Santa Monica City Council
August 27, 2024

Santa Monica Beach
Restoration Pilot Project
Year 5 Annual Report
December 2021
Prepared for:

City of Santa Monica
California Coastal Commission
US Environmental Protection Agency
California Department of Parks and Recreation
The Bay Foundation
8117 W. Manchester Ave. #750
Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
(888) 301-2527
www.santamonicabay.org
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project
Year 5 Annual Report
December 2021
Prepared by: The Bay Foundation
Prepared for:

City of Santa Monica, California Coastal Commission, US Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Parks and Recreation
Authors:

Karina Johnston, Chris Enyart, Maggie Jenkins, Dane Lazarus, Sara Cuadra, The Bay Foundation Scientific Contributors:

David Hubbard, Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc.

Dr. Jenifer Dugan, University of California Santa Barbara Dr. John Dorsey, Loyola Marymount University’s Coastal Research Institute Dan Cooper, Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc.

Dr. Karen Martin, Pepperdine University
Dr. Sean Anderson, California State University Channel Islands Dr. Guangyu Wang, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Evyan Sloane, California State Coastal Conservancy
Suggested Citation:

Johnston, K., C. Enyart, M. Jenkins, D. Lazarus, and S. Cuadra. 2021. Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project: Year 5 Annual Report. Report prepared by The Bay Foundation for City of Santa Monica, California Coastal Commission, US Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Parks and Recreation. 118 pages.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Metabolic Studio (Annenberg Foundation; Grant 15-541) for funding the implementation of this pilot project, and our partners: City of Santa Monica and California Department of Parks and Recreation. Their support has allowed us to explore nature-based protection measures to increase coastal resilience, while bringing back an important coastal habitat to the Los Angeles region. Thanks also to the students and interns with Loyola Marymount University’s Coastal Research Institute who contributed many hours to implementation and monitoring. We would also like to thank the many supporters of this project and members of the public, without whom it would not have happened.

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency or Metabolic Studio, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................3 Background ...............................................................................................................................................3 Project Goals.............................................................................................................................................4 Project Description....................................................................................................................................5 Public Outreach.............................................................................................................................................9 Selected Media Links ..............................................................................................................................12 Permitting ...................................................................................................................................................13 Scientific Monitoring...................................................................................................................................14 Individual Protocols and Results.............................................................................................................14 Wrack Cover........................................................................................................................................16 Vegetation Cover and Seedling Density..............................................................................................20 Vegetation Mapping ...........................................................................................................................29 Invertebrates.......................................................................................................................................33 Avifauna ..............................................................................................................................................34 Grunion and Other Wildlife.................................................................................................................39 Physical Characteristics.......................................................................................................................40 Photo Point .........................................................................................................................................71 Adaptive Management, Maintenance, and Site Use ..................................................................................74 Site Use ...............................................................................................................................................76 Conclusions and Recommendations...........................................................................................................78 Literature Cited...........................................................................................................................................80 Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
List of Figures
Figure 1. Photo of the vegetated dunes in March 2021 on the right in contrast to the groomed beach on the left...........................................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Photograph of the project site prior to restoration at Santa Monica Beach, Santa Monica, CA. .6 Figure 3. Map of the Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project location and general vicinity.............6 Figure 4. Artistic rendering overview of project area, post-establishment of vegetation (rendering credit:

Studio-MLA). .................................................................................................................................................7 Figure 5. Photograph of post-restoration project site in Year 1 (25 January 2017). ....................................8 Figure 6. Photograph of post-restoration project site in Year 5 (11 April 2021)..........................................8 Figure 7. Social media post promoting the project site and Coastal Cleanup Day on 17 September 2020 (left) and soliciting stakeholder feedback on program priorities on 12 February 2021 (right)..................10 Figure 8. Wrack survey transect at the restoration site (left) and control site (right). ..............................17 Figure 9. Average percent cover of wrack by species (top) and trash and terrestrial debris (bottom) in the restoration area and control site across all surveys. Note variable y-axis for each graph.........................18 Figure 10. Photograph of wrack transect at restoration site with primarily bare ground and sparse Phyllospadix sp. on 13 August 2021 (bottom). ...........................................................................................19 Figure 11. Photograph of wrack line with unknown red algae on 30 October 2020..................................19 Figure 12. Photograph of mixed wrack clump comprised of Phyllospadix sp. and an unknown red algae found on 30 October 2020 (left) and photo of Macrocystis pyrifera found on the 21 May 2021 wrack survey (right)...............................................................................................................................................20 Figure 13. Photograph of various vegetation in restoration site. Top left: pink sand verbena; top right:
red sand verbena; bottom left: beach evening-primrose; bottom right: beach salt bush. .......................22 Figure 14. Photograph of various vegetation in restoration site. Top left: woolly heads; top right: nonnative sea rocket; bottom: beach bur sage. ...............................................................................................23 Figure 15. Relative percent cover by species for all transects (live vegetation only, 13-Dec-16 was baseline survey with no vegetation identified). .........................................................................................24 Figure 16. Average absolute native and non-native vegetation cover during all surveys within the restoration area (top) and at the control site (bottom). Asterisk (*) indicates two additional targeted transects surveyed on 17 August 2021.......................................................................................................25 Figure 17. Photograph of various interspersed native vegetation scattered throughout the project site with areas of sandy bare ground (21 May 2021)........................................................................................26 Figure 18. Juvenile beach evening-primrose within quadrat sampling, pencil used for scale. (30 October 2020). ..........................................................................................................................................................28 Figure 19. Absolute native vegetation cover within restoration site for August 2021 survey...................29 Figure 20. Representative photo of project area (13 August 2021). ..........................................................30 Figure 21. Absolute % Cover of red sand verbena (Abronia maritima) (top) and beach bur sage (Ambrosia chamissonis) (bottom), August 2021 survey...............................................................................................31 Figure 22. Absolute % Cover of beach salt bush (Atriplex leucophylla) and beach evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia), August 2021 survey................................................................................32 Figure 23. Photograph of researchers conducting invertebrate core surveys (7 March 2019)..................33 Figure 24. Dune beetle identified on vegetation within the restoration area (5 February 2020)..............34 During Year 5, many of the same avifauna species were identified as in previous years, including the California brown pelican (Pelacanus occidentalis californicus) and gulls. Birds were within the restoration Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
area, adjacent control areas, and nearshore waters both flying over and foraging. Western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) were not observed during the Year 5 targeted avian surveys, but were observed near and within the site during other on-site activities (Figure 25). Additional avifauna surveys will continue to inform the identified species present and activities within and adjacent to the restoration area................................................................................................................................35 Figure 26. Photograph of snowy plovers foraging directly outside of the project area (top) and whimbrels foraging throughout the site (bottom) on 5 February 2020.......................................................................35 Figure 27. Photo within the restoration area from 30 March 2021. ..........................................................36 Dan Cooper, an ornithologist, detected a nesting plover within the restoration area on 18 April 2017 and confirmed the presence of one egg in a nest scrape containing bits of shells and adjacent debris. This confirmed nest was the first one in the Los Angeles region in almost 70 years. Local, state, and federal agencies were all immediately notified along with the Santa Monica Audubon Society, an important local stakeholder group who have conducted bird surveys in Los Angeles for many decades and who maintain the plover enclosure on the southern portion of Santa Monica Beach. On 24 April 2017, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), who have jurisdiction over federally threatened species, several ornithologists, and TBF installed a mini-enclosure over the nest and confirmed the presence of three eggs. After the mini-enclosure was installed, the male plover immediately returned to the nest (Figure 28).

Unfortunately, over subsequent weeks, extremely high winds buried the nest, which was subsequently abandoned. While plovers were identified within the restoration area in the breeding season in 2018- 2020, no subsequent nesting attempts were made (Figure 28.). Signs were posted around the perimeter of the site notifying the public of possible nesting. Crows and dogs have occasionally been observed and could potentially deter plovers and other shorebirds from using and nesting in the site.........................37 Figure 28. Photograph of nesting western snowy plover (credit: Tom Ryan 24 April 2017)......................37 Figure 29. Map of WSP critical habitat (Subunit CA 45A) and restoration area boundary (Data source:

USFWS ECOS 2018). ....................................................................................................................................38 Figure 30. Dolphin photographed swimming offshore in front of restoration area (5 February 2020).....40 Figure 31. Monthly precipitation totals (inches) for the wet weather months (October-May). Daily precipitation data were downloaded from NOAA Climate Date Online (CDO) and originally recorded at the LAX rain gauge. Asterisk indicates project installation month in December 2016. .............................42 Figure 32. TBF staff and CRI interns conducting an elevation profile survey on 21 May 2021. .................48 Figure 33. Restoration Transect 1 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88). ....................................................................................................................................................................49 Figure 34. Restoration Transect 1 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88)......................................................................................................................................................49 Figure 35. Restoration Transect 2 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88). ....................................................................................................................................................................50 Figure 36. Restoration Transect 2 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88)......................................................................................................................................................50 Figure 37. Restoration Transect 3 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88). ....................................................................................................................................................................51 Figure 38. Restoration Transect 3 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88)......................................................................................................................................................51 Figure 39. Restoration Transect 4 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88). ....................................................................................................................................................................52 Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
Figure 40. Restoration Transect 4 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88)......................................................................................................................................................52 Figure 41. Control Transect 1 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).................................................................................................................................53 Figure 42. Control Transect 1 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).................................................................................................................................53 Figure 43. Control transect 2 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).................................................................................................................................54 Figure 44. Control transect 2 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).................................................................................................................................54 Figure 45. Photograph of vegetated dune hummock within the restoration area (13 August 2021)........55 Figure 46. Photographs of vegetated dune hummocks within the restoration area on 21 May 2021 ......56 Figure 47. (cont’d from above) Photographs of vegetated dune hummocks within the restoration area on 21 May 202 ............................................................................................................................................57 Figure 48. Year 1 (top, four months after implementation) and Year 2 topographic map of restoration site...............................................................................................................................................................58 Figure 49. Year 5 topographic map of restoration site. The survey boundary was extended to capture dune buildup along the outside of the fence line.......................................................................................59 Figure 50. Photograph of sand build-up along the northern fence line in the restoration area (top: 9 May 2017, approximately five months after implementation; and bottom: 30 October 2020)........................60 Figure 51. Sand buildup along the south side of the fencing (top) and along the east side of the fencing (bottom) on 30 March 2021. ......................................................................................................................61 Figure 52. Berm topography (top left: 17 December 2016, top right: 25 January 2017, bottom left: 8 March 2018, and bottom right: 13 August 2021). ......................................................................................62 Figure 53. Sand grain in restoration site (left: pebbles; middle: coarse sand; right: medium to very fine sand)............................................................................................................................................................63 Figure 54. Photographs showing larger grains at the base of the dune and finer grains on top due to aeolian processes (top: 29 April 2019; bottom: 5 February 2020).............................................................64 Figure 55. Baseline (top) followed by post-restoration sand grain results for all transects (dry sample averages).....................................................................................................................................................65 Figure 56 (cont’d from above). Post-restoration sand grain results for all transects (dry sample averages). ....................................................................................................................................................................66 Figure 57 (cont’d from above). Post-restoration sand grain results for all transects (dry sample averages). ....................................................................................................................................................................67 Figure 58. Photographs of eroded beach face following a winter king tide on 25 January 2017 (left) and a gentler sloping beach face on 15 August 2018 during summer season (right). .........................................67 Figure 59. Organics (loss on ignition) analysis on sand samples (18 July 2018). ........................................70 Figure 60. Average percent organics in sediment samples by survey date (dry samples only). ................70 Figure 61. Representative site photographs from 21 May 2021 and 17 August 2021 looking north. .......72 Figure 62. Representative photos of the restoration area on 21 May 2021 looking south. ......................73 Figure 63. TBF staff and Marymount High School interns picking up trash as a part of adaptive management on 13 August 2021................................................................................................................75 Figure 64. Human use of the restoration site [top: a family using the symbolic pathway through the middle of the restoration area (15 August 2020); second: summer beach visitors setting their chairs and Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
towels around the restoration area (15 August 2020); third: beach visitors reading one of the interpretive signs in the restoration area (21 May 2021); bottom: fisherman fishing oceanward of the restoration area (13 August 2021)..............................................................................................................77 List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of key parameters, protocols implemented, and survey dates. Asterisk indicates baseline survey. ..........................................................................................................................................15 Table 2. Seedling data results by species for 24 March 2017, 11 January 2018, and 22 February 2019 reported as counts, average number / m², and extrapolated counts for the entire restoration area (bold rows). Asterisk indicates non-native species..............................................................................................27 Table 3. Avifauna species identified as present in the restoration area and in the surrounding area adjacent to the restoration. Data for all surveys were combined..............................................................36 Table 4. Walker scale for monitoring California grunion runs....................................................................39 Table 5. Results from grunion surveys conducted at the Santa Monica Restoration Site in Year 5...........40 Table 6. Summary data for temperature and wind speed collected on site during surveys. Asterisk indicates NOAA data instead of in situ data due to equipment malfunction (January and February 2020). ....................................................................................................................................................................43 Table 7. Table displaying NOAA temperature and humidity monthly data for the Santa Monica Municipal Airport Station (downloaded on 31 August 2020)......................................................................................44 Table 8. Table displaying NOAA wind speed and precipitation monthly data for the Santa Monica Municipal Airport Station (downloaded on 31 August 2020).....................................................................45 Table 9. Grain size results from December 2016 (baseline) and post-restoration (March 2017, September 2017, May 2018, November 2018, May 2019, November 2019). ..............................................................68 Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes activities for the Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project from December 2015 through October 2021. The restoration was implemented in two phases over the course of two weeks in December 2016 including the installation of fencing and seeding of native coastal strand vegetation species. For details on the implementation efforts and prior monitoring, please reference prior reports (Johnston et al. 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020). Post-restoration physical and biological monitoring has occurred since 2016 and is completed based on permit requirements and included in this Year 5 Report. As the project was meant to be an experimental pilot for the region, no specific, quantifiable success criteria were set; however, the project can be evaluated against its ability to meet the project goals. The project positively engaged the public, created new partnerships and outreach connections, restricted grooming in an approximately 3-acre area, allowed vegetation to grow, encouraged sand hummocks to form along fence lines and within the project area, provided comprehensive science-based monitoring data to inform nature-based beach restoration solutions, and is bringing back a rare coastal habitat type to the Los Angeles region.

Additionally, the increased functions within the restoration habitat area included benefits to several notable species. Nesting of the federally threatened western snowy plover had not been recorded in the Los Angeles region for almost 70 years, and the first nest for the Los Angeles region was found in April 2017 within the restoration area and contained three eggs. Plovers have been repeatedly identified within and adjacent to the project area throughout all five years, where previously they had not been documented on site. Furthermore, a new native plant species, possibly a rare variant of woolly heads (Nemacaulis denudata), was identified as germinating in the project area in 2017 and was identified in all future years. As the seeds of this species are not sold by the seed provider, it is probable that there was either an existing seed bank for this species already along Santa Monica Beach, or that it was transported by wind, waves, birds, or humans. It was not identified in areas adjacent to the project site.

