Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Nichi.11-12-13.san francisco.stevegoldbeck

167

Published on

Steve Goldbeck, Chief Deputy Director, 
San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission, at the National Institute for Coastal & Harbor Infrastructure, John F. Kennedy Center, Boston, Nov. 12, …

Steve Goldbeck, Chief Deputy Director, 
San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission, at the National Institute for Coastal & Harbor Infrastructure, John F. Kennedy Center, Boston, Nov. 12, 2013: "The Triple Threat of Rising Sea Levels, Extreme Storms and Aging Infrastructure: Coastal Community Responses and The Federal Role" See http://www.nichiusa.org or http://www.nichi.us

Published in: Education, Business, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
167
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • This is San Francisco Bay today.
    The Bay is about a third smaller than it was
    at the time of the California gold rush.
  • BCDC’s story actually begins in the middle of the 19th century.
    This is the little village of San Francisco on the shoreline of Yerba Buena Cove just before gold was discovered in California.
  • Ships carrying miners to the Gold Rush
    were abandoned when sailors took off to the gold country.
    The abandoned ships were used for storage,
    saloons, housing and much more.
    San Francisco’s first hotel and first jail were on ships.
  • Eventually, trash filled in between the ships,
    the boats rotted into the mud,
    and downtown San Francisco
    was built on a foundation of derelict ships.
    Everything in this photo,
    including our office,
    is built on Bay fill.
  • But 400 acres of the Bay were filled
    in the 1930’s for a World’s Fair at Treasure Island.
    When the fair closed,
    the island was supposed to become San Francisco’s airport.
  • In 1959, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a report with this map.
    It showed that 60% of the remaining Bay­­––325 square miles of water area––was shallow enough to be reclaimed with landfill projects.
    When this map was published in Bay Area newspapers,the public revolted.
    They didn’t want the Bay to become little more than a broad river.
  • To evaluate permit applications, the Commission relies on policies in the San Francisco Bay Plan,which provide detailed guidance for carrying out the more general policies of state law.
  • Over the past 46 years,
    BCDC has approved needed fill projects over the years.
    But we have also required mitigation…
  • …in the form of opening diked areas
    and restoring wetlands.
    Through mitigation,
    BCDC has reversed the shrinking of the Bay.
    It is now over 27 square miles bigger
    than it was 46 years ago.
  • Over the past four decades,
    under BCDC’s stewardship,
    the Bay has become bigger.
  • Now we’re facing a different problem: global climate change.
  • BCDC conducted a vulnerability analysis. The process begins by identifying affected planning areas, systems, and their current stressors.
    The subsequent steps involve conducting:
    a sensitivity analysis that identifies the projected impacts of climate change;
    a vulnerability analysis to gauge the system’s ability or inability to accommodate change; and
    a risk analysis that evaluates the consequences of an impact in light of the probability of its occurrence.
    The final step is to weigh the vulnerabilities and risks together to identify priorities and uncertainties, and the steps necessary to reduce them.
    The report identifies three planning areas and/or systems (recognizing that there are systems within systems and that the connections between systems are just as relevant as what’s happening within them):
    (1) the Bay ecosystem; (2) the Bay shoreline, including ecosystems and the built environment; and (3) Bay Area government institutions.
  • This is San Francisco International Airport.
  • This is Silicon Valley, which faces double jeopardy.
    Bay waters are rising and ground levels are sinking.
    Many areas in the South Bay are already below sea level.
  • So,
    Today’s Flood is Tomorrow’s High Tide
    Areas that currently flood every ten to twenty years during
    extreme weather and extreme tides,
    will begin to flood daily.
  • The 100 year storm: Areas at risk to 1/100 chance of flooding per year,
    In 50 years the Bay’s 100 year storm will be high tide
  • So what are we doing about it?
    BPA after 3 years 36 public hearings
    Requires vulnerability assessments
    Protect to mid century and adaptive manage
    Encourages restoration of undeveloped low lying areas
    Recognizes role of local governments
    Calls for regional adaptation strategy
  • BCDC conducted a vulnerability analysis. The process begins by identifying affected planning areas, systems, and their current stressors.
    The subsequent steps involve conducting:
    a sensitivity analysis that identifies the projected impacts of climate change;
    a vulnerability analysis to gauge the system’s ability or inability to accommodate change; and
    a risk analysis that evaluates the consequences of an impact in light of the probability of its occurrence.
    The final step is to weigh the vulnerabilities and risks together to identify priorities and uncertainties, and the steps necessary to reduce them.
    The report identifies three planning areas and/or systems (recognizing that there are systems within systems and that the connections between systems are just as relevant as what’s happening within them):
    (1) the Bay ecosystem; (2) the Bay shoreline, including ecosystems and the built environment; and (3) Bay Area government institutions.
  • As a result we need to think about how we plan for these changes. To this familiar sea level rise graph, two lines and an arrow have been added. As John Callaway suggests, we need to plan for two different periods of sea level rise, one where sea level continues “slowly”, perhaps for the next ten years or so, but then, rapidly. For marshes or projects that are already at marsh plain elevation, this may not be a problem for the next thirty years or so, but if a project is below marsh plan, marsh may not develop.
  • .
  • We realize that we don’t know how to build and live with a rising Bay.
    Here are people in Venice, Italy doing just that.
  • This is a building in Hamburg that has been built to withstand flooding
  • So we held international design competition
