Concerns over sea barrier grow

The proposed barrier would remain open unless the Bay was hit by extreme storms or king tides, at which point the tidal gates would close to protect from flooding impacts.

In response to the proposal, several environmental groups — including Sierra Club and Save the Bay — issued letters of concern, voicing apprehension about various elements of the project, including a lack of transparency and community input, legality and feasibility of obtaining project permits, consideration for airport traffic and the potential environmental damage such a barrier could create.

OneShoreline CEO Len Materman maintained that the goal of notice of preparation, which outlines potential project scope and various alternatives, is to announce the proposal and receive feedback from various community groups and agencies.

“We’re not saying we’re putting out this EIR of this particular project. We put out these ideas that we want to study in the EIR, and then we get their responses and then we decide what to study,” he said.

Materman said addressing public and regulatory response to the notice of preparation would likely push a first draft of the EIR into early 2025. The original timeline for the project suggested a first draft EIR done by the end of 2024, he said.

Concerns over fill legality

One major concern regarding the project is the permitting and legal hurdles it could face when receiving approval due to its unprecedented scale and goals, said Save the Bay Executive Director David Lewis, a point his organization’s letter emphasized.

“Failure to consider the reality of the permitting hurdles for these alternatives renders the determination of which project is ultimately the most ‘feasible’ incomplete,” the letter read.

Regulatory agencies like the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which have jurisdiction over significant permitting aspects of the proposal, also emphasized statewide regulation like the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 — upon which their organization was founded — that dictates authorization for adding ‘fill’ to the Bay like the proposed barrier.

The “unprecedented” size of Bay fill required for the project, which includes a lagoon that could be as many as 670 acres, could require significant mitigation, BCDC warned in a letter to the agency. BCDC would also need to approve an amendment to its current Bay Plan to provide permitting, the letter said.

Materman said that OneShoreline had received 36 written comments from “all different sectors and constituencies” and would be meeting with various regulatory agencies and stakeholders to weigh these perspectives, including the potential for a shoreline, rather than offshore, barrier.

“We talk about, ‘here’s what we’ve heard, here’s what we’re trying to do with the project,’ and we come up with what to study in the EIR. It may be the offshore approach, it may be the shoreline approach, it may be a blending of those two,” he said.

Old laws, emerging concerns

Discourse around the proposal and its legal hurdles are surfacing larger discussions around the future of environmental policy, Lewis said, calling the conversation a “preview of some of the challenging decisions ahead on climate adaptation.”

The McAteer-Petris Act, which regulates Bay conservation from a statewide level, and the Clean Water Act, which dictates U.S. Army Corps of Engineer structural approval at a federal level, were passed in the 1970s or earlier — many years before considerations were made for present-day climate change mitigation.

“Some of the laws that have been passed to protect the environment against damage that could be avoided were written and approved before climate change was a factor,” Lewis said. “So this might not be the right decision to put a big barrier in this location in the Bay, but there probably will be locations where that is the right decision, in some parts of the country. And if the right thing to do to protect people and wildlife is not permittable under current laws, we need different laws.”

Materman said it’s critical for OneShoreline to have conversations with regulatory agencies regarding project permitting in the next few months, but the proposal should spark a larger conversation around the antiquated nature of some environmental regulation.

“The legislation is not set up in enabling us to succeed in addressing climate change,” he said. “How do we, together with those agencies, make this work so we can protect people, property and habitat?”

Additionally, OneShoreline is working within the constraints of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which often requires structural barriers as a protective element before removing areas and residents from flood map areas that designate costly insurance.

Stakeholders seek input

A joint letter from Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sequoia Audubon Society, Green Foothills, Baykeeper and Sierra Club called for OneShoreline to rescind the notice of preparation until OneShoreline had fully addressed the transparency, permitting and safety concerns outlined in the letter.

Key stakeholders and project partners were not asked for input despite OneShoreline’s “clearly defined process,” the letter said, referencing the proposal as being designed in a “key stakeholder vacuum.”

The joint letter referenced concerns from San Francisco International Airport and the potential dangers of the new wildlife habitat that could be created if a barrier was instituted. Typically, airports try to avoid large gatherings of bird populations due to the potential for bird strikes, which can damage airplanes in flight.

“The airport urges OneShoreline to discuss the project with the airport and members of the public before proceeding any further. Especially as OneShoreline is proposing a project where most of the project would be on property owned by the City and County of San Francisco, operating SFO. Creating new wildlife habitat so close to the airfield does not comply with national FAA goals and regulations meant to keep the traveling public from harm,” the letter cited SFO Environmental Affairs Manager Audrey Park as saying during a Nov. 2 meeting on the notice of preparation.

Millbrae Councilmember Ann Schneider, who has been speaking out against the project since November when she was mayor, reiterated concerns that the community had not been given adequate time or space to provide feedback on the project.

“OneShoreline completely ignored me, me as the mayor of Millbrae, me who has been working on sea-level rise since they created the first vulnerability process,” she said. “We have time to do this right and bring the public along, and the more you bring the public along, the more you have the chance that the public will agree to funding on this project.”

Schneider expressed hope OneShoreline would pursue more nature-based solutions like retention ponds to combat sea-level rise. Gita Dev of the Sierra Club also said the project should take a more nature-based approach to flooding solutions, treating the Bay and surrounding shorelines as a holistic, living entity.

Creating a flood barrier on the shoreline, rather than in the Bay, could be a step forward, she said, but designers should be mindful that structural barriers like walls and levees are not adequate habitats for Bay wildlife and marshes.

“We believe that’s going in the right direction, the right direction being don’t encroach into the Bay,” she said. “But the other part of it is that when you look at solutions that are along the shoreline, remember that you need to create shorelines that are alive and living and provide health to the ecology of the Bay, not a wall.”

Although an onshore barrier might create more work — due to creeks in the area that flow into the Bay and shoreline-adjacent businesses and homes — Dev recommended that OneShoreline consult scientists and environmentalists when facing these design challenges.

She also noted the possibility of ecological issues, like creek sediment filling up the manmade lagoon. The joint environmental group letter pointed to other concerns, including a lack of tidal circulation in the artificial lagoon that could create harmful algae blooms.

At a Dec. 18 OneShoreline Board of Directors meeting, Debbie Ruddock, board member and Half Moon Bay councilmember, also asked that project description documents not be finalized until after meeting with regulatory agencies in 2024.

Materman said OneShoreline was working to solve a complex issue with juxtaposing interests.

“The question becomes, how do we protect this large densely developed area of the shoreline from extreme conditions, [and] how do we do that in a way the federal government, through FEMA, will credit, and improve recreation and habitat without negatively impact the Bay or attracting birds?” he said.

Go to oneshoreline.org to learn more.