be at steady state. Van Shilfgaarde is a non-steady state equation, thus is appropriate for Wisconsin where rainfall is sporadic (EFH – Part 650-19). Although there is much data required to make the van Shilfgaarde equation effective, these data parameters were measured or were relatively easy to estimate. An illustration of the parameters is included below:

13

Figure 10: Illustration of van Shilfgaarde parameters for open ditch flow (EFH – Part 650-19)

As described in chapter 19 of the NRCS’s Engineering Field Handbook, this method of finding the effective length of a ditch follows an iterative approach. This first step involves finding an estimation of the ditch spacing S’ (where Le in Figure 10 is one-half of S) using a known depth a instead of the equivalent depth de.

After the ditch spacing is estimated, the true equivalent depth can be found:

The equivalent depth can then be used to find the actual drain spacing S:

14

[eq. 1]

[eq. 2a]

[eq. 2b]

[eq. 3]

The solution is considered adequate if S and S’ and within 10% of each other.Displayed below are the value inputs, outputs for S’ and S, and descriptions of the parameters.

An important factor of this equation is the equivalent hydraulic conductivity K, which is influenced by the physical properties and composition of the soil. The dominant soil type for this area is Houghton Muck, and was assumed to be uniformly distributed. Due to its high organic content, this soil type is classified in the “moderately rapid” drainage class (seen in Figure 11).

Figure 11: Soil Permeability Classes (EFH – Part 650-19)

Through the NRCS Web Soil Survey Wisconsin Houghton Much is estimated to have a K value of 6.24 feet/day. The final output of this model resulted in an effective length Le of 203 feet. This output influenced further calculations and design considerations because the 203 feet is “the width of a strip of land adjacent to the ditch which is drained such that it no longer satisfies the wetland hydrologic criteria” (Phillips, Skaggs, and Chescheir, 2010).Runoff Volume

After calculating the effective length of the project site the total runoff volume and the peak flow rates of the area draining into the site needed to be determined. These calculations are important for determining the final design because they can help verify if the water flowing from the drainage area onto our project site is needed for the wetland restoration project. From the topographic map, found on page 44 of the appendix, one would be able to delineate the watershed draining into the site. The red border is the boundary of the overall drainage area and the specific project site is outlined in orange. Any water and/or precipitation that accumulates within the red boundary will drain to a single outlet, marked X, which will flow onto the project site.

The SCS curve number method was then used to calculate the estimated inches of runoff. The method uses infiltration losses (RCN) to estimate the excess rainfall (Q). The below equations were used to estimate the inches of runoff:

15

Q=(P−0.2 S )2

(P+0.8 S)

S=1000CN

−10

I a=0.2 S

Q = runoff [in]P = rainfall [in]S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins [in]Ia = initial abstraction [in]CN = curve number

An important aspect of this equation is the use of the curve numbers (CN) which are an estimate of the portion of precipitation that is expected to runoff from the watershed. Curve number is a function of the soil’s Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG), moisture content, and land use, and can range between 30 and 100. For example, one can look at the curve number chart found on pages 47 through 49 of the appendix and see that a paved parking lot would result in having a curve number of 98 while woods with fair condition/HSG B would give a curve number of 60. From the NRCS Web Soil Survey the image found on page 45 of the appendix was produced to determine the HSG’s and land use within the drainage area. From this one can estimate the area-weighted curve number for the entire drainage area which was estimated to be approximately 73.

CN (weighted )=∑CN∗Area∑Total Area

=73

The results of the calculations concluded that the drainage area would have a runoff depth (Q) of 0.719 inches. As shown below, this value can be multiplied by the area to find the estimated runoff volume to be 20.79 acre-feet.

