A Conceptual Plan for Resto

Sweetwater Branch Sheetflo

Paynes Prairie

April 9, 2007
Presentation Outline

•Public Works - Project B•GRU Perspective•Project Description Bob Knight, Wetland Solution•Paynes Prairie State ParJim Weimer, Park Biologist•St Johns River Water MaDistrict Casey Fitzgerald, A

Director Department of Water 
Project Background

•1992 Stormwater ManagMaster Plan•2004 Watershed ManageUpdate – Getting ready fo•2004 50 acre Wetland Pradded to the CIP •2005 Land Exchange BeSJRWMD and Paynes Prhalted•Find a solution that will sheetflow onto the Prairie
Pollutant Load Reduc

Sweetwater Branch

Water Quality Improvement Proj

Total Surface Area (acres)

Total N (lb/year)

2 Existing Basins 4.1 379 Identified Basins 26.2 1,82Enhancement Wetland 125.0 125,00
Slides Presented at 2007/2008 GRU Slides Presented at 2007/2008 GRU 

Budget Presentation Budget Presentation 
Total Maximum Daily Load Total Maximum Daily Load

•TMDL Finalized for Alachua Sink TMDL Finalized for Alachua Sink

• 

• Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) – 

– 1

• 

• Stakeholder Group Developing BMAP: Stakeholder Group Developing BMAP:

- 

- Gainesville Public Works Gainesville Public Works -GRU

-Alachua County Public Works Alachua County Public Works - 

- Alachua C

Alachua C

- 

- Marion County Marion County - 

- Town of M

 of M

-DEP (DWRM, NE District, Parks, DEP (DWRM, NE District, Parks, - 

- D

Aquatic Plant Management) Aquatic Plant Management) -DCA

-DOH-UF

-FWCC-Women fo

Women fo

-Sierra Club Sierra Club -County EP

County EP

-Sustainable Alachua County Sustainable Alachua County -SJRWMD

-City Water Management Committee City Water Management Committee -DACS For

DACS For

-DACS Agriculture DACS Agriculture - 

- Private Se

Private Se

-Forestry Industry Forestry Industry -Town of M

Town of M

• 

• BMAP will be Signed by all Stakeholders BMAP will be Signed by all Stakeholders

• 

• BMAP will be Adopted by FDEP Secretarial 

BMAP will be Adopted by FDEP Secretarial 
Basin Management Action Plan Basin Management Action Plan

• 

• Facility Cost for GRU to Meet the Facility Cost for GRU to Meet the BMAP could range from $10 to BMAP could range from $10 to $40 Million $40 Million

• 

• GRU Facilities would Accomplish GRU Facilities would Accomplish 

26% of Required Reduction 26% of Required Reduction

• 

• 69% of Required Reduction from 69% of Required Reduction from 

Natural Systems Natural Systems
Basin Management Action Plan Basin Management Action Plan

• 

• Uncertain if/how Reductions Uncertain if/how Reductions 

from Natural Systems will Natural Systems willbe Accomplished be Accomplished

• 

• Uncertain if Utility Uncertain if Utility 

Expenditures would Improve Expenditures would Improve Water Quality Water Qualityat Alachua Sink if other at Alachua Sink if other Reductions not Accomplished Reductions not Accomplished 

• FDEP will Request that City Commission Com

BMAP Projects

• Could Increase Wastewater Rates Additional 
GRU 

Compliance with Alachua Sink TM

Compliance with Alachua Sink TM
Outline Outline

•TMDL Explanation TMDL Explanation•Alachua Sink TMDL Development Alachua Sink TMDL Development

•GRU’sAlternatives for meeting TMDL Alternatives for meeting TMDL

•Project Costs Project Costs
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

•Mandated by EPA and FDEP Mandated by EPA and FDEP•Sets maximum allowable pollutant loads to Sets maximum allowable pollutant loads to 

water bodies water bodies

•Requires all sources to reduce loads of Requires all sources to reduce loads of poll

poll

causing water body to impaired causing water body to impaired

•Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) e

Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) e

how TMDL will be met how TMDL will be met
Alachua Sink TMDL Alachua Sink TMDL

– 

– TMDL for Total Nitrogen (Jan 2006) TMDL for Total Nitrogen (Jan 2006)

