Friday, April 16, 2021

Comments on CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations

 Via E-mail to InstreamFlow@wildlife.ca.gov

RE: Comments on CDFW Draft Instream Flow Regime Recommendations for the Lower Ventura River (February 2021)

Dear Mr. Pert,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Instream Flow Regime Recommendations. This document has been long anticipated amongst stakeholders engaged in ongoing discussions in the watershed. During this time of unprecedented stress from increased population and climate change, guidance is clearly needed to secure instream flows to maintain riverine ecosystems in California. These diverse and delicate ecosystems support not only native fisheries, most of which are now threatened, but also provide for a quality of life and the very foundation of our economy. The endangered southern steelhead serves as an indicator for how well we manage our land and water, and these instream flow recommendations will help inform ongoing management of our watershed.


Flow Recommendations are difficult to understand

The CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations are the result of a combination of different analytical approaches developed over several years and published in multiple documents. This is necessary in developing a standard approach that applies to the entire State of California, but the result can be difficult to unravel. The outcome and implementation of these recommendations depend on a clear understanding of the approach and intent, not only within the scientific and regulatory communities, but most importantly amongst the diverse stakeholders that currently manage and benefit from the resource.

In the course of our review, two graphics were developed to more clearly illustrate the relationships between the various criteria, methodologies, and recommendations. These graphics and a description of the processes are attached with these comments and published online at https://www.venturariver.org/2021/04/understanding-cdfw-instream-flow.html

The Draft Ventura River Flow Recommendations were derived from Steelhead Passage Flows, Sensitive Period Indicators, and Steelhead Optimum Flows. (The other criteria were developed to provide context based on historical flows in the Ventura River Watershed.)

Therefore, the CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations are primarily based upon the physical properties of the river as determined by Field Methods. The exceptions are two cases where Steelhead Optimum Flows are applied, for Fall Pulse Flows in November (40cfs) and for Adult Migration (80cfs) in Reach 3 only. The latter two recommendations are arbitrary and inconsistent with the other field-based recommendations.


CDFW diverges from established watershed nomenclature

For these studies, CDFW redefined the river and reaches differently from established nomenclature in other watershed planning efforts. For example, much of Reach 3 and all of Reach 4 of CDFW’s “Lower Ventura River” falls within the “Upper Ventura River Groundwater Basin” as defined by the State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). This nomenclature is likely to create confusion in discussions on implementation of the CDFW Instream Flows Recommendations.


Application of Instream Flow Recommendations is unclear

Stakeholders are confused as to the expectations of the Instream Flow Recommendations in the context of SGMA and other ongoing watershed concerns.

The Department understands these flows to be protective of steelhead and the habitat that supports them and recommends applying them across all water year types. In some cases, the recommended flows may not be available due to precipitation variability. When flows naturally fall below the flow recommendations for the lower Ventura River reaches 2,3, and 4, full natural flows should be maintained. Also, flows higher than the recommended criteria may be beneficial to the ecosystem and to steelhead.

It is unclear how to interpret this statement. Given that the existing condition falls short of the recommended flow in many water years, what is the meaning of “full natural flows should be maintained?” Does this refer to the Natural Flow developed in the Criteria Report (but not published in the Flow Recommendations?) (See comments below on Natural Flow)


Reaches 2/3/4 use different criteria for recommended flows

For the dry months, the differing flow recommendations in these reaches is an artifact of the field study protocols which produce slightly different results based on the varied streambed geometry. Indeed, the consistency of these results is a positive indicator of scientific rigor. A margin of error of 1cfs (6%) would be expected in the natural system, and this is also within the margin of error for the existing gage network (see comment below.)

Flow recommendations for the months of December-May are derived from the steelhead passage criteria (40/33 cfs) in reaches 2 and 3 respectively, while adult migration flows are applied only in reach 4 (80 cfs.) Apart from extractions at Foster park and inflows from Coyote Creek, these 3 reaches exist within the continuum of flows in the river, so 80 cfs in reach 4 would naturally translate to approximately the same flow in the reaches downstream.

Recognizing that these reaches are similar and connected, it may make more sense to apply a common denominator within these reaches to the entire reach as a whole. For example, the Sensitive Period indicator analysis for reaches 2, 3, and 4 resulted in 16, 14, and 15 cfs respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that a threshold of 14 or 15 cfs would indicate sensitivity for the reach as a whole.


