DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles What’s the Dam Problem? Hazardous Dams, Flood Risk, and Dimensions of Vulnerability in California A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Urban and Regional Planning by Britta McOmber 2018 © Copyright by Britta McOmber 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS What’s the Dam Problem? Hazardous Dams, Flood Risk, and Dimensions of Vulnerability in California by Britta McOmber Master of Urban and Regional Planning University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Susanna B. Hecht, Chair In the state of California, dams are aging, underfinanced, and in many cases ill-maintained. The Oroville Dam Spillway Failure in February 2017 demonstrates that even dams with satisfactory condition ratings can be at risk of failing from a combination of climatic, political, economic, and structural factors. It is therefore necessary to look beyond the condition assessment of a dam and instead consider the hazard potential status. California has 833 High Hazard Potential (HHP) dams – which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines as dams that would cause significant loss of life, property destruction, or environmental damage in the case of failure or misoperation (2016). Expanding on previous literature on the sociodemographic determinants of flood-risk in cases of sea-level rise, climate change, high precipitation, and storm events, this project analyzes variables of social vulnerability within HHP dam inundation boundaries. I rely on a series of ii geostatistical analyses, two-tail independent samples statistical tests, and multiple linear regressions to answer the overarching research question – Who is most vulnerable to dam- induced floods in California? The data underpinning this research comes from the National Inventory of Dams, statewide dam inundation boundary maps, and the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey. Results from independent samples t-tests show that individuals and households are disproportionately located within hazardous dam flood zones if they are U.S. Citizens, live with a disability, are less educated, are unemployed, are single parents, have lower median household incomes, live at, below, or near the federal poverty line, and identify as either Black and African American, American Indian and Native Alaskan, or Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Furthermore, people whose highest educational attainment is a high school degree, unemployed individuals, those living with disabilities, Hispanic or Latino individuals, female-headed households, renters, and people who identify as Black and African American, American Indian and Native Alaskan, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander represent variables of social vulnerability that are statistically significant predictors of living within a hazardous dam flood zone. This project therefore reveals the spatial and social characteristics of vulnerability to dam-induced flood risk in California. Planners and policymakers can use this information to improve existing disaster management and response plans by incorporating targeted and specific strategies to reduce the flood-risk of highly vulnerable populations. It also provides information necessary for planners and iii policymakers to address and mitigate the existing social and spatial inequalities in dam inundation zones to create a more environmentally just California. iv The thesis of Britta McOmber is approved. Gregory S. Pierce Kian Goh Susanna B. Hecht, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2018 v Table of Contents Abstract of the Thesis .............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................vi List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Oroville Dam Spillway Failure ................................................................................................ 1 Hazardous Dams and Social Vulnerability ............................................................................... 4 Research Questions and Overview of Results .......................................................................... 6 Research Significance ............................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 2: Background .......................................................................................................... 11 History of Dam-building in California ................................................................................... 11 The Geography and Typology of California’s Dams .............................................................. 15 What’s the Dam Problem? Political, Economic, and Structural Context ................................. 18 Chapter 3: Literature Review ................................................................................................. 22 Dams as Critical Infrastructures............................................................................................. 22 Impacts from Seismic Activity and Climate Change .............................................................. 24 Dam Tradeoffs: Are the Benefits Worth the Costs? ............................................................... 30 The Social Vulnerability Concept: What Is It, and Why Is It Important?................................ 