National Shoreline Management Study: California Regional Assessment

1. National Shoreline Management Study: California Regional Assessment US Army Corps NOAA CSC ERG

2. The primary focus areas of NSMS are: • Erosion and accretion and its causes • Environmental implications of shoreline change • Economic implications of shoreline change • Agency roles and contributions in restoring and renourishing shores • Systematic movement of sand

3. Regional Pilot Studies Detailed Assessment of MD, NJ, DE Images from: NOAA Coastal Services Center

4. Pilot Study Objectives Describe Recommend Describe Resources Committed by Federal, State, Local Gov’ts to Restore & Renourish Shores Geomorphic – Extent of Erosion & Accretion, & Causes Objective 1: Appropriate Levels of Federal & Non-Federal Participation in Shore Protection Economic Implications of Erosion & Accretion Objective 2: Use of a Systems Approach to Sand Management Systematic Movement of Sand along U.S. Shores Environmental Implications of Erosion & Accretion Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes & Gulf of Mexico Coasts

5. Overview • CA Regional Shoreline Management Study focus areas: • Erosion and accretion and its causes • Environmental implications of shoreline change • Economic and social implications of shoreline change • Agency roles/contributions in restoring and renourishing shores • Systematic movement of sand • Economic and social implications of shoreline change: Social Issues as expressed in literature, specific cases • Annotated Bibliography (0ver 90 sources annotated) • Case Studies (13 total) Economic effects primarily viewed as costs to government: Focused on nourishment expenditure information • Also looked for social and economic value of the shoreline

6. Preliminary Findings: What Makes California Unique • Bluffs and Beaches (unique geomorphology) • Surfer Dudes – growing advocacy, concerns about public access and wave breaks* • Engaged academic community = robust research • Aesthetics as a major consideration • Shifting away from armoring and towards “soft” approaches (living shorelines- redefine for cal – systems concept), retreat (nascent); SLR issue coming more enjoined with erosion issues here • Lots of economic information but scattered, spotty • High level of inter-agency cooperation/coordination • Regional sediment management governance • Coastal sediment management work group

7. Preliminary Findings: Literature • CA is research rich, unlike NoAtl Region, where cost/benefit studies and EIRs were most common socio-economic study • Growing emphasis on non-market value of beach recreation since the 1990 American Trader case (studies include King, 2001a, 2001b; Lew and Larson, 2004, 2008; Hanemann et al., 2005; Pendleton and Kildow, 2006; Nelsen et al., 2007; LaFranchi and Pendleton, 2009; Pendleton et al., 2011) • Studies included economic value of beach quality (width), and loss of economic value from erosion • Specific studies on tourism/recreation sector: e.g., revenues generated from beach visits, surfing use (one third of all surfers in the US reside in CA)

8. Preliminary Findings: Literature • These studies provide some valuable insights into the social value of the state’s beaches and the economic value of maintaining them • However, it is difficult to connect them spatially and temporally; they lack a targeted research agenda, a linear progression of the science, and follow-up. • Thus, although the literature is more robust in California, it is difficult to generalize from these studies to draw definitive socio-economic trends or conclusions about the effects of coastal erosion and accretion.

9. Case Study examples (13 total) Northern Region (From northern border to Tomales Pt) • Effect of accretion from tsunamis on fishing fleets (Crescent City) • New development evaluated wrt future erosion, SLR (Redwood City) Central Region (From Tomales Pt to Pt Buchon) • Conflicts over shoreline mgt for multiple uses, long v short-term solutions including consideration of SLR (Ocean Beach) • Shoreline restoration threatened by erosion, SLR (Crissy Field) • Forced property abandonment due to bluff erosion (Pacifica) • Aesthetics of bluff erosion control design (Pleasure Point) • Offshore sand mining impacts on beach erosion/wave breaks (CEMEX plant, Marina) • Demolition of threatened structures and site restoration for passive uses (Fort Ord, Monterey Bay)

10. Case Study Examples, cont’d Southern Region (Santa Barbara to southern border) • Balancing multiple shoreline uses via managed retreat and innovative engineering at Surfer’s Point, Ventura • Use of artificial reef to stem beach erosion, create break for surfers at Oil Piers • Erosion of Broad Beach and public access issues/property rights • Impacts of erosion control structures on surfing experience and economic impacts of surfers (San Diego) • Regional sand management approach (SANDAG)

11. Preliminary Findings: Costs • >10% of CA coastline is armored @ ave cost of $500-$2000 per linearft(riprap) or $1000-$10,000 per linearftof armoring (e.g., seawalls, retaining walls) • $67M of state and federal $ has been spent on 10 beach nourishment projects since 1984* • From 1999-2010: • Approximately 20 million cy of sediment was dredged and placed on beaches at cost of $3.82-$74.00 per cy • On average, 39% of all dredging material was used for beach re-nourishment • An average of 58% of the total cost of dredging went to re-nourishment *Feds contributed to 6 of 10 projects

12. Economic Indicators • The California Department of Boating and Waterways estimated that visitors to California’s beaches spent $61 billion in 2001 (CA DBW, 2002). • Kildow and Colgan (2005) estimated that 86% or $43/$46(2006 updated)billion of the gross state product (GSP) in 2000 came from coastal counties. • Tourism/recreation (55%) and marine transport (36%)make up more than 90% of the ocean economy in all 3 regions; about 70% of CA ocean economy is in Southern region.

13. Questions? • Help us tell the story by connecting the dots… • Is there anything big we are missing? • How best do we characterize: • Major social issues • Cost issues (e.g., compare cost of armoring v re-nourishment – on life cycle basis?) • Economic value of beaches – what’s best statistic? • Most important gaps that, if filled, will help you most? • For example do we need a centralized comprehensive data base of all shoreline projects – and if so what should be in it? • How can costs of beneficial re-use best be allocated (beach v navigation)? • Armoring policy – clarify when it is allowed by the State for ocean-facing shorelines-criteria • Existing development (permit applicv date of act); imminent threat; mitigation; least env damaging altern

14. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Cost Allocation Question

15. Contacts Please provide us with your comments and any additional information by November 4th Martina McPherson: martina.mcpherson@erg.com Arleen O’Donnell: arleen.odonnell@erg.com