HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-03; City Council; 8861; Status Report of Beach Erosion Committeepla E au s$4 urd a
AB# Fpb
MTG. 02/03/87
DEPT. MP
$4 'r) 0 ab aa 3
TITLE: DEPT. HD. STAFF REPORT ON THE STATUS OF WORK
OF THE BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE CITY ATTYW
CITY MGR.~
b a3 I m I N
The Committee has been inactive following submission of its final
report this past March. With the assistance of Councilwoman
Kulchin, the Beach Erosion Committee reconvened on December 3,
1986. The agenda and minutes of that meeting appear as attached
Exhibit 1. The Beach Erosion Committee considers the following
issues as the most important to its work and having the most
long-term beneficial impact for Carlsbad's beaches:
1. Resume Carlsbad beach profiles and sand surveys.
2. Retain on an annual basis an oceanographic expert as a
resource and advisor to the Committee and ultimately the City
Council to gather, interpret and evaluate technical beach
data including existing Corps of Engineers data available
from the Oceanside Harbor project and anticipated surveys to
be produced for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project.
3. Analyze and recommend the placement of potentially 2 million
cubic yards of sand anticipated to be produced from the
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project, estimated to begin in
1988. a c% 1 4. Determine potential impacts, if any, on wave action and sand migration and retention for beach structures such as the
Carlsbad Boulevard Seawall Project and other future beach
Page Two of Agenda Bill No. ff6/-+/
5. Analyze, evaluate, and recommend potential placement of
jetties, breakwaters and other measures to promote a natural
sand nourishment and retent ion program.
6. Continue active involvement with BEACh and SANDAG's sub-
committee on beach erosion and promote information sharing
with other beach communities on a regional basis. Identify
and pursue potential Federal, State and regional funding
sources to finance projects controlling Carlsbad beach
erosion.
7. Identify and respond to other beach erosion control issues
that may arise during the course of work of the Committee.
The Committee considers resuming beach profiles and sand surveys
along Carlsbad's beaches to be critical to a better understanding
and establishing a foundation for recommendations for beach
erosion control measures. No survey data has been taken since late 1983. Gathering a data base is particularly important given
the timing of the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project and the
decision of when and where to place sand to be produced by this
project.
The Committee recommends the City Council give consideration to
retaining on an annual basis a professional oceanographic firm
qualified to gather, analyze and report to the City the necessary
beach profile and survey data. It is estimated that the cost of
this service is approximately $20,000 per year. Accumulation and
analysis of this data on an annual basis is, in the opinion of
the Beach Erosion Committee, invaluable to a better understanding
of one of the City's most valued resources as well as providing
the foundation for recommendations for current and future beach
erosion control projects.
FISCAL IMPACT :
The Beach Erosion Committee recommends the City Council approve
resuming the beach profile and sand survey data program at an
estimated cost of $20,000 per year. Potential financing options
for this program include the following:
1. Authorize the resumption of the program and appropriate funds
from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund to begin
the data gathering program at this time.
2. Delay resumption of the data gathering program until July,
1987 and consider funding the program when reviewing the
1987-88 fiscal budget.
x
Page Three of Agenda Bill No.
3. Authorize resumption of the program at this time and approve
the utilization of available appropriated funding in the
Municipal Projects Department's Miscellaneous Consultants/
Professional Services account No. 001-820-3130-2479 for the
balance of the current fiscal year. Consider funding the
data gathering program on an annual basis when reviewing the
1987-88 and subsequent fiscal budgets.
4. Direct the Beach Erosion Committee and City staff to explore
other potential funding sources for this program and report
back to the City Council in ninety (90) days. Potential
Federal, State and regional funding sources have been
previously identified by the Committee and are listed in
Table I1 of the attached Committee's report dated March 18,
1986.
EXHIBITS:
1. Beach Erosion Committee agenda/minutes of December 3, 1986.
2. Carlsbad Beach Erosion Committee report dated March 18,
1986.
3
EXHIBIT 1
BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE MEETING
December 3, 1986 1:OO p.m. City Council Conference Room
AGENDA
1. Introduction of Committee Members Chairman Mario Monroy
Mario Monroy, Chairman
John Gray Sally Vigil Gary Nessim
David Caste1 Pearl E. Johnson
Ann Kulchin, City Council Representative
John Cahill, Municipal Projects Manager
Gary Wayne, Senior Planner
2. Update on Carlsbad Seawall Project John Cahill
3. Update on La Costa Avenue Corridor Projects John Cahill
4. Update on Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Gary Wayne
5. Corps of Engineers Sand Surveys for Oceanside Harbor Project Chairman Mario Monroy
6. Carlsbad Beach Erosion Surveys Chairman Mario Monroy
7. General Discussion Topics Chairman Mario Monroy
A. Private Residents Moving Sand from Public
Beach to Private Property
B. Other Business
C. Set future Meeting Date and Agenda
MEETING MINUTES
BEACH EROSION COMMITTEE
December 3, 1986 1:00 p.m. City Council Conference Room
Members in attendance: Council Representative in attendance:
Mario Monroy, Chairman Ann Kulchin, Councilwoman John Gray
Gary Nessim City Staff in attendance:
David Castel
John Vigil for Sally Vigil John Cahill, Municipal Projects Manager
Members absent:
Gary Wayne, Senior Planner
Pearl E. Johnson
Chairman Monroy opened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. and introduced the
members of the Committee in attendance. Also in attendance were
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin and John Cahill and Gary Wayne of City Staff.
John Cahill provided the members of the Committee with an update of the
Carlsbad Boulevard Seawall project. Mr. Castel questioned if sand and
wave action surveys were a part of the project. Since it was determined
these surveys are not presently a part of the project, Mr. Castel
explained to the Committee the importance of securing. base data as early
as possible for this project to determine its potential effect upon wave
action and sand retention/migration in the area. There was a concensus
of agreement among the Committee members- that such data gathering was
recommended. Chairman Monroy noted that although the bluff top
promenade was designed and bid, the City presently has insufficient
funding to construct the walkway at this time. There was discussion
concerning the importance of extending the existing walkway from Cherry
Avenue north to approximately Ocean Street. Additionally, there was a discussion concerning potential funding alternatives.
John Cahill provided the members of the Committee with an update of the
La Costa Avenue Corridor projects. The discussion surrounded the
importance of the recent Coastal Commission approval of the City of
Carlsbad's program for wetland and riparian mitigation efforts required
for the current Phase I and future Phases I1 and 111 projects.
Councilwoman Kulchin explained to the members of the Committee the
critical importance of the projects in relation to general traffic
circulation, vehicular and pedestrian safety, and east-west beach
access.
-2-
Gary Wayne provided the members of the Committee with an update of the
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project. Chairman Monroy questioned the
potential quantity and quality of sand to be produced by the dredging
operations. Additionally, there was discussion concerning potential
sites for sand distribution. Mr. Castel questioned if beach profiles
were still being taken within the Carlsbad beach area. Chairman Monroy
stated that the contract with a private consultant to perform this work
lapsed in late 1983 and there has been no additional survey data taken
since that date. There was considerable discussion concerning the
importance of continuing this data gathering effort due to future
decisions on sand disbursement resulting from the Batiquitos work.
