DOCSLIB.ORG

Celebrating the Value of Dams and Levees — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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) Spillway to Improve Dam Safety for a Large Set of Dams ...........................................................................................................15 Frédéric Laugier, Julien Vermeulen and Thomas Pinchard, EDF-CIH *Ensuring Water Supply Reliability with Innovative PK Weir Spillway Design ...............17 G. Robblee, S. Kees and B.M. Crookston, Schnabel Engineering; and K. Keel, Town of Hillsborough *Importance of Site Considerations for Labyrinth Spillway Hydraulic Design — Upper Brushy Creek Dam 7 Modernization ......................................................................19 Tina Stanard and Victor Vasquez, Freese and Nichols, Inc.; Ruth Haberman, Upper Brushy Creek Water Control and Improvement District; Blake Tullis, Utah State University; and Bruce Savage, Idaho State University *Complete paper included on flash drive v Using HEC-RAS 2 Dimensional Capability for Dam Break Analysis ...............................21 Wesley Crosby, Corps of Engineers Combined 1-D and 2-D Modeling with HEC-RAS for Elk City Dam ................................23 Samantha Palmason, Corps of Engineers 2D or not 2D: Cases Studies in Application of HEC-RAS 5.0 2-Dimensional ..................25 Modeling Capabilities Kevin Ruswick and Gregory Daviero, Schnabel Engineering *Automated Incremental Hazard and Sensitivity Analysis of a Hypothetical Dam Breach Model .....................................................................................................................27 Mikell Warms, Dan Christensen and Christopher Goodell, WEST Consultants, Inc.; and Cynthia Oestreich, Aista Utilities HEC-MetVue — Tool for Real-time Forecasting; Analyzing, Transposing and Rotating Storms; Development of Design Storms ..............................................................29 Simeon Benson, Corps of Engineers *GSSA Modeling for Analysis of Flood Design Features at the Picayune Strand Restoration Project ............................................................................................................31 Charles W. Downer, Jaime A. Graulau-Santiago, Brian E. Skahill, David M. Weston, Nawa Raj Pradhan and Aaron R. Byrd, Corps of Engineers *Using the Variable Infiltration Capacity Model in a Semi-Stochastic Format for Hydrologic Hazard Estimates for Dam Safety Risk Analysis ............................................33 Frank Dworak, Bureau of Reclamation *Dynamic Desert Floods at a Dry Dam ............................................................................35 Robert A. Eichinger, Zachary Whitten and Michael Gerlach, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. *Cultivating Ingenuity and Safety In Alabama: The Taming of Lake Ogletree Reservoir ...........................................................................................................................37 James R. Crowder, Brian M. Crookston, Bradley T. Boyer and J. Tyler Coats, Schnabel Engineering *Replacing Ruby Dam Outlet Uses Computational Fluid Dynamics to Model Energy Dissipation .........................................................................................................................39 Frank Lan, Robert Waddell and Michael Zusi, AECOM; and Brian Grant, Montana DNRC *Reducing Scour with Flow Splitters, Extension Fins and Computational Fluid Dynamics............................................................................................................................41 Duane McClelland and Daniel Morse, CH2M; and Nathan M. Gullo and Jason A. Eichler, LCRA *Complete paper included on flash drive vi *Sediment Transport Analysis in Support of Prado Basin Sediment Management Project ................................................................................................................................43 Craig P. Baxter, Golder Associates Inc.; Nathan Scheevel, Scheevel Engineering, LLC; and George W. Annandale, Golder Associates Inc. *Verification of Sediment Yield Calculations in the Arid Southwest .................................45 Brian Wahlin and Jesse Piotrowski, WEST Consultants, Inc.; and Chuck Davis, Beaver Creek Hydrology *Post-Removal Reservoir Erosion: Elwha Dam and Glines Canyon Dam Removals, Washington ........................................................................................................................47 Jennifer A. Bountry, Bureau of Reclamation; Andy Ritchie, National Park Service; and Timothy J. Randle, Bureau of Reclamation *Unit Hydrograph Peaking Factors and their Application to PMF Simulations ..............49 Michael Bartles and Matthew Fleming, Corps of Engineers *Areal Reduction Factors — Colorado Front Range and Analysis of the 2013 Storm .........................................................................................................................51 Doug Hultstrand and Bill Kappel, Applied Weather Associates, LLC *Evaluating Effort Levels of Inflow Design Flood Study Methods for