DOCSLIB.ORG

Ventura River Estuary Enhance'ment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ventura River Estuary Enhance'ment · . ! VENTURA RIVER ESTUARY ENHANCE'MENT Enhancement & Management Final Plan City of San Buenavemufa California Department of Parks and Recreation California State Coastal Conserv3ncv Prepared By: \'(.etland,; I~csearch :\ssociates, Inc VENTURA RIVER ESTUARY ENHANCEMENT ENHANCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT FINAL PLAN Prepared for: City of San Buenaventura 501 Poli Street Ventura, CA 93002 California Department of Parks and Recreation 1933 Cliff Drive, Suite 27 Santa Barbara, CA 93109 California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by: Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2169 East Francisco Blvd., Suite G San Rafael, CA 94901 and Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd., San Francisco Hyden Associates, Sacramento Lawrence Hunt, Santa Barbara Paul Lehman, Santa Barbara March 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTR.ODUCTION ..••......................•........... .. 1 2.0 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 1 2.1 ENHANCEME:NT GOAL 1 2.2 ENHANCEMENT OBJECTIVES ....................... .. 2 3.0 HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEME:NT 4 3.1 SECOND MOUTH RESTORATION AND ENHANCEME:NT ..... .. 10 3.2 RIPARIAN ENHANCEMENTIRESTORATION .............. .. 16 3.3 DUNE STRAND RESTORATION ...................... .. 18 3.4 RESTORATION OF SEASIDE WILDERNESS PARK .......... .. 20 3.5 LOWER ESTUARY ............................... .. 21 3.6 RIVER CHANNEL HABITAT MANAGEME:NT ............. .. 24 4.0 PUBLIC ACCESS AND INTERPRETATION ..................... .. 26 4.1 SECOND MOUTH VIEWING STATION 26 4.2 RIPARIAN TRAIL 26 4.3 DUNE STRAND/BEACH ACCESS 29 4.4 SEASIDE WILDERNESS PARK TRAIL .................. .. 30 4.5 LOWER ESTUARY 31 4.6 RIVER CHANNEL 31 4.7 INTERPRETIVFJEDUCATIONAL FACILITY 33 4.8 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD BRIDGE/BIKE PATH. ...... .. 33 4.9 MITIGATING IMPACTS OF FLOODPLAIN INHABITANTS. .... .. 38 4.10 PUBLIC ACCESS AND FACILmES SUMMARY. ........... .. 38 5.0 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT. ........................ .. 40 5.1 SECOND MOUTH 41 5.2 RIPARIAN HABITAT 45 5.3 DUNE STRAND ................................. .. 45 5.4 SEASIDE WILDERNESS PARK ....................... .. 46 5.5 LOWER ESTUARY ............................... .. 46 5.6 RIVER CHANNEL/FLOODPLAIN 46 5.7 INTERPRETIVE CENTER!AMPHITHEATER ................... .. 48 5.8 VOLUNTEER DOCENT PROGRAM .................... .. 48 6.0 PHASING PLAN FOR-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............... .. 48 6.1 PHASE 1 49 6.2 PHASE 2 51 6.3 PHASE 3 52 6.4 PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION COST ESTIMATE 54 7.0 MANAGEMENT OF THE ESTUARY AS A UNIT 57. 8.0 COOPERATIVE OPPORTUNITIES .. .....................••.. .. 59 9.0 POTENTIAL PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES·. ......•............ .. 61 List of Figures Figure 1. Location map of project area …………………………………………………… 3 Figure 2. Enhancement and management areas ……………………………………… 11 Figure 3. Second Mouth conceptual grading plan ……………………………………. 14 Figure 4. Public access features ……………………………………………………………... 27 Figure 5. Interpretive and boardwalk trail views …………………………………….. 29 Figure 6. Conceptual views of river mouth and Main Street kiosks ……………. 32 Figure 7. Interpretive Center conceptual site plan ……………………………………. 34 Figure 8. Interpretive Center elevation views …………………………………………... 35 Figure 9. Interpretive Center conceptual floor plan …………………………………... 36 Figure 10. Interpretive Center conceptual grading plan …………………………….. 37 List of Tables Table 1. Enhancement and restoration elements …………………………………… 5 – 9 Table 2. Plant list for Second Mouth restoration area ……………………………... 15 Table 3. Monitoring and management elements ………………………………… 43 – 45 Table 4. Phase I Cost Estimates ……………………………………………………………… 56 Appendices References …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64 Appendix A. Invasive, non-native plants ……………………………………………… 65 - 67 1 VENTURA RIVER ESTUARY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 1.0 INTRODUcnON The Ventura River Estuary Enhancement Project study area is located at the western end of the City of San Buenaventura and approximately 60 miles west of Los Angeles. The study area covers approximately 110 acres and is comprised of two publicly owned parcels, the Emma Wood State Beach-Ventura River Group Campground (California Department of State Parks) and the Seaside Wilderness Park (City of San Buenaventura) and one privately owned parcel, the Hubbard property. The enhancement project study area and approximate parcel boundaries are shown in Figure 1.. A study of the existing conditions and an analysis of site opportunities and constraints ofthe study area was completed and submitted in the first phase of the planning effort. A draft plan was then prepared which discussed various optional elements for enhancement and management. The present document outlines the final or preferred enhancement and management plan recommended for implementation at the Ventura River Estuary. It is based on public and agency comments on the draft options plan. These elements also reflect the goal and objectives set forth by the Ventura River Enhancement Project Management Committee to enhance biotic resources and provide appropriate public access for recreational and educational benefits. 