Download: Estuary News, October 2013 PDF
Creeks and rivers are the living veins of the Estuary. A hundred-plus streams flow into San Francisco Bay proper. Together with the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, they drain 40 percent of the state. These waterways provide habitat for river otters and mergansers, passage for salmon and steelhead, and sediment to build the Bayâs mudflats. Flowing through cities and farmlands, they also pick up less welcome ingredients: mercury from nineteenth-century mine tailings, copper from worn brake pads, and a toxic brew of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. These compromise the health of the Estuary and all its inhabitants. Converting natural landscape to hardscape not only adds to the pollutant load; it changes natural flows. With higher flows, streams cut deeper, banks erode, habitat is lost; with lower flows, groundwater doesnât get recharged.
The damage, for the most part, is unintentional. For all those âFlows to Bayâ signs on city sidewalks, many people donât realize that what they do on land eventually gets into waterways and affects everything downstream. With land use regulation still the third rail of California environmental policy, we continue to build in floodplains and on creek banksâwith unfortunate results for both human residents and aquatic ecosystems.
In general, land use actions suggested in the CCMP include broad concepts, such as not building in sensitive habitats or on floodplains, and planning growth with the watershed in mind. Or they include more targeted actions like setbacks to discourage creek side construction, Bay-friendly landscaping practices, or keeping cows out of streams. All of these measures are easier said than done.
The group that met in 1993 to develop CCMP objectives for land use and watershed management stepped gingerly out into a regulatory minefield. âWe were trying to address environmental issues that went beyond the purview of existing government entities, and affected stakeholders at opposite ends of the spectrum, from buildersâ trade groups to creek advocates,â says Steve McAdam, then with BCDC. Land use decisions had always been made at the local level, and with watershed, stream and Bay protection taking a back seat to more pressing development issues. Even after CCMP participants took regional limits on land uses impacting waterways off the table for political reasons, the group struggled to reach consensus.
McAdam says the hope was that local governments would adopt co-management of watersheds that ran through multiple jurisdictions. The CCMP attempted to suggest how that might happen. When stakeholders met again in 2007 to update the CCMPâs land use management objectives, their new approach encouraged local watershed management plans and stewardship councils. Alongside those were broader objectives: regional policies to protect and restore natural floodplains, promote compact contiguous development, andâa departure from 1993âdevelop consistent policies for coping with climate change.
Compared to other arenas of change proposed in the CCMP, watershed management was a hard nut to crack, according to Harry Seraydarian, who once chaired the CCMP management committee and now runs the North Bay Watershed Association. Six years later, local initiatives abound, but regional-scale and interagency coordination remains elusive. âWeâre still doing a poor job of collaborating on land use decisions that impact water resources,â Seraydarian contends.
From the outset, one of the biggest obstacles to coherent watershed management has been coordinating across multiple jurisdictions. Much is happening at the local level, but quantifying just how much isnât easy. No central regulatory authority or informational clearinghouse for watershed management plans exists in the Bay Area. Nor does a standard template for drafting such plans.
To get a better handle on the level of watershed planning across the region, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership distributed a survey to 101 Bay Area cities and all 9 counties in 2012. They received responses from 52 cities and 8 counties. Based on those responses, ten cities had watershed plans. A few others, including San Francisco, had plans under review. On the county level, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Napa reported that they had watershed plans. Over half the responding cities had also enacted creek setback ordinances. Some cities have folded watershed management into their general plans: âWatershed planning objectives are being met in a variety of ways at the local level,â says the Partnershipâs Caitlin Sweeney.
On a parallel track, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board has been promoting watershed management slowly but steadily since the early 1990s. It has been requiring cities and counties to have stormwater management plans, the logic being that where stormwater drains, so drains the watershed. The Board also requires on-site stormwater treatment or retention in new and redevelopment building projects involving over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, and even lowers that limit to 5,000 square feet for uses such as gas stations and uncovered parking lots.
Many Bay Area cities have embraced the stormwater management approaches pioneered in Portland and Seattle, and put low-impact design standards for municipal buildings in place. Berkeley, which took on a pilot study for two of its eleven watershedsâthe âghost creeksâ once known as Potter/Derby as well as largely natural Codornices Creekâmay be representative. Josh Bradt, now with the Partnership, helped develop the plan.
