Master's Thesis Applying a Coastal Vulnerability Index to San Mateo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Master’s Thesis Applying a Coastal Vulnerability Index to San Mateo County and Comparing to Stakeholders’ Perception of Risk Brian Francis Gerrity Advisor: Professor Michael Phillips, Ph.D. University of Akureyri Faculty of Business and Science University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management Ísafjörður, April 2017 Supervisory Committee Advisor: Professor Michael Phillips, Ph.D. Reader: Sigríður Kristjánsdóttir, Ph.D. Program Director: Catherine Chambers, Ph.D. Brian Francis Gerrity Applying a Coastal Vulnerability Index to San Mateo County and Comparing to Stakeholders’ Perception of Risk 45 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of a Master of Resource Management degree in Coastal and Marine Resource Management at the University Centre of the Westfjords, Suðurgata 12, 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland. Degree accredited by the University of Akureyri, Faculty of Business and Science, Nordurslod 2, 600 Akureyri, Iceland. Copyright © 2017 Brian Francis Gerrity All rights reserved Printing: Háskólaprent, Reykjavík, April 2017 Declaration I hereby confirm that I am the sole author of this thesis and it is a product of my own academic research __________________________________ Brian Francis Gerrity iii Abstract Coastal communities and the coastal zone are important areas, for a variety of reasons such as social, ecological and economic. These areas, however, are under increasing threat from both climate change and anthropogenic development. As the climate changes, the sea level is expected to rise causing instances of flooding as well as increased storm intensity triggering increased coastal erosion and coastal flooding along vulnerable shorelines. In order to measure areas of risk along the coastline and bayline of San Mateo County, a coastal vulnerability index (CVI) was used. The CVI used in this study was similar to one developed by researchers in South Africa who used it to apply a CVI to the KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa. The CVI measured physical parameters such as beach width, distance to 20 meter isobath, distance of vegetation behind the back beach, dune width and percentage rocky outcrop in order to assess a relative vulnerability score for each sample site along the San Mateo County coast and bayline. In addition to the CVI being applied to San Mateo County, regional coastal stakeholders were interviewed in order to measure their own perception of risk relating to coastal vulnerability along the San Mateo County coast and bayline. Regional coastal stakeholders properly identified some of the most vulnerable sites in the area, however, there was a discrepancy in other locations where highly vulnerable sites were located but were not identified by stakeholders. For example, the area containing sites numbered 1-39 had several spots of high vulnerability, however, very few stakeholders identified these areas. One of the sites that was commonly identified is located in between sample sites 46 and 47 in Half Moon Bay, California. The primary factors relating to vulnerability at this site include: the lack of dunes, lack of vegetation behind the back beach, a narrow beach width, and a lack of rocky outcrop. The distance to the 20 meter isobath is the only factor that does not rank this site as highly vulnerable. This study also provides a suggested management plan for the site. Key words: Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI), coastal erosion, coastal flooding, sea level rise, San Mateo County, California, Integrated coastal zone management. v Table of Contents Declaration.............................................................................................................................. iii Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... ix List of Charts ........................................................................................................................... xi List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xii List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................. xiii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xv Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Background of San Mateo County- Geography and Socio-Economics ........... 3 2.1 Geography .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Socio-Economic Aspects ............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Communication ............................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 3. Review of Literature ............................................................................................. 9 Chapter 4. Methods ............................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 5. Results and Discussion ....................................................................................... 17 5.1 Total CVI scores across all sample sites .................................................................................... 17 5.2 Beach Width .............................................................................................................................. 23 5.3 Dune Width ................................................................................................................................ 29 5.4 Distance of vegetation behind back beach ................................................................................. 35 5.5 Distance to 20m isobath ............................................................................................................. 40 5.6 Percent Rocky Outcrop .............................................................................................................. 43 5.7 Summary of Vulnerability Index Data ....................................................................................... 48 Chapter 6. Stakeholder Data and Interview........................................................................ 51 Chapter 7. Perception of Risk Analysis ............................................................................... 61 Chapter 8. Management Plan ............................................................................................... 71 8.2 Submerged Breakwater, Reef .................................................................................................... 77 8.3 Drainage Innovation .................................................................................................................. 78 8.4 Beach Nourishment .................................................................................................................... 79 8.5 Cliff Stabilization ....................................................................................................................... 80 8.6 Managed Retreat ........................................................................................................................ 81 8.7 Focus Group Results .................................................................................................................. 82 8.8 Management Plan for Miramar Beach/ Mirada Road ................................................................ 83 vii 8.9 Policy Frameworks for Management Plan ................................................................................. 84 8.10 County wide recommendations to resolve discrepancies between coastal vulnerability and stakeholder perception of risk .......................................................................................................... 85 Chapter 9. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 87 References ............................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 95 viii List of Figures Figure 1 Photo of San Francisco International Airport (aerialarchives.com) ........................................ 6 Figure 2 Map of San Mateo County indicating all 128 sample areas .................................................. 17 Figure 3 displaying sample sites 1-37 .................................................................................................. 18 Figure 4 Map indicating sample sites 34-128 ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 5 shows a satellite image of the mudflats off of site #114 located at Latitude: 37°30'2.33"N Longitude:122°14'25.41"W. .................................................................................................... 26 Figure 6 site #92, San Francisco International Airport. ...................................................................... 27 Figure 7 shows a satellite