New Document / Video Release

Sand recovered from clearing the Great Highway is being used once again to help shore up the south Sloat bluffs.


Dear Surfriders and Friends,

The Chapter Erosion Committee has just released a new document about the history of erosion at Ocean Beach. See http://public.surfrider.org/files/a_history_of_coastal_erosion_at_ocean_beach_0412.pdf

In many ways, the challenge we face at Sloat is nothing new. There is a long record of coastal erosion at Ocean Beach. With the wisdom gained from an historical perspective, we hope to chart a new course for erosion response by our city...

We are also pleased to announce the release of a new basic informational video about the Sloat issue. Check it out by clicking this link... https://vimeo.com/40248193 Thanks to Josh Hayes of Visual Anarchy and Silvin Morgan for their help in producing this work.

In other news...

The final Ocean Beach Master plan is due to be released within the next few weeks. Please stay tuned! There is an excellent article on the OBMP in the current issue of the SPUR journal The Urbanist. See http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist

In the meantime, at last Tuesday's meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Carmen Chu asked Mayor Lee if he would support the recommendations of the SPUR OBMP. The Mayor said he would not only help find the money to implement it, but would take steps to expedite the plan through the bureaucracy. This is important news as the situation at Sloat needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. The sooner we take action - hopefully with a managed retreat plan - the better. Coastal erosion keeps its own schedule.

One more development: The City has resumed the practice of using sand collected from clearing the Great Highway to fill erosion hotspots at south Sloat. Although this is a short-term, "Band-Aid" style measure, sacrificial beach sand has less of an environmental impact than sandbags, rock or rubble. Perhaps most importantly, it does not promote the spread of erosion - as is the case with the armored approach.

Public Comments on the Draft Ocean Beach Master Plan Released

Dear Surfriders and Friends,

Public comments from the Draft Master Plan are now available on SPUR's website http://spur.org/ocean-beach

Thanks to all who submitted comments. There were some excellent points made as well as some unique and creative ideas. As for the issue of Sloat, a common theme emerged: There is widespread support for a managed retreat approach to the erosion issue. While some folks expressed skepticism and doubt about the cobble berm idea proposed by SPUR, most supported a clean up of the rubble and restoration of the shoreline. Many cited the need to have robust sand dune construction by the Army Corps. These are all concepts supported by Surfrider.

On the critical front, there was significant concern about traffic impacts caused by the re-routing of the Great Highway around the back of the zoo, especially at the Sloat intersection. This is absolutely a legitmate concern. We will work to see that this issue is addressed by SPUR as the draft gets fine tuned.

Thanks again to everyone for staying engaged with the Sloat issue and participating in the SPUR Ocean Beach Master Plan. Have a happy holiday season!

Draft Ocean Beach Master Plan Part II

Dear Surfriders and Friends,

I trust by now most of you have reviewed the draft master plan and have provided comment. If not, please do so as the official comment period closes this Friday 11/18 at 5pm. See: http://www.spur.org/ocean-beach There is a survey monkey link on the page for your feedback.

In the last post, the issue of the feasibility study of the Lake Merced Transport Box was covered. One other issue surrounding the Box as well as the Master Plan has to do with timelines.

It will be several years between the time that a long term plan is adopted for Sloat and when construction is completed. Surfrider believes that the city should adopt an interim erosion response plan asap. Such a plan should exclude armoring projects such as large scale quarry stone revetments. A good plan would have minimal environmental impact and have a strict expiration date. We are working through SPUR to make this happen right now. It would be a tragedy to see the master plan's recommendations get circumvented by an untimely erosion event.

One other noteworthy issue in the draft has to do with access. The draft master plans suggests several changes to beach parking. At Sloat's first lot (north) the draft recommends that parking be transferred to Sloat Blvd. This makes sense if adequate parking spaces are made available for beach access on Sloat. They should be as close as possible to the Great Highway intersection. Unfortunately, the draft is not clear on this point. We urge you to ask SPUR to incorporate this idea. Many people that come to Ocean Beach have to drive to get there. Quality parking space needs to be preserved.

Parking at the north end lots (Kelly's and VFW's) are also slated for changes. In Key Move #5 of the draft Master Plan, a proposal for charging fees for parking on peak days is floated. Surfrider urges folks to oppose any fees for access to Ocean Beach.

Ocean Beach Erosion Article on SFGate / SF Chronicle

The new revetment looking south. Photo taken 3/21/11 4:35pm Tide apprx. 3.2ft

Greetings Surfriders and Friends,

Last Friday March 4th, there was a front page article about erosion at Ocean Beach that featured the problem at Sloat. It also appeared Sunday March 6 in SFgate. Here's a link to the online version...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/04/MNGM1I1O92.DTL

The article was well written, providing a great synopsis of the issues involved as well as where we right now in the process of finding a long term solution.

One important comment: The article seems to suggest that Coastal Armoring, Managed Retreat and Sand Nourishment are separate, mutually exclusive erosion control solutions for Sloat. They are not. We beleve in a sensible combination of strategies that emphasizes more of the last 2 methods: Managed Retreat and Sand Nourishment. Our vision consists of moving the parking lots, the road, and the wastewater tunnel out of harm's way. Then, a large sand dune (via sand nourishment) should be constructed in its place. With a sand barrier, we have an erosion control system that allows for the restoration of the public's beach and safer access to the shoreline. Look for more details to emerge on Managed Retreat as we head into the next phase of the Ocean Beach Master Plan - Alternative Solutions.

