Feasibility Study

FEASIBILITY STUDY

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BEACH SAND REPLENISHMENT PROJECT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for the California Department of Boating and Waterways

August 2007

SANDAG and MOFFATT & NICHOL

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life. CHAIR FIRST VICE CHAIR SECOND VICE CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler Hon. Jerome Stocks Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember

CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor Hon. Lesa Heebner, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Councilmember (A) Hon. John McCann, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Councilmember

CITY OF CORONADO CITY OF VISTA Hon. Phil Monroe, Councilmember Hon. Judy Ritter, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Carrie Downey, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Councilmember (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember

CITY OF DEL MAR COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Crystal Crawford, Councilmember Hon. Ron Roberts, Chairman (A) Hon. David Druker, Deputy Mayor Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor (A) Hon. Henry Abarbanel, Councilmember (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Vice Chairman (A) Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chair Pro Tem CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor IMPERIAL COUNTY (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember (Advisory Member) Hon. Victor Carrillo, Chairman CITY OF ENCINITAS (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember Hon. Jerome Stocks, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Councilmember CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) CITY OF ESCONDIDO Will Kempton, Director Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Councilmember (A) Hon. Sam Abed, Mayor Pro Tem METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (Advisory Member) CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Harry Mathis, Chairman Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Emery, Board Member (A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Mayor Pro Tem NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT CITY OF LA MESA (Advisory Member) Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor Hon. Ed Gallo, Chairman (A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Planning Committee Chair (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Druker, Monitoring Committee Chair

CITY OF LEMON GROVE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Councilmember CAPT Steve Wirsching, USN, CEC, (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Councilmember Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) CAPT Robert Farley, USN, CEC CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Councilmember SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (A) Hon. Louie Natividad, Councilmember (Advisory Member) Sylvia Rios, Chair CITY OF OCEANSIDE (A) Michael Bixler, Commissioner Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember (Advisory Member) Marilyn Dailey, Commissioner CITY OF POWAY (A) Mark Muir, Commissioner Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Gary Croucher, Commissioner (A) Hon. Robert Emery, Councilmember (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION (Advisory Member) CITY OF SAN DIEGO Chairman Robert Smith (Pala), SCTCA Chair Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor (A) Chairman Allen Lawson (San Pasqual) Hon. Toni Atkins, Councilmember

(A) Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember (A) Hon. Scott Peters, Council President MEXICO (Advisory Member) Hon. Luis Cabrera C. CITY OF SAN MARCOS Consulate General of Mexico Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Vice Mayor As of July 20, 2007 (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Councilmember 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 3 0.1 The Problem ...... 3 0.2 The Solution ...... 3 0.3 Benefit-Cost Analysis ...... 4 0.4 Costs ...... 4 0.5 Benefit-Cost Ratio ...... 4 INTRODUCTION...... 5 1.1 Purpose ...... 11 1.2 Scope...... 11 SITE CONDITIONS ...... 13 2.1 Sediment Budgets and Longshore Sediment Transport Rates...... 13 2.2 Wave Climate ...... 15 2.3 Beach Profiles ...... 17 2.4 Sediment Grain Size...... 23 2.5 Shoreline Position – Beach Profile Analyses...... 23 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...... 25 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED ...... 27 4.1 The Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild...... 28 4.2 Reduction in Receiver Sites and Increases in Sand Volumes ...... 28 4.3 Three Million Cubic Yard...... 29 4.4 The Optimized Project ...... 29 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ...... 31 5.1 Receiver Sites...... 31 5.2 Borrow Sites...... 33 5.3 Construction Methods/Design Features to Avoid Impacts ...... 34 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...... 59 6.1. Benefits...... 59 6.2. Economic Analysis ...... 73 CONCLUSIONS ...... 77 REFERENCES ...... 79

Feasibility Study 2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 RBSP Costs ...... 7 Table 1-2 New Recreational Beach Area Created by RBSP...... 8 Table 4-1 Sand Quantities Proposed Alternatives ...... 27 Table 5-2 Borrow Site Characteristics ...... 34 Table 5-3 Project Schedule ...... 39 Table 6.1 Preliminary Cost Estimate Proposed SANDAG RBSP Rebuild ...... 61 Table 6.2 Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative 2 to SANDAG – Fewer Sites and More Sand at Each Site...... 62 Table 6.3 Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative to SANDAG – Increased Quantity – 3 MCY ...... 63 Table 6.4 Preliminary Cost Estimate Optimized SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project Benefit/Cost Analysis ...... 65 Table 6.5 Yearly Population Estimates at Each Reach Including Sand Spread to Adjacent Sites...... 69 Table 6.6 Benefits and Costs for the Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild...... 70 Table 6.7 Benefits and Costs for the Modified Two MCY Alternative...... 71 Table 6.8 Benefits and Costs for the 3 MCY Project...... 72 Table 6.9 Benefits and Costs for the Optimized Project ...... 73 Table 6.10 State and Local Economic Impacts at Proposed Sites ...... 74 Table 6.11 Direct Economic Impacts for the 2001 RBSB Rebuild...... 75 Table 6.12 Direct Economic Impacts for the Modified Two MCY Project...... 75 Table 6.13 Direct Economic Impacts for the Three MCY Project...... 76 Table 6.14 Direct Economic Impacts for the Proposed Optimized Project ...... 76 Table 7.1 Benefit-Cost Ratios ...... 77

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 San Diego Region Littoral Cells ...... 9 Figure 2-1 Wave Exposure Diagram...... 17 Figure 2-2a Beach Profile Transects in the Silver Strand and Mission Beach Littoral Cells ...... 19 Figure 2-2b Beach Profile Transects and Lagoon Entrances in the Oceanside Littoral Cell ...... 21 Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo A) ...... 36 Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo B) ...... 37 Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo C) ...... 38 Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo D) ...... 38 Figure 5-2 South Beach Oceanside Beach Fill Plan...... 40 Figure 5-3 North Carlsbad Beach Fill Plan...... 41 Figure 5-4 South Carlsbad North Beach Fill Plan...... 42 Figure 5-5 Batiquitos Beach Fill Plan...... 43 Figure 5-6 Leucadia Beach Fill Plan ...... 44 Figure 5-7 Moonlight Beach Fill Plan...... 45 Figure 5-8 Solana Beach Fill Plan...... 46 Figure 5-9 Cardiff Beach Fill Plan ...... 47 Figure 5-10 Del Mar Beach Fill Plan ...... 48 Figure 5-11 Torrey Pines Beach Fill Plan ...... 49 Figure 5-12 Mission Beach Fill Plan ...... 50 Figure 5-13 Imperial Beach Fill Plan ...... 51 Figure 5-14 SO-9 Dredging and Discharge Plan ...... 52 Figure 5-15 SO-7 Dredging and Discharge Plan ...... 53 Figure 5-16 SO-6 Dredging and Discharge Plan ...... 54 Figure 5-17 SO-5 Dredging and Discharge Plan ...... 55 Figure 5-18 MB-1 Dredging and Discharge Plan ...... 56 Figure 5-19 SS-1 Dredging and Discharge Plan ...... 57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.1 The Problem

San Diego County beaches experience chronic erosion and narrowing from deficits of sediment to the littoral cells. Documented deficits occur all along the coast, and beach narrowing occurs through most of the region, with the exception of relatively small pocket beaches protected by headlands or jetties. As a result, significantly reduced recreational benefits exist throughout the region. Property damage is also increased in low-lying areas and areas on coastal bluffs.

A 1994 study commissioned by the California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW)1 indicated that, at many of the reaches considered in the current study, there was little or no sandy beach in the early 1990s (DBW, 1994). The 2001 project and numerous other beach nourishment projects have substantially altered the coastline and added sand to numerous sites which have been starved of sediment, often due to human interventions on the coast and inland, such as flood control projects, coastal structures, and ports and harbors. Failure to maintain the sediment budget could lead to a return to the conditions that occurred in the early 1990s.

0.2 The Solution

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) adopted a plan in 1993 outlining steps to solving the problem of insufficient sand available to the littoral cells. Solutions involved nourishing the beaches with relatively large volumes of sand to bring beaches back to historical widths, and to maintain beaches with periodic re-nourishment. The first tangible effort was a 2.1 million cubic yard (MCY) pilot nourishment project in 2001. This project was monitored for its effects and data showed that many beaches widened significantly for several years, while others did not retain sand for extended periods. The project also did not cause significant adverse environmental impacts. This effort was deemed a successful pilot project and additional similar future efforts would benefit the region’s beaches.

Several alternatives are considered to achieve wider beaches with less property damage and greater recreational benefits than presently exist. Alternatives include:

1. The Proposed 2001 Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP) Rebuild

2. Reduction in Receiver Sites and Increases in Sand Volumes

3. A Three MCY Project

4. An Optimized Project

1 See Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego region, volumes I and II, prepared by the California Department of Boating and Waterways and SANDAG, December 1994

Feasibility Study 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.3 Benefit-Cost Analysis

The primary benefit accrued from the project consists of significantly increased recreational usage and associated revenue(s). This study also considered some storm damage prevention benefits— specifically the value of preservation of public lands that would accrue from the projects. Other benefits, such as reducing physical damage to public facilities, emergency costs, and potential loss of roads and utilities, were not considered as part of this study though these benefits could be substantial at some sites. Additionally, some benefits, such as habitat preservation and public safety, are not easily quantifiable and therefore, not included. The State of California precludes estimates of storm damage prevention to private property, so these benefits also were not estimated, though they would also be significant.

Recreational benefits were based on the difference between the number of visitors that can be accommodated at the existing beach and the number of visitors that could be accommodated after improvement.

0.4 Costs

Costs for each alternative are presented herein. The proposed 2.1 MCY 2001 Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP) rebuild, the optimized project, and the modified 2 MCY project cost approximately $24 million to build; the 3 MCY project costs $32 million to implement.

0.5 Benefit-Cost Ratio

Based on estimates of recreational benefits and protection of public lands from potential storm damage, the benefit to cost ratio for the proposed 2001 RBSP rebuild is 1.5, and the ratios for the other alternatives range from 1.1 to 2.0. If other benefits, such as storm damage protection to private property, public structures, roads and municipal utilities, as well as increases in habitat for nesting and foraging shorebirds, and enhancement of public safety, were included in the calculations, then the ratios would likely increase.

Feasibility Study 6

INTRODUCTION

The San Diego County coastline is actively eroding due to a deficit in the sediment budget. Well-documented sediment budgets have been prepared showing that beaches along both north San Diego County and south San Diego County are eroding (USACE, 1990 and 1991). Sandy coastal sediment is not delivered to the shoreline in the amounts historically yielded from watersheds due to flood control activities and urbanization. As such, the volume of sand within the active zone of sand movement and deposition, termed the “littoral cell,” is progressively decreasing and beaches are narrowing. Narrower beaches have resulted in chronic bluff failure conditions throughout north San Diego County, increasing property damage and hazards to public safety, and a proliferation of shore protection measures such as seawalls. This condition of narrowing beaches has also reduced the recreational opportunities available to beach-goers throughout the San Diego region, and decreased the availability of certain biological habitats dependent on sand. Concerns about the welfare of County residents, beach users, and the environment caused SANDAG to initiate a planning effort to mitigate the problem.

In July 1993, SANDAG adopted a long-term vision for restoring the region’s beaches known as the “Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region (Strategy).” The Strategy proposes an extensive beach building and maintenance program for the critical shoreline erosion areas in the region that includes sand nourishment, sand retention structures, protective structures, and policies and regulations regarding the use of the shoreline and its development.

The Strategy sets out regional objectives, policies, and recommendations for implementing a coordinated list of solutions for each of the region’s shoreline problem areas. The Strategy has four main objectives:

1. Manage the region’s shoreline to provide environmental quality, recreation, and property protection.

2. Develop and carry out a cost-effective combination of shoreline management tactics that will have a positive impact on the region’s economy.

3. Develop a program to fund the shoreline management strategy, which equitably allocates costs throughout the region, and among local, state, and federal sources.

4. Obtain commitments to implement and finance the Shoreline Management Strategy.

To realize these objectives, coordination among the region’s jurisdictions (both coastal and inland) is necessary. This cooperation is particularly important given that inland events or events on one part of the coast will affect adjacent beaches and bluffs.

SANDAG, which is composed of representatives from the 18 cities and county government, serves as the forum for regional land use coordination. SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life, including shoreline management. The coastal cities and other regional stakeholders have been working through the SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group

Feasibility Study 7 INTRODUCTION

(Working Group) to implement regional solutions to coastal erosion problems. Collaboration has resulted in beach sand replenishment as the preferred approach to this regionwide problem and has led to more efficient implementation.

In 2001, the Strategy and the efforts of the residents and community leaders from the San Diego region guided the activities of the Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP). The RBSP was a first-of-its-kind regional pilot sand restoration project for the west coast of the United States. More than 2 MCY of sand was dredged from a half dozen ocean floor sand borrow sites located up to a mile offshore. This clean, beach quality sand was pumped onto 12 beaches, and moved into place with bulldozers and other heavy equipment. Five miles of beaches were restored throughout the three littoral cells located in San Diego County (Oceanside, Mission Beach, and Silver Strand littoral cells). Figure 1-1 depicts the location of the region’s littoral cells, offshore borrow sites, and receiver sites, as well as the quantities of sand placed on regional beaches.

This major public works effort was coordinated by local, state, and federal governments, working together through SANDAG. The RBSP was supported by approximately $17.5 million in federal and state funds, received from Congress through the U.S. Navy and from the California state legislature through the DBW. Table 1-1 includes a detailed breakdown of costs for the RBSP.

Feasibility Study 8

Table 1-1 RBSP Costs

A. Original SDRBSP I Quantites & Costs ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL Planning and Other Soft Costs 1 Non Construction-Related Costs Total Project Cost $ 17,500,000 - Construction Cost $ 12,255,894 Soft Costs $ 5,244,106

Construction Costs 1 Mobilization & Demobilization 1 LS$ 1,077,267 $ 1,077,267 2 Relocation Hopper Operations 1 LS $ 34,514 $ 34,514 3 Relocation Shore Crew 1 LS $ 28,472 $ 28,472 4 Oceanside Pier Beach Fill not part of SDRBSP I 5 Oceanside Beach Fill 420,639 CY $ 5.78 $ 2,430,571 6 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill 224,655 CY $ 7.60 $ 1,707,888 7 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill 157,969 CY $ 4.39 $ 693,050 8 Batiquitos Beach Fill 116,923 CY $ 3.85 $ 450,154 9 Leucadia Beach Fill 131,837 CY $ 4.20 $ 553,247 10 Moonlight Beach Fill 105,211 CY $ 4.48 $ 471,484 11 Cardiff Beach Fill 100,510 CY $ 4.35 $ 437,350 12 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill 145,657 CY $ 5.30 $ 772,641 13 Del Mar Beach Fill 183,016 CY $ 4.59 $ 840,476 14 Torrey Pines Beach Fill 245,002 CY $ 4.91 $ 1,202,495 15 Mission Beach Beach Fill 150,666 CY $ 3.97 $ 598,467 16 Coronado Beach Fill not part of SDRBSP I 17 Imperial Beach Beach Fill 119,963 CY $ 7.98 $ 957,821 Total Construction Costs $ 12,255,894

Total Sand Qualities 2,102,048

TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 17,500,000

Notes: 1 Total project cost from SANDAG Fact Sheet: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_340_1057.pdf in agreement with Kulchin, Ann, 2002, San Diego Regional Beach Sand Project: Restoring a Priceless Resource, Protecting Our Rivers and Our Coasts , ASBPA proceedings, September 15, 2002. 2 SDRBSP I quantities and costs from Ronald M. Noble, Beach Nourishment Construction at Twelve San Diego County California Receiver Beach Sites, World Dredging Mining & Construction, February 2002. 2 Planning and Other Soft Costs include: additional investigation of offshore sources, preliminary design, CEQA/NEPA Environmental review, permitting, final engineering with plans and specs, pre and post project monitoring, both biological and shoreline, mitigation, and public education, construction management, survey and inspection.

Feasibility Study 9 INTRODUCTION

Additionally, as seen in Table 1-2, the RBSP increased the amount of recreational beach area for all sites. This increase in acres out to the mean lower low water (MLLW) is a change from what existed prior to the RBSP being built and what occurred after the project was built for each site through 2005.

Table 1-2 New Recreational Beach Area Created by RBSP

Another important issue guiding the Strategy is the long-term and ongoing commitment required to maintain and restore the coastline. Stewardship of the shoreline will involve a number of coordinated actions taking place over years, if not decades. In the summer of 2004, SANDAG adopted the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which is the strategic land use planning framework for the San Diego region through 2030. The RCP supports the continued implementation of the Strategy, outlining the preservation and enhancement of the region’s beaches and nearshore areas as environmental and recreational resources that must be protected.

The RBSP was the first major step in overcoming the severe sand deficit on the region’s beaches and implementing a long-term approach to managing the region’s shoreline. Overall, the Regional Shoreline Monitoring Program (Monitoring Program) shows that beach widths are returning to pre-RBSP levels and failure to maintain the sediment budget could lead to a return to the conditions that occurred in the early 1990s, where there was little or no sandy beach (DBW, 1994). Therefore, continued replenishment is necessary to restore and maintain regional beaches. The RBSP was a documented success throughout the region and should be repeated. Regional replenishment would serve six main functions: (1) to replenish the three littoral cells and receiver sites with suitable beach sand; (2) to provide enhanced recreational opportunities and access at the receiver sites; (3) to enhance the tourism potential of the San Diego region; (4) to increase protection of property and infrastructure; (5) enhance public safety; and (6) to increase shoreline habitat.

Feasibility Study 10 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-1 San Diego Region Littoral Cells

* Includes the borrow and receiver sites, sand volumes, and littoral cell boundaries.

Feasibility Study 11 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

This Feasibility Study specifies the existing problem within the coastal San Diego region, presents alternative solutions to the problem, and provides DBW with information required to consider the use of funding from the State of California (State) to implement a regional beach replenishment project in the San Diego region. The study assesses the economic feasibility of rebuilding the RBSP by analyzing the economic value the regional beaches provide and the added benefits associated with replenishment, weighed against project costs. The study serves as the basis for State and regional funding decisions in the future.

1.2 Scope

DBW requires specific information on the historic problem of shoreline erosion in the San Diego region and potential alternatives to addressing the problem. The information required includes:

1. Project must protect or restore public lands or facilities:

This project protects and restores public land along the County’s coastline south of Oceanside Harbor, directly affecting the receiver sites and indirectly affecting other regional beaches as the sand moves over time. Several state beach parks, such as those at Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Leucadia, Seaside, Moonlight, San Elijo, Cardiff, Torrey Pines, and Silver Strand, and municipal facilities, such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure located on public lands, exist that will benefit from the project.

2. Completed Feasibility Study (satisfied by this study) with the following requirements:

A. Statement of the problem;

B. Analysis of project alternatives;

C. Defined scope of project;

D. Proposed preliminary design; and

E. Favorable benefit to cost analysis.

3. Resolution of fiscal support from the local agency’s governing body; to be provided as Attachment 1.

4. Draft environmental document:

Based on the EIR/ERA that was prepared for the 2001 RBSP (KEA Environmental, 2000) SANDAG anticipates the updated project would have similar inputs. At such time that the proposed project is refined and a preliminary design is completed, SANDAG will prepare an updated environmental document to analyze the specific inputs associated with the projects. The EIR/EA prepared for the 2001 RBSP (KEA Environmental, 2000), will serve as the needed environmental document for DBW purposes. A separate environmental document will be prepared that makes use of available information provided in the 2001 RBSP EIR/EA but will be specific to this project if funding is available from DBW.

This study fulfills required scope items numbers 1, 2, and 3 above.

