Archive for month: December, 2016

This morning’s magnitude 6.5 earthquake in the waters offshore of Eureka in northern California (technically 160 km west of Ferndale, California) and raft of emails we are getting in the wake of this news provide a convenient opportunity to reiterate that responsibly and effectively dealing with the threat of coastal flooding associated with sea level rise has many additional benefits, perhaps chief among them in the context of today’s discussion is improved protection from seaquake-induced tsunami flooding.

Just this week I lectured about the threat climate change poses to our coastal zone. While there are many threats to be sure, the threat that the general public can most readily identify, is the easiest to intuitively grasp, and is the simplest to quantitatively estimate is sea level rise (often abbreviated as simply SLR).

California’s Approach to Earthquakes

Earthquakes are a part of life for those of us here in California and across the Pacific Rim’s so-called Ring of Fire. Our initial (modern) response to quakes really got going in the wake of the devastating 1906 earthquake that rocked the San Francisco Bay Area. That tumbler destroyed much of San Francisco, turned a good chunk of Golden Gate Park into a homeless encampment for more than a year, and generally reset the table on a whole host of physical and social systems. Out of that came improved policies on disaster response, municipal water systems (if we consider almost destroying Yosemite Valley and actually destroying Hetch Hetchy Valley an “improvement”…but I digress), and (eventually, after several more quakes) building codes. Much of our planning for earthquakes over the ensuing decades emphasized requiring buildings to be constructed such that occupants would survive and be able to exit the building before the quake-induced collapse of the structure. More recently (since the early 1990s) we have shifted our emphasis to begin to require new building designs that make our structures not only survivable for people but survivable for the infrastructure/society as well. The idea here is that a resilient house is vastly more desirous than a house that will need to be condemned in a quake’s wake, costing the homeowner hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) and years of dislocation.

We need to take a similar approach to thinking about our coastal zone. Evolving our coastal zone such that higher and higher water does not necessitate idiotic and ultimately futile ocean walls/barriers that destroy our coastal ecosystems, culture, businesses, and society is what we need now.

Sea Level Rise in California

Over the past century, sea level has risen nearly 20 cm (8 inches) along the California coast. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and various general circulation model scenarios strongly suggest quite significant increases in sea level elevation off across the state’s coastline due to climate change over the coming century.

Coastal Flooding Risks

Something in the neighborhood of 40% of the residents in the continental United States reside near our coastlines. These areas in turn are home to both most of our nation’s economic activity and our greatest population growth rates. Add in the low elevations of our coastal fringes in this era of rising seas and we get increasing long-term exposure risk for to flooding. Hauer and Evans (2015) estimate that we are talking about something like 1.3 million, 3.4 million, and 11.7 million people in the continental United States at risk of inundation-related displacement under scenarios of 0.3 m, 0.9 m, and 1.8 m sea level rise by 2100. Hauer and Evans note that:

The magnitude of populations displaced from sea level rise could mirror the Great Migration of southern African-Americans during the 20th century and radically alter the future distribution of the US population. It could cost up to $US11.7 trillion to relocate these displaced populations, based on costs associated with managed retreats [from the IPCC].

Setting the people part aside, our coastal infrastructure itself is amazingly vulnerable. We have loved putting our powerplants in coastal estuaries, our airports in bays, and our economic engines just a few centimeter or meters mean high tide. The best report on our vulnerablility in California to date has come from a 2009 study by the Pacific Institute which only used existing human populations (i.e. assumed no population growth). That reported noted:

We estimate that a 1.4 meter sea level rise will put 480,000 people at risk of a 100‐year flood event, given today’s population. Among those affected are large numbers of low‐income people and communities of color, which are especially vulnerable. Critical infrastructure, such as roads, hospitals, schools, emergency facilities, wastewater treatment plants, power plants, and more will also be at increased risk of inundation, as are vast areas of wetlands and other natural ecosystems. In addition, the cost of replacing property at risk of coastal flooding under this sea level rise scenario is estimated to be nearly $100 billion (in year 2000 dollars). A number of structural and non‐structural policies and actions could be implemented to reduce these risks. For example, we estimate that protecting some vulnerable areas from flooding by building seawalls and levees will cost at least $14 billion (in year 2000 dollars), with added maintenance costs of another $1.4 billion per year. Continued development in vulnerable areas will put additional areas at risk and raise protection costs.

