Reservoir Sedimentation and Water Supply Reliability

By: Aubrey Mescher, MESM

Ms. Mescher is a water resources specialist at Aspens Agoura Hills headquarters office.
Our reservoirs are filling with sediment. Thats the same as dirt. Mud, muck, silt. Rocks, gravel, even
boulders. All of this stuff where theres supposed to be just water. Water for drinking, irrigation,
recreation, commercial and industrial uses, flood control, and groundwater recharge. This isnt a new
issue. Actually, reservoirs are assumed to have a finite lifetime, limited by loss of function due to
sedimentation. But reservoirs are filling with sediment far more quickly than anticipated, and important
water supply and flood control facilities are not only being rendered useless before their time, but in
doing so they are simultaneously introducing new issues with public safety and water supply reliability.

What is sedimentation?
Sedimentation is a natural process that occurs when soil particles suspended in water settle out of
the main water column to the bottom. Sediment content in a waterway is higher during and after storm
events, when rates of flow and erosion are higher, and lower during dry months, when these rates tend
to be lower. Under natural conditions, unconstrained by a dam, the quantity of water and sediment in a
waterway is generally balanced, as the ground surface and riverbed erode into the waterway, and
sediment is deposited in downstream areas, where it provides habitat and replenishes riverbanks and
beaches. But when a dam is constructed in a waterway, it traps the flow of both water and sediment.
The sediment gradually accumulates behind the dam, larger particles such as rocks and gravel settling to
the reservoir floor while the spaces in between fill with finer material such as silt and mud.
Over time, accumulated materials reduce reservoir storage capacity, and the dam loses value as a
flood control and water supply facility. Hydroelectric dams also lose value, as decreased reservoir
capacity results in decreased power generation. Perhaps it is time to consider that operation and
maintenance of a dam require as much focus on sediment management as on water management.

What causes increased sedimentation?

As a natural process, the rate of sedimentation is affected by factors such as topography, geology,
flow volume and velocity, and climate conditions. Therefore, reservoir sedimentation will occur at
different rates, depending on local
conditions. Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir, which is formed by the
90-year-old OShaughnessy Dam
on the Tuolumne River, is
estimated to contain only two
inches of sediment because the
Tuolumne riverbed is mostly
granite and erodes very slowly
(Biba, 2012). In comparison,
Matilija Reservoir, located on a
tributary of the Ventura River, was
only 17 years old when it lost 27
percent of its capacity due to
sedimentation from a 100-year
storm event in 1969; today the 65Hetch Hetchy Valley, prior to construction of OShaughnessy Dam.
year-old reservoir is virtually
Source: PBS, 2013

useless, with more than 90 percent of its capacity lost to the six million tons (two million cubic yards
[mcy]) of silt and sediment trapped by Matilija Dam (Matilija Coalition, 2002a). Its not that any greater
consideration to upstream conditions was provided when OShaughnessy was constructed in 1923 than
when Matilija was constructed in 1947; conditions on the Tuolumne River are just so different than on
Matilija Creek and the Ventura River.
Two of the greatest factors influencing increased rates of sedimentation include development that
replaces natural ground cover, and changes to soil composition that make it more susceptible to
erosion. These factors are not always mutually exclusive. Development tends to replace natural or
vegetated ground cover with impervious or less permeable surfaces; in response, the rate of surface
water runoff increases, and
rates of erosion and
sedimentation increase. A
2004 study of sedimentation
in Lake Elsinore, located
approximately 75 miles
southeast of Los Angeles,
supported this connection by
concluding that average 20thcentury sedimentation rates
are several times higher than
18th- and 19th-century rates
(Byrne, R. and Reidy, L., 2004).
The 20th century also marked
a time of substantial urban
growth in southern California,
compared to the 18th and
Lake Elsinore, CA. Source: grandfathersmc, 2013
19th centuries.
Regarding soil composition changes which facilitate erosion and sedimentation, the introduction of
hydrophobic conditions is the most dramatic. Hydrophobic soil is water-repellent and prevents water
from infiltrating the soil surface. Wildfires commonly result in hydrophobic conditions, because the
burning of organic materials creates
hydrocarbon residue which settles into small
In support of a Supplemental EIS/EIR for the
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
spaces between soil particles, effectively
(TRTP),
which traverses the Angeles National
creating a layer of waterproof soils. These
Forest
(ANF)
and Station Fire burn area, Aspen
soils may be located on the ground surface
hydrology
and
computer resources specialists
or at shallow depths. After the Station Fire of
prepared a GIS-based model of erosion and
2009 burned 161,188 acres of watershed in
sedimentation on the ANF resulting from the
the Angeles National Forest, the USDA
Station Fire, in order to develop project-specific
Forest Service conducted hydrologic
mitigation measures for potential erosion and
analyses of the burn area, and determined
water quality impacts of the TRTP.
that extremely hydrophobic soils were
located one-half inch to two inches below the ground surface (USDA, 2009). Due to the hydrophobic
soils being buried, it was anticipated that the first precipitation events after the fire would saturate and
wash away the soils resting on top of the hydrophobic layer(s). The Forest Service estimated that the
amount of sediment and debris that could be delivered to downstream areas as surface runoff would
increase by 100 to more than 400 percent in the first few years following the Station Fire (USDA, 2009).

