Sea Level Rise Guidance

to DTSC Project Managers

for Cleanup Activities

DRAFT
For Immediate Use and Public Comment
February 2023
1
PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 3
SEA LEVEL RISE AND RELATED PHENOMENA.............................................................................. 3
AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE DURING CLEANUP PROCESS ..................................... 4
CONSIDERING SEA-LEVEL RISE DURING CLEANUP PROJECT LIFECYCLE ..................................... 6
SLR Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................................................. 6
Adaptation Plan ...................................................................................................................... 6
SLR Evaluation Through the Remedial Process....................................................................... 7
Financial Assurance ................................................................................................................. 8
DTSC Review of Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analyses (SLRVAs) ............................................ 9
Transparency/Public Engagement .......................................................................................... 9
Equity .................................................................................................................................... 10
APPLYING BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE TO SEA LEVEL RISE EVALUATIONS.................................. 10
For sites where the remedy has not yet been selected: ........................................................ 13
For sites where the remedy has already been selected: ....................................................... 14
Key terms/definition: ............................................................................................................ 14
GUIDANCE UPDATE ................................................................................................................... 15
ATTACHMENT ........................................................................................................................... 16

2
PURPOSE
This document establishes guidance for DTSC Project Managers to evaluate sea level rise (SLR)
during hazardous substance and hazardous waste cleanup pursuant to existing authority.

DTSC has been identified as the state lead agency for several key actions to prepare for and
mitigate climate change impacts including SLR on contaminated sites. With climate changes
occurring rapidly, DTSC is compelled to act to protect public health and the environment from
possible detrimental effects of climate change on the protectiveness of cleanup decisions at
contaminated sites. DTSC is charged with monitoring the best available science to address SLR
as it relates to known or anticipated impacts on contaminated sites regulated by DTSC’s Site
Mitigation and Restoration Program (SMRP), and update or adjust based on new science as
necessary.

Without proper protections and remedy resilience, SLR may adversely affect public health and
degrade the environment through an increased presence or release of uncontrolled hazardous
substances in surface water, ground water, air, soil, and sediment. This protection is at the core
of DTSC’s mission to protect California’s people, communities, and environment from toxic
substances, to enhance economic vitality by restoring contaminated land, and to compel
manufacturers to make safer consumer products.

Climate change is causing SLR across California. SLR is an increase in the ocean’s elevation,
resulting from the thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of land ice. SLR is an ongoing
phenomenon and is expected to continue for hundreds to thousands of years even with strong
climate actions. SLR threatens human health and the environment because it can significantly
alter hydraulic, geologic, hydrogeologic, and chemical conditions, exacerbate releases of
hazardous substances and wastes, and affect the protectiveness of cleanup remedies.
Therefore, continually SLR at varying rates are the new standard to which projects should be
assessed particularly when considering projects with long lifespans such as remediation
projects that must consider future conditions. This guidance: 1) provides information on sea
level rise and related phenomena which can result in damage to remedies; 2) identifies DTSC’s
authority to address SLR during cleanup; and 3) mandates that project managers consider SLR
and related phenomena in the remediation process. (List of Key Terms/Definitions is included at
the end of the Guidance.)

SEA LEVEL RISE AND RELATED PHENOMENA

The California Sea Level Rise Mitigation and Adaptation Act of 2021 (Act) requires state and
regional agencies to identify, assess, and, to the extent feasible and consistent with their
statutory authorities, avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts of sea level rise. The Act created

3
the California Sea Level Rise State and Regional Support Collaborative within the Ocean
Protection Council (OPC).