Dams ....................53 S. Samuel Lin, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and Jason E. Hedien, MWH Americas, Inc. Utilizing Regional Precipitation Frequency Relationships for Multiple Storm Types or Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment in the Tennessee River Watershed ......55 Mel Schaefer, MGS Engineering; Keil Neff, Tennessee Valley Authority; Shaun Carney, Riverside Technology, Inc; Bruce Barker, MGS Engineering; George H. Taylor, Applied Climate Services; and Curt Jawdy, Tennessee Valley Authority Young Professionals How Do They Do It? The Struggle of Juggling a Career and Parenthood and Feeling Successful in Both .................................................................................................57 Karen Aguillard, AECOM A Young Engineer’s Personal Experience at a Geotechnical Construction Materials Testing Firm and a Water Resources Design Firm ...........................................................59 Jim P. Kirch, RJH Consultants, Inc. Red Rock Hydroelectric Project — Generating Power from Iowa’s Largest Lake ...........61 Rachael V. Bisnett, MWH *Complete paper included on flash drive vii Dam Risk Assessment’s Role in Preparing for Climate Change .......................................63 Jessie Drayton, AECOM Modeling Efficient and Sustainable Hydroelectric Production at Small Dams through Artificially Induced Streamflow and Application of System Control ...................65 Rafey A. Siddiqui, Colorado State University; Bilal A. Siddiqui, DHA Suffa University; Ryan T. Bailey, Colorado State University; and Arif I. Osmani, Osmani & Co. Pvt. Ltd Assessment of Changing Climate on River Discharge in Regions with Lack of Hydrological Data .............................................................................................................67 Fariborz Nasr-Azadani, West Virginia University Use of Inverse Analysis of Pore Water Pressures to Estimate Changes in Hydraulic Conductivity Resulting from Backward Erosion ................................................................69 Carolyne Bocovich, Wim Kanning and Michael Mooney, Colorado School of Mines From Runways to Spillways: A Case Study from the Aerospace Industry on Adoption of Non-Destructive Inspection Tools with Lessons for the Dam Safety Community .........................................................................................................................71 Minal L. Parekh, Colorado School of Mines; and Jennifer Schneider, Boise State University Influence of Vertical Loading Conditions and an Overlying Cohesive Material on the Initiation of Backwards Piping Erosion.......................................................................73 Joy C. Foley and Mary G. Weiss, Colorado School of Mines Stuck between a Dam and a Small Space ..........................................................................75 Micah S. Smidt, RJH Consultants, Inc. Considerations During Site Exploration Activities............................................................77 Marie A. Maher and Derek L. Hodnett, Terracon Consultants, Inc. *Phased Investigation Approach for a Partial
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]
  • 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]
  • Matilija Dam, Ventura River/Matilija Creek, California Built in 1947
    Matilija Dam, Ventura River/Matilija Creek, California Built in 1947, Matilija Dam is owned by Ventura County Watershed Protection District and is located 15.6 miles from the Pacific Ocean in the Ventura River watershed. While it was 198 feet tall when constructed, due to safety concerns the dam has been notched twice and now stands at 168 feet. The reservoir is nearly full of sediment, with less than 500 acre feet of water storage space remaining and projected to be completely full of sediment by 2020. Sediment build-up has stripped the reservoir of its original function of water storage for agricultural. Since construction, Matilija Dam has posed a complete barrier to anadromous steelhead migration on the Ventura River blocking steelhead passage to over 50 percent of the primary spawning and rearing habitat of the Ventura River system. The dam also prevents downstream transport of nearly eight million cubic yards of sediment necessary to maintain the estuary and beaches at Surfer’s Point. Over the past several years, with federal, state, and local funding, a series of feasibility studies, technical analyses, and other work to produce a consensus-based plan for removal of the dam—the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Program. This work culminated earlier this year with completion of a Final Dam Removal Concepts Evaluation Report that provided various structural dam removal alternatives for dealing with the sediment behind the dam. This past spring, a multi-stakeholder Matilija Dam “Design Oversight Group” selected a dam removal concept as a preferred alternative, and is now seeking funding to take the project to its next critical design phase that will directly lead to removal of the dam.
    [Show full text]