National Shoreline Management Study: California Regional

Assessment

US Army CorpsNOAA CSC

ERG

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

Regional Pilot Studies

Images from: NOAA Coastal Services Center

Detailed Assessment of

MD, NJ, DE

Objective 1: Appropriate Levels of Federal & Non-Federal Participation in Shore Protection

Objective 2: Use of a Systems Approach to Sand Management

DescribeGeomorphic – Extent of Erosion & Accretion, & Causes

Resources Committed by Federal, State, Local Gov’ts to Restore & Renourish Shores

Systematic Movement of Sand along U.S. Shores

Describe

Economic Implications of Erosion & Accretion

Environmental Implications of Erosion & Accretion

Recommend

Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes & Gulf of Mexico Coasts

Pilot Study Objectives

OverviewCA 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 casesAnnotated Bibliography (0ver 90 sources annotated)Case Studies (13 total)Economic effects primarily viewed as costs to government:

Focused on nourishment expenditure informationAlso looked for social and economic value of the shoreline

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 researchAesthetics as a major considerationShifting 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, spottyHigh level of inter-agency cooperation/coordination

Regional sediment management governance Coastal sediment management work group

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)

Preliminary Findings: LiteratureThese 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.

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)

Case Study Examples, cont’dSouthern 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)

Preliminary Findings: Costs>10% of CA coastline is armored @ ave cost of $500-$2000

per linear ft (riprap) or $1000-$10,000 per linear ft of 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-nourishmentAn average of 58% of the total cost of dredging went to re-

nourishment

*Feds contributed to 6 of 10 projects

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.

Questions?Help us tell the story by connecting the dots…Is there anything big we are missing?How best do we characterize:

Major social issuesCost 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-criteriaExisting development (permit applic v date of act); imminent

threat; mitigation; least env damaging altern

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3Placement Costs ($/cy)Offshore site 5 3 2Beach 3 3 3Beach Benefits 3 3 3

Cost Savings 2 0 -1Beach Benefits 3 3 3Total Gain 5 3 2

Beneficial Use of Dredged MaterialCost Allocation Question

ContactsPlease 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