2.0 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The initial goal and site specific objectives for the Ventura River Estuary Enhancement Plan were developed by the Project Management Committee. These were presented at a public meeting and, following public input, were revised into the final overall goal and objectives. II ENHANCEMENT GOAL The Project Management Committee approved an overall goal for the Ventura River Estuary Enhancement Project: Ventura River Estuary Enhancement Plan Develop an implementationplan thatprovidesphased restoration andmanagement ofhabitats within the lower Ventura River basin and allows pubUc access and interpretation to be compatible with sensitive habitat areas. The plan will establish the basis for and guide site policy, financing, operational and management decisions. U ENHANCEMENT OBJECTIVES The objectives for the Ventura River Estuary were established to implement the overall goal and include recommendations for the river mouth lagoon, the Second Mouth, wetlands, riparian, and dune areas that reflect the existing habitat characteristics of the site and its historic, current and projected physical conditions. The enhancement objectives are: • Derme alternative flood control measures to protect the long-term integrity of the physical and biological systems of the study/project area. • Derme and prioritize both eradication and re-establishment programs for biological resources in each habitat area. In addition to identifying species, specific optimal conditions and related management requirements should be outlined. • Describe monitoring programs for each habitat area. • Identify water quality parameters appropriate to meet the needs ofhabitat areas. This includes nutrient loading, freshwater input, river flow and other quantitative physical condition limits that can be tolerated by each habitat area. Possible management processes/techniques that could be employed to enhance the quality ofwater entering the estuary should be proposed. • Define appropriate public access that is compatible with each habitat area, such as active and passive recreation or nature study. Trails, interpretive themes, and special focus areas should be delineated. Siting and a conceptual floor plan for a small interpretive facility should be included in the overall public access plan. • Develop a phased implementation program and an interim operational/land management program for periods between phases. Ventura River Estuary Enhancement Plan _1-1_1. -APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY O......,Sukr ... 0 PLANNfNG TEAM WeIlalll1<..Rtlufdl A=ldal~ \lie. Ventura River Estuary PMip 'N'iUW:lls llld Associ_'U. Ll"­ Hydeft Als ocillel1 l-n'Ttnct HlI/It Enhancement Plan Poul Ltllmlll Figure 1. Location map of the Ventura River Estuary Enhancement Project Wetlands ResearchAssoclates, Inc. 4 Physical constraints, such as natural flooding, related erosion and sediment deposition, and existing development limit the alternatives that can be implemented within the study area. In light of these constraints, various areas within the project site have been identified that have habitat or recreational values that can be better managed and/or enhanced. The components ofthe enhancement plan are grouped into three main sections: (1) habitat restoration and enhancement; (2) public access and interpretation; (3) monitoring and management. The preferred elements and corresponding activities are described in each section. The rationale and benefit of each element and interdependency between elements are also discussed. The general location ofproposed elements are shown in Figure 2. 3.0 HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT The Ventura River Estuary is a dynamic environment and subject to dramatic change as illustrated by the 1992 flood. Nevertheless, it supports a diverse wildlife resource and can be enhanced to improve wildlife habitat for critical species that are wholly dependent upon the unique characteristics of this site. Human activities have severely impacted the estuary through reduction of water quality and quantity, filling of wetlands and riparian habitats, construction of roads and right-of-ways, trampling and destruction ofvegetation, planting or spread ofnon-native plant species, and introduction ,of feral animals. The primary purpose ofthe enhancement program is to preserve and expand existing habitat values, especially for species facing critically scarce habitat in the region. The means for achieving this primary purpose include restoring habitats by improving water quality,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses
    Attachment B-4 San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan Beneficial Uses Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc CHAPTER 2 BENEFICIAL USES INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USES ..........................................................................................................................1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ..1 BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT .................................................2 BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ..................................................................................7 BENEFICIAL USES FOR SPECIFIC WATER BODIES ........................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF RARE BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................8 DESIGNATION OF COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT BENEFICIAL USE ...............................................9 DESIGNATION OF SPAWNING, REPRODUCTION, AND/ OR EARLY DEVELOPMENT (SPWN) BENEFICIAL USE ...................................................................................................11 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY ..................................................................................11 EXCEPTIONS TO THE "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER" POLICY................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Ventura River Watershed Section
