The Big Five: Removal Planning in the Coast Ranges Clare O’Reilly [email protected] UC Berkeley, MLA-EP, Spring 2010 Executive Summary is an increasingly common phenomenon throughout Coast the , especially in California where reservoirs are Ranges rendered obsolete by infilling with sediment from high yield Reservoirs catchments. This condition is found in the California Coast Ranges, with <50% where the Mediterranean climate and active faults contribute to remaining capacity reservoir infilling.T his thesis examines five case studies of in the California Coast Ranges, which are being considered for removal because they impound infilled reservoirs and prevent threatened steelhead from accessing potential upstream spawning habitat. The objective is to discern lessons about the dam removal planning process for application to future dam removals. Case study analysis focuses on actors involved, the process followed, and an evaluation of risks associated with the proposed removal strategy. A set of recommendations is provided for consideration in development of Reservoir sediment modeling results dam removal planning policies. indicating high sedimentation rates in Coast Ranges. (Minear & Kondolf, 2009) Dam Impacts and Reasons for Removal Dams and reservoirs are constructed on rivers to store water for future use, or for hydroelectric power generation (Palmieri et al, 2001). Rivers convey water and sediment from surrounding uplands. When a river is impounded by a dam, water flowing from upstream slows down, leading to sediment deposition in a reservoir (Morris & Fan, 1998). Common engineering practice was to design reservoirs to allow them to fill with sediment slowly, resulting in a finite lifetime for reservoirs and their impounding structures as storage capacity decreased with increasing siltation (Palmieri et al, 2001).

Downstream channel morphology is affected by the loss of sediment transport from upstream reaches (Morris & Fan, 1998). Dams prevent transport of organic material, which is a food source for Sediment transported from upstream the downstream ecosystem, and migration of anadromous fish to watershed and deposited in reservoir. upstream spawning habitat (Gasith & Resh, 1999; Morris & Fan, 1998; American Rivers et al, 1999).The gradual accumulation of sediment behind a dam can lead to structural safety and flooding issues (Morris & Fan, 1998).

Reservoir sediment management techniques either attempt to prevent sediment from entering the reservoir, create conditions within the reservoir to prevent deposition, or remove sediment that is already deposited in the reservoir (Morris & Fan, 1998). Fish Transport impact of dams. (Wildman, 2006) ladders are installed on dams to increase fish passage, although these structures are found to be only partially effective (American Rivers et al, 1999). Dam decommissioning and reservoir retirement may be proposed if these options are found to be ineffective or too costly, or if a dam poses an immediate safety threat. executive summary 1 Dam Removal in California Of the 748 dams removed nationwide, over 70 have been removed in California, leading the nation in dam removals by state (American Rivers, 2008; Pohl, 2002). Environmental benefits, such as increased fish passage, and reduction of safety concerns are the leading motivations for dam removal both nationally and in California (Pohl, 2002).

Like most environmental issues, decision making in dam repair or removal is a complex and contentious process. Management decisions regarding dam removal are difficult to achieve because policies which guide these decisions often require a higher degree of certainty than currently employed scientific methods are able to provide (Wilcock et al, 2003). However, there are several relevant federal and state policies which can instigate the removal process, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Relicensing process, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or annual dam safety inspections performed by the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). There is no legal mechanism that mandates consideration of removing obsolete dams impounding substantial amounts of reservoir sediment, except where dam safety inspections identified the dam to be structurally unsound.T he remainder of this thesis will examine five case studies in an effort to develop recommendations for future policies to guide removal of dams rendered obsolete by reservoir sediment. Methods and Conceptual Framework The five case studies selected are all in the California Coast Ranges and are currently planned for or being considered for removal: Upper York Creek Dam on York Creek, Searsville Dam in San Francisquito Creek watershed,

San Clemente Dam on Carmel River, on , and Upper York

Rindge Dam on . Case study data was collected by reviewing Searsville

planning literature, and conducting site visits and interviews with key project San Clemente personnel. This information was used to conduct a comparative analysis of dam removal planning. Diagrams were developed for each case study to

illustrate actors’ roles and interactions, and how these factors changed over Matilija time and influenced the planning process.A conceptual process model was Rindge developed based on a review of precedent planning models, and applied to each case study. Case study evaluation included an assessment of the likelihood of achieving desired project benefits and undesired consequences, Case study locations. forming a set of common risks and case study specific tradeoffs.

