Meeting Agenda Special City Council

Home , King tide

416 N Franklin Street City of Fort Bragg Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Phone: (707) 961-2823 Fax: (707) 961-2802 Meeting Agenda Special City Council

THE FORT BRAGG CITY COUNCIL MEETS CONCURRENTLY AS THE FORT BRAGG MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE FORT BRAGG REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY

Tuesday, February 26, 2019 6:00 PM Town Hall, 363 N Main Street

Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

1. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

1A. 19-091 Receive Report and Provide Direction Regarding Mill Site Reuse Plan Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment Including: 1) Recommended Policy Changes from the Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Study and the Tsunami Study; and 2) Recommended Policy Changes to the Safety Element of the Coastal General Plan

Attachments: 02262018 Mill Site Reuse Plan - Safety Element Att 1 - Safety Element Att 2 - Sea Level Rise Report 2019 Att 3 - Tsunami Study 2007 Att 4 - RESO 4052-2017 Mill Pond

ADJOURNMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO )

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I am employed by the City of Fort Bragg and that I caused this agenda to be posted in the City Hall notice case on February 21, 2019.

______Brenda Jourdain, Administrative Assistant NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC:

City of Fort Bragg Page 1 Printed on 2/21/2019 Special City Council Meeting Agenda February 26, 2019

DISTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOLLOWING AGENDA PACKET DISTRIBUTION: • Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council/District/Agency after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the lobby of City Hall at 416 N. Franklin Street during normal business hours. • Such documents are also available on the City of Fort Bragg’s website at http://city.fortbragg.com subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

ADA NOTICE AND HEARING IMPAIRED PROVISIONS:

It is the policy of the City of Fort Bragg to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities.

If you need assistance to ensure your full participation, please contact the City Clerk at (707) 961-2823. Notification 48 hours in advance of any need for assistance will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

The Council Chamber is equipped with a Wireless Stereo Headphone unit for use by the hearing impaired. The unit operates in conjunction with the Chamber’s sound system. You may request the Wireless Stereo Headphone unit from the City Clerk for personal use during the Council meetings.

This notice is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (28 CFR, 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

City of Fort Bragg Page 2 Printed on 2/21/2019 City of Fort Bragg 416 N Franklin Street Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Phone: (707) 961-2823 Fax: (707) 961-2802 Text File File Number: 19-091

Agenda Date: 2/26/2019 Version: 1 Status: Business

In Control: Special City Council File Type: Staff Report

Agenda Number: 1A. Receive Report and Provide Direction Regarding Mill Site Reuse Plan Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment Including: 1) Recommended Policy Changes from the Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Study and the Tsunami Study; and 2) Recommended Policy Changes to the Safety Element of the Coastal General Plan

City of Fort Bragg Page 1 Printed on 2/21/2019 AGENCY: City Council MEETING DATE: January 14, 2019 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Marie Jones EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

TITLE: Receive Report and Provide Direction Regarding Mill Site Reuse Plan Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment Including: 1) Recommended Policy Changes from the Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Study and the Tsunami Study; and 2) Recommended Policy Changes to the Safety Element of the Coastal General Plan

ISSUE: The Community, City Council, the Planning Commission and staff have been engaged in developing a Reuse Plan for the Mill Site and Preparing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment for the Coastal Commission’s consideration for the past two years. The effort to prepare the LCP Amendment for submission to the Coastal Commission is about 60 percent complete. In January of 2019, staff provided a preliminary schedule for meetings in 2019, the next three meetings from that preliminary schedule are excerpted below:

Meeting Topic Feb  Direction from City Council and the Planning Commission Regarding: o Analysis and Recommendations of Mill Site Reuse Visitor Serving Facilities Study o Preliminary Feedback from Coastal Commission Staff Regarding Draft LCP Submittal Element 2 – Land Use of the Coastal General Plan. o Relevant Amendments to the CLUDC March  Direction from City Council and the Planning Commission Regarding: o Recommendations of Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Study & Tsunami Study o Element 7: Safety of the Coastal General Plan o Preliminary Feedback from Coastal Commission Staff Regarding Draft LCP Submittal Chapter 9 - Sustainability of the Coastal General Plan. o Relevant Amendments to the CLUDC April  Direction from City Council and the Planning Commission Regarding Analysis and Recommendations of: o Build Out Scenario for the Proposed Land Use Plan o Mill Site Reuse Utility Study o Mill Site Reuse Fiscal Impact Analysis o Mill Site Reuse Development Feasibility Analysis  Direction from City Council & Planning Commission Regarding Revisions to the

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1A

Draft Land Use Plan & Development Standards

As the Coastal Commission has not yet completed their review of Coastal General Plan’s Element 2, nor have they provided the City with final guidance regarding their required buildout methodology for the non-Mill Site portion of the City, staff has brought forward the Safety Element of the Coastal General Plan for the City Council and Planning Commission’s consideration at this meeting. This is the only element which has not yet been reviewed and revised by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The proposed modifications to the Safety Element (Attachment 1) have been informed in part through: 1) Completion of a Sea Level Rise Study (Attachment 2); 2) Review of the Tsunami Risk Study (Attachment 3); and 3) In consultation with DTSC and the Coastal Commission.

ANALYSIS:

SEA LEVEL RISE ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS The following summary is excerpted from the attached Sea Level Rise Report 2018, please see Attachment 2 to view the entire report.

 STEP 1: Identify the nearest tide gauge.  STEP 2: Evaluate project lifespan.  STEP 3: For the nearest tide gauge and project lifespan, identify range of sea-level rise projections.  STEP 4: Evaluate potential impacts and adaptive capacity across a range of sea-level rise projections and emissions scenarios.  STEP 5: Select sea-level rise projections based on risk tolerance and, if necessary, develop adaptation pathways that increase resiliency to sea-level rise and include contingency plans if projections are exceeded.

This framework was used to: 1) guide selection of appropriate sea-level rise projections; 2) develop necessary adaptation policies to increase resiliency to sea-level rise and 3) develop contingency policies if projections are exceeded or reached prematurely.

The nearest Tide Gauge for Fort Bragg is Arena Cove. Table 2 below illustrates the probabilistic sea level rise projections for Arena Cove California. These data are from Kopp et al, 2014 and Sweet et al (2007) per State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance (2018).

Page 2

There is substantial agreement between sea level models in the Sea Level Rise (SLR) projections through 2050. However, after 2050, the differences in the projections vary greatly across both emission scenarios and individual scientific assessments. Therefore, there is uncertainty associated with any SLR projections for the latter half of this century and beyond. Thus, per the State Guidelines, when assessing longer-term risk after 2050, multiple sea level rise predictive models should be used for moderate SLR and extreme SLR (e.g., discrete, non-probabilistic scenarios), particularly if the useful lifespan for a facility is closer to 2100 or beyond. The H++ Scenario represents the most conservative discrete non-probabilistic scenario and assumes a very rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet; in other words scientists posit that the likelihood of this scenario coming to pass is extremely low (less than 0.5% likely) but they don’t know exactly how low it is.

High Emissions Analysis. Based on Table 2, in the high emissions scenario, the most likely range of sea level rise is between 2.3 feet and 5.4 feet by 2150. Likewise, there is about a 5% probability that SLR could reach 7.3 feet and a 0.5% chance of sea level rise exceeding 12.6 feet by 2150. If high emissions result in the extreme H++ scenario (Sweet et al 2007), which is extremely unlikely and assumes a very rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, sea level rise by 2150 could be as high as 21.5 feet.

Low Emissions Analysis. Based on the table above, in a low emissions scenario Fort Bragg has a 50% probability of experiencing at least 1.9 feet of sea level rise by 2150. Furthermore, the most likely range of sea level rise is between 0.9 feet and 2.3 feet by 2150. Likewise, there is about a 5% probability that SLR could reach 5.1 feet and a 0.5% chance of sea level rise exceeding 10.7 feet by 2150. The H++ scenario is not possible in a low emissions scenario.

Page 3

Table 1: Projected Sea Level Rise (in feet) for Arena Cove/Fort Bragg, CA TABLE 1: Projected Sea-Level Rise (in feet) for Arena Cove/Fort Bragg.CA Probabilistic Projections (in feet) (based on Kopp et al. 2014)

MEDIAN LIKELY RANGE 1 - IN-20 CHANCE 1 - IN-200 CHANCE H++ scenario (Sweet et al. 2017) 50% probability sea- 5% probability sea- 0.5% probability sea- 66% probability sea- *Single scenario level rise meets or level rise meets or level rise meets or level rise is between… exceeds… exceeds… exceeds…

Low Risk Medium - High Risk Extreme Risk Aversion Aversion Aversion 2030 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.7 1 2040 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 2050 0.7 0.5 1 1.2 1.8 2.6 2060 1 0.6 1.3 1.7 2.5 3.7 2080 1.5 1 2.2 2.8 4.3 6.4 2100 2.1 1.3 3.1 4.1 6.7 9.9

High emissions 2120 2.6 1.8 3.8 5 8.2 13.9 2140 3.2 2.1 4.8 6.5 11.1 18.7 2150 3.6 2.3 5.4 7.3 12.6 21.5 2080 1 0.6 1.6 2.1 3.6 Not applicable as Arctic ice sheet 2100 1.3 0.7 2.1 3 5.4 melting is 2120 1.5 0.9 2.5 3.6 7.1 anticipated to 2140 1.8 0.9 3.1 4.6 9.4 happen in a high

Low Low emissions emmissions 2150 1.9 0.9 3.4 5.1 10.7

*Most of the available climate model experiments do not extend beyond 2100. The resulting reduction in model availability causes a small dip in projections between 2100 and 2110, as well as a shift in uncertainty estimates (see Kopp et al. 2014). Use of 2110 projections should be done with caution and with acknowledgement of increased uncertainty around these projections.

Table 3, next page, illustrates the vulnerability of various physical assets given different sea level rise scenarios. Green squares indicate that the asset will not be affected by sea level rise within the timeframe specified in the column. Yellow squares indicate that the asset has an increased risk of episodic flooding due to SLR combined with storm surge and or kind tides. Red squares indicate that the asset could be inundated within the timeframe specified given the probability that the scenario occurs. The “X” indicates the likely life expectancy of the asset.

Page 4

Table 3: Sea Level Rise Valnerability: Proect Life Expectancy, Sea Level Rise Timing Under Different Scenarios & Probabilities High Emmissions SLR Scenario H++ 1:20 0.5% Likely Range (83% chance) Scenario Project Life Chance Chance Expectancy 1 2050 2100 2150 2150 2150 2150 Sea Level Rise (ft) 1 3.1 5.4 7.3 12.6 21.5 Build Assets -Outside of City Limits but within the City’s Municipal Services District (Noyo Harbor) Wood Buildings: Hotels, Restaurants, Retail, 75+ Residential Rentals, Industrial facilities, etc. X Concrete Buildings 30 X Mobile home park 30 X Roads (local harbor) 50 X Transmission lines (Harbor) 15 X Water distribution pipelines (harbor) 50 X Sewer lines (harbor) 50 X Built Assets - Inside City Limits Ocean Lake Senior Housing -Manufactured Homes 50 X GP Mill Site 130 X X X X WWTF 60 X Madson Hole: raw water supply 30 X Sewer Lift Station at Pudding Creek 50 X Storm drains 15 X Pudding Creek dam 50 X Hazardous material sites - Ponds 6, 7 & 8 150 X X X X Mill Pond Dam - upon seismic retrofit 150 X X X X Fort Bragg Landing Beach Berm 150 X X X X Natural Assets Pudding Creak Beach, Noyo Beach, Fort Bragg NA Streams & Rivers – Pudding Creek, Noyo River NA Steelhead habitat NA Wetlands NA Access and Recreation Pudding Creak Beach, Glass Beach, Noyo Beach, NA Fort Bragg Landing Beach Noyo Headland Park (Coastal Trail), Pomo Bluffs 30 Park, MacKerricher Park X Pudding Creek Beach parking, Noyo Beach Parking 30 X Highway bridges – Pudding Creek Bridge, Noyo 100 Harbor Bride, Hare Creek Bridge X Highway 1 100 X Fishing area at jetty 50 X Surfing areas NA 1, Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings , Jennifer O’Connor Forintek Canada Corp. 2004 As illustrated in Table 3, much of the Noyo Harbor may begin to be affected by Sea level Rise in 2100, with significant permanent flooding by 2150, if CO2 emissions are not curbed (83% probability model). While the Noyo Harbor is located outside of City Limits, the North Harbor is served by City water and sewer and is an important economic driver for our community.

Page 5

Within City Limits, Noyo Beach, Pudding Creek Beach, Fort Bragg Landing & Glass Beach, Pudding Creek Dam and Noyo Harbor Jetty are threatened by permanent Sea level inundation by 2150, in the most likely sea level rise scenario (83% confidence), if CO2 emissions are not curbed.

In the 1 in 200 scenario (12.6 feet of sea level rise) the beach berm would start to be impacted by sea level rise, especially during surging storms and king tides.

In the least likely and most catastrophic scenario, the H++ scenario, the Mill Pond Dam, Fort Bragg Landing Beach Berm and Ponds 6, 7 and 8 could be impacted and possibly even inundated by SLR, necessitating an adaptive strategy for this area. An adaptive strategy could include: 1) removal of ponds 6 & 7; and 2) removal of Pond 8 or dam stabilization for Pond 8 to withstand sea level rise.

Staff recommends that the following adaptation policies be added to the Safety Element to address these recommendations and the assets at risk in Fort Bragg from Sea Level Rise.

Policy SF 5.1 – Consider best available science regarding Sea Level Rise projections when considering projects with long lifespans and/or critical infrastructure projects in areas of the City that may be vulnerable to Sea Level Rise by 2150, in the worst case (H++) scenarios (see Map SF-4). Analyze the impacts of and potential flooding issues resulting from Climate Change and rising sea levels on proposed projects located within the 150-year Sea-Level Rise Inundation Area (see Map SF-4).

Program SF 5.1.1: Water Supply Resilience. When considering upgrades to the Noyo River fresh water intake and/or pumping station, consider the cost benefit analysis of the project location given predictions of future sea level rise. Consider and explore fresh water pumping locations further up the river, if the combination of sea level rise and low flows on the Noyo will result in a compromised water supply within the life expectancy of the proposed improvement.

