Meeting Notes, SMC SVA, TWG Meeting, August 31, 2015, East Palo Alto 1 Meeting Notes, San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting August 31, 2015 1:00 – 4:00 pm East Palo Alto City Hall Facilitated by the Project Management Team (PMT): Supervisor Dave Pine, San Mateo County, Board of Supervisors (District 1) Hilary Papendick, San Mateo County, Office of Sustainability Kelly Malinowski, California State Coastal Conservancy Gerard Slattery, ARCADIS Peter Wijsman, ARCADIS Jessica Ludy, ARCADIS Henry Pontarelli, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. Grace Klein, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. Attendees Sixty-five individuals attended the meeting from a diversity of affiliations and communities including representatives from 11 San Mateo County cities, state, and federal government agencies, public utilities, businesses, research organizations, environmental and community organizations, and others. Representatives included planners, engineers, directors of public works departments, facility managers, scientists, community organizers, conservation specialists, and parks and recreation staff, among others. See the attached Attendee List for a comprehensive list (Appendix A). See the attached meeting PowerPoint for details on the presentation (Appendix B). In brief, the meeting consisted of discussions led by Supervisor Pine, Hilary Papendick, Gerry Slattery, Peter Wijsman and Jessica Ludy on project goals and objectives, methodology, progress to date and what is expected of the TWG. INTRODUCTION The meeting began with opening remarks from Supervisor Pine introducing and stressing the importance of the project, its place in the County’s on-going work on sea level rise, followed by the introduction of the Project Management Team. PROJECT SUMMARY, UPDATES AND MEETING GOALS (Slides 1-6) Hilary Papendick discussed the role of the TWG, future Technical Working Group meetings, which will occur in mid-December and in early 2016, as well as the launch of the project website (by the end of September). Attendees were asked to speak about projects involving sea level rise assessments and/or adaption in their jurisdictions or managed by their organizations. The following attendees spoke:
Transcript
Meeting Notes, SMC SVA, TWG Meeting, August 31, 2015, East Palo Alto
1
Meeting Notes, San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting August 31, 2015 1:00 – 4:00 pm East Palo Alto City Hall
Facilitated by the Project Management Team (PMT): Supervisor Dave Pine, San Mateo County, Board of Supervisors (District 1) Hilary Papendick, San Mateo County, Office of Sustainability Kelly Malinowski, California State Coastal Conservancy Gerard Slattery, ARCADIS Peter Wijsman, ARCADIS Jessica Ludy, ARCADIS Henry Pontarelli, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. Grace Klein, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.
Attendees Sixty-five individuals attended the meeting from a diversity of affiliations and communities including representatives from 11 San Mateo County cities, state, and federal government agencies, public utilities, businesses, research organizations, environmental and community organizations, and others. Representatives included planners, engineers, directors of public works departments, facility managers, scientists, community organizers, conservation specialists, and parks and recreation staff, among others. See the attached Attendee List for a comprehensive list (Appendix A).
See the attached meeting PowerPoint for details on the presentation (Appendix B). In brief, the meeting consisted of discussions led by Supervisor Pine, Hilary Papendick, Gerry Slattery, Peter Wijsman and Jessica Ludy on project goals and objectives, methodology, progress to date and what is expected of the TWG.
INTRODUCTION
The meeting began with opening remarks from Supervisor Pine introducing and stressing the importance of the project, its place in the County’s on-going work on sea level rise, followed by the introduction of the Project Management Team.
PROJECT SUMMARY, UPDATES AND MEETING GOALS (Slides 1-6) Hilary Papendick discussed the role of the TWG, future Technical Working Group meetings, which will occur in mid-December and in early 2016, as well as the launch of the project website (by the end of September).