    Appendix C Ventura River Watershed Section Submitted by the Ventura River Watershed Council Ventura River Watershed Ventura River Watershed Section of the Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County Integrated Water Management Plan Update, 2014 May, 2014 Photo by David Magney Note: This document has been excerpted from a draft of the Ventura River Watershed Management Plan, which is still a work in progress. Some sections of that plan have not yet been written; the apparent mistakes in section numbering in this document reflect those unwritten sections. In addition, there could be cross-references to context that has been omitted in this excerpted version. Ventura River Watershed Section Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update 2014 1 Part 1 - Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Ventura River Watershed Council ...................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Council History, Structure & Governance ................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Council Milestones .................................................................................................................... 18 1.2.4 Council Funding ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Basins
    PART 3 • 3.3 Hydrology • 3.3.3 Groundwater Hydrology 333 V E N T U R A C O U N T Y r. C j a i l i t a M M k atil o r ija C or th F ree N n k o y n n a o on C y y y n e n l a a d C i C t r r r a G Matilija a o c i w n n Reservoir e a e t r r S S A N T A S a B k B A R B A R A n e C r re o C o y e l k k y n l e e C O U N T Y v e o a e e i N r t Meiners C c Cree r e C s k C R x M e Oaks r v r e o e C e e o Sa nta An a F Tha c h R m r a a e Cr eek r Upper c y e u Ojai S k t Ojai n Mir a e Monte V k þ e ek ·150 e n yo n C re r io n C a C L io n to Oak n View A n a S Lake Casitas ek re Cas itas C Springs a g r a L d a Ca ña ·þ33 P a c i f ¤£101 i c O c e a ·þ126 n Ventura Data Sources: CDWR Bulletin 118, Kear Groundwater, Ventur a River Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Estuary ¤£101 Ojai Basin GMA, Daniel B.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of Ventura River
    C ALIFORNIA Ventura River T HREAT: DAM Summary The Risk Matilija Dam not only stands in the way of The Matilija Dam is a 200-foot high concrete the Ventura River’s endangered southern steel- arched structure that is owned by the Ventura head; it also prevents much-needed sand and County Flood Control District. It was built in sediment from flowing downstream and 1947 as part of the river’s flood control system replenishing popular southern California surf- and to provide water for the Ojai Valley. The ing beaches. While it is easy to find wide- dam lacks fish passage, so southern steelhead spread support for removing the dam, it will are blocked from approximately 50 percent of be harder to find money to complete the task. their historical spawning and rearing habitat. Federal, state, and local authorities must agree The fish were listed as endangered under the that removing the dam is a top priority and federal Endangered Species Act in 1997. must work together to find the necessary Because a massive amount of silt has built funds. up behind the structure, Matilija Dam no longer provides flood control benefits and pro- The River vides only minimal water storage capacity. The mainstem of the Ventura River flows The reservoir, which originally held 7,000 approximately 16 miles from the confluence acre-feet of water, now holds only 500 acre- of Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija feet — and the storage capacity continues to Creek (located within the Los Padres National decrease. An estimated 5 million to 7 million Forest) to the Pacific Ocean near the City of cubic yards of sediment is backed up behind Ventura.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura River Reaches 3 and 4 Total Maximum Daily Loads for Pumping & Water Diversion-Related Water Quality Impairments
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Ventura River Reaches 3 and 4 Total Maximum Daily Loads For Pumping & Water Diversion-Related Water Quality Impairments Draft December 2012 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Regulatory Background.................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Elements of a TMDL........................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Environmental Setting...................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 7 1.3.3 Southern Steelhead Trout Life History in the Watershed......................................... 9 2 Problem Identification ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Water Pumping and Diversion History in Ventura River Watershed ............................ 11 2.2 Water Quality Standards ................................................................................................ 12 2.2.1 Beneficial Uses ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Summaries