Monitoring Implementation Construction Permitting Alternative selection Public consultation Public Feasibility/ consultation Design Monitoring Monitoring studies plan development studies Alternatives Develop Funding Development alternatives Joint fact finding/ Oversight data collection group creation Public Alternative consultation approval Coalition Appraisal building Collect & assess Removal baseline data decision Identify problem & issues of concern No action/ leave in place Define goals & objectives

0-2 years 2-6 years 2-6 years Ongoing (min 10 years) Conceptual dam removal planning process model. 2 executive summary Upper York Creek Dam Upper York Creek Dam impounds York Creek, a tributary to the Napa River. The upper watershed is sparsely populated in contrast to the downstream watershed, which includes the City of St. Helena (the dam owner) and several vineyards. The reservoir was originally constructed for drinking water storage for area residents, and is now filled with approximately 28,100 Upper York Creek Dam and infilled cubic yards of sediment (Prunuske Chatham, Inc., 2007). The dam prevents reservoir. threatened steelhead passage to the well protected upstream watershed.

Napa River Toxic sediment from behind the dam was accidentally released in 1992, leading to legal action by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the Napa County District Attorney which led to the City of St.

St. Helena Helena (the City) agreeing to removing the dam. Significant permitting delays 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles during the 1990s contributed to the City seeking technical assistance from Downstream of dam state and federal government agencies. The City joined with the California Upstream of dam Department of Water Resources (DWR) to remove a downstream barrier, and signed a cost-share agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to notch the dam, allowing fish passage while maintaining structural integrity of the adjacent road.

A strength of the planning process was addressing downstream barriers early on to achieve maximum fish passage benefits. DWR’s Fish Passage Improvement Program was able to provide technical assistance in meeting federal permitting requirements, and joined with the city in removing a Conceptual sections of dam removal smaller downstream diversion barrier that would have prevented meeting alternatives. objectives identified in planning for removing Upper York Creek Dam (FPIP, 2002). Additional information on fish populations and potential for increasing

Desired Benefits Undesired Consequences Tradeoffshabitat access was provided by the Napa Resource Conservation District, Fish habitat access Sensitive species impacts Futurewhich ecological benefits helped vs. short termthe construction Corps impacts make a strong case for Congressional authorization Sediment transport Compromised water quality Toxic sedimentof funding removal vs. impactsto support of disposal the preferred alternative of notching the dam. Downstream habitat restored Upstream habitat loss Reduced failure threat Flooding Downstream landowners have expressed concerns about the potential Recreation opportunities Water supply loss increased flood risk posed by dam removal, and the City commissioned Likelihood studies that found removing the dam will not increase the timing or severity low high low high of floods. Watershed residents and community groups appear to have limited Risks. involvement in or knowledge of project planning efforts. Lack of community interest has contributed to limited progress over the past few years on the part of the City in developing a sediment removal plan.

Construction permit delays Permitting Dam notching National Marine Fisheries Service preferred alternative Public consultation on design Public comment Design studies, monitoring plan, monitoring

Draft EIR WRDA 2007 Additional WRDA & City funding Sediment transport & Lower York United States Army Corps of Engineers biological assessment studies Hydraulics & Hydrology Alternative Study approval CA Department of Coalition Water Resources building steelhead steelhead CA Department of Fish and Game Removal decision POWER baseline baseline studies studies Toxic sediment concerns Monitoring 10+years Implementation ~21 years Napa County District Attorney Feasibility 16+years Appraisal ~ 14 years 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1992 1997 2000 2004 2008 City of St. Helena Post sediment NMFS steelhead NMFS letter Downstream “Groundbreaking” release, injunction to listing to City re: ESA diversion removed for notching remove dam. obligations 2010 NMFS work on biological opinion, Corps waiting Downstream landowners 2006 1994 1998 2001 for sediment removal plan from City Corps permit denial Corps Planning resumes Downstream landowners permit denial among government express concerns about flooding agencies, cost-share 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 agreement signed Power map. Process steps and events. executive summary 3 Searsville Dam Searsville Dam is located on Corte Madera Creek (a tributary to San Francisquito Creek), approximately four miles upstream of Stanford University in Stanford’s Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve (JRBP). Searsville Reservoir is located in a confluence valley, where creeks draining the eastern side of the Santa Cruz mountains transport sediment, leading to a 90% reduction in water storage capacity (Freyberg et al, 2001). The reservoir was originally constructed for drinking water supply to San Francisco, but was purchased by Stanford and used for non-potable water storage (Freyberg et al, 2001). San Francisquito Creek was identified as an “anchor” watershed Searsville Dam. for steelhead habitat in tributaries to San Francisco Bay, indicating that watershed characteristics are favorable for steelhead restoration efforts (Becker et al, 2007).