33 Social Vulnerability and Flood-Risk: Previous Research and Findings .................................. 36 Chapter 4: Data and Variables ............................................................................................... 39 Description of Datasets ......................................................................................................... 39 The National Inventory of Dams........................................................................................ 39 Dam Inundation Boundary Maps ....................................................................................... 42 The American Community Survey .................................................................................... 43 Data Limitations .................................................................................................................... 48 Chapter 5: Methods ................................................................................................................ 54 Research Design .................................................................................................................... 54 Research Procedure ............................................................................................................... 55 Identification of Vulnerable Groups .................................................................................. 56 Data Acquisition................................................................................................................ 56 vi Data Editing and Geoprocessing ........................................................................................ 56 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 59 Chapter 6: Results and Findings ............................................................................................ 64 Results for Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 65 Results for Research Question 2 ............................................................................................ 67 Results for Research Question 3 ............................................................................................ 70 Results for Research Question 4 ............................................................................................ 74 Chapter 7: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 80 The Geography of Social Vulnerability and Hazardous Dams ............................................... 80 Hazardous Dams, Flood-Risk, and Dimensions of Vulnerability in California ....................... 83 Chapter 8: Why Give a Dam(n)? ............................................................................................ 88 Appendix A: Data Normalization .............................................................................................. 92 Appendix B: Statistical Analyses for Research Question 1 ...................................................... 108 Appendix C: Statistical Analyses for Research Question 2 ...................................................... 111 Appendix D: Statistical Analyses for Research Question 3 ...................................................... 114 Appendix E: Statistical Analyses for Research Question 4 ...................................................... 118 Appendix E: Inundation Boundary Maps by Dam Name and High Hazard Potential ............... 127 Bibliography .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority June 19, 2020
    SANTA ANA RIVER WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION MODEL UPDATE SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 of 3: Text PREPARED FOR: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority June 19, 2020 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. Ground Water Resources Development P.O. Box 220, Claremont, CA 91711 | P: 909.451.6650 | F: 909.451.6638 | www.gssiwater.com Santa Ana River Waste Load Allocation Model Update - Summary Report 19-Jun-20 THIS REPORT IS RENDERED TO THE SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY AND BASIN MONITORING PROGRAM TASK FORCE AS OF THE DATE HEREOF, SOLELY FOR THEIR BENEFIT IN CONNECTION WITH ITS STATED PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE RELIED ON BY ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY OR BY THEM IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT. AS DATA IS UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME, ANY RELIANCE ON THIS REPORT AT A FUTURE DATE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT UPDATED DATA. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, AND CONSISTENCY BY THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONALS: ___________________________________ Lauren Wicks, PG Project Geohydrologist PG No. 9531 ___________________________________ Johnson Yeh, Ph.D., PG, CHG Principal CHG No. 422 ___________________________________ Dennis E. Williams, Ph.D., PG, CHG President CHG No. 139 Copyright © 2020 GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc. GEOSCIENCE retains its copyrights, and the client for which this document was produced may not use such products of consulting services for purposes unrelated to the subject matter of this project. No portion of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise EXCEPT for purposes of the project for which this document was produced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fault Line Threatening Dams
