DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating Small Dam Removal Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. I certify that the abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. Chair, Thesis Committee Date PREFACE AND/OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Nancy Wilkinson and Jerry Davis for your support and guidance, so many friends within the SFSU Geography department who have given feedback and encouragement, and most of all to Aaron and Ellie for their time, patience, and inspiration. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................x Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Literature Review .................................................................................................................2 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................9 Methods..............................................................................................................................12 Niles Dam Case Study .......................................................................................................14 Setting ....................................................................................................................14 Actors .....................................................................................................................16 Process ...................................................................................................................19 Risks and Considerations .......................................................................................21 Summary ................................................................................................................26 Memorial Park Dam Case Study ........................................................................................28 Setting ....................................................................................................................28 Actors .....................................................................................................................31 Process ...................................................................................................................33 Risks and Considerations .......................................................................................35 Summary ................................................................................................................39 Analysis and Discussion ....................................................................................................40 vi Conclusion .........................................................................................................................48 References ..........................................................................................................................50 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Timeline of Niles Dam Removal Process.......................................................21 2. Timeline of Memorial Park Dam Removal Process........................................35 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. Niles Dam.........................................................................................................15 2. Former site of Niles Dam..................................................................................15 3. Map of Niles Dam Area....................................................................................16 4. Construction of Niles Dam, 1887......................................................................25 5. Memorial Park Dam..........................................................................................29 6. Former site of Memorial Park Dam..................................................................30 7. Map of Memorial Park Dam Area.....................................................................30 ix ABBREVIATIONS ACA Alameda Creek Alliance ACFCWCD Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ACFRW Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Workgroup ACPW Alameda County Public Works ACWD Alameda County Water District CCC California Coastal Conservancy CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEMAR Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CWA Clean Water Act EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission IWRP Integrated Watershed Restoration Program NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers RCD Resource Conservation District RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board x 1 Introduction Dams are a fundamental part of the U.S. hydrological landscape and have been used to support irrigation, protect from flooding, provide drinking water, energy, and recreation, among other uses (Heinz Center 2002, 32-33). More than 80 percent of the dams in the U.S. were built in the 20th century, with a majority built between 1950 and 1970 (Heinz Center 2002, 33). As this epoch of dam building in the United States ended and dams began to age, their effects began to be more acutely felt (Graf 1999). Many dams have been removed as they have become obsolete, unsafe, or detrimental to the environment, and dam removal is now commonly considered as a river restoration technique (Pohl 2002, Doyle et al. 2000). According to American Rivers (2016), approximately 850 dams have been removed in the United States since 1999; many of were small non-hydroelectric and run-of-river dams (Pohl 2002, Doyle et al. 2000). With more than two million small dams in the United States, a majority of dam removal projects will occur in smaller watersheds on smaller structures (Doyle et al. 2000). Despite this recent proliferation of dam removals, there is a striking lack of research available on the planning processes and outcomes associated with such projects (Rhoads et al. 1999). This topic is worthy of exploration, as small dam removals entail distinctive problems and different outcomes than better-studied large dam removals (Heinz Center 2002). For example, most studies examining the impacts of small dam removal on sediment only examine individual projects, and few compare projects or look at them longitudinally (Sawaske and Freyberg 2012). There are large gaps in the 2 literature covering dam removal, which leads decision-makers to rely on modeling and theory rather than site-specific and applied research (Heinz Center 2002, Bellmore et al. 2017). There is a compelling need for more information about the planning, execution, and outcomes of small dam removals. When a dam removal is proposed, multiple factors must be evaluated regarding potential changes to the river system as well as broader socio-political implications. Federal, state, and local stakeholders have developed a wide variety of approaches to the often complex and intertwined factors that affect decision making and planning efforts. This study seeks to elucidate which aspects of the planning process had the greatest impact on the success of two small dam removal projects in the San Francisco Bay Area: Niles Dam in Alameda County and Memorial Park Dam in San Mateo
