HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; Pacific Coast Shoreline Carlsbad Recon Report; 1994-01-01 (3)US Army Corps
of Engineers
Los Angeles District
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
PACIFIC COAST SHORELINE, CARLSBAD
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ECONOMIC APPENDIX
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90053
January 1994
APPENDIX
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
1.1 Methodology 1
1.2 Project Interest Rate 1
1.3 Study Authority 1
2.0 REGIONAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
2.1 Region Location 1
2.2 Regional Transportation Infrastructure 2
2.3 Demographics 2
2.3.1 Population 2
2.3.3 Tourism and Recreation as Major Industries . 3
2.3.3 Employment 4
2.3.4 Income 5
3.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION 6
3.1 Project Area Description 6
3.2 Major Land Uses in Project Area 9
3.3 Recreational Importance of Project Area 9
4.0 ECONOMIC LOSS 11
4.1 Historical Storm Damages 11
5.0 Without Project Damages 13
5.1 General 13
5.2 Field Survey 13
5.3 Property Valuation 13
5.4 Structural Failure Damages 14
5.4.2 Reach 1 Structural Failure Damages ... 14
5.4.3 Reach 4 Structural Failure Damages ... 15
5.5 Inundation Damages 15
5.5.1 Content Values 15
5.5.2 Inundation Methodology 15
5.6 Revetment Damages 16
5.6.1 Protective Features in Reaches l and 4 . 16
5.6.2 Replacement Costs 17
5.6.3 Methodology 17
5.7 Roadway Damages 17
5.7.1 Flood Damages in Reach 3 17
5.7.2 Flood Damages in Reach 5 18
5.7.3 Emergency and Clean-Up Costs 18
5.7.4 Detour Costs in Reach 3 19
5.7.5 Detour Costs in Reach 5 20
5.8 Erosion Damages 20
5.9 Other Damages 22
6.0 WITHOUT PROJECT RECREATION ANALYSIS 22
6.1 Historical Beach Use 22
6.2 Current Beach Use 22
6.3 Beach Recreation Growth Rates 23
6.4 Beach Population Forecasts Methodology 23
6.5 Without Project Beach Conditions 23
6.5.1 Parking Restraints 24
6.6 Recreation Benefit Methodology 24
6.6.1 Computing Unit Day Value 27
6.7 Without Project Recreation Value 29
7.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS .... 29
7.1 Annual Damage Calculations 29
8.0 PLAN FORMULATION 32
8.1 Alternative I 32
8.2 Alternative II 33
8.3 Alternative III 33
8.4 Alternative IV 33
8.5 Alternative V 33
8.6 Alternative VI 33
8.7 Alternative VII 34
8.8 Alternative VIII 34
8.9 Alternative IX 34
8.10 Alternative X 34
8.11 Alternative XI 34
8.12 Alternative XII 34
8.13 Alternative XIII 34
8.14 Alternative XIV 35
9.0 BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ... 35
9.01 Inundation and Storm Damage Reduction 35
9.02 Revetment Damage Reduction 35
9.03 Transportation Cost Savings 35
9.04 With-project Recreation Value for Reaches 1 - 4 . . 36
9.05 Without Project Recreation Value
and Benefits for Reach 5 36
9.07 Benefit Cost Ratios 37
APPENDIX
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
List of Tables
Number Page
1. Population of Carlsbad and San Diego County 3
2. Industry by Sector and Percent Employment in 1990 .... 4
3. Occupation by Sector and Percent Employment in 1990 ... 5
4. Median Income and Per Capita Incom 7
5. Property Valuation of Reaches 1 and 4 14
6. Average Daily Number of Persons Accommodated at 75 sf . 21
7. Carlsbad Monthly Beach Population - 26
Without Project
8. Existing and Future Unit Day Values 28
9. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 30
Without Project by Return Period
10. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 31
Without Project by Decade
11. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 32
Without Project by Reach
12. Recreation Benefits by Alternative < 37
13. Carlsbad Monthly Beach Population - 38
Alternatives I, II & XIII
14. Carlsbad Monthly Beach Population - 39
Alternative V
15. Carlsbad Monthly Beach Population - 40
Alternatives VI, VII, & XIV
16. Carlsbad Monthly Beach Population - 41
Alternative XI
17. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 44
Alternatives I, II, & XIII
18. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 45
Alternative III
19. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 46
Alternative IV
20. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 47
Alternative V
21. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 48
Alternative VI, VII, & XIV
22. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 49
Alternative VIII
23. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 50
Alternatives IX & X
24. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 51
Alternative XI
25. Expected and Equivalent Annual Damages - 52
Alternative XII
26. Benefit Cost Ratios and Net Benefits 53
by Alternative
List of Figures
Number Page
1. Transient Occupancy Tax 10
2. Monthly Beach Visitation in the Carlsbad Market Area . . 25
3. Frequency Damage 30
4. 1995 Recreation Values With and Without Project42
5. 2040 Recreation Values With and Without Project .... 43
List of Plates
Number Page
1. Five Reaches of Carlsbad Coastal Area 7
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this economic appendix is to assess the
potential storm damage along the coast of the City of Carlsbad in
San Diego County, California; develop the without project
scenario; and evaluate alternative storm damage prevention
measures. In addition, this document presents the economic
methodology used in the calculation of benefits associated with
the construction of these measures.
Specifically, the report addresses the problem of storm
damages to the causeway section and revetments of Carlsbad
Boulevard/State Highway 21 parallel to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon,
to the beachfront residences located south of the
Carlsbad/Oceanside border and north of Oak Street, and to the
Terramar beachfront residences stationed above sea bluffs. The
report also addresses concerns of long-term erosion along the
entire city's coastline, especially as it relates to the
increased susceptibility of shorefront structures to wave action.
1.1 Methodology
The Methodology used in this appendix is in accordance with
current ER 1105-2-100 regulations and is detailed throughout the
text. Backup data is on file at the Los Angeles District.
Economic efficiency is measured as positive contributions to
National Economic Development (NED) associated with the various
alternatives. The benefit to cost ratio, which establishes
whether a given alternative returns more benefits or costs, and
net benefits, those benefits in excess of costs for a particular
alternative, represent the specific methods used in the benefit
analysis. Benefits and costs are expressed in October 1992
dollars.
1.2 Project Interest Rate
The analysis employs the currently established Water
Resource Council interest rate of 8.0 percent. The economic life
of the project and period of analysis is 50 years.
1.3 Study Authority
This study is prepared under Section 110 of the River and
Harbors act of 1962.
2.0 REGIONAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 Region Location
The city of Carlsbad is a coastal community located in
Northern San Diego County. The city is bordered by the city of
Oceanside to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, the cities
of Vista and San Marcos to the east, and Encinitas to the south.
Directly west of the city lies approximately 6.5 miles of
coastline. Carlsbad Canyon and three coastal lagoons are located
along the 6.5 mile segment of coastline: Buena Vista Lagoon in
North Carlsbad, Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the middle, and
Batiquitos Lagoon in the south.
2.2 Regional Transportation Infrastructure
Immediately east of the study area lie the Atchison Topeka
and Santa Fe railroads. Carlsbad has two major north-south
thoroughfares, Interstate 5 and Carlsbad Boulevard which serve
the entire Northern San Diego County region's circulation system
and provide access to the various project sites. Carlsbad Blvd.,
the main transportation corridor, is a 4-lane divided causeway
running parallel to the beach. In addition, the boulevard serves
as a primary access to several residential areas, commercial
centers, regional power generating facilities, and related
business and transportation interests.
2.3 Demographics
2.3.1 Population
San Diego County ranks second largest in population out of
the 58 counties in California and is one of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the country (San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG), 1992). The county population density in
1990 was 594 persons per square mile (United States Bureau of the
Census, 1990; SANDAG, 1992). In contrast, the City of Carlsbad
population density was 1,674 persons per square mile in 1990
(United States Bureau of the Census,1990).
The population of Carlsbad was 65,661 as of the 1st of
January, 1992. An annual growth rate of 2.13% was determined for
the city based upon the change in total population between
January 1, 1991 to January 1, 1992. From 1980 to 1990,
Carlsbad's population grew 77.8%, representing the third fastest
growing city in San Diego County (State Dept. of Finance).
Between 1990 and 2015, Carlsbad is projected to grow another 79%.
This equates to an average annual growth rate of 2.35% for the
city in comparison to a 1.5% growth rate for the county.
Although these forecasts portray continual growth in
population and development through year 2015, experts contend
that this rate will decline, if current growth management
policies prevail. Discussions with forecasters from SANDAG
revealed that under current conditions, Carlsbad will have
developed all available single-family and multiple-family urban
land by the year 2015 as the population approaches 115,000
persons. Household size is expected to drop 5% from 1990
standards to 2.28 persons per household in 2015, which will
further affect growth requirements. The city presently has nine-
hundred acres of industrial land which they are protecting in
order to invest in future employment opportunities. Once
capacity of single- and multi-family zones is met in 2015, the
city may consider utilizing the industrial lands for further
residential development and is being encouraged by SANDAG at
present to consider this alternative. This could prove to be an
important factor in projected beach visitation. If the city
chooses to preserve the growth management plan, development of
residential and commercial beach property will be limited after
the year 2015, affecting the future number of beach visitors
stemming from the local region and the availability of hotel
accommodations. Table 1 presents population figures for the city
of Carlsbad and San Diego County.
TABLE i
POPULATION, CARLSBAD AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY
(1,000s)
Area
Carlsbad
San Diego County
1970
14.9
1,358
1980
35.5
1,862
1990
63.1
2,498
2000
87.7
2,784
2010
110.8
3,154
2015
112.9
3,633
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Series 7 Regional Growth Forecast and Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast
- Subarea Allocation Alternatives (March 31, 1993).
2.3.3 Tourism and Recreation as Major Industries
Tourism is a primary component of the City of Carlsbad's
taxable sales and revenue, especially for the area included
within the study site. The city is largely a beach resort town
which has traditionally attracted beachgoers and tourists
interested in the major attractions within San Diego county.
Over the past decade, Carlsbad has experienced a rapid increase
in the physical number of hotel rooms and, consequently, the
transient occupancy rate. In fact, hotel occupancy rates for the
city ranked above the national average of 64% in 1990. Although,
local concerns of over expansion have induced growth management
planning, the tourist population has remained relatively constant
subsequent to 1987.
Between the period of 1981 to 1990, an estimated 31,000,000
persons visited San Diego County annually. Carlsbad beaches
alone accounted for 9.4% of annual average visitorship for the
county during this time period, which equates to a daily average
of 8,000 persons, note this figure does not reflect the
difference between the summer and non-summer day usage. The
daily summer and non-summer attendance was computed by SANDAG and
is provided in Section 3.3.
2.3.3 Employment
Employment data for San Diego County depicts a less
prosperous picture for future conditions in relation to the
previous decade. Although the total number of jobs in the
civilian labor sector is expected to rise an average of 27%
between 1990 and 2015, this equates to an average 23,000 fewer
jobs per year than during the 1980's. Between the years 1990 and
1993 alone, the region is predicted to suffer a total loss of
45,000 jobs (SANDAG, Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast: Revised
Regionwide Forecast 1990-2015). Employment data for the City of
Carlsbad, shows that the rate of unemployment for the civilian
population was 4.9% in 1990. The State of California's
unemployment rate for the civilian population in 1990 was 5.6%.
The city's figure compares favorably with both the state's
average and the San Diego regional average of 6.5%. The primary
source of employment in Carlsbad stems from the retail sales
sector. Table 2 lists the number of persons above the age of 16
by occupation for 1990, while Table 2 lists the number of persons
employed by industry above the age of sixteen for 1990.
TABLE 2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
OCCUPATION BY SECTOR AND PERCENT EMPLOYMENT IN 1990
Ecoftomte Sector
Total:
Exec., administrative, managerial
Professional specialty
Technicians
Sales
Administrative support
Private household
Protective service
Other service
Farming, forestry, fishing
Precision production
Operators, fabricators
Laborers
# Of P^f&ons
33,000
6,743
5,743
1,424
5,543
4,363
309
523
2,715
731
2,568
1,510
828
Percent of
Total
100%
20.4%
17.4%
4.3%
16.8%
13.2%
0.9%
1.6%
8.2%
2.2%
7.8%
4.6%
2.5%
Source: San Diego Association of Governments. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. San Diego, California.