Another native plant, pink sand verbena (Abronia umbellata) was also identified on site and was not included intentionally by the seed provider. Another biological addition to the restoration project area found in surveys from 2017 through 2021 (but not baseline surveys prior to restoration) were dune beetles, which provided an increased layer of the food web available to foraging birds and wildlife.

Data suggest that the restoration area is considerably different from both the control sites and from itself over time as compared to the baseline surveys, especially for increased vegetation cover and changes in sand morphology. Absolute vegetation cover continues to increase slowly over time, to a maximum in Year 5 of approximately 7% native cover, with patches of dense vegetation interspersed with bare sand, similar to natural coastal strand habitats. Vegetation reaches a maximum of approximately 25% cover adjacent to the fence lines. It is likely that the vegetation community will continue to establish over time, but will probably remain patchy, as is the trend for coastal strand habitats. Elevation data continued to show differences between restoration site transects and controls, with greater topographic complexity and elevation heights in the restoration site. Whereas the groomed control areas were flattened and uniform, the restoration area had small dune hummocks, increases in berm height, and consistent sand retention across seasons and years. Adaptive management in the form of supplemental seeding and fencing is being considered for implementation in future years and will be Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
2 evaluated as part of a revised adaptive management plan for the application for a Coastal Development Permit amendment to establish the project site as a permanent feature.

The variability of the berm over time and the notable increases in elevation along the fenced perimeters, oceanward berm, and throughout the restoration area surrounding patches of vegetation suggest that longer periods of time for scientific evaluation for these parameters would also allow for additional trends to be defined. If funding is available, future monitoring and research efforts would continue to inform sand topography within the restoration site in response to vegetation growth, fence placement, and seasonal changes. For more information, details, artistic renderings, and links to public documents, reports, and photographs, please visit the project website.

Figure ES- 1. Post-restoration site photographs taken in Year 5 on 30 March and 21 May 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
3 Introduction
Background
Over 17 million visitors frequent the beaches of Santa Monica every year. Beaches are broadly recognized and highly valued as cultural and economic resources for coastal regions (Dugan et al. 2015).

However, their value as ecosystems is often less appreciated. Southern California beach systems and associated wildlife are highly impacted by threats, including native species extirpation and extinction, erosion, non-natural sediment and sand transport through mechanical means, pollution, and loss of natural morphology due to daily vegetation and top soil removal through grooming and other regular maintenance (Dugan et al. 2003). However, these systems also offer essentially the last line of defense in terms of nature-based protection as components of a living shoreline. As a vital part of our coastline, beaches and dunes support and protect our homes, roads, and infrastructure, providing a natural buffer from sea level rise (SLR) as well as from tidal and wave action from the ocean. Beach habitats and dunes are critical in managing sand transport to create resilient beach morphologies, which naturally buffer climate change impacts. By restoring natural processes to impacted beach systems, we improve their ecological and utilitarian functions, and serve as a model for similar projects statewide.

Since the 1960s, beaches in the Los Angeles area have been subjected to the continuous removal of natural features as they begin to develop. Mechanical maintenance of beaches has significant impacts on the physical and biological processes of natural beach and dune ecosystems (Dugan et al. 2003, Dugan and Hubbard 2009, Hubbard et al. 2013). Over much of the state, and in many parts of the country, beaches are not frequently groomed, but are instead allowed to develop natural features, such as low dunes away from active recreation areas. These features not only support native, and in many cases, rare and endemic species of plants and animals, they also provide a cost-effective buffer to storm surges and other regular, predictable threats, including SLR and increased erosion.

In addition to providing habitat for avifauna, including Federally designated “Critical Habitat” (US Fish and Wildlife Service) for the threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus alexandrius), coastal strand habitats have a varied native vegetation community, including species such as red sand verbena (Abronia maritima), beach evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia), and beach saltbush (Atriplex leucophylla), and provide a vital habitat for invertebrate species. Thus, the current condition of groomed and flattened sand with vegetation removed for most of the beaches in Los Angeles and the Santa Monica Bay provides almost no habitat value and removes all of the ecosystem services (Dugan et al. 2003, Hubbard et al. 2013, Gilburn 2012). Without vegetation, erosion is more frequent and there is nothing to trap wind-driven aeolian transport of sand (Nordstrom et al. 2011).

Restored conditions of the beach include no mechanized ‘flattening’ of the sand and removal of vegetation. After seeding and planting vegetation, sandy coastal strand habitats and plant hummocks are forming, which then support higher levels of the ecological community (e.g., invertebrates, birds).

Recent scientific literature highlights the need for ecosystem-level, rather than species-level, beach restoration planning to achieve the greatest ecological benefits (e.g., Schlacher et al. 2008). This project represents one example of that model.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
4 Project Goals
This pilot project restored approximately three acres of sandy coastal strand habitat located on the beaches of Santa Monica by utilizing existing sediments to transform a portion of the current beach into a sustainable coastal strand and foredune habitat complex resilient to sea level rise. As an alternative to traditional hardscaping options, this project will continue to evaluate a living, restored shoreline with a diverse wildlife community as an alternate approach to combat climate change (Figure 1).

Another project goal was to assist in bringing back a native, diverse, endemic-rich, coastal plant and wildlife community which has been almost completely extirpated from the Los Angeles region. Enabling the return of broad ecosystem functions will create increased protection for coastal infrastructure and residences from sea level rise and erosion while providing a vital refuge for invertebrates, birds, and rare coastal vegetation species.

This demonstration site will also serve as a model for the region, showing that heavy recreational use of beaches and meaningful habitat restoration are not incompatible goals. It continues to provide not only a scientific basis to develop guidelines and protocols but an integrated, locally-based program for increasing the usefulness of natural environments in a developed area. It also evaluates “soft” low-cost nature-based shore protection from sea-level rise and storms while providing public benefits and enhancing natural resource values. All these benefits are also evaluated in the context of existing recreational uses of the beach.

Additional benefits of healthy beach ecosystems include, but are not limited to:
• Enhancing a developed coastline
• Critical habitat for rare coastal strand vegetation and invertebrate species • Habitat for birds, possibly including the threatened western snowy plover • Familiarizing residents, especially children, with a healthy, natural landscape • Promoting tourism through unique aesthetic and bird watching opportunities • Educational opportunities including native plants and healthy beach management practices • Understanding of a ‘soft-scape’ climate change protection project • Natural shoreline protection through buffering and absorption of wave energy • Sea water filtration and food web support
• Detrital processing and nutrient recycling
Figure 1. Photo of the vegetated dunes in March 2021 on the right in contrast to the groomed beach on the left.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
5 Project Description
The pilot project of approximately three acres aimed to return a healthy and beautiful ecosystem to Santa Monica State Beach (Figure 2), which in turn, will help evaluate and address climate change issues for both humans and wildlife. This pilot project used low-lying sand fencing and native plant seeds to actively restore approximately two out of three acres of a highly impacted beach system (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6). The third acre is comprised of the dry and wet sand shore-ward of the project area that remained ungroomed (passive restoration through not raking the sand), and the area immediately adjacent to the perimeter of the sand fence, which also remained ungroomed.

Design aspects feature curved, flowing, low-lying fence lines, a path through the restoration area, and an unenclosed perimeter along the water’s edge – all components requested by various members of the public during the first few months of outreach about the project. Many of these design components were incorporated to minimize disturbance, and even enhance different forms of interactions and recreation along the beach. The site allows visitors to continue to recreate as well as enjoy the local native flora and fauna that are currently absent along the groomed beaches of the Santa Monica Bay.

Specialized coastal strand and foredune vegetation was seeded and continues to grow, develop, and trap sand transported by wind. Wind-driven sand bumps into vegetation, falls, and accretes, naturally increasing the elevation of plant hummocks over time. Additional trapping of sand has occurred through the deployment of sand fencing. Because beach dunes have the potential to accrete sediment transported from the ocean, they could continue to grow concurrently with rising sea levels. This dynamic process can continue as long as the vegetation community remains robust and healthy. This process has repeatedly been demonstrated in the scientific literature as well as in pilot projects in other California counties, such as the Surfer’s Point restoration project in Ventura County.

Pre-restoration monitoring and project implementation began in November and December 2016, and required approximately three weeks, including monitoring. It was followed by post-restoration monitoring for five years. This report details results of the fifth year of monitoring (Year 5). For more information, details, artistic renderings, maps, and links to public documents and photographs, please visit the project website: http://www.santamonicabay.org/santa-monica-beach-restoration-pilot/.

This project would not have been possible without two additional project partners: City of Santa Monica (land managers) and California Department of Parks and Recreation (land owners). We are very grateful for their support and enthusiasm in the implementation of this pilot project. Additionally, we are also grateful for the many proponents and supporters of this project, including but not limited to: Audubon Society – Santa Monica Chapter and Los Angeles Chapter, Loyola Marymount University (LMU), Coastal Research Institute (CRI), University of California Santa Barbara, Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc., Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc., California Native Plant Society, Congress Member Ted Lieu, Assembly Member Richard Bloom, Senator Fran Pavley, Los Angeles World Airports, Friends of Ballona Wetlands, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Heal the Bay, University of Southern California Sea Grant Program, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program, US Environmental Protection Agency, Patagonia, Council Member Paul Koretz, Girl Scout Troop 10975, Friends of LAX Dunes, Studio-MLA, US Green Building Council – LA, beach managers, and many local residents.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
6 Figure 2. Photograph of the project site prior to restoration at Santa Monica Beach, Santa Monica, CA.

Figure 3. Map of the Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project location and general vicinity.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
7 Figure 4. Artistic rendering overview of project area, post-establishment of vegetation (rendering credit: Studio-MLA).

Project
Area
Lifeguard
Tower
Annenberg
Beach House
PCH
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
8 Figure 5. Photograph of post-restoration project site in Year 1 (25 January 2017).

Figure 6. Photograph of post-restoration project site in Year 5 (11 April 2021).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
9 Public Outreach
Significant public outreach has been conducted as part of this project through meetings, events, tours, social media, newspaper articles, newsletters, and a project webpage (Figure 7). Outreach is ongoing and occurs on-site to beach visitors who have questions and through local media. The ability for the public to interact with, learn from, and benefit from this project are vital project goals.

Members of the public had multiple opportunities to provide feedback about the project, and suggested changes were incorporated into the project design. Public-requested components include, but are not limited to, the curved sand fence, a 3-foot maximum fence height, several of the flowering plant species (e.g., red sand verbena), no fence along the open ocean side of the project, and an extra buffer of open space on the ocean-ward side of the project area to allow for pedestrian traffic and lifeguard vehicle emergency access. Additionally, outreach occurred in advance of the application for permitting from the California Coastal Commission, in accordance with permit conditions for the project. More than 20 public meetings, tours, or media articles occurred for this project prior to its implementation. Since implementation in December 2016, many additional news articles and tours have occurred. Additionally, several television segments have also aired, including on KNBC, KCAL, and KSCI.

Several important outreach components occurred for this project through the development of a website that highlighted artistic renderings, photographs, project information, and additional materials. Perhaps even more importantly from an outreach perspective was the installation of two interpretive signs designed to educate visitors on the importance of recreating natural ecosystems as an approach to combat sea level rise and provide vital habitat for plants and wildlife. Both the artistic renderings and interpretive signs were designed by Studio-MLA. Funding for the signs was provided by the Los Angeles County Supervisor District 3 (Sheila Kuehl’s Office) and City of Santa Monica. The project website and frequently asked questions can be found at the following link:
http://www.santamonicabay.org/explore/beaches-dunes-bluffs/beach-restoration/santa-monicabeach-restoration-pilot/. Selected media links are presented below the outreach photographs. The site is frequently written about in local newspapers, blogs, newsletters, and social media postings.

During Years 1-5 following implementation, The Bay Foundation (TBF) staff presented at Beach Ecology Coalition meetings (Southern California stakeholder group), LA County Beach Commission meetings, and a Southern California Living Shorelines workshop. Additional outreach for the project included presentations with the NOAA Coastal Resiliency Network, 9 th National Summit on Coastal and Estuarine
Restoration and Management (December 2018), serving as a key member of a panel with the City of Santa Monica’s LCP and sea level rise event (15 March 2018), a presentation at the Southern California Academy of Sciences annual meeting (3 May 2019), presentations and a video created as part of the California Dune Science Network (December 2021). Tours aimed to engage the community on the impacts of sea level rise have occurred through the Annenberg Community Beach House, the Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, CRI, Girl Scouts, and others.

The Girl Scouts tour was intended to be a part of a docent tour program where TBF would give site tours and provide outreach and educational materials to local scout troops, who would in turn give tours to the general public. However, implementation of the docent tour program was postponed due to the Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
10 COVID-19 pandemic. While COVID-19 prohibited some on-site outreach activities during Years 4 and 5, TBF continued to explore and utilize virtual means of outreach, including presentations at the Adapt LA webinar (June 2020), Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability (LARC) virtual meeting (May 2020), and City of Santa Monica’s Sustainability Department meeting (July 2020).

Despite on-site outreach activities being limited through Year 5 due to safety concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, TBF continued to find opportunities to share the project and ongoing monitoring results with the public, as well as to beach managers and coastal scientists in the region. One highlight of Year 5 was sharing the progress of the project and how it has informed other Living Shorelines projects on two podcasts, the Dragonfruit Podcast and the American Shore and Beach Podcast (October 2020). TBF also engaged with stakeholders through presentations at the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association Conference (October 2020 and March 2021), Beach Ecology Coalition meeting (January 2021), Society for Ecological Restoration Conference (June 2021), and National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration (July 2021), and by participating in the Los Angeles Snowy Plover meeting (January 2021). The Santa Monica Beach Pilot project was highlighted by the City of Santa Monica in an October 2020 blog post titled, “Santa Monica’s Natural Dune Restoration Project Celebrates 4 Years”, which described project progress to date. A Los Angeles Times article in August 2021 also highlighted the project as a model for the region and discussed the role of dune restoration in buffering impacts to sea level rise and rebuilding California’s historical coastal dunes. Lastly, TBF continues to promote the project through social media and through classes at LMU.

