DOCSLIB.ORG

Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling Final Report Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Mo deling VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED DESIGN STORM MODELING FINAL REPORT Final February 2010 Hydrology Section Planning and Regulatory Division VCWPD Final Report – February 2010 i Ventura County Watershed Protection District Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling Ventura County Watershed Protection District Hydrology Section Project 11033 District Director: Norma J. Camacho Deputy Director: Sergio Vargas Section Manager: Bruce Rindahl Author: Mark Bandurraga Reviewers: B. Rindahl, Z. Hosseinipour, Y. Su VCWPD Final Report – February 2010 Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the work done by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (District) using the calibrated Ventura River HSPF Model (Tetra Tech 2009 Draft). The model was used to provide the design storm peaks for hydraulic modeling and floodplain mapping of the river and its tributaries. The approach involved identifying a storm that caused saturated conditions in the model and then applying 100-yr design storm balanced hyetographs for each rain gage used in the HSPF Model. Flood Frequency Analysis (FFA) results of stream data from gaged tributaries were used to calibrate the model in the modeling. Ungaged tributary HSPF results were verified by comparing the HSPF results to previous modeling study results. The HSPF model design storm peaks were calibrated by adjusting the factors (MFACTS in HSPF UCI – Users Control Input) applied to the rain data at the gaged tributary calibration points to match 100-year estimates developed from FFA results. These rainfall factors could then be applied to the ungaged tributaries. In some cases the flow tables (FTABLEs in HSPF) representing the stage-storage-discharge data used in stream channel routing were adjusted so that peaks varied in the downstream direction consistent with the conceptual model of the watershed. Developed watershed FTABLEs were adjusted so that the peaks matched the FFA results. The HSPF Model was calibrated to provide peaks that were within 10 percent or less as compared to the design peaks obtained from analyses of stream gage data by the District and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The HSPF Model was then run with the appropriate rainfall distributions at 5-minute time steps to provide 100-year design storm peaks at the ungaged tributaries. The 100-year peaks were then converted to other return intervals of interest by using multipliers developed from flow-frequency analyses of long-term Ventura County stream gages. For upstream locations within a subarea, the HSPF Model results were analyzed using discharge-transfer techniques and the USGS regression equations to provide additional flow data for use in the hydraulic modeling. The results showed that the HSPF Models provided design peak estimates that could be calibrated to match stream gage frequency analysis results and provide design peaks on ungaged tributaries that generally agreed to within 20 percent or less with historic modeling results using various hydrology models. The model peaks from the two developed areas with stream gage data matched the peaks from frequency analysis after a factor of 0.70 was applied to the rain. FTABLE adjustments were then used for these areas after resetting the rainfall factor back to 1.0 so that the stream gage design peak could be matched without affecting the volume of runoff from the developed subareas. Other FTABLE adjustments were used to better match design peaks from undeveloped watersheds such as North Fork Matilija Creek and Coyote Creek downstream of Casitas Dam. VCWPD Final Report – February 2010 i Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling This page intentionally left blank. VCWPD Final Report – February 2010 ii Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. i 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 2. BASELINE VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED HSPF MODEL ............................. 3 2.1. Flow Frequency Analysis .............................................................................. 3 2.2. Design Storm Methodology........................................................................... 3 2.3. Balanced Storm Method for Developing Hyetographs .................................. 5 2.4. HSPF Calibration – Approach and Results ................................................... 8 2.4.1 Ventura River Mainstem Calibration .................................................... 13 2.4.2 San Antonio Creek Calibration ............................................................ 14 2.4.3 Canada Larga Calibration .................................................................... 14 2.4.4 North Fork Matilija Creek Calibration ................................................... 15 2.4.5 Fox Drain Calibration ........................................................................... 16 2.4.6 Happy Valley Drain Calibration ............................................................ 17 2.4.7 Coyote Creek Calibration ..................................................................... 18 2.5. Design Storm Model Calibration Results and Conclusions ......................... 19 2.6. Areal Reduction and FTABLE Calibration Effects ...................................... 22 2.7. San Antonio Tributary Calibration Results .................................................. 