TABLE 3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INDUSTRY BY SECTOR AND PERCENT EMPLOYMENT IN 1990
XHtoMfixy:'-' ' '---,' " -:\ '-"'-' '-' -.." --f^ !,,,r.v,vw. i^.,.,,^ , .„,, ^,,,, ••-•—• •• „ "0,™* ,•••• ,>""i
Total:
Agriculture, forestry, mining
Construction
Manufacturing (non-durable)
Manufacturing (durable)
Transportation
Communications/utilities
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, real estate
Business and repair services
Personal services
Entertainment and recreational svc.
Health services
Educational services
Other professional services
Public administration
, * -af !
Persons
33,000
805
2,644
1,392
3,217
842
693
1,606
5,417
3,746
1,958
1,461
631
2,193
2,298
2,966
1,131
pejrc#*it
Of Total
100.0%
2.4%
8.0%
4.2%
9.7%
2.6%
2.1%
4.9%
16.4%
11.4%
5.9%
4.4%
1.9%
6.6%
7.0%
9.0%
3.4%
Source: San Diego Association of Governments. 1990 Census of
Population and Housing. San Diego, California.
2.3.4 Income
The per capita, household and median incomes in 1990 for
Carlsbad ranked well above the county level. Definitions were
provided by the Oceanside Harbor study for "family" and
"household" income and included in this report for clarification.
Family income is defined as the earnings of two or more persons,
including the householder, who are related by birth, marriage, or
adoption and who are living together in a single residence.
Family income incorporates monies earned by family members
exceeding 15 years of age, while household income represents
income earned by two or more persons occupying a housing unit but
who are not necessarily related.
According to the Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast Model,
real per capita income for the whole of San Diego County is
expected to decline an average of 8.2% between the years 1990 and
2015. The model also stated that the current recession caused
real per capita income to decline 10% between 1990 and 1993. A
general growth in income of 1.8% by year 2015 is assumed to
result from the predominant lower paying job expansion within the
region.
TABLE 4
MEDIAN INCOME AND PER CAPITA INCOME
(1990 Dollars)
ineom* Factojr
Median Family Income
Per Capita Income
Median Household Income
Carlsbad
$55,019
$21,764
$45,739
County
$39,798
$18,300
$35,022
% Difference
38.2%
18.9%
30.6%
Source:a.
b.
c.
San Diego Association of Governments, 1990 Census
of Population and Housing. STF1/STF3
San Diego Association of Governments, December 18,
1992 Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast. San
Diego, California. Attachment 2.
3.0
Department of Finance, 1993.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Area Description
The project area is defined by five adjacent shoreline
reaches separated by unique physical characteristics, which were
determined by the study team. (Please reference plate 1)
Reach 1 includes the area of coastline bordered by the City
of Oceanside to the north and the city-installed seawall located
100 yds. south of Oak Ave to the south. This area abuts high
density residential development on the east and the Pacific Ocean
on the west. The Buena Vista Lagoon lies north of the structures
within this reach and serves as a border between Carlsbad and the
City of Oceanside. This area is prominently known as a resort
center and is becoming increasingly popular to Los Angeles,
Orange and San Diego County residents and visitors traveling from
Europe.
Plate 1 Five Reaches of Carlsbad Coastal Area
7
Reach 2 is defined by the area of coastline bordering the
city-installed seawall, +20.5 ft. above mean sea level (MSL).
The seawall extends from Oak Avenue in the north to the Tamarack
Street parking lot entrance in the south. As the seawall
prevents erosion and storm damage to the contiguous open-zoned
land and as Carlsbad Boulevard is set back significantly from the
seawall, the conditions within this reach do not reflect danger
to structures or infrastructure. The area of beach in Reach 2
which is anterior to the seawall, along with the beach located
within Reach three, supports the majority of the beach population
for the city. This area of land stands to suffer loss from
erosion and a decrease in beach visitation.
Reach 3 consists of the shoreline between Tamarack Boulevard
southward to the Terrramar housing development. This segment
encompasses a portion of Carlsbad Boulevard/Highway 21; a narrow,
cobble state beach anterior to the boulevard; the 200 space
Tamarack parking lot, located north of the Agua Hedionda lagoon's
intake jetty; and additional curb parking west of the boulevard.
Elevations along the street's center line vary between
approximately +14 to +16 feet from MSL at its lowest point.
Riprap ranging in size from one-quarter to one ton extends along
both ends of the causeway, about 350 to 400 feet from the intake
and outlet jetties.
The fourth reach is made up of the Terramar housing
development, a low-medium density residential area, and the
adjoining coastline. This segment features twenty-nine
structures atop high bluffs; sixteen of the structures are
protected by riprap and thirteen by gunite. Bluffs along this
reach have historically experienced erosion, but not as a direct
result of wave action. This is due to the fact that wave impact
upon the cliffs has been arrested by the construction of
protective structures. However, the bluffs continue to
experience subaerial erosion as a result of collapsed drainage
systems installed on the bluffs and the solution of groundwater.
Since the construction of the protective structures, these homes
have experienced no damage from wave impact and cliff-erosion
appears to have subsided. Additionally, homes appear to be set
back far enough to warrant no need for further protection from
inundation.
Reach 5 extends southward of the Terramar housing
development, representing the South Carlsbad State Beach. The
state park offers recreationalists camping sites and a narrow
cobble beach. As a result of the extensive cobble coverage,
recreational use of the beach is somewhat limited. The area does
support water activities, mainly surfing, in some areas.
Although Reach 5 contains few damage-prone structures, it has
been subject to damage in recent years: the 1983 storm caused
$96,602 in damage resulting from debris clean-up of destroyed
restrooms, stairways, and parking lot repairs. No structures are
threatened by undercutting of the bluff. Rather, as is the case
in Reach 4, the mass quantities of bluff erosion have been
determined to be a result of heavy rains and storm drain runoff.
In addition, a portion of Carlsbad Boulevard descends to +18.25
feet MLLW and extends along a particularly narrow cobble beach.
Although no prior damages have been reported for this portion of
the boulevard, undermining of the causeway is expected to occur
if the box culvert below the road fails to provide adequate
drainage.
3.2 Major Land Uses in Project Area
Carlsbad's northern most site, Reach 1, consists primarily
of high density residential and commercial development, some
medium-high residential development, and a private school. The
structures adjoin an area of private beach. South of this area
lies a small section of open-space land protected by a seawall.
Both features secure the adjacent boulevard from storm damages.
In addition, segments of Carlsbad Boulevard parallel the coast in
Reaches 3 and 5. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is located in Reach 3 east
of Carlsbad Blvd. The lagoon serves a multitude of uses,
including, a body of cooling water for the San Diego Gas &
Electric Power Plant, a research facility, a fishing area, and a
feeding spot for wildlife. In addition to the San Diego Gas &
Electric facilities, Reach 3 is heavily utilized by sunbathers
and surfers. The reach offers a 200-space parking lot along with
parallel street parking. Reaches 2 and 3 constitute the North
Carlsbad State Beach. Reach 4 consists of low-medium density
residences stationed atop high beach bluffs. Moderate beach
visitation, primarily the result of surfers, was noted in this
area. The southern reach within the study site is comprised of
the South Carlsbad State Beach bordered by coastal bluffs. The
state park offers year-around campground sites, including hook-
ups for recreational vehicles, public restrooms, and a
convenience store. The state park also houses the State of
California lifeguards' facilities and equipment.
3.3 Recreational Importance of Project Area
For the Carlsbad state beaches as a whole, beach attendance
during the years 1981 to 1990 averaged approximately 2,920,000
Figure 1
City of Carlsbad
Transient Occupancy Tax
700-r
h-o
81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86
' 200 Rooms ' 266
86-87
289
87-88 88-89 89-90 90-911— 293 —' 305 Rooms
91-92
Pise/1' Year
visitors annually. This usage equates to a daily population of
11,981 and a daily non-summer attendance of 6,015 persons.
Visitors are typically distributed unevenly over the year; thus,
50% of the beach transit population occurs during the four summer
months of June, July, August, and September (SANDAG, 1992). As
previously mentioned, tourist establishments contribute
significantly to the city's revenue. Thus, lodging
establishments currently contribute a considerable sum to the
taxable services sector of the local economy. Figure 1 reflects
the yearly income earned by the city as a result of visitation to
the beach resort facilities. The Transient Occupancy Tax is in
1991/1992 dollars and is adjusted for CPI and tax rate
variations, but is not held constant for the increase in beds.
The figure represents tax revenue derived exclusively from the
beach areas.
4.0 ECONOMIC LOSS
The study team beachwalk revealed that reaches 1, 3, and 4
represent the sites most susceptible to impact from storm damage,
inundation, and erosion losses, thereby, illustrating the
particular areas of economic interest. The following sections
discuss historical storm damages and historical shoreline erosion
by reach and recreation losses along the majority of the Carlsbad
coastline.
4.1 Historical Storm Damages
Significant storm events impacted the Carlsbad coastline in
the years 1978, 1983 and 1988. The Coastal Engineering Section
estimated that the January, 1983 storm event represented a 25-
year storm frequency, while the 1988 event was estimated to range
between a 25-year and a 50-year frequency depending upon the
reach and cross-section being examined. Wave impact from the
1978 and 1983 events caused damage in Reach 1 primarily to the
homes' protective structures and caused minor flooding and damage
to the buildings themselves. The Corps of Engineers surveyed
residents in order to collect information on damages to buildings
and protective structures resulting from recent storms.
Respondents whose homes bore relatively low first floor
elevations reported effects of the 1983 storm, including damages
to seawalls and riprap, damages to sea-facing doorways, indoor
carpets, deck carpets, beach access stairs, and deck railings.
The Best Western Hotel experienced severe erosional problems
during the 1978 storm. Scouring behind the hotel's seawall
caused a cavern to form beneath the foundation approximately the
length of the building and width of 20 ft. The floor above the
cavern rippled and threatened to collapse. In addition, two
units of a 20-unit condominium building were evacuated due to
flooding. Along with minor inundation damages in Reaches 1 and 4
resulting from the 1988 storm, residents in reach 1 reported
damages to the revetments and seawall protecting their homes.
11
Following the construction of the seawall along Reach 2,
this area has sustained no damages to the roadways. No
additional structures experienced a threat due to wave action and
erosion within this reach.
Within Reach 3 overtopping and closure of both the roadway
and the beach parking areas have occurred an average of once
every two years. In the spring of 1981 a section of Carlsbad
Boulevard was closed for 5 days. Flooding and debris deposited
on the road was concentrated in the low-elevation areas over an
extent of about 700 feet. 200 paved perpendicular parking spaces
were lost to erosion and never completely replaced. It is
estimated that the aerial extent of erosional damages for this
event was two-thirds of the length between the warm-water and
cold-water jetties of Agua Hedionda Lagoon (or about 2,000 feet),
with an encroachment distance of about 100 feet. The double
perpendicular parking lining the boulevard was lost during this
storm and never completely replaced. A single row of angled
parking was constructed in its place. The single row of angled
parking was lost to the extent of 100,000 sf during the 1983
storm. Subsequent to the 1983 storm, the lost parking was
replaced with parallel parking still present today along the
boulevard.
In 1983, the Tamarack parking lot experienced a reduction in
width of approximately 30 ft. and loss of its curbing gutter.
Emergency repairs were installed, but also lost in the 1988
storms. Following the 1988 storm season, the state performed
temporary repairs on the parking lot.
Prior to the 1988 storms, the city installed protective
riprap along the shoulders of the boulevard neighboring the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. The January 1988 storm did not seriously affect
the parking areas but created a debris hazard and produced
damages to the riprap around the bridge and road shoulder.
Resultant highway closure forced public-safety and emergency-
response vehicles to be rerouted. In addition, the general
public encountered inconveniences stemming from increased travel
time. Approximately $151,217 was spent on emergency repair work,
debris removal, and improvements during and following the 1988
storm season. The city of Carlsbad improvements to the
boulevard included the construction of a sidewalk and a
landscaped median, and the widening of the roadway.