Program SF 5.1.2: Mill Site Lowland Area Project Review. Consider the effects of long term SLR (150 year time horizon) and project life expectancy for all projects located within the Lowland Area of the Mill Site, including projects related to creek daylighting, mill pond dam removal or stabilization, beach berm stabilization or removal, trail access, infrastructure improvements, etc.

Program SF 5.1.3 – Ocean Lake Senior Housing Resilience. Consider the effects of sea level rise and the risks associated with periodic flooding of Ocean Lake when considering proposals for new development at this location.

Page 6

Policy SLR 5.2 - Planning for Noyo Harbor Sea Level Rise Resilience. Work with the County of Mendocino to improve harbor resilience to Sea Level Rise and discourage long term investment after 2100 in areas vulnerable to impacts. Program 5.2.1: Explore the feasibility of establishing an alternative access road to the North Harbor. Program 5.2.2: After the year 2100, consider establishing a moratorium on new water and sewer connections in the North Harbor to discourage future development. Program 5.2.3: Consider rezoning portions of the Urban Reserve on the Mill Site with “Ocean Dependent” zoning, to provide an upland area suitable for harbor activities such as fish processing, boat building, etc. Program 5.2.4: On a regular basis, work with Mendocino County and resource agencies to establish collaborative approaches to develop adaptive strategies to address the effects of Sea Level Rise in the Noyo Harbor.

Page 7

TSUNAMI STUDY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Tsunami Study (Attachment 3) found that Fort Bragg and Noyo Harbor has historically experienced larger tsunami impacts than most of the California Coast. However, most of the historic tsunamis have occurred during mid to low tide, thereby reducing the overall impact. Low lying areas in and around Fort Bragg especially Soldier Bay, Noyo Harbor, and Pudding Creek are particularly susceptible to tsunami hazards as documented by recent State mapping efforts. However, since much of the City is located on sea cliffs that range in height from 40 to 70ft the overall tsunami risk is reduced for most of the city. The Fire Station has a low risk exposure to the tsunami hazards. The Tsunami Inundation Risk areas are mapped in dark blue in the Tsunami Inundation Map to the right. The rainbow colored areas illustrate relative land height above sea level (not tsunami risk).

As the velocity associated with a tsunami is likely to increase cliff erosion, development and infrastructure near the cliff edges may be susceptible to erosion impacts even though they are at low risk of wave run-up and flooding impacts.

Staff recommends the following additional policies to address the Tsunami risks identified in the study:

Policy SF-2.7. Limit Development in Tsunami Inundation Areas on the Mill Site. Limit uses and development in the Tsunami Inundation Area on the Mill Site to those that support and protect passive recreation, ESHAs and open space. Require the installation of Tsunami Warning signs in all areas subject to Tsunami inundation.

Page 8

Program SF-2.5.2: Periodically update the tsunami inundation zone map (Map SF-3) for land use planning. Maps should identify generalized tsunami inundation zones on a probabilistic basis (e.g., 100-year event).

City Council may want to prohibit the siting of new critical facilities in Tsunami run up areas (see below). However, if the tsunami inundation area is revised this could impact the feasibility of rebuilding the fire station.

Policy SF-2.6: Avoid (or Prohibit?) siting new critical facilities, including fire and police stations and hospitals in tsunami inundation zones to the maximum extent feasible. If it is necessary to site such facilities in tsunami inundation zones to provide adequate population protection, new critical facilities shall be located and configured to be functional immediately after a 100-year tsunami event.

Additionally, the Coastal Commission is completing a new comprehensive tsunami risk analysis for the entire California Coast, which will be released at the end of 2019. This study may identify additional Tsunami Risks for Fort Bragg, which may necessitate additional policy recommendations for the LCP Amendment.

MILL SITE REMEDIATION

The Mill Site has been remediated per the regulations of the California Department of Toxics and Substances Control. DTSC’s oversight of the Georgia-Pacific Mill Site cleanup began in 2006, with cleanup efforts initially focused on the removal of contaminated soil and fly ash. In 2007, fuel pipelines and soil contaminated with petroleum from OU-E were removed, as was the pile of fly ash located near the South Ponds (Ponds 1-4). In 2009, 14,000 cubic yards of soil [contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, and dioxin] were removed from OU-A, prior to the development of Noyo Headlands Park and Coastal Trail. In 2008 and 2009, over 1,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with lead and PCBs were removed from OUs C and E. This work included bioremediation (using microbes for cleanup) of approximately

Page 9

40,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with petroleum. This cleanup achieved residential cleanup goals. As of 2018, 97% of the site was fully remediated to a residential standard. Nevertheless, compliance with DTSC’s soil management plan is required for some areas of the site as illustrated in Map SF-5 above.

Staff, in consultation with DTSC, recommends the inclusion of the following four policies to ensure safety related to the remediation. These policies address are as follows:

Policy SF-8.1 Mill Site Deed Restrictions. Georgia-Pacific shall establish a deed restriction prohibiting the domestic use of groundwater for the entire Mill Site.

Policy SF-8.2 Mill Site Soil Management Plan. All development projects shall comply with the Mill Site Soil Management Plan (SMP) as prepared by DTSC. The SMP provides the basis for the following: 1. Identifies potential hazards related to geologic and soils conditions; 2. Identifies areas with potential soil issues and identifies specific land use restrictions, and associated measures and procedures to follow within these areas during ground disturbing activities if unknown contaminants are uncovered during excavation and construction, 3. Maps all land use covenants (LUCs) within the Mill Site and identifies development restrictions

Policy SF-8.3 Mill Site Worker Health and Safety. The Soil Management Plan (SMP), approved by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), shall be provided to all project developers within the Mill Site. Where applicable, the developer’s general contractor shall prepare a construction worker health and safety plan containing worker health and safety requirements based on any known and potential conditions identified in the SMP (e.g., remaining foundations, discovery of ash or petroleum, etc.).

Policy SF-8.4 Land Use Covenants. Development shall be consistent with all land use covenants (LUCs). Development in areas with Land Use Covenants (see Map SF-5) may proceed subject to the requirements of the LUCs and associated Soil Management Plan (SMP) controls.

City Council and the Planning Commission may want to add a policy to address other remediation issues of the Mill Site. Please see Attachment 4 to view a resolution adopted by the City Council in 2017. This resolution could be used to inform the development of additional policy language. Some issues that the City Council and Planning Commission may want to consider before developing new policy language regrading Mill Pond remediation include:

1. It may be wise to delay developing new policy language on this topic until DTSC releases the final Feasibility Study. This would inform City Council and the Planning Commission of DTSC’s preferred remediation strategy. 2. Remediation of the Mill Pond will have to meet the requirements of many existing Coastal General Plan policies, as detailed in the matrix that staff developed for DTSC in 2018. Care should be taken when crafting any new policies to ensure that they do not conflict with existing Coastal Act policies in the City’s certified LCP.

Page 10

SAFETY ELEMENT POLICY REVIEW

As you review the Safety Element (Attachment 1) please use the following color coding to identify why the policy revisions are recommended.  All policies in Purple text are modified from the draft Specific Plan and incorporated into the Coastal General Plan Safety Element.  Blue text denotes staff’s recommended changes related to new State requirements from the Coastal Commission or other State agencies or changes in state law. The Coastal Commission requires that all new LCP Amendments address, through new policy language, new Coastal Commission requirements/priorities that have developed over time through case law, new statute and or Coastal Commission interpretation of the Coastal Act. Staff has reviewed The Coastal Commissions Local Coastal Program Update Guide (2013), to identify new policy language for the City’s LCP to meet these requirements. The new required policy language is noted in the attached documents in Blue Text. These policies are provided for City Council and the Planning Commission review and direction.  Green text denotes staff’s recommended changes to create: 1) internal consistency within the Coastal General Plan; 2) the adoption of policies already approved by City Council in the Inland General Plan (updated in 2014); and 3) recommended changes by staff.

Many changes were made to the Safety Element, and it is best to view them within the context of the element itself. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff regarding proposed policy changes to the Safety Element. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None. FISCAL IMPACT: The City was awarded a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in the amount of $50,000, a Coastal Commission grant of $100,000, and a $48,000 MCOG grant for this LCP amendment. Additionally the City has a General Plan Maintenance Fund, funded through building permit fees, that may be used for costs associated with the LCP Amendment.

As City Council and the Planning Commission further refine a final Land Use Plan and LCP Amendment, staff will prepare a fiscal analysis to identify if the overall Mill Site Reuse will have a net positive fiscal impact on Fort Bragg. CONSISTENCY: The City’s 2014 Economic Development Strategy specifically includes rezoning and the eventual reuse of the Mill Site as a high priority project. The project must comply with the City’s Coastal General Plan in order to be certified by the Coastal Commission. This may require modification of one or more policies of the Coastal General Plan prior to submittal of an LCP amendment. IMPLEMENTATION/TIMEFRAMES: There are a number of next steps for the Mill Site LCP amendment process, which will necessitate

Page 11

ongoing meetings and workshops to obtain additional input, collaboration and direction from the City Council, Planning Commission and the community in order to complete the task list included in the first part of this report.

LCP Amendment Task Status

Prepare a Land Use Plan (zoning map) for the LCP amendment. Drafted 10/2018

Prepare supporting maps, including: parcel lines, existing development, Completed 10/2018 wetlands, transportation and access constraints. Revise the Coastal General Plan to include relevant policies for the LCP 80% Complete amendment.

Revise the Coastal Land Use and Development Code to include 50% Complete relevant policies for the LCP amendment. Determine the “maximum buildout” scenario for the proposed Land Use Completed 10/2018 Plan based on development regulations (height limits, parking Will need to be revised if the requirements, floor area ratios, lot coverage, open space requirements Land Use Plan is revised and setbacks) for each zoning district.

Prepare a summary of current lower cost visitor serving facilities, Completed 9/2018 including: room inventory, revenue per available room, occupancy rates, etc.

Climate change study: sea level rise and bluff top vulnerability & impact Completed 11/2018 of Mill Site development on Climate Change. Tsunami study. Completed 2007 Visual Analysis of Land Use Plan and analysis of how the Citywide Completed 12/2018. Design Guidelines would be revised and implemented on site to reduce Will need to be revised if the visual impacts. Land Use Plan is revised.

Prepare an analysis of the City’s capacity to serve future development, Underway. Will need to be including: water, sewer, drainage, etc. revised if the Land Use Plan is revised.

Prepare a Fiscal Impacts Analysis of the fiscal impact (revenues and Spring 2019 expenses) on the City of the proposed buildout of the Mill Site. This analysis will explore total potential revenues and expenses related to the buildout of the Mill Site.

Page 12

Prepare a Feasibility Study for the Mill Site Buildout. This analysis will Spring 2019 explore the cost of development and anticipated revenues and determine in a general sense if development on the Mill Site is feasible.

Transportation study, including availability of parking to serve coastal Sumer of 2019 access and the effects of the project on the capacity of Highway 1 and Will be prepared once Land Highway 20 both within and outside of City Limits. Use plan is finalized and traffic volumes are up in the summer.

Botanical Analysis. Summer 2019 Prepare and submit the LCP Amendment application with all 4/2018 –6/2019 attachments and analysis.

Coastal Commission Review & Analysis of LCP Amendment. One year 6/2019 – 5/2020 statutory review period. Submission of “Friendly Modifications” by the Coastal Commission to 6/2020 the City of Fort Bragg. City consideration of “Friendly Modifications” and negotiations with 6/2020 –12/2020 Coastal Commission regarding modifications. Six month statutory review period. Adoption of LCP Amendment by Coastal Commission and City of Fort 1/2021 – 3/2021 Bragg. New regulations and policies become law and applicants can submit 4/2022 development project permit applications for review and consideration by the Planning Commission.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Safety Element of the Coastal General Plan 2. Mill Site Reuse Plan Sea Level Rise Analysis, 2018 3. Tsunami Analysis 4. Resolution of the Fort Bragg City Council

NOTIFICATION:

1. Georgia Pacific Site Plan Notify Me Subscriber List 2. Georgia Pacific Site Remediation Notify Me Subscriber List 3. Dave Massengill, Georgia Pacific Corporation 4. Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Tribal Chairman Mike Knight & THPO Tina Sutherland 5. Cristin Kenyon, California Coastal Commission

Page 13 7. SAFETY ELEMENT

A. Purpose

The Safety Element, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(g), deals with the protection of the community from unreasonable risks associated with the effects of earthquakes, landslides, slope instability, subsidence, other geologic hazards, flood, and fire. Maps identifying earthquake hazards, unstable soil hazards, landslide hazards, and flood zones are included in this element.

The geology, topography, soils, hydrology, and fire risk of Fort Bragg pose numerous constraints on future development. This element guides land use planning and policy decisions in order to achieve an acceptable level of public protection.

B. Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards

There are no active earthquake faults in the City. However, the San Andreas fault is located approximately 9 miles to the west, and the Mayacama fault is 22 miles to the east. Major earthquakes can occur on these faults. Seismic activities can cause major disruptions of the City's transportation and emergency services network. Should the Pudding Creek, Noyo River, and/or Hare Creek Bridges become unusable following a seismic event, people may not be able to evacuate, and emergency access would be blocked. Potential hazards associated with earthquakes include: rupture of the ground surface by displacement along faults, shaking of the ground caused by the passage of seismic waves through the earth, ground failure induced by shaking, such as landslides, liquefaction and subsidence of unstable ground, and tsunamis.

Non-seismic geologic hazards include the presence of unstable soils on steep slopes and expansive soils which, in the presence of moisture, will swell and shrink when returning to a dry condition. Map SF-1: Geologic Hazards identifies areas of potential landslides.

C. Flooding

Portions of the City have areas subject to potential flooding during severe storms. Because of the generally flat terrain in the Fort Bragg area, a 100-year storm could exceed the ability of the City's infrastructure to move runoff water from the City to outfalls into natural drainages and the ocean. This drainage overload may result in standing water in low areas. High tides and severe storms may also cause flooding in low-lying areas near creeks and drainages.