Chairman Monroy discussed the need for sand surveys to determine the
impact of migrating sand southerly to Carlsbad beaches from the Corps of
Engineers' Oceanside Harbor project. Presently, there is no definitive way to determine the volume and location of migrating sand from the
north. Mr. Nessim spoke of the importance of data continuity for future
Carlsbad beach projects.
With respect to future Committee work, Chairman Monroy will meet with
John Cahill the second week of December to discuss potential
oceanographic firms to review the Committee's recently completed report
and recommend methods for further data gathering efforts. The
Committee's objective is to recommend a continuation of beach profiles
to determine sand migration and retention for future beach projects.
Chairman Monroy suggested and the Committee agreed to meet every other
month for information exchange unless Committee work/issues required
more frequent meetings. Chairman Monroy will notify the members of the
Committee in early January of the next scheduled meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Date: December 3, 1986
JohuJ. Caxill
Municipal Projects Manager
Secretary, Beach Erosion Committee
Distribution: Mayor
Councilmembers
City Manager
Assistant City Manager Mannen
Committee Members
City Staff: Gary Wayne
CARLSBAO ,BEACH EROSION REPORT
March 18, 1986
As requested by the Carlsbad City Council on Auguat 27, 1985 the
Beach Erosion Committee has reviewed previous studies and
articles. The committee was very fortunate in getting expert
input from those listed below on their respective subjects:
Ron Flick Oceanographer for the California Department of
Boating and Waterways assigned to Scripps
Institute of Oceanography - "Sea Level and Its
Effects on Beaches and Erosion."
Bill Fait State Department of Parks and Recreation
-Policies.
Dan Muslin Army Corps of Engineers - Projects ths- Corps
has worked on in Southern California.
Oouglas Inman Director, Center for Coastal Studies, Scripps
Institute of Oceanography - "History of Cali-
' fornia Beaches."
W. C. Dyson SDGLE - Dredging Ague Hedionda Lagoon
E. Aguardo Professor of Geography, San Oiego State
University - Weather.
SUHHARY Of CURRENT INFORMATION
Beach erosion in the Oceanside Littoral Cell, which extep:?,f;am
Dana Point to La Jolla (see Figure l), is well documented.
On a local basis the Federal Government has assumed responsi-
bility for funding mitigation of beach erosion at Oceanside.
This erosion was caused by the construction of the Del Mar Boat
Basin on Camp Pendleton in 1942 (see Figure 2). The Del'Mar
jetties have interfered with the gross longshore transport of
about 810,000 cubic yards of asand per year to the southwest
during the winters and 550,000 to the northwest during the
summer. While the general dynamics of sand movements are
somewhat nunderstood, detailed studies of the Carlsbad beaches
have not bee made. Even minor changes in the weather, tides and wave patterns can have significant effects on sand flow, making
it almost impossible to determine what is happening in specific
areas.
-2-
This interference with the natural course of sand flow has been
in addition to the construction of numerous flood control basins and the persistent sand mining in the upstream beds of the Sari
Luis Rsy and Santa Margarita Rivers which greatly diminish the
natural source of sand for the beach. The sand flow to the beaches from the San Luis Rey River has been dimihished since
1922 by the construction of Lake Hens9w dam and in the Santa
Margarita River since 1949 by Vail Lake.
In the period between 1957 and 1961 the Federal Government
further aggravated beach erosion to the south of the Del Mar Boat
8asin by the extension of the jetties and the construction of new
jetties and groins for Oceanside Harbor. This construction not
only created a larger sand trap but it also diverted the sand further offshore. These harbor jetties have interfered with the
net southerly migration of about 260,000 cubic yards of sand per
year in the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The Federal Government has not assumed responsibility for the effects of longshore sand
transport south of Oceanside.
Over the past 25 years between 1957 and 1982, about 11 million
cubic yards of material has been dredged from Oceanside Harbor
and placed on Oceanside beaches. However, this sand nourishment
program was not as effective a9 it could have been because the
breakwater had a double effect. First it was trapping more sand
north of the harbor and secondly the longshore transport could
pick up sand in the newly nourished beaches south of the
breakwater . This, to the benefit of Carlsbad's beaches, acted
to further accelerate a transfer of the dredged sand to the
south. All this, plus the fact that prior to 1978 there was
minimal beach erosion because of relatively mild weather, had protected Carlsbad's beaches until then.
Carlsbad's beaches have begun to disappear more seriously during
their cycles,with the sand completely eroded during the storms of
1983. In subsequent summers, sand deposition on Carlsbad beaches
has been minimal.
Prior to 1978 - 1979 Carlsbad had beaches, at least in the north
end of the city, as wide as seventy or eighty feet. The thickness of the sand beach was seven feet at the foot of the
bluff. Now there is no sand at high tide and a maximum thickness
of sand of only three feet during the summer. (See Appendix A)
The fact that Oceanside hasn't1 done any sand nourishment since
1982 may prolong the recovery period for the Carlsbad beaches.
Consequently, until Oceanside resumes a sand replenishment
program the damage to Carlsbad beaches and bluffs by mild storms
could be severe. At the present time, due to the lack of beach
profile data, it is not known whether the sand is offshore as in
the past fo nourish the beaches naturally in the summer. If
there is no sand offshore, which is likely because of a long term
-3-
deficiency in the supply of sand, Carlsbad's beaches will get
progressively narrower and narrower.
The City OF Carlsbad is fortunate to have three lagoons (see
Appendix e), two of which could be used as a source for sand
replenishment of the Carlsbad beaches. They are all silting up
and will need to be dredged. Currently plans are being developed
for dredging the Batiquitos Lagoon which could provide as much as 2.5 million cubic yards of sand. This is enough to lay a blanket
of sand 5.3 miles long, six feet deep and 400-Feet wide. This
volume of sand may not be available for another thirty years. However, to effectively utilize this volume of sand, beach
profile data is needed to determine where to place it so as to
best retain it (see Appendix C). Presently the feeling of the
Scripps people who spoke to us, is that the beaches become
progressively steeper to the south. If this is the case, our
southern beaches are unlikely to retain sand For any length of
time,
Another source ,of sand, of course, is the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon.
This consists of outer, inner and middle lagoons. The inner
lagoon is east of 1-5 and the middle lagoon is between I-5.and
the railroad trestle. The outer lagoon which is dredged
periodically by SDGLE has furnished an average of 116,000 cubic
yards of sand per year since 1955. It is estimated that the
entire lagoon could provide at least 128,000 cubic yards of sand per year for beach nourishment. (This is about half of the net
southward longshore transport of 260,000 cubic yards.)
The beaches of Carlsbad will also be replenished by the Oceanside
Sand Bypass, if effective. This bypass is an experimental system
in its development stages which will be monitored For Five years
by the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, this source of replenish-
ment may take some time to affect Carlsbad beaches. The system,
if successful, nil1 have the capacity to move 400,000 cubic yards of sand per year. However, the sand replenishment could be
delayed if Oceanside beaches have become too steep to retain the
sand. This sand bypass is supposed to be operational in the spring of 1986 at a cost to the federal Government of 85.5
mil 1 ion .
