Bri ringing Back Broad Beach An objective analysis and pragmatic - PDF document

5/15/2017 Bri ringing Back Broad Beach An objective analysis and pragmatic solution Schmitz & Ass ssociates Role: • Contracted by a group of homeowners in February 2017 to analyze the possible impacts to property owners from the Broad Beach GHAD project • Analyzed full size set of project plans provided by Moffat & Nichols • Met with Ken Ehrlich (BBGHAD Counsel) and Russ Boudreau (Moffat & Nichols Project Engineer) to review plans on March 22nd • Site visit with Ken Ehrlich, George Salvaggio (Wetlands Research Associates - WRA Principal) and Tonia McMahon (Moffat & Nichols Permitting) on April 7th • Met with Jack Ainsworth (CCC Director); spoke to Leslie Ewing (CCC Coastal Engineer); spoke with Chief Daniel Swenson (Army Corps) and met Jefferson Wagner (City of Malibu Councilman) to discuss the sand retention reef concept • Over 700 hours of analysis and research of permit application materials, Coastal Commission findings, consultant reports, GHAD Board packets and associated materials and meetings with project consultants, outside agencies and coastal engineers 1

5/15/2017 2

5/15/2017 Findings Syno nopsis • Beach nourishment projects work best in low erosion environments (National Research Council. 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press) • Broad Beach has been steadily eroding since the 1970s as almost all the longshore sand supply to Broad Beach is diverted into the Mugu Submarine Canyon (BBGHAD Engineers Report-Final) • The project is viewed as an ‘experimental pilot project’ (CDP 4-15-0390 Staff Report, pg 53) • Cost projections are incomplete as there is no information on backpassing costs , financing costs and emergency mobilizations to nourish the beach in case of a storm • Significant loss of usable yard area for many property owners and increases in annual assessments for all homeowners With all of the effort and expense involved in nourishing Broad Beach with 600,000 cubic yards of sand , it makes no practical or environmental sense not to retain the sand that has been deposited on the beach . Without question, there Dr. Griggs is one of the foremost experts on California’s coastline, a Distinguished are issues to be resolved , and more than one approach, but Professor of Earth Sciences, a winner and has been the Director of UCSC’s retention is strongly recommended as a consideration at Institute of Marine Sciences since 1991. the front end of the project. The California Coastal Commission and Sunset Magazine named him one of California’s Coastal Heroes in 2009 Source: Summary of Broad Beach Erosion & Beach Nourishment Investigation and Responses to Proposed Nourishment Plan, Griggs, 2012 3

5/15/2017 With all of the effort and expense involved in nourishing Broad Beach with 600,000 cubic yards of sand , it makes no practical or environmental sense not to retain the sand that has been deposited on the beach . Without question, there are issues to be resolved , and more than one approach, but retention is strongly recommended as a consideration at the front end of the project. Source: Summary of Broad Beach Erosion & Beach Nourishment Investigation and Responses to Proposed Nourishment Plan, Griggs, 2012 Fut uture Risks • Dune restoration impacts to property owners may increase as dune restoration is possible up “to the seaward edge of any legally existing residential structures, patios/decks”: [CDP 4-15-0390; Special Condition #5(A)(1), pg. 19] • Without any means of retaining sand, nourishment will become a ‘perpetual’ never-ending process, resulting in ever increasing assessments • With the current difficulty in sourcing sand, future costs for sand could increase, further inflating project costs A long term solution is required to reduce erosion on Broad Beach for the nourishment project to succeed 4

5/15/2017 Broad Beach Aerial: 1959 Broad Beach Aerial: 1971 5

5/15/2017 Broad Beach Aerial: 2004 Source: Coastal Resource Consultants, 2015 6

5/15/2017 Source: Broad Beach GHAD CDP Staff Report, pg. 63 “Ambiguities in data trends severely constrain our ability to forecast beach fill nourishment requirements for Broad Beach”; and “Nature cannot be subdued by artificially adding beach fill . But it can be held at bay for a time and how long will depend on the future availability and cost of sand the will of Broad Beach residents to nourish their beach.” The 2001 SANDAG (San Diego County) nourishment project involved placing 2,000,000 yds3 of sand dredged from 6 offshore sites onto 12 individual beaches in San Diego County. Total costs were $17.5 million and while fill life span depended upon each individual site, the volume of the fill and grain size , overall the sand tended to move offshore and alongshore within the first year or two. So while sand was present in the littoral system, it didn’t remain on the dry beach face for public use for a significant time period. Source: Summary of Broad Beach Erosion & Beach Nourishment Investigation and Responses to Proposed Nourishment Plan, Griggs, 2012 7