Feasibility Study 12

SITE CONDITIONS

The recent study put forth by UC Santa Cruz Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Coastline is a major source of sediment budget and longshore sediment transport data for the three littoral cells within the project area (Patsch and Griggs 2006). Information from this section also was taken from technical reports produced by Moffat & Nichol, 2000 in preparation of the RBSP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study, San Diego Region (USACE, 1991).

2.1 Sediment Budgets and Longshore Sediment Transport Rates

The sediment budget approach was developed to understand coastal processes and shoreline change. The sediment budget conceptually accounts for inflows (sources), outflows (sinks), and storage of sediment within a geographic unit referred to as a littoral cell. The littoral cell is a segment of coastline that does not transport or receive littoral sediment to or from another cell in either the “upcoast” or “downcoast” direction (USACE, 1991). However, within the cell a complete cycle of sedimentation exists that can include erosion of highland terrain, fluvial transport to the shoreline, and littoral transport along the shoreline. Once sediment is entrained in the littoral transport system it can be lost to that system by cross-shore transport offshore or by channeling of the sediment into a deep basin via a submarine canyon. Sediment sources to a cell include beaches, rivers, bluffs, offshore deposits, and artificial nourishment. Sediment sinks are submarine canyons, offshore areas during storms or from deflection by structures, inland losses via wind transport, and lagoon mouths and harbors. Beaches and the nearshore zone represent storage areas within a littoral cell. Sand either moves through a littoral cell along the beach and/or nearshore zone from source to sink, or is stored within the cell if the cell is closed. The sediment budget is either in balance with stable beaches, in a surplus with growing beaches, or in a deficit with narrowing beaches.

Along with wave data, sediment budgets yield information useful in determining the longshore sediment transport rate for site characterization. The sediment budgets for all three littoral cells within the project area are summarized below. Sediment budget data was quantified in Patsch and Griggs (2006).

2.2.1 Oceanside Littoral Cell

Sediment Budget

The Oceanside Littoral Cell extends from Dana Point to Point La Jolla. The SANDAG project area occupies most of the southern subcell of this littoral cell, from approximately the north groin near Oceanside Harbor to La Jolla. The budget is in a deficit with a net loss of 55,000 cubic yards (CY) per year The SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Strategy identified that the beaches were narrower than that needed to protect property and were projected to steadily retreat into the future. Therefore, the Strategy recommended beach widening in the cell by

Feasibility Study 13 SITE CONDITIONS

adding large fill quantities. For instance, SANDAG recommended placing approximately 28 MCY of sand on North County beaches as an initial restoration effort, followed by maintenance with 1.3 MCY per year annually. (SANDAG, 1993).

Patsch and Griggs (2006) estimate that the average annual sand supply within the Oceanside Littoral Cell is 299,000 CY per year. Reductions from damming of the rivers and seacliff armoring total 166,000 CY per year. Beach nourishment adds approximately 111,000 CY per year in the entire Oceanside Littoral Cell, which results in a sediment deficit within the entire littoral cell of approximately 55,000 CY per year. (Patsch and Griggs, 2006)

Longshore Sediment Transport Rates

Longshore sediment transport consists of gross and net transport components. Several previous estimates exist for longshore sediment transport in the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The estimates range widely depending on the method used for calculation, but generally the maximum estimate of gross transport is 1,400,000 CY per year and the minimum estimate is 400,000 CY per year, with an average near 1,000,000 CY per year. Net sediment transport ranges from 0 cubic yards per year to 550,000 CY per year to the south, with the average being approximately 275,000 CY per year to the south. An approximation of longshore sediment transport within subcells of the Oceanside Littoral Cell was prepared for the 2001 RBSP to use as input to the numerical model and adopted for this study. (USACE, 1991)

Reversals in sediment transport occur seasonally and over certain years. Summer and fall seasons are typically dominated by southern hemisphere swells that generate currents and sediment transport to the north. The southern hemisphere swell component can dominate over certain years causing net sediment transport to be to the north rather than to the south. The long-term net sediment transport condition is considered by most researchers to be to the south.

2.2.2 Mission Bay Littoral Cell

Sediment Budget

The cell extends from Point La Jolla to Point Loma and is divided into compartments. Compartments relevant to this study include that from La Jolla to Pacific Beach (PB) Point and from PB Point to Mission Jetty. A sediment balance exists from La Jolla to PB Point where no sand enters the cell at La Jolla and no sand passes PB Point. According to the Patsch and Griggs (2006), the cell through Mission Beach is in a deficit of 38,000 CY per year, with sediment inflow of 44,000 CY per year from artificial beach nourishment, 77,000 CY per year from bluffs, and another 7,000 CY per year from the San Diego River for an average annual sand supply in the Mission Bay Littoral Cell is 128,000 CY per year. Reductions from damming of the rivers and seacliff armoring total 82,000 CY per year. Beach nourishment adds approximately 44,000 CY per year in the entire Mission Beach Littoral Cell (Patsch and Griggs, 2006)

Feasibility Study 14 SITE CONDITIONS

Longshore Sediment Transport Rates

Gross sediment transport is 200,000 cubic yards per year and net longshore sediment transport along the Mission Beach beach fill site is between 20,000 CY and 90,000 CY per year to the south (USACE, 1991).

2.2.3 Silver Strand Littoral Cell

Sediment Budget

Two compartments of the cell are relevant to this study and both are in a sediment deficit according to the USACE (1991) but not according to Patsch and Griggs (2006). The USACE deficits range from 65,000 CY per year at the Tijuana River Delta compartment to 40,000 CY per year at the Strand compartment. At the Tijuana River compartment, sediment inflows include 65,000 CY per year from the Tijuana River, and outflows include 65,000 CY per year southward into Mexico and 65,000 CY per year northward toward Imperial Beach. For the Strand compartment, sediment inflows include 25,000 CY per year from artificial nourishment, 65,000 CY per year alongshore from the compartment to the south, and 65,000 CY per year from offshore sources (the Tijuana River Delta). Sediment outflows include 25,000 CY per year by wind to dunes and 170,000 alongshore northward along the Silver Strand (USACE, 1991).

The Understanding California’s Shoreline estimates the average annual sand supply in this littoral cell to be 298,000 CY per year. The total reductions due to damming of the rivers and seacliff armoring total 41,000 CY per year. This littoral cell has had the most beach nourishment during the study period of 1930-1993, adding approximately 256,000 CY per year in the entire Silver Strand Littoral Cell, which results in a sediment surplus within the entire littoral cell of approximately 215,000 CY per year (Patsch and Griggs, 2006). The quantity of beach nourishment for this cell may be over-estimated by Patsch and Griggs causing their sediment budget to be an over-estimate of accretion.

Longshore Sediment Transport Rates

Gross sediment transport is 740,000 CY per year and net longshore sediment transport is to the north from between 120,000 CY and 200,000 CY per year (USACE, 1991).

2.2 Wave Climate

Waves are the driving force in generating longshore currents, sediment transport and shoreline changes. The wave climate within the project area is described below.

2.2.1 Wave Sources

Ocean waves off the coast of Southern California can be classified into four main categories: northern hemisphere swell, tropical swell, southern hemisphere swell, and seas generated by local winds as described below:

Feasibility Study 15 SITE CONDITIONS

1. Northern hemisphere swell represents the category of the most severe waves reaching the California Coast. Deepwater significant wave heights rarely exceed ten feet, with wave periods ranging from 12 seconds to 18 seconds. However, during extreme northern hemisphere storm events, wave heights may exceed 20 feet with periods ranging from 18 seconds to 22 seconds.

2. Tropical storms develop off the west coast of Mexico during the summer and early fall. The resulting swell rarely exceeds six feet, but a strong hurricane in September 1939 passed directly over the Southern California area and generated waves recorded at 26.9 feet.

3. Southern hemisphere swell is generated by winds associated with storms of the austral winter in the South Pacific. Typical southern hemisphere swell rarely exceeds four feet in height in deep water, but with periods ranging up to 18 seconds to 21 seconds, they can break at over twice that height.

4. Sea is the term applied to steep, short-period waves which are generated either from storms that have entered the Southern California area, strong pressure gradients over the area of the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Pacific High), or from the diurnal sea breezes. Wave heights are usually between two feet and five feet with an average period of seven seconds to nine seconds.

A wave exposure diagram is shown in Figure 2-1. The San Diego region is directly exposed to ocean swell entering from three main windows (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 1988). The most northern window is from 310 degrees to 280 degrees relative to true north (zero degrees). The northwest window where severe northern hemisphere storms enter is between azimuths 290 degrees and 250 degrees. The Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa) and Santa Catalina Island provide some sheltering from these higher waves depending on the approach direction. The other major exposure window opens to the south between 250 degrees and 150 degrees, allowing swell from southern hemisphere storms and tropical storms (hurricanes), and pre-frontal seas.

Feasibility Study 16 SITE CONDITIONS

Figure 2-1 Wave Exposure Diagram

2.3 Beach Profiles

Beach conditions have historically been recorded in the form of beach profiles, measured as the elevation of the beach surface and nearshore seabed from the back of the beach to beyond the closure depth. The profile data show seasonal and long-term elevation changes in the beach and nearshore zone. These data also provide information pertaining to the historic and existing mean sea level (MSL) shoreline.

The SANDAG Monitoring Program has recorded beach profiles throughout the project area since 1995. Profile locations are shown in Figures 2-2a and 2-2b (Coastal Frontiers, 2006). Profiles are presently recorded in May to measure post-winter conditions and in October to measure post- summer conditions. The beach profiles are used to indicate seasonal changes in sand movement on- and offshore, shoreline position, beach retreat or advance, and closure depth. The latest profiles are assumed to represent existing conditions at each sand placement site.

Feasibility Study 17 SITE CONDITIONS

Figure 2-2a Beach Profile Transects in the Silver Strand and Mission Beach Littoral Cells

Feasibility Study 18 SITE CONDITIONS

Figure 2-3b Beach Profile Transects and Lagoon Entrances in the Oceanside Littoral Cell

Feasibility Study 19 SITE CONDITIONS

2.4 Sediment Grain Size

Sediment grain size data are useful to predict morphologic changes. Sediment grain sizes are a major factor in determining the slope of the beach profile and in the dispersion rate of sand from a beach fill project. The mean grain size of native beach sand at receiver beaches for the proposed project is described below.

Mean grain sizes on existing beaches vary and have been measured by the USACE (1984) and Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1998). Mean grain size is important in that it is used to characterize existing beach profiles, to calculate equilibrium beach profiles after project construction and provide a basis for numerical modeling of sediment transport. Research done for the RBSP shows that most of the beach sand is fine to medium in gradation. Sand grain diameters range in size from 0.074 millimeters (mm) (very fine) to 4.0 mm (coarse). Native beach sand in San Diego North County has an average mean grain size of 0.24 mm and an average median grain size ranging from 0.15 mm to 0.45 mm (at Fletcher Cove and Moonlight Beach, respectively). The median grain size at Mission Beach is 0.18 mm and at Imperial Beach it is 0.27 mm.

Based upon a review of grain size performance during the 2001 RBSP monitoring period, it was determined that duration of fills was impacted by grain size. During the preliminary planning phase of project development, additional analysis of grain size will be performed to ensure optimal compatibility of offshore sources for each receiver site. This analysis as well as preliminary project design is currently scheduled for spring 2008. SANDAG is currently working with the coastal jurisdictions to secure funding for these planning efforts.

2.5 Shoreline Position – Beach Profile Analyses

Beach profiles were analyzed to identify the MSL shoreline position for analytical and numerical modeling. The shape of the existing beach profile was used as the basis for predicting post- construction profiles. It was assumed that the existing profile forms an equilibrium slope that is dependent primarily on the sediment grain size, and secondarily on wave conditions. Beach profile data were provided by SANDAG as measured between 1995 and 1999. Measurements occurred in October and May of each year to capture the summer and winter profile, respectively. October is assumed to reflect the maximum influence of summer conditions because southern hemisphere swells have typically been present since April and fade after October. May reflects the maximum influence of winter conditions because northern hemisphere swells and seas have typically been present since November and fade after May.

Feasibility Study 20

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The San Diego shoreline, including the beaches, bluffs, bays, and estuaries, is a significant environmental and recreational resource. It is an integral component of the area’s ecosystem, interconnected with the nearshore ocean environment, coastal lagoons, wetland habitats, and upstream watersheds. The beaches also are a valuable economic resource and key part of the region’s positive image and overall quality of life.

The shoreline consists primarily of narrow beaches backed by steep sea cliffs. In modern times the coastline is erosional, with notable exceptions being localized and short-lived accretion due to nourishment activities. The beaches and cliffs have eroded for thousands of years by ocean waves and rising sea levels. Episodic and site-specific coastal retreat, such as bluff collapse, is inevitable, although some coastal areas have remained stable for many years.

In recent times, this erosion has been accelerated by urban development. The natural supply of sand to the region’s beaches has been significantly diminished by flood control structures, dams, water quality control devices, removal of sand and gravel through extraction operations, and the creation of impervious surfaces. With more development, the region’s beaches will continue to suffer increased erosion, thereby reducing, and possibly eliminating, their physical and economic benefits.

Understanding the many positive attributes associated with beach replenishment in the San Diego region and the long-term and ongoing commitment required to maintain and restore the coastline, now is an appropriate time for SANDAG to identify local, state, and federal funding sources for the implementation of a regional beach replenishment project.

Feasibility Study 21

ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED

Several alternatives are available to solve the beach erosion problem in the San Diego region. A number of these alternatives have been analyzed in the RBSP EIR/EA and are reconsidered herein for purposes of benefit-cost analyses. These alternatives include:

1. The Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild

2. Reduction in Receiver Sites and Increases in Sand Volumes (Modified Two MCY Project)

3. A Three MCY Project

4. An Optimized Project

Each alternative is described below and briefly analyzed for its performance relative to widening beaches and increasing benefits of recreation. Table 4-1 shows the receiver sites, borrow sites, and quantities for each of the alternatives

Table 4-1 Sand Quantities Proposed Alternatives

Alternative Alternative 2: 1: Proposed Reduced Alternative Alternative 4: Borrow Receiver Site 2001 RBSP Sites/ 3: 3 MCY Optimized Project Site Rebuild Increased Project (CY) (CY) (CY) Quantity (CY) 421,000 Oceanside SO-9 421,000 570,000 600,330 (near the Pier) North Carlsbad SO-9 225,000 — 320,620 225,000 South Carlsbad North SO-7 158,000 218,000 225,450 158,000 South Carlsbad South SO-7 — 142,000 __ _ Batiquitos SO-7 117,000 — 166,870 117,000 Leucadia SO-7 132,000 — 188,160 132,000 Moonlight Beach SO-7 105,000 — 150,160 105,000 Cardiff SO-6 101,000 101,000 143,450 101,000 Solana Beach SO-5 146,000 146,000 207,880 146,000 Del Mar SO-5 183,000 183,000 261,200 183,000 Torrey Pines SO-5 245,000 360,000 349,660 — Mission Beach MB-1 151,000 151,000 215,030 396,000 120,000 Imperial Beach SS-1 120,000 180,000 171,210 (near the Pier) Total 2,104,000 2,044,000 3,000,000 2,104,000

Feasibility Study 22 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED

4.1 The Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild

The proposed 2001 RBSP rebuild is beach replenishment in the San Diego region with 2.1 MCY of sand to be deposited at 12 receiver sites. The receiver sites are located from Oceanside to Imperial Beach. Sand would be dredged from six possible offshore borrow sites. The general process for sand dredging, delivery, and spreading is similar for all receiver sites under all of the alternatives. After sand is dredged from a borrow site, it is pumped through dredge discharge lines to the shore. The six borrow sites would be located offshore along the coast from Oceanside to Imperial Beach, in relative proximity to each receiver site but far enough offshore to be outside the littoral cell depth of closure.

This alternative was constructed in 2001 and performed well in terms of widening beaches for prolonged periods. Monitoring showed that many beaches widened significantly, and certain sites retained sand for up to three to five years (Coastal Frontiers, 2006). Sites such as South Oceanside, Moonlight Beach, and Leucadia in Encinitas, and South Carlsbad remained relatively wide for more than three years. Other sites such as Cardiff, Fletcher Cove, and Torrey Pines State Beach did not remain wide for more than one year. However, the project produced measurable beach widening throughout the majority of North County San Diego and did not cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Numerical modeling was done before construction to predict impacts (Moffatt & Nichol, 2000) and project monitoring done after construction verified results of the model. Monitoring indicated that while certain beaches retained sand as expected, sand deposition did not cause burial of sensitive resources and adverse impacts. The only site that was impacted temporarily was at North Carlsbad and conditions reverted relatively quickly to pre-project conditions after sand dispersed (AMEC, 2005).

4.2 Reduction in Receiver Sites and Increases in Sand Volumes

This alternative would have eight receiver sites common to the proposed project and one new site (South Carlsbad South) for a total of nine. In three of the sites, the quantity and location of replenishment would be identical to the proposed project, and they would be built to the same specifications (e.g., height, slope). Five of the sites would be similar in location as under the proposed project, although the sand quantity would increase. Accordingly, the length of the footprint would increase. The same six borrow sites would provide the material for replenishment and the dredging and discharge plan would be the same, except where some receiver sites would be eliminated. As under the proposed project, temporary pipelines would carry replenishment material to the shoreline and then up and down the coast to the various receiver sites. Table 4-1 shows the concept for the reduced receiver sites and increased sand volume alternative. The quantity would still be approximately two MCY.

This project is not expected to perform as well as the 2001 RBSP as predicted by modeling (Moffatt & Nichol, 2000). While certain sites such as South Oceanside and South Carlsbad will widen and retain sand for significant time periods (several years), other sites such as Cardiff, Fletcher Cove, Torrey Pines, and Imperial Beach may not retain sand as long. Placement of larger quantities at sites that lose sand fairly quickly will result in benefits over a shorter time period and less benefits overall. Also, placement of larger quantities at fewer sites will result in more rapid losses from the placement sites and a shorter timeframe of benefits than for smaller quantities placed at sites that hold sand longer (Moffatt & Nichol, 2000).

Feasibility Study 23 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED

4.3 Three Million Cubic Yard

This alternative would place more sand overall (three MCY) on regional beaches in an attempt to increase benefits associated with the project. This alternative will be the same concept as the proposed project but with proportionally more sand at each site. The three MCY project will perform incrementally better than the proposed project due to the larger total volume placed within the littoral cell. Modeling showed that this quantity will remain in the littoral cell longer than the 2001 RBSP and extend benefits farther into the future toward the five year mark (Moffatt & Nichol, 2000).

However, the rate of sand loss from each site will be greater than that for the proposed project due to larger fills at each that extend farther seaward from the backbeach. Sand dispersion will be more rapid than for the 2001 RBSP, but the time period for sand retention within the littoral zone should increase due to the overall larger quantities used.

4.4 The Optimized Project

The optimized project modifies the receiver sites and similar to the 2001 RBSP, places 2.1 MCY of sand on regional beaches. The only change in sand distribution from the 2001 RBSP is that the sand from the Torrey Pines site will be placed on Mission Beach, widening the footprint and increasing the sand quantity as depicted in Table 4-1. All other quantities will remain the same. However, the receiver locations at Oceanside and Imperial Beach will be moved northerly. The modified Oceanside site will be located just south of Oceanside Pier. And, the modified Imperial Beach site will be centered on Imperial Beach Pier.

Feasibility Study 24

DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

This section presents the scope of the proposed project, including description of the concept beach fills, dredge areas, material transport modes, and construction approach.