Downstream and adjacent to the Station Fire burn area are the cities of Los Angles, Glendale, La
Crescenta, La Caada Flintridge, Pasadena, Altadena, and Acton; flood control facilities in these
jurisdictions received dramatically higher sediment loads during the wet seasons immediately following
the Station Fire. The County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works (LADPW) is currently
working to clear flood control facilities in these
areas. As part of this effort, the LADPW has
proposed and/or is currently executing sediment
removal projects on the following major flood
control facilities: Big Tujunga Dam, Cogswell Dam,
Devils Gate Dam, Morris Dam, and Pacoima Dam.
As one example, in the Devils Gate Reservoir,
sediment inflow after the Station Fire has
significantly reduced the reservoir's capacity and in
its current condition, the reservoirs outlet works
are at risk of becoming clogged and inoperable
(LADPW, 2013a). As with other flood control
facilities in the area, the Devils Gate Reservoir no
longer has the capacity to safely contain another
major debris event, and removal of sedimentation
from the reservoir is necessary to restore its
functional capacity.
As noted, the effects of development and
altered soil conditions on sedimentation rates are
Devils Gate Reservoir in the Los Angeles Basin.
not mutually exclusive. For instance, development
Source: LADPW, 2013a
in forested areas has limited natural burn cycles
due to fire prevention and suppression efforts, and our forests therefore tend to accumulate far more
density and fuel than would occur under natural conditions. As a result, when fire is eventually
introduced to a forested area, it tends to burn much hotter and faster than it would naturally, increasing
both the potential for hydrophobic conditions and the removal of soil-stabilizing vegetation.

Why should reservoir sedimentation be addressed?

There are three primary objectives to managing water supply facilities, including reservoirs affected
by sedimentation: water storage, environmental protection, and public safety. Public safety concerns
include both the provision of flood hazard protection, and the removal of hazards associated with
potential dam failure. As mentioned above, multiple flood control facilities within the jurisdiction of the
LADPW are currently compromised due to sedimentation associated with runoff from the Station Fire
burn area, and efforts are underway to rehabilitate these facilities and provide essential flood hazard
protection to residents of the Los Angeles basin. In addition, aging dams which trap volumes of
sediment risk structural failure and release of constrained materials to downstream areas, potentially
burying property and habitat.
The San Clemente Dam located on the Carmel River in Monterey County currently has only 70 acrefeet of its planned 1,425 acre-feet in storage capacity, due to more than 2.5 mcy of sediment entrained
in the reservoir (CCC, 2010). In the early 1990s, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
Division of the Safety of Dams determined that the dam could fail in the event of either the maximum
credible earthquake or probable maximum flood (PMF), and a safety order for the dam was issued (CCC,
2010). Rather than simply stabilizing the structure, which would meet the requirements for public