In an effort to develop a management strategy to maintain open water in Searsville Lake while allowing research to continue at JRBP relatively undisturbed, Stanford University commissioned several studies in the early

2000s to understand sediment dynamics of the upstream watershed and 0 1 2 4 miles reservoir (Freyberg et al, 2001; Northwest Hydraulic Consultants et al, Downstream of dam 2002). The studies found that if current sediment transport rates from the Upstream of dam upstream level remain the same, the lake will completely infill in the next 15 to 30 years, contributing to upstream flood risk and downstream channel narrowing (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. et al, 2002).

Stanford has yet to identify a long-term solution to reservoir infilling, and as the owner and operator of the dam and JRBP, Stanford has the most power and control over the removal discussion process. Based on the aforementioned studies, the Jasper Ridge Advisory Committee (JRAC) has expressed its judgment “that the continued existence of a reservoir provides Reservoir area post-removal. important values for the Preserve,” and that removing the dam “would result Desired Benefits Undesired Consequences Tradeoffs in significant disruption to the Jasper Ridge mission” (JRAC, 2007). Several Fish habitat access Sensitive species impacts Restoring fish habitat vs. losing wetland habitat environmental groups have joined together as the Beyond Searsville Dam Sediment transport Compromised water quality Decreased backwater flooding vs. potential downstream channel constriction Coalition to propose removing Searsville Dam as a way to permanently Downstream habitat restored Upstream habitat loss Restored flow regime vs. loss of non-potable water storage provide for upstream areas in conjunction with downstream Reduced failure threat Flooding New research opportunities vs. disrupting on-going research projects led by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, and Recreation opportunities Water supply loss to restore steelhead access to historic upstream spawning areas (Beyond Likelihood Searsville Dam, 2009). Stanford will conduct a fish passage feasibility study low high low high for Searsville Dam as a follow up to its Habitat Conservation Plan, which Risks. may include a formal appraisal of dam removal (Stanford University, 2009).

Alternative selection National Marine Fisheries Service & US Fish and Wildlife Service Public consultation San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Alternatives development

Joint fact finding

Public consultation

Steelhead Task Force, Beyond Searsville Dam Coalition Coalition including Stanford Stanford University

Reservoir & watershed studies Fish passage Stanford decides to remove

POWER study including Continued reservoir infilling, blocked fish passage, flooding Stanford decides NOT to remove removal appraisal Feasibility 20+ years? San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council Steelhead Task Force Appraisal 24 years? Beyond Searsville Dam Coalition 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1998 2000 2004 2007 2010 El Nino San Francisquito SFCJPA SFC identified as steelhead Stanford required to conduct fish passage study for flooding Creek Watershed “Watershed “anchor” watershed by Searsville Dam; Beyond Searsville Dam building local upstream & Council forms Analysis & CEMAR; JRBP Advisory and national support; SFCJPA & Corps downstream downstream Steelhead Task Sediment Committee statement flood control project Force Reduction Plan” unfavorable of removal 1999 2001 - 2002 2009 SFCJPA SFCJPA Searsville Working Revised draft Stanford “Habitat forms Group; sediment and Conservation Plan” submitted, 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 steelhead studies does not address fish passage of dam Power map. Process steps and events. 4 executive summary San Clemente Dam San Clemente Dam is on the Carmel River, upstream of Carmel Valley Village and the Monterey Peninsula. The dam was constructed in 1921 for local water supply and incidental flood control.T he upstream watershed on the northern side of the Santa Lucia Mountains has a high sediment yield resulting from debris flows post-wildfires and heavy rains (ENTRIX, Inc., 2008). The region is also seismically active, and the dam is situated between the San Andreas, Palo-Colorado, Monterey Bay, and Tulacritos fault zones San Clemente Dam. (Capelli, 2007). The dam limits access to seven miles of upstream spawning habitat between San Clemente and Los Padres Dam, contributing to a decline in steelhead population counts below historic averages (Capelli, 2007).