    too generate innovative, new ideas
    for adapting to sea level rise.
    We received a 130 entries from 18 nations.
    They were carefully evaluated
    by a multi-disciplinary international jury of experts.
    We asked the jury to select on grand prize winner.
  • The entries covered a wide range, from how to think, plan and build for SLR
  • Here we are looking at how wetlands can protect the developed shoreline and whether the wetlands can persist in the face of SLR.
  • Here is Corte Madera’s with just 16 inches of SLR
  • USGS took hi resoluntion Bathy and topo and Measured storm waves on the shoreline to document the benefits that wetlands provide for flood control
  • In the next phase we are looking at the sedimentation history, sources and present loading from the watershed as well as the erodibility of the wetlands and mudflats.
  • In the third phase we will look at potential methods to help the wetlands adapt to SLR.
  • We are also looking into how SLR will move up Bay tributaries and shift the Head of Tide inland, leading to potential flooding.
  • The same volatility in our weather
    that will bring us storm surges
    will also bring us extended droughts
    and higher temperatures
    that will spawn more of the type of wildfires
    we’ve been seeing the past few years.
  • BCDC has partnered with NOAA’s Coastal Services Center
    to work with local Bay Area communities to begin planning for sea level rise.
    “Adapting to Rising Tides”, also known as the ART project,
    provides local governments with an opportunity to be leaders on this topic.
  • The ART project is our first step in moving from a broad regional analysis
    to a more focused subregion of the Bay shoreline.
    After considering proposals from throughout the region,
    we selected the portion of Alameda County between Emeryville and Union City
    as our first ART subregion.
    This stretch of shoreline includes low-lying approaches to two major bridges,
    an international port and airport, wetlands, parks, communities,
    and most important of all,
    local partners who want to work with us.
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
    Coastal Services Center, The Federal Highway Administration, ICLEI and MTC are all providing
    strong financial support and involvement.
    In addition, the Bay Area scientific community works closely with managers and support BCDC’s adaptation planning efforts, including support from the USGS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA NMFS, and Bay Area research universities, Cal and Stanford.
  • New maps to help determine potential exposure were developed that depict areas that may potentially be subjected to high tide inundation or storm event
    flooding with 16 and 55 inches of sea level rise. The maps are based on more precise shoreline LiDAR data acquired in a partnership between the State, NOAA and USGS. The inundation analysis
    takes into account existing shoreline protection and the potential for wind driven waves as well as varying depth of potential flooding.
  • The ART project is working to achieve a number of objectives.
    The project was conceived as a pilot to evaluate key adaptation planning issues the region may face, one of which is the appropriate geographic scale to conduct the different phases of the planning process.
    Project staff are considering the question of geographic scale and engaging ART partners and working group members in identifying the benefits and constraints of working at different scales (neighborhood, City-wide, County-wide, etc.). This information will be useful in informing the Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy, which the Joint Policy Committee has agreed to take a leadership role in developing.
  • One of the unique characteristic of the ART planning process is the integration of four assessment frames into each step. By carrying these four frames through the process we will be sure that these critical issues are addressed as comprehensively as is feasible.
    The first phase of the project—scope and organize—included convening a working group of local jurisdictions and agency staff, defining the climate impacts to be evaluated, identifying the sectors to be included in the analysis and developing new sea level rise and storm event maps for the project area.
    The next phase of the project—assessing vulnerability and risk—included the completion of an Existing Conditions Report, a white paper on equity issues related to climate impacts, a desktop analysis and a survey administered to agency staff to assess vulnerability and risk of 12 sectors, and a Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Report.
    The project is currently moving into the last step of the assessment phase, which is prioritizing the planning issues identified by the assessment of vulnerability and risk. This prioritization will begin at the October 10th working group meeting and will provide the direction for phase three of the project–planning adaptation strategies for the prioritized planning issues.
  • While most Port facilities themselves are not particularly vulnerable to climate impacts, sea level rise and storm events will affect rail and interstate access to and from the seaport in the near term. Temporary or permanent disruption of rail and interstate access to the seaport will result in economic impacts to the city, region, and state, including disrupting jobs that are both directly and indirectly related to the seaport. Disruption of rail access at the seaport would result in more trucks being necessary to move cargo, which would have impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, local roadways, and interstates, as well as on air quality.
  • We’ve also had the benefit
    of a project funded by the Dutch government.
    A consortium of Dutch consultants and universities
    evaluated conditions in the Bay Area
    and offered their advice,
    based on their hundreds of years of experience
    of living below sea level,
    as to how we can deal with sea level rise in the Bay.
  • We’ve also had the benefit
    of a project funded by the Dutch government.
    A consortium of Dutch consultants and universities
    evaluated conditions in the Bay Area
    and offered their advice,
    based on their hundreds of years of experience
    of living below sea level,
    as to how we can deal with sea level rise in the Bay.
  • Transcript