5.1 Receiver Sites

The general process for sand dredging, delivery, and spreading is similar for all receiver sites. After sand is dredged from a borrow site, it is pumped through dredge discharge lines to the shore. Existing sand is used to build a dike between the ocean and receiver site and the dredge material is placed behind the dike to help reduce turbidity. As the material deposits, it is spread along the shore to create a berm higher than the existing sand area. The berm would slope gently back to the existing beach elevation to form a berm using bulldozers and training dikes that are constructed around the berms to help reduce turbidity. The sand is spread using bulldozers and up to 12 crew persons. The construction scenario is described in further detail below.

For each receiver site, berm construction may be adjusted during fill placement depending on actual field conditions. The measurements indicated for the width of each berm are the initial post-placement widths. The berms would be immediately subject to the forces of the waves and weather once constructed, and would most likely reduce in size.

Implementation of the proposed action would occur around the clock, on a 24 hours/7 days per week (24/7) basis. The longer construction hours would result in more efficient construction and greater production rates, and would allow for more sand to be placed on some of the receiver sites. These construction hours would necessitate a noise variance from several jurisdictions (i.e., Oceanside, Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Diego, and Imperial Beach).

Beach replenishment at South Oceanside would involve onshore placement of sand just south of Forster Street to Kelly Street for a total length of approximately 4,100 feet (0.8 mile). Dredged sediment would be placed on the existing sand beach and graded to form a berm. The top of the berm would be constructed to an elevation of approximately 13 feet above MLLW, and would be flat and 135 feet wide. (MLLW is the average of the lower low water height of each tidal day observed over time. A positive number indicates elevation above MLLW and a negative number is below MLLW.) The beach fill would then extend seaward approximately 250 feet at a slope of 20:1 (horizontal distance:vertical distance).

Beach replenishment at North Carlsbad would involve onshore placement of sand from just south of the Buena Vista Lagoon to south of Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue), a distance of approximately 3,000 feet (0.6 mile). Dredged sediment would be placed on the existing sand beach and graded to form a berm. The top of the berm would be constructed to an elevation of approximately 12 feet above MLLW and would be flat, with a width of approximately 125 feet. The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 150 feet at a slope of 10:1. The site would also have a slope to the east of the berm at a slope of approximately 5:1 extending 35 feet back to the

Feasibility Study 25 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT mean high tide line. The sand placement would not extend from the existing revetment to the water edge. However during the final design phase, the fill site would be redesigned to flatten the berm at mid-beach and extend the material to the existing revetment.

Beach replenishment at the South Carlsbad North site would consist of the placement of dredged sediment near the Palomar Airport Road intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard, stretching to the south for 2,100 feet (0.4 mile) near the Encinas Creek outlet. A berm would be constructed to an elevation of approximately 12 feet above MLLW. The beach fill would be flat with a width of approximately 170 feet. The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 100 feet at a slope of 10:1.

Beach replenishment at Batiquitos would involve the placement of dredged sediment from a point approximately 850 feet south of the Batiquitos Lagoon, into the community of Leucadia and Leucadia State Beach, a distance of approximately 1,390 feet (0.3 mile). The northern part of the site is known as “Ponto.” A berm would be constructed to an elevation of approximately 12 feet above MLLW and would have a width of approximately 110 feet. The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 375 feet at a slope of 20:1.

The Leucadia beach fill plan would include creation of a berm of approximately 12 feet above MLLW, extending seaward approximately 70 feet. The top of the beach fill would be flat. The berm would then slope seaward approximately 125 feet at a slope of 10:1. The proposed receiver site at the Leucadia site extends approximately 2,700 feet (0.5 mile) from just south of the Grandview access stairs to Glacus Street.

The Moonlight Beach receiver site’s berm would be constructed to a height of approximately 12 feet above MLLW. The beach fill would be relatively flat and would extend seaward approximately 130 feet seaward and would then slope seaward at a slope of 20:1. Toward the north, the slope would extend approximately 150 feet, while at the southern part of the berm; the slope would extend approximately 250 feet. The proposed receiver site would be approximately 770 feet (0.1 mile) long.

Beach replenishment at the Cardiff site would consist of the placement of dredged sediment along 780 feet (0.1 mile) of Cardiff State Beach south of the San Elijo Lagoon inlet and Restaurant Row. A berm would be constructed at this location to an elevation of approximately 12 feet above MLLW. The berm would be flat and extend seaward approximately 115 feet. The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 350 feet at a slope of 20:1.

Beach replenishment at the Solana Beach site would consist of the placement of dredged sediment along approximately 1,800 feet (0.3 mile) of the beach. The northern boundary of the proposed fill site starts just south of Fletcher Cove and extends southward. A berm would be constructed at this location to an elevation of approximately 12 feet above MLLW. The berm would be flat and extend seaward approximately 100 feet. The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 135 feet at a slope of 10:1.

The berm at Del Mar’s receiver site would be built to a height of approximately eleven feet above MLLW and would extend seaward approximately 170 feet. The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 150 feet at a slope of 10:1. The receiver site extends from just north of 27th Street to Powerhouse Park, a distance of approximately 3,110 feet (0.6 mile).

Feasibility Study 26 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

The beach replenishment berm at the Torrey Pines site would be constructed to an elevation of approximately 11 feet above MLLW, and would extend for approximately 1,620 feet (0.3 mile). The beach fill would be flat with a width of approximately 300 feet. The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 200 feet at a slope of 10:1.

The Mission Beach receiver site would be constructed to create a berm of approximately ten feet above MLLW and approximately 150 feet wide, stretching approximately 1,590 feet (0.3 feet) from Nantasket Court to Santa Barbara Place. The beach fill would then slope seaward at a slope of 20:1. The width of the slope would be approximately 125 feet at the northern end and 250 feet to the south, where the underwater slope is more gradual.

In Imperial Beach, the beach replenishment berm would be built to approximately ten feet above MLLW and would be approximately 120 feet wide, stretching from just Admiralty Way to approximately 600 feet south of Encanto Avenue. The total length would be approximately 2,310 feet (0.4 mile). The beach fill would then slope seaward approximately 125 feet at a slope of 20:1.

5.2 Borrow Sites

The six borrow sites would be located offshore along the coast from Oceanside to Imperial Beach, in relative proximity to each receiver site but far enough offshore to be outside the littoral cell depth of closure. The term borrow site refers to a larger location that has been investigated as part of this project in terms of sediment characteristics, marine resources, ocean surface, etc. Within that large area, a smaller dredge area has been identified where the actual material would be removed. The impact analyses evaluate the direct impacts of activity in the smaller dredge area, but the term “borrow site” is used when discussing this project feature as a category, i.e., instead of receiver sites. Where a further distinction is necessary, it is noted in the analysis. Table 5.2 provides a summary of borrow site characteristics including the volume of material to be dredged, the surface area affected, the depth of dredge, and the water depth. Temporary pipelines to carry replenishment material would be constructed to the shoreline and then material would be pumped up and down the coast, as necessary, to various receiver sites. While SO-9 and SO-6 are shown as possible borrow sites, they may be eliminated, and additional material may be removed from SO-7. Additionally, the Imperial Beach borrow site was not utilized for the 2001 RBSP but it is considered for purposes of this analysis. An analysis of all offshore borrow sites will be conducted to ensure the availability of compatible sandy material.

Feasibility Study 27 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Table 5-2 Borrow Site Characteristics

Volume of Approx. Depth of Sand to be Surface Area Water Depth Borrow Sites Dredge Dredged to be Dredged (in feet, MLLW) (in feet) (in CY) (in acres) SO-91 706,0002 63 Max. 15 45 to 55

SO-73 496,000 70 1 to 11 60 to 85

SO-6 104,000 29 3 to 4 60 to 80

SO-5 656,0002 127 Max. 6 50 to 80

MB-1 100,000 19 Max. 6 68 to 75

SS-1 120,000 22 Max. 6 40 to 53

1 With dredge area modified to provide a larger buffer between previously unmapped artificial reef areas, the dredge area would be

reduced by approximately 25 percent. The borrow site may be eliminated during final design. 2 Volume includes overfill factor (Moffatt & Nichol 2000c). 3 Possible expansion to 1.5 MCY with total surface area of 150 acres if SO-9 and SO-6 are eliminated. Depth of dredge would be

maximum 15 feet.

5.3 Construction Methods/Design Features to Avoid Impacts

This information is provided to offer a clear understanding of how sand would be dredged, delivered to the receiver site, and then manipulated to be suitable for public use. Photos A through D of beach building operations are included in Figures 5-1. This section also identifies the design features/specific methods to be incorporated into final design or the contractor’s specifications to avoid potential impacts, which are included as Figures 5-2 through 5-19.

Construction would consist of:

1. Dredging the offshore borrow sites with a hopper dredge;

2. Pumping sand through floating/submerged discharge lines to the beach and through discharge lines placed along the higher portions of the beach to the receiver sites (use of booster pumps as necessary);

3. Discharging the sand at the appropriate receiving beach within training dikes; and

4. Redistributing the sand as needed with earthmoving equipment, such as scrapers, and grading the beach fills to required dimensions with bulldozers.

5.3.1 Dredging Operations

Beach replenishment operations would include the use of dredge vessels which would dredge sediment from the offshore borrow sites and transfer the sediment to the proposed receiver sites. The contractors will use a hopper dredge, which is described below. The U.S.

Feasibility Study 28 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Coast Guard would post a Notice to mariners with the coordinates of dredging activity so that ocean users can avoid the activity.

5.3.2 Hopper Dredge

The hopper dredge is a self-contained vessel that loads sediment from an offshore borrow site then moves to a receiver site for sand placement. The hopper dredge contains two large arms that have the ability to drag along the ocean floor and collect sediment. The drag heads are about ten feet square. The hopper dredge moves along the ocean surface with its arms extended, making passes back and forth until its hull is fully loaded with sediment. The vessel can hold approximately 2,000 CY to 5,000 CY of sediment per load. The hopper dredge can generally reach within approximately 0.5 mile of shore to offload, unless booster pumps are placed along the beach that can increase its pumping distance. At this position, the hopper dredge connects to a floating or submerged pump line from shore. The vessel then discharges a mixture of sediment and sea water onto the receiver site. Submerged lines are encased by several large tractor tires to prevent abrasion of the ocean floor or reefs.

The hopper dredge can also connect to a floating platform, called a mono buoy, which is used to interconnect the floating pump line with a steel sinker pipeline that would run the rest of the distance to the beach. The mono buoy is generally anchored to the seabed at an appropriate depth and location to serve the project needs, depending on locations of sensitive resources and engineering considerations. For this project the mono buoy would be anchored in at least 25 feet of water. The contractor would also be conditioned to avoid sensitive resources such as kelp, reefs, and structures, such as outfalls. An anchor plan would be prepared for each mono buoy for submittal to the resource agencies prior to construction illustrating any or all sensitive resources and the relationship between anchors on the ocean floor.

The floating portion of the dredge discharge line would be marked and lighted for navigation safety and a Notice to Mariners would be issued through the U.S. Coast Guard. The discharge line would be trucked or floated in segments to the appropriate placement locations and assembled using cranes and other equipment. The line may be a combination of plastic (HDPE) and steel materials depending on need and availability, and would be approximately 30 inches in diameter.

Booster pumps would be used approximately every 10,000 feet on longer reaches. One offshore booster pump may be necessary for the offshore length from SO-9 to the Oceanside receiver site; however, it is possible that the dredge itself could move the material the entire distance to shore. Booster pumps would be necessary where onshore pipelines would convey material to the receiver site(s) and the total onshore distance would be approximately 10,000 feet. An onshore booster pump would be necessary along the length from the Oceanside to North Carlsbad receiver sites. The exact locations of pumps are not known at this time.

For all pipeline delivery routes, the floating and submerged portions of the dredge discharge line would be routed to avoid sensitive resources to the maximum extent feasible. For instance, the discharge line would extend westward beyond kelp beds to prevent dredge vessels from traversing kelp beds. The contractor would also be conditioned to avoid

Feasibility Study 29 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

traversing the CDFG artificial reefs near SO-9, SO-7, and MB-1. That means no hopper dredge (empty or full) or discharge lines may traverse these three artificial reef locations. The possible northern dredge discharge pipeline path at SO-7 would be floating above CDFG artificial reefs 9 and 1. This floating pipe would not affect the submerged reefs, but it has been sited to make landfall in the nearshore location without reefs or surfgrass. The contractor would also be conditioned to avoid any discharge pipe placement within the Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge, which means any discharge pipe would make landfall north of the terminus of Seacoast Boulevard in Imperial Beach.

5.3.3 Training Dikes

Training dikes would be constructed to reduce turbidity and aid in the retention of pumped sand at receiving beaches. The material coming from the dredge material discharge pipeline is a slurry mix of sand and water. Once the water flows back to the ocean the heavier sand settles onto the beach. The training dike system consist of two dikes – one that is perpendicular to the beach connected to one that is parallel to the beach, forming an “L” with the long end parallel to shore. The dikes would be constructed using two bulldozers. Sand would be placed at a single discharge point behind (i.e., landward) the dikes. The dikes would be used to direct the flow of the discharge and slow down the water flow thereby allowing more sediment to settle onto the beach instead of washing back into the surf zone. Where sand is not present on the existing beach (e.g., Cardiff), an initial quantity of sand would be discharged on the highest portion of the beach at low tide for use in building the dikes.

Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo A)

Dredge discharge line placement on the beach berm at the South Carlsbad North receiver site in December of 1995.

Feasibility Study 30 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo B)

The end of the discharge line shown in the foreground. Sand is discharged into a diked-off area to minimize turbidity and control sand deposition.

5.3.4 Beach Building

Beaches would be formed by deposition of sand from the dredge discharge line along the training dikes. Sand would be graded and spread along the beach using two bulldozers. One crane may be used to move the discharge pipeline line. A maximum of 12 crew persons would help to distribute the sand during beach building operations. Prior to beach building activities, SANDAG would notify the local jurisdiction and the local print media of the activity. Those entities would publicize the upcoming activity. SANDAG will also maintain a project Web site with current information regarding ongoing and soon-to-be-initiated project events (http://www.sandag.org/shoreline).

Sand placement around stationary lifeguard towers would be conducted by placing sand around the towers without removing them. The line-of-sight would not be blocked as sand would be excavated to preserve lifeguard views if the fill is placed higher than the tower. Sand placement around storm drain outlets would be designed to allow proper drainage.

Feasibility Study 31 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo C)

Sand is shown pumped into the containment area in the distance, with the discharge line lying along the beach in the foreground.

Figure 5-1 Beach Building Operations (Photo D)

Earthmoving equipment spreading sand discharge from the line.

Feasibility Study 32 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

5.3.5 Schedule

Sand placement operations for the proposed action are scheduled to begin in spring 2010. The exact timing for particular receiver sites would depend on the contractor selected to implement the dredging and disposal activities, the alternative selected for implementation, and coordination with the resource agencies regarding nesting season. However, scheduling would be coordinated to the maximum extent possible to avoid conflicts with national holidays and scheduled major beach events.

Table 5-3 Project Schedule

TASK SCHEDULE

1. Identify and allocate funding sources August 2007 – July 2008

2. Cost-benefit analysis May 2007 – July 2007

3. Request for proposals and contracting for tasks 4 and 5 November 2007 – April 2008

4. Investigation of offshore sand sources April 2008 – July 2008

5. Preliminary Engineering/Design July 2008 – December 2008

6. Request for proposals and contracting for environmental and July 2008 – December 2008 construction 7. Prepare and complete environmental documents January 2009 – October 2010

8. Local, state, and federal permits October 2009 – April 2010

9. Pre-construction monitoring October 2009 – April 2010

10. Project mobilization March 2010

11. Project construction April 2010 – September 2010

12. Post construction monitoring Continuous up to 5 years after construction

Feasibility Study 33 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-2 South Beach Oceanside Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 34 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-3 North Carlsbad Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 35 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-4 South Carlsbad North Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 36 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-5 Batiquitos Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 37 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-6 Leucadia Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 38 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-7 Moonlight Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 39 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-8 Solana Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 40 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-9 Cardiff Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 41 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-10 Del Mar Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 42 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-11 Torrey Pines Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 43 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-12 Mission Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nicho l

Feasibility Study 44 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-13 Imperial Beach Fill Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 45 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-14 SO-9 Dredging and Discharge Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 46 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-15 SO-7 Dredging and Discharge Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 47 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-16 SO-6 Dredging and Discharge Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 48 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-17 SO-5 Dredging and Discharge Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 49 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-18 MB-1 Dredging and Discharge Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 50 DEFINED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

Figure 5-19 SS-1 Dredging and Discharge Plan

Source: Moffat & Nichol

Feasibility Study 51

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

A benefit-cost analysis was performed for each alternative to determine the optimum solution to the problem from an economic standpoint. The analysis is provided below.

6.1 Benefits

Benefits accrued from the project alternatives consist of increased recreational usage, access, public safety, and habitat for nesting and foraging shorebirds, and reducing physical damage to property and infrastructure, emergency costs, and business revenue losses.

The original scope of work for this project only called for estimates of recreational benefits. However, we have included an estimate for storm damage prevention benefits to public land. The State allows one to count storm damage prevention benefits for public buildings and infrastructure such as roads and utility lines, however, in contrast to the USACE, the State does not allow one to include storm damage benefits to private property or private buildings, though these benefits would clearly be significant to the owners of the property.

Cost estimates for each alternative were generated to calculate the benefit-cost ratio for economic analysis. Initial costs are specified for each alternative. The cost of each alternative is discussed below.

A study commissioned by the City of Encinitas in 2006 found that the RBSP actually had a positive impact on biological resources by providing additional beach habitat for nesting and foraging shorebirds. However, ecological restoration and creation of habitat were not quantified for the purposes of this study. Estimating the benefits from ecological restoration is problematic since: (a) biologists are still establishing and quantifying these benefits, and (b) the methodology for assigning a dollar value to ecological restoration is still in its infancy and many government agencies, such as the USACE, refuse to assign dollar benefits. However, these potential benefits are real and could be substantial. Among the species that occur in the area that could potentially benefit directly from increased beach width are the following:

• Western Snowy Plower: This federally listed threatened species (and a State species of “special concern”) nests on sandy beaches.

• California Least Tern: This State and federally listed endangered species nests on the beach and in dunes at various sites in San Diego County.

• California Grunion: According to the California Department of Fish and Game, this species of fish is limited. The Grunion spawn on beaches and benefit from beach restoration.

A number of other endangered species benefit from this mitigation including: the Salt marsh bird’s beak (endangered plant species), the California brown pelican (endangered bird species), the light footed clapper rail (endangered bird), Belding’s savannah sparrow (endangered bird), and the Pacific pocket mouse (endangered). Furthermore, a number of other plant and animal species which

Feasibility Study 52 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS inhabit or use sandy beaches and adjacent habitat could also benefit. In addition, protecting sandy beaches can potentially preserve wetlands and salt marshes adjacent to the beaches by mitigating the effects of storms.

6.1.1 Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild

The proposed 2001 RBSP rebuild alternative using 2.1 MCY of material is the same project constructed in 2001. Table 6.1 shows the cost for this project. The project costs approximately $21,800,000 from concept through construction.