The OPC is implementing the Act through the Statewide Sea Level Rise Leadership Team (SLR
Team), which comprises 17 state agencies, including DTSC. The SLR Team, which is led by OPC,
developed the February 2022 State Agency Sea-Level Rise Action Plan for California (California
SLR Action Plan)1. OPC released the California SLR Action Plan for public review on February 22,
2022 and finalized it on August 18, 2022. The California SLR Action Plan indicates:

“SLR adaptation planning should include pathways to resiliency to 3.5’ by 2050 and 6.0’
by 2100. These numbers represent a set of consistent targets for the minimum of SLR
planning and preparation. They demonstrate an elevated risk scenario that should be
considered for long-term and large-scale planning but may not be applicable for every
localized planning or project design. Best available science, such as the State Sea-Level
Rise Guidance2, should be consulted to determine which sea-level rise scenarios are
most appropriate, which is context dependent. While the 3.5’ and 6.0’ targets may not
be feasible for all situations, planners should consider adaptation pathways to this level
of resiliency, as a way to prepare for all predicted SLR impacts. Critical infrastructure
(highways, bridges, water treatment plants, etc.) should consider higher SLR scenarios,
as appropriate, based on State Guidance. New and re-development in the coastal zone
should utilize these targets as consistent minimum criteria for planning for the impacts
of SLR. For clarification, the Delta is not considered part of the coastal zone because it is
inland, and the Delta’s hydrology is extremely complex.”

The OPC is the state-recognized authority providing a science-based methodology for state and
local governments to analyze and assess the risks associated with sea-level rise, and to
incorporate sea-level rise into state decisions; DTSC relies on the guidance provided by OPC.

AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE DURING CLEANUP

PROCESS
DTSC has full authority under existing federal and state law to require sea level rise be
addressed on cleanup projects. This section describes DTSC’s authority to require consideration
of sea level rise in the cleanup process, including during the five-year review. Consult with the
DTSC Office of Legal Counsel for support in responding to any questions regarding authority.

1
State Agency Sea-Level Rise Action Plan for California,
https://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/_media_library/2022/08/SLR-Action-Plan-2022-508.pdf
2
State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, Ocean Protection Council, 2018 Update
https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf

4
DTSC responds to and corrects releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
hazardous wastes, and hazardous waste constituents to the environment in accordance with
both state and federal law. DTSC typically addresses releases under two frameworks: 1)
corrective action pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA, H.S.C. 25100 et seq.);
and 2) response action pursuant to the Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA; H.S.C. 25300
et seq.). DTSC has authority under both frameworks to require corrective, remedial, or removal
actions if there is a release and/or threatened release.

Federal law requires that corrective actions under the HWCA be no less protective than those
under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

State law expressly requires that response actions under HSAA be based upon, and no less
stringent than, those under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 U.S.C. 300.400 et seq.), among other areas of law.

Federal guidance notes that corrective or response action “substantively satisfy the
requirements of both” CERCLA and hazardous waste frameworks.3

Regarding screening, the NCP explicitly describes criteria for use in screening of alternatives in
Section 40 CFR 300.430 (e) (7). This paragraph states that “As appropriate, and to the extent
sufficient information is available, the short- and long-term aspects of the following three
criteria shall be used to guide the development and screening of remedial alternatives:” (i)
Effectiveness, (ii) Implementability, and (iii) Cost.

Regarding selection of remedies, in 40 CFR 300.430 (e)(9), the NCP provides the nine criteria
(e.g., permanence, protectiveness) for fully evaluating remedies.

Note that these statutes, regulations, and guidance provide the context, bases, and authority
for determinations that each remedial decision is protective under both current and anticipated
future site conditions4. This includes the consideration of future site conditions due to sea level
rise.

The NCP requires five-year reviews (FYRs) per 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii). The FYRs apply to sites
for which a remedy has already been selected. The FYR would apply to SLR. The FYR needs to

3
U.S. EPA memorandum regarding Coordination between RCRA Corrective Action and Closure and CERCLA Site
Activities (#EC-G-2002-008), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-10/documents/rcracorraction-
mem.pdf#page=6&zoom=100,0,76, page 2.
4
Future site conditions include those conditions anticipated due to sea level rise.

5
assess the impacts of SLR on the remedy to determine whether the remedy remains protective
based on impacts to the remedy and habitat changes due to SLR.

USEPA presents a similar analysis of the applicability of the statutory authorities in its
memorandum dated June 30, 2021, Consideration of Climate Resilience in the Superfund
Cleanup Process for Non- Federal National Priorities List Sites. USEPA concludes “Consideration
of climate resilience should not be treated as a new criterion under 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9)(iii)).”
It is clear that DTSC has the authority to require sea level rise be addressed in the cleanup
process.

