Live in the Bay Area? Maps to show you how 1 meter in sea level rise will affect your area

[n2doc]

CONSEQUENCES OF A RISING BAY
GLOBAL WARMING: New set of maps reveals how melting polar ice could change shoreline and carry a high price for entire region
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

New maps show that neighborhoods and roads in many cities near the San Francisco Bay shoreline would be under water if global warming causes tides to rise as much as 3 feet in the coming decades, and officials say regions face key decisions about where people will be able to live and build.
The maps, which the Bay Conservation and Development Commission prepared for The Chronicle, offer a detailed look at how a changing shoreline would affect life around the bay.
Parts of Corte Madera, San Rafael, Hayward and Newark and much of the Silicon Valley shoreline would be under water, including a portion of Moffett Field, the site of NASA Ames Research Center, where Google wants to build a 1 million-square-foot campus.
On the edge of the rising waters would be stadium sites proposed for the 49ers -- in Santa Clara and at the Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco. Fremont's proposed site for the Oakland A's ballpark also could be vulnerable to flooding in the 21st century, the maps show.
Wastewater treatment plants for more than a dozen cities in the South Bay, including San Jose, and the industrial ponds for the Valero oil refinery in Benicia and the Chevron refinery in Richmond, would be inundated by the projected rise in the bay.
While the Bay Area has done a good job designing for earthquakes, it hasn't done so for sea-level rise, said Will Travis, executive director of the bay conservation agency, which approves shoreline development. Aside from cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Travis said, "The amount of planning and preparing that we do is really what will affect how severe the impacts are here.''
Cities can protect vulnerable shorelines with sea walls and levees, but the fixes and maintenance would cost billions of dollars. Officials will have to decide what to save and what to let go. Some development plans in the works may have to be shelved or drastically re-engineered, Travis said.
The maps illustrate the regions of risk. Among the areas threatened are:
-- In the North Bay, low areas include Bel Marin Keys, parts of Highway 37 and much of the former Hamilton Air Force Base around Black Point. Parts of Highway 101, Mill Valley and Sausalito would be flooded. Sections of Corte Madera would be under water, as would southern San Rafael.
-- On the San Francisco shoreline, vulnerable spots include parts of Mission Bay housing and office developments, Caltrain tracks, Candlestick Point redevelopment, Heron's Head Park and the city's sewage-treatment system on Islais Creek. Parts of Treasure Island and the San Francisco and Oakland airports would be under water.
-- Foster City and parts of San Mateo, Redwood City, Mountain View and Palo Alto would be flooded. Waters would inundate sewage treatment plants located in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Alviso, which serve dozens of cities and thousands of businesses. Parts of Shoreline Park at Mountain View would be at risk of flooding.
-- Parts of Alameda, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont and Newark, including sections of Interstate 880, would be covered with water.
-- The Richmond Parkway and parts of Richmond and San Pablo are vulnerable to rising bay water, as is the enormous West County landfill.

more

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/18/MNG6SO72DJ1.DTL

[rwj]

1. Some thoughts of mine (human water usage and sea levels)

I think the ice caps will melt alot sooner than most scientists think (judging by the accelated rate over the last few years). I have a theory that sea levels would already be around 10 feet higher if it wasn't for human water usage over the last 100 years (dams,irrigation,and water diversion). River flows worldwide have been reduced dramatically over the last 100 years(less water is making to the oceans). I think a study should be done on how much a factor this is. You can view some personal thoughts of mine at this web address. http://www.geocities.com/robertjackson57/sealevels.html

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Welcome to DU, Rob...

I don't buy the 10ft figure - that would mean we've tied up over a million km³ of water. Water that's diverted from a river for irrigation will evaporate and fall somewhere else, so while it may get delayed for a bit it's still going to wind up in the sea soon enough. In fact the converse may be true - the water we've "mined" from aquifers is going to the seas rather than back into the aquifers...

It's an interesting angle, though, and I agree it would be nice to see a study on it.

[Nihil]

3. Hmmm ...

I recall reading how certain seismically sensitive areas reacted to
particularly high tides. How will the additional weight of 1m x X km
of seawater affect the earthquake zones round there?