Figure 7. Social media post promoting the project site and Coastal Cleanup Day on 17 September 2020 (left) and soliciting stakeholder feedback on program priorities on 12 February 2021 (right).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
11 Figure 8. Photographs taken on 13 August 2021 (top) and 21 May 2021 (bottom) of human use of the project site.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
12 Selected Media Links
• KPCC 89.3 interview with Executive Director Tom Ford on 7 December 2016. • Santa Monica Lookout article on 5 December 2016.
• Curbed LA article on 6 December 2016.
• Next City article about the project on 16 March 2017. • City of Santa Monica press release about the ribbon cutting event on 3 May 2017. • Ventura County Star article about the project and plovers on 8 May 2017. • Daily Breeze article about the Western Snowy Plovers nesting on site on 9 May 2017. • KCET article about the project on 9 May 2017.
• Los Angeles Times article about the project and plovers on 10 May 2017. • Santa Monica Daily Press article about the Western Snowy Plovers nesting on 11 May 2017. • The Argonaut article mentioning project in context of sea level rise in LA on 5 July 2017. • Stormwater Solutions article on 10 August 2017.
• Baywire feature Quarter 3 – 2017. The Baywire provides news and updates from the Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program.
• Baywire feature Quarter 4 – 2017: Annual Report.
• Hakai Magazine (international) article about the pilot project, trash maintenance, and Santa Monica beaches on 31 July 2018.
• KPCC 89.3 interview with Director of Watershed Programs, Melodie Grubbs, on 20 September 2019 highlighting the potential of the project to combat sea level rise. • Dragonfruit Podcast with Science Director, Karina Johnston discussing adapting coastalines, on 29 October 2020.
• American Shore and Beach Podcast with Science Director, Karina Johnston discussing naturebased adaptation to improve coastal resiliency on 30 October 2020. • City of Santa Monica blog post highlighting the project progress through Year 4 posted on 15 October 2020.
• Los Angeles times article mentioning project as a model for other Living Shorelines projects published on 2 August 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
13 Permitting
TBF, in coordination with the City of Santa Monica (City) and California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), obtained the necessary permits to implement the Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project. Approval from the City at a public City Council meeting in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and restoration site plan stamped and approved by the Planning Department was obtained prior to the submittal of a Coastal Development Permit application to the California Coastal Commission (Commission). Additionally, a CEQA exemption was filed and obtained by the City to implement this project.

In October 2016, the Commission approved permit application No. 5-16-0632 with the following special conditions:
1) An assumption of risk, waiver of liability and indemnity; 2) Limited development authorization period;
3) Dune habitat creation plan;
4) Public access requirements; and
5) Permit compliance.

Permit condition 1 included a waiver signed by the City and DPR. Regarding permit condition 2, CDP No. 5-16-0632 authorizes the approved beach restoration project for a period of five years from the date of Commission action. After such time, the authorization for continuation and active management of the dune habitat shall cease, unless the applicants submit an amendment to this permit, or new CDP application to the Commission, and that amendment or permit is approved, thereby extending the time period for the project. The dune habitat created pursuant to the permit may remain in place. The third permit condition was met by the Implementation and Monitoring Plan and the Site Plan. Permit conditions 4 and 5 were met throughout the duration of the project.

Year 5 marks the conclusion of the initial five-year CDP approval period. Following discussions with Coastal Commission, the City, and public stakeholders and interested entities, TBF and the City have opted to establish the site as a permanent feature of the coastline through a CDP amendment. The partners are currently drafting the CDP amendment application and revised adaptive management plan.

Coordination and communications are ongoing with federal and state agencies with an interest in this project, beach management, and/or wildlife (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service). All annual reports for this project will be made publicly available on TBF website: www.santamonicabay.org. For details on the implementation of the project in December 2016 and prior years of summary data, please reference the previous reports on TBF’s website.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
14 Scientific Monitoring
Accurate and robust scientific monitoring is a vital part of any restoration project. Monitoring is used to assess successful project implementation; for example, in this project, monitoring accretion rates of sand and elevation changes allowed for an assessment of the success of the project in combating sea level rise. TBF implemented a biological, physical, and human use long-term monitoring plan to quantifiably evaluate the project over five years. Additional “control” data were collected along the adjacent unrestored beach as part of a before-after-control-impact ecological assessment monitoring program. Specialist scientists such as ornithologists and invertebrate biologists are partners in this project and contributed their expertise in implementation of the monitoring program. Data was collected for five years to evaluate the ecological health of the created coastal strand ecosystem and its potential for long-term adaptation to accelerated rates of sea level rise.

The development of the monitoring plan was conducted with input from many scientific advisors throughout southern California (details can be found in the “Implementation and Monitoring Plan” document available on the website). Additionally, data were collected to help inform other projects in southern California evaluating nature-based methods of shoreline protection.

Pre-restoration baseline monitoring occurred in December 2016 prior to the implementation of the seeding component of the restoration project to allow a comparison of the pre- and post-project conditions of the area. Post-restoration monitoring occurred beginning in January 2017. Table 1 summarizes the monitoring sampling design that occurred from the time period 1 December 2016 through 17 August 2021. Table 1 lists ten major parameters, the primary protocol(s) implemented for each parameter, and the frequency of implementation. Additional protocols for management efforts such as trash collection, human use, and invasive vegetation removal are described in the Adaptive Management, Maintenance, and Site Use section of the report, below.

Individual Protocols and Results
Each of the following subsections summarizes the methods of an individual protocol implemented as part of the monitoring program and the associated results. For in depth details on objectives, equipment, field preparation, field methods, quality control check procedures, and datasheets, refer to the individual Standard Operating Procedures listed below within the California Estuarine Wetland Monitoring Manual, publicly available for free download: http://www.santamonicabay.org/californiaestuarine-wetlands-monitoring-manual-level-3/. Additionally, some protocols were adopted from Dugan et al. 2015 Final Report: Baseline Characterization of Sandy Beach Ecosystems along the South Coast of California.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
15 Table 1. Summary of key parameters, protocols implemented, and survey dates. Asterisk indicates baseline survey.

Parameter Protocol Survey Dates
Wrack Cover Percent cover and composition
by species
28 December 2016*; 14 February, 12 March, 21 June, 20
September 2017; 11 January, 8 March, 24 May, 15 August, 16 November 2018; 22 February, 21 May, 1 August, 6 November 2019; 5 February,24 July, 27 August, and 30 October 2020; 21 May and 13 August 2021
Vegetation Cover
and Seedling Density
Transects assessing cover by
species; quadrat density counts
13 December 2016*; 24 March, 21 June, 20 September 2017; 11 January, 24 May, 15 August, 14 December 2018; 22 February, 21 May, 1 August, 6 November 2019; 5 February,24 July, 27 August, and 30 October 2020; 21 May, 13 and 17 August 2021
Vegetation Mapping
**
Polygons depicting species
composition (once vegetation
sufficiently established)
4 October 2019; 21 August 2020; 21 May and 17 August 2021 Invertebrates Cores along transects using 1mm
mesh bags as sieve
28 December 2016*; 18 July 2017; 8 March, 15 August 2018; 7 March 2019
Avifauna
Visual presence and behavior
surveys; nesting surveys by
USFWS; plover surveys by
Audubon Society
10 December 2016*; 5 January, 22 February, 18 April, 24 April 2017, 13 July 2018; 7 March, 28 August 2019; 5 February, 24 July, 27 August, 30 October 2020; and 17 August 2021
throughout quarterly surveys and supplemental surveys by Audubon Society
Grunion and Other
Wildlife
Protocols follow
www.grunion.org, and use the
Walker Scale
April and June 2017; March, April, and July 2018; June 2019; 26 May, 10, 14, 24, and 25 June 2021; and additional surveys by grunion volunteers
Weather Conditions
Wind speed (Kestrel), max wind
speed, air temperature,
precipitation data (NOAA)
14 and 28 December 2016*; 13 and 25 January, 4, 14, and 23 February, 24 March, 12 April, 21 June, 21 August, 13 September 2017; 11 January, 8 March, 13 April, 24 May, 15 August, 12 December 2018; 22 February, 25 April, 21 May, 1, 28 August, 4 October, 6 November 2019; 21 January, 5 February, 24 July, 21 August, and 30 October 2020; 19 February and 13 August 2021 Elevation Elevation profiles and crosssections; topographic map 13 December 2016*; 24 March, 21 June, 13 September 2017; 13 February, 24, 29 May, 15 August, 14 December 2018; 22
February, 21 May, 1 August, 6 November 2019; 5 February, and 24 July, 24 August, and 30 October 2020; 21 May, 13 and 17 August 2021
Sand Deposition and
Sediment Grain Size
MWAC method (Goossens et al
2000); sieve method; Empirical
sand transport calculations (Hsu
1981)
13 December 2016*; 24 March, 13 September 2017; 24 May, 16 November 2018; 21 May, 3 June, 6 November 2019; 24 July 2020; 13 August 2021
Photo Point Georeferenced photograph series
from fixed locations
13*, 17 December 2016; 13, 25 January, 4 February, 24 March, 25 April, 21 August, 13 September 2017; 11 January, 8 March, 13 April, 24 May, 15 August, 19 December 2018; 22 February, 25 April, 21 May, 1 August, 6 November 2019; 5 February, 24 July, 27 August, and 30 October 2020; 21 May and 13 August 2021 ** Indicates additional monitoring parameter added in Year 4.

For details on the individual protocols and sampling design, refer to the Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project Implementation and Monitoring Plan.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
16 Wrack Cover
Wrack cover surveys were conducted to determine the percent cover, composition by species, and average depth of macrophyte wrack in the swash zone area directly in front of the restoration site and at a control site (Figure 8). A total of four line-intercept transects were surveyed, consisting of two transects in the swash zone directly in front of the restoration site and two transects in the swash zone of the control areas outside the project area. Wrack was identified to species when possible [e.g., giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera)]. These transects also recorded trash, tar, driftwood, other detritus or terrestrial debris in a similar manner. Wrack cover surveys for Years 1-4 were conducted on 28 December 2016; 14 February, 12 March, 21 June, and 20 September 2017; 11 January, 8 March, 24 May, 15 August, and 16 November 2018; 22 February, 21 May, and 1 August, 6 November 2019; 5 February, and 24 July 2020. Year 5 wrack monitoring surveys were conducted on 8 August and 30 October 2020 and 21 May and 13 August 2021.

During the pre-restoration baseline surveys conducted in December 2016, only giant kelp and surfgrass (Phyllospadix torreyi) were observed and the overall wrack cover was low, with an average wrack cover of 0.06% in both restoration and control transects (Figure 9, top). In post-restoration surveys wrack cover was highly variable across Years 1-5 (2017-2021). Wrack cover included seven species: giant kelp, surfgrass, Sargassum spp., Egregia menziesii, Ulva spp., Gelidium spp., and an unknown red turf algae.

Post-restoration surveys display a pattern of lower wrack cover during the winter surveys and higher wrack cover during the spring through fall surveys, possibly indicating seasonal fluctuations. Wrack cover was consistently low in December through March. This trend continued into Year 4, showing low cover in the winter survey (February 2020) and higher cover in the summer survey (July 2020; Figure 9, top). Timing of peak wrack cover was variable by year but occurred sometime between May and October. Cover between the restoration and control site were also highly variable and remained so through Year 5. Overall, there were not substantial differences in wrack cover observed between restoration and control sites over time (Figure 9, top). Wrack cover may be similar across restoration and control sites because there is no grooming along the restoration transect surveys and control transect surveys are conducted below most grooming activity along the high tide line.

In Years 1-5, overall wrack cover remained relatively low, yet variable, ranging between 0% and 15% (Figure 9). Cover was frequently dominated by giant kelp and surfgrass, but wrack composition was highly variable by survey. During spring (May 2021) and summer (August 2020 and 2021) of Year 5, there was relatively low wrack cover, ranging between 1.3% to 5%, dominated by surf grass (Figure 10, Figure 10). In October of Year 5, there was a substantial increase in the average wrack cover in both the control (33%) and restoration (23%) transects. This increase in wrack cover was driven by a high abundance of a red turf algae, with 32% average cover observed in the control and 20% in the restoration sites (Figure 11, Figure 12). A similar but smaller spike in abundance of the unknown red algae was observed in both restoration and control transects in September 2017 and in the restoration site in August 2018.

Terrestrial debris and trash were variable throughout the surveys (Figure 9, bottom). During the prerestoration baseline surveys conducted in December 2016, there was no trash observed and less than 1% cover of terrestrial debris (e.g., twigs, leaves, feather, other natural debris, etc.) in both restoration and control sites. Terrestrial debris in Years 1-5 was relatively low across all surveys, with a maximum Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
17 average cover of approximately 23% in the restoration site (January 2018) and range between 0% and 10% for all other surveys. In Year 5, terrestrial debris remained low, with less than 1% observed in all transects. Trash also remained low across all surveys in Year 5, at less than 1% average cover in both the control and restoration sites (Figure 9). This indicates either a lack of trash in the survey areas, or beneficial adaptive management measures such as hand-removal of trash that are shown to be effective at maintaining the restoration and control areas with very low overall trash cover.

Figure 8. Wrack survey transect at the restoration site (left) and control site (right).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
18 Figure 9. Average percent cover of wrack by species (top) and trash and terrestrial debris (bottom) in the restoration area and control site across all surveys. Note variable y-axis for each graph.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION
12/28/2016 2/14/2017 3/12/2017 6/21/2017 9/20/2017 1/11/2018 3/8/2018 5/24/2018 8/15/2018 11/16/2018 2/22/2019 5/21/2019 8/1/2019 11/6/2019 2/5/2020 7/24/2020 8/27/2020 10/30/2020 5/21/2021 8/13/2021 Average % Cover
Survey Date and Site
Wrack - Average Percent Cover
Unkown red algae
Gelidium spp.

Ulva
Sargasum spp.

Phyllospadix
Macrocystis
Egregia
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION

CONTROL

RESTORATION
12/28/2016 2/14/2017 3/12/2017 6/21/2017 9/20/2017 1/11/2018 3/8/2018 5/24/2018 8/15/2018 11/16/2018 2/22/2019 5/21/2019 8/1/2019 11/6/2019 2/5/2020 7/24/2020 8/27/2020 10/30/2020 5/21/2021 8/13/2021 Average % Cover
Survey Date and Site
Trash and Terrestrial Debris - Average Percent Cover
Trash Debris
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
19 Figure 10. Photograph of wrack transect at restoration site with primarily bare ground and sparse Phyllospadix sp. on 13 August 2021 (bottom).

Figure 11. Photograph of wrack line with red turf algae on 30 October 2020.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
20 Figure 12. Photograph of mixed wrack clump comprised of Phyllospadix sp. and a red alga found on 30 October 2020 (left) and another algae photo found on the 21 May 2021 wrack survey (right).

