1 / 43

Outreach Meeting No. 3

CALLEGUAS CREEK IWPP PHASE II MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STUDY. Outreach Meeting No. 3 . Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM Ventura County Watershed Protection District & CH2M HILL. Agenda. 1. Welcome & Introductions IWPP and Meeting Goals Progress to Date

xiang
Download Presentation

Outreach Meeting No. 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CALLEGUAS CREEK IWPP PHASE II MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STUDY Outreach Meeting No. 3 Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM Ventura County Watershed Protection District & CH2M HILL

  2. Agenda • 1. Welcome & Introductions • IWPP and Meeting Goals • Progress to Date • Proposed Approaches: Watershed BMP implementation Options • Combined Scenarios • Break-out Session & Stakeholder Reports (after Break-out Session) • Next Steps

  3. Welcome! Calleguas CreekIntegrated Watershed Protection Plan(IWPP) Phase IIManagement Strategy Study • This study will select flood and sediment control approaches and combine them into a selected Combined Alternative. • Study links to other initiatives: • Open Space Planning Network • Water quality and TMDL implementation • Habitat restoration/preservation and recreation • Groundwater Recharge

  4. Introductions Ventura County participants • Sergio Vargas, Deputy Director, VCWPD Planning • Peter Sheydayi, Deputy Director, VCWPD Design • Zia Hosseinipour, VCWPD Planning • Tony Chen, VCWPD Planning • Karl Novak, VCWPD Maintenance • Angela Bonfiglio Allen, VCWPD Environmental • Pam Lindsey, VCWPD Environmental

  5. Introductions (Cont’d) • CH2M HILL participants • Terry Foreman, Project Director: WQ/Groundwater/Recreation • Kathleen Higgins, Project Manager: Flooding/Sedimentation • Jeff Friesen, Project Engineer • Stakeholders

  6. IWPP Goals The Integrated Watershed Protection Plan (IWPP) is the culmination of a series of long-range planning efforts since the Ventura County Watershed Protection District inception. • The IWPP Goal: • To provide a systematic process for the inclusion of projects into the District’s Capital Improvement Plan over its five-year planning period. • To improve the long-range District planning process for the 20-year period subsequent to the Capital Improvement Plan by allocating projected revenues to identified projects. • The IWPP Goal for the Calleguas Creek Strategy Study: • Identify and develop approaches to manage the Calleguas Creek Watershed through implementation of feasible IWPP projects. • The objective of the Calleguas Creek IWPP is to perform flood protection and sediment control, to minimize operations and maintenance costs, and to address water quality control, ground water recharge, and environmental issues. • Maximize multi-use and recreational benefits

  7. Meeting Goals • Review decisions and progress to date • Present three Watershed BMP options and recommendation • Present Combined Scenarios and costs; answer questions • Get your input in break-out groups • Decide on a combined scenario for final detailed analysis • Discuss next steps

  8. VCWPD Hire Consultant Data/Field Review; Identify Data Gaps Outreach Stakeholder Meeting 1 Data & Concepts Input 2-12-2008 Project Analysis & Study Outreach Stakeholder Meeting 2 Discuss Potential Approaches 7-15-2008 IWPP Phase II Task SeriesProgress to Date Calleguas Creek Existing Problems Project Analysis & Study

  9. IWPP Phase II Task SeriesProgress to Date Outreach Ag. Meeting (added) 8-21-2008 Outreach Stakeholder Meeting 4 Comments June-2009 Analyze & CostCombined Scenarios Finalize Report Outreach Stakeholder Meeting 3Select preferred Scenarios 1-13-2009 Adopt ReportRecommendations; Schedule Implementation Comment Period Project Analysis & Study Projects Adopted to IWPP Produce Draft Report(available to Public) Projects Adopted to CIP Present DraftRecommendations

  10. Progress to Date 1 • Workshop #1: Review of historical studies; obtain stakeholder comments and ideas. • Workshop #2: Present initial list of 7 potential approaches; discuss in break-out sessions, report back results and prioritize approaches. • Ag. Workshop: Added meeting with agriculture stakeholders to present prioritized approaches from Workshop #2 and solicit feedback.

  11. Progress to Date 2 Outcome from Workshop #2: • Alternative approaches in order of preference to be applied in final plan: • Discussed evaluation criteria Prioritized Alternative Approaches: • Land Management • Watershed BMPs • Regional Basins • Protection Level • Channel Improvement

  12. Progress to Date 3 Outcome from Agriculture Stakeholder Session: • Recreational access to crop lands (or to adjacent lands) is problematic primarily due to risk of pesticide contact by public. • Development of ag. land is generally opposed – keep ag. land for agriculture. • Flooding of ag land is not acceptable (potential for bacterial contamination ofcrops).