CONSIDERING SEA-LEVEL RISE DURING CLEANUP PROJECT

LIFECYCLE

SLR Vulnerability Assessment

SLR has the potential to significantly impact wastes at a site by causing groundwater levels to
rise, by inundation, and by the subsequent deterioration of the remedy and mobilization of
contaminants. For all projects, SLR should be addressed5. A SLR Vulnerability Assessment
(SLRVA) should be conducted at each stage of the remediation process to specifically evaluate
the resilience of the wastes and remedy at the site to future SLR impacts.

The SLRVA may be a standalone document or be incorporated into other submittals, as

determined by the DTSC Project Manager. The degree of complexity of the SLRVA may vary,
depending on the circumstances. For example, a simple and focused analysis would be
performed for a site where it is unclear whether SLR is an impact. Progressively more robust
analyses may be required based on results of the evaluation.

The SLRVA may include consideration of community resilience infrastructure and plans.

Adaptation Plan
Based on the SLRVA, an adaptation plan may be required. For purposes of adaptation planning,
the remedy or action should be evaluated to determine adaptive capacity.

5
For projects that are clearly not affected by SLR, the applicability and impact of SLR can be a statement to that
effect in the relevant document submitted for DTSC review.

6
While DTSC prefers full action taken now to address future impacts, DTSC will consider a
phased adaptation approach on a case-by-case basis6. Any phased construction of a remedy
must include 30 years of protection against SLR.

The adaptation plan may be a standalone document or be incorporated into other submittals,
as determined by the DTSC Project Manager.

SLR Evaluation Through the Remedial Process

For all projects, SLR should be addressed7. The SLR evaluation for each remedy phase
includes8:

· Up through Remedial Investigation: Integrate current and projected SLR and shallow
groundwater rise impacts into risk assessments and the conceptual site model.
· Feasibility Study: Identify and analyze resilience for each remedial alternative based on
current and projected SLR impacts. Note that alternatives which include land use
restrictions should ensure the restrictions take into consideration SLR impacts.
· Remedy Selection: The remedy should be protective under current conditions and
future impacts due to SLR.
· Remedial Design: Incorporate engineered resilience measures into the remedy design.
The design should incorporate the latest science and reflect the salient information
regarding SLR at the site.
· Remedial Action: Ensure the remedial action implementation incorporates design
elements to address SLR.
· Cost Estimate: Include a cost estimate in each SLRVA submittal describing the estimated
cost of the proposed remedial actions in a manner consistent with Section 22CCR
66264.142.
· Determination that Remedy is Operational and Functional: Prior to determining that
the remedy is Operational and Functional, evaluate the remedy performance under
current and future SLR conditions. In some cases, this may require evaluation to ensure
modifications are identified and implemented at sites before determining the remedy is
Operational and Functional.
· Operation Maintenance & Monitoring (OM&M): SLR should be addressed when
establishing the requirements for remedy OM&M, and within any OM&M agreement

6
Any future phased work requires financial assurance as described later in this document.
7
For projects that are clearly not affected by SLR, the applicability and impact of SLR can be a statement to that
effect, in the salient document submitted for DTSC review.
8
The scope of SLRVA analyses by remedy phase are discussed in more detail later in this policy. Key definitions are
provided at the end of the document.

7
 (#EO-93-036-MM)9. During OM&M, evaluate remedy performance and monitoring
systems under current and future SLR conditions, and any necessary modifications.
· Five Year Review (FYR): If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above those levels
required for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, DTSC reviews the remedial action
no less often than every five years after initiation of the selected remedial action. This
will include a review of updates to SLR modeling and projections provided in OPC SLR
Guidance in a 5-year cycle to evaluate the potential impact to project design.
· Other Protectiveness Determination: When new information arises that appears to
affect the protectiveness of the remedy due to SLR, regardless of whether five years
have elapsed since remediation began or since the prior FYR, a Protectiveness
Determination should be initiated which includes an updated SLRVA. The
Protectiveness Determination is equivalent to a FYR.

