DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposal for Los Padres Dam and Reservoir Alternatives and Sediment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EXHIBIT 2-A Proposal for Los Padres Dam and Reservoir Alternatives and Sediment ManPrepared for:agement Monterey Peninsula Water ManagementStudy District December 28, 2016 EXHIBIT 2-A AECOM 510 893 3600 tel 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 510 874 3268 fax Oakland, CA 94601 www.aecom.com December 28, 2016 Larry Hampson District Engineer Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 5 Harris Court, Bldg. G Monterey, California 93940 Subject: Los Padres Dam and Reservoir Alternatives and Sediment Management Study Dear Mr. Hampson: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) is pleased to provide the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) with a proposal in response to your Request for Proposals (RFP) for the subject services. With the addition of URS Corporation to the AECOM family in 2014, AECOM and its subsidiaries have been providing innovative solutions to our clients since the early 1900s. The proposed AECOM Team has comprehensive and unsurpassed ability and qualifications to conduct all work associated with this contract, as we will demonstrate in this proposal. The AECOM Team will be led by Jon Stead out of AECOM’s Oakland, California office. Jon is a key member of a core team of legacy-URS water resources professionals centered in Oakland who have repeatedly demonstrated their leadership in dam removal, fish passage, stream restoration, and water infrastructure planning, design, permitting, and construction. Jon has managed steelhead-driven engineering contracts worth over $4M; managed large portions of the scope of work on other reservoir alternatives analysis projects; and is AECOM’s project manager for the Los Padres Dam Fish Passage Feasibility Study. He has superior organizational and interdisciplinary management skills; has worked in a productive manner with multi-stakeholder groups to achieve desirable project outcomes; and seamlessly blends teams composed of AECOM staff and subconsultants, cooperating agencies, and clients, to deliver high-quality products on time and within budget. Jon has selected AECOM’s most capable staff and strongest subconsultants to work on this project. Jon has found a tremendous resource in Noel Wong, PE, our Principal-in-Charge, drawing on his vast experience with water resources projects during challenging times to deliver previous projects with confidence. Jon will frequently involve our Senior Consultant, Seth Gentzler, PE, in team discussions, technical review, and critical decisions so that the entire team can benefit from Seth’s depth of experience with dam removal and reservoir alternatives analysis projects. Jon will work closely with our Project Engineer, John Roadifer, PE, and other discipline leads to provide a world-class alternatives analysis. John has 29 years of civil design experience with dams and reservoirs, and has been the project engineer on many similar projects, including the San Clemente, Matilija, and Searsville dam removal and/or reservoir alternative analysis projects. Both Jon S. and John R. work regularly with Shannon Leonard, our Reservoir Alternatives Analysis lead, and Dave Simpson, PG, CEG, our Sediment Characterization lead. The AECOM Team includes Balance Hydrologics, Stillwater Sciences, and HDR—all firms that have long, successful relationships collaborating with AECOM on similar projects, and have substantial experience in the Carmel River Watershed. − Balance Hydrologics assisted AECOM with sediment transport analysis for the San Clemente Dam Removal and Searsville Reservoir Alternatives Analysis projects, and is currently working on the MPWMD’s Instream Flow Incremental Method Study of the Carmel River. Balance EXHIBIT 2-A Hydrologics’ Shawn Chartrand, PG, CEG, will lead the AECOM Team’s geomorphology and sediment transport analyses. − Stillwater Sciences led steelhead analyses to assess restoration alternatives for the Carmel River lagoon, and worked with AECOM on the sediment transport and effects to steelhead tasks for the Matilija Dam Removal Alternatives Analysis. Stillwater Sciences’ Ethan Bell will lead the AECOM Team in evaluation of the effects of increased sediment transport on steelhead. − HDR is currently working with AECOM on the MPWMD’s Fish Passage Feasibility Study, and has worked with AECOM for many years on steelhead-related evaluations and design in the Alameda Creek Watershed. HDR’s Mike Garello, PE, will support the AECOM Team in all things related to fish passage. Together, AECOM and our proposed subconsultants have worked on a majority of the most significant reservoir alternatives analyses and dam removal projects that have occurred on the West Coast, and are currently involved in at least four projects at—or related