FINAL
JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
APPENDICES
Volume II
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT
San Clemente, CA
Prepared for:
Los Angeles District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Resources Branch
915 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750
Santa Ana, CA 92707
(949) 261-5414
in Association with
Noble Consultants, Inc.
-XQH $77$&+0(17
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX C – AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES BRANCH
915 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750
Santa Ana, California 92707
March 2011
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. ES-1 3313
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development associated with the proposed San Clemente Shoreline Project (Project).
The Project considered in this analysis proposes replenishing the sand at San Clemente Beach due to ongoing erosion. Two alternatives are addressed. The first examines the placement of approximately 251,127 cubic yards of sand over an area of about 4 acres and a period of about 46 working days. The second alternative examines the placement of approximately 585,962 cubic yards of sand over an area of about 9 acres and a period of 108 working days. In either case the sand would be dredged and hauled from a borrow site approximately 21 miles down coast from the San Clemente Beach site, in Oceanside, California. The Project is approximately centered about the San Clemente Pier; the south limit of the proposed beach fill is located immediately south of the T-Street overpass while the north limit is located immediately north of the Marine Safety Headquarters in the City of San Clemente.
The impact analysis contained in this report was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as included in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) as well as the SCAQMD Internet web site updates.
Localized impacts from construction were determined using methodology provided by the SCAQMD in its document Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Methodology).
Regional operational and long-term localized impacts are not analyzed as there is no long-term operational phase to the Project. Once the beach is replenished there are no on-going operational/maintenance activities that are associated with the project and no construction of any buildings is associated with the Project.
The analysis finds that short-term emissions of NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 particulate matter have the potential to exceed their respective threshold values leading to a significant cumulative impact.
The included mitigation could reduce ROG to below significant thresholds; however NOx and PM2.5, primarily from ocean-going vessel traffic, will remain significant for the Project.
The proposed Project would not involve growth-inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, with the included mitigation discussed below, emissions of all criteria pollutants are reduced as feasible. However, even with the included mitigation, the Project would remain significant for short- term construction emissions of NOx and PM2.5. Because the Project incorporates the most current viable mitigation (i.e., Tier II onshore heavy equipment) and because these emissions are short-term and do not occur beyond the Project’s construction period, they do not represent a violation of the goals and objectives of the Air Quality Management Program (AQMP). Additionally, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of the AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. ES-2 3313
MITIGATION MEASURES
Construction Period NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 Emissions Mitigation Measures:
The Applicant shall specify that the construction contractors shall use onshore heavy equipment that meets Tier II or higher air pollutant emission standards where these standards are applicable and equipment available.
All heavy equipment shall be maintained and tuned per manufacturer's specifications to perform at California Air Resources Board (CARB) and/or EPA certification, where applicable, levels and to perform at verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1 MITIGATION MEASURES .....................................................................................................2 SECTION 1.0 – METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................1 SECTION 2.0 – EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................2
2.1. CLIMATE/METEOROLOGY .........................................................................................2
2.2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................3
2.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................3
2.2.2 Criteria Air Pollutants.............................................................................................4
2.2.3 Toxic Air Contaminants .........................................................................................7
2.2.4 Other Effects of Air Pollution ................................................................................8
2.3. FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS)...................................8
2.4. AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING ...........................................................10
2.4.1 Federal Clean Air Act Requirements ...................................................................11
2.4.2 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)......................................................12
2.4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................13
2.5. BASELINE AIR QUALITY ..........................................................................................14
2.6. STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES..............................................16
2.7. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.............................................................................................18 SECTION 3.0 – THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE...........................................................19
3.1. REGIONAL THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................19
3.2. LOCALIZED THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE (LST) .........................................20
3.3. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS ......................................................................................21 SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES........22
4.1. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN .......22
4.2. PROJECT POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE OR ADD TO A VIOLATION OF AN AIR QUALITY STANDARD.........................................................................................................22
4.2.1 Localized Construction Impacts...........................................................................23
4.3. PROJECT POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE INCREASE IN CRITERIA POLLUTANTS..................................................................24
4.3.1 Site Construction ..................................................................................................24
4.3.1.1 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................27
4.3.1.2 NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 Emissions Mitigation Measures.........................27
4.3.1.3 Residual Impacts.....................................................................................27
4.3.2 Site Operations .....................................................................................................28 Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4.4. PROJECT POTENTIAL TO EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ...............................................28
4.4.1 Short-Term (Construction) Impacts .....................................................................29
4.4.2 Long-Term (Operational) Impacts .......................................................................29
4.5. PROJECT POTENTIAL CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS ................................29
4.6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................29
4.6.1 Construction .........................................................................................................29 SECTION 5.0 – CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................31 SECTION 6.0 – REFERENCES.................................................................................................32
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CALCULATION OF UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
APPENDIX B CALCULATION OF MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
APPENDIX C LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD DISPERSION
MODELING METHODOLOGY FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
EMISSIONS
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Priority Pollutants ..................................................... 9 Table 2 Attainment Status for the Basin....................................................................................... 11 Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary .................................................................... 15 Table 4 Required Best Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust (Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)..................................................................................................... 17 Table 5 Contingency Control Measures for Fugitive Dust During High Winds in Excess of 25 MPH.............................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 6 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 20 Table 7 Localized Construction Emissions Concentrations1 ........................................................ 24 Table 8 Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values ..... 25 Table 9 Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values.......................... 28 Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
OF degrees Fahrenheit
μg microgram
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
ADP Attainment Demonstration and Reasonable Further progress Plan ADT Average Daily Trips
AQMP Air Quality Management Program
BACT Best Available Control Technology
C Annual average concentration in μg/m3
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
EMFAC2007 On-Road Emission Factors published by the CARB in 2007 EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Gal gallon
Handbook CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Lbs pounds
LOS Level of Service
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
v
LST Localized Significance Thresholds
MMTCO2E million metric tons of carbon dioxide
Methodology Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology m3 cubic meters
mph miles per hour
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NO Nitrogen Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
O3 Ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Pb Lead
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter of 10 microns or less in size
PM2.5 Particulate Matter of 2.5 microns or less in size ppm Parts per Million
PUC Public Utilities Commission
REL Reference exposure level
ROC Reactive Organic Compounds
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIP State Implementation Plans
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
vi
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SO3 Sulfur Trioxide
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA source Receptor Area
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
T-BACT Best Available Control Technology for Toxic Air Contaminants USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Yr year
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
1 SECTION 1.0 – METHODOLOGY
This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development associated with the proposed San Clemente Shoreline Project (Project).
The impact analysis contained in this report was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as included in its Handbook as well as its Internet web site updates. Localized impacts from construction were determined using methodology provided by the SCAQMD in its document Methodology.
Regional operational and long-term localized impacts are not analyzed as there is no long-term operational phase to the Project. Once the beach is replenished there are no additional construction or operational/maintenance activities associated with the Project.
The proposed Project involves the restoration of a stretch of beach that is either approximately 15 or 35 meters wide by 1,040 meters long. The two widths would accommodate either 251,127 or 585,962 cubic yards of sand, respectively, that will be dredged from a borrow site approximately 21 miles down coast from the existing beach. The existing site is vacant and relatively flat land. For the purposes of this analysis, construction is estimated to occur in 2010 and take approximately 46 or 108 working days for the two alternatives, respectively.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
2 SECTION 2.0 – EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1. CLIMATE/METEOROLOGY
The proposed Project lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) that includes all of Orange County, as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. In addition, the project borrow area is located in the San Diego Air Basin.
2.1.1 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)
The SCAB is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (o
F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence,
coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station located in Laguna Beach (to the north) reports a yearly average of 61o
F. The average low is reported at 44oF in January while the average high is 77oF in August and September.
In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 12.45 inches per year in the Project area, again, as measured at Laguna Beach.
Although the SCAB has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by off shore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as “high fog” are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the east portions of the SCAB.
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Annually, typical winds in the project area average about 6 to 8 miles per hour during the day and 2 to 8 miles per hour during the night.
Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
3 can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally have duration of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” This mixing height can change under conditions when the top of the inversion does not change. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area.
2.1.2 San Diego Air Basin (SDAB)
The SDAB covers 4,260 square miles and lies in the southwest corner of California and comprises the entire San Diego region. The topography in the San Diego region varies greatly, from beaches on the west to mountains and desert on the east. Much of the topography in between consists of mesa tops intersected by canyon areas. The topography in the San Diego region, along with local meteorology, influences the dispersal and movement of pollutants in the basin.
The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average temperature ranges from the mid 40s to the high 90s. Most of the county’s precipitation falls from November to April, with infrequent (approximately ten percent) precipitation during the summer.
The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and drives the prevailing winds. Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland, and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow through the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.
2.2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
The following characterization of the baseline atmospheric environment includes an evaluation of the ambient air quality and applicable rules, regulations, and standards for the area. Because the Project has the ability to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated on the local, state, and federal levels.
2.2.1 Affected Environment
The proposed Project site is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the SCAQMD; however, the SCAQMD reports to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Therefore, all emissions are also governed by both the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) as well as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
4 Topographical features that affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants in the project area include the mountain ranges to the northeast that prevent the transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. During the past 20 years, the SDAB has experienced a decline in the number of days with unhealthy levels of ozone despite the region’s growth in population and vehicle miles traveled, which both contribute to air pollution problems.
This improvement in air quality clearly shows that our efforts to reduce air pollution are working.
Pollutants emitted into the air from stationary and mobile sources affect the ambient air quality.
Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point sources and area sources.
Point sources consist of one or more emission sources at a facility with an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial processing plants. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions, such as residential water heaters.
Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are a combination of emissions from automobiles, trucks, and indirect sources. Indirect sources are sources that by themselves may not emit air contaminants; however, they indirectly cause the generation of air pollutants by attracting vehicle trips or consuming energy. Examples of indirect sources include an office complex or commercial center that generates commuter trips and consumes energy resources through the use of natural gas for space and water heating. Indirect sources also include actions proposed by local governments, such as redevelopment districts and private projects involving the development of either large buildings or tracts. In addition, indirect sources include those emissions created by the distance vehicles travel. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.
2.2.2 Criteria Air Pollutants
Federal and State laws regulate the air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized as primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and most fine particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) including lead (Pb) and fugitive dust; are primary air pollutants. Of these CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants.
Presented below is a description of each of these primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is the interference of normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
5 oxygen deprivation. The major sources of CO in the SCAB are on-road vehicles, aircraft, and off-road vehicles and equipment (CARB 2006).
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. ROGs consist of nonmethane hydrocarbons and oxygenated hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain only hydrogen and carbon atoms. Non-methane hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons that do not contain the un-reactive hydrocarbon, methane. Oxygenated hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons with oxygenated functional groups attached.
It should be noted that there are no state or national ambient air quality standard for ROGs because they are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in ROGs emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. ROGs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. Although health-based standards have not been established for ROGs, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations because of interference with oxygen uptake. In general, concentrations of ROG are suspected to cause eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea, damage to liver, kidney, and the central nervous system (EPA 2005).
The major sources of ROG in the SCAB are on-road motor vehicles and solvent evaporation.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen.
NOx acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens.
NOx is also an ozone precursor. A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminant for which an Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS) has been adopted, or whose presence in the atmosphere will contribute to the violation of one or more AAQS. When NOx and ROG are released in the atmosphere, they can chemically react with one another in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.
The major source of NOx in the SCAB is on-road vehicles (CARB 2006). Stationary commercial and service source fuel combustion also contribute to the total NOx emissions in the SCAB (CARB 2006).
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of NO2 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has concluded that the only form of NOx that exists at a level to cause public health concerns is NO2 (EPA 1997).
NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
6 of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10 (particulates having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or 0.0004 inch or less in diameter).
Ozone (O3) is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed when reactive organic compounds (ROC) and NOx (both byproducts of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. Ozone is present in relatively high concentrations in the SCAB, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog are generally related to the concentrations of Ozone. Ozone may pose a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as healthy people. Additionally, Ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and pre-mature death. Ozone can also act as a corrosive resulting in property damage such as the embrittlement of rubber products.
Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal that can exist in air pollution as an aerosol particle component. An aerosol is a collection of solid, liquid, or mixed-phase particles suspended in the air. Lead was first regulated as an air pollutant in 1976. Leaded gasoline was first marketed in 1923 and was used in motor vehicles until around 1970. The exclusion of lead from gasoline helped to decrease emissions of lead in the United States from 219,000 to 4,000 short tons per year between 1970 and 1997.
Lead ore crushing, lead-ore smelting, and battery manufacturing are currently the largest sources of lead in the atmosphere in the United States. Other sources include dust from soils contaminated with lead-based paint, solid waste disposal, and crustal physical weathering. The mechanisms by which lead can be removed from the atmosphere (sinks) include deposition to soils, ice caps, oceans, and inhalation.
Lead accumulates in bones, soft tissue, and blood and can affect the kidneys, liver, and nervous system. The more serious effects of lead poisoning include behavior disorders, mental retardation, and neurological impairment. Low levels of lead in fetuses and young children can result in nervous system damage, which can cause learning deficiencies and low IQs. Lead may also contribute to high blood pressure and heart disease. Lead concentrations once exceeded the state and national air quality standards by a wide margin, but have not exceeded state or national air quality standards at any regular monitoring station since 1982. Lead is no longer an additive to normal gasoline, which is the main reason that the concentration of lead in the air is low. The proposed Project will not emit lead, and therefore, it is eliminated from further review in this analysis.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas. At levels greater than 0.5 ppm, the gas has a strong odor, similar to rotten eggs. Sulfuric acid is formed from sulfur dioxide, which is an aerosol particle component that may lead to acid deposition. Acid deposition into water, vegetation, soil, or other materials can harm natural resources and materials. Sulfur oxides (SOx) include sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide (SO3). Although sulfur dioxide concentrations have been reduced to levels well below state and national standards, further reductions are desirable because SO2 is a precursor to sulfates. Sulfates are a particulate formed through the photochemical oxidation of SO2. Long-term exposure to high levels of SO2 can cause irritation Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
7 of existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and changes in the defenses in the lungs.
When people with asthma are exposed to high levels of SO2 for short periods of time during moderate activity, effects may include wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath.
Particulate Matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulate are now recognized. Coarse particles, or PM10, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., ten one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns that is 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch or less.
Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities; however, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially to the local particulate loading. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems.
Fugitive Dust poses primarily two public health and safety concerns. The first concern is that of respiratory problems attributable to the suspended particulates in the air. The second concern is that of motor vehicle accidents caused by reduced visibility during severe wind conditions.
Fugitive dust may also cause significant property damage during strong windstorms by acting as an abrasive material agent (much like sandblasting activities). Finally, fugitive dust can result in a nuisance factor due to the soiling of proximate structures and vehicles.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) is a mixture of many exhaust particles and gases that is produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. Many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic, including 16 that are classified as possibly carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust.
Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, and can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of ambient particulate matter pollution as well, and numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admission, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2002). DPM in the SCAB poses the greatest cancer risk of all the toxic air pollutants.
2.2.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
The public's exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Act (42 USC Sec. 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California EPA, acting through the CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
8 California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology (T-BACT) to minimize emissions.
Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.
To date the CARB has designated nearly 200 compounds as TACs. Additionally, the CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds, the most important being PM from diesel-fueled engines.
2.2.4 Other Effects of Air Pollution
Just as humans are affected by air pollution, so too are plants and animals. Animals must breathe the same air and are subject to the same types of negative health effects. Certain plants and trees may absorb air pollutants that can stunt their development or cause premature death.
There are also numerous impacts to the human economy including lost workdays due to illness, a desire on the part of business to locate in areas with a healthy environment, and increased expenses from medical costs. Pollutants may also lower visibility and cause damage to property.
Certain air pollutants are responsible for discoloring painted surfaces, eating away at stones used in buildings, dissolving the mortar that holds bricks together, and cracking tires and other items made from rubber.
2.3. FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS)
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971 (CAA) established NAAQS with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health based AAQS for six air pollutants. As shown in Table 1, these pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
9 nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Priority Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal
Primary
Standard
Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, 8 hours 0.070 0.075 ppm and solvents.
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines,
primarily gasoline-powered
motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual
Average * 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleumrefining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and
railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm *
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual
Average * 0.03 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical
plants, sulfur recovery plants,
and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm *
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 Pg/m3 50 Pg/m3
Dust and fume-producing
construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and
natural activities (e.g., windraised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 Pg/m3 150 Pg/m3
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 Pg/m3 15 Pg/m3
Dust and fume-producing
construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and
natural activities (e.g., windraised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 Pg/m3
Lead (Pb)
Monthly 1.5 Pg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters,
battery manufacturing and
recycling facilities. Past source:
combustion of leaded gasoline.
Quarterly * 1.5 Pg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 Pg/m3 * Industrial processes.
Ppm: parts per million; Pg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
10 * = standard is not used for this pollutant/duration by this entity.
In addition to primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health.
2.4. AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB.
Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The 1997 AQMP, updated in 1999 and replaced in 2003, was based on the 1994 AQMP and ultimately the 1991 AQMP, and was designed to comply with State and Federal requirements, reduce the high level of pollutant emissions in the SCAB, and ensure clean air for the region through various control measures. To accomplish its task, the 1991 AQMP relied on a multilevel partnership of governmental agencies at the Federal, State, regional, and local level. These agencies (i.e., the USEPA, CARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD) are the cornerstones that implement AQMP programs.
The 2003 AQMP, adopted in August 2003, updated the attainment demonstration for the Federal standards for ozone and PM10; replaced the 1997 attainment demonstration for the Federal CO standard and provided a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updated the maintenance plan for the Federal NO2 standard that the SCAB has met since 1992.
The most recent comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP adopted on July 13, 2007. The 2007 AQMP is designed to meet the State and Federal CAA planning requirements and focuses on ozone and PM2.5. The 2007 AQMP incorporates significant new emissions inventories, ambient measurements, scientific data, control strategies, and air quality modeling.
Areas that meet the ambient air quality standards are classified as “attainment” areas while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as “non-attainment” areas. The classifications for ozone non-attainment include and range in magnitude from: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The State and Federal attainment status for the SCAB are included in Table 2.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
11 Table 2
Attainment Status for the SCAB
Pollutant State Status Federal Status
Ozone (1-
hour) Extreme Non-attainment Extreme Non-attainment (under the prior standard) Ozone (8-
hour) Extreme Non-Attainment Extreme
PM10 Serious Non-attainment Serious Non-attainment
PM2.5 Non-attainment Non-attainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
On April 15, 2010, EPA signed a final rule to grant requests to reclassify SCAB from "severe17" to "extreme". The SCAB also is designated as attainment of the CAAQS for SO2, lead, and sulfates. Areas that are designated as Severe 17 for the ozone standard must meet attainment of the 8-hour standard by 2021 (2024 if reclassified to Extreme). Areas considered as serious nonattainment of the PM10 standards must have reached attainment by the end of 2006, or as expeditiously as possible. The PM2.5 attainment date is to be met in the year 2015.
2.4.1 Federal Clean Air Act Requirements
The Federal CAA requires plans to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures including the adoption of reasonably available control technology for reducing emissions from existing sources. Emission control innovations in the form of market-based approaches are explicitly encouraged by the CAA. The SCAQMD is the first local agency in the country to adopt a market-based approach for controlling stationary source emissions of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. Other Federal requirements addressed include mechanisms to track plan implementation and milestone compliance for O3 and CO.
The USEPA has recently phased out the federal 1-hour ozone standard and replaced it with a new 8-hour standard to protect against longer exposure periods. However, the SCAB still experiences ozone levels over the prior federal 1-hour standard on more than 20 days per year.
The 2007 AQMP shows that by 2010, the SCAB will still exceed the federal 1-hour ozone standard by 20 percent despite the implementation of existing air quality programs. The SCAQMD and a number of environmental organizations have litigated against USEPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard with the case still pending.
The new 8-hour ozone standard is set at a concentration of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) and represents a tightening of the existing 1-hour ozone standard that was set at 0.12 ppm. Under the form of the standard adopted by the USEPA, areas are allowed to disregard their three worst measurements every year and average their fourth highest measurements over three years to determine if they meet the standard.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
12 For particulate matter, the USEPA established new annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 to complement the existing PM10 standards. The new annual PM2.5 standard is set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter and the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard was set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter.
This level has now been further reduced to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. The annual component of the standard was set to provide protection against typical day-to-day exposures as well as longer-term exposures, while the daily component protects against more extreme shortterm events. For the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the form of the standard is based on the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations measured in a year (averaged over three years) at the monitoring site with the highest measured values in an area. This form of the standard will reduce the impact of a single high exposure event that may be due to unusual meteorological conditions and thus provide a more stable basis for effective control programs.
While USEPA has retained the current annual PM10 standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter, it has modified the form of the 24-hour PM10 standard set at 150 micrograms per cubic meter.
More specifically, USEPA revised the one-expected exceedance form of the current standard with a 99th percentile form, averaged over three years.
The State Implementation Plans (SIP) that will incorporate attainment demonstrations with the new 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards are expected to be required within three years of the air quality designations or by 2007. Therefore, the current regulatory control strategies will continue to focus on attaining the 1-hour ozone standard with the recognition that these controls will have benefits toward attaining the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The USEPA is considering several options in transitioning from the 1-hour to the 8-hour standard, while ensuring that no backsliding will occur. Based on the recent consent decree guidance, it is most likely that the SCAB will have to meet the federal PM2.5 standards by 2015 and the 8-hour ozone standard by 2021 or 2024 if the area is redesignated as “Extreme.”
2.4.2 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the AQMP for the SCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The 1997 AQMP, updated in 1999 and replaced in 2003, was based on the 1994 AQMP and ultimately the 1991 AQMP and was designed to comply with State and federal requirements, reduce the high level of pollutant emissions in the SCAB, and ensure clean air for the region through various control measures. To accomplish its task, the 1991 AQMP relied on a multilevel partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, State, regional, and local level. These agencies (i.e., the USEPA, CARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD) are the cornerstones that implement the AQMP programs.
The most recent comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP adopted on July 13, 2007. The 2007 AQMP employs up-to-date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources, and area sources.
The 2007 Plan proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2.5 standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly emitted PM2.5, and NOx supplemented with VOC by 2014. The 8-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2.5 strategy, augmented with additional VOC Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
13 reductions to meet the standard by 2020. An extended attainment date (i.e., additional three years) is allowed under the Clean Air Act if a “bump-up” request is made by the state showing the need for such extension.
The 2007 AQMP proposes policies and measures currently contemplated by responsible agencies to achieve federal standards for healthful air quality in the SCAB and those portions of the Salton Sea Air SCAB (formerly named the Southeast Desert Air Basin) that are under SCAQMD jurisdiction (Coachella Valley).
The 2007 Plan also addresses several federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools.
The 2007 Plan builds upon the approaches taken in the 2003 AQMP for the SCAB for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. However, this new Plan highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under federal Clean Air Act.
The 2007 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM10); replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the SCAB has met since 1992.
Areas that meet the ambient air quality standards are classified as “attainment” areas while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as “non-attainment” areas. The severity of the classifications for ozone non-attainment includes and range in magnitude from: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The attainment status for the SCAB is included in Table 2, above.
The SCAB is also designated as attainment of the CAAQS for SO2, lead, and sulfates. Areas that are designated as Severe 17 for the ozone standard must meet attainment of the 8-hour standard by 2021 (2024 if reclassified to Extreme). Areas considered as serious non-attainment of the PM10 standards must have reached attainment by the end of 2006, or as expeditiously as possible.
The PM2.5 attainment date is to be met in the year 2015.
2.4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gas would be progressively reduced, as follows:
By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels; By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; and Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
14 By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq.), which requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions).
In June 2007, CARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under AB 32. The broad spectrum of strategies to be developed – including a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, regulations for refrigerants with high global warming potentials, guidance and protocols for local governments to facilitate greenhouse gas reductions, and green ports – reflects that the serious threat of climate change requires action as soon as possible.
In addition to approving the greenhouse gas reduction strategies, CARB directed staff to further evaluate early action recommendations made at the June 2007 meeting, and to report back to CARB within 6 months. The general sentiment of CARB suggested a desire to try to pursue greater greenhouse gas emissions reductions in California in the near-term. Since the June 2007 CARB hearing, CARB staff has evaluated all 48 recommendations submitted by several stakeholder and several internally-generated staff ideas and published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California, recommended for board consideration in October 2007. Based on its additional analysis, CARB staff is recommending the expansion of the early action list to a total of 44 measures. Nine of the strategies meet the AB 32 definition of discrete early action measures. Discrete early action measures are measures that will be in place and enforceable by January 1, 2010. The discrete early action items include: (1) a Low Carbon Fuel standards for ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and biogas; (2) restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants; (3) Landfill Methane Capture; (4) Smartway Truck Efficiency; (5) Port Electrification; (6) Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry; (7) Reduction of propellants in consumer products; (8) Tire inflation; and (9) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) reductions from non-electricity sector.
The 2020 target reductions are currently estimated to be 174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (MMTCO2E). In total, the recommended early actions have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42 MMTCO2E emissions by 2020, representing about 25 percent of the estimated reductions needed by 2020. The CARB Board adopted Resolution 07-55 in December 2007, approving 427 MMTCO2E as the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit for 2020, which is equivalent to the 1990 emissions level. The measures are in the sectors of fuels, transportation, forestry, agriculture, education, energy efficiency, commercial, solid waste, cement, oil and gas, electricity, and fire suppression.
2.5. BASELINE AIR QUALITY
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are best documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD. The project is located within the southern portion of Source Receptor Area (SRA) 21 Capistrano Valley. The closest monitoring station to the San Clemente area is located at Lake Forest (Saddleback Valley SRA 19).
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
15 Excepting NO2 that is not monitored in this area, data from the monitoring station in SRA 19 are summarized in Table 3. Data for NO2 included in Table 3 are as monitored in the North Coastal SRA 18. The borrow area is located near Oceanside. The nearest monitoring station to the borrow site is located at Camp Pendleton. The Camp Pendleton site measures ozone, PM2.5, and NO2. Table 3 also includes ambient data for Camp Pendleton.
Table 3
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Thresholds Were Exceeded and Maximum
Levels During Such Violations
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ozone – Lake Forest
State 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm
State 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm
Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
16 ND
4 8
0.153
0.105
11 20
0 0
0.116
0.089
3 6
1 1
0.125
0.085
13 17
0 6
0.12 0.105
5 10
0 2
0.108
0.089
Ozone – Camp Pendleton
State 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm
State 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm
Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
4 10
0 5
0.099
0.084
4 12
0 6
0.110
0.095
0 2
0 0
0.090
0.074
0 5
0 0
0.086
0.073
0 4
0 0
0.083
0.074
Carbon Monoxide – Lake Forest
State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 9.5 ppm
Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0
3 1.8
0 0
2 1.6
0 0
2 1.6
0 0
2 1.8
0 0
3 2.1
Nitrogen Dioxide – SRA 18
State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0.11
0 0.10
0 0.09
0 0.10
0 0.07
Nitrogen Dioxide – Camp Pendleton
State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0 0.11
0 0.10
0 0.09
0 0.10
0 0.07
Inhalable Particulates (PM10)
2 – Lake Forest
State 24-Hour > 50 μg/m3
Federal 24-Hour > 150 μg/m3
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3)
3.5 0.0
64 0.0
0.0 47
0.0 0
41 2.0
0 57
5 0
74 Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5)
2 – Lake Forest
Federal 24-Hour > 65 μg/m3
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3)
0.0 50.6
0.0 49.4
0.0 35.4
0.9 47.0
0.0 46.9 1 NO2 as measured at the North Coastal Orange County monitoring station. All other pollutants as measured at the Saddleback monitoring station.
2 Percent of samples exceeding standard.
ppm: parts per million; μg/m3
: micrograms per cubic meter
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
16 At the SCAG monitoring sites, ozone pollution decreased between 2004 and 2005 with an increase again in 2006 and decrease in 2007 with 5 days experiencing a violation of the federal hourly standard. The SCAG data show recurring violations of and fluctuations in both the State and Federal ozone standards and no clear trend is apparent. The SCAG data also indicate that the area occasionally exceeds the PM10 and PM2.5 State and Federal standards with only one day in 2006 that exceeded the standards for either pollutant. The CO and NO2 standards have not been violated in the last five years at this station.
At the SDAG monitoring sites, ozone pollution stayed fairly steady between 2004 and 2005 and actually decreased between 2005 and 2007 with an average of 3 days experiencing a violation of the State hourly standard during those three years. The NO2 standards have not been violated in the last five years at this station.
2.6. STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES
All projects constructed in the SCAB are subject to Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes.
Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Those conditions specific to air quality that would apply to the project are included below:
Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities.
Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust).
SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source.
SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM10 high-volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented.
In accordance with Rule 403, the SCAQMD requires that contractors implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for construction activities. Rule 403 identifies a set of specific measures for projects less than 50 acres. These requirements are included in Table 4. Note that these measures are regulatory requirements and as such, do not constitute mitigation under CEQA.
The conditions included in Table 4 apply to construction activities conducted during normal wind conditions (i.e., with wind gusts less than 25 miles per hour). The contingency measures, Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
17 included in Table 5, shall be applied to those periods when instantaneous wind gusts meet or exceed 25 miles per hour (mph).
Table 4
Required Best Available Control Measures for Fugitive Dust (Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
Source Category Control Measures Guidance
Disturbed soil x Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the construction site; and
x Stabilize disturbed soil between structures.
x Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on
soils where possible;
x If interior block walls are planned, install
as early as possible;
x Apply water or a stabilizing agent in
sufficient quantities to prevent the
generation of visible dust plumes; and
x This measure applies to both inactive and
active sites, during workdays, weekends,
holidays, and windy conditions.
Earth-moving
activities x Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; x Re-apply water as necessary to maintain
soils in a damp condition and to ensure that
visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in
any direction;
x Stabilize soils once earth-moving activities
are complete; and
x Limit speed of earthmoving equipment to
10 mph.
x Grade each project phase separately, timed
to coincide with construction phase;
x Upwind fencing can prevent material
movement on site; and
x Apply water or a stabilizing agent in
sufficient quantities to prevent the
generation of visible dust plumes.
Staging areas x Stabilize staging areas during use; and x Stabilize staging area soils at project
completion.
x Locate construction equipment and staging
zones away from sensitive receptors and
fresh air intakes to buildings and air
conditioners.
x Limit size of staging area;
x Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour
(24 kilometers per hour); and
x Limit number and size of staging area
entrances/exits.
Paved road trackout x Cover all haul vehicles x Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the
California Vehicle Code for both public
and private roads.
Traffic areas for
construction
activities
x Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking
areas;
x Stabilize all haul routes;
x Direct construction traffic over established
haul routes; and
x Limit speeds to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
x Apply gravel/paving to all haul routes as
soon as possible to all future roadway
areas; and
x Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are
used only on established parking
areas/haul routes.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
18 Table 5
Contingency Control Measures for Fugitive Dust
During High Winds in Excess of 25 MPH
Fugitive Dust Source Category Control Measures
Earth-moving x Cease all active operations; or
x Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil.
Disturbed surface areas x Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas three times per day. If there is any evidence of wind-driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day.
Unpaved roads x Apply water twice per hour during active operation.
Open storage piles x Apply water twice per hour; or
x Install temporary coverings.
All categories Executive Officer and the USEPA as equivalent to the methods specified in this table may be used.
2.7. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases.
Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered as sensitive as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution because exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. Sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity include several residential neighborhoods approximately 196 feet from the Project site.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
19 SECTION 3.0 – THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an “air quality” perspective, that a project would normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were to:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State AAQS. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” is defined to mean “that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and its impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project is significant. If the thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then it should be considered significant.
While, the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the construction or operational phase of a proposed project is significant. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed any of the air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. These threshold factors are included below.
3.1. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance thresholds (Table 6) for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis for construction and operations emissions and Table 6 also shows the SLTs for San Diego County:
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
20 Table 6
Thresholds of Significance
SCAG Regional SDAG Screening Level
Construction
Emissions
Operations
Emissions
Total
Emissions
Total
Emissions
Total
Emissions
Pollutant (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/hr) lbs/day tons/year ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55 25 250 40
CO 550 550 100 550 100
PM10 150 150 ---- 100 15
PM2.5 55 55 ---- 55 10
SOx 150 150 25 250 40
Lead and lead
compounds
NA NA ---- 3.2 0.6
VOC NA NA ---- 75 13.7
During construction or operation, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed Project, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above.
In the SDAG, the event that project emissions exceed the SLTs, specific modeling will be required for NO2, SO2, CO, and lead to demonstrate that the project’s ground-level concentrations, including appropriate background levels, do not exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. For ozone precursors, PM10 and PM2.5, exceedances of the SLTs results in a significant impact.
3.2. LOCALIZED THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE (LST)
In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, the SCAQMD has established the following threshold criteria to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to an exceedance of the State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQ) as included in Table 1, Section
2. California State 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm
California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm
California State 1-hour NO2 standard of 0.25 ppm
SCAQMD 24-hour construction PM10 /67RIȝJP3
SCAQMD 24-hour construction PM2.5 /67RIȝJm3
SCAQMD 24-hour operational PM10 /67RIȝJP3
SCAQMD 24-hour operational PM2.5 /67RIȝJP3
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
21 The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the Project are above or below State standards. In the case of CO and NO2, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to both PM10 and PM2.5; both of which are non-attainment pollutants. In these cases, local emissions are FRQVLGHUHGDVVLJQLILFDQWLIWKH\H[FHHGȝJP3 GXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQRUȝJP3 during the subsequent operation of the site, both as measured at the proximate sensitive receptor locations.
3.3. ADDITIONAL INDICATORS
The SCAQMD recommends that “additional indicators” should be used as screening criteria with respect to air quality. Additional factors relevant to the project at hand identified in the Handbook include the following significance criteria:
Interference with the attainment of the Federal or State AAQS by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.
Again, the SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
22 SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Project involves the nourishment of a 1,040-meter stretch of San Clemente Beach. Projected air emissions are prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as included in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993 (Handbook) as well as its Internet updates included on its web site. For the purposes of this analysis, construction is estimated to occur in 2010 with the 15-meter width alternative taking approximately 46 working days and the 35-meter width alternative taking 108 working days.
The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook as well as updates included on the SCAQMD Internet Web site. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC) as an indicator of ozone. For ease of the reader, the included analysis follows the outline of the CEQA Checklist.
The San Diego Air Pollution Control District does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction or mobile source-related impacts. However, the District specifies Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources. If these incremental levels for stationary sources are exceeded, an AQIA must be performed for the proposed new or modified source. Although these trigger levels do not generally apply to mobile sources or general land development projects, for comparative purposes San Diego County has established AQIAs as screening-level thresholds (SLTs). The County has stated that the SLTs may used to evaluate the increased emissions which would be discharged to the SDAB from proposed land development projects.
The information on San Diego’s thresholds are presented for informational purposes since all onshore emissions are located in the SCAB and off-shore sources are not under the jurisdiction of the local air district’s, therefore not subject to thresholds.
4.1. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN The Project action represents the placement of sand on the beach. The Project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts at the proximate receptor locations and would implement those measures included in the AQMP considered as feasible and, as such, the Project is consistent with the goals of the AQMP and does not present a significant impact.
4.2. PROJECT POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE OR ADD TO A VIOLATION OF AN AIR
QUALITY STANDARD
CEQA inquires as to whether a project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. A violation could occur over the short-term during project construction, or over the long-term during its subsequent operation. As there is no long-term operation portion of this project, only the short-term construction portion is discussed below.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
23 4.2.1 Localized Construction Impacts
Project construction has the potential to raise local ambient pollutant concentrations. This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the allowable emissions as a function of receptor distance from the site boundary.
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Methodology. In accordance with the Methodology, the analysis is only to include exhaust and dust emissions associated with those pieces of equipment that actually operate on-site and omits vehicle trips that are distributed over a large area. This omission would include vessel traffic that travels 21 miles between Oceanside and the offshore pump-out area near the Project site.
In the Methodology, the SCAQMD notes receptor locations as “off-site locations where persons may be exposed to the emissions from project activities. Receptor locations include residential, commercial, and industrial land use areas; and any other areas where persons can be situated for an hour or longer at a time.”
In accordance with the Methodology, receptor locations are to consider the actual location of the receptors. If these locations are unknown, or varied, they may be assumed to be located at distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. In cases where proximate receptors may be closer than 25 meters, as per the Methodology, a value of 25 meters is to be used in the analysis as a worst-case scenario. In addition to the actual closest receptors to the Project area at approximately 55 meters away, the recommended SCAQMD default distances were used in this analysis for comparison.
In the cases of CO and NO2, the projected concentration is then added to an assumed ambient concentration in order to determine if the State AAQS would be exceeded. This ambient concentration is source-area dependant and is based on the peak value observed over the last three years of accumulated data at the nearest air monitoring station (Table 3). Because PM10 and PM2.5 are non-attainment pollutants, no ambient concentration is added. Instead, in both cases, a short-term construction standard defined as a measurable increase of 10.4 μg/m3 is to be applied at the proximate sensitive receptor locations. Table 7 presents the daily projected emissions from on-site construction as well as the projected concentrations at the various default and actual receptor distances. Note that all concentrations are within their respective criteria and the impact is less than significant.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
24 Table 7
Localized Construction Emissions Concentrations1
Distance CO (1-Hr
Conc.)2
CO (8-Hr
Conc.)3
NO2 (1-Hr
Conc.)4
PM10 (24-Hr
Conc.)
PM2.5 (24-Hr
Conc.)
Peak Daily Onsite Emissions
(lb/day) 43.6 43.6 94.9 9.7 4.0
Concentration at 25 meters 3.08 2.16 0.11 10.31 3.83
Concentration at 50 meters 3.07 2.15 0.11 8.50 3.31
Concentration at 55 meters
(Nearest Actual Receptor) 3.07 2.15 0.11 8.20 3.21
Concentration at 100 meters 3.06 2.14 0.11 6.25 2.51
Concentration at 200 meters 3.04 2.13 0.11 4.10 1.67
Concentration at 500 meters 3.02 2.11 0.11 1.91 0.78
Ambient Air Quality Standard 20 ppm 9.0 ppm 0.18 ppm 10.4 μg/m3 10.4 μg/m3 Exceeds Standard? No No No No No
1 CO and NO2 are in ppm, PM10 and PM2.5 are in μg/m3
. 2 Includes a background concentration of 3.0 ppm.
3 Includes a background concentration of 2.1 ppm.
4 Includes a background concentration of 0.10 ppm.
4.3. PROJECT POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE
INCREASE IN CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
CEQA inquires as to whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State AAQS (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
4.3.1 Site Construction
Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation, grading, and sporadic maintenance activities required for implementation of the proposed land use. Maintenance could take place once every six years depending on need and financial ability. Maintenance would result in a repetition of the initial construction activities.
The Project includes two alternatives that involve approximately 4 and 9 acres of beach nourishment for the 15- and 35-meter widths, respectively. There is no building construction or paving activities associated with this project. Construction would occur over approximately 46 and 108 working days, respectively. Values used for analysis are included in Appendix A.
Table 8 summarizes the daily emissions for construction in comparison with the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Emissions associated with onshore heavy equipment are Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
25 based on the OffRoad2007 model runs as provided by the SCAQMD on their Internet web site for year 2010 construction equipment. The SCAQMD presents emissions for most pieces of heavy construction equipment at differing horsepower levels generated using the OffRoad2007 Computer Model. The actual horsepower of the anticipated pieces of equipment (i.e., Cat D10 dozers at 580 hp and 988 Front-end loaders at 430 hp) were then extrapolated from the two pieces of similar equipment with the nearest horsepower ratings above and below the expected piece of equipment.
Some dust with its attendant PM10 and PM2.5 would also be generated from the onshore movement of sand. The 15- and 35-meter Project alternatives would encompass approximately 4 and 9 acres, respectively. The daily area of disturbance would be approximately the same for both alternatives, with the difference being in the duration of the disturbance.
The URBEMIS2007 model developed to determine the emissions associated with land-use projects estimates that each acre disturbed generates 20 pounds of PM10 and that 25 percent of the construction area is active at any one time. As such, using the URBEMIS model would result in 1 acre of disturbance daily for the 15-meter alternative and 2.25 acres daily for the 35-meter alternative. As a conservative approach, this analysis assumes that 25 percent of the larger area is disturbed for either alternative resulting in a disturbance of approximately 2.25 acres daily and, in the absence of any dust suppression, 45 pounds of PM10.
Like all projects in the South Coast Air Basin, the construction would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring dust control. The URBEMIS2007 model estimates that twice daily watering reduced the dust by about 50 percent whereas thrice daily watering raises this value to about 65 percent. The materials to be placed on the beach are ocean bottom and are pumped onto the beach as a slurry. Because the material is totally saturated, little if any dust is released during its movement. As such, a control efficiency value of 85 percent was assumed for dust suppression as a conservative estimate.
Since the borrow site is in the SDAB and the project site is in the SCAB, emissions were assigned to the separate basins by assigning all of the loading emissions, half of the idling emissions and 81 percent of the sailing emissions to the SDAB and all of the unloading emissions, half of the idling emissions, 19 percent of the sailing emissions and all of the on-shore emissions to the SCAB. In total, all the on-shore and 32 percent of the off-shore emissions will be in the SCAB and the other 68 percent of the off-shore emissions would be in the SDAB.
Table 8
Comparison of Unmitigated Projected Construction Emissions and Criteria Values CO NOx ROG SOX
Total
PM101
Total
PM2.52 CO2
Lbs/Day
On Shore
Equipment 43.2 94.9 12.4 0.1 3.9 3.4 8,277.0
Dust 0 0 0 0 6.8 1.4 0
On Shore
Vehicles 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
26 Off Shore
Sources 327.4 2,185.5 63.9 140.4 66.2 58.9 108,722.6
All Sources 373.1 2,280.6 76.6 140.5 76.9 63.7 117,291.4 On Shore
Sources 45.7 95.1 12.7 0.1 10.7 4.8 8,568.8
Daily
Threshold: 550 100 75 150 150 55 NT3
Significant
? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Pounds and Tons/Alternative
50 Feet (15 Meter) Width Alternative
Pounds 17,163.0 104,906.5 3,519.2 6,463.9 3,532.9 2,833.3 5,395,405.4 Tons 8.6 52.5 1.8 3.2 1.8 1.5 2,697.7
115 Feet (35 Meter) Width Alternative
Pounds 1,853,603.2 11,329,898.3 380,072.7 698,095.8 381,553.7 316,792.3 582,703,786.0 Tons 926.8 5,664.9 190.0 349.0 190.8 158.4 291,351.9
1 Assumes 85 percent control efficiency for wet material. 2 Based on 99 percent of the PM10 for on-road emissions, 89 percent of the PM10 for off-road emissions, and 21 percent of the PM10 for fugitive dust. 3 NT – No Threshold.
Data and emissions for the watercraft are based on data supplied by Moffatt & Nichol. The barge is estimated at approximately 4,300 hp for propulsion and 1,700 hp for the dredge pump.
Additionally, a generator and auxiliary power source would also be used and are each rated at 565 hp. A tug would assist unloading operations and is estimated at 4,268 hp.
Since the borrow site is in the SDAB and the project site is in the SCAB, emissions were assigned to the separate basins by assigning all of the loading emissions, half of the idling emissions and 81 percent of the sailing emissions to the SDAB and all of the unloading emissions, half of the idling emissions, 19 percent of the sailing emissions and all of the on-shore emissions to the SCAB. In total, all the on-shore and 32 percent of the off-shore emissions will be in the SCAB and the other 68 percent of the off-shore emissions would be in the SDAB.
Emissions would also be generated from the construction crew in their daily commutes and by the on-site use of two pick-up trucks. Emissions for these vehicles were based on the EMFAC2007 computer model and assume Year 2010 emission factors. The total daily emissions generated by vehicle travel in Orange County projected by the EMFAC2007 model was divided by the total number of daily miles by vehicle type and a grams-per-mile by vehicle type is determined. Members of the construction crew are each estimated to travel 25.4 miles round-trip in accordance with the URBEMIS2007 computer model for home-to-work travel distances in Orange County.
In this case, the total number of vehicles was raised from 10 to 12 to account for the use of two on-site pick-up trucks during the day. Actual miles for these two pick-ups would be less than the
25.4-mile value used in the analysis, but these emissions are minimal relative to those of the offshore and heavy equipment and more accurate data as to their use would not change the outcome of the analysis.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
27 The two Project alternatives would use the same level of equipment on a daily basis with the difference being in the timeframe involved. As shown in Table 8, NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 emissions could exceed their respective thresholds of 100, 75, and 55 pounds per day. These exceedences represent a potentially significant impact. Model results appear in Appendix A.
4.3.1.1 Mitigation Measures
Site construction could exceed the daily threshold for NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 emissions.
Particulate emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5 are subject to Rule 403 and mitigation for an exceedance condition is usually in the form of additional soil wetting. However, as noted in the analysis, the material is pumped to the beach as a slurry and is completely saturated resulting in very little fugitive dust and its resultant particulates. As such, enhanced watering is neither prescribed nor should it be necessary. Because the bulk of the PM2.5 is produced by offshore sources, there is little control over these emissions. Applicable mitigation for NOx and ROG are included below. The included measures would also reduce PM2.5 for onshore heavy equipment exhaust.
4.3.1.2 NOx, ROG, and PM2.5 Emissions Mitigation Measures The Applicant shall specify that the construction contractors shall use onshore heavy equipment that meets Tier II or higher air pollutant emission standards where these standards are applicable and equipment available.
All heavy equipment shall be maintained and tuned per manufacturer's specifications to perform at California Air Resources Board (CARB) and/or EPA certification, where applicable, levels and to perform at verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies.
4.3.1.3 Residual Impacts
The requirement for Tier II heavy equipment, where applicable, could reduce NOx emissions by about 40 percent and particulate emissions by about 25 percent over Tier I equipment levels. A higher percentage reduction would be achieved over the use of equipment-produced prior to Tier I requirements. Because the status of the actual equipment assemblage, as well as those pieces subject to Tier II requirements, is variable, the overall reduction in NOx emissions could be less than the 40 percent reduction noted for the use of Tier II equipment. Based on the NOx levels included in Table 8, even if a 40 percent reduction were obtained for all onshore heavy equipment, the NOx impact is expected to remain significant and unavoidable as do PM2.5 emissions assuming this TIER II equipment reduces particulate levels by 25 percent.
CO and ROG levels associated with onshore heavy equipment construction would also be reduced. If the 40 percent reduction associated with NOx control is also applied to ROG, onshore heavy equipment ROG would be reduced from 12.4 to 7.4 pounds per day. Total daily ROG would be reduced to 71.6 pounds per day and the impact of ROG could be reduced to less than significant.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
28 Table 9 presents the results of the mitigation. Note that even with mitigation, NOx and PM2.5 emissions remain above their respective daily significance thresholds. Modeling details are included as Appendix A.
Table 9
Comparison of Mitigated Construction Emissions and Criteria Values CO NOx ROG SOX Total
PM101
Total
PM2.52 CO2
Lbs/Day
On Shore
Equipment 43.2 56.9 7.4 0.1 2.9 2.6 8,277.0
Dust --- --- --- --- 6.8 1.4 ---
On Shore
Vehicles 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8
Off Shore
Sources 327.4 2,185.5 63.9 140.4 66.2 58.9 108,722.6
All Sources 373.1 2,242.6 71.6 140.5 76.8 63.8 117,291.4 On Shore
Sources 45.7 57.1 7.7 0.1 9.7 4.0 8,568.8
Daily
Threshold: 550 100 75 150 150 55 NT3
Significant
? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Pounds and Tons/Alternative
15 Meter Width Alternative4
Pounds 17,163.0 103,161.1 3,291.4 6,463.9 3,532.9 2,833.3 5,395,405.4 Tons 8.6 51.6 1.6 3.2 1.8 1.5 2,697.7
35 Meter Width Alternative5
Pounds 1,853,603.2 11,141,399.7 355,468.2 698,095.8 381,553.7 316,792.3 582,703,786.0 Tons 926.8 5,570.7 177.7 349.0 190.8 158.4 291,351.9
1 Assumes 85 percent control efficiency for wet material. 2 Based on 99 percent of the PM10 for on-road emissions, 89 percent of the PM10 for off-road emissions, and 21 percent of the PM10 for fugitive dust. 3 NT – No Threshold. 4 Based on 46 working days.
5 Based on 108 working days.
4.3.2 Site Operations
The Proposed nourishment project does not include an operational phase. Therefore, there are no operational emissions associated with the Proposed Project.
4.4. PROJECT POTENTIAL TO EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO
SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Construction of the Project presents the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This consideration is addressed below.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
29 4.4.1 Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
As demonstrated in Section 4.2.1 above, daily emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 were modeled to determine their concentration and contribution to the ambient concentrations within the Project vicinity and as shown in Table 7 above, the concentrations of emissions are below the localized significance threshold criteria. As such, Project construction activities will not result in potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
4.4.2 Long-Term (Operational) Impacts
The Proposed nourishment project does not include an operational phase. Therefore there are no long-term impacts associated with the Proposed Project.
4.5. PROJECT POTENTIAL CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS
Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth. With regard to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the Project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.
Sediments to be placed on the beach would not contain a high level of organic debris and thus, while an odor may be noted, it would be typical of any odor associated with low tide conditions.
This impact is therefore considered not significant.
4.6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significant criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision-makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development.
4.6.1 Construction
Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases.
Construction CO2 emissions associated with the use of onshore heavy equipment are as projected by the OffRoad2007 model included on the SCAQMD Internet web site. CO2 emissions for the ocean-going vessels are based on fuel use factors included in Table A9-3-E (Fuel Use Estimates Per Horsepower Hour) of the SCAQMD Handbook and CO2 emissions are based on the BAAQMD document, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table B: Generalized GHG Emission Factors (Lbs/Usage Unit) and are included in Table 8, above. In accordance with the Project construction schedule, approximately 5,395,405.4pounds (2,697.7 tons) of CO2 would be produced during the 46 working days associated with the 15- meter width alternative and approximately 582,703,786.0 pounds (291,351.9 tons) would be produced during the 108 working days associated with the 35-meter width alternative.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
30 In accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. At approximately 2,697.7 tons, the 15-meter width alternative represents about 0.0005 percent of this State’s annual CO2 emissions budget. At about 291,351.9 tons, the 35-meter width alternative represents about 0.05 percent if the State’s annual CO2 emissions budget.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
31 SECTION 5.0 – CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The CEQA Guidelines require that projects be evaluated with respect to their contribution to the cumulative effects resulting from past, present, and probable future projects. This contribution with respect to air emissions would typically include both construction and operational emissions. In this case, the Project represents a construction effort. There are no physical structures to be built nor would the Project increase attendance at the beach.
Construction of the related projects would be short-term and depending on the extent of construction, could have effects similar to or greater than that of the proposed project. Even with the prescribed mitigation, the Project is anticipated to exceed the significance threshold limitations for NOx and PM2.5. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that exceed the daily threshold values and cannot be mitigated to less than the SCAQMD thresholds add significantly to the cumulative impact. As such, the Project is also considered as significant at the cumulative level.
With respect to cumulative emissions concentrations and their potential impact on sensitive receptors, the localized impact analysis demonstrates that all emissions levels would remain within their respective threshold values and the Project would not result in emissions in excess of the AAQS. As such, the Project does not add to a cumulative violation of the standards.
Air Quality Analysis Report – San Clemente Shoreline Project San Clemente, California
Chambers Group, Inc. 3313
32 SECTION 6.0 – REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2008.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
Air Toxics Assessment Manual, October 1, 1987.
California Air Resources Board
EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 1, 2006.
URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.2, September 2007.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
A Climatological Air Quality Profile, California South Coast Air Basin, January 1980.
Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007).
Rules and Regulations, 2007.
Final 2007 AQMP, July 13, 2007.
Final 2003 AQMP, August 1 2003.
Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors, October 10, 2008.
Final-Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006.
Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, February 2005.
Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
Southern California Association of Governments
1997 Air Quality Management Plan, 1997.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
SCREEN3 Dispersion Model, Version Dated 95250
Western Regional Climate Center
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html
APPENDIX A – CALCULATION OF UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
APPENDIX A
CALCULATION OF UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The included spreadsheet may be used to determine average daily emissions associated with project construction. Heavy equipment emission factors are as projected using the OFFROAD2007 Model runs as included on the SCAQMD Internet web site. Dredge and tug criteria pollutant emissions are based on emission factors provided by Jim McNally of Moffatt & Nichol. Dredge and tug CO2 emissions are based on the BAAQMD document, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Vehicle Emissions are based on an Orange County Year 2010 model run of the CARB EMFAC2007 computer model. The total daily vehicle emissions for each vehicle class included in the model was divided by the total number of vehicles miles traveled in each class so that an average emission rate per mile could be determined. Worker vehicles are a composite of light duty autos, light duty trucks less than 3,750 pounds, and light trucks between 3,751 and 5,150 pounds. Per the URBEMIS2007 computer model, Orange County trip lengths are set at 25.4 miles per trips for workers and 30 miles per trips for trucks. While 10 workers are anticipated, 12 vehicles are assumed to account for the two to be used on-site during the day. PM10 emissions associated with dust are based on the assumptions included in the URBEMIS2007 computer model. The model reports that 20 pounds of PM10 are generated per acre disturbed per day and the active area is 25 percent of the site. This analysis assumes 25 percent of the 35-meter width, 9-acre site. A conservative control efficiency of 85 percent is then assumed for the movement of saturated beach sand.
PM2.5 emissions are based on 99 percent of vehicle emissions, 89 percent of off-road diesel emissions, and 21 percent of fugitive dust.
