Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Group ProjectGroup Project

Emily Bosanquet Todd Cooper

Ann Hayden Vicky Krikelas Michelle Torrent

Faculty Advisors:

Professor Trish Holden Professor Mike McGinnis

PURPOSEPURPOSE

Present goal and significance

Describe approach

Solicit feedback

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

GOALGOAL

To provide the EPA with preliminary wetland mitigation alternatives to compensate for wetlands lost during Casmalia site clean up.

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

PROJECT SITEPROJECT SITE

EPA carrying out long term remediation of site

Wetlands:

consist of 5 ponds

collect storm water runoff

support wetland habitat

SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT

CERCLA

Clean Water Act

Endangered Species Act

RESOLVE CONFLICT FACILITATE LONG TERM REMEDIATION

Protection of wetlands

Cleanup of toxic wastes

Preservation of listed speciesProvide Wetland

Mitigation Alternatives

Endangered Species ActCalifornia’s Fish and Game Code

CERCLA

Clean Water Act

CERCLA

OBJECTIVES & APPROACHOBJECTIVES & APPROACHCharacterize wetlands / Define Regulatory Framework

Review case studies

Outline potential alternatives

Use criteria to evaluate alternatives

Recommend alternative(s)

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

REGULATORY FRAMEWORKREGULATORY FRAMEWORK

ARARSFEDERAL

LOCAL

STATEClean Water ActEndangered Species Act

CA Fish & Game Regulations(5:1 MitigationRatio required)

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

CERCLA

Site Cleanup

CHARACTERIZE SITE CHARACTERIZE SITE WETLANDSWETLANDS

Delineate extent of wetlands

Describe:– Hydrology– Geology (soils, topography)– Biological Resources (vegetation, animals)

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

REVIEW CASE STUDIESREVIEW CASE STUDIES

Similar Case Studies including:- Wetland mitigation

- CERCLA cleanups

- Presence of Endangered Species

Vandenberg Air Force Base

Guadalupe Oil Field Restoration

Sweetwater Marsh

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

DEFINE CRITERIADEFINE CRITERIA

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

THRESHOLDHuman Health & Environment

ARARS

PRIMARY

Effectiveness

Geological

Hydrological

Biological

Implementability

Cost

DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVESDESCRIBE ALTERNATIVES

Casmalia Creek

#

B Drainage North

#

B Drainage South

#

C Drainage

ALTERNATIVES• No Action

• B Drainage North

• B Drainage South

• C Drainage

• Mitigation Bank

Evaluation MatrixEvaluation Matrix

ALTERNATIVES

CRITERIA NO ACTION

B DRAINAGE

NORTH

B DRAINAGE

SOUTH

C DRAINAGE

MITIGATION

BANK

OPHH&E

YES

ARARS COMPLIANCE

YES

SHORT-TERM

EFFECTIVENESS

LONG-TERM

EFFECTIVENESS Geological Criteria

Hydrological Criteria

25

Biological Criteria

5

IMPLEMENTABILITY

COSTS

POSSIBLE RESULTSPOSSIBLE RESULTS

HIGHEST RANKED ALTERNATIVES WILL LIKELY BE:

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

MITIGATION BANK

B DRAINAGES&

C DRAINAGE

UNCERTAINTIESUNCERTAINTIES

Exact wetland delineation and size

Boundaries of contaminant plume

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

ACCOMPLISHMENTSACCOMPLISHMENTS

Developed Understanding of Regulatory Framework

Refined & Developed Criteria

Identified Comparable Case Studies

Established Required 5:1 Mitigation Ratio

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Group ProjectGroup Project

E-mail: wetlands@bren.ucsb.edu

Website: http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~wetlands