to—Los Padres Dam. The AECOM Team is the most qualified to address the proposed study because we have: − More experience with reservoir alternatives analysis projects than any other team. − Depth of experience in the Carmel River Watershed and at Los Padres Dam. − Built a high level of trust and efficiency working together on similar projects. − Unsurpassed enthusiasm to continue working with a team we love on this important issue. We are excited about the opportunity to provide critical information to answer key questions related to Los Padres Dam, including: − Are Carmel River steelhead better off with or without Los Padres Dam and Reservoir? − Is Los Padres Reservoir critical for water supply on the Monterey Peninsula? − What will the geomorphic response of the Carmel River be to management actions considered, and will there be an increased flood risk? We are confident that the AECOM Team has the qualifications and the most relevant experience to answer these questions and help you determine the long-term future of Los Padres Dam and Reservoir, and we look forward to continuing our support and commitment to the MPWMD, Cal-Am, and the entire TRC. Our primary contact during the solicitation process through to contract award is our proposed project manager, Jon Stead, who can be reached at [email protected]; or at the address, telephone number, and fax number at the top of this letter. Please let us know if you have any questions about our proposal. We are committed to providing you with the services you need, and are happy to consider any comments you may have. Sincerely, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Jonathan Stead Noel Wong Project Manager Vice President, Principal-in-Charge (510) 874-3058 (direct) (510) 874-3112 (direct) 2 EXHIBIT 2-A SIGNATURE PAGE ISSUE DATE: November 2016 RFP EXTENSION DATE:________ RFP: Los Padres Dam Sediment Management Study PROPOSALS ARE DUE IN MAILING ADDRESS: THE DISTRICT OFFICE BY Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 3:00 P.M., LOCAL TIME, ON: December 28, 2016 5 Harris Court, Building G Monterey, CA 93940 QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS RFP #10340 SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO Larry Hampson, [email protected], (831) 658-5620 or (831) 238-2543 Consultant MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING IN EACH PROPOSAL: 1 original plus 3 copies = total of 4 copies plus one CD or DVD (no USB sticks) ALL REQUIRED CONTENT AS DEFINED PER SECTION 7.1 HEREIN This Signature Page must be included with your submittal in order to validate your proposal. Proposals submitted without this page will be deemed non-responsive. CHECK HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS SOLICITATION. Consultant MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TO VALIDATE PROPOSAL I hereby agree to furnish the articles and/or services stipulated in my proposal at the price quoted, subject to the instructions and conditions in the Request for Proposal package and the identified exceptions. I further attest that I am an official officer representing my organization and authorized with signatory authority to present this proposal package. Company Name: ___________________________________________ Date ________________ November 2016 P a g e | 70 EXHIBIT 2-A Signature: __________________________ Printed Name:_______________________________ Street Address:_________________________________________________________________ City: ___________________ State: ______ Zip: ______________ Phone: ( ) ______________ Fax: ( ) ______________ Email: ________________________ Registered California Civil Engineer Name and License No. ________________________________________________ November 2016 P a g e | 71 EXHIBIT 2-A Table of Contents 02 Prequalifications/Licensing Requirements .........................................................................................1 03 Project Experience & References ............................................................................................................4 04 Key Staff Persons .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Organizational Chart ......................................................................................................................................... 31 05 Litigation History ........................................................................................................................................... 33 06 Technical Aspects ......................................................................................................................................... 37 07 Pricing ................................................................................................................................................................. 64 08 Exceptions .......................................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare

    Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare

    The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges by Clare Kathryn O’Reilly A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Professor Randolph T. Hester Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss Spring 2010 The thesis of Clare Kathryn O’Reilly, titled The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges, is approved: Chair Date: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf Date: Professor Randolph T. Hester Date: Professor Emeritus Robert Twiss University of California, Berkeley Spring 2010 The Big Five: Dam Removal Planning in the California Coast Ranges Copyright 2010 by Clare O’Reilly Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Methods 18 CHAPTER 3: Conceptual Framework 22 CHAPTER 4: Case Studies 46 Upper York Creek Dam 47 Searsville Dam 58 San Clemente Dam 72 Matilija Dam 84 Rindge Dam 99 CHAPTER 5: Synthesis & Recommendations 108 REFERENCES 124 APPENDICES 136 table OF COnTEnTS i List of Figures CHAPTER 1 Figure 1-1. Sediment deposition from upstream watershed (left) and resulting deposition in reservoir. 2 Figure 1-2. Transport impact of dams. (Wildman, 2006) 3 Figure 1-3. Dams in the US by height. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-4. Dams in the US by hazard potential. (USACE, 2009) 3 Figure 1-5. Delta deposition in reservoir. (Mahmood, 1987) 5 Figure 1-6. Example of reservoir sediment deposit. 5 Figure 1-7. Infilled reservoir. (Morris & Fan, 1998) 5 Figure 1-8. Bar-lin Dam on the Dahan River in Taiwan, full of sediment in 2006 four years after completion (left), and post-failure in 2007 (right).
  • Central Coast

    Central Coast

    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
  • Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Plan

    Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Plan

    MATILIJA DAM GIANT REED REMOVAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN County of Ventura Watershed Protection District 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, California 93009 Contact: Tom Lagier, Project Manager EcoSystems Restoration Associates 8954 Rio San Diego Drive Suite 610 San Diego, CA 92108 619.291.1475 Contact: Julie Simonsen-Marchant, Project Manager June 2007 Matilija Dam Giant Reed Removal Water Quality Monitoring Program TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Monitoring Plan Objectives ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Existing Data....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Water Quality Data Collected.......................... 1 1.4 Data Management............................................................................................................... 1 1.5 Reporting............................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Geology............................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Land Uses ..........................................................................................................................
  • Historic Resource Study

    Historic Resource Study

    HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Windy Hill Open Space Preserve Portola Valley, California Deliverable 1: Historic Resource Study October 2013 FINAL October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study TABLE OF CONTENTS HAWTHORNS HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY I. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 II. Historic Overview & Contexts................................................................................ 5 III. Physical Description & Character-Defining Features .......................................... 58 IV. Historic Resource Evaluation ............................................................................ 105 V. Bibliography....................................................................................................... 109 VI. Endnotes VII. Appendix A. Methodology B. Drawings: Hawthorn House, Garage and Cottage October 2013 Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment FINAL Historic Resource Study I. INTRODUCTION Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment The Hawthorns Historic Structures Assessment is a project undertaken by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) to assess the history and condition of the Hawthorn property. The District is a special district whose purpose is to purchase, permanently protect, and restore lands forming a regional open space greenbelt, preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat, watershed,
  • Celebrating the Value of Dams and Levees — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

    Celebrating the Value of Dams and Levees — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

    United States Society on Dams Celebrating the Value of Dams and Levees — Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow 36th Annual USSD Conference Denver, Colorado, April 11-15, 2016 CONTENTS Conference Theme *Is This Community Worth Saving? ....................................................................................1 Robert Beduhn, HDR *Unintended Consequences of Dam Removal .....................................................................3 Melinda Dirdal, Greg Paxson and Dave Campbell, Schnabel Engineering *The Kentucky River: Managing 19th Century Infrastructure to Meet 21st Century Needs ....................................................................................................................................5 Daniel A. Gilbert, Jeffrey S. Dingrando and April L. Welshans, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.; and David Hamilton, Kentucky River Authority *Historical Perspective — Dams, Hydro, and Multi-Purpose Projects ..............................7 David Kleiner, MWH Would Texas Be Texas Without Dams? ...............................................................................9 John L Rutledge, Freese and Nichols, Inc. Discussing the Benefits of Dams with your Friends and Neighbors, the Media, and the Guy Sitting Next to You on the Plane ...........................................................................11 Amanda Sutter, Corps of Engineers A Race Against Time, America’s Flood Risk from Aging Dams .......................................13 Jason Wilson, Southern Company Hydraulics *Use of Labyrinth Piano Key Weir (PKW)