INPUT ASSUMPTIONS
Heavy Equipment Emissions (All Diesel Except Where Noted) Exhaust Emission Factors (Pounds per Horsepower-Hour) Equipment Type #Days Hr/Day Hp Load % CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO2Dredge Propulsion Loading 1 4.58 4300 65 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Propulsion Sailing 1 11.99 4300 80 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Propulsion Unloading 1 3.2 4300 5 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Propulsion Idling 1 1.83 4300 5 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Loading 1 4.58 1700 65 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Sailing 1 11.99 1700 5 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Unloading 1 3.2 1700 70 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Idling 1 1.83 1700 0 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Tug Unloading 1 3.2 4268 40 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Generators 1 7.67 565 35 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Auxiliary 1 7.67 565 35 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Crew Boat (in gal/hr) 1 20 2.8 50 0.14 0.34 0.18 0.027 0 1.4784Dozer (@ rated load factor) 2 10 580 100 0.003002328 0.005529528 0.000725584 4.48243E-06 0.000236143 0.456676738Front-End Loader (@ rated load factor) 2 10 430 100 0.000979162 0.003571376 0.000461013 3.89824E-06 0.000130941 0.346457444Mobile Source Emissions Exhaust Emission Factors (Pounds per Mile)Vehicle Class # Trips Mi/Trip CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO2 Workers (Inc. Autos & Trks Under 5,151
Lbs) 12 25.4 0.008152033 0.000729368 0.000894025 9.1476E-06 8.3548E-05 0.95744843 Heavy-Heavy Trucks (33,001 - 60,000 lb) 0 30 0.0225 0.034684466 0.003859223 4.85437E-05 0.001553398 4.004854369 Dust Emissions PM10 Emission factor (Pounds per Acre per Day) Area Disturbed # Acres # Days % Control
PM10
(#/Acre)
Active Area 2.25 1 85 20.00
OUTPUT VALUES
Heavy Equipment Emissions Exhaust Emissions (Pounds Total)Equipment Type CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2Dredge Propulsion Loading 56.3 378.9 10.2 24.3 11.5 10.3 18,925.1Dredge Propulsion Sailing 181.5 1,220.9 33.0 78.4 37.1 33.0 60,977.5Dredge Propulsion Unloading 3.0 20.4 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.6 1,017.1Dredge Propulsion Idling 1.7 11.6 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 581.7Dredge Pump/Jets Loading 22.3 149.8 4.0 9.6 4.6 4.1 7,482.0Dredge Pump/Jets Sailing 4.5 30.2 0.8 1.9 0.9 0.8 1,506.7Dredge Pump/Jets Unloading 16.8 112.7 3.0 7.2 3.4 3.1 5,629.7Dredge Pump/Jets Idling 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Tug Unloading 24.0 161.7 4.4 10.4 4.9 4.4 8,076.6Dredge Generators 6.7 44.9 1.2 2.9 1.4 1.2 2,242.4Auxiliary 6.7 44.9 1.2 2.9 1.4 1.2 2,242.4Crew Boat 3.9 9.5 5.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 41.4Dozer 34.8 64.1 8.4 0.1 2.7 2.4 5,297.5Front-End Loader 8.4 30.7 4.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 2,979.5Total Daily Emissions (Pounds) 370.6 2,280.4 76.2 140.5 70.0 62.3 116,999.6Total Daily Emissions (Tons) 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 58.5
OUTPUT VALUES
Mobile Source Emissions Exhaust Emissions (Pounds Total)Vehicle Class CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2Workers (Inc. Autos & Trks Under 5,151 Lbs) 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8Heavy-Heavy Trucks (33,001 - 60,000 lb) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Mobile-Source Emissions (Pounds) 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8Total Mobile-Source Emissions (Tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Dust Emissions Dust PM10 Emissions (Pounds Total)Area Disturbed PM10 PM2.5Active Area 6.8 1.4Total PM10 From Dust Emissions (Pounds) 6.8 1.4Total PM10 From Dust Emissions (Tons)Total Daily Emissions CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2Pounds 373.1 2,280.6 76.5 140.5 76.8 63.8 117,291.4Tons 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 58.6Emissions for 46 daysPounds 17,163.0 104,906.5 3,519.2 6,463.9 3,532.9 2,933.3 5,395,405.4Tons 8.6 52.5 1.8 3.2 1.8 1.5 2,697.7Emissions for 108 daysPounds 1,853,603.2 11,329,898.3 380,072.7 698,095.8 381,553.7 316,792.3 582,703,786.0Tons 926.8 5,664.9 190.0 349.0 190.8 158.4 291,351.9 APPENDIX B – CALCULATION OF MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
APPENDIX B
CALCULATION OF UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The included spreadsheet may be used to determine average daily emissions associated with project construction. Heavy equipment emission factors are as projected using the OFFROAD2007 Model runs as included on the SCAQMD Internet web site. Dredge and tug criteria pollutant emissions are based on emission factors provided by Jim McNally of Moffatt & Nichol. Dredge and tug CO2 emissions are based on the BAAQMD document, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Vehicle Emissions are based on an Orange County Year 2010 model run of the CARB EMFAC2007 computer model. The total daily vehicle emissions for each vehicle class included in the model was divided by the total number of vehicles miles traveled in each class so that an average emission rate per mile could be determined. Worker vehicles are a composite of light duty autos, light duty trucks less than 3,750 pounds, and light trucks between 3,751 and 5,150 pounds. Per the URBEMIS2007 computer model, Orange County trip lengths are set at 25.4 miles per trips for workers and 30 miles per trips for trucks. While 10 workers are anticipated, 12 vehicles are assumed to account for the two to be used on-site during the day. PM10 emissions associated with dust are based on the assumptions included in the URBEMIS2007 computer model. The model reports that 20 pounds of PM10 are generated per acre disturbed per day and the active area is 25 percent of the site.
This analysis assumes 25 percent of the 35-meter width, 9-acre site. A conservative control efficiency of 85 percent is then assumed for the movement of saturated beach sand. PM2.5 emissions are based on 99 percent of vehicle emissions, 89 percent of off-road diesel emissions, and 21 percent of fugitive dust.
INPUT ASSUMPTIONS
Heavy Equipment Emissions (All Diesel Except Where Noted) Exhaust Emission Factors (Pounds per Horsepower-Hour)Equipment Type #Days Hr/Day Hp Load
% CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO2
Dredge Propulsion Loading 1 4.58 4300 65 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Propulsion Sailing 1 11.99 4300 80 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Propulsion Unloading 1 3.2 4300 5 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Propulsion Idling 1 1.83 4300 5 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Loading 1 4.58 1700 65 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Sailing 1 11.99 1700 5 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Unloading 1 3.2 1700 70 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Pump/Jets Idling 1 1.83 1700 0 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Tug Unloading 1 3.2 4268 40 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Dredge Generators 1 7.67 565 35 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Auxiliary 1 7.67 565 35 0.0044 0.0296 0.0008 0.0019 0.0009 1.4784Crew Boat (in gal/hr) 1 20 2.8 50 0.14 0.34 0.18 0.027 0 1.4784Dozer (@ rated load factor) 2 10 580 100 0.003002328 0.005529528 0.000725584
4.48243E06 0.000236143 0.456676738
Front-End Loader (@ rated load factor) 2 10 430 100 0.000979162 0.003571376 0.000461013
3.89824E06 0.000130941 0.346457444
Mobile Source Emissions Exhaust Emission Factors (Pounds per Mile)Vehicle Class # Trips Mi/Trip CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 CO2Workers (Inc. Autos & Trks Under 5,151 Lbs) 12 25.4 0.008152033 0.000729368 0.000894025
9.1476E06 8.3548E-05 0.95744843
Heavy-Heavy Trucks (33,001 - 60,000 lb) 0 30 0.0225 0.034684466 0.003859223
4.85437E05 0.001553398 4.004854369
Dust Emissions PM10 Emission factor (Pounds per Acre per Day)Area Disturbed # Acres # Days % Control PM10
(#/Acre)
Active Area 2.25 1 85 20.00
OUTPUT VALUES
Heavy Equipment Emissions Exhaust Emissions (Pounds Total)Equipment Type CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2Dredge Propulsion Loading 56.3 378.9 10.2 24.3 11.5 10.3 18,925.1Dredge Propulsion Sailing 181.5 1,220.9 33.0 78.4 37.1 33.0 60,977.5Dredge Propulsion Unloading 3.0 20.4 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.6 1,017.1Dredge Propulsion Idling 1.7 11.6 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 581.7Dredge Pump/Jets Loading 22.3 149.8 4.0 9.6 4.6 4.1 7,482.0Dredge Pump/Jets Sailing 4.5 30.2 0.8 1.9 0.9 0.8 1,506.7Dredge Pump/Jets Unloading 16.8 112.7 3.0 7.2 3.4 3.1 5,629.7Dredge Pump/Jets Idling 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Tug Unloading 24.0 161.7 4.4 10.4 4.9 4.4 8,076.6Dredge Generators 6.7 44.9 1.2 2.9 1.4 1.2 2,242.4Auxiliary 6.7 44.9 1.2 2.9 1.4 1.2 2,242.4Crew Boat 3.9 9.5 5.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 41.4Dozer 34.8 64.1 8.4 0.1 2.7 2.4 5,297.5Front-End Loader 8.4 30.7 4.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 2,979.5Total Daily Emissions (Pounds) 370.6 2,280.4 76.2 140.5 70.0 62.3 116,999.6Total Daily Emissions (Tons) 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 58.5Mobile Source Emissions Exhaust Emissions (Pounds Total)Vehicle Class CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2Workers (Inc. Autos & Trks Under 5,151 Lbs) 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8Heavy-Heavy Trucks (33,001 - 60,000 lb) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Mobile-Source Emissions (Pounds) 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 291.8Total Mobile-Source Emissions (Tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
OUTPUT VALUES
Dust Emissions Dust PM10 Emissions (Pounds Total)Area Disturbed PM10 PM2.5Active Area 6.8 1.4Total PM10 From Dust Emissions (Pounds) 6.8 1.4Total PM10 From Dust Emissions (Tons)Total Daily Emissions CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2Pounds 373.1 2,280.6 76.5 140.5 76.8 63.8 117,291.4Tons 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 58.6Emissions for 46 daysPounds 17,163.0 104,906.5 3,519.2 6,463.9 3,532.9 2,933.3 5,395,405.4Tons 8.6 52.5 1.8 3.2 1.8 1.5 2,697.7Emissions for 108 daysPounds 1,853,603.2 11,329,898.3 380,072.7 698,095.8 381,553.7 316,792.3 582,703,786.0Tons 926.8 5,664.9 190.0 349.0 190.8 158.4 291,351.9 APPENDIX C – LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD DISPERSION MODELING
METHODOLOGY FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EMISSIONS
APPENDIX C
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD DISPERSION MODELING
METHODOLOGY
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
In accordance with the SCAQMD criteria, peak daily emissions for CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 were modeled to determine their concentration and contribution to the ambient concentrations within the project vicinity. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Methodology (SCAQMD, June 2003).
Modeling was performed using the USEPA SCREEN3 dispersion model and includes those emissions sources that operate continually at the site (i.e., heavy equipment) and two pick-up trucks. Mobile source emissions (i.e., worker commutes and haul trips) are not to be included in the analysis as these emissions are spread over a large area and do not represent a localized source. The maximum daily unmitigated emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 were determined based on emissions projections included in the analysis.
For construction, highest values are as presented in Table 8 of the analysis. PM10 and PM2.5 were further broken down into fugitive dust and exhaust particulates as these are released at differing heights.
An average hourly emission rate was determined and the average hourly emission rate in grams per second was calculated.
CO = 43.6 lb/day x 454 gm/lb / 10 hr/day / 60 min/hr / 60 sec/min = 0.55 gm/sec NOx = 94.9 lb/day x 454 gm/lb / 10 hr/day / 60 min/hr / 60 sec/min = 1.20 gm/sec PM10 dust = 6.8 lb/day x 454 gm/lb / 10 hr/day / 60 min/hr / 60 sec/min = 0.09 gm/sec PM10 exhaust = 2.9 lb/day x 454 gm/lb / 10 hr/day / 60 min/hr / 60 sec/min = 0.04 gm/sec PM2.5 dust = 1.4 lb/day x 454 gm/lb / 10 hr/day / 60 min/hr / 60 sec/min = 0.02 gm/sec PM2.5 exhaust = 2.6 lb/day x 454 gm/lb / 8 hr/day / 60 min/hr / 60 sec/min = 0.03 gm/sec These values were then divided by the project area and a 1-hour concentration was derived. In accordance with the URBEMIS2007 model, the daily disturbed area represents 25 percent of the site (i.e., 2.25 acres) and the total site is based on the 9-acre area. 9 acres x 43,560 ft2/acre x 0.0929 ft2/m2 = 36,421 m2
CO = 0.55 gm/sec / 36,421 m2 = 0.00001510 gm/sec/m2
NOx = 1.20 gm/sec / 36,421 m2 = 0.00003286 gm/sec/m2
PM10 dust = 0.09 gm/sec / 36,421 m2 = 0.00000235 gm/sec/m2 PM10 exhaust = 0.58 gm/sec / 36,421 m2 = 0.00000100 gm/sec/m2 PM2.5 dust = 0.02 gm/sec / 36,421 m2 = 0.00000048 gm/sec/m2 PM2.5 exhaust = 0.03 gm/sec / 36,421 m2 = 0.00000090 gm/sec/m2
These values were then modeled as an area source using the USEPA SCREEN3 dispersion model. Model parameters were selected in accordance with the Methodology. Accordingly, the emissions plume was set at an elevation of 5 meters while the receptors were set at an elevation of 2 meters. As a reasonable worst-case, the highest atmospheric stability class was used in the modeling effort. In accordance with the discussion of local meteorology, daily wind speed was set at 6 mph (2.68 m/sec), the minimum average daily wind speed through the project area.
According to the Methodology, receptors are to be located at their actual distances or may be assumed to be located at distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. In cases where proximate receptors may be closer than 25 meters, as per the Methodology, a value of 25 meters is to be used in the analysis as a worst-case scenario. The closest receptors are actually about 55 meters from the site.
In the case of the 1-hour CO standard, the modeled concentration was added directly to an assumed ambient concentration. This ambient concentration is source-area dependant and is based on the peak 1-hour value observed over the last three years of accumulated data (i.e., 3 ppm). In the case of CO, SCREEN3 reports results in terms of μg/m3 . However, the standard is
in ppm and the value obtained from the SCREEN3 model must be converted.
For CO, the conversion factor is:
Conc. (ppm) / Conc. (μg/m3
) = pressure (mb) / Temp (k) x molecular wt / 8.314E-2
Conc. (ppm) / Conc. (μg/m3
) = 1,013.25 mb / 293.15 k x 28 / 8.314E-2
= 1,164.1
As an example, in the case of CO, the SCREEN3 Model projects a CO concentration of 93.78 μg/m3 at 25 meters.
93.78 μg/m3 / 1,164.1 = 0.08 ppm
This value is then added to the ambient concentration (i.e., 3 ppm).
For the 8-hour CO standard, the 1-hour concentration is multiplied by a persistence factor of 0.7 as recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (Air Toxics Assessment Manual, October 1, 1987). The resultant value was added to the peak 8-hour value observed over the last three years of accumulated data, (i.e., 2.1 ppm).
In the case of NO2 the calculation is slightly more complex. The ambient air quality standards are written in terms of NO2. However, heavy equipment primarily emits NO that then goes on to form NO2. As such, the Methodology includes factors than can be used to determine NO2 concentrations at varying distances. These factors are included in the following table.
The NOx concentration modeled using the SCREEN3 model was then multiplied by the NO2/NOx ratio. Like CO, SCREEN3 reports NOx concentrations in μg/m3 while the standard is in ppm. In this case, the conversion is:
Conc. (ppm) / Conc. (μg/m3
) = 1,013.25 mb / 293.15k x 46 / 8.314E-2
= 1,912.4
NO2-to-NOx Ratio as a Function of Downwind Distance
Downwind Distance (m) NO2/NOx Ratio
20 0.053
251 0.054
50 0.059
551 0.060
100 0.074
200 0.114
500 0.258
1 Value is not included in the SCAQMD methodology and is extrapolated.
As an example, in the case of NOx, the SCREEN3 Model projects a concentration of 204.1 μg/m3 at 25 meters.
204.1 μg/ m3 x 0.054 / 1,912.4 = 0.0058 ppm
The resultant value is added to the peak 1-hour value observed over the last three years of accumulated data, (i.e., 0.10 ppm).
In the cases of PM10 and PM2.5, no ambient concentration is added. However, in both cases, construction is subject to a 24-hour concentration standard of 10.4 μg/ m3 . For the 24-hour
standard, the 1-hour concentration is multiplied by a persistence factor of 0.4 as recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (Air Toxics Assessment Manual, October 1, 1987). Because exhaust emissions and fugitive dust are produced at different heights (i.e., 5 and 1 meter, respectively), these emissions were modeled separately and their resultant concentrations added at the receptor locations. Results of the analysis are included below.
Review of Table 7 shows the CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 values associated with on-site emissions sources. Table 9 presents the peak daily projected emissions from on-site construction as well as the projected concentrations at the various default receptor distances. Note that both PM10 and PM2.5 are projected to exceed their thresholds at local receptor locations and the impact is potentially significant.
Localized Construction Emissions Concentrations1
Distance
CO
(1-Hr
Conc.)2
CO
(8-Hr
Conc.)3
NO2
(1-Hr
Conc.)4
PM10
(24-Hr
Conc.)
PM2.5
(24-Hr
Conc.)
Peak Daily Onsite
Emissions (lb/day) 43.6 43.6 94.9 9.7 4.0
Concentration at 25
meters 3.08 2.16 0.11 10.31 3.83
Concentration at 50
meters 3.07 2.15 0.11 8.50 3.31
Concentration at 55
meters (Nearest
Receptor)
3.07 2.15 0.11 8.20 3.21
Concentration at 100
meters 3.06 2.14 0.11 6.25 2.51
Concentration at 200
meters 3.04 2.13 0.11 4.10 1.67
Concentration at 500
meters 3.02 2.11 0.11 1.91 0.78
Ambient Air Quality
Standard 20 ppm 9.0 ppm 0.18 ppm 10.4 μg/m3 10.4 μg/m3
Exceeds Standard? No No No No No
1 CO and NO2 are in ppm, PM10 and PM2.5 are in μg/m3
. 2 Includes a background concentration of34 ppm.
3 Includes a background concentration of 2.1 ppm.
4 Includes a background concentration of 0.10 ppm.
APPENDIX D – COASTAL ENGINEERING REPORT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study
Orange County, California
COASTAL ENGINEERING
APPENDIX
Final Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
JULY 2011
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 GENERAL............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Risk and Uncertainty ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Significant References ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.3 Units ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Previous Reports.............................................................................................................................. 2 2 BASELINE COASTAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS............................................. 3
2.1 Study Area Definition ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Project Baseline....................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Reach Description ................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Water Levels .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Tides........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.2 Storm Surge ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3 Relative Sea Level Change..................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Topography / Marine Geophysical .................................................................................................10
2.3.1 Topography ...........................................................................................................................10
2.3.2 Marine Geophysical...............................................................................................................11
2.4 Wave Climatology ..........................................................................................................................15
2.4.1 Wave Heights ........................................................................................................................16
2.4.2 Wave Periods ........................................................................................................................18
2.4.3 Wave Directions ....................................................................................................................18
2.5 Littoral Processes and Sediment Transport...................................................................................20
2.5.1 Oceanside Littoral Cell ..........................................................................................................20
2.5.2 Sediment Sources .................................................................................................................20
2.5.3 Sediment Budget...................................................................................................................22
2.5.4 Long Term Shoreline Change ...............................................................................................24
2.5.5 Cross-shore Profiles..............................................................................................................27
2.5.6 Foreshore Slopes ..................................................................................................................30
2.5.7 Storm Induced Beach Change ..............................................................................................31
2.5.8 Sediment Profile Thickness...................................................................................................33
2.5.9 Geologic Control....................................................................................................................35
2.5.10 Sea Level Change.................................................................................................................36
2.5.11 SANDAG Beach Fills.............................................................................................................37 3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND CONDITIONS.....................................................................54
3.1 Design Storm Water Levels ...........................................................................................................54
3.2 Design Waves ................................................................................................................................54
3.3 Design Wave Periods.....................................................................................................................56
3.4 Design Wave Runup ......................................................................................................................57
3.4.1 Runup on Plane Beach .........................................................................................................57
3.4.2 Runup on Revetment ............................................................................................................58
3.5 Design Foreshore Slopes...............................................................................................................59
3.6 Design Beach Widths.....................................................................................................................60
3.7 Design Long Term Shoreline Change Rate...................................................................................61 ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix ii
3.7.1 Without-Project......................................................................................................................61
3.7.2 With-Project...........................................................................................................................62
3.8 Design Storm Induced Beach Change...........................................................................................63
3.9 Damage Mechanisms ....................................................................................................................65
3.9.1 Long Term Erosion................................................................................................................65
3.9.2 Storm-Induced Erosion..........................................................................................................66
3.9.3 Inundation..............................................................................................................................66
3.9.4 Wave Impact Forces – Structures.........................................................................................67
3.9.5 Railway Traffic Service Delay................................................................................................69 4 WITHOUT-PROJECT AND WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................71
4.1 General Project Formulation and Policy Considerations ...............................................................71
4.2 Existing SCRRA Track Maintenance Procedures..........................................................................71
4.3 Existing SCRRA Construction and Operations and Maintenance Costs.......................................72
4.3.1 Existing Condition..................................................................................................................73
4.3.2 Engineered Revetment..........................................................................................................73
4.4 Future SCRRA Track Maintenance Practices................................................................................74
4.5 Future SCRRA Construction and Operations and Maintenance Costs .........................................75 5 NUMERICAL MODEL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................76
5.1 Risk and Uncertainty Analysis .......................................................................................................76
5.2 Global Model Considerations.........................................................................................................76
5.2.1 Reach Subdivision – Cells.....................................................................................................77
5.2.2 Seasonality............................................................................................................................77
5.2.3 Single Storm..........................................................................................................................77
5.2.4 Independent Sediment Transport Processes........................................................................78
5.2.5 Numerical Simulation Concepts ............................................................................................78
5.3 Specific Model Parameters and Criteria ........................................................................................79
5.3.1 Railroad Reach Conversion Criteria......................................................................................79
5.3.2 LOSSAN Traffic Service Delay..............................................................................................80
5.3.3 Structure Damages ...............................................................................................................81
5.3.4 Structure Erosion Loss Criterion ...........................................................................................82
5.3.5 Recreational Beach ...............................................................................................................82
5.4 Methodology and Flowchart...........................................................................................................82
5.4.1 Structures ..............................................................................................................................82
5.4.2 Railroad .................................................................................................................................84 6 PLAN SELECTION ................................................................................................................86
6.1 Description of Alternatives .............................................................................................................86
6.1.1 Sacrificial Beach Width..........................................................................................................86
6.1.2 Nourishment Interval .............................................................................................................86
6.1.3 Sea Level Change.................................................................................................................86
6.2 Plan Parameters ............................................................................................................................87
6.2.1 Alongshore Length ................................................................................................................88
6.2.2 Berm Width............................................................................................................................89
6.2.3 Berm Crest Elevation ............................................................................................................89
6.2.4 Foreshore Slope....................................................................................................................89 ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix iii
6.2.5 Quantity .................................................................................................................................90
6.3 Tentatively Recommended Plan – Model Output ..........................................................................91
6.3.1 Plan Performance..................................................................................................................92
6.3.2 Public Safety........................................................................................................................100
6.3.3 Southern California Edison Artificial Reefs .........................................................................100
6.4 Construction Considerations........................................................................................................102
6.4.1 Construction Equipment ......................................................................................................102
6.4.2 Contractors Work and Storage Area ...................................................................................103
6.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs ..............................................................................................104
6.6 Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................................................104
6.6.1 Beach Width ........................................................................................................................106
6.6.2 Topography / Bathymetry....................................................................................................106
6.6.3 Surf Quality (Surfability) ......................................................................................................106
6.6.4 Video Based Photogrammetry ............................................................................................107 7 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................108
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Tidal Datum Elevations at La Jolla, CA ....................................................................................... 9 Table 2-2 Annual Maximum Wave Heights, 1983-1998 (CDIP, 2009) ....................................................18 Table 2-3 Sediment Discharge from Rivers and Streams .........................................................................20 Table 2-4 Sediment Budget for Oceanside Littoral Cell (North – San Clemente) in 1000 m3 / yr .............23 Table 2-5 Long Term Shoreline Change Rates in San Clemente Area......................................................25 Table 2-6 San Clemente Area Beach Profile Transects .............................................................................25 Table 2-7 Summary of Recent Long Term Shoreline Change Rates .........................................................27 Table 2-8 Sample Beach Monitoring Measurements at T-Street ..............................................................30 Table 2-9 Summary of Sand Thickness.....................................................................................................34 Table 2-10 SANDAG Beach Fills ................................................................................................................37 Table 3-1 Railroad Damage Functions ......................................................................................................69 Table 4-1 Construction and O&M Unit Prices............................................................................................73 Table 5-1 Reach Refinement .....................................................................................................................77 Table 6-1 Alternative Plan Parameters ......................................................................................................87 Table 6-2 Tentatively Recommended Plan Footprint Burial Values ..........................................................94 Table 6-3 Monitoring Costs......................................................................................................................105 ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Study Area Reach....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-2 Typical View of Beach, North From Pier .................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-3 Typical View of Beach, South From Pier.................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-4 Typical View of Beach and Railroad............................................................................................ 8 Figure 2-5 Seabed Imagery in Project Vicinity............................................................................................13 Figure 2-6 Surficial Features Map in Project Vicinity ..................................................................................14 Figure 2-7 Swell Windows for San Clemente (from Surfline, 2009) ...........................................................16 Figure 2-8 Significant Wave Height Histogram, 1983-1998........................................................................17 Figure 2-9 Significant Wave Height Histogram, Winter Data, 1983-1998 .................................................17 Figure 2-10 Spectral Peak Period Histogram, 1983-1996 .........................................................................19 Figure 2-11 Wave Direction Histogram, 1983-1996 ...................................................................................19 Figure 2-12 Oceanside Littoral Cell ............................................................................................................21 Figure 2-13 Major Rivers and Drainage Basins, Oceanside Littoral Cell ..................................................22 Figure 2-14 Recent Shoreline Change in San Clemente Area...................................................................27 Figure 2-15 Typical Cross-shore Section for Reach 2, Reach 4, Reach 6, Reach 8 (No Revetment)......28 Figure 2-16 Typical Cross-shore Section for Reach 1, Reach 3, Reach 5, Reach 7 (Revetment) ...........28 Figure 2-17 Repetitive Cross Sections at Linda Lane (from Coastal Frontiers, 2005) ...............................29 Figure 2-18 Repetitive Cross Sections at T-Street (from Coastal Frontiers, 2005)...................................29 Figure 2-19 Foreshore Slope Histogram....................................................................................................31 Figure 2-20 Storm Induced Beach Change Histogram..............................................................................33 Figure 2-21 Site Location for Imperial Beach Fill (from SANDAG, 2010)..................................................38 Figure 2-22 Site Location for Mission Beach Fill (from SANDAG, 2010) ..................................................39 Figure 2-23 Site Location for Torrey Pines Fill (from SANDAG, 2010) .....................................................40 Figure 2-24 Site Location for Del Mar, Fletcher Cove, and Cardiff Fills (from SANDAG, 2010) ...............41 Figure 2-25 Site Location for Moonlight, Leucadia, Batiquitos, and South Carlsbad Fills (from SANDAG, 2010) ..................................................................................................................................................42 Figure 2-26 Site Location for North Carlsbad and Oceanside Fills (from SANDAG, 2010) ......................43 Figure 2-27 Silver Strand Littoral Cell ........................................................................................................45 Figure 2-28 Imperial Beach Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) ............................................................46 Figure 2-29 Mission Bay Littoral Cell .........................................................................................................47 Figure 2-30 Mission Beach Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010).............................................................48 Figure 2-31 Torrey Pines Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)................................................................49 Figure 2-32 Del Mar Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)........................................................................49 Figure 2-33 Fletcher Cove Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)..............................................................50 Figure 2-34 Cardiff Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)..........................................................................50 Figure 2-35 Moonlight Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010).....................................................................51 Figure 2-36 Leucadia Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)......................................................................51 Figure 2-37 Batiquitos Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) ....................................................................52 Figure 2-38 South Carlsbad Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) ...........................................................52 Figure 2-39 North Carlsbad Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)............................................................53 Figure 2-40 Oceanside Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)...................................................................53 Figure 3-1 Probability Distribution for Significant Wave Height, Winter Data, 1983-1998.........................55 Figure 3-2 Probability Distribution for Spectral Peak Period, Winter Data, 1983-1998 .............................57 Figure 3-3 Probability Distribution for Foreshore Slopes ...........................................................................60 Figure 3-4 Probability Distribution for Without-Project Long Term Erosion Rate ......................................61 Figure 3-5 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Change from 2001 SANDAG project ............................................62 Figure 3-6 Probability Distribution for With-Project Long Term Erosion Rate ...........................................63 Figure 3-7 Probability Distribution for Storm Induced Beach Change .......................................................64 Figure 4-1 Seawall Typical Cross Section .................................................................................................75 Figure 5-1 Illustration of Methodology for Structure Damages ..................................................................84 Figure 5-2 Illustration of Methodology for Railroad Damages ...................................................................85 Figure 6-1 Overlay of Construction and Equilibration Profiles for Tentatively Recommended Plan on Existing Profile, Existing Sea Level Change Condition......................................................................88 Figure 6-2 Footprint of 15 m Tentatively Recommended Plan, Existing Sea Level Rise Condition..........88 ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix v
Figure 6-3 Model Output Histogram for Number of Fills Required for Reach 6.........................................92 Figure 6-4 Beach Fill Performance at SANDAG Oceanside Beach ..........................................................93 Figure 6-5 Plan View of T-Street Surf Break Bathymetry ...........................................................................98 Figure 6-6 T Street Surfing Area (from Surfline, 2009)..............................................................................99 Figure 6-7 Surfers at T Street (from Wright, 1973) ....................................................................................99 Figure 6-8 Spilling Wave............................................................................................................................99 Figure 6-9 Southern California Edison Artificial Reefs.............................................................................102 Figure 6-10 Contractor’s Work and Storage Area ...................................................................................103 ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 1 1 GENERAL
1.1 Introduction
This appendix describes technical design aspects for the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study for shoreline improvements in the City of San Clemente, California. The purpose of this appendix is to conduct a detailed evaluation of the existing conditions and of the proposed alternatives for determination of the recommended plan. Evaluation of these alternatives includes an analysis of baseline coastal processes, detailed technical design, and potential design impacts on shoreline processes.
1.1.1 Risk and Uncertainty
This study at San Clemente is conducted using the principles of Risk & Uncertainty (R/U) in compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy that requires all new Federally funded flood control and flood damage reduction studies incorporate the principles of R/U. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy guidelines for R/U are defined in Engineer Regulation 1105-2-101 (Dept. of Army 1996). R/U is intrinsic in water resources planning and design and arises from measurement errors and the inherent variability of complex physical phenomena.
The model used in the present study is an integrated coastal engineering – economics analytical framework for evaluating the physical performance and economic costs of shore protection projects, particularly, beach nourishment along sandy shores. The model has been implemented as an event-based Monte Carlo life cycle simulation tool that is run on desktop computers. This model initiates with coastal engineering data and input, performs a series of engineering and economic computations, and concludes with economic outputs. The model inputs consist of probability distributions for various coastal engineering parameters. The model outputs consist of histograms of individual damage benefit categories. The model is fully described in Section 5.
1.1.2 Significant References
This study references significantly a predecessor document. The Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study (CCSTWS) prepared by the Los Angeles District (USACE-SPL, 1991). The CCSTWS study was a thorough, comprehensive, and complex analysis of a portion of the southern California shoreline which includes the San Clemente area.
This technical appendix also references significantly a predecessor construction project. A regional shoreline nourishment project was performed in 2001 by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The project entailed dredging 1.6 million cubic meters (m3 ) (2.1
million cubic yards (yd3
)) of beach compatible sediments from six borrow sites for placement on twelve receiver beaches in San Diego County. The similarities of this construction project make this project directly comparable to this study. A complete description of the twelve receiver beaches is described in Sec 2.5.11.
1.1.3 Units
This study at San Clemente is conducted under the SI (metric) system of measurement as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers compliance with Federal policy that requires all new Federally funded construction work be conducted in SI units, if requested by the local sponsor.
Much of the existing coastal processes analyses were originally developed utilizing the Imperial ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 2 measurement system (feet). All units and/or dimensions are converted to metric equivalents using standard conversion factors. Some dimensions are shown in both systems (Imperial units in parentheses) to aid in understanding comparisons with historical documents.
1.2 Previous Reports
There are no previous Federal reports that directly address the San Clemente study area being considered under this authority. Some previous reports exist which incorporate the San Clemente area indirectly as a component of the larger coastal region, such as the aforementioned CCSTWS. The prevailing literature typically emphasizes San Juan Creek and the immediate adjacent coastal area encompassed by Doheny State Beach, or the San Onofre area.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 3 2 BASELINE COASTAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
2.1 Study Area Definition
The Oceanside Littoral cell is approximately 86 km (53.5 miles) long extending from Dana Point to the La Jolla submarine canyon. Dana Point, the north end of the cell is a near complete barrier to the littoral transport of sand. Point La Jolla at the south end of the cell, is also a nearcomplete barrier. Analysis of shoreline changes in the Oceanside Cell address six sub-reaches within the cell. The sub-reach inclusive of the study area is the San Mateo – Dana Point cell.
The Oceanside Littoral cell boundaries were selected based on geomorphic and cultural features such as river and lagoon entrances, harbor structures, and other shoreline change features.
The current study area is bounded between San Mateo Point and Dana Point. The study area is approximately 12.1 km (7.5 miles) long. The study area is further sub-divided into ten reaches for reference purposes numbered consecutively Reach 1 – Reach 10. The study area is shown in Figure 2-1; close-up views are shown in Figures 2-2 thru 2-4.
2.1.1 Project Baseline
The seaward rail of the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority (SCRRA) is considered to be the project baseline. The SCRRA railroad line bisects the length of the project area. The railroad is constructed on conventional elevated crushed rock ballast. The railroad is constructed along the base of the bluff throughout the reach and is a prominent feature that completely separates the active beach from the bluff. The beach is only accessible via pedestrian underpasses/overpasses or storm water culverts interspersed along the length.
Whereas typically the beach and bluffs are considered joined together as components in an active littoral system, the presence of the railroad completely isolates the bluff from the beach.
Virtually all sediment inputs and bluff-related influences are restricted. Furthermore, the railroad resembles and acts as a protective revetment. In several areas the railroad is the primary structural feature that protects the bluffs and upland development from direct wave attack. In several areas the beach has completely eroded and exposed the railroad, thus, the railroad has fixed the position of the shoreline. Thus the railroad is the de facto protective structure for the bluffs. The railroad, acting as a protective structure and fixing the position of the shoreline, is assumed to be permanent and always exist throughout the project lifecycle. Therefore, the railroad is considered the landward boundary and no storm damages are considered landward of the railroad. The project baseline is assumed to be the seaward rail of the SCRRA railroad.
Since the railroad is assumed to be a constant feature throughout the project lifecycle, the seaward rail provided a convenient feature to define a horizontal alignment.
2.1.2 Reach Description
SCRRA has incorporated discontinuous levels of protective rock armoring along the railroad length. Four of the reaches consist of conventional rock ballast gradation which ranges from ¾” – 2-1/2”. Four of the reaches have been improved with rock armoring of approximately 100 lbs – 4 tons (~1 ft – 4 ft) on the seaward slope. The general condition of the revetment is not uniform and appears to be fair/poor along the entire length. Information obtained from SCRRA indicates that the revetment armor stone was not individually placed in the same manner in which conventional coastal armor stone structures are constructed. Instead the revetment was constructed via rail car side dump methods. However, even though the design and methods of construction were inconsistent with conventional coastal engineering practice, the larger armor ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 4 stone affords substantially greater protection against hydraulic forces over conventionally sized rock ballast and offer substantial benefits to the railroad structure. This improvement in protective armoring is a primary consideration for project reach delineation.
The reach boundaries are defined in meters northward from San Mateo Point and shoreline features located within each reach are described. The project reaches are defined based on an arbitrary assumed Station 0+000 at San Mateo Point.
Reach 1: Reach 1 extends from San Mateo Point at Sta 0+146 to Sta 1+115. The reach is 969 m long and is the southern portion of San Clemente State Beach. The beach width is zero at the southern boundary and gradually increases to 41 m wide. The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.4 m1
. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the improved armor stone protection, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +7.0 m. There are no structures seaward of the railroad; some residential structures exist immediately landward of the railroad.
Reach 2: Reach 2 extends from Sta 1+115 to Sta 1+795. The reach is 680 m long and is encompassed within San Clemente State Beach. The beach width is approximately 40 m wide at the southern boundary and gradually decreases to 9 m wide. The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.4-7.6 m. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the conventional ballast construction, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +6.4-7.6 m. There are no structures seaward of the railroad; the underpass for San Clemente State Beach is included within this reach.
Reach 3: Reach 3 extends from Sta 1+795 to Sta 2+395. The reach is 600 m long is encompassed within San Clemente State Beach. The beach width is approximately 9 m wide at the southern boundary and quickly becomes zero throughout the remainder of the reach. The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.4 m. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the improved armor stone protection, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +7.0 m. There are no structures seaward of the railroad; Calafia Beach Park is on the landward side of the railroad.
Reach 4: Reach 4 extends from Sta 2+395 to Sta 3+127. The reach is 732 m long and encompasses San Clemente State Beach on the southern 30% and City of San Clemente on the northern 70%. The beach width is approximately 30 m wide at the southern boundary, transitions to 60 m wide in the middle, and transitions to 10 m wide at the northern boundary.
The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.3 m. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the conventional ballast construction, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +6.3 m. There are no structures seaward of the railroad; some residential structures exist immediately landward of the railroad.
Reach 5: Reach 5 extends from Sta 3+127 to Sta 3+540. The reach is 413 m long and is encompassed within the City of San Clemente. The beach width is 0 m wide throughout the reach. The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.5 m. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the improved armor stone protection, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +6.5 m. There are no structures seaward of the railroad; some residential structures exist immediately landward of the railroad.
1 All elevations and/or depths are in meters referred to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) unless otherwise noted.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 5 Reach 6: Reach 6 extends from Sta 3+540 to Sta 4+580. The reach is 1040 m long and is encompassed within the City of San Clemente. The beach width meanders from 0 m wide to 23 m to 0 m to 39 m and back to 0 m along the reach. The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.3 m. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the conventional ballast construction, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +6.9 m. This reach includes the majority of the significant structures along the beach.
Reach 7: Reach 7 extends from Sta 4+580 to Sta 5+661. The reach is 1081 m long and is encompassed within the City of San Clemente and is known as “Mariposa Point”. The beach width is 0 m wide throughout the reach. The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.5 m.
The railroad seaward slope incorporates the improved armor stone protection, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +6.9 m. Historical information indicates that this reach has been armored with revetment since at least the 1930’s. There are no structures seaward or landward of the railroad.
Reach 8: Reach 8 extends from Sta 5+661 to Sta 6+008. The reach is 347 m long and is encompassed within the City of San Clemente. The beach width varies from 40 m wide at the southern boundary to 0 m at the northern boundary. The railroad track elevation is approximately +6.3 m. The railroad seaward slope incorporates the conventional ballast construction, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +6.9 m.
Reach 9: Reach 9 extends from Sta 6+008 to Sta 7+109. The reach is 1101 m long and is encompassed within the City of San Clemente and is known as “Capistrano Shores”.
Capistrano Shores is a private community of manufactured housing constructed in the 1950’s.
A timber seawall that is fronted by a rubblemound rock revetment protects the reach. The armor stone is estimated to be 2-5 tons, has a slope of 1H:1V, and a crest elevation of approximately +6.0 m. The general condition of the revetment is not uniform and appears to be fair/poor along the entire length. The beach width is 0 m wide throughout the reach. The railroad is located substantially landward of the revetment and as such is no longer considered the project landward boundary. There are no structures seaward of the revetment.
Reach 10: Reach 10 extends from Sta 7+109 to Dana Point Harbor. The reach is approximately 5,000 m long and extends to the northern boundary of the study area. The Reconnaissance Report identified the potential project area from San Mateo Point to Capistrano Shores (Reach 1-9). The area north of Capistrano Shores is designated Reach 10 and will be considered only in the context of engineering considerations where physical continuity is required and/or necessary for the analysis.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 6 Figure 2-1 Study Area Reach
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 7 Figure 2-2 Typical View of Beach, North From Pier
Figure 2-3 Typical View of Beach, South From Pier
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 8 Figure 2-4 Typical View of Beach and Railroad
2.2 Water Levels
2.2.1 Tides
Tides at San Clemente are unequal mixed semi-diurnal. There is no tidal data available for the immediate San Clemente area, however, the tidal datum elevations at La Jolla, CA are shown in Table 2-1 and are assumed representative of those at San Clemente. The tidal epoch is 1983 to 2001. The La Jolla National Ocean Service (NOS) Primary Tide Station is located approximately 81 km (50 miles) from the San Clemente Pier. In southern California, tides typically have spatial characteristics on the order of hundreds of kilometers. Datum information for an NOS tidal station located at Newport Bay Harbor (station discontinued in 1994) located approximately 30 km (19 miles) from San Clemente indicates MSL and MHHW differences of
0.02 m and 0.03 m respectively. Therefore, the sea level variation between La Jolla and San Clemente is assumed to be negligible.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 9 Table 2-1 Tidal Datum Elevations at La Jolla, CA
Tidal Datum Elevation
m, (ft)
Highest observed water level (11/13/97) +2.33 (7.65)
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) +1.62 (5.33)
Mean High Water (MHW) +1.40 (4.60)
Mean Sea Level (MSL) +0.83 (2.73)
Mean Tide Level (MTL) +0.84 (2.75)
North American Vertical Datum – 1988
(NAVD) +0.06 (0.19)
Mean Low Water (MLW) +0.28 (0.90)
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) 0.00
Lowest observed water level (12/17/33) -0.87 (-2.87)
Elevations are referenced to MLLW.
2.2.2 Storm Surge
Storm surge is the super-elevation of the tidal level at the coast due to wind stresses and atmospheric pressure fluctuations acting upon the sea surface. Wind and atmospheric fluctuations associated with strong storms in southern California typically produce 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft) storm surges (CCSTWS). Due to a narrow continental shelf and the absence of tropical storms and/or hurricanes, storm surge heights on the California coast are small compared to those on the east and Gulf coasts where extreme surge heights of 1-3 m (3-10 ft) are more typical and a peak 8 m (25 ft) was documented during Hurricane Camille in 1969. West coast storm surges typically have time scales of 1-3 days, with longer surge episodes possible due to bunching of successive storms.
2.2.3 Relative Sea Level Change
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers potential relative sea level change in every feasibility study undertaken within the coastal zone. Corps of Engineers policy guidelines for sea level rise is defined in Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100 (Dept. of Army 2000). This regulation requires that relative sea level change be considered for a range of scenarios.
Project planning should consider what impact a higher relative sea level rise (or fall) rate would have on the design compared to the historical rate. A sensitivity analysis should be conducted to determine what effect (if any) changes in sea level would have on plan evaluation and selection. This analysis should be based, as a minimum, on the extrapolation of the local, historical record of relative sea level rise as the low level and Curve 3 from the National Research Council report as the high level.
Historic regional sea level trends based on yearly mean sea level records are published by the NOS (National Ocean Service, 2001). Monthly mean sea level variations are analyzed for 117 stations of the NOS National Water Level Observation Network having between 25 and 146 years of data. Monthly MSL data are used to obtain the average seasonal cycle, the residual time series, and the autoregressive coefficient of the residual with accurate estimates of ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 10 standard errors. Historic trends at San Diego, California indicate a positive sea level rise of +2.45 mm/yr based on water level measurements during the period 1950-1999. If past trends are projected into the future at San Diego, a sea level rise of 0.12 m (0.4 ft) would be expected during the 50 year period of economic analysis.
In establishing its current policy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has chosen to follow the recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC), as described in the publication Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications (National Research Council, 1987). This publication assumes three possible scenarios for eustatic sea level rise to the year 2100, where Curve 3 (the third scenario) is identified as the extreme sea level case which should be considered for feasibility studies. These scenarios are described by the equation E(t) = 0.0012t + bt2 (1)
t represents years, starting in 1986, b is a constant, and E(t) is the eustatic sea level rise, in meters, as a function of t.
For the three scenarios proposed by the NRC, b is equal to 2.8E-5 for Curve 1, 6.6E-5 for Curve 2, and 1.05E-4 for Curve 3 resulting in eustatic sea level rise values, by the year 2100, of 0.5 meters, 1.0 meters, and 1.5 meters, respectively. Adjusting for the study time period (where the economic base year is 2012) results in a total sea level rise during the 50 year economic period of analysis of 0.70 m (2.3 ft).
No additional sea level change to account for geologic displacement was added to the NRC Curve 3 estimate. The NRC accounts for eustatic sea level change only; the Curve 3 sea level change is considered very conservative and results in a total 50 year sea level change of 0.7 m, or approximately 14 mm/yr. This is compared to the 50 year sea level change of 0.12 m, or
2.45 mm/yr based on actual measurements. In general the EC assumes that 1.8 mm/yr in sea level change for historic conditions is contributed to the water level rising and the balance is due to geological displacement. It is noted that the measured historic rate of 2.45 mm/yr includes both eustatic and geologic components. Therefore, 0.65 mm/yr can be attributed to geologic displacement. As the Curve 3 estimate is 5.7 times greater than the combined measured rate, it is believed that an additional 0.65 mm/yr is negligible and was not incorporated into the Curve 3 estimate.
Relative sea level change has project impacts from two primary considerations: 1) long-term beach erosion, and 2) increased wave runup and overtopping. The effects of sea level rise are addressed separately in Section 2.5.10.
2.3 Topography / Marine Geophysical
2.3.1 Topography
Terrestrial topographic data were obtained from March 2002 aerial LIDAR surveys conducted as a part of this study. LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) is a state-of-the-art survey system that allows high-speed collection of topographic data. The system employs a helicoptermounted range-finding laser that is coupled with a highly accurate GPS positioning system to collect precise GPS measurements, platform attitude, laser ranges, and imagery data. The LIDAR system collects terrain information at a rate of 10,000 points per second. A full description of the survey is described in Chance (John Chance, 2002). ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 11 Topographic information was collected at a horizontal point spacing on order of 0.1 meter that allowed detailed information to be collected of the beach, revetment, railroad, and near structure ground elevations. High-resolution topographic data allowed the development of high-resolution digital terrain models of all project features. Detailed mapping in the damage/flood areas provided existing beach contours, beach widths, berm elevations, foreshore slopes, and structure pad horizontal locations. Detailed mapping of the revetments and railroad provided accurate crest elevations.
The topographic data was adjusted for datum consistency with the marine survey data. The LIDAR topographic data was collected in the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
It is usual and customary that coastal engineering projects are relative to an ocean-related datum, typically Mean Sea Level or Mean Lower Low Water. Survey control information indicates that NAVD88 = +0.14 m (+0.45 ft) MLLW at La Jolla, CA and NAVD88 = +0.12 m (+0.38 ft) MLLW at Newport Bay Harbor Entrance. Therefore, it was assumed NAVD88 = +0.13 m (+0.41 ft) at San Clemente and all topographic (LIDAR) measurements were adjusted down by –0.13 m (-0.41 ft).
2.3.2 Marine Geophysical
The marine geophysical data used in this analysis were obtained from June 2002 nearshore surveys conducted as a part of this study. A multi-sensor survey was conducted to collect bathymetry, side scan sonar, and sub-bottom geophysical information; a full description of the survey is described in Fugro (Fugro, 2002). The multibeam bathymetric survey provides point elevation data of the seabed in order to develop an accurate digital terrain model. The subbottom profile survey was conducted to delineate stratigraphic conditions, the presence or absence of sandy materials, the boundaries separating the consolidated and unconsolidated materials, define the depth to shallow bedrock if such exists, identify faults, paleochannels, and other anomalous geologic conditions within the survey area. The side scan sonar survey was used to acquire sonar imagery of the seabed in order to distinguish and map features/types and correlate surficial sediment types with the geophysical subbottom system. Sediment grab samples were collected for correlation with the survey data. The survey covered a corridor of approximately 14 km alongshore from approximately San Juan Creek near Dana Point to San Mateo Creek by 2.25 km cross-shore from the surf zone to 2500 meters offshore in approximately 23 meters water depth. The survey utilized closely spaced survey lines and resulted in the collection of approximately 534 km of geophysical data.
A full geological interpretation of the results can be found in the Geotechnical Appendix; a summary of some of the results is discussed below.
Bathymetry: The water depths in the survey area range from 3 meters near the beach to 23 meters offshore. The seafloor slope direction is southwest – normal to the beach. The seafloor gradient averages 0.9% (slope 110H:1V) but varies locally. The inshore gradient between 3-6 meters is 5% off San Clemente State Beach. This gradient decreases farther to the northwest.
Several bedrock spurs extend out from shore; the largest one is the seaward extension of the San Mateo Point. These spurs may rise several meters above the intervening swales. The San Mateo Rocks northwest of San Mateo Point are isolated and may be remnant spurs. Bedrock outcrops the seafloor in places between the shore and about the 15-meter isobath. Where outcrops occur, the seafloor is uneven from the resistant bedrock mounds. Some of the larger outcrops rise as much as 6 meters above the surrounding seabed. The gradients along some ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 12 of these outcrop slopes can be as high as 33% (18o
). A smooth seafloor with an even slope
forms the topography seaward of the outcrops. This smooth texture is a result of unconsolidated recent sediment deposition.
Surficial Features and Sediment Thickness: The side scan sonar data clearly show areas where bedrock is exposed, and . In several locations, survey data could not be acquired as the kelp was too thick to navigate through. It is well established that bedrock is necessary for kelp growth. The bedrock exposures are mapped as either areas where exposures comprise greater than 50% of the seabed and zones where scattered rock covers 10-50% of the area.
Unconsolidated surficial sediment predominates in the scattered rock zones. The subbottom profile data reveal an immeasurably thin surficial veneer overlies the bedrock. This surficial sediment cover likely changes seasonally as beach sands migrate cross-shore. It is expected that within the shallower water depths where sediment caps the bedrock, the sediment thickness is probably less than 0.3 meter (1 foot).
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 13 Figure 2-5 Seabed Imagery in Project Vicinity
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 14 Figure 2-6 Surficial Features Map in Project Vicinity ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 15 2.4 Wave Climatology
The wave climate at San Clemente can be divided into three primary groups according to origin:
west swell, south swell, and seas generated by local winds. Eastern North Pacific hurricanes with a landfall track directed at San Clemente rarely occur and were not considered in this study. The swell windows are illustrated in Figure 2-7.
West Swell
West swell waves generally represent the most severe wave climate at San Clemente. These waves are generated by extratropical storms of the North Pacific primarily during the months of November through March and approach San Clemente from the west through a narrow corridor between the south Channel Islands. The swell window tends to be confined to wave periods up to 16 seconds as longer period waves will wrap (refract) into the coast.
South Swell
San Clemente is exposed to southern hemisphere and hurricane swell through a wide corridor from the south to the southwest. Most of this swell arrives during the months of May through October. Swell waves generated by southern hemisphere storms have great decay distances and tend to have lower heights. However, southern hemisphere swell is unconfined for wave periods. Typical southern hemisphere swell are less than 2 m (6 ft) in height with periods ranging up to 20 seconds.
Seas
The daily wave climate at San Clemente is dominated by steep, short-period waves generated by local winds from the west and southwest, although winds can occur from all offshore directions throughout the year. Wave heights are usually between 0.5-1.5 m (2-5 ft) with a mean period of 7 seconds.
Wave climatology information is available for the offshore area of San Clemente in the form of direct measurements as part of the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP, 2009). The CDIP shallow-water station most applicable to San Clemente is the San Clemente Sxy slope array (Station ID 052) located approximately 300 m offshore of the San Clemente Pier in 10.2 meters of water. The Sxy slope array is a directional wave height recorder with a 178-month record during the period 1983-1998 at nominally four observations per day. The height and direction data records are intermittent reporting approximately 141 months of the 178 available; one long gap occurring during the period Jul88-Jul91 accounting for the majority of missing records.
These data records are used to determine the daily and annual wave climate, the extreme wave analysis, and data input into wave transformation and shoreline damage numerical models.
Determination of the annual wave climate entailed assembling the entire data records. These records are sorted based on height, period, and direction. The resultant univariate and multivariate distributions are discussed and shown hereinafter. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 16 Figure 2-7 Swell Windows for San Clemente (from Surfline, 2009)
2.4.1 Wave Heights
The histograms for significant wave heights are shown in Figures 2-8 and 2-9. Several observations can be made regarding the wave climate. Figure 2-8 illustrates that the most commonly occurring significant wave height is in the range 0.80-1.00 m. This figure also illustrates the complete absence of very large significant wave heights (> 4.0 m). The maximum recorded significant wave height is 3.63 m. This may be due to several conditions including the fact that the Sxy slope array measures the wave climate in 10 m of water, whereas waves observed closer to the breaking depth will be larger due to shoaling. Also, the wave data are spectral-energy based (Hmo) rather than statistically based (H1/3), it is well established that individual wave heights within the wave train represented by Hs (H1/3) are substantially larger than the Hmo value. The wave climate is measured in the vicinity of the pier and is assumed representative of the entire San Clemente project area.