Feasibility Study 53 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Table 6.1 Preliminary Cost Estimate Proposed SANDAG RBSP Rebuild

Assumed RSBP#1 Borrow Site Final ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION (RSBP #1) QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL Planning/Soft Costs - Assumed for Now to Be Similar to Previous Project With Escalation 1 Additonal Investigation of Offshore Sand Sources 1 LS $300,000 $ 300,000 2 Preliminary Design (likely on the high end) 1 LS $200,000 $ 200,000 3 Environmental Review (CEQA/NEPA) 1 LS $500,000 $ 500,000 4 Resource Agency Permits 1 LS $350,000 $ 350,000 5 Final Plans, Specs, & Engineering 1 LS $1,000,000$ 1,000,000 6 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Biological, reduced for same project) 1 LS $250,000 $ 250,000 7 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Shoreline) 1 LS $600,000 $ 600,000 8 Cost-Benefit Analysis (new task) 1 LS $40,000 $ - 9 Environmental Permit Contingency for Possible Unknowns (15%) 1 LS 15% of Prelim. $ 435,000 Subtotal Prelim/Soft Construction Items (likely on the high end and may be able to be reduced) $ 3,635,000 AMOUNT TO BE FUNDED LOCALLY $ 500,000 GRAND TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 3,135,000 Construction Costs 1 Mobilization & Demobilization 1 LS. $2,500,000$ 2,500,000 2 Oceanside Beach SO7 420,000 CY $7.01 $ 2,943,365 3 N. Carlsbad SO5 225,000 CY $9.01 $ 2,026,713 4 S. Carlsbad SO7 160,000 CY $5.54 $ 886,943 5 Batiquitos SO7 118,000 CY $5.04 $ 595,107 6 Leucadia Beach SO7 130,000 CY $5.33 $ 692,777 7 Moonlight Beach SO7 103,000 CY $5.58 $ 574,649 8 Cardiff Beach SO6 104,000 CY $4.72 $ 491,206 9 Fletcher Cove SO5 140,000 CY $5.96 $ 833,968 10 Del Mar SO5 180,000 CY $5.29 $ 952,218 11 Torrey Pines SO5 240,000 CY $5.79 $ 1,389,651 12 Mission Beach MB1 150,000 CY $5.26 $ 788,642 13 Imperial Beach MB1 120,000 CY $9.36 $ 1,123,026 14 Construction Contingency 1 LS. 10% of constr. $ 1,579,826 15 Construction Management 1 LS. 7% of constr. $ 1,105,878 16 Construction Survey or Inspection 1 LS. 3% of constr. $ 473,948 Total Construction Costs $ 18,957,917

GRAND TOTAL ALL ITEMS 2,090,000 $ 22,092,917

ASSUMPTIONS: 1 This cost estimate is for a duplicate project to the 2001 RBSP using the same borrow site and receiver site arrangements. However, it is unknown if all of the borrow sites (e.g., SO-7) can provide the volume of sand needed, and therefore, further offshore explorations are required. These exploration costs are included as Item 1.

2 Pre- and post-project biological monitoring costs are assumed to decrease significantly from the 2001 RBSP. The level of monitoring will be less if the project is identical to the 2001 RBSP, but requirements need to be further defined. Monitoring includes that for beach profiles and limited marine biology before construction, turbidity monitoring during construction, and beach profiles and limited biology for approximately 5 years after construction 3 Dredging and Pumping includes land equipment for building the beach profile. 4 Costs for permits and environmental review assume an Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) and Environmental Assessment (NEPA) are required, as were required for the 2001 RBSP project with similar costs escalated for 2008 dollars. 5 The cost of final engineering is a rough estimate from the 2001 RBSP and needs verification, but the level of effort should be similar or less for an identical project.

Feasibility Study 54 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

6.1.2 Modified Two MCY Project

Alternative 2 is the RBSP with fewer receiver sites and the same 2 MCY quantity, but distributed such that more sand is on fewer sites. Table 6.2 shows the cost for this project. The project costs approximately $21,200,000 million from concept through construction. No significant change in costs occurs from slightly modifying the receiver sites.

Table 6.2 Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative 2 to SANDAG – Fewer Sites and More Sand at Each Site

Assumed RSBP#1 Borrow Site Final ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION (RSBP #1) QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL Planning/Soft Costs - Assumed for Now to Be Similar to Previous Project With Escalation 1 Additonal Investigation of Offshore Sand Sources 1 LS $300,000 $ 300,000 2 Preliminary Design (likely on the high end) 1 LS $200,000 $ 200,000 3 Environmental Review (CEQA/NEPA) 1 LS $500,000 $ 500,000 4 Resource Agency Permits 1 LS $350,000 $ 350,000 5 Final Plans, Specs, & Engineering 1 LS $1,000,000$ 1,000,000 6 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Biological, reduced for same project) 1 LS $250,000 $ 250,000 7 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Shoreline) 1 LS $600,000 $ 600,000 8 Cost-Benefit Analysis (new task) 1 LS $40,000 $ - 9 Environmental Permit Contingency for Possible Unknowns (15%) 1 LS 15% of Prelim. $ 435,000 Subtotal Prelim/Soft Construction Items (likely on the high end and may be able to be reduced) $ 3,635,000 AMOUNT TO BE FUNDED LOCALLY $ 500,000 GRAND TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 3,135,000 Construction Costs 1 Mobilization & Demobilization 1 LS. $2,500,000$ 2,500,000 2 Oceanside Beach SO7 570,000 CY $7.01 $ 3,994,567 3 N. Carlsbad SO5 0 CY $9.01 $ - 4 S. Carlsbad SO7 360,000 CY $5.54 $ 1,995,621 5 Batiquitos SO7 0 CY $5.04 $ - 6 Leucadia Beach SO7 0 CY $5.33 $ - 7 Moonlight Beach SO7 0 CY $5.58 $ - 8 Cardiff Beach SO6 104,000 CY $4.72 $ 491,206 9 Fletcher Cove SO5 140,000 CY $5.96 $ 833,968 10 Del Mar SO5 180,000 CY $5.29 $ 952,218 11 Torrey Pines SO5 360,000 CY $5.79 $ 2,084,476 12 Mission Beach MB1 150,000 CY $5.26 $ 788,642 13 Imperial Beach MB1 180,000 CY $9.36 $ 1,684,539 14 Construction Contingency 1 LS. 10% of constr. $ 1,532,524 15 Construction Management 1 LS. 7% of constr. $ 1,072,767 16 Construction Survey or Inspection 1 LS. 3% of constr. $ 459,757 Total Construction Costs $ 18,390,284

GRAND TOTAL ALL ITEMS 2,044,000 $ 21,525,284

Feasibility Study 55 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

6.1.3 Three MCY Project

The increased sand quantity – 3 MCY alternative would require a larger initial beach fill, placing larger quantities of sand at each of the RBSP receiver sites. The resulting total project cost is shown in Table 6.3. The project costs approximately $28,400,000 million from concept through construction.

Table 6.3 Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative to SANDAG – Increased Quantity – 3 MCY

Assumed RSBP#1 Borrow Site Final ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION (RSBP #1) QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL Planning/Soft Costs - Assumed for Now to Be Similar to Previous Project With Escalation 1 Additonal Investigation of Offshore Sand Sources 1 LS $300,000 $ 300,000 2 Preliminary Design (likely on the high end) 1 LS $200,000 $ 200,000 3 Environmental Review (CEQA/NEPA) 1 LS $500,000 $ 500,000 4 Resource Agency Permits 1 LS $350,000 $ 350,000 5 Final Plans, Specs, & Engineering 1 LS $1,000,000$ 1,000,000 6 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Biological, reduced for same project) 1 LS $250,000 $ 250,000 7 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Shoreline) 1 LS $600,000 $ 600,000 8 Cost-Benefit Analysis (new task) 1 LS $40,000 $ - 9 Environmental Permit Contingency for Possible Unknowns (15%) 1 LS 15% of Prelim. $ 435,000 Total Prelim/Soft Construction Items (likely on the high end and may be able to be reduced) $ 3,635,000 AMOUNT TO BE FUNDED LOCALLY $ 500,000 GRAND TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 3,135,000 Construction Costs 1 Mobilization & Demobilization 1 LS. $2,500,000$ 2,500,000 2 Oceanside Beach SO7 570,000 CY $7.01 $ 3,994,567 3 N. Carlsbad SO5 240,000 CY $9.01 $ 2,161,827 4 S. Carlsbad SO7 360,000 CY $5.54 $ 1,995,621 5 Batiquitos SO7 177,000 CY $5.04 $ 892,660 6 Leucadia Beach SO7 195,000 CY $5.33 $ 1,039,166 7 Moonlight Beach SO7 132,000 CY $5.58 $ 736,443 8 Cardiff Beach SO6 156,000 CY $4.72 $ 736,808 9 Fletcher Cove SO5 210,000 CY $5.96 $ 1,250,953 10 Del Mar SO5 270,000 CY $5.29 $ 1,428,326 11 Torrey Pines SO5 360,000 CY $5.79 $ 2,084,476 12 Mission Beach MB1 150,000 CY $5.26 $ 788,642 13 Imperial Beach MB1 180,000 CY $9.36 $ 1,684,539 14 Construction Contingency 1 LS. 10% of constr. $ 2,129,403 15 Construction Management 1 LS. 7% of constr. $ 1,490,582 16 Construction Survey or Inspection 1 LS. 3% of constr. $ 638,821 Total Construction Costs $ 25,552,835

GRAND TOTAL ALL ITEMS 3,000,000 $ 28,687,835

Feasibility Study 56 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

6.1.4 Optimized Project

The optimized is the RBSP with modified receiver sites and the same 2.1 MCY quantity. The only change in sand distribution is that the sand from the Torrey Pines site will be placed on Mission Beach, increasing the sand quantity at Mission Beach. All other quantities will stay the same but the receiver sites at Oceanside and Imperial Beach would be moved to the north. Table 6.4 shows the cost for this project. The project costs approximately $21,600,000 million from concept through construction, slightly less than the proposed alternative.

Feasibility Study 57 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Table 6.4 Preliminary Cost Estimate Optimized SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project Benefit/Cost Analysis

Assumed RSBP#1 Borrow Site Final ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION (RSBP #1) QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL Planning/Soft Costs - Assumed for Now to Be Similar to Previous Project With Escalation 1 Additonal Investigation of Offshore Sand Sources 1 LS $300,000 $ 300,000 2 Preliminary Design (likely on the high end) 1 LS $200,000 $ 200,000 3 Environmental Review (CEQA/NEPA) 1 LS $500,000 $ 500,000 4 Resource Agency Permits 1 LS $350,000 $ 350,000 5 Final Plans, Specs, & Engineering 1 LS $1,000,000$ 1,000,000 6 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Biological, reduced for same project) 1 LS $250,000 $ 250,000 7 Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Shoreline) 1 LS $600,000 $ 600,000 8 Cost-Benefit Analysis (new task) 1 LS $40,000 $ - 9 Environmental Permit Contingency for Possible Unknowns (15%) 1 LS 15% of Prelim. $ 435,000 Total Prelim/Soft Construction Items (likely on the high end and may be able to be reduced) $ 3,635,000 AMOUNT TO BE FUNDED LOCALLY $ 500,000 GRAND TOTAL SOFT COSTS $ 3,135,000 Construction Costs 1 Mobilization & Demobilization 1 LS. $2,500,000$ 2,500,000 2 Oceanside Beach SO7 420,000 CY $7.01 $ 2,943,365 3 N. Carlsbad SO5 225,000 CY $9.01 $ 2,026,713 4 S. Carlsbad SO7 160,000 CY $5.54 $ 886,943 5 Batiquitos SO7 118,000 CY $5.04 $ 595,107 6 Leucadia Beach SO7 130,000 CY $5.33 $ 692,777 7 Moonlight Beach SO7 103,000 CY $5.58 $ 574,649 8 Cardiff Beach SO6 104,000 CY $4.72 $ 491,206 9 Fletcher Cove SO5 140,000 CY $5.96 $ 833,968 10 Del Mar SO5 180,000 CY $5.29 $ 952,218 11 Torrey Pines 0 CY $0.00 $ - 12 Mission Beach MB1 390,000 CY $5.26 $ 2,050,469 13 Imperial Beach MB1 120,000 CY $9.36 $ 1,123,026 14 Construction Contingency 1 LS. 10% of constr. $ 1,567,044 15 Construction Management 1 LS. 7% of constr. $ 1,096,931 16 Construction Survey or Inspection 1 LS. 3% of constr. $ 470,113 Total Construction Costs $ 18,804,528

GRAND TOTAL ALL ITEMS 2,090,000 $ 21,939,528

Feasibility Study 58 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

6.2.1 Methodology

Recreational benefits were estimated using a model that Dr. King has developed for the State and in conjunction with the State and the USACE as part of the Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup (CSMW).2 Briefly, the model applies a benefits transfer model from the Southern California Beach Project3 and uses local survey data4 taken at beaches in San Diego County to calibrate changes in various amenities, in particular beach width, which is a critical part of this analysis. Beach attendance was measured from actual counts taken by Dr. King at each site as well as counts at adjacent reaches which might also have increased beach width after nourishment. Some data was also taken from previous studies by Dr. King for the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, and the State.5 These studies also used actual counts of people on the beach in conjunction with survey data to estimate beach attendance.6 Attendance estimates are for the specific reaches where sand will be placed and, where relevant, adjacent reaches where the sand spread in the 2001 project.

Changes in crowding at beaches (i.e., with the same number of people on the beach a wider beach will be less crowded – measured in terms of square foot of sand per visitor) also were taken into account. Survey data also indicates that people will go to a beach more often if it is wider. This increase in attendance has been accounted for, along with substitution effects. (If they go to one beach more often they also may go to another less often.) Finally, at certain sites where parking is difficult relative to the number of visitors, the growth rates in attendance from increased beach width have been reduced to account for this difficulty. This is particularly an issue at Mission Beach, where parking spots are hard to find, particularly on weekends in high season.

In addition to recreational benefits, beaches provide potential benefits to coastal property and infrastructure which may be considerable. Adding sand to the proposed project’s 12 receiver sites would decrease the probability of public (and private) property being damaged in severe winter storms. In the event of a severe (or possibly even moderate) storm, beaches act as a buffer, limiting the encroachment of the ocean and ocean waves on inland property. These benefits accrue to both public and private property. However, the State only allows benefits to public property and infrastructure to be counted where the use of State tax dollars is being considered. For this project, Dr. King limited his estimate to loss of public land due to erosion. Incorporating other storm damage prevention benefits,

2 The fullest discussion of the methodology employed is in my paper "The Economic of Regional Sediment Management in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties," prepared for the California State Resources Agency, Final draft (refereed), fall 2006, prepared for the Coastal Sediment Management Work group (CSMW). The paper is at: http://dbw.ca.gov/CSMW/PDF/Economics_of_RSM_0706.pdf. See also "The ARC GIS Coastal Sediment Analysis Tool: A GIS Support Tool for Regional Sediment Management Program: White Paper, Draft Technical Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, April 2006, and also see "Coastal Sediment Analysis Tool (CSBAT) Beta Version--Sediment Management Decision Support Tool for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties," Draft Technical Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, June 2006. See also, “Overcrowding and the Demand for Public Beaches in California,” Prepared for the Department of Boating and Waterways, April 2001. 3 http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SCBeach/ 4 From various reports; see in particular my reports: "The Potential Loss in GNP and GSP from a failure to Maintain California's Beaches," prepared for the California State Resources Agency, 2002, http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~pgking/pubpol.htm and "The (Economic) Benefits of California's Beaches,” prepared for the California State Resources Agency, 2002. 5 Attendance was estimated using actual counts on the specific reaches in early summer 2007 as well as counts taken for the City of Carlsbad and Encinitas in the summer of 2005. For a discussion of the general methodology employed, see The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Carlsbad’s Beaches: A Survey and Estimate of Attendance, December 12, 2005, and “Estimating Beach Attendance and Calibrating the Beach Counters for the City of Encinitas, February 15, 2006. 6 In the City of Encinitas, laser counter data was also examined.

Feasibility Study 59 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

such as the increased benefit of preserving roads and municipal utilities would yield a somewhat higher result, though the value of lost public land is likely to be the most significant factor overall. Including the loss of private property also would yield substantially higher benefits.

Several of the sites included in this study contain reaches with seawalls. At two sites these seawalls protect public property – Carlsbad and Mission Beach. After examining these issues, we concluded that the seawall at Carlsbad was sufficient to protect against storms (though the area just north of the seawall contains some public property and access). At Mission Beach, the seawall is quite low and a wider beach at this site would provide some additional benefits, though less than at sites with no seawall.

Assistance on this project was provided by Everest Consultants, Moffat and Nichol, and Coastal Frontiers, Corp. Changes in beach width were assessed with the help of Everest Consultants, a coastal Engineering firm who served as a subcontractor on this project. The consulting firms Moffat & Nichol and Coastal Frontiers also assisted in providing and interpreting data. This study relied on Coastal Frontiers’ data on what actually has happened to beach widths since the 2001 RBSP. While conditions obviously may be different in the next five years, this data has the advantage of taking into account actual impacts of the nourishment project, including how sand moved within littoral cells, which is hard to capture otherwise. Recent data from 2006 also indicates that some of the sand placed in 2001 appears to still be in the sediment budget of some cells. Since only five years of data were available, where it was clear that beach widths were still substantially above zero, the dissipation in beach width was forecast using least square techniques on the data.7

For this project, costs were estimated by Moffatt & Nichol. The actual cost of the project could be higher (or lower) and would affect the outcome of the benefit/cost analysis. Additionally, these estimates here do not consider the possibility of also adding coastal structures, such as groins and offshore reefs, which would maintain the sand width for a longer period of time. Although these structures add considerably to the costs of a project, they would also increase benefits substantially by lengthening the time period that the sand stays on the beach. These structures may be particularly useful at places like Fletcher Cove, where the sand left quite quickly after the RBSP. Indeed, the Regional Beach Sand Retention Strategy prepared by Moffatt & Nichol for SANDAG in 2001 concluded that the use of these structures at erosive beaches in San Diego County was warranted by a benefit/cost analysis.

7 The data include beach widths for 14 beaches spanning 2001 to 2006, a total of 84 observations. To minimize noise and to maximize information, I used a balanced panel regression to forecast beach width. Different regression specifications (linear vs. non-linear) were evaluated however the best outcome was found by regressing beach width on a constant.

Feasibility Study 60 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

6.2.2 Site Selection

The selection of sites was determined by SANDAG, with input from Dr. King and Moffatt & Nichol. The recreational value of specific beaches was considered and resulted in the addition of the optimized alternative. This section will discuss very briefly each site, focusing solely on issues involved in the analysis of recreational value.

Original SANDAG 2001 sites

1. South Oceanside: A relatively narrow beach just north of the Carlsbad/Oceanside border. This reach is relatively underused and mostly attended by people who live (or rent condos) nearby. Access and parking is better just north near Oceanside pier, which has higher attendance.

2. North Carlsbad: This reach stretches from the northern part of the city, which is similar to S. Oceanside down close to Carlsbad Village. Recreational use increases significantly as one moves south, driven by parking, hotels, and condos near Carlsbad Village.

3. South Carlsbad: Two receiver sites exist here, adjacent to South Carlsbad State beach, which is popular with campers.

4. Batiquitos: Usually referred to as “Ponto” beach, in the southern part of Carlsbad. This spot is very popular, especially with local residents since parking is available.

5. Leucadia: A narrow reach just south of Grandview and north of Beacon’s beach. Except for Grandview, access is limited to staircases from private dwellings. This section of beach is less populated than many others in the City of Encinitas.

6. Moonlight Beach: A very popular beach with good amenities and access.

7. Cardiff: A relatively narrow State beach, which is quite popular.

8. Fletcher Cove: A very narrow beach in Solana Beach; at high tide there is virtually no beach at Fletcher Cove.

9. Del Mar: A very popular reach stretching from downtown Del Mar north to 27th street. The beach narrows at the north end and is crowded on busy summer days, especially in the south.

10. Torrey Pines: A popular narrow beach.

11. Mission Beach: An extremely popular beach in San Diego. The RBSP reach is less crowded than the adjacent reaches just north and south.

12. Imperial Beach: The RBSP site is at the southern end of Imperial Beach, which has fewer amenities than the reach just north of the pier.

Alternate Sites

13. Oceanside Pier: Placing sand farther north of the original South Oceanside site, just south of the Oceanside Pier, would increase beach width in an area with more access and more visitors. Environmental constraints preclude placing sand north of the pier.