    The Fault Line Threatening Dams The Fault Line Threatening Dams Deficient structures, earthquake risks raise possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding By Jim Carlton June 24, 2017 FREMONT, Calif.-The coastal mountains that frame this working-class city next to San Francisco Bay harbor a hidden menace: a reservoir 10 miles away that sits next to an active earthquake fault, which experts say could cause a dam break and flood thousands of homes. The potential threat is so severe, the owner of the Calaveras Reservoir decided to build a replacement dam. But seven years after that work began, the dam is unfinished and isn't expected to be complete until 2019 -- four years behind schedule. The issues hampering the Calaveras Reservoir project show how difficult it can be to repair or replace an old dam, which is of growing concern nationally. An estimated 27,380 dams, or 30% of the 90,580 listed in the latest 2016 National Inventory of Dams, are rated as posing a high or significant hazard. Of those, more than 2,170 are considered deficient and in need of upgrading, according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The inventory by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't break out which ones are deficient. But funding and inspection staffing are considered inadequate, the civil engineers' report said. An estimated $64 billion is needed to upgrade those dams, including $22 billion for those posing the highest hazard, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, a nonprofit group in Lexington, Ky. "It's a huge problem with limited resources," said Ivan Wong, a consulting seismologist from Walnut Creek, Calif., who works on dam projects nationally.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board Policy Committee Meeting
    May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING May 10, 2019 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between April 15 and May 9, 2019 Correspondence Date: May 3, 2019 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Subject: Press Release: SFPUC Celebrates Completion of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project Date: April 29, 2019 From: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Subject Press Advisory: Governor Newsom Directs State Agencies to Prepare Water Resilience Portfolio for California Media Coverage Water Supply: Date: May 6, 2019 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: To prevent water shortages, California must embrace desalination Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Sierra snowpack is 188 percent of normal Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: Final Phillips Survey of 2019 Finds Healthy Late-Spring Snowpack Water Infrastructure: Date: May 5, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Editorial: Governor sets welcome new course on Delta water issues Date: May 4, 2019 Source: Grist Article: The town that extended ‘smart growth’ to its water Date: May 2, 2019 Source: SF Gate Article: California governor makes big change to giant water project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Mercury News Article: Newsom officially kills Jerry Brown’s Delta Twin Tunnels project Date: May 2, 2019 Source: Maven’s Notebook Article: State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel May 16, 2019 – Agenda Item #9G Water Infrastructure, cont’d.: Date: May
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure Network
    DA 17 DA 67 DA 68 DA 22 DA 29 DA 39 DA 40 DA 41 DA 46 N. FORK N. & M. TUOLOMNE YUBA RIVER FORKS CHERRY CREEK, RIVER Figure 6-3. California's Water Infrastructure ELEANOR CREEK AMERICAN M & S FORK RIVER YUBA RIVER New Bullards Hetch Hetchy Res Bar Reservoir GREENHORN O'Shaughnessy Dam Network Configuration for CALVIN (1 of 2) SR- S. FORK NBB CREEK & BEAR DA 32 SR- D17 AMERICAN RIVER HHR DA 42 DA 43 DA 44 RIVER STANISLAUS SR- LL- C27 RIVER & 45 Camp Far West Reservoir DRAFT Folsom Englebright C31 Lake DA 25 DA 27 Canyon Tunnel FEATHER Lake 7 SR- CALAVERAS New RIVER SR-EL CFW SR-8 RIVER Melones Lower Cherry Creek MERCED MOKELUMNE Reservoir SR-10 Aqueduct ACCRETION CAMP C44 RIVER FAR WEST TO DEER CREEK C28 FRENCH DRY RIVER CREEK WHEATLAND GAGE FRESNO New Hogan Lake Oroville DA 70 D67 SAN COSUMNES Lake RIVER SR- 0 SR-6 C308 SR- JOAQUIN Accretion: NHL C29 RIVER 81 CHOWCHILLA American River RIVER New Don Lake McClure Folsom to Fair D9 DRY Pardee Pedro SR- New Exchequer RIVER Oaks Reservoir 20 CREEK Reservoir Dam SR- Hensley Lake DA 14 Tulloch Reservoir SR- C33 Lake Natoma PR Hidden Dam Nimbus Dam TR Millerton Lake SR-52 Friant Dam C23 KELLY RIDGE Accretion: Eastside Eastman Lake Bypass Accretion: Accretion: Buchanan Dam C24 Yuba Urban DA 59 Camanche Melones to D16 Upper Merced D64 SR- C37 Reservoir C40 2 SR-18 Goodwin River 53 D62 SR- La Grange Dam 2 CR Goodwin Reservoir D66 Folsom South Canal Mokelumne River Aqueduct Accretion: 2 D64 depletion: Upper C17 D65 Losses D85 C39 Goodwin to 3 Merced River 3 3a D63 DEPLETION mouth C31 2 C25 C31 D37
    [Show full text]
  • 12.4 Groups Groups 12.4