Attendees were asked to speak about projects involving sea level rise assessments and/or adaption in their jurisdictions or managed by their organizations. The following attendees spoke:
Meeting Notes, SMC SVA, TWG Meeting, August 31, 2015, East Palo Alto
2
Gilead Sciences, Foster City, Walter Russo (Director, Security), also a Foster City Chamber of Commerce member – The Foster City Chamber of Commerce is creating a Business Resiliency Advisory Task Force (BRAT) whose purpose is to protect, maintain and grow Foster City businesses by assisting them to adapt and adjust effectively and efficiently to business and community changes ensuring their enterprise remains strong and robust. These changes would include among other things emergencies and natural disasters including those from flooding and sea level rise. BRAT will be connecting with Foster City businesses through webinars, workshops, online discussion groups and ongoing dialogue to share best practices.
City of East Palo Alto, Kamal Fallaha (Public Works Director / City Engineer), commented on the
steps the City is doing in coordination with the SAFER Bay project, to account for sea level rise and storm events. More information at http://www.cityofepa.org
NOAA/Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS), Sarah Hutto (Climate Change
Specialist), GFNMS recently completed a climate change vulnerability assessment of natural assets that encompassed San Mateo County. They just released a report and found that beaches, dunes, rocky intertidal, and estuary habitats were most at risk. The report is accessible at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/vulnerability-assessment-gfnms.html
SFO, Rosylyn Yu (Civil Engineer), the airport recently completed a study funded by the State
Coastal Conservancy. A summary of the report is accessible at http://www.flysfo.com/community-environment/sea-level-rise.
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Jeremy Lowe (Senior Scientist), SFEI is amidst their Flood Infrastructure Mapping & Communication Project which attempts to assemble a regional vision of flooding infrastructure around the bay. It will be used in part to analyze nature-based adaptations and will be released in October. Details on the report are accessible at http://www.sfei.org/content/flood-infrastructure-mapping-and-communication-project.
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, Kishan Pratnivadi (Engineering Manager), the City of Half Moon
Bay has four pump stations/treatment plants and is concerned/aware of risks and preparing to develop adaptation strategies.
California Coastal Commission, Carey Batha (LCP Grant Coordinator), the Commission just
adopted a final version of its Sea Level Rise Policy Guidelines document, meant to help municipalities incorporate guidelines into LCP’s and Coastal Development Permit Applications. The document is available at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slrguidance.html.
PROJECT OVERVIEW (Slides 6-11) Gerry Slattery of ARCADIS introduced the project in detail and discussed the study’s actionable outcomes. The study will be completed in steps, beginning with the development of the approach (input on which was sought at this meeting), identifying and categorizing assets, conducting the inundation exposure analysis and mapping, composing the vulnerability and risk analysis, and ending with adaption planning.
Meeting Notes, SMC SVA, TWG Meeting, August 31, 2015, East Palo Alto
3
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW (Slides 12-22) Peter Wijsman of ARCADIS provided an overview of the project methodology. He discussed the various data types needed for the vulnerability assessment, and the sources from which the PMT intends to collect this data, including: Our Coast Our Future (OCOF), the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Bay Area Coastal Development Commission (BCDC), FEMA, the Department of Water Resources (DWR), as well as GIS data from Cities and the County.
Peter discussed each of the nine steps that the PMT will undertake over the course of the project. In response to a question about the format of Asset Vulnerability Profiles, Peter clarified that the goal of the project is to categorize assets rather than prioritize them based on risk or vulnerability.
SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS OVERVIEW (Slides 23-39) The PMT discussed the process of choosing the project’s sea level rise scenarios, which is still underway. There was discussion of best available science on sea level rise from the National Research Council and guidelines for adaptation planning from the California Coastal Commission, as well as discussion of what scenarios other jurisdictions in the area are using. The scenarios used by each jurisdiction, Humboldt County, Marin County, Alameda County, the City of Benicia, and the City of Half Moon Bay, are located on slides 32 and 33. The PMT also discussed the additive relationship between sea level rise and storm surges, and showed a chart (slide 34) displaying the water levels that would result from various storm intensities on top of rising sea levels. It was noted that water levels today would reach 36 inches in the event of a 50-year storm, while MHHW levels will reach that same height, 36 inches, in the year 2100 – on a daily basis. The PMT discussed USGS’s Our Coast Our Future (OCOF) online tool for viewing San Mateo County coast and bay sea level rise and flood scenarios. The PMT will work with the USGS to make sure that the information for the flooding area is accurate. The OCOF tool can be accessed at data.prbo.org/apps/ocof/index.php?page=flood-map.
QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION I Q: How is wave runup dealt with in the OCOF model? A: The model does take wave runup into account.
Q: How does the model take erosion into account? A: The model does take historic erosion into account. It does not model future changes in
geomorphology or shoreline change. It only models the changes during a single storm. However, the future shoreline position has been projected for 2030, 2050, and 2100 based on the historical rates of change reported in the USGS National Assessment of Shoreline Change for the California coast.
Q: Are the scenarios to be chosen compatible with OCOF scenarios or is the PMT interpolating
between others?
A: Will stay within bounds of OCOF scenarios for budget reasons. Includes 25cm-2m SLR. (actually up to
16ft)
Meeting Notes, SMC SVA, TWG Meeting, August 31, 2015, East Palo Alto
4
Q: With recently published “alarmist” studies by Jim Hansen and others, how will you include such extreme scenarios, some of which predict 10 feet by 2100?
A: In some ways the OCOF is compatible with this, because it uses 6 feet + 100 year storm, which is
equivalent to 10 feet. Also, the biggest jump in impact is between 1 and 4 feet, more so than between 6 and 10 feet. Michael Barber, aide to Supervisor Pine, notes that there are many different models, and we know that no model is going to perfectly predict the future. Based on the OCOF tool we have the information needed to proceed. It is important to focus on the end result, which is to prepare an inventory of at-risk assets in the County, and a detailed assessment of 30 assets, based on a low, medium, and high sea level rise scenario.
Q: Is input from the TWG sought here, regarding SLR scenarios?
A: Yes. This meeting is meant to open the lines of communication.
Q: Will you be keeping track of information gaps, particularly ones that, if filled, would improve the
project?
A: Yes, we will be keeping track of that…and TWG input will be especially helpful with regards to details
on specific assets. Kelly noted that this is an iterative process and that this meeting is for the purposes of getting feedback from the cities on what would be most helpful for them. Hilary bolstered the idea of open communication and noted that grant applications for disaster planning will be more successful if applications are done in partnership across municipalities.
ASSET CATEGORIZATION (Slides 40-54) Jessica reiterated that the Assessment will categorize assets rather than prioritize them. Categorization and classification will occur prior to risk analysis (prioritization takes place after the risk analysis). She stated that the approach is credible, transparent, based on the best available science/practice, and captures all types of assets: built, natural, human.
Jessica discussed the sources for the asset categories and classifications (categories are from BCDC’s Adapting to Rising Tides, classifications are from the American Society of Civil Engineers). Assets will be assigned both a category and a classification.
ASSET VULNERABILITY PROFILES (Slides 55-60)
Hilary explained that the decision to conduct detailed assessments of 30 assets came from a consideration for timing and budget, and from the decision that 30 was enough to “tell the story” of the County, and enough to include at least one asset from every City. An Asset Vulnerability Profile (AVP) will be developed for each of the 30 assets. The goal of the AVP’s is to generate the information needed for the county, cities, agencies, businesses, and other stakeholders to take action to increase preparedness for sea level rise and flooding. In addition, the idea is to prepare a template that the county, cities, businesses, and others can use for further analyses of exposed assets in the future.
Meeting Notes, SMC SVA, TWG Meeting, August 31, 2015, East Palo Alto
5
Hilary explained that the 30 assets will be chosen based on input from the stakeholder advisory groups. The team will be in touch with a survey for the TWG to fill out regarding assets that the working group members manage.