The winter wave climatology can be developed from the measured wave climate previously discussed. It is recognized that the severest wave climate occurs during the winter season. It was desired to develop the wave climatology based on the winter wave population. The wave data was categorized based on the December-March winter meteorological season. The histograms for the winter significant wave height are shown in Figure 2-9. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 17 Figure 2-8 Significant Wave Height Histogram, 1983-1998 Figure 2-9 Significant Wave Height Histogram, Winter Data, 1983-1998 ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 18 Based on the measured data, the annual maximum wave heights for each year were determined. The annual maximum wave heights are shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Annual Maximum Wave Heights, 1983-1998 (CDIP, 2009) Year Mo/Dy Hs, m (ft) Tp (sec) Dir (deg)
1983 Dec 10 3.1, (10.2) 14.2 248
1984 Apr 01 1.85, (6.1) 6.1 273
1985 Nov 29 2.18, (7.2) 6.1 227
1986 Feb 16 3.56, (11.7) 16 234
1987 Mar 16 2.24, (7.4) 8.5 254
1988 Jan 18 3.63, (11.9) 14.2 218
1991 Nov 15 2.06, (6.8) 18.3 212
1992 Jan 30 2.32, (7.6) 14.2 250
1993 Feb 18 2.66, (8.7) 8 197
1994 Feb 07 2.0, (6.6) 7.3 191
1995 Jan 05 3.22, (10.6) 9.1 205
1996 Oct 26 2.24, (7.4) 8.8 259
1997 Dec 06 2.31, (7.6) 6.4 207
1998 Jan 30 2.99, (9.8) 18.3 238
2.4.2 Wave Periods
Figure 2-10 illustrates that the dominant wave periods are in the range 12-14 seconds, with a smaller secondary peak at 6-8 seconds. The two peaks in the distribution demonstrate the dual sea/swell nature of the wave climate. Shorter period waves are typically associated with sea conditions; longer period waves are typically associated with swell conditions.
2.4.3 Wave Directions
Directional separation of the data results are shown in Figure 2-11. This figure illustrates that approximately 91% of the waves approach from the relatively narrow 20-degree band between 230º-240º, and all other approach directions are minor or negligible. Shoreline normal in the San Clemente area is 235º. There is a very small fraction of waves (0.7%) approaching from 160º-220º, directions considered to be of tropical depression or southern hemisphere origins.
Significantly, the predominant westerly wave direction envelops both local seas and extratropical swell.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 19 Figure 2-10 Spectral Peak Period Histogram, 1983-1996 Figure 2-11 Wave Direction Histogram, 1983-1996
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 20 2.5 Littoral Processes and Sediment Transport
This section describes the sediment budget analysis, the shoreline change analysis, other related input data analysis, and the effects of sea level change for the San Clemente shoreline study area.
2.5.1 Oceanside Littoral Cell
The Oceanside Littoral Cell extends for 86 km (53.5 mi) from Dana Point to Point La Jolla as shown in Figure 2-12. The shoreline displays a wide variety of coastal features including cliffs, headlands, beaches composed of sand and/or cobbles, rivers, creeks, tidal lagoons and marshes, submarine canyons, man-made shore and bluff protection devices of many kinds, and major harbor structures. The cell is divided into three sub-cells based on natural physiographic units: (1) Dana Point to San Mateo Point, (2) San Mateo Point to Carlsbad Submarine Canyon, and (3) Carlsbad Submarine Canyon to Point La Jolla. The City of San Clemente is located in the north sub-cell (Dana Point to San Mateo Point).
The littoral cell includes two small craft harbors, Dana Point Harbor and Oceanside Harbor.
Dana Point Harbor is located on the northern end of the littoral cell, while Oceanside Harbor is in the center of the cell.
2.5.2 Sediment Sources
Numerous rivers and small streams discharge sediment into the Oceanside Littoral Cell, as shown in Figure 2-13. San Juan Creek and San Mateo Creek are considered major river systems for the influx of sediment into the north sub-cell. Extracts from a listing compiled from the results of various studies (CCSTWS) are presented in Table 2-3 and provides a range of estimates of the sediment loads carried by fluvial systems of this littoral sub-cell. This list is supplemented with a recent study for the San Juan Creek watershed.
Table 2-3 Sediment Discharge from Rivers and Streams
River / Stream
Discharge Rate m3
/yr (yd3/yr)
San Juan San Clemente San Mateo
Drainage Area hect (mi2) 45,455 (175.5) 5,154 (19.9) 34,188 (132) Moffatt&Nichol 1977 12,980 (17,000) 10,946 (14,340) 1,702 (2,240) CCSTWS 84-4 (1984) 24,427 (32,000)
Simons/Li 1985 6,107 (8,000) 12,213 (16,000)
CCSTWS 88-3 (Simons/Li 1988) 15,603 (20,440) 786 (1,030) 3,729 (4,885) CCSTWS 90-2 (Moffatt&Nichol 1990) 27,480 (36,000) 6,412 (8,400) USACE-SPL 1999 39,749 (52,071)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 21 Figure 2-12 Oceanside Littoral Cell
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 22 Figure 2-13 Major Rivers and Drainage Basins, Oceanside Littoral Cell Table 2-3 illustrates the relatively small amount of sediment input from San Juan Creek. San Juan Creek is 7.4 km (4.6 mi) northwest on the updrift2 side of San Clemente pier. Dana Point is the southern updrift boundary headland for the Oceanside littoral cell where it is presumed no appreciable sediment is entering the cell. Therefore, San Juan Creek represents the only major source sediment input to the immediate project area. San Mateo Creek, although physically closer, is in the downdrift direction and is not believed to be a major contributor of sediments to the project area. The San Juan Creek discharge ranges between 6,107-39,749 m3 /yr (8,000-
52,071 yd3
/yr) with a resultant average of 20,383 m3/yr (26,702 yd3/yr). This quantity is small given the facts that some of the discharged river material is likely lost offshore as fines and some is lost/trapped updrift prior to reaching the San Clemente project area. It is noted that river flows and the resultant sediment delivery to beaches is episodic due to the semi-arid nature of the climate and watersheds/rivers deliver sediment only during rainy/wet years. Thus, sediment to beaches tends to be delivered in large “pulses”, where a large quantity is delivered to the beach in one year followed by several years of low or no sediment delivery.
2.5.3 Sediment Budget
A sediment budget for without-project conditions has been developed based on the CCSTWS.
Development of the sediment budget involves defining the sediment sources, sinks, and losses; transport modes; erosion and accretion rates; and balancing the resultant budget. Some additional information was obtained during this study to enhance the previously developed sediment estimates. Compilation of the sediment budget specific to San Clemente is described hereinafter and is further described in the CCSTWS.
2 Directional convention for this study is: “updrift” and “upcoast” refers to northerly and/or westerly direction; and “downdrift” and “downcoast” refers to the southerly and/or easterly direction. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 23 The analysis of the budget of sediment for this cell has been carried out for three time periods:
(1) the period from 1900 – 1938, (2) a mild, uniform weather period from 1960 – 1978, and (3) a period of more variable wave climate covered by the CCSTWS studies from 1983 – 1990. The 1900 – 1938 “natural” budget permits an uncluttered look at the cell as it predates construction of dams and Oceanside Harbor, although it necessarily draws on some findings from later studies. The mild, uniform period from 1960-1978 was selected to evaluate the effects of Oceanside Harbor at a time when the wave climate was consistent from year to year and less variable than the present wave climate. The last period of more variable wave climate 1983 – 1990 emphasizes the change in wave climate from one that gave a consistent, strong southerly littoral transport to one that yields a more variable transport with a net northerly component in some years. The resultant sediment budget for the three time periods is shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Sediment Budget for Oceanside Littoral Cell (North – San Clemente) in 1000 m3 / yr 1900-1938 1960-1978 1983-1990
Input Output Input Output Input Output
Ql 0 130 0 130 0 35
Qn 0 15 0 15 0 5
Qb,o 130 45 90 45 45 0
Qa 0 0 90 0 0 0
Qr,s 65 0 45 0 0 0
Total +195 -190 +225 -190 +45 -40
Net
wV' / wt +5 +35 +5
wX / wt (m/yr) +0.03 +0.18 +0.03
Notes:
Q = total sand transport rate into or out of cell, m3
/yr
a = artificial nourishment, bypassing, dredging, etc
b = blufflands erosion; includes seacliffs, gullies, coastal terrace, slumps, etc as distinct from rivers l = longshore transport of sand in and near the surfzone n = nearshore transport along the coast, outside the surfzone o = onshore/offshore transport at the base of the shorerise r = river yield to the coast
s = lost to submarine canyons
wV' / wt = sand volume change rate, m3
/yr
wX / wt = shoreline change rate, m/yr
This sediment budget analysis has coarse spatial resolution and would benefit from a reachspecific analysis. Due to the lack of available data, the sediment budget as developed does not allow detailed volumetric budget estimates on a smaller spatial scale. Specifically, the lack of spatially refined data does not allow a detailed volumetric analysis of each project reach.
Attempts to improve spatial resolution by using a partial data set or excluding data could result in unrealistic shoreline change rates.
The resultant sediment budget indicates the shoreline is essentially in balance between erosion and accretion. The budget is considered to be in balance when the shoreline change rate wX / wt , computed from the volume flux is less than 0.03 m/yr (0.1 ft/yr). The shoreline indicates a balance in the “natural” time period and the most recent variable wave climate time period. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 24 The net volume flux indicates the budget is very slightly accretional during the uniform wave climate period.
The sediment budget for the sub-cell has been determined to be +5,000 cubic meters per year, with a corresponding +0.03 m/yr shoreline change rate. The positive sign (+) suggests that the shoreline is accretional. However, this volume flux rate is very small and is within the error associated with the analysis. Thus, this sediment budget (and shoreline change rate) could have reasonably been positive or negative. It is noted that 5,000 cubic meters spread over 13 km (8 mi) of shoreline is virtually undetectable.
The littoral sub-cell is dominated by sediment inputs from San Juan Creek at the northern boundary. San Juan Creek presents the single largest source of sediment within the entire subcell. Thus, the greatest change rates, both for sediment budget and shoreline change, will be measured in the immediate vicinity of the creek mouth. It is entirely probable, and likely, that other areas of the sub-cell farther removed from San Juan Creek will exhibit a sediment volume flux both negative (erosion) and positive (accretion). In other words, other areas of the littoral sub-cell can be either erosional or accretional yet their signal will be masked by what is occurring in the vicinity of San Juan Creek.
2.5.4 Long Term Shoreline Change
Historical Shoreline Change
Shoreline changes within the Oceanside Littoral Cell were investigated by the CCSTWS using historical maps and nautical charts, aerial photos, and the results of ground and bathymetric survey efforts. The results of these extensive efforts are shown in Table 2-5.
The table indicates the alongshore variation of shoreline change within the immediate vicinity of San Clemente; the San Clemente study area is between SC 1623 (State Beach) and SC 1720 (Shorecliffs). There are contradictory trends observed in the data. The data sets are out of phase with adjacent locations; a transect is erosional and/or accretional while the adjacent transect is accretional and/or erosional. The mean values during the 1940-1960 and 1960-1980 periods are similar in magnitude; the mean values during the 1980-1989 period are remarkably higher. Detailed inspection of the data indicates a shoreline that is either erosional, balanced, or accretional. During the period 1940-1960, the shoreline indicated essentially zero change with a +0.76 m/yr change in vicinity of SC 1680. During the period 1960-1980, the shoreline vacillated alongshore between positive and negative. The shoreline change was approximately equal between positive and negative ranging from-0.21 m/yr and +0.18 m/yr. During the period 1980-1989, the shoreline was predominantly positive with accretion rates ranging from +0.43 m/yr to +2.16 m/yr; an erosion value of –0.61 m/yr was recorded at SC 1660. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 25 Table 2-5 Long Term Shoreline Change Rates in San Clemente Area MHHW Shoreline Change Rate
m/yr (ft/yr)
Max Seasonal MHHW Movement
m (ft)
Location 1940-1960 1960-1980 1980-1989 Summer Winter
SC 1623 -0.06 (-0.20) -0.21 (-0.70) 2.16 (7.10) 7.7 (25.4) -7.9 (-26) SC 1660 0.00 (0.00) 0.18 (0.60) -0.61 (-2.00) 5.2 (17) -10.4 (-34) SC 1680 0.76 (2.50) -0.12 (-0.40) 0.43 (1.40) 13.9 (45.5) -17.5 (-57.4) SC 1720 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.46 (4.80) 9.2 (30) -8.2 (-27) DB 1805 -0.58 (-1.90) 2.47 (8.10) -3.75 (-12.30) 7.6 (25) -13.9 (-45.6) DB 1850 -0.18 (-0.60) 2.84 (9.30) 0.8 (2.7) -21.4 (-70.2) DB 1895 0.76 (2.50) -0.12 (-0.40) -0.15 (-0.50) 7.5 (24.6) -9.6 (-31.4) DB 1900 0.00 (0.00) -0.58 (-1.90) -3.05 (-10.00) 18.2 (59.8) -27.9 (-91.4) Current Beach Width Monitoring
The City of San Clemente initiated a beach monitoring program as part of the non-Federal inkind contributions (Coastal Frontiers, 2002). The general objective of the monitoring program is to document changes in the condition of the shore between Dana Point Harbor and San Mateo Point thereby providing a basis for evaluating the impacts of natural events and anthropogenic operations. The program includes semi-annual full cross-shore profile surveys at eleven representative sites and bi-monthly beach width measurements at nine of the eleven profile sites. The full cross-shore profiles were obtained by contract whereas City of San Clemente lifeguards obtained the bi-monthly beach width measurements.
A description of the transect locations is given in Table 2-6. The eleven profile locations include six historical locations originally established by the CCSTWS, and five locations established specifically for the beach monitoring program.
Table 2-6 San Clemente Area Beach Profile Transects
Site # Transect Designation Location Origin
1 DB-1850 N. Doheny State Beach CCSTWS
2 DB-1805 N. Doheny State Beach CCSTWS
3 SC-1720 Shorecliffs CCSTWS
4 SC-1705 Capistrano Trailer Court Est. Oct. 2001
5 SC-1700 North Beach Est. Oct. 2001
6 SC-1695 Dije Court Est. Oct. 2001
7 SC-1680 Linda Lane CCSTWS
8 SC-1660 T-Street CCSTWS
9 SC-1645 Lost Winds Est. Oct. 2001
10 SC1623 San Clemente State Beach CCSTWS
11 SC-1605 Cottons Point Est. Oct. 2001
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 26 Recent Shoreline Change Rate
The shoreline change rate can be determined from the aggregate measured data collected in support of the CCSTWS and the City of San Clemente beach width monitoring program. The data is a compilation of measurements obtained in the 1980’s thru the present.
It is noted that this beach width data set is expressed relative to the MSL contour as opposed to the berm definition adopted for this study. The beach widths are the distance between a fixed point on the backshore and the approximate location of the MSL contour which is also a commonly accepted definition. This MSL beach width incorporates a portion of the “wet” beach e.g. the foreshore between the MSL contour and the berm whereas the berm beach width definition incorporates only the “dry” portion of the beach. Thus the MSL beach widths will be inherently greater than the berm beach widths. The MSL indicates a positive beach width where the beach has been previously defined in many reaches as having zero width. Based on a typical beach slope of 8H:1V and berm elevation of +5.2 m and a MSL contour elevation of +1.64 m, the estimated horizontal beach width attributable to this contour elevation difference is approximately 35 m (114 ft ). Thus it can be shown that the dry beach width is zero at Linda Lane and near zero at the other locations. Thus the data sets are consistent with the conclusions developed in this study. It is assumed that the trend for the berm widths will coincide with the trend for the MSL data.
The measured data is shown for the four locations that are historical to the CCSTWS is shown in Figure 2-14. The linear regression for each data set is shown. The slope of the lines represents the mean shoreline trend for each respective data set. The long-term shoreline change rate data sets are shown in Table 2-7. The shoreline change data sets are considered together to obtain representative values for the entire study area. The mean shoreline change rate is –0.20 m/yr (-0.7 ft/yr), the maximum erosion rate is –0.61 m/yr (-2.0 ft/yr) and the maximum accretion rate is +0.38 m/yr (+1.24 ft/yr).
There are contradictory trends observed in the data. Shorecliffs is the data set that is out of phase with the other three. The three data sets around the pier are consistent in trend and phase. The data sets indicate consistent erosion and accretion trends at the same time. The mean values are similar in magnitude. The data set at Shorecliffs is nearly opposite in behavior.
The beach is erosional and/or accretional when the others are accretional and/or erosional. The data in the 1980’s is consistent among data sets. After the long absence of data in the 1990’s, the 2002 data indicates a loss of beach width.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 27 Figure 2-14 Recent Shoreline Change in San Clemente Area Table 2-7 Summary of Recent Long Term Shoreline Change Rates Location Erosion Rate, m/yr (ft/yr)
SC 1720, Shorecliffs +0.38 (+1.24)
SC 1680, Linda Lane -0.24 (-0.79)
SC 1660, T – Street -0.61 (-2.00)
SC 1623, State Beach -0.33 (-1.09)
2.5.5 Cross-shore Profiles
Cross-shore profiles are compiled from the LIDAR topographic data and bathymetric measured data for Reaches 1-8. Profiles from Reach 6 (vicinity pier area) and Reach 7 (Mariposa Point) are representative of the beach and the armored shoreline respectively that are characteristic in the project area and are shown in Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16. Only the portion of the profile from the bluff to the waterline is shown to better illustrate the detail of the foreshore and backshore regions. The profile centerline is established at the seaward rail of the SCRRA railroad.
The pier area beach profile indicates a typical berm elevation of +5.2 m (+17 ft), a typical foreshore slope of 8H:1V – 10H:1V, an offshore slope of 110H:1V, and a railroad elevation of approximately +6.4 m (+21 ft).
Shorecliffs: y = 0.3787x - 709.69
Linda Lane: y = -0.2404x + 515.48
T Street: y = -0.6104x + 1269.5
State Beach: y = -0.3327x + 719.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 MSL Beach Width (m)
Year
Shorecliffs Linda Lane T Street
State Beach Linear (Shorecliffs) Linear (Linda Lane)
Linear (T Street) Linear (State Beach)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 28 The Mariposa Point area profile indicates a mean revetment elevation of +6.9 m (+23 ft), typical revetment slope of 1H:1V, toe elevation at approximately 0.0 m, an offshore slope of 110H:1V, and a railroad elevation of approximately +6.4 m (+21ft).
Figure 2-15 Typical Cross-shore Section for Reach 2, Reach 4, Reach 6, Reach 8 (No Revetment) Figure 2-16 Typical Cross-shore Section for Reach 1, Reach 3, Reach 5, Reach 7 (Revetment) Repetitive cross-shore profiles from the City of San Clemente beach width monitoring program at Linda Lane and T-Street are shown in Figure 2-17 and Figure 2-18. These plots represent five periodic surveys during the period Oct 2001 – Oct 2004 and one survey from Oct 1986.
The shallow portion of these plots (above -10 ft) indicates relative consistency throughout. The surveys are relatively consistent throughout with only the May 2004 indicating some change (erosion) in the upper profile. The deeper portions of these plots (below -15 ft) are very consistent throughout with virtually no changes throughout the profile for all surveys. The feature at the -15 ft contour is the reef structure. The overlapping repetitive surveys are indicative of the hard bottom nature of the underlying geology previously described. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 29 Figure 2-17 Repetitive Cross Sections at Linda Lane (from Coastal Frontiers, 2005) Figure 2-18 Repetitive Cross Sections at T-Street (from Coastal Frontiers, 2005) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 30 2.5.6 Foreshore Slopes
Foreshore slope data was obtained from direct measurements. The City of San Clemente lifeguards obtained direct measurements of the foreshore slope as part of the aforementioned beach width monitoring program. Approximately 21 measurements were obtained 2-3 times each month for a twelve month duration during the period Nov 2001 – Nov 2002 at nine selected locations throughout the study area. The selected locations include all identified in Table 2-6, except DB 1850 and DB 1805. The slope was measured in degrees from horizontal and converted to the slope cotangent. Assuming the one year time period is representative of the project period, this data set represents an annual variation of foreshore slope values. A portion of the foreshore slope data is shown in Table 2-8.
The histogram of all foreshore measurements is shown in Figure 2-19. The gaps in the distribution are a result of the relatively small number of observations, the discrete nature of the values, and the binning effect of the distribution. The measured data is in whole number increments as is the bin increments; some bin increments are not represented by the measured data resulting in gaps in the distribution.
Table 2-8 Sample Beach Monitoring Measurements at T-Street Date Width Slope
(deg)
Slope
(cotan)
Nov 26, 2001 152 8 7
Dec 13, 2001 152 3 19
Jan 07, 2002 132 4 14
Jan 22, 2002 158 3 19
Feb 07, 2002 151 5 11
Feb 20, 2002 176 5 11
Mar 06, 2002 193 5 11
Mar 22, 2002 155 5 11
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 31 Figure 2-19 Foreshore Slope Histogram
2.5.7 Storm Induced Beach Change
Storm induced beach change is estimated based on measured data not site-specific to San Clemente. Due to historical lack of shoreline studies by Federal or other entities, there is no measured data from the San Clemente project site or the adjacent project area to analyze/predict storm induced beach change. At the initiation of this study all available data sources and references for storm induced beach response for San Clemente were consulted.
Not a single observation or measurement of storm induced beach response was found to exist.
There is no beach morphological data set which can be used directly to determine storm induced beach response. Thus, a site specific distribution based on measured data could not be developed.
The geologic conditions have previously shown (Sec 2.3.2 and discussed hereinafter) that the area is largely a thin veneer of sediment overlaying a rocky bottom. The beach is a relatively narrow ribbon of sand trapped against the coastal bluffs; the small amount of sediment within the littoral system is worked by waves to the upper limit of the profile. The area conclusively does not contain a full sandy shoreface extending from the backshore to the offshore.
The use of SBEACH, the current USACE predictive model to estimate storm induced shoreline change, was not considered for this study. Due to the fact that a full sandy shoreface does not exist and the nearshore regime is believed controlled by the underlying geology (Sec 2.5.9), predictive models to estimate storm induced shoreline change, i.e. SBEACH, are not believed to be valid and are not believed to accurately represent expected storm induced beach response.
The prevailing geologic conditions are not conducive to an expectation of successful SBEACH model performance. The Los Angeles District has an extensive history of unsuccessful attempts to apply SBEACH to local conditions. The District has not been able to achieve model predictions that satisfactorily replicate observed changes. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Number of Occurrences
Foreshore Slope, cotan
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 32 Adjunct to the SANDAG project monitoring program, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography collected an extensive set of research measurements of the Torrey Pines fill site.
Measurements included high resolution pre- and post-storm beach profiles coupled with wave and water level information, exactly the data set necessary to evaluate SBEACH. One of the research products was an impartial evaluation of SBEACH to the measured fill response. This was a systematic evaluation of the sensitivity of the model to the values assigned to the input variables. Scripps concluded SBEACH had “no useful skill in predicting storm-caused erosion of a beach fill with a steep berm”.
Absent a measured site-specific distribution or a suite of SBEACH model predictions, measured data from the Orange County Beach Erosion Control Project (Surfside-Sunset) was utilized.
Short-term shoreline erosion data have been collected within the Los Angeles District as part of the Surfside-Sunset project. This data set represents a collection of linear beach widths collected at 26 locations over a period of 33 years. This data set is used in the present analysis to estimate shoreline response under storm conditions.
The data set is collected at 26 locations representing various beach and shoreline conditions.
Locations are selected which are deemed to be largely free of the influence of coastal structures and their attendant effects on shoreline response. Ten known significant storms were selected for analysis. This results in a subset of measured shoreline response data that is directly correlated to storm input. The aforementioned study area is morphologically very different from the San Clemente study area. The northern Orange County area is primarily wide sandy beaches and a full sand profile. This is compared to the San Clemente study area that has been shown to be primarily a hard bottom area within a thin lens of sand along the shoreline.
Thus the San Clemente area has inherently less beach width to exchange cross-shore due to storm response. Therefore, the input distribution collected from northern Orange County was linearly reduced based solely on engineering judgment to more realistically reflect the expected San Clemente shoreline response. A linear relationship was used as no other mathematical relationship or transformation could reasonably or logically be used that would yield realistic results. The “expected” response at San Clemente is a very small storm induced beach response. Consideration was given to the facts that the existing beaches are very narrow, the project area is under geologic control, and the modern record indicates little or no storm induced damages have been recorded even in the most severe storms. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 2-20.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 33 Figure 2-20 Storm Induced Beach Change Histogram
2.5.8 Sediment Profile Thickness
Data collected for the Sand Thickness Survey Report (USACE-SPL 1988) allows estimation of the available sediment supply and consequently any potential limits to erosion. This study conducted jet probing along various profiles to determine the available sediment thickness.
Three profiles in the San Clemente area were jet probed including SC-1623 (San Clemente State Beach), SC-1660 (T-Street) and SC-1720 (Capistrano Shores). The survey results indicate the sediment thickness cross-shore along the profile. The results are summarized in Table 2-9.
On profile SC-1623, the sediment thickness ranges from 0.1-3.2 meters (0.3-10.5 ft). The average profile is consistently thick 2.4-3.2 m (7.7-10.5 ft) across the beach locations and is near zero 0.1-0.6 m (0.4-1.8 ft) across the seaward portion of the profile.
On profile SC-1660, the sediment thickness ranges from 0.0-4.5 meters (0.0-14.8 ft). The average profile is consistently thick 2.1-4.5 m (6.9-14.8 ft) across the beach locations and is near zero 0.1-0.7 m (0.4-2.2 ft) across the inner seaward portion of the profile. The data indicates a thickness of 2.7 m (8.8 ft) at the furthest offshore location.
On profile SC-1720, the sediment thickness ranges from 0.0-4.6 meters (0.0-15.0 ft). The average profile is consistently thick 1.0-4.5 m (3.3-14.9 ft) across the beach locations and is near zero 0.0-0.2 m (0.0-7 ft) across the seaward portion of the profile. 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Number of Occurrences
Storm Induced Beach Erosion, m
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 34 The measurement results identified cobbles, boulders, and other hard substrate at various depths along the profile. The observations include “some pebbles scattered on beach surface and some boulders visible at backshore” and “offshore sand-stone outcrops with local bottom relief of 1 ft”. This information is consistent with 2002 geologic information collected during geophysical studies conducted as part of this study, and reported in the Appendix E of the EIS/EIR.
Table 2-9 Summary of Sand Thickness
Probe Location Sand Thickness
Range
Line
No. Range Elevation (MLLW) 1 2 Average
SC-1623 1 21.1 m (69.3 ft) 4.1 m (13.5 ft) 3.0 m (9.9 ft) 3.1 m (10.2ft) 3.1 m (10.1ft) SC-1623 2 34.6 m (113.5 ft) 3.4 m (11.1 ft) 3.2 m (10.5ft) 3.2 m (10.4ft) 3.2 m (10.5ft) SC-1623 3 51.7 m (169.6 ft) 2.1 m (6.9 ft) 2.4 m (7.7 ft) 2.3 m (7.6 ft) 2.4 m (7.7 ft) SC-1623 4 194.2 m (636.8 ft) -3.5 m (-11.4 ft) 0.1 m (0.3 ft) 0.1 m (0.4 ft) 0.1 m (0.4 ft) SC-1623 5 266.1 m (872.8 ft) -6.0 m (-19.6 ft) 0.2 m (0.8 ft) 0.3 m (0.9 ft) 0.3 m (0.9 ft) SC-1623 6 504.2 m (1653.8 ft) -9.3 m (-30.5 ft) 0.6 m (1.8 ft) 0.6 m (1.8 ft) 0.6 m (1.8 ft) SC-1660 1 11.5 m (37.6 ft) 5.0 m (16.3 ft) 4.5 m (14.8ft) 4.5 m (14.8ft) 4.5 m (14.8ft) SC-1660 2 23.5 m (77.2 ft) 3.1 m (10.2 ft) 3.4 m (11.0ft) 3.5 m (11.4ft) 3.4 m (11.2ft) SC-1660 3 42.9 m (140.6 ft) 1.5 m (4.8 ft) 2.2 m (7.2 ft) 2.0 m (6.6 ft) 2.1 m (6.9 ft) SC-1660 4 232.8 m (763.5 ft) -3.1 m (-10.1 ft) 0.0 m (0.0 ft) 0.2 m (0.8 ft) 0.1 m (0.4 ft) SC-1660 5 462.4 m (1516.5 ft) -6.5 m (-21.3 ft) 0.6 m (2.0 ft) 0.7 m (2.3 ft) 0.7 m (2.2 ft) SC-1660 6 673.6 m (2209.5 ft) -9.0 m (-29.6 ft) 2.6 m (8.5 ft) 2.7 m (9.0 ft) 2.7 m (8.8 ft) SC-1720 1 10.9 m (35.9 ft) 4.7 m (15.4 ft) 4.6 m (15.0ft) 4.5 m (14.8ft) 4.5 m (14.9ft) SC-1720 2 24.8 m (81.4 ft) 2.7 m (8.7 ft) 2.8 m (9.2 ft) 3.0 m (9.9 ft) 2.9 m (9.6 ft) SC-1720 3 46.5 m (152.6 ft) 0.6 m (1.9 ft) 1.0 m (3.3 ft) 1.0 m (3.3 ft) 1.0 m (3.3 ft) SC-1720 4 165.2 m (541.9 ft) -2.5 m (-8.1 ft) 0.0 m (0.0 ft) 0.0 m (0.0 ft) 0.0 m (0.0 ft) SC-1720 5 494.8 m (1622.9 ft) -6.7 m (-21.9 ft) 0.2 m (0.5 ft) 0.2 m (0.5 ft) 0.2 m (0.5 ft) SC-1720 6 879.5 m (2884.9 ft) -8.6 m (-28.3 ft) 0.2 m (0.5 ft) 0.2 m (0.8 ft) 0.2 m (0.7 ft) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 35 2.5.9 Geologic Control
The underlying geologic framework and inherited geological factors appear to be more significant determinants of beach morphology than wave driven dynamics. The underlying geology establishes the framework within which the beach forms and sets the limits to morphological evolution via the shape and volume of accommodation space (McNinch, 2004).
Due to the preeminence of the near-field and far-field geologic conditions, it is believed that the beach behavior is greatly influenced by, if not controlled by, the underlying geology and the region is therefore under geologic control.
The offshore geologic conditions were extensively mapped and are fully described in the Appendix E of the EIS/EIR. The geologic mapping indicates that the area from San Juan Creek to San Mateo Creek is essentially hard exposed bedrock throughout the regime. Mapping indicates the offshore regime is primarily hard bottom covered in some places by shallow pockets or a thin veneer of sediment. Raised rock reefs are common and a large rock reef pierces the ocean surface just south of San Clemente pier. The beach is a relatively narrow ribbon of sand trapped against the coastal bluffs; the small amount of sediment within the littoral system is worked by waves to the upper limit of the profile. This description is consistent with other areas within the Oceanside littoral cell. The shoreline within the Oceanside littoral cell displays a wide variety of coastal features indicative of a region under geologic control including cliffs, headlands, beaches composed of cobbles, and submarine canyons.
The sediment within the littoral system forms a thin, surficial veneer over bedrock and there is clearly a strong geological control on its morphology. This underlying bedrock surface establishes a downward limit for profile excursion and thus constrains full profile development.
Beach profile morphology is constrained by the low volume available for sediment storage and insufficient sediment inputs from rivers, both inhibiting formation of a full shoreface profile. The offshore part of the shoreface is mostly rock outcrops, whereas the backshore/foreshore portion of the profile is lightly populated by sediments and thus results in a very thin beach. The beach therefore assumes a steeper upper profile than might typically be expected and is unable to evolve a full beach profile.
The planform of the coast southeast of Dana Point is that of a crenulate bay, indicative of general north to south transport. The crenulate shoreline is “pinned” by Dana Point and San Mateo Point. On a smaller scale Mariposa Point also similarly acts like a boundary headland and a narrow sandy beach is “trapped” between Mariposa Point and San Mateo Point. The shoreline at the downdrift (southerly) end at San Mateo Point tends to behave like a fillet; the beach has marginally greater width in this region. This is also consistent with net sediment transport direction of north to south.
The sediment sources described in Sec 2.5.2 are indicative of a region that does not naturally have an abundance of sediment supplied to the beaches. The sediment discharge estimates indicate an average of approximately 20,000 m3
/yr (27,000 yd3/yr) is delivered annually to the
beaches by San Juan Creek. San Juan Creek is located adjacent the boundary headland of the littoral cell and is the only major source of sediment input to the San Clemente area. This is a small quantity relative to some of the larger inputs from other river systems in southern California.
The sediment budget is indicative of a region that does not naturally have an abundance of sediment supplied to the beaches. Engineering estimates indicate approximately 45,000 m3 /yr
of sediment are input to the San Clemente region. It is recognized that this represents ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 36 approximately 47% of the estimated “natural” sediment inputs prior to anthropogenic development, nonetheless, these values are not believed sufficient to establish development of sand across the full shoreface.
Historical information indicates that the railroad around Mariposa Point has been armored with revetment since at least the 1930’s. This is direct evidence that suggests that the shoreline has experienced a paucity of sediment since then, and possibly much earlier. The presence of a sandy shoreline would have obviously eliminated the need for the railroad to construct shoreline erosion protection. Although the historical record is inconclusive, there is no evidence to suggest that there has ever been an expansive sandy beach in front of this section of the railroad.
2.5.10 Sea Level Change
Relative sea level change is considered to have direct impacts on the 50-year future withoutproject and future with-project conditions. Relative sea level change can be significant for longterm beach erosion rates. As the relative water level rises, a landward migration of the shoreline can be expected assuming the profile shape does not change and the longshore sediment transport is in equilibrium (i.e., no erosion or deposition).
For the existing sea level change condition, the historical shoreline change will be considered constant and will not change due to the total relative sea level change. The total relative sea level change magnitude is small (0.12 m (0.4 ft) per 50 years) whereas the aforementioned CCSTWS historic sediment transport analyses have identified the expected shoreline change rate based on measured data and oceanographic processes. These analyses were based on data time scales similar to the 50-year life of this project. The results of these analyses are considered more accurate and representative than a generalized calculation for long-term erosion rates based solely on sea level rise. Thus, the shoreline change due to sea level rise is not expected to dramatically influence the shoreline change rate, and the shoreline change rates will be held constant.
For the Curve 3 sea level change condition, the historical shoreline change will vary and will change due to the total relative sea level change. The total relative sea level change magnitude is large (0.7 m (2.3 ft) per 50 years) compared to the low level sea level rise estimate which is based on historic measured data. This relatively large change magnitude would likely result in a change in the sediment transport mechanisms, and ultimately a changed sediment budget.
The Bruun Rule is used in the current study to provide an estimate for long term shoreline change rate due to extreme sea level rise. It is very difficult to accurately quantity the change in sediment transport mechanisms as the number of variables governing sediment transport is numerous and their inter-relationships are complex. Furthermore, there is no universally accepted model for estimation of the change of shoreline change rates due to sea level change.
The Bruun Rule is a simple, two-dimensional model to estimate shoreline change due to a rise in sea level. The Bruun Rule is given as:
5 6WDQ
ș
Where R = the shoreline recession (landward directed change), S = sea level ULVHDQGș VORSHRIEHDFKIRUHVKRUH
While recognizing the shortcomings and lack of general consensus on the validity of the Bruun Rule, it nonetheless yields a rapid, semi-quantitative estimation for shoreline retreat in the ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 37 presence of sea level rise. Application of the Bruun Rule for San Clemente yields an estimate of 0.10 m/yr (0.32 ft/yr) increase to the mean long term erosion rate. As the measured historic mean long-term erosion rate is 0.10 m/yr (0.33 ft/yr), this coincidentally represents a doubling of the erosion rate due to sea level rise. The implementation of these results is embedded in the model computations (discussed hereinafter).
2.5.11 SANDAG Beach Fills
A regional shoreline nourishment project was performed in 2001 by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (Coastal Frontiers, 2006). The project entailed dredging
1.6 million m3 (2.1 million yd3
) of beach compatible sediments from six borrow sites for placement on twelve receiver beaches in San Diego County. Extensive project monitoring has been conducted semi-annually since project construction. The similarities of this construction project relative to the morphologic conditions, oceanographic climate (waves, tides), sediment characteristics, and construction techniques make this project directly comparable to this study.
The pertinent information of the twelve receiver beaches is described in Table 2-10. The fill site locations are shown in Figure 2-21, Figure 2-22, Figure 2-23, Figure 2-24, Figure 2-25, and Figure 2-26.
Table 2-10 SANDAG Beach Fills
Receiver
Beach
Volume,
m3 (yd3
)
Length,
m (ft)
Width,
m (ft)
D50,
mm
Distance,
km (mi)
Imperial 92,000 (120,000) 701 (2,300) 37 (120) 0.24-0.52 108 (67) Mission 116,000 (151,000) 701 (2,300) 61 (200) 0.52 84 (52) Torrey Pines 187,000 (245,000) 488 (1,600) 49 (160) 0.14 66 (41) Del Mar 140,000 (183,000) 976 (3,200) 37 (120) 0.14 61 (38) Fletcher Cove 112,000 (146,000) 579 (1,900) 21 (70) 0.14 58 (36) Cardiff 77,000 (101,000) 274 (900) 46 (150) 0.34 55 (34) Moonlight 80,000 (105,000) 335 (1,100) 55 (180) 0.34-0.62 52 (32) Leucadia 101,000 (132,000) 823 (2,700) 37 (120) 0.62 48 (30) Bataquitos 90,000 (117,000) 457 (1,500) 55 (180) 0.62 47 (29) S. Carlsbad 121,000 (158,000) 610 (2,000) 55 (180) 0.62 43 (27) N. Carlsbad 172,000 (225,000) 945 (3,100) 30 (100) 0.14-0.62 37 (23) Oceanside 322,000 (421,000) 1,341 (4,400) 56 (185) 0.62 35 (22) Note: Distance is from San Clemente Fill Area
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 38 Figure 2-21 Site Location for Imperial Beach Fill (from SANDAG, 2010) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 39 Figure 2-22 Site Location for Mission Beach Fill (from SANDAG, 2010) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 40 Figure 2-23 Site Location for Torrey Pines Fill (from SANDAG, 2010) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 41 Figure 2-24 Site Location for Del Mar, Fletcher Cove, and Cardiff Fills (from SANDAG, 2010) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 42 Figure 2-25 Site Location for Moonlight, Leucadia, Batiquitos, and South Carlsbad Fills (from SANDAG, 2010)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 43 Figure 2-26 Site Location for North Carlsbad and Oceanside Fills (from SANDAG, 2010) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 44 Much of San Diego County is morphologically similar to San Clemente. The similarities include high coastal bluffs, a close-to-shore rock platform, and typically narrow sand beach (or often none). It is typical that background shoreline change rates throughout the region are small, on order of -0.3 m/yr (-1 ft/yr) or less. It is noted, however, that the wave/sediment regime within San Diego County can vary substantially alongshore. Due to offshore island sheltering (waves) and submarine canyons (sediment transport), micro wave/sediment climates can and do exist.
This makes any specific location-to-location comparisons difficult to substantiate.
One of the more compelling results of the SANDAG monitoring effort has been the rapid deflation of the beach fills. The result of this analysis is discussed in Sec 3.7.2 and indicates very large annual shoreline excursions, both negative and positive, of up to 18 m. While background erosion rates are very small, measured beach fill shoreline change rates are several meters per year, a 1-2 order of magnitude increase.
A description of each beach fill area follows. The beach fills are grouped by littoral cell. A generalized description of the littoral cell is followed by pertinent observations about the specific beach fill site.
Silver Strand Littoral Cell
The Silver Strand Littoral Cell extends over a 27-km (17-mi) long coastal reach from the headland at the south end of the Playas de Tijuana, Mexico (located 4.8 km (3 mi) south of the U.S. – Mexico international border), to Zuniga Jetty located immediately east of the entrance to San Diego Bay, as shown in Figure 2-27. The primary physical features of this littoral cell include the coastal bluffs of the Playas de Tijuana, the Tijuana River delta, and the broad sandy beaches of the Silver Strand. An effective sediment sink in this littoral cell is the shoal located adjacent to Zuniga Jetty, where beach sand transported to the north along the Silver Strand beaches becomes impounded in the lee of Pt. Loma.
The longshore transport rate at the northern end of the littoral cell is estimated to be 91,750 m3 (120,000 yd3
) annually. The longshore transport rate for the central one-third portion of the littoral cell is estimated to be 122,330 – 137,620 m3 (160,000 – 180,000 yd3 ) annually. The
longshore transport rate at the southern end of the littoral cell is estimated to be zero. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 45 Figure 2-27 Silver Strand Littoral Cell
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 46 Imperial Beach: The Imperial Beach fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-28. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy with a small percentage of cobble. Significant morphologic features include the Tijuana River estuary immediately adjacent to the south; the entrance is natural with no man-made controlling structures. Significant man-made features include the Imperial Beach Pier bisecting the receiver site.
Figure 2-28 Imperial Beach Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) Mission Beach Littoral Cell
The Mission Bay Littoral Cell is a 26.5-km (16.5-mi) long coastal segment bounded on the north by Pt. La Jolla and on the south by Pt. Loma, at the entrance to San Diego Bay, as shown in Figure 2-29. The north and south portions of this littoral cell are composed of high rocky bluffs containing pocket beaches of small areal extent. Seacliff recession along these areas has been noted in the past. The 6.4-km (4-mi) long central part of this cell contains sandy beaches including Ocean Beach, Mission Beach, and Pacific Beach. The coast between Mission Beach and Ocean Beach is divided by the jettied entrance to Mission Bay and the San Diego River outlet.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 47 Figure 2-29 Mission Bay Littoral Cell
Within the littoral cell alongshore shifts in sediment volume occur frequently in response to changing wave conditions. Typically, northerly shifts of sediment are experienced during the winter, while this pattern reverses during the summer. A wave hindcast study indicates a gross sediment transport rate of 153,000 m3 (200,000 yd3
) annually, with an annual net northerly rate
of 15,300 m3 (20,000 yd3
).
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 48 Mission Beach: The Mission Beach fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-30. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the Mission Bay / San Diego River immediately adjacent to the south. The entrance is controlled by three rubblemound jetties. Other significant man-made features include the Pacific Beach Pier approximately 3 km (1.5 mi) to the north.
Figure 2-30 Mission Beach Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) Oceanside Littoral Cell
San Clemente is within the Oceanside Littoral Cell. This littoral cell, including the wave climatology, is fully described and subsequently discussed throughout this report.
Torrey Pines: The Torrey Pines fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-31. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the Los Penasquitos Lagoon and mouth immediately adjacent to the north. The lagoon mouth is constrained to its location by a highway bridge. The receiver site is bounded by coastal bluffs to the north and south.
Significant man-made features include a revetment protecting the adjacent parallel highway. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 49 Figure 2-31 Torrey Pines Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) Del Mar: The Del Mar fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-32. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the Los Penasquitos Lagoon and mouth immediately adjacent to the north. The lagoon mouth is constrained to its location by a highway bridge. The receiver site is bounded by coastal bluffs to the north and south.
Significant man-made features include a revetment protecting the adjacent parallel highway.
Figure 2-32 Del Mar Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 50 Fletcher Cove: The Fletcher Cove fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-33. Fletcher Cove is a small opening in the otherwise continuous coastal bluffs. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy.
Figure 2-33 Fletcher Cove Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) Cardiff: The Cardiff fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-34. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the San Elijo Lagoon and mouth immediately adjacent to the north. The lagoon mouth is constrained to its location by a highway bridge. Significant man-made features include a revetment protecting the adjacent parallel highway.
Figure 2-34 Cardiff Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 51 Moonlight: The Moonlight Beach fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-35. Moonlight Beach is a small opening in the otherwise continuous coastal bluffs. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include a small headland (Swami’s Reef) immediately adjacent to the south. There are no significant man-made features in the immediate vicinity.
Figure 2-35 Moonlight Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) Leucadia: The Leucadia fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-36. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the continuous high coastal bluffs backing the beach. There are no significant man-made features in the immediate vicinity.
Figure 2-36 Leucadia Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 52 Batiquitos: The Batiquitos fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-37. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the Batiquitos Lagoon and mouth immediately adjacent to the north. The lagoon mouth is constrained to its location by rubblemound jetties.
Figure 2-37 Batiquitos Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) South Carlsbad: The South Carlsbad fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-38. The receiving beach is backed by continuous coastal bluffs and is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include a small headland immediately adjacent to the north, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and mouth further updrift to the north. The lagoon mouth is constrained to its location by rubblemound jetties. Other significant man-made features include a set of jetties controlling the cooling water intake for the Carlsbad electrical generating facility.
Figure 2-38 South Carlsbad Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 53 North Carlsbad: The North Carlsbad fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-39. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the Buena Vista Lagoon and mouth immediately adjacent to the north. The lagoon mouth is constrained to its location by perimeter development. There are no significant man-made features in the immediate vicinity.
Figure 2-39 North Carlsbad Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) Oceanside: The Oceanside fill receiver site is shown in Figure 2-40. The receiving beach is predominantly sandy. Significant morphologic features include the Buena Vista Lagoon and mouth immediately adjacent to the south. The lagoon mouth is constrained to its location by perimeter development. There are no significant man-made features in the immediate vicinity.
Figure 2-40 Oceanside Receiver Site (from SANDAG, 2010) ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 54 3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND CONDITIONS
3.1 Design Storm Water Levels
The design storm water level is derived from the linear superposition of the tidal range, an assumed range for storm surge, and sea level rise. It is recognized that tidal level and storm surge are physically independent and statistically independent. The design storm water level (without sea level rise) used in the present analysis ranges from +1.15-2.24 m (MLLW) (+3.8-
7.4 ft). Design storm water level is determined based on the following expression:
Design Storm Water Level = TideUniform(0.85,1.64) + SurgeUniform(0.3,0.6) + SeaLevel(SLC, based on NRC exponential curves)
Where SLC = 0.12 m for 50 yr, Sea Level Case 1 (existing level) Where SLC = 0.7 m for 50 yr, Sea Level Case 3 (extreme level) The tidal value used in the present analysis is randomly selected from a uniform distribution ranging between 0.85-1.64 m (2.8-5.4 ft). The surge value used in the present analysis is randomly selected from a uniform distribution ranging between 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft). It is assumed that the typical storm duration is three days and the typical storm duration peak is one day. The tide could be at any random position of the lunar cycle between neap and spring tides. During the one day storm period peak, the tide could range through the full unequal mixed range between neap tides and spring tides. It is assumed that the tide will rise to the highest tidal level. It is assumed that the neap tide high water condition will range up to the mean tide level, which is +0.85 m MLLW at La Jolla, CA. The mean higher high water condition is +1.64 m MLLW at La Jolla, CA. Thus, the tidal level was randomly selected from a uniform distribution ranging from 0.85-1.64 m MLLW representing the neap tide high and the spring tide high. It is assumed a constant storm surge occurs throughout the period of the storm and is assumed to occur simultaneously with the tidal level. Thus, the linear superposition of the random tide selection and the random surge selection minimizes a probabilistically unlikely set of tidal level / storm surge conditions, i.e. a 100 year recurrence tidal level occurring simultaneously with a 100 year recurrence storm surge level. The peak value of +2.24 m (7.4 ft) is slightly less than the highest observed water level (+2.38 m, +7.8 ft) that occurred during the 1983 storm season.
The relative sea level change was added at a exponentially increasing rate between years 1-50 throughout the life-cycle simulation.
3.2 Design Waves
The design wave climatology used for this analysis is based on the winter wave climate previously discussed in Section 2.4. The significant wave height statistical analysis is shown in Figure 3-1. The lognormal distribution was selected as representative of the sample data set.
The lognormal distribution has the form:
2 ) ln (
2 1
exp
2 1 ( ) »
¼
º «
¬
ª V
P
V S
x
x
f x
where P = 0.74 (mean)
V = 0.39 (standard deviation)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 55 Although there is no theoretical basis for selection of the lognormal distribution, the lognormal distribution is commonly used in coastal engineering practice to represent significant wave height.
The lognormal probability distribution is truncated for significant wave height values below 2.60 meters (8.5 ft) to represent the annual maximum threshold. Each iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation assumes that the selected wave height is at least an annual storm event. Based on the annual maximum wave heights for the measured data record, the mean annual significant wave height is 2.60 m (8.5 ft). This value is consistent with conventional coastal engineering practice for expected annual maximums within the Los Angeles District. Thus, the simulation is forced to select a significant wave height from the input distribution greater than or equal to 2.60 m.
The lognormal probability distribution is truncated for significant wave height values above 8.0 meters (26.1 ft) due to wave breaking. Significant wave heights above approximately 8.0 meters will break. The concept of depth limited waves is well established in the literature.
Based on empirical relationships derived by Weggel, a breaking height Hb can be computed for a given set of parameters including wave period, water depth, and local bottom slope. It can be shown that any wave with a height greater than this computed breaking height will also break.
This is termed the depth limited height. For this analysis, significant wave heights in excess of
8.0 m at this 10.2 m depth are not considered due to breaking.
Figure 3-1 Probability Distribution for Significant Wave Height, Winter Data, 1983-1998 X <= 0.000
0.0%
X <= 2.600
99.6%
0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1
1.2 1.4
1.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Probability Density
Significant Wave Height, m
Lognorm(0.74448, 0.38759) Shift=+0.13308
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 56 3.3 Design Wave Periods
The design wave period distribution used for this analysis is developed from the measured wave climate climatology previously discussed. The wave period statistical analysis is shown in Figure 3-2. The logistic distribution was selected as representative of the sample data set. The logistic distribution has the form:
%
¸
¸
¹
·
¨
¨
©
§ ¸
¹
· ¨
©
§
%
D
4 x
2 1 sech
f(x)
2 where
f d d f
% % !
D
x
1.3463(scale parameter, 0)
13.2397 (location parameter)
There is no theoretical basis for selection of the logistic distribution, nor is the logistic distribution commonly used in coastal engineering practice to represent significant wave period. For this analysis the logistic distribution was selected for numerical convenience based on the best-fit distribution of the measured data.
The logistic probability distribution is truncated for values below 10 seconds and values above 20 seconds for purposes of the Monte Carlo simulation. The measured wave climate has been demonstrated to have a dual sea/swell nature. It is common coastal engineering practice to identify 8-10 seconds as the delineation between sea and swell. For this analysis, 10 seconds was established as the lower limit for the wave climate. The logistic distribution was selected for purposes of numerical convenience and has a variate range of +f. It is commonly accepted in coastal engineering practice that swell waves are typically not greater than 25 seconds.
Inspection of the histogram for wave periods indicates essentially no waves greater than 20 seconds. For this analysis, 20 seconds was established as the upper limit for the wave climate. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 57 Figure 3-2 Probability Distribution for Spectral Peak Period, Winter Data, 1983-1998
3.4 Design Wave Runup
Runup is defined as the maximum vertical elevation of wave uprush above still-water level.
Wave uprush consists of two components which include superelevation of the mean water level due to wave action (setup) and fluctuations about that mean (swash). In this analysis runup will be confined to the fluctuations about the mean where runup, R, is defined as a local maximum or peak in the instantaneous water elevation, , at the shoreline.
Wave runup is calculated independently for the shoreline conditions represented by the plane beach condition and the revetment condition. The runup is assumed constant within the entire reach since each reach is a uniform type of shoreline consisting of either plane beach or revetment. For each year of the lifecycle simulation runup was determined for each reach based on the input variables, e.g. wave height, wave period, and beach slope. The calculated runup is added to the still water level for the final runup elevation.
The relative sea level change influences the calculation of runup. It was determined that relative sea level change will occur at an exponentially increasing rate (Section 2.2.3).
Increasing water depths allow higher runup values for the same incident wave heights. The still water level is incorporated indirectly into the revetment runup calculation in the form of higher wave heights at the structure toe. Since runup is by definition the wave uprush elevation above still water level, the still water level is added directly to both shoreline conditions at the end of the calculation. Thus, an increasing trend is observed in the runup calculations.
3.4.1 Runup on Plane Beach
The method developed by Mase and detailed in the Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) (USACE, 2002) was used. This predictive equation is valid for irregular wave runup on plane, X <= 10.00
8.3%
X <= 20.00
99.3%
0 0.05
0.1 0.15
0.2 0.25
0.3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Probability Density
Period T, (sec)
Logistic(13.2397, 1.3463)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 58 impermeable beaches with slope ranging between 5H:1V – 30H:1V. The runup equation is empirically derived based on measured laboratory data and wave setup is incorporated into the calculating procedure. The runup equation has the form:
0.70 0
1/ 3 (0.75)1.38] H
R
where:
R1/ 3 the average of the highest 1/3 of the runups
H0 the significant deepwater wave height
[ surf similarity parameter calculated from deepwater wave height and length Direct use of the runup equation developed by Mase results in runup values that are believed to be unrealistically large. This observation is consistent with discussion in the CEM where field measurements of runup are consistently lower than the predictive equations. There is some evidence that the runup equation overpredicts by a factor of 2 but is roughly the upper envelope of the data scatter. The calculated run-up values were iteratively calibrated until the calculated values approximately matched the actual known run-up elevations. Based on engineering judgment, it was determined that a factor of 0.75 best represents the calculations to real-world observed values. Therefore, a factor of 0.75 was applied to all runup calculations that more realistically reflects the runup experienced at San Clemente.