Map SF-2: Flood Hazards shows areas within the 100-year floodplain. Within floodplains established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), property owners may be required to obtain flood insurance as a condition of mortgage approval. The areas subject to flooding are shown on maps called the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that are prepared by FEMA. The City participates in the FEMA flood insurance program, which allows property owners to obtain subsidized insurance rates.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 1 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan

FEMA also requires the City to establish development standards for construction in the 100- year floodplain. Typically the standards developed by a city or county can range from limits on the intensity of development to requirements to raise the "habitable floor" of the structure to at least one foot above the 100-year flood peak elevation. Most of the City, over 99% of the land area, is situated above both the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains. The only areas in the Coastal Zone located within the 100 year flood plain are along the coastal bluffs and the Noyo River. The presence of riparian habitat and excessive slopes in these area prohibits development within the 100 year flood plain.

D. Fire Protection

In 1991, the City of Fort Bragg and the Fort Bragg Rural Fire District entered into an agreement creating the Fort Bragg Fire Protection Authority. The Authority has primary fire protection responsibility within the City limits and/or developed lands within the District (the District includes all of the City's Sphere of Influence). In addition to normal fire calls, the Fort Bragg Fire Protection Authority has increasingly been called to assist with accidents, hazardous material spills, medical calls, and to provide personnel and equipment for large wildfires outside of the area. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) has responsibility for wildland fires within the Planning Area. The Draft EIR presents a complete description of staffing, response time, calls for assistance, and other factors related to the Fire Protection Authority. The primary constraints or issues involving the Fire Protection Authority concern adequate staffing, adequate equipment, and adequate fireflow to structures.

E. Police Protection

Within the City, the Fort Bragg Police Department has primary responsibility for police response. The constraint to providing adequate police response involves the need to ensure that the City hires sufficient staff to meet the response needs of both the existing and future population.

F. Emergency Preparedness

California State Law requires that all cities and counties adopt an Emergency Plan. The purpose of this plan is to outline policies and procedures with respect to significant events

7 – Safety Element 7 - 2 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan occurring within or threatening the community which would require the deployment of extraordinary resources for the protection of life and property.

The City has an adopted Emergency Operations Plan. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that the City will be prepared to respond effectively in the event of emergencies to save lives, restore and protect property, repair and restore essential public services, and provide for the storage and distribution of medical, food, water, shelter sites, and other vital supplies to maintain the continuity of government.

The Mendocino Emergency Services Authority (MESA), a joint powers organization that includes the County of Mendocino and the incorporated cities within the county, serves as the coordinating agency for mutual aid services provided by fire departments, law enforcement agencies, and emergency medical service providers throughout the county. In addition, MESA reviews and makes recommendations regarding emergency operation plans for public and private institutions where pre-planning for emergency procedures is advisable. Coordination of emergency services and planning guidelines is provided for situations including flood, wildland fires, structure fires, explosions, hazardous material spills, severe weather, and earthquakes.

G. Other Hazards

1. Sea Level Rise

Fort Bragg is relatively protected from Sea Level Rise due to its location on a 40 to 70 foot high coastal bluff. Based on current science in a High Emissions Analysis, the most likely range of sea level rise is between 2.3 feet and 5.4 feet by 2150. There is about a 5% probability that SLR could reach 7.3 feet and a 0.5% chance of sea level rise exceeding 12.6 feet by 2150. If high emissions result in the extreme H++ scenario (Sweet et al 2007), which is extremely unlikely and assumes a very rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, sea level rise by 2150 could be as high as 21.5 feet. Sea level rise on five foot or higher would impact local beaches and built portions of Noyo Harbor, which is located out of the City but is important to our culture and economy. Higher levels of sea level rise could impact the City’s water intake on the Noyo River and the lowland area of the Mill Site as illustrated in Map SF-4.

2. Hazardous Materials

Various types of chemicals and other potentially hazardous materials are used by Fort Bragg industries and businesses. Other hazardous substances are transported to and through Fort Bragg. Finally, residents use various hazardous materials for landscaping, cleaning, and other residential uses. Improper transport, storage, or use of these substances can result in releases to the environment with consequent impacts on human health and the environment.

The Mill Site will be remediated per the regulations of the California Department of Toxics and Substances Control. DTSC’s oversight of the Georgia-Pacific Mill Site cleanup began in 2006, with cleanup efforts initially focused on the removal of contaminated soil and fly ash. In 2007, fuel pipelines and soil contaminated with petroleum from OU-E were removed, as was the pile of fly ash located near the South Ponds (Ponds 1-4). In 2009, 14,000 cubic yards of soil [contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, and dioxin] were removed from OU-A, prior to the development of Noyo Headlands Park and Coastal Trail. In 2008 and 2009, over 1,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with lead and PCBs were removed from OUs C

7 – Safety Element 7 - 3 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan and E. This work included bioremediation (using microbes for cleanup) of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with petroleum. This cleanup achieved residential cleanup goals. As of 2018, 97% of the site was fully remediated to a residential standard. Nevertheless, compliance with DTSC’s soil management plan is required for some areas of the site as illustrated in Map SF-5.

The Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority operates a hazmobile that serves the City. The Fire Protection Authority maintains a hazardous materials unit behind the main fire station. This unit is used to respond to hazardous waste spills.

3. Electromagnetic Radiation

The potentially adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from electrical transmission lines, substations, and appliances have been documented in many studies. It is not known what levels of exposure to EMFs are safe, however most sources indicate that an EMF exposure level of less than 1mG is preferred. The approach taken to this potential health hazard is one of prudent avoidance – establishing reasonable regulation before electrical transmission lines are built and discouraging sensitive development from encroaching in or near electrical transmission line rights-of-way.

3. Air Quality

Emissions of pollutants from motor vehicles, industrial uses, and other sources can be injurious to people's health. Policies and programs to protect the City's air quality are included in the Conservation, Open Space, and Parks Element.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 4 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan H. Goals, Policies, and Programs

The following policies demarcated with the Fort Bragg City seal: are not part of the certified LCP and do not govern the review and approval of coastal development permits: Policy SF-4.2, Policy SF-5.3, Policy SF-5.4, Policy SF-6.1, Policy SF-6.2, Policy SF-7.1, Policy SF-7.2, Policy SF-9.1, and Policy SF-9.2.

Goal SF-1 Reduce and minimize impacts of development on blufftops and shoreline features.

Policy SF-1.1 Minimize Hazards: New development shall: (a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard; and (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

Policy SF-1.2: All ocean-front and blufftop development shall be sized, sited and designed to minimize risk from wave run-up, flooding, and beach and bluff erosion hazards, and avoid the need for a shoreline protective structure at any time during the life of the development.

Policy SF-1.3: Geotechnical report required. Applications for development located in or near an area subject to geologic hazards, including but not limited to areas of geologic hazard shown on Map SF-1, shall be required to submit a geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies all potential geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, all necessary mitigation measures, and demonstrates that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Such study shall be conducted by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) or Geotechnical Engineer (GE) and shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of Section 18.54.040(C) of the Coastal Land Use and Development Code. Refer to Map SF-1: Geologic Hazards. Refer to the General Plan Glossary for definitions of these terms.

Policy SF-1.4: Blufftop Setback. All development located on a blufftop shall be setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will be stable for a projected 100-year economic life. Stability shall be defined as maintaining a minimum factor of safety against sliding of 1.5 (static) or 1.1 (pseudostatic), as described in Section 18.54.040(F) of the Coastal Land Use and Development Code. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and accessory or ancillary structures. Slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates shall be performed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.

Policy SF-1.5: Siting and design of new blufftop development and shoreline protective devices shall take into account anticipated future changes in sea level. In particular, an acceleration of the historic rate of sea level rise shall be considered. Development shall be set back a sufficient distance landward and elevated to a sufficient foundation height to eliminate or minimize to the maximum extent feasible hazards associated with anticipated sea level rise over the expected 100-year economic life of the structure.

Policy SF-1.6: Land divisions, including subdivisions, lot splits, lot line adjustments, and conditional certificates of compliance which create new shoreline or blufftop lots, shall not be permitted unless the subdivision can be shown to create lots which can be developed without

7 – Safety Element 7 - 5 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan requiring a current or future bluff or shoreline protection structure. No new lots shall be created that could require shoreline protection or bluff stabilization structures at any time.

Policy SF-1.7 Alterations to Landforms: Minimize, to the maximum feasible extent, alterations to cliffs, bluff tops, faces or bases, and other natural land forms in the Coastal Zone. Permit

7 – Safety Element 7 - 6 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan alteration in landforms only if erosion/runoff is controlled and either there exists no other feasible environmentally superior alternative or where such alterations re-establish natural landforms and drainage patterns that have been eliminated by previous development activities.

Program SF-1.7.1: Establish standards in the Coastal LUDC or Grading Ordinance for the alteration and grading of natural landforms taking into account site characteristics, the resulting habitat disturbance, drainage modification, or erosion and sedimentation resulting from vegetation removal.

Policy SF-1.8 Floodplain Development: Limit new development in floodplains in the Coastal Zone, including but not limited to those floodplain areas shown on Map SF-2, to those uses allowed in the Open Space land use designation consistent with all other applicable requirements of the LCP.

Policy SF-1.9 Bluff Face and Bluff Retreat Setback: Prohibit development on the bluff face and within the bluff retreat setback because of the fragility of this environment and the potential for resultant increase in bluff and beach erosion due to poorly-sited development except that the following uses may be allowed with a conditional use permit: (1) engineered accessways or staircases to beaches, boardwalks, viewing platforms, and trail alignments for public access purposes; (2) pipelines to serve coastal dependent industry; (3) habitat restoration; (4) hazardous materials remediation; and (5) landform alterations where such alterations re-establish natural landforms and drainage patterns that have been eliminated by previous development activities.

Findings shall be made that no feasible, less environmentally damaging, alternative is available and that feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize all adverse environmental impacts. Require as a part of the conditional use permit, a full environmental, geological, and engineering study as specified in Policy LC-6.1. Such structures shall be constructed and designed so as to neither create nor contribute to erosion of the bluff face and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy SF-1.10 Seawalls, Breakwaters and Other Shoreline Structures: Prohibit construction of seawalls, breakwaters, revetments, groins, harbor channels, retaining walls, and other structures altering the natural shoreline processes unless a finding is made that such structures are required: (1) to serve coastal-dependent uses; or (2) to protect public beaches in danger from erosion; or (3) to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act; or (4) that were legally permitted prior to the effective date of this Coastal General Plan provided that the CDP did not contain a waiver of the right to a future shoreline or bluff protection structure; or (5) for a development consistent with Section 30233(a) of the Coastal Act and only when it can be demonstrated that said existing structures are at risk from identified hazards if no feasible or less environmentally damaging alternative is available and the structure has been designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental impacts, including impacts upon local shoreline sand supply. The design and construction of allowed protective structures shall respect natural landforms and provide for lateral beach access.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 7 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan “Existing structures” for purposes of Policy LC-6.5 shall consist only of a principle structure, e.g. residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit, and shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks, patios, stairs, landscaping, etc.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 8 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Goal SF-2 Reduce seismic and geologic-related hazards.

Policy SF-2.1 Seismic Hazards: New development shall minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic hazards. Development shall assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding areas or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Development shall proceed only if the All development shall employ earthquake resistant construction and engineering practices.

Program SF-2.1.1: Continue to comply with the provisions of the State Alquist-Priolo Act.

Program SF-2.1.2: Require measures to mitigate potential seismic hazards for structures as conditions of project approval.

Program SF-2.1.3: Monitor and review existing critical, high priority buildings to ensure structural compliance with seismic safety standards.

Program SF-2.1.4: Provide information to the public on ways to reinforce buildings to reduce damage from earthquakes and what to do in the event of an earthquake.

Program SF-2.1.5: Provide information to educate the public about the availability and the benefits of obtaining earthquake insurance.

Program SF-2.1.6: Encourage residents to consider earthquake insurance for their homes and businesses.

Program SF-2.1.7: Continue to comply with State law regarding reinforcement of unreinforced masonry structures.

Policy SF-2.2: Require professional inspection of foundations and excavations, earthwork, and other geotechnical aspects of site development during construction on those sites specified in soils, geologic, and geotechnical studies as being prone to moderate or high levels of seismic hazard.

Policy SF-2.3: Development on Slopes: Require that development in areas with identified slope stability constraints as shown on Map SF-1 or other areas where City staff determines there is potential slope stability issues be supervised and certified by a geologist, geotechnical engineer, or engineering geologist.

Program SF-2.3.1: Require repair, stabilization, or avoidance of active or potentially active landslides, areas of soil creep, or areas with possible debris flow as a condition of project approval.

Program SF-2.3.2: Require a site specific geologic and soil studies for all development proposed on an existing slope greater than 2:1 or on artificial fill.

Policy SF-2.4 Tsunami: Minimize development in areas subject to tsunami.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 9 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Program SF-2.4.1: Utilize map SF-3 to identify areas within the City that are subject to tsunamis.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 10 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Policy SF-2.5: Review development proposals to ensure that new development is not in an area subject to tsunami damage and if such development is otherwise allowable that it is designed to withstand tsunami damage. Program SF-2.5.1: Review local- and distant-source tsunami inundation maps for Fort Bragg and adjacent coastal communities as they are developed to identify susceptible areas, plan evacuation routes or locations suitable for vertical evacuation and make evacuation plans available to all emergency responders and other appropriate parties. Program SF-2.5.2: Periodically update the tsunami inundation zone map (Map SF-3) for land use planning. Maps should identify generalized tsunami inundation zones on a probabilistic basis (e.g., 100-year event).

Program SF-2.5.3: Review and update tsunami preparation response policies/practices to reflect current inundation maps and design standards, and submit these updated policies to the Coastal Commission for certification.

Program SF-2.6.1: Develop a local response plan and/or participate in any regional effort to develop and implement workable response plans for distribution of information on tsunami alerts, watches, and warnings, to appropriate emergency responders and City personnel.

Program SF-2.6.2: Include tsunami evacuation route information as part of any overall evacuation route sign program implemented in the City. Evacuation routes shall be clearly posted. An evacuation route traffic monitoring system that provides real-time information on the traffic flow at critical roadways should be considered.

Program SF-2.6.3: Develop and implement a tsunami educational program for residents, visitors, and people who work in the susceptible areas.