Vegetation Cover and Seedling Density
Vegetation cover surveys can be used to provide a wide range of information and data, including summarizing the prevalence of native and non-native plant cover, determining species cover, relative species richness and diversity, and assessing canopy height. The primary objective of the transect- and quadrat-level cover surveys for this project was to assess the approximate cover of native coastal strand vegetation over time. The line-intercept transect and cover class quadrat survey methods are described, along with example field data sheets, in SOP 3.2 Vegetation Cover Surveys (TBF 2015b). Data were evaluated as percent cover by species. Additionally, individual seedlings were counted within randomly selected quadrats as part of the Cover Class Quadrat vegetation cover assessment method semiannually. Data are presented as germinated seedlings per square meter categorized by species and nativity, following assessment procedures described in SOP 3.4 Seed Bank Germination (TBF 2015c), and seedling data are also extrapolated up to the whole restoration area at approximately 6,900 m².

Four vegetation transects were surveyed within the restoration area and compared to two control transects surveyed outside the restoration area (approximately 100 m south of the restoration area).

Vegetation cover surveys were conducted on 13 December 2016; 24 March, 21 June, and 20 September 2017; 11 January, 24 May, 15 August, and 14 December 2018; 22 February, 21 May, 1 August, and 6 November 2019; 5 February, 24 July, 27 August, and 30 October 2020; 21 May, 13 and 17 August 2021.

In addition, two supplemental transects within the restoration area were surveyed on 17 August 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
21 These targeted transects were placed off-location of the fixed transects in case there was a trampling effect of vegetation cover on the existing permanent fixed location transects. The transects were parallel to existing transects, with one located approximately two meters south of the northern sand fence boundary, and the second approximately five meters south of the bisectional walking path.

All four of the seeded vegetation species germinated within and immediately adjacent to the restoration area [i.e., beach evening-primrose, red sand verbena, beach bur sage (Ambrosia chamissonis), and beach salt bush (Figure 13). Additionally, three other vegetation species germinated within the project area, two native and one non-native. The two natives were woolly heads and pink sand verbena, and the non-native species was European sea rocket (Cakile maritima) (Figure 14). Neither woolly heads, a native and possibly rare species variant, nor pink sand were in the seed mix as confirmed by the seed provider; thus, it is probable that there was either an existing seed bank for these species already along Santa Monica Beach, or that they were transported by wind, waves, birds, or humans. Combining all transects surveyed in Year 5, the highest proportions of cover were found to be beach evening-primrose and beach saltbush (Figure 15). In all years, sea rocket exhibited the lowest cover of any of the present species and was periodically removed by hand from within the restoration area as an adaptive management maintenance activity, requiring very little effort, and less over time as the seed bank depleted. As Figure 15 displays, the vegetation continues to be represented by multiple species exhibiting seasonal variations (rather than dominated by one or two species), with a more even cover distribution of native vegetation.

Vegetation cover assessed during the baseline (December 2016) surveys within both the restoration area and control site was zero and remained zero at the control site throughout all surveys (Figure 16).

Native vegetation cover was much higher than non-native cover (sea rocket) during all surveys, with zero relative and absolute non-native vegetation in Year 3 and 4 surveys. In Year 5, there was 7% relative and > 0.1% absolute non-native cover in the May 2021 cover, and zero relative and absolute non-native cover in all other Year 5 surveys. Native cover has increased over time, with seasonal variation. Absolute native cover fluctuated in Year 5, remaining between 3-5%. However, supplemental transects surveyed on 17 August 2021 showed native cover to be approximately 7%, the highest cover estimate of the project duration, slightly surpassing the November 2019 survey (Figure 16, top). Vegetation is likely to continue to increase and become more complex over time, though naturally occurring coastal strand habitats also usually have a significant portion of bare sand, even after becoming mature vegetation communities (Figure 17).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
22 Figure 13. Photograph of various vegetation in restoration site. Top left: pink sand verbena; top right: red sand verbena; bottom left: beach evening-primrose; bottom right: beach salt bush.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
23 Figure 14. Photograph of various vegetation in restoration site. Top left: woolly heads; top right: non-native sea rocket; bottom: beach bur sage.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
24 Figure 15. Relative percent cover by species for all transects (live vegetation only, 13-Dec-16 was baseline survey with no vegetation identified). 24%
41%
36%
50% 47%
37%
27% 27%
44%
38% 35% 36%
44%
57%
62%
52% 54%
67%
41%
21%
21%
3%
7%
10%
28%
8%
7%
5% 2%
6%
6%
0%
9%
3%
10%
22%
14%
26% 35%
52%
29% 38%
33%
49%
36%
34%
24% 26%
14%
13%
6%
22%
14%
17%
21%
9%
14%
8%
16%
9%
24%
14% 7%
8%
18% 30%
1% 2%
2%
1% 1%
3%
3%
6%
1% 3%
1% 2% 1% 4% 3%
10%
2%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
13-Dec-16 24-Mar-17 21-Jun-17 20-Sept-17 11-Jan-18 24-May-18 15-Aug-18 14-Dec-18 22-Feb-19 21-May-19 1-Aug-19 6-Nov-19 5-Feb-20 24-Jul-20 27-Aug-20 30-Oct-20 21-May-21 13-Aug-21 Relative Percent Cover (%)
Survey Date
Relative Percent Cover by Species for all Transects
Beach Evening Primrose Beach Bur Sage Beach Saltbush Red Sand Verbena Pink Sand Verbena Woolly Heads Sea Rocket Baseline (No Vegetation) Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
25 Figure 16. Average absolute native and non-native vegetation cover during all surveys within the restoration area (top) and at the control site (bottom). Asterisk (*) indicates two additional targeted transects surveyed on 17 August 2021. *
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Average % Cover
Survey Date
Restoration Site Vegetation Cover
Native %
Non-native %
0 1
2 3
4 5
Average % Cover
Survey Date
Control Site Vegetation Cover
Native %
Non-native %
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
26 Figure 17. Photograph of various interspersed native vegetation scattered throughout the project site with areas of sandy bare ground (21 May 2021).

Both the baseline survey and each of the control surveys found zero seedlings on all transects. Table 2 displays the results of the seedling counts from within the restoration area on the 24 March 2017, 11 January 2018, 22 February 2019, 5 February 2020, 30 October 2020, and 21 May 2021 surveys and extrapolates the results up to the total project area (approximately 6,900 m²) by species. Note that the extrapolated data are based on averages and are thus not likely to represent an exact numerical count for the area but are considered estimates (rounded down to the closest thousand). Surveys conducted but not listed in Table 2 found no seedlings.

The March 2017 survey found more seedlings within the restoration area than the subsequent surveys, since it closely followed the initial vegetation seeding in December 2016 (Figure 18). The latter three surveys are better represented as flowering plants that produced germinated seedlings. The February 2020 survey recorded a low number of seedlings within the surveyed area, though many small juvenile individuals were present, which were too large to be categorized as seedlings. Similar results were seen in both October 2020 and May 2021 surveys. These surveys indicate ongoing natural re-seeding and germination by existing plants occurring throughout the site across the post-restoration survey years, as no additional seeds have been placed on site since December 2016.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
27 Table 2. Seedling data results by species for 24 March 2017, 11 January 2018, and 22 February 2019 reported as counts, average number / m², and extrapolated counts for the entire restoration area (bold rows). Asterisk indicates non-native species.

Beach
bur sage
Beach
saltbush
Red sand
verbena
Pink
sand
verbena
Beach
evening
primrose
Woolly
heads
Sea
rocket
*
March 2017
Total Number of
Seedlings 337 35 9 0 71 0 9
Avg. Seedling
Count / m² 16.85 1.75 0.45 0 3.55 0 0.45
Total Estimated
for Restoration
Area
116,000 12,000 3,000 0 24,000 0 3,000
January 2018
Total Number of
Seedlings 36 16 2 0 56 0 0
Avg. Seedling
Count / m² 1.80 0.80 0.10 0 2.80 0 0
Total Estimated
for Restoration
Area
12,000 6,000 1,000 0 20,000 0 0
February 2019
Total Number of
Seedlings 207 10 5 0 36 0 0
Avg. Seedling
Count / m² 10.35 0.50 0.25 0 1.80 0 0
Total Estimated
for Restoration
Area
71,000 3,000 2,000 0 12,000 0 0
February 2020
Total Number of
Seedlings 50 0 0 0 1 0 0
Avg. Seedling
Count / m² 2.50 0 0 0 0.05 0 0
Total Estimated
for Restoration
Area
17,000 0 0 0 350 0 0
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
28 Beach
bur sage
Beach
saltbush
Red sand
verbena
Pink
sand
verbena
Beach
evening
primrose
Woolly
heads
Sea
rocket
*
October 2020
Total Number of
Seedlings 0 0 0 0 42 0 0
Avg. Seedling
Count / m² 0 0 0 0 2.10 0 0
Total Estimated
for Restoration
Area
0 0 0 0 15,000 0 0
May 2021
Total Number of
Seedlings 23 0 0 0 5 0 0
Avg. Seedling
Count / m² 1.15 0 0 0 0.25 0 0
Total Estimated
for Restoration
Area
8,000 0 0 0 1,700 0 0
Figure 18. Germinated seedlings within quadrat sampling, pencil used for scale (30 October 2020).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
29 Vegetation Mapping
Vegetation mapping was a new monitoring parameter added once the vegetation was more established on site. This protocol uses a combination of aerial imagery, high-resolution Trimble GPS, and in-situ observations to delineate polygons depicting species composition. Vegetation mapping protocols are described in more detail in SOP 3.5 Vegetation Mapping (TBF 2015c).

Figure 19 displays the absolute native vegetation cover within the restoration area for the survey conducted on 17 August 2021 (Year 5). The highest absolute native cover (21-25%) was observed along the southern fence perimeter. Both the northern and southern plots display similar cover patterns with high native cover along the fencing perimeters, several large areas with cover in the 11-15% and 16-20% ranges, and the lowest cover (1-5%) in the central and oceanward regions. Only the access pathway displayed 0% cover due to the lack of seeding and the frequent trampling by beachgoers.

Figure 19. Absolute native vegetation cover within restoration site for August 2021 survey.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
30 Figure 20. Representative photo of project area from oceanward looking northeast (13 August 2021).

Figures 21-22 display absolute cover for the four primary species on site: red sand verbena, beach bur sage, beach evening-primrose, and beach saltbush. All four species were present throughout the majority of the site. Red sand verbena exhibited 1-5% cover throughout most of the site, with several large areas with 6-10% and 11-15% cover (Figure 21 top). No red sand verbena was observed in the oceanward project area. The highest densities (6-10%) of beach bur sage were found along the northern and southern fence lines but was also present in lower amounts (1-5%) throughout most of the rest of the site (Figure 21 bottom). Beach salt bush (Figure 22 top) and beach evening-primrose was present in relatively low amounts (1-5%) most of the site, with slightly higher cover (6-10%) of beach eveningprimrose in the back beach portion of the site (Figure 22 bottom). Low cover of the four primary species throughout the site is consistent with natural coastal strand habitats, which exhibit patchy vegetation with large areas of bare sand.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
31 Figure 21. Absolute % Cover of red sand verbena (Abronia maritima) (top) and beach bur sage (Ambrosia chamissonis) (bottom), August 2021 survey.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
32 Figure 22. Absolute % Cover of beach salt bush (Atriplex leucophylla) and beach evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia), August 2021 survey.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
33 Invertebrates
Invertebrate data were collected using techniques described in detail in Dugan et al. 2015 and led by scientists from Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc., and the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Common examples of macroinvertebrate indicator taxa in southern California include talitrid amphipods (Megalorchestia spp.), and the common sand crab (Emerita analoga). Invertebrates were surveyed on 28 December 2016, 18 July 2017, 8 March 2018, 15 August 2018, and 7 March 2019 and led by expert beach scientists, David Hubbard and Dr. Jenifer Dugan. Data from the March 2018 and subsequent surveys were not able to be retrieved at the time of publication of this report due to logistical issues and laboratory closures related to COVID-19, but are anticipated to be available in 2022. Year 4 and 5 surveys were also cancelled due to COVID-19, but planned for 2022. Six within-restoration transects were surveyed and compared to data from six control transects located several hundred meters south of the restoration area (Figure 23). Additional sieving of sand adjacent to vegetation patches to assess dune beetle presence occurred on the 8 March 2018 survey. For additional method details, refer to the Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project Implementation and Monitoring Plan (October 2016).

Figure 23. Photograph of researchers conducting invertebrate core surveys (7 March 2019).

Upper intertidal beach fauna: There is little evidence that upper intertidal beach fauna has responded to the change in management at the pilot project site as of the 2017 samples. There has been little or no contrast between samples at the control site and the demonstration project. The December 2016 baseline surveys indicated low background levels of upper beach invertebrates (e.g., beach hoppers, Megalorchestia minor and M. benedictii) at between 300-400 individuals per meter of shoreline, with similar numbers at the restoration site and the control site. These data are indicative of the frequent beach grooming regime prior to restoration. Analyses of the December 2016 and July 2017 data indicate similar results for both surveys. Further surveys will help assess whether there is divergence between the control site and restoration site over time.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
34 Fauna associated with dune vegetation: There has been no significant difference in aerial insects captured on yellow sticky cards to date between control and pilot project sites, during the first two years of project implementation. Subsequent survey data have not been processed due to COVID-19.

Other observations suggest that invertebrates associated with plants are responding to the restoration.

Dune beetles rapidly colonized the pilot project. Dune beetles were not present during the baseline monitoring (December 2016) surveys or in any control areas but were present during the July 2017 surveys and all subsequent surveys; these data indicate that dune beetles colonized post-restoration, an event likely attributable to the presence of new vegetation (Figure 18).

Figure 24. Dune beetle identified on vegetation within the restoration area (5 February 2020).

Avifauna
The presence and distribution of avifauna within an ecosystem is often used as an index of habitat quality due to their diet and vulnerability to environmental conditions (Conway 2008). Avifauna data are useful to characterize representative avian assemblages and spatial distributions within a particular area. Bird survey methods are described in detail, along with field data sheets, in SOP 5.1 Bird Abundance-Activity (TBF 2015d). The primary purpose of avifauna surveys for this project was to provide a general understanding of the bird community and corresponding behavior in the restoration area before and after restoration. Bird surveys were conducted by an ornithologist on 10 December 2016 (baseline, pre-restoration survey); 5 January, 22 February, 18 April, and 24 April 2017; and 13 July 2018.

Subsequent surveys were conducted by TBF staff on 7 March and 28 August 2019; 5 February, 24 July 2020, 27 August, 30 October 2020; and 17 August 2021. All bird data results are combined and reported below, comparing birds found within the restoration area and immediately adjacent to those found several hundred meters away or flying over the area.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
35 In Years 1-5, frequently identified species on surveys included gulls and several shorebirds (e.g., willet, Tringa semipalmata) (Table 3). Shorebirds were observed both roosting and foraging within the restoration area, most notably, the federally threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), which produced the first egg-bearing nest in the Los Angeles region in almost 70 years within the restoration area (discussed further below) in 2017. Plovers were identified foraging in front and throughout the enclosure on multiple occasions. In May 2018, a killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) nested within the restoration site. Several species of gull were also frequently identified in and around the restoration area, flying overhead, and in the adjacent ‘control’ sites. Urban species such as the rock pigeon (Columba livia) were identified primarily in adjacent areas, but not within the restoration site. On the July 2018 survey, an adult and juvenile peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) were observed circling low over the sand inland of the restoration site. In Year 4, an osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and cormorant (Phalacrocorax sp.) were also observed within or adjacent to the restoration area.

