DOCSLIB.ORG

Friends of Ventura River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The 228 square mile watershed the dam — which is enough to cover 3,000 encompasses both steep mountain and coastal football fields with one foot of sand. The plain ecosystems. removal and disposal of the sediment is likely Approximately 5,000 adult steelhead once to be the greatest cost associated with remov- returned every year to the Ventura River ing the dam and restoring the river. watershed. These runs have now been reduced The sediment trapped behind the dam has to less than 100. California’s steelhead restora- resulted in major erosion problems for the tion plan indicates that historically the Ventu- beaches of Ventura. Sand and sediment no ra River probably had one of the largest runs longer travel downstream to replenish the of steelhead in southern California — and that MATILIJA DAM (RIGHT) restoring the Ventura runs will be critical for BLOCKS ENDANGERED STEEL- steelhead recovery in the region. Scientists HEAD FROM IMPORTANT consider the southern steelhead a genetically HABITAT. THE DAM ALSO PRE- distinct fish species, the parent of all steel- VENTS SAND FROM FLOWING head on the Pacific Coast. DOWNSTREAM TO REPLENISH The Ventura River at one time also replen- POPULAR BEACHES. THIS IS ished the beaches of Ventura County with its CAUSING SHORELINE flow of sand and sediment. Each year, the EROSION (NEXT PAGE). river supplied over 250,000 cubic yards of sed- iment to the beaches, which are popular with surfers and vacationers. The overall health of the Ventura River has been improving recently, thanks to restoration activities such as a $27 million upgrade to a sewage treatment plant and several river and wetlands restoration projects. However, the Matilija Dam stands in the way of the river’s ongoing recovery. 12 ◆ America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2000 coastal area. Not only does this affect the For More ecosystem, but it hurts tourism in Ventura — Information a county where an estimated $50 million is WWW.AMERICANRIVERS.ORG spent on coastal tourism annually — and AMERICAN RIVERS’ RIVERS threatens the sport of surfing at these world- UNPLUGGED CAMPAIGN renowned beaches. WWW.WEST.NET/~SRFRDRVC/ SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, What Can Be Done VENTURA COUNTY CHAPTER Removal of the dam, combined with installa- FRIENDSOFTHERIVER.ORG tion of fish passage at the Robles Diversion FRIENDS OF THE RIVER Dam located downstream, would open approx- WWW.CALTROUT.ORG/ imately 30 miles of habitat to endangered CAL TROUT steelhead. Dam removal would also reduce WWW.RAIN.ORG/~EDC/ beach erosion problems and would open up ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE public access to the Matilija Wilderness for CENTER outdoor education and recreation — providing WWW.SOCALSTEELHEAD.ORG/ much-needed access to open spaces in crowd- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STEELHEAD RECOVERY ed southern California and generating green COALITION tourism dollars for the area. In June 1999, Ventura County officials agreed to support the removal of Matilija Dam subject to studies underway, as for the nation as well. The removal of Matilija did other local, state, Dam provides a unique opportunity to dis- and federal public offi- mantle an ill-conceived project that no longer cials and agencies. In makes sense. Lack of money should not July 1999, the Bureau of thwart the restoration of this national trea- Reclamation agreed to sure. study the cost and feasibility of removing the dam. This study, scheduled for completion in Personal Contacts spring 2000, should provide a much more Elizabeth Maclin, American Rivers: 202- accurate cost for removing the structure. Past 347-7550, [email protected] studies have put the removal cost anywhere from $30 million to $82 million. Mark Capelli, Friends of the Ventura The US Geological Survey also initiated River: 805-682-5240, [email protected] studies to evaluate beach nourishment poten- Paul Jenkin, Surfrider Foundation, Ventura tial and impacts to sensitive species such as County Chapter: 805-648-7255, the southern steelhead and federally endan- [email protected] gered tidewater goby. Congress has authorized Steve Evans, Friends of the River: 916-442- the US Army Corps of Engineers to initiate 3155, [email protected] studies in cooperation with the Bureau of Jim Edmondson, Cal Trout: 818-865-2888, Reclamation to facilitate the removal of [email protected] Matilija Dam. A preliminary demonstration project by the County of Ventura to test Russ Baggerly, Environmental Coalition removal techniques is scheduled for the fall of Ventura County: 805-646-0767, of 2000. [email protected] Despite this forward movement in the John Buse, Environmental Defense Center: effort to remove the Matilija Dam, a big obsta- 805-643-6147, [email protected] cle still stands in the way — the money to complete the project. National, state, and local entities must continue to forge ahead with this task and restore these valuable resources not only for southern California, but Ventura River ◆ 13.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Baer Survey Specialist Report Format