3.4.2 Runup on Revetment
The method developed by Hughes (Hughes, 2003b) was used in the present analysis. The general expression for irregular wave runup on smooth, impermeable slopes has the form:
>@ 2
1 2
u2% (0.47cot ) F
gh
M 1.751 e
h
R
¸
¸
¹
·
¨
¨
©
§
U D for 1.5 <= cot Į <= 4.0
where:
Ru2% runup elevation exceeded by 2% of the incident waves h water depth at structure toe
D structure slope
MF wave momentum flux parameter (Hughes parameter)
U fluid mass density
g gravitational acceleration
The wave momentum flux parameter, MF, is a nondimensional maximum depth-integrated wave momentum flux parameter (Hughes, 2003a). MF will herein be referred to as the “Hughes parameter” for simplicity. The Hughes parameter characterizes the wave momentum flux, which is closely related to the force loading experienced by coastal structures or any other solid object placed in the wave field. An empirically derived expression for MF has the form:
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 59 A1
2 max 0 2
F
gT
h A
gh
M
¸
¸
¹
·
¨
¨
©
§ ¸
¸
¹
·
¨
¨
©
§
U
where:
2.026
0 h
H A 0.639 ¸
¹
· ¨
©
§ and
0.391
1 h
H A 0.180
¸
¹
· ¨
©
§
H significant wave height at structure toe
The calculated values of runup are further modified for surface roughness and other factors for consistency with the runup guidance detailed in the CEM, which is based on the method developed by Battjes. The modification factors are given as:
Jr 0.6, roughness coefficient
Jb 1, berm coefficient
Jh 1.17, shallow water coefficient
JE 1, wave angle of incidence coefficient
The following assumptions were made: significant wave runup value, impermeable slope, roughness consisting of 1 layer of rock, non-bermed profile, shallow water conditions (i.e nonRayleigh distributed), and normally incident.
3.5 Design Foreshore Slopes
The design foreshore slope distribution used for this analysis is developed from the measured foreshore slope data previously discussed. The foreshore slope statistical analysis is shown in Figure 3-3. The extreme value distribution was selected as representative of the sample data set. The extreme value distribution has the form:
¸
¸
¹
·
¨
¨
©
§
z exp( z)
1 b
1 f(x)
e
where
f d d f
!
{
x
b 1.94(scale parameter, b 0)
a 7.34 (location parameter)
b
x a
z
There is no theoretical basis for selection of the extreme value distribution, nor is the extreme value distribution commonly used in coastal engineering practice to represent foreshore slope.
For this analysis the extreme value distribution was selected for numerical convenience based on the best-fit distribution of the measured data.
The extreme value probability distribution is truncated for values below 4 and values above 20 for purposes of the Monte Carlo simulation. The measured foreshore slopes has been demonstrated to have a range between 4 and 20. This range is typical of the foreshore slopes of other beaches located in southern California.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 60 Figure 3-3 Probability Distribution for Foreshore Slopes
3.6 Design Beach Widths
Beach width in this study is defined as that portion of the beach between the foreshore berm contour and a fixed location on the backshore. This definition accounts for the “dry” portion of the beach. The term “berm width” is often interchanged with this definition of beach width, however, use of the term “beach” or “beach width” will refer to this definition unless specifically stated otherwise. The foreshore berm contour was determined from a composite profile developed by overlaying multiple cross sections of beach that was not fully eroded. Lines indicating the flat backshore and the sloped foreshore were intersected, yielding a +5.2 m (+17.1 ft) MLLW elevation representative of the foreshore berm.
The winter condition shoreline was used as the starting point for this analysis. The foreshore berm contour position was checked for seasonality by comparing the position of the currently measured contour, then making adjustments based on historical measurements. The 2002 LIDAR topographic survey clearly defined the location of the MHHW contour (+1.65 m). Recent repetitive beach profiles surveys have been conducted by the City of San Clemente (Coastal Frontiers Corporation, 2002) along historical Corps of Engineers survey transect locations. The survey data indicates the MHHW contour location fluctuates seasonally between 48.2-56.8 m (159-186 ft) for SC 1720 (Shorecliffs), 20.8-40.5 m (68-133 ft) for SC 1680 (Linda Lane), and
43.1-59.1 m (141-194) for SC 1623 (State Beach) respectively, from fixed transect backshore origins. The seasonal MSL variations are 8.6 m (28 feet) for SC 1720, 19.7 m (65 feet) for SC 1680, and 16.0 m (52 ft) for SC 1623. The 2002 measured MHHW contour was measured in March, which is at the end of the winter season and thus the shoreline is in the most eroded condition. Therefore, the foreshore berm contour required no adjustment for seasonality. 0 0.05
0.1 0.15
0.2 0.25
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Probability Density
Foreshore Slope, (cotan)
ExtValue(7.3467, 1.9399)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 61 3.7 Design Long Term Shoreline Change Rate
Long-term shoreline erosional processes create damages through long-term profile translation and the increasing potential for wave related damages. Long-term beach erosion causes the mean shoreline position to translate landward. The landward advancing shoreline reduces the beach width available for storm damage protection thereby increasing the probability of wave related damages to facilities and structures. As the shoreline retreats landward, the runup and overtopping damage zone increasingly encroaches on existing development. Landward encroachment of this wave-related damage zone will threaten existing development before the mean shoreline position could retreat far enough to directly threaten the structures by undermining. Long-term beach erosion also results in the gradual reduction of the beach surface area available for recreation.
3.7.1 Without-Project
The without-project long term erosion probability distribution is shown in Figure 3-4. The longterm shoreline change rates for the four locations that are historical to the CCSTWS were previously shown in Table 2-7. The shoreline change data sets are considered together with the sediment budget estimates to obtain erosion parameters representative for the entire study area. Based on these parameters a triangular distribution for long-term shoreline change rate was developed. The triangular distribution has a mean shoreline change rate of –0.10 m/yr (-
0.33 ft/yr), the peak erosion rate is –0.21 m/yr (–0.7 ft/yr), the maximum erosion rate is –0.46 m/yr (-1.5 ft/yr), and the maximum accretion rate is +0.38 m/yr (+1.24 ft/yr).
Figure 3-4 Probability Distribution for Without-Project Long Term Erosion Rate X <= -0.460
0.0%
X <= 0.380
100.0%
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Probability Density
Long Term Erosion Rate, m/yr
Triang(-0.46, -0.21, 0.38)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 62 3.7.2 With-Project
The long-term shoreline change rate for this study was based on the monitoring data from the SANDAG regional shoreline nourishment project conducted in southern California in 2001.
Measured beach profile data was obtained at 61 transects; 19 transects were identified that crossed directly over a beach fill location. The mean sea level shoreline change was compiled into a histogram shown in Figure 3-5. The raw data indicates a range of -18 m (-60 ft) to +8 m (+22 ft), and a mean value of -5.9 m (-19,4 ft). These shoreline change data are considered to obtain erosion parameters representative for the entire study area. Based on these parameters a triangular distribution for long-term shoreline change rate was developed. The triangular distribution has a mean shoreline change rate of –3.9 m/yr (-12.8 ft/yr), the peak erosion rate is –5.5 m/yr (–18.1 ft/yr), the maximum erosion rate is –15.2 m/yr (-50.0 ft/yr), and the maximum accretion rate is +9.2 m/yr (+30.0 ft/yr). The with-project long term erosion probability distribution is shown in Figure 3-6.
Another pertinent example of this phenomenon is the Encinitas – Solana Beach Shoreline Feasibility Study conducted in approximately 2004. This area is within San Diego County and very similar to San Clemente with high coastal bluffs, little or no sandy beach, and a rock platform. Background erosion rates were small (0-.2 m/yr (0.5 ft/yr)). A GENESIS shoreline change model study computed future with-project erosion rates of approximately 5 m/yr (16 ft/yr). These predictive results coincide rather neatly with the order of magnitude ratios that have been documented to occur in the region.
Figure 3-5 Mean Sea Level Shoreline Change from 2001 SANDAG project SANDAG 2001-2004
Beach Fill Locations
0 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.1
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
-18 -17 -15 -14 -12 -11 -9 -8 -6 -5 -3 -2 0 2 3 5 6 8 9 Annual Shoreline Change, meter
Percent Occurrence
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 63 Figure 3-6 Probability Distribution for With-Project Long Term Erosion Rate
3.8 Design Storm Induced Beach Change
The design storm induced beach change used in this analysis is based on the storm induced beach change data previously discussed. The storm induced beach change statistical analysis is shown in Figure 3-7. The lognormal distribution, previously discussed in Section 3.2, was selected as representative of the sample data set. The following parameters were used:
P = 3.01 (mean)
V = 3.75 (standard deviation)
There is no theoretical basis for selection of the lognormal distribution, nor is the lognormal distribution commonly used in coastal engineering practice to represent storm induced beach change. For this analysis the lognormal distribution was selected for numerical convenience based on the best-fit distribution of the measured data from over 30 candidate distributions.
Storm-induced erosion effects on the profile are superimposed on the present and future shoreline positions. Storm profile response can be considered directly correlated to storm severity and therefore significant wave height. Storm induced shoreline response is used to quantify the land loss and associated structure loss during the Monte Carlo simulation. The simulation computes the land loss and structure damages due to storm-induced profile change at annual intervals through the 50-year life cycle. The simulation randomly samples a storm event, and allows the shoreline to retreat according to the amount associated with the storm. If Triang(-15.24, -5.52, 9.15)
X <= 4.92
95.0%
X <= -11.80
5.0%
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Long Term Erosion Rate, m/yr
Probability Density (10^-2)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 64 a structure is located within this storm induced retreat distance, the structure is considered lost and removed from the inventory. The shoreline position is reset to the pre-storm position to avoid double counting of erosion. It is idealistically assumed that the storm-induced profile change is a temporary event and the beach will recover to its pre-storm position. Thus, an artificially induced double counting of the storm-induced erosion is avoided.
Figure 3-7 Probability Distribution for Storm Induced Beach Change This design storm induced beach change function was also a result of the model calibration procedures described in Sec 5.3.3.
The storm induced beach change probability distribution is assumed to be identical for the without-project and with-project condition. All storm induced cross-shore transport is expected to be constrained by the fact that the entire project area is controlled by the underlying geology.
A continuous sandy shoreface does not exist in this area which is expected to limit substantial storm induced transport. The storm induced beach change for the low probability storm events derived from this distribution can be considered small, however, these results are consistent given the facts that the existing beaches are very narrow and the modern record indicates little or no storm induced changes (and damages) have been recorded even in the most severe storms. While it might be expected that a wider beach (with-project) would have greater storm induced beach change, the distribution shown herein is considered slightly aggressive for the without-project condition based on the limited storm induced beach change data from the measured historical record. Potential fill alternatives considered in this study are expected to be relatively narrow in the cross-shore direction which might be expected to result in marginally small increases in cross-shore transport. However, given the believed slight aggressiveness of the distribution for the without-project condition, this input distribution is believed representative of both the without- and with-project condition.
0 0.05
0.1 0.15
0.2 0.25
0.3 0.35
0.4 0.45
0 3 6 9 12 15
Probability Density
Storm Induced Beach Erosion, m
Lognorm(3.0159, 3.7480) Shift=-0.025910
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 65 Due to the recognized uncertainty in the derivation of the sample data set (Sec 2.5.7), a quantitative measure of this uncertainty was applied to the original distribution in the Monte Carlo simulation model. Storm induced erosion must be greater than or equal to zero (positive is erosion). The original distribution was derived via a linear transformation of measured data (Surfside). The uncertainty is another linear distribution about the original distribution. The storm induced erosion probability distribution was modified with another distribution with the following form:
f(x)=RiskDiscrete({0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,2}, {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1}, RiskTruncate(0.5, 2)) This distribution is a uniform distribution ranging between 0.5-2.0 in discreet 0.1 increments inclusive of the endpoints. Each value within the range has equal probability. When applied in the Monte Carlo simulation model, this distribution will randomly select any value within the range and multiply the entire distribution by the value. For values less than 1.0, the effect is to compress the original distribution. For values greater than 1.0, the effect is to stretch the original distribution. The value of 1.0 has no affect on the original distribution. Thus the original distribution can be compressed in half (0.5) or stretched by a factor of two (2.0).
3.9 Damage Mechanisms
Coastal storm damages at San Clemente consist of: direct structure loss due to long-term erosion; loss of recreational beach due to long-term erosion; direct structure loss due to storm induced erosion; direct structure damages due to inundation; direct structure damages due to wave impact forces, direct railway damages due to wave impact forces; and rail traffic service delays due to wave overtopping. San Clemente has been subdivided into 10 reaches as described in Section 2.1. The separate reaches are treated independently in the without (and with) project conditions with respect to the damage mechanisms experienced by each and the functional requirements of the individual analysis procedures as they are applied. The primary distinction between reaches 1-8 is the absence or presence of armor stone revetment improvements on the railway.
Structure damages are confined to buildings and revetments protecting the railway. Railway damages are not considered north of the Capistrano Shores development, as the railway is landward of this development. Damages are not considered south of San Mateo Point.
3.9.1 Long Term Erosion
Long-term shoreline erosional processes create damages as the mean shoreline position translates landward. The landward advancing shoreline intercepts structures along the shoreline and gradually reduces the beach surface area available for recreation. Long-term erosion is treated equally for each reach. In each reach, it is assumed that the existing shoreline will erode to the SCRRA railway, after which no further shoreline translation will occur.
The railway will stabilize and fix the position of the shoreline; thereafter the long-term erosion rate no longer applies. Railroad structure damages due to direct loss of the structure from undermining are not considered.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 66 Structure Loss
Structures are lost to long-term erosion when the structure foundation is undermined due to the landward advancing shoreline. The long-term erosion shoreline change rate function is used to quantify the land loss and associated structure loss in the economic evaluation. The simulation computes the structure and land damages due to long-term shoreline change at annual intervals through the 50-year life cycle. The simulation randomly samples a long-term erosion value, and allows the shoreline to retreat. If a structure footprint is located within this retreat distance, the structure is available for damages dependent on the type of structure.
The structures were classified into four categories: timber slab-on-grade, masonry slab-ongrade; timber pile supported; and masonry pile supported. For slab-on-grade structures, when the shoreline berm position eroded through 50% of the footprint as measured from the seaward wall, the structure was considered lost and removed from the inventory. Pile supported structures are not lost directly to undermining. For pile supported structures, when the shoreline erodes through 100% of the footprint, the structure functionality is lost, i.e. the structure can no longer be reasonably used as intended, and the structure is considered lost. A full description of this functionality concept is found in the Economics Appendix.
Recreation Loss
The landward advancing shoreline reduces the beach surface area available for recreation. The simulation computes the dry beach area (cell length x width) throughout the 50-year life-cycle.
A time series of a 50-year life-cycle indicates a continually declining amount of dry beach area.
A full description of the recreation analysis is found in the Economics Appendix.
3.9.2 Storm-Induced Erosion
Storm-induced erosion data are used to quantify the land loss and associated structure loss in the model simulation. The simulation computes the structure and land damages due to storminduced profile change with every storm intervals through the 50-year life cycle. The simulation randomly samples a storm event, and allows the shoreline to retreat according to the amount associated with the storm. If a structure is located within this storm-induced retreat distance, the structure is considered lost and removed from the inventory.
The shoreline position is reset to the pre-storm position to avoid double counting of erosion.
The long-term erosion rate was established by the CCSTWS which analyzed decades of measured data and profile information. Embedded within the long-term erosion rate is the fact that storm-induced erosion occurred and is accounted for. It is idealistically assumed that the storm-induced profile change is a temporary event and the beach will recover to its pre-storm position. Thus, an artificially induced double counting of the storm-induced erosion is avoided.
3.9.3 Inundation
Estimation of structure inundation depths requires relating wave runup elevations to the physical positions (setback distances and first floor elevations) of individual structures. A method described in the professional literature is used to develop inundation estimates. No USACE approved methodology has been formulated to predict the transformation of an overtopping wave after it passes the beach or revetment crest. Wave runup propagation over a beach or revetment crest is an extremely complex process. After a wave runs up and overtops the beach ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 67 or revetment crest, the wave can be considered a translational bore. An approximate solution is to estimate the bore attenuation or decay function landward of the crest as a function of setback distance.
The estimation of overland bore propagation and decay is based on Cox (Cox and Machemehl, 1986) and modified with considerations from the wave momentum flux theory discussed hereinbefore. The propagating bore is assumed a periodic wave with an initial height proportional to the ratio of the runup elevation and the crest elevation. The propagating wave is modeled after a bore, which qualitatively resembles a spilling breaking wave. Using linear wave theory energy considerations and appropriate bore theory approximations, results in the expression:
2 i
T g
5X h h ¸
¸
¹
·
¨
¨
©
§
where:
1.61 M swl
R
E 1
h
2 F
2 i
¸
¹
· ¨
©
§
where h = bore depth at structure, hi = initial bore depth at crest, R = runup elevation, E = revetment crest elevation, MF = Hughes parameter, swl = total still water level, X = structure setback distance, T = wave period, and g = gravity term.
This procedure neglects frictional dissipation and percolation, which have been found to have negligible influence compared to the turbulent energy dissipation in a bore. Neglect of those considerations results in a conservative estimation of bore depth. This method assumes the slope behind the berm is level. In this analysis, the measured structure setback distances and pad elevations were used; all randomly sampled input values and the calculated runup values were used. This method yields the inundation depths for each structure. For this analysis, the bore depth, h, is assumed the inundation depth.
The inundation depth is applied to each structure based on the defined depth-damage relationship, and the economic damages computed. A full description of the inundation depthdamage relationships are shown and discussed in the Economics Appendix.
3.9.4 Wave Impact Forces – Structures
Criteria
Structure damages from wave forces begin when wave propagation (or wave runup) intersects the structure seaward boundary. Structure damages due to wave runup were determined based on a comparison of the applied wave force at the structure wall/foundation connection to the critical force that would cause the connection to fail. A critical force of 460 lbs/lf was assumed for conventional timber frame and masonry construction with a slab-on-grade foundation. If the calculated wave force is equal to or exceeds the critical force, the structure is considered 100% damaged. If the calculated wave force is less than the critical force, some partial damages were assumed. This near step function behavior for structure damages is similar in concept with guidance provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 1998).
This critical force was developed from the minimum applicable requirements for conventional wood-framed and masonry structures in accordance with the 1999 Uniform Building Code (UBC). It is assumed that the existing structures in the study area are conventional woodframed and masonry structures. No exceptional structural, foundation, or soil conditions were ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 68 considered. It was further assumed that the loads due to a traveling water bore would be perpendicular to a solid structural wall. The assumed mode of failure was at the wall-tofoundation connection due to base shear caused by the water bore loading.
The UBC indicates that the minimum connection requirements are identical for timber and masonry construction methods. The UBC allowed for a determination of the minimum connection necessary that satisfies these base shear requirements. According to Chapter 16 of the UBC, for seismic zones 3 and 4 in southern California, the minimum anchor requirements are a #6 5/8 inch anchor bolt at not greater than 6 feet on center; the anchor has a shear capacity of 2750 lbs. Assuming anchors every 6 feet on an infinitely long wall, each anchor resists approximately 460 lbs per linear foot.
Methodology
The method used for structure damages is based on a procedure obtained from the professional literature. No USACE approved methodology has been formulated to predict the forces exerted on a structure due to a propagating bore. After a wave runs up and overtops a beach or revetment, the wave can be considered a translational bore. This translating bore then impacts upon the structure.
The estimation of wave force due to a translating bore is based on Ramsden (Ramsden and Raichlen, 1991). The forces on a vertical wall due to the impact of a bore generated by a broken solitary wave were measured in the laboratory. A previously developed expression for bore development, which described surge forces at the leading edge of a bore propagating over smooth and roughened bottoms was modified. This resulted in the expression:
2 2
2 1 F J h d Jh
where F = force, J = unit weight of seawater, h = bore height, d = standing water depth.
This expression includes the ratio of bore celerity to shallow-water wave celerity (Nf = c/(gh)2 ),
which in this analysis is assumed to equal unity. The previously calculated bore heights are the only required input; the standing water depth has the assumed value d = 0.1*h based on the recommendations of Cox and Machemehl.
Wave Impact Forces - Railroad
Structure damages from wave impact forces begin when wave propagation (or wave runup) intersects the structure seaward boundary. The degree of impact loading is a function of the runup elevations and the structure spatial positions. Wave force damages are treated independently and equally for each sub-reach.
There is no known theoretical and/or empirical method for estimating wave impact forces on a railroad. The methods described hereinafter were developed based on engineering judgment and are not commonly used in coastal engineering practice. Structure damages due to wave runup were estimated based on the damage functions shown in Table 3-1. The damage relationship is based on runup elevation in lieu of wave height. It is noted that the majority of the railway and associated revetments are above the MHHW elevation. As such, the revetments are not directly exposed to wave heights (such as the case for an offshore ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 69 structure), but are directly exposed to wave runup. Incorporating the use of runup elevation allows for consideration of still water level, which has a significant effect on the computed runup elevation.
The percent damage is based on the quantity of armor unit removal for a specific runup elevation (wave height). These damage functions are similar in concept and nature to the percent damage and no-damage criteria described in the Shore Protection Manual (SPM) (USACE-CERC, 1984). A distinction was made between the two primary types of railway protection: a) ballast only (no protection); and b) non-engineered which defines the protection provided by the large armor stone dumped in an uncontrolled (non-engineered) fashion. A 5% no-damage threshold was applied; damages greater than 5% were accrued.
The railroad damage function (Table 3-1) was calibrated based on matching known existing annual damages to predicted future annual damages. During the calibration process, the damage function relativity between the ballast only and non-engineered railway was iteratively adjusted. Engineering judgment was applied to correlate input wave runup with realistic expected damages. The expected damages were based on information provided by SCRRA who indicated that annual damages are approximately $100,000 per year to the ballast type railroad. The % damage values shown in Table 3-1 (Ballast RR) were iteratively adjusted in the model so that the total economic damages in year 1 of the life cycle equaled the existing damages. In other words, the % damage values were adjusted so that the model predicted $100,000 of damage in year 1 which would equal the $100,000 actual damages reported by SCRRA. This iterative method resulted in predicted damages in the initial year of the life-cycle simulation that approximately matched the existing damages experienced by the SCRRA.
Table 3-1 Railroad Damage Functions
Runup Elevation, m (ft) % Damage for
Ballast RR
% Damage for NonEngineered RR
0 00
3.05 (10) 0 0
3.66 (12) 1 0
4.27 (14) 5 0
4.88 (16) 10 1
5.49 (18) 15 5
6.10 (20) 20 10
7.62 (25) 25 15
3.9.5 Railway Traffic Service Delay
Railway traffic service delays result when excessive wave runup elevations and wave overtopping result in a flow rate of water that exceeds the elevation of SCRRA protective revetments. According to the SCRRA, railway traffic service delays have occurred during severe storms due to wave action. The SCRRA has documented two service disruption incidents in the 1960s and 1970s (McGinley, 2003). According to the SCRRA:
“There was one incident at Mariposa Point (north of the pier) and one south of the pier.
Both had service disruptions of about 24 hours. The failure mode was backwash: very large waves broke over the tracks and in running back to the sea carried the ballast and ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 70 embankment. He said that he had seen pictures of the waves as high as the trains (that would be 15-16 feet above the rail). He said that the rip-rap there at that time was a smaller section than we have now.”
This description of damages is consistent with severe wave runup and overtopping, and the resulting wave rundown removing armor stone from the protective revetment. It is noted that wave heights 15-16 feet above the rail are physically unlikely due to the spatial elevation of the revetment crest and railway. However, an observer standing on the railway might interpret runup and overtopping spray in the presence of strong wind as wave heights. It is also noted that the rock protecting the railway during the observed incidents was smaller than the larger armor stone currently in place.
According to the SCRRA, there has never been a railway stoppage due specifically to conventional inundation. Conventional inundation, defined as still or standing water due to wave overtopping, has never caused a railway traffic service delay. This is intuitively expected as the railway is constructed on an elevated bed that greatly exceeds the elevation that can be reached by conventional still water coastal flooding.
There is no generally accepted guidance or methodology formulated to define the overtopping criteria necessary to interrupt railway service. Estimation of railway traffic service delays requires relating wave runup elevations to the physical positions (setback distances and elevations) of the SCRRA railway. Based on the above eyewitness account, criteria was established which combined runup elevation and a probability of occurrence. Runup elevation should equal or exceed the revetment elevation; the actual rail elevation is set below the revetment crest elevation. Overtopping of the revetment crest will logically result in overtopping of the railroad. If the revetment crest elevation is exceeded by overtopping, thereafter there is a 50-50 probability that this overtopping condition would result in railway traffic service delay.
Railway traffic service delay is treated equally and independently for each sub-reach.
The rail service delay criterion is calibrated using the total number of delays experienced during a simulation. The simulation tallies the total number of service delays. Based on the preceding damage description, there were two service delays in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Presumably this time period extends to the 1950’s if not earlier, which is approximately 50 years. Thus, on average there should be approximately 1-2 service delays in each 50-year simulation. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 71 4 WITHOUT-PROJECT AND WITH-PROJECT CONDITIONS
4.1 General Project Formulation and Policy Considerations Project formulation indicates the major damage categories are foregone costs that public entities will incur to protect the LOSSAN corridor, and the loss of public and recreational facilities. The LOSSAN corridor is a major railroad link for freight and passenger traffic between San Diego and Los Angeles. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has ownership authority over the LOSSAN corridor; the maintenance of the track is the responsibility of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).
The study area has been subdivided into 10 reaches, reaches 1-8 distinguished primarily by the presence or absence of armor stone protection along the railroad. In reaches 1, 3, 5, and 7 the railroad has been improved by construction of a revetment. Reaches 2, 4, 6, and 8 are currently unimproved, i.e. are the original ballast construction. Damages to the railroad in Reach 9 are not considered as Reach 9 is protected by a revetment and the railroad is located landward of privately owned homes. Reach 10 extends to the study area boundary and is included in the study to more completely analyze shoreline conditions.
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is a State regulatory agency empowered to enforce the California Coastal Act, adopted in 1976. The purpose of the Act is to provide protection of California’s coastline for the benefit of current and future generations. This includes protection and expansion of public access to the shoreline, protection, enhancement and restoration of environmentally sensitive habitats, and protection of the scenic beauty of coastal landscapes and seascapes.
The CCC is the permit granting authority for all coastal development. The CCC also issues emergency permits for storm damage protection structures when there is an immediate threat of damage to property. These structures are technically considered temporary and therefore the CCC requires, as a condition of the permit, that the structure be removed when the immediate threat no longer exists. In practice, this permit condition is intermittently enforced.
4.2 Existing SCRRA Track Maintenance Procedures
The following description and account of maintenance activities was provided by the SCRRA (McGinley, 1998). The detailed account of railway activities is excerpted to highlight those activities that are directly pertinent to the analysis methodology conducted in this study. “Under 49 CFR 213.103, the ballast supporting the track must be constructed and maintained to support the track (and trains) and restrain the track from lateral, longitudinal, and vertical movement. In order to maintain this ballast material, it must be protected against erosion by ocean waves. These ocean waves have two effects, they can undercut the embankment, causing the ballast to drop from the track area, and they can dislodge the ballast through their impacts and the resulting backwash. …” “The method used to resist this erosion for the last several decades has been to place broken stone rip-rap along the ocean side of the track embankment. (In earlier times, some rip-rap was waste concrete, however that material tended to break up leaving exposed reinforcing steel exposed to persons on the beach.) The size of the stone is from four feet in maximum dimension down to four inches. The stone has come from various quarries in Southern California. Almost all of the rock applied in the 1990 is granite that ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 72 has come from Corona or Newberry Springs. The rock is delivered to the roadbed area in railroad cars which dump to the side. Before and after dumping the rock, construction equipment (tracked excavators and rubber tired end loaders) is used to arrange the rock into a uniform row, and to keep it clear of the PUC walkway area alongside the track. This work is done at night because of the need to occupy the tracks with the rail cars. The rock is placed on a 1:1 or 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope towards the beach, and to a height of about three or four feet higher than the rails. This height is to deflect large waves at high tides, which are otherwise observed to impact the tracks. This placement and replacement of rip-rap is all fixed in location to the 20 to 30 feet west of the centerline of the tracks. … The SCRRA experience since 1993, and staff experience dating into the 1970’s, is that the very steep piles of rock, often underlain by compacted sand. The next stage of erosion is that the high parts of the piled stone settles into these voids, lowering the height of the embankment. This is an approximately annual cycle, with the most erosion occurring in the winters. … Over the last five years, rock has been installed about annually to replace that lost to erosion.”
“The use of random-dumped stone rip-rap has evolved over decades of practical experience and has not been studied or engineered by rigorous methods. It is believed to present an exposure to the ocean which is able to absorb significant energy and to capture some of the smaller stone and sand. …A more refined barrier against erosion such as large stone set into a planned matrix or a cast concrete wall is too expensive to install under regular railroad maintenance budgets and simply has not been considered. It would appear that a more elaborate barrier would disrupt the beach during construction.” Based on the preceding account it is clear the SCRRA has used and continues to use nontraditional methods of revetment construction and maintenance. The construction and maintenance method consists of side dumping armor stone from a rail car onto the existing ballast slope. The stone follows the ballast slope and/or is allowed to assume a natural angle of repose, with some grooming at the toe area. This method of construction is considered a “nonengineered” revetment.
An “engineered” revetment is a sloping stone structure where the armor stone is placed in a controlled fashion. The quarried stone in the armor layer is typically placed individually to maximize contact between adjacent stones. Maximized contact between armor stones increases stone interlocking and as a result increases the hydraulic stability of the structure.
Individually placed armor stone allows for overall steeper structure slopes than can be typically achieved by uncontrolled dumping methods.
4.3 Existing SCRRA Construction and Operations and Maintenance Costs Estimation of construction and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the revetments is required for consideration in the economic analysis. Costs are quantified for existing O&M practices, future construction projects, and O&M of future construction projects.
Structure construction and O&M costs are not considered north of the Capistrano Shores development or south of San Mateo Point.
Existing O&M cost information has been provided by the SCRRA. These O&M costs are those directly attributable to the revetments that were constructed in response to direct wave related ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 73 damages, and are separate from those costs incurred during routine O&M of the railroad. The revetments have suffered documented damages over its service life. The revetments were constructed incrementally at various times since at least the 1930’s according to SCRRA information sources; various levels of engineering and design (or none) were employed. Over the ensuing years the structures have been subjected to several storms of varying intensities.
Degradation of the revetments has occurred as evidenced by many instances of oversteepened slopes and ejected and/or displaced armor stones that reduce the overall structural integrity. This has led the SCRRA to conduct maintenance operations on the revetments at various times throughout the revetment life-cycle. Information provided by the SCRRA indicates that approximately $300,000 every 3 years have been expended on these maintenance operations; this equates to approximately $100,000 per year. The SCRRA was unable to provide detailed information that would allow determination of exactly where along the railroad the O&M effort was applied over the years. Therefore, this $100,000 per year average O&M cost was distributed on a per meter basis throughout the four reaches that are currently protected by revetment.
Future damages are expected during the without-project condition life cycle and are expected to increase due to an increase in the length of railroad exposed to the ocean as the beach erodes.
Therefore, future costs are expected to be greater than the current rate of expenditures. These future costs were estimated for various scenarios. It is noted that Reaches 2, 4, 6, and 8 are the original ballast construction. Reaches 1, 3, 5, and 7 are the improved revetment reaches.
Three types of construction and their resultant O&M costs were developed and are shown in Table 4-1. The construction first costs were based on similar structures built recently in the southern California area. It usual and customary to estimate O&M costs equal to approximately 1% of the construction first cost. The three types of construction are: existing condition; engineered revetment; and seawall.
Table 4-1 Construction and O&M Unit Prices
First Cost, $/m ($/ft) O&M Cost, $/m ($/ft)
Existing Condition $43.46 ($13.25)
Revetment 1 (ballast) $2,460 ($750) $43.46 ($13.25)
Revetment 2 (upgrade) $820 ($250) $24.61 ($7.50)
Seawall $29,200 ($8,900) $98.40 ($30.00)
4.3.1 Existing Condition
The SCRRA is currently placing large armor stone via non-engineered side dump methods previously described. The $100,000 per year average O&M cost incurred under existing conditions was distributed on a per meter basis throughout the four reaches that are currently protected by revetment.
4.3.2 Engineered Revetment
It may become necessary or mandatory for the SCRRA to construct “engineered” revetments.
This would entail utilizing a detailed engineering and design process resulting in plans and specifications, and placing the armor stone under controlled stone placement methods. An ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 74 engineered revetment would provide increased hydraulic stability over current non-engineered methods. It was assumed that an engineered revetment would largely utilize many of the same revetment parameters as is currently used in the non-engineered placement methods. This would include: revetment elevation, revetment, slope, armor stone size and gradation, armor stone purchase unit price. The significant difference is the development of the engineering and design effort and the controlled armor stone placement methods. The engineered revetment was subdivided into two types: 1) construct engineered revetment on existing ballast railroad; and, 2) upgrade existing non-engineered revetment to an engineered revetment.
4.4 Future SCRRA Track Maintenance Practices
The SCRRA has incorporated discontinuous levels of protective rock armoring along the railroad length. Four of the reaches (1, 3, 5, and 7) consist of conventional rock ballast construction; four of the reaches (2, 4, 6, and 8) have been improved with rock armoring on the seaward slope. Information obtained from SCRRA indicates that the armor stone revetments were constructed via rail car side dump methods, as opposed to the individually placed stone that state-of-the-art coastal armor stone structures utilize. This side dump method was deemed a “non-engineered” revetment. Furthermore, the SCRRA is also currently maintaining the revetments with this same side dump method. Although the design and methods of construction (and subsequent maintenance) are inconsistent with conventional coastal engineering practice, the larger armor stone affords substantially greater protection against hydraulic forces over conventionally sized rock ballast and offer substantial benefits to the railroad structure. This improvement in protective armoring is a primary consideration for project reach delineation.
The SCCRA is in the process of modifying the existing maintenance practices in response to evolving CCC policies, which has a direct influence on the project formulation. The SCRRA reactively and proactively conducts improvement of the rail bed using the non-engineered (side dump) revetment construction methods in order to avoid and minimize any possible service disruption. It may become necessary or mandatory for the SCRRA to construct an “engineered” seawall.
In April of 2003, the SCRRA submitted a permit request to the CCC for maintenance of the existing revetment, which would include the placement of additional armor stone to the revetment. The permit was granted with specific conditions including limiting the maintenance activities to four specific locations, using the minimum amount of stone necessary, establishing a limit line for the existing revetment toe, and participating in studies to evaluate sand replenishment and other potential methods for future protection. Additionally, the CCC indicated concerns that these maintenance activities are adversely affecting recreational resources. “The applicant’s repeated placement of rocks has result[ed] in an expansion of the footprint of the structure. Additionally, rocks that fall off the revetment could move into nearshore waters and present a hazard to surfers and swimmers”3
.
The current non-engineered (side dump) revetment maintenance practices will be modified.
According to a letter from the CCC to the SCRRA dated February 22, 2005, the SCRRA will continue to side dump armor stone, and will also individually place the stone onto the areas with the improved revetment. This will achieve increased structural performance while also ensuring the existing revetment footprint is not expanded. Based on the CCC Consistency Certification dated May 23, 2003 (CC-033-03) and a letter provided by SCRRA, the SCRRA will no longer be
3 California Coastal Commission Consistency Certification No CC-033-03 May 23, 2003. Page 7. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 75 able to side dump armor stone, but will continue to individually place the armor stone on the revetment. Additionally, SCRRA is in the process of requesting a multi-year permit from the CCC to continue the individual placement of armor stone as the maintenance practice standard.
It will become mandatory for the SCRRA to construct seawalls in the future. Project formulation indicates that due to evolving law and coastal structure construction regulations, the ability for the SCRRA to use revetment methods will expire.
4.5 Future SCRRA Construction and Operations and Maintenance Costs A conceptual seawall design and cost estimate was prepared by the City of San Clemente (Moffatt & Nichol, 2007). The seawall was assumed to be steel reinforced concrete structure founded on bedrock. This type of structure is not common in the southern California shoreline area. A schematic of the sheet pile cross section is shown in Figure 4-1. Numerous assumptions were made including, but not limited to, construction materials, foundation conditions, real estate, and permitting. This estimate concludes this seawall cost will range from $21,577-$31,979 per meter ($6,578-$9,750 per foot). It usual and customary to estimate O&M costs equal to approximately 1% of the construction first cost. O&M costs are estimated to range from $216-$320 per meter ($66-$98 per foot). The full report is included as sub-Appendix B.
The seawall unit price was increased 3% to account for the extreme sea level rise condition.
Higher future sea levels will require a commensurate higher seawall to offset the sea level rise.
The extreme sea level rise increase is 0.7 m; the height of the seawall was increased to match this amount. It was estimated that this seawall height would result in a very small amount of labor and the bulk of the costs could be attributed to an increase in materials (concrete, rebar, etc). The material increase was conservatively estimated to be $984/m ($300/ft) based on a mean unit price of $26,900/m ($8,200/lf).
Figure 4-1 Seawall Typical Cross Section
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 76 5 NUMERICAL MODEL DESCRIPTION
The model developed for the present study combines the coastal engineering and economic sources of risk and uncertainty within a life-cycle framework. The life-cycle model generates a plausible storm condition, calculates various coastal engineering parameters, and determines the individual damage mechanisms. These are linked to the property inventory to estimate lifecycle property losses. The structure inventory used in this analysis is fully developed and described in the Economics Appendix.
5.1 Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
At the time of the initiation of this study there was no Corps of Engineers standard model for R/U analysis for coastal zone storm damage reduction studies. A nationwide model for coastal zone R/U analysis is currently under development by the Corps of Engineers, however, the model completion schedule did not allow for utilization for this study. Other existing Corps of Engineers coastal zone R/U models were evaluated for implementation under this study. These R/U models included Generalized Risk AND Uncertainty Coastal model (GRANDUC) developed by the Wilmington District and the Risk Storm Damage Model developed by the Jacksonville District. These R/U models, which were developed independently at different times by the respective districts, were evaluated extensively. Due to a variety of engineering considerations, technical, programming language, and other reasons, each model was not selected for use for this study. An interim model was developed that is uniquely applicable to the physics and storm conditions that are experienced within the Los Angeles District. This model utilizes many of the concepts and to a large degree is consistent with the nationwide model under development.
The model is an integrated coastal engineering – economics analytical framework for evaluating the physical performance and economic costs of shore protection projects, particularly, beach nourishment along sandy shores. The model has been implemented as an event-based Monte Carlo life cycle simulation tool that is run on desktop computers. The life-cycle model generates a plausible set of storm conditions, calculates various coastal engineering parameters, performs a series of engineering and economic computations and determines the individual damage mechanisms, and concludes with economic outputs. These are linked to the property inventory to estimate life-cycle property losses. The structure inventory used in this analysis and final economic results and discussion are fully developed and described in the Economics Appendix.
The model inputs consist of probability distributions for various coastal engineering parameters.
The model outputs consist of histograms of individual damage categories, annual net benefits, and benefit/cost ratios for various project features.
The principles of Monte Carlo Simulation are used as the numerical integration technique. The proprietary computer program @RISK (Palisade, 2002) was used to run the R/U analysis. @RISK is an add-in to a standard industry spreadsheet package that provides the necessary tools for executing a Monte Carlo Simulation.
5.2 Global Model Considerations
The integrated life-cycle model developed for the present study develops the coastal and oceanographic conditions and parameters at the front-end of the model. The life-cycle model randomly samples various input probability distributions, calculates various coastal engineering parameters, and quantifies the individual damage mechanisms. The model transitions to various economic calculations, and quantifies the damages due to the individual damage mechanisms. Economic output distributions are limited to damage categories only and no ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 77 attempt is made to include computation of benefits within the model. There are numerous parameters, computations and concepts within the numerical model. Some of the significant coastal engineering and economic model analysis aspects are discussed below.
5.2.1 Reach Subdivision – Cells
The study area was initially divided into 10 reaches of various lengths based on the presence or absence of armor stone protection along the railroad. In order to provide a finer subdivision for detailed analysis of model performance and interpretation of the results, Reaches 1-9 were further subdivided into 50-meter segments. The number of cells in each model reach is shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Reach Refinement
Reach # Length (m) No. Cells
1 969 34
2 680 14
3 600 12
4 732 15
5 413 8
6 1,040 21
7 1,081 22
8 347 7
9 1,101 20
10 ~5,000 NA
5.2.2 Seasonality
The model is a single season model where the model wave climate is derived from a single season of the year. It is generally accepted that the most damaging storms in southern California occur during the winter months. Detailed analysis of the wave climate data indicates that the annual maximum wave heights occur in the winter months. Although it is recognized that some moderate wave events can and do occur during the summer season, the winter extratropical storms tend to cause the majority of the economic property losses. Neglecting the seasonality of wave climate results in conservatively severe model simulations, as on average the winter wave climate is more severe than the combined annual wave climate.
5.2.3 Single Storm
The model is a single storm event model where a single storm each year of the life-cycle is assumed to fairly represent the majority of the shoreline change and economic losses. By definition, most storms in a single given year are less severe than the annual storm and are non-damaging. It is observed that typical coastal damages are due to a single storm or swell event. This was clearly observed in the January 1988 when a single swell event that had no associated storm caused widespread coastal damages in southern California. Although multiple storms are not considered in this analysis, it is recognized that multiple independent storms occur every winter season. It is noted that storm “clusters” have been responsible for some of ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 78 the most damaging storm years in southern California. This was clearly observed in the 1982- 1983 storm season when a series of six independent storm systems caused widespread coastal damages in southern California.
A single storm each year of the life-cycle is assumed to fairly represent the majority of the shoreline change and economic losses. It is recognized that shoreline changes and the resultant economic damages tend to be cumulative throughout the storm season. However, there is little or no data that allows the full and quantitative delineation of the economic damages attributed to individual storms in a cluster of successive storms. Economic loss monitoring and measurement efforts typically are conducted on a time basis that is not in direct response to storm damages. In general it is typical that detailed descriptions of economic damages are recorded and compiled well after the storm season has ended. Therefore, there is no reliable method to individually distribute and compartmentalize the economic damages that do occur to a sequence of storms. Economic losses due to storm damages are fully described in the Economic Appendix.
Each iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation randomly selects a storm event where the significant wave height equal or exceeds the mean annual significant wave height. The storm set population was derived from measured significant wave height data at San Clemente.
These data were collected under the Coastal Data Information Program between 1983 and 1998 as described in Section 2.4. The measured storm data set was best-fit with a log-normal probability distribution as described in Section 3.2. Based on the annual maximum wave heights for the measured data record, the mean annual significant wave height is 2.60 m (8.5 ft).
This value is consistent with conventional coastal engineering practice for expected annual maximums within the Los Angeles District. The model selects from the portion of the best-fit log-normal probability distribution greater than 2.6 m; the model selects from a truncated distribution which is the “tail” of the distribution. Therefore each iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation forces the selected wave height to be at minimum an annual storm event. There is no provision for a year that does not have a storm; every year in the simulation has one storm.
5.2.4 Independent Sediment Transport Processes
Cross-shore sediment transport and longshore sediment transport were assumed separate and independent in this study. It is convenient to separate nearshore sediment movement into two components, longshore sediment transport and cross-shore sediment transport. This separation is not always valid in a strict sense because it is implicitly based on the assumption of plane and parallel profile contours. The time scale associated with storm-induced beach erosion is on the order of 1-3 days and depends on the level and duration of the wave and tide characteristics, whereas the time scale of beach adjustment is several months to years.
Independence of cross-shore and longshore sediment transport relieves the responsibility of rigorously describing the joint morphological processes that occur. Independence of crossshore and longshore sediment transport processes results in substantial improvement in numerical computational efficiency.
5.2.5 Numerical Simulation Concepts
Computational Efficiency: The model employed in the present study is a spreadsheet-based model in which the Monte Carlo simulation is conducted by a spreadsheet add-in package. Use of the spreadsheet allowed each year of the economic life-cycle to be represented by one column of the spreadsheet. Thus, the spreadsheet nature of the model eliminated the ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 79 numerical requirement to iterate for each life-cycle year. Each iteration represents a new simulation that results in substantial numerical computational efficiency.
A single annualized storm event provides substantial numerical simplicity over the numerical complexity inherent in a time-dependent simulation. A single storm each year of the life-cycle relieves the responsibility of rigorously describing the coastal and morphological processes that occur during a time-dependent sequence of storms. This results in substantial improvement in numerical computational efficiency.
Model Convergence: Simulation outputs were monitored for numerical convergence to evaluate the stability of output distributions during a simulation. A convergence criterion of 1.5% was established for convergence statistics for each output distribution. Model execution is continued until all pertinent economic outputs achieve the convergence criterion. Model convergence was typically achieved in less than 1000 simulations.
5.3 Specific Model Parameters and Criteria
5.3.1 Railroad Reach Conversion Criteria
The future with-project formulation requires estimation of when the SCRRA will invest in a capital improvement structure (seawall) to protect an investment (railroad). This trigger point is called the railroad reach conversion criteria in the present study. The criteria are comprised of two parts: a minimum beach criterion and a seawall conversion criterion. The minimum beach and seawall conversion criteria work jointly together and estimate when an unimproved (ballast) railroad reach will be improved by construction of an engineered seawall. It is noted that these criteria were developed by economics and plan formulation based on discussions with the SCRRA, correspondence from the CCC to the SCRRA, and best prediction of future human behavior. The minimum beach criterion used in the present study is set at 8 m (26 ft). The seawall conversion criterion used in the present study is a uniform distribution ranging from 29% - 48%; the criterion is randomly selected during the Monte Carlo simulation.
Plan formulation states that the SCRRA will construct a capital improvement structure prior to the initial onset of damages. To date, the SCRRA has conducted maintenance repairs only after suffering actual structural damages. Furthermore, the SCRRA is expected to determine that the annual maintenance expenditures for constructing piecemeal (cell) repairs have combined higher costs than the cost of a single comprehensive (reach) structure. The single comprehensive structure (seawall) will provide the immediate maintenance requirement as well as alleviate future maintenance requirements. Thus, it is assumed that the SCRRA will make an informed business financial decision to invest in a capital project with lower overall costs in lieu of continued piecemeal maintenance expenditures with greater long-term costs.
It is assumed that the SCRRA will conduct shoreline monitoring as part of the decision making process for a capital improvement structure (seawall) and will take action when the beach protecting the railroad is less than or equal to a minimum value. The minimum beach criterion used in the present study is fixed at 8 m (26 ft) and is derived from the 100-yr value for storm induced erosion. The input probability distribution for storm induced erosion (Sec 3.9.2) estimates a 100-yr storm will create 8 m of erosion. The assumption used in this study is that the SCRRA would construct a seawall when there is a 1% chance of damages. When the shoreline is within 8 m of the railroad, a 1% chance storm (100 year event) will erode the entire remaining beach and induce damages. Therefore, the minimum beach criterion becomes a “trigger” for action.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 80 Plan formulation requires estimation when the SCRRA will complete the budget and funding process for a capital improvement structure (seawall). It is expected that the SCRRA will not have the funds immediately available to construct a capital improvement project. The SCRRA is expected to navigate a budget process where funds are authorized and appropriated before plans and specifications and construction occur. This results in an inherent delay between the capital improvement decision and the actual implementation (construction) of a project. The seawall conversion criterion attempts to model this behavior. The seawall conversion criterion is a time-delay criterion and has the effect of accelerating or delaying the decision-making process for implementation of a capital improvement project. The seawall conversion criterion ranges between 0-100 percent. The SCRRA cannot invest in a capital improvement project immediately, i.e. 0%. It is expected the SCRRA will not wait until the entire existing beach is completely eroded, i.e. 100%. The 29% - 48% is an estimate for seawall conversion that encompasses these considerations. Therefore, the seawall conversion criterion also becomes a “trigger” for action.
During the Monte Carlo life-cycle simulation the model tracks the protective beach width in each cell of each unimproved reach (Reaches 2, 4, 6, and 8). When the protective beach width is equal or less than 8 m (26 ft) the model flags this cell. The percentage of flagged cells is computed by the running total number of flagged cells in the reach compared to the total number of cells in the reach. When the flagged percentage equals or exceeds the randomly selected seawall conversion criterion, the model assumes that a seawall is constructed in the reach.
5.3.2 LOSSAN Traffic Service Delay
Railway traffic service delays result when severe wave runup and overtopping exceeds the elevation of SCRRA protective revetments sufficient to interrupt service. The SCRRA has documented two service disruption incidents in the 1960s and 1970s during severe storms due to wave action.
There is no generally accepted guidance or methodology formulated to define the overtopping criteria necessary to interrupt railway service. Therefore, rail traffic service delay was directly related to revetment failure; the rail traffic service delay is based on an assumed failure or breach of the revetment during a severe storm condition. If runup and overtopping conditions are severe enough to cause revetment failure, then the railway traffic would logically be interrupted while the revetment and railway is repaired.
Criteria were established to compute railway traffic service delay that combines runup elevation and a probability of occurrence. Runup elevation must equal or exceed the revetment elevation.
Since the actual rail line is constructed at or below the revetment crest elevation, overtopping of the revetment crest will logically result in overtopping of the railroad. During initial model runs excessive railway traffic delays were incurred due to overtopping. In order to calibrate model railway delays with actual recorded railway delays, a probability-based percentage factor was introduced. This percentage factor was used as a calibration coefficient. This coefficient was iteratively reduced from the value of 1 until the model predicted damages matched the observed damages. The resulting percentage coefficient was 0.5. When overtopping exceeds the revetment crest elevation, thereafter there is a 50-50 probability that this overtopping condition will result in revetment failure. The rail traffic service delay criteria are calibrated based on the total number of delays experienced during a simulation. The model simulation tallies the total number of service delays. Based on the damage description provided by the SCRRA, there ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 81 were two service delays in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Presumably this time period extends to the 1950’s if not earlier, which is approximately 50 years. Thus, on average the model should (and does) predict approximately 1-2 service delays in each 50-year simulation.
Revetment failure and subsequent railway traffic service delay is treated equally and independently for each reach and each cell. Revetment failure is allowed only if the entire reach has not been converted to a seawall. A seawall is considered to permanently protect the railroad and no failure is allowed.
The rail traffic service delay costs are divided into separate components consisting of costs to repair the railroad and losses to service interruption. Due to the nature of the model, it is possible that multiple railroad cells are damaged at the same time, but only one service delay is counted. Information provided by the SCRRA indicates that a 50 meter long railroad cell could be repaired on the order of hours after incipient damage; therefore multiple cell segments failing at the same time will not have a substantial multiplying effect to the service delay.
5.3.3 Structure Damages
Structure damages are confined to public buildings and infrastructure fronting the railway.
Structure damages are not considered south of San Mateo Point or north of the North Beach area. The pier is not considered for structure damages. Structure damages consist of: direct structure loss due to long-term erosion; direct structure loss due to storm induced erosion; direct structure damages due to wave impact forces; and direct structure and contents damages due to inundation. The damage mechanisms are described in detail hereinbefore. The structure inventory is described in detail in the Economic Appendix.
The model conducts a sequential evaluation for damages to each structure in the inventory.
The damage sequence is described as follows:
a. Each structure is evaluated for loss due to long-term erosion. b. Each structure is evaluated for loss due to storm-induced erosion. c. Each structure is evaluated for loss due to wave impact forces. d. Each structure is evaluated for inundation damages to the structure and contents.
The model damage sequence evaluates the first three damage mechanisms and removes the structure from the inventory if any of the evaluations are positive. If all evaluations are negative, the model computes the inundation damages.
It is noted that the model calibration process resulted in some adjustment of the storm induced beach change function described in Sec 3.8. The initial storm induced beach change function was generating excessive structural damages that were not correlated with historical damages.
The function was incrementally adjusted down (less severe) until the calculated structural damages approximately correlated with the actual observed damages.
A structure not-yet-constructed is included in the present analysis. At some point in the future the City of San Clemente will initiate construction of a beach trail from the North Beach area (Reach 8) to the San Clemente State Beach boundary (Reach 2). Trail completion is expected prior to the economic base year of 2012. In this analysis trail damages are confined to Reach 6.
Trail damages are treated separately from all other structures. The trail in Reach 6 consists of a crushed rock roadway with associated accouterments for a portion of the length. The remainder ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 82 of the length consists only of designation of the beach area as a trail with no structural improvements. The model considers the trail as dry land that is eroded by long-term erosion or storm induced erosion. When this land is eroded, the associated portion of the trail is considered lost. The costs of the rock roadway portion of the trail are accumulated. The major trail damages are the future costs incurred for relocation and replacement of the trail to the landward side of the railroad.
5.3.4 Structure Erosion Loss Criterion
Structure losses due to long-term or storm-induced erosion require estimation when the structure will be lost. Structures are lost to long-term or storm-induced erosion when the structure foundation is undermined due to the landward advancing shoreline. The model simulation computes the structure damages due to long-term or storm-induced shoreline change at annual intervals through the 50-year life cycle. The simulation randomly samples a long-term erosion value and a storm event, and allows the shoreline to retreat the amount associated with the phenomenon. When the retreat distance exceeds a percentage of the structure footprint, the structure is considered lost and removed from the inventory.
The structure erosion loss criterion is the percentage of structure footprint necessary to cause structure loss, and is dependent on the type of structure. The structures were classified into four categories: timber slab-on-grade, masonry slab-on-grade; timber pile supported; and masonry pile supported. For slab-on-grade structures, when the shoreline berm position eroded through 50% of the footprint as measured from the seaward wall, the structure was considered lost and removed from the inventory. Pile supported structures are not lost directly to undermining. For pile supported structures, when the shoreline erodes through 100% of the footprint, the structure functionality is lost, i.e. the structure can no longer be reasonably used as intended, and the structure is considered lost and removed from the inventory.
5.3.5 Recreational Beach
Long-term erosion and the landward advancing shoreline reduce the beach surface area available for recreation. The model simulation randomly selects a long-term erosion value and computes the dry beach area (aggregate of cell length x width) each year throughout the 50- year life-cycle. A time series plot of a 50-year life-cycle indicates a continually declining amount of dry beach area. A full description of the recreation analysis is found in the Economics Appendix.
5.4 Methodology and Flowchart
The simplified methodology and computational flow of the model is described in the following.
The structures and railroad are discussed separately to illustrate the various concepts discussed hereinbefore. The economic methodology and computational flow are discussed separately in the Economics Appendix. The general model flowchart is shown in sub-Appendix B.