In 1992, DSOD determined that the dam would not withstand the “Maximum Credible Earthquake” or “Probable Maximum Flood” due to previous seismic activity and increased pressure on the dam from reservoir

0 2 4 8 Miles sedimentation (ENTRIX, Inc., 2008). This finding forced Cal-Am to consider Downstream of dam how to reduce the safety hazard posed by the dam, initially advancing a Upstream of dam proposal to buttress the dam to provide structural support, and stabilize reservoir sediment in place (ENTRIX, Inc., 2008). Many studies and several EIR/EISs were prepared to consider this option, leading to public comment from government agencies and watershed advocacy groups suggesting that dam removal should be investigated as an option (ENTRIX, Inc., 2008).

“Re-route and removal” would breach the rock ridge separating the Carmel River from San Clemente Creek and reroute the Carmel River around the reservoir sediment deposits into the San Clemente Creek channel (Philip Williams & Associates and HT Harvey, & Associates, 2007). “Re-route and removal” plan. This concept was under consideration by a coordinated group of state,

Desired Benefits Undesired Consequences Tradeoffsfederal, and non-governmental interests in partnership with Cal-Am until Fish habitat access Sensitive species impacts PartialFebruary upstream access 2009, vs. losing wetlandwhen habitat Cal-Am stepped away from the table (Schuchat, 2009). Sediment transport Compromised water quality RestoringMisunderstandings transport function vs. losing wetland about habitat internal processes among a coalition contributed Downstream habitat restored Upstream habitat loss Reducingto this risk of delay. vs.R increasedecently, downstream collaborative flood risk efforts were re-established with the Reduced failure threat Flooding Connectingsigning public of access an areas agreement vs. eliminating diversion to point continue investigating re-route and removal Recreation opportunities Water supply loss (California American Water Company, 2010). Although removing the dam

Likelihood will relieve Cal-Am of liabilities related to dam failure, entities have yet to be low high low high named to assume liabilities associated with construction and post-removal. Risks.

Re-route Construction US Army Corps & removal Expedited permitting Dam thickening Public preferred Public workshops Coastal Conservancy and dredging comment alternative Public Public Retrofit design Reroute & removal comment comment studies studies Monitoring Structural Recirculated Draft EIR Public funding sought National Marine Fisheries Service improvement Draft EIR alternatives Fish passage and Oversight Group DSOD sediment studies US Fish and Wildlife Service EIR certified California Public Utilities approval Commission approval

CA Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams Dam Cal-Am officially POWER strengthening decides to remove CA Department Fish and Game dam Dam Safety Strengthening California American Water Company Monitoring 10+years Monterey Peninsula Strengthening Implementation Water Management District Feasibility 3 years Implementation ~6 years Appraisal 2.5 years Removal Feasibility 9 years 2.5 years

Watershed Groups 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1992 1995 1998 2000 2001 - 2004 2004 - 2006 2008 Planning and Conservation Division of Cal-Am studies Seismic RDEIR Additional fish 3rd EIR EIR certified; Coastal Safety of Dams strengthening retrofit passage analysis preparation Conservancy, NMFS League Foundation finds dam not options DEIR following public & Cal-Am sign agreement able to comment 1996 1999 2006 - 2007 2009 2010 withstand DSOD approves Public comments Public comments Cal-Am New collaboration agreement strong earthquake thickening and request additional lead to further backs signed to develop implementation or maximum flood dredging analysis for fish development of out strategy for re-route and removal 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17proposal18 19passage20 re-route & removal proposal Power map. Process steps and events. executive summary 5 Matilija Dam Matilija Dam is located on , a tributary of the Ventura River. The dam was originally 190 ft high when completed in 1947, but was notched twice by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) in an effort to address structural safety concerns (USBoR, 2000). Episodic storms, weak bedrock composed of marine sediments, active faults, and wildfires are significant factors that contribute to high sediment yields in the watershed (Scott & Williams, 1978 in Minear, 2003). Ecological impacts Matilija Dam. of the dam include reduced sediment supply to downstream beaches, and blocked fish passage to the well protected upstream watershed (Capelli, 1999).