During Year 5, many of the same avifauna species were identified as in previous years, including the California brown pelican (Pelacanus occidentalis californicus) and gulls. Birds were within the restoration area, adjacent control areas, and nearshore waters both flying over and foraging. Western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) were not observed within site during the Year 5 targeted avian surveys but were observed near and within the site during other on-site activities (Figure 25) and were also identified by project partners roosting on site.

Figure 26. Photograph of snowy plovers foraging directly outside of the project area (top) and whimbrels foraging throughout the site (bottom) on 5 February 2020.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
36 Figure 27. Photo within the restoration area from 30 March 2021.

Table 3. Avifauna species identified as present in the restoration area and in the surrounding area adjacent to the restoration. Data for all surveys were combined.

Category Common Name Scientific Name Restoration Adjacent Shorebird
Western Snowy Plover * Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus
X X
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus X X
Willet Tringa semipalmata X X
Sanderling Calidris alba X X
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa X
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus X X
Tern Thalasseus spp X
Open Water
Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata X
CA Brown Pelican ** Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus X X
Cormorant Phalacrocarax spp. X X
Gull
California Gull Larus californicus X X
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis X X
Western Gull Larus occidentalis X X
Heermann’s Gull Larus heermanni X
Urban
Canada Goose Branta canadensis X
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X
Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) Columba livia X
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X
Killdeer Charadrius vociferous X X
Raptor Osprey Pandion haliaetus X
* = rare species listed as threatened by USFWS
** = previously listed species, but delisted in 2008
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
37 Western Snowy Plover
The first four western snowy plovers identified within the restoration area were found roosting during a TBF bird survey on 23 February 2017, two months after the installation of the project. Plovers are known to overwinter in the vicinity (within an enclosure approximately 500 m south of the restoration area) but had not previously been identified using the specific restoration area of the beach. Throughout all surveys, care was taken to avoid disturbance to the birds. The restoration area falls within approximately the middle of the Santa Monica Beach critical habitat area for plovers (Subunit 45A, Figure 29), southwest of San Vicente Boulevard. As migrant plovers may start trying to identify breeding locations as early as March, plovers are carefully monitored throughout the year moving in and out of the restoration area.

Dan Cooper, an ornithologist, detected a nesting plover within the restoration area on 18 April 2017 and confirmed the presence of one egg in a nest scrape containing bits of shells and adjacent debris. This confirmed nest was the first one in the Los Angeles region in almost 70 years. Local, state, and federal agencies were all immediately notified along with the Santa Monica Audubon Society, an important local stakeholder group who have conducted bird surveys in Los Angeles for many decades and who maintain the plover enclosure on the southern portion of Santa Monica Beach. On 24 April 2017, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), who have jurisdiction over federally threatened species, several ornithologists, and TBF installed a mini-enclosure over the nest and confirmed the presence of three eggs. After the mini-enclosure was installed, the male plover immediately returned to the nest (Figure 28).

Unfortunately, over subsequent weeks, extremely high winds buried the nest, which was subsequently abandoned. While plovers were identified within the restoration area in the breeding season in 2018- 2020, no subsequent nesting attempts were made (Error! Reference source not found.). Signs were posted around the perimeter of the site notifying the public of possible nesting. Crows and dogs have occasionally been observed and could potentially deter plovers and other shorebirds from using and nesting in the site.

Figure 28. Photograph of nesting western snowy plover (credit: Tom Ryan 24 April 2017).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
38 Figure 29. Map of WSP critical habitat (Subunit CA 45A) and restoration area boundary (Data source: USFWS ECOS 2018).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
39 Grunion and Other Wildlife
California grunion are a species of marine fish found only along the coast of southern California and northern Baja California. They exhibit unique spawning behavior, laying and fertilizing eggs completely out of the water, on high spring tides along sandy beaches (Martin 2006). Grunion spawn between March and August, with peak events between April and June. Grunion and other wildlife such as nearshore dolphins or fish can be indicators of the higher trophic levels of the sandy shore food web.

Grunion surveys were conducted in April and June 2017; March, April, and July 2018; and June 2019. No new surveys were conducted in Year 4 due to COVID-19, though surveys resumed in Year 5. Year 5 surveys were conducted in May and June 2021. Surveys were conducted at night, during peak high tide events and following a full or new moon. Grunion surveys followed standardized regional protocols with some data provided by citizen scientists conducting surveys using the same protocols. Data summaries for surveys not conducted by TBF and LMU’s CRI were provided by Dr. Karen Martin, Pepperdine University, through the community science Grunion Greeter program. In Year 5, grunion surveys were conducted as a part of a CRI student research project investigating the relationship between sand surface temperature and temperature at grunion egg depth. The Grunion Greeter Observation Form was completed during each survey and subsequently entered onto the regional web database at www.grunion.org. The Walker Scale was used as a monitoring metric, which ranges from W-0 to W-5 as shown in Table 4.

In Years 1-3 and Year 5, all reported surveys in the vicinity of the restoration area recorded Walker Scale results of W-0 (Table 5). While no grunion were observed during survey dates, there was evidence that they spawned in the area at least once in June 2018, as eggs were identified within the restoration area (K. Martin, Pepperdine University, pers. obs.). These results are consistent with pre-restoration baseline data from the survey location.

Table 4. Walker scale for monitoring California grunion runs.

Walker Scale Description
W-0 No fish, or 1 or 2 scouts, no spawning
W-1
10-100 fish spawning at different times in one or
several locations
W-2
100-500 fish spawning at different times, in one or
several locations
W-3
Hundreds of fish spawning in several locations or over
a broad area of the beach
W-4
Thousands of fish together, little sand visible between them over relatively small area for less than one hour
W-5
Fish covering beach, not possible to walk through the
run without stepping on fish, run lasts for an hour or
more over large area
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
40 Table 5. Results from grunion surveys conducted at the Santa Monica Restoration Site in Year 5.

Survey Date Walker Scale
26 May 2021 W-0
10 June 2021 W-0
14 June 2021 W-0
24 June 2021 W-0
25 June 2021 W-0
Other wildlife present in the area included dolphins frequently seen offshore foraging in the surf zone (e.g., Figure 30), jumping fish, high densities of bean clams in the intertidal zone (Donax gouldi), and sea lions also seen in the surf zone offshore.

Figure 30. Dolphin photographed swimming offshore in front of restoration area (5 February 2020).

Physical Characteristics
Physical characteristics help to characterize the beach in comparison to other locations (e.g., elevation profiles; Dugan et al. 2015). Additionally, site checks were performed at least quarterly to assess the condition of the fence, collect trash, etc. Specific data for physical characteristics collected and summarized in this report include precipitation, wind, temperature, climate data, elevation profiles, sand deposition, and sand grain size. Supplemental weather data were downloaded from AccuWeather Premium and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Data Online. Weather patterns and climate data collected from external sources are meant to be representative, not indicative of specifics within the restoration area at any given moment in time.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
41 Overall, the restoration site exhibited physical differences as compared to control locations and itself over time, primarily through the accretion of sand along the fence line, plant hummocks, and wrack line.

Elevation profiles and high-resolution topographical mapping of both the restoration area and control locations provide information on the change in physical topography over time.

Precipitation
The total rainfall for the wet weather months (October through May of the following year) was 16.32 inches during Year 1, 3.79 inches in Year 2, 16.94 inches in Year 3, 13.14 inches in Year 4, and 5.00 inches in Year 5, as measured by the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) rain gauge (Figure 31). Year 5 had similar rainfall to Year 2 and less rainfall than Years 1, 3, and 4. In Year 5, three out of the eight wet weather months experienced no rainfall. Approximately 97.6% of the total wet season rainfall occurred across three months (December 2020, January 2021, and March 2021), with rainfall ranging between

1.32 to 1.91 inches per month (Figure 31).

0.36 1.11

2.78 7.44

4.04 0.08 0.38 0.13

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Precipitation (in)
Precipitation Total by Month -
Year 1 (October 2016 - May 2017)

0.00 0.10 0.01

1.40 0.10

2.07 0.05 0.06

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Precipitation (in)
Precipitation Total by Month -
Year 2 (October 2017 - May 2018)

0.58 2.09

1.45 5.52

4.42 2.10

0.05 0.73

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Precipitation (in)
Precipitation Total by Month -
Year 3 (October 2018 - May 2019)
*
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
42 Figure 31. Monthly precipitation totals (inches) for the wet weather months (October-May). Daily precipitation data were downloaded from NOAA Climate Date Online (CDO) and originally recorded at the LAX rain gauge.

Asterisk indicates project installation month in December 2016.

Wind and Temperature
Average sand temperature, wind speed, and maximum wind speed (over three minutes) were recorded in both the north and the south plots using a small, hand-held weather meter (Kestrel®) and a Fluke Mini IR Thermometer®. Data were collected on 14 and 28 December 2016; 13 and 25 January, 4, 14, and 23 February, 24 March, 12 April, 21 June, 21 August, and 13 September 2017; 11 January, 8 March, 13 April, 24 May, 15 August, and 12 December 2018; 22 February, 25 April, 21 May, 1 and 28 August, 4 October, and 6 November 2019; 21 January, 5 February, 24 July, and 21 and 27 August 2020; 19 February and 13 August 2021. Note values that are missing from Year 4 were due to technical equipment issues. NOAA climate data follow below.

Air temperature, sand temperature, and wind speeds were all highly variable depending on the specific conditions of survey days. Sunnier days / warmer summer months had higher sand temperatures over 40 °C (August and April, Table 6). The average wind speed recorded at 1.5 m in height ranged from approximately 0.5 to 5.7 m/s with gusts of up to 7.1 m/s. The average wind speed recorded along the ground was lower, ranging lower between 0.5 to 4.2 m/s with gusts of up to 5.0 m/s recorded during surveys (Table 6).
0 1.43

4.42 0.38 0

4.11 2.68

0.12 0.0

2.0 4.0

6.0 8.0
Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Precipitation (in)
Precipitation Total by Month -
Year 4 (October 2019 - May 2020)
0 0.1

1.65 1.91

0.02 1.32
0 0

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Precipitation (in)
Precipitation Total by Month -
Year 5 (October 2020 - May 2021)
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
43 Table 6. Summary data for temperature and wind speed collected on site during surveys. Asterisk indicates NOAA data instead of in situ data due to equipment malfunction (January and February 2020).

Date Temperatures (°C) Wind Speed (m/s)
Year Month Air Sand Maximum
(1.5 meters)
Average
(1.5 meters)
Maximum
(ground)
Average
(ground)
2016 December 18.7 18.8 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.0
2017
January 14.2 19.9 2.9 2.4 2.3 1.7
February 14.5 26.7 7.1 5.7 5.0 4.2
March 17.2 22.4 2.5 2.1 2.1 1.6
April ---- ---- 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.0
June 18.8 36.5 2.5 2.1 2.1 1.8
August 24.4 29.3 4.0 3.2 2.6 2.0
September 23.9 40.8 6.1 3.9 4.3 3.0
2018
January 21.5 25.7 3.9 3.2 2.5 1.9
March 15.1 24.0 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.0
April 21.0 46.6 2.1 1.7 2.8 2.2
May 17.1 30.1 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.8
August ---- 46.3 5.3 4.1 3.9 3.0
December 16.2 11.2 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.5
2019
February 18.5 29.1 5.3 3.6 2.7 2.5
April 20.7 45.1 4.0 3.5 2.4 2.3
May 21.0 34.0 6.5 5.8 4.2 4.2
August 21.8 44.2 3.6 2.9 2.1 1.5
October --- 28.7 --- --- --- ---
November 21.2 29.4 1.9 5.7 --- ---
2020
January 12.8 ---- ---- 4.5 * ---- ----
February 12.8 ---- ---- 1.0 * ---- ----
July 21.6 27.6 1.7 0.5 1.7 0.5
August 24.0 40.7 5.2 4.0 3.65 2.8
2021
February 25.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
August 23.7 ---- 2.1 1.7 2.0 1.6
NOAA Climate Data
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Data Online were downloaded for the Santa Monica Municipal Airport Station on 31 August 2021. The data results are summarized in Table 7 and Table 8. Precipitation totals during the 2020-2021 winter were greater than that of Year 4, but less than Years 1-3 (Table 8). Wind gust observations remain high (25-40 mph) throughout 2020- 2021, except during August and September of 2020 and June and July of 2021. Humidity data for Years 3-5 were unavailable from the NOAA climate portal at the time of this report.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
44 Table 7. Table displaying NOAA temperature and humidity monthly data for the Santa Monica Municipal Airport Station (downloaded on 31 August 2021).

Year Month
Temperature (°C) Humidity
Average Maximum Minimum Average
2016
October 18.9 34.4 12.8 74.4
November 17.0 34.4 7.8 60.8
December 14.0 27.2 5.6 67.5
2017
January 12.7 23.9 4.4 79.0
February 13.5 21.1 5 88.6
March 15.0 25.6 7.2 73.0
April 16.7 28.3 10 67.9
May 16.2 29.4 8.9 77.1
June 18.1 27.8 13.9 83.5
July 20.9 31.1 16.1 81.5
August 21.0 31.7 17.2 81.7
September 20.9 36.1 13.3 76.8
October 20.2 38.3 13.9 66.4
November 17.0 33.3 9.4 72.3
December 14.7 27.8 6.1 51.9
2018
January 15.2 30.6 6.7 67.7
February 13.4 26.1 5.0 62.1
March 13.6 26.7 5.6 77.9
April 15.0 28.3 9.4 72.0
May 15.7 24.4 11.1 77.4
June 17.8 23.9 13.3 77.3
July 21.8 36.7 16.1 76.6
August 23.8 27.8 20.3 N/A
September 22.1 25.3 18.9 N/A
October 21.1 25.3 17.0 N/A
November 19.2 24.5 13.9 N/A
December 16.2 20.9 11.6 N/A
2019
January 15.6 20.1 11.0 N/A
February 12.3 16.1 8.5 N/A
March 15.1 19.2 11.0 N/A
April 16.7 20.3 13.1 N/A
May 16.2 19.0 13.1 N/A
June 18.7 21.3 16.1 N/A
July 20.7 23.8 17.5 N/A
August 20.9 24.3 17.7 N/A
September 21.7 25.6 17.8 N/A
October 19.7 25.6 13.8 N/A
November 15.8 20.8 10.9 N/A
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
45 Year Month
Temperature (°C) Humidity
Average Maximum Minimum Average
December 13.6 17.9 9.2 N/A
2020
January 13.9 18.7 9.1 N/A
February 14.4 19.2 9.6 N/A
March 13.7 17.4 9.9 N/A
April 15.9 19.6 12.3 N/A
May 18.0 21.8 14.2 N/A
June 19.3 22.4 16.2 N/A
July 19.4 22.9 15.9 N/A
August 21.6 25.4 17.9 N/A
September 21.4 25.9 16.9 N/A
October 20.5 25.2 15.8 N/A
November ---- ---- ---- N/A
December 14.5 20.5 8.6 N/A
2021
January 14.2 19.7 8.8 N/A
February 14.4 19.3 9.4 N/A
March 13.5 18.4 8.7 N/A
April 15.9 20.1 11.6 N/A
May 16.8 19.7 13.9 N/A
June 18.8 21.7 15.9 N/A
July 20.7 23.6 17.9 N/A
Table 8. Table displaying NOAA wind speed and precipitation monthly data for the Santa Monica Municipal Airport Station (downloaded on 31 August 2021).