While undercutting of the bluff from specific storm events
is not a major concern to homeowners within Reach 4, damages to
protective structures have been sustained over time from severe
wave force. The major concern surrounding these structures is
that prolonged shoreline erosion resulting from specific storm
events attendant with deterioration of protective coastal
structures will increase structure susceptibility to future storm
damage. Following the 1978 and the 1983 events, a portion of the
12
structures protected by riprap required stone replacement
resulting from wave damage. In addition, gunite structures
protecting the remainder of the seafront homes in this reach
required substantial repairs. During the 1983 event an estimated
$5,000 per home was spent to repair gunite revetments, while an
estimated $9,400 per home was spent to repair riprap revetments
to homes. This equates to $60 per linear foot for gunite repairs
and $117.50 per linear foot for riprap repairs along the 2200 ft.
reach. In addition, damages to stair accessways and a
homeowners' association patio ensued this event.
Damage was sustained by a portion of the lifeguard towers
and stair accessways along reach 5. Since the 1880s, historical
retreat of the cliffs in reaches 4 and 5 appears mainly to be the
result of subaerial erosion; although, minor undercutting of the
bluff was apparent during the beachwalk.
5.0 Without Project Damages
Damages were computed for the without project condition,
which is expected to exist as if there is no planned federal
project. Due to the existing growth management plan for the City
of Carlsbad, future developmental patterns are expected to
reflect current conditions. Expected annual damages computed by
reach for each of the following damage categories is presented in
Table 11.
5.1 General
Although a few structures exhibiting low first floor
elevations have experienced damages from single storm events, the
majority of the structures located in both reaches I and 4 appear
well protected and, thus, not highly susceptible to inundation
damages or destruction from a single low-frequency storm event.
However, continued wave damage to protective features along with
short-term beach erosion poses a threat to structure and, thus,
content stability.
5.2 Field Survey
Beachfront structures and facilities were surveyed during a
beachwalk of the entire coastline performed by the study team in
July of 1993. The condition of the protective structures along
with their heights above MLLW were recorded during the walk.
First floor elevations were recorded relative to the back of the
beach (the back of the beach measured an average of +12.75 ft.
from MLLW). They were then compared to elevations of the road
lining the beachfront in order to confirm their validity.
5.3 Property Valuation
Structures were assigned a replacement value in accordance
13
with Marshall and Swift's Valuation Service criteria. The
structure and content values' are based on October 1993 dollars.
Approximately $18.77 million worth of property is located in the
study area. Reach 1 contains 57 structures with a total value of
approximately $13.7 million. Multi-family structures constitute
the largest category prone to damage in this reach. Reach 4
contains 29 single-family structures with a total property worth
of $5 million. Table 5 shows the number, type, average value,
total value and average first floor elevation for the structures
within the study area.
TABLE 5
PROPERTY VALUATION OF REACHES 1 AND 4
;Category- ;Mo. ofstructures Average
Vfclt**
Total Value Average
Elevaticm
.REACH 1
Commercial
Multi-family
Public
Single-family
Subtotal
2
29
2
24
57
$454,018
$274,853
$112,702
$373,834
$317,126
$908,037
$7,970,737
$225,404
$8,972,016
$18,076,198
23.3
29.5
27.8
30.8
27.9
REACH 4
Single-family
Total
29
86
$173,858
$268,815
$5,041,895
$23,118,093
37.8
5.4 Structural Failure Damages
5.4.2 Reach 1 Structural Failure Damages
Wave force is not expected to directly impact coastal
structures in future storm events. Rather, cutting of the bluff
during specific storm intervals is expected to reduce structural
integrity and result in the failure and condemning of these
buildings. The damages caused by particular storm frequencies
were determined by Coastal Engineering. A total of twenty-three
structures were determined to suffer structural damage. Twenty
of these structures are not protected by revetment. These twenty
structures were calculated to begin experiencing damages due to
undercutting in the 50-year event and experience total
destruction in the 100-year event. The remaining three
structures experience flanking damage to their sidewalls. This
14
is the result of vacant lots that neighbor the structures and
expose their sides to direct' wave impact. Total structural
damages in the 25-, 50-, 100-, and 200-year events are $6,580,
$227,550, $3,320,560, and $3,611,700, respectively. The expected
annual damage is listed in Table 10 and separated by cross-
section in Table 11.
Content damages resulting from the collapse of the structure
were determined, based on the above mentioned structural failure
rates. Content damages were, therefore, assumed to begin in the
50-year event and cease when the structure fails in the 100-year
event. The content damages were computed to be $1,505,000 for
both the 100- and 200-year storm frequencies; whereas, the
expected annual content damages resulting from structural failure
is $15,130.
5.4.3 Reach 4 Structural Failure Damages
The layout of homes in Reach 4 differs considerably from
that of the first reach. Structures in Reach 4 are located over
30 foot bluffs and, therefore, exhibit much higher first floor
elevations. Damages resulting from inundation or wave impact do
not threaten the residences. Rather, damages in this reach
represent increased spending in operations and maintenance on
gunite and riprap revetments following each significant storm
event. Based on discussions with approximately one-third of the
residents, damages in the 1983 storm event occurred as a result
of wave attack on protective features and the long-term effects
of shoreline erosion on these features. Damages to revetments is
further discussed in the section 5.6.
5.5 Inundation Damages
5.5.1 Content Values
Content values were calculated as a percentage of the
structure replacement value for each of the structure types
subject to inundation. These include single-family and multi-
family residences, one commercial structure, and one public
structure. The percentage of content value for each of the said
categories are as follows. Residential content value was assumed
to be 55% of the structure value, in accordance with the Army
Corps of Engineer's most recent planning guidance. Public
content value was assumed to be 24% of the structure value, while
commercial content value was assumed to be 75% of the structure
value. The latter two percentages are based on previous Corps of
Engineer's studies.
5.5.2 Inundation Methodology
Four of the forty-eight protected structures within Reach 1
represent unique problems. They have relatively low first floor
15
elevations and line narrow beaches. In fact, these are the only
structures from the entire study area determined to experience
inundation damages stemming directly from wave run-up, even in
the largest storm events. Three of the structures are located in
Reach 1, cross-section 2; one is located in Reach 1, cross-
section 3.
There are no established curves relating run-up elevations
to historic damages in the Southern California area. Run-up
elevations for each storm event are not directly equal to the
depth of ponding over the first floor. The majority of the
coastal residents have built revetments to obstruct wave impact
or are protected from wave impact by patios or landscaping.
Furthermore, exterior walls, windows and door-jam heights were
also analyzed in order to determine the amount of protection they
offer against direct inundation. To calculate damages from
inundation, a review of historic flooding damages to structures
was initially conducted. The relationship between reported
ponding depths within the homes and actual historic run-up
elevations were determined. Actual ponding depths were
approximated at thirty-five percent of the run-up minus the first
floor elevation for the four affected structures. The calibrated
flood levels were compared with the national FEMA content damage
curve and were found to correlate closely with 1983 historic
damages for similar inundation levels. Damages in the 1983 event
primarily affected contents, e.g. furniture and carpets. Use of
this curve reflects inundation damages to contents as well as a
small percentage of structure damages associated with flooding,
including the damages to walls and windows.
The Quattro program was used to integrate the structure
value, flood depth, and percent damage parameters in order to
calculate content damages by storm event. The damages by event
were then related to the amount of run-up damaging the
structures. The resultant product was the frequency-damage
relationship for Reach 1 residences. This relationship is used
to determine and incorporated within the frequency-damage curve
for the entire study (Figure 3). Inundation damages for the 25-,
50-, 100-, and 200-year events are $29,650, $72,580, $112,880,
and $128,140, respectively. Total expected annual damages are
$9,040. These values were combined with the content damages
resulting from structural failure to yield the values in Tables
9, 10, and 11.
5.6 Revetment Damages
5.6.1 Protective Features in Reaches 1 and 4
Forty-eight of the fifty-seven structures located within
reach 1 are protected by seawalls and/or riprap at heights
varying from +11 to +20 feet m.s.l. On average, the seawalls
measure eighteen feet while the riprap measures approximately
16
sixteen feet from MSL in height. At the south end of this reach,
eight structures offer no protection against wave impact, but are
located atop high bluffs and have, therefore, reportedly suffered
no damages. Reach 4 contains twenty-nine structures; sixteen of
which are protected by riprap while thirteen are protected by
gunite.
5.6.2 Replacement Costs
The study team based the forecasted damages to revetments on
the original engineering design code. Costs, therefore, appear
somewhat high for the lower storm frequencies. This is due to
the fact that as the revetments continue to deteriorate, their
condition further deviates from the original design
specifications. Homeowners are generally unwilling to incur the
repair costs after a small storm event, constituting the
deviation of the protective structure from the initial design
standards. Yet, homeowners may be forced to undertake expensive
repairs after the revetment suffers substantial damage—resulting
either from a large storm event or several succeeding small storm
events. Thus, in the larger events, damage forecasts are better
correlated to the actual revetment repair costs. The
calculations for the revetment replacement costs are abailable in
the Coastal Engineering Appendix.
5.6.3 Methodology
Damages to revetments in Reaches 1 and 4 were calculated for
various wave heights according to revetment dimensions and
construction type, i.e. seawall, riprap, or gunite. The total
linear feet for each of the construction types was measured. The
measurements were then categorized by reach and cross-section and
related to the appropriate wave height. A replacement cost per
linear foot was used to determine total replacement cost for each
type of revetment. The replacement cost calculations are
included in the Coastal Engineering Appendix. In Reach 4,
revetment damages were assumed to be equal to gunite damages
based upon discussions with homeowners. The percent damages to
these various revetment types were determined for each return
period and then summed to obtain the total revetment damages.
This information is provided in Table 9, along with the expected
annual damages in Table 10. With project benefits resulting from
the reduced damages to revetments are assumed to represent
reductions in operations and maintenance costs for these
structures.
5.7 Roadway Damages
5.7.1 Flood Damages in Reach 3
Damages to Carlsbad Boulevard were based on the 1983 storm
event which produced an excess run-up of 4.1 feet over the top of
17
the road. The excess run-up was based on the portion of the
boulevard exhibiting the lowest elevation. Approximately 50
feet of erosion was determined to have resulted from the 1983
storm. Because portions of the causeway are susceptible to
coastal storm flooding, significant storm events are expected to
foster undercutting of the highway foundation material. Coastal
Engineering determined the percentage of road eroded during each
storm frequency and applied a replacement cost for the required
construction materials and labor. In this manner, they were able
to determine dollar damages for each storm event, which was used
to calculate expected annual damages. In addition to the
physical damage inflicted upon the roadway by storm impact, the
ensuing floods will cause damage to adjacent parking areas, the
need for debris removal, and the need for traffic detours along
the highway.
5.7.2 Flood Damages in Reach 5
Although the portion of Carlsbad Boulevard located in Reach
5 has not suffered historic damages, this segment of the roadway
is considered vulnerable to future damages from wave run-up. Due
to the boulevard's low-elevation of 18.25 feet MLLW, there is a
potential for flooding, if the box culvert below the boulevard
becomes obstructed with debris. Therefore, 1,000 feet of the
roadway was assumed to be susceptible to damage, equating to
total road erosion of 100 feet.
In March of 1994, the Bataquitos Mitigation Project will be
constructed. The project constructs an 82.6 acre beach in Reach
5 anterior to Carlsbad Boulevard. The beach will prevent damages
to Carlsbad Boulevard for the first seven years, under with
project conditions. By 2004, the sand is expected to be
completely eroded, after which the boulevard is prone to damages
from excessive wave run-up. The Coastal Engineering Section
computed the dollar damages to the roadway for each return
period, from which the expected annual damages were computed.
The actual damage calculations are included in the Coastal
Engineering Appendix. Both the damages by decade and the damages
by return period are presented in Tables 9 and 10; damages per
reach are presented in Table 11.
5.7.3 Emergency and Clean-Up Costs
Emergency costs include losses resulting from the disruption
of normal activities, which would otherwise not be incurred.