• 

• Wastewater (MSWRF) Wastewater (MSWRF) 55% N reduction 55% N reduction

• 

• Stormwater Stormwater 45% N reduction 45% N reduction

•Other Sources Other Sources 45% N Reduction 45% N Reduction
GRU Alternatives to Meet Alachua 

GRU Alternatives to Meet Alachu

TMDL

•Water Reuse from MSWRF Water Reuse from MSWRF

– 

– 5.8 mgdreuse

• 

• Rapid Infiltration Basis Rapid Infiltration Basis

•Irrigation/Public Access Reuse Irrigation/Public Access Reuse

–$21

-$35 M

•Proposed Sweetwater Branch/ Proposed Sweetwater Branch/PaynesPrairi

Prairi

Restoration Project Restoration Project

– 

– $20

-25 M estimated total cost 25 M estimated total cost

– 

– Cost share between GRU & PWD & other fun

Cost share between GRU & PWD & other fun
Current & Potential Funding Partn

Current & Potential Funding Partn

• 

• FDEP

• 

• FDOT

• 

• Alachua County Alachua County

•SJRWMD•Florida Wildlife 

Florida Wildlife 

•Fed/Legislative g

Fed/Legislative g

•Alachua County 

Alachua County 

•Others
Preliminary Costs Preliminary Costs

•Approximate City Cost ~$21M Approximate City Cost ~$21M

–Additional outside funding sought Additional outside funding sought–Not including public access facilities Not including public access facilities

•GRU & PWD split of City GRU & PWD split of City’s costs s costs

–Cost for each project component split bas

Cost for each project component split bas

on design load from each source on design load from each source

–Agreement on allocating grants Agreement on allocating grants– 

– Preliminary Preliminary Cost split: Cost split: GRUPW

»Capital Capital 73%27

»O&M80%20
Summary Summary

•Alachua Sink TMDL Alachua Sink TMDL

–55% N reduction from MSWRF 55% N reduction from MSWRF–45% N reduction from stormwater & non 45% N reduction from stormwater & non-point sou

point sou

–Will be binding in GRU MSWRF & PWD Stormw

Will be binding in GRU MSWRF & PWD Stormw

•SWB/PP Restoration SWB/PP Restoration

–Meets TMDL for GRU, PWD, FDOT Meets TMDL for GRU, PWD, FDOT–Cost-effective compared to reuse alternative effective compared to reuse alternative

–Environmental & Public benefits Environmental & Public benefits–Optimize outside funding partners/sources Optimize outside funding partners/sources–Partnership Partnership
A Conceptual Plan for Restor

Sweetwater Branch Sheetflow to 

Prairie

April 9, 2007

Robert Knight, Ph.D. 

Wetland Solutions, Inc.
Presentation Outline

•Project Backgroun•Conceptual Plan Summary•Environmental Assessment•Implementation•Questions

W
Project Location

W
Description of the Problem

W

•Sweetwater Branch Channelized Directly to Alachua Sink•Increased Nutrients on Paynes Prairie due to Main Street WRF and Gainesville Stormwater•Natural Sheetflow of Sweetwater Branch Lost, Resulting in Shortened Hydroperiod•Estimated Impact Area 1,300 acres
Project Background

Previous Studies

•Paynes Prairie Management Plan (19•Wastewater Polishing Studies (1980s•Sheetflow Restoration (1990s)•Watershed Management Plans (2003•Updated Sheetflow Feasibility (June 2•Nutrient Removal Alternatives (Dec. 2

Wetl
Sheetflow Conceptual Pla

Principal Plan Components

W

1. Main Street 

WRF Upgrades

2. SWB 

Enhancement Wetland

3. Sheetflow 

Distribution

4. Backfill SWB 

Canal
Sheetflow Conceptual Pla

Main Street WRF Upgrades

•Chemical (alum) P removal to TP <0.3 mg/L•N optimization through mechanical equipment upgrades to TN <8 mg/L

W
Sheetflow Conceptual Pla

Sweetwater Branch Enhancement W

•Located offline•Channel diversion structure w/sediment pond•Four cells in two trains•122 ac wet area•Emergent marsh/open water

Wet
Sheetflow Conceptual Plan

Sheetflow Distribution Channe

We

•Mostly on Existing Channel Footprint•5,000 ft in Length•40-ft Bottom Width•11 Outlet Spillways
Sheetflow Conceptual Plan

