Trees Replaced with Rock

All current SCVWD-proposed bridges include removing all trees (in fact all vegetation) from the creek channel for hundreds of feet on both sides of the bridge.
Approximate extent of tree removal for alternative 1 bridge. Includes street trees on four corner properties and upstream and downstream trees.

SCVWD has admitted that all creek-top trees within 5 feet of a floodwall would need to be removed for 600 or 1800 feet upstream and 100 (or more) feet downstream.  Staff has not addressed the eventual death of the remaining oaks from root damage.

Their survey shows that their current 100-year bridge alternatives would immediately destroy 25 to 35 creek-top trees around the bridge and if a 4-foot raised bridge (their preferred alternative) was built, all 31 trees at the four adjacent homes.

Staff has not addressed the removal of all in-creek vegetation and rock armoring the creek bank for hundreds of feet upstream and downstream as shown in all illustrations.

Comments

  1. Sounds terrible. Surely this is not needed. need larger hole in bridge to let more water flow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These modifications should be paid for by those that bought in flood zones, not the general public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about charging all those who go over the bridges? This problem is not just a creek problem but a roadway problem. btw I am not in a flood zone but do use the bridges(s)

      Delete
  3. Note that this was posted in 2014 plan. The 2019 plan is significantly different.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Santa Clara County Water History

Stanford Favors a Flood-Control Fish-Passage for Searsville Dam

A Beautiful Concrete Arch Bridge