Clean-up costs represent the expense to clear debris from the
Tamarack parking lot area and to bring the parking lot into
working order. Examples of emergency costs include the increased
costs to employ the police and road maintenance and clean-up
crews and construct emergency repairs to the parking lot. For
the purpose of this study, emergency and clean-up costs were
accrued solely to the Tamarack parking lot based upon the City of
18
Carlsbad's damage survey reports. This assumption is supported
by the fact that no historical emergency and clean-up costs have
been reported in connection to structure and content damages.
Emergency and clean-up costs were based on costs incurred
during the 1988 storm event, a 35-year frequency storm. The
total estimate for emergency and clean-up costs during the 1988
storm event was $151,217. In order to determine the emergency
and clean-up costs for larger storm frequencies, the 1988 costs
were increased in proportion to the amount of increased run-up
overtopping the road as a result of the more substantial storm
events. These points provided the data to compute a frequency-
damage curve for varying storm frequencies, the respective dollar
damages by event, and the expected annual average damages under
without project conditions. The emergency and clean-up dollar
damages by event and the total expected annual damages are shown
in Tables 10 and 11.
5.7.4 Detour Costs in Reach 3
Conversations with the City of Carlsbad Maintenance
Department revealed that a portion of Carlsbad Boulevard in Reach
3 was closed due to flooding a total of two days during the 1983
event. Detour costs during the larger storm frequencies were
determined by increasing the 1983 time and mileage in proportion
to the increased run-up overtopping Carlsbad Boulevard. The
Carlsbad Section 103 Small Project cited the boulevard as having
been closed on the order of once every two years. The total
automobile count traveling north- and southbound during these two
storm events equates to 13,536 cars in 1983 and 16,500 cars in
1988.
Both the time delay and mileage difference for the most
logical detour route were calculated. Both computations assumed
an average passenger count of 2.1 persons per vehicle, based upon
the State Department of Parks and Recreation estimation of
average passengers in the San Diego region.
The total time delay is equivalent to the amount of time
required to travel the detour route minus the time to travel the
corresponding distance along Carlsbad Blvd. The delay time for
each passenger was determined to be 1.52 minutes. Fifty percent
of the passengers were assumed to be delayed an additional 4
minutes by existing stop lights and a single stop sign. The
additional four minute detour time was determined in conjunction
with a city road engineer. Delay costs were based upon the
Institute of Water Resources Report 91-R-12, "Value of Time Saved
for Use in Corps Planning Studies/A Review of the Literature and
Recommendations". The estimated value of time for vehicles
delayed less than five minutes is equal to $.99 per hour, which
equates to $.025 per car traveling the 1.52 minute delay. The
value for vehicles delayed longer than five minutes is equal to
19
$4.99 per hour or $.46 per car delayed a total of 5.52 minutes by
the detour and stop signals. The computations for total time and
mileage delay costs are provided below.
The total detour mileage was provided by the city roads
engineer as a distance of 2.25 miles, while the portion of
Carlsbad Boulevard that would be closed due to flooding under the
current assumptions equates to 1.13 miles. The difference in
detour mileage was determined to be 1.1 miles per vehicle. The
cost to operate the vehicle each additional mile is $.49.
Caltrans provided the operating vehicular mileage cost, which is
based upon an average mid-sized car driving between 15,000 to
20,000 miles per year. The total delay for both time and mileage
is presented below for the 1983 storm event. Based on the delay
costs resulting from these storm intervals, a total detour cost
at varying storm frequencies was run through the Expected Annual
Damages Program to yield a frequency-damage curve and the total
annual average expected detour costs. These costs are listed in
Tables 9 and 11.
Time delay cost:
1983: 2 days * 6,768 cars * 2.1 passengers * $.025 = $711
(50% not stopped at traffic signals)
2 days * 6,768 cars * 2.1 passengers * $.46 = $13,076
(50% stopped at traffic signals)
(Total 1983 car count north and southbound = 13,536)
Mileage delay cost:
1983: 2 days * 13,536 cars * 1.1 miles * $.453 = $13,490
Total delay cost in 1983: $27,277
5.7.5 Detour Costs in Reach 5
As mentioned in Section 5.7.2, Reach 5 is subject to floods
following the erosion of the Bataquitos Mitigation Project. This
segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is a divided two-lane roadway. The
northbound segment is located approximately 50 to 60 feet east of
the southbound roadway and faces no risk of being flooded from
wave run-up. Detour costs for the southbound portion of the
boulevard, resulting from time and mileage delays, were evaluated
using the above outlined methodology and were determined
insignificant.
5.8 Erosion Damages
The entire area of Carlsbad Beach has experienced wide
seasonal fluctuation, which ranged from -.90 to -6.50 ft. of
20
winter movement from the MHHW mark during 1980 to 1989. This is
a large factor affecting sea'sonal beach visitation and which has
allowed summer visitation numbers to remain consistently high.
Several sources of sand provide additional beach width over
summer. SDG&E performs annual dredging of the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon and has, thereby, provided an additional 130,000 cubic
yards per year of beach fill just north and south of the lagoon
jetties over the past decade. Studies of Carlsbad's shoreline
have shown minor signs of accretion in recent years, resulting
from these efforts. Yet, along the entire coastline, the thin
layer of fine sand transported along the beach in summer has been
stripped away almost yearly during winter storms; thereby,
reducing the beach to a narrow area of cobbles throughout the
winter season. This process has succeeded in exposing the
cobbles in Reach 5, constituting the beaches presently eroded
condition.
The Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study reports
that since 1940, changes in the MHHW shoreline have been minor
with occasional accretions. As a result of several severe storms
in the period 1980-1989, this subreach experienced moderate
erosion ranging from 1.6 ft./ year to 10 ft./ year for various
locations along the coastline. For the purpose of this report,
the without project erosion rate of 1 ft./ year was determined to
be representative of current and future sand recession trends for
Reaches 1 through 4. Additionally, this rate does not assume
that the bypass or any other project will take place in Oceanside
over the life of the project, but does account for the continued
dredging of the Oceanside Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. A
list of past dredging events between 1954 and 1991 is located in
Table 5.3 of the Coastal Engineers Appendix. Both the summer and
winter profiles of Reach 5 reveal that the beach has eroded close
to the bedrock. Thus, the erosion rate of 1 ft per year does not
apply to this reach.
The following table presents the existing and future
capacity levels of the state beaches in the years 1990, 2010, and
2040. The table represents the loss in beach visitation and
beach acreage, based upon the erosion rate of 1 ft./ year for
reaches 1 through 4.
21
Table 6
Average Daily Number of Persons
Accommodated at 75 sf
Beach Area
in sq.ft.
Daily # of
visitors at
75 sq.ft
per person
Base :
Conds.
1,200,770
16,010
2010
Remain
1,016,328
13,551
LOSS
184,442
2,459
2040
Remain
734,348
9,791
Loss
281,980
3,760
5.9 Other Damages
The category "Other Damages" includes damages to
landscaping, wooden stairs, and decks. During the study team
beachwalk, the coastal engineers determined the run-up and the
corresponding wave frequency apt to inflict damages upon each
type of structure or landscaping. The replacement costs for the
stairs and decking were based upon Marshall and Swift valuations,
while landscaping replacement costs were based upon discussions
with homeowners. The computed damages were compared to the
historical damages reported by the residences as verification.
Thus, the total dollar damages for each category were determined
for the various return periods and used to compute total expected
annual damages, as presented in Tables 9 and 11.
6.0 WITHOUT PROJECT RECREATION ANALYSIS
6.1 Historical Beach Use
The State Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento,
California, maintains historic records of monthly and annual
beach visitation which were used to determine an average
visitation estimate for Carlsbad beaches during the base year.
The mean visitation for the Carlsbad beaches is approximately 2
million. This number corresponds closely to the median and the
mode of the historic visitation numbers provided by State Parks
and Recreation and was, therefore, adopted as the 1993 beach use.
6.2 Current Beach Use
Reaches 2 and 3 support the main bulk of visitors to
Carlsbad's beach. Although the beach area above the MHHW level
in Reaches 1 and 4 is considered private beach, the city has
provided five public accessways in Reach 1 to support public use
of beaches in this reach. In addition, public use of the beach
22
in Reach 4 was evident during the beachwalk. During the site
visit, it was apparent that 'both areas are experiencing moderate
use from surfers, beach strollers, and sunbathers. Thus, these
beaches are assumed to provide reasonable access to the general
public and are, therefore, not held to be private beaches. Beach
use in Reach 5 has dwindled in recent years due to the eroded and
cobbled condition of the beach. During the site visit,
recreational use of the beach was scarcely noticeable. Thus, the
beach visitation counts provided by the State Department of Parks
and Recreation for Reach 5 are assumed to be associated primarily
with the state campgrounds above the beach, rather than with the
actual beach. Correspondingly, beach counts for Reaches 1
through 4, enumerated by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation, are assumed to support the majority of beach visitors
in Carlsbad.
6.3 Beach Recreation Growth Rates
Between 1990 and 2010 an average annual growth rate of 1.44%
in beach population was assumed, while an average annual rate of
1.124% was assumed between the years 2010 and 2040. These rates
are based upon SANDAG's beach recreation projections listed in
the Appendix of the "Draft Shoreline Preservation Strategy for
the San Diego Region". This report provides future beach
visitation numbers for Carlsbad in the years 1990, 2010, and 2040
based upon the State Park and Recreation Department's counts.
The methodology employed to compute these rates is explained
below.
6.4 Beach Population Forecasts Methodology
In order to determine the market area affecting the future
beach population in Carlsbad, SANDAG researched the origin of
beach users for the Oceanside littoral cell. Surveys of beach
goers enabled the development of major statistical areas (MSA's),
thereby enabling demographic information for the county to be
interpreted. In more precise terms, the major statistical areas
allow analyzers to define boundaries around particular cities
within the county based on percent beach visitation and distance
from the coast. The SANDAG series 7 growth rate was weighted and
averaged based upon the MSA origin of beach goers in order to
forecast beach use for the region. In addition, SANDAG has
attributed 20% of this beach population to visitors originating
outside of the county; the California growth rate was used to
calculate future beach population for this percentage.
6.5 Without Project Beach Conditions
Without project conditions will decrease beach area by
approximately 466,422 sf. The entire length of the Carlsbad
coastline measures 33,000 ft. with an average width of 36 ft.
The actual total area of the beach under current conditions,
23
weighted by each reach's beach width, is 1,200,770 sf. The
percent loss of beach under these conditions is 466,422/
1,200,770 or 39 %.. As a result, increasingly higher user demand
will confront losses in beach area. Thus, a resulting decrease
in carrying capacity will result, i.e. diminished beach area will
be forced to supply a growing number of beach goers. The end
result will be diminished recreational experience to the beach
user and, thus, a reduction in the willingness to pay for this
experience.
6.5.1 Parking Restraints
Under without project conditions, parking conditions are
assumed to be sufficient to accommodate existing and anticipated
parking requirements. The number of curbside parking spaces
lining the beach is currently limited to 150 spaces at 15 linear
feet per car. In addition, approximately 200 spaces are located
within the Tamarack public parking lot. Although inland parking
by beach visitors is prevalent, the exact number of parking
spaces located reasonably near to the project beach area which
are utilized by these visitors, as opposed to the local
businesses, is not tabulated by any local or public agency and,
therefore, not available. As the beach population exceeds the
possible number of visitors currently parking along Carlsbad
Blvd., in the Tamarack parking lot, and in the parking lot at the
end of Ocean, the beach population cannot be determined to be
constrained by these parking areas. Therefore, recreation
benefits are not assumed to be dependent upon this factor.
6.6 Recreation Benefit Methodology
Figure 2 displays an average percentage of annual visitors
by month. These percentages were calculated from the actual
monthly visitorship between 1983 to 1992 and applied to the
annual visitor forecast for each year to determine the respective
monthly visitation. This number was divided by the acres of
available beach (column 3), the number of days per month, and a
.4***
24 ^,.
