WATERSHED QUAL MGMT
WATERSHED QUAL MGMT ESM 224
Popular in Course
Popular in Environmental Science and Resource Management
This 31 page Class Notes was uploaded by Weston Batz on Thursday October 22, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to ESM 224 at University of California Santa Barbara taught by Staff in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 19 views. For similar materials see /class/226963/esm-224-university-of-california-santa-barbara in Environmental Science and Resource Management at University of California Santa Barbara.
Reviews for WATERSHED QUAL MGMT
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/22/15
Finding SolutionsA Process Karin Bencala Po Chi Fung ESM 224 November 21 2005 What have we done in 224 Indicators of Water Resources Sustainability Elements of a Watershed Management Plan Watershed Components and Water Supply Selecting a Watershed Model Population and Water Demand Agricultural Loads and BMPs Urban Loads and BMPs Ecological Resources Finding Solutions Implementation of Sustainable Watershed Management Plans What are the problems I Water quality issues Polluted surface water ground water I Limited water supply Droughts Arid regions I Poor ecological health Riparian habitat loss Degraded rivers streams I Degraded ecosystem services Loss of wetlands our natural filtration system How do you find solutions I What are the problems I How are they connected I What are the priorities Stakeholder process for watershed management I Having a portfolio of possible solutions Ex Best Management Practices BMPs Many others I Need to have Political will Public support Solutions I Beyond BMPs I Case by Case Watershed characteristics Politics Socioeconomics Scale I Individual or a package I Shortterm vs longterm Need for Adaptive Management Portfolio of Solutions I Urban BMPs I Ag BMPs I Water reuse technologies Grey water systems Shower to Flowers Reclaim water systems I Ground water recharge I Increasing water use efficiency Case Study Southern Nevada Las Vegas Southern Nevada I Problems Water Authority SNWA Desert Limited water Big Bend Water District supply I Boulder City Fast QFOWing population and I Clark Countv Water development Reclamation District I Henderson I What do they need to do I Las Vegas N d t k ee 0 ma e sure I lb ilsstpilcetqas Valley Water that there is an ade uate water su l I North Las Veg as for She future pp y Southern Nevada Figure 9 W ater Use by Source 90 of water from the Colorado River Source SNWA Water Resource Plan 2005 Figure l SNWA Water Demand and Water Resaurces Future aeoureea 2005 21318 Draught Reamnae 39 39 2th to EEIVEE Bank Recovery FE 3931 3 H39u39 Bani Flewu39a i39 EJ CJ 3 H39e39l Ee ealou InEfa la aeuureaa Etareier Irr SLate Rmruae Transfers and Enlsrsangaa Interim Surplua rt m alla le 333th 1EIIJE3 39JIZI3ZII QCIIDED BCJBEJ Projected Demand I F f 39E39339J Future Resources EC 13C 5213 21363 EEJDEJ Current Resources ZEJDEZI SIDED Source SNWA Water Resource Plan 2005 Southern Nevada I Conservation I Ground water development Three Lakes Valley Groundwater Development Clark Lincoln and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development I Surface water development Virgin and Muddy Rivers Surface Water Development Water Conservation Programs I Smart landscaping rebate program I Water smart home certification I Smart irrigation controller rebates I Pool cover rebates I Water smart car wash coupon program I Water efficient technologies program Cumulative savings from conservation programs Table 1 SNWA Member Water Use and Conservation Estimates 1999 to 2003 SNWA Annuai Esmnated SNWA Estimated volume Water Use Conservation Potable Water of conserved IL a m39eteetj39 Estimate use without water acre feet Conservation a orefeet 168 165 135 164 231 Source SNWA Water Resource Plan 2005 Closer look Water Smart Landscaping I Rebate Program available to Residential amp Commercial property owners I REBATE 1 per square foot for the first 50000 square feet 050 per square foot for 50001 to 550000 square feet 300000 maximum incentive per property I Must apply and be approved by inspector Water Smart Landscaping I Results 558 gallon of watersquare footyear saved 65 million square feet of grass converted 20002005 I Program Costs Between 039 to 092 per gallon Gallons of watersquare foot of turf Source SNWA Conservation Plan 2004 Water Smart landscaping I Why did the program work Public friendly Simple 1 page application Training workshops not required Not a hassle Case study Arcata CA I Small town along CA coastline near Humboldt I 19499First WWTP discharges into Humboldt Bay High in nutrients pathogens I What was the problem 19729Passage of the Clean Water Act CWA Prohibits discharge of treated wastewater into estuaries and bays Demand of a state sponsored WWTP Cost of 25 M COULD NOT AFFORD IT Source httpwwwarcatacityhallorgarcatamarshhtml Arcata Marsh amp Wildlife Refuge I How did this all start Dr George Allen wastewater aquaculture project raising Pacific Salmon and cutthroat trout in mixtures of seawater and partially treated wastewater Showed that wetlands can treat wastewater I 1983 Arcata Marsh Project accepted by CA Water Resources Control Board Source httpwwwarcatacityhallorgarcatamarshhtml Arcata Marsh amp Wildlife Refuge 307 acres 4 in I quotquot Franklin r r Aquaculture Project a Wetland Arcata Pump Station eLa Was it a good solution 71 M vs 25 M 1987 the only WWT s stem dischargin