If the Oceanside sand bypass is not effective it may be necessary
to build structures to retain sand and protect property, bluffs
and highrays, Studies for Oceanside by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineefs and by consultants Douglas L. Inman and Scott A. Jenkins have considered various types of structures. See
Table 1. The review of these studies shows that, besides the
sand bypass, serious consideration for protection of the beaches
has been given only to groins and offshore breakwaters. The
Inman-Jenkins study suggested a series of groins, some temporary,
while the Corps OF Engineers favored an offshore breakwater.
Based upon the similarities between Oceanside and Carlsbad, a
combination of these types of structures could be a possibility
-4-
for the protection of Carlsbad's
cannot be provided. In order to
possibility of installing such
replenishment should be considered.
beaches if sand nourishment
retain replenished sand, the
sand traps before beach
Prof. Douglas L. Inman in his presentation and writings has
indicated that sand is a natural resource just as water is. He
points out that dams benefit populations and agriculture and hurt
coastal communities and beaches. Therefore "the cost of
nourishing beachea with the sand intercepted by 5the dams should
be a legitimate part of the cost of using water.''
There eppears to be nothing in the State Parks and Recreation
policy that will prevent them from conducting beach restoration
projects. This agency recognizes the scenic value of all
California beaches. However, their funding priority to restore
and protect the beaches does not reflect the fact that San Diego
state beaches also provide an extremely important recreation
facility because of the warm air and waters in this area. 1hi.s policy has the highest impact on the youth and lower income
population.
CONCCUSIOMS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sand on the beaches is the best protection against beach
erosion and property damage.
Protecting beaches and property solely by sand nourishment is
an expensive way to accomplish this because replenishment
must be renewed again and again to be effective.
Douglas L. Inman stated that there are only about fifteen
years of sand supply on the beaches north of the Oceanside
Harbor for the sand bypass.
Review of the Corps of Engineers studies and manuals' on
shore protection show that offshore breakwaters can be the
most cost effective way of protecting beaches from wave action under the right conditions. However, offshore
breakwaters by their nature will severely .affect the surf,
interfere with boating and diving, and can be politically
unpopular, as Oceanside found out .
Although groins ape effective in retaining sand from
longshore littoral transport, they are not effective against
sand losses from onshore-offshore sand movements. They can
create dangerous riptides but seem to improve surfing. They
are esthetically unattractive to the public and unsafe for children.
-5-
6. The regional flood control system within the Oceanside Lit- toral Cell is blocking the natural transport of sand to the ocean. Sand mining of the rivers is further aggravating the
short age.
7. Because beach erosion is a regional-problem, only a regional
political organization can stand up to the environmental, legal and political challenges which can be made to efforts to protect the beaches.
8. Because beach restoration or protection requires very large
capital expenditures in addition to regular maintenance
expense, the most effective way of lobbying for funds from
the various state and federal agencies (see Table XI) would
be through a regional organization such as BEACh which has political clout,
9. In discussions with the State Parka and Recreation Depart-
ment, it becomes evident that funding to mitigate beach erosion is a low priority within this agency.
RECOMMENDATIONS -
1.
2.
3.
The City of Carlsbad should continue to support the BEACh Joint Powers Agreement and SANDAG's subcommittee on beach erosion. Without the political clout of a regional approach, it is impossible to compete for a share of funding from a
fixed budget, whether state or federal,
The City of Carlsbad should hire a consultant to conduct a yearly series of beach profiles surveys (see Table 1x1)
because:
a. Without data it is impossible to convince the public and
agencies that there is a problem.
b. Funding such a survey would demonstrate to other agencies
and to the public that the city recognizes the economic impact of erosion.
C. The profile data would help the city to determine where
best to place sand nourishment from the lagoons and determine the effectiverless of any nourishment projects.
d. These survey results would be a source of valuable data
for BEACh .
The City Council should establish a permanent Beach Erosion C'ommittee consisting of no more than three citizens and. two city staff, one from Engineering, and one from Build.ing/
-6-
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
Planning. This committee should also serve as an advisor to
the City Council's representative on BEACh.
Through BEACh, the tity Council should become directly
involved in conducting necessary public information and education on beach erosion and its solutions.
The City Council should work through BEACh in the continued development of "sand rights'' under the Public Trust Law and restrict sand mining in coastal flood plains except for beach
nourishment.
The City Council through 8EACh should lobby for a change in building codes for dams in California rivers to require plans for sand bypass and transport to the beaches as a condition
for issuance of a building permit.
The City Council through 8EACh should sponsor regional conferences on coastal erosion such as the one held in Sen
Diego on February 6-8, 1985.
The City of Carlsbad should continue to protect the bluffs
from erosion by diverting storm drains away from both public and private beaches per its Master Storm Drain Plan.
The City Council should finance coring of the Agua Hedionda inner and middle lagoons to determine their sand content for future beach nourishment.
10. The City Council should adopt a policy that ensures that any beach quality material dredged from City lagoons should be
placed on beaches within the City.
11. The City Council should lobby through our elected officials
in Sacramento for recognition by the State Parks and Recrea- tion Department that the warmer air and water of San Diego Coastal State beaches gives them an added recreational value not available in the north. At the present time there is no funding for the restoration of southern public beaches.
Under their present funding priorities the Parks and Recrea-
tion Department is not carrying out its responsibilities to the fullest. 8EACh and SANDAG should support the City of
Carlsbad on this point.
12. The beach communities under' the supervision of their respec- tive county and city governments and with guidance from
appropriate state and local agencies from a joint committee empowered to:
A. Superficially investigate the beach erosion problems of
the Oceanside littoral cell.
-7-
B. Engage the services of coastal process experts
(scientific, engi neering, legal and administrative) so that they may closely examine the problems and possible solutions for the Oceanside lottoral cell.
DAVID CASTEL
1 GARY' NESSIM
NBON PEARL E. JOH
0d~.W--
a C 4 W m m
I
a
Q P
a Lc 0 5
0 m
-4 t
4J c 0 o
c 0 .d 8 b w
c" .r( i
cc 0
C 0 .* 4 a 2
B
Lo .* U
u w LL L W
w v) r w s
v) c u w CL LL w
A 5
L w z w m
t
5 0
cc 0
C 0 -4 u uc
c, wo .r( bd u -4 ss
U C t 2
a- > C Q)
m 04 cn 4 cn m 4 m 3 a
Q) v,
4 m 3 m
z 0 z
m 0
3;;
a
c) C Q) E L, al > al a
4 C
'4
Q) >
Q)
P e
u a
u2 a
z Oa
0 4
0 0
Q) v) C 0 -4 Q) Q) 4 Q)
w
I 2 L o C 0 u
24 0 0 U
13 m 0 7:
m a N . r (v
. rr\ . r . rn
" L,L u ao
L) C P
5 al z a) " al 8 P .
. Ln
I
0 C ro tn
C 0 -4 U a
m z
4 0
d a Y C
C 0 b
P
.d
. I-
I \"
..
cc 0
i;
eo al ala a . al > -4 2 a
X al
al 0 C a b a al
a
a .-
a a ... z a N a e
b
Q) u a
al E z
m c 0 W LL L w
#
2
Q= W w
L1
1. m E .!