•4
MONTHLY §EACH VISITATION
IN THE CARLSBAD MARKET AREA
20.0%
Co
15.0%-
toen:CO>
Io
CDQL
10.0%
5.0%-
0.0%JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDec
Month
TABLE 7
WITHOUT PROJECT
CARLSBAD MONTHLY BEACH POPULATION
AVERAGE DAILY RECREATION COUNTS PER PERSON PER MONTH
Year
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Annual
Visitors
1,939,711
2,083,830
2,238,656
2,404,987
2,583,675
2,732,029
2,888,901
3,054,781
3,230,185
3,415,661
3,612,999
Acres of
Beach
27.6
25.7
23.9
22.1
20.2
18.4
16.6
14.7
12.9
11.1
9.2
Project
Status
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
f/wo
4.9%
Jan
37.3
42.9
49.6
57.8
67.7
78.7
92.4
109.9
132.7
163.6
207.5
4.6%
Feb
38.8
44.6
51.6
60.1
70.4
81.8
96.1
114.3
138.0
170.1
215.7
5.2%
Mar
39.7
45.7
52.9
61.5
72.1
83.8
98.4
117.0
141.4
174.3
221.0
7.1%
Apr
55.3
63.6
73.6
85.6
100.3
116.6
137.0
162.9
196.7
242.5
307.5
8.9%
May
67.4
77.6
89.8
104.5
122.4
142.3
167.2
198.8
240.1
296.0
375.3
10.4%
Jun
81.2
93.4
108.0
125.7
147.3
171.3
201.2
239.2
288.9
356.1
451.6
17.1%
Jul
129.2
148.7
172.0
200.1
234.5
272.6
320.2
380.7
459.9
566.9
718.8
15.6%
Aug
117.7
135.5
156.7
182.3
213.6
248.4
291.8
346.9
419.0
516.6
655.0
10.2%
Sep
79.8
91.8
106.2
123.6
144.8
168.3
197.7
235.1
284.0
350.0
443.8
6.4%
Oct
48.3
55.6
64.3
74.8
87.7
101.9
119.7
142.4
172.0
212.0
268.8
5.2%
Nov
40.5
46.6
53.9
62.7
73.5
85.4
100.4
119.3
144.1
177.7
225.3
4.5%
Dec
34.3
39.5
45.7
53.2
62.3
72.5
85.1
101.2
122.3
150.7
191.1
I \
turnover factor of three to calculate the average daily visitors
per acre at any one time in 'each month. Columns (5) through (16)
of Table 7 present the number of visitors per acre by month for
each forecast period for the future without project condition.
Note that the visitation numbers increase in all months and years
but are particularly high June through September.
Following is an illustration of the methodology employed to
calculate Table 7. The year 2040 and month of July is analyzed
below for the future without project conditions. The 61.5 acres
in step 4 represents future without project eroded beach
conditions.
1. 3,612,999 visitors * .171 = 617,823
2. 617,823 visitors in July/31 days per month = 19,930
visitors per day.
3. 19,930 visitors per day/3 (turn-over factor) = 6,643
visitors at any one time.
4. 6,643 visitors at any time/29.84 acres = 222.6
persons/acre.
The marginal utility loss in the visitor's recreational
experience was based upon the density of visitors per acre ("Standards
Related to Water-Oriented and Water Enhanced Recreation in Watersheds,
Phase I", U.S. Dept. of Commerce). Moderate use is the most
desirable. The criteria are as follows:
Intense Use: 200+ persons/acre
Moderate Use: approximately 100 persons/acre
Light Use: approximately 10 persons/acre
6.6.1 Computing Unit Day Value
The unit day value (udv) for Carlsbad's beach was based on the
value computed for the Santa Monica Breakwater Feasibility Study.
Thirty-nine points of recreation value totaling a udv of $4.10 per
person were calibrated for the existing visitor experience. Months
exhibiting an average daily use greater than 100 persons per acre
result in a decline in the estimated existing point value, as outlined
below. As the visitorship exceeds 100 persons per acre, the dollar
value of the recreational experience declines with each additional
person. Under future without project conditions, a value of 28 points
for 200 persons per acre was computed for recreation (as shown in
Table 8), equating to a udv of $3.51. An additional 11 points of
decline in future without project udv were assumed for daily
visitation between 200 and 300 persons per acre (as shown in Table 8),
equating to a udv of $2.98. The 11 point decrease is a direct result
of the decline in the recreational experience and the environmental
conditions once the beaches are heavily crowded. Thus, the decline in
future values as a whole is based upon diminishing carrying capacity,
a growing dissatisfaction in the recreational experience, and
deteriorating environmental conditions of the beach environment. The
27
22 point deviation between existing and future recreation points is
equivalent to a dollar worth of $1.12. This value is derived as
follows:
39 points = $4.10 total value, including carrying capacity and
above average environmental esthetics.
17 points = $2.977 total value, excluding the above factors.
Existing and future unit day values were calculated based upon
the following criteria (ER 1105-2-100, 28 Dec 90):
TABLE 8
EXISTING AND FUTURE UNIT DAY VALUES
fPTTPPTA
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
pr>TMTC
FUTURE
CONDITIONS
200 PERSONS
PTlTMTg
FUTURE
CONDITIONS
300 PERSONS
POTMTg
(a) Recreation experience
1. Swimming
2. Sunbathing
3. Beach Walking
4. Surfing
5. No high quality activities
(b) Availability of opportunity
1. Several within 1 hr. travel
time; none within 30 min.
(c) Carrying Capacity *
1. Adequate facilities to
conduct without deterioration
of the resource or activity
(d) Accessibility
1. Good access, good roads to
site; fair access, good roads
within site.
(e) Environmental *
1. Above average aesthetic
quality; any limiting factors
can be reasonably rectified.
TOTAL POINTS:
12 12 12
39 28 17
* Under future without project conditions, the decreased carrying capacity is defined as offering minimum facility for development of public health
and safety once the beach exceeds 200 persons per acre, while the decreased environmental points represent low aesthetic factors that reduce
quality.
In computing the dollar value for these 11 points, it is assumed
that 200 persons per acre connotes a total loss of 7 points in carrying
capacity and a decline in environmental quality worth 4 points. The
loss in carrying capacity is equal to a decrease of $.325 in the udv,
while the 4 point loss in environmental quality represents an additional
decrease of $.185. The total value of $.51 for the additional 11 points
of udv is associated with daily visitor counts of 100 persons or less
28
and extrapolated downward in a linear fashion to $0.00 at 200 persons
per acre. The decrease in udv between 200 persons per acre and 300
persons per acre assumed an additional $.53 decrease and was calculated
in a correspondingly linear manner. The 7 point loss in recreation
experience is equal to a decrease of $.34 in the udv, while the 4 point
loss is equal to a $.19 decrease. Thus, 300 persons per acre equates to
a udv of $2.98, $4.10 (existing udv) - $1.12 (total decrease in udv).
An example of the udv method associated with the July, 2040 population
is provided below in order to illustrate how the dollar recreational
value was computed for the entire month.
$3.46025 udv * 3,612,999 annual visitors * 17.073 percent
visitation in July = $2,134,446
Thus, the unit day dollar values are applied to the densities in
Table 8 and multiplied by the total monthly visitation to obtain total
recreation values for existing and future without project conditions by
month and by year. The total recreation benefits by year are then
summed, brought to present value, and amortized over 50 years to produce
the average annual without project recreational worth.
6.7 Without Project Recreation Value for Reaches 1-4
Total average annual recreation value under without project
conditions is $10,729,635. The recreational value to beach users under
without project conditions is relatively high as a result of the high
annual visitation numbers. Although the calculation does account for
marginal decline in the unit day value as the beaches overcrowd and
facilities deteriorate, the visitation numbers do not reflect a point at
which beach users will no longer visit the overcrowded beach — where
the unit day value for all categories is 0 points. While the current
numbers do portray a decreasing willingness to pay, the methodology
eliminates the possibility that beach users will avoid crowded beaches
during peak day use (i.e., above two-hundred persons per acre). As
SANDAG's peak day use was limited to 6 days per year, this methodology
was assumed to be reasonable and, most importantly, avoids basing
recreational values solely on the six peak usage days.
7.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS
7.1 Annual Damage Calculations
Damages expected to result in each storm interval (2, 5, 10, 25,
50, 100 year exceedence frequency) were weighted by the probability of
the storm frequency by combining the depth-damage, stage-frequency, and
stage-damage curves. Expected annual damages are equivalent to the area
under the frequency-damage curve (Figure 3). Equivalent annual damages
were computed for an 8.0 percent discount rate, the study year (1993),
and the project base year (1997). The Expected Annual Damage (EAD)
Computation program was developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center
in Davis, California. Damages under existing conditions for each storm
29
interval are shown in Table 9. Total expected and equivalent annual
damages by decade are shown'in Table 10 and are separated by reach in
Table 11.
FIGURE 3
Carlsbad
Frequency -Damage
o0.12-
lo.io-
c
\\\
\
\\\^
•---.
12345678
Oarages ($ Mlions)
TABLE &
DAMAGES UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS
October 1993 Price Levels
EVENT
LAND USE
CONTENTS
CLEAN-UP & EMERG.
DETOUR
LANDSCAPING/ STAIRS
REVETMENTS
ROADWAYS
STRUCTURES
TOTAL
25- YEAR
$179.90
$0.00
$27.73
$23.84
$348.80
$1,368.00
$6.58
$1,954.85
50-YEAR
$240.30
$152.70
$28.48
$68.06
$390.10
$1,632.00
$227.55
$2,739.19
100-YEAR
$304.90
$157.70
$29.23
$134.97
$437.90
$1,908.00
$3,320.56
$6,293.26
200-YEAR
$317.40
$161.80
$29.98
$143.48
$466.15
$2,184.00
$3,611.70
$6,914.51
30
TABLE 10
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
EXPECTED & eagijVALM* ANNUAL DAMAGES
WITHOUT PROJECT
October 1993 Price Levels
($1000)
Contents
Detour
Emergency
Landscaping
Revetments
Roadway
Structure
TOTAL
Study Year
1993
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
105.49
146.75
53.28
349.19
Base Year
1997
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
120.30
168.92
53.28
386.17
2006
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
130.73
235.14
53.28
462.82
2016
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
142.25
345.05
53.28
584.25
2026
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
153.75
608.12
53.28
858.82
2036
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
165.23
935.19
53.28
1,197.37
2046
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
173.27
1,155.85
53.28
1,426.07
Equivalent
Annual
Damages
(1997, 8%,%)
32.55
5.20
1.49
4.43
129.57
305.78
53.28
532.30
%•»•»*'''
31
TABUS 11
CARLSBAD
eXPfiCTEO & EQUIVALENT ANNUAL DAMAGES
WITHOUT PROJECT BY BEACH
October 1993 Price Levefe
!l$t000i
REACH 1:
Cross-Section 1
Cross-Section 2
Cross-Section 3
Cross-Section 4
Reach 1 Total:
REACH 3:
REACH 4:
Cross-Section 1
Cross-Section 2
Reach 4 Total:
REACH 5:
TOTAL:
Contents *
N/A
S8.11
$2.29
N/A
$10.40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$10.40
Detour
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$5.20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$5.20
Emerg/
Clean-up
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$1.49
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$1.49
Inundation *
N/A
$16.47
$5.68
N/A
$22.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$22.15
Other/
Landscaping
$1.51
$.57
$.42
$.91
$3.41
N/A
$.71
$.31
$1.02
N/A
$4.43
Revetments
$49.63
••
-•
N/A
$49.63
$31.73
$26.25
$21.96
$48.21
N/A
$129.57
Roadways
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$244.82
N/A
N/A
N/A
$60.96
$305.78
Structure
$21.73
$7.92
$1.98
$21.65
$53.28
N/A
N/A
N/A 1-
N/A
N/A
$53.28
Inundation damages and content damages resulting from structural failure are aggregated in the previous two tables but are listcj
separately in order to illustrate that double-counting was avoided.
* * Revetment damages for cross-sections 1,2, and 3 were computed for a single wave height for the entire reach. Thus, $48,890
represents total revetment damages for all of Reach 1.
8.0 PLAN FORMULATION
The proposed alternatives consist of combinations of three
primary measures and a fourth measure; they are described in further
detail in the paragraphs below. The primary measures include: (1) a
sand nourishment project, (2) construction of a groin, (3)
construction of an offshore breakwater, plus (4) the construction of
protective revetments/seawall. The expected annual damages and
damages reduced are listed in Tables 17 through 25 for each
Alternative.
