Bay Science Collaborative 2016: Connect, Communicate, Collaborate

Bay Science Collaborative 2016: Connect, Communicate, Collaborate

>>Welcome to the Romberg Tiburon
Center for Environmental Studies. My name is Karina Nielsen and
I’m the Director of the Center. I’m also a marine ecologist and a member of
the faculty in the Department of Biology. So, I’ve been involved in conservation biology
for a long time in the State of California. It’s really my pleasure to invite you– to
introduce the session to have you all here. I wanted to say just a couple
words about the center. For those of you who are not too familiar
with it, our mission really is to support and sustain the vital connections between
science society at the sea and we do that through our research
and educational activities. And we have two primary partners on site
aside from San Francisco State University. We also host NOAA’s National Estuarine Research
Reserve Program which has two large sites in the bay, China Camp and Rush Ranch that
they work to monitor and do research on. We also host the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center. They– We have collaborations with them. And we are hoping to expand our group of
collaborators in solving some of the problems of the future in confronting climate change. One of the things that we’re trying to
do and that we think is really important for the future is that science
doesn’t exist in a vacuum or in a silo or in the ivory tower alone anymore. We really are trying to educate our
students and challenge ourselves to be a bit more interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary even in the way that we work. We know that the future is uncertain and
challenged by a lot of human activities and we can’t do it with science alone. The evidence that we gather from the
scientific approaches is going to help us but we really need to start talking across
a lot of the boundaries that we’ve created for ourselves between disciplines,
between communities and if we’re going to advance and find real solutions. So the Bay Science collaborative
which is– well, I must go to this. The Bay Science Collaborative is a new program
that we started when I started two years ago. And the idea really is to get
people to do more connecting, more communicating and more collaborating. It’s a forum for folks from different
disciplines to get together and that’s one of the reasons we have this
interesting talk format which a lot of the speakers are a little bit on edge about. We’ve asked them, we’ve put them into their
little uncomfortable zone where we’ve said, we’d like you to keep it
short and get to the point. So seven minutes, they have seven minutes. So you’re going to hear a series of
talks that are seven minutes long. They’re going to be quick. There is not going to be question and
answer after each talk, but instead, after this morning season of talks, we’re
going to go often to roundtable groups where each speaker will host a table and
you will get to go sit and speak with them and ask them question about their work
follow up on the seeds that they planted. If you’re working in the
area, you’re just curious about the ideas they’ve presented,
you can hear more. And we’re hoping that this will help seed some
collaborations that are productive for the folks in the room and maybe even beyond. You’ll have about 15 minutes, we’ll ring a
bell and then we’ll ask you to switch tables. So you get to talk with more than one person. And then after that, we have
plenty of time for lunch. And the program will repeat in the afternoon
and at the end, we’ll have some wine and cheese, so hopefully we’ll be able to lubricate
the discussions over food and bread, OK. And usually, when I go to meetings, the most
important time often aside from those few talks that are really inspiring is the
connections that you make in the meetings and the plans you make for the future. So that’s the part that we’re
hoping to emphasize here today. Few housekeeping things, in case you
haven’t noticed, we have two Wi-Fi networks. We obviously want you to pay attention to
the talks but in the spirit of communication and modern world, we also encourage
you if you do such things as Tweet. We do have a hashtag that we started last time. It’s Bay Science Collaborative
and that’s our address at RTC. So, and that’s the password if you need it. I’m sure most of you found the
restrooms are in the back hallway. And there are exists, I’m supposed
to do the safety thing, right, there are exists on either side, there’s
other exists, in case of an emergency. So our program, this is– we have a
wonderful program of speakers this morning. They’re not on those slides,
I thought they were. They were on the posters. Kathy is going to introduce the speakers to you. I really think this program that we
pulled together, thinking about adaptation and nature-based solutions to sea level rise
is coming at an incredibly timely moment. And it’s a really great opportunity to have
all of you in the room talking together. We really need to be creative
if we’re going to buy time to actually solve some of the bigger problems. We need to be creative and thoughtful about
how we use scientifically-based solutions in trying to adapt to sea level rise. There are a lot of creative and
interesting ideas out there and we want to make sure it gets connected to
evidence that we’ll make them successful. And that’s part of the point
of the program today. But I also want to remember and I think a lot of
us who have been working around climate change and the impacts on natural ecosystems also
have a little concern about making sure that we don’t lose sight, that this
is just the adaptation buys us time. It buys us desperately needed time but we can’t
lose sight of the fact that we actually do need to mitigate CO2 emissions
versus– for the future. So with that in mind, we
still have a lot of work to do in the current time and in the near future. I want to introduce to you Kathy
Boyer who is one of our faculty here at San Francisco State University. She has been a real leader in
the field of restoration ecology. She is particularly focused on
getting away from trail and error, getting away from just trying
stuff and not learning from it. So, she works a lot on collecting
evidence and doing experiments about which restoration techniques work best. She’s also lead scientist on the
living shorelines project together with other collaborators,
Benny in the room here. She is the instigator of this program and
was– brought all these great people together. And I’m going to let her
introduce the program formally. So Dr. Kathy Boyer, welcome. [ Applause ]>>All right, thanks Karina. Good morning everyone. So I’ll just say a little bit more
about the inspiration for the theme for this year’s Bay Science Collaborative. It really started organically
through conversations with colleagues and which we were excited about the fact that
a lot of momentum was growing around what to do about sea level rise and how we can
have nature-based adaptation toward it. But also, feeling like there was a
lack of communication among the groups that we’re addressing these issues, feeling like
wouldn’t it be great to get a bunch of people in the room who are coming at these
issues from a lot of different directions and get them talking and get them thinking
about how to move forward in a productive way. So we chose speakers today with really
diverse points of view on communication and coordinations of the planning
and science around sea level rise. What we intend to accomplish today is to
foster communication, to get people talking, to start collaborations to maybe hear
some things that we don’t already know, to change some minds about what’s happening and
what could happen in our toolbox of adaption. So that is really our objective today to get
talking, to get thinking, to get communicating. To get working together as we
move forward on these ideas. So without further ado, we’re
going to get started. And we will have seven speakers
this morning as Karina was saying. And let me get to our schedule here. Just briefly, we’ll have this morning
season with the seven speakers. We’ll have 15– let’s see, we’ll have a break
and then we’ll have our discussion tables. We’ll have lunch. We’ll have our afternoon season. We’ll repeat the same thing. And then, as Karina was mentioning
the wine and cheese reception, so we really hope that people will stay all day. That’s our intent and we mixed up the themes
of the talks very much with that in mind. We didn’t want scientists to
only come to hear the scientist. We want the scientist to hear everybody. And, you know, continue that fill in the
blank with whatever group we’re talking about. So we do want to have a good variety and a
good mixing of people from all different walks. OK. So let’s go ahead and get started. So we are going to start with Andy Gunther. Andy is with the Bay Area
Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium. Come on up Andy and.>>No. No, don’t applaud because
you’re wasting my precious time, right? Let’s see, where we’re going here, yeah, great. So I grew up in Southern California and I spent
a lot of time bodysurfing, and anyone who’s done that knows that you get out there and every
so often, you look up and here comes a wave and you can’t retreat and you can’t get out
past it and you sort of have this feeling of impending doom, you know you’re
going to get smashed, right? We used to call this, getting Maytagged. Now, I never imagined they’d getting
Maytagged would be part of communicating about climate change with the staff of the
speaker of the California State Assembly, but that’s exactly what happened to me. Because I was in this office, I was trying
to explain to these people about the urgency of the climate scientist and other
scientist feel looking at the data. They were all from San Diego
and it suddenly occurred to me and I said, did you grow up in the ocean? Yeah, and I said, did you ever have
that feeling when you are out there and you saw this wave coming and they’re like
OK, that’s how a scientist feel when we look at the concentration of carbon
in the atmosphere. We understand the future commitment this means
both to sea level rise and to other changes. And I was able to communicate a
critical fact to these people. Not by what I know but how
I feel about what I know. How it makes me feel. And that was really important. To this day, I’m sure she doesn’t know anything
about the breath and this time the carbon in the atmosphere but she understands
that we’re going to get Maytagged. So this passion objectivity is so important for
science, limits effect of public communication. As does, our language, we love
to have words for everything but they’d mean different things to the public. So you say theory, you mean
scientific understanding but members of the public can hear hunch. You say, error, you mean difference
from true value, they think wrong. And then we have all of our terms, you
say something like ecosystem services and you’re excited to talk about the important
benefits for human beings on the rise, I mean healthy functioning ecosystem, right? But, they don’t know what
you’re talking about, OK. So one of the ways you can deal
with this is by seeking peer review for your communications from
non scientific peers. So I wrote an op-ed that night and
as a member of the board of the union of concerned scientists I have
access to our media staff in DC. I sent this to them, it came back off, slashed
to pieces and I looked at it and I realized, all these technical terms are being taken out. And it was like, it was denerdified. I loved it. So before I sent it to newspapers, I
thought, I should give this to some friends of mine who read the op-ed pages. So I gave it to them, they all of them– e-mailed back saying, they
said, and this looks great. But it’s so nerdy. So even though I thought it was
denerdified, it still had a long way to go. Scientists also have to remember, physics does
not constrain everybody in your public audience. And so you can get asked questions like this. I was kind of like the athletic
duck when they asked me and– I try and tell a story for people. And I use the history of climate
science and you don’t even have to be scientist to tell the story, right? You get to start with [inaudible]. He was a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson’s. He marched with Napoleon in Egypt while he
was also a physicist, studying heat transfer. All right? You’d say Napoleon, you get your public– public audience’s attention because that’s not
what they expect sciences to be talking about. And I go through Tyndall’s work just because
I love to show the Tyndall’s picture, I mean he’s like the epitome of the, you
know, the 19th-century scientist and talked about how Arrhenius’ work happened 20 years
before Alfred Wegener publishes the theory of continental drift. And then Arrhenius figured all
these out with just a piece of paper and a pencil, had long Swedish nights. So we also have to respect, acknowledge
and acknowledge beliefs and values. Now, this is a terrain that scientists
do not tread in to but you have to if want to communicate about this. The controversy about climate change in our country is a controversy
about beliefs and values. And people have been convinced that if they
accept the evidence of climate science, it will require that they take actions that
are inimical to their own personal values. That’s ridiculous but that’s where it is. So, when I talk about climate science, the