Dam removal was first formally investigated by the Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) at the request of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors in 1998, in recognition that the dam has outlived its usefulness, is structurally unsound, and dam removal would provide access to upstream habitat to threatened southern steelhead populations and enhance recreational opportunities (USBoR, 2000). Planning leadership transitioned to the Corps and VCWPD, with technical involvement of the Bureau, and advocacy efforts 0 2 4 8 Miles of the Matilija Coalition. Working with a variety of federal, state, local Downstream of dam government and non-governmental entities through a consensus-based, Upstream of dam working group approach to synthesize existing data and conduct additional studies resulted in a well informed and supported feasibility study (USACE & VCWPD, 2004).

However, local cities, districts, and watershed residents were not fully informed of the potential impacts of slurrying downstream sediment until after the preferred alternative was agreed upon and approved. Downstream sediment disposal sites identified in the feasibility study were not able to be secured, significantly delaying project progress.T he Corps recently presented Removal demonstration, Oct. 2002 a proposal to permanently stabilize fine and coarse sediment upstream of Desired Benefits Undesired Consequences Tradeoffs the reservoir at sites previously identified as temporary storage locations. Fish habitat access Sensitive species impacts Increased fish passage vs. artifical channel This would prevent sediment transport to downstream reaches, and Sediment transport Compromised water quality Some restored sediment transport vs. upstream stabilization would not meet ecological restoration objectives set forth in the feasibility Downstream habitat restored Upstream habitat loss Beach nourishment vs. protecting water supply phase. Several key stakeholders, including the Matilija Coalition and Casitas Reduced failure threat Flooding Recreation opportunities Water supply loss Municipal Water District, have publicly stated their lack of support for the current proposal. The Matilija Dam removal planning process demonstrates Likelihood low high low high the iterative nature of feasibility and alternatives development, and the Risks. importance of continued public consultation throughout planning phases. Downstream Construction infrastructure Dam and sediment removal Permitting modifications Consensus on United States Army Corps of Engineers DOG preferred alternative Consensus on meetings new sediment disposal plan Public comment Sediment disposal & downstream infrastructure Monitoring design studies Draft EIR WRDA New EIR WRDA Design Oversight for Data Group (DOG) sediment National Marine Fisheries Service & US Fish and Wildlife Service synthesis disposal Alternative Alternative Bureau of Coastal Conservancy Public meetings approval approval Reclamation Matilija Coalition Working CA Department of Fish and Game Groups

POWER LA Regional Water Quality Control Board Removal decision Ventura County Appraisal Study Monitoring 10+years Implementation ~15 years Matilija Coalition Feasibility 3 years Appraisal 3 years New Feasibility 2 years? 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1998 2001 2004 2008 - 2009 Matilija Coalition Ventura County Feasibility Study/ Reed removal and Bureau of and Army Corps EIR completed and & downstream Local cities Reclamation sign cost-share approved well modification propose dam agreement 2005 2009 2010 Casitas Municipal Water District removal appraisal Design phase Downstream Lack of consensus on study. Board of begins sediment controversial new proposal to store Supervisors votes 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 disposal sites fine sediment upstream of reservoir to remove dam. not secured Power map. Process steps and events. 6 executive summary Rindge Dam is located on Malibu Creek in in Los Angeles County, approximately 2.6 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean (Dallman & Edmondson, 2002). The dam was originally constructed by the Rindge family in 1926 for agricultural water supply storage, but the reservoir quickly filled with sediment due to storms in the late 1930s that contributed significant runoff from the upstream watershed, and damaged the spillway Rindge Dam. structure (Taylor, 1945 in Dallman and Edmondson, 2002).Rindge Dam currently prevents passage of southern steelhead, and sediment transport to downstream beaches (Dallman & Edmondson, 2002).