    12.4 Groups Groups 12.4 GROUPS GROUPS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PEIR Comment Letter Comment Letter Name of Organization/ Format ID Commenter Title Affiliation Page Email SI_ACA1 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.4-1 PH Fremont SI_ACA2 Jeff Miller Director Alameda Creek Alliance 12.6-52 David T. Smernoff, Board Acterra: Action for a Email SI_ACT 12.4-12 Ph.D. Vice President Sustainable Earth Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC1 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Citizens Advisory Email SI_CAC2 Steve Lawrence Vice Chair 12.4-13 Committee to the SFPUC Chief Executive Mail SI_Caltrout Brian Stranko California Trout 12.4-14 Officer Republicans for Environmental Buddy Burke / CA REP President & Protection, Protection Email SI_CAREP Virginia Chang CA REP Vice 12.4-14 Commissioner, California Kiraly President Commission for Economic Development PH Palo Alto SI_CI Katherine Forrest Member Commonwealth Institute 12.6-77 California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS Amanda Jorgenson Executive Director 12.4-15 Society California Native Plant Conservation Email SI_CNPS-EB1 Laura Baker Society, East Bay 12.4-15 Committee Chair Chapter California Native Plant PH Fremont SI_CNPS-EB2 Lech Naumovich Society, East Bay 12.6-56 Chapter California Native Plant President, Santa Email SI_CNPS-SCV1 Kevin Bryant Society, Santa Clara 12.4-33 Clara Valley Chapter Valley Chapter California Native Plant Mail SI_CNPS-SCV2 Libby Lucas Conservation Society, Santa Clara 12.4-36 Valley Chapter SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 12.4-i
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones
    Appendix D Building Descriptions and Climate Zones APPENDIX D: Building Descriptions The purpose of the Building Descriptions is to assist the user in selecting an appropriate type of building when using the Air Conditioning estimating tools. The selected building type should be the one that most closely matches the actual project. These summaries provide the user with the inputs for the typical buildings. Minor variations from these inputs will occur based on differences in building vintage and climate zone. The Building Descriptions are referenced from the 2004-2005 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) Update Study. It should be noted that the user is required to provide certain inputs for the user’s specific building (e.g. actual conditioned area, city, operating hours, economy cycle, new AC system and new AC system efficiency). The remaining inputs are approximations of the building and are deemed acceptable to the user. If none of the typical building models are determined to be a fair approximation then the user has the option to use the Custom Building approach. The Custom Building option instructs the user how to initiate the Engage Software. The Engage Software is a stand-alone, DOE2 based modeling program. July 16, 2013 D-1 Version 5.0 Prototype Source Activity Area Type Area % Area Simulation Model Notes 1. Assembly DEER Auditorium 33,235 97.8 Thermal Zoning: One zone per activity area. Office 765 2.2 Total 34,000 Model Configuration: Matches 1994 DEER prototype HVAC Systems: The prototype uses Rooftop DX systems, which are changed to Rooftop HP systems for the heat pump efficiency measures.
    [Show full text]
  • (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.
    [Show full text]
  • Calaveras Dam Fact Sheet Bcj 091511 V2.Indd
    Calaveras Dam Replacement Services of San Francisco Fact Sheet Public Utilities Commission www.sfwater.org/sunolvalleywww.sfwater.org/ulistac 866-973-1476 Calaveras Reservoir Project Summary The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, operator of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, is rebuilding Calaveras Dam, our largest local Bay Area drinking water reservoir. The existing earth fi ll dam is located near the active Calaveras earthquake fault. We lowered water levels in the reservoir in response to seismic concerns in 2001. The project will construct a new dam equal in height next to the existing seismically-vulnerable dam so that the historic capacity of the reservoir can be restored. The new Calaveras Dam will be one of only a few major dams built in the State of California in the last 30 years. The $416 million project breaks ground in September 2011. The Calaveras Dam Replacement Project is the largest project among the 81 projects of our $4.6B Water System Improvement Program. The Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System delivers drinking water to 2.5 million Bay Area customers. Construction Began: August 2011 Projected Completion: August 2015 Total Project Cost: $416 Million Construction Contractor: Joint Venture of Dragados USA, Flatiron Construction, and Sukut Construction Project Details The project consists of building a new zoned earth and rock fi ll dam immediately downstream of the existing dam. This work will restore the Calaveras Reservoir to its historic capacity. The reservoir provides approximately half of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System’s local Bay Area water storage. This storage is crucial to providing adequate water to our customers in times of drought and when Sierra Nevada resources are not available.
