1. Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Group Project Emily Bosanquet  Todd Cooper Ann Hayden  Vicky Krikelas  Michelle Torrent Faculty Advisors: Professor Trish Holden  Professor Mike McGinnis

2. PURPOSE  Present goal and significance  Describe approach  Solicit feedback Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

3. GOAL GOAL  To provide the EPA with preliminary wetland mitigation alternatives to compensate for wetlands lost during Casmalia site clean up. Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

4. PROJECT SITE  EPA carrying out long term remediation of site  Wetlands:  consist of 5 ponds  collect storm water runoff  support wetland habitat

5. 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 species Provide Wetland Mitigation Alternatives Endangered Species Act California’s Fish and Game Code CERCLA Clean Water Act CERCLA

6. OBJECTIVES & APPROACH Characterize wetlands / Define Regulatory Framework Review case studies Outline potential alternatives Use criteria to evaluate alternatives Recommend alternative(s) Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

7. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ARARS FEDERAL LOCAL STATE Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act CA Fish & Game Regulations (5:1 Mitigation Ratio required) Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB CERCLA Site Cleanup

8. CHARACTERIZE SITE WETLANDS  Delineate extent of wetlands  Describe: –Hydrology –Geology (soils, topography) –Biological Resources (vegetation, animals) Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

9. REVIEW 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

10. DEFINE CRITERIA Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB THRESHOLD Human Health & Environment ARARS PRIMARY Effectiveness Geological Hydrological Biological Implementability Cost

11. DESCRIBE ALTERNATIVES Casmalia Creek # B Drainage North # B Drainage South # C Drainage ALTERNATIVES No Action B Drainage North B Drainage South C Drainage Mitigation Bank

12. Evaluation Matrix

13. POSSIBLE RESULTS HIGHEST RANKED ALTERNATIVES WILL LIKELY BE: Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB MITIGATION BANK B DRAINAGES & C DRAINAGE

14. UNCERTAINTIES  Exact wetland delineation and size  Boundaries of contaminant plume Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

15. ACCOMPLISHMENTS  Developed Understanding of Regulatory Framework  Refined & Developed Criteria  Identified Comparable Case Studies  Established Required 5:1 Mitigation Ratio Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Project, UCSB

16. Casmalia Wetland Mitigation Group Project E-mail: wetlands@bren.ucsb.edu Website: http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~wetlands