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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,
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 38Th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference
    Salmonid Restoration Federation’s Mission Statement 38th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference Salmonid Restoration Federation was formed in 1986 to help stream March 31 – April 3, 2020 Santa Cruz, CA restoration practitioners advance the art and science of restoration. Salmonid Restoration Federation promotes restoration, stewardship, 2020 Vision for California’s Salmonscape and recovery of California native salmon, steelhead, and trout populations through education, collaboration, and advocacy. 38 th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference • 2020, Santa Cruz, CA Conference • 2020, Restoration Salmonid Annual SRF Goals & Objectives 1. To provide affordable technical education and best management practices trainings to the watershed restoration community. Conference Co-Sponsors Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, 2. Conduct outreach to constituents, landowners, and decision-makers Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, California American Water, California Conservation Corps, to inform the public about the plight of endangered salmon and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Water Resources, the need to preserve and restore habitat to recover salmonid California State Coastal Conservancy, CalTrans, California Trout - North Coast, Cardno, cbec, inc., City of Santa Cruz-Water Branch, County of Santa Cruz, East Bay Municipal Utility District, populations. Environmental Science Associates, Eureka Water Probes, FISHBIO, GHD, Green Diamond Resource Company - CA Timberlands
    [Show full text]
  • David A. Gutierrez November 5, 2012 Chief, Division of Safety of Dams California Department of Water Resources [email protected] Sent Via E-Mail
    David A. Gutierrez November 5, 2012 Chief, Division of Safety of Dams California Department of Water Resources [email protected] Sent via e-mail Re: Searsville Dam (No. 614) Safety Information and Request Dear Mr. Gutierrez, Thank you for your September 27, 2012 letter and the time spent on our recent phone call. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the safety issues we have brought up with Stanford University’s Searsville Dam and your direction to Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) staff to further investigate several issues we covered. As discussed, we submit the following information and requests regarding Searsville Dam safety. As described, we remain deeply concerned, based on information below, that Searsville Dam does not comply with DSOD safety requirements, that current and planned Stanford management activities at Searsville do not appear to adequately address existing and imminent safety concerns as conditions rapidly change at the reservoir, and, as a result, the dam poses a significant hazard to life and property upstream and downstream. Searsville Dam Safety Compliance Concerns We believe that data presented here shows that Searsville Dam is either not in compliance with DSOD safety requirements, or additional assessment is needed to make an informed determination. This letter addresses the following issues: 1) Spillway Adequacy and Associated Scour 2) Outlet Valves and Emergency Drainage Adequacy 3) Dam and Reservoir Relationship to Upstream Flooding 4) Cracks in the Dam and Seepage 5) Seismic Stability and Reservoir-Induced Seismicity 6) Surveillance Monitoring As conditions at Searsville Dam and Reservoir, as well as upstream and downstream, rapidly approach a significant change with the reservoir becoming filled in with sediment, the matter of Searsville Dam safety has become urgent.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Revised and Sent August 30, 2010
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN VOLUME II: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES NOVEMBER 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Marine Fisheries Service Service FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN VOLUME II: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES NOVEMBER 2012 United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration/ National Marine Fisheries Service as Co-Lead Agencies Contents i Final Environmental Impact Statement for Authorization for Incidental Take and Implementation of the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan Volume II: Comments and Responses TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Comment and Response Document ........................................................... 1-1 1.2 Organization of Volume II ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 List of Public Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Who Submitted Comments . 1-1 1.3.1 Public Agencies ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3.2 Organizations .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DAM REMOVAL Science and Decision Making
    SDMS DocID 273439 DAM REMOVAL Science and Decision Making THK HEINZ THE H- JOHN HEINZ III CENTER FOR ChN I 1 R SCIFNCE> ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT • Dam /\/ Dammed Rivers /\/ Undammed Rivers Plate I This map of Pennsylvania shows the statewide distribution of dams and major rivers. None of Pennsylvania's major rivers can be considered undammed or unchannelized. The map was compiled using data on 1,400 large and medium- sized dams from the National Inventory of Dams (NID). To be included in the NID, the dam must be either more than 6 ft (2 m) high with more than 50 acre-feet (61,000 cu m) of storage or 25 ft (8 m) high with more than 15 acre-feet (18,500 cu m) of storage. Pennsylvania also has many smaller dams that are not included in the NID and are therefore not represented on this map. (See page 102 for discussion.) Sources: Dam data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001); National Inventory of Dams (NID) river data from the National Atlas (2001). DAM REMOVAL Science and Decision Making THE THE H> HN HEINZ m CENTER FOR MFTMri±LHN Z7, J°, ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT CENTER SCIENCE The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment Established in December 1995 in honor of Senator John Heinz, The Heinz Cen­ ter is a nonprofit institution dedicated to improving the scientific and economic foundation for environmental policy through multisectoral collaboration. Focus­ ing on issues that are likely to confront policymakers within two to five years, the Center creates and fosters collaboration among industry, environmental organiza­ tions, academia, and government in each of its program areas and projects.