The Natural Flows Database is flawed

The “Natural Flows” published in the Watershed Criteria Report are based on the Natural Flows Database for California computer model that attempts to predict unimpaired instream flows for the entire State of California. This model may be applicable to watersheds where snowpack and large reservoirs dominate, but appears to fall short in the groundwater dependent ecosystems of Southern California.

The CDFW Overview document states:

Natural Flows represent flows that would be present in the absence of water use or land use impacts to natural hydrology (Zimmerman et al. 2018). Natural Flows are determined using the estimated Natural Flows Database for California (Zimmerman et al. 2020). These data are used to calculate water month type, Ecosystem Baseflows, and Salmonid Habitat Optimum Flows.

The published literature regarding this computer model (Zimmerman 2017) include the disclaimer;

For some models, poor precision limited the sensitivity of our assessment, making
it impossible to determine whether deviation in flows from expected values was an artefact of the model or evidence of human-caused flow modification. This was 
particularly true for minimum and mean models in the dry season, when natural streamflows are low or absent and are controlled by physical processes that are not represented by basin- scale attributes.
For example, the data suggest that in the 
South Coast of Californiaunderstanding and mitigating the effects of inflated discharge in the summer may be critical

Here the authors admit a lack of understanding as to why the computer model predicts less instream flow than the “inflated discharge” evidenced by the stream gage records. In acknowledgement of this flaw, an “Appendix A” was added to the Watershed Criteria Report to provide an alternative Natural Flow estimation;

Natural Flows Database estimates are provided for every Watershed Criteria Report as part of the effort to produce a consistent statewide dataset. Where appropriate (relatively unimpaired) gage records are available, these site-specific data will be included as an appendix to the report. In these cases, the gage data are considered to replace the Natural Flows Database as an estimate of natural flow conditions.

Indeed, Ventura River flows for the dry months are grossly underestimated by the Natural Flows Database. One explanation may be the inability of the model to account for groundwater-surface water interactions, which are fundamental to the Ventura River. The flows published in Appendix A, derived from a statistical analysis of the “synthetic gage” data for the Ventura River, are significantly higher than those predicted by the Natural Flow database.

For this reason, the Draft Instream Flow Recommendation abandoned the Natural Flows Database, instead using the available historic gage data. Yet neither this document or the Watershed Criteria Report clearly explain the limitations of the Natural Flows information.

The Watershed Criteria Report as published states;

Natural Flows are the streamflows (in cfs) that would be expected with no human influence

Unfortunately, the perpetuation of “Natural Flows” in the CDFW publications is already tainting the public discourse. A recent OpEd published in the Ojai Valley News says:

“The new flow recommendation by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife is 15 cubic feet per second at Foster Park for summertime flows. This is dramatically different from the 1 cfs that the Department of Fish and Wildlife calculates for the same area from July to October of dry years as the “natural flows expected with no human influence” (Watershed Criteria Report No. 2020-01).”


Synthetic gage misrepresents Natural Flow

In place of the Natural Flows Database, these analyses use the synthetic least-impaired USGS gage Ventura R NR Ventura + Div 11118501 based on the period of record 1965– 2007

USGS gage Ventura R NR Ventura + Div , takes the historic USGS flow data and adds back the amount of water diverted through the surface diversion at the City of Ventura’s Foster Park wellfield. (Note that the surface diversion is a fraction of what the total wellfield extracts, and is currently out of commission.)

This “synthetic gage” data is used to develop many of the Watershed Criteria. The historic flow record from the past 40 years is useful in describing the general qualitative flow characteristics in the watershed such as Flow Variation, and to a lesser degree Functional Flows. However, the use of the synthetic gage as currently defined is extremely problematic when attempting to establish a baseline for unimpaired, or “Natural Flows.”

There are three primary concerns with the use of the historic USGS gage data;

First, this data is a record of surface flows just downstream from Foster Park from 1965-2007, which fundamentally represents the developed watershed. Most of the major modifications in the Ventura River Watershed occurred prior to 1965, including the construction of MatiIija Dam in 1948 and Casitas Dam in 1958. It is also important to note that by 1890, before stream gages existed, 4,000 acres of agriculture had already been developed in the Ojai Valley.

