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.


Matt Stoecker

Director
Beyond Searsville Dam
Palo Alto

Thanks to Shani and Lennie for this backgrounded report. There are a lot of moving pieces involved and it's good to see how they strove to assess matters from a broad perspective without being committed to a final outcome.

What this is about is some conservative-minded people who would rather "do it their way" instead of "losing the battle" to some "left wing hippies" ... seriously, get rid of the dam ... universities and government agencies like USGS all agree that dam removal helps the environment ... the group at Stanford seem to be like those phony "scientists" who claim that climate change isn't real even though 99% of the scientific community thinks that climate change is absolutely a real thing ... come on Stanford ... get with the program ... you're supposed to be one of the top universities in the WORLD and you make these silly decisions... really???

Keeping Searsville dam in place NOT a good solution

I was disappointed to read the Guest Opinion from Shani Kleinhaus and Lennie Roberts in the May 20, 2015 Almanac titled “Keeping Searsville dam in place a good solution”.

Ms. Roberts has a reputation for ecological advocacy and has probably done enormous good for the Peninsula environmental movement overall; however, in this opinion she and her co-writer are wrong and are not even able to make a sound argument supporting their position.

While the authors concede that dam removal will facilitate passage of steelhead trout to their upstream historic spawning areas, they dismiss this opportunity to protect a threatened species and be able to see these majestic fish swim in the creek again.

The authors have concerns that they feel outweigh any potential benefits to dam removal. One is flooding. However, there is danger of upstream flooding with the dam as it is, the dam is not designed for flood control anyway and the process of removing or altering the dam would be carried out with the highest caliber of engineering. Other dams have been removed. We sent men to the moon--we can remove dams safely. It is a matter of will.

The authors site the potential loss of wetlands and wetlands/riparian forest without noting that riparian habitat will be gained all along the creek and where the lake once was.

They also site concern for bats and migrating birds. About the bats, bats follow bugs they will not be hurt if the lake is gone, they will find new bugs in other places. There is a report that pretty much sums this up on the Stanford Searsville Dam website. . Web Link There are some bats that nest on the cliffs above the dam (at least in 2001), but as long as care is taken during construction not to disturb roosting bats there will be no harm. I think the migrating birds will adapt as well, in fact the riparian habitat that would be created is superior for most species than the artificial Searsville Lake. Web Link

That brings me to their final claim, that Stanford University has wisely chosen a cautious path forward. I say Stanford is stonewalling. A hole in the bottom of the dam? Seriously? We need to be advocating for a real step in the right direction. I fully support the work of Matt Stoeker of BeyondSearsvilleDam.org and others who have brought this issue to my attention. Thank you.

A photoshop mashup of Searsville Dam with a culvert is available at Web Link

So if they put a culvert at the bottom of the dam what happens to all of the built up sediment? Does it simply get washed downstream? If it does it will destroy the spawning habitat that we're supposedly trying to save. It's either that or excavate and haul off all that sediment.

Note this very pertinent Stanford comment:

"The key question is whether – and how – the sediment can be moved downstream," McCown said. "The possibility of releasing the sediment downstream presents a unique challenge that we must continue studying to ensure that we do the right thing, especially for the communities located downstream of the dam. "Our preferred approach does not preclude the possibility of someday removing the dam. But we have to be confident we don't need the check-dam function and that removal wouldn't cause unacceptable impacts in the watershed."

People may disagree but I find that a very sound position.

2savetheoaks-
Stanford has not proposed a timeline or actual plan, so we are currently headed towards Searsville Meadow. Unfortunately, the photoshop effort is far from what Stanford is proposing. This rendition shows a natural-bottom arch culvert which would not be employed with the dam due to issues such as undermining the footing. Stanford has proposed to build a circular or box type culvert with concrete bottom and highly engineered internal baffles or other type of fish passage feature. This also requires extensive and highly engineered channel construction both upstream and downstream to address the "firehose" suction and expulsion of water into and downstream of the hole during peak flows. Such a proposal has not been shown to be feasible or carried out before in similar federally listed Critical Habitat for steelhead and other species. Besides adequate fish passage, the proposal would have major problems with woody debris blockage within the hole, clearing sediment/debris, turbidity downstream, inundation of upstream habitat and "restoration" areas, and challenging and unproven safety modifications and rapid filling and draining pressure. If the dam can be removed safely, provide more flood protection benefits, and achieve a much greater level of ecosystem restoration and protection, why would we and the agencies accept this lesser and unproven option? Thanks for considering.

It is troubling that the two authors did not disclose their strong connection to Stanford University and ongoing access they are granted) to Stanford's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve surrounding the dam and reservoir.