5.4.1 Structures
The following applies to the structure inventory located seaward of the railroad. The structures included in the inventory are described in the Economics Appendix. There are no structures landward of the railroad where damages are considered. An illustration of the methodology for structure damages is shown in Figure 5-1.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 83 a. Initiate model in year 1 with the initial shoreline position. For with-project condition, initial shoreline position includes fill width.
b. Randomly select a long term shoreline change value and establish a new shoreline position.
c. Randomly select a plausible set of oceanographic conditions including: wave height; wave period; still water level (tide + storm surge + sea level change); and foreshore slope.
d. Compute wave runup.
e. Compute overtopping and resultant flooding depths (if any). f. Compute storm induced shoreline erosion.
g. Compare structure position to determine if structure is lost due to long term erosion.
Long-term erosion must erode thru 100% of structure width. If structure is lost, remove from inventory.
h. Compare structure position to determine if structure functionality is lost. Long-term erosion must erode thru 75-100% of structure width (structure dependent, creates island). If structure functionality is lost, remove from inventory. i. Compare structure position to determine if structure is lost due to storm induced erosion. Storm induced erosion must erode thru 50% of structure width. If structure is lost, remove from inventory.
j. Compute forces to determine if structure is lost due to wave generated forces. Forces must equal or exceed threshold. If structure is lost, remove from inventory. k. Compare structure first floor elevation to previously computed flooding depth.
Compute the structure inundation and content damages.
l. Increment the model time step. For with-project condition, if fill width is 0 (fully eroded) add new fill width. Goto Step (b).
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 84 Figure 5-1 Illustration of Methodology for Structure Damages
5.4.2 Railroad
The following describes the railroad damage/conversion process. The railroad is treated as a specialized structure due to its shoreline parallel, linearized nature. The railroad was discretized into cells (described in Sec 5.2.1) for the breach analysis and divided into reaches (described in Sec 2.1) for the seawall conversion analysis. An illustration of the methodology for railroad damages is shown in Figure 5-2.
a. Initiate model in year 1 with the initial shoreline position. For with-project condition, initial shoreline position includes fill width.
b. Randomly select a long term shoreline change value and establish a new shoreline position.
c. Randomly select a plausible set of oceanographic conditions including: wave height; wave period; still water level (tide + storm surge + sea level change); and foreshore slope.
d. Compute wave runup.
e. Compute overtopping and resultant flooding depths (if any). f. Compute storm induced shoreline erosion.
g. Compare long term shoreline position to each RR cell to determine if beach width is less than minimum beach width criterion (8 m). If beach width is less than minimum beach width criterion, store cell as available for conversion. h. Compare number of RR cells stored as available for conversion to total number of cells in RR reach. Compare to seawall conversion criterion (randomly selected ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 85 between 29% - 48%). If number of RR cells is greater than or equal to seawall conversion criteria, convert RR reach from ballast construction to seawall construction.
i. Compare storm induced shoreline position to each RR cell position to determine if RR is damaged (breached). Compute RR traffic delays. (Can only occur if not converted to seawall).
j. Increment the model time step. For with-project condition, if fill width is 0 (fully eroded) add new fill width. Goto Step (b).
Figure 5-2 Illustration of Methodology for Railroad Damages ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 86 6 PLAN SELECTION
6.1 Description of Alternatives
The economic optimization procedure is based on selection of beach fill alternatives which identifies the National Economic Development (NED) plan. The NED plan is developed by considering the storm damage reduction and recreational potential of various beach fill configuration alternatives and optimization based on the average annual benefits and the benefit/cost ratio. The only optimization parameter considered is the dimension of the sacrificial beach width of the cross-sectional design profile; base beach width alternatives, beyond the current beach widths, are not considered in the model in this study. The eleven alternatives considered consist of:
Sacrificial beach width (m) = {10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60}
6.1.1 Sacrificial Beach Width
The sacrificial beach width is allowed to completely erode, after which the sacrificial beach width is replaced. The sacrificial beach width represents a time-varying amount of storm damage reduction protection and a time-varying amount of recreation benefits.
6.1.2 Nourishment Interval
A periodic nourishment interval is not optimized explicitly but is a result of the sacrificial beach width optimization. The sacrificial beach width represents a period of time between successive nourishments. The model outputs the total number of fills expected in the 50 year simulation.
The number of fills includes the initial construction plus the renourishment cycles. The 50 year period divided by the number of renourishments will yield an approximate value for the nourishment interval. For example, 50 years divided by 8 renourishment cycles approximately equals a 6 year periodic nourishment interval. During the Monte Carlo simulation the sacrificial beach width will last varying lengths of time reflecting the random nature of the erosion processes, but the final output can be expressed in a mean number of years between successive fills. Therefore, optimization of the sacrificial beach width will yield the periodic nourishment interval.
6.1.3 Sea Level Change
The eleven alternatives were run separately for two sea level cases, Case 1 (existing sea level) and Case 3 (extreme sea level), which results in two plans that can be compared for sensitivity analysis in accordance with USACE planning guidelines.
Sea level change is represented within the life-cycle model by a modified long term erosion rate and by modifying the plan alternatives cross-section in addition to the increasing still water level.
The mean long term erosion rate is increased by 0.10 m/yr (0.33 ft/yr) which coincidentally represents a doubling of the background erosion rate. The without project long term erosion distribution (Sec 3.7) is uniformly shifted negative by 0.10 m/yr. The beach berm elevation is allowed to increase equally with rising sea level. As sea level rises, it is assumed that the beach will respond with a correspondingly equal rise in berm elevation. This assumption is consistent with the principles of the Bruun Rule assumption discussed in Sec 2.5.10. This has the related affect of modifying the plan alternative cross-section. The berm elevation of each plan alternative is set equal to the berm elevation at that time in the life-cycle analysis. In other ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 87 words, as the berm elevation increases in response to sea level rise, the plan alternative berm elevation will also increase. The net result is plan alternatives evaluated in the extreme sea level change scenario will have larger quantities than plan alternatives in the existing sea level change scenario.
Results of this sea level change sensitivity analysis are discussed within the economic appendix and are not further addressed within this engineering appendix.
6.2 Plan Parameters
The USACE planning guidelines described in the main report result in the following plan selection:
Alternative 2, the 15 m wide beach width, is the NED and tentatively recommended plan for the existing sea level change condition. Additional details on plan selection can be found in the Main Report.
Table 6-1 indicates the various plan parameters and the following will describe the physical parameters associated with these plans.
Table 6-1 Alternative Plan Parameters
The tentatively recommended plan for the existing sea level rise condition consists of an alongshore length of 1,040 m, berm width of 15 m, berm crest elevation of +5.2 m, and requiring 192,000 m3 (251,000 yd3
) of sand.
The tentatively recommended plan beach fill design consists of an alongshore length, berm width, berm crest elevation, foreshore slope, and quantity requirement. The beach fill design parameters used in this analysis are consistent with the natural conditions at the project site and technical guidance. A plan view and cross section are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. 2 15 1,040 5.2 192,000 9 6
Alternative # of Fills per
50 Years
Berm Width
(m)
Length (m) Berm Elev
(m, MLLW)
Quantity
(m3)
Fill Interval
(Years)
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 88 Figure 6-1 Overlay of Construction and Equilibration Profiles for Tentatively Recommended Plan on Existing Profile, Existing Sea Level Change Condition Figure 6-2 Footprint of 15 m Tentatively Recommended Plan, Existing Sea Level Rise Condition
6.2.1 Alongshore Length
Approximately 1,040 m (3,411 ft) of shoreline within the City of San Clemente are recommended for nourishment. The area is approximately centered about the pier; the south limit of the proposed beach fill is located immediately south of the T-Street overpass while the north limit is located immediately north of the Marine Safety Headquarters. For the tentatively recommended plan, a taper continues an additional 50 m (165 feet) to the north and south to merge with the existing shoreline.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 89 6.2.2 Berm Width
The design berm width is 15 m (50 ft). The design berm width in this study is defined as extending the existing berm at elevation +5.2 m (+17.1 ft) the design width. This definition extends the “dry” portion of the beach. In order to achieve the 15 m design intent, an additional width of beach and quantity of material is required. This material is placed to offset expected beach fill losses due to anticipated equilibration of the construction profile. At the time of construction, the actual immediate post-construction width is estimated to be approximately 23 m (75 ft). The initial fill profile is expected to evolve thru an adjustment process known as equilibration. Natural foreshore processes will re-distribute a portion of the original fill volume throughout the profile. The overfill material is added to the design volume to account for the equilibration process and losses due to winnowing.
6.2.3 Berm Crest Elevation
The design berm elevation for the tentatively recommended plan is established at +5.2 meters MLLW (+17 ft). This elevation matches the natural berm of adjacent healthy beaches which have been established by numerous surveys over the years. Historical beach profiles measured over the years indicate natural, stable berm elevations are approximately +5.2 meters MLLW.
Current design guidance recommends the elevation of the design berm should generally correspond to the natural berm crest elevation. If the design berm is lower than the natural berm, a ridge will form along the crest, which when overtopped by high water will produce flooding and ponding on the berm. A design berm higher than the natural berm will produce a beach face slope steeper than the natural beach and may result in formation of scarps that interfere with recreational use and other environmental uses. Scarp formation indicates a higher transport (erosion) rate than a berm at the natural elevation, which is an inefficient use of beach fill material.
The natural berm elevation and slope can be determined by examining beach profile surveys of existing and historical conditions at the project site or at a nearby healthy beach. As beach berms form naturally under low-energy waves, they are typically most well-developed at the end of the summer season. Seasonal profile surveys can be used to examine temporal changes in berm shape and to identify well developed berm features from which to estimate the natural berm height. When survey data indicate alongshore variations in the natural berm height, a representative berm height may be determined either by visual inspection of plots showing the alongshore variations or by computing an average profile shape.
6.2.4 Foreshore Slope
The design foreshore slope is established at 8H:1V. This slope matches the natural foreshore slope of adjacent beaches which have been established by numerous surveys and measurements over the years. Direct measurements obtained by the City of San Clemente (Sec 3.5) indicate natural, stable foreshore slopes range between 4-18H:1V, with 8H:1V as the most common value. This slope has been shown to be a stable mean value between the seasonal variations.
The construction foreshore slope is established at 10H:1V. Los Angeles District beach fill construction experience with standard earthmoving equipment indicates that slightly flatter foreshore slopes are easier to construct. The post-construction foreshore is expected to evolve ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 90 thru an adjustment process known as equilibration. Natural foreshore processes will redistribute a portion of the original fill volume throughout the profile.
6.2.5 Quantity
The tentatively recommended plan will require approximately 192,000 m3 (251,000 yd3 ) (184
m3
/m : 75 yd3/ft) of beach compatible sand. This quantity is derived from consideration of the planform area and volume/area relationships. The horizontal area of the beach fill planform is computed and multiplied by a volume/area factor. It is usual and customary in the Los Angeles District that this volume/area relationship ranges between 4.1-12.3 m3 /m2 (0.5-1.5 yd3/ft2). The
low range of 4.1 m3
/m2 (0.5 yd3/ft2) has been shown to result in rapid erosion of the fill. The range of 8.2-12.3 m3
/m2 (1.0-1.5 yd3/ft2) typically yields more realistic estimates of sediment requirement per surface area. The value of 12.3 m3
/m2 (1.5 yd3/ft2) is used in the present study.
Since the volume/area factor is directly proportional to volume placed, a larger quantity is expected to have superior in-place persistance.
Engineering practice within the Los Angeles District indicates volume/area relationships are the most reliable predictor for fill quantities. This method is a simplified volumetric analysis. A prism one foot square by twenty seven feet deep encompasses twenty seven cubic feet, or one cubic yard. As applied to a beach fill, a square foot of beach multiplied by the profile length from berm to toe equals the volume of fill required. If the profile length were twenty seven feet from berm to toe, than the fill volume required would equal one cubic yard. Thus, knowing the desired beach fill planform area leads to a rapid computation of fill volume required.
The present analysis assumes the beach profile length is 9.8 m (32 ft) long. The berm elevation has been established at +5.2 m (+17 ft). The fill toe elevation is assumed to be -4.6 m (-15 ft).
The toe elevation is assumed based on the controlling depth of the underlying geology.
Bathymetric measurements indicate the profile is controlled by a reef feature at approximately the -4.6 m contour. In the offshore vicinity of T Street, this is evidenced by the reef which generates a highly desired surfing break (see Sec 6.3.4). Repetitive cross-shore profiles in the project fill area indicate active cross-shore sediment transport is primarily constrained between the foreshore and the reef feature. Measurements indicate the sediment is constrained in the offshore direction by the reef feature. As the project fill is similar in size to the volume of sediment that fluctuates naturally, the assumption is made that the fill will be similarly constrained by the reef structure.
The volume/area relationship explicitly accounts for overfill requirements. In the present analysis an overfill factor of 1.27 is used. This factor is embedded within the volume/area fill factor. The 12.3 m3
/m2 (1.5 yd3/ft2) is relative to the actual volume of fill required based on the existing profile geometry defined as 1 meter by 1 meter by 9.8 meters (1 foot by 1 foot by 32 feet). The overfill factor is determined by 12.3/9.8 = 1.27 (32/27=1.27). It is assumed that the overfill factor is uniform throughout the fill length due to the relatively short fill length. The geotechnical analysis recommends an overfill factor of 1.10. This geotechnical overfill computation is in accordance with EM 1110-2-1100 (Coastal Engineering Manual) which incorporates differences in native and fill sediment grain size characteristics. The Coastal Engineering Manual specifically states that these methods are not recommended for final fill requirements but are best used as valuable insight regarding the implications of using fill material with different grain size characteristics. Los Angeles District experience has indicated that fill volumes based on overfill factors based solely on grain size considerations exhibit generally poorer performance than desired. Los Angeles District practice has trended towards overfill factors ranging between 1.25-1.50. Designer preference considered the quality (grain ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 91 size and distribution) of fill sediments, the quantity lost to winnowing during construction, and the expected fill performance and resulted in the selected overfill factor.
A fill quantity of 192,000 m3 results in component volumes of 151,000 m3 attributed to base fill and 41,000 m3 attributed to overfill requirements. A volume of 192,000 m3 represents a geometric area equivalent to a 23 m wide beach. In other words, 192,000 m3 in-place will create an immediate post-construction dry beach width of 23 m. It is expected that up to 5 m of dry beach width will be distributed from the foreshore to the profile during the equilibration process. Thus, the construction profile is initially overfilled with the expectation that the equilibration process will result in the design profile.
6.3 Tentatively Recommended Plan – Model Output
As a result of USACE planning guidelines described in the Main Report, Alternative 2, the 15 m wide beach width, is the NED plan as well as the tentatively recommended plan for the existing sea level change condition. The model used in the present study is an integrated coastal engineering – economics analytical framework for evaluating the physical performance and economic costs of shore protection projects, particularly, beach nourishment along sandy shores. Although this model initiates with coastal engineering data and input, the outputs are principally economic related. Only one of the model outputs is engineering related and can be related back to model performance.
Number of Fills
During the Monte Carlo simulation the sacrificial beach width will last varying lengths of time reflecting the random nature of the erosion processes. The number of required fills is tracked within the model for each life cycle simulation; the model is run for 1000 life cycle simulations and the results are shown in Figure 6-3. The histogram is approximately normally distributed, the minimum is 5, the maximum is 15, and the mean value of 9.2. The histogram also illustrates that the most commonly occurring number of fills is 9; statistically speaking the mode is 9. The nourishment interval can be determined directly from these results and is discussed in Section
6.3.3. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 92 Figure 6-3 Model Output Histogram for Number of Fills Required for Reach 6
6.3.1 Plan Performance
The performance of the tentatively recommended plan is based on the measured performance of the actual beach fills from the SANDAG project in lieu of generalized estimates from predictive numerical models. The tentatively recommended plan is expected to perform in a manner weakly consistent with other recent fills within the southern California region. The geologic conditions have been previously noted to exert control over the study area as the study area is largely rocky bottom within a thin veneer of sediment and a relatively thin ribbon of sand along the shoreline. Since many of the beach fill locations utilized in the SANDAG project are under similar geologic control or some significant geologic influence, it is believed that the performance of the tentatively recommended plan will most likely resemble this performance.
The study area is not considered a sandy shoreline and therefore predictive models to estimate long term shoreline evolution and storm induced shoreline change, i.e. GENESIS and SBEACH, are not believed to be valid and are not believed to accurately represent expected beach morphological response.
Monitoring of the SANDAG receiver sites has been conducted semi-annually since project construction. Oceanside Beach (Transect OS-0930), shown in Figure 6-4 is the transect deemed most applicable to San Clemente. At Oceanside Beach the fill quantity (322,000 m³ [421,000 cy]), median grain size (0.64 mm [0.03 in]), alongshore length (1,341 m [4,400 ft]), and fill width (56 m [185 ft]) are directly comparable to the recommended plan of this study, and as such its performance is deemed representative of expected performance at San Clemente.
Distribution for # Fills, Reach 6
Mean = 9.157
X <=12
95%
X <=7
5%
0 0.05
0.1 0.15
0.2 0.25
0.3 4 8 12 16
Number of Fills
Relative Frequency, %
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 93 Figure 6-4 Beach Fill Performance at SANDAG Oceanside Beach Alongshore Distribution
The San Clemente fill is expected to erode primarily in the southeasterly longshore direction based on conclusions drawn from the SANDAG monitoring data. The prevailing wave climate and oceanographic conditions at San Clemente are very similar to those in Oceanside. The SANDAG long-term monitoring data indicates that beaches in the south Oceanside and north Carlsbad region gained significantly since project construction. The data further suggests that the Oceanside fill has merged with the adjacent Carlsbad fill. As Carlsbad Beach is south of Oceanside Beach, and considering that the longshore drift is primarily in the southern direction, the beach width increase can be directly attributed to south directed longshore sediment transport of the fill material.
Some northwesterly longshore transport is expected to occur and some burial effects are expected. While the predominant net transport direction is expected to be southeasterly, some seasonal reversal can and does occur. Seasonal reversal is most expected to occur in the summer months when the occurrence of southern hemisphere swell increases. There is no known method to accurately and reliably predict the precise impacted footprint due to seasonal reversal; it is assumed that the northeasterly footprint will extend the length of the original fill.
Cross-shore Distribution
The plans are expected to establish a new equilibrated seabed profile from the beach berm to the depth of closure. Conclusions drawn from the SANDAG Oceanside Beach monitoring suggests the San Clemente fill will have burial impacts in the cross-shore direction. At present, there are no known cross-shore sediment transport models which have been demonstrated to accurately predict the distribution of material across the existing profile. SANDAG Oceanside Beach data indicates an initial post-construction cross-shore equilibration of the fill material. Fill equilibration is an early occurring process where, due to nearshore processes, the fill undergoes immediate adjustment and is redistributed from the foreshore to lower (deeper) along the profile.
The fill continues to redistribute across the profile with time. Measured long term temporal change indicates that a larger portion of the fill that is transported in the cross-shore direction is trapped between the foreshore and the bar, with a lesser percentage migrating to the offshore ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 94 tail of the profile. This is consistent with prevailing equilibration theory which suggests the postfill profile will mimic the existing profile although translated seaward an amount as a function of the fill volume.
Based on the above described concepts of cross-shore distribution, the tentatively recommended plan is expected to create the following seabed burial impacts shown in Table 6-2. The expected impacts are not uniform across the profile. The depth of burial is greatest at the shoreline, and is expected to range up to 6 m (19 ft) thick. The depth of burial at the seaward toe of the fill footprint is expected to range between 0.3-1.0 m (1-3 ft).
Table 6-2 Tentatively Recommended Plan Footprint Burial Values The proposed fill is expected to have varying levels of burial impacts due to seasonal crossshore movements of sediment. During the summer months the equilibrium profile is expected to be biased towards the shoreline. During the summer months when lower energy wave conditions are prevalent, it is typical that sediment migrates across the profile from deeper water to shallower water, resulting in a net gain of sediment in the foreshore. During the winter months the equilibrium profile is expected to be biased towards the offshore bar. During the winter months when higher energy wave conditions are prevalent, it is usual that sediment migrates across the profile from shallower water to deeper water, resulting in a net gain of sediment in the offshore bar and towards the offshore tail of the profile.
The burial impacts due to seasonal cross-shore movement of sediment can be quantified based on conclusions drawn from the SANDAG monitoring data. The profile envelope (grey area in Figure 6-4) is a result of actual measurements prior to the SANDAG fills. The upper envelope and the lower envelope are based on measurements from Spring 1999 season and Fall 2000 season respectively. Although in different years, this represents the potential changes that can occur between spring (post-winter) and fall (post-summer) conditions. The profile shown includes depths up to 6 m (20 ft) which includes the bar area, the most active area of the profile.
The measured data indicates that upwards of 2 m (6 ft) of thickness can be exchanged along the profile, i.e. the profile can gain or lose up to 2 m due to cross-shore transport.
The tentatively recommended plan is expected to persist within the equilibration footprint for 6 years. The burial impacts will decrease as the fill naturally erodes, which will begin shortly after equilibration is reached. At the end of approximately 6 years, the beach and nearshore profiles will return to existing conditions. This is based on the predicted number of fills and the 50 year period of evaluation. It is assumed that the cross-shore footprint width will erode at an approximately constant rate i.e. the seaward toe will shrink in the landward direction at a constant rate during the 6 year period.
The tentatively recommended plan is expected to create burial impacts to rocky bottom habitats.
The burial footprint for the plan has been previously described and quantified. Additional impacts are expected due to the rocky bottom nature of the seabed in the project area. The rocky bottom, which is prevalent throughout a large percentage of the seabed, creates a highly irregular seabed with many small nooks and crevices. As the beach fill erodes by normal processes, it is conceivable that these small nooks and crevices will remain filled long past the Alternative Construction Footprint
Burial (sq m)
Equilibrium Footprint
Burial (sq m)
2 107,271 534,401
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 95 normal design life of the fill. A thin veneer of sand could remain in the nooks and crevices if prevailing currents and water orbital motions are not energetic enough to mobilize these sediments and remove them completely from the seabed. The thin veneer of sand is a burial impact that is not captured by the normal erosion process and is not quantifiable but nonetheless probable. The end result will be burial impacts with time periods in excess of the normal burial time periods.
Nourishment Interval
The periodic nourishment interval can be determined directly by the mean value of the number of fills previously shown and discussed in Figure 6-3. For the tentatively recommended plan, the model output mean value of 9 represents the average total number of fills, initial construction plus renourishment cycles, expected in the 50 year simulation. The initial construction is followed by 8 renourishment cycles within the 50 years. The 50 year period divided by the number of renourishment cycles required will yield an approximate value for the nourishment interval. For example, 50 years divided by 8 renourishment cycles approximately equals a 6 year periodic nourishment interval. During the Monte Carlo simulation the sacrificial beach width will last varying lengths of time reflecting the random nature of the erosion processes, however, the final output can be expressed in a mean number of years between successive fills.
Surfing
The tentatively recommended plan could potentially have significant burial impacts to wave breaking characteristics. “T-Street” is an extremely popular surfing site located immediately south of San Clemente pier, and directly offshore of the T-Street overpass. The T-Street surfing location is within the alongshore extent of the proposed plan. The T-Street surf break is due to a permanent, hard bottom, reef that rises above the seabed. Figure 6-5 is a plan view plot of the bathymetric contours illustrating this seabed feature. Whereas the immediately adjacent bathymetric contours are straight and parallel, the reef at T-Street is a seabed perturbation where its elevation, shape, and orientation to incoming waves are a unique combination that tends to shoal waves to a peak with a resulting plunging “left” and “right” which gives rise to its excellent surfing characteristics. The measured bathymetry data indicates the reef extends from the shoreline to approximately 400 meters (1200 ft) offshore. The surfing area extends from approximately from the beach to 200 m (600 ft) offshore and is typically in water depths less than 5 m (15 ft). The surfing area is closer to the beach than the actual reef location as incoming waves require time and space to be transformed by the reef bathymetry.
Due to the fixed hard bottom bathymetry, the surfing conditions at T-Street remain relatively consistent through a wide range of incident wave conditions. The configuration and orientation of the reef to incoming waves creates consistent high performance surfing waves. T-Street is one of the premier reef breaks in the region. High steepness waves result in plunging breakers; plunging breakers are most noted for a “lip” at the top of the wave. With the proper set of conditions, the plunging lip can create a “tube” or “barrel”. The consistent steepness of the wave coupled with the structure of the lip enables surfers to consistently reach higher speeds and perform more high performance maneuvers than at other surfing breaks in the region (Figures 6-6 thru 6-8).
The following description and account of surfing activities was provided by Surfline (Surfline.com, 2009). This description is excerpted to highlight those activities that are directly pertinent to the analysis methodology conducted in this study. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 96 “T Street is known primarily for one thing -- consistency. The entire West Coast from Jordan River to Cabo could be flat, and T Street, the central hub for San Clemente's finest, would manage to cough up a wave or two that would make some surfer happy. There are a lot of things that help T Street break: sandbars, reefs, rocks and odd seaweed gardens all contribute to the wave's quirky behavior, which can only be described as schizophrenic. It'll transform from San O' to mini-Backdoor in the time it takes to do a bottom turn. Although the T Street fanatics have a million different names for every hole in the reef, the break can best be divided into three spots: the Reef, Cropley's and Beach House.
If you park your car at the base of Trafalgar Street and look straight out from the overpass you will see the main reef. On a strong south swell, lefts hit the outside reef, break slowly, then peel over the inside rock shelf, bowling in a fast down-the-line section. On winter swells, you get the opposite: long, workable rights off the reef ending in a collapsing shorebreak.
Cropley's is strictly a winter break. Named after the owner of a tasty hamburger stand that no longer exists, Cropley's provides fast, zippy right-hand peaks just north of the snack bar.
Some swear it's T Street's best wave when it's on -- which isn't very often. It takes just the right swell direction from the northwest.
South of the overpass, there's a sandbar that old-time locals call the "Beach House." It's named after a candy shack that once stood more than two decades ago. On medium-size swells, you can catch some wedgy lefts and rights that are often less crowded and more geared toward shortboards and, yes, sponges.”
This surfing description is notable for its initial declaration of consistency. Consistency of surfing conditions can be directly correlated to the fixed, hard bottom of the reef structure. A fixed bottom is constant over time and not subject to the shifting vagaries that sand-based beach breaks are noted for. Although this description mentions sandbars, there are numerous mentions of reefs, rocks, and the rock shelf which are a direct observation of the importance of the rocky bottom to the wave quality. The author also mentions the variety of waves in different locations that break under different swell conditions, a further testament to the ability of the reef to produce highly desirable surfing waves under a wide variety of incident conditions. The author also compares T Street to “mini-Backdoor” which is a direct reference to Banzai Pipeline, arguably the most high performance surf break in the world. The author further makes reference to a commercial structure from several decades ago that is no longer present but long-time users still refer to by name. This is direct evidence that T Street has been a renowned and consistent surf break for several decades.
The following description and account of surfing activities was provided by Stern (Stern, 1977).
This description is excerpted to highlight those activities that are directly pertinent to the analysis methodology conducted in this study.
“Swells peak up far outside and form waves rideable in both directions. Waves often hard to paddle into, as they may elusively rise up and then flatten out, not breaking till beach.
Occasionally well-shaped fast peaks. Consistently over 3 feet. Closes out at 8 feet.
Breaks on all swells. Best at lower tides, when waves are faster and easier to get into. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 97 Good only when completely glassy. Blown out easily by south wind, but west wind may take a little longer. Beach and bottom both sandy. Rips and currents present during sizeable surf.”
This reference is a second edition copyrighted in 1977 but the first edition was originally published in 1963. This is direct evidence that the T Street surf break has been a desirable surfing location since surfing became popularized in the United States in the early 1960’s.
Since the first edition was published in 1963, presumably T Street was known about and being surfed in the 1950’s. This description is also notable for its use of the term “consistently”. The author mentions rideable waves in both directions. In surfing terminology this is known as a “peak”, a highly desirable trait for a surfing location. The author also mentions that T Street breaks on all swells, which means that it can produce surfable waves on a variety of incoming wave conditions throughout the seasons. This is consistent with the description provided by Surfline.
The following description and account of surfing activities was provided by Wright (Wright, 1973). This description is excerpted to highlight those activities that are directly pertinent to the analysis methodology conducted in this study.
“An outside reef break – ¼ mile south of pier. Thick peaks with smooth lefts and rights.
Lefts are usually better shaped. Takes any swell and is ridable from 2-8 feet. Becomes a bit tubular as tide drops. Sandy beach and bottom.”
This reference is published in 1973 and is further evidence that the T Street surf break has been a desirable surfing location for several decades. The author uses the term “thick peaks”, consistent with the description provided by Stern. The author also mentions that the reef produces rideable surf between a moderately wide range of 2-8 feet which is further evidence of the consistent nature of the break. The author uses the term “tubular” which in surfing terminology is a reference to a plunging breaker, the most highly sought after type of breaker.
Based on insights and conclusions gained from the Oceanside Beach monitoring results, the potential for cross-shore transport of the fill could have significant effects on the wave breaking characteristics. The final equilibration footprint of the NED plan will extend the berm location at least 15 m seaward at the shoreline. A larger alternative that would extend the berm approximately 35 m seaward was qualitatively analyzed for surfing impacts. Since the surfing area extends from the existing shoreline to approximately 200 m seaward, this creates an immediate potential for impacts to the surfing area. Additionally, it has been shown that natural seasonal cross-shore transport mechanisms could potentially change the seabed up to 2 m (6 ft) i.e. a sand layer 2 m thickness could settle in the surfing area. A sand layer of this magnitude could have unquantifiable, but very significant effects to the wave breaking characteristics. As sand is introduced into the reef system, the characteristic reef shape could be modified and/or lost as it becomes covered by a sand bar. The refractive abilities of the reef may be modified or lost, lessening the focusing effect of the reef and thereby erasing the “point break” characteristics of T-Street. As the reef continues to fill in with sand, the overall bathymetry of the area may begin to become straight and parallel and the wave will lose its ability to “feel” the reef. The wave may begin to exhibit more spilling characteristics normally associated with ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 98 beach breaks. This also has the potential to modify the consolidated “take-off” zone and be replaced by a more disorganized situation containing many “take off” zones with shorter, more varied break directions. The straightening contours may also cause the wave to tend to break all at once, termed a “close-out” condition. Further flattening of the slope in the reef area due to sand introduction into the reef system ultimately has the potential to change the characteristic plunging point break to a quasi- spilling beach break (Figure 6-8).
The impacts to surfing due to a smaller project are not rigorously quantifiable, however, the tentatively recommended plan is considerably smaller than the 35 m plan that was analyzed for surfing impacts and would therefore be expected to have less impacts than the larger plan. The equilibration footprint of a smaller beach fill should encroach a shorter distance in the cross shore direction and is thereby less likely to significantly modify the refractive abilities of the most seaward extent of the reef. A smaller beach fill could potentially continue to have significant impacts to the surf zone region between shoreline and the take off zone. This region would continue to be influenced by the seasonal and storm-induced cross shore movement of sand.
The surfing experience might consist of a normal take-off after which leads to a “close-out” as the wave encounters the straightened bathymetric contours.
Figure 6-5 Plan View of T-Street Surf Break Bathymetry
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 99 Figure 6-6 T Street Surfing Area (from Surfline, 2009) Figure 6-7 Surfers at T Street (from Wright, 1973)
Figure 6-8 Spilling Wave
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 100
6.3.2 Public Safety
A beach fill project has the potential to create public safety impacts to swimmers and waders.
The two major impacts are derived from deeper water and reflected waves. Experience in some locations nationwide indicates an increase in lifeguard rescue missions immediately after a beach fill construction project. It is noted that the probability of these impacts occurring is neither guaranteed nor quantifiable, and when occurring are typically transient impacts until full profile equilibration is achieved.
When sand is introduced artificially into the littoral system, a beach fill can create deeper water conditions than the naturally occurring conditions. During construction of the beach fill it is typical that the construction foreshore (beach) slope is steeper than the naturally occurring foreshore (beach) slope. It is also typical that the foreshore slope remains steeper than the natural condition for a period of time during the profile adjustment (equilibration) process. The newly created foreshore area, created by advancing the foreshore seaward, is now in deeper water than the previously existing natural condition. Also, during the profile equilibration process, an alongshore trough (runnel) may form or the existing condition may become deeper.
The swimming/wading public often perceives this trough as a “drop-off”. Whereas the recreating public may have become accustomed to the shallow waters normally associated with the existing swash zone, it is suddenly confronted with a deeper water condition posing an immediate hazard to swimmers and waders. Additionally, deeper water in the surf zone allows larger waves to propagate than the naturally occurring shallow water condition. This increased water depth in the surf zone enables larger waves to break very close to the shore. This is commonly referred to as “shore break” or “shore pound”. Whereas the recreating public may have become accustomed to a mild wave condition, it is suddenly confronted with a higher energy wave climate.
The steepening of the foreshore can create reflected waves which pose a potential public safety threat to swimmers and waders. In the natural condition, most incoming waves are attenuated by runup on the naturally occurring beach slope. During the beach fill construction period and the equilibration process, it is possible that incoming waves may be reflected from the unnaturally steeper beach face. These reflected waves can compound the higher wave energy wave climate due to the aforementioned deeper water. Reflection can create a situation of “in and out” waves, comprised of normal waves propagating toward the shoreline colliding with the reflected waves heading out to sea. This has the potential to create hazardous swimming conditions to the recreating public.
Reflected waves can also potentially degrade the surfing experience. Reflected waves propagating seaward can pass through normal incoming waves with no effect, or can meet incoming waves and create a condition known as destructive interference. The outbound and inbound waves meet and the resulting transfer of energy can cause the waves to pitch up in a chaotic sea state. The surfing experience could be degraded dramatically by the presence of these outbound waves as well as the resultant chaotic sea state.
6.3.3 Southern California Edison Artificial Reefs
The tentatively recommended plan for the existing sea level condition is expected to create no significant impacts to the Southern California Edison (SCE) artificial reefs. SCE is undergoing final design plans and specifications for 127.6 acres of low relief artificial rock reefs constructed in the San Clemente area (Coastal Environments, 2008). The reefs are distributed among eleven primary polygons located between San Mateo Point and San Clemente Pier (Figure 6-9, ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 101
shown in green). The reef polygons are generally located between 11.5 and 15 meters (38-49 ft) depth. The nearest primary polygon (#7) is located approximately 1,500 meters south of the pier and 700 meters offshore beginning in 12 meters water depth.
In southern California it is usual and customary to confine cross-shore sediment transport between the shoreface and approximately 10 meters (30 ft) water depth. This depth is commonly referred to as the depth of closure, and is typically defined as the water depth beyond which repetitive profile surveys (collected over several years) do not detect vertical sea bed changes, generally considered the seaward limit of littoral transport. At construction completion the tentatively recommended plan is expected to engage the existing seabed approximately 1,040 m long centered about the pier, and between the shoreface and depths up to -5 meters.
Upon full equilibration the tentatively recommended plan is expected to engage the existing seabed between the shoreface and depths up to 8 meters. Thus, there will be no direct contact between the tentatively recommended plan footprint and the SCE reefs due to construction.
The tentatively recommended plan is expected to slowly erode in the downdrift (southeasterly) direction eventually moving along the beach thru the area landward of the reefs. However, the tentatively recommended plan is expected to never exceed the 10 meter depth of closure, and thus is not expected to migrate to the depths where the artificial reef is located.
Construction methods may create some temporary impacts to the SCE reefs. The type of dredging construction equipment utilized (described hereinafter) is expected to create some localized turbidity. It is typical that some turbidity is created during beach filling operations at the point of disposal due to the fines content of the dredge sediments. Also, minor turbidity plumes may be generated by the earthmoving equipment during beach grooming operations.
These sediment turbidity plumes are then dispersed by wind, waves, and currents. With the optimum combination of conditions, it is conceivable that this turbidity plume will migrate to the reef area. However, due to the distance between the reef area and construction fill site, and the fact that these turbidity plumes tend to be very short-lived during construction actions, there is expected to be little or no impacts to the reef areas.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 102
Figure 6-9 Southern California Edison Artificial Reefs
6.4 Construction Considerations
6.4.1 Construction Equipment
This project will most likely be constructed with hopper dredging equipment with pump ashore capability and conventional earthmoving equipment. Typical Los Angeles District beach fill projects require large capacity open-ocean capable dredges. Operational requirements typically result in hydraulic cutter head and/or hopper style dredges. The borrow site for this project is 35 km (21 miles) from the receiver beach and it is anticipated that the borrow site haul/pumping distance will require hopper dredging equipment utilization.
A similar beach nourishment operation was performed in 2001 by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The project entailed dredging 1.5 million m3 (2 million cy) of beach compatible sediments from six borrow sites for placement on twelve receiver beaches. The wide spread locations of the receiver beaches relative to the borrow locations required the use of a trailing suction hopper dredge. Sediment discharge was accomplished by pumping through floating pipelines to the beach.
The dry land operation is expected to be conducted by conventional earthmoving equipment including bulldozers and front end loaders. Ancillary equipment is expected to include small maintenance/tool trailers and small service trucks.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 103
6.4.2 Contractors Work and Storage Area
The contractors’ work and storage area has been designated by and will be provided by the City of San Clemente. This work and storage area is split between open space on the beach and a city owned public parking lot and is shown in Figure 6-10. An open area exists along the beach immediately adjacent and north of the pier and in the immediate vicinity of the Marine Safety Headquarters. It is expected this site will be used for the contractors’ office trailer, parking area for heavy earthmoving equipment, and storage area for dredge pipe and other miscellaneous materials. This site is used extensively for access to the Marine Safety Headquarters and other municipal operations and as such poses no new environmental considerations, minimizes disturbance to the environment, and is ideally located for contractor ease of operations.
Although access to this area is controlled by a signal controlled, at-grade railroad crossing, it is anticipated that there will be no significant restrictions on utilization of this portion of the contractors work and storage area.
Figure 6-10 Contractor’s Work and Storage Area
The Pier Bowl parking lot will also be a component of the contractors’ work and storage area.
This parking lot is a metered, city-owned parking lot for public access to the beach and pier area. Several parking spaces will be restricted for contractor privately owned vehicles. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 104
The contractors’ dredge and vessels will require off-site mooring and berthing space. There is no mooring area available within the City of San Clemente. The nearest suitable mooring area is Dana Point Harbor, a small craft harbor approximately 8 km (5 mi) north.
6.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the tentatively recommended plan are expected to consist primarily with routine grooming, shaping, and cleaning of the beach. The tentatively recommended plan does not include any utilities or typical structural improvements associated with beaches such as public access walkways or other such walkover structures.
Typical O&M activities are expected to consist of grooming and shaping the beach after storms to smooth out localized sediment accumulations/depletions, and debris cleanup along the beach and at storm drain outlets. These O&M activities are considered non-Federal responsibilities.
However, these activities are usual and customary for beaches, and the tentatively recommended plan is not expected to cause an increase in these efforts.
6.6 Monitoring Plan
Continuing construction monitoring will be required in support of the continuing construction (nourishment) of the project. The purpose of this monitoring is to allow the timing and the detailed design of the periodic nourishment to be optimized.
Continuing construction monitoring efforts are expected to consist of direct surveys of the beach and seabed morphology. Surveying of the beach and seabed morphology is paramount to the monitoring efforts. Changes in beach and seabed morphology will define the sediment transport patterns at the shoreline and ultimately the short term and long term beach erosion processes.
Alongshore transects will be crucial to determine the effects, if any, the proposed project has on updrift and/or downdrift shorelines.
Survey methods will consist of topographic measurements, bathymetric measurements, surf quality observations, and video stereo photogrammetric methods. The monitoring period will begin one year before construction (for the surf quality observations) and continue for the 50- year period of Federal involvement. However, not all aspects of the monitoring plan will be conducted each year. A description of the monitoring features is described below and a summary of the monitoring costs is shown in Table 6-3.
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 105
Table 6-3 Monitoring Costs
Year Fill Profiles Install Maint Report Width Surfing Sum -1 $6,000 $6,000
0 $6,000 $6,000
1 * $30,000 $40,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $151,000 2 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
3 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
4 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
5 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
6 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
7 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
8 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
9 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
10 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
11 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
12 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
13 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
14 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
15 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
16 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
17 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
18 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
19 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
20 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
21 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
22 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
23 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
24 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
25 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
26 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
27 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
28 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
29 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
30 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
31 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
32 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
33 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
34 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
35 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
36 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
37 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
38 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
39 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
40 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
41 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
42 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 106
43 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
44 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
45 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
46 * $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
47 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
48 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
49 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
50 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $8,000 $6,000 $111,000
6.6.1 Beach Width
Beach width measurements shall be obtained of the sub-aerial portion of the beach. The beach width is a simple linear measurement from a fixed point on the backshore to the foreshore berm crest. This method provides a systematic record of shoreline response and can be used to yield a good approximation of long-term gains or losses of sediment from a given reach of shoreline.
These measurements will yield a highly useful time series of shoreline change. Experience has shown that monthly measurements are the optimal frequency to demonstrate long-term shoreline change. This type of measurement system has been successfully employed by the Los Angeles District for several decades and has repeatedly demonstrated its utility and value.
Measurements shall be taken monthly at 9 locations corresponding to historical locations.
Measurements shall be taken by the City of San Clemente.
This method requires a very low level effort with an attendant low cost. Each monthly survey can be accomplished in 2-3 hours. The annual cost of monthly beach width measurements is $8,000, based on recent similar costs provided by the City of San Clemente.
6.6.2 Topography / Bathymetry
Conventional topographic measurements will be obtained of the sub-aerial portion of the beach and bathymetric measurements of the surf zone and seabed morphology will be obtained using conventional acoustic sonar methods. Measurements will be obtained along pre-determined transects that coincide with historical transect locations, and mass points to develop a welldefined terrain model of the littoral system. These measurements are planned for twice annually, typically in early spring after the winter erosion season, and in late fall after the summer accretion season.
The cost of each conventional transect survey is $15,000, based on recent similar surveys conducted for the City of San Clemente.
6.6.3 Surf Quality (Surfability)
Surfing and high quality surfable waves are an increasingly valuable resource. An innovative method pioneered by the Los Angeles District has been developed to quantify surf quality (surfability). A trained observer visually estimates the breaking wave climate at the shoreline twice daily, typically at first light and at 1300; the times are approximate. Wave characteristics measured included height, period, and direction. Wave heights from the crest to the trough are visually estimated to the nearest 1 foot. Waves are observed for a period of 5-10 minutes and the minimum, average, and maximum wave heights are estimated. Wave period is based on an ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 107
average of 30 waves over the 5-10 minute observation period and is reported to the nearest 1 second. Wave directions are reported relative to the beach normal and estimated to the nearest 5 degrees. Wave directions are recorded as normal (0-10 degrees); slightly from the left (or right) (10-25 degrees); significantly from the left (or right) (greater than 25 degrees). Surf quality is also expressed in common surf language by the observer. Visual observations are supplemented with video recordings.
This method requires a very low level effort with an attendant low cost. The annual cost of twice daily observations is $6,000, based on recent similar efforts conducted in the City of Imperial Beach. The cost of video recording is captured within the video based photogrammetry discussed hereinafter.
6.6.4 Video Based Photogrammetry
Argus Beach Monitoring System is a state-of-the-art video-based stereo photogrammetric method which utilizes multiple video cameras and the principles of stereo photogrammetry to obtain topographic measurements. Multiple video cameras are typically mounted viewing the longshore area of interest and the video cameras obtain continuous imagery of the beach. Data analysis software provides detailed topographic mapping data of the sub-aerial portion of the beach. The beach topography can be sampled such that a nearly continuous time series of the beach can be obtained. It is assumed that this system will be installed initially and maintained annually.
The purchase and install cost of the Argus Beach Monitoring System is $40,000. The annual operating cost is $35,000; this cost includes all routine maintenance and as well as replacement of the system components as they become obsolete. Analysis and reporting equals $32,000 annually. There is a large suite of available analysis products; this value represents a moderate number of analysis products. These costs are based on discussions with Northwest Research Associates, vendors of the Argus system (Northwest Research Associates, 2007). ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 108
7 REFERENCES
Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP). 2009. Integrative Oceanography Division, operated by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Boating and Waterways.
Coastal Environments. January 2008. Final Design Plan, Wheeler North Reef at San Clemente, California, (SONGS Artificial Reef Mitigation Project, Phase 2 Mitigation Reef). Prepared for Southern California Edison Company.
Coastal Frontiers Corporation. Mar 2006. SANDAG 2005 Regional Beach Monitoring Program, Annual Report. Prepared for San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
Coastal Frontiers Corporation. September 2005. City of San Clemente Beach Monitoring Program : Fall 2004 Beach Profile Survey Report.
Cox, Jack C, and Machemehl, J. January 1986. Overload Bore Propagation Due to an Overtopping Wave. American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 1.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 22 Apr 2000. Planning Guidance Notebook. Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100.
_____. 1 Mar 1996. Risk-Based Analysis for Evaluation of Hydrology/Hydraulics, Geotechical Stability, and Economics in Flood Damage Reduction Studies.
Fugro West, Inc. July 2002. San Clemente Geophysical Subbottom Profile, Side Scan Sonar and Multibeam Bathymetric Survey, Orange County, California.
Hughes, Steven A. September 2003a. Wave Momentum Flux Parameter for Coastal Structure Design. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. Coastal and Hydraulics Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-III-67.
Hughes, Steven A. September 2003b. Estimating Irregular Wave Runup on Smooth, Impermeable Slopes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. Coastal and Hydraulics Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-III-68.
John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. March 2002. Aerial Survey for San Clemente Beach.
McGinley, Michael. 1998. Personal Communication from Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail Authority) to USACE.
McGinley, Michael. 2003. Personal Communication from Metrolink (Southern California Regional Rail Authority) to USACE.
McNinch, Jesse E. July 2004. Geologic control in the nearshore: shore-oblique sandbars and shoreline erosional hotspots, Mid-Atlantic Bight, USA. International Journal of Marine Geology, Geochemistry, and Geophysics, 211 (2004)121-141.
Moffatt & Nichol. June 2007. San Clemente Seawall Opinion of Probable Cost, Final Report.
Prepared for the City of San Clemente, California.
National Ocean Service. July 2001. Sea Level Variations for the United States 1854-2001.
NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 36. Silver Springs, Maryland.
National Research Council, 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications, National Academy Press, 148 p.
Northwest Research Associates. 2007. Personal communication from J. Oltman-Shay to USACE.
Palisade Corporation. February 2002. @RISK, Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-In for Microsoft Excel.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2010.
Stern, David H. 1977. Surfing Guide to Southern California. Mountain and Sea Publishing.
Surfline.com. 2009. Provided by Surfline / Wavetrack, Inc. ______________________________________________________________Coastal Engineering Appendix 109
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual. Engineer Manual 1110-2-1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (in 6 volumes).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. September 1992.
Automated Coastal Engineering System, Version 1.07. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
_____. 1984. Shore Protection Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. (2 volumes)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. July 1999. San Juan Creek Watershed Management Study.
_____. September 1991. Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region (2 volumes).
_____. 1988. "CCSTWS 88-5, Sand Thickness Survey Report, October-November, San Diego Region.” _____. 1987. "CCSTWS, Southern California Coastal Processes Data Summary.” Wright, Allan B. Jr. 1973. Surfing California. Manana Publishing.
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUB-APPENDIX A
SEAWALL COST REPORT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 2010
SAN CLEMENTE SEAWALL
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92673
Prepared by
Moffatt & Nichol
3780 Kilroy Airport Road, Suite 600
Long Beach, CA 90806
June 15, 2007
M&N File 6217
San Clemente Seawall i
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Seawall Concept...................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Design Criteria/Assumptions.......................................................................................... 3
2.2. Seawall Section............................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs ........................................................................ 6
2.4. Additional Costs.............................................................................................................. 9
2.5. Summary of Probable Costs.......................................................................................... 11 Figures
Figure 1-1 – Approximate Seawall Limits...................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1 – Seawall Location (USACE 2004) .............................................................................. 4 Figure 2-2 – Proposed Cross Section.............................................................................................. 5 Tables
Table 1-1: Study Area Reaches (USACOE 2004).......................................................................... 1 Table 2-1: Opinion of Probable Construction Costs - Minimum ................................................... 7 Table 2-2: Opinion of Probable Construction Costs - Maximum................................................... 8 Table 2-3: Estimated Total Project Costs ..................................................................................... 11 San Clemente Seawall 1
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
1. Introduction
This report presents the conceptual design support and opinion of probable construction costs for a seawall to protect the existing railroad tracks at the landward side of the pier in San Clemente, CA. The concept has been developed as a project alternative for economical/coastal modeling in the US Army Corps of Engineer’s (USACOE) San Clemente Shoreline Erosion Feasibility Study. The purpose of this work effort is to develop a defensible preliminary cost estimate for a seawall that would be constructed if shoreline erosion were to threaten the structural integrity of the existing railroad track. The analysis is based on background information contained in the USACE’s “Shoreline Feasibility Study Without Project Conditions F-3 Draft Final Report”, June 2004.
For this study, the San Clemente shoreline has been divided in to a series of 10 individual reaches, based on based on differences in topography, coastal development and beach conditions. (Table 1-1) The proposed seawall would extend over a small portion of the northern end of Reach 5 and a majority of Reach 6 in the area of the railway that is presently not reveted. (Figure 1-1). The total length of the seawall is estimated to be 1000 meters.
Table 1-1: Study Area Reaches (USACOE 2004)
RANGE
REACH
FROM TO
APPROXIMATE
LENGTH (m)
1 San Mateo Point Palmeras 969
2 Palmeras 3800 Block, Vista Blanca 680
3 3800 Block, Vista Blanca Calafia 600
4 Calafia Primavera 732
5 Primavera Cristobal 413
6 Cristobal Linda Lane 1,040
7 Linda Lane 1200 Block, Buena Vista 1,081
8 1200 Block, Buena Vista Pico 347
9 Pico San Andreas 1,101
10 San Andreas Dana Point Harbor 5,000
San Clemente Seawall 2
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Figure 1-1 – Approximate Seawall Limits
San Clemente Seawall 3
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
2. Seawall Concept
2.1. Design Criteria/Assumptions
The concept was developed to fit within the framework of the USACOE feasibility study guidelines and includes the following criteria/assumptions:
x The seawall is planned to be a steel-reinforced concrete structure founded on bedrock. x The seawall will be constructed within the right-of-way for the existing Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) railway with a top elevation of +7.0m, Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). (See Figure 2-1.)
x The seaward extent of the seawall is to be minimized to comply with California Coastal Commission permitting requirements.
x Disturbances to SCRRA railway operations should be minimized. x Public access to the beach and pier must be maintained during construction. x The “bedrock” or hardpan at the base of the wall has an allowable bearing capacity greater than 3000 pounds per square foot.
x The “bedrock” or hardpan at the base of the wall is non-erodable and the wall will not require toe scour protection.
2.2. Seawall Section
The seawall section was analyzed for both railway surcharge and seismic loading at it was found that the seismic loading governs for structural section, sliding, and overturning. For adequate sliding resistance, the footing is 2 meters wide and extends very close to the vertical projection of the track cross-ties. To build the wall in this location, it will be necessary to remove and rebuild the track and have the track out of service for the construction period; or install temporary shoring which will require the wall to be at least three and one-half feet further from the track.
Discussions with both the USACE and City of San Clemente indicated that interruptions in the train service would not be feasible, so the seawall should be moved away from the track. The seaward distance of the movement; however is limited by encroachment of the public beach, which is controlled by the California Coastal commission through the permitting process.
The resulting cross section appears in Figure 2-2. The wall has an over-all height of 6 meters.
The concrete is F’c = 5000 psi; and reinforcing steel Fy = 60,000 psi, epoxy coated. The temporary shoring consists of driven sheet piles that would be removed after the wall has been backfilled. Since the geotechnical conditions are presently unknown, it is assumed that the sheetpile shoring would have to be performed on both sides of the excavation and tied together.
Per the design criteria, the wall is founded on bedrock that is considered non-erodable; therefore the seawall does not require toe scour protection. This assumption is specified in the USACE F3 report and supported by “Coastal Engineering Analysis for Marine Safety Building”, Coastal Frontiers, January 2004.
San Clemente Seawall 4
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Figure 2-1 – Seawall Location (USACE 2004)
San Clemente Seawall 5
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Figure 2-2 – Proposed Cross Section
San Clemente Seawall 6
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
2.3. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
There are several elements to the total cost of the seawall, the most significant of which being the construction costs. Considering the proximity to the railroad, the potential for interference and delays is a significant unknown at this stage of the analysis. The opinion of probable construction costs, therefore, includes two different sets of assumptions regarding the production rate for constructing the wall and ancillary railroad costs. The costs also contain the following assumptions:
x Total length of seawall – 1000 meters (3300 feet).
x Work performed during normal daylight hours.
x No utility relocation or interference costs.
x No demolition except removal of existing fence.
x No removal, relocation, or replacement of the SCRRA railroad facilities such as ballast, crossing arms, lighting, etc.
x Sheetpile shoring on both sides of trench.
x Traffic control includes a temporary fence and routing of automobiles and pedestrians. x Design, bid, build contract structure.
x Contractor Markup - 15%.
x General Contractor Overhead and Field Overhead rate – 10% x Contingency – 30%
Detailed line item costs appear in Appendices A and B.
San Clemente Seawall 7
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
2.3.1. Minimum Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The minimum opinion of probable construction costs for the seawall is presented in Table 2-
1. These costs assume that there will be no production delays due to train operations and no other associated railroad costs.
Table 2-1: Opinion of Probable Construction Costs - Minimum ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Demolition LS 3,300 $10 $51,150
Shoring SF 132,000 $62 $8,184,000
Excavation CY 37,000 $31 $1,147,000
Structural Concrete CY 7,500 $989 $7,420,625
Reinforcing Steel LB 1,000,000 $3 $3,100,000
Backfill CY 30,000 $47 $1,395,000
Fence LF 3,300 $31 $102,300
Traffic Control and
Safety Items
LS 1 $308,450 $308,450
TOTAL $21,708,525
For a 1000 meter (3300 feet) wall, the opinion of probable construction cost is approximately $22,000/m ($6,600/ft.) The duration of the project, without major interferences, is estimated to be 13 to 16 weeks.