âThe core component was combining green infrastructure approaches with needed upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure to achieve water quality improvements, flood reductions, community beautification, and habitat improvement,â he explains. The process included a consultantâs analysis of the two watersheds and back-and-forth with city public works staff to ensure the plan accounted for increased maintenance workloads. Berkeleyâs city council adopted the plan in 2012 and made it part of a capital improvement bond measure, which voters approved.
Beyond the official plans, the attempt to promote watershed-based stewardship groups, an action item added to the CCMP in 2007, is a clear success. âYouâve got a âFriends ofâ group on almost every significant tributary,â says Seraydarian. But the effectiveness of such groups varies. Beyond hands-on creek cleanups and replanting, some are doing serious restoration. Surveying the North Bay watershed scene, Seraydarian calls out the Sonoma Ecology Centerââa mini-San Francisco Estuary Institute, with technical people doing technical workââfor its achievements on Sonoma Creek. In Marin County, Friends of Corte Madera Creek is also addressing the flood control/habitat nexus. The North Bay group, he says, is âtrying to push more integrated concepts to get healthier watersheds. The fundamental difference between the North Bay and the rest of the Bay Area is population density. The North Bayâs tributaries are less impacted, and thereâs more opportunity to protect them.â
With the help of many partners, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership coordinates the Bay Area Watersheds Network, a regional forum where these groups can share information, ideas, and tools through workshops and an online âCollaboration Corner.â The Partnership has also championed initiatives for low impact development and green infrastructure, and a Small and Micro Grants Program for watershed health. Last year urban planner Adrien Baudrimont took on a Bay Area creek mouth assessment for the Partnership, cataloging details on site history, substrate quality, and vegetation conditions, and looking for restoration triggers like the presence of endangered species or steelhead spawning habitat. Governments and citizens will be able to access the resulting inventory.
Another project, Flood Control 2.0, has pilot sites on San Francisquito Creek near Palo Alto, Novato Creek in Marin County, and on Walnut Creek. âWeâre taking advantage of a time in history where the flood control infrastructure around the Bay needs maintenance,â says the Partnershipâs Sweeney. âWe want to seize the opportunity to think more broadly and redesign flood control facilities to increase the resiliency of watersheds in the face of sea level rise. And we want to incorporate habitat benefits too.â
A third of the cities surveyed by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership had creek restoration projects or programs. Those principles are being applied on a larger scale in watersheds that cross city lines. âThe cutting edge in restoration is the Napa River,â Seraydarian adds. âIn the past, the Army Corps of Engineersâ solution to flood control was to channelize everything. Napa was the first to come up with the âliving riverâ concept, an alternative design that protected downtown Napa from flooding and enhanced habitat. Thatâs the project that changed things.â
In the South Bay, the Santa Clara Valley Water District created a Water Resources Protection Collaborative, which has promulgated standards for development along streams. The county adopted those standards, including slope stability triggers for construction setbacks, as did most of the countyâs cities. The District also developed stewardship plans for four watersheds within its jurisdiction. Though not as proactive as Santa Clara, many other counties have taken similar steps at different levels to promote sound watershed stewardship and flood control along waterways.
One step closer to the CCMPâs goal of regional coordination was the passage of Proposition 50 in 2002, which established the Integrated Regional Water Management Program, a nine-county effort to address water supply reliability, water quality, flood protection, and habitat. Seraydarian explains that IRWMPâs coverage doesnât completely coincide with that of the CCMP, since it includes North Bay watersheds that donât drain to San Francisco Bay yet excludes Delta counties. âBut thereâs been good constructive overlap between the two perspectives,â he adds. âWhen the CCMP looked at the health of the Estuary, they couldnât ignore water supply diversions. When the state came up with IRWMP, they couldnât ignore all the other aspects that are impacted by water supply reliability. Both reinforce the coequal goals.â
One of the most hopeful regional initiatives is Plan Bay Area, a joint venture of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Plan, developed over the past four years and approved this June, encourages compact contiguous development with emphasis on urban infill, and the integration of new housing and transportation needs.