C .d m 7 4. a0 a1
u a 0
m
m
L 4 al'c
z
v) 0 cz W
I u U w
El
m
b
b a 2:
r( al n
0 I zI m
u C a
m . OI
TABLE I1
FINANCING EROSION CONTROL
1. STATE FUNDS
A. State Lands Commission
8. Department of Boating and Waterways
C. Department of Parks and Recreation
0. State Coastal Conservancy
E. Department of fish and Game
11. FEDERAL FUNDS
A. United States Corps of Engineers
8. 99th Congress, 1st Session (Calendar No. 152) S 959
(Report No. 99-71) to. amend the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 to provide authorization ou appropriations
and for other purposes. Distribution of federal funds
coming to the state from offshore drilling.
C. U. S. fish and Wildlife Service.
0. Direct Congressional funding.
111. REGIONAL FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
A. Assessments
8. fees
C. Taxes
0. Bonds
I
IV. CARLSBAD: Transient occupancy tax
V. UTILITY COMPANY - SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
TABLE 111
BEACH SAND LEVEL HEASUREMENTS
Carlsbad, California
1. Six range lines (profiles) surveys
2. Data collection
a. Land Surveyors - every two months - to maximum wading
depths at low tide.
b. Offshore surveys on three of the land surveys to 40 feet
depth every two months.
3. Estimated cost: $ZS,OOO per year
93
.. ._ .. . ,
I I I I I I
t
Figure 1. Oceanside Littoral Cell with major drainage basins.
1 I
I
I
I I
I
I I ,
! I I
I i 1
,
!
!
-0
Y cy
4 .- Y 0 m
I
' . ::
ii
...
Yl 0 a
2
0
0 c
c 0
c
ni
Q) L
OT
LL
a
.r
. -.
-8-
REFERENCES
1. Sea Cliffs, Beaches, and Coastal Vali'eys of San Diego County,
by Gerald G. Kuhn and Francis P. Shepard, 1984.
2. Progress Report on Beach Erosion Control Study, San Diego
County, California in Vicinity of Oceanside by Los Angeles District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1977.
3. Oceanographic Report for Oceanside Beach Facilities. Prepared for the City of Oceanside by Douglas L. Inman and
Scott A. Jenkins, 1983.
4. Putting the Beach Back at the Oceanside. A Case Study of Locally Initiated Beach Restoration, by Larry M. Bagley and
Dana H. Whitson. Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Vol. SO, No. 4, October 1982.
5. Budget of Sediment in Southern California: River Discharge versus Cliff Erosion by Douglas L. Inman. California's Battered Coast . Proceedings from A Conference on Coastal
Erosion, San Diego, February 6-8, 1985, pg. 10.
6. Ecach Erosion - A Planning Perspective and Appendix Secretary for Resources Policy for Shoreline Erosion Protection. State Parks and Recreation Department .
7. Shore Protection Manuals, Volumes I and 11, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984.
8. Oceanographic Report for Community Facility District for Beach Facilities for the City of Oceanside, Douglas L.
Cnman, July 21, 1983.
EVALUATION AND ENUMERATION OF CARLSBAD BEACH EROSION
-- by Sally Vigil
INTRODUCTION
This in an outline description of beaches and cliffs designated
as Areas A, 8, C, 0 and E on enclosed map. Also, note charts
citing deepwater direction and shore erosion from Santa Marqarita
River to Aqua Hedionda Laqoon. Finally, only each area’s unique mres pertinent t o erosion are described along with common
characteristics.
Common Characteristics
Beach areas A, 8, half of C, 0 and half or moat of E lie at bases of cliffs, popularly called The Bluffs. It all represents’ the
Santiago formation with terrace deposi’ts on top. They contain
hard, gray clayey material and much silt sandstone. terrace
deposits are sand and cobbles. .Silica sand and some mica nourish
beaches from lagoons and few remaining bluffs not yet fortified
by cement or rock.
I. Area A is privately owned to mean high t&dp mark - a valid legal setting unchanged since 1967. Four public
accesses within six city blocks are city-owned and
maintained by Parks and Recreation, under jurisdiction of
Carlsbad Police. Three accesss in addition are owned and
maintained by California Coastal Conservancy or private
property associations. All are heavily trafficked by
tourists, residents of Carlsbad (both townspeople and those
living in beach structures as renters or owners) all
representing general public. All beach areas suffered
similar erosion problems plus cobbles, but Area A recovered
faster in 1983 for these reasons:
A. Oceanside sand dredging replenishes Area A sooner.
8. South to north littoral drift works well since 1983,
although there is sdme dispute as to whetv93 or not this has become variable since 1980. This
controversy needs study.
C. Mild winter storm activity from 1983 until November,
1985.
APPENOIX A
-2-
1. Scripps predicts bad year as being 1987 and one or two others into year 2000.
0. Experimental Longard lube, financed by property owners to retain and build up sand, and rebuff waves in Area A, is now gone after two mild winters and two bad
storms.
1. Northern section had one huge tube, of inferior
material, which was torn apart anyway very early after only one season of mild wave action.
a. Cobbles penetrated; it literally burst, after being observed tearing like rotten Cloth.
2. Tubes at southern area are double, small, pigqy- back types which are successful in Australia.
3. It is a noticable buffer but does not withstand
storms. Replacement necessary.
a. Lost insurance after first damage.
b. February 6, 1986 storm took all the rest.
E. Since Areas 9, 0 and E are usually cobbled, Area A has
more users of beaches.
1. No lifeguards, no consistent maintenance nor
supervisory authority other than police during summer .
11. Years from 1963 to 1986 have seen heavy level of construction of buildings, seawalls, rock revetment and accessways. This has revealed to engineers a roller
coaster type topography made up of hard-pan - a crust like hard material not quite bedrock. This may explain
variations in beach stability regarding construction and
erosion on all areas. The following conclusions were drawn in 1980 when massive building occurred:
A. Sand is still the number one protection against waves and erosion threatening bluffs and property.
8. At least erosion due to small animal burrowing was solved by building. - C. Individual storm drains should be at street level.
APPENDIX A
7 r'\ c
I- 3 -
0. Cobbles hold sand but endanger property too.
E. Most suprising to engineers is the fact that other
areas may not be at all like Area A nor like each
psyer. (Not all have been -surveyed geologically.)
1. Some bluff areas seem to be(@drock but crumble
when wet as in rain erosion.
2. Areas 0, C and E are mostly sandstone with some
mica.
111. Storms of 1983 coincided with rare high wave action not
occurring since, thus sand renewal. However, the six foot
drop in sand level is not really changed since late 1970's.
Storma of February, 1986 have not changed this view as of
February 18, 1986.
A. Encouraging footnote is as follows: ."Future
astronomica component of extreme tides still woy5f
exceed those of 1982-83 by more than 0.06 -0.09M.
This can give room for hope plus incentive to rethink
as to remedies. Since in fifteen years there will be
no more 290,000 cubic yards per year drifting from
Oceanside to be lost in La Jolla Canyon and Carlsbad
Can on, entrapment and recycling of dredged sand at & edionda must be a long term option and in some
aq reemen t with SDCiE .
IV. The top end of Area A is Buena Vista Laqoon.
A. No beach sand, just silt and fine sediment.
8. Water at weir is released once a year causing erasion
at north'end of Carlsbad beach called The Point.
1. The sand return by summer has been the best of all beachea.
2. November and February storms of 1986 caused
breakdown of w,eir as water poured over into
ocean. (See news picture.) Released sand should
be observed and monitored.