  • Our Trails Please Visit: Or Call (707) 962-0470

    Leggett Peter Douglas Trail d a o R l HWY 1 a s U South Fork Eel River Eel Fork South D B ROA RANSCOMB South Fork Eel River Westport Wages Creek k h For Ten rt Mile No Ri ver Newport Trail Seaside Beach Mid dle F ork Ten Mile R Ten Mile River iver HWY 1 So uth Fo rk Ten Mile River Cleone F ORT BR AGG SHERWOOD ROAD eek Pudding Cr Fort Bragg Noyo River Noyo Harbor Viewpoint Hare Creek Beach Hare Creek Belinda Point Trail HWY 20 Caspar Caspar Uplands Caspar Creek ROAD 409 Trail HWY 1 Big River LITTLE LAKE ROAD Mendocino Mendocino Bay Viewpoint rk Albion th Fo River Little River Nor Little River Little River COMPTCHE-UKIAH Blowhole Trail ROAD Comptche Albion River Trailheads Dark Gulch Trail Towns Albion F L Y 0 5 N Navarro Blufflands Trail N C Navarro Point R E E 1 2 3 4 Navarro River K R Scale (miles) O A HWY 128 D Peg & John er Frankel Trail Riv rro rth Fork Nava PH No ILO -GREEN WO OD Elk RO AD Coastal Trails from north to south Peter Douglas Trail: 2.3-mile addition to the beautiful Lost Coast Trail. Look for milepost 90.7 on Highway 1 and Usal Rd. Start hiking near Usal campground at Sinkyone State park, or mile marker 4.5 on Usal Rd. Newport Trail: 1.25-mile segment of the California Coastal Trail for bikes and pedestrians. Trail is parallel to Highway 1 between mileposts 72.15 and 73.55.
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California

    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
  • Ventura River Watershed Technical Investigation

    Ventura River Watershed Technical Investigation

    VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Funding Provided by the Department of Fish and Game and Proposition 13 Prepared for: CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA San Buenaventura, CA Prepared by: ENTRIX, INC. Walnut Creek, CA Project No. 325405 March 14, 2003 VENTURA RIVER WATERSHED TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Funding Provided by the Department of Fish and Game and Proposition 13 Prepared for: CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA P.O. Box 99 Ventura, CA 93002 Prepared by: ENTRIX, INC. 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Project No. 325405 March 14, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures......................................................................................................................v List of Photographs............................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary........................................................................................................... ix 1.0 Introduction and Overview .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Relationship to the Ventura River Habitat Conservation Plan ................ 1-2 1.3 Relationship to Other Agencies and Processes.......................................
  • 2014 Robles Fish Passage Facility Progress Report