first thing I tell people is I’m not going to tell you what to belief, but I’m not
going to tell you what’s right or wrong. You have your own values that you use
to determine what’s right or wrong. What I am going to do is I’m going to tell you
about the evidence that we have a big problem and I’m going to ask that you listen to the
skeptics, the real skeptics, the scientists. And I use the motto of the
Royal Society, you know, founded in 16162, this is their motto, right? So remember that passion and emotion
are part of persuasive communication. OK, you need to tell people how,
what you know makes you feel. This will not make you less of a scientist. It will make you more of a person. So let your audience know how you feel. Scientific language can hamper
communications so make sure to seek peer review from non-scientific peers. Public audiences can be unconstrained
by physics. I used the story of climate science
history and respect beliefs and values by separating them from objective evidence. And let people know that the heart of the
scientific process is objective skepticism. There are not scientists on one
side and skeptics on the other. Thomas Jefferson warned us, right? And we as scientists, we have a
message that can cross cultures, can unify nations as we saw in Paris. And we need to take responsibility for
communicating this effectively and persuasively. It is not a job that we should
leave to somebody else. Thank you very much.>>Six minutes, good. OK, so moving right along this lighting
speed, we have Marilyn Latta who’s with the California State Coastal Conservancy,
come here this way Marilyn so you don’t– OK. All right, don’t trip.>>Yup.>>All right, so I’m going to start you up. Go.>>Great. So again my name is
Marilyn Latta, I’m a project manager with the State Coastal Conservancy
and I’m really excited to be here to share a few key thoughts on
linking habitats and feasibility with living shorelines approaches
in San Francisco Bay. Like many urbanized estuaries we’ve lost
natural shorelines due to filling development. Beaches, wetlands, seaweed beds, oyster
and eelgrass beds have all been impacted by traditional hard engineering techniques
that involve dredging, fill and placement of seawalls and other structures. This has cost substantial
loss of habitat values due to various impacts including the full severance
of habitat connectivity between habitat types. And these hard shoreline methods have to be
constructed and maintained at a very high cost. With climate change and sea level rise,
the existing infrastructure of seawalls and levees is necessary in some locations and
will need to be maintained at bigger scales. But there are also many opportunities to design
for diverse types of nature-based approaches. It is possible to enhance biologically
dynamic borders that increase specie support and connectivity while also providing
some level of shoreline protection. Climate adaptation depends on
innovation with our shoreline management but also a science-based sustainable,
permitable, and cost effective techniques. There are many terms for what ultimately
is using nature to achieve both biological and physical goals on the shoreline
and adapt to climate changes. Some states and project efforts have gotten
really bogged down by trying to agree on terms. But many support various terminologies
including living shorelines, soft shorelines, green infrastructure and
nature-based adaptation. The picture on the top right
is a typical cross section of an Eastern gulf coast living
shoreline approach where this type of work is preferred for over two decades. According to the Restore
America’s Estuaries definition, any elements used must not interrupt
the natural water-land continuum to the detriment of natural
shoreline ecosystems. Maryland legislators approved the
Living Shoreline Protection Act in 2008 making it state public
policy to protect natural habitat and shoreline processes Land
owners actually have to demonstrate that a living shoreline approach wouldn’t work
before they’re allowed to construct a bulkhead. There are many examples of States
that have created mechanisms to make permitting pathways more
efficient for these types of projects. These states have policies that specifically
align with certain aspects of things like the army coordination wide permits. And while they don’t get a pass on state
and federal permitting because of that, it helps everyone to navigate that
process in a more standard way and clear for the applicant to navigate. There’s lots of other types of policy support
including the president’s Climate Action Plan of 2014 which calls for improving
natural defenses, protecting biodiversity and conserving natural resources
in the face of climate change. Many State efforts support soft shoreline
approaches including the safeguard in California plan. The Conservancy’s climate-smart
principles and BCD’s in spill and sea level rise policy reviews. In June 2016 the court proposed a new nationwide
permit B which is specific to living shorelines. So it’s in the design or the
comment review period now and hopefully will be in placed in 2017. In the San Francisco estuary, there’s been
a concerted regional collaborative effort to quantify the existing status and benefits
of the submerged habitat’s tidal marshes, shorelines, and upland eco-towns. And to develop long-term recommendations
for climate adaptation approaches. Multiple national case studies are
linking practitioners around the country and highlighting best of cross examples with
nature-based adaptation that’s occurring now. These aren’t just ideas but pilot
projects being implemented in many states. National information’s hearing is
critical to both find synergies and also recognize variations
and regional approach. There are many types of habitats
that may be appropriate to include in a soft shoreline approach. In addition to tidal wetlands, we also
have submerged bottom types and vegetation that have the potential to reduce wave energy. We’ll also providing spanning and nursery
habitats for juvenile fish and other wild life. All of these habitats occur in different depths, salinity and temperature
ranges and physical conditions. Restoration designs must incorporate siding
and methods that take this into account. Here’s a cross-section again but more specific to the complete marsh approach
recommended in the Bay land’s goals. One size is not going to fit all but some
size maybe suited to one habitat type, and other sites may have the special are and
the conditions to link multiple habitats as part of one link approach up to shoreline edge. Each habitat had a potential to provide varying
amounts of those ecosystem services for humans and also functions for wild life. The conservancy is working very hard
with multiple partners including RTC to pilot various approaches on
the shoreline and in the bay. If successful, the self-sustaining designs
will continue to grow and expand in the future. There are many sites specific
considerations where planning a project. You’ve got to look at existing uses
about the bay waters and the shoreline. It’s really important to
look at parcel ownership. And this map shows on the right
is a big complex touch work of public-private ownership in the bay. It’s important to look closely at depths
for habitat restoration and depths for access for construction and monitoring. The map on the top in the light gray show
areas that are less than 10-feet deep, and the picture on the bottom
left shows how hard they can be to access shells in tidal areas. The night picture shows the tide schedule. There’s a complex regulatory
framework to navigate. Strong environmental laws require
analysis of proposed impacts and benefits. And well, we know that they need updating,
these laws are there for good reason. It’s important to think carefully about field
justification, materials that you’re going to use, construction methods and
timing and how you’ll avoid impacts. And it’s important that we thread the nail
carefully in balance innovation and feasibility. There are barriers to innovation, science
and data gaps, institutional inertia, lack of a broader context for how shoreline
management decisions are made, be wide. And also lack of an advocate. It’s important that we focus on feasibility. We test different approaches and pilot
projects, documents, success before scaling up and monitoring long-term benefits and impacts. I love this picture after hurricane Sandy, showing conceptual wetlands
around New York City. But of course, once we get into a design phase, that actual configuration may
look a little bit different. [ Laughter ] So in summary, even though sea level
rise and climate change are daunting in the pressing topics, the
carefully considered future is bright. We need more pilot projects
to test different approaches. We need to develop best management
practices and design criteria. Capacity building is needed on all fronts. And we all need to work together to encourage
thoughtful use of beneficial Bay fill and experimentation with projects
until we find out what works best in different areas of the shoreline. Thanks so much. [ Applause ]>>:All right. Thank you Marilyn. So next up we have Douglas Mundo. You guys keep wanting to go across the courts. I know someone is going to trip. Douglas is the co-director of Shore Up Marin.>>Good morning everybody. I know, I guess all you have, [inaudible] so
I decided to be just type the presentation and I’m not going over the
[inaudible] this morning. I’m a resident of the local community in San
Rafael and as of you understand climate change, sea level rise is always going
on around the environment. It can affect everybody regardless of
race, economic status, and you name it. So here we are, residents from our local I would
say communities, undersized communities that get into the conversation of how sea
level rise will impact the community. How did– How my family is going to eat– is
going to be impacted by all those [inaudible]. So what we decided is to follow Shore
Up Marin, I’m the co-founder of– co-director of Shore Up Marin and we
decided, we need to bring together resident, skilled stakeholders to have a conversation
about how can we respond to these issues and develop some potential mitigations
efforts from the community perspective. So what I’m bringing is the community
perspective and what we are doing at that level. So I want to show this video that
brings involvement from resident, youth, local politicians, and in some other
efforts that we have been doing in order to prepare communities and be not so scapegoat
about the impact of climate change in those– in Marin and also especially
on those underserved community. So I thought that ever since
I’m going to work, OK. [ Music ]>>[Background Music] The Galdi’s [inaudible]
is home to many neo-immigrants looking to build a good life along the
shores of the San Francisco Bay. However, much like coastal residents all
around the US, many in the canal are unaware of their long-term risk of
flooding and sea level rise.>>It is susceptible to flooding. We’ve had some strong storms in the past where
the fields up here have gotten flooded and, you know, it’s sometimes a little
too close for a comfort for me.>>The areas are already put at disadvantage
because it’s located near the water.>>Many immigrants are in this
neighborhood and many low-income residents and also very small marginally
surviving businesses. Auto shops, small industry,
they’re all in this neighborhood so it’s a very impacted neighborhood
economically. At the same time, that it is really one
of the most susceptible neighborhoods in the North Bay to sea level rise.>>We used to be right here
with these so now you can see– you’d be able to see the bay a long time ago.>>The water used to come up on a
seven-foot [inaudible] right here. This is 1983, 33 years ago, can
we imagine what’s going to happen when the tide goes up even higher.>>This beautiful place we call
home has a number of risks. Everyone knows about the risk of earthquakes
but we are also at risk of sea level rise. Our shoreline areas are protected by a mix
of great infrastructure like the sea walls and levee shown in these pictures.>>There’s quite a bit that’s already at risk. A lot of our shorelines are already at risk. We have a lot of natural
resources, wetlands, parks, public access that are all
threatened by sea level rise. There’s no level of traffic
riding through all that. But then there’s also the impact on the
neighborhoods and the people living there and then what kind of preventative
measures can be– can be happening.>>It’s going to be worse during flood times
and it will definitely impact the Bay Area and it will definitely impact downtown
center [inaudible] and the neighborhood we’re in the Canal District and the wetlands
that are right around here in the Canal.>>What happens when walls and levees fell? Great infrastructure protect
us but also make us vulnerable. Hurricane Katrina showed us what can
happen when communities are not prepared.>>We’re very far down the
road where carbon is in our air and it’s causing a global warming
effect that is melting our ice caps.>>Climate change is one, if
not the most extreme priorities. The challenge with it is that on any given
day, it doesn’t feel like the most urgent because it’s unfolding, you
know, kind of gradually. However, it’s– it’s by almost any analysis
or honest about it the most important because the impacts are so extreme