Sweetwater Canal Restoration

We

•Backfill about 10,000 ft of existing Sweetwater Branch Canal•Replant 33 ac with native wetland vegetation•Eliminate direct connection to Alachua Sink
Environmental Assessme

•Water Quality Benefits

•Exceeds total N TMDL•Achieves background total N and P on P•Removes suspended sediment loads from 

•Hydrologic Restoration Benefits

•Restores Sweetwater Branch sheetflow to 1,300 ac•Reduces current water deficit on Prairie

Wetl
Environmental Assessment (c

•Wetlands Restoration

•Removes 10,000 ft of Sweetwater Branch restores pre-existing grade, and re-plants emergent wetland vegetation on 33 ac•Removes woody vegetation in vicinity of Distribution Channel and re-plants emergwetland vegetation on about 10 ac

•Wetlands Creation

•Creates 100+ ac of high-value emergent and aquatic habitat in formerly impacted 

We
Public Use Benefits

•Sweetwater Branch Wetland Park

•Hiking trails•Environmental education

•Sheetflow Area

•Prairie overview

We
Comparable Constructed Wet

Orlando Wilderness Park

We

•Start 1987•1,200 ac•Reuse to St. Johns River
Orlando Wilderness Park

W

•TN reduced fro0.8 mg/L•TP reduced froto 0.06 mg/L
Indian River County Wetla

We

•Start 1996•135 ac•Reuse to Indian River Lagoon
Indian River County Wetla

W
Questions?

W
Paynes Prairie Preserve 

State Park

Jim Weimer, Park Biologis
Sweetwater Branch 

Sweetwater Branch 

Paynes Prairie Paynes Prairie 

Sheetflow Restoratio

Sheetflow Restoratio

A Partnership With The A Partnership With The 

St. Johns River St. Johns River 

Water Management Distr

Water Management Distr

Casey Fitzgerald, Assistant Di

Department of Water Resou
Paynes 

Prairie Prairie

•an Outstanding Florida Water, State 

an Outstanding Florida Water, State 

National Natural Landmark National Natural Landmark•in the Orange Creek Basin in the Orange Creek Basin “Surface 

Surface 

Improvement and Management Improvement and Management”(SWI

(SWI

#061100
St. Johns River St. Johns River 

Water Management Dist

Water Management Dist

Participation Participation

COST-SHARING• To date, obtained $850,000 in legislative ap

for construction of enhancement wetland

• Cost-share with City on purchase of land to 

exchange for enhancement wetland site

PERMITTING• District will review Environmental Resourc

applications for project construction in wet
Project Benefits

•Water Quality Benefits

•Exceeds total N TMDL•Achieves background total N and P on •Removes suspended sediment loads from 

•Hydrologic Restoration Benefits•Wetlands Restoration•Wetlands Creation•Public Recreation Opportunity
Next Steps Next Steps

•Develop Land Exchange MOU Develop Land Exchange MOU•Develop PW / GRU Cost Share MOU Develop PW / GRU Cost Share MOU

•Seek Grants and New Project Partners Seek Grants and New Project Partners•Begin Consultant Selection for Project Des

Begin Consultant Selection for Project Des
Planning-Level Cost Estim

Project Component

Construction 

Cost ($)

Mobilization, 

Contingency,

Engineering ($) Capital Cost ($)

Main Street WRF Upgrades $ 1,300,000 $ 650,00

0 $ 1,950,00

0 

Sweetwater Branch Channel 

Improvements $ 831,600 $ 415,80

0 $ 1,247,40

0 

Sweetwater Branch SedimentForebay/Trashrack/Weir 

Diversion Structure/SedimentRemoval $ 485,450 $ 242,72

5 $ 728,17

5 

Sweetwater Branch Constructed Wetland $ 7,320,600 $ 3,660,300 $ 10,980,90

0 

Sheetflow Distribution Channel $ 2,898,702 $ 1,449,351 $ 4,348,05

3 

Sweetwater Branch CanalRestoration $ 657,890 $ 328,94

5 $ 986,83

5 

Public Use Amenities $ 1,850,000 $ 925,00

0 $ 2,775,00

0 

Project Monitoring $ 14,000 $ 7,00

0 $ 21,000 

Estimated Total $ 15,358,242 $ 7,679,121 $ 23,037,36

3 

Note: Assumes mobilization, contingency, engineering = 0.5 x construction cost