Although cities and counties retain local land use authority, areas that have identified themselves as welcoming denser development will get extra funding from MTC. That will spare small cities, single-family neighborhoods, and rural areas from inappropriate growth. âWeâve had a lot of plans over the decades,â says Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, âbut Plan Bay Area is different because it links development patterns to how we spend transportation money. Itâs meant to encourage people to drive less and take more mass transit.â
Pursuant to the Delta Protection Act of 1992, the Delta Protection Commission has also adopted regionally significant policies. These protect the rural character of the Deltaâs Primary Zone, directing new residential development toward existing unincorporated towns and encouraging clustered housing, buffers between farmland and residential or industrial development, plus setbacks from levees.
Some see hopeful signs of a new development paradigm. âThere have been fundamental changes in the way we use land, our approach to urban growth, housing demand, and construction,â says consultant Barry Nelson. âInstead of building out into diked baylands over the last 20 years, weâve revitalized our cities.â
The region has had to be forward-thinking, because so much valuable real estate and infrastructure is built on bay fill at sea level. To this end, local agencies recently launched a project called Adapting to Rising Tides (the ART Project), a collaborative planning effort to help San Francisco Bay Area communities be more resilient in the face of storm event flooding and rising seas.
Looking back, McAdam considers the CCMP a qualified success in the land use arena: âIt was helpful in pointing out areas the region needs to address and having state agencies address them. It also succeeded in getting the EPA to be more active in a local land-use role and educating the Corps of Engineers about protection of seasonal wetlands. Since 1993, thereâs more communication between local government entities on issues that pass out of their jurisdiction.â
Todayâs harsh economic climate has made it harder for the government to acquire more open space, protect more watersheds, and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Some things can be done without funding, but not all things. âItâs a question of political will,â says McAdam. âAre we ready to take steps to regulate land use more strongly, even if it means saying no to developers and their promised tax revenues?â
However it happens, land use has to be addressed. Beniciaâs mayor, Elizabeth Patterson, worked on developing the CCMP as a state water scientist. She calls land use management âthe most cost effective, reliable and long-term beneficial strategy across the platform of subject areas of the CCMP. Maybe land use is not considered a science or is too politically challenging, but the failure to embrace land use makes it harder for other resource management strategies to adapt to climate change.â
Projects Implementing Land Use Goals 1993-2013: 175
By Ariel Rubissow Okamoto
Nothing could be stranger than sitting in the dark with thousands of suits and heels, watching a parade of promises to decarbonize from companies and countries large and small, reeling from the beauties of big screen rainforests and indigenous necklaces, and getting all choked up.
It was day two of the September 2018 Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco when I felt it.
At first I wondered if I was simply starstruck. Most of us labor away trying to fix one small corner of the planet or another without seeing the likes of Harrison Ford, Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Jerry Brown â or the ministers or mayors of dozens of cities and countries â in person, on stage and at times angry enough to spit. And between these luminaries a steady stream of CEOs, corporate sustainability officers, and pension fund managers promising percentages of renewables and profits in their portfolios dedicated to the climate cause by 2020-2050.
I tried to give every speaker my full attention: the young man of Vuntut Gwichin heritage from the edge of the Yukonâs Arctic National Wildlife Refuge who pleaded with us not to enter his sacred lands with our drills and dependencies; all the women â swathed in bright patterns and head-scarfs â who kept punching their hearts. âMy uncle in Uganda would take 129 years to emit the same amount of carbon as an American would in one year,â said Oxfamâs Winnie Byanyima.
âOur janitors are shutting off the lights you leave on,â said Aida Cardenas, speaking about the frontline workers she trains, mostly immigrants, who are excited to be part of climate change solutions in their new country.
The men on the stage, strutting about in feathers and pinstripes, spoke of hopes and dreams, money and power. âThe notion that you can either do good or do well is a myth we have to collectively bust,â said New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy whose state is investing heavily in offshore wind farms.
âClimate change isnât just about risks, itâs about opportunities,â said Blackrock sustainable investment manager Brian Deese.
But it wasnât all these fine speeches that started the butterflies. Halfway through the second day of testimonials, it was a slight white-haired woman wrapped in an azure pashmina that pricked my tears. One minute she was on the silver screen with Alec Baldwin and the next she taking a seat on stage. She talked about trees. How trees can solve 30% of our carbon reduction problem. How we have to stop whacking them back in the Amazon and start planting them everywhere else. I couldnât help thinking of Dr. Seuss and his truffala trees. Jane Goodall, over 80, is as fierce as my Lorax. Or my daughterâs Avatar.
