Plan Would Protect Santa Paula Creek From Developers : Environment: Several county streams would be safeguarded while forestry officials study whether to grant them official scenic status.

The last unprotected major stream in the Ventura County backcountry would come under temporary protection from damming or development under a proposal prepared by the U.S. Forest Service.

If the Forest Service approves the proposal, most of Santa Paula Creek and parts of other Ventura County streams would be protected while officials study whether to designate them as Wild and Scenic Rivers, which would provide permanent guards against development.

Santa Paula Creek sprouts from headwaters in Los Padres National Forest and winds about 15 miles before its confluence with the Santa Clara River near Santa Paula. It would join Sespe, Matilija and Piru creeks in Los Padres National Forest as waterways with at least temporary protection from development.

With the protection of the rivers comes preservation of habitat for the forest’s numerous wild animals. Those species include the California condor and 15 other species that are listed or proposed as endangered, and another 38 species that the Forest Service considers “sensitive.”

“The forest is becoming the last resting place for a lot of species,” said Gerry Little, planner for the 1.7-million-acre forest. “There is more of a need now for balance with nature.”

The Forest Service proposal renews a decade-long debate over rivers in Los Padres, pitting environmentalists on one side and water, agriculture and business interests on the other.

David Warner, manager of Santa Paula Water Works, which owns property in the forest and water rights to Santa Paula Creek, supports the Forest Service’s efforts to protect the creek--so long as the water company is not affected.

“We don’t want anything that inhibits us from utilizing our water rights and land rights,” he said.

As a private property owner, Santa Paula Water Works would maintain rights over its land and water no matter what the Forest Service plan said. But it could not dam the creek causing water to back up on public land.

And that could effectively stop a dam on the creek, Little said.

“It would be hard to build a dam that didn’t back up on National Forest land,” he said.

While the Forest Service considers new protection for Santa Paula Creek, environmentalists are renewing their campaign to put all of nearby Sespe Creek permanently off-limits to future dams.

That issue was temporarily settled last year with landmark legislation known as Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act.

Water, business and agriculture interests fought hard to maintain rights to build dams on 55-mile-long Sespe Creek in case the water was needed in the future. Environmentalists waged just as adamant a battle to put the entire river off-limits to dams.

The act contained something for both sides.

It set aside 400,450 acres of the forest as wilderness, and designated Piru and Matilija creeks for study as possible future Wild or Scenic Rivers.

It also granted permanent status as a Wild and Scenic River to 31.5 miles of Sespe Creek.

In a compromise, 10.5 miles of the Sespe, which included a potential dam site, were designated for study for possible permanent protection.

In a concession to water interests, the act removed the lower one mile of the Sespe within the forest boundary from protection altogether, keeping the door open for a future dam at that site.

Now, the Keep the Sespe Wild committee in Ventura County, with support from the statewide Friends of the River organization, are mounting a new effort to see that the 10.5 miles of the Sespe is definitely designated as a Wild and Scenic River, bypassing a Forest Service study. The river protection groups also want to bring the lower mile of the Sespe under permanent protection as well.

“We are trying to protect entire river systems, instead of fragments of rivers,” said Steve Evans, conservation director for the Friends of the River based in Sacramento.

The groups hope that Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) will include Sespe Creek in river protection legislation that he wants to introduce this fall.

Unlike last year, environmentalists say a new river act may enjoy smooth sailing through Congress now that California has two Democratic senators. That compares to the often rocky negotiations over the 1992 act when the state had a Democrat and a Republican senator in office.

“There is a good chance it will go through,” said Alisdair Coyne, a leader of the Keep the Sespe Wild group.

But Frederick Gientke, manager of the United Water Conservation District in Santa Paula, said the legislation passed in 1992 was a fair compromise and should not be tampered with. He called the move for new legislation an “end run.”

“The Piru, the Santa Paula and the Sespe are all contributors to our watershed,” he said. “Our position is the same as it was years ago. We are reluctant to close off a future resource that our children and grandchildren may need.”

The 1992 legislation called for the Forest Service to draft a proposal to study three streams in Ventura County: the 10.5-mile section of Sespe Creek; 51 miles of the Piru Creek; and about 16 miles of the Matilija Creek. In preparing its proposal, the Forest Service added Santa Paula Creek to settle a 1988 challenge by environmentalists.

The Forest Service is now seeking public comment on the proposal.

Once a river is designated for study, it receives the same level of protection it would if the Wild and Scenic River designation were permanent, he said.

“The idea is to give it interim protection so that during the study process (the rivers do not become degraded) so that they would become ineligible,” he said.

Under the proposal, the four waterways in Ventura County, along with 12 more rivers in other counties within the massive Los Padres, will be studied during the next 10 years to determine whether they are eligible for the Wild and Scenic River system.

To determine eligibility, foresters study whether a waterway has outstanding characteristics such as habitat for endangered species, fisheries, rock formations or archeological values.

Determining whether a river is eligible for the Wild and Scenic system is the easy part, Little said.

“The difficult question is, should you protect the river as wild and scenic?” he said. That’s when politics comes into play, he said.

Once the waterways are determined to be eligible, the Forest Service performs extensive environmental impact studies and makes a recommendation to Congress, which has the final say.

Little said the move to protect the forest’s streams reflects a national recognition of the value of rivers and the habitat they provide for wildlife, especially endangered or threatened species.

“In the past, we have been considered more of a watershed and recreation forest,” Little said. “Those things are still important, but now we’re becoming more of a wildlife forest.”

He said the Forest Service tries to accommodate both interests.

“But if we can’t, we have to go in favor of the endangered species,” he said.