Note that FYRs and other protectiveness determinations should include updates to the SLRVA,
where needed.

Should a remedy be determined to no longer be protective given the current or future SLR
scenarios, DTSC should take necessary action to protect public health and the environment
(e.g., Remedial Action Plan Amendment, Removal Action Workplan Amendment, Explanation of
Significant Differences, OM&M plan modification, minor changes documented appropriately,
etc.).

Financial Assurance
Financial assurance (H.S.C. 25355.2 and 22 C.C.R. 66265.140 et seq.) needs to reflect the net
present worth of the full scope of the remedy, including anticipated changes in remedy
infrastructure and changes in remedy operations and maintenance10. Pursuant to State law
and federal guidance, financial assurance is calculated on a minimum of 30 years. SLR may
result in significant expenses well beyond 30 years; when calculating costs, sites should use a
time horizon from remedy implementation through Completion Certification of Site
Remediation, or equivalent, and revise these cost estimates periodically at the time of the 5-
year review.

9
Operation and Maintenance Enforceable Agreement,
https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/07/eo-93-036-mm.pdf
10
Note that there is a preference for full action to address SLR at the time of initial remedy implementation, rather
than adaptation plans that accommodate future significant actions.

8
DTSC Review of Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analyses (SLRVAs)
Upon receipt of a SLRVA, the PM submits work requests to Engineering Services (ES), Geological
Services Branch (GSB) and the Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO). Initially, the SLRVA is
anticipated to be a high-level review of site components to determine vulnerabilities and a
screening of possible SLR scenarios using publicly available tools to identify specific SLR threats.
The initial SLRVA should be based on the California SLR Work Plan recommendation to assess
pathways to resiliency to 3.5 feet of SLR by 2050 and 6.0 feet by 2100. Technical support staff
advise whether a more robust SLRVA is warranted. If so, the PM should inform the RP, project
proponent, or contractor (for orphan sites) that a more robust SLRVA is required. SLRVAs
should be signed and stamped by the appropriately registered professional as applicable.

Accepted SLRVAs are to be placed in the site file and made accessible to the public on
EnviroStor immediately upon finalization.

The SLRVA includes a detailed review of site components and site-level SLR impacts, including
SLR modeling when appropriate. Variations from the 3.5 feet in 2050 and 6.0 feet in 2100 are
appropriate in cases where more intense (higher) SLR may occur during the period when waste
or contamination remains at the site (See Figure 1). Variations may be appropriate in other
circumstances also. The SLRVA should consider current or planned site and community
infrastructure, the extent to which site and remedy analyses incorporated SLR prediction, the
type of contamination, the structure of the waste at the site, and the remedy phase.

Transparency/Public Engagement
Effective planning for SLR involves collaboration among various agencies within coastal city and
county governing bodies, special districts, state agencies, federal agencies, climate researchers,
non-governmental organizations, business owners and other stakeholders. For DTSC sites
identified as vulnerable to SLR, DTSC PMs should work with relevant state and local
government agencies and communities to transparently develop pathways of adaptation that
will help maintain the protectiveness of contaminated sites in their communities. DTSC plans to
prioritize vulnerable communities for assessing potential SLR-impacts, as well as, developing
and implementing plans and strategies to mitigate site-specific impacts.

Project managers will ensure transparency and public engagement for SLR issues. Project
managers should work to assure that SLR is addressed appropriately in all technical reports,
remedy selection documents, and fact sheets. All approved SLRVAs should be posted promptly
to the publicly available EnviroStor database to assure public access to the analysis and
underlying information.

9
Equity
DTSC aims to prioritize the allocation of resources to address contaminated sites vulnerable to
SLR in communities overburdened with pollution. DTSC will integrate planning requirements,
priorities, and standards from tribal and local SLR adaptation and resilience plans within
contaminated site-specific cleanup decisions for sites vulnerable to SLR.

SLRVAs and adaptation plans are integral to preparing for SLR. Plans should: highlight the
vulnerabilities of natural and human resources and the impacts of SLR; adequately consider the
priority and phasing of actions and strategies; develop project implementation strategies and
ensure active community engagement processes that strive for equity across racial/social lines
by implementing appropriate, targeted strategies11.

