|The costs of rejecting managed retreat at Sloat just keep piling up.|
While we wait for the next public meeting for the Local Coastal Program revision for Ocean Beach, we would like to take this time to share with you more details regarding our position on the Lake Merced Tunnel (LMT).
Let's start with our main argument for a cost/benefit analysis.
The Ocean Beach Master Plan advocates that we spend nearly $100 million to protect the LMT where it is, right on the beach (http://www.spur.org/ocean-beach see VII-5 (pp. 154-155). Surfrider has suggested that we look into a plan to relocate the structure. Our reasoning is simple: Why leave such vital and sensitive infrastructure in an erosion hazard zone? By moving the LMT well inland, it can be safeguarded from erosion for a much longer time. We would also gain a much better restoration project for the beach.
Cost: Unfortunately, our city has cited cost before in rejecting managed retreat for Sloat. Back in 2005, the Ocean Beach Task Force, like the OBMP, recommended a managed retreat plan for the erosion. The Task Force proposal? Pull back the road and parking lots from the shoreline, and use sand dunes, not rock, to slow erosion. There is graphic of this proposal on the top right corner of the blog.
SFDPW rejected the proposal, stating that the high cost of managed retreat made the idea "infeasible." It was never explained by the agency why and how it made this determination. Did SFDPW not have the funds or simply did not wish to spend / seek the funds for the project?
What we do know for sure is that in the ensuing years, at least $10 million was spent by the City on dumping more rock on the beach south of Sloat, repairing the Great Highway as it fell onto the beach and more enacting sand back-passing projects. The last two have just washed away. During the same time, even more taxpayer money was spent by the Army Corps of Engineers in their ineffective pilot project to replenish the beach with dredge spoils.
The "planning level" cost estimate of an LMT relocation alternative may only cost an additional $30 million more than the $90 Million Master Plan seawall. (Source: http://sfdpw.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/1090-Coastal%20Commission%20Ltr%202010%20Dec%2023%20Response%202011-03-30.pdf See Page 11.
However, this estimate does not include factoring in savings incurred on future beach replenishment and/or seawall maintenance. This is why we are calling for a full cost-benefit analysis between the two options. It could turn out that relocating the LMT is not just good for the beach and the safety of the infrastructure; it could also be the superior economic option.
Thanks for staying engaged.