Policy SF-2.8: Require that overnight visitor-serving facilities that are located in susceptible areas provide tsunami information and evacuation plans. Goal SF-3 Reduce the risks from flooding.

Policy SF-3.1 Flood Hazards: Ensure adequate standards for development in the 100-year floodplain. (Refer to Map SF-2: Flood Hazards which shows areas prone to flooding.)

Program SF-3.1.1: Maintain and update as necessary the zoning and building code standards and restrictions for development in identified floodplains and areas subject

7 – Safety Element 7 - 11 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan to inundation by a 100-year flood. Use the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) in the review of development proposals.

Program SF-3.1.2: Ensure all development in flood prone areas meet Federal, State, and local requirements.

Policy SF-3.2 Storm Drainage: Continue to maintain effective flood drainage systems and regulate construction to minimize flood hazards.

Program SF-3.2.1: Continue to update the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan.

Policy SF- 3.3: Require development to pay for the costs of drainage facilities needed to drain project-generated runoff and to dedicate any drainage facilities within the City’s right of way to the City of Fort Bragg.

Program 3.3.1 Update and utilize the City’s Drainage Development Impact Fees to ensure that development pays for its proportional share of drainage facilities

Policy SF- 3.4: Require, as determined by City staff, analysis of the cumulative effects of development upon runoff, discharge into natural watercourses, and increased volumes and velocities in watercourses and their impacts on downstream properties. Include clear and comprehensive mitigation measures as part of project approvals to ensure that new development does not cause downstream flooding of other properties.

Policy SF-3.5: Require, where necessary, the construction of siltation/detention basins to be incorporated into the design of development projects.

Goal SF-4 Ensure emergency preparedness.

Policy SF-4.1 Coordinate with County: Continue coordination with the Mendocino County Emergency Services Authority.

Policy SF-4.2 Maintain an Updated Emergency Plan: Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan as needed to take into account the requirements of the California Emergency Management Systems (SEMS).

Program SF-4.2.1: Establish an emergency evacuation route system that includes standards for street identification, street widths, and grade standards for the evacuation route system.

Goal SF-5 Prepare for Sea Level Rise

7 – Safety Element 7 - 12 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Program SF 5.1.1: Water Supply Resilience. When considering upgrades to the Noyo River fresh water intake and/or pumping station, consider the cost benefit analysis of the project location given predictions of future sea level rise. Consider and explore fresh water pumping locations further up the river, if the combination of sea level rise and low flows on the Noyo will result in a compromised water supply within the life expectancy of the proposed improvement.

Policy SLR 5.2 - Planning for Noyo Harbor Sea Level Rise Resilience. Work with the County of Mendocino to improve harbor resilience to Sea Level Rise and discourage long term investment after 2100 in areas vulnerable to impacts. Program 5.2.1: Explore the feasibility of establishing an alternative access road to the North Harbor; and Program 5.2.2: After the year 2100, consider establishing a moratorium on new water and sewer connections in the North Harbor to discourage future development; and Program 5.2.3: Consider rezoning portions of the Urban Reserve on the Mill Site with “Ocean Dependent” zoning, to provide an upland area suitable for harbor activities such as fish processing, boat building, etc. Program 5.2.4: On a regular basis, work with Mendocino County and resource agencies to establish collaborative approaches to develop adaptive strategies to address the effects of Sea Level Rise in the Noyo Harbor.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 13 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan

7 – Safety Element 7 - 14 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Goal SF-6 Reduce fire hazards.

Policy SF-6.1 Minimize Fire Risk in New Development: Review all development proposals for fire risk and require mitigation measures to reduce the probability of fire.

Program SF-6.1.1: Continue to consult the Fort Bragg Fire Protection Authority in the review of development proposals to identify the projected demand for fire protection services and implement measures to maintain adequate fire protection services. Mitigation measures may include levying fire protection impact fees for capital facilities, if warranted.

Policy SF-6.2 Maintain a High Level of Fire Protection: Work with the Fire Protection Authority to ensure a continued high level of fire protection.

Program SF6.2.1: Increase water main sizes or loop existing water mains where necessary to provide adequate flows for fire protection. The standard for water flow for fire protection purposes in commercial uses should be a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours with 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure.

Program SF-6.2.2: Develop a plan to provide sprinklers for commercial structures in the Central Business District. The plan shall include consideration of City funding to construct risers for this area.

Program SF-6.2.3: Work with the Fort Bragg Fire Protection Authority to establish a regular schedule for periodic inspections of commercial and industrial premises by the Fire Prevention Officer.

Policy SF-6.3 Mutual Aid Agreements: Continue to maintain mutual aid agreements.

Program SF-6.3.1: Coordinate equipment use and purchase and inter-agency communications.

Program SF-6.3.2: Continue to coordinate with the Incident Command System (ICS) of Mendocino County.

Policy SF-6.4 Fire Protection Authority Needs: Anticipate the needs of the Fort Bragg Fire Protection Authority.

Program SF-6.4.1: Work with the Fort Bragg Fire Protection Authority to review its long-term fire plan on an annual basis to identify needed capital equipment and staff.

Program SF-6.4.2: If warranted, mitigation measures mays be required that may include the levying of fire impact fees for capital facilities, equipment, and dedication of land for new facilities.

Policy SF-6.5 Vegetation Management: Continue to implement an effective and environmentally sound vegetation management and weed abatement program.

Program SF-6.5.1: Require a landscaping zone system for defensible space around buildings in high fire risk areas.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 15 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan

Program SF-6.5.2: Continue to require weed abatement to reduce the risk of fire. Use mechanical rather than chemical methods wherever possible.

Goal SF-6 Maintain effective police services.

Policy SF-6.1 Demand for Police Services: Review development proposals for their demand for police services and implement measures to maintain adequate police services.

Program SF-6.1.1: Consider the impacts on the level of police services of large development proposals in the environmental review and planning process.1

Program SF-6.1.2: If warranted, mitigation measures be required that may include the levying of police impact fees for capital facilities, equipment, and dedication of land for new facilities.

Policy SF-6.2 Shared Resources: Utilize shared resources to improve police response.

Program SF-5.2.1: Periodically review shared use of resources such as communication facilities and joint use of personnel where feasible with the County Sheriff’s Department.

Goal SF-7 Maintain an effective medical emergency response system.

Policy SF-7.1 Emergency Medical Response: Ensure that the Fire Protection Authority and the Mendocino Coast District Hospital continue to maintain a high level of emergency medical response.

Program SF-7.1.1: Periodically review the emergency medical response system.

Policy SF-7.2 Support Maintenance of Mendocino Coast District Hospital’s Emergency Facilities: Continue to encourage the Mendocino Coast District Hospital to maintain its emergency department and acute care facilities.

Program SF-7.2.1: Maintain ongoing communication with Mendocino Coast District Hospital to identify actions the City can implement to support the Hospital’s Emergency Department.

Goal SF-8 Comply with Soil Management Plan and Land Use Controls required by DTSC for the reuse of the Mill Site.

Policy SF-8.1 Mill Site Deed Restrictions. Georgia-Pacific shall establish a deed restriction prohibiting the domestic use of groundwater for the entire Mill Site.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 16 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Policy SF-8.2 Mill Site Soil Management Plan. All development projects shall comply with the Mill Site Soil Management Plan (SMP) as prepared by DTSC. The SMP provides the basis for the following: 1. Identifies potential hazards related to geologic and soils conditions; 2. Identifies areas with potential soil issues and identifies specific land use restrictions, and associated measures and procedures to follow within these areas during ground disturbing activities if unknown contaminants are uncovered during excavation and construction, 3. Maps all land use covenants (LUCs) within the Mill Site and identifies development restrictions

7 – Safety Element 7 - 17 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan

Map SF-5 – Illustration of Operable Units, Remediation Achieved, and Properties that are subject to Land Use Controls

7 – Safety Element 7 - 18 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan

Goal SF-8 Reduce hazards of transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes.

Policy SF-8.1 Protection from Hazardous Waste and Materials: Provide measures to protect the public health from the hazards associated with the transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes (TSD Facilities).

Program SF-8.1.1: Continue to ensure that use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials are in accordance with the local, State, and Federal safety standards.

Implementation of this program is the responsibility of the Fire Protection Authority.

Program SF-8.1.2: Continue to support and participate in Mendocino County’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan which requires all businesses using hazardous materials to list the types, quantities, and locations of hazardous materials with the County’s Department of Environmental Health.

Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code requires businesses with more than 50 gallons, 500 pounds or 200 cubic feet of hazardous materials to maintain a current Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The law provides for the collection of fees to fund the program.

Program SF-8.1.3: Require, as a condition of City approvals of non-residential projects, that the Fire Protection Authority be notified of all hazardous substances that are transported, stored, treated, or could be released accidentally into the environment.

Program SF-8.1.4: Require that applications for discretionary development projects that will generate hazardous waste or utilize hazardous materials include detailed information on hazardous waste reduction, recycling, transportation, and storage, and prepare a plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.

Program SF-8.1.5: Revise the Coastal LUDC to require secondary containment facilities and a buffer zone adequate to protect public health and safety on properties with hazardous materials storage and/or processing activities.

Policy SF-7.2 Support Environmental Review of Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage and Disposal Facilities: Support a thorough environmental review for Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facilities, including waste to energy projects, proposed in the Fort Bragg area.

Program SF-8.2.1: Require that the environmental review of proposed Hazardous Waste TSD Facilities shall, at a minimum, contain the following analysis and information: a) A worst-case generic description, estimating the number, type, scale, scope, location, and operating characteristics of proposed TSD Facility(ies) based on the projected volumes and types of hazardous

7 – Safety Element 7 - 19 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan waste. Data from existing facilities regarding the probability of accidents, spills, and explosions should be documented and included; b) An assessment of risk resulting from the accidental release, fire, and explosion of hazardous waste. This assessment should take into account all phases of operation including transport, storage, and treatment. The assessment of risk should include the probability of occurrence and magnitude of impact; c) Quantify estimates of air emissions, by applying emissions rates of existing facilities to the future volumes of hazardous waste and identifying emissions for incinerator facilities under worst case circumstances; d) An assessment of non-incineration alternatives for hazardous waste treatment such as chemical dechlorination for the detoxification of PCBs, dioxins, solvents, and pesticides; photolysis; and biological treatment; and e) Review of the operating characteristics of proposed TSD Facilities, taking into account maintenance and operating procedures, emissions monitoring, and safety devices to assure the ongoing enforceability of the mitigating measures that are required.

Goal SF-9 Minimize community exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

Policy SF-9.1 Consider EMFs in Land Use Decisions: Consider information regarding EMF radiation from existing and new electrical transmission lines and substations in making land use decisions.

Program SF-9.1.1: Request that PG&E or other electrical energy distributors provide information on renovation to existing and proposed new electrical transmission lines and substations. Request that information on the EMF radiation levels for proposed new facilities be provided.

Program SF-9.1.2: Request that PG&E or any other electrical energy distributor provide a full and public disclosure of existing electrical transmission lines and existing and proposed facilities with their anticipated EMF levels within the Fort Bragg Planning Area.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 20 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Program SF-9.1.3: Require that all new electrical transmission projects and facilities have an EMF mitigation plan as part of the project’s environmental review.

Policy SF-9.2 Siting of Schools and Other Sensitive Uses: Minimize and reduce EMF radiation levels near sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, and playgrounds.

Program SF-9.2.1: Work with the School District to continue enforcement of California State Board of Education regulations requiring that new schools be sited at least 100 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of 100-110 kV lines; 150 feet from 220-230 kV lines; and 250 feet away from 345 kV lines.

7 – Safety Element 7 - 21 Revision: Dec 2018 Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

MILL SITE REUSE LCP AMENDMENT

SEA LEVEL RISE REPORT 2018

Marie Jones, Community Development Director

1 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose ...... 3 2. Methodology ...... 4 3. Sea Level Rise Analysis ...... 7 STEP 1: Identify the Nearest Tide Gauge ...... 7 STEP 2: Evaluate project lifespan...... 8 STEP 3: For the nearest tide gauge and project lifespan, identify range of sea-level rise projections...... 8 STEP 4: Evaluate potential impacts and adaptive capacity...... 10 NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer Analysis: High Emmission and 5% scenarios ...... 10 Fort Bragg Extreme Sea Level Rise Analysis (H++) ...... 17 Vulnerability Analysis ...... 20 Episodic Events ...... 21 STEP 5: adapation pathways to increase resiliency to sea-level rise...... 23 4. Policy Recommendations ...... 23

2 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

1. PURPOSE

The City of Fort Bragg is updating its Local Coastal Program, a set of planning documents (Coastal General Plan, Coastal Zoning Ordinance and Coastal Zoning Map) that regulates development in the City’s Coastal Zone and establishes a long-range vision for the community. The California Coastal Act, passed in 1976, provides for coastal jurisdictions to adopt a Local Coastal Program (LCP) to ensure local implementation of Coastal Act priorities. The City adopted its current LCP in 2008 and is currently preparing a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Amendment to rezone 425 acres of the City, known as the Mill Site and update LCP policies to comply with State law.

City staff performed this Vulnerability Assessment to identify future vulnerability of both the City of Fort Bragg and the Mill Site to projected sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion. The findings of this Assessment will enable Council and the Coastal Commission to develop and refine any adaptation policies for the LCP Amendment.

This coastal hazard analysis and vulnerability assessment is a planning-level assessment of the potential exposure Fort Bragg could face from sea level rise, flooding and erosion. The Vulnerability Assessment includes new LCP policies to improve community resilience and adaptation to Sea Level Rise. This assessment therefore relies on reasonable assumptions and engineering judgement to simplify the analysis where needed and utilizes available coastal hazard mapping products.

The purpose of this Vulnerability Assessment is to identify all potential assets at risk and understand where adaptation actions are needed, and provide adaptation policies to address these risks. For example, understanding the risk to the Pudding Creek Dam if the Dam were to fail due to sea level rise can make the case for adopting a policy in support of removing the dam (an adaptation alternative).