APPLYING BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE TO SEA LEVEL RISE

EVALUATIONS
The California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) is the State’s recognized authority for sea level
rise projections. Consistent with the California Sea Level Rise Mitigation and Adaptation Act of
2021 (P.R.C. 30970 et seq.), DTSC relies on the 2018 OPC and California Natural Resources
Agency’s “State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document,” as updated (the “OPC
Guidance”), or other OPC guidance and information as it comes available. DTSC considers OPC
guidance the “best available science” for procedural matters related to sea level rise
evaluation.12 The flowchart provided at the end of this guidance (Figure 1) will aid PMs in
deciding how to complete SLRVAs.

OPC’s California SLR Work Plan provides that, statewide, “SLR adaptation planning should
include pathways to resiliency to 3.5 feet by 2050 and 6.0 feet by 2100.” To ensure remedy
resilience, SLRVAs should, at a minimum, evaluate projects based on sea level rise of 3.5 feet by
2050, and 6.0 feet by 2100. These consistent targets, identified by OPC, may be revised as
climate change science evolves.

For sites that appear to be negatively impacted given the target SLR estimates, a more refined
analysis may be appropriate. Responsible Parties can refine an initial SLRVA to more precisely
model the impacts of SLR on their remedy, and the impacts of the remaining contamination on
the environment in the predicted SLR conditions.

11
State Agency Sea-Level Rise Action Plan for California,
https://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/_media_library/2022/08/SLR-Action-Plan-2022-508.pdf
12
2018 OPC Guidance - https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-
A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf

10
The OPC Guidance presents multiple potential sea level rise risk aversion projection tables for
each of 12 locations along the coast, from San Diego to Crescent City. Each table presents three
possible projections for each near-term decade through 2050. For the decades from 2060 to
2150, each table presents five possible projections. Responsible Parties can refine an initial
SLRVA to more precisely model the impacts of SLR on their remedy, and the impacts of the
remaining contamination on the environment in the predicted SLR conditions. For that
purpose, RPs can rely on the Medium-High Risk Aversion/High Emissions probabilistic
projections7 for the timeframe appropriate to the remedy. Note that the analysis should
continue to use the OPC consistent targets, unless the probabilistic projection is more impactful
(e.g., the probabilistic projection of SLR is more than 3.5 feet in 2050 or 6 feet in 2100)13.

OPC Guidance can be supplemented by other available site-specific information (e.g., on-site
groundwater monitoring well or surface water monitoring data representing current
conditions) or regional guidance (e.g., regional inundation models endorsed by local, State, or
federal agencies). As currently written, OPC Guidance provides a five-step process to evaluate
SLR risk and decisions. This policy recommends that a refined SLRVA follow this process, or any
updated OPC Guidance process, to the extent practicable:

Step 1: Identify the nearest tide gauge. See Appendix 2 of the OPC Guidance, which currently
references 12 tide gauges along the California coast from Crescent City (northernmost) to San
Diego (southernmost). Select the nearest tidal gauge to the site and proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Evaluate the project lifespan. Existing time horizons of SLR projections are to year
2150. Cleanup remedy lifespans range from a limited number of years to perpetuity, based on
site-specific OM&M requirements. As such, at this step, DTSC staff should screen out sites
where, within 100 years from the time of the evaluation, the maximum available predicted sea
level rise projection in OPC Guidance, irrespective of probability/risk-aversion, is unlikely to
result in any observable SLR-caused hydrogeologic changes to the site14. However, at sites that
are expected to experience any observable SLR-caused hydrogeologic change within 100 years
at the maximum available projection, select a project lifespan that is consistent with the
projected timeframe for remedy completion but no less than 30 years from the end of
implementation15.

13
The selection of time frame would be based on factors such as time anticipated to achieve site cleanup goals.
14
Note that DTSC is adhering to the consistent targets established by OPC in the statewide work plan of 3.5 feet in
2050 and 6 feet in 2100. Any site where contamination will remain in place at those timeframes should consider
the impacts of these levels of SLR at a minimum, regardless of the predicted SLR from OPC Guidance or other
scientific resources.
15
Note that the time horizon, SLR projections, and the projected lifespan of the cleanup project are updated at
each FYR to assure use of best available science at the time of the protectiveness determination.

