Guest Opinion on Searsville Decision

May 29, 2015January 18, 2020Moises Mena

Our very own legislative advocate Lennie Roberts, along with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society’s environmental advocate Shani Kleinhaus, recently wrote a guest opinion article for the Palo Alto Weekly. Their article, Keeping Searsville Dam in place is a good solution: Cautious path forward provides opportunity to assess impact, risks (5/29/15), looks at the recently decision by Stanford University on the Searsville Dam.

Earlier this month, Stanford released its plans for Searsville Dam, in an article titled 1000 dams down and counting. Both Lennie and Shani have been part of the 25-member Searsville Alternatives Study Advisory Group, which advised Stanford on the issue and has been meeting since 2013. The group was made up of a variety of different stakeholders and has been getting an in-depth look at the different alternatives for how to deal with the Dam, its possible removal, and all of the complex issues associated with the various paths forward.

As representatives of environmental organizations working in the communities of the San Francisquito watershed, as members of the advisory group Lennie and Shani focused not only on fish passage but also on the larger suite of habitats and resources and the potential results of any action on the myriad species (and people) that share the watershed.

After years of study and analysis, the recommended course of action: create an opening at the bottom of the dam to drain the reservoir and flush out the fine sediment, with the intent that this will allow fish passage and provide attenuation of peak flood flows. Some habitats will be restored under this plan, while others will be reduced, relocated or lost. A major advantage of this option is that it is reversible; the opening in the dam can be closed.

The Searsville alternatives process now begins an intensive new phase of public and environmental-agency review. This process will be rigorous, particularly since many questions remain and details need to be fleshed out. There will be many opportunities for public engagement, and shovels in the ground will be several years away.

Committee for Green Foothills is thankful to Stanford for inviting both Lennie and Shani to participate in the advisory group. We are glad the collective wisdom of this process has chosen a cautious path forward.

For Lennie and Shani’s full article online, see: www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2015/05/29/guest-opinion-keeping-searsville-dam-in-place-is-a-good-solution

The article was also posted in the Almanac: www.almanacnews.com/square/2015/05/20/guest-opinion-keeping-searsville-dam-in-place-a-good-solution

Comments (4)

Reply

Matt Stoecker
May 29, 2015

With all due respect, the above guest opinion piece makes several troubling statements and omits important information.

1) “current (dam removal) models are not very effective at predicting downstream effects.”

In addition to the mentioned studies in the journal Science, additional studies have shown that “rivers recovery natural conditions quickly following dam removal” (Web Link)
There is a growing list of studies showing qualitatively that dam removal results in improved watershed and ecosystem health. These are not “predictions”; these are actual results following successful dam removal projects. Similarly, top research institutions like the National Science Foundation and USGS have shown conclusively that dams harm watershed and ecosystem health.

2) “We were also concerned about increased flood risks to the 8,400 homes and businesses in the creek’s historic floodplain in East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park.”

It is import to note a few things: 1) The dam is currently causing flooding of private residents upstream of the reservoir in Woodside and this will get worse as more sediment is trapped over time. 2) The ongoing presence of the dam (including one with a hole in it) continues to present an ongoing dam failure risk to downstream communities. The US Army Corps of Engineers, State of California, and San Mateo County have all identified Searsville as a “High Hazard” dam whose failure would likely result in loss of life. Cutting a hole in a 125 year old dam that has 3 huge cracks in it and sits adjacent to the active San Andreas Fault is not without serious risk to downstream residents and businesses. The future structural integrity of the dam during a large earthquake or rapid filling with water, and safety of this particular hole-in-dam proposal, are unknown. 3) Dam removal eliminates dam failure and upstream flooding issues and risks. Here is a link to the San Mateo County Dam Failure Inundation Area map showing extensive flooding of downstream cities in the event of a Searsville Dam failure. Web Link 4) The Searsville study process we just finished, and previous efforts, identified multiple options that can be employed alongside dam removal to reduce downstream flooding including: off-stream floodwater detention basins, restoring and enhancing the historic floodplain and flood attenuation function of Confluence Valley currently submerged by the dam and reservoir, modifying the two upper marsh areas at Searsville to seasonally fill with flood waters, as well as implementation of needed downstream flood protection projects identified by the JPA.

3) “No dam removal project located above a similar highly developed flood zone has ever been attempted.”

This statement is simply not true. Hundreds of dams that occur upstream of our nation’s largest cities have been safely removed and have improved floodplain function and flood protection.

4) “A particular concern was the potential loss of open water at Searsville reservoir (at a great cost to bat species); potential loss of up to 200 acres of wetlands and wetland/riparian forest (at a great cost to migratory bird species); and unavoidable sedimentation of the creek downstream and the Bay (with potential impacts to several endangered species and increased flood risks).”

It is troubling that the above statement implies that the loss of reservoir surface area (open water) is a bad thing when countless studies have shown that reservoirs cause degraded water quality, toxic algae blooms, harbor non-native species, lose water to evaporation, prevent critically needed sediment transport downstream to the creek and Bay wetlands. Additionally, we observed in the Searsville study process that dam removal can result in the transformation of harmful “open water” into productive and natural riparian forest, stream, and sustainable wetlands. Studies also showed that the extent of open water can expand with dam removal and the proposed expansion of Felt Reservoir nearby. Stanford has also recently acknowledged what resource agencies have been saying for years now; that we desperately need to restore the flow of sediment downstream of dams to benefit creeks and Bay wetlands in the face of sea-level-rise. It is shocking that after years of participating in this process, the above statements could be made to mislead the public about net habitat impacts of various alternatives and to again imply that dam removal results in increased flood risks.