    Thomas Fire 2017-2018, Los Padres National Forest BAER Hydrology Report Resource Specialty: Hydrology Fire Name: Thomas Fires Month and Year: December 2017-January 2018 Author(s) Name and Home unit Name: Emily Fudge, Cleveland National Forest Objectives This assessment focused on evaluating possible post-fire hydrologic threats to potential values at risk for the Thomas Fire on the Los Padres National Forest, Santa Barbara County, California. Hydrologic post-fire threats include post-fire flooding, slope instability, and bulking of flows from sediment and debris. Potential threats also include avulsion on depositional fans and catchment outlets due to bulked flows (rapid relocation of channel location); braiding of channels, scour, and channel migration. I. Potential Values at Risk Initial potential Values at Risk (VARs) identified for evaluation for the Thomas Fire are listed below. See VAR spreadsheet in the 2500-8 for detailed list of evaluated values at risk (VARs). During preliminary reconnaissance, it was recognized that whole communities, major highways and roads, and privately owned infrastructure downstream/slope of the Thomas Fire could be affected by post-fire effects. A State Watershed Emergency Response Team (WERT) was tasked with conducting an assessment of VARs on non-FS lands including all these areas. This BAER assessment focuses on VARs owned by the Forest Service or located on FS lands. An initial BAER assessment considered VARs in the Ojai and Wheeler Ridge areas so these areas are excluded from this report. This assessment does not include assessment of post-fire impacts within the Adams Canyon, Harmon Canyon, Arundell Barranca, or Lower Ventura River HUC 6 watersheds.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • STATE of the WATERSHED – Report on Surface Water Quality the Ventura River Watershed
    STATE OF THE WATERSHED – Report on Surface Water Quality The Ventura River Watershed California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region May 2002 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 4 STATE OF THE WATERSHED............................................................................................................... 6 Physical Description of River, Subwatersheds, Reservoirs, and Structures .................................... 7 Groundwater Basins....................................................................................................................... 13 Flows and Precipitation.................................................................................................................. 15 Water Agencies and Water Use ..................................................................................................... 17 Historical Events/Development in Watershed ............................................................................... 19 Biological Setting .......................................................................................................................... 22 Water Resources and Beneficial Uses ........................................................................................... 27 Stakeholder Groups.......................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Chapter 10 Water Resources
    Chapter 10 Water Resources Water Resources 2040 General Plan 10 WATER RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the various water resources and water resource issues in Ventura County. It is organized into the following sections: ▪ Major Findings (Section 10.1) ▪ Legal and Regulatory Framework for Water Management (Section 10.2) ▪ Integrated Regional Water Management (0) ▪ Existing Conditions (by watershed) (Section 10.4) ▪ Trends and Future Conditions (Section 10.5) ▪ Key Terms (Section 10.6) ▪ References (Section 10.7) The organization of this chapter differs from others in the Background Report because of the nature of its subject matter. First, because the overall legal and regulatory framework affecting water resources is key to understanding how such resources are managed, the framework is the first substantive discussion in this chapter. Second, because water resources are so integrally tied to geography, the existing conditions discussions are organized according to the county’s watersheds, with each aspect of the resource addressed as it relates uniquely to each watershed. MAJOR FINDINGS Adequate water supply is a current and ongoing concern in Ventura County due to climate change and drought, the related declines in river flows and reservoir levels, historic overdraft of several local groundwater basins, curtailment of groundwater supplies in southern Ventura County, new groundwater well prohibitions, and reduced deliveries of imported water. More than 850,000 residents and 156 square miles (95,802 acres) of irrigated farmland in Ventura County experienced direct impacts from the drought that began in 2012. ▪ The water supply challenges are great and could impact residents, businesses, agriculture, and the environmental resources of Ventura County without concerted action.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Characteristics