Runoff Volume=QA

Runoff Volume=(0.719 [¿ ] × 1 [ ft ]12 [¿ ]

×347 [ ac ])=20.79[ac−ft ]

16

[eq. 4a]

[eq. 4b]

[eq. 4c]

[eq. 5]

[eq. 6]

Peak FlowNext, the SCS TR-55 method (SCS Unit Peak Procedure) was used to find the peak rate

of discharge for the watershed using equation 7 below:

q p=qu AmQ F p

qp = peak discharge [cfs]qu = unit peak discharge [csm/in]Am = drainage area [mi2]Q = runoff [in]Fp = pond and swamp adjustment factor

An important aspect of this equation is calculating the time of concentration because it is a key parameter in predicting runoff. The time of concentration can be found by using the travel time method which is computed by summing all of the travel times for consecutive components of the drainage conveyance system. Each of these components are influenced by their shape, surface roughness, channel slope, and flow patterns. As the water moves through a watershed it consists of three different types of flow: sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow, and open channel flow. By computing each of these three flow segments individually one would be able to determine the total travel time (Tt) of water flow through the drainage area.

This method requires 5 key pieces of information for computation: the time of concentration, the drainage area, the appropriate SCS rainfall distribution, a 24-hour rainfall with return period equal to the desired return period of peak flow, and the curve number values. After entering in all of the variables into equation 7 it computed that there would be a peak discharge rate of 98.4 cfs for a 2 year-24 hour storm event.

First, the sheet flow of the drainage area must be calculated. Sheet flow is effected primarily by the Manning’s value (n) and is defined as the effective roughness coefficient. The value of n was assumed to be equal to 0.06 (cultivated <20% Residue) and this was determined by using the table found on page 49 of the appendix. After entering the flow length, slope, and precipitation for a 2 year-24 hour event into the equation below the Tt came out to be 0.058 hours for sheet flow.

T t=0.007 (nL)0.8

(P ¿¿2)0.5 s0.4¿

17

[eq. 7]

[eq. 8a]

Tt = travel time [hr]N = Manning’s roughness coefficientL = flow length [ft]P2 = 2-year, 24-hour rainfall [in]s = slope of hydraulic grade line (land slope) [ft/ft]

After a maximum of a 100 feet sheet flow usually becomes shallow concentrated flow. For this equation the average velocity for this flow, which is primarily a function of watercourse slope and the type of channel, must be determined. By using the NRCS’s Engineering Field Handbook found on page 50 of the appendix the average velocity for shallow concentration was determined to be approximately 1.17 ft/s. By taking this value into equation 8b the Tt was found to be 0.910 hours for the shallow concentrated flow.

T t=L

3600V

Tt = travel time [hr]L = flow length [ft]V= average velocity [ft/s]3600 = conversion factor from seconds to hours

Finally, the travel time for the open channel flow must be calculated. For this calculation the Manning’s equation listed below was used to determine an average velocity (V) of the flow in the open channel. From page 52 of the appendix the Manning’s coefficient was assumed to be approximately 0.05 (flood plain with scattered brush and heavy weeds). With the new value of V along with eq. 8b the Tt was found to be 0.413 hours for the open channel flow.

V=1.49 r2 /3 s1/2

n

V = average velocity [ft/s]r = hydraulic radius [ft]s = slope of the hydraulic grade line (channel slope) [ft/ft]n = Manning’s roughness coefficient for open channel flow

18

[eq. 8b]

[eq. 9]

After finding the Tt of each individual flow segment the sum of them all could be taken to find the time of concentration (Tc). The total travel time (Tt) is equal to (Tc) and by using the equation listed below the Tc was found to be 1.381 hours.

T c=T t 1+T t 2+…T tm

Tc = time of concentration [hr]m = number of flow segments

See the Excel Equation Spreadsheet , on page 53 of the appendix, for further information and key inputs that were used to determine the calculation’s section of the report.