C. St. Malo development (north of lagoon and across line
to Oceanside) has properly designed rock revetment
according to Dr. Doug Inman.
APPENDIX A
-4-
1. Protects propety without (ETusing scouring of
sand, thus negligible loss.
D. Inman suggest ion: Original Scripps study of sand
drift can continue or be reiqstated while sand storage is pondered, especially that from Batiquitos Laqoon.
1. The Point at Buena Vista outlet to the sea is one
good spot since sand placed further north takes
longer to drift south and should be retained and
recycled on a short term plan as suggested in
opening pages dealing with short term and long
term solution8 as to erosion.
2. The Committee considers it a plus that sand north
of Power Company jetties gets trapped in Aqua
Hedionda. Better use should be made of it in
recycling at dredging period. As example it
should be stored in berm on and against bluffs..
(7) 3. Refer to Carpenteria Solution again.
a. Berms can be destroyed in one storm, so
consultat ion necessary.
AREA 8
Carlsbad State Beach, a state owned public beach also
called Tamarack, maintained by Parks and Recreation with no
structures left on beach since 1980-83 storms. State plans
no remedial improvements even though replenishment of sand
was fairly good summers 1983-84. In those summers, beach
was comparatively unused because of poor access and parking
limitations.
A. Beach B terminates at jetty at Aqua Hedionda and power
plant.
1. Lagoon used by power plant as cooling outlet,
also is popular small boat and Fishing area.
8. Sandy beach due to proximity to jetty at time of
dredging lies south of second jetty.
C. Third jetty is at sewage disposal just before Carlsbad
Submarine Canyon.
fi
APPENDIX A
c,
-5-
1. No jetty is extended enough to trap sand.
2. Cany??) controversial as to whether enlarging or
0. Committee agreed that cost of dredging could be same
not .
as cost of jetty extensions.
1. January dredging does not help sand retention
because of sf%?rns. Dredging no help without south jetties.
2. Dredging could be done more often at right times in cooperation with City and State.
XI. Power Plant interest in sandy beaches is absent.
A. On record as saying they do not want sand placed north of jetties, or even north of Batiquitos Laqoon in case
south-north return of sand enters lagoon.
B. Officialygytate lack of desire for Oceanside by-pass
to work.
AREA C AND HALF OF D
I. flats to bluffs to flats again describe the beaches, owned in part by private home owners at beach area called
Terramar and. Carlsbad State Beach also called South
Carlsbad and Ponto Beaches.
A. Sea cliffs with narrow, fragile beach, mostly
sandstone.
1. Many cliff failures due to ground water. Ten blockfalls betweeen 1978-83.
2. At this writing all cobbles, no sand due to February 1986 storms. Some sand return
expected. I
11. Area D shares state beach land with Area C and terminates
at sewage disposal.
A. More cobbles and eroding bluffs.
APPENDIX A
-6-
I.
8. Some narrow flat areas with water from Encinas Creek
behind beach and bringing gravely material to beach.
C. February 1986 saw little rain erosion on bluff area.
AREA E
South Carlsbad State Beach, the "Largest cobble beach in
Southern California". It is at the base of high cliffs fading down to the longest Carlsbad flat land beach called
Ponto thence to the mouth of 8atiquitos Lagoon. State
Parks and Recreation operate an R.V. park at the top of bluffs. Storm drains severely gully bluff face and caused
landslides in 1980 and 1983. Road closed in 1983 as
cobbles moved on shor Flat beech subject to flooding
from San Marcoa Creek. el0 1
finally, at this writing, all beaches are cobbles because of storms February 18, 1986.
APPENDIX A
4 rk
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-7-
1. flick, Ron, seminar with Beach Ero-sion Committee, Oct. 3,
1985.
2. Criggs, Savoy, Livinq With The California Coast, Duke
University Press, Durham, NC, 1985, p. 351.
2b. Kuhn, Gerald, Sea Cliffs, Beaches, Coastal Valleys,
University-Press, Los Angeles, CA, p. 63.
3. Moffatt & Nichols, Engineers, Long Beach, CA, Mr. Dunham to
Property Owners Area A, July, 1983.
4. Willard, Syd, Parks and Recreation Dept., State Geologist,
speech to Beach Erosion Conference, Santa Barbara, CA.,
October 3, 1985.
5. Flick, Ron, Journal Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean, Engin.
Div., Amer. Sac. Civil Eng., 1984, to Carlsbad Committee,
Oct. 3, 1985.
Committee meeting, Nov. 7, 1985.
6. Inman, Doug, Scripps Oceanography, seminar at Carlsbad
7. Kuhn, Gerald, Sea Cliffs, Beaches, Coastal Valleys, San Dieqa
County, University Press, Los Angeles, CA, p. 63.
8. Ulman, Dan, Corpa of Engineers, to Committee meeting Nov.
1985.
9. Dyson, Bill, SOCLE to Erosion Committee, Dec. 12, 1985.
10. Griggs, Savoy, Livinq With The California Coast, Duke
University Press, Durham, NC, 1985, p. 351-53.
,
APPENDIX A
\ I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
Are
WILSON ENGINEERING
--..a- --
i
0
‘b 0-
0
e9 m
0
---
0 I
00 u a- # .-
f
a a P oe f
CARLSBAO LAGOONS
SOURCE Of BEACH SAM0 REPLENISHMENT
by John Gray
IMPACT ON BEACH EROSION
During most of the past 6,000 years, Carlsbad's lagoons delivered
sand to the beaches. During the past two hundred years, however3
Western Civilization has been interfering with this delivery.
This condition is not peculiar to Carlsbd, though. All
' throughout Southern California, beach materials are being trapped
by 311 water supply lakes and flood 9ontrol reservoirs and an
additional 77 sand and gravel quarries.
DESCRIPTION OF CARLSBAD'S LAGOONS.
Carlsbad's three lagoons are, from north to South, Buena Vista,
Aqua Hedionda, and Batiquitos. All three of them are bridged by
U.S. Highway 101, the railroad track, and Interstate-5.
8uena Vista Lagoon lies between Carlsbad and Oceanside. The city
limits are a zigzag line which gives the southern half of the
lagoon to Carlsbad. The entire lagoon is included in the Lt.
Maxton Brown Bird Sanctuary. The watershed of Buena Vista Lagoon
consists of about 19 square miles within the cities of Vista,
Oceanside, and Carlsbad. Its principal source of water is Buena
Vista Creek, rising in Vista. The lagoon is fresh water, kept so
by a fixed weir at the mouth of the lagoon. From the weir to
Jefferson Street on th? east, it is about 1.4 miles long, and
about l/f mile across. Buena Vista Lagoon includes about 190
Game . controlled by the California Department of Fish and
Aqua Hedionda Lagoon extends 1.7 miles inland and is about 1/2
mile wide. It comprises about 230 acres of open salt wgtqr and
about 200 acres of salt marsh, mud flats, and salt flats. ' 97 It
is kept open to the sea by tidal action and periodic dredging of
the outer lagoon by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company
(SDGLE). Its principal source of fresh water is Aqua Hedionda Creek, which drains a watershed from Vista, San Marcos, Calavera
Lake, and county lands to the south.