to everything, to our environment, to our public health, to our economy
if we don’t step up and do something.>>I think having face to face
conversations is really, really important. When you talk about an enormous,
complex issue like sea level rise, it’s hard for people to get
their minds around it. But if you will say, “Hey,
this is my experience. I live in a neighborhood that’s going to be
affected” and this is why it concerns me. That’s really impactful, you
know, as humans that’s part of the human experience of
having a conversation.>>Marin County is doing quite a bit. I actually work on a program
called BAYWAVE-which stands for the Bay Waterfront Adoption
Vulnerability Evaluation and what we’re doing is a vulnerability
assessment for all of the Bay Shore of Marin and what we’re trying to do is
assess how vulnerable the county is. So what we’re hoping to do is begin the
conversation with all the communities with the decision makers at the cities and the
towns about what happens, what’s there now, how will it change if they’re impacted by
either temporary or permanent flooding. And then really just trying to bring
all those people together to think about how they want to plan the future.>>The city of San Rafael has– had program
to help people become disaster-ready and it’s called the, CERT program. And I mentioned that even though it’s disaster
preparedness, it gets people to start thinking about what is my role and what can
I do to protect me and my family. And so, I would encourage people to sign up for
that because they both learn about the issues and they learn about how
they can do self empowerment.>>And I know people have to prioritize,
you know, there’s only so much they can do, but that is going to affect all of us and
especially our young people, they have to learn about it and be active in sooner than later.>>As young people, I believe
that the steps that you can take and the combating the sea level rise would be
getting that education and making sure you know who was in support and who
isn’t and who is unaware.>>We are not powerless. That’s where the hope is. Just by youth involvement. And people should be asking for a lot because
we are very much at risk as a society, as a world right now because
of the sea level rise.>>When you come together and start
speaking out and start organizing and start influencing folks,
you have incredible power. You’ve got a very direct stake in
this democracy and in the decisions that we make, affecting your generation. And I think just sort of stepping out and
seizing that is the most important thing.>>Lolling areas like the Canal have
flooded before during big storms and even ultra high tides. Young people will face the
brunt of this problem, so we need to engage the entire community,
young adult in protecting the future for them. Talk with your families, neighbors
and elected representatives. You have a place at the decision-making table.>>This is it. [ Applause ] I just want to conclude by saying that to Shore
Up Marin, we have been able to once again, do trainings of the center and
we started with sea level rise and we are also preparing our communities
against anytime will emergency right now. So, Shore Up Marin is a multiracial,
multilingual and I would say, a coalition, environmental coalition advocated for
equitable inclusion about low-income communities into the plan and preparedness
of a term on sea level rise in any climate change issues that are happening. So, thank you so much for
allowing me to speak today. [ Applause ]>>OK. So, next up, we have Julie Beagle
from the San Francisco Estuary Institute. And go ahead and start.>>Hi, I’m Julie from the San
Francisco Estuary Institute. And mine is going to be very nerdy. And so, I hope I can communicate it well. I’d like to talk about– take a moment to talk
about how diverse our shore line is and how– When we’re thinking about all
these adaptation strategies, how they fit into the geophysical
setting of the Bay? As we all know, the Bay is
heterogeneous and dynamic. There’s lots of assets, lots of risk. And as Marilyn said before, there’s no one-size
fits all for sea-level rights adaptation. And perhaps, the real problem is that as a
region, we lack a science based framework for citing and evaluating climate
change adaptation strategies that are appropriate for
those physical conditions. So, and through SSCI form, we start
with the historic Bay, historical Bay. And as you– If you run your eye along the
shore line, immediately you see embayments, promontories, areas with hot– lots
of mud clots, areas with little, areas that are very close to
the DP and areas that aren’t. So those are just some of the differences. And even in the intervening years, when we
have largely cut off the physical processes that created and maintained those
bay lands like dams, the levees, urbanization, the subsidence that followed. The Bay Shore line is still very
complex and we can’t really talk about the shore line as one kind of whole thing. It has to be differentiated because
it’s made more complex by all the assets that we have along the shore line. The transportation structures,
low-lying housing as we just heard about. And then the really diverse land uses that are behind the shore line
that will become more at risk. Here’s just an example of some of those things. And as we know, there’s a lot of
adaptation strategies out there already. Different types that we’re really, really
comfortable with, as Marilyn was saying like riprap and floodwalls, we all know
how to do that, we know how to permit them. But there’s a whole other
series of living shorelines and nature-based adaptation
strategies that are just starting to become used in the bay and pilot it. Here are just some of them that we– maybe
aren’t as comfortable with as a community. And currently there’s no overarching
strategy or guidance on where certain of these strategies might be more appropriate. There’s no regional assessment
on what the impact of some of these strategies might
have on the bay in general. And as Marilyn said, a lot of these
strategies aren’t able to be permitted. So how do you differentiate settings within
a bay to get to some of that guidance? So, we’re working on a project with the
regional board and many of the partners in this room including Penny Spurr
[assumed spelling] to divide up the Bay into management segments with similar processes,
similar way of environments and analyze them. Maybe try to get to some of that
guidance for the community at large. So, some of those parameters
that we might need to consider to get there include just our
basic geologic setting of the bay. We live in a fault-bound bay. And on either end of the
bay we have large valleys. Big flat areas, we have steep headlands
with small valleys on the side. We have alluvial fans pinching
into the bay on the other side. So, just right away, our bay lands
track that geophysical differences. We have historically large marshes along
the access of that fault and smaller marshes and other types of natural
habitats on either side. And so that really distinguishes large
areas of marsh and smaller areas of marsh which would have different
strategies that would be appropriate. The bay is also evolving, it’s not static. So we have some areas of our shoreline that are eroding really rapidly
which we need to understand. In some areas of a shoreline that are prograding
really fast into the bay and moving out and what we decide to do in those places
really depends on that setting and evolution. Waves and tides propagate around
the bay really differently. Wave heights vary tremendously
around the bay and the way that our tidal structure works is it is very
different in the North Bay and the South Bay and we need to keep those things in mind when we’re proposing different
strategies in different places. The wave of the tides propagate around
the bay combined with many other things but also the shape of our bay that is talking
about before it leads to different areas like coves that will– are more–
a depositional environment. So it’s something that you put there might
be more likely to stay there on its own versus areas that are more dispersive. So, if you put sand for example
it may be more likely to travel. Some areas like I said before are
very– have large wide mudflats. Some are very close to Deep Bay, so we
need to think about when we’re putting– when we’d like to put a large
marsh and it’s very close to Deep Bay you might want to think about that. Is that going to self-sustain over time? We– not going to go into this
because I know I don’t have time. The shoreline is also composed of many
different things as has also been said already. A lot of our bay has floodwall,
shoreline protection structures, but it’s surprising how a lot of our
bay is composed of unengineered berms. There’s a lot of wetlands. So there’s a lot of opportunity but it’s
really stratified in different ways. And then of course we all know this and we
heard this earlier, sea level rise is going to impact different parts of the
shoreline in really different ways. Some areas are much more at risk than others. And so, thinking about all of these
different parameters and many, many more that we are considering, could you
try to put those on top of each other and sort of organize the bay into self-organized
units that maybe make sense. Maybe it looks something like
this, here’s sort of a draft idea. Maybe there’s segments of the bay that kind of
are under different stressors that are the same. That are– different process are acting,
you know, on these regions in similar ways that might allow us to provide
guidance of what type of strategies might be more
applicable in these areas. So for example this is a very obvious example
the San Francisco shoreline, you know, we see those really nice pictures of New
York but here’s an area where it’s very close to Deep Bay, very high wave
energy, very built out. We might want to think about is a big marsh kind of horizontal levee, the
most important thing there. Contrast that with the South
Bay where you have a lot of available sediment, you have low wave energy. You have a lot more maybe
opportunities for trying some of these newer marsh-based,
nature-based strategies. I’m not saying that’s right, it’s just
something to think about when we start to propose these ideas in different places. So to finish, just wanted to
repeat that the bay edge is diverse and dynamic and we need to think about that. Not all actions belong everywhere and
we really need these creative solutions. We really need to pilot them and
evaluate them and see how they work. But we should really think about the
context in which we propose and put them. And maybe this could be a
way to help guide permitting and other types of decision making, done. [ Applause ]>>OK, thank you Julie [laughs]. All right, so now we have Nate Kauffman
from the Live Edge Adaptation Project.>>Thanks Kathy. Hi everybody. I’m an adjunct at UC Berkeley, I teach at
the landscape architecture grad studio there. I also teach a summer studio at MIT and
I worked with a text [inaudible] checking out some of these issues around the Bay. The Live Edge, you guys have
probably all seen one of these before, it’s the outside of this table here that is not
defined by the milling of a tool or a machine. It’s the sort of organism, you know. You’ve seen a ball with like a bark
rim around the top, that’s a live edge. Master carpenter George Nakashima described
this feature as not only a creative force but a moral idea and I think the idea
is that the presence of the natural in the built is really reverential
of deep harmony. We have a hell of an edge to ponder. It’s a thousand miles long. And it’s varied as you can see. You guys know the drill, right? We laid low mountains for
gold while building dams and just abjectly filling the Bay
and this is a macro watershed. Each of those little red dots is a
dam-stopping sediment and impounding water that would otherwise be flowing
down and out through the bay. As Julie will tell you, we’ve also
decimated our bay lands and the era of sort of grandiose civil works
projects like the river plan, looking to build these gigantic
earthen causeways is over. So these gals came along, they
saved the bay, bay plan essential– the bay plan essentially did also,
however, freeze our shoreline in many places in a very unhealthy and completely
unnatural state that we’ve left around and treated to some extend as sacred. We deal with the tension between land and water in some pretty interesting
and sometimes hilarious ways. Levees, dikes, revetment and seawalls and those
get breached, that’s Jone’s track in the levee– in the delta, I’m sorry, cost about $90 million. Of course Katrina and the Tohoku
Disaster which was a seismic event. Nature does it very differently whether it’s
a mangroves, barrier islands, coral reefs, these are organisms and landscapes
and ecosystems that don’t exist to valiantly throw themselves out in
front of the destructive wave energy. They are born there. They evolve there. They live there for a reason
and here it was the bay lands. It was this huge swath of land from the– furthest down mudflats to the highest
wet meadows and we’ve lost a lot of them. And the writing is now surely on the
wall, I couldn’t resist this picture of a hot koala here getting hosed off. We know the water is coming up and we know
we’re actually going to lose the bay lands, most of them if not of all of