    2014 Robles Fish Passage Facility Progress Report

    2014 Robles Fish Passage Facility Progress Report Ventura River channel going subsurface at Foster Park in 2012 for the first time in several years (top) Mean monthly discharge at Foster Park (USGS) and groundwater elevation near HWY 150 bridge (VRWD) since April 2011 (bottom). Three consecutive years of below average precipitation have resulted in groundwater depletion in the Ventura River basin and limited surface connection to only 72 hours during the 2014 fish passage season. Casitas Municipal Water District 1055 Ventura Avenue Oak View, California 93022 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... 4 2.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 5 3.0 UPSTREAM FISH MIGRATION IMPEDIMENT EVALUATION................................. 7 3.1 Sandbar Monitoring ...................................................................................... 14 4.0 EVALUATE FISH MOVEMENT THROUGH THE PASSAGE FACILITY................. 17 4.1 Water Velocity and Depth Validation Evaluation........................................... 17 4.2 Fish Attraction Evaluation............................................................................. 17 4.3 Downstream Fish Passage Evaluation ......................................................... 21 5.0 DOWNSTREAM FISH MIGRATION THROUGH THE ROBLES REACH ............... 22 6.0 LONG-TERM MONITORING COMPONENTS.......................................................
  • NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OCTOBER 2005 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT Brian C. Spence Scott L. Harris Weldon E. Jones Matthew N. Goslin Aditya Agrawal Ethan Mora NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-383 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. Disclaimer of endorsement: Reference to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of NOAA or the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information.
  • TOWN of PORTOLA VALLEY 7:00 PM – Special Town Council Meeting Wednesday, October 24, 2012 the Sequoias Hanson Hall 501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028

    TOWN of PORTOLA VALLEY 7:00 PM – Special Town Council Meeting Wednesday, October 24, 2012 the Sequoias Hanson Hall 501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028

    Page 1 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY 7:00 PM – Special Town Council Meeting Wednesday, October 24, 2012 The Sequoias Hanson Hall 501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 _____________________________________________________________________________ SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 PM – CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Aalfs, Mayor Derwin, Councilmember Driscoll, Vice Mayor Richards, Councilmember Wengert ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject may do so now. Please note however, that the Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items not on the agenda. (1) PRESENTATION – Community Events Committee; Report on Blues and BBQ (3) (2) PRESENTATION – Jayme Ackemann, SamTrans Government Affairs Officer Executive Director; Report on (4) SamTrans Service Plan (3) PRESENTATION – Nicole Pasini, Branch Manager for Portola Valley and Woodside Library’s; San Mateo County Library’s 2011-12 Annual Report (18) CONSENT AGENDA The following items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and approved by one roll call motion. The Mayor or any member of the Town Council or of the public may request that any item listed under the Consent Agenda be removed and action taken separately. (4) Approval of Minutes – Regular Town Council Meeting of October 10, 2012 (35) (5) Approval of Warrant List – October 24, 2012 (47) REGULAR AGENDA (6) Discussion by Town Manager – Options to Improve Committee Volunteer Experience (56) COUNCIL, STAFF, COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (7) Report from Town Manager – Update on Staffing Plan (66) There are no written materials for this item. (8) Reports from Commission and Committee Liaisons (67) There are no written materials for this item.
  • Evaluating Small Dam Removal Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area

    Evaluating Small Dam Removal Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area

    EVALUATING SMALL DAM REMOVAL PLANNING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Geography: Resource Management and Environmental Planning by Andrea Sarisky Sproul San Francisco, California August 2017 Copyright by Andrea Sarisky Sproul 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Evaluating Small Dam Removal Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area by Andrea Sarisky Sproul, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Geography: Resource Management and Environmental Planning at San Francisco State University. Nancy Lee Wilkinson, Ph.D. Professor of Geography Jerry D. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Geography EVALUATING SMALL DAM REMOVAL PLANNING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Andrea Sarisky Sproul San Francisco, California 2017 Dam removal is now commonly being considered as a river restoration tactic as millions of small dams in the United States outlive their intended purposes and become liabilities or cause environmental degradation. This study evaluates two cases of small dam removal in the San Francisco Bay Area, gauging what aspects of the decision-making and planning process facilitated successful removal. Through the study of the setting, actors, steps of progression, and treatment of risks for each dam removal project, the cases are evaluated against one another via pattern matching and comparing factors of analysis. Planning at the watershed scale, the presence of protected salmonids, available funding, and strong leadership that incorporates multiple stakeholder viewpoints and embraces adaptive management were all found to be important factors leading to successful outcomes.