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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan The CSMW database can be useful if well maintained and updated with new data as it becomes available. If not maintained, the data becomes stale and potential users will refer to new reports, publications, and data sources for individual projects instead of seeking information from the database. If the CSMW database is to be useful to Orange County RSM projects, the following activities are recommended: • Continue to develop data and metadata standards for the various data types and inform data providers of those standards; • Develop memorandums of understanding with Orange County, USACE and other data providers to encourage those providers to submit their data to the database; • Maintain the CSMW GIS staff size at sufficient levels to maintain, monitor and update the database; and • Constantly advertise the database amongst possible users. The benefits of filling individual data gaps within Orange County are minimal without full implementation of the above activities. If the above activities can be executed, filling the following data gaps may prove useful for future individual projects: sand volumes within upland sediment sources, grain size distributions within the upland sediment sources, grain size distributions at receiver beaches, grain size distributions and volumes at coastal sediment sources. 4.14 Develop a Pilot SCOUP within Orange County This activity would implement a regional opportunistic sediment use program within Orange County by utilizing the previously described SCOUP. The SCOUP was developed to streamline regulatory approval of small, less than 150,000 yd 3 , beach nourishment projects using opportunistic sediment. To carry out this process, a candidate government entity (e.g., city, JPA, etc…) would begin by evaluating potential receiver sites for need, community support, and construction accessibility. Once the receiver site or group of sites are chosen, identification and evaluation of potential sediment sources and stockpile locations is recommended, followed by a stepwise process as detailed in the SCOUP (Moffatt & Nichol, 2006). A handful of cities in San Diego County have already implemented SCOUP, those being Oceanside, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Coronado, and Imperial Beach. A potential candidate group of receiver beaches are within Newport Harbor. The City of Newport Beach has experienced difficulties in their permitting process, so SCOUP may benefit this applicant. The beaches in Newport Harbor were previously evaluated and ranked for need and accessibility in Appendix C of the Newport Harbor Area Management Plan (Everest, 2009a). The highest ranking beaches were Marina Park, Edgewater/Montero, China Cove, and Pirate’s Cove. Everest International Consultants, Inc. 4.11
Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan 4.15 Establish a Dedicated Fund and Process for Implementing Coastal RSM This activity would entail exploring and developing creative approaches related to historical reductions in sediment supply. As envisioned this would include assessing the contribution of coastal sediment supply reductions associated with navigation, flood control, and water storage projects as well as sand mining operations. Historically, these types of projects have been the primary causes of beach erosion along the California coastline, but California has been unable to secure funding to address these historical or legacy impacts. This activity would seek to establish a dedicated fund and process for implementing coastal RSM projects, including projects to offset beach erosion caused by historical navigation, flood control, and water storage projects. Alternatively, this might include the provision of funding to restore the ecosystem value and natural processes impacted by historical navigation, flood control, and water storage projects as well as sand mining operations. Recent state funding for coastal projects has come from various agencies on a project by project basis. Until 2012, California had two beach programs, including the Beach Erosion Control Program and the Public Beach Restoration Program. The funding for these projects has originated from the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund (HWRF), an account managed by DBW. There is concern that continued funding of California’s beach restoration programs using ad-hoc funding from the HWRF may not last much longer. A dedicated source of funding in State budget for coastal projects is justified by the substantial economic benefits derived by the State from coastal tourism and recreation. For example, visitors to California beaches spent over $61 billion in 2001, of which approximately 36% was spend by out-of-state visitors, and California’s beaches generate over $15 billion annually in tax revenue. A dedicated fund could be established and maintained through various means discussed in Section 3.8 of this report. These dedicated funds could be used to enhance the State’s Public Beach Restoration Program to target identified beach and other coastal restoration/nourishment projects. A detailed proposal on the enhanced beach and coastal restoration/nourishment program should be conveyed to members of the California congressional delegation holding key committee positions in order to build support for federal assistance of the enhanced program. Engaging members of the delegation who are on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in the State’s beach nourishment program will enable California to better compete with other states for beach monies. The governance body should work collaboratively to develop an approach to address present day and future reductions in sediment supply. This approach should include the entire coastal watershed that supplies sediment to the beaches and nearshore areas. The preferred approach is to encourage, develop, and/or fund activities (e.g., removal of hydromodifications such as dams and other barriers) that reestablish and/or mimic the natural transport of sediment through the watershed down to the beach and nearshore areas. Where this is not feasible, artificial Everest International Consultants, Inc. 4.12
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:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98: Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
Page 147: Orange County Coastal Regional Sedi
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?