San Clemente Seawall 8
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
2.3.2. “Maximum” Costs
Although no analysis can reasonably account for all contingencies and unknown factors, Table 2-2 presents the “maximum” reasonable opinion of probable construction for the seawall. These costs are similar to the minimum costs except they include a 50% reduction in production rates due to train interference, along with additional costs for railroad flagging, railroad inspection, and railroad insurance.
Table 2-2: Opinion of Probable Construction Costs - Maximum ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Demolition LS 3,300 $10 $86,955
Shoring SF 132,000 $93 $12,276,000
Excavation CY 37,000 $47 $1,720,500
Structural Concrete CY 7,500 $1,465 $10,985,625
Reinforcing Steel LB 1,000,000 $4 $3,875,000
Backfill CY 30,000 $70 $2,092,500
Fence LF 3,300 $31 $153,450
Traffic Control &
Safety Items
LS 1 $308,450 $488,250
Railroad Flagging
& Inspection
LS 1 $496,000 $496,000
TOTAL $32,174,280
For a 1000 meter (3300 feet) wall, the opinion of probable construction cost is approximately $32,000/m ($9,750/ft.). The duration of the project, including delays is estimated to be 20 to 24 weeks.
2.3.3. Budgeting
For budgeting purposes, it would be reasonable to plan for costs between the two extremes on the order of $27,000,000 and rely on the contingency funds to cover overages. A reasonable schedule would be approximately 16-18 weeks.
San Clemente Seawall 9
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
2.4. Additional Costs
2.4.1. Permitting
This project will require planning, permitting and environmental review from the appropriate agencies. The agencies that would be potentially involved include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), California State Lands Commission (CSLC), California Coastal Commission (CCC), State and Regional Water Boards, Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), and City of San Clemente.
Based on the location of the proposed seawall to be landward of the high tide line, it is assumed that there is no USACOE or CSLC jurisdiction and thus no permits/approvals are required from these agencies. If there is no USACE Section 404 permit, there would not be a need for a Water Board Section 401 certification. Additionally, it is assumed that an Air Quality permit would not be required because the construction equipment is exempted by AQMD Rule 219 and/or the equipment is already permitted by the local AQMD. These assumptions should be verified by coordination with these agencies.
It is likely that permits from the following agencies would be required:
California Coastal Commission – The project requires a Coastal Development Permit for activities within the Coastal Zone. A wave uprush study, in compliance with CCC requirements, would be prepared. An application fee would not be required for this permit if the applicant is the City and it is deemed to be a public works project. State Water Resources Control Board - A Notice-of-Intent will be filed. The construction contractor would be responsible for preparation of the construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board NPDES general permit requirements. A fee is required for the filing. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) / Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) – Approvals would be required for construction of the seawall within the railroad right-of-way and potential construction activity impacts on the railroad operations. A fee may be required for this approval. There would be significant coordination required between the City, SCRRA, and the Contractor during construction. City of San Clemente - The California Coastal Commission will require an approval-inconcept from the City. It is also assumed that City permits for building/construction and encroachment into the public right-of-way will be required.
The permitting scope would consist of coordination with the potential permitting agencies, applying for and securing permits from each agency, including follow-up with agencies from submittal of applications to issuance of permits as required and attendance at one CCC public hearing. This task would include technical support required to prepare the applications including graphics, quantity calculations, and construction methods. The environmental consultant would provide the permit agencies with any additional information requested subsequent to application submittals.
The environmental review task would entail completing the State environmental review process under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A CEQA Initial Study (IS) would be done to identify the degree of potential environmental impact and it is assumed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be required.
San Clemente Seawall 10
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
An MND is for projects that may cause significant impacts, but all impacts can be mitigated to levels of less than significant. The City of San Clemente would likely be the lead agency for the project. The tasks include preparation of the administrative draft IS, final draft IS, and final CEQA document, and attendance at one project kick-off meeting. We assume that the printing and mailing of the Draft CEQA documents for public review, and the Final CEQA document for filing and certification would be performed and/or funded by the City.
The City staff would assume the responsibility for public distribution of the Draft CEQA document, and certification of the Final CEQA document.
The opinion of probable costs for the permitting process is $55,000, and the environmental review and follow-up task is approximately $45,000 for a total of $100,000.
2.4.2. Design and Engineering
This task includes:
x Field Investigation to determine the final alignment of the wall, interferences from utilities or other structures, location of access points during low sand periods, and geotechnical design criteria.
x Structural design of the wall and access structures, and creation of typical details. x Preparation of construction drawings and specifications for the wall including access structures and details for mitigating or crossing interferences. x Preparation of estimated cost of construction at approximately 35% design, and at the end of construction document preparation.
x Meetings with the project stakeholders as needed.
Estimated cost for this task is $245,000. For a more typical construction project of this size (without shoring and railroad requirements) the design fee would be approximately 3% of the construction cost plus field investigation.
2.4.3. Contract Bidding and Award
This task includes:
x Publishing the bid package including instructions to bidders, bid forms, and construction documents.
x Preparing and distributing the invitation to bidders. x Scheduling and leading a Pre-Bid meeting and site walk for prospective bidders. x Responding to contractor questions and preparing addendum if necessary. x Attend bid opening.
x Evaluate bids and make recommendation of most responsive bid.
The estimated cost for this task is $ 25,000.
San Clemente Seawall 11
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
2.4.4. Contract and Construction Administration
This task includes:
x Scheduling and leading the Pre-Construction meeting.
x Review of contractor submittal and review and response to contractor requests for information (RFI).
x Construction observation including concrete inspection and testing. x Contract administration including weekly construction meetings, review and approval of contractor requests for payment, processing of contractor submittals and RFI, preparation and processing of change orders if any, scheduling of inspections, and monitoring the contractor’s schedule.
Estimated cost for this task is $ 165,000. Construction observation and contract management is dependent on the construction schedule. The given cost is based on actual construction time of sixteen weeks, plus submittal and mobilization time.
2.4.5. Real Estate Costs
The seawall will be located within the SCRRA right-of-way of the railway so there are no anticipated real estate acquisition costs, however, the City may have to enter in to a special agreement with the SCRRA to perform the work.
2.5. Summary of Probable Costs
Table 2-3 presents the total probable costs for the proposed seawall.
Table 2-3: Estimated Total Project Costs
ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Construction $27,000,000
Permitting $100,000
Design and Engineering $245,000
Contract Bidding and
Award
$20,000
Contract and Construction
Administration
$165,000
Real Estate Costs $0
TOTAL $27,530,000
San Clemente Seawall 12
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
APPENDIX A – OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
MINIMUM CASE
San Clemente Seawall 13
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Estimate Summary
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Demolition LS 1 $51,150 $51,150
Shoring (Both sides of Excavation) SF 132,000 $62 $8,184,000 Excavation CY 37,000 $31 $1,147,000
Structural Concrete CY 7,500 $989 $7,420,625
Reinforcing Steel LB 1,000,000 $3 $3,100,000
Backfill CY 30,000 $47 $1,395,000
Fence LF 3,300 $31 $102,300
Traffic Control and Safety Items LS 1 $308,450 $308,450 SUBTOTAL $21,708,525
SHEET TOTAL $21,708,525
Assumptions:
1) This estimate does not include any railroad insurance, railroad flagging, or railroad inspection costs 2) This estimate assumes work can be done during normal daylight work shifts with no delays due to trains 3) This estimate does not include any utility relocation or interference costs 4) This estimate does not include any demolition other than removal and replacement of existing fence 5) This estimate does not include removing, replacing or relocating any Railroad facilities such as ballast, crossing arms, utilities, etc.
NOTES: THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 14
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Demolition
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Remove Fence LF 3,300 $7 $23,100 $3 $9,900 $10.00 $33,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $23,100 $9,900 $33,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $4,950
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $3,300
Contingency (30%) $9,900
TOTAL $51,150
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 15
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Shoring(Both sides of Excavation)
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Install and Remove Shoring (Both sides) SF 132,000 $20 $2,640,000 $20 $2,640,000 $40.00 $5,280,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $2,640,000 $2,640,000 $5,280,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $792,000
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $528,000
Contingency (30%) $1,584,000
TOTAL $8,184,000
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 16
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Excavation
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Excavation CY 37,000 $10 $370,000 $10 $370,000 $20.00 $740,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $370,000 $370,000 $740,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $111,000
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $74,000
Contingency (30%) $222,000
TOTAL $1,147,000
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 17
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Structural Concrete
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Construct Footing CY 4,000 $225 $900,000 $250 $1,000,000 $475.00 $1,900,000 Construct Wall CY 3,500 $400.00 $1,400,000 $425 $1,487,500 $825.00 $2,887,500 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL 7,500 $2,300,000 $2,487,500 $4,787,500
Contractor Markup (15%) $718,125
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $478,750
Contingency (30%) $1,436,250
TOTAL $7,420,625
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 18
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Reinforcing Steel
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Furnish and Install Epoxy Coated Rebar LB 1,000,000 $0.50 $500,000 $2 $1,500,000 $2.00 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $300,000
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $200,000
Contingency (30%) $600,000
TOTAL $3,100,000
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 19
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Backfill
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Backfill Retaining Wall CY 30,000 $15 $450,000 $15 $450,000 $30.00 $900,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $450,000 $450,000 $900,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $135,000
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $90,000
Contingency (30%) $270,000
TOTAL $1,395,000
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 20
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Fence
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Furnish and Install Fence LF 3,300 $10 $33,000 $10 $33,000 $20.00 $66,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $33,000 $33,000 $66,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $9,900
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $6,600
Contingency (30%) $19,800
TOTAL $102,300
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 21
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Traffic Control and Safety Items
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Traffic Control(Pedestrians and automobiles) LS 1 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000.00 $100,000 Temporary Safety Fence LF 6,600 $10.00 $66,000 $5 $33,000 $15.00 $99,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $116,000 $83,000 $199,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $29,850
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $19,900
Contingency (30%) $59,700
TOTAL $308,450
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 22
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
APPENDIX B – OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
“MAXIMUM” CASE
San Clemente Seawall 23
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Estimate Summary
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Demolition LS 1 $86,955 $86,955
Shoring (Both sides of Excavation) SF 132,000 $93 $12,276,000 Excavation CY 37,000 $47 $1,720,500
Structural Concrete CY 7,500 $1,465 $10,985,625
Reinforcing Steel LB 1,000,000 $4 $3,875,000
Backfill CY 30,000 $70 $2,092,500
Fence LF 3,300 $47 $153,450
Traffic Control and Safety Items LS 1 $488,250 $488,250 Railroad Flagging and Inspection LS 1 $496,000 $496,000 SUBTOTAL $32,174,280
SHEET TOTAL $32,174,280
Assumptions:
1) This estimate does not include any utility relocation or interference costs 2) This estimate does not include any demolition other than removal and replacement of existing fence 3) This estimate does not include removing, replacing or relocating any Railroad facilities such as ballast, crossing arms, utilities, etc.
NOTES: THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 24
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Demolition
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Remove Fence LF 3,300 $14 $46,200 $3 $9,900 $17.00 $56,100 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $46,200 $9,900 $56,100
Contractor Markup (15%) $8,415
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $5,610
Contingency (30%) $16,830
TOTAL $86,955
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 25
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Shoring(Both sides of Excavation)
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Install and Remove Shoring (Both sides) SF 132,000 $40 $5,280,000 $20 $2,640,000 $60.00 $7,920,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $5,280,000 $2,640,000 $7,920,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $1,188,000
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $792,000
Contingency (30%) $2,376,000
TOTAL $12,276,000
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 26
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Excavation
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Excavation CY 37,000 $20 $740,000 $10 $370,000 $30.00 $1,110,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $740,000 $370,000 $1,110,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $166,500
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $111,000
Contingency (30%) $333,000
TOTAL $1,720,500
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 27
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Structural Concrete
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Construct Footing CY 4,000 $450 $1,800,000 $250 $1,000,000 $700.00 $2,800,000 Construct Wall CY 3,500 $800.00 $2,800,000 $425 $1,487,500 $1,225.00 $4,287,500 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL 7,500 $4,600,000 $2,487,500 $7,087,500
Contractor Markup (15%) $1,063,125
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $708,750
Contingency (30%) $2,126,250
TOTAL $10,985,625
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 28
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Reinforcing Steel
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Furnish and Install Epoxy Coated Rebar LB 1,000,000 $1.00 $1,000,000 $2 $1,500,000 $2.50 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,500,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $375,000
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $250,000
Contingency (30%) $750,000
TOTAL $3,875,000
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 29
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Backfill
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Backfill Retaining Wall CY 30,000 $30 $900,000 $15 $450,000 $45.00 $1,350,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $900,000 $450,000 $1,350,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $202,500
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $135,000
Contingency (30%) $405,000
TOTAL $2,092,500
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 30
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Fence
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Furnish and Install Fence LF 3,300 $20 $66,000 $10 $33,000 $30.00 $99,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
$0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $66,000 $33,000 $99,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $14,850
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $9,900
Contingency (30%) $29,700
TOTAL $153,450
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 31
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Traffic Control and Safety Items
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Traffic Control(Pedestrians and automobiles) LS 1 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000.00 $150,000 Temporary Safety Fence LF 6,600 $20.00 $132,000 $5 $33,000 $25.00 $165,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0
SUBTOTAL $232,000 $83,000 $315,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $47,250
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $31,500
Contingency (30%) $94,500
TOTAL $488,250
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
San Clemente Seawall 32
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
A-E Firm Name:
Moffatt and Nichol Date: April 30, 2007
Estimated By: Checked By:
Firm: M & N Status of Design:
Est: Name: MOD Conceptual
Railroad Flagging and Inspection
ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Railroad Flagging DAYS 250 $0 $700 $175,000 $700.00 $175,000 Railroad Insurance LS 1 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000.00 $100,000 Railroad Inspection DAYS 50 $0 $900 $45,000 $900.00 $45,000 SUBTOTAL $0 $320,000 $320,000
Contractor Markup (15%) $48,000
Gen OH and Field OH (10%) $32,000
Contingency (30%) $96,000
TOTAL $496,000
NOTES:
THIS COST ESTIMATE IS AN OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST MADE BY THE CONSULTANT. IN
PROVIDING OPINIONS OF CONSTRUCTION COST, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE CLIENT
NOR THE CONSULTANT HAS CONTROL OVER THE COSTS OF LABOR, EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS, OR OVER CONTRACTORS' METHODS OF DETERMINING PRICES OR BIDDING. THIS OPINION OF
CONSTRUCTION COST IS BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
AND EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT
CONTRACTORS' BIDS OR NEGOTIATED PRICES OF THE WORK WILL NOT VARY FROM THE CLIENT'S BUDGET OR FROM ANY OPINION OF COST PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT.
LABOR COST MATERIAL COST TOTAL COST
Activity: City of San Clemente
San Clemente, California
Project Title: San Clemente Sea Wall
SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE FEASIBILITY STUDY
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUB-APPENDIX B
NUMERICAL MODEL FLOWCHART
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 2010
Engineering Processes
Economic Processes
Economic Summary: First model simulation computes
Total WITHOUT-project damages and recreational
value. Output written internally to model
(INPUT_ECON) becomes input for WITH-project
analysis. WITH-project costs calculated. No benefits
and/or B/C ratios computed.
GENERAL MODEL FLOW
Simulation Control: First model simulation is
WITHOUT-project. Model simulations 2-N are for
each project alternative. Simulation controlled in FXN
using macro: Alternatives.
COASTAL: Initiate / increment annual time counter. Randomly select: Hs, T, tide level, storm surge, and foreshore slope. Calculate still water level (tide+surge+sea level rise), storm induced erosion, coastal parameters.
LTER_INDEX: For WITH-Project
analysis only. Determines the correct
long-term erosion function to use and
when fills are constructed.
RUNUP: Calculate runup elevation for either beach or revetment condition.
FXN: Set global engineering parameters, store global model information and tables.
LTSHORELINE: Compute long-term shoreline position relative to baseline.
OVERTOP: Calculate water depth at berm due to overtopping for either beach or revetment condition.
FILL: For WITH-PROJECT analysis only. Computes beach width due to fill in each model cell in year in which fill occurs.
Goto
Structure
Goto
Railroad
INPUTM: Input all model engineering information in metric units.
INPUTFT: Convert all model input engineering information to Imperial units.
COASTAL ENGINEERING
Note: BOLD corresponds to model worksheet name.
RAILROAD
FORCE: Compute wave forces applied to RR
RRCONVERT: Determine if RR cell converts to
protective structure.
RRBREACH: Determine if RR cell is breached. Can
only occur if RR not converted.
S1/S2/S3/S4: Compute $$ damages to RR for each
project scenario.
Goto
Railroad
Goto Econ
from RR
Do forces cause
damage?
Yes
No
Note: BOLD corresponds to model worksheet name.
STRUCTURE
FORCE: Compute the wave forces on each structure
FLOOD: Compute the depth of water at each structure due to overtopping
Goto
Structure
INUNDATION: Compute the inundation of each structure
Goto Econ
from
Structure
LTLOSS: Compute the shoreline position and structure loss (if any) due to long-term erosion.
LTFLOSS: Compute the shoreline position and structure function loss (if any) due to long-term erosion.
STLOSS: Compute the structure loss (if any) due to storm induced erosion.
Is structure lost and removed from
inventory?
No
Yes
Is structure functionality lost and
removed from inventory?
No
Yes
Is structure lost and removed from
inventory?
No
Yes
Note: BOLD corresponds to model worksheet name.
Is structure lost and removed from
inventory?
No
Yes
APPENDIX E – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study
Orange County, California
GEOTECHNICAL
APPENDIX
FINAL REPORT
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
JULY 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................... 1 2 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Regional Geology................................................................................................. 3
2.2 San Clemente Beach Site Geology ...................................................................... 3
2.3 Seismicity ............................................................................................................. 4 3 INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................................... 5
3.1 California Department of Boating and Waterways (Osbourne, et al.,1983) .......... 5
3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993) .................................................................. 6
3.3 SANDAG (1999)................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Fugro-West (2002) ............................................................................................... 8
3.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003) .................................................................. 8
3.5.1 January Program........................................................................................... 9
3.5.2 August Program .......................................................................................... 10 4 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................... 12
4.1 Physical Testing ................................................................................................. 12
4.1.1 1993 USACE Explorations .......................................................................... 12
4.1.2 1999 SANDAG Explorations........................................................................ 12
4.1.3 2003 USACE Explorations .......................................................................... 12
4.2 Bulk Sediment Chemistry Testing....................................................................... 12
4.2.1 1999 SANDAG Study .................................................................................. 12
4.2.2 2003 USACE Study..................................................................................... 13 5 ANALYSES ................................................................................................................ 14
5.1 General............................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Geotechnical Descriptions.................................................................................. 14
5.2.1 Proposed Borrow Area No. 1 (San Clemente)............................................. 14
5.2.2 Proposed Borrow Area No. 2 (Oceanside) .................................................. 15
5.2.3 Receiving Beach. ........................................................................................ 16
5.3 Delineation of Borrow Area 2.............................................................................. 17
5.4 Grain Size (Physical) Compatibility..................................................................... 18
5.4.1 Guidelines ................................................................................................... 18
5.4.2 Borrow Material and Receiving Beach Compatibility ................................... 18
5.4.3 Overfill Factor.............................................................................................. 19 _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix ii
5.5 Chemical Compatibility of Sediments ................................................................. 19
5.5.1 SANDAG (1999).......................................................................................... 19
5.5.2 USACE (2003)............................................................................................. 19
5.6 Sediment Volume Analysis................................................................................. 20
5.6.1 Borrow Area No.2........................................................................................ 20
5.6.2 Borrow Area No.2A ..................................................................................... 20
5.6.3 Receiving Beach ......................................................................................... 21
5.7 Dredgeability....................................................................................................... 21 6 DREDGING ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 23 7 SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 24 8 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 26 9 REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 27 Tables (Attached)
Table 1 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Offshore Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample: Chemical Results
Table 2 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Area No.1 USACE Vibracore Holes (2003)
Table 3 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Area No.2 USACE (1993) Vibracore Holes
Table 4 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Area No.2 SANDAG (1999) Vibracore Holes
Table 5 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Area No.2 USACE Vibracore Holes (January 2003)
Table 6 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Area No.2 USACE Vibracore Holes (August 2003)
Table 7 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Receiving Beach Transect Grain Size Data Table 8-a San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Site No.2 - USACE (2003) Vibracore Holes (cut to 1 meter)
Table 8-b San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Site No.2 - USACE (2003) Vibracore Holes (cut to 2 meters)
Table 8-c San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Site No.2 - USACE (2003) Vibracore Holes (cut to 3 meters)
Table 8-d San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Site No.2 - USACE (2003) Vibracore Holes (cut to 4 meters)
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix iii
Table 8-e San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Site No.2 - USACE (2003) Vibracore Holes (cut to 5 meters)
Table 8-f San Clemente Shoreline Project - Borrow Site No.2 - USACE (2003) Vibracore Holes (cut to 6 meters)
Table 9-a San Clemente (Reach 1) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 9-b San Clemente (Reach 3) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 9-c San Clemente (Reach 4) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 9-d San Clemente (Reach 5) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 9-e San Clemente (Reach 6) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 9-f San Clemente (Reach 7) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 9-g San Clemente (Reach 8) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 9-h San Clemente (Entire Project) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations
Table 10 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Typical Sediment Properties Table 11 San Clemente Shoreline Project - Overfill Factors Figures (Attached)
Figure 1. San Clemente Shoreline Study Area Map
Figure 2. Borrow Area 2: NW-SE Section A
Figure 3. Borrow Area 2: NW-SE Section B
Figure 4. Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 1
Figure 5. Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 2
Figure 6. Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 3
Figure 7. Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 4
Figure 8. Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 5
Figure 9. Borrow Area 2: SW-NE Section 6
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix iv
Figure 10. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Reach 1 Figure 11. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Reach 3 Figure 12. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Reach 4 Figure 13. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Reach 5 Figure 14. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Reach 6 Figure 15. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Reach 7 Figure 16. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Reach 8 Figure 17. San Clemente Shoreline – Grain Size Compatibility Curve – Entire Project Figure 18. San Clemente Beach Replenishment Program – Site Map and Beach Fill Plan
Figures 19 to 23. Fugro West 2002- Isopach Geology Maps Plates (Attached)
Plate 1. Plan View of Geotechnical Exploration.
Plate 2. Plan View of Borrow Area No.2 and No. 2A.
Attachments
Attachment 1. Group Delta Consultants, 2003. Vibracore Exploration Program, San Clemente Beach Shoreline, Orange and San Diego Counties, California.
Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 21 May 2003, with 5 appendices.
Attachment 2. Soils (Sediment) Logs of USACE (August, 2003) borings O-1 through O26.
Attachment 3. Soils (Sediment) Logs of USACE (January,2003) borings SO9-1 through SO9-41.
Attachment 4. Soils (Sediment) Logs of USACE (1993) borings OS-1 through OS-44.
Attachment 5. Soils (Sediment) Logs of SANDAG (1999) borings SDG-1 through SDG35.
Attachment 6. Soils (Sediment) Logs of USACE (January, 2003) borings SC-1 through SC-8.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 1 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The San Clemente Shoreline project is located at the City of San Clemente, Orange County, California. The non-Federal sponsor of this study is the City of San Clemente.
This report was prepared as a technical appendix to the San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Report. The purpose of this appendix is to provide the basic data and requirements necessary to support the feasibility study for the Corps of Engineers dredging of offshore beach sand and disposing of the material on the beach at San Clemente, California. This report provides a summary of field and laboratory investigations, a description of geotechnical site conditions, recommended parameters for use in design, and documentation for the plans and specifications. Subsequent to technical review of the F-3 Feasibility Report (USACE, 2004), beach transect sampling and compatibility analysis were conducted by Geotechnical Branch. Results of this analysis are reported herein. The nature and dredgeability of the sediments in the proposed offshore borrow areas and their compatibility with the sediments at the proposed receiving beach at San Clemente Beach will be discussed.
1.2 Project Description
The purpose of this project is to provide a solution to the existing beach erosion problem along the shoreline in the City of San Clemente, Orange County, California, that reduces storm-related damages and complies with local, state, and Federal environmental laws and regulations. This report presents the results of recent investigations into possible sources of beach compatible sand for renourishment of San Clemente Beach. Replacement of the sand at San Clemente Beach is required because of ongoing erosion.
The City of San Clemente is located along the coast of southern California at the southern end of Orange County near the border of San Diego County. The study area is bounded by San Mateo Point (located at the southern limits of the City of San Clemente, and, additionally, the boundary between the counties of Orange and San Diego) on the south and Dana Point Harbor on the north. The study area is approximately 12.1 km (7.5 miles) long, and is sub-divided into ten reaches for reference purposes numbered consecutively Reach 1 – Reach 10. Reaches 1 through 8 are located in the City of San Clemente (see Figure 1).
The shoreline in the project area consists mainly of narrow, gently to moderately sloping sandy beaches backed by high coastal bluffs. This sandy beach grades into a foreshore consisting of cobble and gravel pockets at the water’s edge. At Mariposa point, located some 300 meters (980 feet) northwest of the San Clemente pier, off-shore rocks and boulders protrude from the high intertidal sand beach and become the dominant habitat type throughout the mid and low intertidal zones. The last extensive rocky intertidal habitat at Mariposa Point consists of a series of low-lying shale reef _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 2 platforms that begin mid-beach and extend into the subtidal zone along with individual high relief boulders.
The proposed borrow area for the beach replenishment is located approximately 35 kilometers (21 miles) downcoast of San Clemente Beach, approximately 1.7 kilometers (1 mile) north of Oceanside Harbor, Oceanside, California. See Plate 1 for a plan of the borrow area and Figure 18 for the areas to be nourished at San Clemente beach. _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 3 2 GEOLOGY
2.1 Regional Geology
The San Clemente area comprises a part of the western flank of the Peninsular Ranges Geologic Province of southern California. The bedrock exposures in the area are comprised of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene age. The bedrock formations both onshore and offshore consist of the San Mateo Formation, an arkosic sandstone of Pleistocene age; the Capistrano Formation, a series of silty shales, mudstones, siltstones, and coarse sandstones of late Miocene and early Pliocene age; and the San Onofre Breccia, a Miocene-age series of volcanic breccias, ash flows and tuffs derived from large landslides which occurred during volcanic eruptions, interbedded with layers of fine-grained volcanic ash deposited into fresh or salt water.
The western edge of the Peninsular Ranges Province is the irregular coastal plain. A series of eroded marine and non-marine terraces are prominently displayed on the coastal plain, which ranges in width from about 100 meters (a few hundred feet) to about 18 kilometers (30 miles). A series of sea cliffs have been eroded into these terraces by numerous cycles of submergence and emergence. A narrow beach has formed at the foot of these terraces.
The area offshore of San Clemente is a part of the Capistrano Bight, located at the eastern edge of the Gulf of Santa Catalina. This area is described as that part of the California coast known as the “Continental Borderland”, as there is no real continental shelf along this part of the coast. The area from Dana Point Harbor in Orange County downcoast to La Jolla in San Diego County is further defined as the “Oceanside Littoral Cell”. San Clemente beach is located in the extreme upper portion of this Littoral Cell.
Published information for the bedrock exposures of most of the offshore area, exclusive of San Clemente Beach and the Channel Islands, is sparse and is based upon scattered bottom samples and reconnaissance-type geophysical investigations.
2.2 San Clemente Beach Site Geology
At San Clemente Beach, marine erosion has formed a broad wave-cut terrace which extends back from the coastline and lies several meters above sea level. This relatively flat lying surface is cut mainly in rocks of the Capistrano Formation of late Miocene and early Pliocene age and is mantled with poorly consolidated non-marine alluvial cover of Holocene and Pleistocene age and marine terrace deposits of Upper Pleistocene age.
The non-marine cover consists of poorly bedded fine-grained sediments. The marine terrace deposits consist of poorly consolidated sands, sandstones and conglomerates.
The beach which begins at the foot of the wave-cut terrace is composed of fine to medium grained sands and silty sands. Because of various seasonal cycles of sand deposition and erosion, and the lack of adequate natural beach renourishment, the beach has eroded, and varies in width from 0 to 60 meters (0 to 200 feet). _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 4 Various bathymetric surveys, seismic surveys, sub-bottom profiling, side scan sonar surveys, and limited vibratory coring conducted offshore of San Clemente beach indicate that the ocean floor slopes gradually seawards from the shoreline to a depth of –33 meters (-100 feet) MLLW at a distance of about 1,500 meters (0.9 miles). The geophysical surveys further indicated that the ocean floor is a bedrock surface covered with a thin veneer of silty sand and sandy silt that varies in thickness from 0 meters to about 0.32 meters (1-foot) or more, out to a distance of 1,500 meters from the shoreline.
2.3 Seismicity
All of southern California including the San Clemente area is seismically active. There are several major NW-SE trending faults in both the onshore and the offshore areas east and west of San Clemente. The Whittier-Elsinore, Agua Caliente, San Jacinto and the San Andreas Fault zones are located approximately 32 kilometers (20 miles), 43 kilometers (27 miles), 64 kilometers (40 miles), and 100 kilometers (62 miles) northeast of San Clemente, respectively. The Newport-Inglewood–Rose Canyon Fault lies approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) offshore of the beach. The Palos Verdes Fault zone parallels the pacific coast offshore from the San Pedro – Long Beach area to La Jolla, and lies about 29 kilometers (18 miles) from the coastline. The San Clemente Island Fault zone lies approximately 88 kilometers (55 miles) offshore and is parallel to the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault zone. These three faults trend parallel to the onshore faults. The Christianitos Fault, which is the closest fault to the project area, trends NW-SE, and passes through the mountain ranges behind the San Clemente area and trends down San Mateo Creek and goes offshore to parallel the coastline near San Onofre in a southerly direction past Oceanside. The fault is located approximately 2 to 8 kilometers (1-5 miles) offshore of San Clemente beach. This well-studied fault is considered to be inactive. Any earthquakes caused by movement along these or other nearby faults would have little effect upon the new sand placed on the beach for replenishment.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 5 3 INVESTIGATIONS
Investigations to characterize the sediments offshore of San Clemente and Oceanside have been performed by: California Department of Boating and Waterways (1983); San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (1999); Fugro-West (2002); and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (1993, 2003).
3.1 California Department of Boating and Waterways (Osbourne, et al.,1983) In 1974, a sediment and shallow structural survey of the inner continental shelf of southern California was performed by USACE’s Los Angeles District Office. The objectives of this program were to characterize and map the distribution of sand deposits suitable for beach restoration and nourishment. The results of this study and additional published and unpublished reports formed the basis for Osbourne, et al. (1983). This study was a cooperative effort between numerous public and educational institutions (including USACE) to identify, locate, and characterize borrow areas for sand and gravel along the inner continental shelf of southern California. Potential borrow areas were selected using the following criteria: the deposit must lie at depths of no greater than 30 meters (98 feet), the limit of economic dredging, and no shallower than 9 meters (30 feet), the wave breaker zone; the areas should represent prospective sedimentary environments for sandy, low-fines sediments; and the sediments should not be too indurated for dredging. Area III of this report covers the coastline from Dana Point to San Mateo Point (the current Project Area). Area IV covers the Oceanside segment of the continental shelf from the mouth of the Santa Margarita River to just north of Batiquitos Lagoon. Much of the data used to analyze the San Diego shelf portion of the Southern California offshore sediments was supplied by a high resolution seismic and side-scan sonar study contracted by the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1979), and a 49-hole vibracore sampling program contracted to Ocean Survey, Inc. (1981) in the same area.
In 1979 the University of Southern California employed a private contractor, Meridian Ocean Systems, Inc., to sample a series of 10 vibracore holes, spaced 1.6 kilometers (one mile) apart from Dana Point downcoast to San Mateo Point (“Area III”). A thin cover of silty, very fine- to fine-grained Holocene sand with clayey silt laminae was found to overlie a dense, friable sandstone bedrock interpreted as the Miocene Vaqueros Formation. The results of this exploration program revealed that the shelf segment between Dana Point and San Mateo Point would not yield sediment deposits suitable for beach nourishment.
Two potential borrow sites were identified within Area IV: SD-I, offshore of Oceanside extending from the mouth of the Santa Margarita River to Oceanside Harbor, with an estimated maximum of 24.9 million cubic meters (32.6 million cubic yards) of suitable sand; and SD-II, located between the mouth of the San Luis Rey River and South Oceanside, with a maximum of 20.7 million cubic meters (27.1 million cubic yards) of _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 6 suitable sand. Five previous USACE vibratory core holes were identified within the vicinity of borrow area SD-I, and four were located within and adjacent to area SD-II.
3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993)
In 1993, USACE, Los Angeles District, conducted a study regarding the location, character, and volume of sand deposits suitable for future beach nourishment activities in the Carlsbad/Oceanside area. After a review of previous studies (chiefly Osbourne, et al., 1983, and Fischer, et al., 1983), an offshore vibratory coring investigation was conducted along the Carlsbad/Oceanside coast in June, 1993. Vibratory coring was performed in and around promising borrow sites identified in previous studies (Sites SDI, SD-II, and SD-III of Osbourne, et al., 1983), and additional cores were taken at 0.8-1.6 km (0.5-1 mile) intervals along the coast in an attempt to ensure that other significant deposits were not overlooked. Coastal Frontiers of Chatsworth, CA performed the sampling. Cores were obtained at 45 sites along the coast offshore from Batiquitos Lagoon (Site SD-III of Osbourne, et al.), Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, Buena Vista Lagoon, the San Luis Rey River (Site SD-II of Osbourne, et al.), Oceanside Harbor (Site SD-I of Osbourne, et al.), and the Santa Margarita River. Seafloor depths ranged from –10.0 to –18.9 meters (-33 to -62 feet) MLLW. From these cores, 128 representative samples were taken for grain size and gradation testing. Only 94 of these samples were actually analyzed, due to budgetary restraints. The results of this investigation indicated excellent beach replenishment material within previously-identified Sites SD-I,II, and III, and incompatible, excessively fine material along the intervening coastline. The vibratory core borehole locations are shown in plan view on Plate 1, and the sediment (soils) logs can be found in Attachment 4.
3.3 SANDAG (1999)
In an effort to identify borrow sources of beach compatible material offshore of San Diego County, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) instituted the San Diego Regional Sand Project. Based on a review of available historic investigations and literature review, SANDAG identified 10 possible offshore borrow sites adjacent to beaches requiring nourishment between Oceanside and the Mexican border. Potential borrow sites were selected using the following criteria: 1) the source must be located close to the beaches requiring sand nourishment; 2) the deposit must lie at depths of no greater than 24-27 meters (80-90 feet), the economic limit of offshore dredging, and no shallower than 9-15 meters (30-50 feet) of water, the “depth of closure” for seasonal bathymetric profile changes in the San Diego region; and 3) the sand must be suitable for beach replenishment based on guidelines specified by USACE. SANDAG contracted Sea Surveyor, of Benicia, California, to perform offshore surveys at each of these sites. Sea Surveyor conducted geophysical surveys using side scan sonar, a marine magnetometer, and shallow seismic sub-bottom profilers, and collected vibratory core sediment samples at the SANDAG borrow sites in January 1999. Subsamples from the cores were analyzed for lithology and grain size. Sediments from each of the SANDAG vibratory cores were collected for one bulk sediment chemistry sample _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 7 representing all of the San Diego County offshore sediment areas explored by SANDAG.
The SANDAG investigations included two beach compatible borrow sites offshore of Oceanside, labeled SO-9, located north of Oceanside Harbor (Site SD-I of Osbourne, et al., 1983), and SO-8, south of Oceanside Harbor and offshore of the San Luis Rey River (immediately south of Site SD-I, and north of Site SD-II of Osbourne, et al., 1983).
Site SO-9 is located offshore of the mouth of the Santa Margarita River at depths of -15 to -24 meters (-50 to -80 feet) MLLW. The site measured 915 m x 1,525 m (3,000 ft x 5,000 ft). Sea Surveyor (1999) notes that previous vibracore investigations found areas of suitable beach sand just inshore of Site SO-9, while a 1993 USACE study identified 1-2 ft of silty sand overlying poorly-graded medium sand with gravel in the area. Sea Surveyor conducted a geophysical survey over the site. Side-scan sonar data indicated the presence of eight artificial reef habitats, comprised of piles of quarry rock, on an otherwise featureless seafloor. These artificial reefs may represent obstructions to dredging. Twelve vibratory cores were drilled (SDG-1 through -12), ranging in penetration from 1.2 to 5.3 meters (4.0 to 17.3 feet). The mud line elevations of the holes varied from -14.6 to -18.0 meters (-48 to -59 feet) MLLW. Sea Surveyor identified a 0.9 to 4.0 meter (3-13 foot) thick layer of suitable fine- to medium-grained sand along the nearshore margin of Site SO-9. They calculated a volume of 0.7 million cubic meters (0.9 million cubic yards) for this material. The sand was overlain by a wedgeshaped layer of unsuitable fine-grained sandy silt ranging in thickness from 0 meters at the nearshore boundary of the site to about 3.0 meters (10 feet) in thickness in the central portion of the area.
Site SO-8 is located offshore of the mouth of the San Luis Rey River, approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) south of Site SO-9, at depths of -15 to -27 meters (-50 to -90 feet) MLLW. The site measured 1,220 m x 1,525 m (4,000 ft x 5,000 ft). Sea Surveyor (1999) noted that 2 cores in the area documented in Osbourne et al. (1983) contained marginal beach nourishment material, while only 1 out of 8 vibratory core holes completed by USACE in 1993 identified promising beach replenishment material. Sea Surveyor conducted a geophysical survey over the site. Side-scan sonar data indicated the presence of four debris piles aligned along the southeast border of the site. These debris piles may represent the remains of artificial reef habitats which may represent obstructions to dredging. Twenty-three (23) vibratory cores were drilled (SDG-13 through -35), ranging in penetration from 1.1 to 5.2 meters (3.6 to 17.1 feet). The mud line elevations of the holes varied from -16.3 to -21.3 meters (-53.5 to -70 feet) MLLW.
Site SO-8 identified 3.6 million cubic meters (4.7 million cubic yards) of fine-grained, somewhat silty sand which is suitable for beach nourishment purposes. The sand is located in the northeast portion of the site beneath 1.2 to 4.0 meters (4 to13 feet) of unsuitable sandy silt and silty sand.
See Plate 1 for the SANDAG vibratory core borehole locations for Sites SO-8 and SO-9 (proposed Borrow Site 2). See Attachment 5 for the SANDAG vibratory core sediment (soils) logs. See Table 4 for the gradation analyses of these holes. _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 8 3.4 Fugro-West (2002)
In June 2002, Fugro-West, Inc., of Ventura, California, performed a geophysical subbottom profile, side scan sonar and a multibeam bathymetric survey off the coast at San Clemente Beach for the Los Angeles District of the Corps of Engineers. The survey began at San Juan Creek near Dana Point (Capistrano Beach) and extended downcoast to San Mateo Point, a distance of approximately 14 kilometers (8.7 miles).
The survey began at the surf zone and concluded seaward at approximately 19 meters water depth (about 58 feet). The geophysical surveys were performed in order to determine if shallow bedrock existed on the ocean floor between the shoreline and 1.6 km (1 mile) seaward. The Subbottom Profile was conducted in order to delineate the stratigraphic conditions, the presence or absence of sandy materials, to delineate the boundaries separating the consolidated from the unconsolidated materials, and to define the depth to bedrock. The results of this survey indicate that the coastline surveyed consists of solid bedrock outcropping at the surface of the ocean floor closer to shore and an unconsolidated sediment surface oceanward and beyond the bedrock.
Measured perpendicular to shore, this bedrock swath ranges from 1,050 to 1,200 meters (23.3 to 37.2 miles) in horizontal extent from the nearshore. The unconsolidated sediment also ranges from 1,050 to 1,200 meters (3,346 to 3,936 feet) horizontal extent away from this swath, which means it is encountered approximately 3,346 feet offshore.
Grab samples were taken of the unconsolidated sediment during the survey and sent to a geotechnical laboratory to testing the engineering properties of the soils. The samples were collected at a depth of no greater than 7 centimeters or about 3 inches. The results indicate the surficial sediment is composed of fine sand (SP) and silt (ML). The thickness of the sediment gradually thickens oceanward to approximately 15 meters (48 feet). Vibratory core samples of the deeper sediment were not collected. The thickness and distribution of the bedrock and unconsolidated sediments are shown on figures 19 through 23, the isopach geology maps.
3.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003)
The objectives of the 2003 USACE investigations were to identify and designate an offshore borrow source of sand which could be used to nourish San Clemente Beach.
A database search was made to identify and collate existing data in the project area.
Thirty-five (35) vibracore holes from the SANDAG (1999) study were incorporated into the database, along with twenty-eight (28) holes from the USACE (1993) program. The holes were located and plotted using MicroStation graphics software. Location, elevation, lithology, and available gradation data were entered into a Geosystem geologic logging program database.
Two areas were selected for investigation: offshore of the beach at the City of San Clemente in Orange County, California (Borrow Area #1), and offshore of Oceanside, San Diego County, California (Borrow Area #2). Explorations were conducted in two separate phases, in January and in August.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 9 3.5.1 January Program
On 20-25 January 2003, vibratory core exploration for suitable beach replenishment material was undertaken in two separate locations: Offshore of the beach at the City of San Clemente in Orange County, California (Borrow Area #1), and offshore of Oceanside, San Diego County, California (Borrow Area #2). Group Delta Consultants of San Diego, California was the prime contractor for the job, while TEG Oceanographic Services of Santa Cruz, California performed the vibracoring work. A final report of project activities and results can be found in Group Delta, 2003 (Attachment 1). The locations of the borrow areas are shown in Figure 1 of Group Delta (2003).
San Clemente:
Five (5) vibratory core holes (SC-1,3,5,7,8) were sampled within Borrow Area #1. Sites were widely spaced, ranging from 1.1 km (0.7 miles) up to 4.0 km (2.5 miles) between holes. The test holes were placed at least 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) offshore in order to avoid the shallow bedrock indicated by the seismic survey. The elevations of the mudline at the holes varied from -17.7 meters (-54 feet) MLLW to -20.4 meters (62.2 feet) MLLW, considered to be the limit of economical dredging operations. Penetrated depths for the 5 holes ranged from 0.6 to 4.1 meters (2 to 13.5 feet), and averaged 2.7 meters (8.8 feet). A soft, dark gray, micaceous wackestone bedrock was encountered in 3 (possibly 4) of the holes causing vibracore refusal. Core recovery for the 5 holes was 100%.
The first area investigated, “Borrow Area #1”, is located approximately
0.6 kilometers (1 mile) offshore of San Clemente Beach (Attachment 1, Figure 2), and extends from just upcoast of the San Clemente Pier south to just offshore of San Mateo Point, a distance of approximately 10 kilometers (6.2 miles). A 10-hole vibracore program conducted by USC off of San Clemente Beach from Dana Point to the Santa Margarita River in 1979 failed to locate suitable sand for beach nourishment purposes.
The purpose of the 2003 USACE study was reconnaissance in nature, and consisted of spacing the new vibracore holes between the older USC holes in approximately the same area to see if suitable sand could be found in the areas which were unexplored.
The vibracore holes encountered silty, very fine-grained sands and sandy silts overlying bedrock at depths varying from 1.6 meters (5.1 feet) to 3.7 meters (12.2 feet). These materials proved to be too fine grained for beach nourishment purposes, verifying the earlier exploration results. Fifteen (15) samples for gradation analysis were taken, of which eight (8) were selected for analysis. See Table 2 for the gradation analyses, and Attachment 6 for the logs of these holes.
Oceanside: The second area investigated, “Borrow Area #2”, is located offshore of Oceanside Beach, and is situated between the mouths of the San Luis Rey and Santa Margarita Rivers (Attachment 1, Figure 3). The area is approximately 3 kilometers (2 miles) in length, and depths range from -7 m to -18 m (–25 ft to –60 ft) MLLW. A 1999 vibracore program conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) investigated two sites off of Oceanside (Sites SO-8 and SO-9) in which volumes of fineto medium-grained sand which are suitable for beach nourishment purposes were identified. Previous vibracore investigations also found areas of suitable beach sand _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 10 just inshore from these sites. Results of these programs were used to locate activities of the 2003 study.
Thirty (30) vibracore holes were completed at twenty-nine (29) sites by the Los Angeles District at Borrow Area #2 (one of the attempted vibracores became stuck in the sediment and was not recovered). The sampled area extends from Loma Alta Creek (in Oceanside) in the south to the mouth of the Santa Margarita River in the north. The exploration covered an area approximately 1,050 meters (3,200 feet) long and 394 meters (1,200 feet) wide, stretching from approximately 1,200 feet north of SANDAG’s Site SO-9, to about the midpoint of Site SO-8. Sampled ocean bottom depths ranged from 11.2 meters (34.2 feet) to 17.6 meters (53.7 feet) MLLW. Twenty-seven (27) sites were sampled, and another (SO9-30 and SO9-30A) was tried twice without success (armored with cobbles), and abandoned. Core recovery averaged 96% (excluding the lost core barrel), and 12 of the 29 holes reached the 6.1 meter (20 foot) target depth. 176 sediment samples were taken, and physical tests were performed on 91 of these samples. See Plate 1 for the Plan of Exploration, Table 5 for the gradation analyses, and Attachment 3 for the logs of these holes.
One sample for chemical analysis was collected at each of 25 sites within the limits of the outlined sand resource. These 25 site samples were combined into a single composite sample for chemical analysis. The results of this analysis (see Table 1) indicated no contaminants were present in the sediment.
Sampled materials encountered off of Oceanside were generally fine-medium grained sands with local silty intervals and minor amounts of shell fragments. Significant laterally discontinuous gravel/cobble beds and lenses were encountered throughout the area, but the thicknesses generally averaged 0.65 meters (2 feet) or less. Often the gravel intervals possessed supporting dense silty sand material, which acted as a “pavement” holding the cobbles tightly, making the core penetration difficult. No bedrock was encountered. The preponderance of the sampled material within Borrow Area No.2 was beach-compatible.
3.5.2 August Program
The January 2003 USACE vibratory core program conducted off of Oceanside (“Borrow Area #2”) identified a resource of fine- to medium-grained sand which is suitable for beach nourishment purposes. This program confirmed, consolidated, and expanded areas of beach-compatible sand located by previous investigations off of Oceanside by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (1999) and USACE (1993).
In 21-26 August, 2003, an additional vibratory core exploration for suitable beach replenishment material was undertaken offshore of Oceanside. The objectives of this investigation were to determine if there was a sufficient amount of suitable sand for beach replenishment programs at both San Clemente and Oceanside, and to further expand and to infill data gaps in the offshore borrow source of sand which was identified in January.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 11 The sampled area is located between the mouths of the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey Rivers, and covers an area approximately 3.1 kilometers (1.9 miles) in length, and
1.4 kilometers (0.9 miles) in width. Sea Surveyor, Inc. of Benicia, California performed the vibracoring work, utilizing a pneumatic Alpine vibracore to collect sediment cores.
Twenty-six (26) vibratory core holes were drilled, ranging in penetration from 2.9 meters (9.5 feet) to 6.1 meters (20.0 feet), and averaging 4.2 meters (13.7 feet). Core recovery for the 26 holes was 73%. Only 1 out of 32 drilling attempts reached the 6.1 meter (20 foot) target depth (although 32 holes were cored, only 26 of these were retained and sampled. Discarding of cores was due to poor recovery, or refusal at unacceptably shallow depths. In all cases, a retry at the same location was attempted, while the first attempt was saved. The longest recovered core of the two attempts was retained and assigned a hole number, and the other sample was discarded). The mudline elevations of the holes varied from -11.1 meters (-36.4 feet) to -17.4 meters (-57.1 feet) MLLW.
Eighty-five (85) sediment samples from these sites were taken for grain size and gradation analysis. See Plate 1 for the Plan of Exploration, Table 6 for the gradation analyses, and Attachment 2 for the logs of the exploratory vibracore holes. _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 12 4 LABORATORY TESTING
4.1 Physical Testing
Physical testing consisted of grain size analysis and Atterberg Limits determination.
Laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 422-63, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils and Atterberg Limits were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-98, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. Based on the test results, the sediments were classified in accordance with ASTM D 2487-98, Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).
4.1.1 1993 USACE Explorations
Ninety-four (94) samples were run for physical analysis at the USACE, Waterways Experiment Station. Partial results of these tests are presented in Table 3.
4.1.2 1999 SANDAG Explorations
MEC Analytical Systems’ laboratory located in Carlsbad, California conducted all physical testing for SANDAG’s 1999 explorations. The results of these tests are presented in the borehole soils logs (Attachment 5) and tabulated in Table 4.
Petrographic analysis of two samples collected from each of the borrow areas was performed at California State University, Northridge by Dr. Peter Fischer, Professor of Geology.
4.1.3 2003 USACE Explorations
The Los Angeles District Soils Laboratory located in El Monte, California conducted all physical testing for the 2003 explorations. The results of the January program are presented in Appendix C of Group Delta (2003), and tabulated in Table 5 of this report.
The results of the August program are listed in Table 6.
4.2 Bulk Sediment Chemistry Testing
4.2.1 1999 SANDAG Study
The sediments were analyzed for their chemical constituents according to guidelines provided in the Ocean Disposal Manual (USEPA/USACE 1991) and the California Ocean Plan using analytical methods accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A single sample for chemical analysis was composited from multiple vibratory cores from each of the 10 borrow sites explored by SANDAG. The chemical analysis was performed by Pacific Treatment Analytical Service.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 13 4.2.2 2003 USACE Study
As part of the January explorations, sediment samples for chemical analysis were collected from each hole at Borrow Area No.2 according to EPA protocol by TEG personnel. Borrow Area No.1 was not sampled, as the recovered sediments were too fine for beach replenishment purposes. One sample was collected at each site, except for sites SO9-17 and SO9-21, which were composed of unacceptably silty materials, and lay beyond the limits of the outlined sand resource. Sampled lengths were the entire length of recovered core. The 25 individual samples were combined at the chemical laboratory into a single composite sample of the site for chemical analysis.
Compositing was not done on-site so as to minimize the loss of volatiles, and possible contamination resulting from open-air mixing. The composite sample was analyzed by CRG Laboratories of Torrance, California. A full tabulation of results can be found in Appendix D of the Group Delta report (Attachment 1). Table 1 is a summary of the results of the chemical analysis of these samples.
Since the August USACE sampling program merely infilled and marginally expanded the January project area, and no contaminants in those sediments were identified, it was determined that additional chemical sampling would not be necessary (Mr. Stephen John, EPA, personal communication).
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 14 5 ANALYSES
5.1 General
These analyses address the geotechnical characteristics of the sediment, the sediment compatibility, the approximate quantity of compatible borrow material (sediment) and the dredgeability of the sediment. The geotechnical descriptions are based on results of the laboratory physical tests. The compatibility of the borrow materials with the receiving beach materials is based on particle gradation and chemical concentrations. The dredgeability is qualitatively based on particle size gradation and in-situ density, as indicated by the rate of penetration of the vibratory corer.
5.2 Geotechnical Descriptions
The composite gradations are based on materials encountered at locations where the vibratory core holes were drilled. The composite gradations are meant to characterize an area; however, since there is the possibility of variation of materials between vibratory core holes, the composite gradation can vary. Since the soil stratigraphy of this area is a delta or riverbed deposit, localized pockets of materials containing appreciable fines (i.e. silts and clays) should be expected during construction operations. In addition, cobble sized material and moderately cemented seashells can be expected to be encountered in any borrow site in this area.
5.2.1 Proposed Borrow Area No. 1 (San Clemente)
Five vibracore holes (SC-1,-3,-5,-7, and -8) were completed within Borrow Area No.1, and fifteen sediment samples were taken from these holes. On-site logging of the cores suggested that no beach-compatible sands had been recovered. Therefore, in an effort to reduce sample analysis costs, eight of the fifteen samples were selected for analysis at the USACE lab in El Monte. One representative hole (SC-1) was selected for analysis. Also, hole SC-8 off of San Mateo Point was selected as the best chance for possessing suitable sandy material. Holes SC-3, SC-5, and SC-7 were not analyzed.
The results of these tests are tabulated in Table 2.
Sampled materials encountered off of San Clemente (Borrow Site No.1) were generally greenish-gray, silty, very fine-grained sands and sandy silts with minor amounts of shell fragments. One of the holes (SC-8) possessed disseminated coarse sand and a few pebbles up to 20 mm in the otherwise fine-grained sediment. The unconsolidated sediments were underlain by a soft, dark gray, micaceous wackestone bedrock in three, or possibly four of the holes.
Group Delta (2003) reported that the samples show an average of 0.9% gravel, 51.5% sand and 47.6% fines passing the #200 sieve. The median grain size (D50) of the material is 0.09 millimeters (0.004 inches). The data show that the sampled area off of San Clemente Beach does not contain suitable beach replenishment material. _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 15 5.2.2 Proposed Borrow Area No. 2 (Oceanside)
A total of fifty-three (53) vibratory boreholes were sampled by USACE in 2003 within Borrow Area No.2 (Plate 1). Twenty-seven (27) of these vibratory core holes (SO9-1-3, -5, -7-8, -11, -13-22, -24, -26-29, -31-33, and SO9-40-41) were sampled in the January program, and twenty-six (26) of the core holes (O-1 through O-26) were sampled in the August program. Two to five samples were collected per core for a total of 267 samples (182 samples were collected in January, and 85 samples were collected in August). 176 of the 267 sediment samples taken were run for gradation analysis at the USACE lab in El Monte. All 85 of the samples obtained in August were analyzed. In an effort to reduce sample analysis costs during the January program, a total of 91 out of the total 182 samples were selected for analysis. The criteria used to make this selection included the following:
1) Two holes, SO9-17 and SO9-21, contain silty material and are outside the limits of the explored area of sandy material. These holes were not analyzed. 2) If fine materials were encountered in the bottom of the hole, these samples were eliminated.