8.1 Alternative I
Alternative I consists of a beachfill in Reaches 1 and 2. The
project entails the construction and maintenance of a protective beach,***
with a minimum width of 200 feet above MHHW. The decreased wave runup
32
level resulting from the widened coastal berm represents the key
factor for Alternative I in 'reducing damage to coastal homes and
revetments in Reach 1.
8.2 Alternative II
Alternative II incorporates the construction of a groin system
with beachfill in Reaches 1 and 2 in order to stabilize the beachfill
within these Reaches. Again, the beachfill will extend the width of
the berm to 200 feet above MHHW. The groins are 800 feet in length
and are to be constructed 2,000 feet apart from one another. The
reduction in wave runup resulting from this alternative has a
corresponding effect on damage to coastal homes and revetments in
Reach 1.
8.3 Alternative III
Alternative III consists of an offshore breakwater system in
Reaches 1 and 2. The breakwaters would be constructed approximately
800 feet from one another; the length of the breakwaters are expected
to extend 800 feet.
8.4 Alternative IV
Alternative IV consists of a 600-foot rubble-mound revetment in
Reach 1. The revetment would protect ten structures located at the
southern end of Reach 1 from erosion by waves. Currently, these
structures lack protective features. In addition, the alternative
would improve revetments in the northern section of this reach. The
improved revetments would prevent structural failure caused by
erosion.
8.5 Alternative V
This alternative extends the northern inlet jetty of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon a distance of 400 feet to a total length of 600 feet.
In addition, the alternative involves extending the width of the beach
to 200 feet above MHHW for the entire length of Reach 2, along 2,900
feet of the 3,900 feet long Reach 1, and along 600 feet of the 4,800
feet long Reach 3. This alternative provides protection to the homes
in this area and the Tamarack parking lot. Revetment damages are
assumed to negligible and, therefore, go to zero in the with-project
condition.
8.6 Alternative VI
Alternative VI involves a beachfill along 2,700 feet of Reach 3
in order to extend the width of the beach 200 feet (above MHHW). This
alternative would reduce damages to Carlsbad Blvd and minimize damages
to the roadway revetment, located north of the Agua Hedionda intake
jetty.
33
8.7 Alternative VII
Alternative VI consists of a system of two groins of length 350
feet constructed 900 feet from one another in Reach 3. The beachfill
extends the width of the berm 200 feet above MHHW along 2,700 feet of
Reach 3 and serves to minimize damages to Carlsbad Boulevard.
8.8 Alternative VIII
Alternative VII involves three offshore breakwaters to minimize
damages to the portion of Carlsbad Boulevard located in Reach 3. Each
breakwater would be 400 feet in length and be constructed 400 feet
apart from one another.
8.9 Alternative IX
Alternative IX includes the construction of a sheet pile wall the
length of Reach 3, which is 2,700 feet. The project is expected to
reduce damages to the roadway. The seawall is not expected to prevent
excess run-up onto the boulevard for all return periods. Thus,
damages resulting from traffic delays will continue.
8.10 Alternative X
Alternative VIII consists of a rubble-mound revetment in Reach 3
to protect the portion of Carlsbad Boulevard located in this reach.
This alternative will not protect the Tamarack parking lot revetment.
The revetment is not expected to prevent excess run-up onto the
boulevard for all return periods. Thus, damages resulting from
traffic delays will continue.
8.11 Alternative XI
Alternative XI includes a beachfill to extend the width of the
beach berm to 200 feet above MHHW for a length of 10,100 feet;
thereby, increasing portions of the beach in Reaches 1,2, and 3. This
alternative also includes the extension of the northern intake jetties
along the roadway in Reach 3 to a length of 400 feet each, and the
construction of two groins, 350 feet in length. This alternative
provides protection to the homes and revetment in Reach 1 and to the
roadway, roadway revetment, and Tamarack parking lot in Reach 3.
8.12 Alternative XII
Alternative XII consists of a 1,000 foot rubble-mound revetment
to protect a low-lying portion of Carlsbad Boulevard located in Reach
5. The elevation of the boulevard at this point is 15.5 feet.
8.13 Alternative XIII
Alternative XIII consists of 530,000 cubic yards of beachfill in
34
Reach 1 to extend the width of the beach berm, 200 feet above MHHW.
This alternative also includes a two-groin system; whereby, each
groin extends 400 feet. The reduction in wave runup resulting from
this alternative has a corresponding effect on damage to coastal homes
and revetments in Reach 1.
8.14 Alternative XIV
Alternative XIV is comprised of a 346,000 cubic yards beachfill
in Reach 3 and a T-groin extending 200 feet in order to stabilize the
beachfill. The beachfill extends the width of the beach berm to 200
feet above MHHW. This alternative would minimize damages to Carlsbad
Boulevard and a portion of the roadway revetments.
9.0 BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
With-project conditions reflect the fourteen structural and non-
structural alternatives formulated to address inundation and storm
damages to structures, contents, roadways, landscaping, decking,
detour costs, and revetment operations and maintenance costs. In
addition, some alternatives increase and reestablish beach recreation
activities by way of beach replenishment, which maintains a beach
width of 200 feet above MHHW over the life of the project.
9.01 Inundation and Storm Damage Reduction
In accordance with the without project condition methodology, the
damage percentage of structures, contents, landscaping, and roadways
associated with the runup heights for the with-project conditions was
applied to the total replacement cost of the various structures,
infrastructure, and landscaping within each reach to determine with-
project damages by alternative. With project expected annual damages
were then generated by the HEC program BAD. Benefits were generated
by subtracting the with project damages from without project damages.
9.02 Revetment Damage Reduction
With project damages (by frequency) for each alternative were
furnished by Coastal Engineering. Expected annual with-project
damages were then generated for each alternative, and subtracted from
without project damages to reflect damages reduced. Only alternatives
1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14 (which provide additional beachfill)
provide protection to the revetments.
9.03 Transportation Cost Savings
To calculate transportation cost savings, it was assumed that
those alternatives which provide additional beachfill, prevent all
road closures under the with project condition. Therefore, the
benefits will equal without-project transportation costs for
alternatives 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14. All other alternatives
35
will not reduce road closures and therefore will realize no
transportation cost savings.'
9.04 With-project Recreation Value for Reaches 1-4
The with-project recreational value for each alternative was
computed using the methodology outlined under without project
conditions. Beach widths were extended to 200 feet above MHHW. The
additional beach acreage stipulated by each particular alternative
will be held constant throughout the life of the project. The
resulting effect is that the unit day value per recreationalist
remains constant over the life of the project in direct relation to
the amount of increase in beach acreage. Tables 13 through 16 display
the average daily recreation counts per person per month for both the
without- and with-project conditions by alternative. Table 12
displays the net present value and total annual recreation benefits
for Tables 13 through 16. According to Policy and Planning Guidance,
the amount of recreation benefits produced as a result of the basic
project may exceed 50% of the total project damages, but these
benefits will be limited to 50% during the economic justification
phase. The B/C ratios for project justification are shown in Table
26. Figures 4 and 5 present graphical representations of the
recreation benefits, the difference between the future with and
without recreation values, for the years 1995 and 2040.
9.05 Without Project Recreation Value and Benefits for Reach 5
The Batiquitos Mitigation Project will consist of an 82.6 acre
beach in Reach 5 adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. The construction is
scheduled for March of 1994. The current beach use for Reach 5 is not
estimable, as there is no current beach use; the eroded condition of
the beach does not attract sunbathers. The lack of current beach
population counts and a corresponding growth rate eliminates any
possibility of calculating future beach use in this Reach.
Furthermore, it is logical to assume that beach users will continue to
visit the more popular beaches in Reaches 1 through 3, until these
beaches experience overcrowding. Thus, recreation benefits in Reach 5
were only calculated for the days that the preferred beaches
experience excess user demand. Note, excess user demand occurs when
usage exceeds 200 people per acre. Recreation benefits were based on
the difference between the recreation value corresponding to 200
people per acre and the recreation value corresponding to the excess
user demand during peak days and summer weekend days. Total
recreation benefits resulting from Alternative XII are $5,753.
3 6
—1_
* £%• "•' -.
v * -.-•\, .r£;»
s <
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
TABLE 10
TABLE 11
' ' *V """1 TABLE «,-'*,'
RECREATION BENEFITS BY ALTERNATIVE ;s , .OCTOBER *w PRICK zmm& , \ \ ,
ALTERNATIVES
I & II
V
VI & VII
XI
NET PRESENT
VALUE
$5,327,808
$5,349,832
$4,194,151
$5,350,433
ANNUAL RECREATION
BENEFITS
$448,054
$449,916
$352,717
$449,957
9.06 Benefit Cost Ratios
Table 26 presents annual benefits, (by damage category) annual
costs, net benefits, and benefit-cost ratios for all fourteen proposed
alternatives. The costs reflected in the Benefit-Cost Ratios Table
for each alternative is higher than those included in the Coastal
Engineering Appendix, because their costs do not include (IDC)
interest-during-construction. The annual cost calculations for the
beachfill projects are included in the Coastal Engineering Appendix.