safety, a plan is underway to temporarily divert the river and remove the dam structure in order to
restore habitat along the river for steelhead and for California red-legged frog, thereby meeting another
objective of addressing reservoir sedimentation, which is environmental protection. Similarly, the
Matilija Dam in Ventura County was notched to 65 percent capacity in 1965, due to safety
considerations (Matilija
Coalition, 2002b); in addition
to safety, a strong
motivating factor to removal
of Matilija Dam is the
restoration of threatened
steelhead habitat on the
Ventura River.
In addition to habitat
restoration, the removal of
hazardous or potentially
hazardous materials
accumulated in reservoir
sediments is another
Matilija Dam, 1948. Source: Matilija Coalition, 2002b
environmental motive. The
Combie Dam was
constructed on the Bear
River in northwestern
California in 1926 in order to
provide drinking and
irrigation water to Placer and
Nevada Counties. Sediment
has regularly collected in the
Combie Reservoir, and
sediment removal activities
and diversions have been
ongoing for years under
direction of the Nevada
Irrigation District (NID). In
Matilija Dam, 2013. Source: Plascencia, 2013
2003, water quality sampling
conducted in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board permitting requirements identified
elevated mercury levels in sediments entrained by the reservoir, a result of historic gold mining
operations in the watershed. An effort is now underway to remove an estimated 150,000 to 200,000
tons of sediments from Combie Reservoir, remove the mercury using a mobile treatment system, then
return clean water to the reservoir, export sand and gravel for construction uses, and dispose of
unusable sediments. In addition to removing mercury-contaminated sediments from the reservoir, a
primary objective of this project is to restore the reservoirs storage capacity in order to provide drinking
and irrigation water to the NID service territory. (NID, 2009)
Water storage is also a fundamental aspect of dam and reservoir function. In arid regions such as
the Southwest United States, water supply storage is an essential function to water supply reliability.
Particularly in the face of climate change, improved water storage and conveyance infrastructure is
essential to Californias water supply reliability. Overall, we expect to receive more precipitation as rain
instead of snowpack, which means that we need to capture and store more water than ever before. This

will require not only the construction of new water storage facilities, but also the rehabilitation of
existing facilities that have lost or are losing capacity, and the removal or abandonment of facilities that
dont provide a vital water supply function.
It is important to identify the facilities that are most useful to water supply storage, and to invest in
repairing and maintaining those projects. For example, the Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico
supplies an essential water supply to nearly 8,000 farmers, and has lost 600,000 acre-feet of its 2.6
million acre-foot capacity to sedimentation from the naturally silty Rio Grande watershed. Under
management by the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, substantial effort has been invested in the
removal and disposal of sediment from the reservoir, in order to maintain its capacity for water supply
storage. A growing issue is what to do with the silt and sediment removed from Elephant Butte;
developers are encouraged to use it for construction fill, but construction-related demands have been
steadily decreasing, while sediment load remains constant. (Weiser, 2011)

How is reservoir sedimentation addressed?

Reservoir sedimentation is a dynamic issue that can be addressed from many different angles, each
of which depends on site-specific conditions and the desired outcome. Ideally, a comprehensive
management approach to sediment removal and control is the most effective in maintaining reservoir
function and capacity. However, largely due to thin funding sources and thick permitting restrictions,
reservoir sedimentation is most often addressed in response, rather than anticipation. Under these
conditions, reservoirs affected by sedimentation are commonly dealt with through one of the following
ways: abandonment; rehabilitation; dam modification; and/or upstream modifications.

