Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan Watershed Planning Group Meeting June 5, 2008 Carlsbad, CA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
S trategic S ubwatershed I dentification P rocess Illinois Department of Natural Resources Conservation 2000 Ecosystems Program.
Advertisements

Clean Water Its Everybodys Business. From a distance we might get the impression that our planet has an unlimited supply of clean water available to use.
Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan Copyright © 2005 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman. All rights reserved.
Implementing Committee Meeting May 15 th, 2014 New Braunfels MS4 program and the HCP 1.
District of Columbia Stormwater Fees October 27, 2008 Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington Brendan Shane DDOE Office of.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Green Infrastructure – Community Vision March 14, 2013 Ensuring safe and clean water for all Americans Ensuring.
Operation & Maintenance Requirements: Tips for Keeping Your Agency in Compliance Kristin Kerr, P.E., QSD EOA, Inc. New Development Workshop May 22, 2013.
Water Too Much or Too Little? Or a Little of Both? URS Group Inc ASFPM National Conference May 2010.
Infiltration Trenches Dave Briglio, P.E. MACTEC Mike Novotney Center for Watershed Protection.
Post Construction Runoff Control & BMPs J. C. Hayes, Ph.D., P.E. & D. Hitchcock, Ph.D. South Carolina Stormwater Forum May 8, 2007 Columbia, SC.
NPDES Phase II Storm Water Regulations: WHAT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS NEED TO KNOW.
& Community Design LSU Green Laws Research Project Green Laws Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry EBR Parish Tree And Landscape Commission Louisiana.
Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works. OBJECTIVE MINIMIZE OR ELIMIINATE FLOODING FROM FREQUENT SMALL STORMS Storms of 1- to 2-year frequency.
INLAND EMPIRE ASCE & APWA LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) SEMINAR INLAND EMPIRE ASCE & APWA LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) SEMINAR LID FACILITY DESIGN Prepared.
Storm Water Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Storm water management reduces quantity, and improves quality, of runoff in the watershed Site based.
Stormwater Master Plan University of North Carolina Peter A. Reinhardt Sharon Myers, L.G. Department of Environment, Health and Safety.
Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop #1 July 23, OBJECTIVES I BAIRWMP-Goals and Objectives II. DWR Guidance- “Measures” III Process IV. Proposed.
Bernie Engel Purdue University. Low-Impact Development (LID) An approach to land development to mimic the pre-development site hydrology to: 1)Reduce.
How do Wetlands Factor into New Infiltration Policies?
Jason R. Vogel, Ph.D., P.E. Stormwater Specialist Biosystem and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University.
Water Management and Conservation in the Landscape (outline) The Water Cycle Stormwater: runoff, conveyance and treatment with urban infrastructure, discharge.
Protective Regulations Ohio Lake Erie Commission Best Local Land Use Practices January, 2007 Kirby Date, Countryside Program Coordinator.
Nutrient Management in the Urban Landscape Rebecca Kluckhohn, P.E. Watershed Engineer West Metro Water Alliance Forum, May 18 th 2011 W W e n c k Engineers.
Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan Watershed Planning Group Meeting March 27, 2008 Carlsbad, CA.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Using Model Ordinances and LID Design Guidance Manuals to Overcome Implementation Obstacles Chris Conway, CPSWQ Lynn Orphan,
Steve Harrison, Environmental Manager Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control -Mosquito Control Section.
New Stormwater Regulations “C.3” Provisions in effect Feb. 15, 2005.
Sonoma Ecology Center TMDL Implementation Project Update November 4, 2011 Funded by EPA, Managed by SFEP, Administered by MMWD, and north bay partnership.
Tar-Pamlico Watershed Assessment. Proposed Water Quality Improvement Projects Improvement project types Model scenarios Targeted projects Stakeholder.
Stormwater 101 Ohio Lake Erie Commission Best Local Land Use Practices Kirby Date, AICP.
Municipal GIS Applications JOHN C. CHLARSON, P.E. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY SERVICE FURE.
Icicle Creek Salmon Habitat Conditions* Land Development has affected stream channel movement, off channel habitat, and LWD recruitment. Barriers to migration.
CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL ISLAND PROJECT Water: The Essential Ingredient & Thoughts for Sustainability ©Town of Chapel Hill Stormwater Management Division.
Why are we here today? To discuss the challenges we face in meeting NPDES Phase II minimum requirements for stormwater control. The NPDES program requires.
Implementing Post-Construction Stormwater Controls Greg Davis, EPA Region 8.
BOOKER CREEK WATERSHED PLAN WATERSHED ASSESSMENT WETLAND ASSESSMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK.
Low impact development strategies and techniques jennifer j. bitting, pe the low impact development center, inc. june 2008.
Stormwater Management for Homeowners. Where does water go?
Urban Water Research Todd Rasmussen Associate Professor of Hydrology The University of Georgia, Athens and Pending Director, Urban Water Research Institute.
Effective Post-Construction Stormwater Management Mike Novotney, P.E. (MD) Center for Watershed Protection Ronald Feldner, P.E. Ecological Solutions, Inc.
SFEP/EPA Proposal Background- prior NBWA grant EPA Funds and Process SFEP Process EPA Approval and Schedule NBWA Proposal-$1.5 Million Other Funds.
MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PERMIT UPDATE & TIMELINE Presented by Nick del Valle County of San Diego Watershed Protection Program.
New Development and Significant Development 12/21/20151 New Development & Significant Redevelopment.
Stormwater Runoff: 101 Natural groundcover absorbs, slows and filters rainwater; pavement and rooftops do not. Heavier and faster runoff leads to heavier.
Watershed Stewardship Program Status of Marin County Public Works Watershed Program 11/7/08 11/7/08.
Stormwater and GIS Eastern Panhandle WV GIS User Group Meeting September 2, 2015 Jennifer Klages - Sebastian Donner -
Update: Where We Are and Feedback Lake George Stream Corridor Management Stake Holder Meeting June 25, 2008.
Balancedgrowth.ohio.gov Case Studies in Implementation: Best Local Land Use Practices Chris Riddle, Ohio Lake Erie Commission Kirby Date, AICP, Cleveland.
A Traditional vs. Ecosystem Services Approach to Surface Water Management September 16, 2010 PRESENTED BY Carol Murdock, Clackamas County WES Mark Anderson,
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Presentation John M. Carlock, AICP Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning Hampton Roads.
Watershed Monitoring *Background Watershed Stewardship Plan-2004 Gap Projects IRWMP-Dec Policies SFEI study-2007 Joint TC/WC meeting-June 2010 *Proposed.
What is Stormwater? Direct result of rainfall Recharges groundwater by infiltration Produces “runoff” (excess rainfall after infiltration) May be concentrated.
Comprehensive Thinking and Planning
1. Wolfeboro’s Tool Kit Implemented tools for water quality protection Municipal Watershed District Ground Water Protection Overlay District Steep Slope.
Why the Need for Increased Stormwater Funding? Citizens expect a higher level of protection from flooding Increased development.
Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance 2017 Proposed Update
GREEN STREETS | GREEN JOBS | GREEN TOWNS INITIATIVE
Total Maximum Daily Load Program
Sacramento County Stormwater Quality Program
City of Forest Lake MS4 Program
MIDS calculator Quantifies reductions in runoff volume for a given BMP or group of BMPs Quantifies reductions in phosphorus (P) and TSS runoff for a given.
Henrico County Stream Assessment / Watershed Management Program
Mulberry Watershed Management Plan
Anne Arundel County Maryland
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR (Permittee)
Kickoff example Create a new file
MIDS Calculator Use - Intermediate
Hamilton Township, Mercer County, NJ Hydrologic Evaluation and Water Resources Recommendations For Planning and Implementation Rutgers Cooperative Extension.
Sacramento County Stormwater Quality Program
SHOAL CREEK WATERSHED ACTION PLAN
Presentation transcript:

Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan Watershed Planning Group Meeting June 5, 2008 Carlsbad, CA

Agenda Update on LID Research Preliminary Recommendations for Watershed Management Actions Implementation Next Steps

Update on LID Research

Bioretention  Bacteria removal significantly better than swales  Likely to need underdrain system, which increases cost  Without irrigation, need drought-tolerant plants that can also withstand inundation  Recommend sedimentation forebay to reduce risk of clogging  More research needed for proper design in arid environments

Porous Pavement  Many different technologies, rapidly evolving field  Potential for some infiltration, even on poor soils  With proper design, may not need underdrains  Frequent vacuum sweeping (e.g., annually) needed to maintain effectiveness  Could be used for sidewalks and patios in addition to large non-commercial parking areas.

Cisterns  Cisterns have been successfully tested in CA in demonstration projects  Store runoff from rainy season to use for site irrigation during dry season  Applicable for both residential and non- residential uses  Needs further analysis to determine cost-effectiveness  New development – can amortize cost with mortgage

City of Encinitas, Roadside GrassCrete parking Courtesy of Arid Solutions, Inc Porous Pavement Cistern Bioretention

Stream Buffers  Multiple functions – stream channel stability, pollutant trapping and uptake, temperature moderation, habitat  Recommended width varies depending on goals 30 – 100 feet for pollutant removal 100 – 300 feet for habitat/ecosystem function/wildlife corridors Channel protection width varies by stream order – room for channel migration (e.g., 4X bankfull width)  Current CA local buffer ordinances mostly from 50 – 100 feet

Irrigation  Estimates of inches/yr in CA, leads to nutrient-rich irrigation return flow  Technologies allow irrigation to be demand-driven  Can use drought-tolerant plants to reduce demand  Irrigation essentially required by CA fire safety law Maintain a “defensible space” around buildings 30 feet minimum “home defense zone”, vegetation with high moisture content