them by the end of the century because they have nowhere to
go and they can’t migrate. You can’t– you don’t have to be an
environmentalist to care about this. This is hitting our infrastructure hard,
300,000 people a day drive across this bridge, that’s the landing of the
Bay Bridge in the East Bay. That’s inches. That’s not feet. Silted in tight gates, Oro Loma. And once again these sort of mono functional
infrastructures are a thing of the past. Our energy transport water and waste systems
are all threaded into the flat low Bay Shore for a very good reason at
the time when we assumed that it was static, it’s not, and it’s changing. We’re also going to add a couple of million
people, I’m putting more stresses on that. And for my graduate thesis, I was
examining what we’ve done in the Bay that has created shore forms that have
actually helped the establishment and evolution of marsh plains, sometimes
without even meaning to. And it’s possible to do that, to build
these places that build those landscapes. In the process of sort of researching for leap, I’ve decided that our dredge regiment is
wasteful, that’s how much material we dumped in the Bay last year– in the ocean, I’m sorry, dredged out of the Bay last
year according to BCDC. And this is the project down at
Oro Loma that took six months to build and over four years to permit. That’s a problem. The horizontal levee in itself is basically just
a very long, low sloping apron of land intended to keep back saltwater if we examine
sort of the different flows of water and the way they interact with it up here. We see that it’s all in the vault, right? So we’ve got a ground water table
that’s also coming up, arising, saline, halo growing around the bay. You’ve got stormwater that’s going to be
impeded by any structure you put down there. You’ve got waste water, flowing
in pipes out of your toilets. We’ve got run off coming down and
meeting the back of the levee also. And we’ve got then theoretically, this polished
waste water running to the top of the levee and flowing down the phase of
it to irrigate and stabilize it. I did this drawing for my hero,
Jean Bourgeois [assumed spelling] about in landing using those
same applications down there, here’s a sort of a more regional approach
at the Oro Loma sort of regional setting, thinking about this but we don’t have places
all around the hall perimeter of the Bay where we have extended tidal marches or huge
areas that we can just convert or restore. So what do you do there? That’s what LEAP is really all about. It’s about building landscapes that
aren’t there now and weren’t there before because the landscapes that are there
now weren’t there before either. And how you bridge the ecologic, cultural
and economic utility to explore deeper values and connections about what our society can and
will be in the future, on a diagrammatic level, presenting essentially ancillary bands of
protection on a more sort of pictorial level, what that looks like and then contemplating,
this is what Julie would’ve called region 12 which is the best part of the Bay Area. In the East Bay here, all of
this artificial sort of scaffold which is all fill becomes the
armature for building inside, building these landscapes using sand bars,
shoals, reefs, beaches to establish sort of this network of public open space and
profoundly, ecologically rich spaces. I promised Kathy I wasn’t going to burn this,
but I was going to try to tear it in half. And then I went to grab it and I realized it
was wire-bound so, anyway, use your imagination. The bottom line is that this is not a document
that is up to the task of addressing this. So I have a question. What about a Bay plan for the 21st century? It’s already a 6th of the way over at this point
after all, because this is your menu of options. If you imagine that our society
is going to retreat and realign, because it’s the right thing to do,
you have a rich imagination indeed. We also know that we’re not
armoring and building up because you can’t even permit that anymore. So what about filling the Bay with bay lands? And I respect the liability, yes. I respect the liability. I know these are ecosystems that are fragile
and that are linked through organisms that are living creatures that
matter on an ethical level. I also know that we have a legacy of detrimental
effects on the bay that we need to reconcile. And we need to look at this on a broad view
both in the scope and scale of time and space. Marsh planes are an extremely valuable
in potent carbon sequestration device. I’m going to kind of blast through this. So we need a hell a lot of dirt to do it. In fact, Andy Gunther wrote a great
paper called, “How Much Dirt is That”, trying to quantify exactly how
much dirt we might need to do this, using land form as adaptation
strategy to– for sea level rise. One way to do it is to locally source it and essentially create these
long low-sloping aprons. The environmental affairs officer from East
Bay Municipal Utility District is here, Doug Wallace. He’s sort of a brother in arms. And he and I formed this group,
insuring a lawsuit by naming it R2D2, contemplating how we can redirect societal
and municipal waste and buy products into noble shore forms for multiple benefits. So, waste water, dredge spoils, trench
spoils, bio solids, impounded sediments and our flood control structures, et cetera. And this is what that might look like. So this is the live edge, interweaving in this
mosaic, the ecologic and the economic functions through this critical stitch of the ecologic. Places you want to go with your family,
pedestrian and biking infrastructure, oysters, turning those old nascent cells
back into functional marsh planes. Nature preserves, places you
want to go at night in the Bay. Places you want to go after
work or on your way home, or on your lunch break, and
on a large, large scale. This woman is Wangari Maathai. She founded the Green Belt
Movement in Kenya which planted over 50 million trees in that country alone. And then I’m getting a signal like
this from the back of the room. So I have to wrap up now. And that’s what it looks like. Thank you very much for being here and next. [ Applause ]>>Thank you Nate. All right, so next up we have
Evan Bordens [assumed spelling]. Now Sloan, right?>>Yeah.>>With California Kingston because– I’m sorry.>>All right, so I’m starting. I can start it with just that, right? Just that. OK. And this is my clicker or my pointers?>>Turn it on.>>Got it.>>All right, as Kathy mentions I’m Evan Sloan. I’m a project manager with
the Sate Coastal Conversancy. And I’m also staff to Southern
California Wetlands Recovery Project. And today I’m going to be discussing a wetland
restoration objective goal-setting project for the whole Southern California Coast. As well as highlight an adaptation
strategy funded by the Coastal Conversancy. So as we’ve heard today, we know that
wetlands are threatened by sea-level rise and that managers need many tools of
various spatial and temporal scales in order to protect those wetlands. There are some key strategies out there, like restoring [inaudible] upland
transition zones whether those are artificial or natural reconnecting wetlands, so their tides
and watersheds would be a dam and levee removal. Removing or setting back infrastructure and
replacing that with some living shorelines. And in the south coast, managing bar-built
estuaries to function more naturally. And while there are a suite of
strategies, managers are still up wondering, where do I do these? When do I use them? How do I do it? And how much is it going to cost? And in order to figure out this complex
problem, we need to work together. The wetlands recovery project is a
collaborative group working with over 150 state and federal agencies, scientists
and stakeholders to develop regional measurable
wetland restoration objectives. This project, called the Regional
Strategy is very unique compared to other goal-setting projects, as it’s
based on specific scientific analyses and sea-level rise modeling for the whole coast. So how are we doing this? You might be surprised to learn that there
are over 100 estuaries in Southern California. To make this more manageable, we
needed to categorize each wetland into specific wetland type
or which we call arc type. And then distribute that between 5 sub regions. So here you can see, I am showing you the
arc type distribution across the coast. And once those classifications were made, we
analyze the historic, current and future changes on a series of landscape
metrics which I have listed here. Based on those analyses,
the scientists were able to develop measurable restoration objectives. And I want to demonstrate the sciences really
gone into this process so I will give you a step by step method for the total area of wetland
objective that we’re currently creating. In this in many ways might be one
of the most important objectives because it shows the regional need for
restoration across the entire coast. So in order to develop this, we first
agreed to a set of criteria to determine which land uses would be considered
developed versus undeveloped. So in this example at Los Penasquitos
Lagoon, the state beach parking lots and the upland open space were included
in that undeveloped land foot print, and that’s available for potential restoration. Then the San Francisco Estuary Institute which
serves on our science panel developed the GIA, GIS elevation capital model, identifying
areas that are not currently wetland within that footprint, but are at the
right elevations to support wetlands. And then they went beyond that and added
0.6 meters of sea level rise to determine which areas could potentially be
available for future restoration. However, this model does not take into
account the physical processes necessary to actually make those flooded areas wetland. So to get it back, the acreages from that
elevation capital model, will run through it, a new model created by Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project in UCLA. This model considers drivers such as vertical
land motion accretion and most dynamics which are so important for
[inaudible] dynamic systems. Many of which are bar-built estuaries. The results from this model then gave us
that total area restoration objective. And this number is draft, but we have is a
total acreage of 8 300 hectares of tidal marsh. And this would provide an
ecological lift of 4,100 hectares and even would go beyond the
historical acreages of 7,500 hectares. And but is important to remember
that the current are that’s out there would still require some
enhancement and restoration in order to be resilient to sea level rise. And so this project is really getting, at this
point, the when and the where or the where and the when, but for the how and how
much we need demonstration pilot projects with robust monitoring programs to
test the efficacy of these strategies. And that’s where the Sate Coast
of Conversancy has come in. We are funding a series of different adaptation
strategies that I’d love to talk about, but today I’m just going to be focusing on
the Seal Beach sediment augmentation project. So that project is in the Seal
Beach national wildlife refuge which is rapidly subsiding digital long history
of oil and water extraction in the region. This 600-acres salt marsh is now experiencing
sea level rise rates three times higher than any other tidal wetland in the region. This is for the US fish and wild life
service to really think outside the box and to develop some radical
management strategies to save this wetland, such
as sediment augmentation. Sediment augmentation is placing clean
dredge material over an existing marsh. So starting in December 2015 and ending
in April of this year, we placed 10 inches of clean dredge material over 8 acres of low-elevation salt marsh
in the Seal Beach refuge. And this is what it looks like today. Now that the project team is working on
the post construction monitoring program which includes measurements on elevation
sediment dynamics, creek morphology, carbon sequestration, invertebrates,
birds and plants. This monitoring program to date will last
five years and I don’t have any results to really show you but here is a
post construction elevation survey. You can see that we have a
buffer around our project area, and this rectangular is some test plots,
actually looking at thicknesses larger than 10 inches which some people
have think as kind of nuts, but– and then we do have some lessons learned
after just the initial construction, things like promote– we want to
promote more sediment sampling because our material is actually a
little sandier than we were anticipating. Also, doing better estimations of
sediment volume needed using liDAR and experiments on compaction. We also really underestimated how much material
this is going to require, and you need to have– be very strategic in your site location. We were in the sense that we had really
great access for the clothing pipe and for the construction, but then our site
was also adjacent to many large channels. Thank you. [ Applause ] All right. So we’re going to end our set of
morning lightning talks with John King. He’s with the San Francisco
Chronicle and– all right.>>Hi, I’m the– OK, I’ve got
to worry myself super quick. I am the San Francisco Chronicle’s
urban design critic. Basically, I am a lifelong journalist
who now writes about architecture and the reason I have convinced the paper
this year to spend a lot of time writing, having me do projects, large