5/15/2017 “This is some work that was highlighted quite extensively in the press, and you may have heard it in various forms. The bottom line is that the projections by 2100 is that many beaches in California will erode on the order of about 50 meters, which is about 165 feet or so . In and of itself, this is not that big of a deal if these beaches have places to go, but in many cases, they obviously do not. 31 to 67% of beaches will be completely eroded and effectively ‘drowned’ by 2100 given different sea level rise and management scenarios . So we looked at beach nourishment, we looked at infrastructure, and at the end of the day, historical rates of nourishment didn’t make that much of a deal”- Patrick Barnard (Research Director - Climate Impacts and Coastal Processes Team, USGS) 8

5/15/2017 Estimated sand nourishment costs for original 10 year timeframe • 300,000 cubic yard nourishment • $16-20 million Year 1 • Interim 75,000 cubic yard nourishment • $4-5 million • 300,000 cubic yard nourishment • $16-20 million Year 5 • Interim 75,000 cubic yard nourishment • $4-5 million • 300,000 cubic yard nourishment • $16-20 million Year 10 Sand costs: Russ Boudreau/Ken Ehrlich (03/22/2017 meeting) Estimated sand nourishment costs for original 10 year timeframe Total Sand Nourishment Costs $56 to $70 million depending on sand source Sand costs: Russ Boudreau/Ken Ehrlich (03/22/2017 meeting) 9

5/15/2017 Estimated Fut uture Proje ject Costs Sand Dune Dune Scientific Habitat nourishment Construction Monitoring & Advisory Monitoring Backpassing Maintenance $6 million- $300,000- Panel $450,000- Sand $7 million $240,000- $325,000 850,000 $180,000 530,000 Unknown Average One time /year /year /year cost /year Habitat Monitoring cost Source: Russ Boudreau/Ken Ehrlich (03/22/2017 meeting); Scientific Advisory Panel cost: CDP 4-15-0390 Staff Report; Dune Construction/Maintenance Cost Source: Ken Ehrlich email (05/11/2017) Estimated Fut uture Proje ject Costs Estimated Future Project Costs $69 to $86 million over 10 years Habitat Monitoring cost Source: Russ Boudreau/Ken Ehrlich (03/22/2017 meeting); Scientific Advisory Panel cost: CDP 4-15-0390 Staff Report; Dune Construction/Maintenance Cost Source: Ken Ehrlich email (05/11/2017) 10

5/15/2017 Proje ject costs to da date: 2011-2017 Agency Elkins Kalt Fees/Lobbyists/ Monitoring Moffat & Weintraub Additional Legal Administration Costs Nichols Costs /Engineering Fees Reuben Fees • $525,355 • $177,902 Gartside • $3,548,072 $6,590,297 3,597,218 Source: BBGHAD Regular Session Packet 4/23/17 Proje ject costs to da date: 2011-2017 Total Costs to Date $14,798,844 over 7 years Source: BBGHAD Regular Session Packet 4/23/17 11

5/15/2017 Cha hanges to Ass ssessments Current annual budget: $3.1 million Current assessment: $602/ft/yr for east end Current assessment: $155/ft/yr for west end Future annual budget: $ 6.9 million to $8.6 million Future assessment: $1350-1650/ft/yr for east end Future assessment: $350-425/ft/yr for west end Future budget is based on 10 year permit $17,200 Projected High-end $66,800 $13,800 Projected Minimum $53,600 $6,200 Annual Assessment 40' Lot on Current Assessment $24,080 west end Annual Assessment 40' lot on east end $16,000 2011 Assessment $16,000 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 12

5/15/2017 $17,200 Projected High-end $66,800 $13,800 Projected Minimum $53,600 These estimates do not include the following costs that $6,200 Annual Assessment 40' Lot on are yet to be determined: Current Assessment west end $24,080 Backpassing sand • Annual Assessment 40' lot on Possible mitigation costs for damage to marine habitats • $16,000 east end 2011 Assessment $16,000 Finance costs for loan(s) required for nourishments • $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 Source: Broad Beach GHAD CDP Staff Report 13

5/15/2017 320,000 cubic yards of nourished beach washed away in 24 hours at Torrey Pines state beach Source: Seymour, R.J., R.T. Guza, W. O'Reilly and Steve Elgar, J. Coastal Engineering, 52, (2), pp151-158, 2005. 320,000 cubic yards of nourished beach washed away in 24 hours at Torrey Pines state beach in November 2001 Source: Seymour, R.J., R.T. Guza, W. O'Reilly and Steve Elgar, J. Coastal Engineering, 52, (2), pp151-158, 2005 14