Value Issues Essay

The Little Blue River Watershed Management Plan started back in 2004 when the Shelby and Rush Counties Soil and Water Conservation District conducted a diagnostic study on the watershed. The findings lead to a grant from the Indian Department of Environmental Management to be used to develop a watershed management plan. (Little Blue River Watershed Management Plan, 2007, p.8) Starting in 2006 two public meetings was held to discuss the development of the watershed management plan which leads to a wide range of issues brought up by the public. (Little Blue River Watershed

The proposed Pohick Creek watershed stream restoration project PC9249 is located northwest of Parliament Drive and east of Queen Victoria Court in Burke, VA, which is in Fairfax County. This project was designated as a 10-year high priority project in 2010 due to erosion, location of the adjacent neighborhoods, and the invested interest of the surrounding communities. Presently, only the design for the restoration project has been funded and was completed in May 2015. Although it has been over a year since the concept design was completed, the construction funding is still pending. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, the survey results and the site evaluation, I recommend Fairfax County assist Southport and Signal Hill Homeowner Associations (HOA) to receive immediate funding for the construction costs ($1,990,000) of the Pohick Creek at Queen Victoria (PC9249) stream restoration project.

Government officials, Support groups, and residents of El Paso, Pueblo, and Teller counties are currently managing the Fountain Creek Watershed. The Fountain Creek Watershed is a mistreated watershed and the solutions would require a dedicated management group and necessary funding to increase the sustainability of this area. “We are working to create a healthy waterway with appropriate erosion, sedimentation, and flooding that supports diverse economic, environmental, and recreational interests.” (Fountain Creek Watershed, 2015). The collaboration of all agencies working in this watershed will ensure the safety of the environment surrounding the area of reviewed in this research.

The Watershed Management Program relies upon the Four Mile Run Computer Model to simulate the watershed 's complex hydrology and the impacts of stormwater runoff from local land use changes and drainage modifications. The impacts of a proposed project are reviewed and corrective measures are recommended if the model predicts flooding problems in the lower Four Mile Run.

Fruitvale was a perfect town. There was a nice creek (Strawberry Creek) that dogs and children could play in and a very good diner that families could eat out at. Fruitvale was a mini fairy-tale land, until they hit reality. Fruitvale was recently contaminated by a No-Bug Pesticide that farmers had been using to get rid of the bugs eating their crops. Twelve wells were tested and the No-Bug Pesticide had not contaminated the Fruitvale Municipal Water Well yet. After one year, we tested all of the wells again to see how far the contaminant has spread. We have found that Fruitvale has approximately three years to get Fruitvale de-contaminated. We want to keep the cost at a minimum and all of the Fruitvale residents safe. To meet these goals, we hypothesize that bioremediation would be the most efficient way to accomplish the following task of making Fruitvale a safe

The hydrology update for the Don River watershed will follow the standard procedure for hydrological modelling including modelling platform selection, watershed delineation, model parameterization, model calibration and validation, and model simulation (scenario evaluation). The main objectives of this model update are as follows:

Spatial video, when displayed in Contour Storyteller, was used to identify risks along the collection path; a total of 1589 water risks, 322 trash points, and 117 dogs were identified. The spatial video was “coded;” identified risks were digitized in Google Earth, translated to Arc GIS 10.3, analyzed using, and then contoured accordingly. Figure 2 displays the result map for the 50m KDE. This contour map shows high concentrations of standing water in the neighborhood. The main water risks identified were drainage trenches filled with water and trash located in close proximity to

• Does each individual sampling authority/program have enough sites to accurately measure the health of a watershed?

The Deep Creek Watershed project has expanded from 29,813 acres to 58,494 acres and now include parts of East Orange township of Sioux, Caledonia township of O’Brien, Marcus township of Cherokee counties and Northeast Plymouth County. Funds are available for producers who farm in the Deep Creek Watershed to demonstrate voluntary water quality improvement efforts in the Deep Creek Watershed. Funds are available through the demonstration project for No-Till/Strip-till, Subsurface P-Placement (P-Band), Nitrification Inhibitor (N-Serve), cover crops, denitrifying bioreactors, saturated buffers, and terraces/638s. On another note, the cost share for terraces in Deep Creek match the state’s rates at 50%, however, there is no waiting list to be approved!

The study labeled, “Holistic Approach to Sustainable Water Management in northwest Douglas County” was designed to show what percentage of return flows would make it back to the stream for downstream users if collected first. The study was held in an undeveloped area of northwest Douglas County,

Moreover, as a result of cooperation with these groups, Hydro One chose to financially support 23 locally-designed projects that are proposed by 13 different groups for better improving the local area. The offset project works through quantifying the relevant habitat loss due to the reinforcement construction and the relevant habitat gain by the offset. Because of the trans-regional property of the line construction, the quantifications are used independently in very watershed traversed for achieving the no net habitat loss in each local watershed area. Moreover, besides the sole quantification of habitat changes, the social factors also have been taken into the consideration of habitat loss and gain assessment. The social factors include the related changes in local educational opportunities, First Nations participation opportunities, local entertainment utility. Consequently, Hydro One not only met the requirement of no net loss, but also made a net gain to habitat via this offset project.

This is the best option for Fruitvale because it can be done in time before the contamination reaches Fruitvale’s municipal well. It is estimated to take around two years until the contamination reaches the well. For instance, an isomap was created to measure the distance from the source of the contamination to the municipal water well using another isomap from the past and it was approximately going to take around two years. Option A would only take 6 to 9 months to clean out the contaminant in time before there is a vast change in the water. The price $400-600 million dollars is also reasonable for the cause and impact it can make. Although there would be a permanent decrease in Fruitvale’s water supply, it would be better to have safe but less drinking water than loads of contaminated water that is not drinkable nor safe. Another issue that other people have with this option that can easily be solved is that option A won’t be able to remove contaminants trapped in sediments. If the contamination comes back, the procedure can be repeated. Thus, the best option for Fruitvale would be option

    During this semester I traveled with the North Carolina State University’s Environmental Technology and Management program ET 201 class, under the direction of Dr. Teresa Litzenberger, to Little Rock Creek in Raleigh North Carolina. Little Rock Creek is a small stream located in southeast raleigh near the Walnut Creek Wetland Center. Located in a watershed of approximately 705.879 acres, the creek looks like an upside down uppercase “L” from a map perspective. The creek floor is sandy with a few small rocks (cobblestone) in areas. The stream has plenty of tree cover to provide shade. However, the lack of large trees encourages the curves in the creek to widen which allows the water to slow down and create pools throughout the creek. According to Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Rule .0302 contains the classifications for waters located within the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02L .0312). Little Rock Creek, however, is not classified and therefore follows Rule .0301 which simply states that it should carry the classification of the stream to which it is a tributary (.

For these projects, I follow the COA Drainage Criteria Manual (DCM) adopted in Williamson County and used in Travis County. Furthermore, I analyze the channel shear stress and erosivity and additional design measures are taken if necessary. For hydrology analysis, I use the HEC-HMS or PondPack software for large drainage areas and the rational method for small drainage areas. With HEC-RAS software, I perform the

2. Hydrology - LEED rates this point based on flood hazard areas, delineated wetlands, lakes, streams, shorelines, rainwater collection and reuse opportunities, and TR-55 initial water storage capacity of the site. Change of land use may sometimes result in a negative impact on water quality. Contamination may occur from any of the construction side effects, such erosion and sedimentation, chemicals, or microorganisms. Any site-disturbing activities can increase the risks of flooding, erosion, and other ecological impacts to properties. Hence all such components and risks are considered under the hydrology part of the site assessment report.