pieces on the need for the Bay Area to rethink how it plans the bay
in the light of sea level rise. The reason I’m doing this is, trust me, I
am profoundly not of the scientific bent. I’ve taken on these pieces
because it is so important. The topic is so important to
the future of this region. There is a very genuine urgency and the whole
notion of a rising bay cannot be overstated as a paradigm shift in how the
bay region thinks about itself. So far, I have done three large pieces on
the Bay areas, need to plan more assertively. I’ve got at least two more on the way. And in each of them I am using as my
base projection ahead the 2012 report by the National Research Council done for the
state that projects 38 inches of sea level rise through 2100 is the most likely
scenario, 66 inches it the outer limit. Now, inevitably each piece brings
a few emails mostly from out of state people quoting the website, what’s up with that telling me
this is all bogus and a crock. But I also inevitably get several
emails that are like this, can I– and I can’t match the condescending
tone of the writer. [ Laughter ] Ocean levels will be going up much more
rapidly in future years than in past years. New Orleans goes away by 2050, most of Florida
about low Tampa becomes uninhabitable by 2065. Much of the San Francisco harbor
line goes underwater by 2050, or a writer who reference
the Greenland glacier shelf and the Antarctic glacier shelf or whatever. Again, I’m not a scientist. And wrote, “a sudden 20 foot sea level rise
would bring a tidal bore through the Golden Gate and would roll all the way to
Sacramento as a standing wave. And my– my response to these,
kind of how I would respond and– and the point I want to make in the five
or so minutes I have left is yes, but. The thing is, even if every concern
about sea level is right and again, I totally agree on the urgency, even if the National Research Council numbers
done four year ago are now out of date, because everybody knows that the projections
keep getting worse, they don’t get better, and it doesn’t stop in 2100, fill in the blanks. The fact is, no matter how pressing
this issue might be for everyday people, the people who think– who
are living their lives, there are a lot of other pressing
things and they’re a lot more pressing. It’s the price of housing. It’s the need for a job to afford that housing. It’s the environmental question
of hill side protection. It’s who cares about sea level rise, an earthquake could hit before
I finish this sentence. You talk about, my gosh, you know, that the
approaches to the bridges could be flooded. We could have 880 go underwater and people
would say, “Good, we shouldn’t have cars. And for a lot of people honestly, the issue
right now is what if Donald Trump gets elected in November and brings the apocalypse. You know, so if you tell people that
none of these really, really matters, what’s important is these title shifts that are
going on large term and they are going to kind of say, “OK, I don’t care” you know. I mean I hate to say it, you know. I think one, you know, it’s just
the enormity of what do we do. Other people will say, “You’re going too far. Show, you know, call me back
when it’s actually happening. And I can– You and I can say that’s not the
right approach, that’s why I’m doing the series, saying we have to rethink now the last
half century of thinking about the bay. But the simple fact is, that’s
how a lot of people will react. If they don’t say you’re going too far,
they are likely to say, “Oh my God, I should have listened to Al Gore back in 2002. It’s hopeless” so I’m going to
have a salami sandwich after all. I’m going to order that second
old fashion, and then I’m going to get some land in Iowa because what can we do. So the point of this and I
just want to wrap up, this– I’m not saying any of this to be skeptical and I
agree with all the points made before, I think. But I think it has to be less of the, you
know, by 2100 we could be 20 feet under water and it’s just going to get worse after that. And kind of do what Marilyn referred
to earlier is threading the needle. I mean I really urge people who care about the
Bay Area and people who care about the future of the region and the intersection of land
and water which is what makes this region so special, to figure out how to adapt one step
at a time, you know, take these test things, keep thinking about moving them forward. Essentially, go from the
enormity to the we can do this. One step at a time and figure out how to
make each step ahead more rapid than– than one before because that’s
what we need to do. Thank you very much. [ Applause ]>>Thanks for coming back and
welcome to our afternoon session. There will be lots of time
to talk this afternoon. You just have to stay still
for seven speed talks. Oh my God. See, see, see what we’re doing for you. OK. Well, seeing lots of new
ideas, lots of call for open minds. Yeah, these– these things
aren’t rocket science. It’s what we need. Let’s– let’s just face it. We’ve heard cause for over arching planning,
regional strategies, incorporating communities. That’s great. I should introduce myself. I’m Ellen Hines. I’m the Associate Director here. I’m a Professor of Geography
and Environment at SFSU. My lab does marine zoogeography, so
you work with this cute megaphone, everyone that you really want to work with,
and we also do marine station planning. And we’re geography lab and I guess that’s
the other thing is, when people say scientist, there are all kinds of scientist. There are scientists who work with some
of these really wonderful social issues that you’re thinking of, scientist who work
with economy and governance and anthropology. And I guess my call would be, let’s be–
the sort of nerdy term is transdisciplinary where we try and blend the
sciences for a common goal. So, when we say science and when we say
scientist, let’s just realize there’s all kinds of scientist and I guess it would challenge us
all to think beyond the traditional sciences that we work with or that we employ and– and
search out, search out some of these people who have specialties in these
transdisciplinary or interdisciplinary or just plain complicated issues
that we’re all trying to solve. All right. So, let’s get started. OK, I’m a PC person but I’m going to try this. And our first speaker is.>>What kind of person are you, what you say?>>What kind of per– I’m a Geographer.>>You said something as a PC person.>>A PC person. Is that politically correct? No, no, no it’s Windows, its Windows. Peter, come on up. So our first speaker this afternoon is
Peter Bay who is a coastal ecologist. OK, once I click this you
have exactly seven minutes.>>Wish me luck on seven minutes. [ Applause ] I’m glad I’m following Julie
Beagle because the focus of my talk is also how adaptation projects hit
their environment and how many of the outcomes of both restoration projects and
adaptation projects are really dictated by the environmental settings they occupy. The first example I’m going
to give is the transition. Crissy Field which was a title marsh restoration
project and this is kind of a paradigm of restoration in a sea level rise context. It was originally designed as a
title marsh restoration project and it probably would have worked very well
in San Francisco Bay but because of mismatch of its environmental setting, its design, it
ended up being a permanent semi-title lagoon that was perennially choked by longshore
drift because it was exposed to Pacific swell. So the natural-based solution is
really a match between the environment and the design not the design itself. Another approach to matching design
to restoration design is to start with the landscape first and then
hierarchically move down to the project site. San Francisco Estuary Institute is trying
to do this and doing a fairly good job to start integrating watershed hydrology,
physical geography and coastal geomorphology and then imbedding project designs in it. The more traditional approach is
extending sea level rise adaptation from traditional land use planning where
design comes first and the environment is more of a blank canvass to put good ideas
in and then get consensus and buy in. So they introduced some of the
concepts for some of the examples. I’m going to bring– I’m going to reduce
environmental settings to pretty much one access and one variable wave energy
distribution across this cartoon bay land. Wave energy across the bay hits that breaking
slope at the outer marsh edge, the bay edge. That’s where wave energy is concentrated. Wave energy dissipates across the marsh platform
to the back of the marsh is the low energy end, and the front of the marsh is that business end. There are two kinds of responses marshes take
at that end where you concentrate wave energy, erosional scarps, which is usually a positive
feedback that retreats, that’s one response. A change in sediment type to course
sediment, a different dynamic. These are marsh-fringing barrier beaches. They can buffer erosion. In a restoration context or
sea level rise adaptation, people hear barrier beaches as a solution. They may be thinking of barrier
islands which is a different beast. Barrier islands consist on large sand
shells that are off-shore detached from the mainland way back
from where marshes are and they’re pulled up 0th of a kilometer– wide. Very high wave energy. Bay beaches in contrast are little
fringes of sand that are pasted by storm waves along that erosional scarp edge. And they basically roll over the
top of the marsh but they’re perched on the marsh, they’re not separate from it. This is historical. This is at West Berkeley, this is Fleming Point. So, it’s a different creature. Well, some people have used barrier islands
restoration recently 2010 after the BP oil spill and tried to rebuild like 80 miles
of them, but not in a setting in which they originally occurred
because that setting had changed. Three hundred sixty million dollars
went to this heroic effort very rapidly with minimal scientific review,
what could go wrong? [ Laughter ] What happened was, again the sand is still
on the system it wasn’t totally wasted but the land form that was intended to form that sheltering barrier disappeared
5 years 5 storms pretty even. So the problem was that they
didn’t stable proportion. They didn’t build it to the scale of
the environment that currently existed. That mismatch of design and scale and
process caused a very different outcome than when they proposed. So here’s a cartoon version
of two contrasting approaches, say just that one shoreline
response to barriers. These are marsh-fringing beaches along
the existing– And reveal Creston marshes, these are again, pasted right on in their
natural scale and position that’s when outcome– imagine putting a large barrier spit out towards
the mouth of the bay as opposed to the head of the bay which is the natural position. Well imagine that Crissy Field example,
where the unexpected outcome occurred, the typical response you’d
expect for oversized out of scale and out of place coastal land forms
be very much like Crissy Field. You get net longshore drift, bypassing of
growing– this happens all over the world, and formation of an ebb tidal delta and a
flood tidal delta that would choke the lagoon and create a different ecosystem,
a muted tidal one. Now, going back to the back
of the energy gradient, waves filtered out by a large
pro-graded marsh trying to camp. This is the terrestrial transition zone that
was the model for the Oro Loma horizontal levee. So imagine this is sort of an– natural
horizontal levee, where in that profile, where in the environmental
setting is that fixed? This is the concept, the people,
a design focus traditional focus on what you build, the levee,
the seepage terrace. That’s what going to solve sea level rise
problems, but no the design was to embed this in a particular part of a landscape. It does not belong just anywhere
because it looks good or, you know, it’s eligible for funding it really
interacts with that platform. If you put it out of place
you get a different result. What could go wrong if you
put it in the wrong place? Imagine you put this against
a steep shoreline gradient where wave energy is now
concentrating in its edge. You can get progressive retreat
like most marsh scarps. You usually get nauseas or scour
points when you expose in some ways. What happens to something at subsurface
seeps waste water, finds a notch, it becomes a surface seeps, surface discharge
including waste water to San Francisco Bay. Not a great idea. Not what you bought. So here are two contrasting
coastal compartments. This is where actually people have
thought about putting horizontal levees, this is India Basin San Francisco. Very sip near shore subtitle zone. Strong wave energy missed it, going to
contrast it with– and contrast it with five. Going to contrast it with newer– Cal,
just go back and ignore the slide. Newer, wide marsh platform,
both historical and current, that’s a place where you have
waste water and urban edge. That’s the setting. So the point is it’s not the design
that makes restoration projects or sea level rise adaptations working. It’s not what makes them natural. It’s the fit between that
environment and the design. And I think that’s where we really need to back up a little bit before we reach
too quickly for design solutions. Need to put the environment first, not treat
it as blank slate and then work our way down to appropriate design solutions which