  13. Proposed Approaches Five alternative approaches to draw from: • Land Management Focus: keep undeveloped land undeveloped, or return developed land to floodplain. • Watershed BMPs: source control – keep future flows at or below existing flows. • Regional Basins: reduce channel flows and offset channel improvements through detention and/or sediment basins. • Protection-level: protection level based on design objectives in the Lower Calleguas Creek region. • Channel Improvements: contain the Q100 flows within the channel through channel modifications.

  14. Proposed Approaches –Land Management Two main objectives: • Ensure undeveloped land within ¼-mile of the main channels remains free of development through regulatory- or policy-based mechanisms. • Return developed land to the floodplain through acquisition. Five Implementation Goals: • Floodplain and agriculturalpreservation • Environmental restoration • Recreation • Land acquisition through purchase when owners are ready to sell • Removal of invasive plant species

  15. The basis for Approach 1 is contained in the Ventura County draft NPDES permit, and is recommended. Proposed Approaches – Watershed BMP Implementation Options • Require BMP installation for all new development (existing Q100 flows do not increase). • Option 1 plus require BMP installation for all permitted land improvements (existing Q100 flows decrease). • Retrofit BMPs to a percentage ofexisting land (existing Q100 flows decrease).

  16. Proposed Approaches – Watershed BMP Implementation Options • Require BMP installation for all new development (existing Q100 flows do not increase). Substantial progress already made in draft NPDES permit: “...all New Development and Redevelopment projects ... implement hydrologic control measures... The purpose of the hydrologic controls is to minimize changes in post-development hydrologic storm water runoff discharge rates, velocities, and duration. This shall be achieved by maintaining the project’s pre-development storm water runoff flow rates and durations.”

  17. Proposed Approaches – Watershed BMP Implementation Options Require BMP installation for all new development (existing Q100 flows do not increase). Important Considerations: • Duration of implementation is immaterial because BMPs are implemented at the same rate the land is being developed. • Peak flows will not be reduced below current levels. • Maintenance responsibility and proper maintenance enforcement are critical factors.

  18. Combined Scenarios 1 Each scenario below consists of Land Management and Watershed BMP alternative approaches, plus: • Regional Basins and Channel Improvements:Regional Basins, Channel Improvements (where necessary) • Regional Basins with Protection Level:Regional Basins, Channel Improve-ments (where necessary), and Protection Level • Channel Improvement Emphasis • Channel Improvements with Protection Level

  19. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 2 • Land Management will maximize the amount of land that remains in (or is added to) the floodplain over time. • Watershed BMPs will ensure that future flow peaks do not increase over current flows. • Regional Basins significantly reduce the Q100 peak flows in Calleguas Creek and Revolon Slough. • Channel Improvements still required, but minimized. 1 - Regional Basins and Channel Improvements

  20. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 3 Most Significant Issues: • This scenario most closely approaches the priorities voiced by the majority of the stakeholders to date. • The scenario provides Q100 protection to the project study area. • Significant opportunities for multi-benefit projects are available with this scenario. • Flood-related channel improvements will be minimized. • Conejo Creek and Beardsley Wash do not benefit from the Regional Basins. Revolon Slough benefits from basins, but channel improvements still needed. 1 - Regional Basins and Channel Improvements

  21. FIGURE 1Regional Basins Plus Channel Improvements

  22. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 4 Opportunities May Include: • Proposed solutions for all primary creek systems. • Q100 flood protection. • Opportunities for multi-use benefits with Regional Basins. • Minimized in-stream construction. Challenges May Include: • Land acquisition for basins. 1 - Regional Basins and Channel Improvements

  23. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 5 1 - Regional Basins and Channel Improvements Scenario 1 Cost Estimate by Reach

  24. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 6 • Land Management will maximize the amount of land that remains in (or is added to) the floodplain over time. • Watershed BMPs will ensure that future flow peaks do not increase over current flows. • Regional Basins significantly reduce the Q100 peak flows in Calleguas Creek and Revolon Slough. • Protection Level reduces the amount of required channel improvements below Pleasant Valley Road, and also potentially adds cost implications related to compensation for flooded land were Q100 flood protection is not provided. • Channel Improvements still required, but minimized. 2 - Regional Basins With Protection Level

  25. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios7 Most Significant Issues: • The scenario provides Q100 protection to the project study area, with the exception of the floodplain along Revolon Slough and Calleguas Creek below Pleasant Valley Road (Reaches 7, 2 and a portion of Reach 3). • The required level of protection (Q100 or less) below Pleasant Valley Road has yet to be determined. • A mechanism for compensation of landowners subject to flooding requires discussion. • Flood-related channel improvements will be minimized. 2 - Regional Basins With Protection Level

  26. FIGURE 2Regional Basins With Protection Level

  27. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 8 Opportunities May Include: • Proposed solutions for all primary creek systems. • Q100 flood protection except below Pleasant Valley Road. • Opportunities for multi-use benefits with Regional Basins. • Minimized in-stream construction (approximately $10M less than Scenario 1). Challenges May Include: • Land acquisition for basins. • Basins do not reduce flows in Conejo Creek or Beardsley Wash. • Agricultural lands remain in floodplain. 2 - Regional Basins With Protection Level

  28. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios9 2 - Regional Basins With Protection Level Scenario 2 Cost Estimate by Reach

  29. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 10 • Land Management will maximize the amount of land that remains in (or is added to) the floodplain over time. • Watershed BMPs will ensure that future flow peaks do not increase over current flows. • Channel Improvements provide the flood protection in this scenario. 3 - Channel Improvement Emphasis

  30. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios Most Significant Issues: • The scenario provides Q100 protection to the project study area. • The amount of in stream channel construction is maximized with this scenario. • Opportunities for multi-benefit improvements are limited. • The emphasis of this Combined Scenario is the least favored approach as determined by stakeholders in Workshop #2. 3 - Channel Improvement Emphasis

  31. FIGURE 3Channel Improvement Emphasis

  32. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios Opportunities May Include: • Proposed solutions for all primary creek systems. • Q100 flood protection. Challenges May Include: • Extensive in-channel construction. • Minimal opportunities for multi-use benefits. • Scenario emphasis is on lowest-ranking approach. • Scenario has the highest cost of all four scenarios. 3 - Channel Improvement Emphasis

  33. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 3 - Channel Improvement Emphasis Scenario 3 Cost Estimate by Reach

  34. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios • Land Management will maximize the amount of land that remains in (or is added to) the floodplain over time. • Watershed BMPs will ensure that future flow peaks do not increase over current flows. • Protection Level reduces the amount of required channel improvements below Pleasant Valley Road, and also potentially adds cost implications related to compensation for flooded land were Q100 flood protection is not provided. • Channel Improvements provide the flood protection in this scenario. 4 - Channel Improvements with Protection Level

  35. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios Most Significant Issues: • The scenario provides Q100 protection to the project study area, with the exception of the floodplain along Revolon Slough and Calleguas Creek below Pleasant Valley Road (Reaches 7, 2 and a portion of Reach 3). • The required level of protection below Pleasant Valley Road has yet to be determined. • A mechanism for compensation of landowners subject to flooding requires discussion. • Opportunities for multi-benefit improvements are limited. • The extent of in stream channel construction is the second highest of the four scenarios. • Emphasis is on the two least-favored approaches. 4 - Channel Improvements with Protection Level

  36. FIGURE 4Channel Improvements With Protection Level

  37. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios Opportunities May Include: • Proposed solutions for all primary creek systems. • Q100 flood protection except below Pleasant Valley Road. Challenges May Include: • Agricultural lands remain in floodplain. • Extensive in-channel construction. • Minimal opportunities for multi-use benefits. • Scenario emphasis is on lowest-ranking approaches. 4 - Channel Improvements with Protection Level

  38. 1. Land Management 2. Watershed BMPs 3. Regional Basins 4. Protection Level 5. Channel Improvement Combined Scenarios 4 - Channel Improvements with Protection Level Scenario 4 Cost Estimate by Reach

  39. Combined Scenarios Summary Cost Comparison – by Reach

  40. Recommendations • Require BMP installation for all new development (existing Q100 flows do not increase). • Scenario 1 – Regional Basins plus Channel Improvements be adopted for the watershed.

  41. Break-out Session We will now break into facilitated groups and address the following by reach: Topics: • Is Scenario 1 acceptable in your reach? Why or why not? • Which is your recommended scenario in this reach, and why? • Are there any location-specific issues (such as other projects) that might conflict or need to be treated specially? • Any unidentified “show-stoppers?” • What are your views on the Protection Level approach?

  42. Next Steps... Hydraulics and sediment analysis and environmental review of selected approach. Project Schedule: • Draft Study Report - Spring 2009 • Hydraulics/sediment review, including modeling • Project and approach recommendations • Environmental analysis and recommendations • Study completion - Summer 2009

  43. Thank You!! www.CalleguasCreek.org Please send comments to: Calleguas.Studies@ventura.org

More Related