June 2003
Surfers
Point Managed Retreat EIR Public Meeting January 16
Sewer
Plant Is Raided in Probe
Battle
over coastal development continues...
USACE
awards contracts for innovative sand retention
Dana
Point Development Project
Can
desalination be an option in Southern California?
Stop
Escalera Nautica
Tide
Calendar
Bush
administration plans to unravel the Clean Water Act
Sewer
Plant Is Raided in Probe
Seizures at the Santa Paula
site are part of an investigation into a Colorado firm that operates
the facility.
By Holly J. Wolcott
Times Staff Writer
March 15 2003
County and federal authorities
raided Santa Paula's sewer plant this week, seizing documents, computer
files and water samples as part of an investigation into possible criminal
conduct by a Colorado company that operates wastewater facilities across
the country.
The complete article can
be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/la-me-spwater15mar15,0,5743790.story
Battle over coastal development
continues...
California clearly needs
a policy to deal with the threat to the coast from poorly planned development
- development that imperils the lifestyle of millions of beach visiting
citizens and tourists. Surfrider is part of a statewide coalition of
public interest groups working to address this issue. AB 947, sponsored
by Assemblymember Hanna Beth Jackson represents an excellent start towards
proactively addressing coastal hazard avoidance, planning and response
along California's coast.
As usual, Malibu is opposing
measures to protect and restore the coast and watersheds - see comments
in the linked article about the "War on the seawalls" (instigated
by Surfrider, etc) and the "unlimited amount of money to build-out
parks and save trout, and try to restore ancient wetlands and bring
down dams..."
http://www.malibutimes.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/April/16-2165-opinion.txt
There's also the increasingly
organized folks down in Solana Beach fighting to keep their right to
build seawalls to protect their blufftop homes:
http://www.beachandbluff.org/main.php/fax
It seems for every under-funded
public interest group like Surfrider, the opposition forms a group heavily
funded by development interests...
... the battle rages on.
See letter below on behalf of the Ventura Chapter of Surfrider - support
for AB 947:
April 25, 2003
Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth
Jackson
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0035
Re: SUPPORT FOR AB 947 (JACKSON)
Dear Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson;
I am writing on behalf of
the Ventura County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation in support of
AB 947. AB 947 represents an excellent start towards proactively addressing
coastal hazard avoidance, planning and response along California's coast.
As you well know, over 65%
of the Ventura County coast is "hardened", giving us the dubious
distinction of having more seawalls than any other county in California.
Our shoreline is an example of the results of poor coastal planning
and watershed impacts to sediment supplies. As we work to restore our
beaches and watersheds, we need to ensure that future development will
be planned so as to avoid coastal hazards so that the remaining natural
beaches in the state may be preserved for future generations.
AB947 represents a good first
step towards minimizing hazards from coastal erosion by establishing
reasonable guidelines for planning, constructing and authorizing coastal
projects. The bill includes some common sense measures to avoid locating
new development in hazardous areas, to increase natural sources of sediment
to the coast to replenish our sandy beaches and manage our coastal sediments,
to move development out of hazardous areas where feasible, and to limit
the adverse impacts of the construction of hard coastal protection devices
like sea walls. We also urge you and the Committee to consider more
stringent standards for the approval of coastal development projects,
such as those adopted in the other states listed above, to ensure that
the construction of seawalls for new coastal development is not allowed
to destroy our precious beaches, to discourage and eliminate development
in highly hazardous areas, and to untie the hands of the California
Coastal Commission to address these issues.
We believe AB947is a measured,
moderate attempt to balance the interests of the public and the State
with those of coastal property owners. We urge your support for this
important measure.
Sincerely,
A. Paul Jenkin, M.S.
Environmental Director, Surfrider Foundation - Ventura County Chapter
(805) 648-4005 pjenkin@rain.org
USACE awards contracts
for innovative sand retention
The United States Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has selected 3 sites on the west coast for implementing
experimental solutions to beach erosion.The following contracts were
awarded:
"Angled, Submerged Breakwater
for Sand Retention in South Carlsbad State Beach, CA" by Coastal
Environments
"Nearshore Nourishment
Cells at South Carlsbad State Beach, CA and Moonlight State Beach, Encinitas,
CA" by Skelly Engineering
"Multi-purpose Reef
for Coastal Protection at Oils Pier, Ventura, CA" by ASR Limited
Note:
This last one is a spin-off of the Stanley's Reef proposal to construct
a removable surfing reef at Oil Piers. It seems the Corps of Engineers
was not impressed with the "innovative" design that Stanley's
Reef was proposing that used PVC pipe. The ASR reef will be a sand bag
type structure similar to those constructed in other experimental locations...
stay tuned.