    Appendix A: Watershed Summaries Preface California’s watersheds supply water for drinking, recreation, industry, and farming and at the same time provide critical habitat for a wide variety of animal species. Conceptually, a watershed is any sloping surface that sheds water, such as a creek, lake, slough or estuary. In southern California, rapid population growth in watersheds has led to increased conflict between human users of natural resources, dramatic loss of native diversity, and a general decline in the health of ecosystems. California ranks second in the country in the number of listed endangered and threatened aquatic species. This Appendix is a “working” database that can be supplemented in the future. It provides a brief overview of information on the major hydrological units of the South Coast, and draws from the following primary sources: • The California Rivers Assessment (CARA) database (http://www.ice.ucdavis.edu/newcara) provides information on large-scale watershed and river basin statistics; • Information on the creeks and watersheds for the ESU of the endangered southern steelhead trout from the National Marine Fisheries Service (http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/SoCalDistrib.htm); • Watershed Plans from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) that provide summaries of existing hydrological units for each subregion of the south coast (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcbs/index.html); • General information on the ecology of the rivers and watersheds of the south coast described in California’s Rivers and Streams: Working
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Steelhead Populations Are in Danger of Extinction Within the Next 25-50 Years, Due to Anthropogenic and Environmental Impacts That Threaten Recovery
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Critical Concern. Status Score = 1.9 out of 5.0. Southern steelhead populations are in danger of extinction within the next 25-50 years, due to anthropogenic and environmental impacts that threaten recovery. Since its listing as an Endangered Species in 1997, southern steelhead abundance remains precariously low. Description: Southern steelhead are similar to other steelhead and are distinguished primarily by genetic and physiological differences that reflect their evolutionary history. They also exhibit morphometric differences that distinguish them from other coastal steelhead in California such as longer, more streamlined bodies that facilitate passage more easily in Southern California’s characteristic low flow, flashy streams (Bajjaliya et al. 2014). Taxonomic Relationships: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) historically populated all coastal streams of Southern California with permanent flows, as either resident or anadromous trout, or both. Due to natural events such as fire and debris flows, and more recently due to anthropogenic forces such as urbanization and dam construction, many rainbow trout populations are isolated in remote headwaters of their native basins and exhibit a resident life history. In streams with access to the ocean, anadromous forms are present, which have a complex relationship with the resident forms (see Life History section). Southern California steelhead, or southern steelhead, is our informal name for the anadromous form of the formally designated Southern California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Southern steelhead occurring below man-made or natural barriers were distinguished from resident trout in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing, and are under different jurisdictions for purposes of fisheries management although the two forms typically constitute one interbreeding population.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations
    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 Sensitive Plant Survey Results for the Valencia Commerce Center
    Dudek and Associates, Inc., "2003 Sensitive Plant Survey Results for the Valencia Commerce Center, Los Angeles County, California" (June 2004; 2004B) 2003 Sensitive Plant Survey Results Valencia Commerce Center J U N E 2 0 0 4 P R E P A R E D F O R : The Newhall Land and Farming Company 23823 Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 P R E P A R E D B Y : Dudek & Associates, Inc. 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 2003 Sensitive Plant Survey Results for the Valencia Commerce Center Los Angeles County, California Prepared for: The Newhall Land and Farming Company 23823 Valencia Boulevard Valencia, CA 91355 Contact: Glenn Adamick Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Contact: Sherri L. Miller (760) 479-4244 June 2004 2003 Sensitive Plant Survey Results Valencia Commerce Center TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1 2.1 Plant Communities and Land Covers ................................................................1 2.2 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................4 3.0 METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS..........................................................4 3.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................4 3.2 Field Reconnaissance Methods...........................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project Frequently Asked Questions San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project
