Feasibility study
Feasibility study Creating a wetland community in the Lower Tidal Schuylkill River
Jim D’Agostino, g , Jr. Philadelphia Water Department Office of Watersheds
Overview Onlyy small remnants of once continuous freshwater tidal wetlands remain
• Increase habitat for
Sunoco
BRC
juvenile American shad and other fish species. • Increase I h habitat bit t for f resident and migratory birds • Increase habitat for the threatened redredbellied turtle • Improve local water quality
Vision
The chosen area
• Pros:
• Cons:
• • • • • •
• Industrial Urban area • Limited human
Ownership Protection afforded Accessibility Average g depth p Suitable substrate Limited disturbance
presence • Average depth • Amount of flotsam • Nature of flotsam
Site S te su suitability tab ty • The city owns one half of the basin. Sun refining owns the other half
• The area can be easily accessed on foot
• There is a small measure
of bulkhead protection and the routine docking of PWD barges
• There is little human
recreation in this area to disrupt the foliage.
• An existing mudflat • Tidal flow is generally
gentle and the dailyy g maximum water depth is between 5 – 6 feet
The downside An Industrial urban area, refinery and pump station discharge
• • Appreciable bl amount off large l timber b and d man made d flotsam fl • There is so little human traffic that waterfowl are largely undisturbed • Average tidal depth is at the upper limits acceptable for foliage chosen.
Foliage used
Nuphar lutea/advena Spatterdock
Sagittaria latifolia Duck potato
Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed
Peltandra virginica Arrow arum
• These species p were chosen for their abilityy to tolerate tidal conditions and their g natural range • Several sources were used to determine the maximum depth of water each could handle. • We used the maximum depths listed in the literature (Creating Freshwater Wetlands 2nd ed. ed D D. A A. Hammer) • Our daily tidal maximum depth is 5 – 6 feet
Grid placement and planting assignment
Protective measures employed • Grazing G i b by •
• •
waterfowl was a major concern Canada Geese (Branta canadensis ) are the main grazing fowl Persistent and aggressive Difficult to deter using limited passive measures
Fenced grids and twine top cover • The area was
broken into 25 grids of 15 X 15 Feet • The fence employed l d was 30 inch construction fence • Top cover was later employed on 6 grids.
Results
Time 10/23/200 08
10/9/200 08
9/25/200 08
9/11/200 08
8/28/200 08
8/14/200 08
7/31/200 08
7/17/200 08
7/3/200 08
6/19/200 08
6/5/200 08
5/22/200 08
Pe ercent grid cove erage
Foliage performance
140%
120%
100%
80% Sagittaria latifolia
Pontederia cordata
60% Peltandra virginica
Nuphar lutea/advena
40%
20%
0%
Nuphar p lutea/advena Spatterdock
• Foliage was not as heavily grazed as the
other species • Plants got “leggy” • Maximum depth was likely exceeded • Plants simply had to work too hard to get established
Grid Grid 16 Grid Grid Grid16 16 16 16 Grid 16 66 -8-22-08 -20 205-08 -08 7-3-08 7-18-08 10-03-08 11-05-08 8-4-08
Nuphar Nupharlutea/advena lutea/advena Nuphar lutea/advena Nuphar lutea/advena
140%
120%
100%
80%
60% Percentag ge Vegetative Cov verage
Grid 16 Nuphar lutea/advena Top cover added on 8/6/08 200%
180%
160%
40%
20%
0%
11/13/200 08 11/6/2008 8 10/30/200 08 10/23/200 08 10/16/200 08 10/9/2008 8 10/2/2008 8 9/25/2008 8 9/18/2008 8 9/11/2008 8 9/4/2008 8/28/2008 8 8/21/2008 8 8/14/2008 8 8/7/2008 7/31/2008 8 7/24/2008 8 7/17/2008 8 7/10/2008 8 7/3/2008 6/26/2008 8 6/19/2008 8 8 6/12/2008 6/5/2008
Date
Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed
• Our most successful specie • Grids that received top cover began to
recover quickly • Suffered heavy grazing in every instance • Likely to be the specie that emerges in the coming spring. spring
Grid Grid2222 Grid Grid 6-20-08 7-3-08 8-4-08 6-5-08 7-18-08 8-22-08 10-3-08 11-5-08
Pontederia cordata Pontederia Pontederia cordata cordata Pontederia cordata Pontederia Pontederiacordata cordata
11/13/08
11/6/08
10/30/08
10/23/08
10/16/08
10/9/08
10/2/08
9/25/08
9/18/08
9/11/08
9/4/08
8/28/08
8/21/08
8/14/08
8/7/08
7/31/08
7/24/08
7/17/08
7/10/08
7/3/08
6/26/08
6/19/08
6/12/08
6/5/08
Percentage Vegetative Cove er
Grid 2 Pontederia cordata T Top cover added dd d on 7-18-08 7 18 08
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Sagittaria g latifolia Duck Potato
• The least successful plant we introduced • They were grazed immediately upon
planting • There also seemed to be an overall failure to thrive.