Year Month
Wind Speed (mph)
Precipitation
(cm)
Average Maximum Minimum Maximum
Gust
Total
2016
October 4.0 16.0 0.0 24.0 0.76
November 4.2 17.0 0.0 33.0 1.80
December 4.4 21.0 0.0 31.0 8.21
2017
January 4.9 22.0 0.0 32.0 15.71
February 4.1 26.0 0.0 40.0 7.38
March 4.6 20.0 0.0 36.0 0.38
April 5.6 23.0 0.0 37.0 0.22
May 5.2 17.0 0.0 31.0 0.11
June 4.7 15.0 0.0 23.0 0.0
July 4.9 14.0 0.0 21.0 0.0
August 4.7 14.0 0.0 20.0 0.0
September 4.5 15.0 0.0 23.0 0.0
October 3.8 13.0 0.0 22.0 0.0
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
46 Year Month
Wind Speed (mph)
Precipitation
(cm)
Average Maximum Minimum Maximum
Gust
Total
November 3.4 13.0 0.0 20.0 0.14
December 4.0 18.0 0.0 36.0 0.0
2018
January 3.9 20.0 0.0 31.0 3.04
February 4.4 22.0 0.0 31.0 0.26
March 4.6 16.0 0.0 29.0 8.1
April 5.0 21.0 0.0 37.0 0.06
May 4.8 16.0 0.0 25.0 0.18
June 5.0 17.0 0.0 21.0 0.0
July 5.1 14.0 0.0 22.0 0.0
August 4.9 18.1 0.0 28.0 0.0
September 4.5 16.1 0.0 21.9 0.0
October 4.2 25.1 0.0 35.1 0.51
November 3.7 21.9 0.0 31.1 1.57
December 4.1 21 0.0 33.1 1.68
2019
January 4.4 19.9 0.0 36.9 5.14
February 5.7 23.9 0.0 38.9 4.52
March 5.2 21 0.0 31.1 2.02
April 5.3 25.9 0.0 40.9 0.043
May 5.3 23 0.0 34.0 1.14
June 5.2 19.9 0.0 28.0 0.0
July 5.0 14.1 0.0 19.9 0.0
August 4.5 15.0 0.0 21.0 0.0
September 4.5 16.1 0.0 24.0 0.0
October 4.3 18.1 0.0 23.0 0.0
November 3.8 18.1 0.0 31.0 0.6
December 4.3 19.9 0.0 31.0 1.8
2020
January 3.8 18.1 0.0 33.0 0.2
February 4.7 25.9 0.0 47.0 0.0
March 4.7 23.0 0.0 33.0 1.8
April 4.9 18.1 0.0 25.0 0.9
May 4.9 19.9 0.0 30.0 0.1
June 5.6 21.9 0.0 32.0 0.0
July 4.7 17.0 0.0 25.0 0.0
August 4.7 15.0 0.0 20.0 0.0
September 3.8 16.1 0.0 20.0 0.0
October 3.6 18.1 0.0 32.0 0.0
November ---- ---- 0.0 ---- 0.15
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
47 Year Month
Wind Speed (mph)
Precipitation
(cm)
Average Maximum Minimum Maximum
Gust
Total
December 4 23.9 0.0 36.0 3.28
2021
January 4 23.0 0.0 36.0 4.47
February 4.7 21.9 0.0 36.0 0.0
March 4.9 21.0 0.0 34.0 2.89
April 5.1 19.9 0.0 29.0 0.0
May 5.1 19.9 0.0 32.0 0.0
June 5.4 17.0 0.0 25.0 0.0
July 5.1 17.0 0.0 23.0 0.25
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
48 Elevation Profiles
Elevation profile data were collected via four transects within the restoration area and two control transects outside the restoration area (approximately 100 m south of the restoration area) (Figure 32).

Elevation profiles provide a method to measure topographical changes within the seeded fenced area and beach face over time. Elevation profile data were collected on 13 December 2016 (baseline); 24 March, 21 June, and 13 September 2017; 13 February, 24 May, 29 May, 15 August, and 14 December 2018; 22 February, 21 May, 1 August, and 6 November 2019; 5 February, 24 July, and 30 October 2020; 21 May and 13 August 2021. Elevation profiles taken over the five years post-project implementation show notable changes from both the baseline and control transects (Figure 33– Figure 44). Figure 33 – Figure 44 are separated into ‘winter beach’ and ‘summer beach’ defined by the highly variable seasonal profile on beaches in Southern California. Data from Control Transect 2 on 24 July 2020 and Transect 3 on 24 August 2020 were removed during quality control checks due to equipment malfunction. Berm topology along the fenced perimeter of the site shows variations over time between the restoration site and control site, with up to a meter of sand deposition present in multiple locations.

All elevation profiles within the restoration area show an overall increase in elevation from the baseline surveys, indicating the deposition and retention of sand within the site. Sand build-up is greatest along the berm, nearest the beach face and ocean, and along the northern and southern fence perimeter. The southeast corner of the restoration area continues to show a high relative buildup of sediment (e.g., Restoration Transect 4, Figure 39 and Figure 40), which can be explained by the predominant wind pattern moving sand in that direction. Survey data show that control sites have shown slight variability over time, with seasonal changes in the berm and beach face, elevation variability, and a generally flat and even beach profile, all likely due to maintenance by grooming. In general, all restoration transects have shown a higher overall increase in elevation compared to control transects. Additionally, restoration transects are also now capturing the formation of plant hummocks across multiple seasons (e.g., at approximately the 40-meter mark along Transects 2, 3, and 4). Future surveys will allow for a continued assessment of sediment movement to support the evaluation of the restoration area as a possible buffer from climate change impacts such as sea level rise and wave erosion, though seasonal changes may also be captured.

Figure 32. TBF staff and CRI interns conducting an elevation profile survey on 21 May 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
49 Figure 33. Restoration Transect 1 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

Figure 34. Restoration Transect 1 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 1 (Winter Surveys) 13-Dec-16
24-Mar-17
13-Feb-18
14-Dec-18
22-Feb-19
6-Nov-19
5-Feb-20
30-Oct-20
21-May-21

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 1 (Summer Surveys) 13-Dec-16
21-Jun-17
13-Sep-17
24-May-18
15-Aug-18
21-May-19
1-Aug-19
24-Jul-20
24-Aug-20
13-Aug-21
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
50 Figure 35. Restoration Transect 2 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

Figure 36. Restoration Transect 2 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 2 (Winter Surveys) 13-Dec-16
24-Mar-17
13-Feb-18
14-Dec-18
22-Feb-19
6-Nov-19
5-Feb-20
30-Oct-20
21-May-21

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 2 (Summer Surveys) 13-Dec-16
13-Sep-17
24-May-18
15-Aug-18
21-May-19
1-Aug-19
24-Jul-20
24-Aug-20
13-Aug-21
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
51 Figure 37. Restoration Transect 3 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

Figure 38. Restoration Transect 3 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 3 (Winter Surveys) 13-Dec-16
24-Mar-17
13-Feb-18
14-Dec-18
22-Feb-19
6-Nov-19
5-Feb-20
30-Oct-20
21-May-21

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 3 (Summer Surveys) 13-Dec-16
13-Sep-17
24-May-18
15-Aug-18
21-May-19
1-Aug-19
24-Jul-20
13-Aug-21
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
52 Figure 39. Restoration Transect 4 elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

Figure 40. Restoration Transect 4 elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 4 (Winter Surveys) 13-Dec-16
24-Mar-17
13-Feb-18
14-Dec-18
6-Nov-19
5-Feb-20
30-Oct-20
21-May-21

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Restoration Transect 4 (Summer Surveys) 13-Dec-16
13-Sep-17
29-May-18
15-Aug-18
21-May-19
1-Aug-19
24-Jul-20
24-Aug-20
13-Aug-21
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
53 Figure 41. Control Transect 1 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

Figure 42. Control Transect 1 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Control Transect 1 (Winter Surveys) 13-Dec-16
24-Mar-17
13-Feb-18
14-Dec-18
22-Feb-19
6-Nov-19
5-Feb-20
30-Oct-20
21-May-21

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Control Transect 1 (Summer Surveys) 13-Dec-16
13-Sep-17
24-May-18
15-Aug-18
21-May-19
1-Aug-19
24-Jul-20
24-Aug-20
13-Aug-21
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
54 Figure 43. Control transect 2 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Winter Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

Figure 44. Control transect 2 (non-restored area) elevation profiles during Summer Beach surveys (Elevation in NAVD88).

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Control Transect 2 (Winter Surveys) 13-Dec-16
24-Mar-17
13-Feb-18
14-Dec-18
22-Feb-19
6-Nov-19
5-Feb-20
30-Oct-20
21-May-21

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elevation (m)
Transect Distance (m)
Control Transect 2 (Summer Surveys) 13-Dec-16
13-Sep-17
24-May-18
15-Aug-18
21-May-19
1-Aug-19
24-Jul-20
24-Aug-20
13-Aug-21
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
55 High-resolution elevation surveys using a Trimble Geo7x GPS were conducted on 12 April 2017 (Year 1), from 24 to 27 June 2018 (Year 2), on 21 August 2020 (Year 4), and 4 June 2021 (Year 5). Elevation points were downloaded, quality control checked, and analyzed in a geographic information system (GIS) to create a topographic surface of the restoration site. Figure 48 displays the topographic map results from the GPS elevation survey in May 2017 (top) and May/June 2018 (bottom) and Figure 49 displays results for Year 5. The Year 5 survey was conducted with higher resolution than previous surveys and all Year 5 data points had a precision of +/- 0.1m (post correction). The Year 5 survey boundary was also extended 2-3 m to capture the dune growth along the exterior of the perimeter fence. Year 4 results were not included due to a lower relative precision of points collected during that survey and a higher equipment error. The topographic data supplement the elevation profile transects and indicate a buildup of sand along the berm and fence perimeter, with smaller plant hummocks throughout the site. The Year 5 survey shows a noticeable increase in elevation throughout most of the restoration area. This is most apparent in the southern portion of the project footprint. Additionally, the micro-topography of the restoration site becomes increasingly more complex across each subsequent survey, which supports visual observations of the formation of dune hummocks around vegetation and wrack within the restoration site (Figure 45 and Figure 46).

Figure 50 and Figure 51 show buildup of sand along the northern fence perimeter in May 2017 and again in February 2020, where an increase of vegetation, especially red sand verbena and beach bur sage are present. Berm changes parallel to the ocean have also been observed in photographic documentation and monitoring data with seasonal variations present. The beach berm ridge is higher in elevation and more prominent in the restoration site. Figure 52 shows a time-series of the berm changes observed post-restoration. The continued rise in elevation of the berm in multiple elevation profiles and supporting topographical surveys indicate promising results that the site is potentially becoming more resilient to coastal flooding than other sections of the beach that retain a low, flat profile. Future surveys will continue to inform changes in the restoration site and berm morphology over time.

Figure 45. Photograph of vegetated dune hummock within the restoration area (13 August 2021).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
56 Figure 46. Photographs of vegetated dune hummocks within the restoration area on 21 May 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
57 Figure 47. (cont’d from above) Photographs of vegetated dune hummocks within the restoration area on 21 May 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
58 Figure 48. Year 1 (top, four months after implementation) and Year 2 topographic map of restoration site.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
59 Figure 49. Year 5 topographic map of restoration site. The survey boundary was extended to capture dune buildup along the outside of the fence line.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
60 Figure 50. Photograph of sand build-up along the northern fence line in the restoration area (top: 9 May 2017, approximately five months after implementation; and bottom: 30 October 2020).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
61 Figure 51. Sand buildup along the south side of the fencing (top) and along the east side of the fencing (bottom) on 30 March 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
62 Figure 52. Berm topography (top left: 17 December 2016, top right: 25 January 2017, bottom left: 8 March 2018, and bottom right: 13 August 2021).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
63 Sand Deposition, Grain Size, and Organics
A set of baseline and post-restoration sand samples were collected from two control transects and four restoration transects on 13 December 2016 (baseline); 24 March and 13 September 2017; 24 May and 16 November 2018; 3 June and 6 November 2019; and 24 July 2020. Three samples were collected from each transect (approximately 3 meters south of the transect line to avoid footprints), including two dry samples off the 15 and 30 transect meter mark, and a wet sample near the waterline on the beach face.

Samples were weighed before and after drying to measure moisture content, then each sample was sorted using a set of sieves measuring from 2 mm (very fine pebbles) to 0.06 mm (very fine sand). A portion of each sample was also used to analyze organics based on the loss on ignition (LOI) method.

TBF conducts all sediment analyses in a laboratory located on the campus of LMU. Due to COVID-19 regulations and guidelines, TBF did not have access to the lab on LMU’s campus to complete sediment analyses. As a result, no sediment analyses were completed for Years 4 and 5. However, campus restrictions have recently lifted and TBF has begun sorting and prioritizing previously collected samples for analysis.

In Years 1-3 sand within the restoration site varied from pebbles (very fine) to very fine sand (Figure 53).

Small dunes and plant hummocks were observed to form with larger sized sediment at the base of the hummocks and finer grain sizes on top due to wind driven transport (Figure 54). Dry sand samples collected (averaged for 15 and 30 m) saw variable trends between surveys, with a small increase in very coarse sand and pebble percent composition within the restoration area (Figure 55 – Figure 57). The latest survey in November 2019 shows that coarse sand continues to be one of the most dominate grain size types. Visual observation in Years 4 and 5 support these previous findings of grain size distribution (Figure 54).