24 2.8. HSPF Model Areas Versus Historical Hydrology Study Areas .................... 24 2.8.1 East Ojai Drain .................................................................................... 25 2.9. Design Storm Models Used in Study .......................................................... 33 2.10. Peak Flow Bulking ................................................................................... 33 3. RATIOS FOR INTERMEDIATE DISCHARGE ESTIMATES .............................. 34 4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 40 5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 41 6. APPENDIX A – HSPF MODEL FILES ............................................................... 42 VCWPD Final Report – February 2010 iii Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – HSPF and Stream Gage Annual Peak Comparison ............................. 4 Table 2 – 100-Yr Design Storm Flow Frequency Analysis Results ....................... 5 Table 3 – Rainfall Gage Data Used in the HSPF Design Modeling ...................... 7 Table 4 – HSPF Segments and Numbering ........................................................ 12 Table 5 – HSPF Design Storm Model Results for Ventura River Calibration Sites .................................................................................. 13 Table 6 – FTABLE Adjustment Results for Fox Cyn Drain ................................. 17 Table 7 – Original and Revised Reach 311 FTABLE Information ....................... 23 Table 8 – Summary of Revised FTABLEs in Design Storm Model ..................... 23 Table 9 – Original and Revised Baseline Mainstem Model Flows ...................... 24 Table 10 – Ventura River Mainstem HSPF Results Compared to Historical Studies ................................................................................ 27 Table 11 – Ventura River Tributary HSPF Results Compared to Historical Studies .......................................................... 28 Table 12 – Ventura County Design Storm Ratios Based on Flow Frequency Analysis Results ....................................................... 35 Table 13 – Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Peaks ................................. 36 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Location Map ......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Gage 165 (Stewart Canyon) Depth Versus Duration Data .................... 6 Figure 3 – Gage 165 Design Storm Hyetograph ..................................................... 6 Figure 4 – HEC-HMS Areal Reduction Curves for Design Storms .......................... 9 Figure 5 – Ventura River Watershed HSPF Model Rain Gages ............................. 9 Figure 6 – Ventura River Watershed HSPF Model Stream Gages ....................... 10 Figure 7 – HSPF Model Segmentation – FEMA Tributaries .................................. 11 Figure 8 – Fox Drain Probability Plot..................................................................... 16 Figure 9 – Happy Valley Probability Plot ............................................................... 18 Figure 10 Coyote Creek Hydrographs .................................................................. 18 Figure 11 – Ventura River Design Storm Hydrograph at Gage Location ................ 20 Figure 12 – San Antonio Creek Design Storm Hydrograph at Gage Location ........ 21 Figure 13 – Happy Valley Drain Design Storm Hydrograph at Gage Location ........ 21 Figure 14– East Ojai Drain Model Boundary Comparison ..................................... 26 VCWPD Final Report – February 2010 iv Ventura River Watershed Design Storm Modeling 1. INTRODUCTION This report provides design peak flows for floodplain mapping of the Ventura River Watershed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The floodplain mapping project by FEMA’s consultant will update the floodplain shown on current
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare
    The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare Kathryn O’Reilly A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Professor Randolph T. Hester Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss Spring 2010 The thesis of Clare Kathryn O’Reilly, titled The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges, is approved: Chair Date: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf Date: Professor Randolph T. Hester Date: Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss University of California, Berkeley Spring 2010 The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges Copyright 2010 by Clare O’Reilly Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Methods 18 CHAPTER 3: Conceptual Framework 22 CHAPTER 4: Case Studies 46 Upper York Creek Dam 47 Searsville Dam 58 San Clemente Dam 72 Matilija Dam 84 Rindge Dam 99 CHAPTER 5: Synthesis & Recommendations 108 REFERENCES 124 APPENDICES 136 table OF COnTEnTS i List of Figures CHAPTER 1 Figure 1-1. Sediment deposition from upstream watershed (left) and resulting deposition in reservoir. 2 Figure 1-2. Transport impact of dams. (Wildman, 2006) 3 Figure 1-3. Dams in the US by height. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-4. Dams in the US by hazard potential. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-5. Delta deposition in reservoir. (Mahmood, 1987) 5 Figure 1-6. Example of reservoir sediment deposit. 5 Figure 1-7. Infilled reservoir. (Morris & Fan, 1998) 5 Figure 1-8. Bar-lin Dam on the Dahan River in Taiwan, full of sediment in 2006 four years after completion (left), and post-failure in 2007 (right).