Abandonment of a reservoir occurs when the dam is left in-place, with no efforts to remediate for
environmental effects or improve reservoir function. This may be a desirable option for small
reservoirs in remote areas, where structural improvement or removal would be difficult, and where
the facility is not in danger of failure. If the dam is considered unstable, it may be structurally
stabilized then still abandoned in place, with occasional monitoring to ensure structural integrity.
Rehabilitation involves the removal and disposal of entrained sediments to restore a reservoirs
functional capacity. Rehabilitation alone will not alter the amount of sediment entering a reservoir,
but will maintain storage capacity; rehabilitation techniques may be incorporated into a long-term
reservoir management plan. For instance, the aforementioned Elephant Butte Reservoir in New
Mexico and Combie Reservoir in California are being maintained using rehabilitation techniques.
Dam modification refers to the structural alteration of dam facilities in order to accommodate
sediment accumulation while maintaining reservoir capacity. This approach can increase the
capacity of a reservoir, but typically does not
Aspen has provided extensive support for
alter the quantity of sediment entering a
modifications
in the Prado Basin, including
reservoir unless other activities such as
monitoring
construction
of flood control
diversions or dredging are implemented at
modifications, monitoring and mapping of
the same time. For instance, dam
vegetation, monitoring and assessment of
modifications at the Prado Dam in Riverside
threatened and endangered species above
County included raising the dam by
and below the dam, and assessment of
approximately 30 feet, in addition to other
impacts associated with construction of the
modifications such as constructing new dikes
Alcoa and Auxiliary Dikes, located within
and raising the height of an adjacent
the Prado Dam floodway.
spillway; these efforts wont necessarily alter
the quantity of sediment washing into the reservoir on an annual basis.
Upstream modifications to a sediment-impacted reservoir can provide a long-term solution to
sediment management, by diverting or entraining sediment in upstream basins before it can reach

the primary reservoir. For instance, a large-scale water and soil conservation program implemented
on the Yangtze River has helped to relieve historically heavy rates of sedimentation in the Three
Gorges Reservoir, one of the largest in the world (China Daily, 2004). These improvements include a
series of major reservoirs built along upstream tributaries of the Yangtze to prevent sediment from
entering Three Gorges Reservoir; it has been estimated that these improvements have reduced the
annual sediment load passing through the reservoir from530 million tons to 200 million tons.
Sediment that continues to accumulate in the reservoir is managed by releasing sediment-laden
waters from sluice gates at the bottom of the dam during summer months (China Daily, 2004).
As noted earlier, reservoirs are typically assumed to have a finite lifetime due to gradual loss of
function from sedimentation. But it doesnt have to be that way. Fan and Morris (2010) suggest that the
concept of reservoir life being limited by sedimentation should be replaced by a concept of managing
both water and sediment to sustain reservoir function, with sustainable use achieved through combined
use of the following strategies:
1) Reduce sediment inflow using erosion control and upstream sediment trapping;
2) Route sediments past the reservoir using techniques such as drawdown during sediment-laden
floods, off-stream reservoirs, sediment bypass, and venting of turbid density currents;
3) Periodic sediment removal using hydraulic flushing, hydraulic dredging, or dry excavation;
4) Provide large storage volume in the reservoir pool or in one or more upstream impoundments; and
5) Strategically place sediment in areas where its subsequent removal is facilitated, or where it
minimizes interference with reservoir function (Fan, Jiahua, and Morris, Gregory, 2010).
Sediment management on the North Fork Feather River above Lake Oroville in northern California is
a good example of implementing multiple strategies to achieve sustainable conditions. The Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E)
has implemented a
watershed-wide approach to
sediment management in
order to mitigate 30 years
worth of sediment
accumulation behind their
three small hydropower dams
in the watershed. Moving
upstream from Lake Oroville,
the dams are Poe, Cresta, and
Rock Creek. These reservoirs
receive flow from two
branches of the watershed,
the east branch and the west
branch. Approximately 40
percent of sediment in the
west branch is regulated by
the upstream Almanor
Reservoir, and most sediment
Location map of watershed boundaries and reservoirs, North Fork Feather River
delivered to the Rock Creek,
Source: Fan, Jiahua, and Morris, Gregory, 2010
Cresta, and Poe Reservoirs
comes from the eastern
portion of the North Fork Feather River watershed. Because the accumulation of coarse sediment in the

reservoirs began to interfere with operation of PG&Es power stations at the dams, an approach was
developed to reduce upstream sediment yield, including through participation in a watershed
management program; simultaneously, PG&E implemented remediation techniques at each of the
dams, including sediment routing strategies aimed to create equilibrium in sediment accumulation along
the chain of reservoirs. This ongoing approach is designed to mitigate adverse sedimentation effects
while avoiding future occurrence of such effects. (Fan, Jiahua, and Morris, Gregory, 2010)

How should sediments be disposed of?