3) One representative sample was selected from each (visually) homogeneous logged unit in every hole. If a discrete unit possessed more than one sample, only one of these samples was analyzed.
Tables 5 and 6 show the results of gradation testing on the 2003 samples. The fines content (percent of material passing the 0.075 millimeter (U.S. number 200) sieve) of the materials encountered throughout all of the boreholes ranges from 2% to 41%. The calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 8.0% and the D50 is
0.218 millimeters (0.009 inches). Tables 5 and 6 reconstruct the data where samples were not analyzed using the field description and insertion of a similarly described interval from a nearby hole, or expansion of the adjoining sample data within a homogeneous unit. Tables 5 and 6 also include weighted averages for each test boring.
The sampled materials were generally fine-grained sands with local silty intervals and minor amounts of shell fragments. Significant gravel/cobble beds and lenses were encountered throughout the area, but the thicknesses generally averaged 0.65 meters (2 feet) or less. Often the gravel intervals possessed supporting dense silty sand material which acted as a “pavement” holding the cobbles tightly, making the core penetration difficult. Shell and shell fragments were encountered throughout the area.
See Figures 2-9 for cross sections through the borrow area. See Plate 1 for the locations of the cross section profiles.
The sediments encountered in the vibratory core explorations show broad scale bedding characteristics. In general, the sediments, to a depth of about 6 meters (20 feet), can be classified into three layers: an upper, surface silt to silty sand layer; a thin _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 16 underlying gravel layer; and a thick lower unit composed of sand, with local gravel-rich lenses. These three units are not everywhere present, and show considerable variability in thickness.
The upper silty sand layer is generally 0-1 meter (0-3.3 feet) thick, but thickens considerably along the northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern margins of the site, effectively delimiting the these boundaries of the borrow area. Available data suggests that sediments at dredgeable depths to the north, west, and south of this line are predominately silty sands and silts. In general, the upper silty sand unit ranges from 15-55% fines, and averages around 35% fines.
The uppermost silty sand layer is often underlain by a gravel-rich layer ranging from 0-
2.6 meters (0-8.5 feet) in thickness. Where the silty sand layer is not present, the gravel unit is commonly exposed at the surface. This unit ranges from sand with gravel to gravel with sand to sand with gravel to pebbly sand.
Lying beneath (but sometimes interfingered with) the gravel is sand. This unit is highly variable, but generally consists of “beach sand” with fines compositions ranging from 2- 4% fines. This sandy layer often contains disseminated pebbles, and interbeds and discontinuous lenses of pebble and cobble concentrations.
Often cobbles, pebbles, and silt are present in the upper 1-2 meters (3.3-6.6 feet) of the borings. Taken as a unit, this material is not beach-compatible. However, it is recommended that the full depth be dredged as a unit, as this would mix the materials, and the resultant overall gradation would be acceptable. Since the vibratory core sample barrel cannot sample clasts with diameters greater than 7.6 cm (3 inches), the maximum size of cobbles (boulders?), as well as the distribution of these clasts is unknown. It is likely that the overall percentage of cobbles and gravel is underrepresented in the gradation data. These unknown variables may adversely affect dredging and pumping operations.
5.2.3 Receiving Beach.
In order to determine the compatibility of dredged material with the receiving beach, gradation analysis of the onshore and offshore beach profiles is required. To characterize the potential receiving beaches, eight transects were sampled by USACE from 25 to 27 July 2005. Each transect consisted of collecting surface grab samples between -10 m MLLW and either +4 or +6 m MLLW in 2 m elevation increments.
Samples were tested by the Los Angeles District Soils Laboratory for grain size and plasticity. Samples were predominately poorly graded sands and poorly graded sands with silt. Some silty sand and sandy silt was also present, primarily at the deeper, offshore elevations. Many of the offshore samples also had indications of hard, rocky bottom.
The data from two transects sampled by Moffatt and Nichol (2004) were also included in the compatibility analysis. The surface grab samples were collected between -10 and +4 m MLLW in 2 m elevation increments.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 17 The transect locations are shown on Figure 1. The grain size data are shown in Table
7. 5.3 Delineation of Borrow Area 2
The borrow site was defined by grouping together boreholes that were likely to be compatible (sediment containing generally 11% or less fines passing the 0.075 millimeter (U.S. number 200) sieve) with the receiving beach sediments. Boreholes with excessive fines compositions located along the edge of the borrow site were excluded from the borrow area, while boreholes with excessive fines located in the interior of the borrow site were included. The composite gradation for the borrow area was calculated for six different dredge depths: 1 meter, 2 meters, 3 meters, 4 meters, 5 meters, and 6 meters.
1 meter dredge depth: The fines content (percent of material passing the
0.075 millimeter (U.S. number 200) sieve) of the materials encountered throughout all of the boreholes down to a depth of 1 meter ranges from 1% to 40% (see Table 8-a). The calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 12.3%, with 7.8% gravel + cobbles, and the D50 is 0.207 millimeters (0.008 inches). 2 meters dredge depth: The fines content of the materials encountered throughout all of the boreholes down to a depth of 2 meters ranges from 1% to 28% (see Table 8-b).
Holes which did not reach at least 1.8 meters were not included in the calculations. The calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 8.3%, with 6.5% gravel + cobbles, and the D50 is 0.217 millimeters (0.009 inches).
3 meters dredge depth: The fines content of the materials encountered throughout all of the boreholes down to a depth of 3 meters ranges from 1% to 20% (see Table 8-c).
Holes which did not reach at least 2.4 meters were not included in the calculations. The calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 6.8%, with 6.6% gravel + cobbles, and the D50 is 0.220 millimeters (0.009 inches).
4 meter dredge depth: The fines content of the materials encountered throughout all of the boreholes down to a depth of 4 meters ranges from 1% to 16% (see Table 8-d).
Holes which did not reach at least 3.2 meters were not included in the calculations. The calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 6.4%, with 5.4% gravel + cobbles, and the D50 is 0.223 millimeters (0.009 inches).
5 meters dredge depth: The fines content of the materials encountered throughout all of the boreholes down to a depth of 5 meters ranges from 2% to 15% (see Table 8-e).
Holes which did not reach at least 4.0 meters were not included in the calculations. The calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 5.7%, with 4.3% gravel + cobbles, and the D50 is 0.226 millimeters (0.009 inches).
6 meters dredge depth: The fines content of the materials encountered throughout all of the boreholes down to a depth of 6 meters ranges from 2% to 12% (see Table 8-f).
Holes which did not reach at least 5.5 meters were not included in the calculations. The _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 18 calculated fines content of the composite gradation is 5.7%, with 4.3% gravel + cobbles, and the D50 is 0.219 millimeters (0.009 inches).
5.4 Grain Size (Physical) Compatibility
5.4.1 Guidelines
The Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers has established quantitative guidelines for the compatibility of dredge material to receiving beach material. First, a grain size distribution envelope of the receiving beach material is developed showing finest and coarsest limits from the 19.0 to the 0.075-millimeter (¾-inch to U.S. number 200) sieves.
Next, a composite gradation curve is developed for the dredge materials, where a composite gradation is defined as the mean gradation of all the types of materials found in the designated area. Dredge material with a composite gradation curve that plots within the limits of the receiving beach material envelope is considered to be compatible with the receiving beach material. In addition, materials are considered compatible when: (1) dredge material is coarser than the coarse limit curve of the receiving beach material if not restricted by aesthetic or environmental reasons; and, (2) material passing the 0.075 millimeter (U.S. number 200) sieve exceeds the finer limit by a maximum of 10 percent.
5.4.2 Borrow Material and Receiving Beach Compatibility The gradation limits for each of the San Clemente beach reaches were determined along with the composite gradations for different cut depths of the proposed Borrow Area 2 and are listed in Tables 9-a through 9-h. The gradation limits and the proposed borrow source composite gradations are plotted on Figures 10-17. For the entire project gradation limits (the limits associated with all the transect data), each of the proposed borrow composites plot within the envelope or near the coarse gradation limit.
All of the composite borrow gradations plot within, or very near, each of the individual San Clemente reaches’ limits. Exceptions that did not plot within the limits tended to occur in the gravel, coarse and medium sand sizes, with the borrow composites being slightly coarser. The composite borrow gradations tended to be coarser than the composite beach gradation, especially in the gravel, coarse sand, fine sand, and fines size ranges.
The average median grain size diameter (D50) of the proposed borrow is relatively consistent, varying from 0.21 to 0.23 mm, which is slightly coarser than the average D50 of 0.17 mm for the entire San Clemente shoreline project. The borrow D50 is generally larger than the individual San Clemente reaches (ranging from 0.12 to 0.17 mm), except for Reach 1 that has an average D50 of 0.31 mm and Reach 4 that has an average D50 of 0.22 mm. The proposed borrow has fines contents that decrease with depth, ranging from 12 percent with a 1 m cut down to 5 percent with a 6 m cut. This compares favorably with the entire project average of 11 percent and the individual receiving beach averages that vary from 7 to 15 percent fines. The typical sediment properties are shown in Table 10.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 19 5.4.3 Overfill Factor
The overfill factor is the estimated number of cubic meters of borrow material required to produce 1 cubic meter of beach material when the beach is in a condition compatible with the native material. The Overfill Factor was calculated in accordance with EM 1110-2-1100 (USACE, 2002) to provide an indication of the quality as beach fill of each of the proposed cut depths for the proposed Borrow Area 2 with respect to each individual beach reach and for the entire project overall. For the entire project, the Overfill Factor ranged from 1.21 for a 1 m cut in the borrow area down to 1.00 for a 6 m cut. Individual reach values ranged significantly from 1.87 to 1.00, but were typically below 1.25. In general, this indicates, for an Overfill Factor of 1.25, that 1.25 cubic meters of borrow sediment will be required to create 1.0 cubic meter of stable beach.
See Table 11 for all of the calculated Overfill Factors and backup data.
Based on this analysis, an Overfill Factor of 1.10 should be used in the design if the proposed Borrow Area 2 is utilized. Furthermore, the Contractor should be required to concentrate his excavation in one area until it has been cut to a depth of at least 4 m, with a preferred cut depth of 6 m, locally.
5.5 Chemical Compatibility of Sediments
5.5.1 SANDAG (1999)
Sediments from each of the SANDAG vibratory cores were collected for one bulk sediment chemistry sample. This sample was later added to sediment samples collected from upcoast explored sites to form one composite chemistry sample. This one composite bulk sediment chemistry sample represented all of the San Diego County offshore sediment areas explored by SANDAG. The full chemical results from this composite sample can be found in Appendix B of SANDAG (1999). Total organic carbon concentrations in the sediments ranged from 0.017 to 0.216%. Total sulfides ranged from 0.2 to 1.1 mg/Kg and dissolved sulfides were mostly non-detectable.
Concentrations of pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or phenol were also not found. Concentrations of metals, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc were detected.
5.5.2 USACE (2003)
Cores collected from Borrow Area No.2 by USACE in 2003 were analyzed for contaminants. The analytical results are summarized and compared to the Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) in Table 1. Total organic carbon concentration was 0.15 percent. Contaminant concentrations of metals, pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, Phthalates, and phenols were non-detectible to low, and contaminant concentrations were below Effective Range - Low (ER-L) and Effective Range - Median (ER-M) concentrations. No DDT or Chlorinated Pesticides were detected in the sample.
The Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) referred to above are based on PSSDA SL/MLs and NOAA ERL/ERMs. Since SQGs have not been developed for southern _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 20 California, these are used as an initial, informal evaluation to determine the need for further Tier II or Tier III testing.
The bulk chemistry data indicated that chemicals detected within the sediments at Borrow Site No.2 are at very low levels and do not exceed the maximum SQGs.
Therefore, the borrow source sediments appear suitable for placement at the receiving beach.
5.6 Sediment Volume Analysis
5.6.1 Borrow Area No.2
A preliminary estimate of the volume of beach-compatible material was computed for the proposed borrow area off of Oceanside. The volume was calculated for a 4.5 meter (15-foot) dredge depth, except in the deeper (seaward) portions of the area, where the bottom of the calculated volume was -19.7 meters (-60 feet) MLLW. The upper (nearshore) limit was -8.2 meters (-25 feet) MLLW. The northern, western and southern limits are delineated by increasingly silty (incompatible) materials. The western margin is not constrained by material composition, only by depth. Using these criteria, an approximate calculation yields approximately 15,650,000 cubic meters (20,500,00 cubic yards) of beach-compatible material.
Subsequent volume calculations using different dredge depths must take into account the layered nature of the sediments. Many locations within the proposed borrow area possess a 0.3-1.5 m (1-5 ft) layer of silty sand at the surface. This material contains roughly 20-30% fines. If the bottom of the volume calculation is raised, this will have the effect of increasing the fines percentage of the remaining material. This may result in not only less material due to a shallower dredge depth, but also may decrease the area of the borrow area.
The 4.5 m (15 ft) dredge depth calculation is well supported by drill data, however, there are limited areas in which borings do not reach this depth. In these cases, surrounding drill data is adequate to provide a compelling geologic interpretation to fill the data gap.
A second volume calculation was made using a 3 m (10 ft) dredge depth, and focusing on the best available contained material (avoiding gravel and silty areas). An area measuring 2,400 ft. x 2,400 ft. was identified to fit the initial required borrow quantity (1,000,000-2,000,000 m3
). This area (the western half of Borrow Area No.2) contains 1,631,000 m3 (2,130,000 yd3) of onshore beach-compatible material.
5.6.2 Borrow Area No.2A
A second volume calculation was made using a 3 m (10 ft) dredge depth, and focusing on the best available contained material (avoiding gravel and silty areas). An area measuring 2,400 ft. x 2,400 ft. was identified to fit the initial required borrow quantity (1,000,000-2,000,000 m3
). This area (the north square shaped area inside of Borrow _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 21 Area No.2) contains 1,631,000 m3 (2,130,000 yd3) of onshore beach-compatible material (plate 2).
5.6.3 Receiving Beach
The Corps of Engineers recommended beach fill volumes for this project are approximately 192,000 m3 (251,126 yd3
) per beach placement cycle, lasting a total of
nine cycles. The total sediment volume required is approximately 1,728,000 m3 (2,260,134 yd3). Thus, the sediment volumes for borrow site no. 2 is approximately 15,650,000 m3 (20,500,000 yd3) and, of that volume, no. 2A has a volume of approximately 1,631,000 m3 (2,130,000 yd3
), which is sufficient for the recommended
project alternative.
5.7 Dredgeability
Based on the investigation results to date, the sediments within the proposed borrow area can be dredged with either hydraulic cutter head or mechanical dredges. Hopper dredges are the least preferred method because they would not obtain adequate blending of the sediments. In general, the sediments near the surface are finer and get coarser with depth; therefore, a hopper dredge would tend to produce fine fills during the initial placements. Cutter head and mechanical dredges can collect sediments throughout the depth of the dredge prism, creating a mixture of the finer upper sediments and the coarser deeper sediments throughout the duration of dredging.
Relative densities within the proposed borrow areas range from very loose to very dense, typically increasing from very loose to loose at the surface and increasing quickly to dense and very dense with depth. Sediments are primarily medium to fine sands with minor silt and gravel, with a D50 averaging approximately 0.21-
0.23 millimeters (0.008-0.009 inches).
During the 2003 USACE explorations in proposed Borrow Area No.2, the vibratory corer penetration ranged from 0.61 to 6.1 meters (2 to 20 feet) with an average penetration of
4.5 meters (15 feet). The recommended maximum depth of dredging is 4.5 meters, or 15 feet, for the borrow area, which should be dredged in a single pass of the dredge.
Materials deeper than 4.5 meters are not well characterized, owing to the paucity and widespread nature of vibratory core data at these depths. Dredging to depths greater than 4.5 meters may result in the placement of incompatible materials on the beach.
Localized areas within the borrow area have been identified for dredging to depths of greater than 4.5 meters, up to a maximum of 6 meters depth.
Dredging in this area will encounter varying quantities of gravels, cobbles, and small boulder size materials, which may be significant in localized areas. If localized areas of significant quantities of these materials are encountered, dredging should be moved to a new location. Occasional trash, debris, and organic materials, including varying quantities of loose seashells and moderately cemented seashells will also be encountered and will have some detrimental effects on dredge production. _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 22 No CPT testing has been performed within the proposed borrow area. The dense, silty, gravel/cobble-rich layers encountered throughout the study area might present difficulties for excavation; however, thicknesses generally averaged 0.6 m (2 ft) or less.
Often the gravel intervals possessed supporting dense silty sand material which acted like a “pavement”, holding the cobbles tightly, making core penetration difficult. Even the loose, clean, sandy intervals often possess disseminated cobbles and pebbles. In addition, the size distribution, and maximum size, of cobbles is unknown, and these factors may affect dredgeability, as well as aesthetics of the receiving beach.
As noted in Section 2.3, side-scan sonar surveys conducted by Sea Surveyor (1999) over SANDAG Sites SO-9 and SO-10 indicated the presence of artificial reef habitats, comprised of piles of quarry rock, on the seafloor. All of these identified artificial reef habitats lie outside of the boundaries of the presently delineated Borrow Area No.2, in deeper waters, from -17 m (-56 ft) to -21 m (-70 ft) MLLW.
The general geology and sediment stratigraphy for Borrow Area No. 2 was re-evaluated in 2008 and as a result, a smaller sub-borrow material within this area has been designated. This sub-borrow area is 2A and represents the optimum location for encountering smaller percentages of coarser materials such as gravels and cobbles (plate 2).
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 23 6 DREDGING ACTIVITIES
The SANDAG investigations offshore of Oceanside in 1999 located two sources of beach-compatible material, their Site SO-9, located north of Oceanside Harbor, and Site SO-8, south of Oceanside Harbor and offshore of the San Luis Rey River. SANDAG later removed some of the material in water deeper than 15.2 meters (50 feet) and placed the material on various portions of the beach in Oceanside and vicinity. _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 24 7 SUMMARY
Investigations to characterize the offshore sediments within the vicinity of San Clemente and Oceanside Beaches have been performed by: California Department of Boating and Waterways (1983); San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (1999); Fugro-West (2002); and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993, 2003).
In 2003, USACE Geotechnical Branch conducted explorations to identify and designate an offshore borrow source of sand which could be used to nourish San Clemente Beach. Two areas were selected for investigation: offshore of the beach at the City of San Clemente in Orange County, California (Borrow Area #1), and offshore of Oceanside, San Diego County, California (Borrow Area #2). Sampled materials encountered off of San Clemente (Borrow Area No.1) in 2003 were generally a thin layer of unconsolidated silty, very fine-grained sands and sandy silts underlain by a sandy siltstone bedrock. These sediments do not represent suitable beach replenishment materials.
USACE sampled a total of fifty-three (53) vibratory boreholes within Borrow Area No.2 in 2003. The sediment within Borrow Area No.2 consists of beachcompatible fine grained sands and with local silty intervals and minor amounts of shell fragments. Significant gravel/cobble beds and lenses were encountered throughout the area, with thicknesses generally averaging 0.65 meters (2 feet) or less.
In July 2005, to characterize the potential receiving beaches, USACE sampled San Clemente Beach along eight transect lines, at elevations of -10, -8, -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, and +4 meters (-33, -26, -20, -13, -6.5, 0, 6.5 and 13 feet) MLLW.
Samples were predominately poorly graded sands and poorly graded sands with silt.
The bulk sediment chemistry test results of the sediments within Borrow Area No.2 show that contaminant concentrations of metals, pesticides, PCBs, Phthalates, PAHs, DDT, and phenols were non-detectible to low, and contaminant concentrations were below ER-L concentrations. The sediments to be dredged from Borrow Area No.2 are thus acceptable for placement on San Clemente Beach.
2A, the smaller sub-borrow material area within Borrow Area 2 has been identified and marked on plate 2. This area represents materials that are expected to be composed mostly of fine sands and lesser percentages of coarser materials, such as gravels and cobbles.
A preliminary estimate of the volume of beach-compatible material was computed for Borrow Area No.2. Approximately 1,650,000 m3 (20,500,000 yd3 )
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 25 of near-shore beach-compatible material was calculated using a 4.5 m (15 ft) dredge depth. This material is suitable for near-shore placement at San Clemente Beach.
The Corps of Engineers recommended beach fill volumes for this project are approximately 192,000 m3 (251,126 yd3
) per beach placement cycle, lasting a
total of nine cycles. The total sediment volume required is approximately 1,728,000 m3 (2,260,134 yd3). Thus, the sediment volumes for borrow site no. 2 is approximately 15,650,000 m3 (20,500,000 yd3
) and, of that volume, no. 2A has
a volume of approximately 1,631,000 m3 (2,130,000 yd3
), which is sufficient for
the recommended project alternative.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 26 8 RECOMMENDATIONS
Borrow Area No.2, dredged to a 4.5 m (15 ft) depth, is the recommended alternative for providing beach compatible materials. The discrete sub-area of Borrow Area No.2A should be first dredged as part of any future dredging events from Borrow Area 2.
Hydraulic Cutterhead or mechanical dredging methods are preferred because they will ensure blending of the sediments throughout the total dredge depth.
Dredging to full project depth is required to ensure proper blending of the stratified sediment found within the borrow area. Hopper dredge methods are least preferred because the initial hopper loads transported to the project from the surface of the borrow area will contain higher fines contents and subsequent loads may vary significantly. However, other considerations, primarily the distance of the borrow area from the receiving beach; make the use of a Hopper dredge economically and operationally justified. Therefore, if hopper methods are used, the sequences should be offset, i.e. cuts should be excavated as deep as possible within a specific prism before moving on to an adjacent prism. This will ensure that the stratified sediments from within the borrow area are blended to the maximum using this method. Cutterhead methods are more efficient than Hydraulic methods when blending of stratified sediments is required. Borrow Area 2A is the optimum location and its footprint should be dredged first as part of any future dredging of materials within borrow area No. 2. _____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 27 9 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 422-63 (Re-approved 1998), Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, “Annual Book of ASTM Standards", Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 2487-98, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), “Annual Book of ASTM Standards”, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 2488-93, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), “Annual Book of ASTM Standards”, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 4318-98, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, “Annual Book of ASTM Standards”, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
Fischer, P.J., Kreutzer, P.A., Morrison, L.R., Rudat, J.H., Ticken, E.J., Webb, J.F., and Woods,
M.W., 1983. Study of Quaternary Shelf Deposits (Sand and Gravel) of Southern California. Prepared for the State of California, Department of Boating and Waterways,
Sacramento, CA, 1 June 1983.
Fugro-West, Inc., 2002. Final Report of Geophysical, Subbottom Profile, Side Scan Sonar and Multibeam Bathymetric Survey, Orange County, California, Volumes 1 and II, Ventura, California. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, July 2002.
Group Delta Consultants, 2003. Vibracore Exploration Program, San Clemente Beach Shoreline, Orange and San Diego Counties, California. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 21 May 2003, with 5 appendices.
Moffatt & Nichol, 2004. San Clemente Beach Gradations, Linda Lane and North Beach Sample Profiles. Prepared for City of San Clemente, 2004.
Ocean Survey, Inc., 1981. Coring Survey, Offshore Coast of Southern California.
Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, 17 pp., 1981.
Osbourne, R.H., Darigo, N.J., and Schneidemann, R.C., Jr., 1983. Report of Potential Offshore
Sand and Gravel Resources of the Inner Continental Shelf of Southern California.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 28 Prepared for the State of California, Department of Boating and Waterways, Sacramento,
CA, June 1983.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2000. San Diego Regional Beach Sand
Project – Draft EIR. Prepared for SANDAG and U.S. Department of the Navy, March
2000.
Sea Surveyor, Inc., 1999. San Diego Regional Beach Sand Project Offshore Sand Investigations,
Final Report. Prepared for San Diego Association of Governments, April 1999.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, undated. Requirements for Sampling, Testing, and Data Analysis of Dredged Material. Report prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, undated.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993. Final Report, Beach Nourishment Sources Along the Carlsbad/Oceanside Coast in San Diego County, California. Report prepared by U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, November, 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993. Geotechnical Factors in the Dredgeability of Sediments, Report 1. Report prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999. GMS, Ground Water Modeling System, Version
3.1. Program prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1999.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1100.
Manual prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 30 April, 2002.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004. San Clemente Shoreline Feasibility Study, Orange County, California, F-3 Without Project Conditions Draft Report, Appendix A – Geotechnical Report. Report prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, June, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Draft Regional Implementation Agreement (RIA) for the Evaluation of Dredged Material for Ocean Disposal, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, 13 April 1993.
_____________________________________________________ ____ Geotechnical Engineering Appendix 29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991. Evaluation of Dredge Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal – Testing Manual. EPA 503/8-91/001, February 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the United States – Testing Manual. EPA-823-B-98-004, February 1998.
Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1979. Southern California Seismic Survey, Final Report on Contract No. DACW72-C-0032. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, 1979.
TABLES
Table 1.—San Clemente Shoreline Project – Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample: Chemical Results
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Sample Testing Results (3)
ERL ERM SL ML
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit/
Detection
Li
mit Units (2) (Long et al., 1999) (PSDDA, 1998)
PHYSICAL/CONVENTIONALS
Total Solids (dry weight) EPA 160.3 0.1 % 75.1 75.2 Total Volatile Solids SM 2540-E 0.1 % 0.62 0.6pH EPA 150.1 0.1 pH units 8.31 8.3 Ammonia-N SM 4500-NH3 F 0.01 mg/L 0.63 0.6 Total Organic Carbon (dry weight) Plumb,1981 EPA
415.1 0.01 % 0.15 0.09
Dissolved Sulfides SM 4500-S2 D 0.002 mg/L ND NDOil and Grease EPA 1664 0.1 mg/L ND ND TPH-Diesel EPA 8015m 0.25 mg/kg ND ND
TPH-Motor Oil EPA 8015m 0.25 mg/kg ND NDTRPH EPA 415.1 0.1 mg/kg ND ND METALS
Aluminum (Al) EPA 6020 1 mg/kg 5840 5960Antimony (Sb) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 15 200 0.1 0.1 Arsenic (As) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 8.2 70 57 700 1.43 1.37 Barium (Ba) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 33.7 32.5
Beryllium (Be) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 0.11 0.12
Cadmium (Cd) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 1.2 9.6 5.1 14 0.03 0.02 Chromium (Cr) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 81 370 9.11 10.4 Cobalt (Co) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 1.6 1.59 Copper (Cu) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 34 270 390 1,300 2.53 2.52 Iron (Fe) EPA 6020 1 mg/kg 6580 6470Lead (Pb) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 46.7 218 450 1,200 0.86 0.89 Manganese (Mn) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 90.2 94.6 Mercury (Hg) EPA 6020 0.005 mg/kg 0.15 0.71 0.41 2.3 0.03 0.03 Molybdenum (Mo) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 0.41 0.55 Nickel (Ni) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 20.9 51.6 140 370 3.69 4.25 Selenium (Se) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 0.25 0.26 Silver (Ag) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 1 3.7 6.1 8.4 0.02 0.01 Strontium (Sr) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 25.1 24.6 Thallium (Tl) EPA 6020 0.01 mg/kg 0.08 0.08
Tin (Sn) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 0.5 0.57
Titanium (Ti) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 755 791
Vanadium (V) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 19.7 19.6 Zinc (Zn) EPA 6020 0.05 mg/kg 150 410 410 3,800 13.6 13.2 Table 1.—San Clemente Shoreline Project – Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample: Chemical Results
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Sample Testing Results (3)
ERL ERM SL ML
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit/
Detection
Limit Units (2) (Long et al., 1999) (PSDDA, 1998)
ORGANICS
PESTICIDES
Total Chlorinated Pesticides (4) ug/kg 5.22 62 56.9 69.0 Aldrin EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND NDalpha BHC EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDalpha-Chlordane EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND ND beta-BHC EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDdelta-BHC EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDDieldrin EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 0.02 8.0 10 ND ND Endosulfan I EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDEndosulfan II EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDEndosulfan Sulfate EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND Endrin EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Endrin Aldehhde EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDgamma-BHC Lindane EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND ND gamma-Chlordane EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND
Heptachlor EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 10 ND NDHeptachlor Epoxide EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND Methoxychlor EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDMirex EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDToxaphene EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND NDTrans-Nonachlor EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDTotal DDT (5) EPA 8270 ug/kg 1.58 46.1 6.9 69.0 00 2,4'-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND2,4'-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND2,4'-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND4,4'-DDD EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 1.0 7.0 ND ND4,4'-DDE EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 2.2 27 ND ND4,4'-DDT EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 2.0 20 ND ND
ORGANOTINS
Total Organotins (4) ug/kg 0 0
Monobutyltin Krone, et al. 1989 1 ug/kg ND NDDibutyltin Krone, et al. 1989 1 ug/kg ND NDTributyltin Krone, et al. 1989 1 ug/kg ND ND Tetrabutyltin Krone, et al. 1989 1 ug/kg 0.15 (7) ND ND 2 Table 1.—San Clemente Shoreline Project – Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample: Chemical Results
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Sample Testing Results (3)
ERL ERM SL ML
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit/
Detection
Limit Units (2) (Long et al., 1999) (PSDDA, 1998)
PHTHALATES
Total phthalates (4) ug/kg 23,170 8.4 8.8 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 8,300 8.4 8.8 Butyl benzyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 970 ND NDDiethyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 1,200 ND NDDimethyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 1,400 ND NDDi-n-butyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 5,100 ND ND Di-n-octyl phthalate EPA 8270 5 ug/kg 6,200 ND ND
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB)
Total PCBs (4) ug/kg 22.7 180 130 3,100 0 0
Aroclor 1016 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND NDAroclor 1221 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND NDAroclor 1232 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND NDAroclor 1242 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND NDAroclor 1248 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND NDAroclor 1254 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND NDAroclor 1260 EPA 8270 10 ug/kg ND ND
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS HYDROCARBONS (PAH)
Total PAHs (4) ug/kg 4,022 44,792 0 0
1-Methylnaphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND1-Methylphenanthrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND ND2-Methylnaphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 70 670 670 1,900 ND NDAcenaphthene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 16 500 500 2,000 ND NDAcenaphthylene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 44 640 560 1,300 ND NDAnthracene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 85.3 1,100 960 13,000 ND NDBenzo(a)anthracene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 261 1,600 1,300 5,100 ND NDBenzo(a,e)pyrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 430 1,600 1,600 3,600 ND NDBenzo(b)fluoranthene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 1,600 4,950 ND NDBenzo(k)fluoranthene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 1,600 4,950 ND ND 3 Table 1.—San Clemente Shoreline Project – Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample: Chemical Results
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Sample Testing Results (3)
ERL ERM SL ML
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit/
Detection
Limit Units (2) (Long et al., 1999) (PSDDA, 1998)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 670 3,200 ND NDBiphenyl EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDChrysene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 384 2,800 1,400 21,000 ND NDDibenzo(a,h)anthracene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 63.4 260 230 1,900 ND NDFluoranthene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 600 5,100 1,700 30,000 ND NDFluorene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 19 540 540 3,600 ND NDIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 600 4,400 ND NDNaphthalene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 160 2,100 2,100 2,400 ND NDPerylene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg ND NDPhenanthrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 240 1,500 1,500 21,000 ND ND Pyrene EPA 8270 1 ug/kg 665 2,600 2,600 16,000 ND ND
PHENOLS
Total Phenols ug/kg 1582 5777 0 02,4,6-Trichlorophenol EPA 8270 50 ug/kg 29 210 ND ND2,4-Dichlorophenol EPA 8270 50 ug/kg 29 210 ND ND2,4-Dimethylphenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg 29 210 ND ND2,4-Dinitrophenol EPA 8270 200 ug/kg 29 210 ND ND2-Chlorophenol EPA 8270 50 ug/kg ND ND2-Methy-4,6-dinitrophenol EPA 8270 500 ug/kg ND ND2-Nitrophenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND ND4-Chloro-3-methyphenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND ND4-Nitrophenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND NDPentachlorophenol EPA 8270 50 ug/kg 400 690 ND NDPhenol EPA 8270 100 ug/kg ND ND 4 5
Table 1.—San Clemente Shoreline Project – Borrow Area #2 Sediment Composite Sample: Chemical Results
Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)
Sample Testing Results (3)
Analytical
Method (1)
Method
Reporting
Limit/
Detection
Limit Units (2) ERL ERM SL ML
Notes:(1) Analytical Method EPA = United States Environmnetal Protection Agency EPA Methods are EPA SW-846, 1994 3rd Edition or EPA 600/4-79-020, March 1983 APHA = American Public Health Association
APHA Method is APHA Standard Methods, 18th Edition, 1992 Plumb = Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples. Tech Rep. USEPA/CE-81, Russell H.
Plumb, Jr., 1981.
(2) Units: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, parts per million (dry weight unless otherwise noted) ug/kg = micrograms per kilogram, parts per billion (dry weight unless otherwise noted) (3) ND = not detected in this analysis or less than Method Reporting Limit value for the particular compound(s) of interest (4) Total Chlorinated Pesticides, Total Organotins, Total Phthalates, Total PCBs, Total PAHs, and Total Phenols = sum of named compounds and their derivatives
(5) Total DDT = sum of 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDD; and 4,4'-DDT Table 2: SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.1 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (JANUARY, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI SC-1 0.00 0.61 0.61 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 98 98 98 97 97 96 69 44 32 SM Silty Sand SC-1 0.61 1.83 1.22 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 97 80 47 30 SM Silty Sand SC-1 1.83 2.74 0.91 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 99 97 77 53 37 ML Sandy Silt SC-1 2.74 3.66 0.92 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 96 82 60 46 ML Sandy SiltSC-1 3.66 4.11 0.45 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 91 43 21 14 n/p SM Silty Sand SC-1 0.00 4.11 4.11 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 96 74 48 34 SM Silty Sand SC-3 0.00 0.61 0.61 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SC-5 0.00 0.91 0.91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SC-5 0.91 1.83 0.92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SC-5 1.83 2.74 0.91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SC-5 2.74 3.72 0.98 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SC-5 3.72 3.81 0.09 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS SC-5 0.00 3.81 3.81
SC-7 0.00 0.91 0.91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SC-7 0.91 1.55 0.64 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SC-7 1.55 1.83 0.28 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS SC-7 0.00 1.83 1.83
SC-8 0.00 0.91 0.91 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 97 90 67 45 ML Sandy Silt SC-8 0.91 2.13 1.22 100 100 100 98 97 96 95 94 92 87 80 75 73 66 53 43 ML Sandy Silt SC-8 2.13 3.05 0.92 100 98 93 90 88 86 84 80 75 67 54 47 45 42 36 31 SM Silty Sand SC-8 0.00 3.05 3.05 100 99 98 96 95 94 93 91 89 85 78 73 72 66 52 40 ML Sandy Silt Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 NOTE: NA = Not Analyzed; NS = Not Sampled
NO. TOP BOT SIEVE
OS-1 3.05 5.79 2.74 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-2 0.30 0.61 0.31 33 SM Silty Sand
OS-3 2.74 4.11 1.37 19 SM Silty Sand
OS-5 0.00 0.30 0.30 1 GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand OS-5 1.98 4.42 2.44 9 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt OS-8 3.05 4.27 1.22 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
Table 3 (1 of 3): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (1993)
DEPTH THICKNESS % FINER
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) #200 CLASSIFICATION
OS-1 0.00 0.30 0.30 24 SM Silty Sand
OS-1 0.30 1.52 1.22 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-1 1.52 3.05 1.53 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-1 0.00 5.79 5.79 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-2 0.00 0.30 0.30 34 SM Silty Sand
OS-2 0.61 5.18 4.57 0 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-2 0.00 5.18 5.18 4 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-3 0.00 0.30 0.30 18 SM Silty Sand
OS-3 0.30 2.74 2.44 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-3 4.11 5.18 1.07 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-3 5.18 5.49 0.31 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-3 0.00 5.49 5.49 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt OS-4 0.00 0.46 0.46 15 SM Silty Sand
OS-4 0.46 0.98 0.52 0 GW-GM Well Graded Gravel With Silt And Sand OS-4 0.98 1.22 0.24 3 GP Poorly Graded Gravel
OS-4 0.00 1.22 1.22 6 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel And Silt OS-5 0.30 1.37 1.07 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-5 1.37 1.98 0.61 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-5 4.42 5.79 1.37 64 ML Sandy Silt
OS-5 0.00 5.79 5.79 19 SM Silty Sand
OS-6 0.00 0.30 0.30 21 SM Silty Sand With Gravel
OS-6 0.30 4.57 4.27 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-6 0.00 4.57 4.57 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-7 0.00 2.13 2.13 15 SM Silty Sand
OS-7 2.13 3.66 1.53 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-7 0.00 3.66 3.66 10 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt OS-8 0.00 3.05 3.05 28 SM Silty Sand
NO. TOP BOT SIEVE
OS-11 3.35 4.88 1.53 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-23 0.00 0.30 0.30 21 SM Silty Sand
OS-24 0.00 0.30 0.30 21 SM Silty Sand
OS-24 0.00 2.59 2.59 80 ML Sandy Silt
OS-26 0.61 2.13 1.52 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
Table 3 (2 of 3): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (1993)
DEPTH THICKNESS % FINER
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) #200 CLASSIFICATION
OS-11 0.00 0.30 0.30 15 SM Silty Sand With Gravel
OS-11 0.30 0.61 0.31 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-11 0.61 3.35 2.74 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-11 0.00 4.88 4.88 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-22 0.00 0.46 0.46 24 SM Silty Sand
OS-22 0.46 0.85 0.39 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-22 0.85 1.89 1.04 19 SM Silty Sand
OS-22 1.89 3.26 1.37 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-22 3.26 3.51 0.25 4 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-22 0.00 3.51 3.51 10 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt OS-23 0.30 2.13 1.83 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-23 2.13 3.35 1.22 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-23 0.00 3.35 3.35 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-24 0.30 2.04 1.74 100 CL Clay
OS-24 2.04 2.44 0.40 64 ML Sandy Silt
OS-24 2.44 2.59 0.15 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-25 0.00 1.74 1.74 19 SM Silty Sand
OS-25 1.74 2.04 0.30 4 GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand OS-25 2.04 2.65 0.61 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-25 0.00 2.65 2.65 13 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt And Gravel OS-26 0.00 0.30 0.30 26 SM Silty Sand
OS-26 0.30 0.61 0.31 5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt And Gravel OS-26 2.13 3.96 1.83 39 SM Silty Sand
OS-26 3.96 4.57 0.61 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-26 0.00 4.57 4.57 19 SM Silty Sand
OS-32 0.00 0.76 0.76 21 SM Silty Sand
OS-32 0.76 5.18 4.42 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-32 0.00 5.18 5.18 4 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel NO. TOP BOT SIEVE
OS-36 3.11 4.21 1.10 64 ML Sandy Silt
OS-37 4.36 5.70 1.34 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-39 2.44 3.66 1.22 87 ML Silt
OS-40 0.00 0.37 0.37 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-41 0.00 1.52 1.52 40 SM Silty Sand
OS-41 0.00 4.36 4.36 67 ML Sandy Silt
OS-43 1.22 2.74 1.52 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel OS-43 2.74 3.05 0.31 1 GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand OS-44 0.61 3.35 2.74 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-44 0.00 3.35 3.35 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt Note: Italicized entries are values for a different interval with similar visually-logged characteristics (interval not analyzed) Table 3 (3 of 3): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (1993)
DEPTH THICKNESS % FINER
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) #200 CLASSIFICATION
OS-36 0.00 3.11 3.11 39 SM Silty Sand
OS-36 0.00 4.21 4.21 46 SM Silty Sand
OS-37 0.00 4.36 4.36 39 SM Silty Sand
OS-37 0.00 5.70 5.70 30 SM Silty Sand
OS-38 0.00 2.23 2.23 21 SM Silty Sand
OS-39 0.00 0.24 0.24 39 SM Silty Sand
OS-39 0.24 1.68 1.44 21 SM Silty Sand
OS-39 1.68 2.44 0.76 21 SM Silty Sand
OS-39 3.66 4.05 0.39 40 SM Silty Sand
OS-39 0.00 4.05 4.05 44 SM Silty Sand
OS-40 0.37 1.43 1.06 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-40 1.43 2.10 0.67 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-40 0.00 2.10 2.10 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-41 1.52 3.35 1.83 100 CL Clay
OS-41 3.35 3.87 0.52 87 ML Silt
OS-41 3.87 4.36 0.49 10 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt OS-42 0.00 0.91 0.91 40 SM Silty Sand
OS-42 0.91 2.61 1.70 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
OS-42 0.00 2.61 2.61 15 SM Silty Sand
OS-43 0.00 0.61 0.61 11 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt And Gravel OS-43 0.61 1.22 0.61 51 ML Sandy Silt
OS-43 0.00 3.05 3.05 13 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt And Gravel OS-44 0.00 0.61 0.61 32 SM Silty Sand
SDG-1 0.00 2.26 2.26 15 6 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel And Silt SDG-2 0.00 2.80 2.80 3 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
SDG-3 0.00 1.43 1.43 1 27 SM Silty Sand
SDG-5 1.83 2.50 0.67 22 30 SM Silty Sand With Gravel
SDG-6 3.96 4.66 0.70 20 8 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt And Gravel SDG-7 1.83 2.13 0.30 14 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
SDG-8 1.83 2.74 0.91 0 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-9 0.76 1.37 0.61 0 50 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-10 1.83 3.05 1.22 0 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
SDG-10 3.05 4.18 1.13 0 5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-10 0.00 4.18 4.18 0 25 SM Silty Sand
Table 4 (1 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 SANDAG VIBRACORE HOLES (1999)
DEPTH THICKNESS %GRAVEL % FINER
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) #200 CLASSIFICATION
NO. TOP BOT SIEVE
SDG-1 0.00 1.22 1.22 1 10 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-1 1.22 2.26 1.04 32 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SDG-2 0.00 1.62 1.62 5 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand
SDG-2 1.62 2.80 1.18 0 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand
SDG-3 0.00 0.61 0.61 0 52 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-3 0.61 1.43 0.82 1 8 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-4 0.00 1.07 1.07 0 51 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-4 1.07 1.37 0.30 5 26 SM Silty Sand
SDG-4 1.37 3.84 2.47 0 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand
SDG-4 0.00 3.84 3.84 0 17 SM Silty Sand
SDG-5 0.00 1.83 1.83 0 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-5 0.00 2.50 2.50 6 13 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-6 0.00 1.04 1.04 0 11 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-6 1.04 3.96 2.92 0 10 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-6 0.00 4.66 4.66 3 10 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-7 0.00 1.83 1.83 1 54 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-7 0.00 2.13 2.13 3 47 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-8 0.00 1.22 1.22 0 57 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-8 1.22 1.83 0.61 0 56 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-8 2.74 5.27 2.53 32 1 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SDG-8 0.00 5.27 5.27 15 21 SM Silty Sand With Gravel
SDG-9 0.00 0.76 0.76 0 64 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-9 1.37 3.41 2.04 0 14 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-9 0.00 3.41 3.41 0 32 SM Silty Sand
SDG-10 0.00 1.83 1.83 0 53 ML Sandy Silt
NO. TOP BOT SIEVE
SDG-11 0.00 4.39 4.39 1 45 SM Silty Sand
SDG-12 0.00 3.32 3.32 0 45 SM Silty Sand
SDG-13 3.96 5.03 1.07 4 6 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-14 3.66 5.03 1.37 0 9 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-15 3.05 5.21 2.16 0 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-16 2.13 3.05 0.92 4 13 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-17 0.00 3.05 3.05 1 54 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-18 0.00 1.22 1.22 0 66 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-19 0.00 1.22 1.22 0 64 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-20 0.00 2.29 2.29 0 64 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-20 2.29 3.35 1.06 0 43 SM Silty Sand
SDG-20 3.35 4.97 1.62 0 8 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-20 0.00 4.97 4.97 0 41 SM Silty Sand
Table 4 (2 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 SANDAG VIBRACORE HOLES (1999)
DEPTH THICKNESS %GRAVEL % FINER
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) #200 CLASSIFICATION
SDG-11 0.00 1.52 1.52 0 63 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-11 1.52 3.05 1.53 2 30 SM Silty Sand
SDG-11 3.05 4.39 1.34 0 43 SM Silty Sand
SDG-12 0.00 1.22 1.22 0 81 ML Silt With Sand
SDG-12 1.22 3.32 2.10 0 24 SM Silty Sand
SDG-13 0.00 2.44 2.44 0 17 SM Silty Sand
SDG-13 2.44 3.96 1.52 0 57 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-13 0.00 5.03 5.03 1 27 SM Silty Sand
SDG-14 0.00 2.44 2.44 0 49 SM Silty Sand
SDG-14 2.44 3.66 1.22 1 14 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-14 0.00 5.03 5.03 0 30 SM Silty Sand
SDG-15 0.00 1.68 1.68 0 53 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-15 1.68 3.05 1.37 0 33 SM Silty Sand
SDG-15 0.00 5.21 5.21 0 29 SM Silty Sand
SDG-16 0.00 2.13 2.13 1 50 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-16 3.05 4.88 1.83 0 8 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-16 0.00 4.88 4.88 1 27 SM Silty Sand
SDG-17 3.05 3.99 0.94 0 6 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-17 0.00 3.99 3.99 1 43 SM Silty Sand
SDG-18 1.22 3.72 2.50 1 54 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-18 0.00 3.72 3.72 1 58 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-19 1.22 3.99 2.77 0 52 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-19 3.99 4.27 0.28 6 5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-19 0.00 4.27 4.27 0 52 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-23 0.00 2.99 2.99 0 55 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-24 0.00 4.42 4.42 0 53 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-25 0.00 3.05 3.05 3 24 SM Silty Sand
SDG-26 0.00 4.72 4.72 4 39 SM Silty Sand
SDG-27 0.00 3.44 3.44 0 51 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-28 0.00 3.72 3.72 0 47 SM Silty Sand
SDG-29 0.00 2.96 2.96 0 55 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-30 0.00 3.51 3.51 0 51 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-31 0.00 3.35 3.35 0 48 SM Silty Sand
Table 4 (3 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 SANDAG VIBRACORE HOLES (1999)
DEPTH THICKNESS %GRAVEL % FINER
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) #200 CLASSIFICATION
NO. TOP BOT SIEVE
SDG-21 0.00 1.83 1.83 1 54 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-21 1.83 4.15 2.32 0 9 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-21 0.00 4.15 4.15 0 29 SM Silty Sand
SDG-22 0.00 1.98 1.98 0 58 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-22 1.98 2.90 0.92 0 18 SM Silty Sand
SDG-22 2.90 5.18 2.28 0 5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-22 0.00 5.18 5.18 0 28 SM Silty Sand
SDG-23 0.00 2.29 2.29 0 67 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-23 2.29 2.99 0.70 0 16 SM Silty Sand
SDG-24 0.00 2.44 2.44 0 66 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-24 2.44 4.42 1.98 0 38 SM Silty Sand
SDG-25 0.00 0.91 0.91 0 58 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-25 0.91 3.05 2.14 4 9 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-26 0.00 3.05 3.05 0 58 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-26 3.05 4.72 1.67 10 4 SP Poorly Graded Sand
SDG-27 0.00 2.74 2.74 0 58 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-27 2.74 3.44 0.70 0 23 SM Silty Sand
SDG-28 0.00 2.74 2.74 0 61 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-28 2.74 3.72 0.98 0 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-29 0.00 2.13 2.13 0 73 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-29 2.13 2.96 0.83 0 8 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SDG-30 0.00 1.68 1.68 0 67 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-30 1.68 3.51 1.83 0 36 SM Silty Sand
SDG-31 0.00 2.13 2.13 0 61 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-31 2.13 3.35 1.22 1 24 SM Silty Sand
Table 4 (4 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 SANDAG VIBRACORE HOLES (1999)
DEPTH THICKNESS %GRAVEL % FINER
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) #200 CLASSIFICATION
NO. TOP BOT SIEVE
SDG-32 0.00 1.83 1.83 0 53 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-32 1.83 3.02 1.19 0 60 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-32 0.00 3.02 3.02 0 56 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-33 0.00 1.10 1.10 0 56 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-34 0.00 1.19 1.19 0 54 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-35 0.00 1.22 1.22 1 58 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-35 1.22 1.86 0.64 0 60 ML Sandy Silt
SDG-35 0.00 1.86 1.86 1 59 ML Sandy Silt