The idea is for the 30 assets to provide geographic coverage across both the bay and coast sides of the County, and to represent the different types of assets that exist- for instance human assets, such as our communities, natural assets, such as wetlands, beaches, or rocky intertidal habitat, businesses, community assets such as schools and senior centers, and critical facilities such as wastewater treatment plants, hospitals, and transportation networks. The 30 assets will include representation from as many different cities and agencies as possible, and from both the public and private sectors. In addition, before deciding on an asset, the PMT will need to ensure that there is enough data available to evaluate vulnerability and that the asset manager is willing to participate in the study. The PMT will also look at the asset’s role within the County and the region and will give preference to assets that provide services or value to multiple jurisdictions. The PMT will complete the asset vulnerability profiles using an asset questionnaire adapted from the BCDC’s Adapting to Rising Tides project, the Marin C-SMART, and the AdaptLA projects.
This involves working with the asset manager to gather existing data and reports on the details of the asset, including:
Information on historic flooding
Any existing stressors that limit functioning of the asset An evaluation of what would happen if exposed to inundation at high tide, storm
flooding, rise of water table, saltwater intrusion into groundwater Existing efforts underway to prepare
The consultant team will conduct interviews with asset managers to gather more detailed information on how an increase in flooding, change in groundwater, and elevated high tides would affect the functioning of the asset and other related/interconnected assets.
Based on available information, the consultant team will evaluate a full range of consequences to the asset from sea level rise, including economic, societal, environmental, and governance impacts. While the project is assessing individual assets, the team will not be looking at assets in isolation. The project will be highlighting overarching vulnerabilities that may involve multiple assets or multiple stakeholder groups as well. Finally, the asset vulnerability profile will include an assessment of potential adaptation options.
QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION II Q: Dana Brechwald, ABAG, announced that the organization has been working with the County and
BCDC to produce hazard mitigation plans, and has also been working with FEMA to ensure there is funding available. She asked whether there is awareness or communication about existing projects like this? (Info on ABAG’s past and future workshops can be found here: http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/projects/2016-mitigation-adaptation-plans/)
A: Yes, there is, and the PMT will continue to “connect the dots” between existing and past projects.
Meeting Notes, SMC SVA, TWG Meeting, August 31, 2015, East Palo Alto
6
Q: Concern was expressed about the County’s affordable housing assets, which is different than disadvantaged communities because there are affordable housing pockets outside of disadvantaged areas. Can these be taken into account, especially as occupants are often one financial emergency away from homelessness?
A: Hilary confirmed that the PMT has a list of all the affordable housing in the County which will be
incorporated.
Q: Will there be a quantitative way to compare the risk/vulnerability of all the assets, similar to
Marin County’s method, with a low, medium, and high ranking?
A: The PMT will consider it.
Q: There was a suggestion that the AVP’s include a brief listing of other assets in the County which
the main AVP asset relates to.
A: The PMT appreciated this comment and will likely incorporate it.
Q: There was a scheduling/logistics question about when the PMT is expected to decide on the final
30 assets and what form TWG-PMT communication will take between meetings.
A: Michael noted that we will need the data and input from the various agencies/jurisdictions;
without the data it will be hard to add an asset to the list.
UPCOMING ACTIVITIES (Slides 61-62) Gerry Slattery announced that the next TWG meeting will occur in mid-December and will be critical for gaining input on assets. TWG members should be reminded that the quantity and quality of asset data they provide the PMT will be reflected in the final AVP’s. “Good stuff in, good stuff out”. The team is in the process of putting together a questionnaire to gather input from the TWG on assets.
The website will have a “Town Hall” page for the public to ask questions and have them answered publicly.
CLOSING
The meeting ended with closing remarks from Supervisor Pine, voicing appreciation for all of the attendees’ time and anticipation of working together.