Analysis of Easement FloodingAfter calculating the storm event runoff flow rates of the various design storms, the flow

rate that would potentially enter the easement with respect to these design storms were

formulated. Below is a table of the calculated storm event runoff flow rates for the watershed northwest of the property (which can be seen in Appendix, page 53):

Next, flow rates were calculated for the outer ditch surrounding the southwest corner of the site boundary. Using the continuity equation and Manning’s equation [eq. 9] the maximum flow rate of the outer ditch was obtained, which is shown in the table below:Q=VA

Q = flow rate [ft3/s]V = average velocity [ft/s]A = cross sectional area of ditch [ft2]

19

[eq. 11]

[eq. 10]

Having the storm event runoff flow rates for specific design storms and the maximum allowable flow rate of the outer drainage ditch, the ditch flow rate were subtracted from storm event flow rate. Along with this, it was assumed that half of this excess flow would flood the adjacent property and the other half would flood the wetland. Below is a chart of the flow rates that could potentially enter the easement:

After analyzing the potential of water that could flow into the lowlands of the project site, it is evident that our site will be flooding frequently. This is due to the low flow rate which the outer ditch can maintain, as well as the high flow rates of runoff from storm events for the watershed to the northwest of the easement.

20

Final Design and DrawingThe priority of this project is to restore the project area to its natural hydrologic function;

the first step then must then be to raise the water table back to a depth that can sustain a wetland. In order to accomplish this step the five major drainage ditches must be filled completely, so that they stop drawing the surrounding water table down and refrain from diverting more water to the outer drainage ditch surrounding the site. To fill these five drainage ditches within the easement boundary, soil from other areas of the site must be excavated and transported to the ditches. This is done so that soil is not required to be brought in from off-site. This will reduce the overall cost of the project, while making the design more sustainable, since the project is using soil already within its boundaries.

To obtain the necessary amount of soil, excavation was designed on site through the usage of scrapes. The term scrape is one commonly used by the NRCS to describe an area of shallow excavation, maximum depth of four feet, and with a minimum side slope of 8:1. Scrapes are not only used to acquire soil for drainage ditches but also create an area that will be saturated for large portions of the year (the bottom depth intersects with the seasonal water table fluctuations). For the ditchfill, soil will fill the entire ditch one foot above the existing ground’s elevation and five feet on each bank of the ditch. This method accounts for compaction over the years so that eventually the fill will be level with the existing ground.

Four scrapes will be utilized on this site, with three being located in the southwest corner of the project site which is where all the sites drainage ditches are located as well. This will reduce the cost by minimizing the distance of soil from a scrape to fill a ditch. Scrapes are also located in the southwest corner of the site because of the low topography relative to local conditions, creating long periods of water saturation. The final and fourth scrape is located in the northwest corner; this was an area where the design team observed ponding due to a depressional feature during a site survey. This feature presented itself as an opportunity to create a scrape and expose more water for the wetland. Since there are no drainage ditches, the excavated soil will have to be spoiled onto the upland area nearby and graded out evenly.

Within the easement boundaries, there are areas of existing wetlands, prairie and forest regions, which will be consider restriction zones and should be left untouched by construction crews. The remaining area will be subjected to a seeding, which is laid out in the seeding plan and report within this report in the following pages. These calculations, estimated volumes, and design drawings were created using AutoCAD Civil 3D 2014.

See following page for the plan view of the final design.See the Final Design - Construction Plan for individual drawings of scrapes and ditchfills on pages 31-45.

21

Materials and SeedingFor the restoration of this wetland, the only seed mixes that will be necessary are the dry

and wet mesic seed mixes. The species and rates of these mixes came from NRCS Technical Note 5 as well as the NRCS Standards 342, 643, and 644. No additional soil needs to be brought onto the site since all the soil for the ditch fills will come from scrapes excavated on site (see the final design and drawing).

Both the dry mesic and wet mesic seeding mixes are prepared with native species that occur within 200 miles of the site. The areas needed to be covered for seeding include 31 acres for the dry mesic mix and a total of 56 acres for the dry mesic mix. The dry mesic acreage is much larger than the wet mesic acreage due to the significant areas of fallow land. If this land is not seeded with the native seeding mix, it will be vulnerable to invasive species and compromise the wetland’s integrity and biological diversity.