3 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

2. METHODOLOGY

Per the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance (2018), the following steps were undertaken to evaluate the sea level rise consequences and risk tolerance of the Mill Site Land Use Plan. This framework was used to: 1) guide selection of appropriate sea-level rise projections; 2) develop necessary adaptation policies to increase resiliency to sea-level rise and 3) develop contingency policies if projections are exceeded or reached prematurely.

STEP 1: Identify the nearest tide gauge.

STEP 2: Evaluate project lifespan.

STEP 3: For the nearest tide gauge and project lifespan, identify range of sea-level rise projections.

STEP 4: Evaluate potential impacts and adaptive capacity across a range of sea-level rise projections and emissions scenarios.

STEP 5: Select sea-level rise projections based on risk tolerance and, if necessary, develop adapation pathways that increase resiliency to sea-level rise and include contingency plans if projections are exceeded.

4 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

The Assessment uses the following mapping resources to develop scenario based sea level rise predictions.

NOAA SEA LEVEL RISE VIEWER – SEA LEVEL RISE IMPACTS The data and maps in NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer illustrate the scale of potential flooding, not the exact location, and do not account for erosion, subsidence, or future construction. Water levels are relative to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (excludes wind driven tides).1 The data, maps, and information provided should be used only as a screening-level tool for management decisions. As with all remotely sensed data, all features should be verified with a site visit. The data and maps in this tool are provided “as is,” without warranty to their performance, merchantable state, or fitness for any particular purpose. The entire risk associated with the results and performance of these data is assumed by the user. This tool should be used strictly as a planning reference tool and not for navigation, permitting, or other legal purposes.

SURGING SEAS RISK FINDER Surging Seas Risk Finder is a multi-part public web tool that provides local sea-level rise and flood risk projections, interactive maps, and exposure tabulations from zip codes and up. Projections integrate extreme flood statistics with dozens of sea-level rise models and scenarios to choose from. Maps are based on the same modified bathtub model used by NOAA’s Sea-Level Rise Viewer and consider static sea-level rise up to 10 feet above mean higher high water (MHHW). Maps illustrate which areas are or are not hydrologically connected to the ocean at each one-foot increment, and have layers for population, social vulnerability, property value, point features and more. Exposure assessments tabulate over 100 demographic, economic, infrastructure and environmental variables for every zip code and municipality, as well as planning, legislative and other districts. Additional features include heat maps showing wide-area exposure comparisons, and extensive data downloads including localized fact sheets, reports, and PowerPoint slides. Tutorial videos and step-by-step guides are also available

1 The Mean High Water (MHW) is the average of all the high water heights (each day) observed over a period of several years, in the United States this period spans 19 years and is referred to as the National Tidal Datum Epoch. See image below

5 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

FORT BRAGG GIS AND TOPOGRAPHY ANALYSIS – SEA LEVEL RISE IMPACTS This analysis includes a detailed analysis of the specific topography in Fort Bragg and the corresponding Sea Level Rise maps related to Fort Bragg. This analysis includes all Sea Level Rise scenarios for Fort Bragg and is the most site specific and accurate for Fort Bragg. Future Sea Level Rise was mapped across the Mill Site using current topography.

OUR COAST OUR FUTURE (OCOF) (PENDING COMPLETION 2019) Our Coast Our Future (Ballard et al. 2016) is a collaborative project that provides online maps and tools to help users understand, visualize and anticipate vulnerabilities to sea level rise (SLR) and storms. The project maps 40 different SLR and storm scenarios that were developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) using their Coastal Storm Modeling System1 (CoSMoS 2.0, North-central California (outer coast)). The hazard maps are hosted in an interactive web environment that includes layers for flooding extent, depth, duration, wave heights, current velocity, as well as various infrastructure and ecology layers. ESA used various OCOF hazard mapping products to evaluate existing and future coastal flooding hazards due to SLR (for regular tidal inundation) and storm flooding (considering a 100-year coastal event) for this Vulnerability Assessment. The modeling uses recent (2013) topography that includes existing features. This modeling will be completed for Northern California sometime in 2019 or 2020. If it comes available, staff will revise this analysis and include the findings from this model.

6 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

3. SEA LEVEL RISE ANALYSIS

Amounts of SLR were selected for the study planning horizons (2100 and 2150) following updated State guidance (CalNRA & OPC 2017). For any given year (planning horizon), State guidance recommends analyzing a range of SLR projections:

Because future projections of sea-level rise along California’s coastline are uncertain (due to uncertainty associated with modeling and the trajectory of global emissions), it is critical to consider a range of projections to understand the consequences of various decisions, determine the tolerance for risk associated with those decisions, and to inform adaptation strategies necessary to prepare for change in the face of uncertainty.

In general, decision makers may have a higher tolerance for risk (or lower risk aversion) when considering projects with a shorter lifespan, minimal consequences, flexibility to adapt, or low economic burden as a result of sea-level rise. However, for longer lasting projects with less adaptive capacity and medium to high consequences should sea-level rise be underestimated, we suggest that decision makers take the more precautionary, more risk averse approach of using the medium-high sea-level rise projections across the range of emissions scenarios. We further recommend incorporating the extreme scenario in planning and adaptation strategies for projects that could result in threats to public health and safety, natural resources and critical infrastructure.

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE NEAREST TIDE GAUGE

The nearest Tide Gauge is Arena Cove, CA, which was used for all sea level rise predictions in this report. See figure 1. Fort Bragg

7 | Page

Figure 1: Tidal Gauges, California Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

Table 1: Life Span Estimates for Assets Potentially STEP 2: EVALUATE PROJECT LIFESPAN. Impacted by Sea Level Rise Table 2 identifies project life expectancy for a Project Life range of assets that could be effected by sea 1 Expectancy level rise under various probabilistic projections. Sea Level Rise (ft) Build Assets -Outside of City Limits but within the City’s For the former Mill Site, the City anticipates that Municipal Services District (Noyo Harbor) Wood Buildings: Hotels, Restaurants, Retail, the buildout timeframe would be from 25 to 30 75+ years depending on market demand. Once Residential Rentals, Industrial facilities, etc. Concrete Buildings 30 constructed the structures would have a life Mobile home park 30 expectancy of 50 to 100 years (depending on Roads (local harbor) 50 Transmission lines (Harbor) 15 type of construction) The City has conservatively Water distribution pipelines (harbor) 50 calculated that the “project” lifespan is 130 years Sewer lines (harbor) 50 Built Assets - Inside City Limits or the year 2150 (30 years for buildout + 100 Ocean Lake Senior Housing -Manufactured Homes 50 years useful structural life). This is a conservative GP Mill Site 130 and very risk averse calculation of project WWTF 60 Madson Hole: raw water supply 30 lifespan. The Life Expectancy for the low land Sewer Lift Station at Pudding Creek 50 build assets on the Mill Site ) Beach Berm, Mill Storm drains 15 Pudding Creek dam 50 Pond Dam, hazardous materials sites is set for Hazardous material sites - Ponds 6, 7 & 8 150 150 years as this is the furthest in the future for Mill Pond Dam - upon seismic retrofit 150 150 which there are Sea Level Rise predictions. Fort Bragg Landing Beach Berm Natural Assets Pudding Creak Beach, Noyo Beach, Fort Bragg NA STEP 3: FOR THE NEAREST TIDE GAUGE Streams & Rivers – Pudding Creek, Noyo River NA AND PROJECT LIFESPAN, IDENTIFY RANGE Steelhead habitat NA Wetlands NA OF SEA-LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS. Access and Recreation Pudding Creak Beach, Glass Beach, Noyo Beach, NA Table 2 below illustrates the probabilistic sea Fort Bragg Landing Beach Noyo Headland Park (Coastal Trail), Pomo Bluffs level rise projects for Arena Cove California, 30 Park, MacKerricher Park which is the closest tide gauge to the City of Fort Pudding Creek Beach parking, Noyo Beach Parking 30 Highway bridges – Pudding Creek Bridge, Noyo Bragg. These data are from Kopp et al, 2014 and 100 Harbor Bride, Hare Creek Bridge Sweet et al (2007) per State of California Sea Highway 1 100 Level Rise Guidance (2018). Fishing area at jetty 50 Surfing areas NA There is substantial agreement between sea level models in the Sea Level Rise (SLR) projections through 2050. However, after 2050, the differences in the projections vary greatly across both emission scenarios and individual scientific assessments. Therefore, there is uncertainty associated with any SLR projections for the later half of this century and beyond. Thus, per the State Guidelines, when assessing longer-term risk after 2050, multiple sea level rise predictive models should be used for SLR or extreme SLR should also be considered (e.g., discrete, non-probabilistic scenarios), particularly if the timeframe is closer to 2100 or beyond. The H++ Scenario represents the most conservative discrete non-probabilistic scenario and assumes

8 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis a very rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet; in other words we know that the likely of this scenario coming to pass is extremely low (less than 0.5% likely) but we don’t know how low it is.

High Emissions Analysis. Based on Table 2, in the high emissions scenario, the most likely range of sea level rise is between 2.3 feet and 5.4 feet by 2150. Likewise there is about a 5% probability that SLR could reach 7.3 feet and a 0.5% chance of sea level rise exceeding 12.6 feet by 2150. If high emissions result in the extreme H++ scenario (Sweet et al 2007), which is extremely unlikely and assumes a very rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, sea level rise by 2150 could be as high as 21.5 feet.

Low Emissions Analysis. Based on the table above, in a low emissions Scenario Fort Bragg has a 50% probability of experiencing at least 1.9 feet of sea level rise by 2150. Furthermore the most likely range of sea level rise is between 0.9 feet and 2.3 feet by 2150. Likewise there is about a 5% probability that SLR could reach 5.1 feet and a 0.5% chance of sea level rise exceeding 10.7 feet by 2150. The H++ scenario is not possible in a low emissions scenario.

Table 2: Projected Sea Level Rise (in feet) for Arena Cove/Fort Bragg, CA

Probabilistic Projections (in feet) (based on Kopp et al. 2014)

Low Risk Medium - High Risk Extreme Risk Ave rsion Ave rsion Ave rsion 2030 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.7 1 2040 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 2050 0.7 0.5 1 1.2 1.8 2.6 2060 1 0.6 1.3 1.7 2.5 3.7 2080 1.5 1 2.2 2.8 4.3 6.4 2100 2.1 1.3 3.1 4.1 6.7 9.9

High emissions High 2120 2.6 1.8 3.8 5 8.2 13.9 2140 3.2 2.1 4.8 6.5 11.1 18.7 2150 3.6 2.3 5.4 7.3 12.6 21.5 2080 1 0.6 1.6 2.1 3.6 Not applicable as Arctic ice sheet 2100 1.3 0.7 2.1 3 5.4 melting is 2120 1.5 0.9 2.5 3.6 7.1 anticipated to 2140 1.8 0.9 3.1 4.6 9.4 happen in a high

Low emissions Low emmissions 2150 1.9 0.9 3.4 5.1 10.7

9 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

STEP 4: EVALUATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY.

NOAA SEA LEVEL RISE VIEWER ANALYSIS: HIGH EMMISSION AND 5% SCENARIOS The following maps and narrative evaluate the effects of sea level rise impacts on Fort Bragg and the Mill Site, across a range of sea level rise projections and emissions scenarios, as follows:

• Map 1: Illustrates current sea level conditions, Fort Bragg CA • Map 2: Illustrates the Likely Range of sea level rise by 2150 (5.4 feet) given the high emissions scenario, Fort Bragg CA • Map 3: Illustrates the 1 in 20 or 5% probability level of sea level rise by 2150 (7 feet) given the high emissions scenario, Fort Bragg CA

MAP 1: CURRENT SEA LEVEL CONDITIONS

As illustrated by the Current Sea Level map, the pudding creek wetlands and beach, located just below the Pudding Creek Dam, is the only area that is currently subject to flood conditions during high tides and storm surge. The Current Conditions Sea Level map also illustrates the existing tidal influences on the Noyo River, which results in salt water intrusion fairly high up the river. Although not generally as high as illustrated in the map because water flows from the Noyo Push the salt water out to sea.

10 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

MAP 2: HIGH EMISSIONS “LIKELY RANGE” SEA LEVEL RISE, 2150 (5.4 FEET OF SEA LEVEL RISE) Projection for decisions with low risk aversion: This map uses the upper value of the “likely range” for the 2150 project lifetime timeframe. This SLR estimate is fairly risk tolerant, as it represents an approximately 17% chance of being overtopped, and as such, provides an appropriate projection for adaptive, lower consequence decisions (e.g. unpaved coastal trail) but will not adequately address high impact, low probability events. Additionally, it is important to note that the probabilistic projections may underestimate the likelihood of extreme sea-level rise, particularly under high-emissions scenarios.

As illustrated in the Likely Range Sea Level Rise scenario for 2150 (Map 2), 5.4 feet of sea level rise will impact some low risk, low lying areas of Fort Bragg including: Noyo Beach, the beach at Fort Bragg Landing (aka Soldiers Bay beach), Pudding Creek Beach, the estuary below the Pudding Creek Dam and some wetland areas along the Noyo River.

The map also illustrates potential impacts of Sea Level Rise to three high risk areas including: 1) Increased flooding of the Ocean lake senior homes project located just north of Pudding Creek Bridge, with high tides and storm surge which according to surging seas data would directly impact five homes. 2) Flooding of the pudding creek dam and estuary, possibly causing dam failure. 3) Flooding of developed portions of Noyo Harbor, including the southern most portion of North Harbor. While located outside of City Limits the flooding of this area would have significant economic impacts

11 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

for Fort Bragg residents and businesses. Additionally the flooding would eliminate road access to the entirety of the North Harbor and make it very vulnerable to storm surge and high tides. For detailed images of these locations please see maps 2.1 and 2.2 below:

Map 2.1: Pudding Creek Senior Home Project and Pudding Creek Reservoir Areas of Sea Level Inundation (Light Blue), and Periodic Flooding (Light Green)

12 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

Map 2.2: Noyo Beach and Noyo Harbor areas of Sea Level Rise inundation (Light Blue)

13 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

MAP 3: 1 IN 20 (5% PROBABILITY) LEVEL OF SEA LEVEL RISE BY 2150 (7 FEET) GIVEN THE HIGH EMISSIONS SCENARIO Map 3 illustrates the 1-in-20 chance SLR projection of 7 feet for 2150. The likelihood that sea- level rise will meet or exceed this value is extremely low (5%), providing a precautionary projection that is recommended for less adaptive, more vulnerable projects or populations that will experience medium to high consequences as a result of underestimating sea-level rise. If this less likely scenario comes to pass, there would be additional and catastrophic sea inundation along the Noyo River resulting in: 1) permanent inundation of properties in both the north and south Noyo Harbor, 2) flooding in undeveloped lowland areas along the Noyo River; and 3) potential sea level rise impacts to the City’s water intake station (Matson Hole) on the Noyo River, possibly necessitation the relocation of the water intake station further up river.

