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

Primary focus areas of NSMS: Erosion and accretion and its causes Environmental implications of shoreline change Economic implications of shoreline change Agency roles and contributions in restoring and re-nourishing shores Systematic movement of sand 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 Finished North Atlantic To be completed 2011/2012 California Great Lakes Future Assessments South Atlantic Gulf of Mexico Oregon and Washington Hawaii Alaska Detailed Assessment of MD, NJ, DE Images from: NOAA Coastal Services Center

Pilot Study Objectives Describe Describe Recommend 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

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

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 *both regions share private property v public uses of shoreline as major issue – fishermen more of a vocal advocacy group in north atlantic including federal share Would be good to know what the barriers are to regional sediment management and how to overcome the barriers? Subtidal habitat goals – sf bay – living shorelines pilot projects – oyster shells and eelgrass. Brush breakwater – building barrier beach -

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) Amer trader case - value of lost recreational beach use due to oil pollution had to be determined in order to properly assess damages (Chapman and Hanemann, 2001).

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. What do you want to know that you don’t know now?

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’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) Or other costs for projects related to response to shoreline change

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-nourishment An average of 58% of the total cost of dredging went to re-nourishment *Feds contributed to 6 of 10 projects This compares to approx $4B in costs from 1990-2009 for the No Atlantic region (ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, and small portion of northern VA) – 9 states State cost share information for beach nourishment has been provided for us by Kim Sterrett and Lesley Ewing What can we do with this raw data to be useful to decision makers?

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. Based on NOAA 2011, for year 2008

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 applic v date of act); imminent threat; mitigation; least env damaging altern

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Cost Allocation Question Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Placement Costs ($/cy) Offshore site 5 3 2 Beach Beach Benefits Cost Savings -1 Total Gain

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