11
Step 3: For the nearest tide gauge and lifespan, identify the appropriate table of relevant SLR
projections. See Appendix 3 of the OPC Guidance.

DTSC is taking the position that all sites with contamination left in place above residential
standards, should be resilient to the targets established in the OPC Work Plan (3.5 feet in 2050
and 6.0 feet in 2100) OR to the medium-high risk aversion scientifically predicted SLR. Note
that the higher of these alternatives should be used in the analysis. For sites where there are
extreme consequences should the contamination left in place come into contact with sea level
rise (e.g., reactive waste presence), the analysis should utilize the extreme risk aversion (H++)
predicted SLR. Again, the higher of these predictions and the targets established in the OPC
Work Plan should be used to determine appropriate resiliency measures.

Step 4: Evaluate potential impacts and adaptive capacity across a range of SLR projections
and emissions scenarios. The available SLR projections correspond with four different
probabilities, one non-probabilistic scenario, and three categories of risk-aversion (low,
medium-high, and extreme). As part of this step, SLR projections should consider a baseline
scenario using a maximum probability of 1-in-200 chance (medium-high risk aversion) and
minimum time horizons of 30 years16.17 DTSC will not be considering a range of SLR
projections and emissions scenarios, other than to use the higher of the consistent targets and
the medium-high risk aversion scenario. PMs are to use the extreme risk aversion (H++)
predicted SLR for those sites with uniquely problematic contamination remaining in place (e.g.,
water-reactive waste) or “critical infrastructure” as defined by California OPC.

Evaluation of “potential impacts” and “adaptive capacity,” both before and after remedy
selection, should consider, for example, king tides, storm surge, expected community-wide

16
Note that the SLR projections used for site planning should, at a minimum, meet the consistent targets for the
minimum of SLR planning and preparation provided in the California SLR Work Plan using the timeframes
appropriate for the site. The consistent targets from the California SLR Work Plan are 3.5 feet by 2050 and 6.0 feet
by 2100.
17
Note that the approach of allowing for selection of a broader variety of risk aversion scenarios was considered.
By using one risk aversion scenario (and ensuring conformance with the California SLR Work Plan “consistent
targets”), the variable characteristics of the site can then be considered in the vulnerability assessment. For
example, the mobility of contaminants, presence/ absence of receptors, degree of hazard/ risk posed by
contaminants, are evaluated in the context of sea level rise impacts, rather than being potentially prematurely
discounted in the selection of the risk aversion scenario. This approach provides a more robust analysis of
otherwise low-risk sites, providing DTSC and the public a more thorough understanding of the site risk from SLR.
Attempting to adjust the risk aversion scenario based on the site conditions in advance of such an analysis,
precludes the scientific approach necessary to understand the risk posed by the site. This is not intended to
preclude DTSC from requiring analysis of a site in the highest risk aversion scenario, however. For example, sites
with highly hazardous contamination that remains in place permanently, may warrant evaluation in that scenario.
The DTSC Project Manager in coordination with ES, GSB, and HERO, would make the determination regarding
whether the more conservation risk aversion scenario is warranted.

12
infrastructure, changes to site hydrogeology, implications for administrative controls, and
impacts to exposure pathways.

Existing community-wide infrastructure might include a third-party levee, or a community-wide

climate adaptation plan that includes future infrastructure investments. Where remedies
would rely on existing infrastructure, responsible parties (RPs) should demonstrate that this
existing infrastructure would be adequately planned, funded, and maintained, indefinitely.

Expected changes to site hydrogeology might include impacts such as remobilization of residual
contamination based on SLR-induced changes to a site’s hydrogeologic regime.

Expected implications for site administrative controls might include the need to amend land use
covenants to accommodate future remedial features, land use changes, groundwater use,
ownership changes, and OM&M and financial assurance burdens.