2005 Storm Damage Protection Project Report

So I went through the 2005 Storm Damage Protection Project Report for the USACE and SF DPW (thanks to DPW for the posting it) and it gives a better overview of the shore protection problem up to 2005. I summarized a few of my favorite points: points that may shed light on 2010’s problem, but I encourage you to download the report and skim it yourself.

My Favorites Points:

The description of the different interests involved: pulling apart the road, from the lots, from the outfall pipe, from the Merced Transport pipe, from the bluffs. An outline of the interests on page 2-26 was originally by the SF Parks and Recreation Dept in 2002. The public discussion in 2010 often lumps all the interests together so it becomes difficult to weigh the cost/benefit and scope of different solutions.

Figure 3-3 on page 53 of the *.pdf shows a diagram of the most recent rip rap placement (referred to as Emergency Quarrystone Revetment) between first and second lots.

Moffatt and Nichol’s 1995 description of the coastal morphology starting on page 3-13. It indicates the the south lot area’s sand source is derived largely from the bluffs, and goes over seasonal reversals based on the wave climate.

Just like today: USACE (and other by CH2M Hill) 1996 study included the scenario where the lots were eroded and the Merced Transport box was threatened. The summary of this report is brief, but the area of the 1996 study appears to be further north in way of the lots, rather than just south of the outfall pipe where is 2010’s problem is. It gives a 22% chance of damage to the Merced Transport box, but it’s unclear if that is on a “per year” or “per storm” or what the relevant time scale is once the roadside has been reached. See page 3-16.

CH2M Hill reports that the southern reaches show large fluctuations in the area of the shoreline on page 3-25, and subsequent plots by Moffatt and Nichol show very large fluctuations of the shoreline of up to 100 to 150 feet.

Comic relief: When discussing constraints of different alternatives on 4-15, it notes that gorillas displays aggressive behavior during noisy earthwork. It’s tough to imagine a project with more exotic constraints.

Preferred alternatives are identified by each stakeholder on page 5-6. In 2005, as in 2010, the DPW prefers a hard structure over other alternatives for its lower maintenance cost.

Quoting from the discussion of acceptable alternatives on page 5-8, “SFPUC could not support any of the options that would result in the loss of the traffic lanes and possible exposure or loss of cover to the Lake Merced Transport facilities. The north bound traffic lane is important to the SFPUC as a means of access to the Oceanside WPCP. The northbound lane is also important in case of emergency in order to have two means of egress out of the WPCP facility. There is also concern that if the cover on the Lake Merced Transport is reduced there could be issues with structural stability or buoyancy effects.” The 2010 discussion has focused on the DPW’s interests; I’m curious as to why the PUC did not bring their interests to the public debate when the northbound lanes first closed. (Perhaps PUC is satified with the alternate routes onto Harding Rd and Armory Way and no longer considers Great Highway critical.) In 2005, DPW needed anything besides “no action.”

A stakeholder agency workshop held in 2005 gave all the agencies a chance to look at various alternatives. The DPW’s acceptable solutions listed on 5-12 include nearshore sand placement (which was the strategy adopted) and hard structures on the existing (then existing?) shoreline, presumablely for their lower maintenance cost. The SFPUC was willing to try anything that did not involve facilitated retreat or doing nothing. Each agency’s conclusions are summarized in a chart on 5-15.

both southbound lanes closed on the great highway.

San Francisco DPW closed both southbound lanes of the Great Highway south of Sloat Blvd.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/20/BANC1BL3DQ.DTL

This article references a 1996 Army Corps of Engineer Report that suggested coastal armoring at Sloat -- this was PRE-Ocean Beach Taskforce, which eventually lead to an Army Corps of Engineer Project that helped renourish Ocean Beach at Sloat Blvd.

The Army Corps of Engineer Project places sand annually that is dredged from the main ship channel into San Francisco Bay in the coastal zone offshore at Sloat Blvd. The goal is to deposit sand in the near-shore location that will work its way onto the shoreline and build up the width of Ocean Beach at Sloat Blvd.

More info on the Army Corps of Enginner Project at Sloat:
http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/newsrelease/newsrelease_5_21_09_SF_Ocean_Beach.html

Great Highway Lane Closure

As of January 7th, DPW has shut down one of the southbound lanes on Great Highway past Sloat.

I ran down to take a look on the morning of the 9th. The spot that threatens the roadway the worst is just north of the rip-rap over the PUC's outflow pipe. A few smaller rocks at the bottom which neither provide support for the slope nor dissipate much wave energy. Visually, it was not apparent the frequency with which waves could be expected to reach the crumbling cliff. I suspect the agencies involved would want to take some measurements to determine where the cliff is in relation to MLLW and what type of wave run-up would be expected.

There is rip-rap and the remnants a few piles from the construction pier when the outflow pipe was first installed just south of the erosion spot. All in all, the outflow pipe looks well protected, and not immediately threatened. The pavement though, has just a few feet of sandy soil near the edge. It's clear why DPW stepped in and closed down the road.

If any dogwalkers, surfers, or frequent beach users with a digital camera want to take photos, feel free to send them to the email associated with this blog.

SF Chronicle Story Link
DPW Press Release Link

Interested in the backstory? (I'm unsure of the date on this one)
SF Gov Background PPT