    [Show full text]
  • Up Your Creek! the Electronic Newsletter of the Alameda Creek Alliance
    Up Your Creek! The electronic newsletter of the Alameda Creek Alliance Alameda Creek Cleanup - November 16 Join the Alameda Creek Alliance this Sunday, November 16th at our adopted site along Alameda Creek, from 10 am to noon at the Niles Staging Area in Fremont. We'll remove invasive plants and pick up trash along Alameda Creek, and discuss how these efforts protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Thanks to all who have helped so far- we've made great progress on ivy removal, but there is more to be done! We’ll meet at the Niles Staging Area parking lot along Old Canyon Road at Canyon Oaks Court in the Niles area of Fremont. Wear work clothes, including long pants and sturdy shoes that can get dirty. A long-sleeve shirt and hat are recommended. We’ll provide gloves, waste bags, litter grabbers, water, and a snack. Please bring your own re-usable water bottle to fill. RSVP to Ralph Boniello at [email protected]. Talk On Raptors, Rats, and Riparian Areas November 19 Lisa Owens Viani, co-founder and director of Raptors Are The Solution (RATS), will talk about raptors and the threats they face, particularly from rat poison, and also discuss less toxic ways of controlling rodents. The talk will be on Wednesday November 19 at 7 pm at the Dimond Branch Library, 3565 Fruitvale Avenue in Oakland. Owens Viani will describe a nine-year study of Cooper’s hawks in Berkeley and their connection to riparian habitat, as well as how the study led to the formation of RATS.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
    Section 5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality SECTION 5.8 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the existing hydrological and water quality conditions within the City of Buena Park. The potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update are analyzed, and where significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. This section includes information contained in the Hydrology Impact and Water Quality Assessment prepared by RBF Consulting (February 2010) (Appendix F). 5.8.1 EXISTING SETTING GROUNDWATER The City relies on two major water supply sources, which include imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The groundwater basin receives water via the Santa Ana River. Each year OCWD sets a basin production percentage (BPP) for the agencies that pump from the basin. The BPP is the ratio of water produced from the groundwater to all water produced by the agency. The BPP provides a limit on how much each agency can pump from the Orange County Groundwater Basin without paying a penalty. According to the City of Buena Park 2005 Water Master Plan Study Final Report (Water Master Plan) (February 2007), the City’s basin pumping percentage is 66 percent and is anticipated to increase to the historical value of 75 percent. However, water supply conditions have changed over recent years and according to the City’s Public Works Department, the current BPP is 62 percent and the BPP is not anticipated to rise above the current rate for a number of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed
    I 580 Si San Francisco Bay Stonybrook Cr. n ba d C r Arroyo Mocho Vallecitos Cr. Canyon San Antonio Reservoir Lake Del Valle I 680 Pirate Cr. I 880 Welch Cr. Alameda Diversion Valpe Cr. Tunnel Calaveras Reservoir Plate 1 - Alameda Creek Watershed Alameda Creek Watershed An Assessment of the Potential for Restoring a Viable Steelhead Trout Population in the Alameda Creek Watershed prepared for the Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup by Andrew J. Gunther Jeffrey Hagar Paul Salop Applied Marine Sciences, Inc. 4749 Bennett Dr., Suite L Livermore, CA 94550 www.amarine.com Hagar Environmental Science 6523 Claremont Ave, Suite B Richmond, CA 94805 February 7, 2000 Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup 2/7/00 Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup 2/7/00 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................iii Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 A. Background......................................................................................................... 5 B. Decision Process for preparation of this report .................................................. 7 II. The Alameda Creek Watershed .............................................................................
    [Show full text]