Expected impacts to exposure pathways evaluated in human health and ecological risk
assessments might include new/future exposure scenarios for human and ecological receptors
owing to new environmental media and contaminant behavior. Risk assessors might consider
such phenomena as changes to groundwater geochemistry and hydraulics including the
likelihood of saltwater intrusion; surface water inundation; groundwater surface expression;
and increased contaminant transport by diffusion and advection; as well as indirect risks, such
as exacerbation of vapor intrusion potential.

Step 5: Select SLR projections based on risk tolerance and, if necessary, develop adaptation
pathways that increase resiliency to SLR and include contingency plans if projections are
exceeded. Unless otherwise indicated18, sites requiring full SLRVAs should be evaluated based
on the Medium-High Risk Aversion/High Emissions probabilistic projections through 2150, or
for a shorter or longer time if appropriate. Note that remedies are intended to remain
protective of human health and the environment under all foreseeable conditions.

For sites where the remedy has not yet been selected:
If the SLRVA identifies any potential material threat to the remedy, then the remedy selection,
design, and OM&M should include mitigative measures to entirely avoid impacts. It is DTSC’s
preference for mitigative measures to be incorporated into the remedy. DTSC may consider
the option of adaptive management measures (to allow for iterative changes in the face of

18
Indications that would influence the selection of the SLR projection include community-wide infrastructure plans
and associated land-use and SLR assumptions utilized for those plans. Also, note that the SLR projection should, at
a minimum, meet the consistent targets for the minimum of SLR planning and preparation provided in the
California SLR Work Plan – 3.5 feet by 2050 and 6.0 feet by 2100.

13
uncertainty) in limited circumstances. Note that Financial Assurance is required for all actions
pending at a site, including potential future adaptations.

Mitigative measures might be as simple as installing riprap to protect against erosion or be as

intensive as glassification of hazardous substances to reduce their toxicity and mobility or
installation of sea walls, levees, or caps. Adaptive measures would need to be consistent with
land use designations. The reliance of any contingent remedies on existing infrastructure (e.g.,
levee, sea wall), should be accounted for in remedy selection, design, OM&M, and financial
assurance.

The vulnerability of remedial system components including associated site infrastructure must
be assessed to identify whether the long-term integrity of a selected remedy may be impaired
by adverse effects of SLR. Based on any potential vulnerability identified, methods should be
incorporated to increase the systems resilience to SLR and its associated phenomena and
ensure continued protectiveness of human health and environment.

For sites where the remedy has already been selected:

The remedy may require revision upon completion of the five-year review or upon introduction
of new information that raises significant questions regarding protectiveness. Any changes to
remedial decision documents will occur through the post remedy decision document
modification process such as outlined in the NCP, which may warrant or require public
involvement. Depending on the scale and scope of change needed, the change may be
documented by way of a Technical Memorandum of Non-significant Change to File, Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD), or Amendment to the remedial decision document.

Key terms/definition:
Adaptation: adjustment or preparation of natural or human systems to a new or changing
environment which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.

Adaptive capacity: the ability of a system to adjust to SLR to moderate potential damages, to
take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.

Resilience: a capability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant
multi-hazard threats with minimum damage to human health and the environment.

Vulnerability: the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse
effects of SLR; it is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to
which a system is exposed; its sensitivity; and its adaptive capacity.

14
GUIDANCE UPDATE
This draft final guidance will be updated in response to public input, and for purposes of
process improvement at approximately one year after initial release. The guidance will be
updated periodically as the science and OPC guidance evolves.

15
 DTSC SEA LEVEL RISE GUIDANCE, ATTACHMENT 1

Notes: Acronyms:
1) This flowchart applies to projects at the stages of feasibility BAS Best Available Science
study, proposed remedial alternatives, remedy selection, and DD Decision Document
protectiveness determination. FS Feasibility Study
2) DTSC has a preference for removal of contamination for sites GWR Groundwater Rise
in locations likely to be impacted by SLR. Mitigating factors SLR Sea Level Rise
include immobile contaminants, low risk contaminants, lack SLRVA Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
of completed exposure pathway should SLR inundate or Assessment
groundwater rise to interface with contamination, etc.