Gordon Becker, a fisheries scientist for the Center for EcoSystem Management and Restoration, left, and Jon Stead, right, glance at the free-flowing water of the San Francisquito Creek during an event hosted by the Environmental Protection Agency celebrating the removal of a concrete barrier, which had been in the creek for a half-century, on Sept. 5, 2013. Photo by Veronica Weber.
Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, San Mateo County Resource Conservation and other local organizations gather on the banks of the San Francisquito Creek on September 5, 2013 to admire the recent removal of the Bonde-Weir concrete barrier, which will help restore the flow of water in the creek. Photo by Veronica Weber.
A concrete slab, called a "weir," was installed more than a half-century ago in the San Francisquito Creek. Photo taken Aug. 6, 2013 by Veronica Weber.
Jared Blumenfeld, Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, addresses a crowd gathered to discuss the removal of the Bonde weir concrete barrier and the restoration of the San Francisquito Creek on Sept. 5, 2013. Photo by Veronica Weber/PaloAltoOnline.com.
Previous
Next
A century-old concrete barrier in the San Francisquito Creek has been removed, a triumph for the steelhead trout, conservationists said this week.
Called a "weir," the 45-foot-wide barrier at the creek bottom -- near Palo Alto's border with Menlo Park -- had made it difficult for fish to travel along the creek. It altered and sometimes impeded the water current, according to the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District.
The district was responsible for the $309,400 Bonde Weir Fish Passage Improvement Project, which is now complete.
For more information about the project, read the Weekly's Aug. 9 article "Creek project will help endangered fish run free."
Comments
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 6, 2013 at 11:56 am
on Sep 6, 2013 at 11:56 am
small victory I guess, but what about Searsville Dam? I'd like to see the Weekly carry this story further to maybe spur that process along. Stanford has been diverting and using water from this creek for over a century to water its precious golf course and other facilities... how does that still happen when the native steelhead and coho in the creek are in serious trouble? (I believe the coho are listed as endangered)
Come on Weekly, I demand you do better!
College Terrace
on Sep 6, 2013 at 1:16 pm
on Sep 6, 2013 at 1:16 pm
"Perhaps it's just me, but the cost of over a quarter of a million dollars to get rid of a bit of decrepit concrete in a creek seems rather mind-boggling."
Coulda hired some laborers and rented a jack hammer and got the job done for about $2k! Who's running this show?!
Why was the dam installed back in the day?
Old Palo Alto
on Sep 6, 2013 at 1:48 pm
on Sep 6, 2013 at 1:48 pm
With all the hype, I was expecting the Colorado River. So disappointing.
Stanford
on Sep 6, 2013 at 2:01 pm
on Sep 6, 2013 at 2:01 pm
At least this is a step in the right direction, though more costly than necessary. Suspect someone generously padded the bill
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Sep 6, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Registered user
on Sep 6, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Like it or not, removal of a 50'year old dam probably has some hazardous/environmental considerations given the site. Not saying the cost was too high, but the job certainly wasn't a simple jackhammer and wheel burrow job.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm
on Sep 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm
> but the job certainly wasn't a simple jackhammer and wheel burrow job.
Interesting. The canals in Britain were built with shovels and wheelbarrows before jackhammers were invented. Guess that Brits were lucky not to have had access to the blogs like this one, back in the day.
And to think that the pyramids were built without power tools, also!
Crescent Park
on Sep 6, 2013 at 7:07 pm
on Sep 6, 2013 at 7:07 pm
My point was that given the environmental purpose of the project, I'm guessing that the demolition required several measure to minimize or eliminate any contamination due to the demo process.
Community Center
on Sep 7, 2013 at 8:18 am
on Sep 7, 2013 at 8:18 am
And this cost almost a third of a million dollars??? No wonder cities, town, and the USA are broke.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
on Sep 7, 2013 at 8:22 am
[Post removed.]
Greater Miranda
on Sep 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
on Sep 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
[Post removed.]
East Palo Alto
on Sep 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm
on Sep 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm
Why pick apart what Crescent Park Dad said? His posts express what I was actually told by creek volunteers in the know about the weir's demo. All this knit-picking by cost from people in a wealthy city is eye-rollingly ridiculous. You sound like Athertonians!
Monroe Park
on Sep 8, 2013 at 10:50 am
on Sep 8, 2013 at 10:50 am
[Post removed.]
another community
on Oct 21, 2013 at 4:55 pm
on Oct 21, 2013 at 4:55 pm
A project of this nature involves the following costs:
Engineering design - The weir was a grade control structure and removing it without engineering a replacement grade control system that also lets fish pass would cause the channel drop previously present at the structure to "rip" upstream, potentially causing major damage at other infrastructure. The replacement grade control is largely underground, but it is there, and a design such as this requires input from a licensed engineer, hydrologists, etc.
Permitting - Permits must be obtained from the National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, US Army Corps of Engineers, and perhaps others. Preparing these applications and seeing them through to approval is a bit of work.
Construction - Construction must be coordinated in time per the permits. The stream must be diverted. Heavy equipment must be brought in to place the enormous rocks now controlling the stream grade (they are underground, you can't see them). Downstream water quality must be controlled. Construction access and the project site must be restored and re-vegetated to pre-project conditions. In most cases post-constrcution monitoring is required to make sure the stream channel and re-vegetation continue to recover consistent with permit requirements.
Although this is not a comprehensive list, this is a bit of what is involved. From someone who knows what this type of project costs, the price tag on this one was actually very low due to the dedication and volunteerism on the part of many involved. They deserve congratulation and praise and I am sorry to see all the criticism.