Grid Grid Grid14 14 14 6-5-08 6-20-08 7-18-08 10-3-08 11-5-08 8-4-08 8-22-08 7-3-08
Sagittarialatifolia latifolia Sagittaria Sagittaria latifolia
140%
% 120%
100%
80%
60% Percenttage Vegetative Co overage
Grid 14 Sagittaria latifolia 200%
180%
160%
40%
20%
0%
11/13/2 2008 11/6/20 008 10/30/2 2008 10/23/2 2008 10/16/2 2008 10/9/20 008 10/2/20 008 9/25/20 008 9/18/20 008 9/11/20 008 9/4/200 08 8/28/20 008 8/21/20 008 8/14/20 008 8/7/200 08 7/31/20 008 7/24/20 008 7/17/20 008 7/10/20 008 7/3/200 08 6/26/20 008 6/19/20 008 6/12/20 008 6/5/200 08
Date
Peltandra virginica g Arrow Arum
• Had a similar failure rate to Sagittaria • Grazing was a major factor • A very small amount remained likely due to a late installed top cover cover.
Grid Grid Grid 7 77 6-5-08 6-20-08 7-3-08 7-18-08 8-22-08 10-3-08 11-5-08 8-4-08
Peltandra virginica Peltandra virginica Peltandra Peltandra virginica virginica Peltandra virginica
11/13/200 08
11/6/200 08
10/30/200 08
10/23/200 08
10/16/200 08
10/9/200 08
10/2/200 08
9/25/200 08
9/18/200 08
9/11/200 08
9/4/200 08
8/28/200 08
8/21/200 08
8/14/200 08
8/7/200 08
7/31/200 08
7/24/200 08
7/17/200 08
7/10/200 08
7/3/200 08
6/26/200 08
6/19/200 08
6/12/200 08
6/5/200 08
5/29/200 08
5/22/200 08
Percen ntage Vegetative e Cover
Grid 7 Peltandra virginica Top p cover added on 08-06-08
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Flotsam damage
Types of Flotsam • The chosen area is
subject to timber and man made d Flotsam Fl t off varying sizes • These materials damage fence grids and top covers by: – Pushing down – Pulling g up p – Tearing away
Results of protection damage
Effects ects o on foliage o age
Geese are deterred by human presence
Cannot use several accepted p methods for varying reasons
• Hunting not allowed in city limits
especially near a refinery • Chase dogs, cost and potentially difficult terrain te a • Cannons or screamers, cost and potential Homeland Security issues. issues • Artificial owls, snakes or other predators are not really that effective long term
Lessons learned • Grazing is a
significant factor in f li foliage failure f il • Grids that had top covers even when installed late in the project fared much better than those that were not covered
• Flotsam must be
deflected or otherwise th i kept k t outt off the grids. • Top covers should be installed much sooner and must be maintained to preserve their integrity.
Questions that remain • How much established foliage is needed to exceed the grazing effects • Will more foliage simply mean more consumers co su e s • What are the most cost effective and successful passive measures that can protect the foliage.
