Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Area Regional Working Group: Meeting #4 June 19, 2018 San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) 4911 Central Ave, Richmond, CA 94804

**PowerPoint available online at www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/projects/art-bay-area

Welcome and Introduction: Carey Batha • ART Bay Area project recap, project progress to-date, rationale for organizing vulnerability assessments by Operational Landscape Units (OLUs) o Question: What are the gray areas on the OLU map? Carey: These are the OLUs we are not assessing. We are assessing ART Bay Area assets within 13 OLUs (out of 30). You can find a map of these 13 OLUs here and on the final page of these notes. However, we are also addressing certain long linear assets, such as transportation and the bay trail, throughout the region.

Presentation on SFEI Operational Landscape Units (OLUs): Julie Beagle • Introduction to OLU development, scientific grounding, and intended uses o Question: What’s a polder? § Answer (Jeremy Lowe, SFEI): A polder is an area of pressurized land below normal tidal level. For example, an island is above tide line. A polder is land that sits lower than the tide line and therefore very vulnerable to flooding. o Question (from online group): Do OLU boundaries consider rivers or drainage divides? § Answer (SFEI): Yes, OLUs are the expression of watersheds at the Baylands. One of the principles for the delineation was to avoid splitting watersheds or tidal sheds. Each OLU represents the receiving end of one or more watersheds. While the OLU itself must be a manageable size (i.e. the Creek OLU can’t go all the way to Livermore), the analyses included the watershed inputs of water and sediment. Two watershed- based adaptation measures that could be considered are reconnecting creeks to Baylands, as well as green storm water infrastructure in the watersheds. o Question (from online group): Was there community input into the OLU process/development? § Answer (SFEI): This was not a community stakeholder process but more of a science process. However, we have received a lot of input from many groups of people. We have a technical advisory group and a group of policy and regional advisors. We also have met with community groups like Resilient Communities Initiative and Environmental Justice Coalition for Water to get their input. Through our work with the San Mateo and Marin adaptation planning projects, there are large community/stakeholder processes focused on individual OLUs of interest to these projects.

Presentation on ART Bay Area OLU Example: Heather Dennis • Results from vulnerability assessments in the Belmont-Redwood OLU o Question (from online group): How are priority conservation areas (PCAs) identified? § Answer (ART Team): PCAs are identified through consensus and nomination by local jurisdictions and park/open space districts as lands in need of protection due to pressure from urban development or other factors. PCAs are categorized by four designations: Natural Landscapes, Agricultural Lands, Urban Greening and Regional Recreation. Learn more about the PCA designation process here: https://abag.ca.gov/priority/conservation/ o Question/Comment (from online group): I noticed and are not shown as priority conservation areas. § Answer (ART Team): Bair Island and Greco Island have not been designated at PCAs. However, each island hosts a San Francisco Water Trail site that has been designated as PCA. For more information, check out: https://abag.ca.gov/priority/conservation/ o Question/comment (from online group): The map showed Inner Bair Island as a "vulnerable community" – it’s a restoration site in the National Wildlife Refuge. § Answer (ART Team): According to the ART Bay Area methodology, the “vulnerable community” designation is made using data from the US Census. The original geospatial extent of Census block groups covers areas that are unpopulated, such as National Wildlife Refuge restoration sites and the Bay itself. The segment including Inner Bair Island likely stretches inland to include portions of Redwood City with characteristics that make them more vulnerable to sea level rise. Segments of displayed Census data have been removed for visualization purposes, such as those that stretch into the Bay. Depending on availability of GIS data, this site may be removed as well.

Break

Engagement Exercise: Uncovering Shared Vulnerabilities • During this exercise, the working group split up into table groups, each with a map of an OLU depicting the various assets being analyzed in the ART Bay Area vulnerability assessment. The groups brainstormed the ways these assets share vulnerabilities to sea level rise, and how the consequences of flooding could cross asset categories. • Many groups discussed the various projects, planning efforts, and programs occurring in these areas that could affect flood risk over time. • Several groups brainstormed questions that should be addressed in the vulnerability assessment.