Despite DSOD decommissioning the dam in 1967, the process to formally investigate increasing fish passage did not begin until State Parks, the Conservancy, and Cal Trout conducted a fish passage study in the early 1990s, which proposed installing a “fish lift” to move fish 0 1 2 4 Miles over the dam (Dallman & Edmondson, 2002). The Bureau conducted a follow Downstream of dam study appraising various methods of removing Rindge Dam, identifying a Upstream of dam preferred alternative of mechanically removing sediment and moving it with trucks out of the canyon (Dallman & Edmondson, 2002). This option raised concerns about increasing traffic on Malibu Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway (Dallman & Edmondson, 2002). The Corps and State Parks joined together to conduct a formal feasibility study of various removal options, which is still underway due to funding delays. Local constituencies have expressed their concerns about potential undesired consequences resulting from removing Rindge Dam, including the wealthy downstream community of Serra Retreat, who are wary of potential increased flood risk, despite the lack of flood control currently provided by the dam. Helicopter transporting drilling equipment into canyon. Lack of consistent funding prevented substantial progress in the past several

Desired Benefits Undesired Consequences Tradeoffsyears, despite a wealth of data about the watershed collected by local Fish habitat access Sensitive species impacts Increasedorganizations fish passage vs. impacts onand downstream agencies. sensitive species Sediment management is a significant challenge, Sediment transport Compromised water quality Beachat nourishment times vs. requiringconstruction impacts creative solutions such as transporting drilling equipment Downstream habitat restored Upstream habitat loss via helicopter into the former reservoir area to measure the amount of Reduced failure threat Flooding sediment behind the dam (USACE, 2006). Determining an appropriate and Recreation opportunities Water supply loss feasible sediment transport scenario, along with a dam demolition plan for

Likelihood the steel reinforced concrete structure, that will not harm sensitive species low high low high in Malibu Canyon and in downstream reaches are the greatest challenges in Risks. the Rindge removal planning process.

Construction

United States Army Corps of Engineers Permitting Alternative selection Public Bureau of consultation Public comment Design Reclamation Monitoring Coastal Conservancy studies Preliminary alternatives WRDA Funding CA Department of Fish and Game Oversight Feasibility Study Baseline Conditions group creation Alternative Public comment approval CA State Parks Project Delivery Team and Working Groups

County of Los Angeles POWER Santa Monica Fish Fish Passage Corps Mountains LA Regional Water Quality Control Board Ladder Appraisal Reconnaissance Monitoring Conservancy Proposal Study Study 10+years Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Implementation ~7 years Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Feasibility ~11 years Cal Trout Appraisal 10 years Heal the Bay 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1990 - 1992 1995 1998 2001 2005 2008 2010 Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains Studies and proposals Bureau of Corps initiates Cost share agreement Heal the Bay Santa Intermittent funding Malibu Creek Watershed Council to install Reclamation Reconnaissance signed between Corps habitat and Monica disrupted project progress, to allow steelhead and CA Dept Study and CA Parks for Malibu barrier assessment Bay Corps currently resuming Rindge Family of Fish and completed Restoration feasibility study but no money passage Creek Ecosystem Serra Canyon Property Owners Association Game conduct Restoration Project Commission in State Parks budget to proceed appraisal study 2002 - 2003 funding to Lack of progress restart process 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 due to funding delays Power map. Process steps and events. Appraisal Feasibility/Alternatives Development Implementation Expected Feasibility Expected Implementation Expected Monitoring executive summary 7 Synthesis and Recommendations As dams continue to age and removal becomes a more seriously considered option to address safety and ecosystem related concerns, new policies should be developed for dam removal planning based