For more on the Corps program
see: http://limpet.wes.army.mil/sec227/Structures/structures.htm
More on ASR: http://www.asrltd.co.nz/index.[
http://www.asrltd.co.nz/index.html
Dana Point Development
Project
At our Chapter meeting last
night we had a presentation from Mike Lewis, San Clemente Chapter.
Mike has been fighting a
disastrous development project planned for Dana Point. The developer
proposes to build homes on the blufftop, and in doing so wishes to build
a 20 foot high "revetment" along 2000 feet of beach. This
coastal structure is actually more of a retaining wall, designed so
that the bluffs may be terraced to accommodate more homes.
As many of you know, the
Coastal Act does not allow coastal structures for new development. This
project is an obvious violation of the Coastal Act, but many fear the
Orange County development lobby may be able to sway the Coastal Commission
to permit this project.
The San Clemente Chapter
is collecting signatures in opposition to this revetment - please take
the time to visit the website link below and add your name to the list
- these signatures will be presented to the Coastal Commission when
they review this Coastal Development Permit this summer.
http://beach.com/danastrands
Direct any questions to Mike
Lewis
mike@environstrategy.com
Below is a LA times article
from Sunday, May 4th on the Strands project.
Group Hopes to Turn the
Tide Against O.C. Seawall
Surfrider Foundation battles
a plan to bolster a revetment at a Dana Point project that other environmentalists
and the city support.
By David Reyes, Times Staff
Writer
A developer's plan to expand
an old seawall along a picturesque stretch of beach in Dana Point has
angered an environmental group that opposes what it calls the "armoring"
of the state's coastline.
Though the developers for
the Dana Point Headlands project have received city approval, the Surfrider
Foundation said the builders are taking advantage of a state law that
permits repair or expansion of seawalls that protect an existing structure.
In this case, the structure
is the remnants of a trailer park that soon will be gone.
"All you've got there
is an old clubhouse, concrete pads and a few roads," said Michael
R. Lewis, a geologist and surfer.
The trailer park was condemned
in the 1980s, Lewis said, and will be razed to make way for the bluff-top
project, which still must be approved by the California Coastal Commission.
Surfrider and other environmental
groups have long opposed seawalls and artificial reefs, arguing they
can cause sand erosion and act as an unnatural barrier to the ocean.
But developer Sanford Edward
of Headlands Reserve LLC of Dana Point said he must reinforce the seawall
to help stabilize the bluff for his project, safeguard the marine ecology
and protect the public parks that are going to be built.
Officials of other environmental
groups, such as Orange County Coastkeeper, called the Dana Point seawall
expansion reasonable and said it won't damage the seashore.
Surfrider members are undeterred,
however.
"The developer is claiming
a dilapidated mobile home park is an existing structure, and that's
ridiculous because once they get approval they're going to raze the
mobile home park and build new homes," Lewis said.
If the Coastal Commission
gives the OK at a hearing expected to be held this summer, it would
set a dangerous precedent allowing developers statewide to renovate
revetments and then build large projects, Lewis said.
Lewis said Surfrider members
have launched a petition campaign to persuade the Coastal Commission
to force the developer to pursue alternatives along the stretch of beach
known locally as the Strand.
Building sand dunes that
might serve as a soft beach berm might be one possibility, Lewis said.
Dana Point Mayor William
L. Ossenmacher said the City Council approved the project after consultants
hired by Edward explained the need for the seawall. "One of the
reasons we approved it is because it's trying to preserve the kelp forest
out there," Ossenmacher said. "But it's reconstruction of
an existing revetment and not a new one, and it actually appeared to
be a plus."
The plan includes reinforcing
a revetment that runs 2,240 feet at a height of 15 to 19 feet. "We're
reinforcing about 2,100 feet and at an average of a foot to 2 feet higher,"
Edward said.
Can desalination be an
option in Southern California?
Surfrider Activists-
With continued growth along
the coasts and limited water supplies in some regions, most notably
Southern California, along with improvements in technology, desalination
is emerging as a coastal issue. In fact, along the California coast
there has been a lot of activity in legislation, water agencies and
along the coast.