Santa Clara Valley OLU: Group #1 Participant report out: There are lot of projects going on in this area that could impact vulnerability including a wastewater treatment plant (Sunnyvale treatment plant); a large project by the Army Corp, SCWD, and the Conservancy building a major levy; and an additional shoreline study (Santa Clara Shoreline). It will be important to coordinate with Alameda County to understand projects and efforts going on in the area, and how they might affect future flood extent along the shoreline. Additionally, NASA and Google are in this area; it is unknown what’s happening along those portions of the shoreline.

Santa Clara Valley OLU: Group #2 Participant report out: This group noted the same wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) projects going on in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara as well as power stations and toxic sites in the area. The group discussed impacts of groundwater and toxic plumes spreading upstream with sea level rise, which is different than what they do today, and discussed what would happen if sewage plants can no longer discharge. This could lead to toxic waste and untreated sewage backing up into the streets or people’s homes. The focus area also contains a fire station; it would be difficult for emergency personnel to get in and out with flooding. The group discussed how impacts to the power system for the area could affect the ability of residents to communicate during a flood event. This led to a discussion of acute versus chronic flood issues. With chronic issues resulting from groundwater and/or surface level flooding, perhaps managed retreat is an option. If properties are uninsurable or have zero sale value, maybe communities can receive public financial assistance. In this area, there could be a transportation narrative, energy narrative, public health narrative, and several more. It is a different way to think about these issues, and translates scientific information into something people can relate to. Note from ART team: we must be cautious with ideas about relocating communities, especially when community members themselves aren’t present. The ART team recognizes that we need to increase efforts to increase involvement of vulnerable community members in this project.

Mission Islais OLU: Group #1 Participant report out: One of the focus areas within this OLU is at Islais Creek, where there is extensive flooding, transportation assets, a vulnerable community, the , and contamination. There is a physical vulnerability of overtopping along some portions of the channel banks and the mobilization of contaminants where people recreate and work. Heron’s Head is an important recreational area (and could be lost as soon as 2050). There are a lot of jurisdictions overlapping in this area. The Port owns a lot of land including the channel shoreline. The Port has a relationship with MTA, who run the T Third Street MUNI over the 3rd Street bridge, but the bridge is owned by SF Public Works. Participants indicated that people who live or work near this area, or come here to recreate, don't have a lot of information about future flood risk and that this is an informational vulnerability. Participants recognized that within the Mission-Islais OLU, there is a lot of diversity of uses, shoreline types, and development status and that focus areas in this OLU help us think about different strategies.

Napa – Sonoma OLU: Group #1 Participant report out: This area is more rural than the others considered in this exercise. The group identified some clusters of vulnerable urban areas like Vallejo. Napa has a large flood protection project, but the group was uncertain about the level of sea level rise the project was designed to accommodate. The group was curious to know who is dependent on the fire station and power plants shown on the map, and how flooding would affect the surrounding communities. The group also discussed several issues related to Highway 37. First, adaptation options considered for Highway 37 could affect the wetlands inland of it; allowing tidal flow under the highway would best protect those wetlands. Second, Highway 37 serves as an important transportation route for residents of Vallejo, which represents a dependency between ART Bay Area assets. Similarly, Highway 37 and the railroad depend on privately owned levees currently being discussed in sea level rise planning efforts on Highway 37 and Regional Measure 3 (providing $100 million towards transportation improvements). Though currently a freight railway, but there are conversations around converting the railroad to passenger rail; however, it is vulnerable to flooding. The group also discussed how some contaminated sites may cause problems in Vallejo. The group speculated whether the edge of is the ideal place to locate a PDA given flooding concerns. The group suggested including Highway 121 (though that may be outside area) and the Sonoma Raceway in the ART Bay Area analysis, because they are important assets in this area.