Batiquitos Lagoon extends about 2-1/2 miles inland from the ocean
to Camino Real. It is about 1/2 mile wide. Its drainage basin
includes San Marcos Lake, San Marcos Creek, and Encinitas Creek.
APPENDIX B
-2-
The lagoon is only opened to the sea by bulldozing the berm at
its entrance when storm runoff threatens the sewage pumping
station there. Much of the lagoon's 526 acres are dry salt Flats
most of the year.
PERTINENT HISTORY
Most of the following was extracted from the qummary of the Buena
Vista Lagoon watershed sediment control plan.
During the Pleistocene Epoch, Carlsbad's lagoons were river
valleys, draining into the sea. At the end of the Ice Age some
6,000 years ago, the ocean rose and flooded saltwater into these
river valleys. The river bottoms were covered with . terrace
deposits--sand and gravel and silt which had come down from the watersheds. Such erosion continues up to this day.
During summer months, a berm might be built up blocking the river
mouths, but during the rainy season, flood waters would break
through the berm, carrying sand and gravel to the beaches. Up to
the advent of civilization the watersheds were protected by
vegetation, and the erosion of the hills was minimized.
About 200 years ago, Western .Civilization came to California.
Herds of grazing animals reduced the vegetation on the hillsides.
Then farmers cultivated the slopes and further denuded them.
Then developers graded the slopes and highways were covered by
mud slicks as rainstorms washed away the unprotected soil. Each
stage of urbanization caused more erosion of the watersheds and
deposited more sand, gravel, and silt in the lagoons where
sedimentation could occur in the calm water. The lagoons silted
UP*
When the developers built homes and paved streets in the
subdivisions the erosion process changed. There was not so much
sand and gravel to wash down into the lagoons, but the water had
a higher velocity as it ran down the gutters. So it eroded the
remaining stream beds. Their mud, silt, clay, sand, and gravel
was carried into the lagoons where siltation continued to occur.
Across the lagoons, roadbeds were built for the railroad, for
Highway 101, aqd for Interstate-5. Buena Vista Lagoon has
another barrier at its east end carrying Jefferson Street. These
obstructions restricted the flow into the ocean, and the quiet
water allowed even more silt to settle out in the lagoons.
Buena Vista Lagoon had a weir installed across its mouth in 1940.
This kept the ocean out until 1969 when a flood washed out the
weir. It was rebuilt in 1970 and Buena Vista Lagoon became a
APPENDIX 9
-3-
freshwater lake, except for sewage which was dumped into it
regularly until 1960 and spilbed into it sporadically ever since.
Buena.Vista Lagoon silted up.
The San Diego Gas and Electric company bought Aqua Hedionda
Lagoon, and commenced dredging it in 1952'. Most of the following
information has been extracted from the U.g4 Army Corps of
Engineers "Appraisal Report for Aqua Hedionda".
By 1954 the outer lagoon had been dredged to a depth of ten feet
and a tidal prism flowed through it to provide clear ocean water
to cool the condensers of the Encina Thermal Power Plant. This dredging produced about 4,278,000 cubic yards of sand initially,
1,024,000 yards from the outer lagoon and 3,254,000 cubic yards
from the middle and inner lagoons. This sand was dumped on the beach. An inlet and an outlet further south, both protected by
short twin jetties, provide circulation for the tidal prism.
Nevertheless, SOCLE has to 45edge the sand bar from the outer
lagoon about every two years.
Most of the foll3wing was extracted. from the Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Plan. In recent years, Batiquitos Lagoon has -been
mostly salt flats. It was open naturally most of the time until
the mid-'6O9s. Since then, it has been opened with a bulldozer
occasionally to let the stagnant waters out and thus avoid
flooding the sewage booster plant on the south side. The bottom
of Batiquitos Lagoon is covered with fluvial material, mostly old
sand and gravel, topped with a thin layer of clay and silt.
Sedimentation of Eatiquitos Lagoon increased rapidly as La Costa
. and the San Marcos valley were subdivided.
LAGOONS AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF BEACH SAND.
If Carlsbad's beaches are to be replenished to combat beach
erosion, they should be nourished periodically. The lagoons can
provide a handy and continuing source of sand, if they are
dredged periodically.
Unfortunately, not all the sand in the lagoons is usable on t98
beach.If the sand is too light, the ocean will float it away.
Silt or clay-sized materials won't stick on the beach.
Generally, an upper layer of silt, composed of clayey shales and
mudstones, will have to be disposed of before the sand useable on
beaches can be dredged out. Most often such silt is used for
landfills, such as in the area just east of Jefferson Street in
the former Euena Vista Lagoon. Again unfortunately, such clay is
not a stable platform for heavy construction.
APPENDIX 6
-4-
From Buena Vista Lagoon, it would be possible to dredge From
10,000 to 100,000 tons of sediment per year, but only 5% to 20%
of that would be sand suitable for beach nourishment.
A weight test on Agua Hedionda sand indicated a cubic yard would
weigh 2,565 pounds, or 1.3 tons. The maximum annual sand produc-
tion of Buena Vista Lagoon would be 20% x 100,000 tons + 1.3 =
15,385 cubic yards of sand. The minimum annual sand production
would be 5% x 10,000 tons + 1.3 = 385 cubic yards.
Whether it produces only 385 cubic yards or 15,385 cubic yards of
sand per year, something must be done perjodically to prevent the
Buena Vista Lagoon from silting up again.
Agua Hedionda Lagoon conaists of outer, middle, and inner
lagoons. No information is available on the contents of the
middle lagoon, betneen 1-5 and the railroad trestle. The outer
lagoon is dredged periodically by SOCLE to ensure a good flow of
clear nater through the plant's cooling aystem. The sand bar
conaists of "Flour sand" which is discharged directly onto the
beaches south of the inlet jetties where it sticks until storm
waves carry it anay. Because Agua Hedionda is dredged
periodically to a depth of about 16 feet, ttp sediment is almost
all ocean sand and not mixed with silt. The outer lagoon
provided an average 96 115,575 cubic yards of sand per year
betneen 1955 and 1972.
The inner Agua Hedionda Lagoon is that portion east of 1-5. A
sand bar consisting of about 30,000 cubic yards of sediment has
formed at the nest end of the lagoon. How much of this is
useable beach sand and how much is land-fill mud is unknown.
This $aterial 'is deposited at the rate of 13,000 cubic yards per
year.
In summary, Agua Hedionda Lagoon has available for initial beach
replenishment some 30,000 cubic yards of material plus the
undetermined materials around the periphery of the inner lagoon,
plus the undetermined materials of the middle lagoon sandbar.
For annual beach maintenance it could provide 115,000 cubic yards
from the outer lagoon, 13,000 cubic yards from the inner lagoon,
and an unestimated quantity of beach sand from the middle lagoon - more than 128,000 cubic yards per year.
Depending upon which lagoon enhancement plan is selected, Bati-
quitos Lagoon could provide an 'initial 3,400,000 cubic yards of
beach sand. after the removal of some 581,000 cubic yards of fine
silt which should go into landfill. Thereafter, the proposed
sediment basin at the east end could provide about 1,000 cubic
yards of beach sand per year. If the tidal prism .method of
keeping Batiquitos Lagoon is used successfully, .there would be
APPENDIX B
"9
little or no sgnd available for beach replenishment from the rest
of the lagoon.