Feasibility Study 61 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

14. Imperial Beach Pier: Similar to above, placing sand near the pier would increase recreational benefits substantially. It would also potentially increase storm damage benefits to the pier and other public property adjacent to the beach.

15. Wider Placement on Mission Beach: Increasing the length of the reach on Mission Beach would increase recreational value for a larger number of people. The reaches both north and south of the RBSP site have significantly more people on them than the original reach.

Table 6.5 below presents estimates of yearly visits at the specific reaches involved including the adjacent areas that would also benefit from the increase in sand as it spreads. Please note that these are not estimates for the entire beach. Since there is some overlap in these estimates, totaling these estimates is not appropriate, however, the total population at these sites alone is close to 10 million people per year.

In addition, the City of Coronado helped fund this study and asked for data to be collected. This report includes estimates of economic impacts, benefits, and costs, though Coronado is not intended for nourishment since it already has a very wide beach.

Table 6.5 Yearly Population Estimates at Each Reach Including Sand Spread to Adjacent Sites8

Site Population Estimate

Oceanside Pier $ 500,000 S. Oceanside Beach Fill $ 250,000 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 450,000 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 250,000 S. Carlsbad (South) $ 200,000 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 300,000 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 200,000 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 650,000 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 200,000 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 55,000 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 450,000 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $ 200,000 Mission Beach Beach Fill $ 850,000 Extended Mission Beach $ 1,200,000 Imperial Pier $ 300,000 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $ 180,000 Coronado 300,000

8 Please note that the total includes the wider Mission reach but not the smaller one in order to avoid double-counting.

Feasibility Study 62 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

6.2.3 Estimates of Recreational Benefits versus Costs

The Tables below present estimates of benefits and costs for the alternatives:

1. The Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild

2. A Reduction in Receiver Sites and Increases in Sand Volumes (Modified Two MCY Project)

3. A Three MCY Project

4. The Optimized Project

6.2.3.1 2001 RBSP Rebuild

Table 6.6 presents the estimate of benefit/cost (B/C) ratios for the proposed 2001 RBSP rebuild with the original 2001 RBSP sites and quantities of sand. Beach widths were estimated using actual Monitoring Program data collected by Coastal Frontiers before and after the project and extrapolations from year 6 to year 11. The estimates of benefits are discounted at a 5 percent rate over the 11 year period. Overall, the B/C ratio is 1.5, which means that this project can be justified based on recreational benefits and an assessment of storm damage prevention benefits to publicly owned property, though adding in other benefits would increase these benefits. Compared to the optimized project, however, this alternative is not the economically preferred alternative.

Table 6.6 Benefits and Costs for the Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild

Increased Storm Damage Site Cost Recreational Total Benefits B/C Benefits Benefits

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $ 2,943,365 $ 4,190,721 $ 109,864 $ 4,300,585 1.5 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 2,026,713 $ 2,991,515 $ 204,947 $ 3,196,463 1.6 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 886,943 $ 2,945,001 $ 1,223,501 $ 4,168,502 4.7 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 595,107 $ 1,601,273 $ 513,303 $ 2,114,576 3.6 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 692,777 $ 2,458,617 $ 50,277 $ 2,508,894 3.6 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 574,649 $ 3,497,959 $ 487,734 $ 3,985,693 6.9 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 491,206 $ 2,862,776 $ 742,487 $ 3,605,263 7.3 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 833,968 $ 98,629 $ 55,779 $ 154,408 0.2 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 952,218 $ 5,243,327 $ 716,126 $ 5,959,454 6.3 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $ 1,389,651 $ 524,035 $ 461,343 $ 985,378 0.7 Mission Beach Beach Fill $ 788,642 $ 2,656,237 $ 170,048 $ 2,826,285 3.6 Imperial Beach Beach Fill$ 1,123,026 $ 298,981 $ 39,198 $ 338,178 0.3 Other Overhead $5,659,653 Soft Costs $ 3,135,000 Total $ 22,092,917 $ 29,369,072 $ 4,774,606 $ 34,143,678 1.5

Feasibility Study 63 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

6.2.3.2 Modified Two MCY Project

Table 6.7 presents the estimate of B/C ratios for the 2001 RBSP with the following changes:

• The sand fill at Oceanside is increased from 421,000 CY to 570,000 CY

• South Carlsbad (North) is increased from 158,000 CY to 218,000 CY

• A new site is added in South Carlsbad South with 142,000 CY

• Batiquitos, Leucadia and Moonlight are eliminated

• Torrey Pines is increased from 245,000 CY to 360,000 CY

• Imperial Beach is increased from 120,000 CY to 180,000 CY

The B/C ratio for the modified 2 MCY alternative drops to 1.3, largely because some of the sites dropped (e.g., Moonlight and Batiquitos) had high B/C ratios. It makes little sense to drop two sites with high B/C ratios, therefore this is not a preferred alternative.

Table 6.7 Benefits and Costs for the Modified Two MCY Alternative

Increased Storm Site Cost Recreational Damage Total Benefits B/C Benefits Benefits

S. Oceanside Beach Fill 570,000 $ 3,994,567 $ 5,037,415 $ 135,708 $ 5,173,123 1.3 S. Carlsbad North Beach Fill 218,000$ 1,208,459 $ 2,945,001 $ 1,223,501 $ 4,168,502 3.4 S. Carlsbad South Beach Fill 142,000 $ 787,162 $ 2,453,445 $ 1,101,167 $ 3,554,613 4.5 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 491,206 $ 2,862,776 $ 742,487 $ 3,605,263 7.3 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 833,968 $ 98,629 $ 55,779 $ 154,408 0.2 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 952,218 $ 5,243,327 $ 716,126 $ 5,959,454 6.3 Torrey Pines 360,000 $ 2,084,476 $ 1,150,719 $ 989,628 $ 2,140,347 1.0 Mission Beach Beach Fill 150,000 $ 788,642 $ 3,451,805 $ 256,204 $ 3,708,008 4.7 Imperial Beach Beach Fill 180,000 $ 1,684,539 $ 460,876 $ 66,677 $ 527,553 0.3 Soft Costs $ 3,135,000.00 Other Overhead $ 5,565,047 Total $ 21,525,284 $ 23,703,994 $ 5,287,276 $ 28,991,271 1.3

6.2.3.3 Three MCY Project

This alternative increased the total sand placement to 3 million cubic yards from the original 2.1 million placed on the beaches during the 2001 RBSP, an increase of 43 percent. The B/C ratio is 1.1, which implies that the benefits are greater than the costs by about 20 percent, a lower B/C ratio than other projects.

Feasibility Study 64 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Table 6.8 Benefits and Costs for the 3 MCY Project

Increased Storm Site Cost Recreational Damage Total Benefits B/C Benefits Benefits

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $ 3,994,567 $ 4,760,901 $ 123,900 $ 4,884,801 1.2 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 2,161,827 $ 3,516,165 $ 264,003 $ 3,780,168 1.7 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 1,995,621 $ 4,194,920 $ 1,357,375 $ 5,552,295 2.8 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 892,660 $ 1,655,759 $ 607,530 $ 2,263,289 2.5 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 1,039,166 $ 2,371,604 $ 58,496 $ 2,430,100 2.3 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 736,443 $ 4,036,358 $ 562,210 $ 4,598,568 6.2 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 736,808 $ 3,236,622 $ 933,917 $ 4,170,539 5.7 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill$ 1,250,953 $ 114,992 $ 74,279 $ 189,271 0.2 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 1,428,326 $ 5,243,327 $ 716,126 $ 5,959,454 4.2 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $ 2,084,476 $ 610,970 $ 611,540 $ 1,222,510 0.6 Mission Beach Beach Fill $ 788,642 $ 2,329,464 $ 147,727 $ 2,477,191 3.1 Imperial Beach Beach Fill$ 1,684,539 $ 349,287 $ 50,918 $ 400,205 0.2 Other Overhead $ 6,758,806 Soft Costs $ 3,135,000 Total $ 28,687,835 $ 32,420,368 1.1

6.2.3.4 Optimized Project

This alternative is very similar to the proposed 2001 RBSP rebuild, but attempts to increase benefits by increasing sand to sites with high B/C ratios and eliminating or moving sites with lower ratios. Environmental and political constraints were also considered. Some sand placements (e.g., placement of sand north of the pier at Oceanside) were eliminated due to environmental constraints. In addition, moving sand from beaches in one city to beaches in another was not considered a politically feasible option. All movements of sand were limited to other sites within the same city.

The following changes from the 2001 RBSP were made for this alternative:

• The beach fill in S. Oceanside was moved farther north just south of the pier.

• The fill in Torrey Pines was eliminated and the sand was added to Mission Beach, lengthening that reach.

• The beach fill at Imperial Beach was moved farther north, centered on the pier.

Optimizing yields considerably higher benefits with a B/C ratio of 2.0, the highest B/C ratio of any project alternative.

Feasibility Study 65 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Table 6.9 Benefits and Costs for the Optimized Project

Increased Storm Site Cost Recreational Damage Total Benefits B/C Benefits Benefits

Oceanside Pier Beach Fill $ 2,943,365 $ 3,852,896 $ 3,047,937 $ 6,900,834 2.3 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 2,026,713 $ 2,991,515 $ 204,947 $ 3,196,463 1.6 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 886,943 $ 2,945,001 $ 1,223,501 $ 4,168,502 4.7 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 595,107 $ 1,601,273 $ 513,303 $ 2,114,576 3.6 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 692,777 $ 2,458,617 $ 50,277 $ 2,508,894 3.6 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 574,649 $ 3,497,959 $ 487,734 $ 3,985,693 6.9 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 491,206 $ 2,862,776 $ 742,487 $ 3,605,263 7.3 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 833,968 $ 98,629 $ 55,779 $ 154,408 0.2 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 952,218 $ 5,243,327 $ 716,126 $ 5,959,454 6.3 Mission Beach Fill (South + Torrey) $ 2,050,469 $ 8,587,359 $ 1,224,130 $ 9,811,489 4.8 Imperial Beach Beach Fill North $ 1,123,026 $ 853,167 $ 276,043 $ 1,129,211 1.0 Other Overhead $5,634,088 Soft Costs $ 3,135,000.00 Total $ 21,939,528 $ 34,992,520 $ 8,542,265 $ 43,534,785 2.0

6.2 Economic Analysis

6.3.1 Economic Impacts In addition to measuring recreational benefits from increased beach width, policy makers want to know how much economic activity is generated by beach recreation. Dr. King has quantified this for the State and for a number of communities in several studies.9 This section will provide estimates of direct total spending generated at the State and local (city) levels as well as taxes generated from this spending. Local spending is lower than State spending simply because visitors may not spend all of their dollars in one town. For example, a visitor to Carlsbad may drive in from San Francisco – some of their travel expenditures will occur in the City of Carlsbad and some will occur in the County of San Diego. Local taxes generated do not include increases in property taxes generated by wider beaches. Adequate data does not exist to make such an estimate, but it is clear that this impact is significant and thus these estimates are conservative.

9 See, in particular: "The Potential Loss in GNP and GSP from a failure to maintain California's Beaches," prepared for the California State Resources Agency, 2002, http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~pgking/pubpol.htm and "The (Economic) Benefits of California's Beaches,” prepared for the California State Resources Agency, 2002.

Feasibility Study 66 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Table 6.10 State and Local Economic Impacts at Proposed Sites

Current State State Taxes Local Taxes Site Local Spending Spending Generated Generated

Oceanside Pier $ 16,025,000 $ 1,842,875 $ 11,720,000 $ 293,000 S. Oceanside Beach Fill $ 5,950,000 $ 684,250 $ 4,760,000 $ 119,000 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 15,210,000 $ 1,749,150 $ 10,908,000 $ 272,700 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 13,512,500 $ 1,553,938 $ 10,260,000 $ 256,500 S. Carlsbad (South) $ 10,810,000 $ 1,243,150 $ 8,208,000 $ 205,200 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 7,965,000 $ 915,975 $ 5,712,000 $ 142,800 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 6,060,000 $ 696,900 $ 4,568,000 $ 114,200 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 19,045,000 $ 2,190,175 $ 13,806,000 $ 345,150 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 6,960,000 $ 800,400 $ 4,688,000 $ 117,200 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 2,216,500 $ 254,898 $ 1,531,200 $ 38,280 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 18,135,000 $ 2,085,525 $ 12,528,000 $ 313,200 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $ 5,860,000 $ 673,900 $ 3,808,000 $ 95,200 Mission Beach Beach Fill $ 34,255,000 $ 3,939,325 $ 23,664,000 $ 591,600 Extended Mission Beach $ 48,360,000 $ 5,561,400 $ 33,408,000 $ 835,200 Imperial Pier $ 7,965,000 $ 915,975 $ 5,712,000 $ 142,800 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $ 4,779,000 $ 549,585 $ 3,427,200 $ 85,680 Coronado $ 14,565,000 $ 1,674,975 $ 9,672,000 $ 241,800 Total $ 203,418,000 $ 23,393,070 $ 144,716,400 $ 3,617,910 Alternate 1 (and 4) Total $ 139,948,000 $ 16,094,020 $ 99,660,400 $ 2,491,510 Alternate 2 Total $ 150,758,000 $ 17,337,170 $ 107,868,400 $ 2,696,710 Alternate 3 Total $ 161,454,000 $ 18,567,210 $ 114,841,200 $ 2,871,030

Overall economic activity for each specific alternative generates between $140 million and $161 million in economic activity per year within the State and between $16 million and $18.5 million in State taxes per year. The corresponding local economic activity is between $100 million and $115 million and $2.5 million and $2.8 million in taxes per year. An estimate for all beaches in San Diego would be significantly higher.

Local spending is just under $70 million, with $1.7 million in taxes generated per year. The corresponding figures for the sites in each alternative are also given in Table 6.10 above.

6.3.2. Increases in Economic Activity and Taxes One also can measure the additional economic activity generated by increasing beach width. However, data indicates that increased activity only occurs to the extent that additional people go to the beach. Consequently, unlike our economic benefit calculations, which quantify the increased benefit of a wider beach as well as increases in attendance, the increased economic activity is only derived from increased attendance.

Feasibility Study 67 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Tables 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, and 6.14 below present the increased state and local economic impact from all alternatives over the life of the project.10

Table 6.11 Direct Economic Impacts for the 2001 RBSB Rebuild

Increased State Increased State Increased Local Increased Local Site Spending Taxes Spending Taxes

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $ 6,497,476 $ 747,210 $ 5,197,981 $ 162,437 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 2,007,721 $ 230,888 $ 1,439,857 $ 50,193 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 12,069,114 $ 1,387,948 $ 9,164,041 $ 301,728 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 808,705 $ 93,001 $ 579,953 $ 20,218 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 3,087,400 $ 355,051 $ 2,327,267 $ 77,185 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 1,266,668 $ 145,667 $ 918,226 $ 31,667 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 4,712,951 $ 541,989 $ 3,174,471 $ 117,824 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 375,847 $ 43,222 $ 259,642 $ 9,396 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 3,710,557 $ 426,714 $ 2,563,322 $ 92,764 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $ 1,174,078 $ 135,019 $ 762,950 $ 29,352 Mission Beach Beach Fill $ 2,447,469 $ 281,459 $ 1,690,758 $ 61,187 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $ 271,176 $ 31,185 $ 194,471 $ 6,779 Total $ 38,429,163 $ 4,419,354 $ 28,272,940 $ 960,729

Table 6.12 Direct Economic Impacts for the Modified Two MCY Project

Increased State Increased Increased Local Increased Site Spending State Taxes Spending Local Taxes

S. Oceanside Beach Fill 570,000 $ 8,818,004 $ 1,014,070 $ 7,054,403 $ 220,450 S. Carlsbad North Beach Fill 218,000$ 16,675,658 $ 1,917,701 $ 12,661,777 $ 416,891 S. Carlsbad South Beach Fill 142,000$ 8,615,952 $ 990,834 $ 6,542,066 $ 215,399 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 4,712,951 $ 541,989 $ 3,174,471 $ 117,824 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 375,847 $ 43,222 $ 259,642 $ 9,396 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 3,710,557 $ 426,714 $ 2,563,322 $ 92,764 Torrey Pines 360,000 $ 2,518,517 $ 289,629 $ 1,636,606 $ 62,963 Mission Beach Beach Fill 150,000 $ 3,687,504 $ 424,063 $ 2,547,398 $ 92,188 Imperial Beach Beach Fill 180,000 $ 461,280 $ 53,047 $ 330,801 $ 11,532 Total $ 49,576,270 $ 5,701,271 $ 36,770,486 $ 1,239,407

10 These impacts are present values (discounted at 5 percent) over the 11 year life of the project. Yearly impacts vary with changes in beach width. More comprehensive data is available in Attachment 2.

Feasibility Study 68 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Table 6.13 Direct Economic Impacts for the Three MCY Project

Increased State Increased State Increased Local Increased Local Site Spending Taxes Spending Taxes

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $ 8,241,248 $ 947,743 $ 6,592,998 $ 206,031 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 2,586,241 $ 297,418 $ 1,854,748 $ 64,656 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 18,971,342 $ 2,181,704 $ 14,404,882 $ 474,284 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 1,018,326 $ 117,107 $ 730,280 $ 25,458 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 3,868,335 $ 444,858 $ 2,915,933 $ 96,708 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 1,575,802 $ 181,217 $ 1,142,322 $ 39,395 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 5,970,253 $ 686,579 $ 4,021,343 $ 149,256 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 500,501 $ 57,558 $ 345,755 $ 12,513 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 3,710,557 $ 426,714 $ 2,563,322 $ 92,764 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $ 1,556,317 $ 178,976 $ 1,011,340 $ 38,908 Mission Beach Beach Fill $ 2,126,214 $ 244,515 $ 1,468,829 $ 53,155 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $ 352,262 $ 40,510 $ 252,620 $ 8,807 Total $ 50,477,396 $ 5,804,901 $ 37,304,372 $ 1,261,935

Table 6.14 Direct Economic Impacts for the Proposed Optimized Project

Increased State Increased State Increased Local Increased Site Spending Taxes Spending Local Taxes

Oceanside Pier Beach Fill $ 2,859,114 $ 328,798 $ 2,091,034 $ 71,478 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 2,007,721 $ 230,888 $ 1,439,857 $ 50,193 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $ 12,069,114 $ 1,387,948 $ 9,164,041 $ 301,728 Batiquitos Beach Fill $ 808,705 $ 93,001 $ 579,953 $ 20,218 Leucadia Beach Fill $ 3,087,400 $ 355,051 $ 2,327,267 $ 77,185 Moonlight Beach Fill $ 3,013,861 $ 346,594 $ 2,184,792 $ 75,347 Cardiff Beach Fill $ 4,712,951 $ 541,989 $ 3,174,471 $ 117,824 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 375,847 $ 43,222 $ 259,642 $ 9,396 Del Mar Beach Fill $ 3,710,557 $ 426,714 $ 2,563,322 $ 92,764 Mission Beach Fill (South + Torrey) $ 13,732,023 $ 1,579,183 $ 9,486,341 $ 343,301 Imperial Beach Beach Fill North $ 23,871 $ 109,809 $ 684,765 $ 23,871 Total $ 46,401,164 $ 5,443,197 $ 33,955,485 $ 1,183,304

Feasibility Study 69

CONCLUSIONS

This report presents a benefit-cost analysis of several alternatives for consideration by DBW for implementation of a regional beach sand project in the San Diego region. Each project alternative has been examined in terms of its benefit-to-cost ratio to determine the best alternative. The B/C ratio for each alternative is shown in Table 7.1 below.

As indicated by the data, all of the proposed projects yield a benefit/cost ratio greater than one, with the optimized project having the highest B/C ratio of 2.0. However, these estimates are somewhat conservative in that only recreational benefits and some storm damage prevention benefits, accounting for the loss of public land, were considered. Considering other benefits, such as increased recreational usage, access and habitat for nesting and foraging shorebirds, and reducing emergency costs and business revenue losses, and enhancing public safety would further increase the ratios.