Last week the Ocean Conservancy
and the Mono Lake Committee held a forum with environmental groups and
water suppliers to discuss the issues surrounding desalination. Notes
and information from that meeting are available at the following web
site:
http://lists.surfrider.org/~docs/desal
The files include:
Desal Notes_SF.pdf:
These are notes from the forum including attendees and a list of benefits
and negative impacts.
Desal_facilities.pdf:
This is a partial list of proposed projects. This list may not be entirely
inclusive, please let us know if you of projects not on this list.
desalination overview1.pdf:
This is an overview of the issue provided by the Ocean Conservancy.
In addition here's 1993 staff
report from the Coastal Commission:
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dtitle.html
Notably, there are current
plans in Huntington Beach, Carlsbad and Morro Bay to build desal. plants.
These plants are often considered in conjunction with power plants or
sewage treatment plants to take advantage of the intake or outfall infrastructure
that is already in place.
Surfrider National is working
to get some additional information together that we can provide to the
chapters to assist you in addressing any proposed projects in your area
Some of the potential negative
impacts of a desal plant are as follows (thanks to Rick Wilson for this
summary):
1. Seawater Intake.
Unless the seawater intake is done with wells, there is an inevitable
destruction of biomass (fish and smaller sea critters) as the water
is drawn into the desal plant. One of the reasons that desal plants
are often located next to power plants is that they take advantage of
the existing intake & outfall pipes. I believe the plan at HB is
to take the desal feedwater off of the discharge (hot) side of the power
plant. In this way, no additional seawater (and sea life) is drawn from
the ocean. Of course the power plant still continues to suck in great
quantities of biomass, but that's another story. More about that below.
2. Brine Discharge.
The "reject stream" from the reverse osmosis process is about
twice as salty as seawater. If this were discharged directly back into
the ocean then it would no doubt kill sea life in that area.
Again, if a desal plant is located next to a power plant, they can mix
this extra-salty water with the "hot" cooling water that is
being returned to the ocean. This dilutes that brine so that it is less
salty and has less of an impact on sea life.
3. Building on the Coast. Although desal plants are not nearly
as huge or ugly as power plants, they are an industrial facility that
some people may object to. At the AES site in Huntington, this probably
isn't a major consideration.
4. Growth Inducement?
If the water produced from desal is used to reduce our reliance on imported
water from the Colorado River and/or rivers in northern California and
more water then ends up being retained in these areas to help sustain
the environment there, then desal may be a good thing. If, on the other
hand, the water not taken from these rivers by southern California is
diverted to other users and the river doesn't benefit, desal may not
result in a net enviromental benefit. And if the desal plant fuels new
growth along the coast rather than just replacing imported water, it
may be a bad thing.
5. Cost and Power Use.
Desal is an expensive way to make water and uses a lot of electricity.
Water most be pumped through special membranes at about 900 pounds per
square inch (psi) pressure to remove the salt, then the water often
must be pumped several miles to a water distribution network. In some
cases (but not at HB), Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is offering
water districts a subsidy for their desal water, so that the cost is
more reasonable. Even with this subsidy, water costs may go up 30-50%.
Without the subsidy, water costs could at least double.
6. Dependance on Power
Plants. As I've mentioned above, there are a lot of reasons to locate
these facilities next to power plants. But power plants are under a
lot of fire to eliminate their use of "once through" cooling
water that kills fish. They may be required to install a "closed
loop" cooling system that cuts the seawater intake and fish kill
by 90% or more. Some may convert to an air cooling system that uses
no water. If these changes take place, it may not make sense to locate
the desal plant next to the power plant. In fact, it may no longer make
sense to locate power plants along the coast. Looking at this another
way, if a desal plant is installed at a facility like the AES plant
in HB, that may not be a good investment if the power plant cooling
system that is the basis for the desal plant is removed or modified.
7. Disincentive to Conserve
Water or Manage and Remediate Groundwater. Although water agencies
are constantly struggling to provide citizens with affordable and reliable
drinking water, it is evident that we still do not use water very efficiently.
This is directly apparent in the amount of urban runoff that we see
everyday. There is some concern that desal will reduce the drive to
use more water efficiently and programs to advocate for water conservation.
In addition, in many places we have either over used or polluted our
groundwater. If desal, should reduce our dependency6 on groundwater,
we may be less inclined to properly manage of clean up our ground water
supplies.