Matson Hole

The inset map illustrates that the confidence level (yellow) for sea level rise into pudding creek is low.2

2 Data Confidence: The inundation areas depicted in the Sea Level Rise tab are not as precise as they may appear. There are many unknowns when mapping future conditions, including natural evolution of the coastal landforms (e.g., barrier island overwash and migration), as well as the data used to predict the changes. The presentation of confidence in these maps only represents the known error in the elevation data and tidal corrections. Blue areas denote a high confidence of inundation, orange areas denote a high degree of uncertainty, and unshaded areas denote a high confidence that these areas will be dry given the chosen water level. In this application 80% is considered a high degree of confidence such that, for example, the blue areas denote locations that may be correctly mapped as 'inundated' more than 8 out of 10 times. Areas with a high degree of uncertainty represent locations that may be mapped correctly (either as inundated or dry) less than 8 out of 10 times. 14 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

Map 3a and 3b below illustrate this same level of (7 feet) of sea level rise with the Surging Seas Risk Zone map, which illustrates the significant impact that this level of sea level rise would have on Fort Bragg’s Noyo Harbor. Specifically the map illustrates the inundation of many properties along North and South Harbor Drive within the Harbor. This level of sea level rise would result in the closure of docks, hotels, restaurants, and other facilities in the harbor, and therefore precautionary planning is recommended regarding approvals of new development after 2100, however this area is outside of the City’s jurisdiction.

Map 3a: 1 in 20 (5% probability) level of sea level rise by 2150 (7 feet) given the high emissions scenario.

15 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

Map 3b: illustrates that 7 feet of sea level rise will directly impact seven homes (per surging seas dataset) in Ocean Lake Senior Housing with isolated flooding (green) and would inundate the pudding creek reservoir with sea water (Blue).

16 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

FORT BRAGG EXTREME SEA LEVEL RISE ANALYSIS (H++) The following map and narrative evaluate the effects of sea level rise impacts on the Mill Site for the H++ extreme sea level rise scenario by 2150 (21.5 feet) which assumes Antarctic ice sheet loss. The probability of this outcome is undetermined, but deemed to be extremely low, however there is uncertainty in the rate of emissions reductions and the stability of some of the larger artic ice sheets, and this analysis is recommended by the Coastal Commission for SLR projections for decisions with extreme risk aversion.

This H++ Sea Level Rise Analysis is appropriate for high consequence projects with a design life beyond 2150 that have little to no adaptive capacity, would be irreversibly destroyed or significantly costly to relocate/repair, or would have considerable public health, public safety, or environmental impacts should this level of sea-level rise occur. Although estimating the likelihood of the H++ scenario is not possible at this time (due to advancing science and the uncertainty of future emissions trajectory), the extreme sea- level rise projection is physically plausible and provides an understanding of the implications of the worst case scenario. However the probability of H++ occurring is certainly much less than 0.5% chance of occurring.

The Mill Site is located on a coastal bluff top that ranges in height from 20 feet (at the rip rap wall) to 110 feet in height. The topography is generally lower on the coastal bluff, 30 to 60 feet, and higher inland 50 to 110 feet. The Mill Site includes a bay in the middle of the site with an inland “low land area” that is located behind a pre 1972 shore protection devise (beach berm) composed of earth and concrete rubble. The berm is 20 feet in height. As illustrated in Map 4, the H++ Scenario sea level rise in the 2150 timeframe has the potential to impact four unique areas of the Mill Site, including:

1. The Lowland Area, which includes the Mill Pond Dam, Beach Berm and Ponds 6 and 7. These features would be costly to repair and replace and if damaged could have an impact on public safety and environmental health, and thus are deserving of future analysis with regard to the H++ sea level rise scenario. 2. Glass Beach and other smaller beaches. These features are natural areas and SLR would impact public safety only in so far as they would not longer be beaches. 3. An upland portion of the Native American Preserve and a portion of the South Gulch (south of the runway). These areas are natural features and would result in public safety issues in so far as public access to these areas would be limited. The potential impacts of extreme sea level rise on each of these areas is illustrated in the map 4 below. Map 4 uses the H++ scenario for the 2150 timeframe to explore potential threats to these areas. As Illustrated extreme sea level rise, while very unlikely, has the potential to erode the beach berm and sediment located behind the beach berm. The subsequent introduction of wave action in this area may stress the dam and the north embankment of the Mill Pond. If H++ Sea Level Rise occurs, adaptive strategies (removal or strengthening) for the Mill Pond and the Beach Berm may be necessary.

Unfortunately the City does not have access to topology for the Noyo River or the Pudding Creek that shows 10 foot or lower topo interval lines and staff in unable to complete a similar map for the entire Fort Bragg area. However, it is clear that 21 feet of sea level rise would have greater impacts on many of the locations identified under the 7 foot sea level rise scenario. 17 | Page mill site togograhpy and sea level rise (21 feet)

Pond

Area of Sea Level Rise (21ft) Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

THE CHART BELOW ILLUSTRATES THE RISE IN SEA LEVEL UNDER THE H++ EVENT WITH LOSS OF THE ICE CHEETS IN ANTARTICA. This anlaysis comes from on Kopp et al. (2017): With Antarctic dynamics. Local sea level projections from Kopp et al. 2017 (Earth’s Future), which incorporates new Antarctic physics from DeConto and Pollard 2016 (Nature). Based on different Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) of heat-trapping pollution over time, and on different sensitivities of climate and sea level to pollution. The chart is from Climate Central which has combined sea level projections with local data to make local flood risk projections.

A review of the chart reviels that the extreme H++ scenario could result in sea level rise of 40 feet by the year 2200, which would impact the northern side of the Mill Site, as some area are located between 35 and 45 feet in elevation.

19 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS Table 3, below, illustrates the vulnerability of various physical assets given different sea level rise scenarios. Green squares indicate that the asset will not be affected by sea level rise within the timeframe specified in the column. Yellow squares indicate that the asset has an increased risk of episodic flooding due to SLR combined with storm surge and or kind tides. Red squares indicate that the asset could be inundated within the timeframe specified given the probability that the scenario occurs. The “X” indicates the likely life expectancy of the asset.

Table 3: Sea Level Rise Valnerability: Proect Life Expectancy, Sea Level Rise Timing Under Different Scenarios & Probabilities High Emmissions SLR Scenario H++ 1:20 0.5% Likely Range (83% chance) Scenario Project Life Chance Chance 1 Expectancy 2050 2100 2150 2150 2150 2150 Sea Level Rise (ft) 1 3.1 5.4 7.3 12.6 21.5 Build Assets -Outside of City Limits but within the City’s Municipal Services District (Noyo Harbor) Wood Buildings: Hotels, Restaurants, Retail, 75+ Residential Rentals, Industrial facilities, etc. X Concrete Buildings 30 X Mobile home park 30 X Roads (local harbor) 50 X Transmission lines (Harbor) 15 X Water distribution pipelines (harbor) 50 X Sewer lines (harbor) 50 X Built Assets - Inside City Limits Ocean Lake Senior Housing -Manufactured Homes 50 X GP Mill Site 150 X X X X WWTF 60 X Sewer Lift Station at Pudding Creek 50 X Storm drains 15 X Pudding Creek dam 50 X Hazardous material sites - Ponds 6, 7 & 8 150+ X X X X Mill Pond Dam - upon seismic retrofit 150 X X X X Fort Bragg Landing Beach Berm 150 X X X X Natural Assets Pudding Creak Beach, Noyo Beach, Fort Bragg NA Streams & Rivers – Pudding Creek, Noyo River NA Steelhead habitat NA Wetlands NA Access and Recreation Pudding Creak Beach, Glass Beach, Noyo Beach, NA Fort Bragg Landing Beach Noyo Headland Park (Coastal Trail), Pomo Bluffs 30 Park, MacKerricher Park X Pudding Creek Beach parking, Noyo Beach Parking 30 X Highway bridges – Pudding Creek Bridge, Noyo 100 Harbor Bride, Hare Creek Bridge X Highway 1 100 X Fishing area at jetty 50 X Surfing areas NA 1, Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings , Jennifer O’Connor Forintek Canada Corp. 2004

20 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

As illustrated in Table 3, much of the Noyo Harbor may begin to be affected by Sea level Rise in 2100, with significant permanent flooding by 2150, if CO2 emissions are not curbed (83% probability model). While the Noyo Harbor is located outside of City Limits, the North Harbor is served by City water and sewer and is an important economic and jobs driver for our community.

In the 1 in 200 scenario (12.6 feet of sea level rise) the beach berm would start to be impacted by sea level rise, especially during surging storms and king tides.

EPISODIC EVENTS Episodic events, such as king tides, storm surge, El Niños may cause acute increases in sea level heights for short periods of time. It is difficult to predict and map the cumulative impact of these short episodic events, but they will result in increased episodic flooding in low lying areas in and around Fort Bragg, including: Pudding Beach, Pudding Creek & Dam, Fort Bragg Landing (on the Mill Site), Noyo Beach and the Noyo Harbor and River.

King Tides. King tide" is a colloquial term for an especially high spring tide, such as a perigean spring tide. "King tide" is not a scientific term, nor is it used in a scientific context. The king tides occur when the Earth, Moon and Sun are aligned at perigee and perihelion, resulting in the largest tidal range seen over the course of a year. So, tides are enhanced when the Earth is closest to the Sun in January. In January 2019, the King Tide will be able 7.1 feet in Fort Bragg. The King Tide (occurring predictably each year) can exacerbate sea level rise episodically, however it is only a couple of inches over the Mean Higher High Water, which is the base water level for all sea level rise analyses in this report.

El Niños and Storm Surge. An accurate maps of interaction of storms, El Ninos and storm surge with SLR, the City will become available with OUR COAST OUR FUTURE (OCOF) SLR maps for the Northern Coast of California are completed in late 2019. In the meantime, staff has utilized Sea Level Rise Viewer to illustrate where flooding may be exacerbated prior to 2050. Sea level rise will make flooding more frequently and last for longer durations of time in low elevation areas that are influenced by the sea level. Increased flooding will likely occur at Pudding Creek Beach and the base of the pudding creak dam, possibly at the Noyo Beach parking lot and portions of North Noyo Harbor, as illustrated in the map.

21 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

Erosion. Large sections of the Pacific coast, especially those with rocky headlands or sea cliffs, are not vulnerable to flooding, but are highly susceptible to erosion. In areas where the coast erodes easily, higher sea levels are likely to accelerate shoreline erosion due to increased wave attack. The Fort Bragg Headlands are fairly resistant to erosion from wave action and sea level rise, due to their rocky base. A geotechnical study completed for the Mill Site in 2009, determined that bluff erosion has occurred at an average rate of about 1 to 2 inches per year over the past 95 years. The report also found that most of the upper bluff erosion that has taken place was due to runoff from the many hard surfaces of the site. Thus the removal of asphalt and other impervious surfaces along the bluff edge and replacement with the coastal trail and a system of berms and swales has virtually illuminated bluff erosion on the Mill Site.

However the erosion of dams such as the Pudding Creek Dam and the Beach Berm may expose previously protected areas to sea water flooding and further erosion.

Please see appendix 1 to review detailed photos of the Mill Site illustrating the unlikely H++ scenario and corresponding areas vulnerable to sea level rise related erosion. As previously noted most of the Mill Site is located on bluff tops which range from 40 feet to 60 feet in elevation. Impacts of H++ scenario are limited to the beach berm and the Noyo Beach dredge spoils site.

22 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

STEP 5: ADAPATION PATHWAYS TO INCREASE RESILIENCY TO SEA-LEVEL RISE

The State of California Sea Level Guidance provides eight Sea level Rise planning and adaptation recommendations as follows:

1. Adaptation planning and strategies should prioritize social equity, environmental justice and the needs of vulnerable communities. 2. Adaptation strategies should prioritize protection of coastal habitats and public access. 3. Adaptation strategies should consider the unique characteristics, constraints and values of existing water-dependent infrastructure, ports and Public Trust uses. 4. Consider episodic increases in sea-level rise caused by storms and other extreme events. 5. Coordinate and collaborate with local, state and federal agencies when selecting sea-level rise projections; where feasible, use consistent sea-level rise projections across multi-agency planning and regulatory decisions. 6. Consider local conditions to inform decision making. 7. Include adaptive capacity in design and planning. 8. Assessment of risk and adaptation planning should be conducted at community and regional levels, when possible. Staff recommends the following adaptation strategies to address these recommendations and the assets at risk in Fort Bragg from Sea Level Rise.

4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy SLR 1.1 - Planning for Noyo Harbor SLR Resilience. Work with the County of Mendocino to improve harbor resilience to Sea Level Rise and discourage long term investment after 2100, through the following activities: 1. Analysis the feasibility of establishing an alternative access road to the North Harbor; and 2. After the year 2100 consider a moratorium on new water and sewer connections in the North Harbor to discourage future development; and 3. Consider rezoning portions of the Urban Reserve on the Mill Site with “Ocean Dependent” zoning, to provide an upland area suitable for harbor activities such as fish processing, boat building, etc.

Policy SLR 1.1 – Collaborations for Noyo Harbor for SLR Resilience. On a regular basis, work with Mendocino County and resource agencies to establish collaborative approaches to develop adaptive strategies to address the effects of Sea Level Rise in the Noyo Harbor.

Policy SLR 2.1 – Water Supply SLR Resilience. When considering upgrades to the Noyo River fresh water intake and/or pumping station, consider the cost benefit analysis of the project location given predictions of future sea level rise. Consider and explore fresh water pumping locations further up the river, if the combination of sea level rise and low flows on the Noyo will result in a compromised water supply within the life expectancy of the proposed improvement.