Overall, there are minimal differences in cost and project changes between the proposed 2001 RBSP rebuild and the optimized alternatives. However, given potential environmental, political, and other constraints as well as the success of 2001 RBSP, the proposed 2001 RBSP rebuild has been chosen as the proposed project for this Feasibility Study.

Table 7.1 Benefit-Cost Ratios

Alternative Benefit-Cost Ratio

1. The Proposed 2001 RBSP Rebuild 1.5

2. Modified Two MCY Project 1.3

3. A Three MCY Project 1.1

4 The Optimized Project 2.0

Feasibility Study 70

REFERENCES

California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments. Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region, Volumes One and Two. December 1994.

City of Encinitas, Coastal Habitat Study, 2003-2005: Influence of Beach Nourishment on Biological Resources at Beaches in the City of Encinitas, California. June 2006.

Coastal Frontiers. 2006 Regional Beach Monitoring Program, April 2006.

KEA Environmental. Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment for the San Diego Regional Beach Sand Projects, June 2000.

King, Philip, The Economic of Regional Sediment Management in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, prepared for the California State Resources Agency, fall 2006, prepared for the Coastal Sediment Management Work group (CSMW): http://dbw.ca.gov/CSMW/PDF/Economics_of_RSM_0706.pdf.

King, Philip, Estimating Beach Attendance and Calibrating the Beach Counters for the City of Encinitas, February 15, 2006.

King, Philip, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Carlsbad’s Beaches: A Survey and Estimate of Attendance, December 12, 2005,

King, Philip, The Potential Loss in GNP and GSP From a Failure to Maintain California's Beaches, prepared for the California Resources Agency, 2002, http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~pgking/pubpol.htm.

Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. Final Report, Shoreline Morphology Study, San Diego Regional Beach Sand Project, March 2000.

Patsch, Kiki and Gary Griggs. Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline, October 2006.

SANDAG, Regional Beach Sand Retention Strategy, October 2001.

SANDAG. Regional Comprehensive Plan, July, 2004.

SANDAG. Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region. July 1993.

Southern California Beach valuation Project: http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SCBeach/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study, Sediment Budget Report, Oceanside Littoral Cell, Los Angeles, CA.

Feasibility Study 71 REFERENCES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study, San Diego Region, Final Report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, CA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Sediment Analysis Tool (CSBAT) Beta Version--Sediment Management Decision Support Tool for Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, Draft Technical Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, June 2006.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The ARC GIS Coastal Sediment Analysis Tool: A GIS Support Tool for Regional Sediment Management Program: White Paper, Draft Technical Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, April 2006.

Feasibility Study 72 Attachment 1

OUUt!DAG RESOLUTION

401 B Street, Suite 800 NO. 2007-33 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619)699-1900 • Fax (619) 699-1905 www.sandag.org

A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION TO IDENTIFY FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT A REGIONAL BEACH SAND PROJECT

WHEREAS, in 1996, SANDAG adopted the Shoreline Preservation Strategy (Strategy) that outlines an extensive beach building and maintenance program for the critical shoreline erosion areas in the region, containing a comprehensive set of recommendations on the beach building program and on financing and implementation; and

WHEREAS, in 2001, SANDAG successfully implemented a Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP) that placed 2.1 million cubic yards of sand on 12 beaches in the San Diego region; and

WHEREAS, in 2004, SANDAG adopted the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which is a strategic land use planning framework for the San Diego region through 2030 that supports the continued implementation of the Strategy, outlining the preservation and enhancement of the region's beaches and nearshore areas as environmental and recreational resources that must be protected; and

WHEREAS, the San Diego region is committed to implementing the Strategy and RCP; and

WHEREAS, several cities in the San Diego region have expressed an interest and desire in implementing another such project on a regional basis, as economies of scale and efficiencies would likely result in a more productive and successful project; and

WHEREAS, a number of benefits, including recreational, economic, protection of infrastructure, and enhancement of public safety occur as the result of beach nourishment, such as the 2001 RBSP; and

WHEREAS, a study commission by the City of Encinitas found that the RBSP had a positive impact on biological resources by providing additional beach habitat for nesting and foraging shorebirds; and

WHEREAS, the cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach have dedicated 2 percent of Transient Occupancy Tax revenues for the purposes of protecting and enhancing beaches; and

WHEREAS, the cities of Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Oceanside, San Diego, and Solana Beach have approximately $1.2 million in funds available in the Beach Sand Mitigation Fund, which includes funds collected by the California Coastal Commission as mitigation for impacts associated with permits issued for the construction of sea walls, and is administered by SANDAG and must be used for beach replenishment activities; and

73 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-33, page 2

WHEREAS, SANDAG and the region's coastal cities are interested in using available local funds to leverage state funds; NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED, that SANDAG recognizes that the California Department of Boating and Waterways requires a local share of funds be provided by local entities and the SANDAG Board of Directors is committed to working with the region's local cities on the financing and implementation of a regional beach replenishment project and identifying local funding sources for such a project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22 nd day of June 2007.

AnEST: ----lIv2<~UL=::....·~{J_t__·~dIt~~~=-- _ SECRETARY

MEMBER AGENCIES: C1~ies f Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, EI Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, and Mexico.

ECONOMIC AND REVENUE IMPACTS BY YEAR, SITE, AND ALTERNATIVE

Table A1 Alternative 1: State Spending Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $2,288,952 $1,013,468 $757,222 $651,708 $244,728 $591,415 $587,860 $420,657 $339,458 $297,846 $275,969 $264,317 $7,733,599 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $205,497 $391,198 $332,420 $322,624 $239,356 $303,031 $143,390 $113,666 $98,533 $90,602 $86,385 $84,126 $2,410,828 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $5,237,445 $3,115,082 $1,335,035 $1,095,413 $855,792 $616,170 $410,780 $205,390 $68,463 $34,232 $0 $0 $12,973,802 Batiquitos Beach Fill $397,025 $169,103 $51,466 $44,114 $55,142 $66,171 $44,114 $29,409 $18,381 $3,676 $0 $0 $878,601 Leucadia Beach Fill $1,043,936 $552,672 $445,208 $414,504 $307,040 $276,336 $184,224 $122,816 $61,408 $30,704 $0 $0 $3,438,848 Moonlight Beach Fill $456,629 $135,445 $0 $98,762 $0 $218,134 $198,343 $124,346 $91,578 $75,423 $67,086 $62,687 $1,528,433 Cardiff Beach Fill $1,172,694 $341,406 $373,143 $669,361 $436,619 $891,524 $561,666 $361,518 $270,957 $225,927 $202,597 $190,264 $5,697,677 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $326,622 $35,642 $16,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $379,110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $758,220 Del Mar Beach Fill $861,413 $343,270 $615,295 $602,341 $427,468 $589,388 $259,071 $181,350 $136,193 $122,917 $115,889 $112,132 $4,366,725 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $556,327 $500,733 $80,165 $53,443 $26,722 $0 $0 $1,217,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,434,780 Mission Beach Beach Fill $611,118 $287,421 $207,296 $361,097 $314,168 $233,925 $234,044 $173,935 $144,167 $128,774 $120,644 $116,303 $2,932,892 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $91,666 $44,968 $41,509 $89,936 $25,943 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $294,022 Total $13,249,323 $6,930,408 $4,255,605 $4,403,304 $2,932,978 $3,786,093 $2,623,493 $3,329,587 $1,229,138 $1,010,101 $868,569 $829,829 $45,448,427

Table A2 Alternative 1: State Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $263,229 $116,549 $87,080 $74,946 $28,144 $68,013 $67,604 $48,376 $39,038 $34,252 $31,736 $30,396 $889,364 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $23,632 $44,988 $38,228 $37,102 $27,526 $34,849 $16,490 $13,072 $11,331 $10,419 $9,934 $9,674 $277,245 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $602,306 $358,234 $153,529 $125,973 $98,416 $70,860 $47,240 $23,620 $7,873 $3,937 $0 $0 $1,491,987 Batiquitos Beach Fill $45,658 $19,447 $5,919 $5,073 $6,341 $7,610 $0 $101,039 $0 $0 $0 $0 $191,086 Leucadia Beach Fill $120,053 $63,557 $51,199 $47,668 $35,310 $31,779 $0 $395,468 $0 $0 $0 $0 $745,033 Moonlight Beach Fill $52,512 $15,576 $0 $11,358 $0 $25,085 $22,809 $14,300 $10,532 $8,674 $7,715 $7,209 $175,770 Cardiff Beach Fill $134,860 $39,262 $42,912 $76,977 $50,211 $102,525 $64,592 $41,575 $31,160 $25,982 $23,299 $21,880 $655,233 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $37,562 $4,099 $1,937 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $87,195 Del Mar Beach Fill $99,062 $39,476 $70,759 $69,269 $49,159 $67,780 $29,793 $20,855 $15,662 $14,135 $13,327 $12,895 $502,173 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $63,978 $57,584 $9,219 $6,146 $3,073 $0 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000 Mission Beach Beach Fill $70,279 $33,053 $23,839 $41,526 $36,129 $26,901 $26,915 $20,003 $16,579 $14,809 $13,874 $13,375 $337,283 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $10,542 $5,171 $4,774 $10,343 $2,983 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33,813 Total $1,523,672 $796,997 $489,395 $506,380 $337,292 $435,401 $275,443 $861,903 $132,175 $112,208 $99,885 $95,430 $5,666,182

75 Table A3 Alternative 1: Local Spending Generated

Table A4

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $1,831,161 $810,775 $605,777 $521,367 $195,783 $473,132 $470,288 $336,525 $271,566 $238,277 $220,775 $211,453 $6,186,879 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $147,374 $280,551 $238,398 $231,373 $171,656 $217,322 $102,833 $81,517 $70,664 $64,976 $61,952 $60,332 $1,728,949 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $3,976,776 $2,365,272 $1,013,688 $831,744 $649,800 $467,856 $311,904 $155,952 $51,984 $25,992 $0 $0 $9,850,968 Batiquitos Beach Fill $284,721 $121,270 $36,908 $31,636 $39,545 $47,454 $31,636 $21,090 $13,182 $2,636 $0 $0 $630,078 Leucadia Beach Fill $786,914 $416,602 $335,596 $312,451 $231,445 $208,301 $138,867 $92,578 $46,289 $23,145 $0 $0 $2,592,188 Moonlight Beach Fill $331,017 $98,186 $0 $71,594 $0 $158,128 $143,782 $90,140 $66,387 $54,675 $48,631 $45,443 $1,107,984 Cardiff Beach Fill $789,883 $229,958 $251,336 $450,857 $294,090 $600,498 $378,318 $243,505 $182,507 $152,176 $136,462 $128,155 $3,837,746 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $225,637 $24,622 $11,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $261,896 $0 $0 $0 $0 $523,793 Del Mar Beach Fill $595,080 $237,137 $425,057 $416,109 $295,303 $407,160 $178,971 $125,280 $94,084 $84,914 $80,058 $77,463 $3,016,616 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $361,518 $325,391 $52,093 $34,729 $17,364 $0 $0 $791,096 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,582,192 Mission Beach Beach Fill $422,172 $198,556 $143,204 $249,452 $217,034 $161,600 $161,682 $120,158 $99,594 $88,959 $83,343 $80,345 $2,026,097 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $65,737 $32,248 $29,768 $64,497 $18,605 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $210,854 Total $9,817,991 $5,140,569 $3,143,463 $3,215,808 $2,130,625 $2,741,450 $1,918,282 $2,319,738 $896,256 $735,750 $631,221 $603,190 $33,294,343

Alternative 1: Local Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $57,224 $25,337 $18,931 $16,293 $6,118 $14,785 $14,697 $10,516 $8,486 $7,446 $6,899 $6,608 $193,340 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $5,137 $9,780 $8,311 $8,066 $5,984 $7,576 $3,585 $2,842 $2,463 $2,265 $2,160 $2,103 $60,271 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $130,936 $77,877 $33,376 $27,385 $21,395 $15,404 $10,270 $5,135 $1,712 $856 $0 $0 $324,345 Batiquitos Beach Fill $9,926 $4,228 $1,287 $1,103 $1,379 $1,654 $0 $21,965 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,541 Leucadia Beach Fill $26,098 $13,817 $11,130 $10,363 $7,676 $6,908 $0 $85,971 $0 $0 $0 $0 $161,964 Moonlight Beach Fill $11,416 $3,386 $0 $2,469 $0 $5,453 $4,959 $3,109 $2,289 $1,886 $1,677 $1,567 $38,211 Cardiff Beach Fill $29,317 $8,535 $9,329 $16,734 $10,915 $22,288 $14,042 $9,038 $6,774 $5,648 $5,065 $4,757 $142,442 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $8,166 $891 $421 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,478 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,956 Del Mar Beach Fill $21,535 $8,582 $15,382 $15,059 $10,687 $14,735 $6,477 $4,534 $3,405 $3,073 $2,897 $2,803 $109,168 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $13,908 $12,518 $2,004 $1,336 $668 $0 $0 $30,435 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,870 Mission Beach Beach Fill $15,278 $7,186 $5,182 $9,027 $7,854 $5,848 $5,851 $4,348 $3,604 $3,219 $3,016 $2,908 $73,322 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $2,292 $1,124 $1,038 $2,248 $649 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,351 Total $331,233 $173,260 $106,390 $110,083 $73,324 $94,652 $59,879 $187,370 $28,734 $24,393 $21,714 $20,746 $1,231,779

76 Table A5 Alternative 2: State Spending Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill 570,000 $3,106,434 $1,375,421 $1,027,658 $884,461 $332,131 $802,635 $797,810 $570,891 $460,693 $404,220 $374,529 $358,715 $10,495,599 S. Carlsbad North Beach Fill 218,000 $7,227,766 $4,298,868 $1,842,372 $1,511,690 $1,181,008 $850,325 $0 $17,938,978 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,851,007 S. Carlsbad South Beach Fill 142,000 $3,718,586 $2,211,708 $947,875 $777,743 $607,612 $437,481 $328,624 $164,312 $54,771 $27,385 $0 $0 $9,276,097 Cardiff Beach Fill $1,172,694 $341,406 $373,143 $669,361 $436,619 $891,524 $561,666 $361,518 $270,957 $225,927 $202,597 $190,264 $5,697,677 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $326,622 $35,642 $16,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $379,110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $758,220 Del Mar Beach Fill $861,413 $343,270 $615,295 $602,341 $427,468 $589,388 $259,071 $181,350 $136,193 $122,917 $115,889 $112,132 $4,366,725 Torrey Pines 360,000 $637,891 $559,077 $349,668 $320,220 $241,692 $261,324 $0 $2,868,676 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,238,549 Mission Beach Beach Fill 150,000 $920,747 $433,045 $312,325 $544,050 $473,345 $352,445 $352,625 $262,061 $217,211 $194,018 $181,769 $175,230 $4,418,871 Imperial Beach Beach Fill 180,000 $137,499 $67,452 $62,264 $134,904 $38,915 $31,132 $0 $513,674 $0 $0 $0 $0 $985,839 Total $18,109,652 $9,665,889 $5,547,445 $5,444,771 $3,738,790 $4,216,254 $2,299,797 $23,240,571 $1,139,825 $974,468 $874,784 $836,340 $76,088,584

Table A6 Alternative 2: State Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill 570,000 $357,240 $158,173 $118,181 $101,713 $38,195 $92,303 $91,748 $65,652 $52,980 $46,485 $43,071 $41,252 $1,206,994 S. Carlsbad North Beach Fill 218,000 $831,193 $494,370 $211,873 $173,844 $135,816 $97,787 $0 $2,062,983 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,007,866 S. Carlsbad South Beach Fill 142,000 $427,637 $254,346 $109,006 $89,440 $69,875 $50,310 $37,792 $18,896 $6,299 $3,149 $0 $0 $1,066,751 Cardiff Beach Fill $134,860 $39,262 $42,912 $76,977 $50,211 $102,525 $64,592 $41,575 $31,160 $25,982 $23,299 $21,880 $655,233 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $37,562 $4,099 $1,937 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $87,195 Del Mar Beach Fill $99,062 $39,476 $70,759 $69,269 $49,159 $67,780 $29,793 $20,855 $15,662 $14,135 $13,327 $12,895 $502,173 Torrey Pines 360,000 $73,357 $64,294 $40,212 $36,825 $27,795 $30,052 $0 $329,898 $0 $0 $0 $0 $602,433 Mission Beach Beach Fill 150,000 $105,886 $49,800 $35,917 $62,566 $54,435 $40,531 $40,552 $30,137 $24,979 $22,312 $20,903 $20,151 $508,170 Imperial Beach Beach Fill 180,000 $15,812 $7,757 $7,160 $15,514 $4,475 $3,580 $0 $59,073 $0 $0 $0 $0 $113,372 Total $2,082,610 $1,111,577 $637,956 $626,149 $429,961 $484,869 $264,477 $2,672,666 $131,080 $112,064 $100,600 $96,179 $8,750,187

Table A7 Alternative 2: Local Spending Generated

Site 012345 67891011

S. Oceanside Beach Fill 570,000 $2,485,147 $1,100,337 $822,126 $707,569 $265,705 $642,108 $638,248 $456,713 $368,554 $323,376 $299,623 $2 86,972 S. Carlsbad North Beach Fill 218,000 $5,488,021 $3,264,117 $1,398,907 $1,147,821 $896,735 $645,650 $0 $13,621,011 $0 $0 $0 $0 S. Carlsbad South Beach Fill 142,000 $2,823,511 $1,679,343 $719,718 $590,538 $461,358 $332,178 $249,523 $124,762 $41,587 $20,794 $0 $0 Cardiff Beach Fill $789,883 $229,958 $251,336 $450,857 $294,090 $600,498 $378,318 $243,505 $182,507 $152,176 $136,462 $128,155 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $225,637 $24,622 $11,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $261,896 $0 $0 $0 $0 Del Mar Beach Fill $595,080 $237,137 $425,057 $416,109 $295,303 $407,160 $178,971 $125,280 $94,084 $84,914 $80,058 $77,463 Torrey Pines 360,000 $414,520 $363,304 $227,225 $208,089 $157,059 $169,816 $115,763 $86,822 $63,670 $40,517 $17,364 $0 Mission Beach Beach Fill 150,000 $636,069 $299,156 $215,760 $375,840 $326,996 $243,476 $243,600 $181,037 $150,054 $134,031 $125,569 $121,052 Imperial Beach Beach Fill 180,000 $98,605 $48,372 $44,652 $96,745 $27,907 $22,326 $0 $368,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total $13,556,475 $7,246,348 $4,116,418 $3,993,568 $2,725,153 $3,063,211 $1,804,424 $15,469,402 $900,456 $755,808 $659,077 $613,642

Table A8 Alternative 2: Local Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011