Second, a synthetic gage that solely accounts for a single surface diversion disregards the multitude of wells throughout the watershed upstream, all of which detract from the total discharge at Foster Park. The importance of the interaction between groundwater and surface water is recognized by the State of California in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Studies and governance are underway to better define these effects within the Ventura River Watershed. Coordination with the State Water Board’s surface water/groundwater model analysis of unimpaired flows would have been helpful in providing a more robust baseline for instream flows.

Third, stream gaging was historically focused on recording flood events rather than maintaining low flow accuracy. Each flood causes geomorphic alterations to the streambed profile which necessitates re-staging, or re-calibrating, the gages for accuracy. However, until recently very little attention was given to low flows, which are notoriously difficult to measure accurately (i.e. the margin of error may meet or exceed the measured flow.) Other uncontrolled variables such as vegetation growth or human activity can significantly affect gage accuracy. Unfortunately, these variables are not quantifiable in hindsight, so the low flow record has a very high margin of error.

It is important to recognize that the “synthetic gage” does serve as a baseline for the current condition based upon the hydrology of the past 40 years. This 20th century baseline will become most relevant in the coming decades with the increasing pressures of population growth and climate change, as well as to monitor progress with enhanced watershed management.

However, by no means does the synthetic gage represent “the flow that would be present in the absence of land use and water diversion impacts to natural hydrology.” Indeed, it is not only misleading to call these “Natural Flows,” this also undermines any discussion of maintaining or enhancing base flows in the river.

Most importantly, the “Natural Flows” assessment perpetuates the Shifting baseline syndrome“an incremental lowering of standards that results with each new generation lacking knowledge/ observation of the historical (or previous) condition of the environment being observed.”


Recommendations

  • Consolidate flow recommendations for the similar and contiguous reaches 2, 3, and 4.
  • Revise the flow recommendations based on Steelhead Optimum Flows to maintain consistency with flow recommendations based on field methods.
  • Eliminate the flawed Natural Flows Database results from the Criteria Report and revise Natural Flows to reflect the stream gage analysis used in the Flow Recommendations report.
  • Replace the term “Natural Flows” with “Historic Flows” to better represent conditions in the watershed.
  • Update the Natural Flow Criteria as more information comes available from the State Water Board analysis of groundwater-surface water interactions and estimates of unimpaired flow.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Instream Flow Regime Recommendations for the Lower Ventura River and hope these comments are helpful in finalizing these documents.

Sincerely

A.Paul Jenkin
Coordinator, Matilija Coalition
Surfrider Foundation - Ventura County Chapter



On this blog:

Understanding CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations

Ecosystem flows


In the news:

   Ojai leaders don't go with the flow, Ojai Valley News, 5 March 2021 

“These humongous flows by Fish and Wildlife would totally disrupt life in the Ojai Valley,” said Rapp, adding he was particularly alarmed by the agency’s statement that full, natural flows should be maintained when flows fall below the recommendations. “That’s a huge impact. That means for many months of the year, no one should pump their wells, or if someone has diversion rights they should not divert water from the river.”

The decision on what type of instream flow regime is necessary to support a healthy Ventura River is essentially a scientific one, and will not, and should not, be decided by authors of letters to the editor or guest columnists. However, the political will to support and implement whatever scientifically defensible instream flow regime is identified, is very much a matter of public awareness and understanding. Ultimately, the question raised by the current controversy over dividing the waters of the Ventura River is, “What kind of a community do we want to be?” The residents of the Ojai and Ventura River Valleys have an opportunity to set an example for other communities in California and beyond. 

The new flow recommendation by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife is 15 cubic feet per second at Foster Park for summertime flows. This is dramatically different from the 1 cfs that the Department of Fish and Wildlife calculates for the same area from July to October of dry years as the “natural flows expected with no human influence” (Watershed Criteria Report No. 2020-01). 

Three of the largest water users in the Ventura River Watershed — the city of Ventura, Ventura River Water District and Meiners Oaks Water District — have all sent response letters to CDFW regarding the recommendations. All three letters state there’s not enough water in the river to meet Fish and Wildlife’s recommendations.

“The flows that they’ve recommended for steelhead are not available in the river most of the time, so they set these recommended flows that we cannot achieve,” said James Kentosh, vice president of Meiners Oaks Water District.

