The recommendations of this report are not presented in any priority and do not constitute a mandate on local jurisdictions. Many factors will undoubtedly enter into a decision by the Commission or local government as to which of these recommendations to pursue first. Included in these factors will be the economic effects of implementing the recommendation and identification of a suitable funding source, if needed. Many of the recommendations are not very costly and could be implemented through minor changes in the ongoing activities of coastal planners. Project resources preclude the Commission staff from conducting detailed cost/benefit analysis on each of these recommendations. However, it is important to consider the general economic effects -- positive and negative -- that may occur as a result of these suggested program improvements. ReCAP will be looking for opportunities to implement recommendations in conjunction with ongoing, funded initiatives.
Economic activity along the coast is influenced by a number of factors, some of which are beyond the scope of coastal management (e.g. population growth). Recent studies have documented the positive economic benefits of sound coastal management.[1] A recent report by The Resources Agency concluded that seven ocean-dependent industries contributed $17.3 billion dollars to the state's economy in 1992 and supported 370,000 jobs in the state. Ocean and coastal tourism and recreation alone contributed $9.9 billion in 1992, the largest spending component of the industries examined in the study.[2] In addition, the shoreline area supports a significant amount of residential development which contributes to the economies of local communities. As the following sections illustrate, it appears that implementing these recommended program improvements will contribute to the overall economic benefits of coastal management.
The recommendations of the ReCAP report for improving hazards management suggest improvements designed to minimize additional armoring of the shoreline and attendant loss of sandy beach area, and measures to protect sources of sand for maintaining natural shoreline processes needed to maintain the beaches. The recommendations also include minimizing development in geologically unstable areas, thereby avoiding hazards. These objectives would be achieved in part by implementing regional management plans for hazardous areas and by improving policies for new development.
Implementing these recommendations could result in significant benefits. Public costs associated with disaster relief, construction of protective armoring, government assistance insurance, and environmental costs from armoring on public trust lands are minimized or avoided when development avoids hazardous sites.[3] Public beaches which are critical to the local tourism economy would be protected from encroachment of shoreline protective devices, and the need for beach replenishment would be also reduced. Beach replenishment, while resulting in public benefits from protecting property and recreation areas, is costly. Nationwide, the Army Corps of Engineers has nourished an estimated 118 miles of beaches at a cost of $306 million.[4] The use of public funds for subsidized loans to rebuild houses destroyed by waves would also be lessened. For property owners, implementation may result in less costs for construction of protective devices. (The cost of armoring varies by type of structure, but typical costs for installation of riprap ranges from $500 to $1000 per linear foot.[5]) Frequent repair, rebuilding or maintenance costs for the structures would be lessened. After management plans are implemented, they will provide better information for property owners regarding identified and mapped hazard areas, erosion rates and alternative options; use of this improved information can reduce costs by speeding the siting and permit processing.
While development may be sited for greater long term stability, it may have less dramatic edge-of-the-bluff private views. Property owners may incur costs from removal of temporary emergency structures but will incur savings from not having to continually place emergency armoring each year. Such program improvements will, however, require funds for developing or revising specific land use and engineering plans, implementing ordinances and codes, and more specific monitoring and follow-up measures. The largest public costs would be associated with any recommendations that lead to the condemnation and purchase of unbuildable lots on hazardous sites. Such recommendations were specifically identified only as a last resort if other measures were ineffective and if public benefit was considered greater than the costs.
Pursuing modification to the Coastal Act would require Commission and local government staff time to develop a workable legislative response; the resulting improvements to coastal management may serve to protect the beach and shoreline resources which many local economies rely upon for recreational and tourism revenues.
The recommendations of the ReCAP report for improving access management suggest improvements to maximize access by improving the mitigation of impacts from development, addressing issues beyond the provision of physical access, and ensuring the long-term quality of the recreational opportunities in the region. Coastal tourism plays a vital element in the economies of a number of communities in the ReCAP area; implementing the ReCAP recommendations, particularly the management plans, will help to protect the long-term value of the shoreline for recreation and tourism.
Suggested program improvements to revise procedures to record public easements and delineate state public trust lands could create more opportunities for public use of the shoreline and would protect existing public areas from encroachment of development. Revising procedures could also result in some savings for property owners by streamlining the time required to process development permits. In addition, information management improvements would contribute to reduced time and costs associated with these procedures. Revising plans and procedures will, however, require commitment of state and local staff time.
As noted above, implementation of the hazard recommendations also helps to maximize public access and recreation use. While planning costs and local staff time will be incurred in developing LCP amendments, implementation of revised LCP polices on hazards will contribute to the long term protection of sandy beach and improved aesthetic quality of recreation areas which is critical for continued growth of tourism and for growth of related commercial recreation.