A common dilemma is what to do with sediment removed from behind a dam. The answer to this
question depends entirely on the nature of the sediment, and the location of the reservoir from which it
was removed. As mentioned in discussion of sediment management at the Elephant Butte Reservoir,
sediment disposal is an ongoing issue. One option, if possible, is the placement of material within the
watershed for natural distribution to downstream
Aspen prepared the baseline conditions
areas. The viability of returning sediment to the
portion of an EIS/EIR to support a U.S.
unconstrained watershed depends on the condition
Army Corps of Engineers feasibility study
of the surrounding environment, and its ability to
for the removal of Matilja Dam, as well as
absorb a new source of sediment.
analysis of potential in-channel disposal
sites for sediment removed from behind
Downstream Placement. Matilija Dam was
the dam. Aspen also prepared GIS
mentioned previously as an example of reservoir
vegetation
mapping for the Ventura
sedimentation. Under the Matilija Dam Ecosystem
River corridor and Matilija Creek, in
Restoration Project, one option that has been
support of the dam removal effort.
considered for disposal of dredged sediment is the
placement of this material in locations in the riverbed. The disposal locations were strategically selected
to be located outside of the active flow channel, but within the waterway limits such that the sediment
would be flushed downstream during large storm events, or storms of the magnitude expected to occur
every 20 to 50 years. Another option that has been considered for in-channel disposal is the use of
upstream disposal sites, also strategically selected for flushing during large storm events. Under either
option, the dam structure would be taken down while
the reservoirs sediment load is reduced; the dam has
already been notched to allow spill-over flow for
public safety, as described above. Issues associated
with both upstream and downstream sediment
placement are largely environmental. Six million tons
of sediment would encompass a large area, even
when divided into portions, and would potentially sit
at the disposal sites for many years, replacing existing
habitat and viewsheds, and potentially introducing a
sulfurous odor, until the material is flushed
downstream. Ultimately, the natural flushing of
sediments would restore habitat for steelhead
spawning and replenish beach sand where the
Ventura River meets the Pacific Ocean.
Canyon Infill. In mountainous regions, removed
sediments may also be disposed of as infill in narrow
Aerial view of Maple Canyon Sediment Disposal Site
canyons. In some cases the material is placed to
Source: LADPW
eventually wash downstream again, while in others
the placement is intended as permanent fill. One such disposal site located in the Angeles National