Figure 53. Sand grain in restoration site (left: pebbles; middle: coarse sand; right: medium to very fine sand).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
64 Figure 54. Photographs showing larger grains at the base of the dune and finer grains on top due to aeolian processes (top: 29 April 2019; bottom: 5 February 2020).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
65 Figure 55. Baseline (top) followed by post-restoration sand grain results for all transects (dry sample averages). 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Control Restoration Area
Percent Composition (%)
Transect ID
Sand Grain (Baseline - December 2016)
Pebbles (Very Fine)
Sand (Very Course)
Sand (Course)
Sand (Medium)
Sand (Fine)
Sand (Very Fine)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Control Restoration Area
Percent Composition (%)
Transect ID
Sand Grain (Post-Restoration - March 2017)
Pebbles (Very Fine)
Sand (Very Course)
Sand (Course)
Sand (Medium)
Sand (Fine)
Sand (Very Fine)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Control Restoration Area
Percent Composition (%)
Transect ID
Sand Grain (Post-Restoration September 2017)
Pebbles (Very Fine)
Sand (Very Course)
Sand (Course)
Sand (Medium)
Sand (Fine)
Sand (Very Fine)
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
66 Figure 56 (cont’d from above). Post-restoration sand grain results for all transects (dry sample averages). 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Control Restoration Area
Percent Composition (%)
Transect ID
Sand Grain (Post-Restoration May 2018)
Pebbles (Very Fine)
Sand (Very Course)
Sand (Course)
Sand (Medium)
Sand (Fine)
Sand (Very Fine)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Control Restoration Area
Percent Composition (%)
Transect ID
Sand Grain (Post-Restoration Nov 2018)
Pebbles (Very Fine)
Sand (Very Course)
Sand (Course)
Sand (Medium)
Sand (Fine)
Sand (Very Fine)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Control Restoration
Percent Composition (%)
Transect ID
Sand Grain (Post-Restoration May 2019)
Pebbles (Very Fine)
Sand (Very Course)
Sand (Course)
Sand (Medium)
Sand (Fine)
Sand (Very Fine)
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
67 Figure 57 (cont’d from above). Post-restoration sand grain results for all transects (dry sample averages).

Wet sand results were reported separately (Table 9). Results from the wet sand samples were variable between the baseline survey and the post-restoration survey but displayed relatively similar results at both the control transects and the restoration transects. As the wet sand is outside of the area actively maintained for the restoration, the similarity between the control and restoration results for the wet sand was expected. The variability between the baseline and post-restoration surveys is likely due in part to the collection of the samples in two different wet sand locations based on the seasonal movement of the berm and wave erosion. Baseline sand composition, taken December 2016, was dominated by coarse and medium sand grains, and the data indicate an oscillation between medium grains during summer to coarse sand grains in winter season (Table 9). This shift in grain sizes is likely consistent with winter storms eroding the beach face followed by the deposition of sand in the calmer spring and summer months (Figure 58).

Figure 58. Photographs of eroded beach face following a winter king tide on 25 January 2017 (left) and a gentler sloping beach face on 15 August 2018 during summer season (right). 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Control Restoration
Percent Composition (%)
Transect ID
Sand Grain (Post-Restoration November 2019)
Pebbles (Very Fine)
Sand (Very Course)
Sand (Course)
Sand (Medium)
Sand (Fine)
Sand (Very Fine)
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
68 Table 9. Grain size results from December 2016 (baseline) and post-restoration (March 2017, September 2017, May 2018, November 2018, May 2019, November 2019).

Control Transects Restoration Area Transects
Grain Size C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Baseline
– wet
(Dec 2016)
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.07% 0.00% 1.05% 0.88% 0.23% 0.33% Sand (Very Coarse) 0.38% 0.00% 0.68% 1.02% 1.57% 1.01%
Sand (Coarse) 78.52% 58.34% 8.01% 5.11% 93.44% 38.61%
Sand (Medium) 10.84% 33.34% 32.22% 17.19% 0.66% 32.12%
Sand (Fine) 10.12% 8.28% 57.01% 74.40% 4.00% 27.64%
Sand (Very Fine) 0.06% 0.05% 1.01% 1.35% 0.09% 0.27%
Post-Rest
–wet
(Mar 2017)
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.21% 2.01% 7.91% 0.06% 0.69% 0.82% Sand (Very Coarse) 4.13% 9.22% 3.77% 2.91% 3.58% 5.82%
Sand (Coarse) 81.82% 78.78% 75.52% 95.89% 86.74% 88.43% Sand (Medium) 6.01% 5.69% 4.77% 0.67% 1.75% 1.36%
Sand (Fine) 7.72% 4.24% 7.91% 0.42% 2.06% 3.37%
Sand (Very Fine) 0.09% 0.05% 0.11% 0.04% 5.19% 0.16%
Post-Rest
–wet
(Sep 2017)
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Sand (Very Coarse) 0.53% 1.17% 0.69% 0.00% 0.41% 0.40%
Sand (Coarse) 13.37% 4.69% 2.48% 2.33% 2.45% 2.38%
Sand (Medium) 64.53% 70.77% 51.31% 66.62% 62.40% 69.31% Sand (Fine) 21.16% 22.89% 44.98% 30.51% 34.33% 27.5%
Sand (Very Fine) 0.32% 0.47% 0.55% 0.55% 0.41% 0.40%
Post-Rest
–wet
(May 2018)
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.10% 0.25% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Sand (Very Coarse) 0.52% 0.74% 0.13% 0.30% 0.41% 0.42%
Sand (Coarse) 84.04% 72.65% 89.62% 86.21% 88.16% 80.21% Sand (Medium) 1.55% 5.82% 1.14% 1.35% 1.09% 1.88%
Sand (Fine) 13.47% 20.42% 8.73% 11.99% 10.20% 17.29%
Sand (Very Fine) 0.31% 0.12% 0.25% 0.15% 0.14% 0.21%
Post-Rest
–wet
(Nov 2018)
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.39% 0.36% 0.38% 0.19% 0.20% 0.24% Sand (Very Coarse) 0.78% 0.54% 0.57% 0.37% 0.20% 0.48%
Sand (Coarse) 0.97% 1.26% 1.15% 0.93% 0.98% 1.21%
Sand (Medium) 81.75% 93.54% 96.36% 93.64% 97.65% 97.34% Sand (Fine) 14.76% 3.95% 1.53% 4.67% 0.98% 0.72%
Sand (Very Fine) 1.36% 0.36% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00%
Post-Rest
–wet
(May 2019)
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.10% 0.10% 0.85% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% Sand (Very Coarse) 1.30% 1.28% 0.85% 1.60% 0.74% 1.13%
Sand (Coarse) 34.03% 19.78% 21.90% 67.20% 66.08% 69.33% Sand (Medium) 59.48% 65.55% 58.57% 25.52% 27.48% 24.07% Sand (Fine) 5.09% 13.19% 17.74% 5.43% 5.61% 5.39%
Sand (Very Fine) 0.00% 0.10% 0.08% 0.12% 0.09% 0.09%
Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
69 Control Transects Restoration Area Transects
Grain Size C1 C2 T1 T2 T3 T4
Post-Rest
–wet
(Nov 2019)
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.81% 0.78% 0.52% 0.82% 0.52% 0.42% Sand (Very Coarse) 0.24% 0.28% 0.23% 0.36% 0.39% 0.36%
Sand (Coarse) 1.15% 1.28% 0.66% 0.76% 1.21% 0.87%
Sand (Medium) 89.28% 79.96% 4.13% 32.51% 93.01% 6.51%
Sand (Fine) 8.31% 17.23% 90.72% 64.93% 4.70% 90.20%
Sand (Very Fine) 0.13% 0.21% 2.44% 0.35% 0.11% 0.75%
Pebbles (Very Fine) 0.08% 0.26% 1.30% 0.27% 0.06% 0.89% Observationally, a shift in coarser sand and cobble was seen in the restoration site. Additionally, sand transport and deposition has been occurring along fence lines and around larger vegetation patches and wrack. High resolution elevation surveys confirm an increase in sand deposition along the fences and behind the berm.

A portion of each sediment sample was analyzed for organic matter and carbonate content using the loss on ignition (LOI) method (Figure 59). Samples were placed in weighted crucibles and weight loss was measured after heating the samples in a high-temperature furnace to remove organic matter. Figure 60 compares the average percent organics in dry sediments from the control site and restoration site by survey date. The restoration site shows a slightly higher overall percent organics composition in samples compared to the control site on each survey; however, there are only slight differences from the baseline (pre-restoration, December 2016). Sediments are an important site for organic matter decomposition and nutrient regeneration in coastal marine environments, and continued data collection may inform the effects the beach restoration project has on carbon cycling and transformations.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
70 Figure 59. Organics (loss on ignition) analysis on sand samples (18 July 2018).

Figure 60. Average percent organics in sediment samples by survey date (dry samples only).

0.25%

0.32%

0.19%

0.31%

0.27%

0.30%

0.22%

0.33%

0.31%

0.33%

0.28%

0.33%

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%
Control Restoration
Percent Loss on Ignition
Average Percent Organics in Sediment
13-Dec-2016 24-Mar-2017 13-Sep-2017 24-May-2018 16-Nov-2018 21-May-2019 Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
71 Photo Point
Photo point survey methods are described in detail in SOP 7.2 Level 2 Photo Point (TBF 2015a).

Photographs can be used as qualitative assessments of seasonal variation and changes following restoration activities. Seventeen photographs were taken at nine stations on 13 and 17 December 2016; 13 and 25 January, 4 February, 24 March, 25 April, 21 August, and 13 September 2017; 11 January, 8 March, 13 April, 24 May, 15 August, and 19 December 2018; 22 February, 25 April, 21 May, 1 August, and 11 November 2019; 2 February, 24 July, 27 August, and 30 October 2020; 21 May and 13 August 2021. Quarterly photos were reported for six representative photo point stations (Appendix A) as the best representations of the overall site changes over time.

Photo points show slow gradual growth of individual plants in the first year (2016-17) and a noticeable increase in cover in the second (2018), third (2019) and fourth (2019-20). In Year 5 (2020-21), vegetation cover continued its upward trajectory in establishment, with photos depicting a much more vegetated community throughout the entire restoration area. The permanent photo stations are established to document the restoration site over quarterly periods. Additionally, dune topography is continuing to become more complex over time with an increase in amount and size of vegetated dune hummocks, as well as continued sand deposition along the fence perimeter (Photo Point 2A and 6A). Also notable is the change in sand grain size, with an increase in coarser sand and fine pebbles (darker substrate) surrounding the dune hummocks (most noticeable in Photo Point 1A and 9B).

See Appendix A for quarterly photos from six representative photo point stations.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
72 Figure 61. Representative site photographs from 21 May 2021 and 17 August 2021 looking north.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
73 Figure 62. Representative photos of the restoration area on 21 May 2021 looking south.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
74 Adaptive Management, Maintenance, and Site Use
Adaptive management was implemented based on the success of the project as interpreted by TBF, the beach managers, the City of Santa Monica, California Coastal Commission staff, and an advisory group of scientists. The monitoring components and resulting data have been integral in an evaluation of the project. TBF, with the help of our volunteer internship program and several dedicated students from LMU’s CRI, have undertaken a hands-on, community-level maintenance strategy without the use of mechanized equipment, including trash removal and invasive species removal. Site checks, invasive plant removal, and trash collection have occurred at least quarterly (twice monthly for the first few months), since the project was implemented. These efforts continued for a duration of five years after the project began in 2016. Evaluation of the project was conducted annually via an annual report, including a summary of monitoring data results, and was provided to the City, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Commission, and made publicly available on TBF’s website (www.santamonicabay.org).

As a part of adaptive management, site visits were conducted quarterly (or more frequently) to visually assess the restoration progress and evaluate the need for maintenance activities. The overall condition of the restoration area was noted, along with detailed observations including presence of invasive species re-growth or environmental stressors (e.g., prolonged dry periods). Photographs were taken to document any observations of concern. If non-native invasive vegetation was found, adaptive management steps such as weed removal by hand or with hand tools were performed. Thus far, one annual non-native species, European sea rocket, has invaded the project area to a very minimal extent, with no seedlings observed after 2017 and minimal coverage across Years 1-5 (Figure 15 and Figure 16).

Hand removal appears to be an effective means of management within the site, as no European sea rocket was found along any transects in all Year 4 surveys, and only a handful of individuals were observed and subsequently pulled throughout the entirety of the restoration area. In Year 5, no sea rocket was observed in August 2021 following hand removal of small amount removed in May 2021. The areas where it was present do not appear to be directly negatively affecting the native vegetation; however, it continues to be thoroughly monitored and removed in case it is pulling nutrients or water from adjacent native species. It is likely to continue sprouting in small amounts because there are source seed populations along the bike path and back dune areas adjacent to the project site, and an assumed pre-existing seed bank in the sand of the project area.

New adaptive management options are under consideration following Year 5, including the potential for supplemental seeding to increase the diversity and cover of vegetation on site, installation of additional small lengths of sand fence within the project area to further promote dune growth, and removal of portions of perimeter fencing to be replaced with symbolic post and rope fencing. Options will be outlined in the revised adaptive management plan to be included in the CDP amendment application.

Considerations such as stakeholder and agency input, scientific recommendations, and timing implementation to avoid disturbance to western snowy plovers are under ongoing evaluation.

Trash continues to be very low within the restoration area. Interestingly, there is often more trash that is picked up in the sand immediately adjacent to the restoration plot (tiny pieces), in beach areas that are frequently groomed. It is likely that the large grooming rakes either miss or bury some of the smaller Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
75 tiny bits of plastic and polystyrene foam that are frequently found adjacent to and within the project area. Frequently seen trash items include cigarette butts, small bits of plastic, plastic straws, polystyrene foam, candy wrappers, and bits of coffee cups. Infrequently seen items include things like flip-flops, Frisbees, tennis balls, and a bike tire.

Figure 63. TBF staff and Marymount High School interns picking up trash as a part of adaptive management on 13 August 2021.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
76 Site Use
An important goal of the pilot restoration project is to evaluate whether heavy recreational use of beaches in Los Angeles and natural habitats to benefit birds and wildlife can coexist. Human use data from this project may serve to inform other similar efforts in southern California. One goal of the project was to encourage another, less frequently seen, use of Los Angeles beaches, which is to allow people and families the chance to interact with natural habitats along the beach. As such, the restoration area is not fenced off completely from the public (the shoreward side is left fully open). Recreating inside the project area is only discouraged during western snowy plover breeding season (a federally threatened species). However, sightings of this rare species also bring birdwatchers and other tours to the area.

Monitoring of plovers was conducted by the Santa Monica Audubon Society and several local ornithologists and followed protocols by USFWS. Santa Monica Audubon Society and other Audubon partners continues to provide vital updates to the project team regarding plover activity and other bird use of the site and they are an important partner on the monitoring for this project.