23

Wildlife and HabitatThe habitat aspect of our design was taken into consideration through scrape design

which was guided by the NRCS Code – 375, "Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Management." When creating ephemeral scrapes, there is in increase in biological diversity compared to a single stabilized pond, which is why vary depths and side slopes where utilized in the design process. This sites scrapes vary from 2.5 – 4 feet deep and side slopes that vary from 10:1 – 14:1 to help create site diversity. Amphibians prefer areas of nonpermanent water to prevent against predation by fish, therefore areas of shallow slope (i.e. 14:1) are created so that there is temporary inundation. Our team also wanted to create areas to promote wading bird habitat which is desirable where receding water continually exposes new shoreline. This is incorporated into this site by having scrapes with a 10:1 side slope, so that the banks experience more long term water saturation. Another goal was to attract waterfowl, which like areas of open water for resting, feeding and brood-rearing. Areas where permanent inundation would occur were designed by using the maximum depth of four feet deep, to hopefully create year-long standing water.

One consideration made while trying to form a suitable wetland habitat was the Blanding’s turtle. The Blanding’s turtle is a species on the special concern list in Wisconsin and it has been sighted and known to occur around the designated site. One of the biggest factors contributing to the Blanding’s turtle being on the special concern species list is its time to mature. It takes 17 to 20 years before the Blanding’s turtle is fully mature and able to reproduce. This species is known to utilize both deep and shallow marshes, needing areas of dense emergent and submergent vegetation. The site would still need dry areas due to the turtle spending a good portion of its life on land forging. To overwinter in an area, the Blanding’s turtle needs standing water that is more than 3 feet deep and also sandy soil nests that are in close proximity to water from May to July. (DNR, 2014)

25

Economic AnalysisDetermination for a final cost of this restoration project was done through economic

analysis of labor, equipment and materials required for the final design. For the Jefferson County Wetland Restoration Project, a budget of $50,000 dollars was provided by the Wisconsin NRCS. The total project cost for our final design came out to $54, 589, due to large amount of fallow land that need to be seeded. We were able to receive this extra funding from the NRCS due to the necessity of leaving no fallow land exposed for the potential of invasive species entering the site and diminishing the biological diversity. The individual costs for this project were provided to our team by employees at the WI-NRCS State Office.

The total earth moving construction cost for our site equated to $25, 689. This cost includes the labor and equipment needed to excavate scrapes and fill ditches. The amount $3 per cubic yard was the amount used to analyze the economic aspects of the project. This cost factored in that once the soil was excavated it would be transport to a ditchfill or be spoiled in the uplands, which is the reason why the cost is only associated with scrapes and not ditchfills in the expenditures figure following this page.

The highest cost seen in the economic analysis of our site comes from seeding. A large portion of the site must be seeded to avoid invasive species moving in and compromising the restoration process. The fallow land that was once used for agriculture must be seeded with native species that were chosen using the seeding plan. Based on NRCS seeding Standards it typically costs $300 per acre to seed wet mesic areas and $350 per acre to seed the dry mesic areas. There will also be necessary operation and maintenance costs with the seeding. It is necessary to mow after the seeding mixes have been deployed, to help keep back invasive species while the native species start to grow and take root in the site.

A table with expenditures costs and amounts is on the following page.

26

Construction Cost: Excavation and Fill Unit Quantity Cost per unit Total Cost

Scrape 1 Cubic Yards 1276 $3 $3,828




Total Earth Moving Construction Cost $25,689

~Scrape Cost includes excavation, as well a earth relocation to ditch or spoil within about 300 feet~

Seeding Cost Unit Quantity Cost per unit Total Cost

Wet Mesic Area Acre 31 $300 $9,300

Dry Mesic Area Acre 56 $350 $19,600

Total Seeding Cost $28,900

Total Project Cost $54,589

27

ConclusionThe restoration of wetlands that have been drained for agricultural purposes has many

beneficial functions that have become evident. With nearly 50% of wetlands lost since 1985 in Wisconsin, projects like this one, associated with the NRCS, are slowly reducing that number. Over time, the benefits will become apparent that wetlands provide important functions for society as the efforts are maintained. The design follows all NRCS standards, codes and common hydrologic calculations that make it ready to be implemented in the state of Wisconsin.