East Bay Crescent: Group #1 Participant report out: This area is dense in population and toxic sites, mostly around the industrial areas of Emeryville. There are a lot of connections that could be blocked by sea level rise including the Bay Bridge and I-580 split. Recreation areas (within and outside PCAs) are highly used in this area. Port access to highway and railway distribution points are important and may be impacted by flooding. The group discussed how vulnerabilities might interact between OLUs. Governance in the area is complex and includes various jurisdictions, special districts, and regional agencies, making permitting of projects cumbersome. The group noted that projects occurring in this area could affect flood risk, including the Gateway Park and Albany Bulb projects. The group was not aware of other flood protection plans within the OLU. The group talked about the Bay Trail and its role in continuity and access for vulnerable communities. Since this is not a transit rich area, a lot of people use the Bay Trail to commute to other transit lines. This functionality could be impacted if sea level rise cuts off segments of the trail. The group also noted that vulnerable communities within this OLU are already overburdened by toxic sites, and this burden would be compounded by sea level rise and other environmental impacts.

East Bay Crescent: Group #2 Summary of discussion: In this particular OLU, the Bay Trail and transportation asset of Interstate I-580 provide de factor shoreline protection for inland areas and communities along the Bay. Additionally, the group discussed how, without more coordination and planning, well- intentioned adaptation measures taken in one particular location can have unintended consequences to nearby locations or assets. A participant described an example of this happening in her work currently with the Bay Trail and the need for more comprehensive and coordinated approaches to adaptation. Another example of challenges mentioned relate to projects at the Albany Bulb, where a participant noted that private land ownership may present challenges for agencies or groups to plan for sea level rise adaptation using green infrastructure. The group also discussed the need to develop adaptation strategies in ways that allow for planned, phased or multiple incremental opportunities to address rising seas: for example, creating shoreline protection structures that are designed to be raised in the coming years. In terms of vulnerabilities, the group discussed the issues of informational vulnerabilities in this area and the lack of information on groundwater and its impacts to communities as sea level rises. To address some of the coordination efforts mentioned above, the group agreed that if may be informative to gather “lessons learned” from ongoing collaboratives, such as joint powers authorities in the Bay, and apply them to governance-related challenges of sea level rise adaptation planning. The group also noted the importance of using accurate data and information to inform decision making.

East Bay Crescent: Group #3 Participant report out: The group’s discussion mainly focused on West Oakland and the importance of governance. Who decides which vulnerability will be taken into consideration first? Should the earliest impacts be addressed first, or are there other factors to take into consideration when prioritizing adaptation actions? The group also noted that there are a few fire stations in the area and asked how sea level rise may impact service to the area given the future closure of Alta Bates Hospital. Will fire stations be more in demand, and how will flooding impact that?

East Bay Crescent: Group # 4 (Online participants) ART Team member report out: This group focused on the area of the Port of Richmond and discussed how sea level rise may cause inter-related impacts to industrial sites, rail, and the movement of refinery goods. The group noted that this area already experiences sewage overflows, and overflows could increase in frequency with sea level rise. The group also discussed how the community is already overburdened by toxic sites and is a high crime area. Addressing flooding on one part of shoreline could have a big impact, but there is a need to look at adaptation planning on watershed scale. There is also a need to consider impacts of flooding on capped toxic sites or landfills.

Presentation on the Natural Capital Project’s Ecosystem Services Analysis of the PCA Network: Anne Guerry • Model of recreational activity and impact of SLR on recreation o Questions (from online group): Where did you get your recreation use data and what level of confidence and comparability do you have in the data? § Answer (ART Team): The recreational use data comes from Flickr and twitter user data which was analyzed through the Natural Capital Project’s Recreation and Tourism Model. More information of the model, its parameters, and limitations are provided here: http://data.naturalcapitalproject.org/nightly-build/invest-users- guide/html/recreation.html The Natural Capital Team will provide their methodology and findings specific to their Bay Area analysis in the coming months.

Presentation on Future Shoreline and Regional Interdependence (RISER Project): Mark Stacey • Shoreline management: containment vs accommodation, tidal influences, interdependences across the San Francisco Bay region o No questions.

Wrap-up/Final Question:

Questions/Comments: • Thank you for organizing these meetings