Table 5 (1 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (JANUARY, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI SO9-1 0.00 2.13 2.13 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 91 55 31 16 12 9 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-1 2.13 3.05 0.92 100 97 91 89 88 88 88 87 87 87 73 28 13 8 6 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-1 3.05 5.58 2.53 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 95 70 22 8 4 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-1 0.00 5.58 5.58 100 100 99 98 98 98 97 97 97 95 79 36 18 9 7 6 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-2 0.00 1.53 1.53 100 100 93 84 80 77 77 76 76 74 54 16 5 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-2 1.53 3.05 1.53 70 55 52 51 51 51 51 51 51 49 31 10 4 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-2 0.00 3.05 3.05 85 78 73 68 66 64 64 64 64 62 43 13 5 2 2 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-3 0.00 2.74 2.74 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 94 44 12 5 3 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-3 2.74 4.11 1.37 100 100 96 95 94 94 93 93 92 87 41 11 5 4 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-3 4.11 4.57 0.46 93 81 80 79 79 78 78 76 74 68 31 8 4 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-3 0.00 4.57 4.57 99 98 97 96 96 95 95 95 94 89 42 11 5 3 3 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-5 0.00 2.83 2.83 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 94 90 66 21 7 4 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-5 2.83 6.10 3.27 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 61 11 3 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded SandSO9-5 0.00 6.10 6.10 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 94 63 16 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-7 0.00 1.52 1.52 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 93 62 28 17 13 10 7 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-7 1.52 2.13 0.61 94 78 72 69 67 66 65 64 63 62 56 48 42 33 22 10 n/p SM Silty Sand With Gravel SO9-7 2.13 2.74 0.61 62 39 30 28 27 26 25 25 24 23 17 9 6 5 4 2 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-7 2.74 3.96 1.22 95 93 90 89 89 89 88 88 88 84 52 18 7 5 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-7 0.00 3.96 3.96 92 85 82 81 80 80 79 78 78 75 51 25 16 12 9 5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt An SO9-8 0.00 1.83 1.83 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 93 77 45 17 7 5 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-8 1.83 3.05 1.22 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 94 79 55 27 10 4 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-8 3.05 4.27 1.22 100 100 100 97 86 79 77 73 61 44 22 8 3 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-8 4.27 4.88 0.61 89 67 11 8 7 7 7 7 6 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel SO9-8 0.00 4.88 4.88 99 96 89 88 85 83 82 80 71 54 30 11 4 3 3 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-11 0.00 0.46 0.46 53 38 32 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 23 9 5 3 2 1 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-11 0.46 5.03 4.57 100 100 98 97 96 96 95 94 94 91 71 28 11 6 6 5 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-11 0.00 5.03 5.03 96 94 92 91 90 90 89 88 88 85 67 26 10 6 6 5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-13 0.00 0.76 0.76 97 92 90 89 89 89 88 88 88 87 55 16 7 5 4 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-13 0.76 1.52 0.76 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 67 18 5 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded SandSO9-13 1.52 2.29 0.77 100 95 93 93 92 92 92 92 92 90 60 14 4 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-13 2.29 4.57 2.28 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 95 66 21 7 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-13 0.00 4.57 4.57 100 98 97 96 96 96 96 96 95 93 63 18 6 3 3 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-14 0.00 0.91 0.91 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 90 57 24 13 8 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-14 0.91 1.83 0.92 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 89 50 20 10 6 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-14 1.83 2.74 0.91 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 91 77 39 17 9 6 5 5 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-14 2.74 3.41 0.67 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 92 84 69 37 17 9 6 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-14 3.41 3.96 0.55 100 100 100 98 95 89 83 76 69 58 35 16 8 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-14 0.00 3.96 3.96 100 100 100 100 99 98 96 94 89 79 45 19 10 6 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 5 (2 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (JANUARY, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI SO9-15A 0.00 0.46 0.46 80 74 70 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 60 35 21 17 16 14 n/p SM Silty Sand With Gravel SO9-15A 0.46 5.79 5.33 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 78 27 9 4 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-15A 0.00 5.79 5.79 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 97 96 77 28 10 5 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-16 0.00 0.31 0.31 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 99 97 88 76 60 41 26 n/p SM Silty Sand SO9-16 0.30 1.83 1.53 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 94 35 10 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-16 0.00 1.83 1.83 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 95 44 21 13 9 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-18 0.00 2.13 2.13 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 97 96 92 75 35 16 5 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-18 2.13 2.74 0.61 91 89 88 88 88 87 87 85 82 78 60 20 5 2 1 1 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-18 2.74 3.66 0.92 100 100 100 99 99 98 95 89 78 70 53 19 5 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-18 3.66 4.27 0.61 88 81 77 74 72 69 65 57 42 27 13 5 3 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-18 4.27 5.94 1.67 100 98 98 98 98 97 97 96 93 83 46 13 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-18 5.94 6.10 0.16 77 49 23 19 18 18 17 17 17 16 11 4 1 0 0 0 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-18 0.00 6.10 6.10 97 95 94 93 93 92 91 88 84 76 54 21 9 3 2 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-19 0.00 0.46 0.46 38 22 20 19 17 16 14 13 12 11 8 4 2 2 1 1 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-19 0.46 1.07 0.61 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 95 90 62 20 9 6 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-19 1.07 2.74 1.68 100 89 82 78 76 75 74 73 71 66 40 13 7 5 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-19 2.74 3.05 0.31 48 37 32 30 29 29 28 28 27 25 16 4 2 1 1 1 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-19 3.05 3.66 0.61 79 64 61 59 58 58 57 57 56 53 36 11 4 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-19 0.00 3.66 3.66 84 74 70 67 66 65 64 63 61 58 37 12 6 4 3 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-20 0.00 2.13 2.13 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 88 33 11 4 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-20 2.13 2.90 0.77 98 95 94 93 93 92 92 92 92 91 80 45 21 7 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-20 2.90 3.20 0.30 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 93 65 34 13 7 5 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-20 0.00 3.20 3.20 100 99 99 98 98 97 97 97 97 96 87 39 16 6 4 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-22 0.00 1.07 1.07 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 96 94 92 88 85 59 34 22 n/p SM Silty Sand SO9-22 1.07 1.68 0.61 100 100 98 96 95 93 92 90 87 84 72 56 47 38 27 21 n/p SM Silty Sand SO9-22 1.68 2.13 0.45 57 52 48 47 47 46 46 45 45 44 36 23 17 13 11 9 n/p GP-GM Poorly Graded Gravel With Silt And SO9-22 2.13 3.96 1.83 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 93 81 68 41 18 7 3 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-22 3.96 6.10 2.14 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 91 74 30 8 5 4 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-22 0.00 6.10 6.10 97 96 96 96 95 94 94 91 85 74 49 31 25 17 12 9 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-24 0.00 0.61 0.61 100 100 90 78 72 67 64 61 59 55 43 26 17 14 12 9 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-24 0.61 2.13 1.52 57 52 48 47 47 46 46 45 45 44 36 23 17 13 11 9 n/p GP-GM Poorly Graded Gravel With Silt And SO9-24 2.13 3.05 0.92 89 84 84 84 83 83 83 83 82 80 65 30 11 5 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-24 3.05 3.96 0.91 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 96 90 67 24 9 5 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-24 0.00 3.96 3.96 81 78 75 73 71 70 70 68 67 65 51 25 14 9 8 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt An SO9-26 0.00 0.76 0.76 100 100 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 83 54 40 24 15 9 n/p SM Silty Sand SO9-26 0.76 1.07 0.31 53 38 32 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 23 9 5 3 2 1 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-26 1.07 1.52 0.45 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 62 16 6 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded SandSO9-26 1.52 3.35 1.83 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 76 23 7 4 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded SandSO9-26 3.35 3.96 0.61 90 78 72 68 67 65 64 63 61 58 37 16 7 5 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-26 0.00 3.96 3.96 95 92 90 89 89 88 88 88 87 86 66 26 13 8 6 4 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 5 (3 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (JANUARY, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI SO9-27 0.00 3.35 3.35 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 71 19 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-27 3.35 4.57 1.22 100 97 94 93 93 93 93 93 92 89 66 18 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-27 4.57 5.18 0.61 98 97 95 93 92 90 88 82 72 52 19 5 2 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-27 5.18 6.10 0.91 98 96 96 96 96 96 95 94 91 78 28 8 4 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-27 0.00 6.10 6.10 100 99 98 97 97 97 97 95 94 87 58 16 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-28 0.00 0.31 0.31 53 38 32 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 23 9 5 3 2 1 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-28 0.31 0.46 0.15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 94 89 86 82 ML Silt SO9-28 0.46 1.22 0.76 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 94 69 29 11 8 7 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-28 1.22 5.79 4.57 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 79 29 7 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-28 0.00 5.79 5.79 98 97 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 94 74 29 9 7 5 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-29 0.00 2.44 2.44 100 100 100 99 98 97 97 97 96 95 67 25 13 7 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-29 2.44 3.35 0.91 75 74 73 72 72 72 72 71 71 69 54 18 6 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-29 3.35 5.64 2.29 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 85 27 8 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-29 0.00 5.64 5.64 96 96 96 95 95 94 94 94 94 92 72 25 10 5 4 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-31 0.00 1.52 1.52 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 97 94 75 28 11 8 6 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-31 1.52 2.44 0.92 100 100 98 97 97 96 96 96 95 94 81 36 12 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-31 2.44 3.05 0.61 66 54 51 50 50 49 49 49 49 49 47 26 8 3 2 2 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-31 3.05 4.88 1.83 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 84 32 12 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-31 4.88 6.10 1.22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 90 32 11 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-31 0.00 6.10 6.10 97 95 95 94 94 94 94 94 93 92 79 31 11 5 3 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-32 0.00 0.46 0.46 100 100 100 99 98 97 96 94 93 91 82 71 66 58 40 24 n/p SM Silty Sand SO9-32 0.46 0.91 0.46 46 31 25 23 22 21 20 20 19 18 13 8 6 5 4 2 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-32 0.91 6.10 5.18 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 87 49 19 6 3 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-32 0.00 6.10 6.10 96 95 94 94 94 94 93 93 90 82 49 22 10 7 6 4 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-33 0.00 0.61 0.61 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 88 33 11 4 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-33 0.61 0.91 0.30 53 38 32 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 23 9 5 3 2 1 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-33 0.91 1.83 0.92 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 82 34 13 5 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-33 1.83 3.66 1.83 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 95 76 31 11 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-33 3.66 5.18 1.52 100 100 100 100 99 98 98 97 96 93 75 30 11 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-33 5.18 5.64 0.46 100 97 96 83 77 76 76 75 74 72 56 24 9 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-33 5.64 6.10 0.46 53 38 32 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 23 9 5 3 2 1 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand SO9-33 0.00 6.10 6.10 94 92 91 90 89 89 89 88 87 85 70 28 10 4 3 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-40 0.00 0.61 0.61 100 100 100 98 96 91 88 85 81 75 53 25 14 8 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt SO9-40 0.61 1.52 0.91 75 65 56 51 47 43 39 34 29 25 15 6 2 1 1 1 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-40 1.52 3.35 1.83 100 97 95 93 89 84 77 66 56 47 32 13 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-40 3.35 4.57 1.22 100 100 98 97 97 96 94 88 70 46 20 6 3 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-40 4.57 5.18 0.61 100 97 93 90 87 83 77 68 58 46 25 7 2 1 1 1 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-40 5.18 5.49 0.31 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 96 89 46 10 3 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-40 0.00 5.49 5.49 96 93 90 88 85 81 77 70 60 48 29 11 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 5 (4 of 4): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (JANUARY, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI SO9-41 0.00 1.83 1.83 100 100 100 99 98 96 95 93 90 86 66 28 12 4 1 1 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-41 1.83 2.29 0.46 100 74 64 61 60 60 59 58 56 51 34 13 5 2 2 1 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-41 2.29 2.90 0.61 89 85 85 85 85 84 84 83 79 71 45 14 4 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel SO9-41 2.90 4.88 1.98 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 87 69 29 7 3 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand SO9-41 0.00 4.88 4.88 99 96 95 94 94 92 92 90 84 74 45 16 7 3 2 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Note: Italicized entries are values supplied from a different interval with similar visually-logged characteristics (interval not analyzed)If core loss occurs at top of hole, analyzed value for the first recovered interval is projected to the surface Table 6 (1 of 3): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (AUGUST, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI O-1 0.00 0.67 0.67 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 94 89 85 67 39 25 SM Silty Sand O-1 0.67 1.52 0.85 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 95 73 42 24 SM Silty SandO-1 0.00 1.52 1.52 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 94 91 70 41 24 SM Silty Sand O-2 0.00 1.22 1.22 82 79 76 75 75 75 74 74 73 71 48 15 6 4 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-2 1.22 2.53 1.31 100 99 99 98 98 98 98 98 97 97 95 87 58 31 20 13 n/p SM Silty Sand O-2 2.53 3.48 0.95 72 68 65 63 61 58 56 49 49 46 38 29 18 6 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-2 0.00 3.48 3.48 86 84 82 80 80 79 78 76 76 74 63 46 29 15 9 6 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt An O-3 0.00 1.22 1.22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 97 89 68 42 24 SM Silty Sand O-3 1.22 2.23 1.01 100 100 98 96 95 94 94 93 93 93 92 87 68 35 25 18 n/p SM Silty Sand O-3 2.23 2.87 0.64 90 86 85 85 85 84 84 84 84 83 80 63 32 11 6 5 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt And G O-3 0.00 2.87 2.87 98 97 96 95 95 94 94 94 94 93 92 86 69 44 28 18 SM Silty Sand O-4 0.00 1.22 1.22 82 80 79 78 78 77 77 76 74 71 59 37 25 16 11 7 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt And G O-4 1.22 2.50 1.28 97 96 94 92 91 90 88 87 85 81 64 22 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-4 0.00 2.50 2.50 90 88 87 85 85 84 83 82 80 76 62 29 15 9 6 4 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-5 0.00 0.61 0.61 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 95 70 40 23 SM Silty SandO-5 0.61 1.37 0.76 100 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 97 97 95 91 81 59 39 24 SM Silty Sand O-5 1.37 2.44 1.07 95 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 92 84 55 16 7 5 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-5 2.44 3.35 0.91 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 92 67 33 11 6 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-5 0.00 3.35 3.35 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 97 97 94 84 62 34 20 12 SM Silty Sand O-6 0.00 1.22 1.22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 91 62 21 8 5 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded SandO-6 1.22 2.44 1.22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 91 78 45 13 5 3 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-6 2.44 3.51 1.07 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 93 83 70 40 12 4 3 3 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-6 3.51 4.33 0.82 100 100 94 79 69 59 50 45 41 36 21 6 2 2 1 1 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-6 0.00 4.33 4.33 100 100 99 96 94 92 90 87 81 72 44 14 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly Graded Sand O-7 0.00 0.76 0.76 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 94 83 77 60 35 22 SM Silty Sand O-7 0.76 2.10 1.34 89 87 86 85 85 85 85 85 84 83 56 14 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-7 0.00 2.10 2.10 93 92 91 90 90 90 90 90 89 89 70 39 31 24 14 9 SM Silty Sand O-8 0.00 0.82 0.82 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 96 91 70 46 39 30 19 12 n/p SM Silty Sand O-8 0.82 1.83 1.01 95 94 93 92 92 91 91 91 89 81 40 10 4 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-8 1.83 3.11 1.28 99 98 98 97 97 97 96 95 92 82 46 20 11 9 8 8 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-8 3.11 3.75 0.64 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 94 61 20 6 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded SandO-8 0.00 3.75 3.75 98 98 97 97 97 96 96 95 93 86 52 23 14 11 8 6 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-9 0.00 0.76 0.76 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 97 87 64 55 47 31 20 SM Silty Sand O-9 0.76 2.13 1.37 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 97 94 65 21 8 6 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-9 2.13 3.35 1.22 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 96 87 45 13 6 5 4 4 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-9 3.35 4.57 1.22 100 100 100 99 99 97 96 93 87 75 40 13 6 4 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-9 0.00 4.57 4.57 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 94 88 57 24 15 12 9 6 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 6 (2 of 3): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (AUGUST, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI O-10 0.00 0.61 0.61 100 100 100 100 99 98 98 97 97 97 91 76 68 55 38 28 SM Silty Sand O-10 0.61 2.29 1.68 97 96 95 95 95 94 94 94 94 92 67 24 7 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-10 0.00 2.29 2.29 98 97 96 96 96 95 95 95 95 93 73 38 23 17 12 9 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-11 0.00 0.52 0.52 100 99 98 97 95 94 93 92 89 78 47 27 22 18 13 8 n/p SM Silty Sand O-11 0.52 1.80 1.28 100 93 93 93 92 92 92 90 84 67 31 8 3 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-11 1.80 3.66 1.86 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 95 70 28 12 5 4 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-11 0.00 3.66 3.66 100 97 97 97 96 96 95 94 92 83 53 21 10 6 5 3 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-12 0.00 0.61 0.61 98 98 97 96 96 95 95 94 93 93 91 88 83 61 37 24 n/p SM Silty Sand O-12 0.61 1.83 1.22 98 90 85 81 78 75 72 69 64 57 36 10 3 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-12 1.83 3.20 1.37 76 68 63 59 57 55 53 51 47 42 28 10 5 3 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-12 0.00 3.20 3.20 89 82 78 74 72 70 68 66 62 57 43 25 19 14 9 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt An O-13 0.00 0.82 0.82 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 97 96 96 92 80 74 57 35 23 SM Silty Sand O-13 0.82 2.53 1.71 100 97 96 95 95 95 95 95 94 91 62 15 4 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-13 2.53 3.96 1.43 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 95 90 82 74 62 ML Silt With SandO-13 0.00 3.96 3.96 100 99 98 98 97 97 97 97 97 95 82 57 50 42 35 28 SM Silty Sand O-14 0.00 0.52 0.52 100 100 99 99 98 97 97 96 95 93 85 58 43 34 25 18 n/p SM Silty Sand O-14 0.52 1.31 0.79 83 80 78 77 76 75 75 74 74 72 64 26 9 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-14 1.31 2.74 1.43 100 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 77 49 31 25 22 SM Silty Sand O-14 2.74 3.32 0.58 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 93 84 71 52 41 33 SM Silty Sand O-14 0.00 3.32 3.32 96 95 94 94 94 93 93 93 92 91 87 63 42 29 23 19 SM Silty Sand O-15 0.00 0.31 0.31 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 98 95 87 80 69 54 40 ML Sandy Silt O-15 0.31 1.52 1.22 100 100 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 98 86 32 10 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-15 1.52 3.05 1.53 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 93 72 27 8 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-15 3.05 4.27 1.22 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 95 89 71 53 43 36 32 28 SM Silty Sand O-15 0.00 4.27 4.27 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 97 94 77 40 24 17 14 12 SM Silty Sand O-16 0.00 1.16 1.16 92 87 82 80 78 77 77 76 76 75 66 28 11 6 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt and G O-16 1.16 1.89 0.73 98 97 95 94 94 94 94 93 93 93 84 38 12 5 3 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand O-16 1.89 3.05 1.16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 88 30 8 3 2 2 SP Poorly Graded SandO-16 3.05 3.35 0.30 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 93 72 63 58 55 50 SM Sandy SiltO-16 0.00 3.35 3.35 97 95 93 92 91 91 91 90 90 89 80 35 15 9 8 7 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-17 0.00 1.07 1.07 100 98 96 95 95 94 93 93 92 91 86 66 51 38 25 16 n/p SM Silty Sand O-17 1.07 2.10 1.04 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 78 33 10 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-17 2.10 2.84 0.73 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 86 46 18 11 8 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-17 2.84 3.84 1.01 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 87 56 24 9 5 4 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-17 0.00 3.84 3.84 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 97 96 86 58 32 17 11 8 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 6 (3 of 3): SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - Borrow Area No.2 USACE VIBRACORE HOLES (AUGUST, 2003)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS ATTERBERG
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) ---SAND (sieve no.)--- Fines LIMITS CLASSIFICATION NO. TOP BOT 3/4 3/8 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 LL PI O-18 0.00 0.67 0.67 91 85 80 78 77 76 76 75 75 74 66 37 26 21 17 13 n/p SM Silty Sand With Gravel O-18 0.67 2.29 1.62 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 78 27 8 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded SandO-18 2.29 2.96 0.67 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 87 49 19 13 11 n/p SM Silty Sand O-18 2.96 4.57 1.61 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 94 75 39 29 27 SM Silty SandO-18 0.00 4.57 4.57 99 98 97 97 97 96 96 96 96 95 86 61 40 21 15 14 SM Silty Sand O-19 0.00 0.70 0.70 89 83 81 80 79 77 77 76 75 73 65 52 46 36 25 18 n/p SM Silty Sand With Gravel O-19 0.70 2.26 1.56 95 94 93 93 92 92 92 92 91 87 61 20 5 2 1 1 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-19 0.00 2.26 2.26 93 91 89 89 88 87 87 87 86 83 62 30 18 13 8 6 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-20 0.00 0.85 0.85 100 99 96 94 93 90 89 88 86 85 79 57 40 30 22 16 n/p SM Silty Sand O-20 0.85 2.38 1.52 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 81 35 10 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-20 2.38 3.90 1.52 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 72 24 7 4 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-20 0.00 3.90 3.90 100 100 99 99 98 98 98 97 96 94 77 36 15 9 6 5 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-21 0.00 0.91 0.91 93 89 87 86 85 84 84 83 82 80 68 50 40 24 15 10 n/p SM Silty Sand O-21 0.91 2.44 1.53 100 100 99 99 99 98 98 98 96 90 57 18 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-21 0.00 2.44 2.44 97 96 95 94 94 93 93 92 91 86 61 30 18 11 7 5 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-22 0.00 0.70 0.70 100 97 96 95 94 94 93 92 91 88 81 71 65 48 28 18 n/p SM Silty Sand O-22 0.70 1.80 1.10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 62 15 4 2 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-22 1.80 2.90 1.10 91 85 82 79 78 76 74 72 69 63 40 11 4 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-22 0.00 2.90 2.90 97 94 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 82 58 27 19 13 8 6 SP Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-23 0.00 0.64 0.64 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 98 97 94 87 76 52 30 18 n/p SM Silty Sand O-23 0.64 1.83 1.19 93 90 89 88 88 88 87 87 86 83 69 38 20 12 8 5 n/p SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-23 1.83 2.87 1.04 96 95 94 93 93 92 92 91 89 84 61 19 5 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-23 2.87 3.14 0.28 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 97 95 92 77 57 45 34 30 28 SM Silty Sand O-23 0.00 3.14 3.14 96 95 94 93 93 92 92 91 90 87 72 43 29 19 12 9 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt O-24 0.00 0.37 0.37 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 98 96 93 80 43 28 22 SM Silty Sand O-24 0.37 0.67 0.31 69 45 26 20 17 15 14 12 11 11 9 8 7 5 4 3 n/p GP Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand O-24 0.67 1.37 0.70 77 65 59 55 53 51 49 47 44 40 27 10 4 3 2 2 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-24 1.37 2.50 1.13 100 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 97 93 69 24 7 4 3 3 n/p SP Poorly Graded Sand O-24 0.00 2.50 2.50 90 83 79 77 76 75 75 73 72 69 54 28 17 10 7 6 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand With Silt An O-25 0.00 0.91 0.91 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 92 78 33 19 13 n/p SM Silty Sand O-25 0.91 1.19 0.28 85 83 81 79 78 77 76 74 73 71 62 42 31 20 15 11 n/p SM Silty Sand With Gravel O-25 1.19 2.84 1.65 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 89 41 23 19 18 18 n/p SM Silty Sand O-25 0.00 2.84 2.84 99 98 98 98 98 98 98 97 97 96 89 58 42 24 18 16 SM Silty Sand O-26 0.00 0.55 0.55 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 97 96 94 87 74 65 47 31 20 SM Silty Sand O-26 0.55 0.88 0.34 88 63 52 48 46 45 44 44 43 42 27 9 4 3 3 2 n/p SM Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel O-26 0.88 1.83 0.95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 67 15 4 2 2 2 n/p SM Poorly Graded Sand O-26 1.83 2.80 0.97 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 94 49 13 5 4 3 3 n/p SM Poorly Graded Sand O-26 2.80 3.51 0.70 88 86 85 84 84 83 83 83 82 79 70 54 43 35 31 28 SM Silty Sand With Gravel O-26 0.00 3.51 3.51 96 94 92 92 91 91 90 90 90 87 62 31 22 16 13 10 SM Silty Sand Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 7. San Clemente Shoreline Project – Receiving Beach Transects Grain Size Data US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Reach/Transect
Elev.
(m, MLLW)
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
Reach 1
SC 1605 +4 100 98 91 67 33 7 1 1111
+2 100 99 96 89 75 52 28 12 3 1 1 1 1 1
0 100 98 95 87 80 67 53 36 23 15 6 1 1 1 1 1
-2 100 99 97 92 83 66 37 15 4 1 1 1-4 100 99 98 95 91 84 72 48 29 23 21 21 19-6 100 99 98 93 68 21 17 6-8 only recovery was a 4 cm gravel -10 100 99 99 99 98 98 96 92 79 65 55
Reach 3
SC 1623 +6 100 99 94 76 44 10 2 1111
+4 100 99 94 76 21 3 1 1 1 1+2 100 99 94 83 66 44 12 1 1 1 1 1 0 100 99 97 94 89 83 80 76 60 22 6 1 1 1
-2 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 94 63 30 8 8 1-4 100 98 98 97 97 97 96 96 96 95 87 48 15 7 4-6 100 99 99 97 92 32 12 6-8 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 97 95 43 26 9 -10 100 99 98 74 47 19
Reach 4
SC 1645 +6 100 99 98 95 83 57 31 8 1 1111
+4 100 97 84 54 13 2 1 1 1 1+2 100 99 92 75 31 6 1 1 1 1 0 100 98 83 32 10 2 2 1
-2 100 99 97 62 22 5 1 1-4 100 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 97 95 83 57 17 14 3-6 100 99 97 96 94 92 89 80 62 55 51 44 36 13 9 1-8 100 91 90 89 88 86 80 71 59 43 32 27 22 14 10 -10 100 99 99 95 80 47 22 16 14
Reach 5
T - 2 +6 100 99 98 92 74 47 16 3 1 1 1 1
+4 100 99 94 75 20 3 1 1 1 1+2 100 99 96 63 14 3 1 1 1
0 100 99 99 99 98 98 95 92 87 70 27 10 3 1 1
-2 100 96 60 23 6 2 2-4 100 99 98 98 97 97 97 96 96 94 84 54 14 10 2-6 100 99 98 97 94 92 88 80 63 22 16 4-8 100 99 98 97 95 93 91 54 21 10 -10 100 99 99 98 97 90 67 38
Table 7(continued). San Clemente Shoreline Project – Receiving Beach Transects Grain Size Data US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Reach/Transect
Elev.
(m, MLLW)
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
Reach 6
M&N
Linda Lane +4 100 99 98 90 80 63 41 21 7 1 1 1
+2 100 99 96 84 34 8 3 1
0 100 99 97 96 95 93 92 90 87 84 53 27 9 2
-2 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 89 58 20 4-4 100 99 99 94 65 26 10-6 100 99 59 30 14 7-8 100 99 99 98 71 32 16 -10 100 99 97 96 94 91 88 83 70 40 19 7 2
T - 1 +6 98 96 94 93 92 89 85 78 67 51 21 5 2 1 1 1
+4 100 99 94 78 31 6 2 1 1 1+2 100 99 98 78 19 5 1 1 1
0 100 98 93 91 90 90 90
-2 100 99 97 72 33 8 7 1-4 100 99 99 94 55 14 4 2-6 100 99 99 97 83 69 14 4 2-8 100 99 99 99 98 96 38 16 10 -10 100 99 99 98 65 38 20
SC 1600 +6 100 99 98 95 88 72 47 19 5 1111
+4 100 98 89 37 6 1 1 1 1+2 100 95 39 13 2 2 1
0 100 99 99 97 92 87 75 36 13 3 1 1
-2 100 98 77 33 7 7 1-4 100 99 99 98 98 95 85 27 18 5-6 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 97 93 72 28 9-8 100 99 99 99 98 98 97 89 73 57 -10 100 99 99 99 98 54 32 14
Reach 7
SC 1680 +4 100 97 89 73 33 6 2111
+2 100 99 86 15 4 1 1 1
0 100 99 97 91 77 62 44 44 5 1 1 1
-2 100 99 91 47 10 3 1-4 100 99 94 72 18 14 3-6 100 99 98 88 20 8 4-8 100 99 99 99 98 95 26 16 6 -10 100 99 99 99 98 68 35 22
Table 7(continued). San Clemente Shoreline Project – Receiving Beach Transects Grain Size Data US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Reach/Transect
Elev.
(m, MLLW)
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
Reach 8
SC 1700 +6 100 95 91 86 81 72 60 40 22 11 5 2 1111
+4 100 99 97 88 67 36 8 1 1 1 1 1+2 100 96 82 63 56 51 44 31 14 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 100 93 66 42 28 18 13 8 4 2 2 1 1111
-2 100 99 97 79 33 6 5 1-4 100 99 97 78 16 5 2-6 100 99 99 98 96 87 25 9 4-8 100 99 99 97 28 18 6 -10 100 99 99 98 98 96 65 34 20
M&N
North Beach +4 100 99 99 96 94 90 80 66 48 24 6 3 2 1 1 +2 100 98 98 98 98 97 95 91 82 57 21 8 2 1 1
0 100 97 96 94 91 88 83 70 40 19 7 2
-2 100 99 99 90 59 21 5-4 100 99 97 90 70 39 23 11 4 1-6 100 99 98 96 93 89 62 27 12-8 100 97 67 27 10 -10 100 99 99 77 47 34
NOTES: (1) Except for Moffatt and Nichol (M&N) data, all samples out to -2 m MLLW were surface grab samples collected by hand and samples from -4 m MLLW and deeper were collected using a petite ponar grab sampler. These samples were collected 25-27 July 2005. (2) Some of the Moffatt and Nichol (M&N) data has been linearly interpolated to match the sieve sizes used by the Los Angeles District.
Table 8-a: SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE PROJECT - BORROW SITE NO.2 USACE (2003) VIBRACORE HOLES (cut to 1m depth)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) GRAVEL(mms) SAND (sieve no.) FINES (sieve no) CLASS NO. TOP BOT 19.1 9.5 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 O-1 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 99 96 92 88 69 40 25 SM Silty Sand O-2 0.00 1.00 1.00 82 79 76 75 75 75 74 74 73 71 48 15 6 4 3 2 SP Poorly Grad O-4 0.00 1.00 1.00 82 80 79 78 78 77 77 76 74 71 59 37 25 16 11 7 SP-SM Poorly GradO-6 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 91 62 21 8 5 4 3 SP Poorly GradO-7 0.00 1.00 1.00 97 97 97 96 96 96 96 96 95 95 85 66 60 46 27 17 SM Silty Sand O-8 0.00 1.00 1.00 99 99 99 98 98 97 97 96 95 89 65 40 33 25 16 10 SM Silty Sand O-9 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 96 82 54 44 37 25 16 SM Silty Sand O-10 0.00 1.00 1.00 99 98 98 98 97 96 96 96 96 95 82 56 44 35 24 18 SM Silty Sand O-11 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 96 96 95 94 93 93 91 87 73 39 18 13 10 8 5 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-12 0.00 1.00 1.00 98 95 92 90 89 87 86 84 82 79 70 58 52 38 23 15 SM Silty Sand O-15 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 98 89 49 31 23 18 14 SM Silty Sand O-16 0.00 1.00 1.00 92 87 82 80 78 77 77 76 76 75 66 28 11 6 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-17 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 98 96 95 95 94 93 93 92 91 86 66 51 38 25 16 SM Silty Sand O-18 0.00 1.00 1.00 94 90 87 85 85 84 84 83 83 82 70 34 20 15 12 9 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-19 0.00 1.00 1.00 91 86 85 84 83 82 82 81 80 77 64 42 34 26 18 13 SM Silty Sand WO-20 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 99 97 95 94 91 91 90 88 87 79 54 36 26 19 14 SM Silty Sand O-21 0.00 1.00 1.00 94 90 88 87 86 85 85 84 83 81 67 47 37 22 14 9 SM Silty Sand O-22 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 98 97 97 96 96 95 94 93 90 75 54 47 34 20 13 SM Silty Sand O-23 0.00 1.00 1.00 97 96 96 96 95 95 95 94 94 92 85 69 56 38 22 13 SM Silty Sand O-24 0.00 1.00 1.00 83 72 64 61 59 58 57 55 54 52 47 40 33 18 12 10 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-25 0.00 1.00 1.00 99 99 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 97 94 88 74 32 19 13 SM Silty Sand O-26 0.00 1.00 1.00 96 88 84 82 81 80 80 80 79 77 65 45 37 27 18 12 SM Silty Sand SO9-1 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 91 55 31 16 12 9 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-2 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 93 84 80 77 77 76 76 74 54 16 5 2 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-3 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 94 44 12 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-5 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 94 90 66 21 7 4 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-7 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 93 62 28 17 13 10 7 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-8 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 93 77 45 17 7 5 4 4 SP Poorly Grad SO9-11 0.00 1.00 1.00 78 71 68 66 65 65 64 64 63 62 49 19 8 5 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-13 0.00 1.00 1.00 99 94 92 92 92 92 91 91 91 89 58 16 7 4 4 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-14 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 90 56 24 13 8 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-15A 0.00 1.00 1.00 91 88 86 86 86 86 86 86 85 84 70 31 15 10 10 8 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-18 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 97 96 92 75 35 16 5 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-19 0.00 1.00 1.00 72 64 63 62 62 61 60 59 57 54 37 13 6 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-20 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 88 33 11 4 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-22 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 96 94 92 88 85 59 34 22 SM Silty Sand SO9-24 0.00 1.00 1.00 89 81 74 66 62 59 57 55 54 51 40 25 17 14 12 9 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-26 0.00 1.00 1.00 89 85 84 82 81 81 80 79 78 77 69 43 32 19 12 7 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-27 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 71 19 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-28 0.00 1.00 1.00 86 81 79 79 78 78 78 78 78 77 73 55 32 20 18 17 SM Silty Sand WSO9-29 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 99 98 97 97 97 96 95 67 25 13 7 5 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-31 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 97 94 75 28 11 8 6 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-32 0.00 1.00 1.00 75 68 66 64 63 63 62 61 59 57 48 38 33 29 20 12 SM Silty Sand WSO9-33 0.00 1.00 1.00 86 81 80 79 79 78 78 78 77 77 68 26 9 4 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-40 0.00 1.00 1.00 89 83 79 75 72 67 63 57 51 46 31 13 6 4 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-41 0.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 100 99 98 96 95 93 90 86 66 28 12 4 1 1 SP Poorly Grad TOTAL 46.00 4357.0 4243.0 4174.0 4120.0 4088.0 4049.0 4027.0 3991.0 3935.0 3803.0 3070.0 1781.0 1243.0 844.0 565.0 391.0
94.7 92.2 90.7 89.6 88.9 88.0 87.5 86.8 85.5 82.7 66.7 38.7 27.0 18.3 12.3 8.5 SP-SM Poorly Grad Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.355 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 8-b: SAN CLEMENTE BEACH PROJECT - BORROW SITE NO.2 USACE (2003) VIBRACORE HOLES (cut to 2m depth)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) GRAVEL(mms) SAND (sieve no.) FINES (sieve no) CLASS NO. TOP BOT 19.1 9.5 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 O-2 0.00 2.00 2.00 89 87 85 84 84 84 83 83 82 81 66 43 26 15 10 6 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-4 0.00 2.00 2.00 88 86 85 83 83 82 81 80 78 75 61 31 17 11 7 5 SP-SM Poorly GradO-6 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 95 86 55 18 7 4 4 3 SP Poorly GradO-7 0.00 2.00 2.00 93 92 91 91 91 91 91 90 90 89 70 40 32 25 15 10 SM Silty Sand O-8 0.00 2.00 2.00 97 97 96 95 95 94 94 94 92 85 53 26 19 15 10 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-9 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 97 95 73 37 26 22 15 10 SM Silty Sand O-10 0.00 2.00 2.00 98 97 97 97 96 95 95 95 95 94 74 40 26 19 13 10 SM Silty Sand O-11 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 95 95 95 93 93 93 91 87 73 39 15 9 6 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-12 0.00 2.00 2.00 96 91 87 84 82 79 77 75 71 67 52 34 28 20 13 9 SM Silty Sand O-15 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 97 84 39 20 13 10 8 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-16 0.00 2.00 2.00 95 91 88 86 85 84 84 84 84 83 74 32 11 5 4 4 SP Poorly GradO-17 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 99 98 97 97 97 96 96 95 94 82 51 32 22 14 9 SM Silty Sand O-18 0.00 2.00 2.00 97 95 93 93 92 92 92 92 92 90 74 30 14 9 7 6 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-19 0.00 2.00 2.00 93 90 89 88 87 87 87 86 85 82 62 31 19 14 9 7 SP-SM Poorly GradO-20 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 98 97 97 96 95 95 93 92 80 44 23 15 11 8 SP-SM Poorly GradO-21 0.00 2.00 2.00 97 95 94 93 93 92 92 91 90 85 62 33 21 13 8 6 SP-SM Poorly GradO-22 0.00 2.00 2.00 99 97 97 96 96 95 95 94 93 90 66 34 25 18 11 8 SP-SM Poorly GradO-23 0.00 2.00 2.00 95 94 93 92 92 92 91 91 90 88 76 52 37 24 15 9 SM Silty Sand O-24 0.00 2.00 2.00 87 79 74 72 71 69 69 67 66 63 50 29 19 11 7 6 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-25 0.00 2.00 2.00 98 98 97 97 97 97 97 96 96 95 89 64 49 26 18 15 SM Silty Sand O-26 0.00 2.00 2.00 98 94 92 91 91 90 90 90 89 88 64 30 21 15 10 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-1 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 91 55 31 16 12 9 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-2 0.00 2.00 2.00 93 89 83 76 73 71 71 70 70 68 49 15 5 2 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-3 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 94 44 12 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-5 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 94 90 66 21 7 4 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-7 0.00 2.00 2.00 99 95 93 93 92 91 91 90 89 86 61 33 23 18 13 8 SM Silty Sand SO9-8 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 92 75 43 16 7 5 4 4 SP Poorly Grad SO9-11 0.00 2.00 2.00 89 86 83 82 81 81 80 79 79 76 60 24 10 5 5 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-13 0.00 2.00 2.00 99 96 95 94 94 94 94 94 93 91 61 16 6 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-14 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 88 52 22 11 7 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-15A 0.00 2.00 2.00 95 94 93 93 93 93 93 93 92 91 74 29 12 7 7 6 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-18 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 97 96 92 75 35 16 5 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-19 0.00 2.00 2.00 86 77 73 71 70 69 68 67 65 61 39 13 6 5 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-20 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 88 33 11 4 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-22 0.00 2.00 2.00 93 92 91 90 89 89 88 87 85 83 77 68 63 45 28 20 SM Silty Sand SO9-24 0.00 2.00 2.00 70 67 61 56 55 52 51 50 49 47 38 24 17 13 11 9 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-26 0.00 2.00 2.00 93 90 89 89 88 88 87 87 86 85 67 31 19 11 8 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-27 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 71 19 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-28 0.00 2.00 2.00 93 91 90 89 89 89 89 89 89 88 86 66 30 14 11 10 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-29 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 99 98 97 97 97 96 95 67 25 13 7 5 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-31 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 97 94 76 30 11 7 5 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-32 0.00 2.00 2.00 88 84 83 82 82 81 80 80 78 72 48 28 20 16 12 8 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-33 0.00 2.00 2.00 93 91 90 90 89 89 89 89 88 87 74 30 11 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-40 0.00 2.00 2.00 89 83 79 75 72 67 63 57 51 46 31 13 6 4 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-41 0.00 2.00 2.00 100 98 97 96 95 93 92 90 87 83 63 27 11 4 1 1 SP Poorly Grad TOTAL 90.00 8600.0 8418.0 8294.0 8204.0 8154.0 8088.0 8042.0 7978.0 7850.0 7552.0 5814.0 2876.0 1674.0 1068.0 744.0 552.0
95.6 93.5 92.2 91.2 90.6 89.9 89.4 88.6 87.2 83.9 64.6 32.0 18.6 11.9 8.3 6.1 SP-SM Poorly Grad Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.355 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 8-c: SAN CLEMENTE BEACH PROJECT - BORROW SITE NO.2 USACE (2003) VIBRACORE HOLES (cut to 3m depth)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) GRAVEL(mms) SAND (sieve no.) FINES (sieve no) CLASS NO. TOP BOT 19.1 9.5 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 O-2 0.00 3.00 3.00 88 86 84 83 83 82 82 81 80 78 67 49 31 16 10 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-4 0.00 2.50 2.50 90 88 87 85 85 84 83 82 80 76 62 29 15 9 6 4 SP-SM Poorly GradO-6 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 92 82 51 16 6 4 3 2 SP Poorly GradO-8 0.00 3.00 3.00 98 97 97 96 96 95 95 94 92 84 51 24 16 13 9 7 SP-SM Poorly GradO-9 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 93 65 30 19 16 11 8 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-11 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 96 96 96 95 95 95 94 90 80 49 19 10 6 5 3 SP-SM Poorly GradO-12 0.00 3.00 3.00 89 83 79 75 73 71 69 67 63 58 44 26 20 14 10 7 SP-SM Poorly GradO-15 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 96 80 35 16 10 7 6 SP-SM Poorly GradO-16 0.00 3.00 3.00 96 94 92 91 90 90 90 89 89 88 79 31 10 5 3 3 SP Poorly GradO-17 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 99 99 98 98 98 98 97 97 96 86 59 34 19 13 9 SM Silty Sand O-18 0.00 3.00 3.00 98 97 96 95 95 95 95 94 94 93 80 44 22 11 8 7 SP Poorly Grad O-20 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 99 98 98 97 97 96 95 94 79 39 18 11 8 6 SP Poorly GradO-21 0.00 2.44 2.44 97 96 95 94 94 93 93 92 91 86 61 30 18 11 7 5 SP Poorly GradO-22 0.00 2.90 2.90 97 94 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 82 58 27 19 13 8 6 SP Poorly GradO-23 0.00 3.00 3.00 96 94 94 93 93 92 92 91 90 87 72 43 28 18 12 8 SP-SM Poorly GradO-24 0.00 2.50 2.50 90 83 79 77 76 75 75 73 72 69 54 28 17 10 7 6 SP-SM Poorly GradO-25 0.00 2.84 2.84 99 98 98 98 98 98 98 97 97 96 89 58 42 24 18 16 SM Silty Sand O-26 0.00 3.00 3.00 98 95 94 93 93 92 92 92 91 89 61 27 18 13 10 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-1 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 99 97 97 97 97 96 96 96 95 86 47 26 14 10 8 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-2 0.00 3.00 3.00 85 78 73 68 66 64 64 64 64 62 43 13 5 2 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-3 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 93 44 12 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-5 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 99 99 98 97 94 90 66 20 7 4 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-7 0.00 3.00 3.00 91 83 79 78 77 77 76 75 74 72 51 27 19 15 11 6 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-8 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 88 68 38 14 6 4 3 3 SP Poorly Grad SO9-11 0.00 3.00 3.00 93 90 88 87 86 86 85 84 84 81 64 25 10 6 5 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-13 0.00 3.00 3.00 99 97 95 95 95 95 94 94 94 92 62 17 6 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-14 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 94 84 48 20 11 7 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-15A 0.00 3.00 3.00 97 96 95 95 95 95 95 95 94 93 75 28 11 6 6 5 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-18 0.00 3.00 3.00 98 98 98 97 97 96 96 94 92 87 70 31 13 4 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-19 0.00 3.00 3.00 86 77 72 69 68 67 66 65 63 59 38 12 6 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-20 0.00 3.00 3.00 99 99 98 98 98 97 97 97 97 96 86 37 14 5 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-22 0.00 3.00 3.00 94 93 92 91 91 90 89 87 82 77 65 51 44 32 20 14 SM Silty Sand SO9-24 0.00 3.00 3.00 75 71 67 64 63 61 60 59 59 57 46 26 15 11 9 8 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-26 0.00 3.00 3.00 95 94 93 93 92 92 92 91 91 90 70 28 15 9 6 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-27 0.00 3.00 3.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 71 19 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-28 0.00 3.00 3.00 94 94 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 92 90 70 30 12 9 8 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-29 0.00 3.00 3.00 95 95 95 94 93 92 92 92 91 90 65 24 12 6 4 4 SP Poorly GradSO9-31 0.00 3.00 3.00 94 91 90 89 89 88 88 88 87 86 72 30 11 6 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-32 0.00 3.00 3.00 92 89 89 88 88 88 87 86 84 77 49 25 15 12 9 6 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-33 0.00 3.00 3.00 95 94 93 93 93 93 93 92 91 89 75 30 11 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-40 0.00 3.00 3.00 92 88 84 81 78 73 68 60 53 46 31 13 6 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-41 0.00 3.00 3.00 98 93 91 90 90 88 87 86 82 77 56 22 9 3 1 1 SP Poorly Grad TOTAL 124.18 11854.1 11592.7 11427.9 11310.6 11254.2 11165.8 11103.4 10970.8 10759.9 10283.8 7834.8 3707.7 1978.3 1182.2 840.9 643.0
95.5 93.4 92.0 91.1 90.6 89.9 89.4 88.3 86.6 82.8 63.1 29.9 15.9 9.5 6.8 5.2 SP-SM Poorly Grad Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.355 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 8-d: SAN CLEMENTE BEACH PROJECT - BORROW SITE NO.2 USACE (2003) VIBRACORE HOLES (cut to 4m depth)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) GRAVEL(mms) SAND (sieve no.) FINES (sieve no) CLASS NO. TOP BOT 19.1 9.5 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 O-2 0.00 3.48 3.48 86 84 82 80 80 79 78 76 76 74 63 46 29 15 9 6 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-6 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 100 99 97 96 95 93 91 85 75 46 14 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradO-8 0.00 3.75 3.75 98 98 97 97 97 96 96 95 93 86 52 23 14 11 8 6 SP-SM Poorly GradO-9 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 95 89 59 25 16 13 9 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-11 0.00 3.66 3.66 100 97 97 97 96 96 95 94 92 83 53 21 10 6 5 3 SP-SM Poorly GradO-12 0.00 3.20 3.20 89 82 78 74 72 70 68 66 62 57 43 25 19 14 9 7 SP-SM Poorly GradO-15 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 97 94 78 39 22 16 13 11 SM Silty Sand O-16 0.00 3.35 3.35 97 95 93 92 91 91 91 90 90 89 80 35 15 9 8 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad O-17 0.00 3.84 3.84 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 98 97 96 86 58 32 17 11 8 SP-SM Poorly GradO-18 0.00 4.00 4.00 98 97 97 96 96 96 96 96 96 95 85 56 35 18 13 12 SM Silty Sand O-20 0.00 3.90 3.90 100 100 99 99 98 98 98 97 96 94 77 36 15 9 6 5 SP Poorly Grad O-26 0.00 3.51 3.51 96 94 92 92 91 91 90 90 90 87 62 31 22 16 13 10 SM Silty Sand SO9-1 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 99 98 97 97 97 96 96 96 95 82 41 21 11 9 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-3 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 100 99 98 98 97 97 97 96 92 43 12 5 3 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-5 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 96 92 65 18 6 3 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-7 0.00 3.96 3.96 92 85 82 81 80 80 79 78 78 75 51 25 16 12 9 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-8 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 100 100 99 97 95 94 91 81 62 34 13 5 3 3 3 SP Poorly Grad SO9-11 0.00 4.00 4.00 95 93 90 89 88 88 87 86 86 84 65 26 10 6 6 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-13 0.00 4.00 4.00 99 98 96 96 96 96 95 95 95 93 63 18 6 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-14 0.00 3.96 3.96 100 100 100 100 99 98 96 94 89 79 45 19 10 6 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-15A 0.00 4.00 4.00 98 97 97 96 96 96 96 96 96 95 76 28 10 5 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-18 0.00 4.00 4.00 98 97 96 95 95 94 93 90 85 79 62 26 11 4 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-19 0.00 3.66 3.66 84 74 70 67 66 65 64 63 61 58 37 12 6 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-20 0.00 3.20 3.20 100 99 99 98 98 97 97 97 97 96 87 39 16 6 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-22 0.00 4.00 4.00 95 95 94 93 93 92 91 88 82 75 59 43 35 24 16 11 SM Silty Sand SO9-24 0.00 3.96 3.96 81 78 75 73 71 70 70 68 67 65 51 25 14 9 8 7 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-26 0.00 3.96 3.96 95 92 90 89 89 88 88 88 87 86 66 26 13 8 6 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-27 0.00 4.00 4.00 100 100 99 99 99 99 99 98 98 95 70 19 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-28 0.00 4.00 4.00 96 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 94 94 92 72 30 11 8 7 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-29 0.00 4.00 4.00 94 94 94 93 92 92 92 92 91 90 67 24 11 6 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-31 0.00 4.00 4.00 95 93 92 91 91 91 91 90 90 88 74 30 11 5 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-32 0.00 4.00 4.00 94 92 91 91 91 91 90 89 87 80 49 24 13 10 7 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-33 0.00 4.00 4.00 96 95 95 95 95 94 94 94 93 91 75 30 11 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-40 0.00 4.00 4.00 94 91 87 85 82 78 73 65 56 46 29 12 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-41 0.00 4.00 4.00 98 95 94 93 92 91 90 88 84 75 49 18 7 3 2 1 SP Poorly Grad TOTAL 135.39 13038.2 12813.0 12649.6 12532.5 12452.1 12363.9 12267.3 12107.9 11833.5 11248.2 8407.3 3889.3 1962.7 1147.3 861.2 677.3
96.3 94.6 93.4 92.6 92.0 91.3 90.6 89.4 87.4 83.1 62.1 28.7 14.5 8.5 6.4 5.0 SP-SM Poorly Grad Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.355 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 8-e: SAN CLEMENTE BEACH PROJECT - BORROW SITE NO.2 USACE (2003) VIBRACORE HOLES (cut to 5m depth)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) GRAVEL(mms) SAND (sieve no.) FINES (sieve no) CLASS NO. TOP BOT 19.1 9.5 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 O-6 0.00 4.33 4.33 100 100 99 96 94 92 90 87 81 72 44 14 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly Grad O-9 0.00 4.57 4.57 100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97 94 88 57 24 15 12 9 6 SP Poorly Grad O-15 0.00 4.27 4.27 100 100 99 99 99 99 98 98 97 94 77 40 24 17 14 12 SM Silty Sand O-18 0.00 4.57 4.57 99 98 97 97 97 96 96 96 96 95 86 61 40 21 15 14 SM Silty Sand SO9-1 0.00 5.00 5.00 100 99 98 98 97 97 97 97 96 95 79 37 19 10 8 6 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-3 0.00 4.57 4.57 99 98 97 96 96 95 95 95 94 89 42 11 5 3 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-5 0.00 5.00 5.00 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 97 93 64 17 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-7 0.00 3.96 3.96 92 85 82 81 80 80 79 78 78 75 51 25 16 12 9 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-8 0.00 4.88 4.88 99 96 89 88 85 83 82 80 71 54 30 11 4 3 3 3 SP Poorly Grad SO9-11 0.00 5.00 5.00 96 94 92 91 90 90 89 88 88 85 67 26 10 6 6 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-13 0.00 4.57 4.57 100 98 97 96 96 96 96 96 95 93 63 18 6 3 3 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-14 0.00 3.96 3.96 100 100 100 100 99 98 96 94 89 79 45 19 10 6 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-15A 0.00 5.00 5.00 98 98 97 97 97 97 97 97 96 95 76 28 10 5 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-18 0.00 5.00 5.00 97 96 95 94 94 93 92 89 84 77 57 23 9 4 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-22 0.00 5.00 5.00 96 96 95 95 94 93 93 90 84 75 53 36 29 20 13 10 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-24 0.00 3.96 3.96 81 78 75 73 71 70 70 68 67 65 51 25 14 9 8 7 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-26 0.00 3.96 3.96 95 92 90 89 89 88 88 88 87 86 66 26 13 8 6 4 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-27 0.00 5.00 5.00 100 99 98 98 98 97 97 96 95 91 65 18 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-28 0.00 5.00 5.00 97 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 95 94 74 30 10 7 6 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-29 0.00 5.00 5.00 95 95 95 94 94 93 93 93 93 92 71 24 10 5 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-31 0.00 5.00 5.00 96 94 94 93 93 92 92 92 92 90 76 31 11 5 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-32 0.00 5.00 5.00 95 94 93 93 93 93 92 91 89 81 49 23 11 8 6 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-33 0.00 5.00 5.00 97 96 96 96 95 95 95 94 94 91 75 30 11 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-40 0.00 5.00 5.00 95 92 89 87 84 80 76 68 58 46 28 11 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-41 0.00 4.88 4.88 99 96 95 94 94 92 92 90 84 74 45 16 7 3 2 2 SP Poorly Grad TOTAL 117.48 11412.4 11248.3 11100.3 11018.0 10938.9 10840.1 10775.4 10623.5 10334.5 9743.6 7132.2 3150.4 1514.3 861.7 670.2 542.8
97.1 95.7 94.5 93.8 93.1 92.3 91.7 90.4 88.0 82.9 60.7 26.8 12.9 7.3 5.7 4.6 SP-SM Poorly Grad Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.355 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 8-f: SAN CLEMENTE BEACH PROJECT - BORROW SITE NO.2 USACE (2003) VIBRACORE HOLES (cut to 6m depth)
DEPTH THICKNESS BEACH SAND GRADATIONS
HOLE (METERS) (METERS) GRAVEL(mms) SAND (sieve no.) FINES (sieve no) CLASS NO. TOP BOT 19.1 9.5 4 7 10 14 18 25 35 45 60 80 120 170 200 230 SO9-1 0.00 5.58 5.58 100 100 99 98 98 98 97 97 97 95 79 36 18 9 7 6 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-5 0.00 6.00 6.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 94 63 16 5 3 3 2 SP Poorly Grad SO9-11 0.00 5.03 5.03 96 94 92 91 90 90 89 88 88 85 67 26 10 6 6 5 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-15A 0.00 5.79 5.79 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 97 96 77 28 10 5 5 4 SP-SM Poorly Grad SO9-18 0.00 6.00 6.00 98 96 95 94 94 93 92 89 85 77 55 22 9 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-22 0.00 6.00 6.00 97 96 96 96 95 94 94 91 85 75 49 31 25 18 12 9 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-27 0.00 6.00 6.00 100 99 98 97 97 97 97 95 94 88 59 16 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly GradSO9-28 0.00 5.79 5.79 98 97 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 94 74 29 9 7 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-29 0.00 5.64 5.64 96 96 96 95 95 94 94 94 94 92 72 25 10 5 4 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-31 0.00 6.00 6.00 97 95 95 94 94 94 94 93 93 92 79 31 11 5 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-32 0.00 6.00 6.00 96 95 94 94 94 94 93 93 90 82 49 22 11 7 6 5 SP-SM Poorly GradSO9-33 0.00 6.00 6.00 95 93 92 91 90 90 90 89 88 86 71 28 10 4 3 3 SP Poorly GradSO9-40 0.00 5.49 5.49 96 93 90 88 85 81 77 70 60 48 29 11 5 3 2 2 SP Poorly Grad TOTAL 75.32 7342.2 7255.9 7194.0 7142.8 7109.3 7069.7 7019.1 6915.6 6752.9 6415.7 4883.2 2119.6 916.4 464.1 358.3 294.6
97.5 96.3 95.5 94.8 94.4 93.9 93.2 91.8 89.7 85.2 64.8 28.1 12.2 6.2 4.8 3.9 SP-SM Poorly Grad Seive size (mm) 19 9.5 4.75 2.8 2 1.4 1 0.71 0.5 0.355 0.25 0.18 0.125 0.09 0.075 0.063 (ASTM - D 2487 ) Beach Classification
Table 9-a. San Clemente (Reach 1) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.
US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Reach 1
100 99 98 96 92 79 65 55
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Reach 1
100 98 95 87 80 67 53 36 23 12 3 1 1 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Reach 1
100 99 98 96 93 88 80 69 56 42 34 27 18 15 12
Table 9-b. San Clemente (Reach 3) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.
US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Reach 3
100 99 98 74 47 19
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Reach 3
100 98 98 97 94 89 83 66 44 10 1 1 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Reach 3
100 99 99 97 95 90 81 65 52 41 20 12 5
Table 9-c. San Clemente (Reach 4) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.
US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Reach 4
100 99 97 83 57 22 16 14
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Reach 4
100 99 91 90 89 88 86 80 57 31 8 1 1 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Reach 4
100 99 98 98 97 96 93 85 74 57 38 22 9 7 4
Table 9-d. San Clemente (Reach 5) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.
US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Reach 5
100 99 98 97 90 67 38
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Reach 5
100 99 98 98 97 97 92 74 47 16 3 1 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Reach 5
100 99 99 98 94 88 71 51 38 21 13 7
Table 9-e. San Clemente (Reach 6) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.
US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Reach 6
100 99 99 98 90 90 90
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Reach 6
98 96 94 93 92 89 85 78 63 41 19 5 1 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Reach 6
100 99 99 98 97 94 90 80 62 45 23 14 12
Table 9-f. San Clemente (Reach 7) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.
US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Reach 7
100 99 99 98 68 35 22
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Reach 7
100 99 97 91 77 62 33 6 2 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Reach 7
100 99 96 92 82 68 51 18 10 5
Table 9-g. San Clemente (Reach 8) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.
US Standard Sieve Sizes (mm)
Dredge Area
19.0 (3/4")
9.50 (3/8")
4.75 (#4)
2.80 (#7)
2.00 (#10)
1.40 (#14)
1.00 (#18)
0.710
(#25)
0.500
(#35)
0.355
(#45)
0.250
(#60)
0.180
(#80)
0.125
(#120)
0.090
(#170)
0.075
(#200)
0.063
(#230)
FineBeach Limit - Reach 8
100 99 97 65 34 20
Borrow Area 2
to 1 m 95 92 91 90 89 88 88 87 86 83 67 39 27 18 12 9
Borrow Area 2
to 2 m 96 94 92 91 91 90 89 89 87 84 65 32 19 12 8 6
Borrow Area 2
to 3 m 95 93 92 91 91 90 89 88 87 83 63 30 16 10 7 5
Borrow Area 2
to 4 m 96 95 93 92 92 91 90 89 87 83 62 29 15 9 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 5 m 97 96 94 94 93 92 92 90 88 83 60 27 13 7 6 5
Borrow Area 2
to 6 m 97 96 95 95 94 94 93 92 90 85 65 28 12 6 5 4
Coarse Beach Limit - Reach 8
100 93 66 42 28 18 13 8 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Composite BeachGradation - Reach 8
100 99 96 93 91 90 87 83 77 69 61 54 41 18 8 4
Table 9-h. San Clemente (Entire Project) Gradation Envelope and Proposed Borrow Gradations.