    San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project Frequently Asked Questions San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project Updated December 13, 2013 Frequently Asked Questions ■ OVERVIEW OF PROJECT 1. What is the purpose of the project? The project will improve a critical part of the 351-mile Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor that serves as a vital link for passenger and freight movements in the San Diego region. The San Dieguito Double Track and Special Events Platform Project will increase capacity and improve system reliability by adding a one-mile segment of double track between Solana Beach and Del Mar, resulting in a continuous 2.8-mile-long segment of double track. The project also includes the replacement of the existing 97-year-old San Dieguito River wooden trestle rail bridge and the construction of a new special events platform that would directly serve the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Additional improvements include construction of new turnouts, signals, retained embankments, and drainage facilities. 2. What is the scope of the project? The project’s engineering and environmental analysis process is underway. The environmental compliance is subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the Lead Agency under NEPA. This project is funded through environmental and design, although not funded for construction. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) works to make all projects shovel ready. Although the start date for construction has yet to be determined, the project is planned to be constructed prior to 2030 according to the SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Inventory
    Cultural Resources Inventory Santa Ana River Trail Project Phase IV Reaches B & C Redlands San Bernardino County, California Prepared For: San Bernardino County Department of Public Works 825 E. 3rd Street San Bernardino, California 92415 Prepared By: Wendy Blumel, RPA ECORP Consulting, Inc. 215 North 5th Street Redlands, California 92374 Under the direction of Principal Investigator: Roger Mason, Ph.D., RPA September 2018 ECORP Consulting, Inc. has assisted public and private land owners with environmental regulation compliance since 1987. We offer full service capability, from initial baseline environmental studies through environmental planning review, permitting negotiation, liaison to obtain legal agreements, mitigation design, and construction monitoring and reporting. Citation: ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2018. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Santa Ana River Trail Project Phase IV, Reaches B and C, Redlands, San Bernardino County. Prepared for the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, San Bernardino, California. Inventory Report for the Santa Ana River Trail Project Phase IV, Reaches B and C, Redlands MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The County of San Bernardino Regional Parks Department (County) proposes to construct an approximately 3.3-mile-long section of the Santa Ana River Trail (SART) near the southern bank of the Santa Ana River. An archaeological survey was conducted of the Project Area, as determined from project plans, which includes the existing street rights-of-way and portions of undeveloped (vacant) parcels of land in the City of Redlands and in an unincorporated area in San Bernardino County. The cultural study included a cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File search, field survey, and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYSICAL SOLUTION and JUDGMENT 15 V
    September 15, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 SANTA BARBARA CHANNELKEEPER, Case No. 19STCP01176 13 a California non-profit corporation, Judge: The Honorable William F. Highberger 14 Petitioner, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PHYSICAL SOLUTION AND JUDGMENT 15 v. 16 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, a California State 17 Agency; et al., 18 Respondents. 19 CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, a Action Filed: September 19, 2014 20 California municipal corporation, Trial Date: Not Set 21 Cross-Complainant, v. 22 DUNCAN ABBOTT, an individual; et al. 23 Cross-Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 -1- [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PHYSICAL SOLUTION AND JUDGMENT September 15, 2020 1 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PHYSICAL SOLUTION AND JUDGMENT 2 3 Certain Parties1 to this Action have stipulated to entry of this Physical Solution and 4 Judgment (“Physical Solution”). The stipulation of the Parties is conditioned on further 5 proceedings that will result in the Physical Solution becoming binding on all Bound Parties in 6 this Action. The Court, having exercised its constitutional duty to evaluate a physical solution, 7 considered the pleadings, the stipulation of the Parties, the evidence presented, and based on the 8 findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below, approves the Physical Solution2 and 9 enters this Judgment that imposes the Physical Solution in furtherance of the requirements of 10 Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution. In imposing the Physical Solution, the Court 11 has determined that the
    [Show full text]