Forest is called the Maple Canyon Sediment Placement Site, or Maple Canyon SPS. Located 1.8 miles
from the Big Tujunga Dam, this SPS was established in 1981 for disposal of sediments excavated from
the reservoir. Thirty-two years later, the SPS currently holds approximately three mcy of excavated
sediment encompassing an area of approximately 28 acres. After the Station Fire, more than one mcy of
sediment accumulated in the Big Tujunga Reservoir, which now needs to be dredged in order to
maintain operability of the dam and ensure flood hazard protection. The current proposal by LADPW is
to remove 4.4 mcy from Big Tujunga Reservoir and transport it to the Maple Canyon SPS via trucks or a
conveyor belt system; this placement would increase the footprint of Maple Canyon SPS by 29 acres.
The Maple Canyon design includes underground drainage pipes and surface drainage facilities to direct
stormwater runoff throughout the site and control erosion; debris basins at the upstream end of each
underground drainage pipe captures sediment eroding from the natural drainages. (LADPW, 2013c)
Construction Use. Sediments removed from behind a dam are typically comprised of varying sizes,
including silt, sand, gravel, cobblestone, and larger materials. Once sorted, these materials may be
suitable for construction use, often distributed through an existing quarry ideally located near the
reservoir. Sediment removal from the Combie Reservoir, previously described in the context of
contaminated sediments, includes the sorting of dredged sediments in order to export sand and gravel
for construction uses (NID, 2009). Similarly, sediments removed under the Littelrock Dam Sediment
Removal Project are proposed to be hauled to off-site commercial gravel pits located six miles north of
the dam site in the community of Littlerock. This
Aspen has begun the preparation of a joint
project includes long-term sediment removal
EIS/EIR evaluating the Littlerock
activities, with 540,000 cubic yards removed upSediment
Removal Project for the
front to restore the reservoirs function and
Palmdale
Water
District (CEQA Lead
capacity, and up to 40,000 cubic yards removed on
Agency).
Aspen
has
also assessed a slurry
an annual basis after that, in order to maintain
pipeline alternative for transportation of
reservoir function. This project could also
sediments, and developed a Grade Control
eventually feed into other regional water banking
Design for protection of the arroyo toad.
projects such as the Antelope Valley East Kern
At the request of the Forest Service, Aspen
Water Agencys eastside project (RWMG, 2006).
has prepared a detailed work plan for
assessment of biological resources.
Capping and Grade Fill. Depending on

availability and local needs, sediments may also be

disposed of by use in capping decommissioned landfills. Similarly, sediments may be used to raise the
elevation of land depressions or eroded areas. In Los Angeles, sediment removed from Devils Gate
Reservoir in 2012 is being temporarily placed at Johnson Field in Pasadena as part of the annual Interim
Measures to manage sedimentation in the reservoir (LADPW, 2013a). Other flood controls projects
remove sediment accumulated along levees or channels and use it to fortify the flood control facilities,
such as the Sacramento Weir Sediment Removal Project on the Sacramento River, which removed
accumulated sediment from the weir approach and used it to raise levee elevations and berm stability
(DWR, 2009).

Site-Specific Needs. As mentioned above, the viability of sediment disposal options depends entirely
on site-specific environmental conditions, and the ability of the environment to receive an influx of
material. For instance, in Pennsylvania, the states Department of Environmental Protection and a
coalition of environmental groups called the Dredge Sediment Work Group have developed pilot
projects to use sediments removed from the Delaware River to fill abandoned mine pits in the
anthracite (coal-mining) region (Parker, 2002). Over the past decade, millions of dollars have been
allocated towards such projects, with the goals of improving public safety by removing abandoned mine
pits and improving water quality by reducing sediment load in the river. In addition, the option is cost-

effective, as the Delaware River Port Authority pays to dredge and ship the sediment, and the federal
Mine Reclamation Program, paid for by the mining industry, provides funding for mine reclamation
(Parker, 2002).

Conclusion
Active management of reservoir sedimentation is key to maintaining functionality of water
infrastructure, and to meeting the three primary water management goals in California: water supply
storage, flood hazard protection, and environmental health and function. Improving Californias water
storage and conveyance infrastructure is necessary to ensure water supply reliability throughout the
state, and requires that reservoir sedimentation issues are proactively addressed. As discussed in this
article, reservoir sedimentation is often inherent to water supply storage projects and can be dealt with
in many different ways, depending upon site-specific conditions and intended use and function of the
facility. Particularly as we face increasing water storage and delivery challenges associated with
population growth and climate change, sediment management will be essential to the functionality of
water supply infrastructure. Contrary to traditional reservoir maintenance practices that assume a finite
facility lifetime due to sedimentation, proactive and comprehensive sediment management efforts will
not only extend the lifetime of our water supply infrastructure, but will also reduce operational efforts
associated with removing large quantities of sediment from behind dams in order to rehabilitate or
demolish them.