is pretty much what Julie was saying. I just said it more incomprehensively. [ Applause ]>>Wow. That was heroic, thank you. [ Laughter ] Awesome. OK. Moving right along. So I’ll come back up after your slides are
done and we’re going to have a short video. So I would now like to introduce–
OK I’ll be ready to zoom out of here. Ariel Rubissow Okamoto, our writer and editor. Come on. [Inaudible] there we go.>>So my name is Ariel. I am a science writer that writes at a different
level than John King [assumed spelling]. I’ve tried to work on translating some of
the science that you guys have generated for policymakers and decision-makers. It’s a little bit of a different niche for me. So I– when I was invited to
this great collaborative idea, I said to myself, you know,
what can I talk about? I’m a writer it’s really
boring put words on the screen. And I thought I have been so inspired by the
Olympics recently and some pieces that were done in the New York Times which many of you have–
may have seen about the athletes and how and why and the science of why they
are so good at what they do. And I though we need to do these
kinds of things for our really hard to explain sea level rise adaptation topics. We need things like this for transition zones
and natural infrastructure and connectivity and all the things that we can’t
explain to the policymakers. Or, you know, and that they
want to see in a minute. So I thought, well, why don’t
we create something that we can share all amongst ourselves
for those moments when you just can’t– when you’re tongue-tied and
you can’t explain it. So I decided– oh, it’s not
going and it’s kind of weird. So I decided to use the Simone Biles Fine Line,
a little thing that New York Times produced which what I liked about it was it’s kind
of like a supercharged hybrid PowerPoint. It has things that you collect and
you move from pages and it has type and it has fax and it has voices and animation. And I thought, that’s what excites me about this
kind of multimedia medium as a challenge for us to communicate what we need to do. So here, the first element of the piece
as I analyze it, I kind of went through it and analyze maybe eight things about it. The first thing is the what is it,
the not, what are we talking about. For Simone obviously is that she’s
the greatest gymnast in the world and that she has this signature move
which is a double layout with a half twist and that’s all you find out about it, right? So for us, I said, OK, what do we know. Let’s take transition zones. What do we know about the transition zones, what’s the definition that’s
out there right now? Well, the transition zone is
defined as the area of existing and predicted future interactions
from my title– [ Inaudible Remark ] So, you know, this is what I
have to work with compared– [ Laughter ] Compared to the double layout. So if we deconstructed a little bit and let
me have like a slightly nerdy writer moment, you know, I would look at that and I’d say, OK, what are the most important
critical words that I have in red. It’s interactions, it’s joining
habitats, and I’d also, you know, what are the secondary words, and
also what are the snooze terms like you can’t say fluvial in like companies. [ Laughter ] But you know, and then you also think about, OK, what does transition zone
make me think of, you know. It made me think of things like when
I went into transition and labor. [ Laughter ] I mean– or you know, the area on airbus where
you run out of oxygen or something, you know, I mean one of the tools of
communication is to try to think of different ways to explain something. So, you know, the way that I ended
up doing and invade Nature Magazine, thank you for the opportunity,
was, you know, when I went– I went out to Bair Island with
Howard Shellhammer [assumed spelling] and we started talking about the
transition zone for salt marsh habitat– salt marsh habitat mouse– salt
marsh harvest mouse, and I said, “So where is this transition zone that you
guys are all arguing about all the time and you want me to call up migration
space but it’s not really migration space. It’s really– anyway, there’s
all these scientific terms. And you said, “Well, it’s really
right here on the side of this levy and it’s this big and I’m six feet tall. And that as much as we have in this
little tiny habitat here in Bair Island. So that was kind of the way
I started the article. That was the way that I invited people into
talking about this complicated science concept. And this is just the transition zone for the human population right next
toward Bair Island, foster city. So then there is this– this other
element of the gymnastics piece. It’s the hooks, the tees
obviously, for Simone it’s like, “All my guy friends can do
it, I can do it but I can’t.” For us, I try to talk about like the squeeze. I think it’s kind of fun term, you know, the
fact that we built all this infrastructure around the bay and we’ve also had
these beautiful trails and shore lines. And– but they’re being squeezed
out by the oncoming sea level. So, you know, you try to talk about
the fact that there just isn’t any room to move anymore and in terms like that. So that was another element of
me trying to match the not– look, of course the pieces from the
New York Times in Olympics had great, great graphics that none
of us could ever afford. But, you know, she had these wonderful–
it started with the basic metric, you know, what is the one thing we’re measuring. For her is that she can jump twice her height. For us it’s like, you know, how high can the
water go before this guy drowns, you know, or you know, how far inland can this
little mouse run before he drowns and how much land do we have for
that to happen for the next 20 years, or at least that would be
the metric we might use if we were talking about the transition zone. So Simone’s piece has incredible graphics. I do have the link to it in my abstract. You should watch it. It’s really fun. It has, you know, all the stuff in this
analysis of how fast she’s running. And I’m like, “Why can’t
we do this for our science? Usually, what we end up with is some charts like
this, right, and you know, I have, you know, today seen some amazing attempts to animate
this subject again and it inspires me again. And after this is over, I’m just going to show
a little clip from this movie that a friend of mine did that has some extraordinary
animations that I would hope that we could think about it in the future. We could find the money to explain
how water moves across the landscape which is the hardest thing for us
to communicate I think overtime. So Simone’s piece also obviously had
the expert testimonial, the validation. In her case, it was her coach saying, you
know, nobody else works as hard as she does. For us, it might be our coach, someone
like Jeff Collins [assumed spelling]. [ Laughter ] Saying, you know, “God, we’ve got all these
incredible ecological ecosystem services around the bay and we need to save them, you
know, or else and I know because I’m a PhD, so– [ Laughter ] We need the validations. We need the fact checking too. So, another final– and nearly final element
of the Simone’s piece is like the cool details. So when you’re communicating science,
you can usually zoom in on one or two things before they
lose their concentration. And in her case, there is a kind
of a simple thing about the width of the beam being four inches that she
was doing all these incredible things on. For us, we have things like this which
are really complicated about the width of our transition zone and of course
wouldn’t it be nice if we can start thinking about more simplistic ways to organize it. Oh, I’m almost. So, and always in every piece there is
why we should care because, you know, Simone is obviously she is the
only one that can do these things. For us is that there’s a lot of people
in the path of the water that we– and they have no place to
go and they will be at risk. And there is obviously many places
where there are no transition zones. So, finally what I’m trying
to do is create a whole series of these fun little gymnastics kinds of things
about our favorite topics and I’m trying to raise money for it and I’m hoping
that you will come to my round table and help me brainstorm what
should we be doing on some of these subjects and how to talk about that. OK. [ Applause ] All right. So do you want to next the
movie or do the movie.>>Let’s do the movie.>>We can do it. So this is just– just make
sure to watch what’s happening to the water and in the graphics of this. Just the animations part of it. [ Video Clip ] [ Laughter ]>>Water is just so precious. It doesn’t come like it used to.>>This whole notion of the American dream,
there really isn’t water conservation or any type of environmental– anything.>>All right. I’d like now to introduce
Shyla Saben [assumed spelling] from the Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center and UC Davis. Shyla, let’s trade places and I will press this.>>Yeah. [ Laughter ]>>So, one of the consequences of sea level
rise is increased flooding and erosion of coastal areas, and one response to this is to
build hard structures like grinds and sea walls. Although these structures may provide
us with some measure of protection, they also come with a whole
host of ecological problems. For example, sea walls can disrupt
important ecological processes that depend on connectivity between land and sea. In the example that I’m showing here
of the sea grass bed, high tides and waves take dead sea grass to a
sandy beach where it provides habitat and food for a number of organisms. The ability to remove those dead sea grass
allows for a healthy bed in which sea grass and associated organisms can do well. If you place a sea wall in the middle of
this and the rack can’t get to the shore, it remains floating above the sea grass bed
creating shade which is bad for the sea grass and eventually resulting in low oxygen, maybe
anoxic conditions as the organic matter breaks down and that effects the
organisms living in the sea grass. In addition, these hard structures
interfere with the ability of species to adapt to climate change. For example, these marsh plants are not
going to be able to migrate shore ward to keep pace with sea level rise. Additionally, sea walls fundamentally
change both the scope and the nature of the intertidal zone. And this cartoon here, an
undistributed shore line, you can see that the inter
tidal zone is quite broad. It’s also mostly horizontal with some
slight slope to it and it covers– that covers a number of different
substrate types. When you add a seawall, you greatly reduce
the intertidal zone and you change it to a completely vertical environment as
well as one that is purely hard substrate. In addition, the materials and the structure
of seawalls is quite different from that of a natural rocky shore and it
turns out that only a small substrate of native intertidal organisms can
make use of this novel substrate. In contrast, many non-native species
which tend to be weedy organisms that are habitat generalist can exploit
these unusual types of substrates. And so by the proliferation of hardened
shorelines we actually end up promoting in many cases non-native species
while decreasing the opportunities for native species to thrive. So what I’m going to talk about today are
structures that are multipurpose structures that can protect human societies as
well as native species and habitats. There’s a growing body of literature from around
the world that suggest that surface complexity in seawalls is incredibly important for
promoting the diversity of organisms that can live on them, even for a
subtle differences say between a seawall that is composed of blocks that don’t have
mortar versus do have mortar between them. Or the presence of pits in grooves, small differences in the structure
can really make a difference in terms of which organisms can live
there and how many there are. And one of my favorite research experiments,
some tide pools were added to a seawall and that brought an entirely different
set of species to be able to live there. So, some of these ideas have been
put into practice in many of them around the Metropolitan Sydney
area in Australia, I’m just going to show you some
quick examples of some these. These are the cartoons here,
oops, so the cartoons here on the left and then the actual seawalls. So here’s a seawall, a new one that was
constructed with tide pools incorporated into it, which allow species to live,
otherwise wouldn’t be able to use that space. Some of the seawall phases came
out to make some complex structure. Below they modified an existing seawall
by adding a boulder field to it. This increases the length of the intertidal
zone and adds substrate complexity. There’s a couple more of what I
think are beautiful examples of ways to do a hard shoreline and create many
different types of habitats within that. Another example where you have some harder
shoreline, but you’ve got a depressed area in here where marsh plants
can exist in a small land. And I think you can see the variety of
habitat is also really aesthetically pleasing. So what about going one step further
and combining shoreline protection with restoration of native species? So, those of us in the Smithsonian
lab here in Tiburon are part of an experiment that’s happening with
global partners, looking at the effects of substrate complexity on communities