Appendix A
San Mateo County TWG Attendees (8/31/15) First Name Last Name Organization
Kelly Malinowski California State Coastal Conservancy
Dave Pine San Mateo County
Michael Barber San Mateo County
Deborah Hirst San Mateo County
Jim Eggemeyer San Mateo County
Hilary Papendick San Mateo County
Jim Porter San Mateo County
Grace Klein Lisa Wise Consulting
Jessica Ludy ARCADIS
Gerard Slattery ARCADIS
Peter Wijsman ARCADIS
Henry Pontarelli Lisa Wise Consulting
Randy Breault Brisbane
Ken Johnson Brisbane
Dave Bishop Colma
Kamal Fallaha East Palo Alto
Jeff Moneda Foster City
Leslie Carmichael Foster City
Chuck Anderson Foster City (Schaaf & Wheeler)
Azalea Mitch Menlo Park
Raymond Donguines Pacifica
Joseph Spanheimer Pacifica
Ahmad Haya Redwood City
Jimmy Tan San Bruno
Grace Le San Carlos
Ralph Braboy San Mateo
Lawrence Henriquez South San Francisco
Brian McMinn South San Francisco
Brian Schumacker South San Francisco
Dana Brechwald ABAG
Lindy Lowe BCDC
Amy Hutzel California Coastal Conservancy
Michelle Senatore Caltrain/SamTrans/SMCTA
Shannon Fiala Coastal Commission
Carey Batha Coastal Commission
Keley Ducklow Coastal Commission
Kelly Keen California State Lands Commission
Stefanie Hom MTC
John Rozum NOAA
Sara Hutto NOAA/Gulf of the Farallones National Sanctuary
Craig Conner US Army Corps of Engineers
Winnie Chan US Fish & Wildlife
Andy O'Neill USGS
Chris Regnart NCCWD
Len Materman San Franciscquito Creek JPA
Scott Grindy San Mateo County Harbor District Commission
Jim Smith San Mateo County Harbor District Commission
Lauren Swezey Facebook
Katie Excoffier Genentech
Scott Hart PG&E
Frank Fraong PG&E
Walter Ruzzo Gilead
Kirsten Schwind Bay Localize
Jeremy Lowe SFEI
Rosalyn Yu SFO
Sue Walsh Alain Pinel Realtors
Violet Saena Duke University, EPA community
Webinar Attendees Khee Lim Millbrae
Tim Shimizu San Mateo County Counsel's Office
Richard Fahey CalTrans
Norman Wong BART
Tammy Rudock Mid-Peninsula Water District
Sarah Stoner-Duncan Central Coast Wetlands Group
Ross Clark Central Coast Wetlands Group
Suzanne DeLeon CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife
San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
Technical Working Group Meeting August 31, 2015 The meeting will begin shortly
Photo by Biking Nikon SF, all rights reserved
Appendix B
Upcoming Meetings
• Technical Working Group Meetings: December February
• Policy Advisory Committee Meetings October 7 March
• Public Workshops
Announcements & Project Updates
San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
August 31, 2015
Technical Working Group Meeting #1 Project Overview
Where does that fit in to building resiliency and reducing risk?
WHAT IS THE RISK OF
INUNDATION?
1 IDENTIFY
MEASURES TO REDUCE RISK OF
INUNDATION
2 EVALUATE MEASURES
3 DEVELOP STRATEGY
4 IMPLEMENT
ADAPTATION STRATEGY
5
Vulnerability Assessment
What assets are exposed to inundation? How vulnerable are the assets to
inundation? What are the consequences of asset
inundation?
What is the schedule?
What have we accomplished so far?
San Mateo County Shoreline Risk & Vulnerability Assessment Methodology Overview
August 31, 2015
Step 1: Identify the Data/Data Types Needed for the Vulnerability Assessment
• Flood Hazard Data Modeling
Depth Extent Duration
Total water level MHHW or King Tide Sea level rise Storm surge Wind waves
• Asset Information E.g.: Infrastructure, buildings, natural resources,
cultural resources, recreational assets, and human assets.