CDFW’s recommended flows significantly exceed natural, historic flows during all but four months of even the wettest of years, Kentosh told the Ojai Valley News. “If every human being stopped using water in the valley, those flow recommendations would still only be enough a fraction of the time,” he said.  Furthermore, the amounts of water necessary to supplement natural flows to reach recommended flows are too large, according to Bruce Kuebler, board president of VRWD.






Thursday, April 15, 2021

Understanding CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) released Draft instream flow recommendations for the lower Ventura River and Coyote Creek in February 2021.   According to CDFW, "This information will be used to enhance flows in the watershed in several ways, including the development of flow criteria and identification of important flow thresholds for conservation, restoration, and protection of southern steelhead in the Ventura River watershed."


The Draft Flow Recommendations are summarized in the table from the draft document below:
 

Understanding CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations 

The CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations are the result of a combination of different analytical approaches developed over several years and published in multiple documents.  This is necessary in developing a standard approach that applies to the entire State of California, but the result can be difficult to unravel.  The outcome and implementation of these recommendations depend on a clear understanding of the approach and intent, not only within the scientific and regulatory communities, but also amongst the diverse stakeholders that currently manage and benefit from the resource.  

In order to better understand the origin of these flow recommendations, two graphics were developed to more clearly illustrate the relationships between the various criteria, methodologies, and recommendations.  These graphics and a description of the processes are shown below.


The Summary Chart consolidates all of the values published in the Draft instream flow recommendations document, each aligned by month so that they can be easily viewed and cross referenced.  At the top of this chart is the general Functional Flow diagram from the Watershed Criteria Report with the Ventura River specific values inserted for each functional flow component.  The other watershed criteria are shown in the boxes below, color coded for consistency with the CDFW documentation.  


But where did this information come from?  


The Summary of Watershed Criteria Methodology table illustrates how each of the watershed criteria were derived.  
  • Stream gage records are used to develop a statistical analysis of flows in the Ventura River which become the basis for understanding Flow Variation and Functional Flow.  
  • A computer model was used to develop the Natural Flows criteria, from which Ecosystem Baseflow and Salmonid Habitat Optimum Flows were derived.   
  • Field methods were applied to  determine Sensitive Period Indicators and Steelhead Passage Flows.

Note that due to obvious inaccuracies in the statewide "Natural Flows Database" computer model, the analysis for the Ventura River use the "synthetic least-impaired USGS gage Ventura R NR Ventura + Div 11118501 based on the period of record 1965–2007."  This data is included in Appendix A of the Watershed Criteria Report No. 2020-01 Version 2, updated May 2020.

As illustrated in the Summary Chart above, the Ventura River Flow Recommendations were derived from Steelhead Passage Flows, Sensitive Period Indicators, and Steelhead Optimum Flows.   (The other criteria were developed to provide context based on historical flows in the Ventura River Watershed.) 

Therefore, the CDFW Instream Flow Recommendations are primarily based upon the physical properties of the river as determined by Field Methods.  The exceptions are two cases where Steelhead Optimum Flows are applied, for Fall Pulse Flows in November (40cfs) and for Adult Migration (80cfs) in Reach 3 only.


Field Methods Overview


CDFW Staff surveyed a total of 22 riffle transects on San Antonio Creek and the lower Ventura River. Fifteen of the original riffle transects surveyed for this project were included in the final analysis. These transects were used to develop both Sensitive Period Indicators and Steelhead Passage Flows. 


The Wetted Perimeter Method is a field survey used to determine the Sensitive Period Indicator, which is "threshold flows below which the ecosystem is likely to be particularly sensitive to additional flow reductions and other stressors." 

Once wetted perimeters and associated flows for the streambed cross-sections are obtained for the range of important flows, a wetted perimeter discharge curve is developed by plotting wetted perimeter against discharge. The breakpoint and incipient asymptote, as thresholds of important habitat conditions, are then identified to determine instream flow needs necessary for maintaining ecological and riffle productivity flows.  The Sensitive Period Indicator flow must produce a wetted perimeter that covers at least 50% of the bankfull channel perimeter in streams up to 50 feet wide and 60–70% in wider streams.





An example of this method is shown below (taken from AppendixB) for a transect of the Ventura River.  In this location it was determined that 16 cfs is the breakpoint below which the river is sensitive to flow reduction and other stressors.