Jim D’Agostino, g , Jr. Philadelphia Water Department Office of Watersheds
Overview Onlyy small remnants of once continuous freshwater tidal wetlands remain
• Increase habitat for
Sunoco
BRC
juvenile American shad and other fish species. • Increase I h habitat bit t for f resident and migratory birds • Increase habitat for the threatened redredbellied turtle • Improve local water quality
Vision
The chosen area
• Pros:
• Cons:
• • • • • •
• Industrial Urban area • Limited human
Ownership Protection afforded Accessibility Average g depth p Suitable substrate Limited disturbance
presence • Average depth • Amount of flotsam • Nature of flotsam
Site S te su suitability tab ty • The city owns one half of the basin. Sun refining owns the other half
• The area can be easily accessed on foot
• There is a small measure
of bulkhead protection and the routine docking of PWD barges
• There is little human
recreation in this area to disrupt the foliage.
• An existing mudflat • Tidal flow is generally
gentle and the dailyy g maximum water depth is between 5 – 6 feet
The downside An Industrial urban area, refinery and pump station discharge
• • Appreciable bl amount off large l timber b and d man made d flotsam fl • There is so little human traffic that waterfowl are largely undisturbed • Average tidal depth is at the upper limits acceptable for foliage chosen.
Foliage used
Nuphar lutea/advena Spatterdock
Sagittaria latifolia Duck potato
Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed
Peltandra virginica Arrow arum
• These species p were chosen for their abilityy to tolerate tidal conditions and their g natural range • Several sources were used to determine the maximum depth of water each could handle. • We used the maximum depths listed in the literature (Creating Freshwater Wetlands 2nd ed. ed D D. A A. Hammer) • Our daily tidal maximum depth is 5 – 6 feet
Grid placement and planting assignment
Protective measures employed • Grazing G i b by •
• •
waterfowl was a major concern Canada Geese (Branta canadensis ) are the main grazing fowl Persistent and aggressive Difficult to deter using limited passive measures
Fenced grids and twine top cover • The area was
broken into 25 grids of 15 X 15 Feet • The fence employed l d was 30 inch construction fence • Top cover was later employed on 6 grids.
Results
Time 10/23/200 08
10/9/200 08
9/25/200 08
9/11/200 08
8/28/200 08
8/14/200 08
7/31/200 08
7/17/200 08
7/3/200 08
6/19/200 08
6/5/200 08
5/22/200 08
Pe ercent grid cove erage
Foliage performance
140%
120%
100%
80% Sagittaria latifolia
Pontederia cordata
60% Peltandra virginica
Nuphar lutea/advena
40%
20%
0%
Nuphar p lutea/advena Spatterdock
• Foliage was not as heavily grazed as the
other species • Plants got “leggy” • Maximum depth was likely exceeded • Plants simply had to work too hard to get established
Grid Grid 16 Grid Grid Grid16 16 16 16 Grid 16 66 -8-22-08 -20 205-08 -08 7-3-08 7-18-08 10-03-08 11-05-08 8-4-08
Nuphar Nupharlutea/advena lutea/advena Nuphar lutea/advena Nuphar lutea/advena
140%
120%
100%
80%
60% Percentag ge Vegetative Cov verage
Grid 16 Nuphar lutea/advena Top cover added on 8/6/08 200%
180%
160%
40%
20%
0%
11/13/200 08 11/6/2008 8 10/30/200 08 10/23/200 08 10/16/200 08 10/9/2008 8 10/2/2008 8 9/25/2008 8 9/18/2008 8 9/11/2008 8 9/4/2008 8/28/2008 8 8/21/2008 8 8/14/2008 8 8/7/2008 7/31/2008 8 7/24/2008 8 7/17/2008 8 7/10/2008 8 7/3/2008 6/26/2008 8 6/19/2008 8 8 6/12/2008 6/5/2008
Date
Pontederia cordata Pickerel weed
• Our most successful specie • Grids that received top cover began to
recover quickly • Suffered heavy grazing in every instance • Likely to be the specie that emerges in the coming spring. spring
Grid Grid2222 Grid Grid 6-20-08 7-3-08 8-4-08 6-5-08 7-18-08 8-22-08 10-3-08 11-5-08
Pontederia cordata Pontederia Pontederia cordata cordata Pontederia cordata Pontederia Pontederiacordata cordata
11/13/08
11/6/08
10/30/08
10/23/08
10/16/08
10/9/08
10/2/08
9/25/08
9/18/08
9/11/08
9/4/08
8/28/08
8/21/08
8/14/08
8/7/08
7/31/08
7/24/08
7/17/08
7/10/08
7/3/08
6/26/08
6/19/08
6/12/08
6/5/08
Percentage Vegetative Cove er
Grid 2 Pontederia cordata T Top cover added dd d on 7-18-08 7 18 08
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Sagittaria g latifolia Duck Potato
• The least successful plant we introduced • They were grazed immediately upon
planting • There also seemed to be an overall failure to thrive.
Grid Grid Grid14 14 14 6-5-08 6-20-08 7-18-08 10-3-08 11-5-08 8-4-08 8-22-08 7-3-08
Sagittarialatifolia latifolia Sagittaria Sagittaria latifolia
140%
% 120%
100%
80%
60% Percenttage Vegetative Co overage
Grid 14 Sagittaria latifolia 200%
180%
160%
40%
20%
0%
11/13/2 2008 11/6/20 008 10/30/2 2008 10/23/2 2008 10/16/2 2008 10/9/20 008 10/2/20 008 9/25/20 008 9/18/20 008 9/11/20 008 9/4/200 08 8/28/20 008 8/21/20 008 8/14/20 008 8/7/200 08 7/31/20 008 7/24/20 008 7/17/20 008 7/10/20 008 7/3/200 08 6/26/20 008 6/19/20 008 6/12/20 008 6/5/200 08
Date
Peltandra virginica g Arrow Arum
• Had a similar failure rate to Sagittaria • Grazing was a major factor • A very small amount remained likely due to a late installed top cover cover.
Grid Grid Grid 7 77 6-5-08 6-20-08 7-3-08 7-18-08 8-22-08 10-3-08 11-5-08 8-4-08
Peltandra virginica Peltandra virginica Peltandra Peltandra virginica virginica Peltandra virginica
11/13/200 08
11/6/200 08
10/30/200 08
10/23/200 08
10/16/200 08
10/9/200 08
10/2/200 08
9/25/200 08
9/18/200 08
9/11/200 08
9/4/200 08
8/28/200 08
8/21/200 08
8/14/200 08
8/7/200 08
7/31/200 08
7/24/200 08
7/17/200 08
7/10/200 08
7/3/200 08
6/26/200 08
6/19/200 08
6/12/200 08
6/5/200 08
5/29/200 08
5/22/200 08
Percen ntage Vegetative e Cover
Grid 7 Peltandra virginica Top p cover added on 08-06-08
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Flotsam damage
Types of Flotsam • The chosen area is
subject to timber and man made d Flotsam Fl t off varying sizes • These materials damage fence grids and top covers by: – Pushing down – Pulling g up p – Tearing away
Results of protection damage
Effects ects o on foliage o age
Geese are deterred by human presence
Cannot use several accepted p methods for varying reasons
• Hunting not allowed in city limits
especially near a refinery • Chase dogs, cost and potentially difficult terrain te a • Cannons or screamers, cost and potential Homeland Security issues. issues • Artificial owls, snakes or other predators are not really that effective long term
Lessons learned • Grazing is a
significant factor in f li foliage failure f il • Grids that had top covers even when installed late in the project fared much better than those that were not covered
• Flotsam must be
deflected or otherwise th i kept k t outt off the grids. • Top covers should be installed much sooner and must be maintained to preserve their integrity.
Questions that remain • How much established foliage is needed to exceed the grazing effects • Will more foliage simply mean more consumers co su e s • What are the most cost effective and successful passive measures that can protect the foliage.