on recommendations discerned from the case study analysis. POWER Coordinating Institution Recommendations should be applied to future dam removal projects with reference to the case studies as precedent examples. Actors The case studies demonstrate the value of coordination among 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Process Year multiple interested parties to produce a well informed plan for A coordinating entity is necessary among removal. This coordination is dependent upon trust among involved partners. actors, without which it is difficult to reach consensus on important decisions. Individual personalities can make or break group dynamics, Upper York Creek ~22 years Implementation ~21 years Feasability 16+years which can change significantly depending upon which step in the Appraisal ~ 14 years process the group has achieved. As power changes among actors, Searsville ??? Feasability 20+ years? accessing resources can become difficult depending upon who has the Appraisal 24 years? San Clemente ~22 years Strengthening most influence at a given time. A ssigning a particular entity oversight Implementation Implementation ~6 years Strengthening 3 years Appraisal Feasability 2.5 years 2.5 years Removal Feasability 9 years and coordination during the lengthy planning process is necessary Matilija ~23 years Feasability Implementation ~15 years to maintain an institutional memory and bring new players up to Appraisal 3 years 3 years Rindge ~30 years speed as the process evolves. This includes individuals or community Implementation ~7 years Feasability ~11 years groups, and fresh blood can at times reinvigorate a process. Appraisal 10 years Community organizations can help push a stalled process forward 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Case study timeline from appraisal to by holding government entities accountable for maintaining project implementation. progress.

Alternative selection Process Public Feasability/ consultation Alternatives The differences between planning processes in each of these case Develop Development alternatives Joint fact finding/ studies indicates that a single, optimal process does not exist for data collection Public dam removal planning. However, there are key steps that should consultation Coalition Appraisal building be incorporated in future dam removals. Collecting adequate Collect & assess Removal baseline data decision Identify problem & baseline data to inform a dam removal decision is also important for issues of concern No action/ leave in place Define goals & supporting future steps in the process. Care should be taken in the objectives feasibility phase to inventory work that was already completed in Key steps0-2 years in the appraisal and2-6 feasibilityyears the appraisal phase to avoid redundancy, even if work was done by phases. a different lead agency. Monitoring is necessary to add to a growing knowledge base about dam removal. None of the case studies have a clear monitoring plan developed at this time. One may emerge as high planning moves forward, but it does not appear to be a priority among project managers. Entities involved in removal planning should clearly explain to other partners what their internal processes are at the Searsville outset of removal appraisal to avoid future frustrations. Maintaining San Clemente Consequences secure funding throughout the removal process is critical for Matilija Upper York consistent project progress. Rindge low low Benefits high Risks Re-establishing fluvial transport by removing a dam will change Comparison of case study risks. downstream reaches, and the severity of this change needs to be balanced with the potential for damage. Consistent monitoring is one tool to evaluate long-term liability potential and contribute to systematic negotiation of tradeoffs.

8 executive summary References American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, and Trout Unlimited. 1999. Dam removal success stories: restoring rivers through selective removal of dams that don’t make sense. American Rivers, DC, 147 pp.

American Rivers. 2008. Dams slated for removal in 2008. Accessed at www.americanrivers.org.

Becker, G.S., Reining, I. J., Asbury, D.A., & Gunther, A. 2007. San Francisco Estuary Watersheds Evaluation: Identifying Promising Locations for Steelhead Restoration in Tributaries of the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy Grant Agreement Number 04-094 and Resources Legacy Fund Foundation Grant Agreement Number 2004-0194. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration: Oakland, CA.

Beyond Searsville Dam. 2009. Coalition Vision Statement. Accessed at http://beyondsearsvilledam.org/Beyond_Searsville_Dam/Vision. html

California American Water Company. 2010. San Clemente Dam Removal Project Collaboration Statement. Signed January 11, 2010

Capelli, M. 1999. Damn Sand Rights: Removing Rindge and Matilija Dams. Conference Proceedings, Sand Rights ’99 Bringing Back the Beaches, California Shore and Beach & Coastal Zone Foundation, Ventura, CA, September 23-26, 1999.

Capelli, M. 2007. San Clemente and Matilija Dam Removal: Alternative Sediment Management Scenarios. Prepared for US Society of Dams Annual Meeting Conference, Philadelphia, March 5-9, 2007.

Dallman, S. and Edmondson, J. 2002. Comments to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Malibu Creek Environmental Restoration Feasibility Study: Rindge Dam Removal – A Review of Regional Ecologic and Economic BenefitsA nd Options for Removal.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Clemente Dam Seismic Safety Project. Prepared for the California Department of Water Resources & US Army Corps of Engineers.