At 05:19 PM 5/9/2003 -0700, Chad Nelsen wrote:
Beach Protectors-
Chad Nelsen
Surfrider Foundation
P.O. Box 6010
San Clemente, CA 92674
(949)492-8170
cnelsen@surfrider.org
the next step, outlaws?
Environmentalists = Terrorists
Have you ever signed a petition
in support of an environmental or animal-rights issue? Do you belong
to the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, or Greenpeace?
Have you publicly protested some environmental or animal rights outrage?
If legislation crafted and promoted by the ultra-conservative American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) becomes law, these fundamental rights
of American citizenship could become illegal. Exploiting the current
political climate against terrorism, ALEC has teamed up with the U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance, a pro-hunting group, to create a model "Animal
and Ecological Terrorism Act." The legislation is part of an intense
backlash against increasingly effective and vocal citizen campaigns
aimed at halting -- and holding corporations accountable for -- environmental,
animal-rights and public health abuses.
(5/09/03) TomPaine.com
[ http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7748
]http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7748
For those interested in getting
out and doing something for endangered species on Ventura County beaches
this weekend...
Friends
On this Sunday, May 11,
at 10:00 AM, the Western Alliance for Nature
is assembling volunteers to help establish a protected perimeter for
least
terns and snowy plovers at Ormond Beach. We will meet at the corner
of
Arcturas (south off of Hueneme Rd. and the first light east of Saviers
Road),
and Mcwane, and proceed to the nest area.
This should be relatively easy work but it would be helpful to bring
gloves, a #2 shovel if you have one, sunscreen and water. Work will
include
carrying wooden signs and digging small holes in the sand. Signs will
be
attached to existing poles and some heavier poles will be moved from
a
storage area. We should be done in a couple of hours. Anyone physically
limited should feel free to come and just enjoy the beauty of Ormond.
Thanks.
Alan
contact: Alan 488-7988
Goleta Beach gets big exposure in LA Times Article...
Solutions Prove Elusive as
Popular Beach Erodes
Nearly 450 feet have been
lost at the Goleta site since the 1970s. Answers are tangled in a web
of politics and science, some say.
By Veronique de Turenne
Special to the Times
April 29, 2003
Twin mysteries perplex visitors
to the sandy shores, fishing pier and grassy commons of Goleta Beach
County Park. Why are the beach and park eroding into the sea and why
hasn't anything been done to stop it?
The park, where about 1.5
million people go every year to swim, fish, sunbathe, picnic, barbecue,
go boating or just take naps, is the most popular seaside spot in Santa
Barbara County. Surrounded by wetlands and served by a rustic restaurant,
it is a happy blend of recreational development and natural beauty.
But there is trouble in paradise.
Officials estimate that 30 feet of beach and park were lost to erosion
in the last year alone when high tides and powerful storms swept sand,
grass and infrastructure out to sea. Add that to about 400 feet of beach
lost since the 1970s and it becomes clear Goleta Beach is endangered.
"The sand used to go
all the way under the pier much, much farther than it goes now,"
said Javier Gomez Ochoa, a Goleta resident since 1978. "It's too
bad, because this is where we come with the family, where we bring the
children to play and to have a picnic."
On a chilly Saturday, every
picnic table and barbecue was in use. Families swam in the 55-degree
water, played tag on the fraying lawn and built sand castles above the
high-tide line. Restaurant patrons waited patiently for window tables.
Anglers, their fishing licenses worn like necklaces, compared catches.
"If we lose this beach,
where will we go?" Ochoa asked. "Who's in charge? Who knows
how to fix it?"
Good questions.
Scientists disagree about
what has caused the erosion. Possible causes include the recent spate
of El Niño conditions, which spawn powerful storms with waves
and currents that scour the beach clean of sand. Some believe that sea
walls and jetties create currents that shrink the beaches. Others cite
a vast increase in development throughout the area, which has restricted
the depositing of sand from the nearby mountains and hills.
Equally elusive is agreement
on how to prevent further erosion. Quick fixes could include jetties
and rock walls, which are physical barriers to fend off waves. A longer-term
possibility is an artificial reef, which could be buried several hundred
yards offshore. The theory is that the reef would force waves to break
farther away and prevent them from pounding the beaches.
"It's an enormously
complex problem," said Kevin Ready, director of the Beach Erosion
Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment. The organization, which
was established to deal with coastal erosion and other Central Coast
beach problems, was formed by Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, and
the cities of Port Hueneme, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Carpinteria and
Santa Barbara.