    Ventura River Watershed Management Plan PART 3 Watershed Characteristics 3.1 Overview and Quick Facts ......................... 186 3.2 Physical Features .................................. 196 3.3 Hydrology ............................................ 246 3.4 Water Supplies and Demands ..................... 354 3.5 Water Quality ........................................ 428 3.6 Ecosystems and Access to Nature ................ 492 3.7 Land Use and Demographics ...................... 656 3.1 Overview and Quick Facts 3.1.1 Quick Facts ......................................... 188 Lake Casitas Photo courtesy of Michael McFadden PART 3 • 3.1 OVERVIEW AND QUICK FACTS •  187 3.1 Overview and Quick Facts “Watershed Characterization,” Part 3 of this plan, provides an overview of the current physical, biological, hydrological, and social conditions of the Ventura River watershed. Prepared with the latest available techni- cal data and information and input from a multi-stakeholder review, the Watershed Characterization is intended to help all stakeholders, includ- ing water managers, policy makers, regulators, residents, businesses, and students, better understand the watershed and its many interdependent relationships. The characterization is data-rich—featuring photos, maps, graphics and explanatory sidebars—but is intended to be engaging and easily understandable by lay readers. Each section includes a list of the key documents on that topic where readers can find more detailed and tech- Aerial View of Ventura River Watershed Looking Downstream nical information. 188 VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.1.1 Quick Facts Location: The Ventura River watershed is located in southern California, in western Ventura County, with a small section in the northwest corner located in eastern Santa Barbara County. At 226 square miles, it is the smallest of the three major watersheds in Ventura County, which are the Ventura River, Santa Clara River, and Calleguas Creek watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura River Steelhead Restoration and Recovery Plan
    VENTURA RIVER STEELHEAD RESTORATION AND RECOVERY PLAN Prepared for: Casitas Municipal Water District, City of San Buenaventura, Ventura County Flood Control District, Ventura County Transportation Department, Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department, Ojai Valley Sanitary District, Ventura River County Water District, Ojai Basin Ground Water Management Agency, Meiners Oaks County Water Districts, and Southern California Water Company Prepared by: ENTRIX, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA and Woodward Clyde Consultants Santa Barbara, CA Project No. 351001 December 1997 VENTURA RIVER STEELHEAD RESTORATION AND RECOVERY PLAN Prepared for: Casitas Municipal Water District, City of San Buenaventura, Ventura County Flood Control District, Ventura County Transportation Department, Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department, Ojai Valley Sanitary District, Ventura River County Water District, Ojai Basin Ground Water Management Agency, Meiners Oaks County Water Districts, and Southern California Water Company Prepared by: ENTRIX, Inc. 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Woodward Clyde Consultants 130 Robin Hill Road, Suite 100 Santa Barbara, California 93117 Project No. 351001 December 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures.................................................................................................................... xi Executive Summary........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Matilija Copy Vol
    Matilija Copy Vol. 15:5 Channel Islands Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, serving Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties Matilija Copy Volume 15, Issue 5 Editor: David L. Magney December 2002-February 2003 UPCOMING CHAPTER PROGRAMS President’s Message Hello All, hope you had a great Holiday Season! “Conservation Issues of Southern California” We certainly had a successful By Illeene Anderson, CNPS Southern California Botanist 2002, capped off by our Annual 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 15, E.P. Foster Library, Ventura Meeting. Special Thanks to Rita Illeene is an independent botanical consultant based in Los Angeles, and works DePuydt for making all the part-time as a conservation botanist for CNPS. She has focused a lot of her arrangements – so many energy for CNPS on protecting the flora in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts of compliments for the art and southern California. music, as well as the food!! * Dinner at local restaurant before each meeting. Call local facilitator for time and place. * The Chapter is planning for a great set of events for this next “CNPS State of the State Address” year; take a look at the program By Pam Muick, CNPS Executive Director and trips section in the 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 19, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden newsletter. Come meet and hear CNPS’s new Executive Director talk about CNPS from the Special thanks also to those who statewide perspective, including how this perspective supports local Chapter participated in the Patagonia programs including horticultural, education, conservation, plant science, Salmon Run event in November vegetation and invasives efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 Los Padres National R5-MB-078 Forest Strategy September 2005
    United States Department of Agriculture Land Management Plan Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Part 2 Los Padres National R5-MB-078 Forest Strategy September 2005 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, Write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Land Management Plan Part 2 Los Padres National Forest Strategy R5-MB-078 September 2005 Table of Contents Tables ....................................................................................................................................................v Document Format Protocols................................................................................................................ vi LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGY..................................................................................1
    [Show full text]