In short, the total maximum estimated capability of Carlsbad's
lagoons to nourish Carlsbad's beachhes averages, per year:
Buena Vista 15,385 cubic yards per year Agua Hedionda 128,000 cubic yards per year Batiquitos 1,000 cubic yards per year
SAND DISPOSAL SITES
The net annual movement of sand along Carlshad's beaches is from
north to south at the rate of about 280,000 cubic yards per year.
It, therefore, seems logical to deposit beach replenishment sand
at the north end in order to obtain the full use of it as it
migrates south toward La Jolla Canyon.
To transport sand to Carlsbad's side of the Buena Vista weir from
the proposed siltation basins at the east end of Batiquitos
Lagoon is a trip of 9 or 10 miles by highway. A hydraulic pipe-
line would probably follow about the same route, SDGbE would be
reluctant to pump dredge spoil from Agua Hedionda Lagoon north of
the entrance jetties, since it is probable that sand north of the jetties drifts into the entrance channel and forms the sand bar
just inside the lagoon.
for these reasons, it seems logical to deposit sand from the
lagoons on the beaches nearest them. This would be more
economical in terms of transportation costs, and would also cause
fewer ecological and other environmental disruptions and
objections. Therefore, Buena Vista sand should be deposited on
Carlsbad's northernmost beach; Agua Hedionda sand should be
deposited on the beach south of the inlet jetties, and Batiquitos
sand could be carried perhaps as far north as Ponto.
Since the City of Carlsbad owns none of these beaches, permission
to replenish them would involve negotiations with a number of
regulatory agencies, and include also the property owners whose
beaches would be affected.
TRANSPORTATION OF SAND ,
The two most common methods of transporting sand from lagoon to
beach are trucking and hydraulic piping. It is also possible, of
course, to pile it near the source.
APPENDIX 6
-6-
In the case of Buena Vista, if the sand were to be deposited on
Carlsbad's northern beach, a pipeline would probably be most
appropriate. Similarly, the existing hydraulic pipeline would be
appropriate to move sand from Agua Hedionda to the nearby
beaches. The huge initial volume of sand from Batiquitos
enhancement plans would probably be most-'easily and cheaply moved
by pipeline. The small annual increments predicted from the
eastern end of 6atiquitos might be stored and then moved by
truck.
The dredge used by SDGLE can be disassembled and installed in any
of Carlsbad's lagoons. SDGLE is considering leasing it during the long intervals when it is not needed to clear the channel at
Agua Hedionda. Other, smaller dredges are available for close-in
work near the bridges. They would probably need booster pumps if the sand is to be transported any great distance. The SOG&E
dredge cangbe used as a booster to move fluidized sand for about
two miles.
COSTS OF SAND
The consensus of opinions is that it costs around $4/cubic yard
to move sand by hydraulic dredge, and if a booster pump is needed to increase the distance of . transport, additional costs are
incurred. Some of that expense can be offset by selling the
sand,,;Pich has-been estimated to be worth about $2.50 per cubic
yard. There remains the problem of determining who owns the
sand, and who wants it?
FUNDING BEACH NOURISHMENT
Beach replenishment is an expensive proposit ion. Some sources of
funds, quch as federal grants, are expected to dry up in the near
future. Although the Corps of Engineers has funds for projects
which are restorations of former conditions, Carlsbad's beaches
may not meet that criterion; historically, they have been narrow
and cobbled.
State funds come through various agencies, but the Parks and
Recreation Oepartment is generally opposed to impeding the course . of nature, so they might offer significant opposition to
replenishing Carlsbad's beaches, most of which come under their
jurisdiction.
The newest regional consortium, BEACh, may in the future provide
some funding, but lagoon manipulation might be considered a local problem not sufficiently rewarding to the entire Oceanside
littoral cell.
I
APPENOXX B
-7-
Because Carlsbad City owns no beach, it will be difficult to
overcome taxpayer resistance to spending city funds to restore
beaches. If the city were to attempt funding, two avenues
suggest significant possibilities. Formation of a Community
Facilities District such as was contemplated for Oceanside would
provide varying,+ax rates depending on- the distarftje of property from the beach. The Sand Rights legal doctrine could enable
the City to obtain or sell lagoon sand. Finally, beachfront
property owners might be required to finance their own beach
nourishemeot.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The "natural" historical condition of these lagoons--before
Western Man interfered with them--was as river mouths emptying into the sea during winter rains and floods. Often they were
brackish marshes when a sand berm built up blocking the river
mouth during summertime and dry periods. The rivers then had
freshwater flora and fauna.
Buena Vista Lagoon. has been restored to a brackish, freshwater
habitat; the other two have not. The question arises, what is
the proper condition of these lagoons? Pre-historic, free-
flowing fresh water? Free-Flow-ing tidal prism ocean estuary? Or t he i r c u r r en t cond it i on ?
"Current" conditions include riparian eastern ends, fresh water
marsh, salt water marsh, mud flats, saltwater sports areas, and a tidal prism channel.
The biological resources of a "restored" lagoon14are described in
the appraisal report for Agua Hedionda Lagoon . They include
picklewsed, various indigenous plants on the banks, and eelgrass underwater. They include some 55 species of water birds and 47
species of land birds, including some rare or endangered species,
44 species of fish, untold species of clams and other underwater invertebrates, and some cultural resources in archaeological
sites.
Impacting on this ecological community are human activities,
including water sports and industrial use of the water.
In his presentation "Are Estuaries Really Necessary?", Oglesby commented in 1973: I
"All the food organisms that man takes from estuaries
are dependent upon the integrity of the salt marsh--eel-
grass mudflat system, known as the DETRITUS FOOD CHAIN.
Oisruption of the detritus food chain will diminish all
APPENDIX B
-8-
fisheries dependent upon estuaries ... once wetlands and
tidal flats areleestroyed, they can be regained only at
great expense."
-. €NVIRONMENTALIST REACTIONS
Envrionmentalist rections to any proposed' modification of the
status quo can be expected to be varied and intense. The groups
will not always focus on the same perceived problem, nor will
their positions always be complementary.
The California Coastal Commission in 1981 adopted a "Statewide
interpretive guideline for wetlands and other wet environmentally
sensitive habitat areas." This requires an exhaustive effort to
determine the answers to pertinent questions, andp to propose
remedial answers to unsatisfactory perceived results.
''Thi' Batiquitor Lagoon Enhancement Plan of 198S3 includes a long
sequential list of steps necessary in the formulation and
execution of a modification to a lagoon. It cites the agencies
from whom agreement and/or permits are necessary before e.plan
can be implemented.
The plan also suggests sources .of funds for lagoon modification.
As was evident in the Batiquitos Lagoon hearings, after all the
necessary criteria have been met, there will still be many challenges to the results. An EIR will not quiet the
environmental uproar.