23 | Page

Fort Bragg Sea Level Rise Analysis

Policy SLR 3.1 – Mill Site Lowland Area Project Review for SLR. Consider the effects of long term SLR (150 year time horizon) and project life expectancy for all projects located within the Lowland Area of the Mill Site, including projects related to creek daylighting, mill pond dam removal or stabilization, beach berm stabilization or removal, trail access, infrastructure improvements, etc.

Policy SLR 4.1 – Ocean Lake Senior Housing Resilience. Consider the effects of sea level rise and the risks associated with periodic flooding of Ocean Lake when considering proposals for new development at this location.

24 | Page

M E M O R A N D U M Date: July 17, 2010 To: City of Fort Bragg CC: Darcey Rosenblatt and Lesley Lowe, ESA From: Lindsey Sheehan, David Revell, PhD. and Bob Battalio, P.E. PWA Project #: 2030.00 Subject: Tsunami Assessment for the City of Fort Bragg, CA

Introduction This technical memo provides an initial assessment of the potential impacts of tsunamis for the City of Fort Bragg in Mendocino County. The purpose of this assessment is to review recent research on tsunamis, examine historic impacts from tsunamis for this stretch of California coast, and to identify risks to the City of Fort Bragg. As part of this initial assessment, we make some recommendations for some additional studies and preparedness that could be conducted to further reduce risk and improve the understanding of tsunami hazards.

Background The word tsunami comes from two Japanese words: tsu which means harbor, and nami which means wave. Tsunamis (inappropriately referred to as “tidal waves”) are a series of potentially large waves which are caused by catastrophic events including: earthquakes, underwater landslides, volcanic eruptions, and infrequently, asteroids. Tsunamis are categorized based on the source of the generating event. Nearfield tsunamis occur in relative close proximity to the site while farfield tsunamis are generated at longer distances typically on the opposite side of ocean basins.

The formation mechanisms for a tsunami are illustrated in Figure 1. First a catastrophic event vertically displaces a volume of water as illustrated in the first stage of Figure 1. The second stage shows how waves are split and sent outward across the ocean. In the open ocean, these waves have small heights (amplitudes), but long periods (10-20 minutes) and fast speeds (350-500 mph) (Komar, 1997). (Note that Figure 1 is exaggerated for illustrative purposes). For comparison, a typical swell wave observed at the coast is called a surface gravity wave with periods of 13-20 seconds and speeds of 30-75 mph. Viewed at sea, a tsunami is barely noticeable; however, as the waves reach the coast, they shoal on the continental shelf with water piling up as the sea floor rises, and the height of the wave increasing dramatically as shown in stage 3. The first sign of an impending tsunami is often an unusual lowering of the water below

Tsunami Assessment for the City of Fort Bragg, CA

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 2

a typical negative low tide level. This is the trough between wave crests and is followed by stage 4 where the wave runs up the coast raising water levels which cause flooding and erosion.

Northern California is threatened by both near and farfield tsunamis with the city of Crescent City one of the most susceptible coastal communities in California. Sources of nearfield tsunamis would be largely a result of a submarine (underwater) landslide and/or a large earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ). The CSZ which extends from Cape Mendocino, CA north past Vancouver Island in Canada, is one of the leading potential sources of nearfield events (Figure 2). Along this subduction zone, the Juan de Fuca and Gorda plates subduct under the North American plate and create a deepsea trench and a megathrust area which have the potential of producing earthquakes of magnitude 9 or greater. This magnitude of earthquake is similar to that experienced in December of 2004 which initiated the catastrophic Indian Ocean tsunami. The close location of the CSZ to the west coast of the US and Canada would allow a tsunami to reach land within 25 minutes of an earthquake event (Uslu et al., 2008). From Japanese records of historic tsunamis, the CSZ last produced a major earthquake in 1700. With a recurrence rate estimated on the order of 500 years, but possibly ranging anywhere between 200-1300 years, an earthquake from the CSZ should be considered for tsunami planning (Uslu et al., 2008; Clague, 1997). Sediment cores extracted from estuaries in the Pacific Northwest suggest that the recurrence interval of the CSZ earthquakes is more precisely between 200-500 years (Darienzo et al., 1994). Using a unimodal recurrence distribution, Mazzotti and Adams (2004) estimate the 50-year conditional probability of an event along the CSZ to be 0-12%, while Petersen, Cramer, and Frankel (2002) using a time independent Poisson model estimate the probability at 10-14%. Kelsey et al. argue that there is a pattern to the recurrence of the events by looking at the geologic history of a lake in Oregon (2005). They found that the CSZ repeats a pattern of producing 3-4 tsunamis in approximately 1000 years followed by another ~1000 year period with no activity. They conclude that if this cycle continues, the tsunami in 1700 could be the beginning of a new cluster of events.

Another potential cause of a nearfield tsunami could be the Mendocino Fault. On September 1, 1994, a 7.0 earthquake triggered a small tsunami (less than 3 feet), which was detected in the Crescent City water level gauge 45 minutes after the earthquake (Dengler et al., 2008). Given the close proximity of Fort Bragg to the Mendocino fault and the potential for a larger magnitude earthquake in the area, this is also considered a potential source of a nearfield tsunami.

Farfield tsunamis that would threaten the Fort Bragg coast could originate anywhere along the Pacific Rim, Alaska, or South America. A tsunami originating from Japan would take 10-15 hours to reach Fort Bragg while an event in South America could take up to 20 hours to reach the area. While such an incident would provide substantial time for evacuations, the effects could be as damaging as a nearfield event. One example is the Kuril earthquake (M8.3) which occurred on November 15, 2006 and generated

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 3

a ~3ft tsunami at Crescent City that caused over $9.2 million dollars in damages to the boat basin (Dengler et al., 2008). Figure 3 shows data from the Crescent City water level gauge during this event and illustrates the exaggerated heights of the waves overlying the longer period tidal oscillations.

State of the Art Numerical Models Tsunami research has improved our understanding of tsunami risk through the use of numerical models. Using nested grids in a numerical model of tsunamis allows the coastal area to be more well-defined than the open ocean. This saves computational time while maintaining the detail necessary to determine wave and run-up heights. With complex bathymetry, as along the Fort Bragg coast, using a combination of interactive and non-interactive grids conserves energy in the coastal zone for increased accuracy in that area (Kowalik, 1991). Yamazaki, Kowalik, and Cheung (2009) showed that using an upwind flux approximation allows a numerical model to account for the discontinuity of wave breaking to fully model a tsunami wave bore.

Knowing the probability of tsunami run-up occurrences is also essential in evaluating risk. Tsunami wave heights at different locations along a coast are largely dependent on bathymetry and can therefore be modeled with a log-normal distribution (Choi, 2002). The cumulative frequency-size distribution of run- up heights at a single location is best described with a power-law or truncated power-law (Burroughs, 2005). However, if the tsunami catalog does not have sufficient data, using these patterns can lead to significant error. Geist and Parsons (2006) recommend using an insufficient catalog exclusively as background to a numerical model. Orfanogiannaki and Papadopoulos (2007) propose using earthquake time series with a ratio of tsunami occurrence to predict the frequency-size distribution of run-up heights since these series are generally more complete. One study conducted by USGS, FEMA, and NOAA developed a probabilistic assessment of tsunamis for Seaside, Oregon (Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group, 2006). This study established the new standard in probabilistic tsunami risk assessment for FEMA although this methodology has yet to be applied elsewhere in the United States. One key finding was that the largest tsunami impacts were expected to result from a nearfield tsunami associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and not a farfield source (Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group, 2006).

The California Emergency Management Agency, the California Geologic Survey, and the University of Southern California have partnered to create statewide tsunami inundation maps. These maps were created by first examining tsunamis originating from the Pacific Rim or Cascadia subduction zones, underwater earthquake or landslide events, and past tsunamis and then running them through the MOST (Method of Splitting Tsunami) model using a coarse grid to determine which events would have the greatest impact on the California coast. Once identified, these events were run through the model again using nested grids down to 100 feet for three sea ports and 300 feet for the rest of the coast. The results of each modeled event were then combined to create a worst-case scenario wave and run-up estimate. Using

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 4

USGS 30 feet and interferometric radar 10 feet high resolution digital elevation models (DEMs), the inundation line was refined and verified in the field. This mapping effort which is ongoing provides the best information on the tsunami risk in the City of Fort Bragg (Figure 4). PWA has obtained the preliminary mapping results and has conducted some additional analysis to provide insights into the potential tsunami risk for the City of Fort Bragg.

One thing to note is that none of these models include erosion impacts from a tsunami. Coastal erosion along cliff backed shorelines is a process which is usually associated with high waves and water levels during storm events. A tsunami wave has much more wave energy than a swell wave and so erosion could be expected to occur during such an event.

History of Tsunamis in Fort Bragg Three notable tsunamis have affected the Fort Bragg area in the twentieth century. On April 1, 1946, an 8.0 magnitude earthquake in the Aleutian Islands, AK spurred a tsunami that reached Noyo Harbor 5 hours and 31 minutes later (NOAA). The water level rose 4.5 feet above the predicted tide level of 2 feet for a total height of approximately 6.5 feet NAVD88 (NOAA). Docks in the harbor were damaged and 100 boats were thrown as high as 5.9 feet on the bank (Eisner et al.).

On May 22, 1960, a farfield tsunami originating in Chile, South America from an 8.7 magnitude earthquake reached Noyo Harbor 20 hours later (NOAA). Six boats were lost in the harbor and California suffered two deaths and damages from $500,000 to $1,000,000 (Eisner et al.).

The worst tsunami in Fort Bragg to date occurred on March 3, 1964. An 8.9 magnitude earthquake in Anchorage Alaska resulted in run-up heights of 12.5 feet in Noyo Harbor (NOAA). Tides were predicted to be 2 feet, but water levels instead reached an estimated 14.5 feet NAVD88. 10 boats were sunk and at least 100 boats were damaged (Eisner et al.) with total costs estimated at ~$1,000,000 in Fort Bragg alone (NOAA).

It is important to note that most of the tsunamis that have impacted Noyo Harbor occurred during a medium low tide. If these tsunamis had struck at high tide, damages could have been more severe.

City of Fort Bragg and the Mill Site Tsunami Risk Factors that will affect the impact of tsunami run-up are tide level and sea level elevation at the time of arrival. These are independent factors that may reduce or exacerbate the impacts from such an event. Investigation of the state tsunami hazard lines overlain on a high resolution LIDAR derived DEM shows that potential tsunami inundation elevations range up to 30 feet NAVD88. Figure 5 shows the tsunami inundation map for the Fort Bragg area. The range is partially established by the distance inland from the

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 5

beach as well as the accuracy associated with the state mapping, which use a coarser scale DEM. Areas located at or below this elevation should be considered to be inside a tsunami hazard zone.

While this information from the state was not intended for planning purposes it represents the best statewide tsunami mapping effort to date. This elevation information does not include wave run-up velocities which would be important in predicting potential erosion impacts.

Most parts of the coastline in front of Fort Bragg are protected by sea cliffs and will not flood from a tsunami. Soldier Bay is the most at-risk area for flooding and could see waters reaching 500 feet inland. Parts of Soldier Point could also flood, but the steep cliffs would keep waters from flowing very far onshore. The northern beach of Noyo Bay would also see inundation, with potential risk similar or increased to damages that have been observed historically. Future sea level rise may increase this risk as well. Photos in Figure 6 illustrate some of the areas that would be most affected by flooding.

City of Fort Bragg The city of Fort Bragg currently has a Tsunami Contingency Plan for emergency response staff. This document identifies that the emergency services and City Hall are at low risk to tsunami run-up. This plan also identifies evacuation routes and low-lying areas within the City of Fort Bragg which include all areas below the 60-foot elevation level (Miller and Higdon, 2006), including but not limited to, the following: All areas at and north of the Pudding Creek Bridge, including: • Pudding Creek Beach and ocean beach areas • Ocean Lake Adult Mobile Home Park (1184 North Main Street) • All hotel / motel facilities on the west side of North Main Street • All areas north of West Elm Street and west of North Main Street to Pudding Creek • All areas along the Mill Site Coastal Trail within the city limits • Portions of the Noyo Harbor (north side) and the Noyo Beach Jetty areas • All areas within Pomo Bluffs Park • All areas generally west of Pacific Drive and south of Bay View Drive in the Todd’s Point area • All areas at and under (both west and east of) the Hare Creek Bridge • The Fort Bragg Municipal Improvement District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant

It should be noted that this 60 foot elevation described in the contingency plan is well above the state modeled elevations (nearly double), but identifying the sources of these discrepancies is beyond the scope of this analysis and would require further modeling and technical information regarding both the source of the elevation information for the City’s Contingency Plan and the statewide efforts.

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 6

Mill Site Tsunami inundation would most likely not reach the Mill Site. Within the site, the coastal trail and parkland area would be the most at-risk lands. Some of the ponds inland of Soldier Bay could also flood as well. Erosion should be expected in the event of a tsunami, although further modeling is necessary for specific locations and distances.

Tsunamis in Federal, State, and Local Policies, and Environmental Impact Reports The Federal Emergency Management Agency would have involvement in any post disaster recovery. It is also important to note that FEMA currently does not have any specific tsunami inundation information for Fort Bragg and only has guidelines for inclusion of tsunami hazards in the Flood Insurance Studies (FEMA 2005). This risk is based on a 0.2% annual-chance-event tsunami from a farfield event. The most recent FEMA flood study (Ott 1984) mentions Noyo Harbor in as an approximate area which means no detailed analysis were conducted. However the closest detailed analysis at Point Arena Cove identifies a 500 year event to be approximately 20 feet NAVD88.

The California Coastal Act, which implements the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act in California, does not mention tsunamis in the Natural Hazard Section where most hazards information such as flooding and erosion are discussed. However, the Coastal Act does include a mandate to avoid and /or minimize risk to life and property in areas of high flood and geological hazards. The identification of specific geologic and flood hazards are thus left to the local jurisdictions to identify and interpret. This has been done partly through the environmental review process and partly through the local coastal programs (LCPs). Designation of tsunami hazard zones are primarily done through site or jurisdictional specific geotechnical studies and implemented through a General Plan or Local Coastal Program update.