Large sections of the Pacific coast are not vulnerable to flooding, but are highly susceptible to erosion. We estimate that a 1.4 meter sea‐level rise will accelerate erosion, resulting in a loss of 41 square miles (over 26,000 acres) of California’s coast by 2100. A total of 14,000 people currently live in the area at risk of future erosion. Additionally, significant transportation‐ related infrastructure and property are vulnerable to erosion. Statewide flood risk exceeds erosion risk, but in some counties and localities, coastal erosion poses a greater risk. This report also provides a comprehensive set of recommendations and strategies for adapting to sea‐level rise.

See for yourself

A few years back we needed to rely on professors like me (or more accurately our undergraduate researchers who would do most of the work) to generate maps and graphics of inundation. No longer! We are blessed now with a host of various online viewers where anyone with a web browser can explore the potential flooding associated with sea level rise.

Some of these are simple “bathtub” models wherein we take the elevation of the land and draw polygons at a constant elevation to show the areas at risk. This is essentially looking at a topographic model of our coast. A great example of this would be NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer:

A newer suite of sea level rise viewers tries to go beyond that simple “bathtub” approach, overlaying additional dynamics into the predictions. A great example of this category of predictors is The Nature Conservancy’s modeling effort here in Ventura County. For this viewer we added in the changing impact of long-term exposure to higher water levels, erosion, conversation of various vegetation communities and saltier water intrudes, etc. Check out TNC’s Coastal Resilience Viewer here:

All of these sea level rise visualizations are also are great “first pass” estimates of tsunami vulnerability as well.

 

In this era where much is being made about limited political collaboration and deep philosophical divisions between various camps in our divided nation, infrastructure investment seems to been one area of hope. Here is hoping that this quake off the coast of California can remind us that ecologically responsible coastal infrastructure improvements could pay dividends for decades to come.

The response to the recent killing of 10 alpacas (Vicugna pacos) in one day and then a goat and an alpaca by one of our resident male mountain lions (Puma concolor) in the exurban wonderland that is the Santa Monica Mountains has prompted a massive public outcry. In the immediate wake of those predation events, the owner of the then-lifeless alpacas sought and quickly received a depredation permit which grants legal permission to kill a mountain lion that threatens people or livestock to hunt down. Securing a state approval for killing this mountain lion named P45 is essential as mountain lions are a special status (protected) species in the state of California, their routine hunting banned since 1967. A scheduled public hearing slated to be an overview of potential methods and technologies to minimize the probability of mountain lion-livestock interactions quickly evolved into a massive community event.

Predation Brought Attention

My family and I were out of town this Thanksgiving weekend. As we returned to southern California I caught wind of the multiple predation events over the weekend and the suspected involvement of one of the male lions that our National Park Service colleagues have routinely tracked with GPS colors for the past several years (the 45th one actually, hence the “P45” moniker). Needless to say I headed over to the just-announced public hearing this evening with an eye to record the discussion for my university lectures on managing coastal wildlife along the wildlands-urban interface and on general mountain lion management across California. I had no idea this event would turn out to be as massive as it was. I was, of course being an “absent minded professor.” I should clearly have realized the ancient equation of:

Santa Monicas + mountain lions = public/media firestorm

 

First Signs of Something Unusual

The first sign of something beyond the usual was unfolding at this hearing was the tremendous backup I hit when still about a half mile away from the entrance to Paramount Ranch, the site of the hearing. Normally this stretch of Cornell Road in Agoura Hills is pretty car-free this time of night (the hearing was slated to begin at 7pm). But tonight it was bumper to bumper traffic on both sides of this two lane, country road.
As I pulled into the parking lot, I lost count of the cars after I got up past 200. Walking up to the barn where the hearing was taking place already 15 minutes late, I began passing folks walking BACK to their cars, clearly frustrated by the overflow capacity and the lack of ability to get inside and properly hear the speakers. After a few minutes some of the crowd turned a bit unruly and started asking for additional speakers outside or for the facilitators to turn up the volume of the existing sound system. The Park Service happily complied and cranked up the sound system just before Jeff Sikitch launched into his brief overview of mountain lion natural history and conservation in the Santa Monica Mountains. That volume and Jeff’s engaging presentation squelched the burbling unrest and brought the crowd (now at least 350 by my conservative count, with something like 150 of outside in the crisp, 45° F air on this cloudless Wednesday night and unable to squeeze into the jam-packed hearing room).