Analyzing my take home feeling from the event I realized it wasnât the usual fear â killer storms, tidal waves, no food for my kids to eat on a half-baked planet â nor a newfound sense of hope â Iâve always thought nature will get along just fine without us. What I felt was relief. People were actually doing something. Doing a lot. And there was so much more we could do.
As we all pumped fists in the dark, as the presentations went on and on and on because so many people and businesses and countries wanted to STEP UP, I realized how swayed I had let myself be by the doomsday news mill.
âWe must be like the river, â said a boy from Bangladesh named Risalat Khan, who had noticed our Sierra watersheds from the plane. âWe must cut through the mountain of obstacles. Letâs be the river!â
Or as Harrison Ford less poetically put it: âLetâs turn off our phones and roll up our sleeves and kick this monsterâs ass.â
by Isaac Pearlman
Since Californiaâs last state-led climate change assessment in 2012, the Golden State has experienced a litany of natural disasters. This includes four years of severe drought from 2012 to 2016, an almost non-existent Sierra Nevada snowpack in 2014-2015 costing $2.1 billion in economic losses, widespread Bay Area flooding from winter 2017 storms, and extremely large and damaging wildfires culminating with this yearâs Mendocino Complex fire achieving the dubious distinction of the largest in state history. Californiaâs most recent climate assessment, released August 27th, predicts that for the state and the Bay Area, we can expect even more in the future.
The California state government first began assessing climate impacts formally in 2006, due to an executive order by Governor Schwarzenegger. Californiaâs latest iteration and its fourth overall, includes a dizzying array of 44 technical reports; three topical studies on climate justice, tribal and indigenous communities, and the coast and ocean; as well as nine region-specific analyses.
The results are alarming for our stateâs future: an estimated four to five feet of sea level rise and loss of one to two-thirds of Southern California beaches by 2100, a 50 percent increase in wildfires over 25,000 acres, stronger and longer heat waves, and infrastructure like airports, wastewater treatment plants, rail and roadways increasingly likely to suffer flooding.
For the first time, Californiaâs latest assessment dives into climate consequences on a regional level. Academics representing nine California regions spearheaded research and summarized the best available science on the variable heat, rain, flooding and extreme event consequences for their areas. For example, the highest local rate of sea level rise in the state is at the rapidly subsiding Humboldt Bay. In San Diego county, the most biodiverse in all of California, preserving its many fragile and endangered species is an urgent priority. Francesca Hopkins from UC Riverside found that the highest rate of childhood asthma in the state isnât an urban smog-filled city but in the Imperial Valley, where toxic dust from Salton Sea disaster chokes communities â and will only become worse as higher temperatures and less water due to climate change dry and brittle the area.
According to the Bay Area Regional Report, since 1950 the Bay Area has already increased in temperature by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit and local sea level is eight inches higher than it was one hundred years ago. Future climate will render the Bay Area less suitable for our evergreen redwood and fir forests, and more favorable for tolerant chaparral shrub land. The regionâs seven million people and $750 billion economy (almost one-third of Californiaâs total) is predicted to be increasingly beset by more âboom and bustâ irregular wet and very dry years, punctuated by increasingly intense and damaging storms.
Unsurprisingly, according to the report the Bay Areaâs intensifying housing and equity problems have a multiplier affect with climate change. As Bay Area housing spreads further north, south, and inland the result is higher transportation and energy needs for those with the fewest resources available to afford them; and acute disparity in climate vulnerability across Bay Area communities and populations.
âAll Californians will likely endure more illness and be at greater risk of early death because of climate change,â bluntly states the statewide summary brochure for Californiaâs climate assessment. â[However] vulnerable populations that already experience the greatest adverse health impacts will be disproportionately affected.â
âWeâre much better at being reactive to a disaster than planning ahead,â said UC Berkeley professor and contributing author David Ackerly at a California Adaptation Forum panel in Sacramento on August 27th. âAnd it is vulnerable communities that suffer from those disasters. How much human suffering has to happen before it triggers the next round of activity?â
The assessmentâs data is publicly available online at âCal-adapt,â where Californians can explore projected impacts for their neighborhoods, towns, and regions.