One notable policy inclusion of tsunami hazards occurs in the City of Monterey LCP element regarding the planning for the Del Monte Beach Shoreline Segment (City of Monterey, 2003). This language states “new development must be set back from the eroding coastal dunes sufficiently to protect it for the 100- year economic life of the project and is not allowed in tsunami runup or storm wave inundation areas (excepting coastal dependent uses and public access improvements),”(emphasis added).

The Crescent City General Plan EIR merely noted the history of tsunamis in the area and the local factors that make the city so at risk to the big waves (Mintier & Associates, et al., 2001). The combination of nearshore bathymetry and the protruding coastline near the city make it extremely susceptible to wave resonance that could create larger waves than anywhere else along the California coast. Following the 1964 quake, Crescent City experienced tsunami run-up up to 2000 feet inland causing $168 million in damages. Instead of rebuilding, much of the old downtown was turned into a park (Griggs et al 2005).

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 7

While Fort Bragg also extends into the ocean, the coastline has a smoother curve than near Crescent City and is somewhat protected by Humboldt County in the case of a tsunami arriving from the north.

While many Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for projects on the west coast of the United States refer to tsunamis, most ignore them as a threat because the project is located inland (County of Sonoma, 2008; CirclePoint, 2010; Leighton Consulting). However, EIRs for projects at risk of tsunami damage vary widely in the amount of details included in the report. In San Mateo, the Big Wave Wellness Center and Office Park project included an EIR that described the three major tsunami events in recent history at that site and included a tsunami evacuation map for the area. The report only went so far as to recommend that, “…any development in this area would need to take into account the effects of tsunami action on structures and people,” (San Mateo County, 2009).

The city of Torrance in southern California included a draft EIR in the city’s General Plan. Tsunamis were defined and potential sources that would create tsunamis in the area were cited in the report. The only conclusion drawn was that, “a landslide-induced tsunami directly offshore of Torrance is plausible,” (City of Torrance, 2010). Similarly, the city of Goleta wrote an EIR for the General Plan and included a definition of tsunamis and a record of past tsunami events. An inundation map was included along with a summary of potential flooding.

In Tiburon, California, the Library Expansion project used an EIR that noted the possibility of tsunamis in the area and included an inundation map. The report then described the flooding that could result from a tsunami event, but concluded that, “mitigation practices for tsunami… are often best handled on a local or regional (rather than project) scale” (Christopher Joseph & Associates, 2010).

Conclusions Some of the greatest historical tsunami impacts have occurred in harbors and port cities. Fort Bragg and Noyo Harbor have historically experienced larger tsunami impacts than most of the California Coast. Most of the historic tsunamis have occurred during mid to low tide reducing the overall impact. Low lying areas in and around Fort Bragg especially Soldier Bay, Noyo Harbor, and Pudding Creek are particularly susceptible to tsunami hazards as documented by recent State mapping efforts. Since much of the City is located on sea cliffs that range in height from 40 to 70ft the overall tsunami risk is reduced for many of the residents.. Emergency services are also at low risk from tsunami hazards (although earthquake readiness was not investigated). However, the velocity associated with a tsunami is likely to increase cliff erosion, so development and infrastructure near the cliff edges may be susceptible to erosion impacts even though they are at low risk of wave run-up and flooding impacts. Several recommendations for improving emergency preparedness and understanding of tsunami risk are provided to the City.

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 8

Figures Figure 1 – Tsunami Formation Figure 2 – Cascadia Subduction Zone Figure 3 – Crescent City Water Level for the Tsunami on 11/15/06 Figure 4 – State Map of Tsunami Inundation Figure 5 – PWA Map of Tsunami Inundation Figure 6 – Photos of Vulnerable Areas Along the Fort Bragg Coast Figure 7 – PWA Map of Fort Bragg Evacuation Routes

List of Preparers Lindsey Sheehan, M.S. David L. Revell, Ph.D. Bob Battalio, P.E.

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 9

Recommendations

Further develop tsunami evacuation plan (Miller and Higdon, 2006) Time at the actual instance of a tsunami is precious. A tsunami from the CSZ could take as few as 20 minutes after an earthquake to arrive on the coast. While the tsunami contingency plan sets evacuation routes as seen in Figure 7, and procedures for notifying officials and the public to improve preparedness, conduct drills on the emergency response plan, train new staff, expand educational signage along the coastal trail, work with tourist industries to inform visitors, and expand evacuation signage. Collaboration with surrounding coastal and bay areas on tsunami evacuation procedures and best practices will eliminate any local inconsistencies.

Support community specific tsunami wave modeling The state has invested in numerical models that can provide planning level coastal hazard maps such as in Figure 4. These, along with other erosion and flooding models such as the probabilistic assessment developed in Oregon can be used to improve the understanding of tsunami and other coastal hazards both now and into the future. The city should write to FEMA and ask for financial and technical support to include more detailed analysis in future updates of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS).

Develop an ordinance which reduces vulnerability by avoiding future development and redevelopment in the tsunami and other coastal hazard zones. Several jurisdictions have good examples of coastal hazard avoidance policies which include tsunamis. This should include avoidance of both flooding and erosion hazards. One such example is Del Monte Beach in Monterey, CA (City of Monterey, 2003).

Develop an outreach and education strategy targeting the key community constituents Tsunami information, education, and training should be made available to residents (both full time and part time), tourists serving industries, especially hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts, and any businesses in inundation zones. Due to the potentially short arrival times of a tsunami, the need to respond quickly is essential.

Develop a post disaster redevelopment plan The recovery after a disaster is a hard time for any jurisdiction; however it can also be an opportunity to change the direction, location or character of a community. This is best achieved if the community has a current shared vision before the event. This facilitates the use of recovery funds to be used to shift infrastructure and development to achieve the vision.

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 10

References

Burroughs, S., and S. Tebbens. (2005). Power-law Scaling and Probabilistic Forecasting of Tsunami Runup Heights. Pure Applied Geophysics. 162: 331-342. Choi, B. et al. (2002). Distribution Functions of Tsunami Wave Heights. Natural Hazards. 25: 1-21. Chowdhury, Shyamal, et al. (2005). Tsunami Hazards, FEMA Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping Guidelines Focused Study Report. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fhm/frm_p1tsun.pdf. 7/9/2010. Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. (2010). Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion Project. http://www.ci.tiburon.ca.us/government/guidelines%20&%20ordinances/helpful%20files/Belved ere-Tiburon%20Library%20Expansion%20EIR-min.pdf. 7/11/2010. CirclePoint. (2010). Patterson Ranch Planned District, Recirculated Draft EIR. http://www.fremont.gov/index.aspx?NID=430. 7/11/2010. City of Goleta. (2006). General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, Final EIR. http://www.cityofgoleta.org/index.aspx?page=420. 7/9/2010. City of Monterey Planning & Engineering, Land Use and Area Plans, Del Monte Beach. (2003). http://www.monterey.org/planningengineering/plans.html 7/14/2010. City of Torrance. (2010). General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, 5. Environmental Analysis. http://www.torranceca.gov/pdf/gp_drafteir/Ch%2005-08%20HYD.pdf. 7/11/2010. Clague, J.J. (1997). Evidence for large earthquakes at the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Reviews of Geophysics. 35(4), 439-460. County of Sonoma. (2008). Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume I, Dutra Haystack Landing Asphalt and Recycling Facility. http://www.sonoma-county.org/PRMD/docs/eir/dutradeir/toc.pdf. 7/11/2010. Darienzo, M. Petersen, C. and Clough, C. (1994). Stratigraphic evidence for great subduction-zone earthquakes for four estuaries in northern Oregon, U.S.A. Journal of Coastal Research 10:850- 876. Dengler, L. Nicolini, T., Larkin, D., and Ozaki, V. (2008). Building Tsunami Resilient Communities in Humboldt County, California. Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2008, Tsunamis. Louise Wallendorf, et al. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia. Eisner, Richard, et al. Local Planning Guidance on Tsunami Response, Second Edition. http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/education/science/docs/california_tsunami_guidance.pdf. 7/11/2010. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005. Tsunami Hazards: FEMA Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping Guidelines: Focused Study Report February 2005. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fhm/frm_p1tsun.pdf Geist, E and T. Parsons (2006). Probabilistic Analysis of Tsunami Hazards. Natural Hazards 37: 277- 314. Griggs, G.B., Patsch, K. and Savoy, L. 2005. Living with the Changing California Coast. University of California Press. Revised 2nd edition. Kelsey, Harvey, et al. (2005). Tsunami history of an Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone. GSA Bulletin. 117(7-8), 1009-1032.

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 11

Komar, Paul. (1997). The Pacific Northwest Coast, Living with the Shores of Oregon and Washington. Duke University Press: Durham and London. Kowalik, Z., and P. Whitmore. (1991). An Investigation of Two Tsunamis Recorded at Adak, Alaska. The International Journal of The Tsunami Society. 9(2): 67-84. Leighton Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Draft Existing Conditions Report, Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan. Kern County, California. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/GTASP/DraftExistingConditionsReports/DraftGeotechni DraftGeotechnicalEnvirDraftGeotechnica.pdf. 7/11/2010. Mazzotti, Stephane and John Adams. (2004). Variability of near-term probability for the next great earthquake on the Cascadia subduction zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 94(5):1954-1959. Miller, Mary and Floyd Higdon. (2006). City of Fort Bragg Tsunami Contingency Plan. http://city.fortbragg.com/pdf/Tsunami%20--%20Final.pdf 7/15/2010. Mintier & Associates, et al. (2001). City of Crescent City General Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report. http://www.crescentcity.org/Forms/planning/GP_EIR.pdf. 7/12/2010. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA/WDC Historical Tsunami Database at NGDC. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml. 7/9/2010. Orfanogiannaki, K. and G. Papadopoulos. (2007). Conditional Probability Approach of the Assessment of Tsunami Potential: Application in Three Tsunamigenic Regions of the Pacific Ocean. Pure Applied Geophysics. 164: 593-603. Ott Water Engineers, Inc 1984. Northern California Coastal Flood Studies. Prepared for FEMA Region 9. Petersen, Mark, Chris Cramer, and Arthur Frankel. (2002). Simulations of Seismic Hazard for the Pacific Northwest of the United States from Earthquakes Associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Pure and Applied Geophysics. 159(9), 2147-2168. Robertson, I., H. Riggs, and A. Mohamed. (2008). Experimental Results of Tsunami Bore Forces on Structures. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Estoril, Portugal. Roeber, V., K. Cheung, and M. Kobayashi. (2010). Shock-capturing Boussinesq-type model for nearshore wave processes. Coastal Engineering. 57: 407-423. San Mateo County. (2009). Big Wave Wellness Center and Office Park Draft Environmental Impact Report. IV. H. Hydrology & Water Quality. http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/planning/PDFs/Major_Projects/Big_Wave/IV.H_%2 0HydroHydr_Water_Quality.pdf. 7/11/2010. SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologist, Inc. (2008). Redwood Marine Terminal Feasibility Study, Task 1- Assessment Phase, Final Draft Report. http://www.portofhumboldtbay.org/harbordistrict/documents/terminalfeasibility/RMT%20Final% 20DraDr%20Task%201%20Site%20Assessment%20021808%20PART1a.pdf. 7/9/10. State of California. (2009). Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Fort Bragg Quadrangle,

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

City of Fort Bragg / ESA July 16, 2010 Page 12

Mendocino County; produced by California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California – Tsunami Research Center; dated June 1, 2009, mapped at 1:24,000 scale. State of California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Maps for Use by Local Emergency Planners in the State of California, USA. Rick I. Wilson, et al. The California Tsunami Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation Program http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/Documents/A GU08_tsunami_poster.pdf. 7/5/2010. Tsunami Pilot Study Working Group (2006): Seaside, Oregon Tsunami Pilot Study— Modernization of FEMA flood hazard maps. NOAA OAR Special Report, NOAA/OAR/PMEL, Seattle, WA, 94 pp. + 7 appendices. URS. (2007). DRAFT- Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/oes/pdf/OESDraft_Dec1307.pdf 7/9/10. Uslu, Burak, et al. (2008). Tsunami Inundation From Great Earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction Zone Along the Northern California Coast. Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2008, Tsunamis. Louise Wallendorf, et al. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia. Woodworth, Bill, and Gregg Smith. (2006). Emergency Operations Plan, Mendocino County. http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/oes/pdf/EOP%20Single%20DOC.pdf. 7/9/10. Yamazaki, Y., Z. Kowalik, and K. Cheung. (2009). Depth-integrated, non-hydrostatic model for wave breaking and run-up. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids. 61: 473-497.

C:\d.revell\projects\ft Bragg\Tsunami Memo_final.doc

Stage 1- Initiation

Farfield Nearfield

Stage 2- Split

Stage 3- Amplification

Stage 4- Run-up

The height of the waves above are exaggerated for illustrative purposes.

Source: Adapted from USGS. Life of a Tsunami. figure 1 http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/basics.html. Tsunami Assessment for the City of Fort Bragg, CA Tsunami Formation

PWA Ref# 2030-04

Source: Adapted from the Cascadia Region Earthquake figure 2 Workgroup. (2005). Tsunami Assessment for the City of Fort Bragg, CA Cascadia Subduction Zone

PWA Ref# 2030-04

Source: NOAA Tides and Currents. figure 3 http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?type=Historic+Tide+Data&mstn=9419750. Tsunami Assessment for the City of Fort Bragg, CA Crescent City Water Level Data for the Tsunami on 11/15/06

PWA Ref# 2030-04

Source: State of California. (2009). Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency figure 4 Planning, Fort Bragg Quadrangle, Mendocino County; produced by California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Tsunami Assessment for the City of Fort Bragg, CA Survey, and University of Southern California – Tsunami Research Center; dated June 1, 2009, mapped at 1:24,000 scale. State Map of Tsunami Inundation

PWA Ref#: 2030-04

Mouth of Pudding Creek, 2009

Soldier Bay (and Soldier Point in bottom right), 2009

Noyo Harbor and River, 2009

Source: California Coastal Records Project figure 6 http://www.californiacoastline.org Tsunami Assessment for the City of Fort Bragg, CA Photos of the Fort Bragg Coast

PWA Ref# 2030-04

Pacific Ocean