Lennie Roberts is reported to be a founding docent at Stanford's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve (1974) with over four decades of access and support for the preserve. Does 41 years of public advocacy and education around a dam and reservoir, and keys to the gate, influence this perspective?

The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society enjoys access to Jasper Ridge for outings and birding. Would opposition to Stanford's desire to keep the dam, and potential loss of access, influence this perspective?

We have heard from multiple people that support our Beyond Searsville Dam coalition, that Stanford representatives have contacted them furious with their support of removing the dam. One enviro group that signed onto our coalition abruptly withdrew that support two days later, reportedly following an angry call from Jasper Ridge and questioning future access to visit the preserve.

Matt:

it seems to me that if you are going to sell the neighbors on dam removal you will need to sell them on putting up with A LOT of heavy truck traffic during the removal of the built up silt behind the dam. This will take many, many trucks, especially given the limitations of the existing roadways. The neighbors need to be OK with that or they are going to resist removal.

Simply removing the dam and letting the sediment flow downstream isn't a suitable option as it will destroy any downstream spawning grounds and the likelihood of Fish and Game signing off on that are virtually nil.

So, I see a lot of "remove the dam", but no real acceptable plan to make that happen. What say you?

@Menlo Voter

Your argument about a frightful number of dump trucks is nothing more than a straw man. There's heavy construction equipment using the same Sand Hill route all day long related to road work, Stanford campus/hospital, and PG&E pipeline work just to name a few. I'm a neighbor and drive it daily - the negligible increase would be just fine with me.

Stoecker's lashout at Lennie Roberts and the Santa Clara Audubon Society shows a desperate need to protect his little activism fiefdom. His comment should be circulated to the people who signed on to his organization in the mistaken belief that it was an environmental cause.

Menlo Voter-

Thanks for your reply and question. The sediment issue is the most challenging issue in this dam decision. Fortunately, the science is clear that dam removal provides a benefit to ecosystem health and steelhead recovery.. and it happens quickly. See this report showing how rivers recovery quickly following dam removal:
Web Link">Web Link
More studies are showing that sediment is needed and beneficial for downstream river health, including restoring the flow of vital spawning gravels (currently trapped by the dam) and large woody debris needed for rearing habitat:
Web Link">Web Link

Resource agencies (both federal and state) have been actively supporting, funding, and permitting hundreds of dam removal efforts around the country due to their benefits to fish and wildlife. One of the permitting agencies, the CA Regional Board, has already weighed in on Searsville and told Stanford they support removing the dam. Full letter here:
Web Link

Neither proposal put forward by Stanford, or dam removal proposals supported by others, are proposing to truck all the sediment away. In fact, like many recent dam removal projects around the country, most of the sediment would likely be stabilized in place and safely transported downstream during highly managed release of fine sediment during high flows that would go all the way to the Bay, and to help coastal flood protection effort there requiring addition sediment to build up wetlands.

Low Water Mark,

Hiding behind a fake name is a telling statement about your connection to this issue and the accuracy of your comment. It is clear that you are the one "lashing out" at me, without any supporting facts and misunderstanding of my objectives and history restoring habitat and wildlife in San Francisquito Creek. What is wrong with commenting on two people's guest opinion with referanced facts that counter their misleading statements? I am far from wanting to protect a "little activism fiefdom". In fact, myself and the dozens of other Beyond Searsville Dam coalition members and thousands of supporters would like nothing more than to see Stanford do the right thing and be able shut down our coalition quickly and for good. On the contrary, as mentioned above, it is Committee for Green Foothills and Santa Clara Audubon that have skin in the game and access to Jasper Ridge's exclusive, fenced, barbed wired, fiefdom… this access comes with supporting Stanford and Jasper Ridge's stance on Searsville. So who is trying to protect their fiefdom here? Finally, I encourage BSD supporters to read my response to Lennie and Shani's letter here and if they disagree they can opt out of the coalition at any time. No one has contacted us yet with anything other than strong support, and the only group to date that has ever signed on to our coalition and then opted out was a group that was reportedly harassed by a Jasper Ridge rep with a threat of having their beloved access rescinded until they gave in and wished us luck.

I look forward to you presenting your real name here and having an honest dialog on this issue.

pvrez:

I'm glad it doesn't bother you. My point was that it does bother some people, in fact many people, and if they want to "sell" damn removal they're going to need buy in from those that are happy with an increase in truck traffic.

matt:

your links are regarding rivers not creeks. rivers have much higher water flows and more consistent water flows than creeks, especially ours. I don't think these support your argument.