Step 2: Collect Data from Various Sources
• GIS data from the County and Cities • Our Coast Our Future • SFEI • BCDC • FEMA • DWR • Interviews with asset owners/operators
Step 3: Categorize and Classify Assets
Police Station Caltrain Recreational Facilities
SFO Bart State/County Parks
Highway 101, I-380 Businesses/Commercial Other Local Roads
Evacuation Route Cultural Resources Low-density residential
Hazardous Facilities Community centers State Beaches
Critical Energy Facilities Critical habitat Mavericks
Telecom Wetlands Marine Protected Areas
San Mateo County communities have many infrastructure, people, ecosystems and other important assets that may be vulnerable to current and future flooding.
Step 4: Selection of Inundation Scenarios
Step 5: Inundation Mapping and Asset Exposure Analysis
Step 6: Prepare Asset Exposure Maps
• Enable a high level understanding of what types of assets are at risk and where they are located (without going into the weeds)
Step 7: Prepare Asset Exposure Inventories
• We will produce an inventory of all assets exposed to flooding Identified in the mapping
Making San Mateo County more resilient requires understanding flood risk today
Redwood City December 2014
Making San Mateo County more resilient requires understanding risk in the future
Selection of sea level rise scenarios
• Selection of 3 to 4 scenarios • Based on the guidance in the California Coastal
Commission (May 2015 Sea Level Rise Guidance document: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits)
• Consistent with local SLR planning efforts • Scenarios that provide an overview of today’s
and realistic future scenarios
Selection of sea level rise scenarios (cont’d)
• Scenarios are still to be selected • Potential Approach:
Baseline scenario: 1% chance flood (also known as “100 year flood”) + today’s mean higher high water level (MHHW).
Second scenario: flood resulting from a 1% chance flood using today’s MHHW + a realistic SLR scenario for 2050.
Third scenario: flooding resulting from a 1% chance flood using MHHW + the most likely SLR scenario for 2100.
• Scenarios informed and selected through guidance from the County and Conservancy and input from the Technical Working Group.
NRC 2012 Scenarios
Coastal Commission and Other State Guidance
• Coastal Commission Recommendation: What are the impacts from the worst-case scenario of
the highest possible sea level rise plus elevated water levels from high tide, El Nino, and a 100-year storm?
What is the minimum amount of sea level rise that causes inundation, flooding, or erosion concerns?
Coastal Commission and Other State Guidance
• CO-CAT March 2013 recommends:
NRC 2012 scenarios Consider timeframes, adaptive capacity, risk tolerance Consider storms and other extreme events Coordinate with other state agencies when selecting values of
SLR and, where appropriate and feasible, use the same projections of SLR
Future SLR projections should not be based on linear extrapolation of historic SLR observations
Consider changing shorelines Consider predictions in tectonic activity Consider trends in relative local mean sea level
Example SLR Scenarios Used in California
• Humboldt County Relative sea level rise rates, the
high projections (due to tectonic subsidence)
Based on NRC 2015, 2030, 2050 and 2100 For some critical assets, looking
at 2070 too • Marin County
Annual storm + 25 cm (0.82 ft) 20 year storm + 25 cm (0.82 ft) 20 year storm + 50 cm (1.64 ft) 100 year storm + 100 cm (3.28 ft) 100 year storm + 200 cm (6.56 ft)
• City of Benicia 12 inches (1 foot) 24 inches (2 feet) 60 inches (5 feet) Also took into account the effect
of storms
Example SLR Scenarios Used in California
• Half Moon Bay 0 cm-SLR with King Tide 25 cm-SLR with 100-Yr storm
event 50 cm-SLR with 100-Yr storm
event 3 ft-SLR with 100-Yr storm event
• Alameda County (ART Study) SLR projections range from 12-96
inches. Ranges in 3 time periods, based
on the NRC 2012 report: 2030: 2 inches (low), 12
inches (high) 2050: 5 inches (low), 24
inches (high) 2100: 17 inches (low), 66
inches (high)
Water surface elevation from sea level rise and storm surge (San Francisco PUC Example)
(Water levels in inches)
= 6” SLR
+ 100-yr Storm Surge
48” SLR
Potential Mid-Century Water Levels ( San Francisco PUC Example)
83” SLR =
42” SLR + 100-yr Storm Surge
Potential End-of-Century Water Levels ( San Francisco PUC Example)
Our Coast Our Future Tool (OCOF)
• Online tool for Bay Area flood scenarios Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay
• Combination of 40 different sea level rise and storm scenarios, plus a King Tide scenario, using the USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS)
• Interactive flood map including flood extent, depth, duration, and minimum and maximum flood potential, wave heights, and current velocity,
• Consultant Team will work with USGS to improve data and interpret inundation patterns
Our Coast Our Future Tool (OCOF)
Q&A
San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
August 31, 2015
Technical Working Group Meeting #1 Asset Categorization
San Mateo County
Categorize and classify Assets
• Why categorize and classify assets? • Categorize vs. prioritize • Approach to asset categories and classes
What do we mean by assets?