Since few agencies currently track and monitor access and recreation on a consistent basis, implementing the recommendation to develop baseline information and improved tracking of visitor use and demand could help management agencies improve the allocation of limited resources to best respond to user needs; this will contribute to better access to recreation resources in the long term. Increased demands on local park and recreation agencies for developing baseline information and monitoring could be minimized by incorporating efforts as much as possible into the current operational routines of the local agencies and by developing partnerships with community organizations that benefit directly from well-managed beach access (e.g. dive groups, swim clubs, visitor associations, etc.)
Implementing changes in plans and procedures designed to maximize parking and upland support facilities could result in more areas designated for upland commercial recreation development thus contributing to the local economy and maximizing access to the shoreline. Carrying out these changes will have costs associated with revising LCPs and ordinances. Additional construction costs may be incurred by developers to incorporate parking changes into project designs.
As part of the longer term recommendations, development of a regional access strategy could result in increased governmental efficiencies through joint management and operation of areas and sharing of limited resources among jurisdictions. The provision of upland support facilities could improve as a result of a more coordinated access strategy among jurisdictions. Developing interjurisdictional access strategies will require time and resources from all relevant agencies. Implementing a strategy may result in additional costs to accept and open high priority access easements.
Long term protection and management of significant shoreline resource areas for a variety of users will result in contributions to the tourism segment of the economy by helping to assure a wide range of diverse recreational experiences. Preservation of resource areas will contribute to maintaining the quality of the access experience and thus a higher tourism value. Research on user demands and the changing demographics of users would also help recreation planning more directly serve the public and help increase the use of the facilities and resources. However, additional costs may be required to complete resource management plans for sensitive areas where access is provided. Planning and survey costs to assess and respond to user demand would be significant, estimated to be at least $50,000.
The ReCAP recommendations generally focus on measures to improve wetland and watershed management to further protect these sensitive areas. Many of the recommendations do not suggest major new initiatives but rather improvements on existing efforts by incorporating revised procedures or policies. Some of the recommendations could result in improved management of these sensitive resources upon which tourism and fishing segments of the economy depend, but may change the activities allowed adjacent to sensitive wetlands, such as restricting some activities within larger buffers. Generally, however, the recommendations do not contemplate changes in the currently permitted uses of wetland areas.
Several of the wetland recommendations involve commitment of local and state agency time and resources to conduct technical planning studies and to develop and implement LCP amendments that would improve management of wetlands and the watersheds critical for their long term health. While this may require project applicants to conduct different studies and submit additional information, the effort recommended to compile inventories and to standardize procedures could result in substantial savings to applicants and reviewing agencies by streamlining regulatory review and increasing clarity in the application process.
Longer term improvements to develop regional wetland and watershed plans and interagency management strategies could yield greater savings through more efficient uses of limited resources and more effective management of resources. A shift to greater interagency coordination may require a commitment of agency staff time. An overall watershed planning effort will also help ensure that property owners and planners have better information in advance of project planning, leading to improved resource protection and streamlined permitting procedures. Also, such long range planning and management could contribute to improved water quality in the Monterey Bay Sanctuary. Much federal funding is currently directed to water quality planning and it is anticipated some of these efforts could be undertaken in conjunction with these programs.
The recommendations of ReCAP are directed to using electronic technology to make day-to-day regulatory activities more efficient. Implementing new electronic information management measures can result in great savings in staff time required to analyze information and can provide quicker service to the public who need access to Commission information. Implementation of the recommendations to improve information management and sharing will require a larger investment in obtaining needed equipment, developing programs and procedures, and training staff in the use of new technologies and equipment. Some local agencies have already taken this step and future costs would generally be needed for expanding existing capabilities. However, much greater costs will be incurred by remaining with slower, predominately manual information retrieval. Improving information sharing among agencies could also lead to increased benefits to property owners by making the regulatory review process quicker and easier.
While there are costs and benefits associated with each individual recommendation, overall, the picture that emerges from the pilot project is a positive one. Major efficiencies can be gained, resource management savings achieved, and recreation and tourism segments of the economy enhanced for the price of the initial investment in planning and policy improvements in the LCPs.
It is a continuing objective of ReCAP implementation to find ways to assist local agencies in helping to implement these recommendations, including finding alternative funding
ENDNOTES
Return to previous chapter,
Chapter 6: Information Management.
Go to Appendix A: Changes in Access Opportunities in the ReCap Region.
Go to the ReCap Pilot
Project...Monterey Bay Region Table of Contents
Go to the California Coastal Commission Home Page