S. Oceanside Beach Fill 570,000 $ 77,661 $ 34,386 $ 25,691 $ 22,112 $ 8,303 $ 20,066 $ 19,945 $ 14,272 $ 11,517 $ 10,105 $ 9,363 $ 8,968 S. Carlsbad North Beach Fill 218,000$ 180,694 $ 107,472 $ 46,059 $ 37,792 $ 29,525 $ 21,258 $ 12,837 $ 7,702 $ 3,423 $ 1,712 $ - $ - S. Carlsbad South Beach Fill 142,000$ 92,965 $ 55,293 $ 23,697 $ 19,444 $ 15,190 $ 10,937 $ 8,216 $ 4,108 $ 1,369 $ 685 $ - $ - Cardiff Beach Fill $ 29,317 $ 8,535 $ 9,329 $ 16,734 $ 10,915 $ 22,288 $ 14,042 $ 9,038 $ 6,774 $ 5,648 $ 5,065 $ 4,757 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $ 8,166 $ 891 $ 421 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,478 $ - $ - $ - $ - Del Mar Beach Fill $ 21,535 $ 8,582 $ 15,382 $ 15,059 $ 10,687 $ 14,735 $ 6,477 $ 4,534 $ 3,405 $ 3,073 $ 2,897 $ 2,803 Torrey Pines 360,000 $ 15,947 $ 13,977 $ 8,742 $ 8,006 $ 6,042 $ 6,533 $ 4,454 $ 3,340 $ 2,449 $ 1,559 $ 668 $ - Mission Beach Beach Fill 150,000 $ 23,019 $ 10,826 $ 7,808 $ 13,601 $ 11,834 $ 8,811 $ 8,816 $ 6,552 $ 5,430 $ 4,850 $ 4,544 $ 4,381 Imperial Beach Beach Fill 180,000 $ 3,437 $ 1,686 $ 1,557 $ 3,373 $ 973 $ 778 $ 562 $ 346 $ 130 $ - $ - $ - Total $ 452,741 $ 241,647 $ 138,686 $ 136,119 $ 93,470 $ 105,406 $ 75,347 $ 59,369 $ 34,498 $ 27,632 $ 22,538 $ 20,909

Feasibility Study 78 Table A9 Alternative 3: State Spending Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $3,186,444 $1,382,680 $1,005,846 $840,040 $252,180 $719,453 $587,860 $420,657 $339,458 $297,846 $275,969 $264,317 $9,572,748 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $281,818 $535,921 $447,755 $428,162 $305,709 $388,977 $176,403 $129,785 $106,812 $94,960 $88,708 $85,372 $3,070,382 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $8,749,614 $5,134,750 $2,094,978 $1,643,120 $1,191,262 $739,404 $410,780 $205,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,169,298 Batiquitos Beach Fill $551,423 $227,922 $58,818 $44,114 $55,142 $66,171 $44,114 $29,409 $7,352 $3,676 $0 $0 $1,088,142 Leucadia Beach Fill $1,443,088 $736,896 $568,024 $506,616 $337,744 $276,336 $184,224 $122,816 $61,408 $15,352 $0 $0 $4,252,504 Moonlight Beach Fill $635,125 $181,313 $0 $121,646 $0 $280,455 $212,805 $130,148 $94,334 $76,820 $67,817 $63,075 $1,863,537 Cardiff Beach Fill $1,629,076 $452,578 $484,316 $886,325 $547,791 $1,171,964 $636,148 $392,068 $285,578 $233,368 $206,496 $192,337 $7,118,045 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $450,533 $36,423 $16,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $503,801 Del Mar Beach Fill $861,413 $343,270 $615,295 $602,341 $427,468 $589,388 $259,071 $181,350 $136,193 $122,917 $115,889 $112,132 $4,366,725 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $768,170 $679,649 $80,165 $53,443 $26,722 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,608,148 Mission Beach Beach Fill $593,857 $270,702 $186,481 $331,730 $280,073 $195,735 $163,991 $121,873 $101,016 $90,229 $84,533 $81,492 $2,501,710 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $126,257 $58,804 $51,886 $117,609 $25,943 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380,499 Total $19,276,818 $10,040,907 $5,610,409 $5,575,146 $3,450,033 $4,427,882 $2,675,395 $1,733,496 $1,132,151 $935,169 $839,410 $798,723 $56,495,541

Table A10 Alternative 3: State Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $366,441 $159,008 $115,672 $96,605 $29,001 $82,737 $67,604 $48,376 $39,038 $34,252 $31,736 $30,396 $1,100,866 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $32,409 $61,631 $51,492 $49,239 $35,157 $44,732 $20,286 $14,925 $12,283 $10,920 $10,201 $9,818 $353,094 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $1,006,206 $590,496 $240,922 $188,959 $136,995 $85,031 $47,240 $23,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,319,469 Batiquitos Beach Fill $63,414 $26,211 $6,764 $5,073 $6,341 $7,610 $5,073 $3,382 $846 $423 $0 $0 $125,136 Leucadia Beach Fill $165,955 $84,743 $65,323 $58,261 $38,841 $31,779 $21,186 $14,124 $7,062 $1,765 $0 $0 $489,038 Moonlight Beach Fill $73,039 $20,851 $0 $13,989 $0 $32,252 $24,473 $14,967 $10,848 $8,834 $7,799 $7,254 $214,307 Cardiff Beach Fill $187,344 $52,046 $55,696 $101,927 $62,996 $134,776 $73,157 $45,088 $32,841 $26,837 $23,747 $22,119 $818,575 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $51,811 $4,189 $1,937 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,937 Del Mar Beach Fill $99,062 $39,476 $70,759 $69,269 $49,159 $67,780 $29,793 $20,855 $15,662 $14,135 $13,327 $12,895 $502,173 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $88,340 $78,160 $9,219 $6,146 $3,073 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $184,937 Mission Beach Beach Fill $68,294 $31,131 $21,445 $38,149 $32,208 $22,509 $18,859 $14,015 $11,617 $10,376 $9,721 $9,372 $287,697 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $14,520 $6,763 $5,967 $13,525 $2,983 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,757 Total $2,216,834 $1,154,704 $645,197 $641,142 $396,754 $509,206 $307,670 $199,352 $130,197 $107,544 $96,532 $91,853 $6,496,987

Feasibility Study 79 Table A11 Alternative 3: Local Spending Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $2,549,155 $1,106,144 $804,677 $672,032 $201,744 $575,562 $470,288 $336,525 $271,566 $238,277 $220,775 $211,453 $7,658,199 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $202,109 $384,341 $321,112 $307,061 $219,242 $278,959 $126,509 $93,077 $76,601 $68,101 $63,617 $61,225 $2,201,954 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $6,643,555 $3,898,800 $1,590,710 $1,247,616 $904,522 $561,427 $311,904 $155,952 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,314,486 Batiquitos Beach Fill $395,446 $163,451 $42,181 $31,636 $39,545 $47,454 $31,636 $21,090 $5,273 $2,636 $0 $0 $780,347 Leucadia Beach Fill $1,087,793 $555,469 $428,174 $381,885 $254,590 $208,301 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,916,211 Moonlight Beach Fill $460,412 $131,436 $0 $88,183 $0 $203,306 $154,265 $94,346 $68,384 $55,688 $49,161 $45,724 $1,350,906 Cardiff Beach Fill $1,097,286 $304,840 $326,217 $596,996 $368,972 $789,392 $428,486 $264,083 $192,355 $157,188 $139,088 $129,551 $4,794,453 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $311,237 $25,162 $11,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $348,036 Del Mar Beach Fill $595,080 $237,137 $425,057 $416,109 $295,303 $407,160 $178,971 $125,280 $94,084 $84,914 $80,058 $77,463 $3,016,616 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $499,179 $441,656 $52,093 $34,729 $17,364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,045,022 Mission Beach Beach Fill $410,248 $187,006 $128,824 $229,165 $193,479 $135,217 $113,288 $84,192 $69,783 $62,332 $58,397 $56,296 $1,728,229 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $90,543 $42,171 $37,210 $84,342 $18,605 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $272,870 Total $14,342,043 $7,477,612 $4,167,893 $4,089,753 $2,513,366 $3,206,778 $1,815,347 $1,174,545 $778,047 $669,137 $611,096 $581,712 $41,427,329

Table A12 Alternative 3: Local Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

S. Oceanside Beach Fill $79,661 $34,567 $25,146 $21,001 $6,304 $17,986 $14,697 $10,516 $8,486 $7,446 $6,899 $6,608 $239,319 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $7,045 $13,398 $11,194 $10,704 $7,643 $9,724 $4,410 $3,245 $2,670 $2,374 $2,218 $2,134 $76,760 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $218,740 $128,369 $52,374 $41,078 $29,782 $18,485 $10,270 $5,135 $0 $0 $0 $0 $504,232 Batiquitos Beach Fill $13,786 $5,698 $1,470 $1,103 $1,379 $1,654 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,090 Leucadia Beach Fill $36,077 $18,422 $14,201 $12,665 $8,444 $6,908 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,718 Moonlight Beach Fill $15,878 $4,533 $0 $3,041 $0 $7,011 $5,320 $3,254 $2,358 $1,921 $1,695 $1,577 $46,588 Cardiff Beach Fill $40,727 $11,314 $12,108 $22,158 $13,695 $29,299 $15,904 $9,802 $7,139 $5,834 $5,162 $4,808 $177,951 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $11,263 $911 $421 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,595 Del Mar Beach Fill $21,535 $8,582 $15,382 $15,059 $10,687 $14,735 $6,477 $4,534 $3,405 $3,073 $2,897 $2,803 $109,168 Torrey Pines Beach Fill $19,204 $16,991 $2,004 $1,336 $668 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,204 Mission Beach Beach Fill $14,846 $6,768 $4,662 $8,293 $7,002 $4,893 $4,100 $3,047 $2,525 $2,256 $2,113 $2,037 $62,543 Imperial Beach Beach Fill $3,156 $1,470 $1,297 $2,940 $649 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,512 Total $481,920 $251,023 $140,260 $139,379 $86,251 $110,697 $61,176 $39,532 $26,585 $22,904 $20,985 $19,968 $1,400,680

80 Table A13 Alternative 4: State Spending Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

Oceanside Pier Beach Fill $624,828 $521,550 $310,665 $270,954 $194,769 $200,561 $191,330 $161,023 $120,284 $98,757 $86,225 $78,169 $2,859,114 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $205,497 $391,198 $332,420 $322,624 $239,356 $303,031 $143,390 $113,666 $98,533 $90,602 $86,385 $84,126 $2,410,828 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $9,298,952 $5,530,749 $2,370,321 $1,944,879 $1,519,437 $1,093,994 $0 $23,093,368 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,851,701 Batiquitos Beach Fill $397,025 $169,103 $51,466 $44,114 $55,142 $66,171 $0 $878,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,661,622 Leucadia Beach Fill $1,043,936 $552,672 $445,208 $414,504 $307,040 $276,336 $0 $3,438,848 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,478,544 Moonlight Beach Fill $1,028,818 $305,168 $70,216 $222,519 $117,027 $491,471 $446,882 $280,160 $206,333 $169,933 $151,149 $141,239 $3,630,914 Cardiff Beach Fill $1,172,694 $341,406 $373,143 $669,361 $436,619 $891,524 $561,666 $361,518 $270,957 $225,927 $202,597 $190,264 $5,697,677 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $326,622 $35,642 $16,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $379,110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $758,220 Del Mar Beach Fill $861,413 $343,270 $615,295 $602,341 $427,468 $589,388 $259,071 $181,350 $136,193 $122,917 $115,889 $112,132 $4,366,725 Mission Beach Fill (South + Torrey) $3,428,801 $1,612,631 $1,163,078 $2,026,006 $1,762,706 $1,312,482 $1,313,152 $975,899 $808,880 $722,510 $676,895 $652,543 $16,455,585 Imperial Beach Beach Fill North $280,985 $246,268 $154,025 $141,054 $106,463 $115,111 $0 $1,043,905 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,087,810 Total $18,669,571 $10,049,657 $5,902,683 $6,658,355 $5,166,025 $5,340,069 $2,915,492 $30,907,447 $1,641,180 $1,430,647 $1,319,140 $1,258,473 $91,258,739

Table A14 Alternative 4: State Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

Oceanside Pier Beach Fill $71,855 $59,978 $35,726 $31,160 $22,398 $23,065 $22,003 $18,518 $13,833 $11,357 $9,916 $8,989 $328,798 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $23,632 $44,988 $38,228 $37,102 $27,526 $34,849 $16,490 $13,072 $11,331 $10,419 $9,934 $9,674 $277,245 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $1,069,380 $636,036 $272,587 $223,661 $174,735 $125,809 $0 $2,655,737 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,157,946 Batiquitos Beach Fill $45,658 $19,447 $5,919 $5,073 $6,341 $7,610 $0 $101,039 $0 $0 $0 $0 $191,086 Leucadia Beach Fill $120,053 $63,557 $51,199 $47,668 $35,310 $31,779 $0 $395,468 $0 $0 $0 $0 $745,033 Moonlight Beach Fill $118,314 $35,094 $8,075 $25,590 $13,458 $56,519 $51,391 $32,218 $23,728 $19,542 $17,382 $16,242 $417,555 Cardiff Beach Fill $134,860 $39,262 $42,912 $76,977 $50,211 $102,525 $64,592 $41,575 $31,160 $25,982 $23,299 $21,880 $655,233 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $37,562 $4,099 $1,937 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $87,195 Del Mar Beach Fill $99,062 $39,476 $70,759 $69,269 $49,159 $67,780 $29,793 $20,855 $15,662 $14,135 $13,327 $12,895 $502,173 Mission Beach Fill (South + Torrey) $394,312 $185,453 $133,754 $232,991 $202,711 $150,935 $151,013 $112,228 $93,021 $83,089 $77,843 $75,042 $1,892,392 Imperial Beach Beach Fill North $32,313 $28,321 $17,713 $16,221 $12,243 $13,238 $0 $120,049 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,098 Total $2,147,001 $1,155,711 $678,809 $765,711 $594,093 $614,108 $335,282 $3,554,356 $188,736 $164,524 $151,701 $144,724 $10,494,755

Feasibility Study 81 Table A15: Alternative 4: Local Spending Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

Oceanside Pier Beach Fill $456,973 $381,439 $227,207 $198,164 $142,446 $146,682 $139,930 $117,765 $87,971 $72,227 $63,061 $57,169 $2,091,034 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $147,374 $280,551 $238,398 $231,373 $171,656 $217,322 $102,833 $81,517 $70,664 $64,976 $61,952 $60,332 $1,728,949 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $7,060,666 $4,199,481 $1,799,778 $1,476,741 $1,153,704 $830,667 $0 $17,534,724 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,055,759 Batiquitos Beach Fill $284,721 $121,270 $36,908 $31,636 $39,545 $47,454 $0 $630,078 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,191,611 Leucadia Beach Fill $786,914 $416,602 $335,596 $312,451 $231,445 $208,301 $0 $2,592,188 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,883,497 Moonlight Beach Fill $745,805 $221,220 $50,901 $161,307 $84,834 $356,274 $323,951 $203,092 $149,574 $123,187 $109,570 $102,386 $2,632,103 Cardiff Beach Fill $789,883 $229,958 $251,336 $450,857 $294,090 $600,498 $378,318 $243,505 $182,507 $152,176 $136,462 $128,155 $3,837,746 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $225,637 $24,622 $11,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $261,896 $0 $0 $0 $0 $523,793 Del Mar Beach Fill $595,080 $237,137 $425,057 $416,109 $295,303 $407,160 $178,971 $125,280 $94,084 $84,914 $80,058 $77,463 $3,016,616 Mission Beach Fill (South + Torrey) $2,368,681 $1,114,036 $803,476 $1,399,603 $1,217,710 $906,688 $907,150 $674,169 $558,790 $499,123 $467,612 $450,789 $11,367,828 Imperial Beach Beach Fill North $201,505 $176,608 $110,457 $101,155 $76,349 $82,550 $0 $748,624 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,497,247 Total $13,663,239 $7,402,926 $4,290,751 $4,779,395 $3,707,082 $3,803,595 $2,031,155 $23,212,837 $1,143,589 $996,603 $918,716 $876,294 $66,826,182

Table A16 Alternative 4: Local Taxes Generated

Site 01234567891011Total

Oceanside Pier Beach Fill $15,621 $13,039 $7,767 $6,774 $4,869 $5,014 $4,783 $4,026 $3,007 $2,469 $2,156 $1,954 $71,478 N. Carlsbad Beach Fill $5,137 $9,780 $8,311 $8,066 $5,984 $7,576 $3,585 $2,842 $2,463 $2,265 $2,160 $2,103 $60,271 S. Carlsbad Beach Fill $232,474 $138,269 $59,258 $48,622 $37,986 $27,350 $0 $577,334 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,121,293 Batiquitos Beach Fill $9,926 $4,228 $1,287 $1,103 $1,379 $1,654 $1,103 $735 $460 $92 $0 $0 $21,965 Leucadia Beach Fill $26,098 $13,817 $11,130 $10,363 $7,676 $6,908 $4,606 $3,070 $1,535 $768 $0 $0 $85,971 Moonlight Beach Fill $25,720 $7,629 $1,755 $5,563 $2,926 $12,287 $11,172 $7,004 $5,158 $4,248 $3,779 $3,531 $90,773 Cardiff Beach Fill $29,317 $8,535 $9,329 $16,734 $10,915 $22,288 $14,042 $9,038 $6,774 $5,648 $5,065 $4,757 $142,442 Fletcher Cove Beach Fill $8,166 $891 $421 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,478 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,956 Del Mar Beach Fill $21,535 $8,582 $15,382 $15,059 $10,687 $14,735 $6,477 $4,534 $3,405 $3,073 $2,897 $2,803 $109,168 Mission Beach Fill (South + Torrey) $85,720 $40,316 $29,077 $50,650 $44,068 $32,812 $32,829 $24,397 $20,222 $18,063 $16,922 $16,314 $411,390 Imperial Beach Beach Fill North $7,025 $6,157 $3,851 $3,526 $2,662 $2,878 $0 $26,098 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,195 Total $466,739 $251,241 $147,567 $166,459 $129,151 $133,502 $78,596 $668,556 $43,024 $36,626 $32,979 $31,462 $2,185,901

Feasibility Study 82 TECHNICAL APPENDIX

Measuring the economic value of beach recreation is more challenging than measuring the value of market goods that are bought and sold. The economic value of a market good is the sum of what individuals are willing to pay for it in the marketplace. Economists consider beach recreation a consumer good. However, the State of California provides beaches for free (though some beaches charge a small fee for parking). Consequently, there are no explicit prices that can be used to compute the value individuals receive from visiting a beach or the total economic benefit (consumer surplus) that accrues to all visitors to that beach.

Economists have developed several techniques for estimating the economic value of a day at the beach. The two most common techniques used are the travel cost method (TCM), which uses the cost of travel to the beach as an implicit price of admission, and the contingent valuation method (CVM), which employs survey data questioning how much people are willing to pay for a day at the beach. Of course, different people have different valuations and travel costs, but a sound analysis will estimate the average value of a day at the beach for a typical visitor, usually in high season. A number of studies of specific beaches in California have been conducted.

Estimates of beach value per day for beaches with a high recreational value (e.g., Huntington Beach) range from $10 to $30. The most comprehensive study currently underway, the Southern California Beach Valuation Project,1 examines a panel of day-trippers in southern California and uses a random utility model (RUM) to estimate the value of a beach day.2 The advantage of RUMs is that these models specifically account for the fact that one beach may be a close substitute for another beach – hence if one beach disappears, or erodes, people will go to another beach. Unfortunately, the project focused on southern California beach goers and thus may underestimate the value of these beaches somewhat.

To be conservative, this analysis applied a maximum value of $14 per day for a beach day. As a practical matter, most beaches in the study are valued at $10 or less since none are “prefect.” This analysis is meant to be conservative.

A. Benefits Transfer

When limited data is available, economists generally use a technique referred to as “benefits transfer (BT).” BT entails comparing recreational sites with similar amenities,3 similar substitutes,

1 See http://www.marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SCBeach/laobeach1.html. 2 See http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SCBeach/welcome.html for the latest papers. Much of the information used for this study comes from Linwood Pendleton, Associate Professor, University of California, Los Angeles, who works on the Southern California Beach Valuation Project. 3 Economists use the term amenities to refer to any characteristics of a good that would add to consumer demand. In the case of a beach, amenities may be natural (e.g., weather, location) or developed by human (e.g., snack bars, toilets) or potentially both (e.g., beach width).