Examples of assets
Police Stations Caltrain Recreational Facilities
SFO Bart State/County Parks
Highway 101, I-380 Business/Commercial Roads
Evacuation Route Cultural Resources Low-density residential
Hazardous Facilities Community centers State Beaches
Critical Energy Facilities Critical habitat Schools
Telecom Wetlands Ports
Categorize and classify assets
Enables consideration of all of SMC’s assets Framework, which vulnerabilities to address first
Why categorize and classify assets?
Given the large number of assets in SMC
• Helps us think about things differently • What does it mean to have a flooded asset? (temporary or permanent)
• What types of assets are at risk and where are they located?
Categorizing assets provides understanding
Asset categorization is not prioritization
Categorization/classification: Prior to risk analysis Objective, transparent criteria to organize assets Function, sector, public health, safety and welfare
Asset categorization is not prioritization
Prioritization: After a risk analysis Part of overall flood risk management and SLR
Credible Transparent Best available science/practice Capture built, natural, and human assets
An approach needs to consider that
• Federal funds generally allocated to risk
reduction to public health, safety, welfare
• Federal law protects endangered species and
wetlands
• State law recognizes importance of natural and
human assets, issues of social vulnerability
What is the approach? (part I-Categories)
• Airport
• Community land use, services,
facilities
• Contaminated lands
• Energy infrastructure and pipelines
• Ground transportation
• Hazardous materials
• Natural areas
• Parks and recreation areas
• Seaport
• Structural Shorelines
• Storm water
• Wastewater
Assets will be each organized into the categories identified in Adapting to Rising Tides
What is the approach? (part II-Classes)
Assets will be organized into classes based on:
Public health, safety, welfare (built assets)
Ecosystem and habitat (natural assets)
Social vulnerability (human assets)
Built Assets
ASCE 24-14 Flood Resistant Design and Construction Public health safety welfare
Criticality and disruption to society
Aligns with FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Asset class determines design flood elevation
Built Assets Class Description (abbreviated) I Buildings and other structures that represent a low risk to human health in the event
of failure (flood) II All buildings and other structures except those listed in categories I, III, IV III Buildings and other structures,
• The failure of which could pose a substantial risk to human health • Not included in category IV, with potential to cause a substantial economic
impact and/or mass disruption of day to day civilian life in the event of a flood • that manufacture, process, hazardous fuels, hazardous chemicals, or
hazardous waste) explosive substances where their quantity exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction and is sufficient to pose a threat to the public if released.
IV Buildings and other structures, • Essential facilities • Failure of which could pose substantial hazard to the community • Containing sufficient quantities of highly toxic substances where the quantity
exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction to be dangerous to the public if released and is sufficient to pose a threat to the public if released
• Required to maintain function of other category IV structures
![BASE COUNCIL MEETING NOTES [BASE MEETING NOTES]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6236d7c999dcca63ce278623/base-council-meeting-notes-base-meeting-notes.jpg)