"Everything depends
on the details the size of waves, where they come from, the topography
of the inland area, what you're trying to protect," Ready said.
"A solution in one place won't necessarily serve you well in another
place."
Factor in the crazy quilt
of state, local and federal agencies with jurisdiction over Goleta Beach
and things get even stickier.
The current strategy to stem
the erosion centers on replenishing the beach with tons of sand dredged
from Santa Barbara Harbor, a process known as beach nourishment.
To proceed, this plan must
be approved by five agencies the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors,
the state Department of Fish and Game, the State Lands Commission, the
California Coastal Commission and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
The soonest Goleta Beach
can expect its nourishment program to begin is November, after the grunion
run and officials hope before the next crop of damaging winter storms.
"The reality is, we
need to find a balance between the recreational needs of the public
and the natural resources of the area," said Susan Rose, the county
supervisor whose district includes Goleta Beach. To that end, Rose has
outlined a three-part plan to bring county residents into the decision-making
process and to set out long-term solutions.
The first part, a series
of educational workshops, will begin in June. In July, residents will
be able to air their wish lists for the park. In September, Rose wants
experts and officials to meet and hammer out a plan.
"If you look at the
park you see we've got to move as quickly as possible to get a long-term
plan in place," Rose said. "Is it optimistic to think that
by the end of the year we'll have a long-term plan in place? We'll see."
Goleta resident Jeff Graybill
will be among those watching.
"It's a question of
science and it's a question of politics," Graybill said. "No
one wants to be wrong."
If the final plan is bad,
Goleta Beach will continue to vanish, Graybill said.
But if it goes well, the
wide swath of beach he recalls from decades ago could return.
"They don't need to
reinvent the wheel here," Graybill said. "But they do have
to do something, and do it soon."
The article below, "Water
experts say allotting supply for farms, homes could be difficult",
raises several good points that relate to current efforts to preserve
and restore the environment in Ventura County. For
instance:
1) The city of Ventura is
currently updating it's Comprehensive Plan, a document that will dictate
how much the city will grow in the future, and where. Although water
supply has been discussed in the CPAC process, city water managers have
stated that our water supply will provide for only 15 years growth at
the current growth rate. The Comprehensive Plan aims to continue to
grow for 20 years, at a potentially accelerated rate. The city aims
to expand city boundaries and build on SOAR agricultural land in order
to do this, regardless of water supply limitations.
2) Meanwhile, the Casitas
Municipal Water District recently announced a moratorium on new customers
in the Ojai Valley. This in response to the requirement that they allow
enough water to flow in the Ventura River for fish to survive (6"
depth). They say they will actively seek new sources of water, including
conservation and state water supply. (Note that part of the city of
Ventura's supply comes from Casitas)
Nowhere in the discussion
is the mention of sustainability. It is clear that water is the ultimate
limiting factor in the population growth of California, but will it
be too late?
- Paul
[ http://ojaivalleynews.com/issues2003/05-May2003/05-09-03/05-09-03editorials.html
]http://ojaivalleynews.com/issues2003/05-May2003/05-09-03/05-09-03editorials.html
[ http://ojaivalleynews.com/issues2003/04-April2003/04-11-03/04-11-03editorials.html
]http://ojaivalleynews.com/issues2003/04-April2003/04-11-03/04-11-03editorials.html
________________________________________________________________________________________
[ http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_1966033,00.html
]http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_1966033,00.html
Water experts say allotting
supply for farms, homes could be difficult
By John Krist, [ MAILTO:krist@insidevc.com
]krist@insidevc.com May 16, 2003
As California's population
grows by a projected 15 million people over the next two decades, thirsty
cities will increasingly turn to agriculture as a source of water, possibly
jeopardizing one of the state's most important industries, experts warned
farmers and irrigation district managers Thursday.
"Agriculture, in our
view, is becoming the new water storage facility for the state,"
said Mike Wade, executive director of the Farm Water Coalition, a lobbying
and education group.
Wade, one of several speakers
during a symposium sponsored by the Association of Water Agencies of
Ventura County, said that if water transfers between farms and urban
agencies are not planned carefully, they could end up devastating California
agriculture and the communities that depend on it for their economic
health.
More than 80 percent of California's
developed water supply is used by agriculture, and urban agencies are
increasingly seeking to negotiate deals to buy some of that water for
homes and businesses, believing it a cheaper and politically more realistic
alternative than building new dams.
Another panelist suggested
it is possible to arrange for farmers to sell some of their water to
cities without causing hardship. Recently negotiated deals between the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Sacramento Valley
rice growers provided an economic boost for farmers, secured a low-cost
supply of water for MWD customers, minimized environmental harm and
provided benefits for small agricultural communities, said Timothy Quinn,
MWD's vice president for state water resources.
"The role of agricultural
water transfers is not to go up and bleed ag dry," Quinn said.
"We have no interest in talking to farmers who want to sell the
farm, take the money and head to Hawaii."
MWD provides water through
its 27 member agencies to about 17 million people in six Southern California
counties. Two-thirds of Ventura County residents receive MWD water through
the Calleguas Municipal Water District. About half of MWD's water comes
from the State Water Project, and the rest is pumped across the desert
from the Colorado River.
Both of those sources have
been tapped out. The SWP has contracts to deliver more water than it
can reliably supply each year, and the federal government recently reduced
California's diversion of Colorado River water by 620,000 acre-feet.
(An acre-foot, 325,900 gallons, is enough to supply two average Southern
California households for a year.)
At the start of the year,
with much of the West still gripped by drought, the Department of Water
Resources notified state water contractors that they could count on
receiving only 45 percent of their allocations. Quinn said MWD then
decided to execute contracts it had negotiated earlier with several
irrigation districts serving primarily rice farmers in the Sacramento
Valley, calling for 97,200 acre-feet Feb. 14, and another 50,000 acre-feet
on March 1.
The agency considered buying
another 20,000 acre-feet on May 1 but decided not to when DWR increased
its estimate of summer deliveries after the Sierra Nevada snowpack suddenly
was boosted by what state hydrologists are referring to as an "awesome
April" of heavy precipitation. On April 24, DWR said contractors
would get 70 percent of their entitlements, and as of this week, Quinn
said, the estimate had risen to 90 percent.
MWD paid $105 an acre-foot
for the rice farmers' water, which is about a sixth of the price urban
agencies pay for state water. To free up water for sale to MWD, farmers
agreed to idle some of their cropland. To minimize economic harm to
the local economy, the irrigation districts agreed to allow no more
than 20 percent of their farm acreage to go fallow, and the price paid
by MWD includes a $5-per-acre-foot fee those communities can use for
assistance programs.
Quinn said the reason MWD
was able to overcome the usual suspicion rural water users have toward
urban dwellers -- particularly when one of those groups is from Northern
California and the other is from the south -- was that MWD has invested
more than $30 million over the past decade in environmental restoration
programs in the Sacramento Valley. When Interior Secretary Gale Norton
on Jan. 1 cut off California's access to Colorado River water, the trust
MWD had cultivated during its long partnership with n¾orthern
irrigation districts paid off.
"If you just go to them
and say, 'Do it because the big city needs it,' well, I haven't seen
that work anywhere in California," Quinn said.
Ventura Hillsides Conservancy
Sponsors Inaugural Open Space Lecture Series
Ventura, CA The Ventura Hillsides Conservancy is kicking off a series
of lectures designed to educate the community on the possibilities and
options of open space preservation in Ventura. The series will kick
off with an inaugural lecture featuring stories and images from two
California success stories the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy and the
Conejo Open Space District.
Jim Engel, Executive Director of the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy, will
educate the audience on OVLCs efforts to date and share insights into
the preservation process. Julia Osborn-Gourley, President of the Conejo
Open Space Foundation, will give details on the open space district
that was founded in 1995 and explain how permanent protection of many
of the mountains and ridges surrounding the Conejo Valley have been
achieved. Both speakers will share techniques and methods that the Ventura
community can learn from and apply.
The Ventura Hillsides Conservancy
is a non-profit land trust dedicated to permanently preserving the hillsides,
canyons and open space that contribute to the natural environment and
unique character of the City of San Buenaventura.
The lecture will be from
7:30 to 9:00 PM. on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at the Church of Religious
Science, 101 Laurel Street in downtown Ventura. Admission is free. The
lecture is the first in a series planned by the Conservancy. The date
of the next lecture in the series will be September 10, 2003. For more
information on the Ventura Hillsides Conservancy, please visit their
web site at:www.venturahillsides.org or call 643-8044
CONTACT: Martha Zeiher, Secretary/Ventura
Hillsides Conservancy
tel. (805) 659-0294 or 218-2452
email: Martha@hills4ventura.com
Protect California beaches
for all people.
It is urgent that we send
a strong message to Sacramento
that the California public expects our beaches to be
protected.
Endorse the Beach Erosion
and Response Policy that
aims to keep rip rap and seawalls off the beach. Implementation of the
new policy will also improve natural sand supply to beaches, supply
sand to eroding beaches, improve coastal planning to avoid developing
in hazardous areas and encourage moving hazardous development away from
the beach.
You can take action on this
alert either via email
(please see directions below) or via the web at: http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/protect_the_beach/i65ndb4l783txe
This policy needs support
from all Californian's who
love the beach. Visit the web address below to tell
your friends about this. http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/protect_the_beach/forward/i65ndb4l783txe
We encourage you to take
action by May 29, 2003
Preserve CA Beaches
INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA
THE WEB:
If you have access to a web browser, you can take action
on this alert by going to the following URL:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/protect_the_beach/i65ndb4l783txe
INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA
EMAIL:
Just choose the "reply to sender" option on your email
program.
Your letter will be addressed
and sent to:
Secretary Mary D. Nichols
----THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT
IN YOUR NAME----
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],
I am writing in support of
the "Draft Review of California Coastal Erosion Planning and Response:
A Strategy for Action." It represents an excellent start towards
proactively addressing coastal hazard avoidance, planning and response
along California's coast.
I support the five principles
recommended in the policy:
hazard avoidance for new or modified development, maintaining natural
sources of sediment to the coast, regional beach "nourishment",
relocating or eliminating hazardous coastal development and using hard
protection devices only as a last resort. I also support the recommendation
to amend the California Coastal Act to consider and encourage alternatives
to shoreline armoring.
Shoreline armoring should
be subject to stringent criteria, such as those adopted in the states
like Oregon, Texas and others, to ensure that the construction of seawalls
for new coastal development is not allowed to destroy our precious beaches,
to discourage and eliminate development in highly hazardous areas, and
to untie the hands of the California Coastal Commission to address these
issues.
Any shoreline armoring that
is approved should be mitigated sufficiently to ensure that all impacts
to shoreline access, ocean and shoreline recreation, sand supply, and
adjacent property are mitigated to insignificant levels.
To be effective, the policies
in this guidance document
must be implemented through sound legislation and regulatory procedures
consistent with the primary recommendations in the report. More emphasis
should be placed on schedules and timelines to implement the excellent
suggestions presented in the policy.
I believe this policy is
a measured, moderate attempt
to balance the interests of the public and the State
with those of coastal property owners, and legislation
to implement these policies is needed as soon as possible
to stop the destructive pattern of development we see
today.
----END OF LETTER TO BE SENT----
Sincerely,
Paul Jenkin
cc:
Governor Gray Davis
SPECIAL THANKS TO EVERYONE THAT HELPED WITH SNAPSHOT DAY ON MAY 17TH!
It was a great success! In our region, we tested 56 creeks from Point
Mugu to San Luis Obispo Creek. Across the state, a total of 679 volunteers
worked together to test a whopping 565 sites! All data will soon be
available at [ http://www.ccamp.org ]www.ccamp.org. Special thanks to
everyone who helped out in our region: Mary Adams, Simon Allen, Darcy
Aston, Jessica Benson, Carol Blanchette, Tom Boyles, Luc Claessens,
Jenny Coyle, Sam Cummings, Stevie DeJong, Tracy Duffey, Jayden Francis,
Laura Francis, Steve Francis, Andrea Harvey, Anita Harvey, Paul Jenkin,
Claire Johnson, Bill Langford, Al Leydecker, Brice Loose, Vida, Lalayna
Maestas, Rick Margolin, Christina Michael, Curt Montague, Helene Muller-Landau,
Jill Murray, Mike Murray, Terri Nichols, Thomas Oretsky,
Lindsay Parrish, Gary Perlmutter, Monique Prieto, Tim Robinson, Danny
Rodcay, Roseana Rodcay, Marlene Sassaman, Wendy Stanford, Bill Stratton,
Kim Yasuda, and Dale Zurawski.
Hello Channelkeeper volunteers~
We have several activities coming up in the next couple weeks. We hope
you can join us!
Office-Warming Party and Going Away Party for Vicki Clark: Thursday,
May 29th
What: Channelkeeper is hosting an afternoon gathering at our new office!
Please help us "break-in" our new office, and say goodbye
to local attorney and wonderful friend Vicki Clark, who is moving to
Alaska!
When: This Thursday, May 29th, at 3:00 p.m.
Where: Our new office: 714 Bond Avenue in Santa Barbara. From the 101,
take Milpas St. exit and head North (towards the mountains). Make a
left onto Bond Ave., which is located between Haley and Cota. Go down
2 blocks and we will be on the left hand side. We are the door on the
right- come on in and come upstairs! Other Details: Refreshments will
be served.
Contact: For more information, contact Channelkeeper at 563-3377.
Adopt-A-Highway: Tuesday, June 3
What: Help us clean up litter from our "adopted" stretch of
Highway 101 in Carpinteria. This is a great way to stop pollution before
it reaches our creeks, beaches and ocean!
When: Next Tuesday, June 3, at 5:00 p.m. This will last a couple of
hours. Remember: the more volunteers we have, the faster it goes...
so bring a friend!
Where: Meet at the Channelkeeper office, 714 Bond Ave. From there we
will travel by car to our site. Other Details: We will be walking along
the side of the highway, sometimes through brush. So please wear pants
and sturdy shoes. Channelkeeper will provide all other equipment: hard
hats, snazzy orange vests, gloves, trash bags, and trash pickers.
Contact: If you plan to participate, you must RSVP to Leigh Ann at 563-3377
x3 (or respond to this email). Thanks!
Ventura Stream Team: Saturday, June 7
What: Come help us collect water quality data at 15 sites in the beautiful
Ventura River watershed!
When: Saturday, June 7 at 9:00 a.m. The outing will last approximately
4 hours.
Where: Meet at the Ventura Surfrider office at 239 W. Main St. in Ventura.
From there we will travel by car to our sites. Other Details: Please
be prepared to get your feet wet! Pizza and sodas will be provided afterwards.
Contact: For more information, please contact Leigh Ann at 563-3377
x3 or Paul at 648-4005 (or respond to this email).
Goleta Stream Team: Sunday, June 8
What: Come help us collect water quality data at 11 sites in the Goleta
Slough watershed.
When: Sunday, June 8 at 10:00 a.m. The outing will last approximately
3-4 hours.
Where: Meet at the K-Mart parking lot on the corner of Hollister and
Storke Rd. (Look for us in the area of the parking lot in front of the
K-mart garden center.) From there we will travel by car to our sites.
Other: Please be prepared to get your feet wet!
Contact: For more information, contact Leigh ann at 563-3377 x3 (or
respond to this email).
Also...
SPECIAL THANKS TO EVERYONE THAT HELPED WITH SNAPSHOT DAY ON MAY 17TH!
It was a great success! In our region, we tested 56 creeks from Point
Mugu to San Luis Obispo Creek. Across the state, a total of 679 volunteers
worked together to test a whopping 565 sites! All data will soon be
available at [ http://www.ccamp.org ]www.ccamp.org. Special thanks to
everyone who helped out in our region: Mary Adams, Simon Allen, Darcy
Aston, Jessica Benson, Carol Blanchette, Tom Boyles, Luc Claessens,
Jenny Coyle, Sam Cummings, Stevie DeJong, Tracy Duffey, Jayden Francis,
Laura Francis, Steve Francis, Andrea Harvey, Anita Harvey, Paul Jenkin,
Claire Johnson, Bill Langford, Al Leydecker, Brice Loose, Vida, Lalayna
Maestas, Rick Margolin, Christina Michael, Curt Montague, Helene Muller-Landau,
Jill Murray, Mike Murray, Terri Nichols, Thomas Oretsky,
Lindsay Parrish, Gary Perlmutter, Monique Prieto, Tim Robinson, Danny
Rodcay, Roseana Rodcay, Marlene Sassaman, Wendy Stanford, Bill Stratton,
Kim Yasuda, and Dale Zurawski.
We hope to see you all at one of our upcoming events!
If you would like to be removed from this list, please respond to this
email and ask to be removed.
Thanks!
Leigh Ann
Leigh Ann Grabowsky
Program Coordinator
*Please note new contact information*
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
714 Bond Avenue
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
(805) 563-3377
[ mailto:lag@sbck.org ]lag@sbck.org
[ http://www.sbck.org/ ]www.sbck.org