83 and similar visitor populations and other socio-economic data. For example, if a typical day at Huntington Beach is worth $10 a day, a day at Coronado Beach also might be worth $10 a day, whereas a day at a narrower beach or one with fewer amenities (e.g., Fletcher Cove) would be lower. For BT to work properly, one must create a methodology for assessing the recreational value of a particular beach. Several federal agencies, most notable the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have developed a scale from one to 100 to asses the value of a recreation day with certain amenities assigned a subtotal of the total 100 points (see Table A.1). This methodology is described in USACE 2004.

Table A.1 USACE Point Values for Beach Recreation

USACE Benefits Transfer Methodology

Criteria Total Possible Points Recreation Experience 30 Availability of Opportunity 18 Carrying Capacity 14 Accessibility 18 Environmental 20 Total 100

The USACE criteria spells out how to assign point values to each beach (or other recreation site) depending upon the criteria. However, this methodology has some limitations:

1. The USACE methodology relies on addition of amenities – divided into five categories and one has to assign certain points to each. While this addition method is clearly convenient, it does not have a sound grounding in economic theory or the experience of beach goers. To give one example, in the USACE rating system, suppose that the recreational experience rates zero points, but all other categories (access, availability, etc.) rate full points. In this case the beach would rate 70 points. However if the recreational experience is lacking, then the recreational value of the beach is likely to be close to zero.

2. The point values assigned by USACE are inconsistent with people’s preferences, as expressed in surveys of beach visitors.

3. The USACE method assumes that more recreational opportunities (e.g., volleyball on the beach) imply higher values. This may or may not be true. For example, Carpinteria has fewer recreational opportunities than some less valuable beaches, but is highly valued by many as a child-friendly beach.

A more realistic approach to valuing a beach or other recreational site would be to assume that the value of each amenity is multiplicative – that is, one should rate each amenity on an appropriately defined scale and then multiply each amenity’s point value to derive a final index. The index can then be translated (as the USACE methodology is) to a day use value.

84 This study proposes a new set of criteria to assess the recreational value of beaches for southern California. The following six criteria were included in the analysis:

1. Weather: Typically California beaches are overcast early in the morning and clear before noon, though some beaches remain overcast for a significant number of days. In assessing the weather, the number of sunny days, average temperature of the air and water, currents, and wind could all be considered. For example, Oxnard suffers from a large number of cloudy days, windy and cold weather, and colder than average water temperature.

2. Water Quality/Surf: Water quality has become a critical issue for southern California, leading to the closing of many beaches. This factor will be revised in future studies and model updates since waves and water quality are quite different attributes, as pointed out by some reviewers.

3. Beach Width and Quality: Beach width is an important criterion, particularly in an examination of the use of opportunistic sediment for beach nourishment. While wider is not always better, as a general rule, everything else equal, people prefer wider beaches. Most beaches in southern California have good sand quality (and little cobble except near shore), so sand quality is not an important issue for this study.

4. Overcrowding: Previous surveys of beach goers generally indicate that overcrowded beaches are considered less desirable (King 2001). Crowding can be measured in a number of ways. Typically, it is measured by the amount of sand available per person, though crowding also can occur in the water, in parking lots, snack bars, etc.

5. Beach Facilities and Services: In addition to criteria 1 to 4 above, beach goers generally prefer restrooms, trashcans, and lifeguards. Most (but not all) also prefer some food facilities and other shops.

6. Availability of Substitutes: If similar beaches are available within a short distance, a beach is less valuable – in particular it may not make sense to nourish a beach if another similar beach is available nearby. However, in making an assessment of substitutes one must keep in mind the differing preferences of beach users (e.g., some prefer a city beach with an urban ambiance while other prefer a more “natural” beach). One other critical issue often overlooked in studies of California beaches is congestion and availability of parking. In particular, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange County have plenty of beaches with similar amenities, but virtually all of these beaches are crowded on summer weekends and parking is often unavailable after noon. For the beaches in this study, parking is considerably less of an issue, but future model expansion into other geographic areas will analyze parking in more detail.

As a second step, a new point system as shown in Table A.2 was developed and recommended for this study. Note that the system being developed is tentative and that assigning point values is always somewhat subjective. Also, keep in mind that the rating will depend on what type of recreational value one is examining; for example, surfing requires a significantly different mix of recreational factors than does lying on the sand or swimming. Also, seasonality obviously plays a role in the point system; this study focuses on the high season.

85 Table A.2 New Rating System for Benefits Transfer

Amenity Point Value Weather 0% to 100% Water Quality/Surf 0% to 100% Beach Width and Quality 0% to 100% Overcrowding 0% to 100% Beach Facilities and Services 0% to 100% Availability of Substitutes 0% to 100%

With these limitations in mind, the following criteria were used to determine individual amenity point values for this study:

1. Weather: Points are assigned according to the number of warm sunny days. A perfect score of 100 would indicate that every day is warm and sunny. High winds are a negative factor. A score of 90 to 100 indicates almost perfect weather. San Diego County beaches have the best weather of any beaches in California and score high in this category although morning fog and late afternoon winds have some negative impact.

2. Water Quality/Surf: Some beaches in southern California (e.g., Huntington) are closed periodically due to poor water quality. A perfect score for water quality indicates that there are no water quality issues and no closures.

3. Beach Width and Quality: For this study, the ideal beach width is approximately 250 feet. Narrower beaches are scored lower in direct proportion to width. Width was a critical factor in this study. Increasing beach width had a significant impact on recreational value, especially at beaches that are currently narrow. Adding beach width at an already wide beach, such as Coronado, would have little or no impact.

4. Overcrowding: The USACE often follows a policy that 100 square feet of space is necessary per person. In practice this variable is difficult to measure without a precise study. The value here also must be a composite of weekday and weekend values and, of course, crowding depends on beach width and availability of parking. A score of 100 would indicate a beach where crowding is not an issue. (It does not mean “no” crowds and, of course, some beach visitors like crowds up to a point.) A low score is indicative of a beach where crowds significantly degrade the experience.

5. Beach Facilities and Services: This category is primarily concerned with manmade recreational amenities. Restrooms, some snack facilities and other retail, and lifeguards services all generally add to the level of amenities. A beach with a score of 90 to 100 would have all the manmade amenities associated with a good quality beach (lifeguards, snack bars, close availability of retail and rental).

6. Availability of Substitutes: A beach would score high if there are few substitutes available nearby. If a beach has a particular set of attributes that are hard to find elsewhere, then it would score higher as well. If substitutes are available but already

86 crowded, one also must take this factor into account. As a practical matter, in southern California there is a wide array of beaches available nearby, but most are crowded on weekends. High quality beaches which are not particularly close to other similar quality beaches (Carpinteria and San Clemente) should score higher.

The final point value assigned also will be in a percentage between zero and 100. The final value is obtained as follows:

Equation A.1

Final Point Value = M*A1* A2* A3* A4* A5* A6

where: Ai represents the amenities described above and 0 ≤ Ai ≤ 1, and M is the maximum value of a beach day (e.g., $14)

B. Creating an Index

Assigning, weighting, and multiplying amenity values must be done carefully for BT to be accurate. In particular, economic theory suggests that the interaction of the amenity terms is not quite as simple as in Equation A.1 above. For example, assume that a beach which scores 100 percent in all categories is worth $14. To calculate the value of a beach which scores 50 percent is all six categories, apply Equation A.1 above:

Equation A.2

Final Point Value = $14*A1* A2*A3* A4* A5*A6

= $14 *0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5

= $0.22

In other words, this methodology implies that a middling beach is worth only 22 cents per day – far too low. Economic theory suggests that the amenities should be weighted differently. In particular, the amount of satisfaction (or utility) that a consumer earns from going to the beach is a function of the amenity levels:

Equation A.3

Value of a Beach Day = M*f(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6)

A standard functional form used by economists is the Cobb-Douglas function:

Equation A.4

Aa b Ac d Ae A f Value of a Beach Day = M* *A2 *3 *A4 *5 *6

where: a + b + c + d + e + f = 1

87 In the Equation above, each of the terms, Ai, represents the point values (in percentages from zero to 100) from Table A.2 above. The superscripts “a” through “f” represent the relative weightings of each amenity term. If all terms are weighted equally, then each is worth 0.1667. However, some amenities may be weighted somewhat higher. To return to the previous example for a beach that scores 50 percent in all amenity categories, under this scheme, using Equation A.4, the value of a beach day would be:

Value of a Beach Day = $14x0.50.1667x0.50.1667x0.50.1667x0.50.1667x0.50.1667x0.50.1667

= $7

As expected, a beach with a rating of 50 percent for each amenity would receive a final value of 50 percent of the maximum value for a beach day of $7. One could argue that a middling beach should be worth more (or less); then the weighting scheme for each amenity could be adjusted.

Although the Cobb-Douglas function has flaws, notably it is difficult in this case to derive consumer’s choices in such a way as to derive a Cobb-Douglas function, the Cobb-Douglas function is relatively tractable and incorporates the most significant elements of a utility function – the use of separate parameters for beach attributes and the law of diminishing marginal utility.

C. Beach Width and Overcrowding

Unfortunately, though beach nourishment is and will continue to be an important public policy issue, few detailed studies have estimated the benefits of adding sand to a beach. Since the purpose of the this project is to assess the net benefits of beach nourishment projects in San Diego, Amenities 3 and 4, beach width and overcrowding, are particularly critical to this study.

In Equation A.4 above, the value of a beach day increases with the width of the beach and the amount of space each person has. If these amenities are weighted close to zero (i.e., “c” and “d,” the exponent terms for Amenities 3 and 4, are close to zero) adding more beach width has little impact on the value of a beach day. Increasing the relative weighting implies that beach width and crowding are more important to beach goers.

It also should be pointed out that this function exhibits “diminishing returns” – as one increases beach width the additional value diminishes. In other words, all things equal, increasing beach width by 25 linear feet will have a greater impact on a narrow beach than on a wide beach.

Previous studies of consumers’ preferences (King 2001) indicate that doubling the beach width of a typical (somewhat eroded) beach in southern California increases the value of a beach day by 15 percent to 20 percent, though it varies by beach. This result corresponds to a weighting of close to 0.15 to 0.20 for exponent “c” in Equation A.4. The estimates indicate that crowding also is a concern for beach goers, roughly equivalent to an exponent “d” weighting of 10 percent to 20 percent. It should be noted, though, that these numbers are very tentative and more study is needed. Finally, it also should be pointed out that increasing beach width accomplishes two goals. The additional width is desirable, and the increased width means that more space is available on the beach, which reduces crowding; consequently doubling beach width may increase the value of a beach day by as much as 50 percent at a crowded narrow beach.

88 Nourishing a beach also may increase attendance, which increases the total recreational value, but also reduces the value per day when the beach becomes too crowded. One other factor to take into account is parking. Some beaches may be capacity constrained by limited parking (e.g., La Jolla shores beach on any summer weekend).

D. Suggested Weighting Scheme

Table A.3 presents a suggested weighting for each amenity and this weighting was used in the development of the Coastal Sediment Benefit Analysis Tool (CSBAT) for San Diego as well as for Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. These weights are based on empirical work and experience over the past ten years.4 These suggested weighting values do not differ dramatically from an equal weighting scheme. More empirical work will be needed in the future to refine these values. Although of the categories are important, in practice the beach width term and changes in this term are what drives changes in recreational benefits.

Table A.3 Suggested Weighting Scheme for Benefits Transfer for CSBAT San Diego Model

Amenity Relative Weighting

Weather 20% Water Quality / Surf 20% Beach Width and Quality 15% Overcrowding 15% Facilities and Services 15% Availability of Substitutes 15%

E. Testing the Methodology for Huntington Beach

Huntington Beach’s recreational value has been studied extensively. Michael Hannemann, a world-renowned environmental economist, concluded that the recreational value of a lost day at Huntington Beach was worth approximately $16, in 2004 dollars.5 However, a more recent study, part of the Southern California Beach Project, using a more sophisticated model indicates that a perfect beach would score no more than $14.

Table A.4 applies the proposed methodology for this study to Huntington Beach. In the table, the amenity point value in the second column corresponds to the recreational value for each category. For example, Huntington Beach has been assigned a weather value of 85 percent since the weather in Huntington is generally good, though mornings are often overcast. On the other hand, since Huntington Beach has had some water quality issues, a lower point value of 75 percent was applied. Overall Huntington Beach scores well. Its lowest value, 60 percent, is for availability of substitutes, reflecting the fact that many other beaches are available nearby. This report assumes that a day at a

4 See, in particular, Overcrowding and the Demand for Beaches in California, Philip G. King (2001). 5 See http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SCBeach/welcome.html.

89 perfect beach with 100 percent point values would be worth $14. Huntington Beach, which offers excellent amenities, is worth $11.18. This estimate of $11.18 is consistent with other recent work by the Southern California Beach Project.

Table A.4 Applying BT Methodology used for this Study to Huntington Beach

Amenity Weighted Amenity Weight Point Value Amenity Value Weather 85% 20% 96.8% Water Quality 75% 20% 94.4% Beach Width and Quality 95% 15% 99.2% Overcrowding 75% 15% 95.8% Facilities/Services 95% 15% 99.2% Availability of Substitutes 60% 15% 92.6% Total Index Value 100% 79.8% Maximum Value Per Day $14.00 Huntington Beach Value $11.18

F. Value of Nourishment

The added value of nourishment to a beach was estimated by calculating the change in day user value per day after beach nourishment and multiplying by attendance. Since widening the beach also may affect attendance (and crowding) one also must take into account changes in these factors as well. For the development of the CSBAT San Diego version, the increases in recreational benefits are estimated based on the increased recreational value from increased beach width. The best way to demonstrate how this is applied is to give an example. Table A.5 presents an estimate of the recreational value of Fletcher Cove before nourishment.

Table A.5 Recreational Value of Fletcher Cove Beach

Amenity Weighted Amenity Weight Point Value Amenity Value Weather 85% 20% 96.8% Water Quality 80% 20% 95.6% Beach Width and Quality 20% 15% 78.6% Overcrowding 50% 15% 90.1% Facilities/Services 30% 15% 83.5% Availability of Substitutes 30% 15% 83.5% Total Index Value 100% 45.7% Maximum Value Per Day $14.00 Fletcher Cove Day Use Value $6.39

90 Suppose Fletcher Cove’s beach width increases by 100 percent. Since the beach is wider, the point value of this amenity (beach width) increases. The analysis assumes that the point value increases proportionately6 so that the amenity value is now 30 percent.

Table A.6 presents the new estimate for the recreational value of Fletcher Cove’s beach after nourishment. After nourishment, the day use value increases from $6.39 to $7.09, an increase of $0.70 per person per day. If one multiplies this estimate by the number of users in high season, 40,000, the resulting increase in recreational value is just under $28,000 per year.

Table A.6 Recreational Value of Fletcher Cove after Nourishment

Amenity Weighted Amenity Weight Point Value Amenity Value Weather 85% 20% 96.8% Water Quality 80% 20% 95.6% Beach Width and Quality 40% 15% 87.2% Overcrowding 50% 15% 90.1% Facilities/Services 30% 15% 83.5% Availability of Substitutes 30% 15% 83.5% Total Index Value 100% 50.7% Maximum Value Per Day $14.00 Carpinteria Day Use Value $7.09

However, beach nourishment also influences the overcrowding amenity in two ways: (1) as beaches become wider, the amount of space per individual increases, decreasing crowding; and (2) as beach width increases, more people come, increasing crowding. Both of these effects have been accounted for in CSBAT; however the example here assumes that attendance does not change, for simplicity.

The study used a discount rate of 5 percent, which is consistent with the current figure employed by the USACE.7 The discount rate employed will depend on a number of factors: (1) the cost of capital for the borrower, (2) any risk premium attached to the project (less likely for government projects), and (3) current interest rates. The GIS tool has been constructed so that the user can vary the discount rate depending upon the three factors above. The use of a 5 percent discount rate is only meant for instructive purposes. Users should pay careful attention to the discount rate employed since it can significantly influence the final benefit/cost ratio, particularly in long-lived projects. In the case of nourishment, where the chief benefits erode within a few years, the choice of discount rate is important, though not as critical.8

6 Note that the recreational value does not increase proportionately since the analysis employs a Cobb-Douglas type function. 7 See “Federal Discount Rate for Fiscal Year 2006,” Harry Kitch, Directorate of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October 24, 2005: http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecw-cp/news/pa_newsletter/v8i10.pdf. Note that government treasury rates have risen since this memo was written. 8 See also “Discount Rates and Cost-Benefit Analysis,” http://www.env-econ.net/2005/08/discount_rates_.html.

91 ATTENDANCE ESTIMATE

Attendance was estimated by counting everyone on the beach and in the water for a particular reach at a particular time. For larger beaches (mare than half a mile long) counts were divided into reaches. For very long beaches (e.g., Mission) counts were taken by lifeguard tower. Counts were made on several days in May, June, and up to July 4. Adjustments were made for the fact that attendance is typically higher in July and August.

Brief surveys also were taken. Using the survey results, it was possible to develop a methodology for estimating total attendance in a day. On many beaches in California, attendance is conducted utilizing car counts or lifeguard counts conducted midday, typically about noon. For example, Carlsbad State beach uses precisely this methodology.

The survey asked not only how long people stayed, but when they arrived. Thus it was possible to create a profile of beach attendance throughout the day. As one would expect, the length of stay also was related to time of arrival, with people arriving earlier tending to stay somewhat longer, on average. Table A.8 estimates arrivals and departures as a percentage of peak attendance (100 percent). Although the peak varies somewhat by day and weather (specifically if cold winds come in the afternoon), the typical peak is between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. Keep in mind this peak is consistent with a peak arrival time around noon. “Peak” here refers not to total attendance for the day, but the maximum attendance at any one time, which is much easier to observe.

Table A.8 Peak Attendance on a typical day by time of day9

% Peak who Est. Arrivals as Time % of Peak Arrived Earlier % of Peak Before 9 a.m. 10% 0 10% 9 to 10 a.m. 20% 7.5% 12.5% 10 to 11 a.m. 33% 16.5% 16.5% 11 a.m. to noon 60% 27.5% 32.5% Noon to 1 p.m. 80% 47.7% 32.3% 1 to 2 p.m. 95% 63.7% 31.3% 2 to 3 p.m. 100% 70.7% 29.3% 3 to 4 p.m. 95% 71.9% 23.1% 4 to 5 p.m. 90% 66.7% 23.3% 5 to 6 p.m. 70% 81.0% 13.3%

9 Example taken from, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Carlsbad’s Beaches: A Survey and Estimate of Attendance, Philip G. King, December 12, 2005. Other beaches had slightly different profiles.

92 Using the survey data and a model of arrivals and departures, it also is possible to estimate how the beach count at any particular time relates to the total number of people on the beach on a given day. Essentially, one multiplies the beach count at a particular time (e.g., noon to 1 p.m.) by the respective factor in Table A.9 (e.g., 2.8). The most reliable counts should be taken between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., preferably between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. For example, if one counts 100 people on beach 1b between noon and 1 p.m., one should multiply this number by 2.8 to estimate the total number of people on the beach – in this case 280.

Table A.9 Ratio of Total Daily Attendance/Beach Count at a particular Time

Time Before 9 a.m. 22.4 9 to 10 a.m. 11.2 10 to 11 a.m. 6.8 11 a.m. to noon 3.7 Noon to 1 p.m. 2.8 1 to 2 p.m. 2.4 2 to 3 p.m. 2.2 3 to 4 p.m. 2.4 4 to 5 p.m. 2.5 5 to 6 p.m. 3.2

Using the methodology described above and the specific beach counts, average attendance was estimated for a given day. While beach attendance did vary depending upon the day and (most importantly) the weather, the counts included a representative sample of weekdays, weekends, and sunny and cloudy days in the summer.