Preliminary Recommendations for Watershed Management Actions

Actions: New Development Site Management  Basic LID Implementation Reduce site impervious area Swales Extended dry detention Stream buffers

Extended Dry Detention Swale City of Encinitas, Volleyball Court/ Detention Area Photograph Courtesy of EOA, Inc. Stream Buffer

Actions: New Development Site Management  Enhanced LID Implementation High level of effort to reduce site impervious area Disconnect impervious surfaces where possible, direct runoff to pervious areas to maximize infiltration Minimize disturbance of pervious surfaces Bioretention Porous pavement Cisterns/water harvesting

Actions: New Development Site Management  Incorporate use of “basic LID” techniques into local codes and ordinances  Track compliance with stormwater management and LID  As requirements increase (e.g. TMDL), consider use of enhanced LID techniques  Test feasibility of porous pavement, cisterns, and bioretention without irrigation

Actions: Preservation  25 properties  386 acres to preserve  $38 to $95 million in total acquisition costs (fee simple acquisition)  Average cost: $98,000 to $246,000 per acre

Actions: Preservation  Field evaluation  Landowner outreach  Compare with cultural resource priorities  Identify/secure funding sources  Identify/secure stewardship organizations  Develop stewardship plan  Annual acquisition workshop  Update prioritization tool

Actions: Riparian Buffer Restoration  27 properties  129 acres to restore  $9.8 to $19 million in total acquisition and restoration costs  Average cost: $76,000 to $147,000 per acre

Actions: Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration Buffer Restoration Priorities

Actions: Riparian Buffer Restoration  Field evaluation  Landowner outreach  Compare with cultural resource priorities  Preliminary design and cost estimate  Secure needed permits  Identify/secure funding sources  Identify/secure stewardship organizations  Restoration planning and design  Develop stewardship plan  Annual acquisition workshop  Update prioritization tool

Actions: Wetlands Restoration  14 properties  61 acres to restore  $4.2 to $13 million in total acquisition and restoration costs  Average cost: $69,000 to $213,000 per acre

Wetlands Restoration Priorities

Actions: Wetlands Restoration  Field evaluation  Landowner outreach  Compare with cultural resource priorities  Preliminary design and cost estimate  Secure needed permits  Identify/secure funding sources  Identify/secure stewardship organizations  Restoration planning and design  Develop stewardship plan  Annual acquisition workshop  Update prioritization tool

Actions: Stream Restoration  12 reaches to restore  31,500 feet, or 6 miles to restore  $9 to $11 million in restoration costs

Actions: Stream Restoration Stream Restoration Opportunities

Actions: Stream Restoration  Landowner outreach  Compare with cultural resource priorities  Preliminary design and cost estimate  Secure needed permits  Identify/secure funding sources  Identify/secure stewardship organizations  Restoration planning and design  Develop stewardship plan  Annual acquisition workshop  Update prioritization tool; coordinate with sewer and storm drain infrastructure programs

Actions: BMP Retrofit  2,870 acres of high priority parcels  Located in high priority subbasins based on existing runoff and loading  Five retrofit demonstration sites (coincident with stream restoration sites)  Demonstration BMPs include dry detention, bioswale, rainwater harvesting, permeable pavement, media filters, trash traps

Actions: Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration BMP Retrofit Opportunities

Actions: BMP Retrofit for 5 Demonstration Sites  Landowner outreach  Preliminary design and cost estimate  Secure needed permits  Identify/secure funding sources  Final planning and design

Actions: BMP Retrofit for Untreated Parcels  Site selection and BMP feasibility  Landowner outreach  Design and costing  Secure needed permits  Secure funding

Actions: Monitoring and Enforcement  Long-term stream and lagoon monitoring  Long-term wetlands monitoring  Inspections/maintenance of sanitary sewer  Inspections/maintenance of storm drainage system  Construction site inspection  Stormwater BMP Inspection  Tracking Watershed Indicators

Actions: Citizen Stewardship/Public Outreach  Collaborative Watershed Council  Education of local boards to gain support for watershed management  Development of citizen education materials  LID workshops and training  Annual awards program  Management partnerships

Actions: Sustained Funding and Support  Secure grants SWRCB (Prop 84); DWR (Prop 84 and 1e); County IRWM (Prop 84); EPA 319(h)  Coordinate with partner agencies Wetland Recovery Project; Wildlife Agencies; MSCP/MHCP programs; Channel Maintenance Programs  Mitigation programs Mitigation Banks; Individual Project Mitigation Needs  Watershed Council Support Wetland Recovery Project; Department of Conservation; Local Jurisdictions; Local Businesses

Implementation

Your advice needed  Potential funding sources  Responsible group(s)  General timelines  See handout

Next Steps

 June Review of Draft Implementation Table  June – Review of Focus Area Recommendations  July 10 – Draft Watershed Management Plan  July 17- Final WPG Meeting to comment on Draft Plan