    [Show full text]
  • Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Plan
    MATILIJA DAM GIANT REED REMOVAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN County of Ventura Watershed Protection District 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, California 93009 Contact: Tom Lagier, Project Manager EcoSystems Restoration Associates 8954 Rio San Diego Drive Suite 610 San Diego, CA 92108 619.291.1475 Contact: Julie Simonsen-Marchant, Project Manager June 2007 Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Program TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Monitoring Plan Objectives ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Existing Data....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Water Quality Data Collected.......................... 1 1.4 Data Management............................................................................................................... 1 1.5 Reporting............................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Geology............................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Land Uses ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrating the Value of Dams and Levees — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
    United States Society on Dams Celebrating the Value of Dams and Levees — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow 36th Annual USSD Conference Denver, Colorado, April 11-15, 2016 CONTENTS Conference Theme *Is This Community Worth Saving? ....................................................................................1 Robert Beduhn, HDR *Unintended Consequences of Dam Removal .....................................................................3 Melinda Dirdal, Greg Paxson and Dave Campbell, Schnabel Engineering *The Kentucky River: Managing 19th Century Infrastructure to Meet 21st Century Needs ....................................................................................................................................5 Daniel A. Gilbert, Jeffrey S. Dingrando and April L. Welshans, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.; and David Hamilton, Kentucky River Authority *Historical Perspective — Dams, Hydro, and Multi-Purpose Projects ..............................7 David Kleiner, MWH Would Texas Be Texas Without Dams? ...............................................................................9 John L Rutledge, Freese and Nichols, Inc. Discussing the Benefits of Dams with your Friends and Neighbors, the Media, and the Guy Sitting Next to You on the Plane ...........................................................................11 Amanda Sutter, Corps of Engineers A Race Against Time, America’s Flood Risk from Aging Dams .......................................13 Jason Wilson, Southern Company Hydraulics *Use of Labyrinth Piano Key Weir (PKW)
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura River Watershed Technical Investigation
    VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Funding Provided by the Department of Fish and Game and Proposition 13 Prepared for: CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA San Buenaventura, CA Prepared by: ENTRIX, INC. Walnut Creek, CA Project No. 325405 March 14, 2003 VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Funding Provided by the Department of Fish and Game and Proposition 13 Prepared for: CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA P.O. Box 99 Ventura, CA 93002 Prepared by: ENTRIX, INC. 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Project No. 325405 March 14, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures......................................................................................................................v List of Photographs............................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary........................................................................................................... ix 1.0 Introduction and Overview .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Relationship to the Ventura River Habitat Conservation Plan ................ 1-2 1.3 Relationship to Other Agencies and Processes.......................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Robles Fish Passage Facility Progress Report
    2014 Robles Fish Passage Facility Progress Report Ventura River channel going subsurface at Foster Park in 2012 for the first time in several years (top) Mean monthly discharge at Foster Park (USGS) and groundwater elevation near HWY 150 bridge (VRWD) since April 2011 (bottom). Three consecutive years of below average precipitation have resulted in groundwater depletion in the Ventura River basin and limited surface connection to only 72 hours during the 2014 fish passage season. Casitas Municipal Water District 1055 Ventura Avenue Oak View, California 93022 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... 4 2.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 5 3.0 UPSTREAM FISH MIGRATION IMPEDIMENT EVALUATION................................. 7 3.1 Sandbar Monitoring ...................................................................................... 14 4.0 EVALUATE FISH MOVEMENT THROUGH THE PASSAGE FACILITY................. 17 4.1 Water Velocity and Depth Validation Evaluation........................................... 17 4.2 Fish Attraction Evaluation............................................................................. 17 4.3 Downstream Fish Passage Evaluation ......................................................... 21 5.0 DOWNSTREAM FISH MIGRATION THROUGH THE ROBLES REACH ............... 22 6.0 LONG-TERM MONITORING COMPONENTS.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Matilija Dam Removal 65% Design Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Studies to Determine 100-Year Water Surface Elevations