Fish Passage Improvement Program. 2002. York Creek Fish Passage Improvement and Stream Restoration Project, California Department of Water Resources.

Freyberg, D., Cohen, P., Munninghof, A., Fienen, M., & Regan, C. 2001. Maintaining Open Water at Searsville Lake. Final Project Report, David and Lucile Packard Foundation Grant No. 98-5517. Stanford University: Stanford, CA.

Gasith, A., Resh, V.H., 1999. Streams in Mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 30: 51 – 81

Jasper Ridge Advisory Committee. 2007. Searsville Lake: Position of the Jasper Ridge Advisory Committee. Accessed at http://jrbp. stanford.edu/watershed.php#dam

Minear, J. T., and Kondolf, G.M. 2009. Estimating reservoir sedimentation rates at large spatial and temporal scales: a case study of California. Water Resources Research 45

Morris, G.L., & Fan., J. 1998. Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook. McGraw-Hill,

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc.; Balance Hydrologics, Inc., H.T. Harvey & Associates, Jones & Stokes, Kondolf, G.M., & Smith, J.S. 2002. Searsville Lake Sediment Impact Study, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California. Submitted to Stanford University Facilities Operations, Stanford, CA.

Palmieri, A., Shah, F., Dinar, A. 2001. Economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams. Journal of Environmental Management 61: 149-163

Philip Williams & Associates with HT Harvey & Associates. 2007. An Alternatives Assessment & Conceptual Design for the San Clemente Dam Removal: Carmel River Reroute and Removal Option. Prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy.

Pohl, M.P. 2002. Bringing Down our Dams: Trends in American Dam Removal Rationales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38 (6): 1511-1519

executive summary 9 Prunuske Chatham Inc. 2007. Lower York Creek Hydrologic and Hydraulic Assessment: Summary Report. Prepared for the City of St. Helena.

Schuchat, S. 2009. Letter to Kent Turner, President, California American Water Company, Re: San Clemente Dam Project Closure. Dated 2/26/09.

Scott, K.M. and Williams, R.P. 1978. Erosion and Sediment yields in the Transverse Ranges, . Geological Survey Professional Paper 1030. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. in Minear, J.T. 2003. Sediment Dynamics and Southern Steelhead Habitat ( mykiss) in the Matilija Creek Watershed, Southern California. Master’s Thesis, UC Berkeley.

Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning Office. 2009. DraftS tanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. Accessed at http://hcp.stanford.edu/documents.html

Taylor, N. 1945. Letter to Marblehead Land Company regarding Rindge Dam improvements, Taylor & Taylor Consulting Engineers, Los Angeles, CA. June 1, 1945. In Dallman, S. and Edmondson, J. 2002. Comments to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Malibu Creek Environmental Restoration Feasibility Study: Rindge Dam Removal – A Review of Regional Ecologic and Economic BenefitsA nd Options for Removal.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) & Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD). 2004. Final Feasibility Study Report for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project. USACE Los Angeles District.

USACE. 2006. Malibu Creek Environmental Restoration Feasibility Study, Los Angeles County, California, Preliminary Draft Baseline Conditions Report. April 6, 2006.

United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBoR). 2000. Matilija Dam Removal Appraisal Report – April 2000. US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. Prepared by Technical Services Center: Denver, CO

Wilcock, P.R., J.C. Schmidt, M.G. Wolman, W.E. Dietrich, D. Dominick, M.W. Doyle, G.E. Grant, R.M. Iverson, D.R. Montgomery, T.C. Pierson, S.P. Schilling, R.C. Wilson. When Models Meet Managers: Examples from Geomorphology. Prediction in Geomorphology. American Geophysical Union. Edited by P. R. Wilcock & R. M. Iverson. vol.Geophys Mon 135. 2003. pp. 27 - 40.

Wildman, L. 2006. Dam Nation!: An Introduction to Dam Impacts & Dam Removal Efforts Nationwide. Presentation at Global Perspectives on Large Dams Conference, Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Studies November 3 - 5, 2006.

10 executive summary