    1. BCDC Regional Climate Strategy Steve Goldbeck, Chief Deputy Director San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
    2. The Bay Plan  Findings  Policies  Maps  Map Policies and Notes
    3. San Francisco-observed sea level with trend of 19.3 cm (0.63 feet) per century Source: California Climate Action Team Report 2006
    4. Vulnerability Analysis Identify Planning Areas and Systems Existing Challenges Projected Impacts Sensitivity Analysis Adaptive Capacity
    5. Scenarios SLR  16 inches (40 cm) of sea level rise at 50 years  55 inches (140 cm) at 100 years  Prepared by USGS (Knowles)
    6. San Francisco International Airport Sixteen Inch and Fifty-five Inch Sea Level Rise Sixteen Inch Sea Level Rise and Fifty-five Inch Sea Level Rise
    7. South Bay Central 16” SLR 55” SLR
    8. Silicon Valley Sixteen Inch and Fifty-five Inch Sea Level Rise Sixteen Inch Sea Level Rise and Fifty-five Inch Sea Level Rise
    9. Costs  $62 Billion replacement value SF Bay Area  $32 Billion for the rest of Ca shoreline
    10. Today’s Flood is Tomorrow’s High Tide Area subject to high tide with 16 inches of sea level rise Current 100-year flood plain
    11. Public Discourse  Three-year process  35 public hearings  Met with local governments  Met with economic, equity & environmental groups
    12. Vulnerability Analysis Identify Planning Areas and Systems Existing Challenges Projected Impacts Sensitivity Analysis Adaptive Capacity
    13. Build for 2050, Plan for 2100
    14. Joint Policy Committee  Council of Loocal Governments  Metropolitan Transportation Commission  Air Quality District  BCDC
    15. Rising Tides Design Ideas Competition www.risingtidescompetition.com
    16. Corte Madera - today
    17. Corte Madera - tomorrow
    18. Phase 1 – Flooding today High res topo & bath y ves Measure wa
    19. Adaptation
    20. Head of Tide  Where saltwater meets sweetwater in tributaries  Extensive development
    21. Bay Area Communities Working Together
    22. The ART Subregion
    23. Scope & Organize ART Collaborative Project Management  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission  NOAA Coastal Services Center  U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration  Metropolitan Transportation Commission  California Department of Transportation  ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability
    24. Assess New, Refined Sea Level Rise Vulnerability assement
    25. ART Objectives • Cross-sector and cross-jurisdiction adaptation planning framework • Develop, test, and refine adaptation tools • Assess adaptation at different scales– local, regional, state, federal
    26. ART Assessment Frames Economy  Environment  Social Equity  Governance
    27. Port of Oakland Seaport Key Vulnerabilities •Most facilities not directly vulnerable to sea level rise •Rail and interstate access is vulnerable in the near term •Other seaports in the region do not have capacity to handle the cargo

    ×