A Lion-Friendly Crowd

The tone of meeting was cemented during Jeff’s presentations with several bouts of loud clapping and cheers whenever he would mention wildlife crossings, the natural behavior of the mountain lions, or the fact that these illusive animals rarely interact with humans and generally seek to avoid them at all costs. As the evening would progress and elected officials (e.g. Linda Parks, Ventura County Supervisor) or their proxies (e.g. Tim Pershing from Assemblyman Richard Bloom’s office) joined in the chorus for reasoned management and lion-centric responses to this and related crises the crowd got louder and louder. More emboldened with each speaker. From my vantage outside, the commentary was constant and clearly one-sided. This crowd was vociferously favoring mountain lion protection and decidedly unhappy about the possibility of one of our remaining terrestrial apex predator in the Santa Monicas being killed.

Additional Speakers

Public Comments

The crowd’s anger began to climax as Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Superintendent David Szymanski closed the formal presentations and invited the public to chime in with their comments and questions. His imploring the audience to remain respectful and hear all sides on this issue got little traction. The second public speaker tossed out a spark into the psychological kerosene of the room and those that followed were generally content to fan those flames. Clearly many in attendance saw this event as something of a unique opportunity to advocate for wider protections for mountain lions and broader support for general conservation efforts across the region.

Contrarians

The most interesting parts of the public input came when the representative for the depredation permit-possessing owner of the dead alpacas and (a few minutes later) a local homeowner spoke in support of killing/removing P45. The crowd was having any of it.

Breakthrough?

Between the jeers and strong reactions, a possible compromise was at first not well understood. It seemed to take the crowd a minute to realize that the permit holder had agreed to hold off with the hunting down of P45 for tonight, ultimately announcing a press conference on her land tomorrow morning. The Park Service and others offered additional help and support, either in design of predator-exclusion structures or funding for such technologies/materials. In short, there seemed to be broad agreement that no one was happy to kill a mountain lion and most content to work towards an equitable compromise that might allow P45 to remain in the Santa Moncias (we should note the landowner had previously lost livestock to mountain lion predation and had worked with local experts previously to try to minimize conflicts with the predators).

Solutions Already Exist

At the risk of sounding a bit pollyanna-isa, we do have existing solutions to keep mountain lions and livestock separated.  The best for containable livestock are these totally enclosed pens shown below.  For wider-roaming livestock the best answer seems to be Anatolian dogs (as someone who works in eastern Anatolia, I can attest to these hard core, shepherding canines).

Historical Overview of Mountain Lion Management in California

Questions

There were many questions and (judging by some of the comments and the way those questions were phased from both sides of the issue) a clear lack of understanding about some key aspects of mountain lion natural history. Many of these were addressed by Jeff’s presentation or in my regular mountain lion lecture (see above).

Note: I’ll be updating these over the next few hours when a have a bit more time.

Is it unusual for mountain lions to kill several animals at once?

No.

Are mountain lions a threat to people?

Very rarely if ever.  These are wild animals, but these guys strongly avoid people at almost every turn.

Is it bad to kill mountain lions?

Generally yes, but we do issue many depredation permits each year (see my above lecture on mountain lions).  Killing one is unfortunate, but not necessarily the end of the world.  The exception is in places like the Santa Monica Mountains where roads greatly restrict the ability of mountain lions (and a whole host of other critters) to disperse into or out of the Santa Monica Mountains.  Basically terrestrial critters need to run a gauntlet of death if they want to get in or out of these road-restricted coastal mountains.  See either of my presentations below (a short presentation on our long-term road kill study or one of my longer lectures on road kill):

 

Growing Media Attention

This story seems to be showing no signs of stopping.  A few examples are below:

 

Note: I will update this blog post as new development arise.