References
Biba, Erin, 2012. What Happens When You Remove a Dam. Published in Popular Mechanics. December
11. [online]: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/geoengineering/whathappens-when-you-remove-a-dam-14845676. Accessed April 25, 2013.
Byrne, et al., 2004. Changing Sedimentation Rates during the Last Three Centuries at Lake Elsinore,
Riverside County, California. Submitted to Cindy Li, Associate Engineering Geologist, Regional
Water Quality Control Board. February 12th. [online]:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_8/2006/ref469.p
df. Accessed April 23, 2013.
CCC (California Coastal Conservancy), 2010. Dam Removal Projects Funded by the Coastal Conservancy.
[online]: http://scc.ca.gov/2011/06/10/dam-removal-projects-funded-by-the-coastalconservancy/. Accessed April 25, 2013.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2009. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Draft Initial Study, Sacramento Weir Sediment Removal Project. March 12. [online]:
http://www.dwr.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/fmo/docs/Draft_Initial_StudySac_Weir_Sediment_Removal.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2013.
Fan, Jiahua, and Morris, Gregory, 2010. Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook Design and Management
of Dams, Reservoirs, and Watersheds for Sustainable Use. December. [online]:
http://reservoirsedimentation.com/. Accessed April 25, 2013.
grandfathersmc (Grand Fathers M/C So Cal), 2013. Lake Elsinore. [online]:
http://www.grandfathersmc.com/lake-elsinore.htm. Accessed April 26, 2013.
LADPW (Los Angeles Department of Public Works), 2013a. Devils Gate Reservoir Sediment Removal and
Management Project. [online]:
http://ladpw.org/wrd/Removal/DevilGate/index.cfm?Project=DevilGate&site=wrd. Accessed
April 25, 2013.
_____, 2013b. Big Tujunga Reservoir Sediment Removal. [online]:
http://ladpw.org/wrd/Removal/BigTujunga/index.cfm?Project=BigTujunga&site=wrd. Accessed
April 26, 2013.
_____, 2013c. Big Tujunga Reservoir Sediment Removal Project Description. [online]:
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/removal/bigtujunga/Expanded_Project_Description.pdf. Accessed
April 26, 2013.
Matilija Coalition, 2002a. Removing Matilija Dam: Matilija Dam Spilling. [online]: http://www.matilijacoalition.org/spilling.htm. Accessed April 25, 2013.
_____, 2002b. Timeline history of Matilija Dam. [online]: http://www.matilija-coalition.org/history.htm.
Accessed April 26, 2013.
NID (Nevada Irrigation District), 2009. Combie Reservoir Sediment and Mercury Removal A Water
Supply Maintenance Project. July. [online]: http://nidwater.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/Project_Description.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2013.
Parker, Chris, 2002. Use of Delaware River sediment eyed for filling abandoned mines in anthracite
region DEP proposes a safe, inexpensive plan for a 2.2-acre mine pit near Tamaqua. January
31. [online]: http://articles.mcall.com/2002-01-31/news/3396761_1_mine-shaft-mine-landmining-industry. Accessed April 23, 2013.

10

PBS (Public Broadcasting System), 2013. Hetch Hetchy Valley. [online]:

http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/media_detail/69/. Accessed April 26, 2013.
Plascencia, Anthony, 2013. Photo published in the Ventura County Star, March 3,2013. Delayed plan to
remove Matilija Dam near Ojai will get new studies. [online]:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/mar/03/new-studies-expected-for-matilija-dam-removal/.
Accessed April 26, 2013.
RWMG (Regional Water Management Group of the Antelope Valley Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan), 2006. Antelope Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
[online]: http://avwaterplan.org/. Accessed May 1, 2013.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 2009. Hydrology Specialist Report, Station Fire BAER
Assessment Los Angeles River Ranger District, Angeles National Forest. September 22. [online]:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5167071.pdf. Accessed April 25,
2013.
Weiser, Matt, 2011. Sedimentation is a building problem in the Wests reservoirs. Published in High
Country News, April 11. [online]: http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.6/muddy-waters-silt-and-theslow-demise-of-glen-canyon-dam/sedimentation-a-building-problem-in-the-wests-reservoirs.
Accessed April 25, 2013.

11