The Habitat Retention Method is used to determine Salmonid Passage Flows. This method seeks to identify flows required to permit salmonid passage across the shallowest part of a channel, the hydraulic control.  Passage Flows for juvenile steelhead must produce a mean depth of 0.4 feet at the hydraulic control, while also meeting additional criteria for wetted perimeter or flow to preserve connectivity between mesohabitat units.



REFERENCE:



On this Blog:


















Monday, April 12, 2021

Matilija Dam Project Update - Spring 2021

The biannual update meetings for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project were held on April 1, 2021.   Meetings continue to be held remotely on Zoom. 

Ventura County Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection and its technical consultants provided a series of detailed updates on the Project’s technical and design planning efforts at 1:30 pm.  Then at 6:00 pm, representatives of the Watershed Protection, Matilija Coalition and other Matilija Project partners updated community members and stakeholders on the Project’s technical studies, design and implementation plans, funding efforts, CEQA analyses and other recent developments. 

The evening meeting was hosted by the Ventura River Watershed Council.  Meeting agendas, minutes, and presentations may be downloaded here: General Assembly April 2021 Meeting


The big news is the Santa Ana Blvd Bridge Replacement Project scheduled to begin this month (April 2021) with construction to be completed during this calendar year. The existing bridge will remain in place until its removal next year once the new bridge is ready to accept traffic after the wet season.  This is the first of the major downstream infrastructure upgrades necessary before the dam can be removed.

Several grants have recently been submitted to advance the final design of the project components.  There is a total of approximately $6.7m pending/in progress as of 3/30/21, with a recent positive outcome from the California Coastal Conservancy ($740k) for Camino Cielo Bridge Design, and FEMA ($61k) for dam removal engineering.  A $6.2m proposal to the NRCS for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)  requests assistance for improvements to the Robles Diversion Dam and levees.  A list of the current and pending grant requests are here.

As of March 30, 2021, a total of over $24M has been raised in grant awards since 2017.  



The question is always "when does the dam come out?"  

An aggressive schedule targets the dam being ready for the sediment flush by 2028, plus another 1-2 years for dam removal.  However, a period of up to 3 years is possible waiting for a wet winter with a storm event adequate to transport the fine sediment downstream to the ocean.  But of course there's a lot of uncertainty with the work to be done downstream first...




The new www.MatilijaDam.org website provides information on all aspects of the project.  Details on each of the project components, progress on funding, etc will be updated as more information becomes available.


 

In the news:

Progress continues toward Matilija Dam removal, Ojai Valley News,  Friday, 09 April 2021


Links:

www.MatilijaDam.org

General Assembly April 2021 Meeting, Ventura River Watershed Council

Progress continues toward Matilija Dam removal, Ojai Valley News



Wednesday, March 3, 2021

The Story of Our River

Our partners at Once Upon a Watershed have created an informative video telling the story of the Ventura River.  

Once Upon a Watershed provides hands-on local watershed education, restoration and stewardship experience for Kindergarten, 4th, 5th and 6th grade students in the Ventura River Watershed. 

The video shown here was created for their program for 6th grade students which focuses on the critically endangered indicator species, Southern Steelhead Trout, and the effects of the Matilija dam on beach erosion and spawning access.

...the presentation on beaches, sediment, and Matilija dam removal starts around 12:20



More info:

Once Upon a Watershed: Telling the Story of Our Watershed Through Exploration, Education, and Stewardship  https://www.onceuponawatershed.org 

https://www.onceuponawatershed.org/sixth-grade

Watching the Dams Come Down: Nooksack

Another dam has been removed in the Pacific Northwest.  We have been watching and learning as our partners on the Matilija Dam project demonstrate success on other rivers.

The Middle Fork Nooksack River Fish Passage project is one of several case studies that has been examined as a strategy for modifying the Robles Diversion Dam downstream of Matilija Dam.  Diversion dams can be particularly tricky as there is a need to not only pass the increased sediment expected with Matilija Dam removal, but also maintain water diversion and fish passage.  In the Nooksack case, this is accomplished by moving water diversion intakes upstream and completely removing the existing diversion dam. 

According to the City of Bellingham, the Nooksack River Fish Passage project will restore access to approximately 16 miles of pristine spawning and rearing habitat in the upper Middle Fork for three Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Puget Sound fish species: spring Chinook salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout. Project elements and related benefits include​ moving the point of diversion just upstream of the existing location to eliminate the need for the dam; dam removal and channel restoration to restore habitat connectivity; and installation of fully compliant fish screens for fish protection.