OTHER INLAND SOURCES OF SAND
Since the rivers have been dammed, sediment has been accumulating
behind the dams. According to Dr. Douglas Inman, the state of
the art now can enable the removal of this sediment and its
transport downstream. This sediment is the same sand and gravel
which used to be discharged onto the beaches by the rivers. From
the sandpiles below the dams, trucks could haul the sand to
Carlsbad. The approximate mileage from various dams to Carlsbad is:
Calavera Lake 6
Lake San Marcos 11 '
Lake Hodges 18
Oixon Lake 21
Lake Wohlford 23 Lake Sutherland 41
Lake Henshaw 47
APPENDIX B
-9-
Flood control basins are another inland source of beach
materials. These catchments fill up with sand and gravel and
have to be cleaned out. In LOS Angeles County, the Engineer
trucks this siltation to county beaches, where the ocean converts it to beach sand. -.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The sediment in Carlsbad's lagoons should be used to combat
erosion on Carlsbad's beaches.
By programmed, selective removal of lagoon siltation, a
broad beach could be established and thereafter nourished
periodically from the lagoons.
While providing beach nourishment, lagoons could be modified
to meet popular demands ranging from "natural" conditions
to water-sports/picnic areas.
A planned program should be initiated to continue the
maintenance of the lagoons and the replenishment of- the
beaches in the future.
Funding for lagoon/beach snhancement should be sought from
agencies outside Carlsbad. It is unlibely that residents
could be persuaded to support the expensive, long-range
program .
A permanent commission should be formed to oversee the
beach/lagoon enhancement program. It should be broad-based,
including' residents, merchants, hoteliers, engineers,
financiers, sportsmen,and environmentalists.
I
APPENDIX 6
I.
- 10 -
REFERENCES
1. Applegate, J. & ASSOC., & Williams, P. & Assoc. 1985. Buena
Vista Lagoon Watershed Sediment Control Plan. (California
State Coastal Conservancy).
2. California Coastal Commission. 1981. Statewide Interpretive Guideline For Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas.
3. California State Coastal Conservancy. 1985. Batiquitos
Lagoon Enhancement Plan.
4. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 1976. Draft
Environmental Impact Report. Agua Hedionda Lagoon Specific
Plan.
5. City of Carlsbad. 1976. Agua Hedionda Specific Plan.
6. City of Carlsbad. 1980. EIR for Buena Vista Oesiltation.
7. City of Carlsbad. 1982. Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan.
8. Dyson, Bill. 1985. Comments during dredge tour, Nov. 7,
1985. (Dyson is Project Officer for SDGLE dredging).
9. Griggs, G., & Savoy, L., Editors. 1985. Living With The
California Coast .
10. Komar; P.D. 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation,.
11. Noble, R. 1985(?). Community facilities District for Beach
facilities, Oceanside Pier. (Cost Estimates).
12. Oglesby, L.C. 1973. Are Estuaries Really Necessary?
13. Stone, K.E., & Kaufman, 8. 1985. Sand Rights. A Legal
Syatem to Protect "The Shores of the Sea".
14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. . Appraisal Report for
Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Carlsbad, California.
APPENOIX I3
Dear Mario:
2/20/86
Carlsbad, CA
This will serve as my input to the Carlsbad Beach Erosion Commit-
tee report to the Carlsbad.City Council. It is not intended that
this be a stand alone document, rather that it be incorporated
into the committee's final report. It may, however, be included
as an appendix.
The following paragraph will summarize my recommendat ions to the
committee:
A. The beach conmunitiea along the Oceanside littoral cell,
under the supervision of their respective city and county
governments and with guidance from appropriate state agencies, from a joint committee empowered to:
1 . Superficially investigate the beach erosion problems of
the Oceanside littoral cell.
2. Identify sources of funds available for dealing with
beach erosion problems.
3. Using funds available from No. 2, engage the services of
coastal processes experts (science, engineering, legal)
so that they may closely examine the problems and
possible solutions (if any) of the Oceanside cell.
4. Submit the conclusion and recommendation of the above
consultants to the resp&ive city and county governments
for appropriate follow up action.
8. Short term action:
1. The City of Carlsbad independently, or in conjunction
with the state or other neighboring communities, under-
take a program of 'beach profile surveying. This data is
essential to any long term study.
2. The City of Carlsbad retain the services of a coastal
processes expert to advise the City on the distribution
of lagoon dredging materials along the Carlsbad coast.
Page 1
APPENDIX C
, .-
If any of the above recommendations will be considered by the
City, then the committee will have made a major contribution to
understanding the processes that influence the beach behavior
along the Oceanside littoral cell.
The problems and difficulties experienced by the City of Carlsbad
beaches have been adequately described in reports the Committee
has amassed throughout its tenure. In addition, numerous
speakers have discussed the phenomenon responsible for the
present state of this fragile land-sea interface. Since this
information will be presented in the appendix, it will not be
repeated here. It is interesting to note, however, that the
accumulated evidence points to man's interference with nature's
processes as the cause of the semi-permanent state of denuded
beaches that we witness today.
The problems of the coast line along the Carlsbad City beaches
ars the problems of the Oceanside littoral cell. These problems
are shared by the communities to the north and south of Carlsbad.
It is the consensus of many experts in the field of coastal
studies and civil engineering in the oceans that technically,
administratively and operationallly these problems must be
conaidered in the context of the activities of the whole cell.
Proposed solutions, which may or may not benefit one area, are
more than likely to effect beach responses in neigh-boring zones.
There is ample evidence that a piece-meal approach to
compartmentalized solutions w'ill eventually have detrimental
results on the problem as a whole. The committee report must emphasize the fact that from a technical, functional and opera-
tional aspect the problems of the cell are shared by all the cell
communities. Unilaterial solutions by individual entities will
likely act to exacerbate the existing problems. This has been
demonstrated on both a macro scale where individual beach
property owners have acted to protect their investment to the
detriment of their fellow property owners and on a global scale
where projects undertaken by one city have deprived the next city
of the natural sediment replenishment process.
If the problems off the Oceanside cell are to be solved by the
cell communities, it is essential that these communities band
together to form a cohesive political body. It is only through
this kind of political unity that sufficient resources may be
brought to bear on the issue. Emphasis on this approach may be
the greatest contribution this committee may make to the City
Council. A logical progression may involve the following steps:
A. Form a consortium of coastal' communities effected by the cell
(such as 8EACh).
Page 2
APPENDIX C 'h
A'
r:;
8. This body appoint, engage or hire a group of beach process
exper-s to conduct a long -erm comprehensive study into the
problems and possible solutions of the Oceanside littoral
cell.
These consultants should have a proven track record and should involve professionals from the academic and engineering field.
To be successful, these individuals musk be provided with clear
and definite objectives. Their recommendations should be
returned within a reasonable time frame. It must be recognized,
however, that there is a distinct possibility that there exists no economically feasible or practical solution to the beach
erosion problems as we now perceive them.
There are two other near term issues which must be addressed. To
determine the scope and magnitude of the beach problems investi-
cJators must have a comprehensive data base. This is also
-csssary for determining the effectiveness of any implemented
gt ion . Unfortunately, there is very little data which
:ribes beach behavior along the cell. The situation, with sect to wave climate, is somewhat better but could stand
Lmprovement. It is strongly reecommended that the City
immediately embark upon a program of surveying the local beach
profiles*
The issue of lagoon dredged sediment distribution must be
resolved. It is recommended’that the City of Carlsbad immedi- ately engage the services of coastal experts so that they may
determine the spacial and temporal distribution of this spoil material. This is not a large or complicated task and could be
completed in short order,
*.VE CASTEL
: lch
Page 3
APPENDIX C +/