EVEREST June, 2013 - California Department of Boating and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan 3.8.1 Federal Funding In California, federal funding has historically been the most significant source of funding for beach nourishment, including substantial projects in the 1930s and 1940s using opportunistic sediment to nourish Huntington State Beach, West Newport Beach, Seal Beach and Doheny State Beach (CDBW, 2002). Today, federal projects are typically conducted by USACE and are limited to projects where there is a federal interest. The Surfside-Sunset Beach nourishment project is the most significant ongoing project in Orange County. USACE is also involved with a various studies and projects at Huntington Harbour, Santa Ana River, and San Clemente City Beach. Since these projects are generally financed with from 35 to 50 percent state/local participation and 50 to 65 percent federal participation, federal projects can provide a substantial amount of leverage for coastal cities, counties, and the State of California. However, current budget debates in Washington D.C. have made it more difficult to obtain federal funding and it is reasonable to assume that federal funding may become more difficult to obtain in the future. However, USACE is involved in dredging operations at a number of sites in Orange County. Much of this opportunistic sediment is already used for nourishment but further examination of how this material can be used in the most beneficial manner is warranted. For example, a differential cost analysis could be performed to determine RSM-style improvements to the ongoing Surfside-Sunset Beach nourishment project whereby some material could be placed at other nearby receiver sites (e.g., East Seal Beach) in need of nourishment. 3.8.2 State Funding California California’s shore protection program has been operated through the CDBW using funds from the state Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund. CDBW has taken the lead in funding nourishment projects, as well as helping to coordinate local, state, and federal efforts for coastal protection through the CSMW. Federal beach nourishment funds from the USACE come with local matching requirements which have frequently been supplied by the CDBW. In 2013, the CDBW will become a division within the California Department of Parks and Recreation and this will likely result in significant changes in the way business is done within the CDBW. Proposition 84, the Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2006, was approved on the November 2006 ballot. The bill was designed to provide $540 million for the protection of beaches, bays and California’s coastal waters. Most of this money is likely to be used for environmentally related projects as well as projects focusing on water quality. Approaches of Other States Many other states have been active in financing beach nourishment. In particular, Florida has gathered financial and political support for beach nourishment. According to the Florida Shore Everest International Consultants, Inc. 3.64
Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan and Beach Preservation Association, over half of all recent beach spending in the state was financed from local funds. Florida uses a number of mechanisms to finance beach nourishment. State law requires that at least $30 million of revenues from Florida’s real estate documentary stamp tax (equivalent to California’s real estate transfer tax) must go for beach nourishment projects and in many years the state funds more than the required minimum (Flack, 2006). Florida state law also requires that half of the non-federal funding for a nourishment project must come from local sources. In cases where state land is involved, the state share is higher (as much as 100 percent) and in some smaller projects the local share is higher. In Florida, the local share of these projects is, in fact, higher than the state share and considerably higher than the federal share. In Florida, the primary means of financing the local share is the tourist development tax, which is essentially the same as California’s TOT. In Florida, typically from one to three percent of the tax is dedicated to beach nourishment. The typical tourist development tax (levied by individual counties) is three percent. However, Florida also levies a six percent state sales tax on hotel occupancy and some counties also add on up to a one percent local discretionary tax, so the effective tax on tourists is generally nine to ten percent, not significantly different from the taxes on hotel and transient housing in California, which is not subject to sales tax. In some parts of Florida, voters have also approved a special assessment on property (as part of the property tax). These assessments are generally higher for property closer to the beach and lower for property farther away. One advantage of these assessments is that bonds can be issued against them so that a nourishment project can proceed sooner than would be possible with other taxes, where one must typically wait until the money has been collected. In New York State, the local governments cost-share, with the state paying 70 percent and the locals paying 30 percent of the non-federal cost of the project. In New Jersey, $25 million is dedicated annually from the legislature for shore protection projects across the entire state. These funds come from New Jersey’s real estate transfer tax. Most of this money goes to the state share of federal projects with USACE. USACE generally funds 65 percent of these nourishment projects; the remaining 35 percent of the project is split between the state and the municipality. The state/local share in New Jersey is split 75 percent/25 percent, so it only costs the municipality nine cents out of every dollar to finance beach nourishment. New Jersey is also engaged in smaller state/local projects with no federal involvement, financed also at a 75 percent/25 percent state/local ratio. The municipalities typically raise bond revenues for their portion and counties sometimes fund a portion to help defer the local costs (Kaiser, 2006; King, 2006). Delaware has passed a Beach Act which specifies at least $1 million per year go to beach nourishment and shoreline preservation. Delaware also finances shoreline protection and beach nourishment through bond measures, plus it added a one percent state accommodations tax, (essentially a TOT) dedicated to shoreline protection. According to Tony Pratt, who has been involved in beach nourishment issues in Delaware for many years, the Delaware General Everest International Consultants, Inc. 3.65
Page 1 and 2:
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Eng
Page 3 and 4:
Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74: Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
Page 123: Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
show all

EVEREST June, 2013 - California Department of Boating and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?