37
TABLE 13
ALTERNATIVE I, II, & XIII
CARLSBAD MONTHLY BEACH POPULATION
AVERAGE DAILY RECREATION COUNTS PER PERSON PER MONTH
Year
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Annual
Visitors
1,939,711
2,083,830
2,238,656
2,404,987
2,583,675
2,732,029
2,888,901
3,054,781
3,230,185
3,415,661
3,612,999
Acres of
Beach
27.6
25.7
54.2
23.9
54.2
22.1
54.2
20.2
54.2
18.4
54.2
16.6
54.2
14.7
54.2
12.9
54.2
11.1
54.2
9.2
54.2
Project
Status
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
4.9%
Jan
37.3
42.9
20.4
49.6
21.9
57.8
23.5
67.7
25.3
78.7
26.7
92.4
28.2
109.9
29.9
132.7
31.6
163.6
33.4
207.5
35.3
4.6%
Feb
38.8
44.6
21.2
51.6
22.8
60.1
24.4
70.4
26.3
81.8
27.8
96.1
29.4
114.3
31.0
138.0
32.8
170.1
34.7
215.7
36.7
5.2%
Mar
39.7
45.7
21.7
52.9
23.3
61.5
25.0
72.1
26.9
83.8
28.4
98.4
30.1
117.0
31.8
141.4
33.6
174.3
35.6
221.0
37.6
7.1%
Apr
55.3
63.6
30.2
73.6
32.4
85.6
34.8
100.3
37.4
116.6
39.6
137.0
41.9
162.9
44.3
196.7
46.8
242.5
49.5
307.5
52.3
8.9%
May
67.4
77.6
36.8
89.8
39.6
104.5
42.5
122.4
45.7
142.3
48.3
167.2
51.1
198.8
54.0
240.1
57.1
296.0
60.4
375.3
63.9
10.4%
Jun
81.2
93.4
44.3
108.0
47.6
125.7
51.2
147.3
55.0
171.3
58.1
201.2
61.5
239.2
65.0
288.9
68.7
356.1
72.7
451.6
76.9
17.1%
Jul
129.2
148.7
70.6
172.0
75.8
200.1
81.4
234.5
87.5
272.6
92.5
320.2
97.8
380.7
103.5
459.9
109.4
566.9
115.7
718.8
122.4
15.6%
Aug
117.7
135.5
64.3
156.7
69.1
182.3
74.2
213.6
79.7
248.4
84.3
291.8
89.2
346.9
94.3
419.0
99.7
516.6
105.4
655.0
111.5
10.2%
Sep
79.8
91.8
43.6
106.2
46.8
123.6
50.3
144.8
54.0
168.3
57.1
197.7
60.4
235.1
63.9
284.0
67.5
350.0
71.4
443.8
75.6
6.4%
Oct
48.3
55.6
26.4
64.3
28.4
74.8
30.5
87.7
32.7
101.9
34.6
119.7
36.6
142.4
38.7
172.0
40.9
212.0
43.3
268.8
45.8
5.2%
Nov
40.5
46.6
22.1
53.9
23.8
62.7
25.5
73.5
27.4
85.4
29.0
100.4
30.7
119.3
32.4
144.1
34.3
177.7
36.3
225.3
38.3
4.5%
Dec
34.3
39.5
18.8
45.7
20.2
53.2
21.7
62.3
23.3 "
72.5
24.6
85.1
26.0
101.2
27.5
122.3
29.1
150.7
30.8
191.1
32.5
U)00
TABLE 14 *'
ALTERNATIVE V
CARLSBAD MONTHLY BEACH POPULATION
AVERAGE DAILY RECREATION COUNTS PER PERSON PER MONTH
Year
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Annual
Visitors
1,939,711
2,083,830
2,238,656
2,404,987
2,583,675
2,732,029
2,888,901
3,054,781
3,230,185
3,415,661
3,612,999
Acres of
Beach
27.6
25.7
63.9
23.9
63.9
22.1
63.9
20.2
63.9
18.4
63.9
16.6
63.9
14.7
63.9
12.9
63.9
11.1
63.9
9.2
63.9
Project
Status
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
4.9%
Jan
37.3
42.9
17.3
49.6
18.6
57.8
19.9
67.7
21.4
78.7
22.7
92.4
24.0
109.9
25.3
132.7
26.8
163.6
28.3
207.5
30.0
4.6%
Feb
38.8
44.6
18.0
51.6
19.3
60.1
20.7
70.4
22.3
81.8
23.6
96.1
24.9
114.3
26.3
138.0
27.9
170.1
29.5
215.7
31.2
5.2%
Mar
39.7
45.7
18.4
52.9
19.8
61.5
21.2
72.1
22.8
83.8
24.1
98.4
25.5
117.0
27.0
141.4
28.5
174.3
30.2
221.0
31.9
7.1%
Apr
55.3
63.6
25.6
73.6
27.5
85.6
29.6
100.3
31.8
116.6
33.6
137.0
35.5
162.9
37.5
196.7
39.7
242.5
42.0
307.5
44.4
8.9%
May
67.4
77.6
31.3
89.8
33.6
104.5
36.1
122.4
38.8
142.3
41.0
167.2
43.3
198.8
45.8
240.1
48.5
296.0
51.2
375.3
54.2
10.4%
Jun
81.2
93.4
37.6
108.0
40.4
125.7
43.4
147.3
46.6
171.3
49.3
201.2
52.1
239.2
55.1
288.9
58.3
356.1
61.7
451.6
65.2
17.1%
Jul
129.2
148.7
59.9
172.0
64.3
200.1
69.1
234.5
74.2
272.6
78.5
320.2
83.0
380.7
87.8
459.9
92.8
566.9
98.1
718.8
103.8
15.6%
Aug
117.7
135.5
54.6
156.7
58.6
182.3
63.0
213.6
67.6
248.4
71.5
291.8
75.6
346.9
80.0
419.0
84.6
516.6
89.4
655.0
94.6
10.2%
Sep
79.8
91.8
37.0
106.2
39.7
123.6
42.7
144.8
45.8
168.3
48.5
197.7
51.3
235.1
54.2
284.0
57.3
350.0
60.6
443.8
64.1
6.4%
Oct
48.3
55.6
22.4
64.3
24.1
74.8
25.8
87.7
27.8
101.9
29.4
119.7
31.0
142.4
32.8
172.0
34.7
212.0
36.7
268.8
38.8
5.2%
Nov
40.5
46.6
18.8
53.9
20.2
62.7
21.7
73.5
23.3
85.4
24.6
100.4
26.0
119.3
27.5
144.1
29.1
177.7
30.8
225.3
32.5
4.5%
Dec
34.3
39.5
15.9
45.7
17.1
53.2
18.4
62.3 -
19.7
72.5
20.9
85.1
22.1
101.2
23.3
122.3
24.7
150.7
26.1
191.1
27.6
OJ
TABLE 15
ALTERNATIVES VI, VII, & XIV
CARLSBAD MONTHLY BEACH POPULATION
AVERAGE DAILY RECREATION COUNTS PER PERSON PER MONTH
Year
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Annual
Visitors
1,939,711
2,083,830
2,238,656
2,404,987
2,583,675
2,732,029
2,888,901
3,054,781
3,230,185
3,415,661
3,612,999
Acres of
Beach
27.6
25.7
33.2
23.9
33.2
22.1
33.2
20.2
33.2
18.4
33.2
16.6
33.2
14.7
33.2
12.9
33.2
11.1
33.2
9.2
33.2
Project
Status
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
4.9%
Jan
37.3
42.9
33.2
49.6
35.7
57.8
38.3
67.7
41.2
78.7
43.6
92.4
46.1
109.9
48.7
132.7
51.5
163.6
54.5
207.5
57.6
4.6%
Feb
38.8
44.6
34.5
51.6
37.1
60.1
39.9
70.4
42.8
81.8
45.3
96.1
47.9
114.3
50.6
138.0
53.5
170.1
56.6
215.7
59.9
5.2%
Mar
39.7
45.7
35.4
52.9
38.0
61.5
40.8
72.1
43.9
83.8
46.4
98.4
49.0
117.0
51.9
141.4
54.8
174.3
58.0
221.0
61.3
7.1%
Apr
55.3
63.6
49.2
73.6
52.9
85.6
56.8
100.3
61.0
116.6
64.5
137.0
68.3
162.9
72.2
196.7
76.3
242.5
80.7
307.5
85.4
8.9%
May
67.4
77.6
60.1
89.8
64.6
104.5
69.4
122.4
74.5
142.3
78.8
167.2
83.3
198.8
88.1
240.1
93.2
296.0
98.5
375.3
104.2
10.4%
Jun
81.2
93.4
72.3
108.0
77.7
125.7
83.5
147.3
89.7
171.3
94.8
201.2
100.2
239.2
106.0
288.9
112.1
356.1
118.5
451.6
125.4
17.1%
Jul
129.2
148.7
115.1
172.0
123.7
200.1
132.8
234.5
142.7
272.6
150.9
320.2
159.6
380.7
168.7
459.9
178.4
566.9
188.7
718.8
199.6
15.6%
Aug
117.7
135.5
104.9
156.7
112.7
182.3
121.0
213.6
130.0
248.4
137.5
291.8
145.4
346.9
153.7
419.0
162.6
516.6
171.9
655.0
181.8
10.2%
Sep
79.8
91.8
71.1
106.2
76.4
123.6
82.0
144.8
88.1
168.3
93.2
197.7
98.5
235.1
104.2
284.0
110.2
350.0
116.5
443.8
123.2
6.4%
Oct
48.3
55.6
43.0
64.3
46.2
74.8
49.7
87.7
53.4
101.9
56.4
119.7
59.7
142.4
63.1
172.0
66.7
212.0
70.5
268.8
74.6
5.2%
Nov
40.5
46.6
36.1
53.9
38.8
62.7
41.6
73.5
44.7
85.4
47.3
100.4
50.0
119.3
52.9
144.1
55.9
177.7
59.1
225.3
62.5
4.5%
Dec
34.3
39.5
30.6
45.7
32.9
53.2
35.3
62.3 -
37.9
72.5
40.1
85.1
42.4
101.2
44.9
122.3
47.4
150.7
50.2
191.1
53.1
TABLE 16 V >'
ALTERNATIVE XI
CARLSBAD MONTHLY BEACH POPULATION
AVERAGE DAILY RECREATION COUNTS PER PERSON PER MONTH
Year
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Annual
Visitors
1,939,711
2,083,830
2,238,656
2,404,987
2,583,675
2,732,029
2,888,901
3,054,781
3,230,185
3,415,661
3,612,999
Acres of
Beach
27.6
25.7
69.6
23.9
69.6
22.1
69.6
20.2
69.6
18.4
69.6
16.6
69.6
14.7
69.6
12.9
69.6
11.1
69.6
9.2
69.6
Project
Status
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
f/wo
f/w
4.9%
Jan
37.3
42.9
15.9
49.6
17.1
57.8
18.3
67.7
19.7
78.7
20.8
92.4
22.0
109.9
23.3
132.7
24.6
163.6
26.0
207.5
27.5
4.6%
Feb
38.8
44.6
16.5
51.6
17.7
60.1
19.0
70.4
20.5
81.8
21.6
96.1
22.9
114.3
24.2
138.0
25.6
170.1
27.1
215.7
28.6
5.2%
Mar
39.7
45.7
16.9
52.9
18.2
61.5
19.5
72.1
21.0
83.8
22.2
98.4
23.4
117.0
24.8
141.4
26.2
174.3
27.7
221.0
29.3
7.1%
Apr
55.3
63.6
23.5
73.6
25.3
85.6
27.1
100.3
29.2
116.6
30.8
137.0
32.6
162.9
34.5
196.7
36.5
242.5
38.6
307.5
40.8
8.9%
May
67.4
77.6
28.7
89.8
30.8
104.5
33.1
122.4
35.6
142.3
37.6
167.2
39.8
198.8
42.1
240.1
44.5
296.0
47.1
375.3
49.8
10.4%
Jun
81.2
93.4
34.5
108.0
37.1
125.7
39.9
147.3
42.8
171.3
45.3
201.2
47.9
239.2
50.6
288.9
53.6
356.1
56.6
451.6
59.9
17.1%
Jul
129.2
148.7
55.0
172.0
59.1
200.1
63.5
234.5
68.2
272.6
72.1
320.2
76.2
380.7
80.6
459.9
85.2
566.9
90.1
718.8
95.3
15.6%
Aug
117.7
135.5
50.1
156.7
53.8
182.3
57.8
213.6
62.1
248.4
65.7
291.8
69.5
346.9
73.5
419.0
77.7
516.6
82.1
655.0
86.9
10.2%
Sep
79.8
91.8
34.0
106.2
36.5
123.6
39.2
144.8
42.1
168.3
44.5
197.7
47.1
235.1
49.8
284.0
52.6
350.0
55.7
443.8
58.9
6.4%
Oct
48.3
55.6
20.6
64.3
22.1
74.8
23.7
87.7
25.5
101.9
27.0
119.7
28.5
142.4
30.1
172.0
31.9
212.0
33.7
268.8
35.7
5.2%
Nov
40.5
46.6
17.2
53.9
18.5
62.7
19.9
73.5
21.4
85.4
22.6
100.4
23.9
119.3
25.3
144.1
26.7
177.7
28.2
225.3
29.9
4.5%
Dec
34.3
39.5
14.6
45.7
15.7
53.2
16.9
62.3 -
18.1
72.5
19.2
85.1
20.3
101.2
21.4
122.3
22.7
150.7
24.0
191.1
25.4
1995 RECREATION VALUES
WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT
1,600,000
NJ
CO+J
cCD
CD
1,400,000
1,200,000-
1,000,000
^ 800,000-o
Q
600,000-
400,000-
200,000 n r n 1 1 1 r
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSept Oct Nov Dec
Month
-at—t
(75
Xtn
/ \
3,000,000
2,500,000
CD
w CD
GO
Js
Q
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
2040 RECREATION BENEFITS
WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT
FUTURE WITH
1 Y
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSept Oct Nov Dec
Month
I
TABLE 17
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
EXPECTED & EQUIVALENT ANNUAL DAMA<3E$ - WITH PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES 1,11, & XIH)
OCTOBER, 1993 PRICE LEVELS
(*10QQ)
REACH 1:
Landscaping
Revetetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt. (North)
Revetmt. (South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
Study
Year
1993
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
3.45
.59
85.79
96.52
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base
Year
1997
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
6.94
11.91
107.96
133.50
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2006
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
14.49
14.79
174.18
210.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
22.86
17.94
284.09
331.58
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2026
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
31.23
21.07
547.16
606.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
39.59
24.19
874.23
944.70
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
1.89
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
45.45
26.37
1,094.89
1,173.40
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
EAD
(8'/4%)
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
1.49
16.28
15.45
244.82
283.24
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
DAMAGES
REDUCED
1.43
44.60
27.15
1.02
10.43
2.52
10.40
97.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
* Content damages resulting from structural failure
44
TABLE 18
, CABLSBAP, CALIFORNIA
EXPECTED & EaUlVAtENT ANNlfAL DAMAGES - WITH PROJECT
(ALTERNATIVE HI)
OCTOBER 1993 PRICE LEVELS
#1090)
REACH 1:
Landscaping
Revetetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt. (North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
Study
Year
1993
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
1.49
3.45
.59
85.79
96.52
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base
Year
1997
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
1.49
6.94
11.91
107.96
133.50
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2006
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
1.49
14.49
14.79
174.18
210.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
1.49
22.86
17.94
284.09
331.58
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2026
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
1.49
31.23
21.07
547.16
606.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
5.20
1.49
39.59
24.19
874.23
944.70
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
1.49
45.45
26.37
1,094.89
1,173.40
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
EAD
(8%%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
1.49
16.28
15.45
244.82
283.24
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
DAMAGES
REDUCED
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
* Content damages resulting from structural failure
45
•.< ' 1*Bt#1*
fXPECTED & EQUIVALENT ANNUAL DAMAGES - WITH PROJECT
- , 1 - ' <" .' ',ttttKMt*IW£ fcft "' 5
;, , ,;' ^ _,,; ':0$!tNra,1^f9^SJN&ft *
REACH 1:
Cross-Sec. 1, 3, 4
Content *
Content: MFR
Landscaping
Revetment
Structure
TOTAL:
Cross-Sec.2
Content *
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Landscaping
Structure
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt.(North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
Study Year
1993
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
3.68
10.72
85.79
96.52
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base Year
1997
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
11.50
20.26
107.96
133.50
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2006
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
28.72
28.19
174.18
210.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
29.40
28.20
284.09
331.58
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2026
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
29.40
28.20
547.16
606.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
29.40
28.20
874.23
944.70
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
29.40
28.20
1,094.89
,173.40
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
EAD
(8y4%)
0.00
2.94
1.65
0.00
21.52
26.11
8.11
1.35
9.95
5.17
.57
7.92
33.07
5.20
1.49
23.44
25.66
244.82
283.24
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Damages
Reduced
2.29
2.74
1.23
49.63
23.84
79.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Content damages resulting from structural failure
46
/*—•>o : , - *, - ia»*i* < *
• . '" - CARLSBAD, CAIIFORNIA
; < 89tCHfc & WMMMEiKr ANNUAt SAVAGES . WITH PROJECT
: * WfflAfc&ftfV}
, , 4K3ttM*> iro**C* Wtt*
'' - IttMdf
REACH 1:
Landscaping
Revetetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt.(North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
* Content d
Study
Year
1993
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
.59
85.79
96.52
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base
Year
1997
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
11.91
107.96
133.50
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
amages resulting
2006
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
14.79
174.18
210.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
17.94
284.09
331.58
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2026
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.0
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
21.07
547.16
606.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
24.19
874.23
944.70
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
1.89
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
26.37
1.094.89
1,173.40
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
EAD
I8'/4%)
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
5.20
0.00
1.20
15.45
244.82
266.67
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
DAMAGES
REDUCED
1.43
44.60
27.15
1.02
10.43
2.52
10.40
97.55
0.00
1.49
15.08
0.00
0.00
16.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
rom structural failure
47
Iftttltt
CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA*$9«etiti * ictWAtMT AftifcMi, &&&&& * VWTH t»&0«*ect
$Aif iRNATIVSS VI, VH, A XIV| ,
: OCTOBER, 1993 PRICE LEVELS
J*tOOO)
REACH 1 :
Landscaping
Revetetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt.(North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
* Content d
Study
Year
1993
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
3.45
1.61
42.43
48.97
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base
Year
1997
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
6.94
1.61
42.43
52.16
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
amages resulting
2006
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
14.49
1.61
42.43
59.71
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
22.86
1.61
42.43
68.08
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2026
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
31.23
1.61
42.43
76.45
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
39.59
1.61
42.43
84.81
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
45.45
1.61
42.43
90.67
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
BAD
(81/4%)
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
16.28
1.61
42.43
61.81
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
DAMAGES
REDUCED
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
0.00
0.00
13.84
202.39
221.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
rom structural failure
48
<#MMttik
S^/
- , " iwum ,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAEXpectetJ & eaw&Utfr ANNUAL EJAMAGCS * WITH pROJECt
tAltERNATiVE VHl>
$C*03fft/*&& IW0)( fcWItS**r itt«w ••
REACH 1:
Landscaping
Revetetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency **
Revetmt.(North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
Study
Year
1993
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
3.45
0.00
0.00
4.94
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base
Year
1997
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
6.94
0.00
0.00
8.43
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2006
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
14.49
0.00
0.00
15.98
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
22.86
0.00
0.00
24.35
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2026
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
31.23
0.00
0.00
32.72
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
39.59
0.00
0.00
41.08
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
45.45
0.00
0.00
46.94
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
EAD
(8'/4%)
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
0.00
1.49
16.28
0.00
0.00
17.77
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
DAMAGES
REDUCED
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
0.00
0.00
15.45
244.82
265.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
* Content damages resulting from structural failure
* * Emergency damages continue, because the offshore breakwater does not protect the Tamarack Parking Lot
49
•" ' ,, ' ' « - -TABt,t2®
CA8iS8Sft», <?AUFORRHAigxracflft * i&w&tJMT Mm& &AMA<3i& * mm imieer'f ^reHWATJw jK&xt;
,, .. , -''-. ,-....,- SCtOBfift, i$93 *»*»£& WELS '1 — i^ieaoj
REACH 1:
Landscaping
Revetetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt. (North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
* Content d
Study
Year
1993
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
5.20
1.49
3.45
0.00
0.00
10.14
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base
Year
1997
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
5.20
1.49
6.94
0.00
0.00
13.63
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
amages resulting
2006
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
5.20
1.49
14.49
0.00
0.00
21.18
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
5.20
1.49
22.86
0.00
0.00
29.55
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2026
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
5.20
1.49
31.23
0.00
0.00
37.92
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.78
5.20
1.49
39.59
0.00
0.00
46.28
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
5.20
1.49
45.45
0.00
0.00
52.14
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
EAD
(8%%)
3.41
49.63
53.28
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
138.87
5.20
1.49
16.28
0.00
0.00
22.97
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
DAMAGES
REDUCED
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.45
244.82
260.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
rom structural failure
50
s
REACH 1:
Landscaping
Revetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt.(North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
Study
Year
1993
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
-.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
Base
Year
1997
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
* Content damages resulting 1
TABLE
- •• WkitlBSAI
""• $9*$v»3
2006
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2016
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
24
^MFORNIA
& PAMAQ6S ~ WJTH PROJECT
W6S.X1J1 '
P8K5E LEVELS
W
2026
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2036
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
2046
1.89
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
EAD
I Q I/ Q/ %IO /4 jfQj
1.98
5.03
26.13
.32
5.21
2.65
0.00
41.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
48.21
49.22
60.96
DAMAGES
REDUCED
1.43
44.60
27.15
1.02
10.43
2.52
10.40
97.55
5.20
1.49
16.28
15.45
244.82
283.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
rom structural failure
51
TABLE 2S
OABISBSAU, SAMPO&NiA
EXPECTED & EQUIVALENT ANNUAL DAMAGES - WITH PROJECT
, ,;, I ^AtTSRNAWI'Xtt} ,
, " ^ S&tOSfRr ?993^RICE iEVElS
««WW
REACH 1:
Landscaping
Revetetment
Structure
Content: Comm.
Content: MFR
Content: SFR
Content *
TOTAL:
REACH 3:
Detour
Emergency
Revetmt. (North)
Revetmt.(South)
Roadway
TOTAL:
REACH 4:
Landscaping
Revetment
TOTAL:
REACH 5:
Roadways
Study
Year
1993
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
3.45
.59
85.79
96.52
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
Base
Year
1997
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
6.94
11.91
107.96
133.50
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
2006
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
14.49
14.79
174.18
210.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
2016
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
22.86
17.94
284.09
331.58
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
2026
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
31.23
21.07
547.16
606.15
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
2036
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
39.59
24.19
874.23
944.70
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
2046
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
45.45
26.37
1,094.89
1,173.40
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
EAD
(8'/4%)
3.41
49.63
52.34
1.34
15.64
5.17
10.40
137.93
5.20
1.49
16.28
15.45
244.82
283.24
1.01
48.21
49.22
0.00
DAMAGES
REDUCED
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
73.56
* Content damages resulting from structural failure
52
TABLE 26
cAftlSBAtJ, CALIFORNIA
BENEFIT COST RATIO AND NET BENEFITS
fc¥ ALTfiRNATtVfc
iiMQtiQJ
REACHES
FIRST COST
I.D.C.
GROSS INV.
ANNUAL COST
O & M
TOTAL ANNUAL
ANNUAL BENEFITS1
BC RATIO'
NET BENEFITS'
ANNUAL BENEFITS2
BC RATIO2
NET BENEFITS2
ANNUAL BENEFITS'
BC RATIO3
NET BENEFITS'
ALT. 1
1 & 2
$16,830
$274
$17,104
$1,398
$0
$1,398
$97
.1
($1,301)
$545
.4
($853)
$194
.1
($1,204)
ALT. II
1 &2
$13,539
$402
$13,941
$1,140
$32
$1,172
$97
.1
($1,075)
$545
.5
($627)
$194
.2
($978)
ALT. Ill
1 & 2
$43,846
$4,428
$48,274
$3,946
$219
$4,165
$138
.03
($4,028)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ALT IV
1
$1,348
$13
$1,361
$111
$7
$118
$80
.7
($38)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ALT. V
1,2 & 3
$7,478
$122
$7,600
$621
$6
$627
$113
.2
($514)
$563
.9
$64
$226
.4
($401)
ALT. VI
3
$18,079
$238
$18,317
$1,497
$0
$1,497
$221
.1
($1,276)
$574
.4
($923)
$442
.3
($1,055)
ALT. VII
3
$4,614
$75
$4,689
$383
$12
$395
$221
.6
($174)
$574
1.5
$179
$442
1.1
$47
ALT. VIII
3
$21,923
$1,089
$23,012
$1,881
$110
$1,991
$265
.1
($1,726)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ALT. IX
3
$4,384
$85
$4,469
$365
$22
$387
$260
.7
($127)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ALT. X
3
$4,308
$84
$4,392
$359
$22
$381
$260
.7
($121)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ALT. XI
1, 2&3
$18,542
$550
$19,092
$1,561
$18
$1,579
$381
.2
($1,198)
$831
.5
($748)
$762
.5
($817)
ALT. XII
5
$977
$19
$996
$81
$5
$86
$61
.7
($25)
$67
.8
($19)
$67
.8
($19)
ALT. XIII
1
$5,708
$93
$5,801
$474
$13
$487
$97
.2
($390)
$545
1.1
$58
$194
.4
($293)
ALT. XIV
3
$3,984
$118
$4,102
$335
$9
$344
$221
.6
($123)
$574
1.7
$230
$442
1.3
$98
Ln
U)
'Annual Benefits, BC Ratio, and Net Benefits without recreation
!Annual Benefits, BC Ratio, and Net Benefits with total recreation
'Annual Benefits, BC Ratio, and Net Benefits with total allowable recreation benefits for economic justification. Policy and
Planning Guidance limits the amount of benefits to 50% during the economic justification phase.
9.0 REFERENCES
City of Carlsbad Research Office, 1991. Carlsbad Community Profile.
San Diego, California, August, 1991.
San Diego Association of Governments, 1991. Draft Shoreline
Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region. San Diego,
California, September 1991.
San Diego Association of Governments, Series 8 Regional Growth
Forecast: Revised Regionwide Forecast 1990-2015. San Diego,
California, December 18, 1992.
San Diego Association of Governments, Preliminary Series 8 Regional
Growth Forecast - Subarea Allocation Alternatives. San Diego,
California, May 3, 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990. "Section 103 Small, Project
Carlsbad Beach Erosion control Reconnaissance Study", Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992. "Hurricane and Storm Damage
Analysis for Pensacola Beach, Florida (Reconnaissance Study),
Economics Analysis"
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992. "Santa Monica Breakwater
Feasibility Report, Economics Appendix"
G.G. Kuhn, Francis P. Shepard, 1984. "Seacliffs, Beaches and Coastal
Valleys of San Diego County". University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1984.
54