In the news:

Bang! Watch a Nooksack River dam finally coming down, freeing miles for fish habitat, Seattle Times, July 20, 2020


More information:

American Rivers: reimagining-a-river-the-middle-fork-nooksack

NOAA Fisheries: dam-removal-brings-hope-salmon-washingtons-middle-fork-nooksack-river

City of Bellingham: https://cob.org/services/environment/restoration/middlefork


On this blog: 

Watching the Dams Come Down- Elwha

Watching the dams come down - Elwha beaches

Watching the Dams Come Down - Condit

Savage Rapids Dam removed

Klamath Dam removal study supports sediment releases

San Clemente Dam removal

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Rincon Island decommissioning

Rincon Island, an oil facility off the coast of Ventura County, is being decommissioned by the state. 

https://www.slc.ca.gov/oil-and-gas/rincon-island/

 

State of California officials say they’ve reached a milestone in the state’s transition away from fossil fuels and toward a clean energy future.

On Feb. 4, the State Lands Commission and the Department of Conservation’s California Geological Energy Management Division announced they’ve plugged and abandoned all 50 oil wells on Rincon Island, a small 2.3-acre artificial island off Mussel Shoals in Ventura County.

Rincon Island is one of a handful of remaining offshore oil structures in state waters, stated the agencies, which also announced the plugging and abandonment of all 24 state onshore production wells, and two additional onshore wells that were not part of state lease operations but had been deserted.

The state took responsibility for decommissioning Rincon in 2017, after the operator declared bankruptcy. It plugged and abandoned the 74 wells ahead of schedule, under budget and without incident or spillage, the Commission stated in a news release.

Plugging and abandoning the wells is the main component of phase one of a three-phase process that includes developing and executing a decommissioning plan. Work on the plan will include extensive public outreach and engagement, according to the Commission.

The remaining phase one work, underway now, consists of site clearance activities to remove decrepit oil production infrastructure and should be completed by June 2021, officials said.

For more information on the Rincon Island decommissioning status and the next steps in the process, visit www.slc.ca.gov/oil-and-gas/rincon-island/.

(article from Ojai Valley News: rincon-island-oil-wells-unplugged




Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Surfers' Point erosion damage Jan 2021

 

During the first week of February, 2021, the barriers along the eroding coastal path at the Ventura County Fairgrounds were moved back for public safety.  Several more parking spaces have been eliminated as the ocean continues to take back the beach.  


Erosion undermines the bke path,  Jan 13, 2021

This year's damage was more than anticipated, as relatively calm conditions were predicted with "La Nina" conditions dominating the Pacific Ocean.  However, an anomalous storm track developed producing a series of large swell events during the entire month of January, some coinciding with the year's highest tides.  Good for surfers, bad for beachfront property managers.

9 am January 14, 2021
(high tide 6.36 ft @ 9:30 am)

Large swell at Surfers Point, Jan 18, 2021

The final design for "Managed Shoreline Retreat" has been completed, but the process appears to be on hold.   Un-managed retreat continues... Fencing, concrete curb, and asphalt litter the shoreline along the most popular beach in Ventura County.














Overview looking east from the restored beach toward the eroding parking lot
slated for relocation in Phase 2 of the Managed Retreat project

Overview of Surfers' Point looking west - the parking lot in the foreground 
would be relocated out of harms way in Phase 2 of the Managed Shoreline Retreat project 




Artist rendition of the proposed Surfers Point Managed Shoreline Retreat project


Surfers' Point Managed Retreat Phase 1 - Jan 13, 2021
Phase 1 of the project continues to demonstrate resiliency to high surf
(note high tide line and exposed cobble berm)


Update from the City of Ventura:  
The City helped the Fairgrounds remove part of the wood fence, dig out the landscape area, pave the planting or parking area level with the path, and move the temporary fence over for some extra clearance from the eroded area. A few parking spaces had to be taken out to make it safe for pedestrians to pass. The hope is that this is enough to last through the summer, however that is weather dependent.
The City also reapplied for State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways – Public Beach Restoration Grant in the amount of $5.5M last month. This includes the beach side of the $10.1M estimate but not the new paved parking lot, lighting, and other amenities.

On this blog: 


Winter 2021 swells: