Appendix C1

Analysis of Historic and Future

Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise

550 Kearny Street

www.esassoc.com

Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax

memorandum
date

March 19, 2014

to

Michael Burns and Eric Zigas

from

Elena Vandebroek, David Revell and Doug George

project

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (205335.01)

subject

Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise

Purpose and Scope

The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Project) proposes infrastructure that is located near or along the
Monterey Bay coastline (Figure 1). Sea level is predicted to rise over the next century and could affect some of
these project components. Coastal erosion, an ongoing issue in Southern Monterey Bay, is also expected to increase
with accelerating sea level rise. The primary focus of this memo is to describe coastal processes that could be relevant
to assessing the environmental impacts of the Project and the viability of Project alternatives, and to identify
potential damages to Project infrastructure from coastal erosion. This memo is organized as follows:
Section 2 Historic and existing erosion processes in Southern Monterey Bay
Section 3 Future erosion in the face of accelerating sea level rise

Historic and Existing Erosion Processes

The following section summarizes the existing and historic processes affecting coastal erosion. These processes
include Wave Climate and Storm Characteristics, Historic Shoreline Change Trends, Sand Mining, and Rip
Embayments.

2.1

Wave Climate and Storm Characteristics

The coast of Monterey Bay is exposed to high energy waves throughout the year, with seasonal differences
resulting in waves approaching from many directions. Wave data measured by offshore wave buoys show these
seasonal and annual differences (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). The largest waves typically occur in the late fall
and winter and are associated with wave generation in the Gulf of Alaska. These winter waves have long wave
periods (12 to 14 seconds), large significant waves heights (~9 ft on average), and come from the northwest
(310) (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). In the spring, smaller wave heights and shorter wave periods result from
strong northwest winds. In the summer, the coast is exposed to long period south swells. Point Pios partially
shelters the coast from these waves, especially farther south in the bay, toward the City of Monterey. Estimates of
recurrence intervals for large wave events can be statistically derived from a time series of wave data. For
example, a 100-year wave event at the Monterey wave buoy (NDBC #46042) is projected to have an offshore
significant wave height of 40 ft OR a dominant wave period of 32 seconds (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005)1. This
1 A swell period of 32 seconds is not expected to govern at the 100-year recurrence level because the associated wave height would be

much smaller than the 100-year wave height of 40. For this and a range of reasons beyond the scope of this memo, a shorter wave
period would be associated with the governing 100-year swell.

means that every year, there is a 1% chance that waves will achieve the above combination of significant wave
height and dominant period. Similar calculations can be made for more frequent storm events, such as 10-yr or
25-yr occurrences, which reflect the 10% and 4% annual probabilities respectively.
Large waves are not the only contributing factor to coastal erosion. A common indicator of coastal erosion is the
total water level, which is the sum of tides, wave runup on the beach, and other atmospheric conditions which
affect ocean water levels. When all of these constituents are added together, the resulting total water elevation
provides a useful measure for projecting coastal erosion (Ruggiero et al 1996, Revell et al 2011). Historically,
some of the most damaging wave erosion events have occurred during El Nio events, when wave directions shift
more to the south and west and come less impeded into Monterey Bay. This more direct wave energy coupled
with elevated ocean water levels (on the order of one foot2) can cause dramatic and often devastating erosion
along the Monterey Bay coast.
The ideal situation to minimize damage to the desalination infrastructure is to avoid the dynamic beach
environment, which will migrate inland over time from sea level rise. The storm waves discussed above drive the
episodic erosion events that are typical in Monterey Bay, and periodically threaten existing development.
Following these storm events, beaches can sometimes recover over a season or a few years. Other parts of the Bay
are experiencing continuous erosion without full recovery, especially in southern Monterey Bay (see section 2.2).

2.2

Historic Shoreline Change Trends

It is essential to understand historic shoreline change trends in order to accurately project future erosion. Shoreline
change data was compiled from a variety of sources and is summarized in Figure 2. This figure shows the
locations of the MPWSP representative profiles shown on Figure 1 (discussed in detail later in this technical
memorandum) and other landmarks relative to the historic accretion or erosion rates. Table 1 summarizes each of
the datasets plotted in Figure 2. For the erosion analysis, we combined the updated shoreline change rates (#2)
with the Thornton et al 2006 dune erosion rates (#1), where available. Thornton et al 2006 estimated recent
erosion rates based on dune crest recession, which is a more robust estimate of erosion than shoreline change.
TABLE 1
EROSION RATE DATA SOURCES FOR SOUTHERN MONTEREY BAY
#

Dataset

Timespan

Notes

Thornton 2006, dune crest recession rate

1984 2002

This was the most detailed study available for erosion rates in the
study area. Erosion was measured at 6 locations in Southern
Monterey Bay. Erosion rates were interpolated between these
measurements for this analysis.

Analysis by ESA for this study: short-term

linear regression erosion rate calculated based
on the 1933, 1998, and 2010 shorelines.

1932 2010

The 1932 and 1998 shorelines were obtained from Hapke et al

2006 and updated with a 2010 shoreline, extracted from a high
resolution LiDAR DEM (NOAA 2012, collected in May/June 2010).

Hapke et al 2006, shoreline change rate

1945 1998

Not used in this analysis, included for context only.

Hapke et al 2007, soft bluff recession rate

1933 1998

Not used in this analysis, included for context only. This study was
for the entire California coast, while Thornton 2006 focused on this
study area.

Analysis by ESA for this study: long-term

linear regression erosion rate calculated
based on the 1852, 1933, 1998, and 2010
shorelines.

1852 2010

The 1852, 1932 and 1998 shorelines were obtained from Hapke et
al 2006 and updated with a 2010 shoreline. Because sand mining,
which started in 1906, plays such a large role in coastal erosion,
these rates were not used in this analysis.

2 Tide stations have recorded an increase in average winter water levels of about one foot during the strong 1982-3 and 1997-8 El Nios,

and individual deviations above predicted tides of over 2 during El Nio storms.

2.3

Sand Mining

The mining of sand can increase erosion rates, modify shoreline orientation, and change sand transport rates.
Thornton et al (2006) suggests that the alongshore variation in dune recession rates is a function of wave energy
and sand mining. Southern Monterey Bay has been mined intensively for sand for more than a century. Sand
mining near the mouth of the Salinas River started in 1906, and expanded to six commercial sites: three at Marina
and three at Sand City. Five of these operations closed by 1990, leaving the Pacific Lapis Plant in Marina (owned
by CEMEX) as the only active sand mining operation.

2.4

Rip Embayments

Rip embayments have been correlated with dune erosion in Monterey Bay (Thornton et al, 2007). Also known as
beach mega-cusps, rip embayments are localized narrowing and deepening of the beach. They are caused by the
erosive action of cross-shore rip currents. The beach is the narrowest at the embayment, allowing swash and wave
run-up to reach the toe of the dune and cause erosion during coincident high tides and storm wave events. In
Monterey Bay, these embayments are on the order of 200 feet wide (alongshore and cross-shore), and occur at
approximately 600-foot along-shore spacing intervals (MacMahan et al, 2006, Thornton et al, 2007). Rip currents
are highly dynamic, migrating up to 12 feet per day (Thornton et al, 2007). Field observations of rip channels in
Monterey Bay between Wharf II in Monterey and Sand City found that typical rip channels are 5 feet deeper than
the adjacent beach face.

Projecting Future Erosion

Future erosion was analyzed at six locations along the study area (Figure 1) and assessed using two methods. The
first was to look at the aerial extent of potential erosion. Coastal erosion hazard zones, which delineate areas
potentially at risk from coastal erosion, are described and discussed in Section 3.1. The second method considers
erosion on a vertical profile. Profiles were selected at locations of key infrastructure (Figure 1) and projected into
the future. The methods and results of this analysis are described in Section 3.2.

3.1

Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones3

Coastal erosion hazard zones were developed using methods described in PWA 2009 and Revell et al 2011. A
coastal erosion hazard zone represents an area where erosion (caused by coastal processes) has the potential to
occur over a certain time period. This does not mean that the entire hazard zone is eroded away; rather, any area
within this zone is at risk of damage due to erosion during a major storm event. Actual location of erosion during
a particular storm depends on the unique characteristics of that storm (e.g. wave direction, surge, rainfall, and
coincident tide). As sea level rises, higher mean sea level will make it possible for wave run-up to reach the dune
more frequently, undercutting at the dune toe and causing increased erosion. This analysis used a sea level rise
projection of 15 inches by 2040 and 28 inches by 2060, relative to 2010. These projections are based on a 2012
study by the National Research Council (NRC) which provided regional sea level rise estimates for San Francisco
(the closest projection to the Project). The 2040 and 2060 values were derived by fitting a curve to the Average
of Models, High projections for 2030, 2050, and 2100 published in the NRC study (NRC 2012).

3 The coastal erosion hazard zones are being developed by ESA PWA as part of the ongoing Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Vulnerability

Study (anticipated completion in early 2014). The zones presented here are preliminary and are subject to change in the final maps
delivered to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation (the client). However, particular attention was given to the Project focus
locations. Therefore any final modifications are expected to be minimal at these locations.

Coastal Hazard Zone Model Development

The coastal hazard zones are developed from three components: historic erosion, additional erosion due to sea
level rise, and the potential erosion impact caused by a large storm wave event (e.g. 100-year). The most
important variables in the hazard zone model address these components (Table 2).
TABLE 2
COASTAL HAZARD ZONE MODEL COMPONENTS AND PRIMARY VARIABLES
Coastal Hazard Zone Component

Primary Variables

historic erosion

historic erosion trend

erosion due to sea level rise

backshore toe elevation, shoreface slope, sea level rise curve

erosion impact caused by a large storm wave event

storm total water level, beach slope, backshore toe elevation

This section gives a brief description of the erosion hazard zone methods. For more details about the methods
please see the Pacific Institute study (PWA, 2009 and Revell et al, 2011).
The historic erosion rate is applied to the planning horizon (2010 through 2060 at 10 year increments) to get the
baseline erosion, which is an indirect means to account for the sediment budget. Section 2.2 explains how historic
erosion rates were selected for each location. The erosion model does not account for other shore management
actions, such as sand placement, that could mitigate future shore recession. In this region, where beaches are
controlled in part by sand mining, we assumed that there are no changes to existing sand mining practices.
The potential inland shoreline retreat caused by sea level rise and the impact from a large storm event was
estimated using the geometric model of dune erosion originally proposed by Komar et al (1999) and applied with
different slopes to make the model more applicable to sea level rise (Revell et al, 2011). This method is consistent
with the FEMA Pacific Coast Flood Guidelines (FEMA, 2005). Potential erosion accounts for uncertainty in the
duration of a future storm. Instead of predicting storm specific characteristics and response, this potential erosion
projection assumes that the coast would erode or retreat to a maximum storm wave event regardless of duration.
This is considered to be a conservative approach to estimating impact of a 100-year storm event because larger
erosion estimates are produced.

Results
Figure 3 presents the coastal hazard zones, with detailed maps for each analysis location. These plan view maps
do not represent the vertical extent of erosion, which is relevant to most of the proposed Project infrastructure
which will be buried. As a result, the plan view maps indicated a more robust cross-shore profile analysis was
needed to elucidate how Project infrastructure may be affected by coastal erosion.

3.2

Representative Coastal Profiles

The coastal profile analysis developed a set of representative profiles that show how the shoreline is likely to
evolve from the present (2010) to 2040 and 2060, and the locations of selected Project components relative to
those profiles. As previously discussed, the Monterey Bay shoreline is affected seasonally by localized erosion
(rip currents), long term erosion, and sea level rise. Each of these factors is important in defining the horizontal
and vertical elements of a profile shape and location through time. For this reason, we identify a projected future
profile and an extremely eroded profile (lower envelope) for each future time horizon. The profiles contain both
horizontal and vertical erosion. As described below, the future profile is the current profile eroded horizontally at
the historic rate, with added erosion caused by sea level rise. The lower profile envelope represents a highly

eroded condition, which could occur from a combination of localized erosion (rip currents), a large winter storm,
and seasonal changes. The upper envelope (a highly accreted profile) was not analyzed because a key Project
concern is the exposure of buried project components in the future.

Methods and Assumptions

Topographic and bathymetric data, summarized in Table 3, was compiled in the vicinity of the representative
profiles specified by the ESA Project team (Figure 1). Three recent LiDAR profiles and one bathymetric survey
were available. The locations of the Thornton representative profile envelopes (dataset #6 in Table 3), which were
developed for a previous study (ESA PWA 2012), are located in the vicinity of the Project profiles at Sand City
and to the east of Wharf II perpendicular to Del Monte Ave in Monterey.
TABLE 3
BATHYMETRY AND TOPOGRAPHY DATA USED TO DEVELOP REPRESENTATIVE PROFILES
Elevation Limits
(Approximate)

Source

Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD

NOAA Digital Coast CA Coastal Conservancy Coastal

LiDAR Project

Dataset

Date Collected

Hydro-flattened bare earth

digital elevation model (1 meter
resolution)

May/June 2010

Bathymetry in offshore Monterey Sept/Oct/Nov 2009 Maximum of

Bay (2 meter resolution)
-8 to -12 ft NAVD

California State University, Monterey Bay Seafloor

Mapping Lab

Bathymetry within Moss Landing

Harbor (1 meter resolution)

June 2011

Maximum of
-25 to -45 ft NAVD

California State University, Monterey Bay Seafloor

Mapping Lab

LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)

April 1998
(post El Nino
winter)

Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD

NOAA Digital Coast Airborne LiDAR Assessment of

Coastal Erosion Project (NOAA/NASA/USGS)

LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)

Fall 1997
(pre El Nino
winter)

Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD

NOAA Digital Coast Airborne LiDAR Assessment of

Coastal Erosion Project (NOAA/NASA/USGS)

Representative profiles and

profile envelopes at Marina,
Sand City, and Del Monte

Unknown based
on several
surveys.

N/A

Published in ESA PWA 2012, originally Ed Thornton,

unpublished data. Shown in Figure 4.

The raw profile data were processed as follows to develop a representative profile and a corresponding highly
eroded profile for existing conditions:
1.

A representative profile was created by combining the June 2010 LiDAR onshore with the 2009 fall
California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) bathymetry offshore. The 2009 2010 winter was a
minor El Nino year, resulting in a relatively eroded starting beach profile. A linear profile was interpolated
between the offshore bathymetry and the terrestrial LiDAR. It is unlikely that the profile is linear, and more
likely has a concave shape with one or more sand bars, depending on season and other factors. The surf and
swash zone is highly dynamic and hence judgment is required to select a design profile. In this study, we
account for this uncertainty in the eroded profile by using an envelope of possible shapes, based on
perturbations from the estimated profile, as described in the following steps.

2.

The Thornton envelopes (Figure 4) were horizontally aligned with the representative profiles using the
backshore toe location as a reference feature, which is easily identified in all datasets. Since the profiles
were not collected at exactly the same location and time as the representative profiles, some of profiles do
not align as well in the upland areas. Since upland areas are much more static than the beach (the profile
variability is much smaller), we do not focus on these areas in the profile evolution model, unless erosion
through upland is expected.

3.

As discussed above, rip currents can contribute to significant (~5 feet) lowering of the beach profile through
the rip channel. The Thornton profiles were typically measured away from localized rip embayments. The
profile envelope was adjusted to include uncertainty associated with rip channels by narrowing and
5

lowering the nearshore elevations. The beach berm was shifted shoreward by 50 feet or the distance
between the berm crest and the dune toe (whichever was smaller), and the profile was lowered by 5 feet at
MLLW. This adjustment assumes that the rip current would mainly impact the swash zone.
4.

The profile envelope was lowered in any areas where the LiDAR or bathymetry data fell below the lower
Thornton envelope. However, measured profile envelopes were unavailable for Profiles 1, 2, and 3. An
envelope of shore profile elevation was created using Thorntons Del Monte profile (the most variable
profile envelope located near Wharf II in Monterey). The vertical variability of the Del Monte profile was
tabulated as a function of distance from shore, and then the elevations in Profiles 1, 2 and 3 were lowered
accordingly.

Once a representative profile and lower profile envelope were identified for existing conditions, an equilibrium
profile approach was used to shift the existing conditions profile and envelope based on projected erosion, which
includes the historic erosion trend and future sea level rise (see Section 3.1). For profiles 1, 2, and 3, which show
a historic trend in accretion, we include only the erosion due to sea level rise (setting the historic trend to 0).
Detailed erosion rates were not available for these profiles, so erosion was calculated based on four shorelines
(June 2010, April 1998, July 1952, and May 1933). The overall linear regression shows accretion, but the
shorelines have fluctuated historically, and the most recent shoreline (spring 2010) is more eroded than the spring
1998 post-El Nino LiDAR. For this reason, we conservatively do not include the accretion signal.
The profiles were shifted horizontally inwards by the projected erosion and raised by the projected sea level rise.
The existing dune elevations were held as maximums even though the profile shift would imply dune growth in
some locations. The shifted profiles were truncated at the back beach location where the toe of dune starts. From
this location, the profile was drawn sloping upward at the approximate angle of repose of loose sand, and
truncated when the existing dune profile was intersected. The slope so drawn is an approximation of the eroded
dune face extending from the beach to the top of the existing dune profile. An angle of 32 degrees was assumed
for these locations (PWA, 2009). We did this because most of southern Monterey Bay shore is receding landward,
erosion is cutting into relict dunes, and the steep dune faces and narrow beaches impede dune growth (Thornton et
al 2006). Dune migration and other changes have not been modeled and dune elevations may change whether the
shore is accreting or eroding due to changes in vegetation, other disturbance, etc. North of the Salinas River, the
shore is accreting and dune growth appears to be occurring but accretion was neglected in these locations as well.
The lower profile envelopes do not necessarily encompass the full range of possible profile configurations. The
profiles are not statistically defined or associated with a specific return interval. The profile construction did
consider historic erosion, which includes a pre-El Nino shoreline and two post- El Nino shorelines, accelerated
erosion from sea level rise, and an additional buffer factor associated with rip currents. The lower envelope for
these profiles does not reflect potential dune erosion that could happen during a major (e.g. 100-year) storm event.
This type of event could contribute as much as 100 feet of dune erosion. The representative profile may accrete or
experience less erosion than projected, which would result in more sand covering the project components. This
analysis is configured to provide estimates of the downward and inland extent of erosion, with the assumption that
higher elevations are not a concern or are addressed by others.

Results
Figure 5 through Figure 11 show the existing (2010) and future (2040 and 2060) profiles and lower envelopes at
each location. There are two profile/envelope combinations for each time step: one to represent long-term profile
evolution (consisting of historic erosion and accelerated erosion from sea level rise) and a second that adds
potential erosion from a 100-year erosion event, which could be as high as much as 125 feet, to the long-term
profile.

Approximate locations and other descriptors of proposed Project infrastructure are shown on profiles where pipes
or outfalls cross the profile. These data were provided by the applicant (California American Water Company)
and are shown as a spatial reference to aid in the interpretation of the profiles. The geometry was not proposed by
this study and may be revised based on this study and for other reasons beyond the scope of this document.

At Moss Landing Harbor (Profile 1, Figure 5b), ongoing erosion is relatively low. The dune erosion
envelopes extend inland 105 feet by 2060, with another 68 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

Sandholdt Road (Profile 2, Figure 6). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 105 feet by 2060, with
another 65 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

At Potrero Road (Profile 3, Figure 7). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 120 feet by 2060, with
another 30 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

At the CEMEX Pacific Lapis sand mining plant (Profiles 4a and b, Figure 8 and Figure 9). The greatest
uncertainty for these lies in the effects of sand mining, which are not explicitly addressed but may be
implicitly addressed by the use of historic erosion rates. The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 300 feet
by 2060, with another 130 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

At Sand City (Profile 5, Figure 10). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 180 feet by 2060, with
another 40 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

In the City of Monterey (Profile 6, Figure 11). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 65 feet by 2060,
with another 110 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.

Assessment of methodology and accuracy of erosion envelopes

The methodology uses historic data and applied geomorphology methods generally consistent with coastal
engineering and geology practice. There are sufficient data available to have confidence in the results. In general,
we believe that the projections of potential erosion envelopes to be on the more conservative side and actual
erosion may be less. The methodology addresses wave driven processes only, and assumes that historic changes
are representative of future changes, and historic changes can be adjusted based on the rate of sea level rise. This
analysis is consistent with our interpretation of the draft guidance recently published by the Coastal Commission4.
It is important to note that actual sea level rise and the effects are not known, and that relatively high values were
used in this study. Also, interventions may change shore recession.
Alternative estimates could be developed by computer-aided modeling of sand transport. For example, XBEACH
and other available software can provide estimates of storm-induced profile erosion (USGS, 2009)5. Also,
GENESIS and other available software can provide estimates of future shoreline positions6. Such further analysis
may enhance the ability to assess the likelihood of shore recession estimates presented herein.

4California Coastal Commission's Public Review Draft, Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance, dated October 14, 2013
5 http://oss.deltares.nl/web/xbeach/
6 http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/chl.aspx?p=s&a=Software;34

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Regional Map of Analysis Profiles and Project Components
Figure 2 - Erosion Rates in Southern Monterey Bay
Figure 3 - Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
Figure 4 Representative Profiles and Envelopes by Ed Thornton, unpublished
Figure 5 - Representative Profile #1 at Moss Landing Harbor
Figure 6 - Representative Profile #2 at Sandholdt Road
Figure 7 - Representative Profile #3 at Potrero Road
Figure 8 - Representative Profile #4a at CEMEX
Figure 9 - Representative Profile #4b at CEMEX
Figure 10 - Representative Profile #5 at Sand City
Figure 11 - Representative Profile #6 at Del Monte Avenue

References
ESA PWA (2012). Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay. Prepared for
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation and The Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Working Group on
May 30, 2012.
California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) (2009-2010). Marine habitat mapping data for the Southern
Monterey Bay region. California Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, Department of Fish and
Game, and the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program. Available online:
http://seafloor.csumb.edu/SFMLwebDATA_mb.htm
Hanson, Hans (1989). GENESIS-A generalized shoreline change numerical model. Journal of Coastal Research,
5(1), 1-27, Charlottesville (Virginia). ISSN 0749-0208.
MacMahan, J.H., E.B. Thornton, and J.H.M. Reniers (2006). Rip current review. Coastal Engineering: 53:191208.
NOAA (2012). 2009 2011 CA Coastal Conservancy Coastal LiDAR Project: Hydro-flattened Bare Earth
DEM. NOAA Coastal Services Center. Charleston, South Carolina. Available online:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#.
NRC (2012). Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.
Prepublication. National Academy Press: Washington, D. C.
PWA (2004). Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Services. Memo prepared for the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). November 24, 2004. PWA Project #1729.00.
PWA (2009). "California Coastal Erosion Response to Sea Level Rise - Analysis and Mapping." Prepared for the
Pacific Institute.

Revell, D.L., R. Battalio, B. Spear, P. Ruggiero, and J. Vandever, (2011). A Methodology for Predicting Future
Coastal Hazards due to Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. Climatic Change 109:S251-S276. DOI
10.1007/s10584-011-0315-2.
Stockdon, H., R. Holman, P. Howd, and A. Sallenger (2006). Empirical parameterization of setup, swash, and
runup. Coastal Engineering: 53:573-588.
Storlazzi, C.D. and D.K. Wingfield (2005). "Spatial and Temporal Variations in Oceanographic and Meteorologic
Forcing Along the Central California Coast, 1980 - 2002." USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5085.
Thornton, E.B., A.H. Sallenger, J. Conforto Sesto, L. A. Egley, T. McGee, and A.R. Parsons, (2006). Sand mining
impacts on long-term dune erosion in southern Monterey Bay, Marine Geology, v. 229, p. 45-58.
Thornton, E.B. J. MacMahan, and A.H. Sallenger Jr. (2007). Rip currents, mega-cusps, and eroding dunes.
Marine Geology, v. 240: 2-4, p. 151-167. 5 June 2007.
Thornton, E.B., L.A. Egley, A. Sallenger, and R. Parsons (2003). Erosion in Southern Monterey Bay during the
1997-98 El Nino. Coastal Sediments 2003.
USGS (2009). Barnard, P.L., O'Reilly, Bill, van Ormondt, Maarten, Elias, Edwin, Ruggiero, Peter, Erikson, L.H.,
Hapke, Cheryl, Collins, B.D., Guza, R.T., Adams, P.N., and Thomas, J.T., 2009, The framework of a coastal
hazards model; a tool for predicting the impact of severe storms: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2009-1073, 21 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1073/].

Figures

Inset: CEMEX Profile

Representative Profiles
Slant Wells (Proposed)

MRWPCA Ocean Outfall and Diffuser (Existing)

Profile #4a - CEMEX

(Northern W

Profile

ell Cluster)
Pr

Profile #4b - CEMEX (Southern Wel

l Cluster)

250

Pr
ofi
le

of
ile

#3

-P

otr
ero

Ro

ad

#2

#1 - M
oss L

andin
g

Harbo

-S

an
dh
ol
dt
R

oa
d

500 Feet

Legend
Representative Coastal Profiles

Pipelines

Slant Well

Source Wate Pipeline; Collector Line; Intake Tunnel

Interconnection Improvements (Proposed)
Brine Discharge Pipeline (Proposed)

MRWPCA Ocean Outfall and Diffuser (Existing)

See inset above

Desalinated Water Pipeline (Proposed)

Transmission Main (Proposed)

Transfer Pipeline (Proposed)

MPWSP Desalination
Plant (Proposed)

Salinas Valley Return PL (Proposed)

Monterey Pipeline (Proposed)

ASR Conveyance Pipelines (Proposed)

MRWPCA
Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Existing)

Note: Existing infrastructure locations are approximate.

Proposed infrastructure locations are shown for reference
and were developed prior to this study. Infrastructure
locations were provided by the California American Water
Company and are included here for reference.

Pr

#5

-S

an
d

Ci
ty

ASR Injection/
Extraction Wells (Proposed)

!
!

ile #
6

- De
l Mo
nte

of
ile

Regional Setting

Prof

!
!

Phase II ASR
Facilities (Existing)
Phase I ASR
Facilities (Existing)

Terminal Reservoir and

ASR Pump Station (Proposed)

Miles

Basemap National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, iPC
Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom
Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ
Copyright: 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\205xxx\205335_Water\Tasks\Cal_Am_2012\CoastalErosion\Figure X - Profile Locations v2.mxd

3/17/2014

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project . 205335.01

Figure 1
Regional Map of Analysis Profiles

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 2. Historic Erosion Rates in Monterey Bay

(b) Sandholdt Road

(a) Moss Landing Harbor

io
os
Er

it
lim

dy
stu

Pro
f

Outfall 6

Turn in profile

Profile #1

ile

#2

Inta
ke
Ou
tfa

Intake 8
(opt 2)

ll 5

Outf
all

Intake 5

Er
os

200 100 0

200 ft

(c) Potrero Road

ion

stu

dy

200 100 0

lim
it

200 ft

(d) CEMEX

Eros
io

n stu

dy li

Eros
io

Northern Well
Cluster

mit

n stu

dy li

mit

Profile #4a
Profile #4b

Southern Well
Cluster

Intak
e

Sou
rce

Wate
r

Pipe
lin

Prof
ile #
3
Er
os

Eros
io

n stu

200 100 0

dy lim
it

ion

stu

dy

lim
it

200 ft

300 150 0

(e) Sand City

lim
i

Erosion st
udy limit

it
dy lim

#5

n stu

ile

dy

io
Eros

Pro
f

stu

(f) Del Monte Ave

Profile #6

Ero
sio
n

300 ft

Monterey Pipeline

200 100

200 ft

Intakes (proposed)
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
Intake and/or Outfall (proposed)
2010
Pipes
2030
Erosion Reference Line
2040
Er
os

Offset to backshore toe

ion

stu

dy

lim
it

200 100

200 ft

2050
2060
2100

Note: Existing infrastructure locations are approximate. Proposed infrastructure

locations are shown for reference and were developed prior to this study.
Infrastructure locations were provided by the California American Water
Company and are included here for reference.

Data Source: ESA PWA 2013 hazard zone analysis, NAIP 2012 imagery

Please see Figure 1 for regional map of profile locations.

Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Assessment . 211906.00

Figure 3
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones

These hazard zones show coastal erosion hazard areas, with the inland limit representing the potential future dune crest. Flood hazards may be more extensive,
especially if the area is low-lying compared to the potential wave run-up and flood water levels. Future erosion through dunes has the potential to flood low-lying
areas that are currently protected by high dunes.
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\205xxx\205335_Water\Tasks\Cal_Am_2012\CoastalErosion\Figure X - Erosion HZs v5.mxd
3/17/2014

Service Layer Credits:

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

SOURCE: Data from Thornton, unpublished.
Figures published in ESA PWA 2012.

Figure 4
Representative Profiles and Envelopes by Ed Thornton, unpublished

Note: Proposed infrastructure locations are shown

for reference and were developed prior to this
study. The locations were provided by the
California American Water Company.

Sources: Topography from CA Coastal Conservancy LiDAR Project (collected in June 2010).
Bathymetry from the CSUMB Seafloor Mapping Lab (collected in September 2011).
* EMHW = Extreme Monthly High Water. This is, on average, the highest tide level that occurs each month.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 5a
Profile 1 Overview

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion
(rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the
topography data (between x = 1181 ft and x = 1657 ft).

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 5b. Representative Profile #1 at Moss Landing Harbor

Note: Proposed infrastructure locations are shown

for reference and were developed prior to this
study. The locations were provided by the
California American Water Company.

Sources: Topography from CA Coastal Conservancy LiDAR Project (collected in June 2010).
Bathymetry from the CSUMB Seafloor Mapping Lab (collected in September 2011).
* EMHW = Extreme Monthly High Water. This is, on average, the highest tide level that occurs each month.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 5c
Profile 1 - Inland Inset

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x = 958 ft and x = 1299 ft).
3. This profile crosses the shore-parallel portion of Outfall 5 at x = 1648 ft (see Figure 3). This portion of the outfall does not fall within the erosion hazard zones through 2060.
Location of Outfall 5 provided by California American Water Company. Vertical location of the shore-perpendicular portion of Outfall 5 and Intake 6 were not available and
therefore are not shown in this profile view.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 6. Representative Profile #2 at Sandholdt Road

Proposed slant well alignment is shown for

reference and was developed prior to this
study. The slant well alignment was provided
by the California American Water Company
and is included here for reference.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), longterm erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x
= 4777 ft and x = 5259 ft).
3. Pumped well location is based on the Potrero Rd Pumped Wells Test Well Google Earth map provided by
CalAm on September 27, 2013.
4. This profile assumes the pumped well is perpendicular to shore.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and provided by the
California American Water Company.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 7. Representative Profile #3 at Potrero Road

Proposed slant well alignments are shown for

reference and were developed prior to this
study. The slant well alignments were provided
by the California American Water Company and
are included here for reference.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip
currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography
data (between x = 919 ft and x = 1385).
3. This profile is located immediately south of the CEMEX Pacifica Lapis sand mining plant. No
data is available to quantify the uncertainty in adjacent beach and dune erosion related to
sand mining activities. The potential for fluctuations in beach width associated with sand
mining were not considered in this analysis.
4. Slant well location and angle are based on the Test Slant Well Alignment and Test Slant
Well Cross-Section drawings provided by Geoscience on July 30, 2013.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and
were provided by the California American Water Company.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 8. Representative Profile #4a at CEMEX

Proposed slant well alignments are shown for reference and

were developed prior to this study. The slant well alignments
were provided by the California American Water Company and
are included here for reference.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip
currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data
(between x = 820 ft and x = 1480).
3. This profile is located immediately south of the CEMEX Pacifica Lapis sand mining plant. No data
is available to quantify the uncertainty in adjacent beach and dune erosion related to sand
mining activities. The potential for fluctuations in beach width associated with sand mining were
not considered in this analysis.
4. Slant well location and angle are based on the Well 3 Alignment and Well 3 Cross-Section
drawings provided by Geoscience on July 30, 2013.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and were
provided by the California American Water.
6.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 9. Representative Profile #4b at CEMEX

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip
currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data
(between x = 7127 ft and x = 7533 ft).
3. This profile does not intersect any proposed desalination infrastructure.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 10. Representative Profile #5 at Sand City

Monterey Pipeline location, approximate. The location

along the profile, depth, and diameter were provided by
the California American Water Company and are included
here for reference. Pipe cross-section not to scale.

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x = 7960 ft and x = 7920 ft).
3. Approximate horizontal and vertical location of the Monterey Pipeline provided by California American Water Company.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01

Figure 11. Representative Profile #6 at Del Monte