that can live up on seawalls. And so, we’re using– all using the same
set of tiles which vary from flat surfaces to somewhat ridged, to deeply ridged surface. And then a number of locations around the
world the partners are adding native bivalves of restoration interest to these surfaces. Now we just deployed our test
substrates in July, we have one site here at the Romberg Tiburon Center
on the seawall right out there, and another site another site
at San Francisco, Marina. I was really happy to go back a day later and see that there were mobile species
are already making used of these plates. And particularly enjoying the grooves, crabs
and snails and it really got me thinking about their functions as grazers and
bioturbators and how that might affect what ends up the sessile organisms
that end up settling there. So, very quickly, should we build the wall? It’s not quite that simple. There’s few other ideas that
we might add to that. First of all, is a soft approach
appropriate, Marilyn talked earlier today about living shorelines that may be
appropriate in some cases But if not, think about building structural complexity into
new seawalls to preserve the intertidal zone. Perhaps add vegetation landwort
[phonetic] and seawort [phonetic]. And think about seeding with
species for restoration. Thank you. [ Applause ]>>Our next speaker is Peter
Leventhol from Marin County. What? What? Roger, roger. Sorry.>>We’re laughing because they’re buddies.>>I’m so glad you are. OK. Our next speaker is Roger Leventhal
from Marin County Flood Control. There you go.>>I’ll try to extend all my New York
ancestry here and get through this. I’m working at the County Marin Flood Control. And I’m going to talk about what we’re doing and why we really care about
sea level rise in Marin. And also maybe personal views on
probably what we should be doing. First, Marin is– I think of
all the Bay Area counties, maybe the most existentially-threatened by sea
level rise, and you can just see from our cities from down Marin City all the way up to Nevada. If you look at the dark blues, that 50
inches of sea level rise are impacted areas. And it’s a great place for me if you like
flooding because there’s coastal and river rain. If you’ve ever heard varied eroding shorelines,
so it’s going quicker than I thought. And so you can see we now can have
a sort of eroding rubble shoreline. We have a lot of marsh scarping which
is really how we’re losing our marshes, not so much by the over toping. And then we have this feature to this
side, what we’re going to do next which is, is it going to be sort of this rock or all sorts of sheet pile walls and–
That’s kind of where we’re at. So what are we doing? I think it’s going quicker, but I it should. I mean, it slowed us down a little. Yeah. I didn’t put this this timing, so. So what are we doing? So one thing we are doing is a lot of studies. So there’s one that I have personally did called
the Richardson-based study which is a couple of 100 pages of adaptation
options and cost estimates and probably few people have ever read it. So I’m thinking that perhaps that
tells you something right there, the value perhaps of very
large technical reports. The county’s doing a bay, like a bay wave. I’m going to go back and– I can’t go back. Wow! OK. So this is surely,
let me see and try this thing. OK. There we go. OK. So the county is doing a– called bay wave. It’s a vulnerability assessment for
the entire eastern Marin shore line. You’ll hear more about that next year. That’s a big sort of exercise. That’s really good and it sort
of quantify how impacted we are when you really get down to it and add it up. We do a public education outreach, this game
[inaudible] which I originally kicked off and our CDA has now taken and run with it. And it’s sort of a– people
really get to have aboard and play and actually play with adaptation themselves. So it’s learning by doing, which
we realize is a lot more powerful. This is a picture of people
playing it in the community. So it’s been a useful tool, but really what our
focus today is a pilot projects and the value of them in what we are doing in Marin. And so our focus on it and I think I’m
[inaudible] that acquires the importance of pilot project is greatly to
figure out what it is that works. And not only then, to hone what works
and the cost-effectiveness of this. And we don’t hear about that
cost, so that’s really the basis of what we really need to
understand and do better. So, the type is probably just
breaking the three large categories. Public education outreach, there’s a
deeper game of fledge we could be playing, which I think uses some of this new research on
their decision-making, their deep uncertainty, it’s all field of study that
I’ve been looking into. But skipping that and focusing on the,
the two big things we’re going to talk about are changing the permitting paradigm
and our construction of green pilot projects. There’s one that’s going now up in Nevada–
basin where we’re dredging the creek right now. And we’re actually taking the dredge
sediment and placing it along the alignments of what were the future sea level
rise levees will need to be. And this is kind of how it looks in plain view. Dredging the creek, placing it along
the alignment and then next week, we’re going to start actually, hydraulically
placing material for the ecotone levee. We’re using cement mixer type
equipment, so we’ll see how it goes. But it’s a pilot project and an experiment. We’re not dredging it directly from the
creek, but we’re going to do an inner step where we mix it up and scurry it and place it. We’re also interested if there’s a cartoon
horse on a levee that Peter talked about. You know, it takes at least in the
cartoon, you take a thousand feet. We don’t have a thousand feet
in a lot of places for marsh. So we’re looking if there’s a modification of
this that might trip the waves and another way of getting the same wave erosion
benefit, but in the less area. So modification to this, we’ve laid out
some concept that are both being the marsh. We have taken this to the construction level
yep, but this is something that works that– and it’s a pilot that’s sort of a–
uses a direct sediment constructed. Peter showed that engineered beech hedge,
it sort of combines it all into a good spark for future pilot project, just where
to test and hone some of these designs. There’s the Living Shorelines Project
that’s Marilyn and Kathy which is right after Marin Shoreline which has
been I think very successful. And I will call that a Marin pilot
project, and it’s not county. There’s around river beach that that Peter,
Stuart and I worked on design years ago, that was built, which is a engineered day beach. You see the island dock from Marin
had eroded up to 70 feet in some spots and that’s kind of how it looked before. I’m– I can advance. And then so we built it in 2011 and 2012. Built the beach and it’s been very successful and that’s actually now is a
really great sort of bird habitat. So that’s come back and it’s been really good. But we only built one and we need to build
more and more of these things to really test. So now Kathy says it was OK
to be controversial so I close with just a couple of slides of where I am. I get this sort of a personal rant,
what I think we should be doing or could we do more of what we’re talking about. And first is, we need I think
more tools for the engineering, the private engineering design community. And as I see this, I realized I’ve
violated every one of Andy’s tenants and his opening talk about,
how to communicate well. So it’s very text here. But the liabilities to show, you know the
managers in the world, I think we got a lot of tools for this sort of mythical land manager
that doesn’t really exist in the governance of a lot of urban county
areas where we don’t plan out 50 years and we don’t control everything. Things get down on a sort of as
needed basis and we hire a lot of professional consultants to do things. So we need to get information to the design
community where people stamp and build items and things where walls– or
even these ecological solutions. Then there’s the hard issues and this isn’t
something in the county we struggle with and we have varied difference of
opinion over what we should be– that I’ll be talking to people
about or what we have to deal with. But I’m here to tell you that at some point,
we’re going to be dealing with these issues if we’re really going to be doing adaptation. Now, they’re not easy and they may not
be quick, but we’re going to have to deal with this public, private property rights issue. In Europe, you know, everything holds up
the Dutch as– yeah, one minute here as a– solution for the truth is, you know,
these are a lot more eminent domain than we do in the United States. And that’s where a politician will go for. And it’s just the truth, we
have a different culture. We have to look at redevelopment that, you know,
maybe it changes the community look and feel but we might get more density but
allow for more floodable development. So that’s something that the communities
are going to have to grapple with. Post disaster planning. You know how, we are going to have a disaster. We should prepare for it now. And who wins and who doesn’t
essentially is going to be a big issue. I think there’s often a lack of acknowledgement
in this community that everything– it’ll just be the losers might just be the
homeowners, but the truth is, post disaster, a lot of great non-ecological
things will happen. Walls and big structures will come up, that will
get out in front of the ecological concerns. And when people are upset, that will drive. So I think we have to get up in front of that. In fact I’m struck with that [inaudible]. How many things were not really
technical, but more governance? So I just have a couple of minutes here. Funding, you know, I’m told that we can’t talk
about money, but the truth is I think visioning without money is sort of hallucinating. So, we have to talk about funding
and the cost and then the fact that people are emotionally-attached
to their properties and this is the last one they’re waiting. Who are we going to protect? Change the sequence– with the current system, it makes it really difficult
to develop, to plan. There’s limits to these nature-based
solutions and adaptation plans. I think we really need to develop
these from community on up. And then hey, what I guess is
we don’t have a lot of money. We’re not that well-funded, so– in there. Sorry. [ Applause ]>>Thank you Roger. That was great. So when Karina and I were planning for this next
Bay Science Collaborative for our second one, Kathy came to us with this idea for today. And she’s putting an awful lot of work into
it and I think it’s turned out pretty well. So, when she’s done, give her a big hand, OK? You can give her a big hand now if you want. [ Applause ]>>All right, great so, my title
is “Plant’s At Your Service, The Value Green in Green
Shore Line Infrastructure”. So we’ve heard a lot about traditional hard, gray solutions to shoreline
protection bulkheads, riprap. Their intent is to reduce erosion and
stabilize sediments and protect property. But they can in fact intensify reflective
waves, undercut, interfere with the movement of organisms, reduce delivery
of ecosystem services. So we’ve been talking a bit about
these living shorelines type solutions, green coastal infrastructure. These are solutions that are intended to
bolster habitat values of coastal ecosystems. Protect and support vegetated habitats,
link and connect habitats and processes. So think about hard structure,
reducing those connections versus a living shoreline type design
that allows those connections to occur with the biota and other processes. But hard structure has a place in greener
shoreline solutions, we think about things like reef balls and oyster reefs,
low rock sills and that kind of thing that can reduce wave energy, and
erosion, stabilize shorelines. But then also can help to protect and
support vegetated habitats and their values and enhance utilization by wildlife. Locally, we have an example
of a project like that, the Coastal Conservancy’s
Living Shorelines project which has used specific oyster shell bag mounds
build reefs along the Samra [assumed spelling] fill shoreline looked something like
that, the picture to the left there, lots of native oysters have come to live
there and many other species and we found about a 30% reduction in wave energy
on the shoreward side of these reefs. And then just this summer in
that same zone we did some work, planting eelgrass in that shoreward side
and found that after about three months, we got much greater growth of the eelgrass
that was protected relative to plants that were put bayward of the
reef or were planted alone. So there’s definitely some great
values of these harder structures in these green infrastructure projects. But my focus today is really on the plants. [ Laughter ] Wow, OK. Those hardworking plants. So what can they do for our shoreline projects? And today I’ll talk a little bit about habitat,
the food web support some physical effects, chemical effects and some synergies. So, first habitat and food web support,
if we stick with eelgrass for the moment. Eelgrass grows lots of things like to eat it,
lots of things like to lay their eggs on it or use it is attachment plants,
and then those things are eaten by the higher trophic levels
like fish and birds. And some of those species that