Human use data from the site visits suggest that both locals and visitors are interacting positively with the site in ways that include everything from jogging through it along the symbolic pathway, surfing next to it, and birdwatching along the perimeter. Frequent human uses of the area include walking, jogging, biking along the adjacent bike path, sunbathing, walking dogs, surfing, paddle boarding, and skim boarding (Figure 64). Additional uses include birdwatching and fishing. Dogs have occasionally been observed just outside the site, which could potentially deter birds like western snowy plovers from using the site. Many people have questions as they interact with TBF staff collecting data for surveys such as:
“Why is the vegetation here?” “Is this better for birds?” “Will this help with climate change?” All of these questions and many more are answered by staff, and all interactions have been overwhelmingly positive. It appears that both locals and visitors alike are responding encouragingly to the restoration area, which bodes well for the future of the site and its ability to answer other goals such as whether or not it can increase coastal resilience against climate change stressors like wave erosion and sea level rise. It is heartening when most people suggest expanding into a larger area. The site has also provided many opportunities to teach students about beach ecology and coastal resilience. Several students from LMU’s CRI have conducted independent research, and many more have visited the site since implementation. In May 2019, two new educational interpretive signs were deployed at the entrance and along the symbolic pathway of the restoration area. Based on TBF’s interactions with people reading the signs, they have been both enjoyed and appreciated for additional context about the site and its importance. We are extremely grateful to the community as well as visitors for their support of this project, and we look forward to continuing discussions about nature-based coastal resilience.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
77 Figure 64. Human use of the restoration site [top: a family using the symbolic pathway through the middle of the restoration area (15 August 2020); second: summer beach visitors setting their chairs and towels around the restoration area (15 August 2020); third: beach visitors reading one of the interpretive signs in the restoration area (21 May 2021); bottom: fisherman fishing oceanward of the restoration area (13 August 2021).

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
78 Conclusions and Recommendations
The first five years following the pilot project implementation had a number of valuable successes and learning experiences. As the project was meant to be an experimental pilot for the region, no specific, quantitative success criteria were set; however, the project can be evaluated against its ability to meet the project goals and objectives. The project positively engaged the public, created new partnerships and outreach connections, restricted grooming in an approximately 3-acre area, allowed vegetation to grow and sand hummocks to form along fence lines, provided comprehensive science-based monitoring data to inform soft-scape beach restoration solutions, supported wildlife, and is bringing back a rare coastal habitat type to the Los Angeles region.

Additionally, the increased functions within the restoration habitat area included benefits to several notable species. Nesting of the federally threatened western snowy plover had not been recorded in the Los Angeles region for almost 70 years, and the first nest for the Los Angeles region was found within the restoration area in 2017 and contained three eggs. Though no nests have been identified in subsequent years, plovers were repeatedly identified during bird surveys or on-site activities throughout all survey years and have been identified as roosting throughout the year. The presence of plovers throughout breeding and wintering seasons on site suggests that the possibility of future nests by plovers in the area is likely, and the site is now an important plover roosting area.

Furthermore, two native plant species that were not seeded, woolly heads and pink sand verbena, were identified as germinating in the project area. It is possible that there was either an existing seed bank for these species already along Santa Monica Beach, or that they were transported by wind, waves, birds, or humans. Neither species was identified in areas adjacent to the project site. Vegetation surveys also indicate ongoing natural re-seeding and germination by existing plants occurring throughout the site.

Another addition to the restoration project area was dune beetles, which provide an increased layer of the food web available to foraging birds and wildlife. Dune beetles were confirmed using a sieving technique by UCSB researchers, monitoring partners of TBF. Specimens were not collected for specieslevel identification but may potentially be collected in the future.

Data suggest that the restoration area is considerably different from both the control sites and from itself over time as compared to the baseline surveys, especially for increased vegetation and sand morphology, though (as expected) vegetation cover remains relatively low after the fifth growing season. It is likely that the vegetation community will continue to establish, but will probably remain quite patchy, with expanses of bare ground in between plant hummocks, as is the trend for natural coastal strand and foredune habitat types which are highly dynamic systems. Elevation remains a good indicator that the restoration area is considerably different from both the baseline and control surveys, with multiple protocols indicating an increase in elevation within the restoration area. Much of the perimeter fence has dunes over three feet in height, with an increase in elevation across the site, especially the southern half. Future research will be conducted opportunistically and is planned in partnership with scientists from University of California, Santa Barbara and Coastal Restoration Consultants, Inc. Future site assessments will continue to inform adaptive management actions and the recommendations for the permanent feature CDP application.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
79 One suggestion for future projects with a similar set of existing uses is to have a similar set of strong public outreach components prior to the initiation of the project and to directly engage local stakeholder groups. A significant effort was made to reach out to local residents, stakeholder groups, interested parties, beachgoers, and all of the agencies and organizations who provide some input to beach management in the area. This effort went far beyond requirements for the permits and included setting up stakeholder meetings to answer questions, incorporating feedback on project planning from the public, and working with the City of Santa Monica to announce the project in public meetings and to all of the user groups such as lifeguards, police, maintenance workers, and other City and County groups. Additionally, much of the credit for the aforementioned results also goes to the City of Santa Monica for their efforts to engage the public, take a leadership role on permitting, and for their ongoing support and vision. We also strongly recommend engaging Tribal partners and incorporating recommendations, suggestions, and elements into restoration planning.

Another suggestion for future projects along beaches is to incorporate many of the same or similar monitoring methods that will allow for comparisons between-projects. This will allow for an evaluation across multiple scales and in different areas with different levels of sand accretion or erosion, wave patterns, weather patterns, and vegetation growth over time. Other, more passive restoration projects could also be evaluated, such as restricting grooming to other areas of the beach.

With the process in motion to establish this site as a permanent feature of the coastline, via a CDP amendment, TBF and the City of Santa Monica have also begun the early planning and outreach stages to initiate a second Santa Monica Beach restoration project at a nearby location. Please visit TBF’s website (www.santamonicabay.org) for updates and for future outreach and stakeholder engagement opportunities.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
80 Literature Cited
Conway, C. 2008. “Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols.” Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Wildlife Research Report 01.

Johnston, K.K., Medel, I.D., Anderson, S., Stein, E., Whitcraft, C., and Crooks, J. 2015b. California Estuarine Wetland Monitoring Manual (Level 3). Prepared by The Bay Foundation for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. pp 297.

Johnston, K.K. and M. Grubbs. 2016. Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project Implementation and Monitoring Plan. Plan prepared by The Bay Foundation for the California Coastal Commission, City of Santa Monica, and California Department of Parks and Recreation. 22 pages.

Johnston, K., M. Grubbs, and R. Abbott. 2017. Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project: Year 1 Annual Report. Report prepared by The Bay Foundation for City of Santa Monica, California Coastal Commission, Metabolic Studio, US Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Parks and Recreation. 68 pages.

Johnston, K., M. Grubbs, and R. Abbott. 2018. Santa Monica Beach Restoration Pilot Project: Year 2 Annual Report. Report prepared by The Bay Foundation for City of Santa Monica, California Coastal Commission, Metabolic Studio, US Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Parks and Recreation. 67 pages.

TBF. 2015a. Level 2 Photo Point Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 7.2). Unpublished protocols. The Bay Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. 30 June 2015.

TBF. 2015a. Vegetation Mapping Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 3.5). Unpublished protocols. The Bay Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. 30 June 2015.

TBF. 2015b. Vegetation Cover Surveys Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 3.2). Unpublished protocols.

The Bay Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. 30 June 2015.

TBF. 2015c. Vegetation Seed Bank Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 3.4). Unpublished protocols. The Bay Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. 30 June 2015.

TBF. 2015d. Bird Abundance and Activity Standard Operating Procedures (SOP 5.1). Unpublished protocols. The Bay Foundation, Los Angeles, CA. 30 June 2015.

Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, and G. E. Davis. 1990. Sand Beach and Coastal Lagoon Monitoring Handbook.

Channel Islands National Park California. Prepared for the National Park Service, Ventura, California. 50 pp.

Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M. McCrary, M. Pierson. 2003. “The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of southern California.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 58S: 25-40.

Dugan, J.E., Hubbard, D.M., Rodil, I.F., Revell, D.L., and Schroeter, S. 2008. Ecological effects of coastal armoring on sandy beaches. 2008. Marine Ecology. 29(1): 160-170 Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard. 2010. “Loss of coastal strand habitat in southern California: the role of beach grooming.” Estuaries and Coasts, 33(1): 67-77.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
81 Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, K.J. Nielsen, J. Altstatt, and J. Bursek. 2015. Final Report: Baseline Characterization of Sandy Beach Ecosystems along the South Coast of California. Prepared for the South Coast Marine Protected Area Baseline Program. 134 pp.

Federal Register Vol. 77 No. 118. Part III. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover; Final Rule. 143 pp.

Gilburn, A.S. 2012. “Mechanical grooming and beach award status are associated with low strandline biodiversity in Scotland.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 107:81-88 Grifman, P.M., J.F. Hart, J. Ladwig, A.G. Newton Mann, M. Schulhof. 2013. “Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Study for the City of Los Angeles.” USCSG-TR-05-2013.

Goossens, D. Z. Offer, and G. London. 2000. Wind tunnel and field calibration of five aeolian sand traps.

Geomorphology 35: 233-252.

Hsu, S.A. 1981. Models for Estimating Offshore Winds from Onshore Meteorological Measurements.

Boundary Layer Meteorology, Vol 20, pp. 341-351.

Hubbard, D.M., J.E. Dugan, N.K. Schooler, S.M. Viola. 2013. Local extirpations and regional declines of endemic upper beach invertebrates in southern California. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.06.017
Martin, K. 2006. Introduction to Grunion Biology. www.grunion.org. 4 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, 2012. Incorporating Sea Level Change Scenarios at the Local Level, a companion report for Technical Considerations for Use of Geospatial Data in Sea Level Change Mapping and Assessment.

Nordstrom, K.F., Jackson, N.L., and Korotky, K.H. 2011. “Aeolian transport across beach wrack.” Journal of Coastal Research. 1(59):211-217
Nordstrom, K.F., Jackson, N.L., Korotky, K.H., and Puleo, J. 2011. “Aeolian transport rates across raked and unraked beaches on a developed coast.” Earth Surfaces, Processes, and Landforms. 36:779- 789
Nordstrom, K.F., Jackson, N.L., Freestone, A.L., Korotky, K.H., and Puleo, J. 2012. “Effects of beach raking and sand fences on dune dimensions and morphology.” Geomorphology. 179:106-115 Schlacher, T.A, Dugan, J., Schoeman, D.S., Lastra, M., Jones, A., Scapini, F., McLachlan, A., and Defeo, O. 2007. “Sandy beaches on the brink.” Diversity and Distributions. 13:556-560 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. “Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus).” In 2 volumes. Sacramento, California. xiv + 751 pages.

Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021
82 Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-1. Photo Point 1A on (A) 17 December 2016; (B) 24 March 2017; (C) 21 August 2017; (D) 13 September 2017.

A B
C D
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-2. Photo Point 1A on (E) 11 January 2018; (F) 8 March 2018; (G) 15 August 2018; (H) 19 December 2018.

G
E F
H
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-3. Photo Point 1A on (I) 22 February 2019; (J) 15 May 2019; (K) 1 August 2019; (L) 5 February 2020.

I J
K L
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-4. Photo Point 1A on (M) 24 July 2020; (N) 27 August 2020; (O) 30 October 2020; (P) 21 May 2021.

M N
O P
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-5. Photo Point 1A on (Q) 13 August 2021.

Q
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-6. Photo Point 2A on (A) 1 January 2017; (B) 25 April 2017; (C) 21 August 2017; (D) 16 December 2017.

A B
C
/
D
/
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-7. Photo Point 2A on (E) 3 March 2018; (F) 24 May 2018; (G) 15 August 2018; (H) 19 December 2018.

G H
E F
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-8. Photo Point 2A on (I) 22 February 2019; (J) 15 May 2019; (K) 1 August 2019; (L) 5 February 2020.

I J
K L
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-9. Photo Point 2A on (M) 24 July 2020; (N) 27 August 2020; (O) 30 October 2020; (P) 21 May 2021.

M N
O P
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-10. Photo Point 2A on (Q) 13 August 2021.

Q
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-11. Photo Point 4A on (A) 17 December 2016; (B) 4 February 2017; (C) 21 May 2017; (D) 13 September 2017.

A B
C D
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-12. Photo Point 4A on (E) 11 January 2018; (F) 8 March 2018; (G) 24 May 2018; (H) 15 August 2018.

E F
G H
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-13. Photo Point 4A on (I) 22 February 2019; (J) 15 May 2019; (K) 1 August 2019; (L) 5 February 2020.

I J
K L
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-14. Photo Point 4A on (M) 24 July 2020; (N) 27 August 2020; (O) 30 October 2021; (P) 21 May 2021.

M N
O P
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-15. Photo Point 4A on (Q) 13 August 2021.

Q
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-16. Photo Point 4C on (A) 17 December 2016; (B) 4 February 2017; (C) 21 May 2017; (D) 21 August 2017.

A
C D
B
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-17. Photo Point 4C on (E) 11 January 2018; (F) 8 March 2018; (G) 24 May 2018; (H) 15 August 2018.

E F
G H
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-18. Photo Point 4C on (I) 22 February 2019; (J) 21 May 2019; (K) 1 August 2019; (L) 5 February 2020.

I J
K L
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-19. Photo Point 4C on (M) 24 July 2020; (N) 27 August 2020; (O) 30 October 2021; (P) 21 May 2021 .

M N
O P
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-20. Photo Point 4C on (Q) 13 August 2021.

P
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-21. Photo Point 6A on (A) 17 December 2016; (B) 24 March 2017; (C) 21 May 2017; (D) 13 September 2017.

A B
C D
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-22. Photo Point 6A on (E) 11 January 2018; (F) 13 April 2018; (G) 15 August 2018; (H) 19 December 2018.

E F
G H
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-23. Photo Point 6A on (I) 22 February 2019; (J) 21 May 2019; (K) 1 August 2019; (L) 5 February 2020.

I J
K L
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-24. Photo Point 6A on (M) 24 July 2020; (N) 27 August 2020; (O) 30 October 2021; (P) 21 May 2021.

M N
O P
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-25. Photo Point 6A on (Q) 13 August 2021.

Q
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-26. Photo Point 9B on (A) 17 December 2016; (B) 24 March 2017; (C) 21 May 2017; (D) 24 August 2017.

A
C D
1 B
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-27. Photo Point 9B on (E) 11 January 2018; (F) 8 March 2018; (G) 24 May 2018; (H) 15 August 2018.

E
G H
F
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-28. Photo Point 9B on (I) 22 February 2019; (J) 25 April 2019; (K) 1 August 2019; (L) 5 February 2020.

I
K
J
L
Appendix A – Photo Point, Year 5 Annual Report, December 2021 Figure A-29. Photo Point 9B on (M) 24 July 2020; (N) 27 August 2020; (O) 21 May 2021; (P) 13 August 2021.

M N
O P