into the Humboldt Bay that actually met ederal water qua ity standards Still in use now DOES NOT smell Treats storm water runoff Wetlands amp Marshes restored Over 250 species of bird sighted Popular recreational spot Engaged the public Commercial fisheries benefited Source httpwwwarcatacityhallorgimagesmarshscenicjpg 7 Case Study Calleguas Creek Watershed Plan 1 YO Sum quot Fw 39 r r Simi Valley E a quot Thousand Qjaks Purpose A long range comprehensive that includes water resources land use economic development open space preservation enhancement and management public facility provision strategy which is cost effective and provides benefits for all participants I Examine existing data I Acquire and develop new Watershed wide action recommendations data Enable participants to develop action recommendations based on dependable technology and good science Partners General Purpose Agencies City of Camarillo City of Moorpark City of Simi Valley City of Thousand Oaks County of Ventura Flood Control District Water SuppliersWastewater Management Calleguas Municipal Water District Camrosa Water District Pleasant Valley County Water District United Water Conservation Water District Ventura County Waterworks District No 1 Zone Mutual Water Company Recreational and Open Space Entities California Department of Parks amp Recreation Conejo Recreation amp Park District Pleasant Valley Park amp Recreation District Rancho Simi Recreation amp Park District Business Organizations Industry Association Ventura County Economic Development Association Regulatory Agencies Regional Water Quality Control BoardLos Angeles Ca ifornia Coastal Commission California De artment of Fish and Game Fox Canyon roundwater Management A ency U Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service Other Agencies Organizations ssociation of Water Agencies of Ventura oun Naval Air Warfare Center Point Mugu Ventura County Resource Conservation District California Coastal Conservancy California Department of Water Resources California Native Plant Society California Wildlife Conservation Board Environmental Defense Center Natural Resources Conservation Service Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Surfrider Foundation Caltrans Issues affecting watershed Water Scarcity conflicting uses Regulating water discharges point amp nonpoint Control of toxic releases Erosionsediment loss due to agriculture and urbanization Potential conflict between wetland conservation and planned urban uses Lack of data regarding species amp habitat impacts Potential loss of upland habitat could lead to endangered species which in turn could result in regulations that have economic impacts to local communities No coordinated strategy regarding land conservation Piecemeal environmental regulation and response to them Stakeholders want to maintain and enhance quality of life General Recommendations for Wetland Habitat Improvement I Preserve Key Portions of the Watershed Upland portions of the upper watershed Groundwater recharge zones Large intact channel floodplain systems I Implement Storm Water Management Plans I Manage Storm Water Facilities for Plant and Wildlife Habitat Restore and Stabilize Stream Banks Photograph 6 Stream Bank Stabilization Photograph 7 Demonstration Stream Bank Demonstration Project Coordinated by the Restoration Project in the Cnlieguas Creek Ventura Resource Conservation District and Vatershed NRC Reduce Sediment Discharges from Orchards Phutugmph 8 Typical Orchard with little Understory Vegetation Redesign and Replace Undersized Culvert and Bridge Spans Photograph ll Sediment Depusition Upstream from an Undersized Culvert Phnmgmph 9 Scour and Bank Erosion Elder and Dowusn39eam of 31 Undersized Culvert 3 W4 ACTIVITY FINDING YOUR OWN SOLUTIONS Issues that need to be addressed Water supplies are limited yet no local consensus exists on priorities for beneficial uses of the water supply All water dischargers need to com ly with state and federal water quality standards including regulations for point an nonpoint pollution sources The watershed contains an accumulation of toxic chemicals and the control and mitigation of pollution in the watershed needs to be effective Erosion land loss and sedimentation have been accelerated by agriculture and urbanization Potential conflicts exist between wetland conservation planned urban activities and public facilities Potential specieshabitat impacts are unquantifiable because adequate data does not eXIs Upland habitat loss may result in species endangerment thereby necessitating future regulations with potentially adverse economic consequences No coordinated strategy exists to set aside public lands and a recreational trail system for use by future generations Environmental regulations and the associated responses should be coordinated and streamlined and the WMP should take a holistic rather than a piecemeal approach All stakeholders want to maintain and if possible enhance the quality of life in the Calleguas Creek Watershed Last Notes I There are many tools and knowledge available to obtain a good solution I Successful projects is backed by political will and public support I Good solutions are those that are adaptive Easier said then done I Good solutions are those that have considered the interconnectivity of issues and have the ability to illustrate it to others in order to garner support
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'