In our final design, the four scrapes will provide enough soil to fill all drainage ditches within the site boundaries, which will stop most of the drainage on the site. This will hopefully restore the natural hydrology and the scrapes will also provide depressions where yearlong saturation will occur. The execution of our seeding plan is just as important because we aimed to cover all fallow land on this easement, to prevent any invasive species from entering and jeopardizing the biodiversity of the wetland. The design team is confident that based on our design goals, calculations, budget, and analysis that the final design is a design-build plan that will effectively restore the area within the easement boundary to its native function. There are tentative plans for this design to be implemented in the summer of 2015 by the Wisconsin – NRCS.

28

Final Design - Construction Plan

29

Appendix

42

Bibliography

Scholarly Articles and Journals:

“Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)” Endangered Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Web. 7 October 2014

Eggers, Steve D., and Donald M. Reed. "Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin." NPWRC: Northern Praire Wildlife Research Center. USGS, 22 July 2013. Web. 30 Jan. 2014.

Hagen, Cherie. June 2008, “REVERSING THE LOSS.” a strategy to protect, restore and explore Wisconsin’s wetlands. Department of Natural Resources.

Phillips, B. D., Skaggs, R. W., and G. M. Chescheir. 2010. A Method to Determine Lateral Effect of a Drainage Ditch on Wetland Hydrology: Field Testing. Trans. ASABE 53(4): 1087 – 1096.

"Stormwater Wetland." National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.

Standards and Codes:

“Federal Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook (NEH-653).” United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource Conservation Service. Oct. 1998.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Critical Area Planting. Code 342, September 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Management, Code 375, May 2011.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Pond, Code 378, May 2011.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats. Code 643, September 2010

47

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management, Code 644, April 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Constructed Wetland, Code 656, July 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Wetland Restoration, Code 657, revised September 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Wetland Creation, Code 658, September 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wisconsin Supplements to the National Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 19: Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination. (EFH) – Part 650. 2011.

"Wetland Classification System." Wisconsin Wetlands Association. N.p., 2002. Web

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wetland Conservation Activities, NR 353, May 2013.

Contacts and Interviews:

Koenig, Tracy. Executive Director of the Heckrodt Wetland Reserve heckrodtwetlands.tk.tds.net (920) 720-9349Tracy Koenig is an executive director for the past 16 years at the Heckrodt Wetland Reserve in Menasha, Wisconsin. She is an environmental specialist who earned her education from both the University of Mississippi and Bowling Green State University. In our interview, we discussed the importance of Wisconsin wetlands and how water quality is affected by the lack of wetlands.

Mueller, Scott, P.E. Assistant State Conservation Engineer, WI-NRCS, [email protected], (608) 444-9246Scott Mueller is an Assistant State Conservation Engineer for the Natural Resources Conservation Service; a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he helps manage and create engineering conservation solutions. He is a 26 year member of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE). Within the ASABE organization he serves as a technical committee member, committee secretary, and writer for the Agricultural

48

Engineering professional engineer exam. He also is a qualified professional engineer (PE). Scott is helping facilitate our wetland restoration project and is assisting us with the process of designing, implementing and managing our project.

Ramsden, John, P.E. State Conservation Engineer WI-NRCS. John Ramsden is the State Conservation Engineer for the Wisconsin Natural Resource Conservation Service; a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he oversees the agencies engineering staff to help them assist state and local agencies with implementing conservation practices. He has been the State Conservation Engineer in Wisconsin since 1994 and was recently named the National NRCS Engineer of the Year in 2011. As a professional engineer, John has provided us with a large amount that has helped us in the research and design process of our project.

Sollom, Steven. Pinnacle Engineering, Chemical Engineer,[email protected] , (763) 315-4507Steve has B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of North Dakota and works for an environmental engineering firm called Pinnacle Engineering in Maple Grove, Minnesota. Pinnacle Engineering has many clients and they cover a various array of engineering problems that range from wetland restoration projects to portable wastewater treatment systems. Steve has over 7 years of experience with Pinnacle Engineering and has a plethora of knowledge in the environmental engineering field. He helps Pinnacle Engineering come up with simple solutions to complex engineering problems. Steve has given us information on the process of wetland restoration. He helped us layout a plan and steps to create a solution for this project.

49

final report - jefferson county wetland restoration (1)

Documents