use these vegetated habitats are in fact quite charismatic, white pelicans,
migratory Canada geese, great egrets, even sea otters although not in
San Francisco Bay at the moment. But if you want to get the public interested
on this vegetated habitat, show them these kind of organisms and see how interested they become. Aren’t they cute? OK, so plants can have a number of
physical effects, maybe not to the extend, definitely not to the extent to
some of the harder substrates. But eelgrass for example creates
roughness, slows down flow, you can this happening in some restored plots. It helps secrete and stabilize sediments. Oh, it was very fast. OK. Other physical effects
from other kinds of plants, here’s the serious point wetland
restoration, there’s about 500 earthen mounds that have been built there over a
thousand acres and those are intended to break waves and create sediment. You can see what those look like. This area was breached in October of 2015
and those mounds are eroding really rapidly about 25 centimeters in 6 months
on the tops of some these mounds. And they are intended to stay in place
to break the waves if they don’t do that then they’re not going
to perform their purpose. Marsh vegetation like cordgrass is really
good at reducing flow and creating sediments, so what if you plant those
mounds with cordgrass. So Margo Bookbinder [assumed spelling] is a
graduate student who’s experimentally testing the planting of cordgrass to reduce erosion on
jumpstart habitat development on these mounds. So it’s a great use of to plants
to try to hold those mounds in place so that they can do their jobs. Other physical effects, the federally endangered
plants by the California Go which is extinct in San Francisco Bay but has been
successfully reintroduced in a few places, it’s a big shrubby plant that might be used
both for its high tide refuge abilities, but also to as protect shorelines and buffer wave energy especially
on eroding shoreline areas. And then I’ll talk just a second about
chemical effects I just have one slide on this carbon storage, when you think
about plants that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, I see you, store as
a live biomaster pit, they can buffer pH, they can reduce– they can
increase the pH levels that can counter erosion
certification at least locally. It can oxygenate water and soil
which can be really important to other organisms that are sensitive to anoxia. OK, and then some synergies. I’ve talked about Suaeda californica a little
bit and then Morro Bay where there’s a lot of it, it grows on those rock line
that tends to benefit the plants. And our rock lines in San Francisco Bay,
we have very little of that eelgrass that makes up the Morro Bay rock line. But when we take that as an experimental
treatment we can see increases in the growth of Suaeda with the eelgrass and not
so much from cordgrass or no rack. So through restoration or rack
additions we might be able to synergize our restoration activities. All right, also eelgrass and oyster
reefs that we’ve put together in restoration projects have an
additive effect on the habitat that the habitat ties have an additive
effect on the richness of the fish and invertebrates that we
have using those cites. In addition, we think about synergies
that we can get from plant projects, community engagement is one– good one I think, a lot of times projects involving
plant restoration are more accessible than harder shoreline type
projects involve heavy equipment. So this is some photo showing my San Francisco
State wetlands ecology class participating in Whitney Thornton’s master’s research and
it’s a great opportunity for them to experience. So summing up, hard structure can be critical
to sea level rise adaptation along shorelines but plants can contribute many values. So I say let’s keep the green and green
infrastructure and thank you very much. [ Applause ]>>You didn’t get her say– get
to hear her say and then it grows.>>OK, I want you do that one.>>Thank you, Kathy. All right. Pardon?>>I think I’m next.>>You are next.>>OK, good.>>You are next. And you’re last, you have the last word. So I had lunch with Ellie Cohen from
Point Blue Conservation Science yesterday and someone described her
as having a happy gene. So, even when she talks about really
serious things she sounds really happy. [ Laughter ] I’ve always admired that, so
here’s your seven minutes.>>OK, thank you. All right. I do want to make a correction here,
the title is 1.5 Degree Celsius: To Be or Not To Be, it’s
not in your program, so. Although we could– without that
note there’s a question too. Where was this picture taken? And if you– if we’ve seen each other
less in which you can’t answer this.>>Greenland>>Greenland, yes. I have to tell you my brother lives
in Paris, he’s a pianist there. He’s been there since the ’70s. I’ve had the honor of visiting him many
times and in the ’70s and ’80s and ’90s when I flew back and you could see
Greenland, it was a beautiful white sheet of ice all the way out to the ocean. Starting in the early 2000 you
could see these black lines and here you see– what’s the black from? [ Inaudible Remark ] Yeah, soot. No, soot. It’s from– it’s black carbon
from all across the Northern hemisphere. I mean, it’s unbelievable, this is shocking
like– if you started seeing about 10 years ago or 15 years of this black piece picking–
the rocks peaks sticking out here. And I mean, this is a huge
expense when we get further into the middle you see just huge
amount of milk across Greenland. This year will likely be
the warmest year on record since we started keeping
global record since 1880. It is projected that we’ll probably end
up this year around 1.3 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era,
we’re talking about trying to keep this below 1.5 degrees Celsius, which
had days at the end of February and early March. Like globally, we actually reach 1.5 degrees
Celsius for the global surface temperatures. In addition, most of this extra
heat is being held in the atmosphere because of global warming is going into the
ocean and we’re starting to see the effect of that with the blob, this
huge mass of warm water– abnormally warm water all the way down
to 200 meters and it is having impact on our weather here and it is not
incorporated in most of our climate model yet. And so, we have huge challenges ahead. So fortunately, we had for the first
time ever 150, sorry 195 nations, all the nations of the world and the EU signed
an agreement last year which is about to come into effect soon, to hold the increasing global
average temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius and with a goal of 1.5 and
highlighting the importance of ecosystems for the first time ever. And other laws are coming into place, President
Obama requires that natural infrastructure and ecosystem services have to be in
all parts of decision making nationally. So that incredible work that we’ve
heard about this morning and that all of you were doing couldn’t be a better
timing, because now we have our colleagues in local government who desperately need
what we are doing to actually be able to fulfill the requirement in these new laws. We have requirements down
California for cities and counties to identify natural infrastructure
actions and start putting them into place. All state agencies to include natural
infrastructure in their planning. And just signed into law a few weeks ago, $105 million in funding for
climates smart agriculture. We’ve been focused a lot
on sea level rise today, we need to think about the whole
ecosystem in which we operate. Things that’s all connected
and it starts with our– the upper watershed here around the
bay including agricultural lands. And the biggest law of all that’s
recently signed into law here in California is the extension of 8032,
it Senate Bill 32 with a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emission
below 1990 levels by 2030. So what does that actually mean? Right now in California, we admit about 440
million metric tons per year of carbon dioxide and of greenhouse gasses and that’s roughly
the goal for 2020, we’re almost there. With current policy, the recent
analysis shows we can get down to around 375 million metric tons
per year, where we do we need to be by 2030 to reach 40% below, 260. So how are we going to get
there in the next 14 years? From my point of view, while
nature-based solutions can’t do everything, they’re going to be a critical part of this. And the climate change toolbox right now
is mostly mitigation in California starting to be adaptation but we have to
include nature-based solutions. For nature’s benefit, otherwise
known as ecosystem services, but also and really urgently needed
is this concept of negative emissions or carbon sequestration, nature-based
solutions have to be part of this. So one of our climate-smart principles is
to prioritize actions for multiple benefits and that means not just protecting and restoring
habitat, but accelerating the nature’s ability to provision us with all of these ecosystem
services and we just need to remember that everything we do, it’s not just about
carbon but literally we missed the parts for the tree with that, it not
just biodiversity, it’s not water, all kinds of new study show that
these interact with one another. And of course human committees
interact with this as well. So everything we do is going to go through that
multiple benefit lens and that’s when will– in the short period of time we have
we’ll be able to make the most progress. Really quickly some examples, some of these
you know about restoring healthy range lands, range lands are 40% of California. With just a little change in management,
we can sequester a metric ton per acre. So, 40 million metric ton sequestered per year
are equal to 10% of our emissions in California, that’s about scaling up, so we need to
pilot projects like we heard about today. We also have to take some risk and start
scaling up where we believe things work. Restoring riparian habitat is critical. There are studies here in Marin
showing the three miles of restoration over 45 years equals the
reduction goals at 84,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020. Climate-smart restoration approaches
where we change the planting pellet, so when we’re doing it, we’re putting in
plants that actually are more resilient to the extremes, so we know are already
happening and that will continue ahead and also changing phenologies of the animals
that are dependent on those on plants. Restoring time as you’ve seen all of these
only would have to tell about this today, but just add including communities
and restoration is really critical. Restoring seagrass, you just heard about this of
sequesters carbon reduces acidification impact. It increases habitat, slows down that
wave action, re-colonizing sea otters. There are many different things
that are starting to happen that will help us accelerate these processes. So the bottom line is to apply the 10%
rule, think about it everyday based on what Google does with the 20% role, we may
not have money for the 10% role but we got to do it, test and experiment now. We’ve got to be creative, we’ve got
to do these demonstration projects, we have to scale up and time is of the essence. There are some who say we have a
10-year window of opportunity right now, I’ve been hearing that for about 10 years,
so maybe that’s what we’ll always say because we could always make a difference. But the bottom line is no
more business as usual, we have to reverse greenhouse gas
emissions, transition to a clean, efficient and equitable energy
and water use economy, make nature-based solutions an equal
priority that’s required for our success. We have choices. This isn’t much of an ecotone
here, I will wrap up now. We each have to start doing things
differently, I love this picture of the guy who invented the water bike
to ride to work from Auckland to San Francisco, we have to do the same. We’ve got the Frisbee from
California, the mountain bike– the mountain water bike and nature-based
solutions, we can demonstrate not just for California but for the world. We have to be bold, we have to innovate, we have
to optimize the power of nature-based solutions and when we do, we will have our–
these are the future headlines. I’m going to wrap it up with these headlines, Major Investments in Nature-Based Solutions
Pay-off, Water is Flowing, Carbon is Captured, and Wildlife Stable Despite
Extensive Drought, August 2030. San Francisco Bay Tidal Zones,
Restoration Success, Carbon is Captured, Communities are Healthier, Wildlife Increased and Infrastructures Protected
Despite Rising Seas, September 2046. These will be the headlines if we
do what we know we have to do today. And Friday, September 30th, 2066 in 50 years on the left side Global Climate Union have
Replaced the UN, authorizes $120 trillion in green cities occurred were
on track to achieve 350 parts for million and 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2126. We exceeded it during these 100 years and
it’s gone back– we got to bring it back down. And global warming effects are
reduced and health benefits up by community-based habitat
programs across the US. Because of our collaborative
work we can make a difference, we can ensure that healthy ecosystems
will sustain us all into the future. Thank you. Thank you. [ Applause ]

You May Also Like

About the Author: Oren Garnes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *