|
VENTURA COUNTY CHAPTER NEWSLETTER May - 2003 Ventura
County Chapter
Having monitored the progress of SCCWRP the last few years and the daunting task ahead, this opportunity for volunteer involvement from our chapter is most definitely within the mission of Surfrider. Correlation of data needs to be established to determine the nexus between on shore near shore and offshore pollution levels if we are to be effective in our quest for clean oceans. Now all that being said, gearing up to help will take a bit of doing but the template has already been shaped by the Blue Water Task Force model. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Volunteer Opportunities. The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) is a joint powers agency focusing on marine environmental research. A joint powers agency is one that is formed when several government agencies have a common mission that can be better addressed by pooling resources and knowledge. In this case, the common mission is to gather the necessary scientific information so that the member agencies (and the public) can effectively and cooperatively protect the Southern California marine environment. The Bight microbiological steering committee has decided that the focus of the '03 study would be in the following areas of marine research in which volunteers, or volunteer non-government (NGO's) are needed. Shoreline-Offshore Bacterial Survey. In conjunction with the Bight '03 water quality committee, a preliminary plan is being generated to survey the relationship of the on-shore, off-shore bacterial concentration, specifically in the areas of fresh water discharges. Eight fresh water systems (4 large and 4 small systems) in the Bight have been selected for study. They are: The Tijuana River, the L.A.River/Domiguez Channel/ Santa Ana and San Gabriel River system, Ballona Creek, and the Santa Clara/Ventura systems (large discharge systems), and @San Diego Bay/Mission Bay, San Alejo Lagoon, Aliso Creek, and Surfrider Beach/San Luis Rey Creek (small discharge systems). The plan consists of collecting
at least seven (7) shoreline, and seven More information on the details of this project can be obtained by contacting the local watershed participating agency; Sanitation District, or Health Care Agency, or NGO; (Southern California Marine Institute, Surfrider Foundation, Algalita Marine Research Foundation and Santa Monica Baykeeper).
Participating laboratories from each of the five Counties in the Bight have been invited to bring a quantity of water quality samples from chronic polluted sites in their watershed to Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) on June 10th to share with other laboratories. A test matrix would then be made up consisting of polluted samples from marine, urban runoff, and mixed (lagoon) water. The test samples would then be transported back to the participating laboratories for evaluation by the test methods th@at they most commonly employ (MF, MPN, or multiple tube). At least three (3) replicates of all three indicators; total, fecal (E-coli), and enterococcus, are requested. The results would then be reviewed for both inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory consistency and precision. It is anticipated that any problems arising from this exercise that would preclude participating laboratories from contributing valid survey data, will be resolved in advance of the Shoreline-Offshore Bacterial Survey. Volunteer monitor staffed laboratories are invited to participate to the limit of their respective laboratory capacity. This is an excellent opportunity for those volunteers having this capability to validate their laboratory procedures, and gain credibility in their reported results. Microbiological Source Tracking (MST). MST technologies offer the promise of identifying the source of the microbial pollution (bacteria). Is it human or animal? This distinction is important because it would help our policy makers reach a more informed decision regarding where to effectively spend our resources (for example, sewer systems of urban runoff). A recent comparative study,
involving 21 researchers and 12 classes of samples indicated that several
methods showed promise, although none were completely successful. The
biggest problem was the high percentage of false positives. Most methods
could not reliably identify the predominant organism from a sample containing
several bacterial sources. In general, genotype technologies scored better
than phenotype technologies. For our applications, technologies that do
not require large sample libraries would be preferred. At the present
time, no practical, cost-effective method of direct pathogen (virus) detection
in marine waters exists, although there continues to be research directed
towards this goal. SCCWRP Bight '03 Bight '98 was the first marine research environmental study conducted at SCCWRP in which citizen volunteers were invited to participate. Several non-government organizations (NGO's) participated, including members from three Surfrider Foundation Chapters. About 10% of the microbiological data was supplied by volunteer staffed laboratories. Volunteer contributions to the study are at no cost to the taxpayer. Because of the mutual beneficial advantages gained from such a cooperative effort, we have been invi@ted back to participate in the Bight '03 study. Those Surfrider Foundation Chapters within the Southern California Bight, from Point Conception to south of the Mexico border, are encouraged to participate in any, or all, of the SCCWRP marine Bight '03 surveys. For information regarding SCCWRP, contact [ http://www.sccwrp.org/ ]www.sccwrp.org Don Schulz 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 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: 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. It is urgent that we send a
strong message to Sacramento that the California public expects our beaches
to be 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
Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson Re: SUPPORT FOR AB 947 (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.
A. Paul Jenkin, M.S. 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. 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?
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. 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. 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 Goleta
Beach gets big exposure in LA Times Article... 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 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." |