    [Show full text]
  • The Electronic Newsletter of the Alameda Creek Alliance Tell
    Up Your Creek! The electronic newsletter of the Alameda Creek Alliance Tell Caltrans No Niles Canyon Project Next Monday in Niles Caltrans will hold a public meeting next Monday, July 30 to present the results of the Federal Highway Administration’s Road Safety Assessment for State Route 84 in Niles Canyon. The meeting will be at 6:00 pm at the Niles Elementary School, 37141 2nd Street, in the Niles District of Fremont. A Federal Highway Administration team of safety experts, supposedly independent of Caltrans, evaluated State Route 84’s current accident data, traffic patterns, and motorist behaviors to determine if safety improvements are needed. The federal team will present their findings and give their recommendations at the meeting. The FHA team will present safety-solution concepts based on the recommendations of the Road Safety Assessment that supposedly take into consideration community and stakeholder feedback regarding environmental effects. The meeting is for the public to hear the results of the Road Safety Assessment and proposed safety solutions and provide feedback. Although we are very skeptical of the objectivity of the FHA, we are willing to hear what they have to say and see if they reach different conclusions than Caltrans' manipulated safety statistics and whether they propose reasonable safety solutions that do not involve needless environmental destruction. We hope they have the imagination and common sense to evaluate some safety solutions within the existing roadway that do not involve highway widening. Read our letter to Caltrans and FHA requesting they share the Road Safety Assessment with the public before the meeting; which of course they have not responded to.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Creek in the News Industrial Solar Development Coming
    Alameda Creek in the News Calaveras Dam Replacement to Begin Amid Retrofit San Francisco Chronicle – September 16, 2011 Calaveras Dam Construction Begins KQED Radio - September 19, 2011 A Massive Lake Will Grow As Calaveras Dam Takes Shape Milpitas Post - September 21, 2011 Industrial Solar Development Coming to Alameda County? Alameda County is considering permitting and encouraging development of large-scale industrial solar energy facilities in rural eastern Alameda County, within habitat for numerous endangered species, important breeding and foraging areas for birds of prey and prime agricultural lands, including significant lands within the Alameda Creek watershed. The need for the policy is prompted by County approval and promotion of several industrial solar plants near Mountain House in eastern Alameda County with minimal environmental review or consideration of impacts on wildlife habitat and agricultural lands. The Alameda Creek Alliance has concerns about the impacts of massive industrial energy facilities on habitat for endangered, threatened and rare species in eastern Alameda County, and the cumulative effects of large-scale solar development combined with ongoing severe impacts to raptors from wind turbines at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. We are advocating for a proper level of environmental review for proposed large-scale solar facilities and minimizing environmental damage these facilities will cause. We are also concerned that approved and proposed projects conflict with the East County Area Plan and Measure D. The Alameda Creek Alliance has signed on with the coalition SOLAR (Saving Our Lands Agriculture and Raptors). At the last Alameda County Board of Supervisors' Transportation/Planning Committee meeting, the supervisors decided to postpone recommendation of the planning department's solar policy until the impacts of this policy are more closely considered.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisquito Creek
    San Francisquito Creek Flood Control 2.0 - Flood Protection Project Case Study San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission November 2016 http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/projects/sanfrancisquito/images/14_11189d001.JPG 1 I. Abstract San Francisquito Creek, which represents the boundary between Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties along its lower reach, has a history of flooding adjacent residences, public facilities, and businesses. While local agencies have discussed flood protection project ideas since the 1950’s and the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council recommended specific actions in 1997. The flood of record in 1998 that damaged approximately 1,700 properties in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park and cost approximately $28.8 million in damages, which led local agencies to create the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA). This regional government agency plans, designs and implements capital projects that are comprehensive in both geography and function because they cross jurisdictional boundaries and they protect vulnerable populations against flooding, including flooding from projected sea level rise, foster and restore healthy ecosystems, and connect communities by enhancing trails. Its watershed- wide, multi-purpose effort is known as the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project. The San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 phase was designated as the first major capital project within that comprehensive planning effort; completion of the overall effort requires that it begin with the downstream reach and work upstream so as not to transfer flood risk from one area to another. The San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Project (Project) is now under construction and it is the subject of this case study.
    [Show full text]