    TECHNI C A L REPORT ◦ FEBRUARY 2020 Matilija Dam Removal 65% Design Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Studies to Determine 100-year Water Surface Elevations PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Stillwater Sciences 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2600 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Berkeley, CA 94705 Stillwater Sciences Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Modeling Results for Matilija Dam Removal Suggested citation: Stillwater Sciences. 2020. Matilija Dam Removal 65% Design Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Studies to Determine 100-year Water Surface Elevations. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for AECOM Technical Services, Inc., Los Angeles, California, February. Cover photos: Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California, November 2019, photo taken by Paul Jenkins, Surfrider Foundation. February 2020 Stillwater Sciences i Subtask 2.3: Hydraulic Modeling Results for Matilija Dam Removal Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDRAULIC MODELING ................................................... 5 3.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Topographic Data ........................................................................................................ 7 3.3 Hydrologic
    [Show full text]
  • VENTURA RIVER LEVEE SECTION 905(B) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
    US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District VENTURA RIVER LEVEE SECTION 905(b) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DRAFT-FINAL REPORT APRIL 2012 VENTURA RIVER LEVEE SECTION 905(b) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DRAFT-FINAL REPORT Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc 17885 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 APRIL 2012 Table of Contents Page 1. STUDY AUTHORITY.................................................................................................................1 2. STUDY PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................1 3. LOCATION OF STUDY, NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS...................................................................................................................................1 4. PRIOR REPORTS AND EXISTING PROJECTS.....................................................................2 5. PLAN FORMULATION..............................................................................................................3 a. National Objectives ................................................................................................................4 b. Public Concerns ......................................................................................................................4 c. Problems and Opportunities...................................................................................................5 d. Planning Objectives ................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Board Meeting Agenda
    Board Meeting Agenda Russ Baggerly, Director Pete Kaiser, Director Mary Bergen, Director James Word, Director Bill Hicks, Director CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Meeting to be held at the Casitas Board Room 1055 Ventura Ave. Oak View, CA 93022 April 11, 2018 @ 3:00 P.M. Right to be heard: Members of the public have a right to address the Board directly on any item of interest to the public which is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. The request to be heard should be made immediately before the Board's consideration of the item. No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of ¶54954.2 of the Government Code and except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under section 54954.3 of the Government Code. 1. Roll Call 2. Public comments (Items not on the agenda – three minute limit). 3. General Manager comments. 4. Board of Director comments. 5. Board of Director Verbal Reports on Meetings Attended. 6. Consent Agenda – NONE. 7. Review of District Accounts Payable Report for the Period of 3/23/18 - 4/4/18. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion approving report. 8. Resolution setting a public hearing for May 9, 2018 to hear input from the public on the proposed modification to rates and fees for the Casitas Water Adventure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution. 1 9. Information Items: a. Water Resources Committee Minutes – March 27, 2018 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project CEQA Scoping Period Information
    Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project CEQA Scoping Period Information This presentation provides information regarding the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, Scoping Period for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project. •1 Purpose of Scoping Period • Inform the public about the Project and the CEQA environmental review process. • Seek input on the scope and content of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), including potential environmental issues, mitigation, and alternatives to be analyzed. Slide 2 The purpose of Scoping is to inform the public about the Project and the environmental review process, as required by CEQA. Scoping for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project provides an opportunity for the public to give input on the scope and content of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, or Subsequent EIR. Input may include identifying specific environmental issues, mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts, or potential alternatives to project actions. •2 Ventura River Watershed Slide 3 Matilija Dam is located along Matilija Creek, approximately 16 miles north of the Pacific Ocean in western Ventura County, California. Approximately one‐half mile southeast of the Dam, Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join to create the Ventura River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The Los Padres National Forest surrounds the portions of the Project area along Matilija Creek and Matilija Dam. Downstream of the Dam, the Ventura River flows south past the western edge of the City of Ojai, and through unincorporated communities within Ventura County. In its lower reaches, the Ventura River flows through the City of Ventura until it reaches its estuary with the Pacific Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects
    United States Society on Dams Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects July 2015 Prepared by the USSD Committee on Dam Decommissioning U.S. Society on Dams Vision A world class organization dedicated to advancing the role of dam and levee systems and building the community of practice. Mission USSD, as the United States member of the International Commission on Large Dams, is dedicated to: ADVOCATE: Champion the role of dam and levee systems in society. EDUCATE: Be the premier source for technical information about dam and levee systems. COLLABORATE: Build networks and relationships to strengthen the community of practice. CULTIVATE: Nurture the growth of the community of practice. The information contained in this report regarding commercial products or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made or the opinions expressed in this publication. Copyright © 2015 U. S. Society on Dams Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-1-884575-71-6 U.S. Society on Dams 1616 Seventeenth Street, #483 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-628-5430 Fax: 303-628-5431 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ussdams.org FOREWORD The primary objective of these Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects is to provide dam owners, dam engineers, and other professionals with the information necessary to help guide decision-making when considering dam removal as a project alternative. If selected as the preferred alternative, these Guidelines may help in the development and execution of a successful dam decommissioning project, which would include all necessary activities associated with the removal of a dam and restoration of the river, from project planning through design and implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura River Study Plan
    State of California Natural Resources Agency California Department of Fish and Wildlife STUDY PLAN Habitat and Instream FlowREPORT Evaluation TYPE: for Steelhead in the VENTURAREPORT RIVER, VenturaTITLE County CREEK, COUNTY STREAM EVALUATION REPORT XX-X Month Year STUDY PLAN January 2017 Approvals Robert W. Hughes, P.E. Senior Hydraulic Engineer, Conservation Engineering Program Kevin Shaffer Branch Chief, Fisheries Branch Scott Cantrell Branch Chief, Water Branch 2 PREFACE This study plan document outlines the approach that will be used by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department or CDFW) to evaluate instream flow needs for Southern California steelhead trout in the Ventura River, in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The California Water Action Plan1 (CWAP) outlines ten actions and associated sub-actions to address water management challenges and promote reliability, restoration, and resilience in the management of California’s water. Included in action four of the CWAP, the Department and State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) were directed to implement a suite of actions to enhance instream flows within five priority watersheds. The Ventura River is among these five priority streams. The Department plans to begin work on the Ventura River study in late 2016 as part of a suite of actions to address instream flow enhancement for anadromous steelhead species. The Department is the Trustee Agency for California’s fish and wildlife resources and as a Responsible Agency under CEQA §21000 et seq. Fish and wildlife resources are held in trust for the people of the State of California under FGC §711.7. As the Trustee Agency, CDFW seeks to maintain native fish, wildlife, plant species, and natural communities for their intrinsic and ecological value and for their benefits to all citizens in the State.
    [Show full text]
  • Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314·1000 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: 2 0 DEC 2004 CEMP-SPD (1105-2-l0a) SUBJECT: Matilija Darn, Ventura County, California THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY ., 1. I submit, for transmission to Congress, my report on ecosystem restoration and recreation on the Ventura River, Ventura County, California. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. These reports are in response to a resolution by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted 15 April 1999. The resolution requested a review ofthe report of the Chief ofEngineers on the Ventura River, Ventura County, California, published as House Document 323, 7ih Congress, 1st Session, and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining whether any modifications ofthe recommendations contained therein are advisable at this time, in the interest ofenvironmental restoration and protection, and related purposes. This is the authority under which pre­ construction engineering and design activities will continue. 2. The reporting officers recommend authorization of a plan to restore and improve approximately 33 miles ofthe Ventura River, beginning at the coast at the outlet of the Ventura River and extending approximately 17 miles upstream of the existing Matilija Darn location. The plan includes removal of the non-federally constructed Matilija Darn to restore a more natural sediment transport regime along the river and the coast; restore the natural passage for the endangered steelhead trout beyond the existing darn location; protect existing water resources; provide features to remove and control the proliferation of the invasive weed, Arundo donax; and extend the recreation trail system.
    [Show full text]