The overall ecosystem harm caused by dams and the ecosystem benefits from dam removal are also well documented. The negative impact of Searsville Dam on San Francisquito Creek and expected benefits from removal are not an exception. The California State Water Board notes that: “The environmental benefits of dam and levee removal include increased groundwater recharge (in some cases this can reduce downstream flooding); reduced streambed and shoreline erosion; enhanced aquatic and wildlife migration corridors; and restored riparian and aquatic ecosystem functions.”

5) “A major advantage of this option is that it is reversible; if models of sediment impacts and risks of downstream flooding prove inaccurate, and adverse impacts become evident in the watershed, the opening in the dam can be closed.”

This point misses several important facts: There has been no agencies indication that they would permit the implementation and then reversal of such a plan and eventual inundation of revived upstream habitat, revegetation, and wildlife migration. The opening in the dam can be used, as we have proposed, to safely manage sediment release downstream, stabilization upstream, and/or removal. After that has occurred, the dam can then be removed and other identified flood protection measures such as off-stream detention basins, and periodic removal of problematic sediment deposits in the downstream channel can ensure that adequate flood protection is provided into the future.

6) “We are glad the collective wisdom of this process has chosen a cautious path forward.”

For starters, an actual path was not chosen by Stanford and there has been no commitment to a timeline or to actually implement any project. The hole-in-dam idea was not “collectively” embraced by the Searsville Advisory Group. In fact, it was not even rated in the group’s top three preferred alternatives. The only permitting resource agency (CA Water Board) to weigh in on the alternatives studied supported dam removal and doubted the feasibility of the hole-in-dam and other alternatives studied.

Thankfully, Stanford’s plan is surprisingly close to being a good one. For over a decade we have pushed for the reservoir to be eliminated, for non-native reservoir species to be eliminated, for Stanford to instead divert water further downstream at their existing damless diversion, to instead store water in their off-stream Felt Reservoir, to use a hole-in-the-dam strategy (or gradual notching) to safely transport sediment downstream, to support flood protection measures, and to restore sediment transport to the SF Bay for wetland replenishment and coastal community protection from rising seas. Stanford’s hole-in-dam proposal agrees to do all of this, except take the final step of removing the dam. Now, Stanford needs to including removing the dam once the sediment has been safely managed and identified flood protection measures have been committed to downstream. A widely supported Searsville Dam removal, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration project that is supported by agencies and funders is increasingly close to becoming a reality.

Thanks for your consideration,

Matt Stoecker

Director
Beyond Searsville Dam
Palo Alto
Reply

Lennie Roberts
June 1, 2015

Stanford’s Community Advisory Group was composed of people with many different viewpoints, as is clearly evidenced by Matt Stoecker’s comments. We respectfully disagree with his characterization of the flood risks and assertions regarding dam safety. For readers who would like to have more details on the Report on the future of Searsville Dam and Reservoir from the Stanford Searsville Steering Committee, it can be found here: https://news.stanford.edu/searsville/
- Reply
  
  Matt Stoecker
  June 1, 2015
  
  Hi Lennie,
  
  Please list the specific flood risk and dam safety “characterizations” of mine and specifically how you you disagree with them?
  
  Do you disagree that federal, state, and local dam safety agencies have classified Searsville as a “High Hazard” dam whose failure would result in “probable loss of lives and significant property damage” downstream?
  http://www.beyondsearsvilledam.org/Beyond_Searsville_Dam/FAQ_files/San_Mateo_Grand_Jury_DamLeveeFinal.pdf (page 5)
  
  Do you disagree with Stanford’s own SPEAR3 report which cites analysis stating that failure of Searsville Dam could release a “catastrophic” flow of 60,433 cubic feet per second, or “about 6 times the 500-year peak flow of 10,500 cfs”?
  http://www.beyondsearsvilledam.org/Beyond_Searsville_Dam/FAQ_files/Searsville%20Failure%20Risk-%3DStanf%20Report.pdf (Section 7.1 pg 7)
  
  Do you disagree with the accuracy of San Mateo County’s Dam Failure Inundation Areas map, which shows extensive flooding of Stanford, Menlo Park, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto with the failure of Searsville Dam?
  http://www.beyondsearsvilledam.org/Beyond_Searsville_Dam/FAQ_files/Searsv%20DamFailureInudatn%20Map.pdf
  
  Do you disagree with numerous Stanford consultant reports that clearly describe how Searsville Dam and Reservoir sedimentation are causing upstream flooding problems in Woodside?
  
  Do you disagree that study findings within and outside of the Searsville study process have showed that a similar, and potentially greater, level of flood protection can be acheived with dam removal combined with multiple downstream and reservoir area flood detention / attenuation features, than with the proposed hole-in-dam proposal?
  
  In addition to the flood risk and dam safety issues and questions above, can you please respond directly to the points I made above regarding misrepresentation within your opinion piece? Some of these are not my “viewpoints”, but rather facts. If you have additional data to support your claims in the opinion piece I am happy to consider and to change my viewpoint if they are valid.
  
  I look forward to hearing back with your responses to the above and any references.
  
  Matt Stoecker
Reply

Sally
June 2, 2015

CGF is making a mistake by not pushing for this dam to be removed and native habitat restored.

Guest Opinion on Searsville Decision

Matt Stoecker

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Note